|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2013 3:03:03 GMT -5
Ya know, there's this buddy o' mine, with whom my other buddies and I go to the horse races on occasion. Any more, I don't even presume to know anything about how to bet horses, because this guy knows horses, and how to bet them. So, the common question we now ALL ask him before we make a bet is, 'okay, what's my bet, Sam?' Maybe I can do the same thing here amongst y'all, but instead, just ask, 'okay, what concept am I clinging to?' Pascals wager ain't one thats subject to a fix or an edge from the saavy. The odds are way too long for that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 3:03:49 GMT -5
Nothing so transcendental, from my perspective. If I imagine a Germidgepillion, and then the thought occurs as to whether or not it is carnivorous, the question is misconceived and therefore has no answer. No amount of research or wisdom, from whatever source, can possibly reveal the actual dietary habits of an imaginary creature. It can only lead to more imagination. As it so happens, all existential questions, all queries that cross the contextual boundaries of dualistic experience, fall into the same category of misconception because all questions are, by definition, constricted to the context of duality. Duality itself is a Germidgepillion; a creature of the imagination. What am I? What is God? Why is there life? Cannot be answered. Not because the answer cannot be known, but because the question does not apply to anything outside the imagination of man. There are no answers because the questions make no sense. This is what it means to say nothing is ultimately true. It is also what it means to say I know nothing. Some examples: What am I? Spirit in human form, a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality, God individuated. What is spirit? What does infinite love mean? Who created the creator? What does it mean for infinite love to want to experience itself? Does he also want itself to suffer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 3:04:12 GMT -5
I understand that all language is conceptual. Even these words now are neurally registered and breathed into life by your own, breathing. Do away with the idea that you have difficulty understanding metaphor, all that's happening is that the concept that the word stands for isn't familiar to you. "It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from" ~ Another way to say this, is that, thought is suspended when faced with the primal intelligence that birthed it. Everything is trying to lead you back to the source of thought, because you have asked for it to be done. Nothing so transcendental, from my perspective. If I imagine a Germidgepillion, and then the thought occurs as to whether or not it is carnivorous, the question is misconceived and therefore has no answer. No amount of research or wisdom, from whatever source, can possibly reveal the actual dietary habits of an imaginary creature. It can only lead to more imagination. As it so happens, all existential questions, all queries that cross the contextual boundaries of dualistic experience, fall into the same category of misconception because all questions are, by definition, constricted to the context of duality. Duality itself is a Germidgepillion; a creature of the imagination. What am I? What is God? Why is there life? Cannot be answered. Not because the answer cannot be known, but because the question does not apply to anything outside the imagination of man. There are no answers because the questions make no sense. This is what it means to say nothing is ultimately true. It is also what it means to say I know nothing. Answers like, God is Absolute Beingness, or My Love is Infinite, I can now see, was imagination. Though during a funeral, when the vicar was talking about spirit and the natural body. My hands moved, and the word Tao came through the body. This I'll take as true.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 3:05:41 GMT -5
Some examples: What am I? Spirit in human form, a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality, God individuated. What is God? Infinite Love, Creator, Creation and Created. Why is there life? So that God can experience Itself. These are your answers? In what context do you give them? Are these answers that you find when you're presented with the question or answers that come to mind as useful to point in certain circumstances? He's describing the dietary habits of the Germidgepillion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 3:07:38 GMT -5
These are your answers? In what context do you give them? Are these answers that you find when you're presented with the question or answers that come to mind as useful to point in certain circumstances? They're just the first answers the popped into my head. It was very simple to answer them, I see no misconception in those questions. And therein lies the problem in Andrew-mind-world.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2013 3:11:02 GMT -5
These are your answers? In what context do you give them? Are these answers that you find when you're presented with the question or answers that come to mind as useful to point in certain circumstances? He's describing the dietary habits of the Germidgepillion. His answers preview a future WOD in that they suggest to me that his Pascals wager would be that his jihad against your stuckoness in beliefiness is nothing more than an ameteurjection. Andrew -- yes I know it's rude to speak about you rather than to you ... consider yourself spoken to!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 28, 2013 3:12:55 GMT -5
Some examples: What am I? Spirit in human form, a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality, God individuated. What is spirit? What does infinite love mean? Who created the creator? What does it mean for infinite love to want to experience itself? Does he also want itself to suffer? This seems as good a resource as any on the subject of 'spirit'...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit By definition, the Creator is the Creator of All That is, so there is no Creator of the Creator. If there is suffering, then God experiences itself through that too, yes. Got any more?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2013 3:13:41 GMT -5
Some examples: What am I? Spirit in human form, a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality, God individuated. What is spirit? What does infinite love mean? Who created the creator? What does it mean for infinite love to want to experience itself? Does he also want itself to suffer?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2013 3:14:53 GMT -5
What is spirit? What does infinite love mean? Who created the creator? What does it mean for infinite love to want to experience itself? Does he also want itself to suffer? This seems as good a resource as any on the subject of 'spirit'...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit By definition, the Creator is the Creator of All That is, so there is no Creator of the Creator. If there is suffering, then God experiences itself through that too, yes. Got any more? <snipe> (*** contains certainty ***) </snipe>
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 28, 2013 3:15:14 GMT -5
These are your answers? In what context do you give them? Are these answers that you find when you're presented with the question or answers that come to mind as useful to point in certain circumstances? He's describing the dietary habits of the Germidgepillion. No, assuming there is such a thing (and if everything imaginable exists, then it does), I currently can't say what the dietary habits are without more information.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 28, 2013 3:18:44 GMT -5
They're just the first answers the popped into my head. It was very simple to answer them, I see no misconception in those questions. And therein lies the problem in Andrew-mind-world. Seems to me that you deal with existential questions by saying 'it is misconceived'. Its a nice way to shut mind up, that's true, but I'm not afraid of mind. There may be some misconceived existential questions (i.e misconceived in the way that a calculator will say N/A when it is asked to do something it can't do), but I can't come up with any obvious ones. Give me some more examples and I will try and answer them for you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 28, 2013 3:20:18 GMT -5
He's describing the dietary habits of the Germidgepillion. His answers preview a future WOD in that they suggest to me that his Pascals wager would be that his jihad against your stuckoness in beliefiness is nothing more than an ameteurjection. Andrew -- yes I know it's rude to speak about you rather than to you ... consider yourself spoken to! Its okay, I don't really understand what you said anyway.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2013 3:20:28 GMT -5
He's describing the dietary habits of the Germidgepillion. No, assuming there is such a thing (and if everything imaginable exists, then it does), I currently can't say what the dietary habits are without more information. The dry subtlety of English humor is often lost on us in the states.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 28, 2013 3:20:45 GMT -5
This seems as good a resource as any on the subject of 'spirit'...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit By definition, the Creator is the Creator of All That is, so there is no Creator of the Creator. If there is suffering, then God experiences itself through that too, yes. Got any more? <snipe> (*** contains certainty ***) </snipe> Yes, the experience of certainty happens here sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 3:22:14 GMT -5
I know that you have refused all attempts to engage you on a personal level. I know that you do not approve of the personal approach in this venue. I know that you believe I approach others with unconscious motivations and projections. I know that you started a thread with the intention of encouraging those who engage the personal approach to reveal their own personal dynamics, effectively reflecting back the process to them. I further speculate that you suspected these people would resist the intrusion much the same way you have, and therefore might learn something that you suppose they did not know before, perhaps even altering their behavior. So again, do you feel i have adequately learned the lesson you started this thread to teach? If not, we can continue the lesson. Hi enigma, "I further speculate that you suspected these people would resist the intrusion much the same way you have, and therefore might learn something that you suppose they did not know before, perhaps even altering their behavior". You say "and therefore" as though one follows the other. It is possible to resist something and learn nothing about oneself. A literal word lawyer analysis of the syntactical sentence structure reveals that the resistance implies something being denied and the intrusion allows for the potential for that to be revealed. Yes, that potential does follow from the intrusion. Hey, buddy, yer getting pretty personal with your questions here. So was there a basis of knowledge about you that made my previous comments at least legitimate or not? It consisted mostly of information that you have revealed directly here, and it doesn't take a psychic to discern some of your basic unspoken motivations.
|
|