|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2016 8:17:34 GMT -5
We are not seeing through eyes, we are seeing through imaginary eye, we wear glasses when that imaginary eye looses power. When I say imaginary eye loose the power, I meant to say consciousness creates different perpetual flow, Glasses doesn't exist in itself as well. If you look up circular thinking in a philosophical dictionary, you see Gopal's picture. Is he the only one here?  And hey, remember this? .. don't think I'm complaining now as I've got zero standing, but I'm just curious if you remember writing it.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 8:18:36 GMT -5
Gopal stated the tree is an appearance, but the eye is imaginary. What you explained is that the tree and eye are both appearances (I have no problem with that idea). So I was trying to understand if the other sensory organs are imaginary, or if they are an appearance. I don't think I got an answer to that. I would assume thy are also imaginary, but then I am not clear at what point sensory organs end. The tree too could also be said to have a bunch of sensory organs. Appearances are fundamentally imagined into 'apparent' existence. Or it could be that appearances are based on interaction with an actual external world, and it is imagined that appearances are fundamentally imagined into 'apparent' existence. Considering one true over the other is a subjective predilection. Most people here don't understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2016 8:21:30 GMT -5
Relax dude, St. Patrick was abducted from the big island in chains. It's all in the past man.   "now. ya' shar ya' got all 'o 'em paddy?? (** wink wink **)"  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 8:23:00 GMT -5
I have said all existential self-identifying conceptualizations are folly. In your world you have a self-identity, in my world I have relinquished the necessity for that conceptualization. Knowing that you are all that is, is not really a self identity. When there is nothing that you are not, there also is nothing that you are. Hencely, there is no risk in acknowledging you are Awareness or Consciousness or 'All that is' or Existence or Intelligence or whatever. If you're clear what that means, there will be nothing for mind to grasp and form an ego identity with. Ego needs others. Yes. IOW, source may be fooling him/herself, but no one else. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 8:27:59 GMT -5
Yes, if you believe you are Consciousness you can't do anything but watch appearances. But if you believe you are a body-mind, you can go and get eye surgery to fix your visual impairment.  You completely lost the idea of what's the meaning of 'everything is appearance', this is why I kept on talking to you that you still did not understand the fact of world appears and doesn't exist in itself. You can't know that. But to even speak about it you have to define "exist in itself". At most you can only say, for me, I consider it to be the case there is no external world. To try to say more you are marching off to La-La Land. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 8:30:29 GMT -5
"now. ya' shar ya' got all 'o 'em paddy?? (** wink wink **)" Oops! Looks like he missed this handsome fella..  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 8:31:02 GMT -5
I am saying it matters a lot. Okay that's clear then. You agree with Andrew's statement. Glad we sorted that out. I thought andrew said it doesn't matter? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 8:32:47 GMT -5
Okay that's clear then. You agree with Andrew's statement. Glad we sorted that out. Catching up here Satch. Andrews statement? I thought andrew said it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 8:39:34 GMT -5
they grow the same way that 'real' eyes work If all trees are imaginary, what can you know about 'real' trees? If all trees are imaginary, there are no real trees. But I consider it the case that the appearance of trees in consciousness comes from seeing ~real~ trees (in a ~real~ exterior world). But then if you ask Plato, he says ~real~ trees are not real, they are mere copies of the ideal tree which exists in the ideal world (of Ideals). So, the whole matter can get very complicated. Sometimes you have to wait for the Merry-Go-Round to quit going round, and then you have to wait for your head to quit spinning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 9:22:21 GMT -5
I have said all existential self-identifying conceptualizations are folly. In your world you have a self-identity, in my world I have relinquished the necessity for that conceptualization. Knowing that you are all that is, is not really a self identity. When there is nothing that you are not, there also is nothing that you are. Hencely, there is no risk in acknowledging you are Awareness or Consciousness or 'All that is' or Existence or Intelligence or whatever. If you're clear what that means, there will be nothing for mind to grasp and form an ego identity with. Ego needs others. But mind does grasp it. It swaps a limited self-identity with an all encompassing one. That's not the same as dropping the concept of self-identity completely, which is in line with ineffable. I understand why you self-identify with ineffable and that's fine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 9:30:00 GMT -5
Very good explanation, yes. You seems to be clearly understanding me in this place. OK, thanks, but I still disagree with most of what you say. The person/mind/brain's ability to build an imaginary universe is very powerful. It builds universe in nightly dream, So where is the problem? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 9:30:56 GMT -5
We are not seeing through eyes, we are seeing through imaginary eye, we wear glasses when that imaginary eye looses power. When I say imaginary eye loose the power, I meant to say consciousness creates different perpetual flow, Glasses doesn't exist in itself as well. If you look up circular thinking in a philosophical dictionary, you see Gopal's picture. hmm? why? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 9:34:07 GMT -5
Okay that's clear then. You agree with Andrew's statement. Glad we sorted that out. I thought andrew said it doesn't matter? Yeah,exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 9:39:24 GMT -5
I don't know precisely what she was banned for. It was likely more complicated. I think (surmise) that for which she was banned was necessarily deleted. Ah, could be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 9:43:53 GMT -5
You completely lost the idea of what's the meaning of 'everything is appearance', this is why I kept on talking to you that you still did not understand the fact of world appears and doesn't exist in itself. You can't know that. But to even speak about it you have to define "exist in itself". At most you can only say, for me, I consider it to be the case there is no external world. To try to say more you are marching off to La-La Land. I understand the problem here. The reason I believe that outer world doesn't exist is, Perceiver is attached part of perception. |
|
And hey, remember this? .. don't think I'm complaining now as I've got zero standing, but I'm just curious if you remember writing it. 
