|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 11:17:03 GMT -5
If no knowledge is ultimately true, yet is contextually true....what exactly is your definition of 'true' here Mr. E? It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on. Don't be a brick, Andrew. That doesnt really help me with your definition/s of 'true' that you are using. Can you clarify please?
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 19, 2011 11:43:05 GMT -5
If no knowledge is ultimately true, yet is contextually true....what exactly is your definition of 'true' here Mr. E? It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on. Don't be a brick, Andrew. Another "Straw Man" response.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 19, 2011 12:03:57 GMT -5
If no knowledge is ultimately true, yet is contextually true....what exactly is your definition of 'true' here Mr. E? It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on. Don't be a brick, Andrew. @ Tath: Life unfolds as a flow of continuity, which one might interpret as robotic, like an automotron that puts one foot in front of the other on autopilot, but it might be disconcerting to take a step in Las Vegas and land in Times Square, especially if you had an appointment with a blackjack table and a whiskey sour. Why does the dang sun rise every morning so robotically and that blasted gravity not let go once in a while just to explore it's non-roboticness? Because it holds together the imaginary continuity of your experience, and you like it that way. From the personal perspective, and entrenched within that paradigm, it does appear robotic, but absolute freedom includes the potential to experience imprisonment. There is a propensity in many of your posts to create a straw man response, wherein one person is commenting on the limitations of intellect, or unconciously unfolding habitual behaviors and beliefs, and you reframe the conversation to something about the futility of CHANGING the physical routines of habits or the functioning of various physical phenomena like the sun rising LOL...there is either a concious or unconcious effort to reframe the conversation so it is focused on the pointlessness of spending time learning to tie your shoes again, or feeling imprisoned by the sun comming up LOL....none of which have anything to do with what was being discussed, except to make you look sage without addressing the real issue, and to support a view that says "working toward breaking the habit of unconcious doing and increasing your concious self awareness is a waste of time"....maybe instead of folks doing the work of peeling back the layers and understanding the nature of themselves better you would be happier if folks would just ask you, and have you explain it to them LOL....seriously though...the ark of your posts, in response to anything anyone says about methods to become more aware of a true nature beyond intellect is that everything people says or recomends is just silly, instead you should just save your mental energy to understand what enigmas saying LOL. So to be clear, in the previous thread about habits we were not saying that one should relearn to tie their shoes or relearn to stir coffee, unless doing so helps that particular individual do these things more conciously LOL....we were saying that one should be more concious in the shoe tying and coffee stirring instead of just habitually doing so without awareness....and by "habit" we are not talking about the "physical routine" that needs to be broken as a habit, we are talking about the act of doing the physical routine without self awareness, or self awareness of where the intent to do the physical routine came from....and in this conversation we are not saying that the sun comming up or gravity holding you down is a prison, we are saying that the continuity of thoughts and beliefs rolling forward without any self awareness of its origens or unconcious manifestations is a kind of prison.. Now, if you want to support a position that says thinking about changing physical routines or worrying about the sun comming up is taking time and energy away from one's ability to think about other philosophical issues I'll agree with you to a point....but that is not the conversation we are having here LOL....we are not having a conversation about conserving the minds intellectual capacity for more fruitful pursuits, like intellectualy grasping what you are trying to teach LOL...we are having a conversation about the means by which one can stop the intellectual robot from moving forward and creating without conciousness of true self, we are having a conversation about the origens of the hardwired belief in a seperate self etc....in short we are talking about the undoing of mind and beliefs for the purpose of uncovering the DIRECT experience and awareness of self instead of the intellectual realization of the nature of true self...which out of love is something I highly encourage you to do LOL...so far it seems that you strongly resist any methods of direct experience of self beyond the intellect....which frankly perplexes me...Becuase if you had had any type of direct intimate experience beyond intellectual realization I highly doubt you would be so critical of things that people say that nudge toward direct experience BEYOND intellectual realization LOL, anything anyone says that goes in the direction of not trusting the intellect seems to get a very strong (often "Straw Man")response LOL....the irony is that intellectually you know that intellectual realization is not enough, but you still defend it in practice tooth and nail, and resist direct experience and methods of self awareness that are not intellectual in nature LOL.....the form of your resistance often takes the shape of these straw man responses wherein you try to reframe the the other persons position into something else, or mischaracterize the statements or positions that others are taking altogether LOL....you do however do it in a wonderfully sage sounding way LOL.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 12:10:40 GMT -5
@ Tath: Life unfolds as a flow of continuity, which one might interpret as robotic, like an automotron that puts one foot in front of the other on autopilot, but it might be disconcerting to take a step in Las Vegas and land in Times Square, especially if you had an appointment with a blackjack table and a whiskey sour. Why does the dang sun rise every morning so robotically and that blasted gravity not let go once in a while just to explore it's non-roboticness? Because it holds together the imaginary continuity of your experience, and you like it that way. From the personal perspective, and entrenched within that paradigm, it does appear robotic, but absolute freedom includes the potential to experience imprisonment. There is a propensity in many of your posts to create a straw man response, wherein one person is commenting on the limitations of intellect, or the unconciously unfolding habitual behaviors and beliefs, and you reframe the conversation to something about the futility of CHANGING the physical routines of habits or the functioning of various physical phenomena like the sun rising LOL... I tend to comment on statements that seem to be exaggerations or misconceptions. To say that mind cannot have an original thought does hint at the limitations of mind, but my first unoriginal thought is that every thought originally occurred in the mind, so it can't actually be true. To say that mind is robotic, putting one foot in front of the other like an automotron does hint at the unconscious nature of mind but it also seems to dismiss imagination, creativity, courage, compassion and countless other wonders of the human experience. Likewise, when one states that all habits are bondage and should be stopped, it might hint at the unconscious aspect of habits that MAY be happening, but it implies that the routine behaviors are the problem and not the (often purposeful) unconscious aspect of them. Aktuly, becoming conscious is pretty much all I talk about, which is also the focus when one blurts out an exaggeration or misconception. Noticing is the process of becoming conscious. You've spent too much time thinking about my views on practices and now you see me with an anti-practice agenda in every post you read. This is mind acting like a habitual robot that never has an original idea. LOL I don't recall ever resisting the idea of direct experience, though I DO recall pointing out the difference between experiencing and realization. If what you want is cool mind states, there are endless methods to bring these about. The mature seeker eventually loses interest in them. I tend not to talk about my direct experiences, partly because they don't mean much, and partly because it would be a distraction to encourage peeps to pursue them. My discussion with question, as well as most of what i say about noticing, is entirely about pointing to realization beyond intellectual understanding. However, it's true that it's not about having cool woo woo experiences that come and go and leave one precisely where they were except for the belief that now they know something others don't. Never trust the intellect. Nothing you can think is true. That's actually what I've been saying.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 12:14:41 GMT -5
It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on. Don't be a brick, Andrew. That doesnt really help me with your definition/s of 'true' that you are using. Can you clarify please? Well, then what's your definition of definition? i told you what contextually true and ultimately true means to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 12:16:16 GMT -5
It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on. Don't be a brick, Andrew. Another "Straw Man" response. Another habitual, unconscious automotron response.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 13:08:56 GMT -5
That doesnt really help me with your definition/s of 'true' that you are using. Can you clarify please? Well, then what's your definition of definition? i told you what contextually true and ultimately true means to me. My definition of definition is 'assigned meaning'. So, what meaning are you assigning to the word 'true' here? It seems to me that the word 'true' is being defined in two slightly different ways. Does it mean 'factual'? Or 'correct'? Or 'right'? Do you resonate with the Jed McKenna statement that 'no belief is true'?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 13:13:03 GMT -5
Never trust the intellect. Nothing you can think is true. That's actually what I've been saying. Nothing you can think is true....okay, so what about what you called contextual truths?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 13:30:37 GMT -5
Never trust the intellect. Nothing you can think is true. That's actually what I've been saying. Nothing you can think is true....okay, so what about what you called contextual truths? They're true/false in a given context. "It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on."
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 13:45:28 GMT -5
Nothing you can think is true....okay, so what about what you called contextual truths? They're true/false in a given context. "It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on." Bearing in mind that realization is about releasing the belief in a believer, if I told you that I believe it to be true that I post on the forum, would you consider that to be a clue that a belief in a believer is present? I guess what Im wondering is...if particular contextual ideas are being believed to be true, then isnt there a belief in a believer? Furthermore, if the idea that 'there is context' is being believed/held to be true, isnt there a belief in a believer? Is it possible that context is actually 'imaginary'?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 14:27:53 GMT -5
They're true/false in a given context. "It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on." Bearing in mind that realization is about releasing the belief in a believer, if I told you that I believe it to be true that I post on the forum, would you consider that to be a clue that a belief in a believer is present? I guess what Im wondering is...if particular contextual ideas are being believed to be true, then isnt there a belief in a believer? Furthermore, if the idea that 'there is context' is being believed/held to be true, isnt there a belief in a believer? Is it possible that context is actually 'imaginary'? I'm having trouble believing context is too difficult for you to understand, so what's really going on?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 14:33:12 GMT -5
Bearing in mind that realization is about releasing the belief in a believer, if I told you that I believe it to be true that I post on the forum, would you consider that to be a clue that a belief in a believer is present? I guess what Im wondering is...if particular contextual ideas are being believed to be true, then isnt there a belief in a believer? Furthermore, if the idea that 'there is context' is being believed/held to be true, isnt there a belief in a believer? Is it possible that context is actually 'imaginary'? I'm having trouble believing context is too difficult for you to understand, so what's really going on? I think I understand what the idea of 'context' means, but what Im thinking is that context is part of what is popularly called... 'imagination'. The reason is, that the idea of 'context' creates the illusion of boundaries (beginnings and ends) when the actuality is that there are no beginnings and ends. Aside from all that though, the other issue is whether the idea that 'there is context' is believed to be true, because that would imply a belief in a believer. I guess what I saying is....regardless of WHAT is believed, surely (in realization terms) the problem is belief itself. It sounds like you think its unproblematic to believe ideas to be true, as long as the ideas being believed to be true are 'contextually true'. Im challenging that. I would say that it doesnt matter WHAT is believed to be true, its the believing it to be true that is the problem itself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 15:02:44 GMT -5
I'm having trouble believing context is too difficult for you to understand, so what's really going on? I think I understand what the idea of 'context' means, but what Im thinking is that context is part of what is popularly called... 'imagination'. The reason is, that the idea of 'context' creates the illusion of boundaries (beginnings and ends) when the actuality is that there are no beginnings and ends. But your post has a beginning and an ending. That didn't happen? Ultimately, beginnings and endings are illusory appearances, but that's why we have the idea of context. I know you don't like for me to talk about you but I see your mind running in circles chasing it's tail. 'Everything is a story, which is just a story'. 'Nothing is true....even this!' 'Nothing is contextually true because context isn't true.' This is why everything looks ambiguous, contradicting and paradoxical to you. This is what I mean by grasping concepts too tightly and trying to use them to dig down to something solid. All ideas are imagination (though not what is "popularly" called imagination) so they can't be taken so seriously. I used to say, grasp your truths lightly so as to leave room in the palm of the hand for God. (Lordy, now he's gonna parse that sentence)I'm beginning to understand why ADD Valium deprived Bashar appeals to you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 15:04:13 GMT -5
Thinking.....I dont have much issue with the idea of 'context' in itself as it seems to me that context is only as illusionary as multiplicity. In terms of our other conversation, stories and context are basically the same thing. However, I think where I struggle firstly, is with the idea that its unproblematic (in realization terms) to believe an idea to be true (whether you would say its contextually true or not), because where there is an idea believed to be true there is a belief in a believer. Secondly, what you are implying is that specific contexts can be accurately perceived and known, whereas I would say that contexts are unknowable and ever changing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 15:17:43 GMT -5
I think I understand what the idea of 'context' means, but what Im thinking is that context is part of what is popularly called... 'imagination'. The reason is, that the idea of 'context' creates the illusion of boundaries (beginnings and ends) when the actuality is that there are no beginnings and ends. But your post has a beginning and an ending. That didn't happen? Ultimately, beginnings and endings are illusory appearances, but that's why we have the idea of context. I know you don't like for me to talk about you but I see your mind running in circles chasing it's tail. 'Everything is a story, which is just a story'. 'Nothing is true....even this!' 'Nothing is contextually true because context isn't true.' This is why everything looks ambiguous, contradicting and paradoxical to you. This is what I mean by grasping concepts too tightly and trying to use them to dig down to something solid. All ideas are imagination (though not what is "popularly" called imagination) so they can't be taken so seriously. I used to say, grasp your truths lightly so as to leave room in the palm of the hand for God. (Lordy, now he's gonna parse that sentence)I'm beginning to understand why ADD Valium deprived Bashar appeals to you. Ah, you wrote while I was writing. Its funny that you think that I am thinking those things because I havent said them in about a year. Bit of a straw man thing happening there perhaps? What Im looking at is an interesting contradiction in your thinking i.e. you are suggesting that although belief is a problem, its okay to believe some ideas to be true (as long as they are 'contextually true', whatever that means). I fail to see the difference between thinking that something is contextually true and thinking that something is absolutely true. If we take the idea that the sun is hot. Either you believe something about the sun's temperature, or because you are an oddball you might believe something about the contextual truth of the sun's temperature, or you dont believe something about the sun's temperature because there is no belief in a believer. There is no middle ground when it comes to the belief in a believer.
|
|