Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 9:22:58 GMT -5
I agree with your assessment of models. By themselves, they ALL miss the mark. Reading Michael James book, "Happiness and the Art of Being," he devotes hundreds of pages to the dream model. This is useful in that it facilitates the seeker's transition from focusing attention on objects to "I am." But this is only the beginning. The hard work comes next, abiding persistently. For some though, the pointer becomes the truth. They then use it as a litmus test for enlghtenment. If you don't know or see that the world is a dream, you're not enlightened. This seems to me the misuse of this model, pointer and in some cases a way of avoiding the hard work. No one has been saying that explanations and theories of the mind are hitting the mark precisely .. Butt put your hand in an open fire and see how it feels . You don't need theories and words to experience the pain of the fire .. The fire is of the mind and so is self awareness of the fire and of the pain so what exactly is false about the experience . Put your hand into a a bowl of cold custard, does it feel like the open fire .. Whatever you say about the comparison had will be toadally false based upon a model that everything referred to of the mind is false .. This model or train of thought about the falsities derives of the same mind that reflects all these falsities or does the model derive from somewhere beyond the concept of falsities? If you put your hand in fire intentionally, you're a fool or a saint. This reminds me of Jesus' explanation. "Give Ceasar what is Ceasar's." In other words in the "relative," fires are real and should be given space, least you become crispy. But from the perspective of the Absolute, aren't you the fire and the hand? And here's the tricky question, is a separate someone required for the hand to avoid the fire? I don't know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 14, 2019 9:24:52 GMT -5
.. But even logic is a falsity by your own reckoning . Your using your false logic to try and understand my false logic . Because you don't actually understand the meaning of falsity. You need a reference for it.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 14, 2019 9:25:24 GMT -5
No, I'm not using my model's rules. I'm using the way you critique other people's models. You say "explain it to me, I don't understand" -- and then you try to find logical contradiction. When in fact they are resting on a reference to what is beyond mind. Now, when I critique YOUR model that way, you do the exact same thing that you critique in others. You say "you're not going to understand without a reference." But somehow that is ok, but other people's doing that is not. .. You are . You base my model to be incorrect based upon your model that you think is correct .. If you abide by the laws of your model in that all things of the mind are false then like said, your model is false and from a position of falsity you are trying to find fault with my my model lol .. It's toadally bonkers to do that, it like trying to out box your shadow .. It's self defeating . It doesn't work . To say that you are not abiding by your own model's rules is false because you can't entertain that models can be true or correct . I am happy for you to critique my model as I do other's but you can only critique something when you already have a self reference in place .. Your self reference is based upon your own model of belief .. If you want to deny this, that okay, butt to do so is border line bonkers!! You would have to explain to me how you can point out something incorrect in another's theory while not entertaining a belief system in order to compare there's with .
Huh? If you believe a) All men are mortal and B) Socrates is a man and therefore C) Socrates is NOT mortal, I don't need my own belief system to show how your system is inconsistent. I can simply take your model of logic and show how it doesn't meet its own rules. All models are incomplete with respect to the spiritual truth (and thus ultimately false), but that doesn't mean that all models are equal. For example, models that lie about what they "encompass" are worse than those that admit that they are just models and not the ultimate truth. The criteria on which they are judged depends on the context in which we are speaking.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 14, 2019 9:27:25 GMT -5
.. If you don't understand it that's fine, butt it just shows me that you haven't the comparison. I have said many times that beyond self and beyond mind there are no thoughts pertaining to self or this world . There is no awareness of self or this world. You keep asking me 'So which is it'? which brings to me the conclusion that you are either not listening or you toadally don't understand a word I am saying .. I have explained in many different ways and even gave you the waking up from a nights sleep analogy and spoke about andy's unconscious episode, but unless you have the comparison perhaps you are going to be left toadally confused .. Now in my eyes you need the comparison of self and no self like Bernadette Roberts speaks about because if all you know is self awareness then your not going to understand no self .. and you need to understand no self to understand self, that's why you have peeps running around thinking they have lost self and it's incorrect . Now your projection upon my understandings is based solely on your model and lack of comparison .. This isn't a put down, it is a fact is it not? If you had this comparison I speak of you would not have this confusion. Isn't that fair enough to say? So all the confusion is down to whom? I understand completely, I just think that your model of what you think you've discovered is wrong and illogical. The moment you talk about "no self," it's obviously a concept and from a place of self. For you to believe that you've discovered "no self" and can compare it to "self" is illogical. Comparisons are mindful. Therefore the comparison happens in a state of "self." The idea of "no self" is itself a concept, and your memory of it is a conceptualized memory. Or you wouldn't be able to speak of it. If it was really no self then there would be no self to make the comparison between self and no self. I've pointed this out many times, but apparently you don't seem to understand this inconsistency -- or don't want to understand. You're speaking in self-terms, in mindful terms of a contradictory concept called "no self" (itself a mindful term)... To believe that this is then considered a "logical model" or a "foundation" is a really a logical muddle.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 15, 2019 2:54:29 GMT -5
No one has been saying that explanations and theories of the mind are hitting the mark precisely .. Butt put your hand in an open fire and see how it feels . You don't need theories and words to experience the pain of the fire .. The fire is of the mind and so is self awareness of the fire and of the pain so what exactly is false about the experience . Put your hand into a a bowl of cold custard, does it feel like the open fire .. Whatever you say about the comparison had will be toadally false based upon a model that everything referred to of the mind is false .. This model or train of thought about the falsities derives of the same mind that reflects all these falsities or does the model derive from somewhere beyond the concept of falsities? If you put your hand in fire intentionally, you're a fool or a saint. This reminds me of Jesus' explanation. "Give Ceasar what is Ceasar's." In other words in the "relative," fires are real and should be given space, least you become crispy. But from the perspective of the Absolute, aren't you the fire and the hand? And here's the tricky question, is a separate someone required for the hand to avoid the fire? I don't know the answer. There is no absolute perspective .. This is just a model / theory that is false . Everything is false . Everything that is mindfully related or concocted is false . Do you see that it is a no brainer to entertain this theory, while at the same time trying to mindfully navigate through the falsities into something that is true or correct .. If the realization itself that reflects such a theory is beyond mind then I am all ears . I am dying to know how beyond mind and beyond self there is the thought that anything self related or mindful is false . I am just putting this out there, not suggesting you abide by such a theory . I am pointing out how self defeating it is holding this position of falsity and illusion and dreaminess as a foundation of one's reality . There is no where to go with it .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 15, 2019 3:03:40 GMT -5
.. But even logic is a falsity by your own reckoning . Your using your false logic to try and understand my false logic . Because you don't actually understand the meaning of falsity. You need a reference for it. Your model reflects everything mindful is false . Logic is mindful . How can false logic be used in order to speak about something that isn't false . You need to have a foundation that isn't false to begin with . Until you do, you are going round in circles trying to emphasise how correct your model is by using false logic . I am not sure why you can't see the logic in that .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 15, 2019 3:10:20 GMT -5
.. You are . You base my model to be incorrect based upon your model that you think is correct .. If you abide by the laws of your model in that all things of the mind are false then like said, your model is false and from a position of falsity you are trying to find fault with my my model lol .. It's toadally bonkers to do that, it like trying to out box your shadow .. It's self defeating . It doesn't work . To say that you are not abiding by your own model's rules is false because you can't entertain that models can be true or correct . I am happy for you to critique my model as I do other's but you can only critique something when you already have a self reference in place .. Your self reference is based upon your own model of belief .. If you want to deny this, that okay, butt to do so is border line bonkers!! You would have to explain to me how you can point out something incorrect in another's theory while not entertaining a belief system in order to compare there's with .
Huh? If you believe a) All men are mortal and B) Socrates is a man and therefore C) Socrates is NOT mortal, I don't need my own belief system to show how your system is inconsistent. I can simply take your model of logic and show how it doesn't meet its own rules. All models are incomplete with respect to the spiritual truth (and thus ultimately false), but that doesn't mean that all models are equal. For example, models that lie about what they "encompass" are worse than those that admit that they are just models and not the ultimate truth. The criteria on which they are judged depends on the context in which we are speaking. I am not bothered how you see yourself, I am not bothered if you see yourself as immortal, alien, pure consciousness or whatever, what is apparent however is that you have a self reference for what you are in reflection of your model ... and from this self point of reference you are able to say what you say .. Now what you are doing is using this reference to critique other references .. You can only do that when you have your own belief system in place . You speak about all models are incomplete ... this is your model, this is your theory, this is your belief . You believe that it is correct and true and this stance held is your banana skin ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 15, 2019 3:40:54 GMT -5
.. If you don't understand it that's fine, butt it just shows me that you haven't the comparison. I have said many times that beyond self and beyond mind there are no thoughts pertaining to self or this world . There is no awareness of self or this world. You keep asking me 'So which is it'? which brings to me the conclusion that you are either not listening or you toadally don't understand a word I am saying .. I have explained in many different ways and even gave you the waking up from a nights sleep analogy and spoke about andy's unconscious episode, but unless you have the comparison perhaps you are going to be left toadally confused .. Now in my eyes you need the comparison of self and no self like Bernadette Roberts speaks about because if all you know is self awareness then your not going to understand no self .. and you need to understand no self to understand self, that's why you have peeps running around thinking they have lost self and it's incorrect . Now your projection upon my understandings is based solely on your model and lack of comparison .. This isn't a put down, it is a fact is it not? If you had this comparison I speak of you would not have this confusion. Isn't that fair enough to say? So all the confusion is down to whom? I understand completely, I just think that your model of what you think you've discovered is wrong and illogical. The moment you talk about "no self," it's obviously a concept and from a place of self. This is because you haven't the comparison and your logical conclusion will be false come what may . You still don't see that your model won't ever bring to you a correct or true understanding of what I am speaking of . Even if you agreed with my model and you toadally understood it, it would be no more correct and true than when you disagree and don't fully understand .For you to believe that you've discovered "no self" and can compare it to "self" is illogical. Comparisons are mindful. Therefore the comparison happens in a state of "self." There is no one to discover no self . Again, you don't have the comparison, so you only have your false logic to fall back on . I have said that when there is self awareness again, there is the knowing of one's absence while what you are is still present . This isn't illogical at all . It makes perfect sense, to me because I have the comparison ..The idea of "no self" is itself a concept, and your memory of it is a conceptualized memory. Or you wouldn't be able to speak of it. Yes of course it is a concept, but my model doesn't revolve around concepts being false . Your again using your false logic to negate my logic that in my eyes isn't false . Your welcome to your conceptual understanding as am I, butt by your own understanding your own logic is false and I keep saying this to you and yet you keep stressing the fact that my logic is false while yours isn't .. it's so silly to keep on with this ..If it was really no self then there would be no self to make the comparison between self and no self. I've pointed this out many times, but apparently you don't seem to understand this inconsistency -- or don't want to understand. You're speaking in self-terms, in mindful terms of a contradictory concept called "no self" (itself a mindful term)... To believe that this is then considered a "logical model" or a "foundation" is a really a logical muddle. You haven't been listening to what I have been saying as I have answered this many times about the comparison and returning to self awareness . There is no muddle from my end, all I see is someone trying to point out the logical falsities in my model while using false logic . As described above, no matter what you think, it will be false, so it really is self defeating .. You haven't explained to me how you realized your model . I need to be refreshed in regards to your realization of the mind or beyond the mind . Like said either way it's going to be seen through for being false because of your foundation and because of your lack of understanding and comparison had . You don't see or understand how there can be no self and yet there be a self that can make sense of their absence . This illustrates that you have no realization beyond mind . So your realization must be mindful and false .. Perhaps you should forget about telling me how flawed my logic and understanding is and concentrate on your own realization and explain yourself logically .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 8:13:51 GMT -5
No one has been saying that explanations and theories of the mind are hitting the mark precisely .. Butt put your hand in an open fire and see how it feels . You don't need theories and words to experience the pain of the fire .. The fire is of the mind and so is self awareness of the fire and of the pain so what exactly is false about the experience . Put your hand into a a bowl of cold custard, does it feel like the open fire .. Whatever you say about the comparison had will be toadally false based upon a model that everything referred to of the mind is false .. This model or train of thought about the falsities derives of the same mind that reflects all these falsities or does the model derive from somewhere beyond the concept of falsities? If you put your hand in fire intentionally, you're a fool or a saint. This reminds me of Jesus' explanation. "Give Ceasar what is Ceasar's." In other words in the "relative," fires are real and should be given space, least you become crispy. But from the perspective of the Absolute, aren't you the fire and the hand? And here's the tricky question, is a separate someone required for the hand to avoid the fire? I don't know the answer. Well I make no claim about Self Realization. When I was speaking about the "Absolute" perspective, I was refering to your contention that you are "all there is." Though to me there is such a perspective in the space between thoughts, the silence. But I agree about the limitations of language, written and spoken regarding this topic. Perhaps if we communicated by tap dancing and farting, like Vonnegut's aliens, we might be clearer.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 15, 2019 8:49:28 GMT -5
If you put your hand in fire intentionally, you're a fool or a saint. This reminds me of Jesus' explanation. "Give Ceasar what is Ceasar's." In other words in the "relative," fires are real and should be given space, least you become crispy. But from the perspective of the Absolute, aren't you the fire and the hand? And here's the tricky question, is a separate someone required for the hand to avoid the fire? I don't know the answer. Well I make no claim about Self Realization. When I was speaking about the "Absolute" perspective, I was refering to your contention that you are "all there is." Though to me there is such a perspective in the space between thoughts, the silence. But I agree about the limitations of language, written and spoken regarding this topic. Perhaps if we communicated by tap dancing and farting, like Vonnegut's aliens, we might be clearer. I understand you, I was just emphasising that if one believes in the falsities of the mind then there is no absolute perspective either ... unless one can confirm this realization from beyond the mind lol .. We all know and agree that words are limiting, but as explained some pointers in my model of understanding are more to the point and on point than other's. To tar all pointers with the same brush that is either false or dreamy or illusory makes no sense when trying to present one's own theory as more correct than another's or holds more weight than other's .. There is either a foundation of something false and dreamy and illusory or there isn't, in my eyes you can't have one merging with the other when trying to suggest another's model is incorrect .. They have to be all incorrect if one abides by the foundation of falsities and illusions .. Do you see that or agree with that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 8:59:56 GMT -5
Well I make no claim about Self Realization. When I was speaking about the "Absolute" perspective, I was refering to your contention that you are "all there is." Though to me there is such a perspective in the space between thoughts, the silence. But I agree about the limitations of language, written and spoken regarding this topic. Perhaps if we communicated by tap dancing and farting, like Vonnegut's aliens, we might be clearer. I understand you, I was just emphasising that if one believes in the falsities of the mind then there is no absolute perspective either ... unless one can confirm this realization from beyond the mind lol .. We all know and agree that words are limiting, but as explained some pointers in my model of understanding are more to the point and on point than other's. To tar all pointers with the same brush that is either false or dreamy or illusory makes no sense when trying to present one's own theory as more correct than another's or holds more weight than other's .. There is either a foundation of something false and dreamy and illusory or there isn't, in my eyes you can't have one merging with the other when trying to suggest another's model is incorrect .. They have to be all incorrect if one abides by the foundation of falsities and illusions .. Do you see that or agree with that? My intent was not to tar pointers. But to point out the futility of debating which is better. It is really an equation that requires a value for the seeker variable, an understanding of where the seeker is at and of her/his background. That is, in my view, the key factor. After all, pointers are not relevant to the Self Realized.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 15, 2019 9:26:13 GMT -5
Because you don't actually understand the meaning of falsity. You need a reference for it. Your model reflects everything mindful is false . Logic is mindful . How can false logic be used in order to speak about something that isn't false . You need to have a foundation that isn't false to begin with . Until you do, you are going round in circles trying to emphasise how correct your model is by using false logic . I am not sure why you can't see the logic in that . Because you don’t understand the meaning of false. It doesn’t mean what you think it does. You need a reference for it. What about that don’t you understand? You say it to me all the time.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 15, 2019 9:27:19 GMT -5
Huh? If you believe a) All men are mortal and B) Socrates is a man and therefore C) Socrates is NOT mortal, I don't need my own belief system to show how your system is inconsistent. I can simply take your model of logic and show how it doesn't meet its own rules. All models are incomplete with respect to the spiritual truth (and thus ultimately false), but that doesn't mean that all models are equal. For example, models that lie about what they "encompass" are worse than those that admit that they are just models and not the ultimate truth. The criteria on which they are judged depends on the context in which we are speaking. I am not bothered how you see yourself, I am not bothered if you see yourself as immortal, alien, pure consciousness or whatever, what is apparent however is that you have a self reference for what you are in reflection of your model ... and from this self point of reference you are able to say what you say .. Now what you are doing is using this reference to critique other references .. You can only do that when you have your own belief system in place . You speak about all models are incomplete ... this is your model, this is your theory, this is your belief . You believe that it is correct and true and this stance held is your banana skin .. I don’t need my own belief system. I can simply provisionally adopt yours and show how it’s inconsistent. I just showed how. You didn’t address the example, presumably because you cannot.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 15, 2019 9:28:45 GMT -5
I understand completely, I just think that your model of what you think you've discovered is wrong and illogical. The moment you talk about "no self," it's obviously a concept and from a place of self. This is because you haven't the comparison and your logical conclusion will be false come what may . You still don't see that your model won't ever bring to you a correct or true understanding of what I am speaking of . Even if you agreed with my model and you toadally understood it, it would be no more correct and true than when you disagree and don't fully understand .For you to believe that you've discovered "no self" and can compare it to "self" is illogical. Comparisons are mindful. Therefore the comparison happens in a state of "self." There is no one to discover no self . Again, you don't have the comparison, so you only have your false logic to fall back on . I have said that when there is self awareness again, there is the knowing of one's absence while what you are is still present . This isn't illogical at all . It makes perfect sense, to me because I have the comparison ..The idea of "no self" is itself a concept, and your memory of it is a conceptualized memory. Or you wouldn't be able to speak of it. Yes of course it is a concept, but my model doesn't revolve around concepts being false . Your again using your false logic to negate my logic that in my eyes isn't false . Your welcome to your conceptual understanding as am I, butt by your own understanding your own logic is false and I keep saying this to you and yet you keep stressing the fact that my logic is false while yours isn't .. it's so silly to keep on with this ..If it was really no self then there would be no self to make the comparison between self and no self. I've pointed this out many times, but apparently you don't seem to understand this inconsistency -- or don't want to understand. You're speaking in self-terms, in mindful terms of a contradictory concept called "no self" (itself a mindful term)... To believe that this is then considered a "logical model" or a "foundation" is a really a logical muddle. You haven't been listening to what I have been saying as I have answered this many times about the comparison and returning to self awareness . There is no muddle from my end, all I see is someone trying to point out the logical falsities in my model while using false logic . As described above, no matter what you think, it will be false, so it really is self defeating .. You haven't explained to me how you realized your model . I need to be refreshed in regards to your realization of the mind or beyond the mind . Like said either way it's going to be seen through for being false because of your foundation and because of your lack of understanding and comparison had . You don't see or understand how there can be no self and yet there be a self that can make sense of their absence . This illustrates that you have no realization beyond mind . So your realization must be mindful and false .. Perhaps you should forget about telling me how flawed my logic and understanding is and concentrate on your own realization and explain yourself logically . Again, I’m just showing how using common sense logic your ideas fall down. You just fall back on having a reference. Ok, then the idea of life being a dream and things being false also is about having a reference. How do you realize what I’m talking about? Do more self-inquiry. I’m not questioning your realization. I don’t really care one way or the other. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of your mode of critique. When questioned you say to the other “you have no realization beyond mind.” You’re not able to explain it in any logical way except to say that I would understand it if I had a reference. Well, others are just saying the same thing back to you about life being dream-like.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 16, 2019 0:35:38 GMT -5
[Yes, no doubt those statements in particular do have the potential to become quite potent mind hooks. And so if I'm honest, in the final analysis, it's probably something I personally would refrain from saying, if for no other reason than that. But the thing is that a lot of the stuff we talk about when taken to the extreme can end up sounding a little absurd on the face of it. We saw it in my conversation with enigma recently where he ends up talking about dodo as potentially a POP, and I end up talking about holy cr@p. (At least there's a precedent in common vernacular for mine). But I do think we have to be prepared to take it to the extremes, and as you allude to, have a feeling that much of the prejudice that arises when we do so, comes through attachment to the way we use the conventional paradigms as a vantage point when we talk about and consider them. Which of course by and large is a necessity. Yet often when we begin to delve deeply into even those conventional paradigms even they start to lose coherence. You've previously mentioned much of the discord comes through mixing contexts, which again is no doubt true. But ideally I prefer my contexts to transition reasonably smoothly into each other. That’s the real challenge here, and so far it's eluding me. It may not be possible. And certainly not if there is no direct reference for the context in which a pointer is used, and/or people aren't coming empty. The truth is I have mixed feelings about the underlined, and have found those phrases highlight the limits of my own insight and understanding. It's challenging in that way, which I quite enjoy. But I'll take this opportunity to talk a bit about that. With regard to the reservations I share about those particular phrases, obviously it has to do with the way they are constructed, and the implications of that. Because when talking about a rock as being conscious (small c), rather than an expression of Consciousness, it means we're effectively talking about it being consciously aware, or self-aware. And for me, traditionally at least, that context is synonymous with sentience, an attribute I would normally reserve for 'bio-chemical organisms'. (As an aside the level of complexity needed for a given organism to possess the attribute of sentience was a matter of contention on the Suffering thread, with me taking the stance it's applicable across the board, to varying degrees). But we're talking about rocks here anyway. In Buddhism they talk about Buddha Nature, the potential for a being to become liberated (albeit not a concept the Buddha himself taught). But the point is I think it's fair to assume no-one on either side of the argument would talk about rocks as having the potential to become liberated. Other than from the rock-face I suppose. Additionally, despite the very compelling arguments about ultimately not knowing, (which to a degree I can relate to), I've been forthright in stating that I don't see a rock as qualifying as a nexus of perception. On the basis I would also reserve that the for more complex and intricate, the more elegant expressions of Consciousness, namely the bio-chemical organism which 'possess' Buddha Nature. So I just want to highlight again that I'm effectively talking about reservations that arise through how I relate the statement 'rocks are conscious' to the conventional paradigms. Those paradigms that I might normally associate with conscious awareness, like sentience and POP's. I've left aliveness, but clearly another area where even the conventional paradigm vantage point doesn't stand up to a deal of scrutiny btw.
...
Because here's the thing. This is a particularly subtle and encompassing issue. One that imo incorporates both realisation and transcendental Experience as prerequisite. And the subsequent expression of this Experience involves going right to the heart of where the immovable object meets the unstoppable force and attempting to push the boundaries of communication. In many respects due to all this, the signs we employ become especially tenuous, and in doing so, we open ourselves up. A leap of faith it required, (as it happens on both sides of the communication). In a sense, by even taking it on we expose and make ourselves vulnerable, which is one of the reasons I appreciated the comment at the time. This actually goes for stuff both the current warring factions talk about. But the point is that in talking about this juncture of the nature of reality, we are way past convention anyway. Things break down and the normal rules don't really apply, (much as they say about QM). At least to an extent because obviously any communication has to be structured in order for it to be relatable, and so the trick is finding a balance. And of course this is all extremely susceptible to pointer licking, and then defence is very difficult. Could take years, hehe. What's interesting is that I'm confident saying that all those on the other side of the discussion can relate to the notion of rocks as an expression of Consciousness. Or Awareness as I prefer. For me, even undifferentiated Awareness or Aware/Space is only ever really an abbreviated form of 'the Awareness that is Aware of itself' but I accept that might be contentious. I don't think it's so contentious to say 'all' is no other than Awareness expressing as form. If so then ultimately both self-Awareness and Self-awareness are merely Awareness-awareing, and that's in keeping with your Segal quote. I think we've all ruled out Self-awareness in relation to rocks, so the question becomes, if form is the path Awareness-awareing takes, at what degree of complexity does self-awareness occur. Or, to what if any degree could conscious awareness be said to be present at the level of 'rockness', because that's what we're essentially talking about. At least I am. Science indicates that certainly individual cells can be said to act intelligently, and demonstrate self-preservation. But what about their constituent parts. Even atoms are sometimes described as acting Intelligently, can be envisaged as self-organising, and in nature there is a principle known as self-similarity, which basically means it's turtles all the way down. Anyway, at a certain stage we do have to revisit the question as to what degree of complexity some of these states of being can be said to arise. Those lines were never really drawn anyway. And perhaps a good way to do this is to begin to consider them in their most abstract form. Do atoms qualify as even rudimentarily sentient/perceptive on account of merely their attractive/repulsive forces, and self-organising principle. Hey, I just noticed I'm straying dangerously close to making a case for doggy dodo as being a POP. Btw, it should be noted that sapience (the ability to think and reason) is not a requirement of those things, just in case that's what anyone's envisaging when there's talk about rocks being conscious. But I'm gonna put all this aside for now, firstly coz I've rambled enough, and secondly because rather than abstraction, the real issue here is the legitimacy of the direct apprehension of the 'aliveness' inherent within all creation at all levels. Ultimately it's a holistic consideration. Again that is to say we are talking about the process of Awareness awareing, and the path that takes. In this form I am consciously aware, and make no mistake, my being in form takes a universe. Absolutely, I'm all about the balance and without it very little tends to stand up to a deal of scrutiny. It's like having one short leg. Inevitably you just go around in circles. I think you've got the drift of what’s been pointed to. But let me clarify a few more things in general and for others who have been reading along: 1) This is not a discussion about dead or alive. This is a discussion about what realizing oneness actually means. If everyone in this discussion truly had realized oneness, we wouldn't actually have this discussion in the first place. As ZD mentioned recently, oneness can be understood intellectually, but it’s a rather weak understanding. It's so weak in fact that some people here who have oneness as the basis of their ontology actually keep arguing for separation at every turn, without ever noticing it. 2) I phrased it that way for a reason. And much like your recent concession to Enigma’s logic, it can be read in two different ways (thingness/no-thingness). The problem here is that the intellect can only operate in the context of thingness. That’s why those with a mere intellectual understanding of oneness can read that statement only one way (thingness). 3) I am not saying that E&F&G are categorically wrong, because there is indeed a context where what they’ve been proposing could be considered ‘truthy’ or ‘the truth’ – it’s just not the SR context, it’s the SVP context, which is a purely intellectual perspective. And from that perspective, what they've been saying about not-knowing and the dreamy-weaminess of all of it is actually spot on. 4) So the context mix I am referring to is the usual context mix, i.e. trying to understand the impersonal perspective (no-thingness) from the personal perspective (thingness). That can’t be done, of course. So if you see someone unable to move the discussion beyond mere anthropomorphism or animism, that’s the dead giveaway that someone is stuck on the level of thingness. 5) There is no smooth transition between the impersonal and personal context possible because what we are talking about is more like a quantum leap in perspective, like flipping a switch. That's the difference between a realization and an insight. The process of thing-ifying is suddenly switched off and “wham!” there it is. It’s a completely different way of seeing (read again what Suzanne Segal wrote). That sudden shift in perspective is very much like what happens when viewing one of those stereograms. That’s why I used to say that it is not important what it is seen (the specific picture), but how it is seen (3D instead of 2D). (read again what I wrote here) 6) The complexity of the POP discussion is pure TMT. And like science (including QM) it leaves us stuck on the level of thingness. Which means we are back to animism again and missing the point again. 7) 'Awareness awareing' is a good way of putting it. But that has to be seen/realized directly. Which brings us back to the witnessing topic, I guess.
|
|