Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 22:53:47 GMT -5
I don't believe in co-creation and shared reality. But that doesn't matter here I think.So you say anything you could create in your reality by simply believing? believing something as if it is real creates that reality for you? LOA, co-creation or solipsism - these are all just mental overlays over THIS. In the context of non-duality, none of that matters. From the impersonal perspective, there's just no need and no use for such theories. There's no need for any kind of ontology at all. But since comparing ontologies is all we are doing here most of the time, shared reality, co-creation and LOA is what makes most sense to me and comes closest to what can be realized directly, non-conceptually. So, while ultimately, none of that matters at all, it's the best I can offer in terms of concepts you are allowed to lick and chew on, hehe. I am not talking about co-creation or solipsism. I don't have the problem of belief creates the reality. I agreed, But where you go wrong here is, you believe you can choose to believe something(which is not your current reality) which will later become reality soon. That's where you go wrong because you can't choose to believe something.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2020 22:55:23 GMT -5
LOA, co-creation or solipsism - these are all just mental overlays over THIS. In the context of non-duality, none of that matters. From the impersonal perspective, there's just no need and no use for such theories. There's no need for any kind of ontology at all. But since comparing ontologies is all we are doing here most of the time, shared reality, co-creation and LOA is what makes most sense to me and comes closest to what can be realized directly, non-conceptually. So, while ultimately, none of that matters at all, it's the best I can offer in terms of concepts you are allowed to lick and chew on, hehe. I am not talking about co-creation or solipsism. I don't have the problem of belief creates the reality. I agreed, But where you go wrong here is, you believe you can choose to believe something(which is not your current reality) which will later become reality soon. That's where you go wrong because you can't choose to believe something. Remember what I said recently. The only freedom you ever only have (from the personal perspective) is where you put your attention. Everything else I've said follows from here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 22:57:39 GMT -5
I am not talking about co-creation or solipsism. I don't have the problem of belief creates the reality. I agreed, But where you go wrong here is, you believe you can choose to believe something(which is not your current reality) which will later become reality soon. That's where you go wrong because you can't choose to believe something. Remember what I said recently. The only freedom you ever only have (from the personal perspective) is where you put your attention. Everything else I've said follows from here. I think you don't seem to be paying any attention to what I am writing, so let's agree to disagree !
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2020 22:59:47 GMT -5
I don't believe in co-creation and shared reality. But that doesn't matter here I think.So you say anything you could create in your reality by simply believing? believing something as if it is real creates that reality for you? LOA, co-creation or solipsism - these are all just mental overlays over THIS. In the context of non-duality, none of that matters. From the impersonal perspective, there's just no need and no use for such theories. There's no need for any kind of ontology at all. But since comparing ontologies is all we are doing here most of the time, shared reality, co-creation and LOA is what makes most sense to me and comes closest to what can be realized directly, non-conceptually. So, while ultimately, none of that matters at all, it's the best I can offer in terms of concepts you are allowed to lick and chew on (within certain limits), hehe. Cosmic bingo with a cherry-world on top.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2020 23:00:31 GMT -5
Not everything that can be said also needs to be said. I'm sure you understand. Sure, sure, absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2020 23:03:58 GMT -5
Remember what I said recently. The only freedom you ever only have (from the personal perspective) is where you put your attention. Everything else I've said follows from here. I think you don't seem to be paying any attention to what I am writing, so let's agree to disagree ! I don't mind. You see, when it comes to these theories about reality, it isn't so much about being right or wrong in the absolute sense of the word, because that can never happen. It's more about 'most' correct/wrong/true/false instead. Think of Occam's razor here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 23:06:13 GMT -5
I think you don't seem to be paying any attention to what I am writing, so let's agree to disagree ! I don't mind. You see, when it comes to these theories about reality, it isn't so much about being right or wrong in the absolute sense of the word, because that can never happen. It's more about 'most' correct/wrong/true/false instead. Think of Occam's razor here. You see, I am trying hard to understand you because it's confusing now. Let me make some question to understand. 1)Do you believe belief creates reality? 2)Do you believe others can create a reality in which you are part of?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2020 23:13:25 GMT -5
Good grief. I thought it was dumb fun, I didn't know there was some long sordid history. And I wasn't picking on her, I was picking on an idea I know, no worries. I didn't mean this to be a dress-down or something, although it may come across as such. You see, I have this habit of sometimes addressing a more general topic with a more general audience in mind in replies to a specific post. That specific post then just functions as a platform. As a result, sometimes the one I replied to may mistake this as personal criticism when it actually isn't. I had that happen with Laughter once in a while. FWIW, I don't consider you to be a meanie.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2020 0:49:24 GMT -5
Good grief. I thought it was dumb fun, I didn't know there was some long sordid history. And I wasn't picking on her, I was picking on an idea I know, no worries. I didn't mean this to be a dress-down or something, although it may come across as such. You see, I have this habit of sometimes addressing a more general topic with a more general audience in mind in replies to a specific post. That specific post then just functions as a platform. As a result, sometimes the one I replied to may mistake this as personal criticism when it actually isn't. I had that happen with Laughter once in a while. FWIW, I don't consider you to be a meanie. oh well .. here, the least I can do is offer you some applicable and consoling loser think.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 24, 2020 2:38:03 GMT -5
I know, no worries. I didn't mean this to be a dress-down or something, although it may come across as such. You see, I have this habit of sometimes addressing a more general topic with a more general audience in mind in replies to a specific post. That specific post then just functions as a platform. As a result, sometimes the one I replied to may mistake this as personal criticism when it actually isn't. I had that happen with Laughter once in a while. FWIW, I don't consider you to be a meanie. oh well .. here, the least I can do is offer you some applicable and consoling loser think. I think the saving grace here is the line: "...but for now it's fine" But honestly, loserthink is a catchy term. Gotta hand it to Scott. He recently announced that he has stopped debating artists on Twitter, haha. Must have something to do with that book. Too funny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 4:12:00 GMT -5
Good grief. I thought it was dumb fun, I didn't know there was some long sordid history. And I wasn't picking on her, I was picking on an idea When you go fishing be prepared that you might catch something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 4:13:42 GMT -5
fwiw my 2 cents are that her idea of Shreefs isn't because of any cogitative disability other than a profound stubbornness coupled with an intense, negative, focused interest in the two different personalities. There's a man that won't like you writing that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 8:36:36 GMT -5
oh well .. here, the least I can do is offer you some applicable and consoling loser think. I think the saving grace here is the line: "...but for now it's fine" But honestly, loserthink is a catchy term. Gotta hand it to Scott. He recently announced that he has stopped debating artists on Twitter, haha. Must have something to do with that book. Too funny.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 24, 2020 10:40:08 GMT -5
yes, jerk is a good word for you. memory blanks and a glass of vino as evidence? You just come here for the gossip, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2020 18:26:06 GMT -5
You just come here for the gossip, don't you? if there's humor to be found in it, sure. I don't take things so seriously. that shouldn't imply disingenuously though. Always found you to be an equal opportunity zinger/slinger/stinger. And seriously, I've always appreciated the perspective anytime it's been directed this way.
|
|