|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 26, 2022 6:36:36 GMT -5
And I should acknowledge that reefs did go that extra mile in engaging about the animate/inanimate dichotomy. Everything is alive. Brass hasp day, you know.  But on the flip side, figology is not wrong in the truthiness doctrine, either. There is no existential truth in anything that appears to you. ZD has contemplated and once expressed - to my recollection in paraphrase - that one can realize what one is, and/or, one can realize what one is not. Abandoning any concern over the risk of sounding like a condescending asshole, I'd opine that much of the turbulence in these dialogs is a clash of varying flavors and degrees of those two different realizations and the informings of mind that followed. Yes, I wrote "varying degree of realization", you see, in this regard, I am more ZD that even ZD ... Yes, basically agree. Regarding the bolded, I see a long standing conflict in where 'appearance' begins and ends. I'm pretty flexible on this matter. What concerns me more is always the equity, rather than whether 'consciousness' (for example) is an appearance, or is fundamental. Ultimately there is no you that anything appears to. Sure, we can talk in terms of substratums and whatnot, but even the witness position should be only a stepping stone. Because otherwise that itself becomes a schism. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:37:25 GMT -5
Okay, maybe not. if a deaf muttley snickers on an empty subway does he make a sound??  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 26, 2022 6:39:33 GMT -5
Okay, maybe not. if a deaf muttley snickers on an empty subway does he make a sound?? I dunno, but he prolly shouldn't expect any handouts from a passing sree. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:39:40 GMT -5
That's Schrodinger's cat in a different form. And complete TMT btw. Heisenberg's solution was that yes, the tree made a sound, and it was the entire Universe that heard it. He meant that in a very literal way, and he used a geiger counter instead of a tree. So he echoed a facet of Bohm's idea of implicate order, but Werner rejected the idea of "hidden variables". It took 25 years and Bell to prove that intuition correct. You only just notice that the falling tree and Schrodingers cat are variations of the same thought experiment?  I know. I'm dumb. So dumb. And slow.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:40:28 GMT -5
if a deaf muttley snickers on an empty subway does he make a sound?? I dunno, but he prolly shouldn't expect any handouts from a passing sree. well sree better keep moving if he doesn't want to be mistaken for a tree  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 6:40:50 GMT -5
Yes, basically agree. Regarding the bolded, I see a long standing conflict in where 'appearance' begins and ends. I'm pretty flexible on this matter. What concerns me more is always the equity, rather than whether 'consciousness' (for example) is an appearance, or is fundamental. Ultimately there is no you that anything appears to. Sure, we can talk in terms of substratums and whatnot, but even the witness position should be only a stepping stone. Because otherwise that itself becomes a schism. Agree. I mentioned in a message a few minutes ago about 'the irrational'....well, it was my experience that when the mind reached a limit, that there was a total collapse into 'the unknown'... 'the irrational'. There was no 'I' participating or involved. Any semblance of 'I' was lost in that collapse. So while I DO see value in pointers that involve the 'I'....I'm also a little cautious of the way that the pointer might be taken. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 6:41:33 GMT -5
And I should acknowledge that reefs did go that extra mile in engaging about the animate/inanimate dichotomy. Everything is alive. Brass hasp day, you know. But on the flip side, figology is not wrong in the truthiness doctrine, either. There is no existential truth in anything that appears to you. ZD has contemplated and once expressed - to my recollection in paraphrase - that one can realize what one is, and/or, one can realize what one is not. Abandoning any concern over the risk of sounding like a condescending asshole, I'd opine that much of the turbulence in these dialogs is a clash of varying flavors and degrees of those two different realizations and the informings of mind that followed. Yes, I wrote "varying degree of realization", you see, in this regard, I am more ZD that even ZD ... 🎯 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:44:02 GMT -5
You're just playing with the definition of "sound". How do you define sound but as "vibrations in the air"? The question still comes down to "what hears the sound?". Stop thinking about it. I'm not convinced about that. It's about the nature of the manifest, and the path that takes. Well you haven't refuted that it's playing with definitions and in so doing you're actually making my point, because the question of "what manifests?" is founded on what the manifestation is manifesting to. If there was someone there to sense it there'd be no question. It's just a concrete version of "is there an objective reality?". The concrete version has the benefit of an answer free of endless mobius-mentation.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:48:22 GMT -5
And I should acknowledge that reefs did go that extra mile in engaging about the animate/inanimate dichotomy. Everything is alive. Brass hasp day, you know. But on the flip side, figology is not wrong in the truthiness doctrine, either. There is no existential truth in anything that appears to you. ZD has contemplated and once expressed - to my recollection in paraphrase - that one can realize what one is, and/or, one can realize what one is not. Abandoning any concern over the risk of sounding like a condescending asshole, I'd opine that much of the turbulence in these dialogs is a clash of varying flavors and degrees of those two different realizations and the informings of mind that followed. Yes, I wrote "varying degree of realization", you see, in this regard, I am more ZD that even ZD ... Yes, basically agree. Regarding the bolded, I see a long standing conflict in where 'appearance' begins and ends. I'm pretty flexible on this matter. What concerns me more is always the equity, rather than whether 'consciousness' (for example) is an appearance, or is fundamental. I'm shocked at that, shocked I tells' ya'.  I wouldn't say I necessarily share your concern, but I certainly catch your drift.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 6:48:25 GMT -5
Nah. I would consider that a problematic form of not-knowing. I do see the value in bringing mind to the limit, but it actually has to go TO that limit. I really don't think that that is that point. For me, the limit is 'I don't know'. It's not ' I know that I don't know', it's not ' I know that I know nothing'. The limit I see is one of bamboozlement lol. And that's the limit because the rational mind has nothing to land on, no way to position itself...it's a potential doorway for a different kind of deeper knowing, 'the irrational'. Well, are you saying that there's a difference between "I don't know" and "I can never know"? It's possible to arrive at the understanding that the question of the tree in the forest is unknowable, in relative terms, by intellect alone. It's just commonsense, if noone is there to hear it, there's noone to tell you, one way or another. But, mind will spin. It's what minds do. 'I can never know' would definitely be a rational position. Even when I said back there, 'I don't know', it did express a slight rationality. There's still a subtle mind hook in those words, it conveys a 'knowing of some kind'. What I'd like to convey is a pure bamboozlement....like....'I don't know'.... to the extent that ' I don't even know if I don't know'. I'm not sure that makes sense. It was my experience that only when the mind could not land on any position, that a door opened to something deeper. I'll admit it wasn't always pleasant by any means. But at that time, I had no one really to guide me, no forum. I was just dealing with what seemed like an intense insanity that had to play itself out. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 6:49:14 GMT -5
Yes, basically agree. Regarding the bolded, I see a long standing conflict in where 'appearance' begins and ends. I'm pretty flexible on this matter. What concerns me more is always the equity, rather than whether 'consciousness' (for example) is an appearance, or is fundamental. I wouldn't say I necessarily share your concern, but I certainly catch your drift. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 26, 2022 6:51:38 GMT -5
I'm not convinced about that. It's about the nature of the manifest, and the path that takes. Well you haven't refuted that it's playing with definitions and in so doing you're actually making my point, because the question of "what manifests?" is founded on what the manifestation is manifesting to. If there was someone there to sense it there'd be no question. It's just a concrete version of "is there an objective reality?". The concrete version has the benefit of an answer free of endless mobius-mentation. I just don't see it like that. I mean if that question has been clearly seen to be misconceived then how could it. I guess you mean it's intrinsic to the query, and so therefore must still be happening unconsciously or suchlike. But I just don't see it like that. I'm not one to chuck the bathwater out with the baby. I'm considering it all in terms of suchness. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:51:57 GMT -5
Well, are you saying that there's a difference between "I don't know" and "I can never know"? It's possible to arrive at the understanding that the question of the tree in the forest is unknowable, in relative terms, by intellect alone. It's just commonsense, if noone is there to hear it, there's noone to tell you, one way or another. But, mind will spin. It's what minds do. 'I can never know' would definitely be a rational position. Even when I said back there, 'I don't know', it did express a slight rationality. There's still a subtle mind hook in those words, it conveys a 'knowing of some kind'. What I'd like to convey is a pure bamboozlement....like....'I don't know'.... to the extent that ' I don't even know if I don't know'. I'm not sure that makes sense. It was my experience that only when the mind could not land on any position, that a door opened to something deeper. I'll admit it wasn't always pleasant by any means. But at that time, I had no one really to guide me, no forum. I was just dealing with what seemed like an intense insanity that had to play itself out. So "I don't know" doesn't always mean "I don't know"? Well, ok, I kinda' see where ur goin' and I will resist the urge to mess wit' ya'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:56:36 GMT -5
Well you haven't refuted that it's playing with definitions and in so doing you're actually making my point, because the question of "what manifests?" is founded on what the manifestation is manifesting to. If there was someone there to sense it there'd be no question. It's just a concrete version of "is there an objective reality?". The concrete version has the benefit of an answer free of endless mobius-mentation. I just don't see it like that. I mean if that question has been clearly seen to be misconceived then how could it. I guess you mean it's intrinsic to the query, and so therefore must still be happening unconsciously or suchlike. But I just don't see it like that. I'm not one to chuck the bathwater out with the baby. I'm considering it all in terms of suchness. You're asking a question about the nature of reality, but your sense of identity and reality are complimentary. It might seem like the scientist is asking a limited and narrow objective question about a physical phenomenon, but by the assumption of objectivity he's actually engaged in an act of self-inquiry. I'm pointing here, but there's a flip-side to this, a relative material shadow, in the form of all the various "observer paradox" that arise in science. With the "QO" being the end-game. Best to stick with the tree in the forest and commonsense. Mind will do nothing but confuse itself. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 6:57:32 GMT -5
'I can never know' would definitely be a rational position. Even when I said back there, 'I don't know', it did express a slight rationality. There's still a subtle mind hook in those words, it conveys a 'knowing of some kind'. What I'd like to convey is a pure bamboozlement....like....'I don't know'.... to the extent that ' I don't even know if I don't know'. I'm not sure that makes sense. It was my experience that only when the mind could not land on any position, that a door opened to something deeper. I'll admit it wasn't always pleasant by any means. But at that time, I had no one really to guide me, no forum. I was just dealing with what seemed like an intense insanity that had to play itself out. So "I don't know" doesn't always mean "I don't know"? Well, ok, I kinda' see where ur goin' and I will resist the urge to mess wit' ya'. It's just that 'I don't know' conveys a position. Ah...here's a good way of saying it....it expresses a 'confidence' of sorts. 'I don't know' can actually be expressed with supreme confidence. It can be yelled from the rooftops. What I'm trying to express is a total absence of confidence. Zero. |
|
