|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 1, 2024 20:10:09 GMT -5
I've had long, and generally amicable, conversations with several transpeople on twitter recently. I am sensitive to what's going on with them, and choose my language carefully. It doesn't always go well, but you can't win them all. The subject fascinates me because it is centred around the idea of 'identity', a conversation we have here very often. Their philosophy is very convoluted, very confusing, and if they weren't "allied" with each other, they would notice that their narratives often don't match up. I've generally tried to talk a bit about how categories are created, how we identify with those categories, and form a personal sense of 'who we are' based on that identification. One very interesting and smart person agreed with me, but believed that this 'sense' is utterly fixed....i.e there's nothing we can do about it, and medical transition is the solution, if their 'fixed sense' doesn't match their biology. I went on to talk a bit about my experience with advaita, Buddhism etc in relation to identification, the volitional 'I' etc. She was balanced enough to listen, but there's a bit of irony in the scepticism shown towards my own subjective experience. I'm sure you made the right choice in going along with it.  Adventurous! You can sometimes be a very patient man.  I'm like, This is the body and it does dope shit. The idea 'I'm a man' let alone the extended story about him isn't even a real thing. Hence I give no credence to gender narratives. I have male physiological attributes, so 'man' is another word for male to me. I don't think masculine and feminine archetypes are real, and I do not believe there's anyone 'in there' who has a gender. You're born as a sexed body. Nothing more.
Other people talk about archetypes and gestalts etc, but it sounds like more stories to me. Perhaps quite sophisticated intellectual framing, I appreciate that, but stories nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 2, 2024 8:53:25 GMT -5
It seems you are confusing here with Here, that little-explored space (by most of humanity, anyway) prior to engaging mind. Maybe you can ask the 'so called deceased' about it, since they might express something closer to your liking, or in Tenka Talk. Just an idea. If you are an expression of what YOU are, then it seems you would get that that is what the dream metaphor is about. Maybe you already get that and just enjoy poopooing figurative language as an expression. I remember you saying you hate metaphors. Dunno, and it's not my problem. Applying to Plotinus Model (As an ongoing attempt to clarify misunderstandings. I can drop it altogether if it is not of any help. Not a problem; just an attempt. I understand most attempts fail miserably.  ) 1- self (most are SVP-identified in this area, and haven't ever transcended the limited POV), while some struggle with the realizations of 'beyond' and still get confused via the conditioned thoughts. 2- My general idea of 'so called deceased', though I haven't lucidly had a chat with them outside of dreams with them. I can expand on my own 'experiences' as such though. Maybe you can provide some insight on the kinds of things they say; I'd be curious to hear it. Note: Shady blueish vertical lines- Where communication with these 'so called deceased' might be on such a model. Maybe you have a better idea... 3- Where 'individuation' begins in a theoretical sense, and continues emanating further down into 'mind'. It's all ND, and the distinctions are made within mind in the emanations from Source. Dunno if this helps. Provide feedback if you like. Platonism is mostly dual, but Plotinus is considered the grandaddy of NeoPlatonism and is considered a bit more on the ND side of things by some. I'm just playing with the concepts here. But again, I can just drop it.  I am not sure why you replied to my post to the Pilgrim in highlighting my misunderstandings by attaching a illustration of Plontinus's theory. Not that I mind, it's just I am pulling a bit of a face thinking what did you get from my post to the Pilgrim. What are you basing my supposed misunderstandings from? Your theories? The Pilgrims? All the other forum members or just Plontinus? Why do you see me having the misunderstandings and it not being all the other's? Because the theory you present is believed more than some other theory? Just asking, it's something a long the lines with Laffy and not believing in conceptual beliefs but will present a conceptual belief to make a point that isn't true or any truer than any other. My experience all lots of different dimensional energies has been ongoing for a few decades now, from elementals to E.T's I am not sure where they fit with the illustration, if I get time I will have a look, it is my last day off work so from tomorrow onwards I won't have the headspace to give any attention to it. I will say though that certain individual souls even though they have transcended the physical plane are not of the high mind at all. Some are, some are not. Some are really dense for use of a better word in their energy. You see this is why vibrations and frequencies really do come into the equation which reflects one's light. I mainly get snippets from those that come from spirit, I have journals of their visitations, some come on their birth or death anniversaries as conformation, some are picked up by other's in my circle also, many of them work with me in specific fields, some prophets work on my premonitions. Like just the other day when I get en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Francis_Richter from spirit come by I know there is going to be an earthquake. Japans earthquake was no surprise. There is too much to go into any of this really and this type of talk doesn't go down too well with other's here. It's the first time in a long time that I have really spoke about it. Interesting stuff. I was mostly basing it on what I've read, and it is not necessarily just 'your' misunderstandings. You and SDP have typically been the more openly 'anti-ND' and 'anti-NDists' (totally fine and completely understandable), which leads me to comment on the words presented for anyone else who might actually be reading along. There's not much I can prove, so it may just sound like I'm just being an ass. I'll have to get back to this later; loads on the plate in the coming days with the new year. Enjoy your adventure, mate. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 2, 2024 9:09:30 GMT -5
The mind needing to be informed that it's not a separate entity is a bit awkward, right? Yes, in a sense it is awkward, much like paradoxes. But for some 'reason', with certain realizations, that sense of being a 'separate entity' gets severely challenged from within/prior to the structure, and it can be a VERY destabilizing time. It certainly ain't Truth, but I'm sure you've had a sense of something 'else' seemingly taking over when you may have been locked in with no clue of what to do. Outta thin air. I suppose it is what amounts to Noetic/Intelligence per the model I've been poking around on. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 2, 2024 10:04:10 GMT -5
It seems you are confusing here with Here, that little-explored space (by most of humanity, anyway) prior to engaging mind. Maybe you can ask the 'so called deceased' about it, since they might express something closer to your liking, or in Tenka Talk. Just an idea. If you are an expression of what YOU are, then it seems you would get that that is what the dream metaphor is about. Maybe you already get that and just enjoy poopooing figurative language as an expression. I remember you saying you hate metaphors. Dunno, and it's not my problem. Applying to Plotinus Model (As an ongoing attempt to clarify misunderstandings. I can drop it altogether if it is not of any help. Not a problem; just an attempt. I understand most attempts fail miserably. ) 1- self (most are SVP-identified in this area, and haven't ever transcended the limited POV), while some struggle with the realizations of 'beyond' and still get confused via the conditioned thoughts. 2- My general idea of 'so called deceased', though I haven't lucidly had a chat with them outside of dreams with them. I can expand on my own 'experiences' as such though. Maybe you can provide some insight on the kinds of things they say; I'd be curious to hear it. Note: Shady blueish vertical lines- Where communication with these 'so called deceased' might be on such a model. Maybe you have a better idea... 3- Where 'individuation' begins in a theoretical sense, and continues emanating further down into 'mind'. It's all ND, and the distinctions are made within mind in the emanations from Source. Dunno if this helps. Provide feedback if you like. Platonism is mostly dual, but Plotinus is considered the grandaddy of NeoPlatonism and is considered a bit more on the ND side of things by some. I'm just playing with the concepts here. But again, I can just drop it. Haven't followed up on Plotinus yet. The diagram reminds me of Ken Wilbur's model and the Jane Roberts material. Interesting. Wrote some stuff on here about angels and demons and channeling a few months back now. Bottom line was that people have many ways of coming to terms with the myriad potential non-local experiences and woo-woo's that cannot otherwise be denied as figgymints of imagination or hallucination. The upper part of the visual reminds me of a diagram posted on here many years back of someone trying to interpret Niz, and his use of "absolute" and "supreme". It also reminds me of what I perceive is a common misconception that sometimes gets joked about as the "oneness blob", and why Advaita translates into not-two instead of "one". The trickster mind objectifies oneness, and then has thoughts about that object. Similar to how mathematicians treat "infinity" (heh heh what a shit show that is! (metaphysically speaking) ). Anyways, I promise to do my homework now! Certainly see the potential ties to the Gnostics a bit more clearly just based on the diagram though. We'll get back to this. Yes, the Neo-platonic model shows up everywhere and is not really anything new. It's just a simple visual to show flow/direction/qualitative aspects. It seemed plausible that it might help smoothen out some of the potential misunderstandings in our board discussions. Don't feel obligated, of course. I'm just trying to point out that the negating/transcending-including is kinda how it looks to play out directionally (per the flow chart in the model) as the search (i.e., for SELF/TRUTH); whereas, what is emanating as life is treated quite differently, especially if grounded in/as ________ (whatever you wanna call it). Some read long with a right/wrong mindset, and this can be misleading without knowing what SELF/TRUTH/______ (as concepts) point to, especially when trust issues abound. It's understandable. The Gnostics are also one of those monolithic groups with a lot of diversity of thought amongst their numbers. I once read it as mitigated dualism within a monad, so even their interpretations of who/what Jesus was seem varied and contentious. Sounds like a logical outcome, as just saying 'I don't really know, and it doesn't really matter' seems far fetched  . Plenty of existential weeds to wander off into, roll around with, and pull up though! |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 2, 2024 10:05:05 GMT -5
I missed a lot of such dialogues, so I'm glad you brought it up. Indeed, how you've stated it here reminds me of how I've expressed the concept of uni-verse (as one ongoing song), or in the beginning was the Word (to my Bible beater audience ). Btw, I've stumbled upon the oldest civilizational pointing to ND I've found yet (1500 BC). But, as I've been wandering far more than enough into conceptual weeds, culture, and history recently on the board, I figured I'd come back around to it some other time. Interestingly, the ideas do mesh well with some of the present topics being brought up (of course  ) , but again, it's just historical linguistic stuff that might detract from (sometimes) needed intensity.  Hey, I'm interested. My superficial knowledge on this is that the Upanishads are old. Never read them, couldn't find a good online source.  Will have to come back to this! Catch up later! |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 2, 2024 10:52:04 GMT -5
The mind needing to be informed that it's not a separate entity is a bit awkward, right? Yes, in a sense it is awkward, much like paradoxes. But for some 'reason', with certain realizations, that sense of being a 'separate entity' gets severely challenged from within/prior to the structure, and it can be a VERY destabilizing time. It certainly ain't Truth, but I'm sure you've had a sense of something 'else' seemingly taking over when you may have been locked in with no clue of what to do. Outta thin air. I suppose it is what amounts to Noetic/Intelligence per the model I've been poking around on. Does that make sense? Yes! Those are the bestest times. When you see plainly you're not in control or what you think is you is not in control. It's a clear message. So I see your point. I've never been a control freak so am not confused or befuddled rather amused, enjoying the ride when that happens. I've always been eager to try ayahuasca or lsd, but it has never been opportune. I realize now I really don't need to. I'm a lunatic trapped in a logic bubble. Just having fun, every day, everywhere. Maybe I'm off my meds. Who knows?!! You know that talking about this shit, thinking some absolute truth will pop out is like expecting a rhinoplasty with a stone axe to go well. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2024 11:37:45 GMT -5
But what makes you think I only finally noticed it? Did I say, Oh, I finally noticed this? You wrote this: ZD finally got you, and now he says Tenka just uses different language. But zd has been expressing that for some time now. By my recollection, perhaps two or three years. Finally doesn't denote a when. It just means that he has. I could say, I graduated from high school. No time frame. I could say, I finally graduated from high school. Would that mean I graduated yesterday, or last week, or even a year ago? Doesn't indicate a time-frame. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 2, 2024 12:21:44 GMT -5
Adventurous! You can sometimes be a very patient man. I'm like, This is the body and it does dope shit. The idea 'I'm a man' let alone the extended story about him isn't even a real thing. Hence I give no credence to gender narratives. I have male physiological attributes, so 'man' is another word for male to me. I don't think masculine and feminine archetypes are real, and I do not believe there's anyone 'in there' who has a gender. You're born as a sexed body. Nothing more. Other people talk about archetypes and gestalts etc, but it sounds like more stories to me. Perhaps quite sophisticated intellectual framing, I appreciate that, but stories nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 2, 2024 12:26:39 GMT -5
Haven't followed up on Plotinus yet. The diagram reminds me of Ken Wilbur's model and the Jane Roberts material. Interesting. Wrote some stuff on here about angels and demons and channeling a few months back now. Bottom line was that people have many ways of coming to terms with the myriad potential non-local experiences and woo-woo's that cannot otherwise be denied as figgymints of imagination or hallucination. The upper part of the visual reminds me of a diagram posted on here many years back of someone trying to interpret Niz, and his use of "absolute" and "supreme". It also reminds me of what I perceive is a common misconception that sometimes gets joked about as the "oneness blob", and why Advaita translates into not-two instead of "one". The trickster mind objectifies oneness, and then has thoughts about that object. Similar to how mathematicians treat "infinity" (heh heh what a shit show that is! (metaphysically speaking) ). Anyways, I promise to do my homework now! Certainly see the potential ties to the Gnostics a bit more clearly just based on the diagram though. We'll get back to this. Yes, the Neo-platonic model shows up everywhere and is not really anything new. It's just a simple visual to show flow/direction/qualitative aspects. It seemed plausible that it might help smoothen out some of the potential misunderstandings in our board discussions. Don't feel obligated, of course. I'm just trying to point out that the negating/transcending-including is kinda how it looks to play out directionally (per the flow chart in the model) as the search (i.e., for SELF/TRUTH); whereas, what is emanating as life is treated quite differently, especially if grounded in/as ________ (whatever you wanna call it). Some read long with a right/wrong mindset, and this can be misleading without knowing what SELF/TRUTH/______ (as concepts) point to, especially when trust issues abound. It's understandable. The Gnostics are also one of those monolithic groups with a lot of diversity of thought amongst their numbers. I once read it as mitigated dualism within a monad, so even their interpretations of who/what Jesus was seem varied and contentious. Sounds like a logical outcome, as just saying 'I don't really know, and it doesn't really matter' seems far fetched . Plenty of existential weeds to wander off into, roll around with, and pull up though! Existential beliefs come into perspective off the top of the flag pole. It's how I was able to appreciate the Catholic Mass. Didn't matter to me what they believed or didn't believe anymore. It's the same with this idea of levels of consciousness and non-locality, and direct experience is a whole other dimension on the entire affair. Before Tolle I just scoffed at any unrealistic, unexplainable happenings. Typical secular humanist mind. So the statement of a belief in something like, the oversoul, for instance .. it's smoke, but it's indeterminate as to what the individual may or may not have realized of the existential truth. Sometimes the smoke gets in your eyes, and it's irritating! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 2, 2024 12:35:20 GMT -5
You wrote this: But zd has been expressing that for some time now. By my recollection, perhaps two or three years. Finally doesn't denote a when. It just means that he has. I could say, I graduated from high school. No time frame. I could say, I finally graduated from high school. Would that mean I graduated yesterday, or last week, or even a year ago? Doesn't indicate a time-frame. Ok, so you wanna' do this. Wonderful. Great.  .. here ya' go: At least now you're finally admitting to have used finally. That's progress anyway (from here). Of course "finally" has a temporal element to it. "Finally" denotes the end of a sequence, a punctuation in a flow of a story. Furthermore, "now" (another word you used), denotes a specific point in time: the chronological present. You referred to something in the chronological present ("now he says ...") that I maintain is several years past. So, are you going to now finally answer this simple question with a simple answer or are you gonna' keep shuckin' and jive'n? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 2, 2024 12:41:12 GMT -5
You wrote this: But zd has been expressing that for some time now. By my recollection, perhaps two or three years. Finally doesn't denote a when. It just means that he has. I could say, I graduated from high school. No time frame. I could say, I finally graduated from high school. Would that mean I graduated yesterday, or last week, or even a year ago? Doesn't indicate a time-frame. Yes, it took quite a while for me to grok where Tenka was coming from because he uses definitions and language a bit differently than most of us. I use the word "person" to denote a SVP--someone who thinks that s/he is a volitional entity, a "me," whereas he uses that word to refer to an individual body/mind organism. He considers direct sensory perception to involve thoughts, whereas most of us don't. Nevertheless, his phrase "there is only what we are" is equivalent to saying, 'What we are is THIS--the entire field of all being." I have no idea what people mean when they use the word "soul" or "spirit" in ND convos because there's just "what we are" and THAT isn't divided into separate states unless someone wants to imagine separate states. FWIW, I was watching a video of an interview between David Bingham and Darryl Samples, and after Samples described various highly unusual OBE-type experiences, Bingham seemed to be familiar with how those experiences could be categorized as experiences of different bodies--causal, etheric, astral, etc. I have no idea what those words are pointing to, and don't particularly care. I'm good with ordinary everyday life, and if unusual things happen, so be it. Fa ggin described a beam of oscillating light coming out of his chest which made him realize that reality is unitive and that love is fundamental to it. I've never had that exact kind of experience, but I assume that that was some sort of CC, and CC's can be extremely unusual and result is numerous realizations. The CC that happened here in 1984 was quite different, but the realizations were the same as that of Fa ggin. It was seen that what we call "reality" is an infinite and unified living presence, that awareness is primordial, and that what we call "love" is a foundational aspect of it. Some ND sages claim to be telepathic and some of them claim to communicate with entities in other planes of existence. Tenka seems to be in that group, and I have no problem with that even though I have no interest in anything like that. I've seen enough to know that THIS can do anything and that THIS can manifest in ways that make no rational sense. THIS is non-local and beyond human comprehension, and for all I know, there may be countless weird ways that THIS can interact with Itself or reveal strange aspects of Itself to Itself. I suspect that that's what Jesus was pointing to when he said, "In my Father's house are many mansions." Tenka may have looked into some of those other mansions for all I know. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2024 16:47:34 GMT -5
Finally doesn't denote a when. It just means that he has. I could say, I graduated from high school. No time frame. I could say, I finally graduated from high school. Would that mean I graduated yesterday, or last week, or even a year ago? Doesn't indicate a time-frame. Yes, it took quite a while for me to grok where Tenka was coming from because he uses definitions and language a bit differently than most of us. I use the word "person" to denote a SVP--someone who thinks that s/he is a volitional entity, a "me," whereas he uses that word to refer to an individual body/mind organism. He considers direct sensory perception to involve thoughts, whereas most of us don't. Nevertheless, his phrase "there is only what we are" is equivalent to saying, 'What we are is THIS--the entire field of all being." I have no idea what people mean when they use the word "soul" or "spirit" in ND convos because there's just "what we are" and THAT isn't divided into separate states unless someone wants to imagine separate states. FWIW, I was watching a video of an interview between David Bingham and Darryl Samples, and after Samples described various highly unusual OBE-type experiences, Bingham seemed to be familiar with how those experiences could be categorized as experiences of different bodies--causal, etheric, astral, etc. I have no idea what those words are pointing to, and don't particularly care. I'm good with ordinary everyday life, and if unusual things happen, so be it. Fa ggin described a beam of oscillating light coming out of his chest which made him realize that reality is unitive and that love is fundamental to it. I've never had that exact kind of experience, but I assume that that was some sort of CC, and CC's can be extremely unusual and result is numerous realizations. The CC that happened here in 1984 was quite different, but the realizations were the same as that of Fa ggin. It was seen that what we call "reality" is an infinite and unified living presence, that awareness is primordial, and that what we call "love" is a foundational aspect of it. Some ND sages claim to be telepathic and some of them claim to communicate with entities in other planes of existence. Tenka seems to be in that group, and I have no problem with that even though I have no interest in anything like that. I've seen enough to know that THIS can do anything and that THIS can manifest in ways that make no rational sense. THIS is non-local and beyond human comprehension, and for all I know, there may be countless weird ways that THIS can interact with Itself or reveal strange aspects of Itself to Itself. I suspect that that's what Jesus was pointing to when he said, "In my Father's house are many mansions." Tenka may have looked into some of those other mansions for all I know. See laughter, ZD understood me perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2024 16:53:46 GMT -5
Finally doesn't denote a when. It just means that he has. I could say, I graduated from high school. No time frame. I could say, I finally graduated from high school. Would that mean I graduated yesterday, or last week, or even a year ago? Doesn't indicate a time-frame. Ok, so you wanna' do this. Wonderful. Great. .. here ya' go: At least now you're finally admitting to have used finally. That's progress anyway (from here). Of course "finally" has a temporal element to it. "Finally" denotes the end of a sequence, a punctuation in a flow of a story. Furthermore, "now" (another word you used), denotes a specific point in time: the chronological present. You referred to something in the chronological present ("now he says ...") that I maintain is several years past. So, are you going to now finally answer this simple question with a simple answer or are you gonna' keep shuckin' and jive'n? See post above. ZD understood me perfectly. I could have continued my example but I figured no need. I could have said, It took Jr 4 tries, but he finally passed the Bar exam. Or, Jr failed 12the grade 3 times, but he finally passed, and graduated. ....This is so-not fun. (Both examples could have been a month ago, a year ago, or 50 years ago). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 2, 2024 18:41:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 2, 2024 19:15:38 GMT -5
Ok, so you wanna' do this. Wonderful. Great. .. here ya' go: At least now you're finally admitting to have used finally. That's progress anyway (from here). Of course "finally" has a temporal element to it. "Finally" denotes the end of a sequence, a punctuation in a flow of a story. Furthermore, "now" (another word you used), denotes a specific point in time: the chronological present. You referred to something in the chronological present ("now he says ...") that I maintain is several years past. So, are you going to now finally answer this simple question with a simple answer or are you gonna' keep shuckin' and jive'n? See post above. ZD understood me perfectly. I could have continued my example but I figured no need. I could have said, It took Jr 4 tries, but he finally passed the Bar exam. Or, Jr failed 12the grade 3 times, but he finally passed, and graduated. ....This is so-not fun. (Both examples could have been a month ago, a year ago, or 50 years ago). you think 'cause he's disinterested in this WIBIGO litigation that makes you right? You still didn't answer the question. If you answer that question, if need be, I'll dig up a link to where he wrote what you just noticed the other day from months ago. I get the impression at this point you're just trollin' .. not in a malevolent way, just in a "heh heh let's spin 'em up" sorta' way. I'll even re-phrase it for you, when did you first notice this: ZD finally got you, and now he says Tenka just uses different language. |
|
Adventurous! You can sometimes be a very patient man. 
)
. Plenty of existential weeds to wander off into, roll around with, and pull up though! 
.. here ya' go: