|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:00:51 GMT -5
The issue of free will can only arise for a separate person, and there isn't one. So. The realization that the issue of free will is misconceived is based on the assumption that there is no separate person. Or is 'no separate person' another realization? if so, what set of assumptions is that based on? Where do your realizations/assumptions begin? You see? Its all just layers and layers of ideas/assumptions, all defining each other. Its all imaginary (including realizations hehehe). You are asking about a time frame? If you wouldn't feel the need to delineate between rational thought and non-rational thought you wouldn't feel the need to divvy up mind in levels and layers either. It's all your own inside job, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:01:36 GMT -5
I have clearly stated the difference between a realization and a conclusion. A conclusion is an idea that has been fixed objectively. It happens in the rational thinking mind. A realization happens in the non-rational thinking mind. Its still time/space bound. Its still ideation/imagination. Its still Mind. No need to delineate between mental positions or divvying up mind. Isn't that verboten in your ontology anyway? You don't understand what is meant by 'divvying up' and it seems you also don't understand what is meant by adopting a mental position.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 11:03:10 GMT -5
'I am' can be seen through. yes. stop. there. Nothing said, thought, reasoned, synthesized, modified, codified or selectified beyond this is sensical, useful, nobel or either true or false. The sentence embodies a paradox and thinking beyond it is to gun the engine of your car after you've driven off of a cliff. So after leaving the cliff edge, it's best to apply the parking brake?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:03:20 GMT -5
That's only because, for you, realization is a conclusion. No. Crikey. I am saying a realization is an idea.I am saying that you (and Reefs) have turned a realization into a conclusion. That's not what we call 'realization'. We are trying to tell you this for about 30+ pages. You don't seem to be able to accept that. Hencily, talking to you is a waste of bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 11:03:24 GMT -5
What did we say all pointing was again? I just said what it was. Its all just ideas pointing to other ideas. In a way, I can see this as making some sense. 'Neti Neti', I think, is a way that ideas point to other ideas in order to ... cancel them out. Sorta. This would allow for the expansion of Being (not that Being can, or even needs to be, but I have no other way to put that, presently).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:04:54 GMT -5
I have no issue with the idea that realizations can dissolve particular attachments, but the reason that you and Enigma and many others on the spiritual path are still deeply attached, is because of what happens following a realization. At the core, the need to attach has not been released. But you clearly don't know what we are pointing to when we use the term 'realization', as this conversation shows. You treat realizations like conclusions. Which means what you are saying here is only based on false assumptions, unnecessary assumptions you have a hard time letting go of. We are already at page 40! Oh, I do understand what you mean by the term 'realization', and its absurd. You think they are prior to ideation, and are timeless. 'Is all imaginary. Except realizations'. 'Its all being made up. Oh, except for realizations of course'. Its an example of spiritual arrogance at its finest. I treat realizations as ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:06:51 GMT -5
When can you let go of that assumption and stop the conclusions based on that assumption? An idea can only be held onto if it is thought to be true or false. I am saying, its all an assumption (even this). That's is a direct pointer away from truth/falsity. There ain't nothing to hold onto as much as you would like there to be something there for me to hold onto. Well, then brace yourself for a surprise. You are holding onto that 'all is just a play of ideas' tenaciously since you've discovered that phrase somewhere. It seems to be your holy grail or something.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:07:03 GMT -5
You still haven't realized that ''everything is a play of ideas'' i.e. that no idea is necessarily true or false. I don't see you realizing that anytime soon either. You mean I haven't concluded that. Yes, that's right, hehe. It cannot be 'concluded' by definition. I don't know, maybe you just cannot get this.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:08:13 GMT -5
Well, guess what, your broken idea record sounds pretty much fixed, stuck and concluded. I'd say it's high time you question it like everything else. Or is that your holy cow? When it has been realized that no idea is necessarily true or false, there is nothing else to question. You have not realized that. That can be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 11:08:23 GMT -5
That's pretty good word lawyering as you call it. But in reality the word "realization" in the story points to a sudden illumination that is experienced in time and space. As long as there is a body/mind such sudden illumination is always experienced in time and space, and often followed by a great outburst of laughter To mind, everything appears as an experience, including a realization, but you are not mind and so there is the possibility of noticing that the realization itself does not occur in time. (Which is a realization about realization) What occurs in time are the thoughts that follow the non-conceptual realization, and it's here that distortions occur. This is why A thinks realization is a thought. He doesn't notice the realization itself (which is to say he doesn't realize it)and notices only the distorting thoughts about it, leading him to conclude that realization is an idea. The 'AHA! moment' of the scientist is a better example of realization than the eyeglasses deally. It actually IS a moment in which what is seen is seen whole, in it's entirety, which is what brings about the exclamation. The scientist exclaims "AHA!" because on some non-conceptual level he knows he sees the complete answer. What follows is a period of (hopefully gentle) conceptualizing of that whole realization. The conceptualizing happens in time, the realization does not. Works for me. I might add that I think Andrew doesn't accept the bolded above, but I could be wrong about that. Still working on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:09:15 GMT -5
No need to delineate between mental positions or divvying up mind. Isn't that verboten in your ontology anyway? You don't understand what is meant by 'divvying up' and it seems you also don't understand what is meant by adopting a mental position. It's mental acrobatics, that's what it is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:09:48 GMT -5
Its self-referring. It cannot be concluded. It cannot be attached to as true or false. You read that in a book. And since then you are attached to it and can't let go. No I didn't. Being attached to an idea requires thinking of it as being true or false. The ideas I am presenting are self-referring in such way that they transcend truth/falsity.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:13:04 GMT -5
But you clearly don't know what we are pointing to when we use the term 'realization', as this conversation shows. You treat realizations like conclusions. Which means what you are saying here is only based on false assumptions, unnecessary assumptions you have a hard time letting go of. We are already at page 40! Oh, I do understand what you mean by the term 'realization', and its absurd. You think they are prior to ideation, and are timeless. 'Is all imaginary. Except realizations'. 'Its all being made up. Oh, except for realizations of course'. Its an example of spiritual arrogance at its finest. I treat realizations as ideas. I'd rather say that this entire thread puts your own spiritual arrogance on display. You can't let go of certain assumptions despite your claims to the contrary. If you really would understand what is meant with 'realization' you would be very silent by now. But you are still talking and talking and talking and talking as if that would accomplish anyting...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 30, 2013 11:14:39 GMT -5
No. Crikey. I am saying a realization is an idea.I am saying that you (and Reefs) have turned a realization into a conclusion. That's not what we call 'realization'. We are trying to tell you this for about 30+ pages. You don't seem to be able to accept that. Hencily, talking to you is a waste of bandwidth. Then, your next rational conclusion should be "Then I should stop being a party to the wasting of said bandwidth."
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:16:21 GMT -5
You read that in a book. And since then you are attached to it and can't let go. No I didn't. Being attached to an idea requires thinking of it as being true or false. The ideas I am presenting are self-referring in such way that they transcend truth/falsity.I see you presenting the assumption that 'all is just a play of ideas' with absolute certainty, as the truth. You haven't transcended anything here. And as long as you keep talking you are not going to transcend anything anytime soon anyway.
|
|