|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 12:36:32 GMT -5
Yeah, it's like two different personalities fighting for air time.  (here's a replay of the figfight fer anyone that didn't buy the live PPV broadcast) Hey look! it's a figfight! Wow! Talk about "split-mind"! Could we call that a winless win for her?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2014 12:45:35 GMT -5
The illusion doesn't need a reason. Why is never not an appearance. The rest is just referencing monisms. The point is that duality is never actual, and I have explained there why. Its true to say that there is duality, but this duality is also always an illusion. You have said that appearances are limited. If appearances are not actually separate, then they are also not limited. They are non-limited. I will offer you these three models, and these are the only possible models. Obviously no model is 'the truth', but which represents 'the truth' most accurately? 1) Appearances/experiences are actually separate, actually dualistic, actually limited, actually finite. 2) Appearances/experiences are non-separate, non-dual, non-limited, non-finite. 3) Appearances.experiences are absolute, unlimited and infinite. You keep repeating the same false distinction based in logical fallacy and contextual confusion. No, those are not the only possible models. The nature of an appearance is that it appears as a thing that is apparently separate from what that thing isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2014 12:55:10 GMT -5
(here's a replay of the figfight fer anyone that didn't buy the live PPV broadcast) Could we call that a winless win for her? Life is a ringless ring fer figs and she only feels the punches she wants to feel, even if they are herself punching herself in the face! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 12:55:26 GMT -5
The point is that duality is never actual, and I have explained there why. Its true to say that there is duality, but this duality is also always an illusion. You have said that appearances are limited. If appearances are not actually separate, then they are also not limited. They are non-limited. I will offer you these three models, and these are the only possible models. Obviously no model is 'the truth', but which represents 'the truth' most accurately? 1) Appearances/experiences are actually separate, actually dualistic, actually limited, actually finite. 2) Appearances/experiences are non-separate, non-dual, non-limited, non-finite. 3) Appearances.experiences are absolute, unlimited and infinite. You keep repeating the same false distinction based in logical fallacy and contextual confusion. No, those are not the only possible models. The nature of an appearance is that it appears as a thing that is apparently separate from what that thing isn't. They are the only models, but I will word it in a way that works for you. 1) Appearances/experiences are actually separate, actually dualistic, actually limited, actually finite 2) Appearances/experiences are apparently separate, apparently dualistic, apparently limited, apparently finite. 3) Appearances/experiences are absolute, unlimited and infinite. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2014 12:56:50 GMT -5
You keep repeating the same false distinction based in logical fallacy and contextual confusion. No, those are not the only possible models. The nature of an appearance is that it appears as a thing that is apparently separate from what that thing isn't. They are the only models, but I will word it in a way that works for you. 1) Appearances/experiences are actually separate, actually dualistic, actually limited, actually finite 2) Appearances/experiences are apparently separate, apparently dualistic, apparently limited, apparently finite. 3) Appearances/experiences are absolute, unlimited and infinite. You just let me know if you're interested in a dialog we haven't had like 43 times already? 'k? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 12:59:34 GMT -5
It's a way of talking about appearances being formed with what is essentially imagination. There isn't an actual nothingness required. If you imagine something right now, you are defining it with conceptual boundaries and forming something out of nothing, but we don't have to posit an actual nothing. I wouldn't say appearances are formed out of limitation, which could be interpreted as 'limitation is the substance out of which appearances are formed'. We're saying the illusion of limitation gives rise to appearances. To say appearances are not limited is to say the structure we create with our imaginary boundaries actually has no boundary. This is true because the boundaries are imaginary. We're just looking at those boundaries a little more closely and noticing they're imaginary. (i.e. there isn't an actual boundary between the wrist and the hand) To say they are limited would simply be to acknowledge the boundaries we imagined, which is equally meaningless. Feelings are also made of imagined boundaries, and therefore have no absolute actuality. I just addressed this point by point but deleted it. I think its simpler to cut to the chase and ask you the same question I asked Laughter. Which of these models approximates most closely to the truth? Each of the 3 options is contextually consistent. Experiences/appearances/perceptions are: 1) Dual, separate, finite, limited 2) Non-dual, non-separate, non-finite, non-limited 3) Absolute, infinite, unlimited The one that most closely approximates the truth is #1. Your options don't cut to the chase. They perpetuate the same misunderstandings. You'll conclude that I'm saying appearances are separate, and round we'll go. What I tried to do was expand the discussion beyond those boundaries by talking about how appearances form. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 13:02:14 GMT -5
They are the only models, but I will word it in a way that works for you. 1) Appearances/experiences are actually separate, actually dualistic, actually limited, actually finite 2) Appearances/experiences are apparently separate, apparently dualistic, apparently limited, apparently finite. 3) Appearances/experiences are absolute, unlimited and infinite. You just let me know if you're interested in a dialog we haven't had like 43 times already? 'k? cop out  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 13:06:33 GMT -5
Have you just recently discovered that duality is illusion? Course not, I've been arguing that for years. You don't get that duality is an illusion. If you did, then you would see experiences, appearances and perceptions as 'non-dual'. You have been arguing against this for a long time. To say that experiences, appearances and perceptions are non-dual, IS to say that duality is an illusion (what I am saying) To say that experiences, appearances and perceptions are dual, IS to say that duality is actual (what you are saying) That's what you get for thinking about it so much. Duality refers to the illusion of twoness. It doesn't mean that something within that illusion is nondual. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 13:07:50 GMT -5
I just addressed this point by point but deleted it. I think its simpler to cut to the chase and ask you the same question I asked Laughter. Which of these models approximates most closely to the truth? Each of the 3 options is contextually consistent. Experiences/appearances/perceptions are: 1) Dual, separate, finite, limited 2) Non-dual, non-separate, non-finite, non-limited 3) Absolute, infinite, unlimited The one that most closely approximates the truth is #1. Your options don't cut to the chase. They perpetuate the same misunderstandings. You'll conclude that I'm saying appearances are separate, and round we'll go. What I tried to do was expand the discussion beyond those boundaries by talking about how appearances form. They don't cut to the chase because they are just approximations. They are just models. Nevertheless, choosing one of the options does reveal a lot about your position. I actually appreciate that you put yourself on the line and made a choice, but you are correct that you are saying that appearances are separate, not even 'apparently' separate. I of course go with number 2, that appearances are non-separate or apparently separate. I understand how appearances form, but that conversation is a different context...its the 'simultaneity of duality and non-duality' conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2014 13:08:21 GMT -5
cop out The circular agenda-based TMT dwadfest is a waste of time kid. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 13:09:21 GMT -5
Course not, I've been arguing that for years. You don't get that duality is an illusion. If you did, then you would see experiences, appearances and perceptions as 'non-dual'. You have been arguing against this for a long time. To say that experiences, appearances and perceptions are non-dual, IS to say that duality is an illusion (what I am saying) To say that experiences, appearances and perceptions are dual, IS to say that duality is actual (what you are saying) That's what you get for thinking about it so much. Duality refers to the illusion of twoness. It doesn't mean that something within that illusion is nondual. Duality doesn't refer to the illusion of twoness, it IS twoness you big buffoon. Non-duality refers to the illusion of twoness. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 13:10:54 GMT -5
cop out The circular agenda-based TMT dwadfest is a waste of time kid. cop. out. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2014 13:11:04 GMT -5
I just addressed this point by point but deleted it. I think its simpler to cut to the chase and ask you the same question I asked Laughter. Which of these models approximates most closely to the truth? Each of the 3 options is contextually consistent. Experiences/appearances/perceptions are: 1) Dual, separate, finite, limited 2) Non-dual, non-separate, non-finite, non-limited 3) Absolute, infinite, unlimited The one that most closely approximates the truth is #1. Your options don't cut to the chase. They perpetuate the same misunderstandings. You'll conclude that I'm saying appearances are separate, and round we'll go. What I tried to do was expand the discussion beyond those boundaries by talking about how appearances form. He's also conflating experience/perception with appearances. It's just not possible to have a meaningful dialog on that point when the dialog is based on agenda. Where he wants to go with it is really obvious so his next steps with it are a foregone conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2014 13:12:13 GMT -5
The circular agenda-based TMT dwadfest is a waste of time kid. cop. out. Bullsh!t you annoying little pill -- the dialog you're offering isn't one that I haven't had with you dozens of times in the past already. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 13:14:18 GMT -5
The one that most closely approximates the truth is #1. Your options don't cut to the chase. They perpetuate the same misunderstandings. You'll conclude that I'm saying appearances are separate, and round we'll go. What I tried to do was expand the discussion beyond those boundaries by talking about how appearances form. He's also conflating experience/perception with appearances. It's just not possible to have a meaningful dialog on that point when the dialog is based on agenda. Where he wants to go with it is really obvious so his next steps with it are a foregone conclusion. experiences, appearances, perceptions are all basically the same thing i.e. they are not what is prior. What we are talking about is the subjective realm. In the subjective realm there is: 1) actual separation 2) non-separation (or 'apparent' separation if you prefer) 3) sameness Enigma has picked 1. I have picked 2. You have copped out. |
|
