|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 22:25:13 GMT -5
Now we know where that projection came from. Viewed this way, the jihadaganza kinda' seems like a cry for help, now, doesn't it?  I think so too. Why else would she endure 'the nasty mocking' (as she calls it) since years? Why else does she delete her accounts but always comes back in the end? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 22:38:30 GMT -5
What is telling is that they try to convey what cannot be conveyed. hehe...every single person who attempts to talk about non-duality, or spirituality in general really, is trying to convey what cannot be conveyed. And yet, look, here we all are. YOU included.  What does that say about you? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 22:41:10 GMT -5
Honestly, who wouldn't love such a parent? You've just crashed her car and the only comment from her is about flowers.  What Figgles sees when she gets to the scene of the accident:  Hahahaha....that's actually perty funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 22:45:53 GMT -5
The collapse of illusion happens with impunity. Maybe guilt/righteousness is holding it all together; all the beliefs of rights and wrongs holding the apparition together. Yes: define yourself by the other. Define yourself as good, loving, carefree, accepting, unlmited, open and curious and then the other ... well ..  This role play addiction is also pointing to a fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom means. The infamous dialog from last year was exactly about that. I pointed out that what she calls freedom (unlimited non-attached role play) isn't real freedom. Real freedom means having no role to play at all, an absence of role play, not a smooth non-attached role play. Which earned me the reputation of being a sterile cold fish. So, while A may suffer from over-thinking, F may actually suffer from over-emoting.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 22:58:44 GMT -5
Me too. She invented a mythological 'condition' for you so that she could pretend to be genuinely curious about it while spitting at you. On which mountain did she think that would work? Oh nooo ... when she wrote this there were no negative feeling states active. At all. Sincere question; Does your condition affect your social IQ? ...your ability to create actual bonds of love with other human being....to feel deeply? No urge to score points, no sniping involved, no sarcasm, no bitterness, no cruelty. Nope. It was easy to write that. It came from a place of peace, and perhaps genuine concern for Reefs emotional state. Her entire logic is absurd. Her logic basically is that if one cannot talk about it then it doesn't exist. How more shallow can it get? No wonder she fell for the Katie trap. Katie is talking about love all the time. So she must know it. And if Reefs doesn't talk about it, then he must be lacking in that area.   |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 23:02:33 GMT -5
Right, we've talked before about her carrying her baggage back down the mountain instead of tossing it over the side. Andy has done something similar with his tool box. They both need to go back to the mountain and toss it all off like they should have done the first time. The entirety of the scripture of the infinicircle face-mountain range, complete with the fable of the frog stuck on the peak at no-mountain, is to illuminate you as to the egoic conceit underlying the idea you've expressed there. You ingrate! figandrew were simply being of humble service to you! Well, as we now know, they've never been to any mountain. So what the heck are they talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 23:29:43 GMT -5
Me too. She invented a mythological 'condition' for you so that she could pretend to be genuinely curious about it while spitting at you. On which mountain did she think that would work? Wasn't she wagging her moralistic finger all the time admonishing us that discussing diverging view points need not turn into nastiness? She's trying to help us understand by demonstrating the dualistic opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 23:30:13 GMT -5
Oh nooo ... when she wrote this there were no negative feeling states active. At all. No urge to score points, no sniping involved, no sarcasm, no bitterness, no cruelty. Nope. It was easy to write that. It came from a place of peace, and perhaps genuine concern for Reefs emotional state. Simply because that's how she wants to see it, and how it actually is, is of no interest. Sometimes opinions are just opinions..no need to wrestle them into hard, concrete facts. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 23:42:02 GMT -5
We would have to know what kind of dancing we're talkin bout.  Well, let's assume a wild chiggy-wiggy around the obvious. What do your calculations say? Umm, lesse. Pir 2 X CW...(tan(duality not)/hyp(existence non)) bliss.....Looks like 42. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 23:49:35 GMT -5
What Figgles sees when she gets to the scene of the accident: Hahahaha....that's actually perty funny. It's like sumthin you might see in a lucid dream. Makes no sense but it's cool. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 2:45:39 GMT -5
There are meaningful distinctions between the three, but nothing that we haven't corresponded on multiple times in the past. None of the three can be correctly characterized as either objective or subjective which is why reasoning about them is ultimately futile. If you are not comfortable characterizing them as subjective (or objective), It's not a matter of comfort, it's a matter of integrity. then we could characterize them all as 'what is not Real' or 'form' or 'the false', or 'the world'. It really doesn't matter what label we use, what is common between them is more important that their differences here. The distinction between "the world" and "the false" only doesn't matter if one is knee deep in batsh!t on a tour of la-la-land, and the only commonality of those words is in the relationships between the ideas referenced. Appearences appear in the perception of an experiencer that is experiencing -- you see, those three words do not all refer to the same idea. For a dialog free of confusion, there has to be clarity with respect to the potential contextual ambiguity. Of the three words only one of them, “appearance”, is contextually unambiguous. To see this, compare each to the word “actual”, if “actual” is taken to point to what remains when the false is seen as false. Appearences are unambiguously non-actual. They can appear to be actual, if the false is taken as true. If the false is seen as false, it is said that appearances are seen to be a sort of illusion. They are mind made. They only have apparent actuality. If, otoh, the false is mistaken to be true, then an appearance is described as an object with independent actuality, which describes the world view of material realism. Perception can be used in such a way as to refer directly to actuality. U.G. and ZD both use it this way and explain it by reference to the metaphor of a camera or as what is the input to a graphics generator. Used this way, “perception” refers to “what is”, and is neither objective nor subjective. If the indeterminism of neither subjective nor objective isn’t clear to the reader, it might seem, when used this way, that perception refers to an objective actuality. It doesn’t. Perception can also be used in a purely subjective sense, and in this meaning, it is a process of the mind generating appearances. E’ most often uses the word this way, with the phrase “perception is creation”. In terms of actuality, the experience and the experiencer are never two. When ZD , Steve and Reefs write about active samahdi, that’s what they’re referring to. Given the benefit of the doubt, the terms “face-value experience” and “what is happening” refer to this meaning of the word. But the experiencer, is an appearance, and if "experience" is meant in terms of the duality of the experiencer and what is experienced, then the relation of the word “experience” to “perception” is not simple, and can be further confused by using one or the other contextual meanings of “perception”. Used this way, experience is an entanglement between actuality and appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 2:48:28 GMT -5
Me too. She invented a mythological 'condition' for you so that she could pretend to be genuinely curious about it while spitting at you. On which mountain did she think that would work? Oh nooo ... when she wrote this there were no negative feeling states active. At all. Sincere question; Does your condition affect your social IQ? ...your ability to create actual bonds of love with other human being....to feel deeply? No urge to score points, no sniping involved, no sarcasm, no bitterness, no cruelty. Nope. It was easy to write that. It came from a place of peace, and perhaps genuine concern for Reefs emotional state. That game is called the... ' how low can ya go game,' of using whatever amo you can to score points. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:09:16 GMT -5
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! Really, it's just a more sophisticated version of the positive thinking escape plan. Ain't that s'posed to help ya' make friends and influence peeps??  Don't seem to be werkin' all that wells for poor 'ole wiggly!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:17:28 GMT -5
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. The problem with saying appearances are only apparently separate is that it implies appearances are actualities that are connected together. Appearances are just apparent, which is why they're called appearances. What you've been trying to do is talk about appearances as non-separate in a non-dual context, so you've been mixing contexts. Understanding how appearances form can stop the confusion. But andy has written that he embraces his confusion, so he has not interest in addressing that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 3:24:22 GMT -5
definitely not talking about parts. If you agree that there is an experiencer and experienced, or perceived and perceived...then we are talking about a 'relationship', but the only adequate way to describe this relationship is to say non-separate or non-two. The experiencer/perceiver is not the SAME as what is experienced/perceived, but equally, the perceiver/experiencer are not actually separate from what is experienced/perceived. The rational thinking mind cannot grasp this, which is why we can only point to the true nature of the 'relationship' with words like non-separate and non-two. Too much mental structure needed to converse in the manner you and others believe point to whatever it is you think is being pointed to.. it's like a word contest, trying to out think/say the other.. No there isn't. The nature of the 'relationship' (and even that isn't a correct word to use) is not conveyable because language is rational and the 'relationship' itself is not. |
|
