|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 13:25:08 GMT -5
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. I'd be surprised if he's just trolling. His ideas, just like Figs' ideas, all have a vector pointing to the same escape plan. It looks like he begins with a final conclusion, and then does whatever is necessary to confirm that conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 13:30:30 GMT -5
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. That's my point, they don't appear to be separate to begin with, so you don't have to confirm or deny that separation. First you say they are separate, and then you say they don't even appear separate! Appearances do appear to be separate, and that separation is an illusion. Appearances are non-separate i.e. no two appearances are the same, but also no two appearances are actually/truly separate. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 13, 2014 13:31:26 GMT -5
And, 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. His ideas, just like Figs' ideas, all have a vector pointing to the same escape plan. It looks like he begins with a final conclusion, and then does whatever is necessary to confirm that conclusion. Hehe....Come on Man! You guys gotta get your stories straight!  . .....you're all absolutely convinced that Andrew and I are doing something 'bad' or wrong on this forum, but you've gotta get some agreement in place on specifically what that 'bad thing' is....or it starts to look like a simple case of shooting the messengers who deliver the unpalatable messages.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 13:31:29 GMT -5
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. Your whole word game here is a non-starter for me. I don't have an issue with 'not separate but not the same'. It's just an artifact of distinction formation, which does not actually separate anything. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 13:34:13 GMT -5
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. Your whole word game here is a non-starter for me. I don't have an issue with 'not separate but not the same'. It's just an artifact of distinction formation, which does not actually separate anything. Okay. Maybe we are getting somewhere here. I doubt it, but maybe. If you don't have an issue with ''appearances are not actually separate but are also not the same'', then you agree that appearances are non-separate rather than separate. Can you get on board with that? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 13:46:21 GMT -5
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.)
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.  What Figs and Andy have in common is the tendency toward confirmation bias. In Figs it takes a feeling form, (feeling how she wants to feel) and for Andy it takes a thinking form. (concluding what he wants to conclude) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 13:50:06 GMT -5
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! Well, maybe for himself, but I don't see him succeeding in confusing anybody else. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 13:52:32 GMT -5
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! Your Avatar just made me chuckle cuz I have a red bull sitting next to my keyboard right now too. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 13:59:25 GMT -5
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. Okay, same twaddle, different day. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 13, 2014 14:21:09 GMT -5
.. 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. hehe...oh yes, Laffy...how did you know?? Andrew and I have private conversations deep into the night where we brainstorm up ideas about how to circumvent jams and create get outta jail free cards for our conversations with you, out on the forum.  ..hahaha......yer funny. Do you ever think you might be taking what goes on here a tad too seriously sometimes...? Honestly, no one here cares so much that they'd engage in what you're suggesting there... |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 13, 2014 14:23:35 GMT -5
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: .. 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. Okay, same twaddle, different day. Twaddle is actually a very funny word. I quite like it, if not the actuality of what is being referenced. I think I like E on Red Bull. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 15:19:29 GMT -5
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> That's why the whole yin-yanginationating discussion happened. The other end of the stick even shows up here in the discussion, but she's trained herself not to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 15:26:12 GMT -5
Umm, lesse. Pir 2 X CW...(tan(duality not)/hyp(existence non)) bliss.....Looks like 42.  You cheater! You just plagiarized fake Einstein! Well, as long as I get the right answer, which I obviously did, what difference does it make? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 13, 2014 15:49:59 GMT -5
<wiggedout> but why would that matter? joy is joy whether it's dream joy or otherwise </wiggedout> That's why the whole yin-yanginationating discussion happened. The other end of the stick even shows up here in the discussion, but she's trained herself not to see it. We can't always determine just from appearances that an actual 'other end of the stick' is showing up. I think you've even tried to relay something to that effect at one point or another. ....? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 16:37:06 GMT -5
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!  The problem with the positive thinking escape plan is that it's necessary to pretend the stick one is swinging around has only one end, which inevitably results in poking oneself in the eye with the invisible end. Don't think there's much chance of a I getting poked out with the thick rose glasses this crew likes to wear. |
|
. 
