|
Post by laughter on Apr 16, 2014 12:30:28 GMT -5
Where else would it be? Yes, so there can't be "is not the presence of anything". Presence is that "anything" that is always here. I guess I'm not very good at making jokes from semantics.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 16, 2014 23:10:51 GMT -5
The only way I know to interpret that is as a 'yes'. If there were no appearances, there would be no self. No coin without that side? I guess so but the word if jumps out at me as totally irrelevant but for the sake of conversation.....no coin without that side. Even saying no coin seems really off. I guess to me such words suggests a beginning to the coin. Dependence upon appearances suggests a possible ending, as all appearances come and go.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 16, 2014 23:21:51 GMT -5
An absence of meaning is not the presence of anything. Except presence itself. He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 16, 2014 23:36:56 GMT -5
Except presence itself. He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. It's where absence meets the parambigudox. To be "Present", in terms of how Tolle or Adyashanti might use the word actually refers to an absence, like you told the 'pilgrim here. An absence isn't the presence of anything, and yet, presence is absence, so absence is presence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 23:41:31 GMT -5
Except presence itself. He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. I think that is an important distinction to make. In my own case, I have noticed a sort of malaise that comes over me when I consider meaninglessness, as if it is some dark presence. Oddly, ACIM (the only thing I have seriously undertaken in spirituality) has as it's first lesson "nothing I see means anything", and it's goal is inner peace, not some existential funk.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 16, 2014 23:43:34 GMT -5
He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. I think that is an important distinction to make. In my own case, I have noticed a sort of malaise that comes over me when I consider meaninglessness, as if it is some dark presence. Oddly, ACIM (the only thing I have seriously undertaken in spirituality) has as it's first lesson "nothing I see means anything", and it's goal is inner peace, not some existential funk. Exactly. The malaise is the result of the meaning making machine trying to make meaning of the idea that nothing has meaning.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 17, 2014 5:07:28 GMT -5
Except presence itself. He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. How does one decide meaning is absent?
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 17, 2014 5:13:28 GMT -5
I guess so but the word if jumps out at me as totally irrelevant but for the sake of conversation.....no coin without that side. Even saying no coin seems really off. I guess to me such words suggests a beginning to the coin. Dependence upon appearances suggests a possible ending, as all appearances come and go. I'm not sure why you interpret the way something is as being dependent. In regards to appearances, they come and go....... Eternally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 11:27:34 GMT -5
Except presence itself. He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. I know, I was making a joke about semantics. All there is is presence, so whether an object is absent or present has no bearing on that presence. It was apparently an inside joke for my eyes only.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 17, 2014 11:35:42 GMT -5
He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. It's where absence meets the parambigudox. To be "Present", in terms of how Tolle or Adyashanti might use the word actually refers to an absence, like you told the 'pilgrim here. An absence isn't the presence of anything, and yet, presence is absence, so absence is presence. Yeah, words are clumsy things. 'Presence', of course, refers to being psychologically in the here and now rather than in the thoughts of past and future, while 'absence', in this context, refers to the absence of the thoughts that make up the self image contained in memory and projected into the future, so they refer to the same thingy.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 17, 2014 11:53:27 GMT -5
He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. I think that is an important distinction to make. In my own case, I have noticed a sort of malaise that comes over me when I consider meaninglessness, as if it is some dark presence. Oddly, ACIM (the only thing I have seriously undertaken in spirituality) has as it's first lesson "nothing I see means anything", and it's goal is inner peace, not some existential funk. Yeah, mind naturally goes there cuz the self image wants to be meaningful, and it also wants to be part of something larger than itself, and so a meaning dictated by 'God' is ideal. (Lots of comfort for some in following God's plan) Folks also want to have a purpose and direction and goals and such in their personal lives, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that meaning and purpose are individually determined and applied.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 17, 2014 11:55:14 GMT -5
He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. How does one decide meaning is absent? It just means that no-one other than you decides what anything means.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 17, 2014 11:57:17 GMT -5
Dependence upon appearances suggests a possible ending, as all appearances come and go. I'm not sure why you interpret the way something is as being dependent. In regards to appearances, they come and go....... Eternally. I thought you've been saying one side of the coin can't exist without the other. That's a dependency whether or not one side or the other is in danger of ending.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 17, 2014 11:59:09 GMT -5
He's saying the absence of meaning does not signify the presence of something called meaninglessness. I know, I was making a joke about semantics. All there is is presence, so whether an object is absent or present has no bearing on that presence. It was apparently an inside joke for my eyes only. Well I hope you learned your lesson about making jokes.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 17, 2014 12:07:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you interpret the way something is as being dependent. In regards to appearances, they come and go....... Eternally. I thought you've been saying one side of the coin can't exist without the other. That's a dependency whether or not one side or the other is in danger of ending. I am stating that there is not one side without the other nor has there ever been or ever will be.
|
|