|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:39:04 GMT -5
I'm not seeing any harm in reminding each other what we agree to disagree about. In one way, it could be said I am offering assurance. Kind of like, 'don't worry your little cotton socks, I'm not going to try to change your mind about the structure of your beliefs'. Why did you morph the scenario into one that might cause harm? Well, I know that what you said was rooted in a concern that I would try to change your mind. You might disagree with that, and I am happy to agree to disagree
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:39:58 GMT -5
I'll give you a good rate, seeing as we go a fair way back now. What you have on offer is so common that peeps can't even give it away, so sorry, you'll have to look for a different gig. No problem, let me know if you change your mind, my door is open.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 11:40:15 GMT -5
Why did you morph the scenario into one that might cause harm? Well, I know that what you said was rooted in a concern that I would try to change your mind. You might disagree with that, and I am happy to agree to disagree Why would I be concerned about you trying to change my mind??
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 11:40:24 GMT -5
Yes, there was a lot said on the other forum that wasn't said here, and it did get crazy for a while. I think largely because, at that time, those we were debating with held a pretty firm agreement with each other, without acknowledging the differences between their perspectives (the differences are quite big). I'm not judging that, it's a conventional way for arguing to happen (and I guess we did the same). But it meant that there were a LOT of contradictions, inconsistencies, morphs. uh huhthere are other reasons why someone might say one thing to one person and something different to another, without it being a morph, inconsistency, or contradiction. the entire theory is a silly pursuit, and born from an insincere agenda If one is intent on finding contradictions, contradictions will apparently be found.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 11:40:45 GMT -5
What you have on offer is so common that peeps can't even give it away, so sorry, you'll have to look for a different gig. No problem, let me know if you change your mind, my door is open. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:50:44 GMT -5
In the context of there being an individual experiencer/perceiver, we have to say that an armchair has a back to it, and the human being that we love has thoughts/feelings and a backside. What was being said at the time (and I'm sure Tenka is alluding to this), is that it was conveyed to us that there is an individual experiencer/perceiver, but the human beings that we love only consist on what is seen in that moment. So this human being can have a face, and torso, but no backside or heart. Tenka was correctly challenging this context mix at the time i.e to speak of individual experiencers/perceivers is to speak in the context of form i.e the humans we experience/perceive do have hearts, brains and backsides. So when we 'really' experience the ones we love, we're not just 'really' experiencing the image of their face. What we are 'really' experiencing is all that we know of them as a human being. The distinction is between what you can know from your experience as opposed to what you assume. You assume the moon is still in the sky even when you are not perceiving it, and yet you agree that perception and creation are the same. What do you know about hidden backsides and brains that you can't perceive? By what means do you know this? Okay, so this is a great example of the context mix I just mentioned. In the context in which I would speak of being an apparently personal perceiver/creator, I know the moon is in the sky when I am not perceiving it. I know there is a sky when I am not perceiving it. The context of the personal perceiver/creator is the context of being in the apparent 'world of form'. In this world, brains do have function, human beings DO have hearts, and Marie does still have a backside when you are looking at her frontside. In this context, buses are likely to hurt you if they hit you, and butterflies tend to do no damage. In the context in which I would speak of appearances appearing in impersonal Consciousness, THEN I might speak of moon/sky appearing/disappearing, but in this context, there is no personal perceiver. Instead, creation/perception is whole. Your contexts were mixed up then, as they are now, because you hold the odd belief that you, as a personal creator/perceiver, might be 'God' i.e that you...as a personal creator/perceiver, are perceiving/creating the totality.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:51:24 GMT -5
Well, I know that what you said was rooted in a concern that I would try to change your mind. You might disagree with that, and I am happy to agree to disagree Why would I be concerned about you trying to change my mind?? Because you very much like believing that you don't believe in an objective reality
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 11:59:37 GMT -5
Why would I be concerned about you trying to change my mind?? Because you very much like believing that you don't believe in an objective reality Sure, I can understand how you might think that's something I'd worry about. But my understanding is only theoretical, and 2nd-hand, because I personally found questioning the nature of reality to be quite fun, and exhilarating. See, the way it seems to me is that this idea of an absence of a belief in objective reality makes you feel sort of uneasy. The entire film genre of horror is based on playing with people's unconscious fears rooted in the bald fact that reality isn't really what they think it is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 12:01:33 GMT -5
Because you very much like believing that you don't believe in an objective reality Sure, I can understand how you might think that's something I'd worry about. But my understanding is only theoretical, and 2nd-hand, because I personally found questioning the nature of reality to be quite fun, and exhilarating. See, the way it seems to me is that this idea of an absence of a belief in objective reality makes you feel sort of uneasy. The entire film genre of horror is based on playing with people's unconscious fears rooted in the bald fact that reality isn't really what they think it is. It's all fun and games until we have to question the beliefs we like most. When someone tells me they don't have a belief, I know instantly that they have it. One can see through a belief, or come to understand that a belief is false, or re-contextualize a belief, but the belief exists.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 12:03:35 GMT -5
Sure, I can understand how you might think that's something I'd worry about. But my understanding is only theoretical, and 2nd-hand, because I personally found questioning the nature of reality to be quite fun, and exhilarating. See, the way it seems to me is that this idea of an absence of a belief in objective reality makes you feel sort of uneasy. The entire film genre of horror is based on playing with people's unconscious fears rooted in the bald fact that reality isn't really what they think it is. It's all fun and games until we have to question the beliefs we like most. When someone tells me they don't have a belief, I know instantly that they have it. My opinion is that this is because you have no experiential point of reference for the particular absence being described.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 12:05:01 GMT -5
It's all fun and games until we have to question the beliefs we like most. When someone tells me they don't have a belief, I know instantly that they have it. My opinion is that this is because you have no experiential point of reference for the particular absence being described. My opinion is that the experiential point of reference you are speaking of, is one in which you are deluding yourself (or put more kindly, you don't understand the structures of your own mind). (See my edit above please - the mind cannot know an absence, so the moment a mind tells me it doesn't know something, I know it does).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 12:13:17 GMT -5
My opinion is that this is because you have no experiential point of reference for the particular absence being described. My opinion is that the experiential point of reference you are speaking of, is one in which you are deluding yourself (or put more kindly, you don't understand the structures of your own mind). (See my edit above please - the mind cannot know an absence, so the moment a mind tells me it doesn't know something, I know it does). I understand that the description of the absence sounds to you like the presence of something, and it's folly to argue about that, because there's no possibility of ever convincing anyone of it. The reason I referred to mushin is because the experience of mushin makes it very clear that action happens, the wind blows, the rain hits your skin, the honey tickles your tongue, and that any description of belief can only ever be a very pale shadow of these realities. Mushin doesn't necessarily end the questioning, but it is a wake up call as to the powerlessness of the intellect to grasp what is sought.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 12:18:03 GMT -5
My opinion is that the experiential point of reference you are speaking of, is one in which you are deluding yourself (or put more kindly, you don't understand the structures of your own mind). (See my edit above please - the mind cannot know an absence, so the moment a mind tells me it doesn't know something, I know it does). I understand that the description of the absence sounds to you like the presence of something, and it's folly to argue about that, because there's no possibility of ever convincing anyone of it. The reason I referred to mushin is because the experience of mushin makes it very clear that action happens, the wind blows, the rain hits your skin, the honey tickles your tongue, and that any description of belief can only ever be a very pale shadow of these realities. Mushin doesn't necessarily end the questioning, but it is a wake up call as to the powerlessness of the intellect to grasp what is sought. If you tell me you don't believe in Father Christmas, I know you have a belief in Father Christmas. You may ALSO believe that belief to be false, which is a second layer of belief. These are the structures of mind...the mind cannot think in terms of absence, it can only conceive a presence. So when you tell me you don't believe in an objective reality, I know you have a belief in an objective reality. You may ALSO believe that belief to be false. So when folks tell me they don't believe in Father Christmas, I know what they mean, but most often, they have misunderstood the actual structure of that belief. Those that are very invested in NOT having that belief, are likely to argue quite vociferously. Attachment shows up just as much in what we believe we don't have, as in what we believe we have.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 12:23:48 GMT -5
I understand that the description of the absence sounds to you like the presence of something, and it's folly to argue about that, because there's no possibility of ever convincing anyone of it. The reason I referred to mushin is because the experience of mushin makes it very clear that action happens, the wind blows, the rain hits your skin, the honey tickles your tongue, and that any description of belief can only ever be a very pale shadow of these realities. Mushin doesn't necessarily end the questioning, but it is a wake up call as to the powerlessness of the intellect to grasp what is sought. If you tell me you don't believe in Father Christmas, I know you have a belief in Father Christmas. You may ALSO believe that belief to be false, which is a second layer of belief. These are the structures of mind...the mind cannot think in terms of absence, it can only conceive a presence. So when you tell me you don't believe in an objective reality, I know you have a belief in an objective reality. You may ALSO believe that belief to be false. It is possible to conceive of an idea without believing it to be true or false -- to hold it in your mind, even to consider it from different angles .. all without taking any sort of position on it whatsoever. It's very similar to listening to someone you disagree with about politics, but not getting engaged emotionally with the disagreement. As far as the notion of absence goes, as I already said, there's no point arguing about it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree about that, because I already know there's no way to change your mind through any sort of dialog, much less a debate.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 12:25:38 GMT -5
If you tell me you don't believe in Father Christmas, I know you have a belief in Father Christmas. You may ALSO believe that belief to be false, which is a second layer of belief. These are the structures of mind...the mind cannot think in terms of absence, it can only conceive a presence. So when you tell me you don't believe in an objective reality, I know you have a belief in an objective reality. You may ALSO believe that belief to be false. It is possible to conceive of an idea without believing it to be true or false -- to hold it in your mind, even to consider it from different angles .. all without taking any sort of position on it whatsoever. It's very similar to listening to someone you disagree with about politics, but not getting engaged emotionally with the disagreement. As far as the notion of absence goes, as I already said, there's no point arguing about it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree about that, because I already know there's no way to change your mind through any sort of dialog, much less a debate. One may be neutral on a subject, sure, but it doesn't change the fact that they believe IN, what they are neutral towards.
|
|