|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 3:27:36 GMT -5
It definitely doesn't mean that appearances are actually connected together, it also doesn't mean that appearances are one. To say that appearances are only apparently separate (or non-separate) means that there is no 'actual' divide between one appearance and another. There just 'appears' to be an actual divide. They just 'appear' to be finite and limited. That also doesn't mean that appearances are undivided, unlimited and infinite. There's no good way of expressing this linguistically because the concepts will always give slightly the wrong impression.Apparently.  What would you approve of as an "actual divide"? Obviously, a physical divider won't do, and neither will a conceptual one. Isn't it true that definitive separation is just an idea, like all other ideas, no more or less 'actual' than the appearances themselves? You imagine an appearance, then look for something beyond your imagination to tell you it's 'actually' separate from something. An 'actual' divide would be a distinct and finite point that is measurable. We cannot find that point in an appearance. There is no 'actual' divide. They just 'appear' to be finite and distinct, hence why they 'appear' to be separate. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:29:35 GMT -5
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. I'm guessing what I said about appearances didn't help him with his agenda, so he dragged the discussion back to the DAWDcycle and called it 'cutting to the chase'. I'm also guessing that he runs these new distinctions he comes up with through his head so many times they start to sound to him like they're objectively valid. If he lets go of any of those DWADstinctions his final conclusion changes, and the goal is to not let that happen. , he could just be fu.ckin' wit ya'. If I'm right about that, it's related to Reefs' point here. The negative interest in some of the pointers -- primarily, on the nature of the person -- results in a systemic trolling. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 3:29:59 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. There isn't some ungraspable actuality there that you have to wiggle your finger at vaguely. In the context of relationships, there are parts relating. In the context of no parts, there is no relationship. Make up your mind what context you want to wallow in. I am not talking about a 'relationship' or 'no relationship'. I can only describe it as a 'non-relationship' The experiencer and experienced are not actually separate, but are also not the same. Its a non-relationship. Same with appearances. They are not actually separate, but are also not the same. They are non-separate. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 3:33:23 GMT -5
I wonder to what extent Figs just followed Andy down that one ended stick bunny hole, and now she can't see her way back out. It's similar to what happens to religions. If what is taught is just a distant memory, the road leads to fundamentalism and confusion. On one hand she insists that being has a positive quality that can be felt, on the other hand she can't even answer the question if she exists at all. So she can tell you how her existence feels, but she cannot tell you if she exists at all. It's loco. What spirituality can do to people is amazing.  All the teachers point to a fundamental Goodness (call it Peace, or Happiness, or Love, or Bliss, or Joy, or Well-Being) that is experienced. Without fundamentals, existence would be fragmented into millions of separate parts. Nevertheless, it is also true that it is useful to point prior to fundamentals. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:35:11 GMT -5
Appearances are only apparent and are only apparently separate (my position, choice 2)Currently, you are saying that appearances are only apparent and are actually separate (your position, choice 1)  That's only true from a context larger than the subjective context. It's actually in the same context in which I talked about how appearances form. So again, there's context confusion. (What we're talking about is basic stuff about which there should be no disagreement.) What's obvious from the past few days of dialog is that the disagreement is based entirely on agenda. The contextual confusion is just as obviously deliberate. Of course it's amusing but it's a case of laughing at him rather than with him .. .. and that, serves a different agenda: the class act of andy the civil one who is mocked by the evil, cold, non-feeling fundies.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 3:35:46 GMT -5
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. This is all nonsense. There are differences between the words I offered, but there is also a commonality in that they are all not 'Real', and that's enough. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:37:02 GMT -5
Congratulations, you have just argued for actual separation. The monitor and my face are 'non-separate'. This means that there IS a separation, but the separation is 'apparent' or 'illusionary'. However, again, I do actually appreciate that you are stating a clear position. All I can figure is that you still don't understand context. that he understands it well enough to use it to sow confusion! It's bothlessly both at neither time simultaneously! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 3:38:59 GMT -5
There's a lot of other nonsense been written last night that's not worth addressing, the key points related to the subject of 'appearances' are the ones I made.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:40:33 GMT -5
All I can figure is that you still don't understand context. To say that there is a separation between the monitor and your face is fine. However, what we are talking about is the actual relationship between the monitor and your face. The 'actual' relationship can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. Just as the actual relationship between experiencer and experienced can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. You're using the word "actual" as a relationship between two falsities (appearences), which is a different meaning from equating actual with seeing the false as false. At this point, pretty much anything anyone writes in reply to you is nothing but hamster food. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:41:06 GMT -5
There's a lot of other nonsense been written last night that's not worth addressing, the key points related to the subject of 'appearances' are the ones I made. Arrogant much? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:52:04 GMT -5
yes it should be obvious that appearances are apparent and therefore only apparently separate! You mean appearances are actually connected together, or one, or what? What does it mean to say appearances aren't separate? It's the contextual confusion of going backwards from recognizing what is an apparently separate object as a appearance. The argument goes, that since the boundary around the appearance isn't actual, then the appearance isn't actually limited. The fallacy, of course, is that it is the limitation that defines the appearance to begin with. If you look back at this: The stance you have been arguing for here, is one of limitation. Are you aware of that? .. seems to me that figandrew cooked this up privately to try to help wigs out of the jam she got herself into during the meltdown about the acceptance dogma leading to a state of detachment from the sense of separation. By the magic of contextual confusion, the appearance of a detached problem-solver who sees rose-colored batsh!t everywhere is actually a dreamer without limit free to enjoy their perpetugasm in perfectly Understandingless Understandable Piece. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 3:58:41 GMT -5
figandrew probably think that the constant reference to the fact that they don't have experiential reference for these dialogs is just arrogant dismissal, and before I started participating in these discussions, and was just reading them, I found it both odd and unnecessary when either side resorted to that. But when you're actually in these discussions though, that's really what it comes down do, and they never fail to prove up this same point repetitively. It's not possible to directly state the truth but it's really obvious when a falsity is mistaken for it.  What always comes through in what they write is a sort of incredulous "what, is that all there is?" What is telling is that they try to convey what cannot be conveyed. TPTPAU is beyond understanding and still they try to understand it and even establish a causal relationship to positive mind states. By doing so, they are trying to turn what is false into something real. Which shows once again that they don't know what is real and what is false. Yup. The general structure of the dialogs starts with figandrew attempting just that: trying to reify and codify an understanding by using the ideas that embody the pointers. Then we wade in to try to untangle and separate out the false as false and to someone who hasn't read from the start, it can get nearly impossible to untangle where the source of the foolishness was. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:03:42 GMT -5
What is telling is that they try to convey what cannot be conveyed. TPTPAU is beyond understanding and still they try to understand it and even establish a causal relationship to positive mind states. By doing so, they are trying to turn what is false into something real. Which shows once again that they don't know what is real and what is false. That's the thang. They've got that which passes understanding all sewn up, and they don't understand why they can't get us to understand how understandable it is.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:06:30 GMT -5
This might be a good time for her to take a break and go do sumthin else for a while. Right, work is beckoning. (** muttley snicker **) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:07:54 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. I suspect that the no-mountain experience F is talking about was just one of her lucid dreams.  <wiggedout> but why would that matter? joy is joy whether it's dream joy or otherwise  </wiggedout> |
|
