|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 15:29:18 GMT -5
We can't go very far exploring this without some actual insight beyond the thoughts dictated by your conditioning, and yes I know you believe your insight is superior to that of others here, and therein lies the problemo. Obviously Tzu doesn't need any help here, but that last sentence could be reflected right back at you, eh? What you call individuated perspectives might be called separate perspectives by others. For the purposes of discussing nondual philosophy/theory, the word 'separate' has garnered a technical definition with specific boundaries. Tzu does not accept the theory or the boundaries given to some of it's terms. Methinks part of the issue is this. Fine with me if somebody wants to talk about separate perspectives. It's when we start talking about separate, volitional persons that I have disagreement. I've been hyper clear that there is no such thang and Tzu has been hyper clear that there is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 13, 2013 15:30:43 GMT -5
How can ambiguity escape the turn of the wheel? If everything is ambiguous, then nothing is. Right, ambiguous needs a non-ambiguous reference. Noticing that ideas are essentially imagination doesn't necessarily result in the uncertainty of not knowing whether something is true or not. It is whatever it is as defined within that imagined contextual structure, which may or may not be known. Is it true that it's Thursday in the US? The correct answer is not 'Gosh, I don't know, and I don't know that I don't know, and it's all an ambiguous paradox'. The correct answer is yes, it's true. It is not, however, true in other parts of the world, and it's also not some divinely ordained truth beyond these imagined structures of ideas. In a larger context, time itself is seen as an illusion, which doesn't make Thursday false, it makes it irrelevant. Let's that that practical example. I have no issue at all with saying that its true that it's Thursday in the US (and UK). But I am not invested in the 'truth' of that idea. NOT because I think ideas are not ultimately true, but because I have a) realized the absolutely subjective nature of ideas/things and b) I have released the need to buy into the truth/falsity of ideas. I have no need or interest in collapsing ideas down to an alleged 'ultimate'. Okay, so maybe I'm not totally free of conditioned need and fear, but that's okay, and just because I'm not totally free doesn't make my argument wrong. And there is little interest here in trying to NOT know stuff when knowing stuff happens. Someone asks me whether its Thursday and I say 'yes'. Simple. Unless I am on a spiritual forum and trying to illustrate the absolutely subjective nature of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 15:32:25 GMT -5
everyone else has...... story..... that says more about the storyteller than the character. lol Nicely put......where does the following factor into this?: As I see it, you live almost entirely in a fantasy world of your mind, projecting outward everything that you know yourself to be within, and which you have no way of avoiding. I'm about as inclined to play dueling stories as I am the mirror game. Neither game can go anywhere, can it?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 13, 2013 15:37:26 GMT -5
Obviously Tzu doesn't need any help here, but that last sentence could be reflected right back at you, eh? What you call individuated perspectives might be called separate perspectives by others. For the purposes of discussing nondual philosophy/theory, the word 'separate' has garnered a technical definition with specific boundaries. Tzu does not accept the theory or the boundaries given to some of it's terms. Methinks part of the issue is this. Fine with me if somebody wants to talk about separate perspectives. It's when we start talking about separate, volitional persons that I have disagreement. I've been hyper clear that there is no such thang and Tzu has been hyper clear that there is. That's interesting. The idea of there being separate perspectives works okay with you?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 15:46:46 GMT -5
Obviously Tzu doesn't need any help here, but that last sentence could be reflected right back at you, eh? What you call individuated perspectives might be called separate perspectives by others. For the purposes of discussing nondual philosophy/theory, the word 'separate' has garnered a technical definition with specific boundaries. Tzu does not accept the theory or the boundaries given to some of it's terms. Methinks part of the issue is this. yeah....there seems to be a defending of positionalities, or perspectives. I use to defend a similar perspective that TZU is now, but now I'm closer to Enigma's view in my most common personal experience.....seems to me that ALL that exists is God with no individuation.....but that's largely because I spend most of my time only having ONE definition for every phenomena, and that ONE definition is GOD....Only God everywhere but it seems obvious to me that this is a perspective that I have adopted, and does not negate or invalidate TZU's or Enigma's perspective " that separation exists within wholeness", or Enigma's view that " Experience occurs within non-existence". (it's remarkable how close those perspectives actually are really, when said side by side like that :-)) Whether I agree or disagree with either of those depends on context and word definitions. What I've said is there's no separate, volitional person. The perspective that truth is whatever you decide it is, whatever perspective you happen to take, is one of those delusions. If you were right about that, what would be the point of offering your perspective?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 15:54:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. We can't go very far exploring this without some actual insight beyond the thoughts dictated by your conditioning, and yes I know you believe your insight is superior to that of others here, and therein lies the problemo. Oneness doesn't deny the presence of individuated perspectives that can form the basis of communication and change. That's what experiencing is, but experience happening doesn't mean there is a separate, volitional experiencer. There is only existence itself(intelligence, being, whatever) experiencing every perspective. It doesn't mean a particular individuated perspective can know what the picture is over your left shoulder (personally, I think it's a velvet Elvis), nor does it mean it's impossible or pointless to communicate with another perspective. There is no contradiction. Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion. We can't go very far exploring this if you're going to create illusions with prejudicial misrepresentations about my thoughts and character.. that would be like me saying: you hold onto your beliefs about oneness like a child holds onto their security blanket, because you're terrorized of actual liberation, terrorized of not having some guru self-image.. Oneness is a thought/idea that people use to wrap-up reality with so they can make-up stories about it.. stories like: "Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion".. you say it, but there's no 'oneness', you say it's a 'pointer', but it only points to your belief that your idea is true.. you say "separation is an illusion", and try to invalidate the evidence to the contrary, but the evidence is self-evident and so you say words that represent beliefs, but which have no meaning apart from the belief .. i see no sincerity in you exploring what is actually happening, you are here yo defend your beliefs.. i.e.: "Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion."Aside from any other snake-oil salesman's claim that it's not true the non-believer because 'you don't believe', or because 'you haven't had the realization' that the rest of the superior oneness disciples have had.. aside from 'man-behind-the-curtain' claims, what 'is' oneness other than an idea? why do you see and experience separate volitional entities functioning as a collective whole, and feel compelled to attach to an 'idea' that is conjured-up to describe the belief you 'want' to believe? then, feel threatened enough to create illusions to defend the beliefs? you 'are' a separate volitional person functioning with others as collective whole.. you 'can' exist apart from the conditioning.. snowflake, ocean, water.. Be well.. You (Tzu) ARE conditioning only. Not only can you not exist apart from conditioning, you don't exist with it. There is just the belief that you do, and it's not even 'your' belief.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 15:59:20 GMT -5
Yes. No. Not sure what you mean by foundation, but no, I think not. No. Can't do much more than collapse it into a little greasy spot. Of course it doesn't. How can truth/falsity be outside of ideas? The picture painting that Figs does, and your mental spinning about what others are thinking/saying/needing, seem to be like Yin and Yang versions of the same process of mis-characterization. The need to make certain peeps wrong seems to be the motivation. Firstly, truth/falsity may OR may not be outside of ideas. It can be seen that it is inside of ideas (as you see yourself), but that doesn't mean that it is NOT outside of ideas. It MAY be. It MAY not be. The 2 key words that undermine truth/falsity are 'maybe' and 'possibly'. Secondly, 'nothing is ultimately true' does posit a fixed ultimate. Even if you say that its not ultimately true that 'nothing is ultimately true', there is still a fixed ultimate. Undermining truth/falsity is not about collapsing truth/falsity into an alleged 'greasy spot' (which is really the same as 'ultimate'), because in order to do that, it has to be held to be true that there is a 'greasy spot'! Therefore truth/falsity is not undermined. Undermining truth/falsity is about recognizing that ideas/things are absolutely subjective i.e. subjective/relative to the degree that even that subjectivity/relativity is subjective/relative! Yes, there is a movement here right now to show you that you are wrong! There really is no such movement here. As Wren says: Be Clear...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 16:01:16 GMT -5
yeah....there seems to be a defending of positionalities, or perspectives. I use to defend a similar perspective that TZU is now, but now I'm closer to Enigma's view in my most common personal experience.....seems to me that ALL that exists is God with no individuation.....but that's largely because I spend most of my time only having ONE definition for every phenomena, and that ONE definition is GOD....Only God everywhere but it seems obvious to me that this is a perspective that I have adopted, and does not negate or invalidate TZU's or Enigma's perspective " that separation exists within wholeness", or Enigma's view that " Experience occurs within non-existence". (it's remarkable how close those perspectives actually are really, when said side by side like that :-)) Whether I agree or disagree with either of those depends on context and word definitions. What I've said is there's no separate, volitional person. The perspective that truth is whatever you decide it is, whatever perspective you happen to take, is one of those delusions. If you were right about that, what would be the point of offering your perspective? Haha, I'll answer that question with a question: What's the point of CREATION? From my perspective, those two are really the same Question, and I don't have an answer for it. Do you? As an aside, I'm less and less inclined to offer a perspective these days, every time I do, and every time I see one offered, it DOES seem sorta pointless. :-) Many of the posts I start here never get posted, because they kinda collapse as "pointless" before I finish lol
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jun 13, 2013 16:02:40 GMT -5
What if we replace "No idea is ultimately true" with "Nothing lasts forever" ? Any chance the word-lawyers will be more lenient with it? In terms of talking about ideas, no, it doesn't work. There has to be a clear self-recursion that points to absolute subjectivity. Absolute subjectivity doesn't last forever!
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 13, 2013 16:08:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. We can't go very far exploring this if you're going to create illusions with prejudicial misrepresentations about my thoughts and character.. that would be like me saying: you hold onto your beliefs about oneness like a child holds onto their security blanket, because you're terrorized of actual liberation, terrorized of not having some guru self-image.. Oneness is a thought/idea that people use to wrap-up reality with so they can make-up stories about it.. stories like: "Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion".. you say it, but there's no 'oneness', you say it's a 'pointer', but it only points to your belief that your idea is true.. you say "separation is an illusion", and try to invalidate the evidence to the contrary, but the evidence is self-evident and so you say words that represent beliefs, but which have no meaning apart from the belief .. i see no sincerity in you exploring what is actually happening, you are here yo defend your beliefs.. i.e.: "Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion."Aside from any other snake-oil salesman's claim that it's not true the non-believer because 'you don't believe', or because 'you haven't had the realization' that the rest of the superior oneness disciples have had.. aside from 'man-behind-the-curtain' claims, what 'is' oneness other than an idea? why do you see and experience separate volitional entities functioning as a collective whole, and feel compelled to attach to an 'idea' that is conjured-up to describe the belief you 'want' to believe? then, feel threatened enough to create illusions to defend the beliefs? you 'are' a separate volitional person functioning with others as collective whole.. you 'can' exist apart from the conditioning.. snowflake, ocean, water.. Be well.. You (Tzu) ARE conditioning only. Not only can you not exist apart from conditioning, you don't exist with it. There is just the belief that you do, and it's not even 'your' belief. If "Tzu" is conditioning only, then what is the not-"Tzu" that is being conditioned?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 13, 2013 16:08:39 GMT -5
yeah....there seems to be a defending of positionalities, or perspectives. I use to defend a similar perspective that TZU is now, but now I'm closer to Enigma's view in my most common personal experience.....seems to me that ALL that exists is God with no individuation.....but that's largely because I spend most of my time only having ONE definition for every phenomena, and that ONE definition is GOD....Only God everywhere but it seems obvious to me that this is a perspective that I have adopted, and does not negate or invalidate TZU's or Enigma's perspective " that separation exists within wholeness", or Enigma's view that " Experience occurs within non-existence". (it's remarkable how close those perspectives actually are really, when said side by side like that :-)) Whether I agree or disagree with either of those depends on context and word definitions. What I've said is there's no separate, volitional person. The perspective that truth is whatever you decide it is, whatever perspective you happen to take, is one of those delusions. If you were right about that, what would be the point of offering your perspective? I see what steve said as correct, and what you said as correct, which is a contradiction, but then the human experience comes with contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jun 13, 2013 16:11:04 GMT -5
What if we replace "No idea is ultimately true" with "Nothing lasts forever" ? Any chance the word-lawyers will be more lenient with it? We would have to negotiate a plea bargain, and that could take months, but we could set the wheels in motion. It looks like the chief prosecutor has already rejected the plea...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 16:13:30 GMT -5
Nicely put......where does the following factor into this?: I'm about as inclined to play dueling stories as I am the mirror game. Neither game can go anywhere, can it? And yet, you seem to be the chief tour guide, with folks like me and TZU coming along every year or so vying for the position lol THANK YOU for not allowing me to take on that role, and TZU, be careful what you wish for!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 13, 2013 16:14:51 GMT -5
Firstly, truth/falsity may OR may not be outside of ideas. It can be seen that it is inside of ideas (as you see yourself), but that doesn't mean that it is NOT outside of ideas. It MAY be. It MAY not be. The 2 key words that undermine truth/falsity are 'maybe' and 'possibly'. Secondly, 'nothing is ultimately true' does posit a fixed ultimate. Even if you say that its not ultimately true that 'nothing is ultimately true', there is still a fixed ultimate. Undermining truth/falsity is not about collapsing truth/falsity into an alleged 'greasy spot' (which is really the same as 'ultimate'), because in order to do that, it has to be held to be true that there is a 'greasy spot'! Therefore truth/falsity is not undermined. Undermining truth/falsity is about recognizing that ideas/things are absolutely subjective i.e. subjective/relative to the degree that even that subjectivity/relativity is subjective/relative! Yes, there is a movement here right now to show you that you are wrong! There really is no such movement here. I can believe that, though I don't believe that's always the case.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 16:30:39 GMT -5
Right, ambiguous needs a non-ambiguous reference. Noticing that ideas are essentially imagination doesn't necessarily result in the uncertainty of not knowing whether something is true or not. It is whatever it is as defined within that imagined contextual structure, which may or may not be known. Is it true that it's Thursday in the US? The correct answer is not 'Gosh, I don't know, and I don't know that I don't know, and it's all an ambiguous paradox'. The correct answer is yes, it's true. It is not, however, true in other parts of the world, and it's also not some divinely ordained truth beyond these imagined structures of ideas. In a larger context, time itself is seen as an illusion, which doesn't make Thursday false, it makes it irrelevant. Let's that that practical example. I have no issue at all with saying that its true that it's Thursday in the US (and UK). But I am not invested in the 'truth' of that idea. NOT because I think ideas are not ultimately true, but because I have a) realized the absolutely subjective nature of ideas/things I'm not sure what you mean here by absolutely subjective. It's not just your personal opinion that it's Thursday. It really is Thursday. If you have an important appointment on Thursday, it might be wise to buy into the truth that today is Thursday. In the context of your appointment, I swear to the Holy Hippo that it really IS Thursday. I don't either. I don't even know what that would look like. No, it's wrong for lots of other reasons that have nothing to do with how free you are.
|
|