|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2014 17:07:10 GMT -5
But I'd say that the nature of this isn't what peeps who see themselves as part of and inside a greater objective reality think it is. I'd actually defocus the concept here, in that there are consensus that can be had across perspectives, on one hand, and then, on the other hand, there is what we're on notice of by ineffability as what underlies and is prior-to all appearance, beyond objectification, and not false. The first is what I'd call "objective reality", the 2nd I wouldn't name, as it's not two. The two are obviously related by the concept of commonality, but all we have to go on for that relationship, are appearances, which are, of course, subjective. I'm not sure I know what you're saying, but yes, 'objective reality' is not what most imagine it is. The way I talk about it is 'reality' never gets 'out there' to become the objects that 'objective' implies. However, that doesn't mean 'reality' becomes subjective because the subject is part of that 'reality'. IOW, the person is one of the appearances rather than the source or observer of an appearance. This places the subject, perhaps best conceived as subjectivity, prior to appearances, and therefore common to all appearances. This is what makes appearances appear to be objective, rather than an actual 'objective reality' outside of the perceiver. My guess is you're saying the same thing, but it's just a guess.  Yes, exactly. I hear they're still working on how to translate muttleyspeak into phrench! I'll let you know when the Berlitz version hits Amazon! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 20, 2014 17:52:21 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. I hear they're still working on how to translate muttleyspeak into phrench! I'll let you know when the Berlitz version hits Amazon! Muttleyspeak = TMT on steroids; LaffY:  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 20, 2014 18:58:26 GMT -5
I'm not sure I know what you're saying, but yes, 'objective reality' is not what most imagine it is. The way I talk about it is 'reality' never gets 'out there' to become the objects that 'objective' implies. However, that doesn't mean 'reality' becomes subjective because the subject is part of that 'reality'. IOW, the person is one of the appearances rather than the source or observer of an appearance. This places the subject, perhaps best conceived as subjectivity, prior to appearances, and therefore common to all appearances. This is what makes appearances appear to be objective, rather than an actual 'objective reality' outside of the perceiver. My guess is you're saying the same thing, but it's just a guess. Yes, exactly. I hear they're still working on how to translate muttleyspeak into phrench! I'll let you know when the Berlitz version hits Amazon! Mutleyspeak is a complex dialect pieced together from various languages, so it's difficult to master. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2014 19:32:07 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. I hear they're still working on how to translate muttleyspeak into phrench! I'll let you know when the Berlitz version hits Amazon! Mutleyspeak is a complex dialect pieced together from various languages, so it's difficult to master. The mental maps that deliver succinct and reliable expressions in science, history, engineering and law ... don't deliver all that well in spwitchual swircles. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2014 19:42:58 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. I hear they're still working on how to translate muttleyspeak into phrench! I'll let you know when the Berlitz version hits Amazon! Muttleyspeak = TMT on steroids; LaffY: Uh-huh  .. but what yer not lettin' onto is that you couldn't understand what E' wrote anymore than you could understand what I wrote ... on the other hand, I wasn't just blowin' smoke up his as$ when I told him that he expressed exactly the same idea. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2014 19:48:43 GMT -5
But I'd say that the nature of this isn't what peeps who see themselves as part of and inside a greater objective reality think it is. I'd actually defocus the concept here, in that there are consensus that can be had across perspectives, on one hand, and then, on the other hand, there is what we're on notice of by ineffability as what underlies and is prior-to all appearance, beyond objectification, and not false. The first is what I'd call "objective reality", the 2nd I wouldn't name, as it's not two. The two are obviously related by the concept of commonality, but all we have to go on for that relationship, are appearances, which are, of course, subjective. I'm not sure I know what you're saying, but yes, 'objective reality' is not what most imagine it is. The way I talk about it is 'reality' never gets 'out there' to become the objects that 'objective' implies. The way that I'd state this is that no object has an actual independent existence form the observer of it. However, that doesn't mean 'reality' becomes subjective because the subject is part of that 'reality'. IOW, the person is one of the appearances rather than the source or observer of an appearance. Translation: subjectivity isn't personal. The common mistake that peeps who understand the fallacy of objectivity make is to turn the notion of objective reality inside out, and then replace it with the subjectivity trap. If you're interested, there's a way that I can express this that, in the expression, reads as somewhat complicated, but that describes the phenomena precisely and exactly in relation to the fallacy of objective reality ... ie: it's turned inside out. This places the subject, perhaps best conceived as subjectivity, prior to appearances, and therefore common to all appearances. This is what makes appearances appear to be objective, rather than an actual 'objective reality' outside of the perceiver. Now, doesn't the appearance of objectivity emerge from consensus? Also, the nature of this commonality is what triggered the muttley-dialect idiom of "ineffable not-two prior-to beyond mt. woo-woo". The point of that expression is that there is no model of that commonality. There are no ideas that can capture it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 20, 2014 19:54:36 GMT -5
Muttleyspeak = TMT on steroids; LaffY: Uh-huh .. but what yer not lettin' onto is that you couldn't understand what E' wrote anymore than you could understand what I wrote ... on the other hand, I wasn't just blowin' smoke up his as$ when I told him that he expressed exactly the same idea. Sure I could....Enigma-speak is generally pretty clear and straightforward. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2014 20:00:24 GMT -5
Uh-huh .. but what yer not lettin' onto is that you couldn't understand what E' wrote anymore than you could understand what I wrote ... on the other hand, I wasn't just blowin' smoke up his as$ when I told him that he expressed exactly the same idea. Sure I could.... Enigma-speak is generally pretty clear and straightforward. Bullsh!t. State it in your own words. Have your own dialog with him starting from here that demonstrates that you understand. You can't.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 20, 2014 20:09:34 GMT -5
Sure I could....Enigma-speak is generally pretty clear and straightforward. Bullsh!t. State it in your own words. Have your own dialog with him starting from here that demonstrates that you understand. You can't. I have nothing to prove Laffy.....it's very rare that I have difficulty understanding E's content....as I said, he's pretty clear and straightforward. The conversation is simply one that doesn't interest me very much at this juncture. you need to relax a bit, I think.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2014 20:13:27 GMT -5
Bullsh!t. State it in your own words. Have your own dialog with him starting from here that demonstrates that you understand. You can't. I have nothing to prove Laffy.....it's very rare that I have difficulty understanding E's content....as I said, he's pretty clear and straightforward. The conversation is simply one that doesn't interest me very much at this juncture. you need to relax a bit, I think. Oh, I'm quite relaxed, and taking great pleasure in the moment at you having been caught blatantly sniping in a dialog in which you obviously have no depth. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 21, 2014 5:04:35 GMT -5
Are you perhaps suggesting that something is something prior to one perceiving it as being something? If you disagree with ''It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , then what is it prior to one's evaluation . I have said that perception and creation are the same. However, this doesn't mean that you can perceive a pterodactyl while I perceive a platypus, and both of our perceptions are equally valid and correct. Creation/perception is not personal and self contained, and so there actually is an objective 'reality' common to both acts of perception. Interpretation is the subjective overlay of the personal perspective, and of course that interpretation is going to vary. We could say there is one appearance in consciousness that is common to both of us, though how we interpret that is variable. I agree that one will not perceive a pterodactyl while another perceive a platypus, if one has the same understandings of what a pterodactyl is and what a platypus is but common ground perception is not the only cookie in the jar . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 23, 2014 14:48:09 GMT -5
Adya is quite clear in the dialog that an individual feeler who identifies with feeling will eventually create the opposite feeling that they've identified with. I agree with that. Its what me and Fig have been saying i.e. that opposite feelings are generated when there is identification/attachment. Our argument is that negative feelings aren't caused by positive ones. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 23, 2014 16:45:36 GMT -5
Adya is quite clear in the dialog that an individual feeler who identifies with feeling will eventually create the opposite feeling that they've identified with. I agree with that. Its what me and Fig have been saying i.e. that opposite feelings are generated when there is identification/attachment. Our argument is that negative feelings aren't caused by positive ones. Identification and attachment are two different phenomena and the quote from Adya completely contradicts the permanent peace/joy/ease dogma you've both advocated in the MT's. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 23, 2014 16:49:00 GMT -5
I agree with that. Its what me and Fig have been saying i.e. that opposite feelings are generated when there is identification/attachment. Our argument is that negative feelings aren't caused by positive ones. Identification and attachment are two different phenomena and the quote from Adya completely contradicts the permanent peace/joy/ease dogma you've both advocated in the MT's. It doesn't contradict a fundamental Happiness at all. I agree they are different phenomena, but they are similar enough. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 23, 2014 16:49:34 GMT -5
By referencing does he mean judging? Or labelling? If so, I agree. No, it's very clear from the text as a whole that by "referencing" he means a self reference such as "I know that I am in complete acceptance because I feel peace, joy and ease". |
|
.. but what yer not lettin' onto is that you couldn't understand what E' wrote anymore than you could understand what I wrote ... on the other hand, I wasn't just blowin' smoke up his as$ when I told him that he expressed exactly the same idea. 
