Videocy/Literacy

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: It's impossible to know which areas such imagined characters like Jesus and Buddha involved themselves with so it's better not to speculate here like wishful thinking.

I'll give you that one, but not

And what do you mean there with "omniscience" or "subconsciousness"? Their meanings are not quite universal. It's open for debate in how far things spoken so long ago are still understood as they were meant. It's important to understand that dilemma. You are seeing at best your own image in someone's writings, speech or picture.

Not quite universal? Here's Pam, reflecting back to Diebert, his own wisdom of using the scalpel and not the butcher's knife. :-) "Wisdom of the Infinite" and "Ultimate Reality" are modern metaphysical terms suggesting the Everything-ness of "God", no different than the less modern, but equally valid suggesting term "omnipresent."

Of course one is seeing (reasoning) their own image in someone's writings, speech or picture. Basic wisdom stuff.

It doesn't matter in the end which topic it's about although it makes sense to focus on the existential dilemma's. But that topic also has the greatest possibility for distortion or bias - no evidence, no testing, no lab results...

I would say that only topics about the nature of existence transform, as they are the only topics that engage one's consciousness of existing. In contrast to philosophical topics that focus on existential dilemma's that serve to engage the mind and keep it active, but the exchange of existential ideas is not the same things as experiential discovery of one's existence. What I am expressing here is related to what I expressed in my original post about consciousness and subconsciousness of omniscience (everything-ness).

[Dennis Mahar]

Well that little storm produced lotsa labels for meaning maker.
Wow!

[Pye]

That too, necessarily, a little house of words. Defended frequently with a repeating rifle. :)

You can't be talking about nothing, either. Heaps of meaning in the labeling of the labelers. We can never be talking about nothing. It's always something. There's only somethings.

[Leyla Shen]

Pye:

Leyla writes: For all your so-called research, you don't know anything about what the man meant; only the "interpretations" of others. You even go so far as to ignore the clarifications in favour of your "appeal to authority" research that actually doesn't address them.

Pardon if I take this a little out of context, but I have sort of been thinking about this lately elsewhere, this idea of builders and building inspectors. Builders being those persons who venture forth (here, too) proffered ideas and expressions of their own world-building work (i.e. their assessment of ultimate reality), and those who come forth to inspect those buildings. Now of course to some degree, everybody is inspecting everyone else's building, but there's a difference between inspecting the building and inspecting the inspection.

Yes. There’s that, and then there’s the mistaken idea that a free-falling combination of fear and euphoria, the result of taking an elevator to the 333rd floor of a modern skyscraper and jumping off the roof, has anything to do with either.

If we were to think of the builders as 'philosophers' and the building inspectors as not-that, well it provides an interesting lens through which to view contributions here too.

Indeed.

There is world-building going on in all words, always. or world-tearing down. or no?

Sure. And then there’s the joyride before some have seen the ground coming. Luckily, there’s the possibility of suffering a heart attack before impact.

[Dennis Mahar]

Emptiness isn't nothing
It is everything

The function of mind is labelling.
If it ain't labelled it ain't thereabouts
the objects appearing named/predicated, familiarised, stacked in memory
box for a world worlding.

the world is imputed.

magical

theatre of dreams

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Wisdom of the Infinite" and "Ultimate Reality" are modern metaphysical terms suggesting the Everything-ness of "God", no different than the less modern, but equally valid suggesting term "omnipresent."

Well, I do think some more care needs to be taken here. The term omniscience is simply unusuable in its common meaning: "knowing everything there is to know". You might think of "knowing the fundamental", which is not the same. A similar problem with a term like omnipresent: a presence is per definition not everywhere. A term like that functions similar to advertising eternal afterlife for the soul. For the same reason blackwhite, falsetrue and ignorantwise would be very confusing in general discourse.

Now is a term like "ultimate reality" so much different? Well, that at least means what it says on the tin: simply the "greatest" reality one can [at any given time] become conscious of. There's no inherent conflict in the term and therefore useful although it might create conflicting sentiments or notions of "absolute objectivity" or "extreme certainties" about things. Guests sometimes complain about this association.

I'm still curious what you think omniscience and subconscious is or how it ever would function in discussions like this.

I would say that only topics about the nature of existence transform, as they are the only topics that engage one's consciousness of existing. In contrast to philosophical topics that focus on existential dilemma's that serve to engage the mind and keep it active, but the exchange of existential ideas is not the same things as experiential discovery of one's existence.

It's always tempting to think in terms of "first A then B". In similar fashion it's tempting to think along the line of "topics on nature of existence can lead to transformation". In my experience it's completely unrelated but the context to that lies perhaps in my first experiences of spiritual transformation and the mystical, going back to childhood. The main thing of those experiences was the understanding which broke through with the experience that there was nothing I did or thought that caused it to happen. Instantaneous insight which never left. That it was not the result of anything. What happens in many spiritual lives is the reverse of what is commonly understood to have happened: all the study, talk, mediation or orientation is only result and some kind of echo or expression of what already occurred and is occurring. All of the effort wouldn't bring anyone any inch closer. What a tragic misunderstanding the seeker ends up discovering! the journey might start with being found, but that's a figure of speech.

This is not something that can be proven as cause and effect naturally remain very intertwined. But it's my view and understanding nevertheless. Of course what anyone can do is to care for body and mind in such a way that they remain receptive and responsive. To remain rational, connected, informed and train attention levels: this is important so one can address any obstruction that might rise in place of clarity. This remains a highly rational act.

[Dennis Mahar]

Conditioned mind is rational huh?

Really big move that one

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Conditioned mind is rational huh?

Really big move that one

Liberation cannot be caused by ourselves. What one can do is not losing what's already given. If any quality should be used to describe human being, it's this propensity to get lost. And that's where the rational kicks. Antidote for confusion, both bastard child of consciousness.

[Dennis Mahar]

All roads lead to Rome.
lost is imagined.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

All roads lead to Rome.
lost is imagined.

But the image has become the real.

Gardens growing over with weed.

[Dennis Mahar]

What could be lost any which way bar imagination.?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What could be lost any which way bar imagination.?

Depends where you live. Are you imagining to be outside the image?

[Dennis Mahar]

Where you're at is where you're at
it isn't lost,
as you say causal, appropriate.
all roads lead to Rome.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Where you're at is where you're at (imagined)
it isn't lost (in some imagination)
as you say causal, appropriate (like all thing imagined appropriately)
all roads lead to Rome (because all roads start from Rome)

[Dennis Mahar]

Yeah

[Pam Seeback]

Well that little storm produced lotsa labels for meaning maker.
Wow!

Who's seeing the storm, you or me?

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: I'm still curious what you think omniscience and subconscious is or how it ever would function in discussions like this.

They can't. I'll save them for another time. Serves me right, I failed wisdom, she tried to warn me I didn't belong in this thread.

[Dennis Mahar]

There you go Stormy.

[Pye]

Dennis writes:
Emptiness isn't nothing
It is everything

The function of mind is labelling.
If it ain't labelled it ain't thereabouts
the objects appearing named/predicated, familiarised, stacked in memory
box for a world worlding.

the world is imputed.

this too necessarily labeled and meaning-made.

this is armature. What's put in the box is the matter, unless one's not into world worlding. Not-being into world worlding is world-made just the same.

movingalways writes: I failed wisdom, she tried to warn me I didn't belong in this thread.

curious wisdom, thinking there's somewhere it doesn't 'belong.' :)

[Pam Seeback]

Just lifting my skirt for all too see. Is Stormy dangerous Mr. Bliss?

[Dennis Mahar]

Armature?
Is that word of the week?

[Dennis Mahar]

Are you blissin out Pam?
Let 'er rip.

[Pam Seeback]

Bliss is your hat, I can wear it if it makes you feel at home. ;-)

[Dennis Mahar]

Bliss all round then.
imagine that.
thankyou.

[Bobo]

Liberation cannot be caused by ourselves. What one can do is not losing what's already given. If any quality should be used to describe human being, it's this propensity to get lost. And that's where the rational kicks. Antidote for confusion, both bastard child of consciousness.

And how do you think one can lose what is already given?

A being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet; and he only stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the grace of another regards himself as a dependent being. But I live completely by the grace of another if I owe him not only the maintenance of my life, but if he has, moreover, created my life – if he is the source of my life. When it is not of my own creation, my life has necessarily a source of this kind outside of it. The Creation is therefore an idea very difficult to dislodge from popular consciousness. The fact that nature and man exist on their own account is incomprehensible to it, because it contradicts everything tangible in practical life.

Now it is certainly easy to say to the single individual what Aristotle has already said: You have been begotten by your father and your mother; therefore in you the mating of two human beings – a species-act of human beings – has produced the human being. You see, therefore, that even physically man owes his existence to man. Therefore you must not only keep sight of the one aspect – the infinite progression which leads you further to inquire: Who begot my father? Who his grandfather? etc. You must also hold on to the circular movement sensuously perceptible in that progress by which man repeats himself in procreation, man thus always remaining the subject. You will reply, however: I grant you this circular movement; now grant me the progress which drives me ever further until I ask: Who begot the first man, and nature as a whole? I can only answer you: Your question is itself a product of abstraction. Ask yourself how you arrived at that question. Ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is wrongly put. Ask yourself whether that progress as such exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or if you want to hold on to your abstraction, then be consistent, and if you think of man and nature as non-existent, ||XI| then think of yourself as non-existent, for you too are surely nature and man. Don’t think, don’t ask me, for as soon as you think and ask, your abstraction from the existence of nature and man has no meaning. Or are you such an egotist that you conceive everything as nothing, and yet want yourself to exist?