Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 6:56:38 GMT -5
he needs more bandages!   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 6:56:42 GMT -5
Original sin isn't a statement about your humanity, it's a statement about our culture and how our genetics have intertwined with that culture. A "nondualist" would say that it's not a statement about what you really are, but instead a statement about what everyone is conditioned into expressing in the course of their lives. Where did you get this idea? It's a contemporary rational interpretation of the scripture in terms of evolution and deep history that doesn't lay the responsibility for creation on "God's" shoulders or take the story of Eden literally. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 6:59:22 GMT -5
 well, among other points that demonstrates that not every truth involves a judgment. The "unless it isn't" in this case is just pure silliness, because if you hadn't read it, you wouldn't know how to respond. Seriously andy, the only way for you to slow your mental spin seems to be for it to spin out of control. It's not silliness. In my model, every idea can be both true and false. Unless they can't. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 7:01:33 GMT -5
you can't resolve paradox in a context in which there is no paradox Yes, well one way to avoid "resolution" is to rest your mind and become comfy cozy with the paradox instead of checkin' in with the body to see what it's got to say.  A paradox can't be resolved by definition. It can explained (by showing the two contexts), but not resolved. There is also a context in which there is no paradox, so nothing has to be resolved. There is a paradox, and there is no paradox. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:03:12 GMT -5
The two infinities are the known and the unknown. Heisenberg addresses it in terms of a fallacious interpretation of the discovery of the limits of objective physical measurement in terms of a limit on human knowledge about nature. I think Heisenberg claimed that uncertainty itself is inherent, not that it's due to a limit. Heisenberg's initial contribution was an intuitive substitution that solved a mathematical problem but made absolutely no physical sense in the context in which it was presented. Eventually, he and Bohr synthesized a philosophical interpretation that could be stated that what is observed is not independent of the act of observation. The uncertainty principle was a later formulation which reinforced that interpretation, but was dependent to the first discovery. In the book the 'pilgirm and I are discussing, he addresses the notion that some people interpreted this idea that undermined physical objectivity as a limit on the potential for human knowledge about nature gained from objective experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:08:41 GMT -5
In "my spirituality" they each are perfect, but they are, of course, quite different. Same for me, but in my model, 'perfect' is literal. It means 'no mistake, no error, nothing wrong'. For you to say that they are 'perfect'...I don't know what that means because you suggested it is not associated with the common idea of 'perfect' So if you're saying that there is a context where Assad, Charlie and Adolph are perfect you're saying there is a context where these individuals are free of mistake, error and have done nothing wrong. The perfection of your being, as is and was theirs, is untouched by our judgments of right or wrong, and unblemished by their actions. It's true that you'll never make sense of that, because the perfection I'm referring to isn't conditional or dependent on or even related to conditions at all. Yes, it's a pointer. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:15:01 GMT -5
Judgment happens in the natural state. The perfection of the sacred is untouched by it. Contriving a "context" where murderous hate and nurturing love are the same and equal in the absence of judgment is the product of confusion. In my model the natural state is 'being', and judgement is a doing. However, I agree that perfection is untouched by the judgement, because the judgement stays in the relative context. In the absolute, both murderous hate and nurturing love are both equally perfect. There is no judgement in this context, so no mistake and no error. The other day you wrote about my supposed concrete mental division between the contexts and that's now obviously proving to be a projection on your part. Being and doing are only apparently distinct. It's a useful distinction to make to get peeps to slow down and get in touch with the ground of their being, and constantly thinking and rationalizing is a form of doing. You started off defining your "absolute context" in terms of the absence of judgment, but really, judgment has nothing to do with what the absolute context refers to. Judgments are just like any other appearance that comes and goes in the absolute context, and equating murder and love is a moral relativism. It's a judgment masquerading otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:17:23 GMT -5
If your "absolute context" is in terms of "things" then murder weapons are sacred and genocidal maniacs are innocent. Neither is the case but there is a context available where the nature of these things becomes clear, and the sacrosanct innocence at everyones heart becomes clear. The murderer can only murder because this is not clear to him. His mind, like your "absolute context", is full of things. Yes in the absolute context, murder weapons are sacred and genocidal maniacs are sacrosanct and innocent. They are no more, and no less God, than kind and gentle folk that make soup for the homeless. In the relative, genocide is a product of evil, and is therefore wrong...and murder weapons are perhaps a manifestation of that evil (any hunters on the forum? ) Yes, well, I think we've distinguished what we each mean by perfection in terms of context quite definitively at this point.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:21:36 GMT -5
The literal understanding of how our nature is obscured is situational, and premised on our humanistic conditioning. We know this because murder is abhorrent to us. Recognizing that conditioning as neither good nor bad doesn't make Manson the murderer innocent. From that conditioned perspective it's easy for everyone to understand how Charlie lost himself in a deluded story, but to hold that he's innocent, literally makes no sense. To speak about the innocence of his perfection that he never lost, even when he was plotting the murder of innocents, but that was obscured from him, involves speaking about something that is true in a sense that can never be justified or explained. But it's still true nonetheless. It's just not an intellectual nor an emotional truth. Manson in innocent for reasons I have explained multiple times, and it makes perfect sense to me. He is no more, and no less 'of God' than you are. In the absolute, you are not better or worse than him. Your non-dual teachings do not make you more innocent than him. You are not more sacred than him. In fact, he is a collective expression of which we both have had a role in. I don't mean this poetically or as a pointer, I mean it literally. Yes, you are, quite literally, very confused. At this point even your straw men are nonsensical. I never wrote about "more" or "less" sacred, only that there's no equating me with Manson, we are not the same, in any context. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:23:28 GMT -5
well, among other points that demonstrates that not every truth involves a judgment. The "unless it isn't" in this case is just pure silliness, because if you hadn't read it, you wouldn't know how to respond. Seriously andy, the only way for you to slow your mental spin seems to be for it to spin out of control. It's not silliness. In my model, every idea can be both true and false. Unless they can't. Yes, let's do this! .. I hope sasquatch is reading along still. Is it true that the Moon is made of cream cheese?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 7:25:00 GMT -5
Same for me, but in my model, 'perfect' is literal. It means 'no mistake, no error, nothing wrong'. For you to say that they are 'perfect'...I don't know what that means because you suggested it is not associated with the common idea of 'perfect' So if you're saying that there is a context where Assad, Charlie and Adolph are perfect you're saying there is a context where these individuals are free of mistake, error and have done nothing wrong. The perfection of your being, as is and was theirs, is untouched by our judgments of right or wrong, and unblemished by their actions. It's true that you'll never make sense of that, because the perfection I'm referring to isn't conditional or dependent on or even related to conditions at all. Yes, it's a pointer. Yes there is a context in which it is impossible for anyone or anything, to be, or make, a mistake/error. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:25:28 GMT -5
Yes, well one way to avoid "resolution" is to rest your mind and become comfy cozy with the paradox instead of checkin' in with the body to see what it's got to say. A paradox can't be resolved by definition. It can explained (by showing the two contexts), but not resolved. There is also a context in which there is no paradox, so nothing has to be resolved. There is a paradox, and there is no paradox. The explanations by mind are false comfort, but there is a state of clarity where existential paradox is seen for what it is. To reach this state, the intellect and emotions must be set aside. This is why some peeps recommend meditation. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 7:27:05 GMT -5
In my model the natural state is 'being', and judgement is a doing. However, I agree that perfection is untouched by the judgement, because the judgement stays in the relative context. In the absolute, both murderous hate and nurturing love are both equally perfect. There is no judgement in this context, so no mistake and no error. The other day you wrote about my supposed concrete mental division between the contexts and that's now obviously proving to be a projection on your part. Being and doing are only apparently distinct. It's a useful distinction to make to get peeps to slow down and get in touch with the ground of their being, and constantly thinking and rationalizing is a form of doing. You started off defining your "absolute context" in terms of the absence of judgment, but really, judgment has nothing to do with what the absolute context refers to. Judgments are just like any other appearance that comes and goes in the absolute context, and equating murder and love is a moral relativism. It's a judgment masquerading otherwise. They are only distinct in the way that the absolute and the relative are distinct. They're both ideas. Hierarchy and judgement go hand in hand. No hierarchy and no judgement go hand in hand. Love and hate are the same in the absolute context. They're both equally perfect, equally sacred, equally 'of Love'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:27:53 GMT -5
So if you're saying that there is a context where Assad, Charlie and Adolph are perfect you're saying there is a context where these individuals are free of mistake, error and have done nothing wrong. The perfection of your being, as is and was theirs, is untouched by our judgments of right or wrong, and unblemished by their actions. It's true that you'll never make sense of that, because the perfection I'm referring to isn't conditional or dependent on or even related to conditions at all. Yes, it's a pointer. Yes there is a context in which it is impossible for anyone or anything, to be, or make, a mistake/error. Well, we kinda' sorta' almost agree on that wording but it's just you morphing away from some of the more uncomfortable implications of your initial position from a few days back now. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:28:52 GMT -5
The other day you wrote about my supposed concrete mental division between the contexts and that's now obviously proving to be a projection on your part. Being and doing are only apparently distinct. It's a useful distinction to make to get peeps to slow down and get in touch with the ground of their being, and constantly thinking and rationalizing is a form of doing. You started off defining your "absolute context" in terms of the absence of judgment, but really, judgment has nothing to do with what the absolute context refers to. Judgments are just like any other appearance that comes and goes in the absolute context, and equating murder and love is a moral relativism. It's a judgment masquerading otherwise. They are only distinct in the way that the absolute and the relative are distinct. They're both ideas. Hierarchy and judgement go hand in hand. No hierarchy and no judgement go hand in hand. Love and hate are the same in the absolute context. They're both equally perfect, equally sacred, equally 'of Love'. Yes, well, you're welcome to your hatelove. Aces. |
|
