|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2013 3:07:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. Your 'pterodactyl' is actually a 'red herring'.. " A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.".. Be well.. Andrew's point was presumably that to speak of an 'I' presupposes the actuality of an 'I', which doesn't follow. A lot of things can be spoken of (such as pterodactyls) without presupposing the actuality of what is spoken about. To speak of an 'I' does presuppose the actuality of an 'I', because creating distinctions requires actual 'difference' or 'individuality'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2013 3:32:03 GMT -5
Andrew's point was presumably that to speak of an 'I' presupposes the actuality of an 'I', which doesn't follow. A lot of things can be spoken of (such as pterodactyls) without presupposing the actuality of what is spoken about. To speak of an 'I' does presuppose the actuality of an 'I', because creating distinctions requires actual 'difference' or 'individuality'. The 'difference' is also imagined, just in a different way than you imagine.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2013 3:47:08 GMT -5
To speak of an 'I' does presuppose the actuality of an 'I', because creating distinctions requires actual 'difference' or 'individuality'. The 'difference' is also imagined, just in a different way than you imagine. In order for 'imagining' to be spoken of there has to be difference. Distinctions cannot be made/created without a basis of 'difference'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 6:23:39 GMT -5
If you practice throwing the discus alone, you have to go get it yourself.
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part of hell will break loose and be much harder to detect. - George Carlin.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 20, 2013 10:22:29 GMT -5
Andrew's point was presumably that to speak of an 'I' presupposes the actuality of an 'I', which doesn't follow. A lot of things can be spoken of (such as pterodactyls) without presupposing the actuality of what is spoken about. To speak of an 'I' does presuppose the actuality of an 'I', because creating distinctions requires actual 'difference' or 'individuality'. The actuality of the difference doesn't have to be in the sensed world, it can be in our imagination, the difference in quality is within the realm of our imagination. Furthermore there may be a qualitative distinction possible but the name and concept applied to the distinction goes beyond the observed qualities. What I have found that gets labelled with "I" is the vortex of swirling emotion and thought within the body-mind. If we were to restrict our speech to purely descriptive terms that maximally reflected experienced qualities, would there be the term "I" in usage? Such a restriction in language usage would be highly cumbersome. Pass me that 5cm long white cylindrical tube which contains a spongy fibrous material and has a 7 cm flexible line coming out of one end is a lot more cumbersome than saying "pass me the tampon, please". We can argue as to whether or not calling the swirling mass of thought and emotion with the term "I" is a mistake. Identifying with it is a mistake because that which is doing the identification with is not that which is being identified with. But in most people there is an even deeper mistake, a level mistake, which is to identify the "I" with particular content (stories) within the swirling thoughts and emotions. Calling things by names is not a mistake. Identifying with anything less than the whole is a mistake. Associating the "I" with particular content within the swirling mass of emotions is a mistake. It is a confusion of level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 11:33:56 GMT -5
And for about the gazillionth time, according to your reasoning, nor is the statement you just made. MG ... is the paradox discussion one you've had with Enigma elsewhere? I have never met enigma before, though i think i have some alternative views of paradox than the ones i have read here.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 20, 2013 11:41:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. To speak of an 'I' does presuppose the actuality of an 'I', because creating distinctions requires actual 'difference' or 'individuality'. The actuality of the difference doesn't have to be in the sensed world, it can be in our imagination, the difference in quality is within the realm of our imagination. Furthermore there may be a qualitative distinction possible but the name and concept applied to the distinction goes beyond the observed qualities. What I have found that gets labelled with "I" is the vortex of swirling emotion and thought within the body-mind. If we were to restrict our speech to purely descriptive terms that maximally reflected experienced qualities, would there be the term "I" in usage? Such a restriction in language usage would be highly cumbersome. Pass me that 5cm long white cylindrical tube which contains a spongy fibrous material and has a 7 cm flexible line coming out of one end is a lot more cumbersome than saying "pass me the tampon, please". We can argue as to whether or not calling the swirling mass of thought and emotion with the term "I" is a mistake. Identifying with it is a mistake because that which is doing the identification with is not that which is being identified with. But in most people there is an even deeper mistake, a level mistake, which is to identify the "I" with particular content (stories) within the swirling thoughts and emotions. Calling things by names is not a mistake. Identifying with anything less than the whole is a mistake. Associating the "I" with particular content within the swirling mass of emotions is a mistake. It is a confusion of level. No, it's not a mistake.. you have passed the point of diminishing returns in your academic explorations of what it is to be a physically present human.. there is the inclination among some to sanitize their existence, as the fear of reality motivates a retreat from it.. and, what is the return, the result? it is a pretense against direct experience of 'Now', reaching beyond 'Now' to protect the experiencer from their perceived inability to cope with it.. Stop thinking, BE the experience. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 20, 2013 11:44:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. MG ... is the paradox discussion one you've had with Enigma elsewhere? I have never met enigma before, though i think i have some alternative views of paradox than the ones i have read here.Hi MG: enigma was Phroggy at SF.. were you there during his evangelizing of SF?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2013 11:47:03 GMT -5
To speak of an 'I' does presuppose the actuality of an 'I', because creating distinctions requires actual 'difference' or 'individuality'. The actuality of the difference doesn't have to be in the sensed world, it can be in our imagination, the difference in quality is within the realm of our imagination. Furthermore there may be a qualitative distinction possible but the name and concept applied to the distinction goes beyond the observed qualities. What I have found that gets labelled with "I" is the vortex of swirling emotion and thought within the body-mind. If we were to restrict our speech to purely descriptive terms that maximally reflected experienced qualities, would there be the term "I" in usage? Such a restriction in language usage would be highly cumbersome. Pass me that 5cm long white cylindrical tube which contains a spongy fibrous material and has a 7 cm flexible line coming out of one end is a lot more cumbersome than saying "pass me the tampon, please". We can argue as to whether or not calling the swirling mass of thought and emotion with the term "I" is a mistake. Identifying with it is a mistake because that which is doing the identification with is not that which is being identified with. But in most people there is an even deeper mistake, a level mistake, which is to identify the "I" with particular content (stories) within the swirling thoughts and emotions. Calling things by names is not a mistake. Identifying with anything less than the whole is a mistake. Associating the "I" with particular content within the swirling mass of emotions is a mistake. It is a confusion of level. I would say that its not identifying with something in particular that is a problem, its the need to believe the identification as true that is a problem. I have no problem these days with literally identifying myself to others as Andrew, or to speak of myself as a man, a husband, a father and many other things. What I have also discovered, is that it can be appropriate at times to consciously choose to identify with love, or joy, or light. Where I might agree more obviously/directly with you, is that in the process of releasing attachment to the truth of thoughts, I let go of my want to see myself in particular ways....and in this sense, I identified with both all and nothing. In another sense, it was a release in the need to believe that 'I exist', because by definition, where there is 'I', there is always 'I' and 'you' (twoness). In this sense, 'I' ceased to exist (though obviously this bodymind is functioning fine). In a nutshell, for me, this process has been all about releasing the fear of not having a boundary between 'you' and 'I'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 12:10:57 GMT -5
hey tzu, pull a bill out of your pocket ... its right there on the paper .. e pluribus unum ... "One from many" ;D
Or .. the tao that can be named is not the eternal tao
do you really contend that the eternal is other than One?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 20, 2013 12:29:40 GMT -5
Greetings.. The actuality of the difference doesn't have to be in the sensed world, it can be in our imagination, the difference in quality is within the realm of our imagination. Furthermore there may be a qualitative distinction possible but the name and concept applied to the distinction goes beyond the observed qualities. What I have found that gets labelled with "I" is the vortex of swirling emotion and thought within the body-mind. If we were to restrict our speech to purely descriptive terms that maximally reflected experienced qualities, would there be the term "I" in usage? Such a restriction in language usage would be highly cumbersome. Pass me that 5cm long white cylindrical tube which contains a spongy fibrous material and has a 7 cm flexible line coming out of one end is a lot more cumbersome than saying "pass me the tampon, please". We can argue as to whether or not calling the swirling mass of thought and emotion with the term "I" is a mistake. Identifying with it is a mistake because that which is doing the identification with is not that which is being identified with. But in most people there is an even deeper mistake, a level mistake, which is to identify the "I" with particular content (stories) within the swirling thoughts and emotions. Calling things by names is not a mistake. Identifying with anything less than the whole is a mistake. Associating the "I" with particular content within the swirling mass of emotions is a mistake. It is a confusion of level. No, it's not a mistake.. you have passed the point of diminishing returns in your academic explorations of what it is to be a physically present human.. there is the inclination among some to sanitize their existence, as the fear of reality motivates a retreat from it.. and, what is the return, the result? it is a pretense against direct experience of 'Now', reaching beyond 'Now' to protect the experiencer from their perceived inability to cope with it.. Stop thinking, BE the experience. Be well.. Thank you Tzu for your impression.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 20, 2013 12:33:14 GMT -5
The actuality of the difference doesn't have to be in the sensed world, it can be in our imagination, the difference in quality is within the realm of our imagination. Furthermore there may be a qualitative distinction possible but the name and concept applied to the distinction goes beyond the observed qualities. What I have found that gets labelled with "I" is the vortex of swirling emotion and thought within the body-mind. If we were to restrict our speech to purely descriptive terms that maximally reflected experienced qualities, would there be the term "I" in usage? Such a restriction in language usage would be highly cumbersome. Pass me that 5cm long white cylindrical tube which contains a spongy fibrous material and has a 7 cm flexible line coming out of one end is a lot more cumbersome than saying "pass me the tampon, please". We can argue as to whether or not calling the swirling mass of thought and emotion with the term "I" is a mistake. Identifying with it is a mistake because that which is doing the identification with is not that which is being identified with. But in most people there is an even deeper mistake, a level mistake, which is to identify the "I" with particular content (stories) within the swirling thoughts and emotions. Calling things by names is not a mistake. Identifying with anything less than the whole is a mistake. Associating the "I" with particular content within the swirling mass of emotions is a mistake. It is a confusion of level. I would say that its not identifying with something in particular that is a problem, its the need to believe the identification as true that is a problem. I have no problem these days with literally identifying myself to others as Andrew, or to speak of myself as a man, a husband, a father and many other things. What you call "identify" I call "naming" or "calling". What I call "identify with" you would call "believing the truth of the identification".
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2013 12:41:13 GMT -5
I would say that its not identifying with something in particular that is a problem, its the need to believe the identification as true that is a problem. I have no problem these days with literally identifying myself to others as Andrew, or to speak of myself as a man, a husband, a father and many other things. What you call "identify" I call "naming" or "calling". What I call "identify with" you would call "believing the truth of the identification". yep. I used to define it the way you do and then Neville (from spiritual forums) , in his common sense way, pointed out to me that I am constantly identifying....and it made sense to me. I have no problem with the way that you are defining it though.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 20, 2013 12:48:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. hey tzu, pull a bill out of your pocket ... its right there on the paper .. e pluribus unum ... "One from many" ;D Or .. the tao that can be named is not the eternal tao do you really contend that the eternal is other than One? Who cares, really.. seriously, who cares and why? there is the continuous infinite moment of 'now' happening.. aside from being fully present for this experience, who care about 'nonduality', manyness, Tao, oneness, yada, yada, yada.. get out of the brain-game, get in the real experience of existing.. "Be Here Now".. No, i'm not interested in anybody's 'belief system', that's another distraction.. tell me what you experience, not what you believe 'about' the experience... look at the distraction of Oneness, nonduality, etc.. pages of beliefs.. pffft, waste.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 12:49:18 GMT -5
Personally, i don't give a dingo's kidney about trends. And if you now say that 'all is well', i take that as you now don't have a problem with the spitting you saw, that as long as i remain calm, peaceful and joyful, you will never bothered by anything i do?
EDIT: punctuation, spelling. I never had a problem with your 'spitting'. I was just talking about what I saw. Well i assumed you had a problem with it, in that i interpret your word usage that you consider spitting at others is unacceptable behavior. I back up my conclusion as i too consider spitting on others is norty as i imagine most folk would also think this.
So for future reference, when you speak about something you see me doing, I don't have to do anything different? Or at least till i get a basic understanding of you, if you could specify if you have a complaint or compliment regarding something you see about me or you are just letting me know what you see, as i find it odd that a person would say something about me just for the sake of saying it with no motive for doing so other that letting me know what they see. If you actually have a problem with anything about me, i am all ears. "I'm all ears"..haha, what a funny saying.
Hypomathematical:
Enigma: Hey M-G, i see you have brown hair. M-G: Yes, yes i do, why, do you have problem with me having brown hair? Enigma: No. M-G: Are you saying this because you like my brown hair? Enigma: No. M-G: So you are expressing to me you see i have brown hair just to let me know you can see i have brown hair? Enigma: Yes. M-G: How odd, interestingly odd.
~laughs~ This so reminds me of a scene from Catch 22: The airmen were about to be awarded medals for bombing the ocean instead of the intended target ( long story, watch the movie). Or as Yossarian said while he was trying to pick up a chick at a bar, that he was awarded this medal for blowing up fish.
Anyways...scene... General Dreedle has arrived to award the medals. Airmen come up and recieve their medals, salutes are given and the airmen return to their place, as per usual in medal ceremonies like this.
Captain Yossarian is called up...Yossarian is buck naked. After the shock wears off...
Dreedle: Why arent you wearing clothes...captain? Yossarian(not at all concerned): I don't wanna. Dreedle: Whadaya mean you don't wanna, why the hell don't you? Yossarian: I dunno, i just, heh, don't wanna.
Dreedle, not satisified, asks Yossarian's superiors, who go through a lenghty exchange with lame but valid excuses as to why he is not wearing his uniform.
Dreedle: That sounds like a lot of crap to me. Yossarian: Is it a lot of crap sir. Col. Cathcart: Sir, you have my word for it, this man will be punished severely! Dreedle: What the hell do i care. If he wants to receive a medal without any clothes on, what the hell business is it of yours! Col. Cathcart( groveling): Yes, my sentiments exactly sir. Dreedle: Here's your medal captain...you're a very weird person Yossarian. Yossarian: Thankyou sir.
|
|