|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2012 12:41:58 GMT -5
I'm with portto on this one " All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation." Especially when talking about this stuff. The reason why "If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other" is not always true is because we are using words and meanings which refer to commonly understood objects. Oneness is incomprehensible. It can not be understood. There are no words which can contain it. Then you simply cannot say anything about it. You can't really, mostly because there's nothing to say. But we can say what it is not, which is mostly what happens. The latest contradiction is that Enigma is obsessed with talking about contradictions, except when nothing is talked about but oneness. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2012 12:46:37 GMT -5
Definitions....hmmm. Here are mine - Oneness - the condition/quality/state of being one. Realization - A process by which the idea that 'all is one' is embodied/integrated, and becomes dominant in our reality/experience. Hence why, although there is a connection between understanding and 'realization', they are not the same thing. It is possible to understand something and not 'realize' that understanding. The same applies to seeing. Its quite possible to see, and see again, and see again, and see again, and not 'realize' that seeing. Rezzzzing with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 12:50:47 GMT -5
Assumption: there is a "teaching" But of course there is a teaching! what, where? clear out all teachings, all beliefs? So when you expound on qualia, is that a teaching? Are you a teacher? What's your motivation? Get Rich Through Qualia? It's Qualia, Not Quantity? Get Qualia, Get Enlightened? Or just run of the mill megalomania, or some other psychological disorder? "Oneness is purely conceptual" is a claim. If you are saying that the pointer "the ocean is over there" is also purely conceptual, I'd agree with that claim. If you are saying that it is pointing to nothing, and "nothing" is not being used in the cheeky sense, then how do you prove that? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 13:24:55 GMT -5
Yeah, Enigma has even admitted this. In our empiricism discussion he stated that whatever he is claiming is without any foundation whatsoever. It means empirical evidence is without foundation. It doesn't mean there is no basis for anything discussed here. 'Emprical evidence' is defined perfectly. You're playing dumb when you twist it around into your objectivity/subjectivity nonsense and then claim that empiricism is without foundation because your strawman says so. Aww, he is talking to me again, and he is angry... soo cute! You still have no coherent definition for 'realization'. I have crushed to pieces whatever definition you've come up with so far. And as for oneness... I have said repeatedly that it's just an intellectual tool to deconstruct beliefs in separation, which means that oneness is just an idea, there isn't an actual oneness. So, in effect, 'realizing oneness' is just a myth that you enjoy to confuse people with. If you had some brains then at least you would be making some money off of it, but it looks like your motivation is entirely psychological. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 13:32:13 GMT -5
So when you expound on qualia, is that a teaching? Are you a teacher? What's your motivation? Yes, it is a teaching. My motivation is that I enjoy being right, I enjoy proving people wrong. I'm not a megalomaniac, but I do have plenty of other psychological disorders, and, just for the record, I have to add that I have a very very large penis that makes up for some of those disorders. You can't get rich selling a teaching on qualia, at least I don't know how to do it. "Not Quantity? Get Qualia, Get Enlightened?"... lolwut? Oneness is an axiom, the pointer to oneness doesn't point to nothing, the pointer points to your fancy axiom... it's called circular reasoning. Whenever you believe to 'reside in oneness' or somesuch thing then you're actually enjoying yourself thinking a really fancy thought. You love the thought so much that you don't want to accept it for what it is. Don't be ashamed though, it happens even to the most intelligent of us. The history of science, religion, philosophy, psychology etc is chock-full with geniuses who screwed up just because they couldn't accept that their most precious intuitions were nothing more than brainfarts. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2012 13:34:30 GMT -5
You can't use it. You can't know it. You can only be 'it.' And an 'it' has now been reified. To be fair, I understand that pointing to an 'it' of some kind can be a good thing to do sometimes, even though it is a deluded thing to do. If the pointerer is not comfortable with the delusion of that action, then something aint right. It took me a while to get comfortable with being confused and deluded! I had to be willing to become a fool first. Sorry, it sounds like nonsense and false humility to me. If you're comfy with being confused and deluded, don't be giving nobody no pointers nohow until there's clarity.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 27, 2012 13:35:52 GMT -5
My motivation is that I enjoy being right, I enjoy proving people wrong. Well, at least you admit it. I'll give you that much.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2012 13:40:22 GMT -5
I mean, isn't this entire discussion crazy? In no walk of life would you not get laughed at if when pressured you will seriously argue that you won't explain yourself because definitions are by definition arbitrary. We can explain all we want. It's just never going to expose what we are all actually looking for. Sure, if we could everybody would get it the first time around. There would be an official realization dictionary with the correct definitions to bring about freedom and happiness for all and nobody would laugh at anybody. I don't know why it's so hard to get past the definition nonsense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 13:44:18 GMT -5
I'm not a megalomaniac, but I do have plenty of other psychological disorders, and, just for the record, I have to add that I have a very very large penis that makes up for some of those disorders. I'm sorry, its' the giant hairy balls that do the trick. Do you have those too? Well if I've resided in oneness I wish I would've sent myself a postcard, because I don't remember doing such a thing. I haven't really moved from my agnostic position. Like Pascal's wager, if what is being pointed to is true, what's to lose trying it out? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2012 13:44:29 GMT -5
We can explain all we want. It's just never going to expose what we are all actually looking for. There aint no thing to be exposed. And yet here we are talking as if there is. Its madness. But kinda fun. Never trust a pointerer who isnt happy to admit their delusion in pointing. Never trust a pointerer that thinks they've got it all sewn up. Never trust a pointerererer who admits to being confused and deluded about what he's pointing to. That would be crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 27, 2012 13:46:14 GMT -5
We can explain all we want. It's just never going to expose what we are all actually looking for. Sure, if we could everybody would get it the first time around. There would be an official realization dictionary with the correct definitions to bring about freedom and happiness for all and nobody would laugh at anybody. I don't know why it's so hard to get past the definition nonsense. It's my hypothesis that the reason for the 'definition nonsense' is because peeps don't know what certain words mean, anymore.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 13:48:39 GMT -5
And an 'it' has now been reified. To be fair, I understand that pointing to an 'it' of some kind can be a good thing to do sometimes, even though it is a deluded thing to do. If the pointerer is not comfortable with the delusion of that action, then something aint right. It took me a while to get comfortable with being confused and deluded! I had to be willing to become a fool first. Sorry, it sounds like nonsense and false humility to me. If you're comfy with being confused and deluded, don't be giving nobody no pointers nohow until there's clarity. I would say I am very clear AMIDST the confusion and delusion. I am clear even while I am insanely pointing to something that doesnt exist. And as for false humility, well...I would say that I am parallel skiing but there is always room for more lessons. A question for you then. Can you see the delusion in pointing to something which doesnt exist? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 13:52:28 GMT -5
There aint no thing to be exposed. And yet here we are talking as if there is. Its madness. But kinda fun. Never trust a pointerer who isnt happy to admit their delusion in pointing. Never trust a pointerer that thinks they've got it all sewn up. Never trust a pointerererer who admits to being confused and deluded about what he's pointing to. That would be crazy. I wouldnt trust a pointerer that admits to being confused and deluded about what he is pointing to either. The confusion and delusion is in the pointing itself. Its a total contradiction, yet I dont really care. I just get on with the insanity. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 13:54:18 GMT -5
Sure, if we could everybody would get it the first time around. There would be an official realization dictionary with the correct definitions to bring about freedom and happiness for all and nobody would laugh at anybody. I don't know why it's so hard to get past the definition nonsense. It's my hypothesis that the reason for the 'definition nonsense' is because peeps don't know what certain words mean, anymore. I think 'thought' is turning out to be the most difficult to define, because it means different things at different stages of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2012 13:54:54 GMT -5
Assumption: there is a "teaching" But of course there is a teaching! No, the conclusion is this: since, when inquired about the validity of the teaching the teacher will only give a very complicated and long-winded answer which amounts to 'I ain't got no proof of any kind' then we have every right to be concerned about the validity of not only the teaching by also the teacher. And we can speculate about the motives of this teacher. Usually they are financial, in this case they seem to be psychological. No, what is being referred to is also conceptual. Oneness is purely conceptual. edit: I'm sorry but I'll quit the discussion at this point. This is gonna turn out to be a long thread and I have restrain myself because I have a lot of work to do. If you want to learn about why pointers don't work then listen to Andrew, he understands the issue perfectly. Actually, Andrew claims to be confused and deluded. You speculate about the subversive motives of a teacher who claims to have clarity and embrace a teacher who claims to be confused and deluded. What the concept of oneness points to is not purely conceptual. |
|
