|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:36:55 GMT -5
Notice how the interest in the past expressed here is selective and toward the purpose of reinforcing self-image. Selectively excising those past events that don't support that image is the clear pattern. I could easily dig in the past to support a self-image. But, I don't care enough to do so. Well, no, the self-image projected here is quite obviously and literally the product of selectively eliding the past. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:38:45 GMT -5
I could easily dig in the past to support a self-image. But, I don't care enough to do so. Well, no, the self-image projected here is quite obviously and literally the product of selectively eliding the past. And my point is that if self-image was important to me, I would do what you do, and put effort into digging. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:43:15 GMT -5
There would be no arguing that the moon comes from outside of yourself. lol you're so disastrously wrong about the way that Love responds. If gopal was ardently arguing, over and over again, that the moon came from outside himself, I reckon Satch would invite him to investigate that too. I've got no problem with the possibility that another poster may appear and give Satch an opportunity to write of such a perspective. I'm sure he would benefit greatly to find out what he himself, really knows. The intrepid learn to tread carefully and deservedly, as you know.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:43:15 GMT -5
You got it wrong yesterday, and you've got it wrong again here today. Those aren't what you responded to gopal with the idea that both ideas are true. If you'll own up to your interest in the past I'll be happy to quote back to you what you actually did respond to. It's not hard at all in this instance because the thread of the dialog links directly back to it. The differential in meaning between what you've morphed gopals words to and what he actually wrote is quite significant.  I'm happy to see how gopal responds to what I have raised here, it will serve our purpose well enough, I'm not interested in lawyering the fine print with you. The question is whether eyes are involved with perceiving or not. Right, see, you make up a fictional past and then refuse to face what's actually in the archives. The two truths in question were: "is it true we perceive through our eye or is it true that we are directly perceiving the world"? Only Doooofus Guy turns that into "can you see an oncoming bus if you were blind?". The physical sensation of sight hasn't been denied. The question posed involves the notion of truth, and the idea of "direct perception". Approaching either of those ideas involves an expansion of orientation to the question beyond logic, analysis and conceiving of yourself and the world as a machine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:48:24 GMT -5
From your perspective I've no doubt that you find that thought reassuring. The comfort of the collective. Interesting how politics makes for strange bedfellows. I can't not agree. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:48:49 GMT -5
The mind makes the paradox and this fiction of an absolute context in which the murderer and the rock are equated is foundational to that concoction. All the defensive condescension you can muster (yes, reflected back to you here in spades), can't shield you from this. Mr. Brown Bear. well, you again illustrate here the lack of absolute context in your model, so you have no place getting involved in an argument about the nature or content of it. In your case, the denial of an absolute context is what keeps you stuck in brown bearism. In my model there is an absolute context, and in this context there is no hierarchy of any kind. Any supposed "model" of mine is in your imagination only, I was engaging with your model to demonstrate that you cries of "Brown Bear!" are complete projection. I'm not denying an absolute context, just disagreeing with you about what that context is and what the implications of it are. Here, explain this idea of how there's no hierarchy in the absolute context. How, exactly, can you describe the rock and the murderer in the absolute context such that they are equated? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:49:50 GMT -5
I'm happy to see how gopal responds to what I have raised here, it will serve our purpose well enough, I'm not interested in lawyering the fine print with you. The question is whether eyes are involved with perceiving or not. Right, see, you make up a fictional past and then refuse to face what's actually in the archives. The two truths in question were: "is it true we perceive through our eye or is it true that we are directly perceiving the world"? Only Doooofus Guy turns that into "can you see an oncoming bus if you were blind?". The physical sensation of sight hasn't been denied. The question posed involves the notion of truth, and the idea of "direct perception". Approaching either of those ideas involves an expansion of orientation to the question beyond logic, analysis and conceiving of yourself and the world as a machine. If you really want to go beyond logic then you will have to remain silent because you can't use logic to talk about beyond logic. I guess that sums up the forum really. The latter approach prevails. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:50:29 GMT -5
Andrew is suspending his natural distaste for the pointer of the absolute unchanging (which is at the kernel of what you often repeat), in order to maintain you as an ally. .. in the past he's made himself quite clear in this point. I have always acknowledged that that pointer has value in some contexts, but gopal has no interest in pointers, and so addressing him in terms of pointers is...pointless! Well no, in the past you've spent 100's of pages and weeks and weeks arguing down the ideas of the absolute and the unchanging. Why bring gopal into this? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:52:00 GMT -5
For you in terms of the forum archive the effort is because of your resistance between what was actually written and what you've misstated that to be. The resistance is because of the differential between the words in the archive and what you'd like them to say. No, that's not the effort. The effort is literally the thought (and application) of looking to find something, clicking on page numbers and search and all that stuff. You still have the energy of a lawyer about you, so for you it doesn't take effort, but for me....it does. Yes, and the why of that is as plain as day to anyone with even a hint of objectivity about them. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:53:00 GMT -5
Well, no, the self-image projected here is quite obviously and literally the product of selectively eliding the past. And my point is that if self-image was important to me, I would do what you do, and put effort into digging. If it wasn't important to you you wouldn't paint these portraits of yourself and others that depend on erasing the actuality of the words in the archive. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:55:07 GMT -5
Right, see, you make up a fictional past and then refuse to face what's actually in the archives. The two truths in question were: "is it true we perceive through our eye or is it true that we are directly perceiving the world"? Only Doooofus Guy turns that into "can you see an oncoming bus if you were blind?". The physical sensation of sight hasn't been denied. The question posed involves the notion of truth, and the idea of "direct perception". Approaching either of those ideas involves an expansion of orientation to the question beyond logic, analysis and conceiving of yourself and the world as a machine. If you really want to go beyond logic then you will have to remain silent because you can't use logic to talk about beyond logic. I guess that sums up the forum really. The latter approach prevails. Silence is where that expansion leads. Constricting focus with misuse of analytical mind leads instead to Dooooofus Guy and an endless circular dialog. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 5:00:30 GMT -5
The mind makes the paradox and this fiction of an absolute context in which the murderer and the rock are equated is foundational to that concoction. All the defensive condescension you can muster (yes, reflected back to you here in spades), can't shield you from this. Mr. Brown Bear. well, you again illustrate here the lack of absolute context in your model, so you have no place getting involved in an argument about the nature or content of it. In your case, the denial of an absolute context is what keeps you stuck in brown bearism. In my model there is an absolute context, and in this context there is no hierarchy of any kind. Thanks for playing.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 5:01:51 GMT -5
If you really want to go beyond logic then you will have to remain silent because you can't use logic to talk about beyond logic. I guess that sums up the forum really. The latter approach prevails. Silence is where that expansion leads. Constricting focus with misuse of analytical mind leads instead to Dooooofus Guy and an endless circular dialog. No, silence is not where that expansion (deluded mind) leads. Silence leads to expansion, but now it's called wisdom because it has the value of silence or the unlimited. Your so called expansion is just the limited value of minding. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 18, 2016 5:18:54 GMT -5
I'm just curious about why you say the same things over and over again. Because Andrew was not understanding and the argument was going between me and him. Right, so it's because Andrew doesn't understand what you're saying. I understood the concept months ago, and it seems simple to me. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 18, 2016 5:33:17 GMT -5
The I is always found in the field of the Other The unconscious is the discourse of the Other I am there when it is spoken that the universe is a defect in the purity of non-being The real is what resists symbolisation absolutely ~ Lacan |
|
