|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2014 10:52:38 GMT -5
The first sentence is nonsensical, and the mischaracterization of the agreement in question as "agree with difference" is the root of that. The 2nd states a distinction without a difference: inherent in the phrase "different points", is multiplicity. Such is the result of denying one's self-contradiction: further self-contradiction. The limitation is self-evident. Any statement of what you are, is a statement. Is it possible for a statement not to embody a boundary? It associates a word ("self") with the notion of referring to all that is. That's what a monism is. No, not implied, directly stated. Now, it's true that your third statement in answer to the question of "one or many?" included the passive-aggressive device of contextual ambiguity, but it did so at the expense of clarifying and solidifying the definition of the monism of self. Nonsensical in your eyes . Here again, the problem with this subjectivity trap that you're caught in is that it leaves no room for the value of consensus. If I were to read the sentence "To agree with difference doesn't imply that difference is not same difference ." (complete with the pause before the period) to a dozen peeps on the street, it's highly unlikely that they'd answer "yes" to the follow-up question of "does that make sense to you?".  At no point was anything mentioned of what 'difference' is or means other than referring to difference in relation to points of perception had . Correct ... but now you're changing your tune from "point of perception" to "point s of perception".  Your original circumvential answer(s) to the straight forward question of "is there one point of perception or many"? have changed: Everything that one relates to what self is, is a spin off concocted within mind from the point of one's awareness . The more you deny the self-contradiction, the more of it you will generate.  Same difference allows one to perceive difference although inherently what is perceived is the same . No two perspectives ever generate exactly the same data of perception. Perspective, by nature, is inherently unique, and inherently limiting. There is commonality on what the perspectives are on that ultimately defies definition, and therein you find your answer to your previous question to E' about illusion. When an ideation concocted within mind from a point of awareness is mistaken for that commonality, the resulting expression of the ideation will be false. Following on from 'what we are is all there is', illustrates that in such a way where the various vantage points had that entertains difference is however perceiving the same thing . That you call this commonality a "thing" is what makes it a monism. Monism doesn't allow for every permutation . Sure it does. That's the nature of it. It is an idea that is all-encompassing. My understandings that are of self or what we are allows that . There are no limitations in allowing every permutation of self perception to be had . The notion that the enumeration of every possible perspective is free from reference to limitation sounds promising, but if there was a self that so embodied that enumeration, it would be outside of the enumerated list. This is the problem of ? + 1. Thats what it boils down to and that is anything goes . It won't be right or wrong, it will be how it is that is neither . Is it true that you are now reading this sentence? It is false that you now have finished reading it? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2014 11:01:23 GMT -5
So is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? If one relates to perceiving that is likened to a man tasting the honey without thinking how sweet it is the perception can be without too much intellectual reasoning . If I wanted to compare the taste of honey to the taste of a melon then thought arises within the perception . It is possible to entertain thought within one's perception and it is also possible just to notice without thinking . The Yes or No question put forward doesn't within my understanding warrant just a Yes or an No answer . The question as to whether or not your current use of the term 'perception' includes thought has a simple yes or no answer. I asked it because I'm questioning your comment that what 'is', is how one perceives it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2014 12:18:52 GMT -5
Yeah, just interesting that she sees only poo in her discussion partners. Have you noticed? Something not quite adding up again. Believe it or not Reefs, beneath the surface seeing of 'poo'....  .... is actually a deep appreciation for all of you who provide the challenges to my position that you do. & I know it's not something that gets voiced in the heat of debate, but underlying all that, is an understanding that folks who have an interest in going toe to toe, holding up their current spiritual views to the level of scrutiny and comparison that happens in these discussions, are few and far between...rare birds in that sense......so yes, while at times I might say something akin to 'you're so full of sh*t, yer terlet is jealous'  ...... I actually have far greater appreciation for you than you might realize.  IN particular this morning, I'm seeing this very clearly....  Well, 1 out of 884 posts that expresses appreciation, that's a bit lame, dontcha think? Especially when we keep in mind that I've somehow forced you to make this comment. If only 0.1% of your posts show appreciation, then you are not really an appreciator, right? I'm wondering if this here is still valid in general: And just for the record, I do very much value the fact that you and I often butt heads. Every tiny bit of emotional discord or perceived NEED to defend my views, that arises, is like an alarm that is signalling to me that I've fallen a little bit asleep and am taking THIS a little too seriously. Thanks for being a wonderful mirror for me!! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 12:29:47 GMT -5
Well, 1 out of 884 posts that expresses appreciation, that's a bit lame, dontcha think? Lame compared to what? I don't have some kind of yard stick by which I'm measuring those kinds of things...do you? I've noticed, an interest in measuring doesn't usually go hand in hand with a focus of appreciation. Expressed or not, the appreciation is always there. This place is pretty awesome when looked at from a particular angle....a place where like minded (hehe, but not completely like minded!) folks can come together to share, compare, even get into brisk, heated arguments and debates which have a way of focusing attention and shining the light of awareness even more minutely on what's really going on ...it's pretty cool really and if I didn't for the most part enjoy it or appreciate it here, I wouldn't keep returning. You could say, My continued participation is evidence of my appreciation for all of those whom I engage with here. Yup, that still stands. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2014 12:41:29 GMT -5
Well, 1 out of 884 posts that expresses appreciation, that's a bit lame, dontcha think? Lame compared to what? I don't have some kind of yard stick by which I'm measuring those kinds of things...do you? I've noticed, an interest in measuring doesn't usually go hand in hand with a focus of appreciation. Expressed or not, the appreciation is always there. This place is pretty awesome when looked at from a particular angle....a place where like minded (hehe, but not completely like minded!) folks can come together to share, compare, even get into brisk, heated arguments and debates which have a way of focusing attention and shining the light of awareness even more minutely on what's really going on ...it's pretty cool really and if I didn't for the most part enjoy it or appreciate it here, I wouldn't keep returning. You could say, My continued participation is evidence of my appreciation for all of those whom I engage with here. Yup, that still stands. I'm just applying the same logic you've applied to me: Reefs doesn't talk about his feelings. Conclusion: He must be lacking in this area. He is a sterile cold fish. ---> Figgles doesn't talk about appreciation. Conclusion: She must be lacking in this area. She is negative judgmental nelly. Q.E.D. I think you are actually here to test your understanding because you are not really sure, which explains why 'self-evident' doesn't mean anything to you. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 12:57:20 GMT -5
I'm just applying the same logic you've applied to me: Reefs doesn't talk about his feelings. Conclusion: He must be lacking in this area. He is a sterile cold fish. ---> Figgles doesn't talk about appreciation. Conclusion: She must be lacking in this area. She is negative judgmental nelly. Q.E.D. Yer logic is a little wonky if you ask me. Appreciation for this place, is kind of obvious so long as one keeps coming (unless you're a beggar for punishment).....On the other hand, a spiritual forum is a place where you'd think once in awhile reference to feelings might happen.. Even your best buddies here who mostly share the same point of view with you on most stuff, express their feelings now & again. I'm getting the sense Reefs, that my comments about your apparent sterility when it comes to feelings, is perhaps a bit of a sore spot for you? Is that so? There is no sense here of being 'not sure,' But there is space for seeing something anew....I don't really come here for any particular purpose other than the fulfillment of a desire to talk about this stuff....but, who knows..... Do you ever ponder why YOU are here Reefs? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2014 13:08:46 GMT -5
I'm just applying the same logic you've applied to me: Reefs doesn't talk about his feelings. Conclusion: He must be lacking in this area. He is a sterile cold fish. ---> Figgles doesn't talk about appreciation. Conclusion: She must be lacking in this area. She is negative judgmental nelly. Q.E.D. Appreciation for this place, is kind of obvious so long as one keeps coming (unless you're a beggar for punishment).....On the other hand, a spiritual forum is a place where you'd think once in awhile reference to feelings might happen.. Even your best buddies here who mostly share the same point of view with you on most stuff, express their feelings now & again. I'm getting the sense Reefs, that my comments about your apparent sterility when it comes to feelings, is perhaps a bit of a sore spot for you? Is that so? There is no sense here of being 'not sure,' But there is space for seeing something anew....I don't really come here for any particular purpose other than the fulfillment of a desire to talk about this stuff....but, who knows..... Do you ever ponder why YOU are here Reefs? It's YOUR own logic, silly. Of course it's 'wonky'! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 13:28:07 GMT -5
Yer logic is a little wonky if you ask me. Appreciation for this place, is kind of obvious so long as one keeps coming (unless you're a beggar for punishment).....On the other hand, a spiritual forum is a place where you'd think once in awhile reference to feelings might happen.. Even your best buddies here who mostly share the same point of view with you on most stuff, express their feelings now & again. I'm getting the sense Reefs, that my comments about your apparent sterility when it comes to feelings, is perhaps a bit of a sore spot for you? Is that so? There is no sense here of being 'not sure,' But there is space for seeing something anew....I don't really come here for any particular purpose other than the fulfillment of a desire to talk about this stuff....but, who knows..... Do you ever ponder why YOU are here Reefs? It's YOUR own logic, silly. Of course it's 'wonky'! It was wonky logic to apply the same logic. As I've said, continued participation speaks to appreciation.....but when it comes to feelings, you rarely demonstrate anything of that nature....and even more importantly, you take others to task for talking about and expressing feelings. Do you ever ponder why YOU are here Reefs? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 13:53:23 GMT -5
It's YOUR own logic, silly. Of course it's 'wonky'! It was wonky logic to apply the same logic. As I've said, continued participation speaks to appreciation.....but when it comes to feelings, you rarely demonstrate anything of that nature....and even more importantly, you take others to task for talking about and expressing feelings. Do you ever ponder why YOU are here Reefs? fwiw, I notice tender, warm feeling with Reefs. My guess is others do too. Perhaps the fact that he challenges you so incisively causes a bit of defensiveness that then makes it harder to sense that feeling when it happens?? It's way common. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 14:15:20 GMT -5
It was wonky logic to apply the same logic. As I've said, continued participation speaks to appreciation.....but when it comes to feelings, you rarely demonstrate anything of that nature....and even more importantly, you take others to task for talking about and expressing feelings. Do you ever ponder why YOU are here Reefs? fwiw, I notice tender, warm feeling with Reefs. My guess is others do too. Perhaps the fact that he challenges you so incisively causes a bit of defensiveness that then makes it harder to sense that feeling when it happens?? It's way common. Yes, perhaps...I'd also say that the fact that many of those challenges have pertained expressly to my own as well as others sharing of feelings here, might have a lot to do with it too. In particular the exchange we had when I shared that I looked at at my sleeping son, with feelings of love, was surprising. He seemed to find it incredibly odd that a mother/parent would do such a thing. If it were simply the case that he himself didn't talk about or express feelings much, that would be one thing...but it's the way he responds to others when they share and engage with feeling here that speaks the loudest, imo. Again, it's all about that stark line that he seems so intent upon drawing between that which he regards to be personal vs. what he deems to be impersonal. Reefs seems very intent upon avoiding certain questions and queries about himself, even though he has no problem asking quite personal questions about others...for example; The questions I asked him, "Do you ever ponder why YOU are here Reefs"? Has about as much chance of receiving a direct answer as I have of meeting jesus Christ, face to face while i'm out walking my dog today. Get rid of the divide, and life, feelings included, is all just happening...no need to evade, avoid or augment any one facet over another. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 14:46:23 GMT -5
fwiw, I notice tender, warm feeling with Reefs. My guess is others do too. Perhaps the fact that he challenges you so incisively causes a bit of defensiveness that then makes it harder to sense that feeling when it happens?? It's way common. Yes, perhaps...I'd also say that the fact that many of those challenges have pertained expressly to my own as well as others sharing of feelings here, might have a lot to do with it too. In particular the exchange we had when I shared that I looked at at my sleeping son, with feelings of love, was surprising. He seemed to find it incredibly odd that a mother/parent would do such a thing. If it were simply the case that he himself didn't talk about or express feelings much, that would be one thing...but it's the way he responds to others when they share and engage with feeling here that speaks the loudest, imo. Again, it's all about that stark line that he seems so intent upon drawing between that which he regards to be personal vs. what he deems to be impersonal. Reefs seems very intent upon avoiding certain questions and queries about himself, even though he has no problem asking quite personal questions about others...for example; The questions I asked him, "Do you ever ponder why YOU are here Reefs"? Has about as much chance of receiving a direct answer as I have of meeting jesus Christ, face to face while i'm out walking my dog today. Get rid of the divide, and life, feelings included, is all just happening...no need to evade, avoid or augment any one facet over another. I only vaguely remember that particular challenge you are referring to. But I don't know at this point if that vague recollection is due to it being referenced or to the original memory. It seems to really be niggling away at you. Didn't he say just recently that he finds articulations about how one loves someone else like that to be indicative of one wanting to show others that they do feel that way or something?? It was more of a challenge to the intent behind the sharing of the feeling--experience than to the feelings themselves?? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 15:38:20 GMT -5
It seems to really be niggling away at you. It's simply been relevant to the line of the conversation that Reefs and I have been having. it stands out as a good example of how I see him purposefully echewing what he deems to be 'personal' in favor of 'impersonal,' is all. Yes, that's one of his assertions on this matter. Fwiw, when I spoke about looking upon my child with a heart filled with love, we were having a conversation about feelings...it was an example that added weight to my asertion at the time. My asertion fwiw, was not that I am an amazing or uncommonly loving mother. Bottom line, I see Reefs as a good example of someone who has grasped hold of the pointer personal/impersonal, and is thus, actively eschewing all that he associates with 'personal.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3GFCond2oThe actual elimination of those rather widely used words from his vocabulary, would take far more effort than simply allowing those words to arise and be used, absent the concepts he is insisting 'must' necessarily be attached to them. The very idea that the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one' is just plain silly. "Mom" can mean whatever you want it to mean. When folks start actively avoiding certain words because the use of them 'must' necessarily mean a concept is running in the background, that indicates a rather strong and active fear/avoidance of concepts running in the background. It's actually a glaring example of what over-alignment with one side of the personal/impersonal pointer looks like. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 16:14:40 GMT -5
It seems to really be niggling away at you. It's simply been relevant to the line of the conversation that Reefs and I have been having. it stands out as a good example of how I see him purposefully echewing what he deems to be 'personal' in favor of 'impersonal,' is all. Yes, that's one of his assertions on this matter. Fwiw, when I spoke about looking upon my child with a heart filled with love, we were having a conversation about feelings...it was an example that added weight to my asertion at the time. My asertion fwiw, was not that I am an amazing or uncommonly loving mother. Bottom line, I see Reefs as a good example of someone who has grasped hold of the pointer personal/impersonal, and is thus, actively eschewing all that he associates with 'personal.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3GFCond2oThe actual elimination of those rather widely used words from his vocabulary, would take far more effort than simply allowing those words to arise and be used, absent the concepts he is insisting 'must' necessarily be attached to them. The very idea that the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one' is just plain silly. "Mom" can mean whatever you want it to mean. When folks start actively avoiding certain words because the use of them 'must' necessarily mean a concept is running in the background, that indicates a rather strong and active fear/avoidance of concepts running in the background. It's actually a glaring example of what over-alignment with one side of the personal/impersonal pointer looks like. When I hear him say that bit about not having those concepts going in the background it makes me think of this recent quote I stumbled on from Gary Weber: "“When you let the “I” fall away, what happens is there is no one there to hold the other end of “I need you,” or “I want you” or “I love you.” I have no attachment to my family anymore – but my wife would say I’m a better husband for it, and my daughters that I’m a better father. I’m much more present than I used to be.”" Makes sense to me. Has he actually said that "the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one'"? doubt it. He was speaking from his own personal experience. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 16:31:57 GMT -5
It's simply been relevant to the line of the conversation that Reefs and I have been having. it stands out as a good example of how I see him purposefully echewing what he deems to be 'personal' in favor of 'impersonal,' is all. Yes, that's one of his assertions on this matter. Fwiw, when I spoke about looking upon my child with a heart filled with love, we were having a conversation about feelings...it was an example that added weight to my asertion at the time. My asertion fwiw, was not that I am an amazing or uncommonly loving mother. Bottom line, I see Reefs as a good example of someone who has grasped hold of the pointer personal/impersonal, and is thus, actively eschewing all that he associates with 'personal.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3GFCond2oThe actual elimination of those rather widely used words from his vocabulary, would take far more effort than simply allowing those words to arise and be used, absent the concepts he is insisting 'must' necessarily be attached to them. The very idea that the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one' is just plain silly. "Mom" can mean whatever you want it to mean. When folks start actively avoiding certain words because the use of them 'must' necessarily mean a concept is running in the background, that indicates a rather strong and active fear/avoidance of concepts running in the background. It's actually a glaring example of what over-alignment with one side of the personal/impersonal pointer looks like. When I hear him say that bit about not having those concepts going in the background it makes me think of this recent quote I stumbled on from Gary Weber: "“When you let the “I” fall away, what happens is there is no one there to hold the other end of “I need you,” or “I want you” or “I love you.” I have no attachment to my family anymore – but my wife would say I’m a better husband for it, and my daughters that I’m a better father. I’m much more present than I used to be.”" Makes sense to me. Has he actually said that "the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one'"? doubt it. He was speaking from his own personal experience. He was responding to my own use of the word 'mom'....to say that he doesn't use those words anymore because "he does not have those concepts running in the background.' So, seems he associates certain concepts with certain words to the extent that he will no longer use those words. yes, sounds like he thinks those concepts do 'necessarily' come with the baggage of those concepts and that in my using that word, I was demonstrating the background of such a concept. Those are words, btw, common enough, it would likely take some 'work' not to use them. That which we actively avoid, says at least as much about our attachments and over- alignments as those things we move towards. The whole conversation with Reefs about feelings and such, would never have even come up if it were not for him taking me to task for talking about feeling. My own assertion that he has issues with feelings is a result of several years of him taking me to task for what he insists is over-personalization...much more than it's about him actively avoiding sharing feelings or anything he deems to be 'personal.' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 16:44:48 GMT -5
When I hear him say that bit about not having those concepts going in the background it makes me think of this recent quote I stumbled on from Gary Weber: Makes sense to me. Has he actually said that "the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one'"? doubt it. He was speaking from his own personal experience. He's said he doesn't use those words anymore because "he does not have those concepts running in the background.' So, seems he associates certain concepts with certain words to the extent that he will no longer use those words. yes, sounds like he thinks those concepts do 'necessarily' come with the baggage of those concepts. Those are words, btw, common enough, it would likely take some 'work' not to use them. That which we actively avoid, says at least as much about our attachments and alignments as those things we move towards. The whole conversation with Reefs about feelings and such, would never have even come up if it were not for him taking me to task for talking about feeling. My own assertion that he has issues with feelings is a result of several years of him taking me to task for what he insists is over-personalization. At this point, I'm just curious as to whether or not he'll answer the question as to why he comes to this forum...If history serves, I'm betting not.  ...WAAAAy too personal, I'm guessin. Why not just believe him? -- that the reason he's not using certain words or titles is because the concepts that are tied to them aren't present. Your explanation of course is plausible -- he's avoiding words because that would indicate concepts that shouldn't be there if he's reached a certain level of awakening or whatever. It's a little game you guys are playing -- who is less attached? Lots of folks say stuff that there is no way of really knowing if they mean it or not. That's the way it is. But probably dwelling on whether they mean it or not has more to do about oneself than the other. The fact that you use those words doesn't necessarily indicate anything, BTW, so I wouldn't assume that if he's not using them it's a reflection on you if you use them. That's what 'not taking it personally' means. I grew up in a nondemonstrative family in terms of saying 'I love you.' It was an actions-speak-louder-than-words environment. I had no reason not to think my parents loved me, for example. Never crossed my mind. When I got together with my wife it took a while for me to learn -- via talking about it with her -- that those three words were like a physical stroke, an act of affection. She grew up in an environment where that's how it was used. I use those words now to express that affection because I know that's how she feels it. Different strokes for different folks! |
|
.... is actually a deep appreciation for all of you who provide the challenges to my position that you do. & I know it's not something that gets voiced in the heat of debate, but underlying all that, is an understanding that folks who have an interest in going toe to toe, holding up their current spiritual views to the level of scrutiny and comparison that happens in these discussions, are few and far between...rare birds in that sense......so yes, while at times I might say something akin to 'you're so full of sh*t, yer terlet is jealous' 
...WAAAAy too personal, I'm guessin.