Do you ever do anything but 'oppose,oppose,oppose' cliches.For you it appears like that. For a philosopher worth his salt it certainly isn't!
This wish to make it all about subjectivity? You're kidding, right? How or when is the process of evaluating (applying value) to things not all about subjectivity?Diebert: Sometimes we can just point to error and say it's an error, Pam. From where comes this wish to make it all about context and different languages or subjectivity?
Let's play this out using logic. Ultimate truth = no right or wrong way to exist. Genius Forum is about ultimate truth. Therefore, Genius Forum is about no right or wrong way to exist. Apparently, according to you, logic does not apply in this situation.While ultimately one could see things as beyond right and wrong, inside these conversations and contexts we can certainly have a standard and a path, which means there's somewhere to go still.
I fail to see how making fire for the reasons of warmth and nourishment on earth excludes not making fire on Pluto. Causality includes everything.Leyla Shen wrote:Oh?At one time, the All was unconscious of how to make fire for the reasons of warming itself and for cooking its food.
Why would the All exclude the planet Pluto, then?
You've called up an object and it's relations.Dennis is wrong thinking the Tao cannot be named. As the Tao Te Ching indicated in all its verses we have a "doing" Tao and a "non-doing" Tao. A moving move and an eternal moving. But they have to be seen as a whole, including any silence and breaking of the silence.
Well, it is the result of your god logic:I fail to see how making fire for the reasons of warmth and nourishment on earth excludes not making fire on Pluto.
Clearly, it didn't warm and nourish the part of "itself" "it" calls "Pluto", so it must still be unconscious of how to make fire to do so.At one time, the All was unconscious of how to make fire for the reasons of warming itself and for cooking its food.
You must have misunderstood because right and wrong do exist or at least like sky, grass and trees do. Or mountains. Going beyond any of them, transcending them, doesn't mean declaring them non-existent or something to dismiss as old garments. They still appear as base of a functioning, like sky and earth appear to give rise to a physiology or like values on right and wrong would keep giving rise to a psychology or mental activity.movingalways wrote:Let's play this out using logic. Ultimate truth = no right or wrong way to exist. Genius Forum is about ultimate truth. Therefore, Genius Forum is about no right or wrong way to exist. Apparently, according to you, logic does not apply in this situation.
While any process of evaluation remains subjective, when the object is defined to be subjectivity itself, absolute truth or reality, the context becomes litereally everything and everyone. The margin for error becomes just as narrow as the path on inquiry itself. The clouds might be ever changing and morphing but absolute truth is as clear as the blue sky. It doesn't need pointing out but what can be demonstrated is the nature of the clouding in every word or silent breath we take.movingalways wrote: How or when is the process of evaluating (applying value) to things not all about subjectivity?
The causes and conditions of "Pluto" do not require the making of fire. The causes and conditions of "Earth" do.Leyla Shen wrote:Well, it is the result of your god logic:I fail to see how making fire for the reasons of warmth and nourishment on earth excludes not making fire on Pluto.
Clearly, it didn't warm and nourish the part of "itself" "it" calls "Pluto", so it must still be unconscious of how to make fire to do so.At one time, the All was unconscious of how to make fire for the reasons of warming itself and for cooking its food.
I was merely mirroring back what you said to me. Given your expanded response above I don't see us as having opposing views. My point is that right and wrong are subjectively absolute, as you say they give rise to a psychology or mental activity. For example, the subjective consciousness of the founders of this board - Men of the Infinite - believe (give absoluteness to) reason as the right value, the right mental activity. But that does not make reason THE right mental activity of the Infinite (defined here as being egoless consciousness). I am not saying this is their belief but given their open rejection of Women of the Infinite (emotion) as having value, it does appear as if it is indeed what they believe. This is probably food for another post, but I do see that it is possible to give equal value to both mentalities of egoless consciousness, reason and emotion.Diebert:movingalways:
Let's play this out using logic. Ultimate truth = no right or wrong way to exist. Genius Forum is about ultimate truth. Therefore, Genius Forum is about no right or wrong way to exist. Apparently, according to you, logic does not apply in this situation.
You must have misunderstood because right and wrong do exist or at least like sky, grass and trees do. Or mountains. Going beyond any of them, transcending them, doesn't mean declaring them non-existent or something to dismiss as old garments. They still appear as base of a functioning, like sky and earth appear to give rise to a physiology or like values on right and wrong would keep giving rise to a psychology or mental activity.
Aren't you saying the same thing as me, except for what you said about error, which I do not understand. Can you expand upon your meaning of "the margin for error becomes just as narrow as the path on inquiry itself?"Diebert:movingalways:
How or when is the process of evaluating (applying value) to things not all about subjectivity?
While any process of evaluation remains subjective, when the object is defined to be subjectivity itself, absolute truth or reality, the context becomes litereally everything and everyone. The margin for error becomes just as narrow as the path on inquiry itself. The clouds might be ever changing and morphing but absolute truth is as clear as the blue sky. It doesn't need pointing out but what can be demonstrated is the nature of the clouding in every word or silent breath we take.
There is a reason for mindless chatter, don't mistake !Dennis Mahar wrote:Don't mistake mindless chatter for reason.
Reason is just given as the base of mental activity itself. Like weather is given as state of the atmosphere. It's unclear how you want the infinite to engage in any particular activity unless it's all of them.movingalways wrote: For example, the subjective consciousness of the founders of this board - Men of the Infinite - believe (give absoluteness to) reason as the right value, the right mental activity. But that does not make reason THE right mental activity of the Infinite (defined here as being egoless consciousness).
But if "Woman" has been defined, as they do, as a valuing of things which are opposing reason, then her rejection is just the simple outcome of valuing reason. This is different from judging it as universally evil or bad. It's not like the universe appears to care either way. But perhaps you do.I am not saying this is their belief but given their open rejection of Women of the Infinite (emotion) as having value, it does appear as if it is indeed what they believe. This is probably food for another post, but I do see that it is possible to give equal value to both mentalities of egoless consciousness, reason and emotion.
To me it doesn't read like the same thing and you might have to try to be more precise. For example when Dennis says "the tao cannot be named", he's just quoting erroneous understanding. Any "tao" can be addressed, it just will not "contain" it just like any experience or view will not contain the totality and yet it certainly expresses it at the same time.Aren't you saying the same thing as me, except for what you said about error, which I do not understand. Can you expand upon your meaning of "the margin for error becomes just as narrow as the path on inquiry itself?"
And neither does your “god consciousness” put an end to them. So, going full circle, and after pages and pages of irrelevant rubbish, would you and/or Dennis now like to answer the question that gave rise to pages and pages of avoiding the question, or do you both want to keep on word-wanking:movingalways wrote:The causes and conditions of "Pluto" do not require the making of fire. The causes and conditions of "Earth" do.Leyla Shen wrote:Well, it is the result of your god logic:I fail to see how making fire for the reasons of warmth and nourishment on earth excludes not making fire on Pluto.
Clearly, it didn't warm and nourish the part of "itself" "it" calls "Pluto", so it must still be unconscious of how to make fire to do so.At one time, the All was unconscious of how to make fire for the reasons of warming itself and for cooking its food.
Cahoot: If facing truth does not cause suffering, then there will be no problems.
Dennis Mahar:
Yeah,
The seeker formula imputes 'inherent existence of suffering' in relation to life.
As in a fixed condition.
Comprehension failure.
it's funny how 'life is suffering' can be construed several different ways.
Pye's caution re linguistics is pertinent.
Being fluid/multi lingual as a listening concerning spoken or written word.
Seeker: "Suffering" has arisen, and as it stands, I cannot say it will not arise again.
How is your interpretation of something else related to above? For any of your comments to be note-worthy you would actually have to explain how you could be certain suffering will never again arise for you.
Dennis Mahar:
[There is no place where bliss/emptiness is absent.
it's on that basis enlightened being is imputed.}
how many times have conditions ripened and a breakthru' to bliss experienced and after a while you abandoned it.
Noticed it dropping off and take leave.
SeekerOfWisdom:
I know what you're talking about but I think you're making my point for me. There is nothing eternal about such insights.
"Insights" is the wrong word, there is nothing eternal about momentary fantasies.
(;Don't mind me!
You clearly have no affinity for metaphors of God in relation to wisdom of causality. But some here do. It is to them I am speaking. As I see it, calling such language irrelevant word-wanking rubbish is a clear abuse/misuse of that metaphorical high-swinging sword of yours. Rather than lopping off the head of "god consciousness" with sweeping emotional missives why not question its use? Or challenge it with your own reasoning of things? Or ignore it altogether?Quote:And neither does your “god consciousness” put an end to them. So, going full circle, and after pages and pages of irrelevant rubbish, would you and/or Dennis now like to answer the question that gave rise to pages and pages of avoiding the question, or do you both want to keep on word-wanking:
Cahoot: If facing truth does not cause suffering, then there will be no problems.
but this is just the problem, isn't it? All hail to dialectical movement (antithetics), but placing emotion and reason in such a juxtaposition is a false one. They cannot be demonstrated in every case to be opposed to one another - quite opposite that in their relational dynamics. But just as reason can be 'educated' so to speak, so can emotion be better understood, refined, and in my estimation the best cases are the seamless non-interruptions of their better workings, their mutually reinforcing nature, rather than mutually excluding. The best of sages that walked and talked had at the very least refined passion and felt at the very most the deepest possible satisfaction of their own sense of arrived rightness with the world. All of it is about sense-making; making sense of and as the world. One does not "do" over and against the other. One cannot judge a feeling wrong-minded without reason; one cannot measure reason without its registering sense.Diebert writes: But if "Woman" has been defined, as they do, as a valuing of things which are opposing reason, then her rejection is just the simple outcome of valuing reason.
Pye, are you claiming here that "emotion" was meant as "valuing of things opposing reason" or even "Woman"? I'm not sure if anyone defines emotions like that. Surely there are many stong emotional reactions connected to ignorance and attachment but there are hardly in any dialectical relationship with anything I was discussing.Pye wrote:but this is just the problem, isn't it? All hail to dialectical movement (antithetics), but placing emotion and reason in such a juxtaposition is a false one.Diebert writes: But if "Woman" has been defined, as they do, as a valuing of things which are opposing reason, then her rejection is just the simple outcome of valuing reason.
