|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 7:36:40 GMT -5
Actually, you are massively licking a pointer when you speak of separating out the false. Bee specific Mr. Hamster.  All I did in this dialog was to use "seeing the false as false" to define the pointer of actuality. How is that pointer-licking, precisely? You, on the other hand, dwad-up this silly notion of "actually seperate" by resorting to contextual confusion. I am insisting on 'not-two' as opposed to 'actual separation' and you think I am licking pointers. Its quite funny. No, you've imagined the idea of "actual separation" into the dialog. That idea, is yours, and yours alone. This is what you said ''Then we wade in to try to untangle and separate out the false as false'' There's the fundie error. The non-relationship between truth and falsity is non-separate, non-two. You are consistently attempting to posit an actual separation, if not between expressions, forms and appearances, then between the True and the false. Every seeming relationship is actually a 'non-relationship' i.e non-two |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 7:39:36 GMT -5
By the way Tzu, I came up with another way to rationally say what I am saying that may or may not work better for you.
All individuals, all expressions of Life, are unique and separate and also one and the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 7:40:16 GMT -5
Incorrect. You convert the pointer of "prior-to form" to the monism of "prior-to" when you make the statement that "what is prior-to is not separate from experiences". To refer to what is separate from what is pointed to by not-two is to mix contexts and that's where your silly idea of the actuality of separation comes from: contextual confusion. "Prior-to" doesn't refer to some expansively bounded notion of some thing that encompasses every thing else, and that's what your statement "prior to is not separate from experiences" does ... turn it into exactly that kind of reference. It's clear pointer licking. And you just kant move on, can ya'? To say that experiences are not separate from 'prior to' does create a false monism, Ahhh ... taking the high road for a change ...  but to point in any way, shape or form to 'prior to' to create the illusion of a monism. No, this is not an inevitability. The illusion of the monism is only created if the map is mistaken for the territory. If the pointer is followed -- non-conceptually -- to see where it points, instead of licking it, there is no monism created. The difference between you and me us that you see what is experienced as separate from what is prior, whereas I don't The fundamentalist error is so clear there, you are positing a true/actual/real boundary where there is none. Ohhhhh ..  .. seems the high road is slippery now, ain't it? Stop licking pointers, and stop using logic to conclude that you know what I think because you always misstate the conclusion to fit your agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 7:44:19 GMT -5
Bee specific Mr. Hamster. All I did in this dialog was to use "seeing the false as false" to define the pointer of actuality. How is that pointer-licking, precisely? You, on the other hand, dwad-up this silly notion of "actually seperate" by resorting to contextual confusion. No, you've imagined the idea of "actual separation" into the dialog. That idea, is yours, and yours alone. This is what you said ''Then we wade in to try to untangle and separate out the false as false'' There's the fundie error. The non-relationship between truth and falsity is non-separate, non-two. Incorrect. "Seeing the false as false" is a deliberate silence on the question of what is true, because what is true, is beyond expression. It is the cigarette man who claims that truth and falsity are the same. You are consistently attempting to posit an actual separation, if not between expressions, forms and appearances, then between the True and the false.Every seeming relationship is actually a 'non-relationship' i.e non-two I've not written any of what you've attributed to me. That you constantly repeat the same illusions leads me to draw the conclusion that you are batsh!t crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 7:45:19 GMT -5
To say that experiences are not separate from 'prior to' does create a false monism, Ahhh ... taking the high road for a change ... but to point in any way, shape or form to 'prior to' to create the illusion of a monism. No, this is not an inevitability. The illusion of the monism is only created if the map is mistaken for the territory. If the pointer is followed -- non-conceptually -- to see where it points, instead of licking it, there is no monism created. The difference between you and me us that you see what is experienced as separate from what is prior, whereas I don't The fundamentalist error is so clear there, you are positing a true/actual/real boundary where there is none. Ohhhhh .. .. seems the high road is slippery now, ain't it? Stop licking pointers, and stop using logic to conclude that you know what I think because you always misstate the conclusion to fit your agenda. No. The realization of what is prior to does not create a conceptual monism. A pointer to prior to is conceptual and does create an inevitable monism. I am consistently offering pointers here (and creating false monisms). If something is Realized that's none of my business. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 7:46:40 GMT -5
This is what you said ''Then we wade in to try to untangle and separate out the false as false'' There's the fundie error. The non-relationship between truth and falsity is non-separate, non-two. Incorrect. "Seeing the false as false" is a deliberate silence on the question of what is true, because what is true, is beyond expression. It is the cigarette man who claims that truth and falsity are the same. You are consistently attempting to posit an actual separation, if not between expressions, forms and appearances, then between the True and the false.Every seeming relationship is actually a 'non-relationship' i.e non-two I've not written any of what you've attributed to me. That you constantly repeat the same illusions leads me to draw the conclusion that you are batsh!t crazy. No, what you said is 'separate out' the false. And you are using that same old morphing strategy that you were using before.... I have not said that truth and falsity are the same, I am saying they are non-two. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 7:52:38 GMT -5
Ahhh ... taking the high road for a change ... No, this is not an inevitability. The illusion of the monism is only created if the map is mistaken for the territory. If the pointer is followed -- non-conceptually -- to see where it points, instead of licking it, there is no monism created. Ohhhhh .. .. seems the high road is slippery now, ain't it? No. The realization of what is prior to does not create a conceptual monism. A pointer to prior to is conceptual and does create an inevitable monism. I am consistently offering pointers here (and creating false monisms). If something is Realized that's none of my business. You just let me know if you're interested in a dialog we haven't had like 43 times already? 'k? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 7:58:41 GMT -5
No. The realization of what is prior to does not create a conceptual monism. A pointer to prior to is conceptual and does create an inevitable monism. I am consistently offering pointers here (and creating false monisms). If something is Realized that's none of my business. You just let me know if you're interested in a dialog we haven't had like 43 times already? 'k? what is realized is also not-separate to 'the false'. The absolute and the relative are non-separate |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 8:02:03 GMT -5
Incorrect. "Seeing the false as false" is a deliberate silence on the question of what is true, because what is true, is beyond expression. It is the cigarette man who claims that truth and falsity are the same. No, what you said is 'separate out' the false. Oh, I see, you seek to invoke the liars paradox. There are many ways to see the false as false. One is to recognize that some ideas are obviously nonsense. For example: "The moon is made of cream cheese" is a relative falsity, while "the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle is an irrational number" is a relative truth. Another way is to recognize that there is nothing that we can write or say that is not dependent on contrast, which has the subject/object split (duality) as it's basis, so that there is no way to directly state the truth that is beyond (or prior-to) concepts and expression. If pointing is done consciously -- which is to say, conscious of that recognition -- then the falsity of writing about pointers heedlessly of the recognition is seen for what it is: the falsity of pointer licking ... which is most of what you've written over the past week. And you are using that same old morphing strategy that you were using before.... I have not said that truth and falsity are the same, I am saying they are non-two.O.k. that's a fair correction, and not a dwad. ... but the way that you go on to use this idea is to introduce contextual confusion leading eventually to the silly notion of "actual separation". That idea is yours, and yours alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 8:02:41 GMT -5
 Priceless ... really, the absurdity just can't get any more intense than that ... It seems the absurdity here is nondual and unlimited.  And always gaining momentum.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 8:04:26 GMT -5
what is realized is also not-separate to 'the false'. What is realized, is not false. The absolute and the relative are non-separate There is no statement of the absolute that is not relative, whereas "not-two" (the absence of separation) , does not point to the relative. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 8:05:55 GMT -5
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! Their unconditional compassion knows no bounds. What do you think would happen if we would say "You were right, guys. We are stuck at no-mountain. Any doing suggestions how get out of this trap again?" |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 8:07:51 GMT -5
Or even define yourself as a 'laugher'....... If you defined yourself by your login name you wouldn't be here no more. "The man that doesn't exist" or "TMTDE" |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 13, 2014 8:08:39 GMT -5
Simply because that's how she wants to see it, and how it actually is, is of no interest.  Does that hurt? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 8:16:54 GMT -5
Only if she wants it too! |
|
.. seems the high road is slippery now, ain't it? 
Priceless ... really, the absurdity just can't get any more intense than that ... 
figandrew were simply being of humble service to you!