|
Post by silver on Jun 9, 2013 14:42:50 GMT -5
I think he could've chosen some other phrase instead of 'greasy spot' - sounds like he's contemptful of that 'greasy spot' - sounds very yucky. On one hand it's a sort of cultural counterpoint, also embodied quite well by your buddy tzu, to the whole peace-love-understanding-blissful-everything-is-beautiful-hippie-smoke-in crowd and then on the other hand ... it's sort of like a litmus test ... I have no idea what you just implied - to be cuhlear, I don't think Tzu nor I come across as 'to the whole peace-love-understanding-blissful-everything-is-beautiful-hippie-smoke-in crowd' types. I know I'm just me. No labels, please. (I apologize in advance for ever labeling anything around here!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 14:43:36 GMT -5
sounds like he's contemptful of that 'greasy spot' Who knows?, I don't Peace be upon you
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 9, 2013 14:49:57 GMT -5
Greetings.. Just the liars paradox JLU ... just a statement that words and ideas about the ineffable can only point at the ineffable indirectly. I don't see the statement ' nothing is ultimately true' as one that comments on the relationship between words/ideas and an alleged 'ineffable', I see the statement as one that comments specifically on the nature of ideas. The statement uses the idea of an 'ultimate' to talk about the nature of ideas, and this alleged 'ultimate' is posited firmly and fixedly as something more than an idea. This is a direct contradiction to the statement. As a result of this, the nature of ideas is misunderstood, and in the wake of this misunderstanding, the idea of an alleged 'ultimate' becomes a fixed belief/truth. Hi Andrew: welcome for a return visit.. There's another interpretation of the bolded text.. 'nothing', as a description of one's belief about the state of existence, 'is ultimately true'.. allowing the speaker choice of their own interpretation as it suits their desired effect, or just as an internal amusement factor.. Anyway, it's way too much of a mental playground.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 14:50:54 GMT -5
Just the liars paradox JLU ... just a statement that words and ideas about the ineffable can only point at the ineffable indirectly. I don't see the statement 'nothing is ultimately true' as one that comments on the relationship between words/ideas and an alleged 'ineffable', I see the statement as one that comments specifically on the nature of ideas. The statement uses the idea of an 'ultimate' to talk about the nature of ideas, and this alleged 'ultimate' is posited firmly and fixedly as something more than an idea. This is a direct contradiction to the statement. As a result of this, the nature of ideas is misunderstood, and in the wake of this misunderstanding, the idea of an alleged 'ultimate' becomes a fixed belief/truth. Hey Mr. Ang Lican, good to hear from you sir! Yes, we've had this conversation once already ... the way I see it, if you're not concerned with maintaining relative truth, just drop the word "ultimately": "no idea is true" which is very clearly a form of the liars paradox (just add self-reference!), which yes, I have implied, is simply a specific form of a general, and singular paradox, that we can identify as "the ineffable". Our point of disagreement comes into play on the exact semantics and importance of the word "ultimately", and is perhaps obscured by the reasoning between the statement itself and my reply to JLU that led to it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 14:52:29 GMT -5
On one hand it's a sort of cultural counterpoint, also embodied quite well by your buddy tzu, to the whole peace-love-understanding-blissful-everything-is-beautiful-hippie-smoke-in crowd and then on the other hand ... it's sort of like a litmus test ... I have no idea what you just implied - to be cuhlear, I don't think Tzu nor I come across as 'to the whole peace-love-understanding-blissful-everything-is-beautiful-hippie-smoke-in crowd' types. I know I'm just me. No labels, please. (I apologize in advance for ever labeling anything around here!) I didn't say you were part of that crowd, what I said was that tzu embodies the same type of counterpoint to it as E's "greasy-spot" wise-crack moniker.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 9, 2013 15:02:18 GMT -5
I don't see the statement 'nothing is ultimately true' as one that comments on the relationship between words/ideas and an alleged 'ineffable', I see the statement as one that comments specifically on the nature of ideas. The statement uses the idea of an 'ultimate' to talk about the nature of ideas, and this alleged 'ultimate' is posited firmly and fixedly as something more than an idea. This is a direct contradiction to the statement. As a result of this, the nature of ideas is misunderstood, and in the wake of this misunderstanding, the idea of an alleged 'ultimate' becomes a fixed belief/truth. Hey Mr. Ang Lican, good to hear from you sir! Yes, we've had this conversation once already ... the way I see it, if you're not concerned with maintaining relative truth, just drop the word "ultimately": "no idea is true" which is very clearly a form of the liars paradox (just add self-reference!), which yes, I have implied, is simply a specific form of a general, and singular paradox, that we can identify as "the ineffable". Our point of disagreement comes into play on the exact semantics and importance of the word "ultimately", and is perhaps obscured by the reasoning between the statement itself and my reply to JLU that led to it. 'No idea is true' would be an accurate form of liars paradox, however, it is not quite accurate as a statement on the nature of ideas. To use the form you gave, an accurate statement might be 'no idea is true, unless it is'. By the way, that wasn't actually me church licking hehe. After reading some of the comments here I began to wonder if peeps really did think that that dude was me. Not that there is anything wrong with church licking if that floats your boat.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 15:10:47 GMT -5
Hey Mr. Ang Lican, good to hear from you sir! Yes, we've had this conversation once already ... the way I see it, if you're not concerned with maintaining relative truth, just drop the word "ultimately": "no idea is true" which is very clearly a form of the liars paradox (just add self-reference!), which yes, I have implied, is simply a specific form of a general, and singular paradox, that we can identify as "the ineffable". Our point of disagreement comes into play on the exact semantics and importance of the word "ultimately", and is perhaps obscured by the reasoning between the statement itself and my reply to JLU that led to it. 'No idea is true' would be an accurate form of liars paradox, however, it is not quite accurate as a statement on the nature of ideas. To use the form you gave, an accurate statement might be 'no idea is true, unless it is'. By the way, that wasn't actually me church licking hehe. After reading some of the comments here I began to wonder if peeps really did think that that dude was me. Not that there is anything wrong with church licking if that floats your boat. ahhh! Max was putting us on ... should have known better! <tmt> So .... what is this concept of "accuracy" that you are seem to be invoking that is apparently untethered from the notion of truth? </tmt>
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 9, 2013 15:12:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. I don't see the statement ' nothing is ultimately true' as one that comments on the relationship between words/ideas and an alleged 'ineffable', I see the statement as one that comments specifically on the nature of ideas. The statement uses the idea of an 'ultimate' to talk about the nature of ideas, and this alleged 'ultimate' is posited firmly and fixedly as something more than an idea. This is a direct contradiction to the statement. As a result of this, the nature of ideas is misunderstood, and in the wake of this misunderstanding, the idea of an alleged 'ultimate' becomes a fixed belief/truth. Hi Andrew: welcome for a return visit.. There's another interpretation of the bolded text.. 'nothing', as a description of one's belief about the state of existence, 'is ultimately true'.. allowing the speaker choice of their own interpretation as it suits their desired effect, or just as an internal amusement factor.. Anyway, it's way too much of a mental playground.. Be well.. I support the idea of choosing interpretations.... I interpret what you said there as the idea that existence is empty of inherent meaning and we are therefore free to apply the meaning/interpretation we choose. Am I interpreting you satisfactorily?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 9, 2013 15:47:28 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Andrew: welcome for a return visit.. There's another interpretation of the bolded text.. 'nothing', as a description of one's belief about the state of existence, 'is ultimately true'.. allowing the speaker choice of their own interpretation as it suits their desired effect, or just as an internal amusement factor.. Anyway, it's way too much of a mental playground.. Be well.. I support the idea of choosing interpretations.... I interpret what you said there as the idea that existence is empty of inherent meaning and we are therefore free to apply the meaning/interpretation we choose. Am I interpreting you satisfactorily? No, but it is of no consequence.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 9, 2013 15:57:36 GMT -5
'No idea is true' would be an accurate form of liars paradox, however, it is not quite accurate as a statement on the nature of ideas. To use the form you gave, an accurate statement might be 'no idea is true, unless it is'. By the way, that wasn't actually me church licking hehe. After reading some of the comments here I began to wonder if peeps really did think that that dude was me. Not that there is anything wrong with church licking if that floats your boat. ahhh! Max was putting us on ... should have known better! <tmt> So .... what is this concept of "accuracy" that you are seem to be invoking that is apparently untethered from the notion of truth? </tmt> 'Accuracy' is indeed tethered to 'truth', but I have no issue with engaging with dualities such as accuracy/inaccuracy, truth/falsity, correctness/incorrectness. As you are aware I'm sure, the moment we speak meaningfully we are engaging with those dualities, and I don't often have an issue with that. In my perspective, there can be truth and there can be falsity, there can be both and there can be neither. Its not clear cut (unless it is) though this seeming confusion has its own quality of clear cuttedness. Although the statement 'no idea is true' is self-referencing, I'm not sure it quite points to absolute subjectivity. I might be wrong, but I thought Max understood that the dude was not me, but maybe what I said as a response lent to the idea that I am a church licker hehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 16:19:42 GMT -5
Hehehe yeah, "I don't know, and being cool with not knowing"....seems to collapse everything down to that greasy lil spot that Enigma talks about. cept it doesn't seem "greasy", and I can't actually identify a "spot"<capt_obvious>Well you see you kind of just did right there by speaking </capt_obvious> It's what Bluenigma mean when they ask you "do you know you exist?" and there's a really comic version of this that happens when tzu tells enigma that he just made a choice to say that there is no volitional person. LoL
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jun 9, 2013 17:09:47 GMT -5
Our ego likes to stay in control of our lives. Most of the time our ego can hide our true intent from us. It takes time for us to learn how to check our intent. Learning to check our true intent is part of doing our personal clearing work which will allow us to end our inner conflict, which allows us to fully awaken and enter into non-duality consciousness. And that is as close as we can get to innocence. What axchuly is nonduality consciousness? Duality consciousness are like a main operating format for a computer, nonduality consciousness is just another main operating format. Duality consciousness is the format that 99.9999999999999999999% or so of us use to interact with this world that we live in. This is the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It keeps us asleep and cut off from all of creation. Duality consciousness is why we only use a small percentage of our brain, it is also why our brain is split in half. Our psychic abilities are very weak because of duality consciousness. People who reach enlightenment use nonduality consciousness as the main operating format for their brain. Their psychic abilities open up, they become healers, and no one can keep secrets from them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 17:16:49 GMT -5
How is what possible to function that-a-way? What? It's not knowledge that has oppressed man, but ignorance, by which i mean false knowledge; illusion, self delusion. I see that knowledge and ignorance go hand in hand. Meaning that you can't oppress people or have the ability for humanities destruction without it...
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 9, 2013 18:29:28 GMT -5
Greetings.. What axchuly is nonduality consciousness? Duality consciousness are like a main operating format for a computer, nonduality consciousness is just another main operating format. Duality consciousness is the format that 99.9999999999999999999% or so of us use to interact with this world that we live in. This is the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It keeps us asleep and cut off from all of creation. Duality consciousness is why we only use a small percentage of our brain, it is also why our brain is split in half. Our psychic abilities are very weak because of duality consciousness. People who reach enlightenment use nonduality consciousness as the main operating format for their brain. Their psychic abilities open up, they become healers, and no one can keep secrets from them. Why would you believe those ideas? Those are beliefs about what 'is'.. and what 'is' is not derived by beliefs in duality or nonduality.. you're getting attached to the beliefs confusion, where everybody has 'their own' beliefs and want their own beliefs to be 'the right' beliefs, but.. some other people's beliefs seem okay, too, and that's confusing when you want your beliefs to 'the right beliefs'.. don't get stuck in beliefs, just pay attention to what is actually happening and you will see beliefs for the illusions that they are.. for example: I know people that believe that all is one (nonduality), but.. contrary to your belief, " no one can keep secrets from them", i ask questions like "what is the subject of the picture immediately to my right", which is not even a secret, and.. they can't answer. you express the 'belief' that "no one can keep secrets from them", but that's not what actually is happening. it's your belief.. keeping a clear awareness about the claims people make, and the ways people use language to create illusions that entice beliefs, are useful ways to understand our relationships with the Life we are living and the existence we are living in.. the example i use is simple and the simplicity annoys people that want to create illusions with language and word-games, but.. the first rule of actuality, is being able to back-up claims without resorting to unverifiable conditions.. actuality is not conditional. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 19:55:03 GMT -5
Hehehe yeah, "I don't know, and being cool with not knowing"....seems to collapse everything down to that greasy lil spot that Enigma talks about. cept it doesn't seem "greasy", and I can't actually identify a "spot"<capt_obvious>Well you see you kind of just did right there by speaking </capt_obvious> It's what Bluenigma mean when they ask you "do you know you exist?" and there's a really comic version of this that happens when tzu tells enigma that he just made a choice to say that there is no volitional person. Seems that the mind's tendency is to move to more and more spacious ideas....we come to the idea that "I am everything" or that there is Universal Oneness as Existance....but that's still not a spacious enough of an idea, so we go to ""I do not exist, and nothing exists" and that there is no volition, no doing, which seems to be the most spacious idea.....so far. Kinda like we keep buying bigger and bigger houses that are increasingly sparsely furnished. "A" says his house is the best because it includes all of Existence and all activity (it's the BIG party house) , "B" says his house is the best because its the biggest and is utterly empty of everything and everyone and all activity, it's the chill house, full of peace. For the mystics out there, "A's" house is the house of Tantra (an all inclusion), and "B's" house is the house of Yoga (an all exclusion). It's just all ideas though, things that people "know". I don't know any of that though, not even whether what I just typed is true or false. ;-)
|
|