|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 0:49:31 GMT -5
"Reality" is also an idea, another contrivance of mind. You can approach it as a thinker and a philosopher, or not. This distinction you find to be significant between your body and an inanimate object forms the basis for a particular form of the existential question. I, too, used to find this distinction significant, in existential terms. That was years ago. If you'd like me to continue to engage with you on this line of dialog, I must insist on you seeing and acknowledging this interest for what it is clearly, and free of all the silly games. "Reality" can be a valuable notion in terms of pointing, but nothing but a source of TMT if grasped by the philosophizing, thinking mind. Treating the distinction of animate/inanimate as existentially significant is exactly the game that scientists play. When you stub your toe on a rock, you make a distinction between your body (i.e. toe) and an inanimate object (i.e. rock). This is a useful distinction for protecting your body from harm. Why would this cognitive ability raise an existential question?
I am proceeding carefully and seriously as you wanted. zendancer has chimed in but he is muddying the water further. ZD's writing in this dialog has been the most clear on these topics as you're ever going to get from anyone, including me. This "distinction" is after-the-fact, it's a description. The description of the pain, is not the pain. The distinction between your body and the rock is not insignificant, in existential terms, which is why you have the interest in these dialogs that you do. But, your insistence on the existential reality of the rock, as existentially separate from "your body" has to be suspended in order advance that interest. The very idea of "your body", has to be suspended. The only reason that I'm referring to this notion of "existential reality" is to call it what it is: just another idea. The trick is to just see these ideas for what they are, without replacing one, with another. Your mind must relax, and open. The process of thinking has to slow down. You have to get present to what is hiding in plain sight in your mind: your internalization of these concepts to the point where their influence on your given state at any give time is quite pronounced, even to the point that you don't notice it. Perhaps, based on your reply, I might write a few sentences about this notion: "perception is reality". You might even be able to predict what I'd write based on what I've written before.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 0:53:23 GMT -5
It's a duality question in the Cartesian sense. The difference between the soul (mind) and the body. I lean toward the Buddhist notion that such theorising causes distress, and I can think about points of perception as so on, but the truth for me is a different thing to knowledge. It's like I know 'this is what it's like', but why, how, what are completely speculative for me. Hence, I like reason. It's really useful. But I have no idea 'what I am' or 'why is there something rather than nothing', 'is there is there not a person' and all that stuff. I can only truly state the obvious: "I'm aware and this is what it's like". I feel the same way too. Spirituality should confer clarity, not generate distress. Sometimes, for some folks, I guess a process of coming to clarity can be stressful. I'm sorry if that's the way it is for you. Truly, not condescending.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 0:56:33 GMT -5
When you stub your toe on a rock, you make a distinction between your body (i.e. toe) and an inanimate object (i.e. rock). This is a useful distinction for protecting your body from harm. Why would this cognitive ability raise an existential question?
I am proceeding carefully and seriously as you wanted. zendancer has chimed in but he is muddying the water further. None of those statements are true, but if you have no existential questions, there's nothing to discuss. Most people who visit this site are interested in ND, and I was simply agreeing with what Laughter has been pointing to. Best wishes. Thanks for adding your dialog here zd, I appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 0:57:31 GMT -5
None of those statements are true, but if you have no existential questions, there's nothing to discuss. Most people who visit this site are interested in ND, and I was simply agreeing with what Laughter has been pointing to. Best wishes. What do you mean by existential questions? I am interested in human existence but not theories of existentialism that have nothing to do with real life. The interest in the distinction between the wood and the boatman was yours. I'm just a passenger. It's your rudder, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 0:58:53 GMT -5
What do you mean by existential questions? I am interested in human existence but not theories of existentialism that have nothing to do with real life. I'm cautious of sounding like a patronising as$ here, but I guess you understand that the rational mind cannot comprehend what is not finite? It can only comprehend what has boundaries. So even though the rational mind understands what is meant by the word 'infinite', it cannot comprehend it. In our non-dual religion here, we believe that what we are cannot be comprehended by the rational mind. It has to be comprehended another way, maybe by intuition, or some kind of irrational means. A peril that I often blunder myself into, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 1:00:42 GMT -5
I'm cautious of sounding like a patronising as$ here, but I guess you understand that the rational mind cannot comprehend what is not finite? It can only comprehend what has boundaries. So even though the rational mind understands what is meant by the word 'infinite', it cannot comprehend it. In our non-dual religion here, we believe that what we are cannot be comprehended by the rational mind. It has to be comprehended another way, maybe by intuition, or some kind of irrational means. No, you are not patronizing at all. I can understand what is meant by "infinite". It is the opposite of finite which is a comprehensible fact, something as real as peanut butter or jam. I live in the finite world.
"Infinite" is an idea, a non-fact. Spirituality that deals with facts is relevant to resolving problems of daily life.
Am I talking sense?
Not opposites, no. The very notion of opposition has to be suspended in order to discern what andy wrote there.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 1:12:55 GMT -5
Yes. Maybe "trans-rational comprehension" is a more useful pointer? No, it is not a useful pointer. "trans-rational" is as meaningless as "trans-woman" to me. I am not being facetious. I don't accept the rationalization of gender at Psychology Today. I guess I am a minority dissenter on the gender issue in western society. Am I a minority dissenter on trans-rational comprehension" of reality in this forum? Holding a minority opinion as Supreme Court justice on a legal matter is ok. I don't think holding a dissenting view of reality is ok unless truth about reality is a matter of opinion also.
Ok then. Perhaps "non-rational"? The point here is a recurring theme: an absence. So, not irrational, just not ... rational. Neither thought nor emotion can express such "understandings", not directly. Some will say that poetry can come the closest. Have you ever read this? From what little I know of J. Krishnamurti, it would seem to me a poem most resonant with his content.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 1:15:13 GMT -5
No, it is not a useful pointer. "trans-rational" is as meaningless as "trans-woman" to me. I am not being facetious. I don't accept the rationalization of gender at Psychology Today. I guess I am a minority dissenter on the gender issue in western society. Am I a minority dissenter on trans-rational comprehension" of reality in this forum? Holding a minority opinion as Supreme Court justice on a legal matter is ok. I don't think holding a dissenting view of reality is ok unless truth about reality is a matter of opinion also.
Current gender ideology is flawed, yeah. Gender studies was a significant part of my degree in the 90s, and it made sense at that point in time. It seems there has been redefinitions of key concepts at some point since then, and now it just doesn't make sense. Probably this discussion has no place here, but this is something I discuss on other social media at times. Ah. The genesis of the positionless position. Revealed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2022 1:19:43 GMT -5
What do you mean by existential questions? I am interested in human existence but not theories of existentialism that have nothing to do with real life. Why there is a suffering is the existential question. Why there is something instead of there simple being nothing is an existential question. Yes, good examples. Now. Bee nice!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 1, 2022 7:22:16 GMT -5
Current gender ideology is flawed, yeah. Gender studies was a significant part of my degree in the 90s, and it made sense at that point in time. It seems there has been redefinitions of key concepts at some point since then, and now it just doesn't make sense. Probably this discussion has no place here, but this is something I discuss on other social media at times. Ah. The genesis of the positionless position. Revealed.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 1, 2022 7:26:22 GMT -5
good with me I'm not fussy on this really, the point is the distinction between one kind of knowing, and another kind of knowing. As I'm sat here reflecting on it, the question I'm asking is, 'what is required in order to ''access'' that other knowing?'. I guess the first step is recognizing that the rational mind can't do it. So then what....is there anything that can be done to access the other knowing? Allowing oneself to become still perhaps...there's a sort of 'dropping' involved, a coming to rest in the 'space beyond'. And in that 'space', there is 'being' rather than 'doing'. Does that all sound like claptrap Sree? (That's okay if it does ) It would, if it doesn't help solve daily life problems. Can you point to one daily life problem that requires trans-rational comprehension for resolution?
well, in my relationships, I'm less reactive, more empathic, more intelligent (maybe ). I'm able to be open to different solutions and although I'm not always okay to be wrong, it's not because I'm intrinsically interested in defending a self-image. So, I think this trans/non-rational comprehension improves my close relationships.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 1, 2022 8:31:14 GMT -5
What do you mean by existential questions? I am interested in human existence but not theories of existentialism that have nothing to do with real life. Why there is a suffering is the existential question. Why there is something instead of there simple being nothing is an existential question.This is not an existential question. It does not pertain to your situation in the real world, why you can't pay the rent, why you have kidney stones and why your wife is always shouting at you. You don't want to deal with suffering. You want to escape from suffering, and that is the reason you focus on the non-fact: being nothing (instead of being something).
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 1, 2022 8:50:34 GMT -5
I feel the same way too. Spirituality should confer clarity, not generate distress. Sometimes, for some folks, I guess a process of coming to clarity can be stressful. I'm sorry if that's the way it is for you. Truly, not condescending. Why should coming to clarity be stressful? I am trying to figure why you guys are walking upside down instead of right side up. I am not going to attempt walking upside down until I understand the real benefit (i.e. living without suffering in the real world).
I have already pointed out that no one engaged in living in the real world would understand what you are saying and find you weird. What benefit has your clarity conferred on you? The Catholic priest would say that he has found the Kingdom of Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 1, 2022 9:23:53 GMT -5
Sometimes, for some folks, I guess a process of coming to clarity can be stressful. I'm sorry if that's the way it is for you. Truly, not condescending. Why should coming to clarity be stressful? I am trying to figure why you guys are walking upside down instead of right side up. I am not going to attempt walking upside down until I understand the real benefit (i.e. living without suffering in the real world). I have already pointed out that no one engaged in living in the real world would understand what you are saying and find you weird. What benefit has your clarity conferred on you? The Catholic priest would say that he has found the Kingdom of Heaven.
Not true. Many people who "live in the real world" understand exactly what we are saying (pointing to). Whether they find us weird or not is their problem, not ours.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 1, 2022 9:28:28 GMT -5
It would, if it doesn't help solve daily life problems. Can you point to one daily life problem that requires trans-rational comprehension for resolution?
well, in my relationships, I'm less reactive, more empathic, more intelligent (maybe ). I'm able to be open to different solutions and although I'm not always okay to be wrong, it's not because I'm intrinsically interested in defending a self-image. So, I think this trans/non-rational comprehension improves my close relationships. I am going to share this with you before I lose that scent, that "perfume" as Krishnamurti termed it. (I am not pushing Krishnamurti teaching. I feel the need to cite him when I use phrases or words he used.)
Anyway, I went for a walk this morning. I live in an urban forest. As I was walking and observing the scene: the sidewalk I was on, the surrounding trees, it occurred to me that the state of impermanence (I am using Buddhist lingo here) is a fact. Everything comes and goes. Not a tree, sidewalk, road, or house remains as is. Nothing remains the same and unchanging. The sun is always there, obviously; but it moves constantly. At any rate, I felt this sense of constant change. The body grows old, dies, and disappears like the melting snow. The observer. It's me. Not me, the person or self, but this state of observation. It seems unconnected to and yet is the scene, the observed itself. This "unconnectedness" pointed to a sense of permanence only because of its all enveloping presence. I have to stop here because more words will muck this up.
Your mention of groking and all that trans-rational stuff are what I am alluding to. I am not writing all this out to corroborate the spiritual bs from members in this forum. Spirituality is about this real world and concerned with our practical daily lives. It has protected me thus far. Your finding your wife resonated with me. I hope I am right and you have not been shouting at each other like Laffy and Sue.
|
|