|
Post by tathagata on Sept 18, 2011 17:17:53 GMT -5
ZD, is your 'glurch' story a response to the question how sensory perceptions are supposed to be expressions of ideas? If so, I don't see your point. We have an idea of the colour red, but no matter how hard we focus on the idea, our ideation won't produce the experience of seeing of a red colour. The idea will remain an idea. Have you actually tried this? LOL.....I think if you do you will find that your conclusion is not true....if you focus on the idea of the color red...if enough attention is given...so much focused attention that it becomes the only idea....you will in fact see the color red....ideas are creative and powerful.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2011 19:46:28 GMT -5
No knowledge is ultimately true, only contextually so. Yes, and I think it isn't difficult to understand on a conceptual level. My understanding of this was that this rule is itself a contextual knowledge that one can particiate in or not. As such it would still be a conceptual way of understanding, we could call it contextualism. It can be formalized in notational systems and offers superior capacity because it can potentially contain all forms of logic and contexts, depict their relationality and thereby systematically resolve paradoxes which arise from missing the contextuality of knowledge. Yeah, that's why I tell peeps there isn't really a paradox there, just the imagining and grasping of two free-floating ideas that happen to contradict. Neither one is actually standing on anything solid, so for mind to throw up it's neurons and accept the contradiction is a bit silly. Zaklee. There is a box in which ideas are being rearranged and combined in intricate patterns. When one observes the box and notices that it is floating in space and relativistic at it's core, there is a radical rearranging that happens inside the box that was not really the result of a contextual shift of the contents. Yes. The idea that sensory perception is in a different category from thoughts is just another conceptual bifurcation, like mind vs body. In the latter case, body is mind expressing in form; body is the sensory form of thought. Maybe we can get a sense of this when we notice that thought leads to feeling which is experienced in the body as a physical sensation. IOW, thought has a sensory component. Funda-mentally, space and time are ideas. These ideas make the perception of objects and movement possible, not as a means of perceiving the actuality of objects, but rather experiencing the sensory form of thoughts. There is no space in which the objects are positioned, and no temporal framework in which they move. The objects and the frameworks are in mind only, and so there is no outside. Without an outside, there also is no inside. Time, space, subject, object, here, there, inside, outside all collapse into what I sometimes call intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2011 19:52:46 GMT -5
Okay, so here is a new concept--"glurtch" which can also be spelled "glurch." The definition of a glurch is "anyone who keeps the line you're waiting in from moving forward." If you're in line at the grocery and the person in front of you can't find his checkbook or credit card, you're standing behind a glurch. If you're in line at the bank, and the person at the teller's cage spills all of her coins on the floor and has to pick it up and count it before continuing.......that's right, you've got a glurch in your line. Notice that a glurch never existed prior to the idea of a glurch, which is an idea dependent upon the mutual appearance (usually ignored) of everyone who is not a glurch. The next time you are standing in a line that stops moving forward, you will probably realize what the problem is and say, "OMG, my line had a glurch in it!" Even worse will be those times when you suddenly realize that you are being a glurch to people standing behind you. Get the idea solidly into your head, and then see if you can get rid of it. When the next line you're standing in stops moving forward, see if you can NOT imagine that your line has a glurch in it. Glurches, like all ideas, can be sticky little suckers. LOL Which leads to prevalence of 'glurch homicide' as well as the well known 'glurch defense' in murder trials that has resulted in many 'glurch probations' and the popularization of the 'glurch anonymous 12 step program'. ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2011 19:58:42 GMT -5
Clearly, that has occurred innumerable times already. Maybe you can provide us with an example... Every concept was absolutely original the first time it was thought. Infinite potential means precisely that, and it is so because it is not a mind that is thinking. All thoughts are God thoughts, and God has a limited tolerance for boundaries of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2011 20:05:38 GMT -5
ZD, is your 'glurch' story a response to the question how sensory perceptions are supposed to be expressions of ideas? If so, I don't see your point. We have an idea of the colour red, but no matter how hard we focus on the idea, our ideation won't produce the experience of seeing of a red colour. The idea will remain an idea. I believe the point had to do with the free-floating nature of concepts. A glurch only appears to be something once it is imagined into apparent existence, but it has no more reality after it is imagined than it did before. There's an entire universe of thought that only 'exists' because we keep imagining it. Stop imagining it, and it vanishes. Suffering happens only in THAT universe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2011 20:10:58 GMT -5
ZD, is your 'glurch' story a response to the question how sensory perceptions are supposed to be expressions of ideas? If so, I don't see your point. We have an idea of the colour red, but no matter how hard we focus on the idea, our ideation won't produce the experience of seeing of a red colour. The idea will remain an idea. Have you actually tried this? LOL.....I think if you do you will find that your conclusion is not true....if you focus on the idea of the color red...if enough attention is given...so much focused attention that it becomes the only idea....you will in fact see the color red....ideas are creative and powerful. True. When it seems appropriate to prescribe a practice (hehe) of manifestation, I suggest that peeps focus on a rubber ducky and see how long it takes for rubber duckies to start showing up everywhere. Hehe. The ducky is used because nobody actually has a need for a ducky, and so this need is not an opposing factor in the manifestation. Also, it's a fun, silly thing that takes the heaviness out of the practice.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 18, 2011 20:12:41 GMT -5
Maybe you can provide us with an example... Every concept was absolutely original the first time it was thought. Infinite potential means precisely that, and it is so because it is not a mind that is thinking. All thoughts are God thoughts, and God has a limited tolerance for boundaries of any kind. Yeah. That's what I was pointing to with the "glurch" example. A glurch comes into existence when it is first conceived as such. I hadn't thought about "the glurch homicide defense," but I think a good lawyer could find that more effective than a "twinkie defense." A jury would be able to sympathize with a glurch killer because everyone knows how frustrating those horrible people can be. LOL. It often appears that some glurches enjoy being glurches; they're the worst kind of all.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2011 20:25:24 GMT -5
Every concept was absolutely original the first time it was thought. Infinite potential means precisely that, and it is so because it is not a mind that is thinking. All thoughts are God thoughts, and God has a limited tolerance for boundaries of any kind. Yeah. That's what I was pointing to with the "glurch" example. A glurch comes into existence when it is first conceived as such. I hadn't thought about "the glurch homicide defense," but I think a good lawyer could find that more effective than a "twinkie defense." A jury would be able to sympathize with a glurch killer because everyone knows how frustrating those horrible people can be. LOL. It often appears that some glurches enjoy being glurches; they're the worst kind of all. Justifiable homicide, no doubt. The only thing that makes the jury hesitate is when the victim is an old lady with blue hair, which happens in most cases of glurchicide.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 18, 2011 21:08:13 GMT -5
Maybe you can provide us with an example... Every concept was absolutely original the first time it was thought. Infinite potential means precisely that, and it is so because it is not a mind that is thinking. All thoughts are God thoughts, and God has a limited tolerance for boundaries of any kind. Every concept has been based upon another concept conceived sequentially in time. When I say original, I mean not based on previous concepts. The concept of space travel was not available to the Neanderthal although conceptually it was a potentiality. The human mind does not make stand alone quantum leaps in conceptualizations. And since all potentialities are available now, why are they not accessible to the human mind conceptually? If there wasn't a human mind thinking, but God's, all potentiality would be available in this moment, but it's not. The challenge is intact. Can you Enigma, come up with an original concept that is not based on previous concepts, that no one else has ever thought of? The reason you can't is what I mean by the limitations of the conceptual mind. Peace
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 18, 2011 22:29:47 GMT -5
Every concept was absolutely original the first time it was thought. Infinite potential means precisely that, and it is so because it is not a mind that is thinking. All thoughts are God thoughts, and God has a limited tolerance for boundaries of any kind. Every concept has been based upon another concept conceived sequentially in time. When I say original, I mean not based on previous concepts. The concept of space travel was not available to the Neanderthal although conceptually it was a potentiality. The human mind does not make stand alone quantum leaps in conceptualizations. And since all potentialities are available now, why are they not accessible to the human mind conceptually? If there wasn't a human mind thinking, but God's, all potentiality would be available in this moment, but it's not. The challenge is intact. Can you Enigma, come up with an original concept that is not based on previous concepts, that no one else has ever thought of? The reason you can't is what I mean by the limitations of the conceptual mind. Peace This is what I mean when I say we think, create, and live like a robot...like an automotron that puts one foot in front of the other on autopilot...you only either cover the same ground over and over or take one step at a time outside your box...and this is a kind of bondage...to be totally free you have to go back to the root...the source of all ideas thoughts and judgments, undo or surrender it all, your whole identity, your whole self...and then having surrendered it and let it all go be concious in the moment before intent thought judgement or ideas are formed...and in this way every moment you are an open concious aware flowing of stillness....in this there is a liberation that cannot be found until everything is undone and surrendered away, like a little death....otherwise you are just putting one foot in front of another in a path that was determined by the first step....so go back to the first step.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 0:18:57 GMT -5
Every concept was absolutely original the first time it was thought. Infinite potential means precisely that, and it is so because it is not a mind that is thinking. All thoughts are God thoughts, and God has a limited tolerance for boundaries of any kind. Every concept has been based upon another concept conceived sequentially in time. When I say original, I mean not based on previous concepts. The concept of space travel was not available to the Neanderthal although conceptually it was a potentiality. The human mind does not make stand alone quantum leaps in conceptualizations. And since all potentialities are available now, why are they not accessible to the human mind conceptually? If there wasn't a human mind thinking, but God's, all potentiality would be available in this moment, but it's not. The challenge is intact. Can you Enigma, come up with an original concept that is not based on previous concepts, that no one else has ever thought of? The reason you can't is what I mean by the limitations of the conceptual mind. Peace I see mind as the formation of limitation itself. Things are imagined, perceived and experienced by constructing conceptual boundaries around infinity, which does not imply that infinite potential is not available, though it may be useful to remember that none of it is subject to your personal will. When i talk about God, I'm not referring to a person who can or can't access infinite potentiality. If God wants something to happen, that's what happens. I'm not referring to a personal God will but rather the movement of the totality of creation. What is seen is that nothing at all blocks this movement. Nothing is opposing it or limiting it. Infinite potential is the case right now. The fact that you personally don't have control over that potential is actually irrelevant. As for your challenge, while you see it as intact, I saw it spin around and turn to butter. An original idea that nobody has thought of is an idea that nobody has thought of rather than one that doesn't involve any concept that was ever imagined before which, even if it were conceptualized, could not be communicated. @ 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.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 1:46:27 GMT -5
No knowledge is ultimately true, only contextually so. Yes, and I think it isn't difficult to understand on a conceptual level. My understanding of this was that this rule is itself a contextual knowledge that one can particiate in or not. As such it would still be a conceptual way of understanding, we could call it contextualism. It can be formalized in notational systems and offers superior capacity because it can potentially contain all forms of logic and contexts, depict their relationality and thereby systematically resolve paradoxes which arise from missing the contextuality of knowledge. But what completely escapes the logician is that there is another way to read it. Your quote can also be read as a pointer towards that which informs conceptual knowledge. Then we have a shift where we not merely organize different forms of logical frameworks into a web of contextuality, but rather pay attention to that from where knowledge is sourced, which isn't conceptual, but real nonetheless, but it looks unreal and unverifiable from within conceptual thought, because it isn't conceptual. I thought this quote from Ramesh might be helpful, or not. He also bashes practice, which is always fun. Hehe. Apperception of the highest Truth is not, and cannot be, a matter of gradual practice. Apperception, in fact, occurs prior to consciousness, which is the basis of intellect. It can only happen by itself, spontaneously and instantaneously. It is not in time, and there are no stages in which deliberate progress is made. Furthermore, there is NO ONE to make any progress.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 2:15:53 GMT -5
That's pretty amazing. Certainly one of the most difficult 'philosophical' (lol) points I have encountered, not because the math is so hard to do, but because it's extremely counterintuitive to conceptual thought. From within conceptual thought the point seems extremely subtle, but it has tremendous implicatons. It hints at the possibility that there is no boundary whatsoever to what can be understood, because understanding is not defined by conceptual boundaries. I think the toughest part here is to understand how understanding can in itself not be taken as a proposition and that a conceptual formulation is merely an expression and a fundamental distortion of the intial understanding and that the expression should indeed only be taken as a pointer. The point is obvious from within understanding but it is difficult to make the point compatible with language because language and logic have too much gravity and at every step of the way sabotage the cause by drawing attention back into a conceptual framework. If we talk about conceptual understanding, which I'm equating to knowledge, it is made up entirely of boundaries much the way a football field is literally defined by pounding goal posts into the ground. Until then, it was a grassy field. Likewise, goalposts are not goalposts until we pound them into the ground to make a football field. They are just metal poles, which are not metal poles until we shape rolled steel into a cylindrical form, etc. All knowledge is formed by imagining a mutually defining pair of opposing polarities. While the process may become obscured because of its exponential nature, the fact remains that everything we know is conceptually imagined into apparent existence in this way, and nowhere is there an absolute foundation for any of it. Everything is defined ONLY by it's polar opposite, which must arise simultaneously and must remain as a free-floating conceptual reference from which it derives it's meaning. This means that every idea, along with it's expression in the form of sensory perception, appears from no-thingness and derives it's meaning from other ideas arising from no-thingness. Hencely, nothing we can think has any ultimate 'reality' beyond the thought itself. No knowledge is ultimately true, only contextually so. Oops! (hehe) If no knowledge is ultimately true, yet is contextually true....what exactly is your definition of 'true' here Mr. E?
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 19, 2011 4:19:49 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 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 11:08:47 GMT -5
If we talk about conceptual understanding, which I'm equating to knowledge, it is made up entirely of boundaries much the way a football field is literally defined by pounding goal posts into the ground. Until then, it was a grassy field. Likewise, goalposts are not goalposts until we pound them into the ground to make a football field. They are just metal poles, which are not metal poles until we shape rolled steel into a cylindrical form, etc. All knowledge is formed by imagining a mutually defining pair of opposing polarities. While the process may become obscured because of its exponential nature, the fact remains that everything we know is conceptually imagined into apparent existence in this way, and nowhere is there an absolute foundation for any of it. Everything is defined ONLY by it's polar opposite, which must arise simultaneously and must remain as a free-floating conceptual reference from which it derives it's meaning. This means that every idea, along with it's expression in the form of sensory perception, appears from no-thingness and derives it's meaning from other ideas arising from no-thingness. Hencely, nothing we can think has any ultimate 'reality' beyond the thought itself. No knowledge is ultimately true, only contextually so. Oops! (hehe) 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.
|
|