|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 1:21:20 GMT -5
bump... Link or giraffe? What I said was that I don't use those words. You turned that into 'actively avoiding' to make it fit your agenda of painting Reefs sterile and lacking feeling and stuck in the advaita trap. It also helps to actually look at the entire post to get some context: You see, it's all about the role play you celebrate, not that you have feelings for your loved ones. And the main point was that the actual freedom is in having no roles to play at all, not in being able to play an unlimited number of roles. And here's how you mangled it: You see, you just added 'eschew' 'actively avoiding' and even 'actively eliminating certain words from my vocabulary'. Clearly, your imagination had its way with you again. I don't know what kind of mental and emotional turmoil you are currently experiencing, I can only guess by what's spilling over to the forum. But seems you are not in a good feeling place most of the time. The fight you are fighting here is only with yourself. It has nothing to do with any of us here. Several incarnations ago you've already become what you are fighting against. It's all documented in the archives. Which makes the vehemence with which you defend your image look even more ridiculous. As you've said, the silliest thing to do is to deny the obvious. So, call off the crusades, Faye. We are way beyond 260 pages now. What you are doing here is beginning to look a bit obsessive and also a tad insane if we factor in how many things you see that just aren't there and never have been there, that only exist in your imagination. Just give it a rest and walk your talk. You don't have to defend anything to anyone.   ... lights are on ... music's loud ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 1:24:35 GMT -5
Ahh, thanks for the refresher. As suspected, she's distorted the conversation beyond all recognition, and for the second time! She's determined to finish that painting no matter what. 3rd time, actually!   4rd! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 1:27:57 GMT -5
Let go of your crusade, Faye. It's all based on a giraffe. Take a vacation instead. You need it. How bout giraffe riding in Africa?  she loves her herd so much!  ... (** looks away blushing so as not to be a voyeur **) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 1:30:32 GMT -5
And here you are at page 311! Projection much? NO Reefs...here 'we' are on page 311.  Why do you exempt yourself from what's happening? Check the absence of MT when they's ain't no moths flyin' round. .. check the playa's in those threads ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 1:43:39 GMT -5
I believe the implication is that one is giraffe riding and the other isn't.  OH yeah...got that. Uherm ... no ya' dint'?  Giraffing is the process of imagining something there that's not there or missing/denying something there that clearly is or imagining that something is other than as it is. The process is demonstrable by comparing current content that a user generates about past content, and becomes especially apparent in certain circumstances when the comparison is limited to the content that the user has generated themselves over time. If you think that you don't often giraffe while Reefs rarely does, then you're giraffing. There's always tomorrow. It's not like the process has to continue, and if it doesn't, if the rider dismounts, then the correspondence would then, as a matter of course, change rather radically.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 3:52:22 GMT -5
'Real' is sometimes a popular word here so I went with that. Oh (as$!!) really? Where (..fu,cker! ... ) what thread (** head twitch **) was it popularized in (sh!t! sh!t! sh!t!)? Sounds like a giraffe (.. bullsh!t .. ) to me .. (** flails arms **) |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 16, 2014 4:25:16 GMT -5
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? What is happening is that I use what words come to mind . The words that I use make sense to me in relation to what I associate them with . The inns and the outs of such words in regards to what they mean to you is part of how you make sense of things, it is part of how you see things . This is why I have said all along that 'what is perceived is only in the eyes of the beholder' . I use the word 'self' and that in it's self can be limiting although I understand the self to be what we are within mind just as a way of relating to what we are . The 'self' however is just a figure head like any other word reference is . Now we can pull apart the limitations of using a particular word over another till the cows come home but I will use the limitations of language how I see it . You see the subjectivity trap again is how you see it . Some will not notice any limitations nor will they notice contradictions within their very words . This emphasises my thoughts from the very start in reference to one perceiving as they do, it is always how one see's it whether you see love in everything or whether you see a mixture of love and something else . The love is there for the one that perceives it . The subjectivity trap is there for the one that perceives it . I haven't been changing my tune in regards to what I say regarding difference but rather more that I am going deeper into what I mean regarding difference . The inherent sameness I speak of refers to what we are . What we are, is what we are no matter how we perceive what that is . The sameness is that it is always what we are no matter how we dress it up . Perhaps there is never going to the exact same perception had of what we are but that does not dismiss the sameness that is . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 16, 2014 4:34:36 GMT -5
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. My comment was 'I see it that the mind can allow one to perceive the same thing differently it only becomes a matter of being a right way or a wrong way of perceiving the same thing when one concludes as such . So one can perceive by simply noticing without thinking and one can notice and think about what one has noticed . The difference is thinking about something or not thinking regarding what is perceived . I still do not see that my comments warrant a particular yes or no answer . Silent perception happens .. the difference is the noise . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 9:01:19 GMT -5
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?". 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: The more you deny the self-contradiction, the more of it you will generate. 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. That you call this commonality a "thing" is what makes it a monism. Sure it does. That's the nature of it. It is an idea that is all-encompassing. 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. Is it true that you are now reading this sentence? It is false that you now have finished reading it? What is happening is that I use what words come to mind . The words that I use make sense to me in relation to what I associate them with . The inns and the outs of such words in regards to what they mean to you is part of how you make sense of things, it is part of how you see things . This is why I have said all along that 'what is perceived is only in the eyes of the beholder' . I use the word 'self' and that in it's self can be limiting although I understand the self to be what we are within mind just as a way of relating to what we are . The 'self' however is just a figure head like any other word reference is . Now we can pull apart the limitations of using a particular word over another till the cows come home but I will use the limitations of language how I see it . You see the subjectivity trap again is how you see it . Some will not notice any limitations nor will they notice contradictions within their very words . This emphasises my thoughts from the very start in reference to one perceiving as they do, it is always how one see's it whether you see love in everything or whether you see a mixture of love and something else . The love is there for the one that perceives it . The subjectivity trap is there for the one that perceives it . I haven't been changing my tune in regards to what I say regarding difference but rather more that I am going deeper into what I mean regarding difference . The inherent sameness I speak of refers to what we are . What we are, is what we are no matter how we perceive what that is . The sameness is that it is always what we are no matter how we dress it up . Perhaps there is never going to the exact same perception had of what we are but that does not dismiss the sameness that is . Noting the falsity in an idea expressed by someone doesn't wipe the idea out of existence -- it doesn't separate the perspective that notices the falsity from the idea, it's just an expression of an orientation toward it. Is the moon made of cream cheese? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 16, 2014 9:03:52 GMT -5
What is happening is that I use what words come to mind . The words that I use make sense to me in relation to what I associate them with . The inns and the outs of such words in regards to what they mean to you is part of how you make sense of things, it is part of how you see things . This is why I have said all along that 'what is perceived is only in the eyes of the beholder' . I use the word 'self' and that in it's self can be limiting although I understand the self to be what we are within mind just as a way of relating to what we are . The 'self' however is just a figure head like any other word reference is . Now we can pull apart the limitations of using a particular word over another till the cows come home but I will use the limitations of language how I see it . You see the subjectivity trap again is how you see it . Some will not notice any limitations nor will they notice contradictions within their very words . This emphasises my thoughts from the very start in reference to one perceiving as they do, it is always how one see's it whether you see love in everything or whether you see a mixture of love and something else . The love is there for the one that perceives it . The subjectivity trap is there for the one that perceives it . I haven't been changing my tune in regards to what I say regarding difference but rather more that I am going deeper into what I mean regarding difference . The inherent sameness I speak of refers to what we are . What we are, is what we are no matter how we perceive what that is . The sameness is that it is always what we are no matter how we dress it up . Perhaps there is never going to the exact same perception had of what we are but that does not dismiss the sameness that is . Noting the falsity in an idea expressed by someone doesn't wipe the idea out of existence -- it doesn't separate the perspective that notices the falsity from the idea, it's just an expression of an orientation toward it. Is the moon made of cream cheese? In what context? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 9:07:03 GMT -5
Noting the falsity in an idea expressed by someone doesn't wipe the idea out of existence -- it doesn't separate the perspective that notices the falsity from the idea, it's just an expression of an orientation toward it. Is the moon made of cream cheese? In what context?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 16, 2014 9:10:21 GMT -5
What is happening is that I use what words come to mind . The words that I use make sense to me in relation to what I associate them with . The inns and the outs of such words in regards to what they mean to you is part of how you make sense of things, it is part of how you see things . This is why I have said all along that 'what is perceived is only in the eyes of the beholder' . I use the word 'self' and that in it's self can be limiting although I understand the self to be what we are within mind just as a way of relating to what we are . The 'self' however is just a figure head like any other word reference is . Now we can pull apart the limitations of using a particular word over another till the cows come home but I will use the limitations of language how I see it . You see the subjectivity trap again is how you see it . Some will not notice any limitations nor will they notice contradictions within their very words . This emphasises my thoughts from the very start in reference to one perceiving as they do, it is always how one see's it whether you see love in everything or whether you see a mixture of love and something else . The love is there for the one that perceives it . The subjectivity trap is there for the one that perceives it . I haven't been changing my tune in regards to what I say regarding difference but rather more that I am going deeper into what I mean regarding difference . The inherent sameness I speak of refers to what we are . What we are, is what we are no matter how we perceive what that is . The sameness is that it is always what we are no matter how we dress it up . Perhaps there is never going to the exact same perception had of what we are but that does not dismiss the sameness that is . Noting the falsity in an idea expressed by someone doesn't wipe the idea out of existence -- it doesn't separate the perspective that notices the falsity from the idea, it's just an expression of an orientation toward it. Is the moon made of cream cheese? yes |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2014 9:16:16 GMT -5
Noting the falsity in an idea expressed by someone doesn't wipe the idea out of existence -- it doesn't separate the perspective that notices the falsity from the idea, it's just an expression of an orientation toward it. Is the moon made of cream cheese? yes  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 16, 2014 16:27:35 GMT -5
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. My comment was 'I see it that the mind can allow one to perceive the same thing differently it only becomes a matter of being a right way or a wrong way of perceiving the same thing when one concludes as such . I know that right and wrong are subjective. It's irrelevant to the question I've been asking you. However, there are objectively true and false statements. My question is, which way did you mean it when you said 'what is, is how one perceives it'? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2014 3:18:51 GMT -5
Noting the falsity in an idea expressed by someone doesn't wipe the idea out of existence -- it doesn't separate the perspective that notices the falsity from the idea, it's just an expression of an orientation toward it. Is the moon made of cream cheese? yes I thought it was a chicken nugget . |
|
... (** looks away blushing so as not to be a voyeur **) 
Why do you exempt yourself from what's happening? 
