|
|
Post by relinquish on Sept 27, 2014 18:16:34 GMT -5
Decisions just happen, like waves on the ocean, and they don't actually require an independent decider to create them or make them happen. A Verb does not actually require a Noun to start it in order to be unfolding. The idea that it does is simply a grammatical rule, not a rule of Nature. There isn't any actual 'doer' moving of itself in the way that grammatical rules and belief make it seem. Watch.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2014 21:05:15 GMT -5
Decisions just happen, like waves on the ocean, and they don't actually require an independent decider to create them or make them happen. A Verb does not actually require a Noun to start it in order to be unfolding. The idea that it does is simply a grammatical rule, not a rule of Nature. There isn't any actual 'doer' moving of itself in the way that grammatical rules and belief make it seem. Watch. O.k. so if I just stare at you in silence for awhile now you promise not to get creeped out, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 1, 2014 19:31:13 GMT -5
If decisions don't require an independent doer, then the whole of reality isn't one big action but rather one big homogeneous blob, but this isn't the case. To say that decisions *cannot* exist without an independent doer may be false, however this doesn't mean that saying decisions *can* exist without an independent doer is true. Both are false. Most Zen people would stop there, saying that you can't put anything into words, but that's insane, not the middle way but a tremendous extreme. The problem with both aforementioned statements is that they include various assumed premises which aren't fully coherent and cohesive with one another (or with themselves) in the same sentence beyond a certain level of scrutiny. For example a person can never be totally independent in their doing or in any other sense for that matter, however they can never be totally dependent on anything either, independence doesn't work like that (independence isn't a matter of cutting your ties with reality and floating off the map into sublime dissolution, to the contrary it's a matter of adjusting your ties with reality in a specific and fairly complex way which I won't get into here). Speaking in extremes can be useful to produce linguistic punches or poems, however you can't take thousands of simple, linear sentences, put them into a book and expect the product to be sophisticated, it doesn't work that way.. at some point you have to write not what comes off the tips of your fingers or what moves your heart or what intuitions float into your brain, rather you have to reflect on it and edit the hell out of it over and over (until it's good enough for the sentences before and after it as well as for the sum of what you're trying to say).. this kind of editing is also required in the long-term to be conducted not just on your computer writing but also on your self-dialogue and self-understanding, not as a constant process every second of the day but certainly in regular intervals of contemplation.. without a solid foundation of sophisticated understanding, there's always the risk that zingy one-liners, unsophisticated notions and unsophisticated thought patterns will trap you in a nebulous, bewildered rut masquerading as graceful clarity. The wiser you are the less you think to an extent, however at the same time your thoughts are so much more efficient perhaps for all intents and purposes you think more with less, but the real distinction is that you're less susceptible to become hypnotized by your own thoughts, by the limits of their grammar and syntax, by their practical nature, by their intimate closeness to your person, etc. To say that decisions and actions can happen without a specific doer is a fairly true statement, but don't tattoo it to your arm, don't be hypnotized by it!
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2014 23:07:48 GMT -5
If decisions don't require an independent doer, then the whole of reality isn't one big action but rather one big homogeneous blob, but this isn't the case. To say that decisions *cannot* exist without an independent doer may be false, however this doesn't mean that saying decisions *can* exist without an independent doer is true. Both are false. Most Zen people would stop there, saying that you can't put anything into words, but that's insane, not the middle way but a tremendous extreme. The problem with both aforementioned statements is that they include various assumed premises which aren't fully coherent and cohesive with one another (or with themselves) in the same sentence beyond a certain level of scrutiny. For example a person can never be totally independent in their doing or in any other sense for that matter, however they can never be totally dependent on anything either, independence doesn't work like that (independence isn't a matter of cutting your ties with reality and floating off the map into sublime dissolution, to the contrary it's a matter of adjusting your ties with reality in a specific and fairly complex way which I won't get into here). Speaking in extremes can be useful to produce linguistic punches or poems, however you can't take thousands of simple, linear sentences, put them into a book and expect the product to be sophisticated, it doesn't work that way.. at some point you have to write not what comes off the tips of your fingers or what moves your heart or what intuitions float into your brain, rather you have to reflect on it and edit the hell out of it over and over (until it's good enough for the sentences before and after it as well as for the sum of what you're trying to say).. this kind of editing is also required in the long-term to be conducted not just on your computer writing but also on your self-dialogue and self-understanding, not as a constant process every second of the day but certainly in regular intervals of contemplation.. without a solid foundation of sophisticated understanding, there's always the risk that zingy one-liners, unsophisticated notions and unsophisticated thought patterns will trap you in a nebulous, bewildered rut masquerading as graceful clarity. The wiser you are the less you think to an extent, however at the same time your thoughts are so much more efficient perhaps for all intents and purposes you think more with less, but the real distinction is that you're less susceptible to become hypnotized by your own thoughts, by the limits of their grammar and syntax, by their practical nature, by their intimate closeness to your person, etc. To say that decisions and actions can happen without a specific doer is a fairly true statement, but don't tattoo it to your arm, don't be hypnotized by it! Not even a window in that wall.  |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 1, 2014 23:27:56 GMT -5
Not even a window in that wall. Art is ANYTHING . . . . . . . ...that you can get away with. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2014 3:03:46 GMT -5
If decisions don't require an independent doer, then the whole of reality isn't one big action but rather one big homogeneous blob, but this isn't the case. To say that decisions *cannot* exist without an independent doer may be false, however this doesn't mean that saying decisions *can* exist without an independent doer is true. Both are false. Most Zen people would stop there, saying that you can't put anything into words, but that's insane, not the middle way but a tremendous extreme. The problem with both aforementioned statements is that they include various assumed premises which aren't fully coherent and cohesive with one another (or with themselves) in the same sentence beyond a certain level of scrutiny. For example a person can never be totally independent in their doing or in any other sense for that matter, however they can never be totally dependent on anything either, independence doesn't work like that (independence isn't a matter of cutting your ties with reality and floating off the map into sublime dissolution, to the contrary it's a matter of adjusting your ties with reality in a specific and fairly complex way which I won't get into here). Speaking in extremes can be useful to produce linguistic punches or poems, however you can't take thousands of simple, linear sentences, put them into a book and expect the product to be sophisticated, it doesn't work that way.. at some point you have to write not what comes off the tips of your fingers or what moves your heart or what intuitions float into your brain, rather you have to reflect on it and edit the hell out of it over and over (until it's good enough for the sentences before and after it as well as for the sum of what you're trying to say).. this kind of editing is also required in the long-term to be conducted not just on your computer writing but also on your self-dialogue and self-understanding, not as a constant process every second of the day but certainly in regular intervals of contemplation.. without a solid foundation of sophisticated understanding, there's always the risk that zingy one-liners, unsophisticated notions and unsophisticated thought patterns will trap you in a nebulous, bewildered rut masquerading as graceful clarity. The wiser you are the less you think to an extent, however at the same time your thoughts are so much more efficient perhaps for all intents and purposes you think more with less, but the real distinction is that you're less susceptible to become hypnotized by your own thoughts, by the limits of their grammar and syntax, by their practical nature, by their intimate closeness to your person, etc. To say that decisions and actions can happen without a specific doer is a fairly true statement, but don't tattoo it to your arm, don't be hypnotized by it! Detail is what leads to complexity: complex structures of thought arise in response to the myriad and uncountable stimuli presented by our senses and the multiple layers of abstractions and the resulting intricate series of interconnection that the mind forms between those abstractions over time. There is elegance in simplicity, particularly in a simple conceptual structure that manages to abstract and represent a breadth and depth of detail in that the detail is derived from the simple expression in action and, possibly in interaction and response to external stimuli. A few examples of these include fractals, the mechanism of our genes, hierarchical top-down tree structures, the abstraction of a connected topography of nodes, the engineers black box … could get to be a long list. Interesting to note that often at the root of such a structure is the artifact of recursion, a.k.a., self-reference. That elegance can lead to the efficiency that you mention, but it leaves one locked into a dependence on an ultimately brittle structure. It is that dependence that is exactly the hypnosis that you are referring to. In order to break the spell, these structures cannot be ignored, for they will continue to beckon the recalcitrant mind like a siren, over and over, and the thinker will drown a thousand deaths. Clarity can sometimes involve deconstructing faulty structures, but not all of these machines are lemons. Some are even battle-hardened time-tested veterans to challenge. In the end, clarity hinges on seeing the very nature of thought, ideation and conceptualization for what they are: empty. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 18:51:39 GMT -5
Detail is what leads to complexity: complex structures of thought arise in response to the myriad and uncountable stimuli presented by our senses and the multiple layers of abstractions and the resulting intricate series of interconnection that the mind forms between those abstractions over time. There is elegance in simplicity, particularly in a simple conceptual structure that manages to abstract and represent a breadth and depth of detail in that the detail is derived from the simple expression in action and, possibly in interaction and response to external stimuli. A few examples of these include fractals, the mechanism of our genes, hierarchical top-down tree structures, the abstraction of a connected topography of nodes, the engineers black box … could get to be a long list. Interesting to note that often at the root of such a structure is the artifact of recursion, a.k.a., self-reference. That elegance can lead to the efficiency that you mention, but it leaves one locked into a dependence on an ultimately brittle structure. It is that dependence that is exactly the hypnosis that you are referring to. In order to break the spell, these structures cannot be ignored, for they will continue to beckon the recalcitrant mind like a siren, over and over, and the thinker will drown a thousand deaths. Clarity can sometimes involve deconstructing faulty structures, but not all of these machines are lemons. Some are even battle-hardened time-tested veterans to challenge. In the end, clarity hinges on seeing the very nature of thought, ideation and conceptualization for what they are: empty. Detail can lead to complexity, but stupidity can also lead to complexity, just watch a stupid person try to unravel a knot of power chords behind the computer desk. If your microscope is only powerful enough to make out the rough physical shape of genes then from that perspective genes are elegant in their simplicity only as much as a homogeneous blob is multifaceted. The hypnosis I'm referring to is getting comfortable with a one-dimensional world not because you lack the right answers but because your questions have become so blunted. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer, accept a homogeneous blob of infinity in the sky and get a homogeneous blob of infinity in the sky. Perhaps we're almost saying the same thing.. you're saying the hypnosis is a matter of getting so used to the elegance, efficiency and harmony of simplicity that when challenge comes along it's difficult to bend without breaking? I have nothing against symbolism.. stop signs work great if a person knows about them, but getting on the road for the first time and learning about the street signs by trial and error isn't the wisest approach! In order to know how something's empty in a certain context, in order to be able to approach, contextualize or see beyond something in the first place, first you need to know how it isn't empty. In my view the intellectual eventually arks back to fully integrate with the experiential, I'm getting the impression that in your view there's a fundamental gulf between the intellectual and the experiential? It wouldn't be the first time people have had this difference of views. PS - I don't know what you're referring to by the artifact of "recursion". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2014 22:43:54 GMT -5
Detail is what leads to complexity: complex structures of thought arise in response to the myriad and uncountable stimuli presented by our senses and the multiple layers of abstractions and the resulting intricate series of interconnection that the mind forms between those abstractions over time. There is elegance in simplicity, particularly in a simple conceptual structure that manages to abstract and represent a breadth and depth of detail in that the detail is derived from the simple expression in action and, possibly in interaction and response to external stimuli. A few examples of these include fractals, the mechanism of our genes, hierarchical top-down tree structures, the abstraction of a connected topography of nodes, the engineers black box … could get to be a long list. Interesting to note that often at the root of such a structure is the artifact of recursion, a.k.a., self-reference. That elegance can lead to the efficiency that you mention, but it leaves one locked into a dependence on an ultimately brittle structure. It is that dependence that is exactly the hypnosis that you are referring to. In order to break the spell, these structures cannot be ignored, for they will continue to beckon the recalcitrant mind like a siren, over and over, and the thinker will drown a thousand deaths. Clarity can sometimes involve deconstructing faulty structures, but not all of these machines are lemons. Some are even battle-hardened time-tested veterans to challenge. In the end, clarity hinges on seeing the very nature of thought, ideation and conceptualization for what they are: empty. Detail can lead to complexity, but stupidity can also lead to complexity, just watch a stupid person try to unravel a knot of power chords behind the computer desk. If your microscope is only powerful enough to make out the rough physical shape of genes then from that perspective genes are elegant in their simplicity only as much as a homogeneous blob is multifaceted. Misuse of a metaphor is just a silly re-purposing of words.  Your first is based on a logical fallacy: in the absence of stupidity, the two different sources of the complexity, and thereby that which is subject either to disposal or as the basis for an elegant model, is easily discerned. The second misses the meaning of referencing the point example: it's not the objects of the genes themselves that embody the power of elegant simplicity, it is the nested dance of self-similarity, found in ever increasing scale (acid, protein, gene, chromosome, cell, organism), based on a language that can be abstracted with three letters that demonstrates the principle. The hypnosis I'm referring to is getting comfortable with a one-dimensional world not because you lack the right answers but because your questions have become so blunted. It's not a bad point, and the merit of it was the impetus behind engagement with the OP. What I was attempting to convey with regard to what happens to all the old conceptual structure (it doesn't go away, only the orientation to it changes), is that the economy of thought in the expressions that result from the orientation (which I would rather characterize by the opposite blade metaphor) is actually due to an absence of attachment to any answers, regardless of quality. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer, accept a homogeneous blob of infinity in the sky and get a homogeneous blob of infinity in the sky. Yes, I don't disagree with either of those conclusions. A homogeneous blob of infinity in the sky is obviously the product of pointexter the hapless IT guy with dual pocket protectors, coke-bottle-rim glasses, too much time on his hands and an intolerable sense of boredom with the task of unraveling the wires. Perhaps we're almost saying the same thing.. you're saying the hypnosis is a matter of getting so used to the elegance, efficiency and harmony of simplicity that when challenge comes along it's difficult to bend without breaking? The hypnosis is the product of reliance. It's the product of resting the mind on the structures that work, until they fail. Lots of them never will fail, and the hypnosis lasts a lifetime. I have nothing against symbolism.. stop signs work great if a person knows about them, but getting on the road for the first time and learning about the street signs by trial and error isn't the wisest approach! fu.ck'em if they can't take a joke! In order to know how something's empty in a certain context, in order to be able to approach, contextualize or see beyond something in the first place, first you need to know how it isn't empty. In my view the intellectual eventually arks back to fully integrate with the experiential, I'm getting the impression that in your view there's a fundamental gulf between the intellectual and the experiential? It wouldn't be the first time people have had this difference of views. It's possible to go all the way through to the emptiness of a structure, and I can see how (and have experienced) that as one way to for the spell to break, but I don't think it's always necessary. To support my conclusion, I'd invite you to shift your grip on this from breadth to depth. Surely, it's simply not possible to directly experience the emptiness of any and all possible complex conceptual structure available to us now, is it? As far as the gulf between experience and intellect is concerned, what is the taste of an apple? As far as intellectualization for it's own sake, my view is that absent extinction, given the inevitability of time, our understandings will ever increase in complexity, depth, and reach of applicability, but simply by definition, they will be limited as a matter of course by the fact that they are an expression. There is no answer that hasn't produce a dozen questions, and I don't see that as ever changing. PS - I don't know what you're referring to by the artifact of "recursion". Deep intellectual bunny hole. I can promise you more dialog on it if you'd like. For now: function f( x ) { print x f(x+1) } ?-1 ... y=-1/x ... if x=1, y==-1, if x=-1, y==1 ... this models both an oscilator and transcending a context lookup the way fractals work, check out the yt videos on fractals and nature are you familiar with the way that astronomical structures form? google noam chomsky self-reference in language Consider this natural pattern in terms of the subject/object split: all information is dependent on contrast, you can only read these letters because of the black foreground on the white background. No split (dualistically bound context), no information. What is ineffable? What is it that will never be known? |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 0:53:45 GMT -5
Misuse of a metaphor is just a silly re-purposing of words. Your first is based on a logical fallacy: in the absence of stupidity, the two different sources of the complexity, and thereby that which is subject either to disposal or as the basis for an elegant model, is easily discerned. The second misses the meaning of referencing the point example: it's not the objects of the genes themselves that embody the power of elegant simplicity, it is the nested dance of self-similarity, found in ever increasing scale (acid, protein, gene, chromosome, cell, organism), based on a language that can be abstracted with three letters that demonstrates the principle. We're barking up two different trees. I was going to say that a gene simply exists. Show me where the elegance of it is, show me where you can touch the elegant simplicity of it. But this is a bit of a cop out, so I'll say this. I proceed ever towards complexity, because the opposite would be proceeding ever towards simplicity. It's a vector that I hold, but I hold it generally, I don't micromanage it. To give an example, affirmation towards seeking the light is affirmation that you're not the light in the first place and is a poor way to proceed, instead if you proceed ever towards darkness then you do what is the natural way of light and shine, and in confronting the darkness you learn more about your lightness, you can't see your lightness directly any more than you can bite your own teeth. So to my original example, I gain awareness of simplicity indirectly, not directly. I gain it after the fact, once the complexity is seen through, understood, not before. Mine isn't the only way in this regard but I hope I've explained a bit better where I'm coming from. What I was attempting to convey with regard to what happens to all the old conceptual structure (it doesn't go away, only the orientation to it changes), is that the economy of thought in the expressions that result from the orientation (which I would rather characterize by the opposite blade metaphor) is actually due to an absence of attachment to any answers, regardless of quality. As Aristotle said it's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without believing it. You have to understand the question in order to avoid clinging to it. After all answers to your questions don't form randomly out of thin air. There's a cognitive (conscious or unconscious) process behind it, and the way to avoid attachment to this process isn't to cut ties with it but to the contrary to refine those ties so that they're integrated and aligned with your overall person. The hypnosis is the product of reliance. It's the product of resting the mind on the structures that work, until they fail. Lots of them never will fail, and the hypnosis lasts a lifetime. OK. *shakes laughter's hand in agreement* It's possible to go all the way through to the emptiness of a structure, and I can see how (and have experienced) that as one way to for the spell to break, but I don't think it's always necessary. To support my conclusion, I'd invite you to shift your grip on this from breadth to depth. Surely, it's simply not possible to directly experience the emptiness of any and all possible complex conceptual structure available to us now, is it? Well neither emptiness nor fullness exist absolutely, that is, neither exist independently of the other, so it would indeed be impossible to go to one extreme in diametric opposition to the other extreme. Dare I say this was a most elegant proof.  As far as the gulf between experience and intellect is concerned, what is the taste of an apple? It's a question, and the kind that begs for a certain type of answer.  But really, I would focus not on the answer but on the question itself, which is sort of the same thing anyways. As far as intellectualization for it's own sake, my view is that absent extinction, given the inevitability of time, our understandings will ever increase in complexity, depth, and reach of applicability, but simply by definition, they will be limited as a matter of course by the fact that they are an expression. There is no answer that hasn't produce a dozen questions, and I don't see that as ever changing. Answers don't produce questions, a person produces questions, and with more data it's easier to better refine one's priorities, to better identify the questions that are important to you. As Shunryu Suzuki-Roshi says "If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything; it is open to everything. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." There's no pre-set picture that awaits once you put all the answers in their "correct slots", rather the picture is of your own making - answers don't lead to other questions automatically along predefined epistemological channels. I agree that knowledge will always be limited, but to me that's as relevant as pointing out that a proper symbol can't simultaneously convey any and every possible expression. Finally I must say that I'm not strong enough in math to understand how your equation works or any implications of it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 3, 2014 4:13:55 GMT -5
Misuse of a metaphor is just a silly re-purposing of words. Your first is based on a logical fallacy: in the absence of stupidity, the two different sources of the complexity, and thereby that which is subject either to disposal or as the basis for an elegant model, is easily discerned. The second misses the meaning of referencing the point example: it's not the objects of the genes themselves that embody the power of elegant simplicity, it is the nested dance of self-similarity, found in ever increasing scale (acid, protein, gene, chromosome, cell, organism), based on a language that can be abstracted with three letters that demonstrates the principle. We're barking up two different trees. I was going to say that a gene simply exists. Show me where the elegance of it is, show me where you can touch the elegant simplicity of it. But this is a bit of a cop out, so I'll say this. I proceed ever towards complexity, because the opposite would be proceeding ever towards simplicity. It's a vector that I hold, but I hold it generally, I don't micromanage it. To give an example, affirmation towards seeking the light is affirmation that you're not the light in the first place and is a poor way to proceed, instead if you proceed ever towards darkness then you do what is the natural way of light and shine, and in confronting the darkness you learn more about your lightness, you can't see your lightness directly any more than you can bite your own teeth. So to my original example, I gain awareness of simplicity indirectly, not directly. I gain it after the fact, once the complexity is seen through, understood, not before. Mine isn't the only way in this regard but I hope I've explained a bit better where I'm coming from. Best of luck with that! (** muttley snicker **)
What I was attempting to convey with regard to what happens to all the old conceptual structure (it doesn't go away, only the orientation to it changes), is that the economy of thought in the expressions that result from the orientation (which I would rather characterize by the opposite blade metaphor) is actually due to an absence of attachment to any answers, regardless of quality. As Aristotle said it's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without believing it. You have to understand the question in order to avoid clinging to it. After all answers to your questions don't form randomly out of thin air. There's a cognitive (conscious or unconscious) process behind it, and the way to avoid attachment to this process isn't to cut ties with it but to the contrary to refine those ties so that they're integrated and aligned with your overall person. Sounds like a great plan if you want to confirm what you already believe! Aces! As far as what that most auspicious ancestor of the French Revolution had to say, thing is, that I can't tell you directly what the emptiness of ideation is, but I can tell you what it's not, and the suspension of disbelief, while a wonderful personal tool in the right hands toward the right ends, is not it.  Relax pal, yeah, I know they might sound alike to you ... remember, appearances can be quite deceiving.  The hypnosis is the product of reliance. It's the product of resting the mind on the structures that work, until they fail. Lots of them never will fail, and the hypnosis lasts a lifetime. OK. *shakes laughter's hand in agreement*  It's possible to go all the way through to the emptiness of a structure, and I can see how (and have experienced) that as one way to for the spell to break, but I don't think it's always necessary. To support my conclusion, I'd invite you to shift your grip on this from breadth to depth. Surely, it's simply not possible to directly experience the emptiness of any and all possible complex conceptual structure available to us now, is it? Well neither emptiness nor fullness exist absolutely, that is, neither exist independently of the other, so it would indeed be impossible to go to one extreme in diametric opposition to the other extreme. Dare I say this was a most elegant proof. Elegant, but not the same use of the word emptiness in the dialog as mine. As far as the gulf between experience and intellect is concerned, what is the taste of an apple? It's a question, and the kind that begs for a certain type of answer. But really, I would focus not on the answer but on the question itself, which is sort of the same thing anyways. I'd rather turn the focus to the apple! As far as intellectualization for it's own sake, my view is that absent extinction, given the inevitability of time, our understandings will ever increase in complexity, depth, and reach of applicability, but simply by definition, they will be limited as a matter of course by the fact that they are an expression. There is no answer that hasn't produce a dozen questions, and I don't see that as ever changing. Answers don't produce questions, a person produces questions, and with more data it's easier to better refine one's priorities, to better identify the questions that are important to you. As Shunryu Suzuki-Roshi says "If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything; it is open to everything. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." There's no pre-set picture that awaits once you put all the answers in their "correct slots", rather the picture is of your own making - answers don't lead to other questions automatically along predefined epistemological channels. I agree that knowledge will always be limited, but to me that's as relevant as pointing out that a proper symbol can't simultaneously convey any and every possible expression. Finally I must say that I'm not strong enough in math to understand how your equation works or any implications of it. Thanks for the reply tran'. In all seriousness, all those symbols and breadcrumbs about recursion are, at bottom, just as any other conceptual structure, void. If they strike your interest and you want to dialog about them, I'll be glad to do that, with the emphasis on how they point to the limiting nature of rationality and reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 12:04:53 GMT -5
I'd like to talk more with you but I'm not sure on what subject or how exactly. Perhaps by e-mail.
The "limiting nature of rationality and reason"? Surely you don't want to be limitless, to come apart at the seams??
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 3, 2014 19:58:32 GMT -5
I'd like to talk more with you but I'm not sure on what subject or how exactly. Perhaps by e-mail. The "limiting nature of rationality and reason"? Surely you don't want to be limitless, to come apart at the seams?? No, it just means that thinking and reasoning or feeling and emoting about the absence of limitation are all limiting processes that result in limited expressions. Turning attention away from all of that affords one a different opportunity with regard to the absence of limitation. If you don't mind, I'd like to keep our dialog public for now. -- this is more relevant to my circumstance that yours, I assure you. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 21:49:55 GMT -5
I love limits more than anyone else that I know.. I can construct so many things with the bricks of limits.. absolutely everything is limited.. this is a core concept of my paradigm.. limit - placeholder - brick.. the only way to proceed is via graduated incrementation.. if a shortcut doesn't cut any corners then it's a legitimately less long route.. but you have to find the envelope before you can push it!..
I'm immortal, that is I'll liberate myself from the cycle of reincarnation when I die and live on in the other universe, but that doesn't mean I'm traveling back in time or everywhere in time at once, I'm not a crazy time traveler!.. A process can be unlimited in a specifically defined way, such as the duration of my existence, but that doesn't mean my being comes apart at the seams and bounces off the map into sublime dissolution!.. nor does it mean that immortality is a silver bullet, as if it's a guarantee or something fixed in contradiction to my free will.. so my eternal life is most limited indeed.. also I'm only a certain age, I haven't always existed, so that's another limit, in the past..
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 4, 2014 0:37:57 GMT -5
I love limits more than anyone else that I know.. I can construct so many things with the bricks of limits.. absolutely everything is limited.. this is a core concept of my paradigm.. limit - placeholder - brick.. the only way to proceed is via graduated incrementation.. if a shortcut doesn't cut any corners then it's a legitimately less long route.. but you have to find the envelope before you can push it!.. I'm immortal, that is I'll liberate myself from the cycle of reincarnation when I die and live on in the other universe, but that doesn't mean I'm traveling back in time or everywhere in time at once, I'm not a crazy time traveler!.. A process can be unlimited in a specifically defined way, such as the duration of my existence, but that doesn't mean my being comes apart at the seams and bounces off the map into sublime dissolution!.. nor does it mean that immortality is a silver bullet, as if it's a guarantee or something fixed in contradiction to my free will.. so my eternal life is most limited indeed.. also I'm only a certain age, I haven't always existed, so that's another limit, in the past.. You are not what you think you are. |
|
