Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 8:32:48 GMT -5
How can an appearance in consciousness be unreal if it..... appears? You're confused. Everybody needs to get on the same page concerning definitions. I noticed figgles also defines appearance different from Gopal. We can't understand each other unless we understand each other's definitions. I am saying everything is appearing. Whatever is visible to me is appearing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 8:40:37 GMT -5
Yes, exactly every time he does this, I don't understand why! He did the same thing in whether other individual is real or not argument as well. If he considers something useless, then better he could stay away right? But he intrude by suggesting something, but once he knows he can't win over the argument Or once he knows that I am correct then he start to speak like what's the use this argument! Come on gopal I'm waiting. What is your proof that the external world is not physical and only exists as an appearance in consciousness. Precisely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 8:42:52 GMT -5
Come on gopal I'm waiting. What is your proof that the external world is not physical and only exists as an appearance in consciousness. Precisely. What precisely? Why do I need to give the proof to the world which has been constructed out of imagination? You have been seeing your inner world ever since you born, you have never see the outer world so far. So Your imagination towards the outer world doesn't need to be invalidated because that is only exist in your imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 8:46:09 GMT -5
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. Well no, I wasn't referring to minding at all. For as long as you conceive of yourself in mechanistic terms you'll remain on the hamster wheel. Your "wisdom" isn't real silence it's just contrived mental suppression. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 8:46:25 GMT -5
I really don't think you read what I said there. If it is said that Gopal lives in India, is that a lie or a falsity? India is appearing. You are answering a question that wasn't asked. If someone asks you what is 1 + 1, do you say 'dog'? If someone asks you if you want an apple or a pear, do you say...'the apple is appearing'? The statement is 'Gopal lives in India'. Do you ever know this statement to be a true one? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 8:47:43 GMT -5
Yeah, like you!  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 Yes, so look to the original sin in the dialog. If you go back far enough it can always be discerned. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 8:49:10 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 want to go with that wording that's fine with me because again, they are both contextually true statements. What you are failing to see is that the fact that gopal couldn't see truth in both of the statements I offered, has already illustrated the point. There's no way for us to discuss this on any common ground because truth and direct perception refer to very different notions for each of us. That you won't face the fact of your fantasy's and how you're twisting and morphing the words of others as you go along is clear enough for what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 8:54:45 GMT -5
Really? Wow, watching the judgment machine in action is like replacing the dirt path with a high-speed monorail. And it's really not all that hard to notice it as it's happening, and the more day-to-day interaction the more opportunity for it, and the less routine that interaction is all the more so. What? What do you think I said? I'm talking about how difficult it is to judge whether someone on the path is right where they need to be or stuck. I don't know what you're referring to with the "judgment machine". You wrote that it was difficult to differentiate between "rationalizing justifications" and "following one's path". I disagreed with that. I assumed you were referring to looking inward and differentiating between when we ourselves are doing one or the other. Were you?  .. or were you referring to differentiating between when someone else was doing that? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 8:58:35 GMT -5
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? There are lots of different ways to talk about this, but one way is to say that they are both aspects of god or come from the same source, so absolutely , they are equal. 'When the game is over, the king and pawn go back in the same box'. They are equally divine, equally of god, equally god. They both arise from emptiness and fall back into emptiness. In the absolute context, I am you, and you are I. We are the same. Difference is relative and oneness is absolute.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 8:59:11 GMT -5
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? Yes I have challenged pointers for sure, but I see value too. More revisionist history for the sake of self image and politics. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 9:00:56 GMT -5
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. . If I cared about self image it would be quite easy to communicate and present info in such way that would support that. , you're completely transparent andy.  .. and it's much easier to just ignore the self-contradictions and personal bio re-writes than to come to terms with them. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 9:02:27 GMT -5
Strikes me that it's for the same reason lots of peeps do that, and I can't really exclude myself from that company. Expression seeks an outlet and there's interest in how other minds will react to that expression. Our characters, mood, and whatever brought us to where we are modulate the entire affair, of course. I'm prone to repetition myself, but typically tire of any theme within a week or two, or as soon I recognise it as 'part of the pattern'. To me, which is just a personal view and others might not share it, to say one thing, receive the same argument, then say the same thing, to receive the argument, and it goes on... seems to lack any progression. I believe this is because these notions are attached to 'the truth', and as such become artifacts of knowledge, and thereby become items which require constant validation through affirmation - like - broken record. The position taken and adhered to only centralises persons in that righteous position, and that in turn, by seeking validation, creates the demand for agreement (to affirm) or disagreement (the opportunity to affirm for oneself). In my case, I only understand what is meant by what is said, which is really simple because it's just a few lines and it isn't highly articulate. It can't become highly articulate because it doesn't actually progress in conversation into deeper understandings. It is possible that there are other dimensions to it than being right or being wrong. Sure that's one variant on the pattern, but not the only one. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:03:07 GMT -5
If you want to go with that wording that's fine with me because again, they are both contextually true statements. What you are failing to see is that the fact that gopal couldn't see truth in both of the statements I offered, has already illustrated the point. There's no way for us to discuss this on any common ground because truth and direct perception refer to very different notions for each of us. That you won't face the fact of your fantasy's and how you're twisting and morphing the words of others as you go along is clear enough for what it is. I would say I have stuck to the key point and you have been twisting and morphing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 9:03:34 GMT -5
Exactly like that!  Satch: the rest of what you write reveals that you've got quite a bit of intellectual baggage packed into the word "real" that you don't even really seem conscious of.  One of the best scenes ever in a movie, Point Break. Rookie undercover FBI agent Johnny Utah/Keanu Reeves jumps out of a plane without a parachute rather than let "bad guy" bank robber/surfer Bodhi/Patrick Swayze get away. And he called me the drama queen. Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:04:57 GMT -5
Yes I have challenged pointers for sure, but I see value too. More revisionist history for the sake of self image and politics. Not only do I see value in the right context, I have offered a ton of pointers over the years. |
|
.. or were you referring to differentiating between when someone else was doing that?
.. and it's much easier to just ignore the self-contradictions and personal bio re-writes than to come to terms with them.