|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 21:20:33 GMT -5
Makes you wonder, do we find these animals amazing because they really are exceptional or are our expectations of them just too low? In the 1920's it was widely believed that babies couldn't feel pain and they were treated accordingly. So these experiments and 'amazing' discoveries re: the cognitive abilities of animals probably say more about our erroneous beliefs than the cognitive abilities of animals. It is widely believed that animals don't think or can't think. So we treat them accordingly. Now that we know better, how are we going to treat them?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 21:24:59 GMT -5
I have no idea what "suchness reigning supreme over thing-ness" even means. Suchness refers to your true nature, what you are. And there is only what you are (hat tip to Tenka). This fully understood, settles all questions about 'others' once and for all. My point was that suchness and thingness co-abide just fine...are NOT at war with each other. But if abiding SR is the case, "suchness" is primary...thingness, secondary. Another way to say that is Oneness reigns supreme even as distinction arises. Distinction does not have to cease for Oneness to not only be the case. The world of things are experienced differently post SR...and yet, 'things' still appear. They're just no longer "out there" or "not THIS." Re-cognition...? Does that mean there is some kind of "memory" involved as you see it in SR/waking up?...that upon awakening, you have recall of a sort of "former" wakefulness? The way I'd put it that the Truth was always there, shining through, just waiting to be revealed when separation/delusion/the SVP was no longer in play, obscuring it. But that view you seem to be putting forth that there is a sort of "re" membering, or re-cognition of something formerly "cognized"..." doesn't really resonate here. Yes. No, not memory because it isn't knowledge. We are using pointers here, don't we? You are trying to lick the pointer by being too literal. I don't know if you do this unconsciously or on purpose, but it's at the root of these boring perpetual discussions with you that don't go anywhere and have no actual content other than parsing words. Let's not do this anymore, okay?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:28:31 GMT -5
Spell-check typo here so doing a two-for-one. Well, then if that's clear to you you have to ignore the point that ND is not about abstractions in order to conclude that ChatGPT is a good analogy for ND. There's still an error in both links. I don't remember my point. Yes, you're right, the links don't work, sorry, don't know what happened. Here, I'll put the quotes in line. you wrote: ChatGPT is a pretty good analogy for ND. For years Google has been trying to make copies of all existing information. So ChatGPT has access to a vast amount of information. to which I replied: The information aggregated is only in the abstract. Ever look at even a small part of your lawn and try to count the number of objects? Even in the abstract, the aggregation they've done is far from complete by any one of several (and there can be very many) different measures, and every question answered only ever gives rise to another 100 new questions. to which you responded: Of course, I thought that was clear, that's the meaning of in a conceptual sense. If that's the case then you have to ignore that ND is not about abstractions in order to conclude (as you did above) that "ChatGPT is a good analogy for ND".
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 21:32:40 GMT -5
What I am saying isn't really any different from what Niz said: You see, we are going in circles. This Q & A game isn't going anywhere. Obviously we are not seeing eye to eye and are not going to given that this discussion has been going on for at least six years. From my perspective, you have not yet realized suchness, which means your only reference is thingness, which is precisely why you still struggle with the question about other perceivers, oneness and aliveness. IOW, you haven't seen into your true nature, you haven't realized yet who you really are. Because if you would, you would agree with what ZD and I have been saying and what Niz, Ramakrishna, Watts, Tolle and countless others have been saying. So at this point, all I can offer is to agree to disagree and let this topic go for good. Ah yes, and I don't mean here at all to try to "force" you to answer if for some reason you really don't want to, but I did notice you didn't respond at all to this bit. It would really clear things up I think if you could answer this particular query of mind....it's been the crux of the argument I think....that one hand, boundaries disappear...things dissolve, but then your assertion re: "knowing a rock is perceiving," specifically pertains to "a rock."
As I see it "unique" discrete, multiple, perception(s) have inherent to them, apparent boundary. If the boundaries collapse, then the uniqueness/discreteness also collapses, no?
"If there are no boundaries at all....by what means are you identifying/denoting a rock from a sock....a person from a paperclip to then know each specific item to be having it's own unique experience? How do you know a "paper-clip" to be having it's own unique perception/experience if there's no boundary appearing by which to denote "the paperclip."
You know what's wrong with your approach, you use some fragment out of context of what I've said, and then you start rephrasing it and rephrasing it, adding new words and terms that I didn't even use myself and then you ask me if I still agree with what I've said years ago when I didn't even say that. And it's too cumbersome to have to point that out to you again and again. Let's face it, you don't get what I am saying because you have no reference for the perspective I am pointing to. So even if you'd tried to be truthful to the words that I wrote, they obviously are not going to make sense to you, so you try to rephrase it in your own words so that it makes some sense to you. But by doing so you create this straw Reefs and then you want me to answer for the logical mistakes that straw Reefs is making. And I am telling you that your straw Reefs and what you have your straw Reefs say, while inspired by the actual Reefs, is still entirely your creation, so the one who should you have to answer for those logical mistakes of that straw Reefs is you, not me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:33:50 GMT -5
Only if you generate that abstract thought about the scenario. .. (** slurp! slurp! slurp! **) Yes, but I'm not sure how many people understand what "slurp slurp slurp" is pointing to. Zen culture is nothing if not intensely humorous. .. and yet, so ultimately serious. An amoeba is intelligent, and it "knows" how to find what it wants to eat, but is there any abstraction involved in that activity? A few of the most intelligent animals appear to have some level of abstraction, but based upon the latest research how far down the food chain that goes is questionable. A few highly-intelligent birds can apparently imagine two to four hypothetical future actions necessary to acquire a food reward, but it doesn't appear that dogs can do that. Dogs are intelligent, but whether they can match the birds in this regard is doubtful. Abstract thinking is not necessary for recognizing food. It appears to be the difference between gnosis and episteme. Raises a great point to concede that abstract thinking certainly can be a factor in generating greater food production. Interesting points, thanks. I'd also observe that science is likely far behind Dr. Dolittle here, in that there might be all sorts of modes of abstraction that we don't readily relate. Whales are a great example.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:37:38 GMT -5
Pain, smashed bodies, cherry sundaes, bee stings, orgasms .. these are all after-the-fact descriptions of sensation and perception. Why even bother applying the notion of "distinction" in this context to physical sensation? When you depress a keyboard key, where does your finger end and the key begin? Where does the key end and the keyboard begin? Where does the keyboard end and the desk begin? All TMT. All a "distinction" can ever do is abstract. "Contrast" is an idea that is an after-the-fact description of discerning red for green. "heh heh .. good thing .. heh heh". I don't mind admitting this makes no sense. If there aren't distinctions (previous to mind-making), then why can't why can't you draw a keyboard on a table and get music out of it? www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEm-6lYMgCI&t=40sThe question is just far too silly to engage with. But you're certainly welcome to respond to this if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 21:38:44 GMT -5
Just a bit of friendly input, but perhaps try and pace yourself. Clearly there is a number of contentions you're keen to work through which have probably built up a bit due to circumstances and that's fine. But maybe try to focus them a bit more, be succinct, and wait for some answers before you go on too far ahead. I think Reefs had specifically requested along these lines and probably both from a personal and moderator POV. Also mentioning he's not here as often. Obviously things ebb and flow and we can mix it up, and sometimes the situation does call for a thorough breakdown of a post or a text wall response. But I think the scattergun approach will turn folks off and it runs the danger of becoming a chore. My motto is quality over quantity, (at least in my own mind, hehe), and I treat it as a marathon rather than a sprint. But I appreciate everyone is different. And I'm sure you'll understand when I say that sometimes with the finer aspects of these topics, less really is more. Just my 2 cents anyway, and I hope it doesn't come across as too condescending. Not condescending at all...I actually had the same thought last night. I think I've got a much better chance of having my questions answered if I present in more of a piece-meal fashion. Totally agree with what you're sayin'....nailed it. It is important to keep in mind that I have always answered your questions and still do, usually multiple times and in different ways. But like SDP, you can't hear the answer or don't like the answer. So you may feel that I didn't really answer your questions. But from my perspective, all your questions have been answered, usually years ago already, and dozens of times. Apparently you still can't hear me. And so I think we just have to accept this and agree to disagree. I don't know about you, but I find zero satisfaction in these kind of perpetual dialogs that essentially just word lawyering based on unconscious or deliberate misconstruction of what I have actually said. I usually try to find a new way of explaining the exact same thing to that I have been explaining to you a hundred times already for ten years at least. And very often I think I explained it exceptionally well and you will finally get it. But when I read your replies the next day, I realize that we are back to square one again and that I've wasted my time and energy again. I am not blaming you, after all I don't have to engage with you, and often answering your questions or questions form others force me to be more precise or creative with my language and so there's often some growth aspect involved and in that sense it's not all wasted life, but I have to also admit that the groundhog day feeling is very strong when replying to you these days. And that has to stop and will stop. So if you are not hearing from me again, you know why. It's nothing personal, it's just that this feels like a drag and I don't think I need that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:39:59 GMT -5
Would you classify that quote above as an Absolute Truth, a theory....a relative truth? This is where I get confused with your LOA/deliberate creation talk.
How does that belief/theory survive the Ultimately/Absolute seeing that time is an illusion...that causation.... past/future are mere ideas arising NOW, that there is ultimately an absence of personal volition, that it's all one seamless movement...? All there is, is NOW...HERE....THIS.
It just seems so obvious to me that in the seeing through of separation, volition, causation, time, the very idea of "LOA/creating reality" gets called into question. Absent actual time/passage/one moment "becoming" the next, this happening causing a future happening, absent actual causality, how does that idea of LOA/deliberate creation still stand up as a valid law/truth?
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement. I'll give you a clue: it's not about "definitions" or mental maps of any sort.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:43:00 GMT -5
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement. Because ZD ignores the LOA/creation/cancer stuff. Figgles on the other hand... haha. I spent years breakin' his balls about that stuff. You likely didn't notice 'cause of the way I did it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:46:21 GMT -5
Would you classify that quote above as an Absolute Truth, a theory....a relative truth? This is where I get confused with your LOA/deliberate creation talk.
How does that belief/theory survive the Ultimately/Absolute seeing that time is an illusion...that causation.... past/future are mere ideas arising NOW, that there is ultimately an absence of personal volition, that it's all one seamless movement...? All there is, is NOW...HERE....THIS.
It just seems so obvious to me that in the seeing through of separation, volition, causation, time, the very idea of "LOA/creating reality" gets called into question. Absent actual time/passage/one moment "becoming" the next, this happening causing a future happening, absent actual causality, how does that idea of LOA/deliberate creation still stand up as a valid law/truth?
Deliberate creation and LOA is the thingness context. And the thingness context is also the practical everyday life context. And in that context, and understanding of LOA and deliberate creation has enormous value. In the context of absolute truth, it has no relevance, of course. But that's not where everyday life happens. When someone asks you who you are, you answer with your name, you don't tell them that you are All-That-Is or the ground of being, right? There's a scene in the bible where Jesus somehow reveals his true nature to his disciples at the top of a mountain and leaves them cowering in terrified awe. The Catholics run their bible readings in a yearly cycle and this one comes up when the new recruits are just ready be baptized. Father Joe's sermon for that day was .. "we don't live on the mountain top".
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 21:48:17 GMT -5
Deliberate creation and LOA is the thingness context. And the thingness context is also the practical everyday life context. And in that context, and understanding of LOA and deliberate creation has enormous value. In the context of absolute truth, it has no relevance, of course. But that's not where everyday life happens. When someone asks you who you are, you answer with your name, you don't tell them that you are All-That-Is or the ground of being, right? There's a scene in the bible where Jesus somehow reveals his true nature to his disciples at the top of a mountain and leaves them cowering in terrified awe. The Catholics run their bible readings in a yearly cycle and this one comes up when the new recruits are just ready be baptized. Father Joe's sermon for that day was .. "we don't live on the mountain top". Bingo!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 21:52:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 30, 2023 21:52:08 GMT -5
Deliberate creation and LOA is the thingness context. And the thingness context is also the practical everyday life context. And in that context, and understanding of LOA and deliberate creation has enormous value. In the context of absolute truth, it has no relevance, of course. But that's not where everyday life happens. When someone asks you who you are, you answer with your name, you don't tell them that you are All-That-Is or the ground of being, right? There's a scene in the bible where Jesus somehow reveals his true nature to his disciples at the top of a mountain and leaves them cowering in terrified awe. The Catholics run their bible readings in a yearly cycle and this one comes up when the new recruits are just ready be baptized. Father Joe's sermon for that day was .. "we don't live on the mountain top".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:54:19 GMT -5
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that perception/experience is always filtered, and that filter is abstraction. I think that's the whole point, realization sees behind it all. More or less, but don't try to imagine it or build a theory around it. The exact same conditioning and conditions extant in the instant prior to realization are extant in the instant afterward. The conditioning changes over time from there. And that's not to rule out the possibility of sudden and instantaneous profound transformation, either. Just observing how things can go.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:59:44 GMT -5
Yes. Most of us are only interested in defending our own position, trying to get other people to see we are obviously correct. It's very difficult to change our position, our POV. |\__/,| (`\ _.|o o |_ ) ) -(((---(((--------
|
|