Contradiction and the Absolute

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback »

Pam: Abstract concepts are concepts that cannot be empirically observed or heard or tasted or smelled or touched (hence their difference from concrete concepts).. They can be purely mathematical or be meaning related such as the ones I mentioned in another post: integrity, joy, love, reasoning, etc.
Serendipper: But do those things exist?
Only in the context of what they mean to you. If 1 + 1 = 2 or joy have no meaning for you, they don't exist for you. Instead you would be aware of them as neutral concepts.
There was a faith healer of deal
Who said although I know pain is not real
When the tip of a pin punctures my skin
I dislike what I fancy I feel.
Pain is real the moment one becomes aware of pain, including the reasoning that pain is not liked (or liked in the case of a sadomasochist). Like all concepts of which one becomes aware, pain is impermanent in nature. Suffering enters into the picture when the truth of concept impermanence is ignored or outright denied.
All those things you mentioned, including math, are constructs of imagination and are only real if observed by the mind, right?
Observation alone does not reality make. An insight for your consideration: 'Reasoning', 'reasoned', 'realize' have the same three letter prefix as 'real.' :-)
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

jupiviv wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:54 amThere are no "orders" of concepts, because that would just be a pleonasm. A statement which expresses a concept is neither that concept itself nor a different concept.
Pleonasm? Where and how did you learn such a word? I've always called it an "intellectual" since such is a man who uses more words than necessary to tell more than he knows lol https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/dwig ... wer_140795

But let's try again. A statement is a collection of words that conveys a concept, which is itself a concept. So a meaningful collection of words is a concept, called a statement, that carries a different concept inside of it; hence, orders of concepts.

I think what you're missing is that a statement is a concept itself because language is a concept.

A dog barks.
A cat meows.

Both are statements and are identical concepts used to convey information, but they carry different concepts of information inside them. Additionally, they have the property of truth, which is yet another concept.

What's the significance? Nothing. It's just trivia I guess.
If a statement is written or read, then the concept expressed or understood occurs in the mind of the writer or reader and not in the statement itself.
That is false. If I claimed not to have understood you, would your assertion not have meaning? If so, it would mean you're speaking gibberish simply because I'm too stupid to understand you. The concept is carried by the statement regardless if the concept is discerned.

If someone is trapped inside a container and is pecking on the wall in SOS, does the pecking have meaning?

If aliens were attempting to communicate in gravitational waves, would such communication have meaning?

The fact that I'm going through all this trouble providing examples is example of a concept that is transmitted, but not received. I'm surprised and intrigued at how you could know words such as "aver" and "pleonasm", but are having trouble with this. Probably, you innocently missed perceiving the bishop that was hiding in the corner... happens to me all the time :)
How do you know logic is how the universe is experienced?
I defined the word "logic" to be "the way the universe is experienced",
Oh I see.
and asserted that there is only one way it can be experienced because even the idea of a "different type of experience" is necessarily experienced the same way everything else is experienced, and thus cannot really be experienced. Obviously anyone who experiences anything knows they are doing so, so your question doesn't make sense.
Logic is a conceptual artifact of duality which is itself surmised to exist and presumed fundamental by observation of contrasts. Nothing can be said to exist without observation which is another way of saying "experienced" or conceptualized and if you're defining logic to be synonymous with experience, then by logic as well. I think we're entering into semantic disagreements when most likely we otherwise agree.
And if that is how it is experienced, then logic is defined by experience and there is no such thing as "a priori".
Logic isn't experienced; any act of experience is an instance of logic.
Oh good, we agree. Experience = observation and so "any act of observation is an instance of logic" which was the genesis of this debate: There is no distinction between empirical and logical because any act of empiricism is an instance of logic. If there exists instances of logic that are not acts of empiricism, then, by definition, they do to exist because if they did exist, they would be empirical as well. For instance the logic of traveling faster than speed of light is not empirical, so that logic doesn't exist and is confined to the realm of "thought experiment".
The statement there is no such thing as "a priori" is a priori.
That's clever, but it can't be true because how can I have an experience before I've had an experience? You said "I defined the word logic to be the way the universe is experienced"
Therefore, they are not analogous to my definitions of "existence" and "non-existence" which do apply uniformly to all things.

And how do you know that?
As opposed to a circuit's voltage which occurs in a specific group of things in many different ways, my definitions of existence and nonexistence apply to all things in the same way. I know that is because I defined them as such. Unless you can find a fault in the definitions, you have no argument.
You're right; I can't argue with definitions. But the group of "all things" is still a group and I don't see a distinction between my group of "circuit things" where voltage applies. What's the significance of this discussion?
Yes, but the relation isn't separate from what is being related. I am your relation to me, and you are my relation to you, and ultimately both I and you are each others relation to the All.
Yes, yes, I agree, but the ALL must be relational to something as well or it can't be said to exist.

I said before that we can't make logical statements about all things because there is no reference point outside of everything by which to make an observation.

For instance, if we say all things are moving, then we can't logically verify that because there is no still reference point by which to judge. No logical statement about all things can be made.
I agree, but would add that the deeper meaning is that nonduality is the same as duality.
Because of its codependent origination: dual/nondual?
The sum of all duality, or all codependent origination, is nonduality.
I agree but even the nondual must be contrasted to what it is not, which is the dual.
As soon as we try to imagine anything, it becomes a thing because things are thinks.
By this reasoning, our imagination is itself the think of another imagination, so it is really that imagination that is creating all thinks. In fact it just now created itself and me by imagining me imagining it as being the cause of my thinkomagination. Any objections or questions you may have regarding the above should therefore be forwarded to the appropriate thinkomaginatrix. As for myself, I dindu nuffin!
Haha well of course, you are your thought of yourself. Problem?

There was a young man who said though
It seems that I know that I know
But what I'd like to see is the I that knows me
When I know that I know that I know.

It's an infinite regression and you'll never get to the bottom of it because you can't step outside yourself.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:47 am
Pam: Abstract concepts are concepts that cannot be empirically observed or heard or tasted or smelled or touched (hence their difference from concrete concepts).. They can be purely mathematical or be meaning related such as the ones I mentioned in another post: integrity, joy, love, reasoning, etc.
Serendipper: But do those things exist?
Only in the context of what they mean to you. If 1 + 1 = 2 or joy have no meaning for you, they don't exist for you. Instead you would be aware of them as neutral concepts.
But neural concepts are the only way I can be aware of anything. I call shapes, color, sound, temperature, hardness, softness, etc into existence in my mind. None of this reality exists without my creating it.
There was a faith healer of deal
Who said although I know pain is not real
When the tip of a pin punctures my skin
I dislike what I fancy I feel.
Pain is real the moment one becomes aware of pain, including the reasoning that pain is not liked (or liked in the case of a sadomasochist). Like all concepts of which one becomes aware, pain is impermanent in nature. Suffering enters into the picture when the truth of concept impermanence is ignored or outright denied.
Yup!
All those things you mentioned, including math, are constructs of imagination and are only real if observed by the mind, right?
Observation alone does not reality make. An insight for your consideration: 'Reasoning', 'reasoned', 'realize' have the same three letter prefix as 'real.' :-)
I once saw a username on youtube called "realize, realeyes, reallies" or something like that.

Observation requires an object to be observed, so reality is a relational transaction between subject and object where one can't exist without the other.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback »

Serendipper: But neural concepts are the only way I can be aware of anything. I call shapes, color, sound, temperature, hardness, softness, etc into existence in my mind. None of this reality exists without my creating it.
The you that is Mind, yes. I assume that you meant to type "neutral" rather than "neural" and if you did, I'm not disputing that you call forth neutral things such as shapes, colors, sounds, etc. what I am disputing is that you, the one who interprets these things, is neutral. My evidence for asserting this is your philosophy of 'having fun.' 'Having fun' is not a neutral activity. Do you define yourself by the color of your skin or the shape of your body or do you define yourself as desiring or liking to 'have fun'?
Observation requires an object to be observed, so reality is a relational transaction between subject and object where one can't exist without the other.
No arguments here, but if all one does is relate to things neutrally as in "I see black" or "I hear birds" or "I feel a rock" what kind of life is this? You might as well be a computer. So while the "I" relates to things neutrally, it comes to life when it gives things meaning, for example, your philosophy of 'having fun.' And included in 'meaning' is awareness of what Diebert mentioned earlier, right action. If a bear runs toward you it is likely that you won't interpret that action as 'having fun', instead, you will either react with or without knowledge of how best to avoid an encounter so your body won't end up being bear food. Or if you happen upon a man raping a child, will you not seek the right action to be caused whatever that right action may be (for you?).

The picture I am trying to paint for you of the formless "I" that calls forth forms is that it is never limited to any one way of interpreting the things it calls forth, i.e., empirically or philosophically, that it has access to the infinity of forming. This is what I was trying to place forward when I mentioned the scripture from Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." You are that Spirit of God, moving across all of the causal possibilities for that moment and when the right causality is found, you cause your light of causal realization, the calling forth of forms - again, for that moment. You may be moving across the waters of all possible ice cream flavors so you can cause just the right one or you may be moving across the waters of all possible ways to act when encountering suffering. What you cause of course is not a frozen moment of causation, instead it is a part of a continuum of causation that your empirically directed mind cannot see.

*edited to correct spelling error
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:20 am
Serendipper: But neural concepts are the only way I can be aware of anything. I call shapes, color, sound, temperature, hardness, softness, etc into existence in my mind. None of this reality exists without my creating it.
The you that is Mind, yes. I assume that you meant to type "neutral" rather than "neural" and if you did,
Oh wow lol. Neural short circuit there as I totally saw neural instead of neutral. I have my strengths, but I'm not the most perceptive person. But it's cool... makes for good comedy :)
I'm not disputing that you call forth neutral things such as shapes, colors, sounds, etc. what I am disputing is that you, the one who interprets these things, is neutral.

In a way, neural and neutral are a bit the same as neural can be interpreted as being central to the polar extremes of objective and subjective reality. Man is the middle position, being comprised of the object of his observation which leads to an infinite regression in discerning what he is. I have to be neutral and neural :)
My evidence for asserting this is your philosophy of 'having fun.' 'Having fun' is not a neutral activity. Do you define yourself by the color of your skin or the shape of your body or do you define yourself as desiring or liking to 'have fun'?
Trying to define myself is like trying to bite my own teeth :D My goal has always been to get myself to a point where I can do whatever I want, but then I find I'm lost without a goal because if I don't know where I'm going, then it doesn't matter where I am. So there is no right way, really, but a muddling along because we wouldn't know what fun is if we didn't have chores and eating bitter lets us taste sweet.
Observation requires an object to be observed, so reality is a relational transaction between subject and object where one can't exist without the other.
No arguments here, but if all one does is relate to things neutrally as in "I see black" or "I hear birds" or "I feel a rock" what kind of life is this? You might as well be a computer. So while the "I" relates to things neutrally, it comes to life when it gives things meaning, for example, your philosophy of 'having fun.' And included in 'meaning' is awareness of what Diebert mentioned earlier, right action. If a bear runs toward you it is likely that you won't interpret that action as 'having fun', instead, you will either react with or without knowledge of how best to avoid an encounter so your body won't end up being fear food. Or if you happen upon a man raping a child, will you not seek the right action to be caused whatever that right action may be (for you?).
I was once stranded on top of a mountain when my battery died and I had to walk 2 hrs back to camp through bear country. I decided what I'd do if I saw a bear, which was to run at it like a crazy person and hope the bear got spooked before it had a chance to realize it's several times my size. Usually they run before they think, so not providing an opportunity to think was central to my plan. Thinking back, the whole ordeal was kinda fun.

If I happened on a man raping a child, I wouldn't have to do anything as the man would certainly run just like the bear. A better situation I often think about is what I'd do if I happened upon a man beating his wife. These situations are always setup pitting the stronger against the weaker and the right action is always to defend the weaker as the US did when Iraq attacked Kuwait. If society always protects the weaker, then the weaker becomes the stronger and is now the monster. It's unclear what I'd do because I don't know the full situation and mental abuse may be the cause of the physical response, which is a form of self defense. I once talked to a woman who said she received 3 death threats from men on a dating site and my first thought was "what did you do to those men to provoke such a response?" I know most women do not receive death threats from men and getting 3 is most unusual, but the men always get the blame for lack of "right action" while women get the benefit of carte blanche provocateur. So what I'd do is probably mind my own business like a nature photographer does when a lion eats a baby deer because I'm unable to determine what is right and the act of determining what is right makes me a monster per Diebert's "To fight a monster one is already that, like staring into the abyss: the earth opens up inside ourselves, to even get to such depth." viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7765#p159155

And "the goodie goodies are the thieves of virtue" - I'm not sure if Lao Tzu or Confucius who said that.

I'm sure that opens up a new can of worms where evil is allowed to run rampant because to fight evil is evil, but, again, I suspect what is right is a muddling-along and there is some middle way between pacifism and aggression... and that leads us into your formless philosophy:
The picture I am trying to paint for you of the formless "I" that calls forth forms is that it is never limited to any one way of interpreting the things it calls forth, i.e., empirically or philosophically, that it has access to the infinity of forming. This is what I was trying to place forward when I mentioned the scripture from Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." You are that Spirit of God, moving across all of the causal possibilities for that moment and when the right causality is found, you cause your light of causal realization, the calling forth of forms - again, for that moment. You may be moving across the waters of all possible ice cream flavors so you can cause just the right one or you may be moving across the waters of all possible ways to act when encountering suffering. What you cause of course is not a frozen moment of causation, instead it is a part of a continuum of causation that your empirically directed mind cannot see.
So you're saying to be like water? Formless, shapeless and able to fill any container?

The philosophy of Bruce Lee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EygqL--RW4

"Do not believe in styles; styles separate man." That was the profound discovery made by Bruce. Why the allegiance to a style? A philosophy? All you've accomplished is to limit yourself.

I try not to label things, but I don't always succeed. Mark Twain said, "All things in moderation, including moderation." Also, "Be careful reading health books or you may die of a misprint." Becoming too absorbed in any one philosopher's nonsense may lead to detriment. "As soon as you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." "What most people know ain't worth knowing." And yet Quora puts truth to a vote.

The vexation of man is the eternal desire to have all right and no wrong... to have all known and no unknown... all good and no bad.

Alan Watts puts it in the form of a dialog with God wherein we're allowed one question; what would you ask? Having exhausted all possibilities, we decide we should ask God "what should I ask?" And God replies, "Why do you want a question?" That's just it... we're not happy unless we have a problem and we've got one... the problem of arranging everything so it is up and not down.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback »

Serendipper: The vexation of man is the eternal desire to have all right and no wrong... to have all known and no unknown... all good and no bad.
And it was minds like those of the Buddha and Jesus that set out and successfully showed the way to end man's vexation. However, as long as one believes that there is no way to go beyond man's vexation, for that one, there is no way beyond.
Alan Watts puts it in the form of a dialog with God wherein we're allowed one question; what would you ask? Having exhausted all possibilities, we decide we should ask God "what should I ask?" And God replies, "Why do you want a question?" That's just it... we're not happy unless we have a problem and we've got one... the problem of arranging everything so it is up and not down.
The problem (vexation) here is the equation of asking a question with being a problem. Asking questions of God is the way by which your caused self comes into being, the key point in relation to being liberated from vexation being that you see no separation (or up and down :-)) between you, God, the question or the answer.

Seeking is perceived as causing vexation only when it offers up two opposing positions or views.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:16 am
Serendipper: The vexation of man is the eternal desire to have all right and no wrong... to have all known and no unknown... all good and no bad.
And it was minds like those of the Buddha and Jesus that set out and successfully showed the way to end man's vexation. However, as long as one believes that there is no way to go beyond man's vexation, for that one, there is no way beyond.
One needs faith?
Alan Watts puts it in the form of a dialog with God wherein we're allowed one question; what would you ask? Having exhausted all possibilities, we decide we should ask God "what should I ask?" And God replies, "Why do you want a question?" That's just it... we're not happy unless we have a problem and we've got one... the problem of arranging everything so it is up and not down.
The problem (vexation) here is the equation of asking a question with being a problem. Asking questions of God is the way by which your caused self comes into being, the key point in relation to being liberated from vexation being that you see no separation (or up and down :-)) between you, God, the question or the answer.

Seeking is perceived as causing vexation only when it offers up two opposing positions or views.
If the vexation is gone then you're vexed with loss of vexation and that begs the question of the point to all of this. Why bother dreaming if the goal of the dreaming is to realize you're not dreaming?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Serendipper wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:03 amIf the vexation is gone then you're vexed with loss of vexation and that begs the question of the point to all of this.
If it's gone, it would be gone, right? Otherwise one ends up trying to prove that one didn't wake up to yet another dream
Why bother dreaming if the goal of the dreaming is to realize you're not dreaming?
The idea of a word like "dreaming" automatically implies the possibility of "not dreaming". Remove the consequence and the whole idea has lost significance and meaning. But to talk of a goal and overarching purposes here definitely introduces new possible worlds and states. Like the idea of a goal creating the possibility of missing the target, misdirection or failure.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:34 pm
Serendipper wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:03 amIf the vexation is gone then you're vexed with loss of vexation and that begs the question of the point to all of this.
If it's gone, it would be gone, right? Otherwise one ends up trying to prove that one didn't wake up to yet another dream
So it would seem, but if the vexation which is removed by realizing that questions, god, and myself are all one, then I'd be vexed with boredom. How can I derive enjoyment from playing a game when I already know how the game ends? So either I'm vexed with questions or I'm vexed with answers and the only way to remove the vexation is to not see it as a vexation ;)

Instead of not playing the game because I've realized I am the game, I go back into the game because the game is the point. So now how do we arrange everything so it is up and not down? It's a pressing issue that we simply must solve (wink wink)! :D
Why bother dreaming if the goal of the dreaming is to realize you're not dreaming?
The idea of a word like "dreaming" automatically implies the possibility of "not dreaming". Remove the consequence and the whole idea has lost significance and meaning. But to talk of a goal and overarching purposes here definitely introduces new possible worlds and states. Like the idea of a goal creating the possibility of missing the target, misdirection or failure.
Sure, I suppose so. Getting too smart probably defeats the purpose, ie failure.

You have to consider what you'd do if you knew everything and had all power. If humans are in the image of god and what they do is lay their power of control down before climbing into a roller coaster to be at its mercy, then what does that imply about god?

In the four yugas, god gets progressively braver in his dreaming, taking more and more risk for increasing thrill. Laying down the power, not knowing, is the point. So then, getting too smart (waking up), defeats the purpose of dreaming.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback »

Serendipper: The vexation of man is the eternal desire to have all right and no wrong... to have all known and no unknown... all good and no bad.
And it was minds like those of the Buddha and Jesus that set out and successfully showed the way to end man's vexation. However, as long as one believes that there is no way to go beyond man's vexation, for that one, there is no way beyond.
One needs faith?
No, one needs to inquire of their own mind if what the Buddha and Jesus has found is true. Believing is an aspect of dualism as is 'going beyond.' The raft parable of the Buddha comes to mind.
Serendipper to Pam: If the vexation is gone then you're vexed with loss of vexation and that begs the question of the point to all of this.
Diebert to Serendipper: If it's gone, it would be gone, right? Otherwise one ends up trying to prove that one didn't wake up to yet another dream
So it would seem, but if the vexation which is removed by realizing that questions, god, and myself are all one, then I'd be vexed with boredom. How can I derive enjoyment from playing a game when I already know how the game ends? So either I'm vexed with questions or I'm vexed with answers and the only way to remove the vexation is to not see it as a vexation ;)
But you don't know how the game ends, you never know how the game ends, the alpha and omega of you is the eternal game, being vexed or not vexed does not change this truth. Bored/not bored, having fun/not having fun, knowing how the game ends/not knowing how the game ends, being vexed/not being vexed -- you are unnecessarily vexing yourself by contradicting yourself. :-)

It is my experience that it is a common belief that contradiction (dualism) is a requirement for 'existence' that if contradiction wasn't present there would be 'nothing there' or at least 'nothing there' worth thinking/speaking about. There is only one way to find out if this attraction to contradiction/dualism is a requirement for you to be you, stop contradicting yourself!
Instead of not playing the game because I've realized I am the game, I go back into the game because the game is the point. So now how do we arrange everything so it is up and not down? It's a pressing issue that we simply must solve (wink wink)! :D
Like whiskey is to an alcoholic, dualism/contradiction (having fun?) is to you. :-)
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Serendipper wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:13 pm if the vexation which is removed by realizing that questions, god, and myself are all one, then I'd be vexed with boredom. How can I derive enjoyment from playing a game when I already know how the game ends? So either I'm vexed with questions or I'm vexed with answers and the only way to remove the vexation is to not see it as a vexation ;)
Yeah reminds me of Kierkegaard's "Rotation of Crops". Boredom will always be the longer term consequence, induced by the workings of memory & repetition. As such, escaping it only produces the very means to recreate it.
Instead of not playing the game because I've realized I am the game, I go back into the game because the game is the point. So now how do we arrange everything so it is up and not down? It's a pressing issue that we simply must solve (wink wink)! :D
But once the stakes are high enough, like your life, health, reason ability or the fate of others, nobody would call it "game" as not to confuse it with for example disinterest, scattered attention or disregards for consequences.
You have to consider what you'd do if you knew everything and had all power. If humans are in the image of god and what they do is lay their power of control down before climbing into a roller coaster to be at its mercy, then what does that imply about god?
Boredom is the dwelling ground of the devil. And I'm sure he'll think of something.
In the four yugas, god gets progressively braver in his dreaming, taking more and more risk for increasing thrill. Laying down the power, not knowing, is the point. So then, getting too smart (waking up), defeats the purpose of dreaming.
The only relevant form of knowledge is the one that transforms once wielded or grasped. It's far too late now to "lay it down" unless it was misunderstood (ungrasped, never possessed). In that case, it's a good thing to let it go. In a sense all context is dreaming and all purpose arises from that context -- and simply not relevant outside it. And yet that does not exclude straight forward relevance in the right context.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:55 am
Serendipper: The vexation of man is the eternal desire to have all right and no wrong... to have all known and no unknown... all good and no bad.
And it was minds like those of the Buddha and Jesus that set out and successfully showed the way to end man's vexation. However, as long as one believes that there is no way to go beyond man's vexation, for that one, there is no way beyond.
One needs faith?
No, one needs to inquire of their own mind if what the Buddha and Jesus has found is true.
Are you quite sure that isn't faith? :D
Believing is an aspect of dualism as is 'going beyond.' The raft parable of the Buddha comes to mind.
Oh yeah, good point. Alan Watts talked about that as well as a brick for pounding on the door, but not taking the brick inside. Or LSD being a tool, like a microscope, but not a lifestyle as if one would go about peering through a microscope all the time. So how does this apply to our discussion? What tool am I making a lifestyle out of?
Serendipper to Pam: If the vexation is gone then you're vexed with loss of vexation and that begs the question of the point to all of this.
Diebert to Serendipper: If it's gone, it would be gone, right? Otherwise one ends up trying to prove that one didn't wake up to yet another dream
So it would seem, but if the vexation which is removed by realizing that questions, god, and myself are all one, then I'd be vexed with boredom. How can I derive enjoyment from playing a game when I already know how the game ends? So either I'm vexed with questions or I'm vexed with answers and the only way to remove the vexation is to not see it as a vexation ;)
But you don't know how the game ends, you never know how the game ends, the alpha and omega of you is the eternal game, being vexed or not vexed does not change this truth. Bored/not bored, having fun/not having fun, knowing how the game ends/not knowing how the game ends, being vexed/not being vexed -- you are unnecessarily vexing yourself by contradicting yourself. :-)
But if the realization that I am my questions in order to resolve my questions for the removal of vexation caused by my questions then it would seem that I should know how the game ends by realizing that I am the game and so there is no game which defeats the purpose of the game.
It is my experience that it is a common belief that contradiction (dualism) is a requirement for 'existence' that if contradiction wasn't present there would be 'nothing there' or at least 'nothing there' worth thinking/speaking about. There is only one way to find out if this attraction to contradiction/dualism is a requirement for you to be you, stop contradicting yourself!
How do I do that? This has useful personal applications and perhaps you could be of assistance: I have decided long ago that my character in the game would be an honorable one with integrity that prided himself on his word and issued consideration for people, but because of that determination of right and wrong and adherence to a standard for myself, I found myself to be in judgment of others who invariably let me down. The purpose of right and wrong is ultimately an expression of consideration for others since I couldn't be immoral to myself and so because I care for others I found myself not caring for others which makes absolutely no sense and is a direct contradiction, yet I have no mechanism to change it because if I stop caring, it will also be because I care. How do I get out of that one?
Instead of not playing the game because I've realized I am the game, I go back into the game because the game is the point. So now how do we arrange everything so it is up and not down? It's a pressing issue that we simply must solve (wink wink)! :D
Like whiskey is to an alcoholic, dualism/contradiction (having fun?) is to you. :-)
That could be. Going outside to get cold in order to come in to get warm before becoming too warm and then going back outside to cool off before getting too cold, etc, etc is the duality of fun; eating bitter to taste sweet. But what I mean by fun is what comes natural, which begs the question of what is natural, which I suppose is defined as that which doesn't further the illusion of the ego. For instance studying philosophy to be a big bad philosopher for admiration from people instead of studying it simply because it's enjoyable. That's what I mean by fun; not so much running around like a loonie bird chasing butterflies and such ;)
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:17 am
Serendipper wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:13 pm if the vexation which is removed by realizing that questions, god, and myself are all one, then I'd be vexed with boredom. How can I derive enjoyment from playing a game when I already know how the game ends? So either I'm vexed with questions or I'm vexed with answers and the only way to remove the vexation is to not see it as a vexation ;)
Yeah reminds me of Kierkegaard's "Rotation of Crops". Boredom will always be the longer term consequence, induced by the workings of memory & repetition. As such, escaping it only produces the very means to recreate it.

Thanks for putting a name to it as I wasn't aware of that. I was watching a documentary on the Swiadomy rainforest people who hunt monkeys and do a bit of gardening and when the monkeys start getting sparse and the dirt becomes demineralized, they burn their house then move to a new location to rebuild. I thought "How ingenious!" They get new dirt, new moneys, and they escape the parasites that have undoubtedly began to thrive over time (why cats typically move about) and they have the added entertaining bonus of building a new house. Western people would think "How stupid!" as they've flushed all that investment down the drain, but they've missed the point. To stay in one place means they'd need plumbing, fertilizer, domesticated animals, fencing, feed, antibiotics to fight disease, and it's chore after chore just to maintain that "investment" while the Swiadomy simply move around and spend their day, more or less, doing what they find enjoyable while nature takes care of all the chores. Crop rotation.

Boredom is also an artifact of intelligence and may explain why animals have not gotten smarter after 100s of millions of years. Being smart isn't always an advantage that translates into survival because boredom and its consequent (curiosity) may lead to trouble.
Instead of not playing the game because I've realized I am the game, I go back into the game because the game is the point. So now how do we arrange everything so it is up and not down? It's a pressing issue that we simply must solve (wink wink)! :D
But once the stakes are high enough, like your life, health, reason ability or the fate of others, nobody would call it "game" as not to confuse it with for example disinterest, scattered attention or disregards for consequences.
It's still a game. Nothing insists that you have to go on living. If you identify with the ego, then yeah, it would seem gravely important, but if you identify with the universe then why does it matter? The thing goes on in a new way and is perfectly indestructible.

Alan made a bit of fun of it by saying that life is really just a bunch of tubes with stuff going in one end and being let out the other. The tube evolved eyes on one end, we call the head, so it can find stuff to put in one end so it can let it out the other. But then the stuff going through wears the tubes out, so the tubes developed ways of reproducing new tubes so the thing can go on and all this is terribly important! :)
You have to consider what you'd do if you knew everything and had all power. If humans are in the image of god and what they do is lay their power of control down before climbing into a roller coaster to be at its mercy, then what does that imply about god?
Boredom is the dwelling ground of the devil. And I'm sure he'll think of something.
Idle hands are the devil's workshop.
In the four yugas, god gets progressively braver in his dreaming, taking more and more risk for increasing thrill. Laying down the power, not knowing, is the point. So then, getting too smart (waking up), defeats the purpose of dreaming.
The only relevant form of knowledge is the one that transforms once wielded or grasped. It's far too late now to "lay it down" unless it was misunderstood (ungrasped, never possessed). In that case, it's a good thing to let it go. In a sense all context is dreaming and all purpose arises from that context -- and simply not relevant outside it. And yet that does not exclude straight forward relevance in the right context.
In order to play the game of chess, for example, you must lay down your power to kick me in the head and claim victory. So you submit to the rules of the game for the sake of the game.

In order to have space and time requires light not be transmitted instantly. Therefore it's a slowing-down of light or information (purposefully dumbing yourself) which creates space and time. So it's the laying-down of power that creates the unknown and that creates the game/play/dream/whatever.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback »

Serendipper: But if the realization that I am my questions in order to resolve my questions for the removal of vexation caused by my questions then it would seem that I should know how the game ends by realizing that I am the game and so there is no game which defeats the purpose of the game.
You are the question, you are the answer, they are one and the same movement or expansion of you so there is never a resolution or a conclusion to, or of, you (the conscious universe).

Vexation is not removed like a tick from a dog, rather, vexation ceases to be caused once any sense of separation between you and the question and the answer ceases to be caused.
Pam: It is my experience that it is a common belief that contradiction (dualism) is a requirement for 'existence' that if contradiction wasn't present there would be 'nothing there' or at least 'nothing there' worth thinking/speaking about. There is only one way to find out if this attraction to contradiction/dualism is a requirement for you to be you, stop contradicting yourself!
How do I do that? This has useful personal applications and perhaps you could be of assistance: I have decided long ago that my character in the game would be an honorable one with integrity that prided himself on his word and issued consideration for people, but because of that determination of right and wrong and adherence to a standard for myself, I found myself to be in judgment of others who invariably let me down. The purpose of right and wrong is ultimately an expression of consideration for others since I couldn't be immoral to myself and so because I care for others I found myself not caring for others which makes absolutely no sense and is a direct contradiction, yet I have no mechanism to change it because if I stop caring, it will also be because I care. How do I get out of that one?
The only way out is to meditate on the truth of nondual Mind until it is realized completely so that the delusion of choice between right and wrong ceases to be caused. In order to do that, one must practice stilling their back-and-forth, distracted mind that wants to 'have fun.' Diebert mentioned seduction in another post - is this not what is happening when the mind seeks to be busy/occupied rather than attentive/awake?
Going outside to get cold in order to come in to get warm before becoming too warm and then going back outside to cool off before getting too cold, etc, etc is the duality of fun; eating bitter to taste sweet. But what I mean by fun is what comes natural, which begs the question of what is natural, which I suppose is defined as that which doesn't further the illusion of the ego. For instance studying philosophy to be a big bad philosopher for admiration from people instead of studying it simply because it's enjoyable. That's what I mean by fun; not so much running around like a loonie bird chasing butterflies and such ;)
One is free to enjoy studying philosophy, i.e., flit from one philosophy to another, but when philosophy is what one does in order to understand the nature of reality, they are seeking wisdom, not enjoyment.

You imply having fun with dualities does not further the illusion of the ego - I put forward to you that it does just that.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:38 am
Serendipper: But if the realization that I am my questions in order to resolve my questions for the removal of vexation caused by my questions then it would seem that I should know how the game ends by realizing that I am the game and so there is no game which defeats the purpose of the game.
You are the question, you are the answer, they are one and the same movement or expansion of you so there is never a resolution or a conclusion to, or of, you (the conscious universe).

Vexation is not removed like a tick from a dog, rather, vexation ceases to be caused once any sense of separation between you and the question and the answer ceases to be caused.
What causes the cause?
Pam: It is my experience that it is a common belief that contradiction (dualism) is a requirement for 'existence' that if contradiction wasn't present there would be 'nothing there' or at least 'nothing there' worth thinking/speaking about. There is only one way to find out if this attraction to contradiction/dualism is a requirement for you to be you, stop contradicting yourself!
How do I do that? This has useful personal applications and perhaps you could be of assistance: I have decided long ago that my character in the game would be an honorable one with integrity that prided himself on his word and issued consideration for people, but because of that determination of right and wrong and adherence to a standard for myself, I found myself to be in judgment of others who invariably let me down. The purpose of right and wrong is ultimately an expression of consideration for others since I couldn't be immoral to myself and so because I care for others I found myself not caring for others which makes absolutely no sense and is a direct contradiction, yet I have no mechanism to change it because if I stop caring, it will also be because I care. How do I get out of that one?
The only way out is to meditate on the truth of nondual Mind until it is realized completely so that the delusion of choice between right and wrong ceases to be caused. In order to do that, one must practice stilling their back-and-forth, distracted mind that wants to 'have fun.' Diebert mentioned seduction in another post - is this not what is happening when the mind seeks to be busy/occupied rather than attentive/awake?
That's just a way of telling me to stop playing the game silly lol! I'm asking how to beat the game ;)

We live in a society of laws and people running about being "immoral" (because we define them to be) and so how do I play the game without also going loonie?

It seems that not playing the game is being like a lump of wood or a rock that is just existing and is blah.

Hui-neng's position was that a man with an empty consciousness was no better than "a block of wood or a lump of stone". He insisted that the whole idea of purifying the mind was irrelevant and confusing, because "our own nature is fundamentally clear and pure." In other words, there is no analogy between consciousness or mind and a mirror that can be wiped. The true mind is "no-mind" (wu-hsin), which is to say that it is not to be regarded as an object of thought or action, as if it were a thing to be grasped or controlled. The attempt to work on one's own mind is a vicious circle. To try to purify it is to be contaminated with purity. The Way of Zen
Going outside to get cold in order to come in to get warm before becoming too warm and then going back outside to cool off before getting too cold, etc, etc is the duality of fun; eating bitter to taste sweet. But what I mean by fun is what comes natural, which begs the question of what is natural, which I suppose is defined as that which doesn't further the illusion of the ego. For instance studying philosophy to be a big bad philosopher for admiration from people instead of studying it simply because it's enjoyable. That's what I mean by fun; not so much running around like a loonie bird chasing butterflies and such ;)
One is free to enjoy studying philosophy, i.e., flit from one philosophy to another, but when philosophy is what one does in order to understand the nature of reality, they are seeking wisdom, not enjoyment.
Why are they seeking wisdom? Because it's fun or because of some purpose? What is the purpose? Egoic? Well, it wouldn't be "fun".

Either there is a purpose or there is not. Fun is that which lacks purpose/intent/goal.
You imply having fun with dualities does not further the illusion of the ego - I put forward to you that it does just that.
Then I put forward that you're still misinterpreting what I'm meaning by fun ;) Fun is defined as that which doesn't further the illusion of the ego.

These circles always exist because if I humble myself by realizing that I couldn't exist without all of you, then I see I am the kingpin, but then I find once again that a kingpin can exist without what it holds together. So as soon as we take one position, it flips. If we try to purify ourselves, then purity becomes the contaminant. If we seek to remove vexation, then lack of vexation becomes the vex. If we seek to exit the game, then we're vexed with boredom in a state of nonexistence. The trouble is manifested by the seeking. Therefore, the only way out is fun... not-seeking, non-purpose, non-goal.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback »

Serendipper:

Why are they seeking wisdom? Because it's fun or because of some purpose? What is the purpose? Egoic? Well, it wouldn't be "fun".

Either there is a purpose or there is not. Fun is that which lacks purpose/intent/goal.
Since 'fun' is not an absolute thing upon which your mind can rest, you have no choice but to seek fun or to make fun your purpose and goal (which is the same things as seeking). You are fooling yourself if you believe you can stop your mind from seeking.

One seeks wisdom so they can live a life of truth and not of relativism.
That's just a way of telling me to stop playing the game silly lol! I'm asking how to beat the game ;)

We live in a society of laws and people running about being "immoral" (because we define them to be) and so how do I play the game without also going loonie?

It seems that not playing the game is being like a lump of wood or a rock that is just existing and is blah.
When someone doesn't follow a human law, they are not moral or immoral, they are not following the law. Cause and effect in action. That's how you stop going loonie by defining people as moral or immoral.

You are free to play the game of morality out of fear of becoming a lump of wood or 'blah', calling it 'fun', hey, no problem, but it will not be a life of truth. The internet is full of morality-players: open up any social media site and you can scroll until your finger gets sore, everyone with an opinion, everyone lusting after the limelight, very view speaking the truth or even caring about the truth.

As for purifying the mind, I don't think that way. Either something is true or it is not. If I find myself engaging in the game of speculation, and I do, I stop. ' And I don't need to know the ultimate cause of things in order to discern what is true. When I see or feel the wind blowing, the wind is blowing, this is the truth of that moment, I don't need to know the ultimate cause of wind or of blowing. If someone tells me black is better than white or I find myself thinking that one color is better than another color, I know that truth is not being told.
These circles always exist because if I humble myself by realizing that I couldn't exist without all of you, then I see I am the kingpin, but then I find once again that a kingpin can exist without what it holds together. So as soon as we take one position, it flips. If we try to purify ourselves, then purity becomes the contaminant. If we seek to remove vexation, then lack of vexation becomes the vex. If we seek to exit the game, then we're vexed with boredom in a state of nonexistence. The trouble is manifested by the seeking. Therefore, the only way out is fun... not-seeking, non-purpose, non-goal.
The beauty of truth is that it is not circular. Either something is true or it is not true.

Are you a kingpin? Am I a kingpin? Is anyone a kingpin? Well, because it is a title of relativity to not being a kingpin, there is no way to determine the truth of that statement so why would I waste my time going 'round and 'round on the kingpin hamster wheel?

As I pointed out above with the evidence of its relative nature, your implication that fun is an absolute state (not-seeking, non-purposeful, non-goal directed) is deluded thinking. Are you okay with being deluded?
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:24 amYou are fooling yourself if you believe you can stop your mind from seeking.
It depends on what we call my mind.

Some years ago I planted strawberries, mainly as a way of decorating a retaining wall (ego I guess), but also to get some berries to eat. Ever since, I've been slaving away fighting the droughts, slugs, weeds, and fortifying the dirt. What the drought would kill, I'd buy more to replace. I'd spend countless evenings watering and just when it seemed like the plants were really starting to take hold and thrive, the deer came and ate every leaf. I'd look up at the sky and ask the universe why I'm not allowed to have strawberries. Why is it so intent on preventing a nice garden? So should I continue seeking to have strawberries or should I say to hell with it? I can't fight the universe and I can get a whole tub of berries from the store for a couple bucks.

It really doesn't matter what I put my hand to, the universe is intent on dispatching every resource in its infinite army to fight me. Alan says I'm doing it, but I don't understand that. Am I really such a rascal? But I do have a choice... I can say to hell with it. I don't have to seek. Why would I? I won't win anyway.

So that's why I say motivation should be for fun because when it invariably falls apart, I at least had a good time doing it. If fiddling with the strawberries is no longer fun, I'll let the weeds have it and go do something else that is fun.
One seeks wisdom so they can live a life of truth and not of relativism.
What's the reward for living a life of truth instead of relativism? The reward is the same as having strawberries (ego) and just as futile because I'd still be seeking. And it's only because of the relativists that we could pride ourselves on being absolutists because we need the damned in order to have the saved. The delusion is in thinking the absolute exists and it's just another way of setting ourselves apart with a sense of accomplishment of having attained something special relative to those who have not. Purity becomes the contaminant.
When someone doesn't follow a human law, they are not moral or immoral, they are not following the law. Cause and effect in action. That's how you stop going loonie by defining people as moral or immoral.
Let's consider an example: Suppose we agree to meet at 5 and you make sacrifices out of consideration for me to be on time. I don't show up because I decided to play video games and totally forgot or thought it not necessary to let you know I changed my mind. Would you just forget it and think "oh well, no harm done"? What would you do differently the next time we make an appointment? Would you eternally be the butt of my devious nature? That reminds me of Bill Murray.

I was surprised to learn that Bill does what he wants, when he wants, and with seemingly no regard for anyone else, which has caused the bodhisattva to miss lots of opportunities https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... eason-why/
You are free to play the game of morality out of fear of becoming a lump of wood or 'blah', calling it 'fun', hey, no problem, but it will not be a life of truth. The internet is full of morality-players: open up any social media site and you can scroll until your finger gets sore, everyone with an opinion, everyone lusting after the limelight, very view speaking the truth or even caring about the truth.
What is the truth; that there is no truth? If there is no morality, obviously there is no truth.
As for purifying the mind, I don't think that way. Either something is true or it is not. If I find myself engaging in the game of speculation, and I do, I stop. ' And I don't need to know the ultimate cause of things in order to discern what is true. When I see or feel the wind blowing, the wind is blowing, this is the truth of that moment, I don't need to know the ultimate cause of wind or of blowing. If someone tells me black is better than white or I find myself thinking that one color is better than another color, I know that truth is not being told.

What if you think the wind feels cold and I think it feels warm; who is telling the truth?
The beauty of truth is that it is not circular. Either something is true or it is not true.
That's not true lol. Truth is a property of the interaction between subject and object. What you interpret as true for you is not necessarily true for me. The absolutists view of truth is what causes the monkey to remove the poor fish from the water and put it safely up a tree for fear it may drown. Truth is conjured into existence through subjective experience.
Are you a kingpin? Am I a kingpin? Is anyone a kingpin? Well, because it is a title of relativity to not being a kingpin, there is no way to determine the truth of that statement so why would I waste my time going 'round and 'round on the kingpin hamster wheel?
Exactly. There is no truth to discern because everything is a hamster wheel.
As I pointed out above with the evidence of its relative nature, your implication that fun is an absolute state (not-seeking, non-purposeful, non-goal directed) is deluded thinking. Are you okay with being deluded?
Fun isn't an absolute state because fun can't be realized without also having chores. How would I know that I'm doing what I want to do if I didn't have obligations to reference it to? I wouldn't know I was on vacation if I didn't have work to vacate from.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Serendipper wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:35 am They get new dirt, new moneys, and they escape the parasites that have undoubtedly began to thrive over time (why cats typically move about) and they have the added entertaining bonus of building a new house.
To be clear, the concept of "crop rotation" which I referred to does not mean doing exactly the same thing on another place or to do a very similar thing on the same place. Actually the whole point is to start a sufficiently new activity challenging one self and invoke resourcefulness: overcoming new limits put to you. Which was the very issue the boredom highlighted at first, a lack of overcoming I suppose. Also related to the idea of conquest, one of those aspects of masculine psychology.
while the Swiadomy simply move around and spend their day, more or less, doing what they find enjoyable while nature takes care of all the chores. Crop rotation.
It's the relative bliss of any animalistic, infantile stage. But humanity has been so far about suffering, insanity, technology and knowledge of good and evil. It's understandable people are looking for ways to jump the train. Mental fatigue. Longing back for the womb. Retirement projects. Maybe it's just all longing for the end of the ride. However Christ, the horizon, the next world, is what drives all what is "redeemable" about this particular primate. Why not just support it according to a vision?
Being smart isn't always an advantage that translates into survival
Having merely two legs or opposing thumbs isn't "always an advantage" either. Any property could be discussed that way.
Nothing insists that you have to go on living. If you identify with the ego, then yeah, it would seem gravely important, but if you identify with the universe then why does it matter? The thing goes on in a new way and is perfectly indestructible.
Healthy instincts insist you go on living. Of a group, body, cells, anything with some self-organizing principle I suppose. It's not something to agree or disagree with as it's just a major force to begin with. Destruction of meaning and importance is always easier than finding something to live or die for. Are you sure you are just not taking the easiest route? It's the "ego" which looks for easy routes as to prosper unchallenged, not caring one single bit.

(Comments on your reply to Pam as it might illuminate the first half of this post further)
It really doesn't matter what I put my hand to, the universe is intent on dispatching every resource in its infinite army to fight me.
Not fighting: just creating & destroying you. Or more like Heraclitus and his strife. To interpret this as mere fighting "you" indicates you're missing the other half perhaps? The challenge is to overcome the limits and become more resourceful. Or change the crops to something more in tune with hungry wildlife.
So that's why I say motivation should be for fun because when it invariably falls apart, I at least had a good time doing it. If fiddling with the strawberries is no longer fun, I'll let the weeds have it and go do something else that is fun.
To derive "fun" from breathing, moving ones arms and legs, using the mind to avoid traps -- or perhaps from contemplating truth, causality and the infinite. Then one could get more serious and focused on for example the strawberries. Actually I'd bet that if you took it more serious and had a less, naive "scattered" approach, the deer would never have tricked you that easily. You would have been a bit more suspicious of it. But that needs a more serious mindset to grow some healthy suspicion and contemplate potential disasters?
The delusion is in thinking the absolute exists and it's just another way of setting ourselves apart with a sense of accomplishment of having attained something special relative to those who have not.
All we do is setting apart; things, our selves, time and the timeless. Stop pretending that there is some imaginary alternative!
What is the truth; that there is no truth? If there is no morality, obviously there is no truth.
If you mean values: yes, valuing truth above all else is the condition for truth to arrive and arise in the first place.

But not valuing truth above other things is the condition for truth to disappear and meaninglessness & decadence to enter.
What if you think the wind feels cold and I think it feels warm; who is telling the truth?
The truth, or more like "commonality" here is that you both have feelings and that it appears to be windy. To ask for truth in the context of experiencing a sensation is just a matter of "wrong place, wrong time" to ask that question.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jupiviv »

I'm swamped by irl stuff atm, so will only respond to the most relevant points. Our discussion was starting to meander anyway.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:46 am
If a statement is written or read, then the concept expressed or understood occurs in the mind of the writer or reader and not in the statement itself.
That is false. If I claimed not to have understood you, would your assertion not have meaning? If so, it would mean you're speaking gibberish simply because I'm too stupid to understand you. The concept is carried by the statement regardless if the concept is discerned.
My point was not that concepts are necessarily understood when transmitted, so this is a red herring.
and asserted that there is only one way it can be experienced because even the idea of a "different type of experience" is necessarily experienced the same way everything else is experienced, and thus cannot really be experienced. Obviously anyone who experiences anything knows they are doing so, so your question doesn't make sense.
Logic is a conceptual artifact of duality which is itself surmised to exist and presumed fundamental by observation of contrasts. Nothing can be said to exist without observation which is another way of saying "experienced" or conceptualized and if you're defining logic to be synonymous with experience, then by logic as well. I think we're entering into semantic disagreements when most likely we otherwise agree.
The disagreement is about two things: a> everything is a concept b> the All is either something more or something less than the All, or else it cannot be the All.

But to address your point above, you haven't provided any reason or explanation for calling logic a conceptual artifact of duality. Who experiences this "conceptual artifact" and how? Also, duality is basically the same as nonduality when taken as a whole, so how can it have artifacts?
There is no distinction between empirical and logical because any act of empiricism is an instance of logic.
Yes, empirical observation is an instance of logic in the mind, but empirical things are not instances of logic nor do they occur in the mind. The abstract things created by the mind are also not themselves instances of logic, and while they occur in the mind they cannot exist or be true without things other than the mind.
I said before that we can't make logical statements about all things because there is no reference point outside of everything by which to make an observation.
But I'm not making logical statements about all things! I'm making logical statements about specific things, and then stating in *addition* that such statements, and the things they are about, receive their all only from all things.
Because of its codependent origination: dual/nondual?
The sum of all duality, or all codependent origination, is nonduality.
I agree but even the nondual must be contrasted to what it is not, which is the dual.
So you agree that duality is nonduality, but object to the lack of a contrast between duality and nonduality?
As soon as we try to imagine anything, it becomes a thing because things are thinks.
By this reasoning, our imagination is itself the think of another imagination, so it is really that imagination that is creating all thinks. In fact it just now created itself and me by imagining me imagining it as being the cause of my thinkomagination. Any objections or questions you may have regarding the above should therefore be forwarded to the appropriate thinkomaginatrix. As for myself, I dindu nuffin!
Haha well of course, you are your thought of yourself. Problem?

There was a young man who said though
It seems that I know that I know
But what I'd like to see is the I that knows me
When I know that I know that I know.

It's an infinite regression and you'll never get to the bottom of it because you can't step outside yourself.
If I'm my thought of myself then so are you. Thus you are contradicting yourself (me) when you tell me that I can't step outside myself. Or perhaps I'm your thought of myself, or your thought of both myself and yourself, in which case I want a divorce!
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback »

Pam: You are fooling yourself if you believe you can stop your mind from seeking.
It depends on what we call my mind.
Serendipper: Some years ago I planted strawberries, mainly as a way of decorating a retaining wall (ego I guess), but also to get some berries to eat. Ever since, I've been slaving away fighting the droughts, slugs, weeds, and fortifying the dirt. What the drought would kill, I'd buy more to replace. I'd spend countless evenings watering and just when it seemed like the plants were really starting to take hold and thrive, the deer came and ate every leaf. I'd look up at the sky and ask the universe why I'm not allowed to have strawberries. Why is it so intent on preventing a nice garden? So should I continue seeking to have strawberries or should I say to hell with it? I can't fight the universe and I can get a whole tub of berries from the store for a couple bucks.

It really doesn't matter what I put my hand to, the universe is intent on dispatching every resource in its infinite army to fight me. Alan says I'm doing it, but I don't understand that. Am I really such a rascal? But I do have a choice... I can say to hell with it. I don't have to seek. Why would I? I won't win anyway.

So that's why I say motivation should be for fun because when it invariably falls apart, I at least had a good time doing it. If fiddling with the strawberries is no longer fun, I'll let the weeds have it and go do something else that is fun.
You are making this too easy for me!

How is giving up planting strawberries to go and do something else not seeking?

Truth: you (That which thinks) are not separate from the thoughts of the universe so stop looking up and asking Up why things (thoughts) are not going your way, ask yourself. You may not like the answer you get, but guaranteed, it will cause you to 'do something', aka to seek.

So Alan is right, there is no part of You, the universe, unseen or seen that is not You, the universe. So if you curse You, You are cursed, how does it feel? :-) The logic is actually very simple - you cannot go outside of You, try it and if you are successful, send me a postcard and describe what you see or hear that is not You.
What's the reward for living a life of truth instead of relativism? The reward is the same as having strawberries (ego) and just as futile because I'd still be seeking. And it's only because of the relativists that we could pride ourselves on being absolutists because we need the damned in order to have the saved. The delusion is in thinking the absolute exists and it's just another way of setting ourselves apart with a sense of accomplishment of having attained something special relative to those who have not. Purity becomes the contaminant.
The relativists are ignorant because they don't realize, as you do not (yet) realize that I and the Father (the universe, the Tao, existence, pick your concept) are One. The absolute doesn't exist because it is You in every moment of your thinking! Which is why when you contradict yourself, you're being ignorant, and in the process, suffering your ignorance.

What is the reward for a life of truth? You don't contradict yourself, aka you are the absolute causality.
Let's consider an example: Suppose we agree to meet at 5 and you make sacrifices out of consideration for me to be on time. I don't show up because I decided to play video games and totally forgot or thought it not necessary to let you know I changed my mind. Would you just forget it and think "oh well, no harm done"? What would you do differently the next time we make an appointment? Would you eternally be the butt of my devious nature? That reminds me of Bill Murray.

I was surprised to learn that Bill does what he wants, when he wants, and with seemingly no regard for anyone else, which has caused the bodhisattva to miss lots of opportunities
I don't sacrifice me because being the absolute causality, the concept of sacrifice is just plain silly. If you didn't show up, I'd call you to make sure you were okay (weren't sick or dead) and if you said to me, "I forgot" (you are not required to provide a reason, feel free to do so if you want) I'd ask you if you want to reschedule our meeting. I am the causality of me so if you (who is a part of my causality) doesn't show up, I'd watch TV or go for a walk or check out Genius Forum. :-)

Whatever Bill is causing, you can be sure that Bill is experiencing it directly, immediately (effects). And if indeed Bill is causing things without regard for anyone else, then he is awake to the truth that there is no one else. Imagine for a moment, if everyone were awake to the truth that they are the absolute causality of themselves...
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:06 pm
Serendipper wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:35 am They get new dirt, new moneys, and they escape the parasites that have undoubtedly began to thrive over time (why cats typically move about) and they have the added entertaining bonus of building a new house.
To be clear, the concept of "crop rotation" which I referred to does not mean doing exactly the same thing on another place or to do a very similar thing on the same place. Actually the whole point is to start a sufficiently new activity challenging one self and invoke resourcefulness: overcoming new limits put to you. Which was the very issue the boredom highlighted at first, a lack of overcoming I suppose. Also related to the idea of conquest, one of those aspects of masculine psychology.
Point noted but really, aren't all problems the same? We break them down according to the scientific method (or whatever) and run it through the mill then churn out an answer. Rinse and repeat.

"There's nothing so disenchanting as attainment." Somebody probably important said that. What if the repetitiousness of needing a problem is a problem?
while the Swiadomy simply move around and spend their day, more or less, doing what they find enjoyable while nature takes care of all the chores. Crop rotation.
It's the relative bliss of any animalistic, infantile stage. But humanity has been so far about suffering, insanity, technology and knowledge of good and evil. It's understandable people are looking for ways to jump the train. Mental fatigue. Longing back for the womb. Retirement projects. Maybe it's just all longing for the end of the ride. However Christ, the horizon, the next world, is what drives all what is "redeemable" about this particular primate. Why not just support it according to a vision?
Where do we draw the line between the animalistic infantiles and the redeemable primate? The line seems blurred. It's like asking what day it is that we become old. I mean, one day we're young and another day we're old, but nobody can remember the day it happened.

What if there is no line? What if all this flattering about redeemable primates is being just as animalistic? How did you learn to grow thumbs? Evidently you did it because there they are, so obviously you know how, but when and how did that knowledge come into being? And who decided it was a good idea to have thumbs? Who was directing traffic that day?

If nature and especially the animal nature can't be trusted, then how can anything be trusted? I think it was Confucius who said the primal virtues are the real virtues.
Being smart isn't always an advantage that translates into survival
Having merely two legs or opposing thumbs isn't "always an advantage" either. Any property could be discussed that way.
Yes, but it's beneficial to point it out since intelligence is almost exclusively regarded as all-good.
Nothing insists that you have to go on living. If you identify with the ego, then yeah, it would seem gravely important, but if you identify with the universe then why does it matter? The thing goes on in a new way and is perfectly indestructible.
Healthy instincts insist you go on living.
Not for an ant. Ants exist for the colony. The colony must survive; ants are expendable and replaceable.
Of a group, body, cells, anything with some self-organizing principle I suppose. It's not something to agree or disagree with as it's just a major force to begin with.
I agree that instinct is a major force to reckon with, but nothing is written in stone saying life must go on.
Destruction of meaning and importance is always easier than finding something to live or die for.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I suppose that could be motivation to be biased.
Are you sure you are just not taking the easiest route?

It's hard for me to determine.
It's the "ego" which looks for easy routes as to prosper unchallenged, not caring one single bit.
No, I think it's the ego that's responsible for the desire to live for something, especially some cause.
(Comments on your reply to Pam as it might illuminate the first half of this post further)
The more comments, the better!
It really doesn't matter what I put my hand to, the universe is intent on dispatching every resource in its infinite army to fight me.
Not fighting: just creating & destroying you. Or more like Heraclitus and his strife. To interpret this as mere fighting "you" indicates you're missing the other half perhaps? The challenge is to overcome the limits and become more resourceful. Or change the crops to something more in tune with hungry wildlife.
Yes, that's what the Japanese Zens do... live in harmony with nature, but it's the Western Way to kick nature around lol! For bragging rights I suppose, to put on a good show and say "See? I made this plant grow here :D " That's all I want to do, so why all the fuss about it? It's like a father wrestling with his son who let's the kid hold him down to think he's won. The coordinated resistance I see is statistically uncanny. Dad's not letting me win anymore :(

Or, it could be that I'm simply taking on too much or my expectations are too high. It just seems that all Murphy's Laws are true and that indicates that this place isn't so sterile.
So that's why I say motivation should be for fun because when it invariably falls apart, I at least had a good time doing it. If fiddling with the strawberries is no longer fun, I'll let the weeds have it and go do something else that is fun.
To derive "fun" from breathing, moving ones arms and legs, using the mind to avoid traps -- or perhaps from contemplating truth, causality and the infinite. Then one could get more serious and focused on for example the strawberries. Actually I'd bet that if you took it more serious and had a less, naive "scattered" approach, the deer would never have tricked you that easily. You would have been a bit more suspicious of it. But that needs a more serious mindset to grow some healthy suspicion and contemplate potential disasters?
I'm not sure how to deter the deer other than a big fence and I can't imagine what is coming next other than fire from the sky. It's not that I can't handle the problems so much as to illustrate that when I needed water the most is when helicopters were flying overhead to put out forest fires due to an uncharacteristic drought. Just when one problem is handled, then here comes something from the opposite corner of the universe and the timing is such that I strongly suspect someONE is behind it. It's the lack of randomness, I suppose.
The delusion is in thinking the absolute exists and it's just another way of setting ourselves apart with a sense of accomplishment of having attained something special relative to those who have not.
All we do is setting apart; things, our selves, time and the timeless. Stop pretending that there is some imaginary alternative!
I can't pretend there is an alternative in order to sustain my sense of superiority? :p I suppose playing the game is not optional, but I reckon the only the difference is some know they're playing and some take it seriously.
What is the truth; that there is no truth? If there is no morality, obviously there is no truth.
If you mean values: yes, valuing truth above all else is the condition for truth to arrive and arise in the first place.
So truth only exists if I say so.
But not valuing truth above other things is the condition for truth to disappear and meaninglessness & decadence to enter.
Well, I do have a theory that dogmatic people are a pain to argue with, but are trustworthy for the same reason because they have no mechanism to change their mind about what they hold incontrovertibly true. So the ones dogmatically supporting gun rights are completely incapable of attacking someone not out of self-defense because such action is wrong and it's not open for discussion. Dogmatism could explain why more guns sometimes correlates with less crime since the people who choose to own guns also tend to be dogmatic and "intolerant". Kennesaw (in the heart of the bible-belt) for instance has a law requiring all heads of household to have a gun, yet had only 1 murder in 10 years. While chicago is morally progressive and, despite strict gun laws, is a war zone.

So yes, bullheadedly insisting some things are incontrovertibly true seems to build strong societies like good, solid rules make for a nice game. But we have to take the bad with the good since the people who hold those truths will make you want to shoot yourself if you ever decide to debate with them. Some people value themselves by their determination to retain their convictions while others regard open-mindedness as a virtue.

So the game is like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQnmAngLns

Who cares if we make up the rules? The important thing is to have them ;)
What if you think the wind feels cold and I think it feels warm; who is telling the truth?
The truth, or more like "commonality" here is that you both have feelings and that it appears to be windy. To ask for truth in the context of experiencing a sensation is just a matter of "wrong place, wrong time" to ask that question.
It's just to illustrate that reality is subjective. A man and woman can sit next to each other and the man will be warm while the woman feels cold. The truth is that they both experience reality differently and have different truths. So is homosexuality wrong and why? Is murder? Lying, stealing? All the truths we hold to be self-evident are only truths if we says so, like rules in a game. No other animal observes such, but we make a game of it.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

jupiviv wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:14 am I'm swamped by irl stuff atm, so will only respond to the most relevant points.
That's ok. Spring is coming for me and I'll have less time for this as well.
Our discussion was starting to meander anyway.
As long as we don't drive into a ditch, we'll be ok :)
Serendipper wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:46 am
If a statement is written or read, then the concept expressed or understood occurs in the mind of the writer or reader and not in the statement itself.
That is false. If I claimed not to have understood you, would your assertion not have meaning? If so, it would mean you're speaking gibberish simply because I'm too stupid to understand you. The concept is carried by the statement regardless if the concept is discerned.
My point was not that concepts are necessarily understood when transmitted, so this is a red herring.
I knew what your point was, but it's wrong. The information is contained in the transmission, not bestowed by the interpreter. It may be irrelevant to the broader discussion, but a red herring is a deliberate attempt to lead one off-point and I wasn't doing that.
and asserted that there is only one way it can be experienced because even the idea of a "different type of experience" is necessarily experienced the same way everything else is experienced, and thus cannot really be experienced. Obviously anyone who experiences anything knows they are doing so, so your question doesn't make sense.
Logic is a conceptual artifact of duality which is itself surmised to exist and presumed fundamental by observation of contrasts. Nothing can be said to exist without observation which is another way of saying "experienced" or conceptualized and if you're defining logic to be synonymous with experience, then by logic as well. I think we're entering into semantic disagreements when most likely we otherwise agree.
The disagreement is about two things: a> everything is a concept
I'm not sure if I said that. Did I say everything is a concept? I remember saying we cannot make logical statements about everything, so if I said that, I was wrong it seems. I think the only way we understand our experience of things are through concepts. So everything we understand and can express on this board is a concept, but the concepts don't have to be about other concepts.
b> the All is either something more or something less than the All, or else it cannot be the All.
Maybe there is no All or maybe, if there is, we cannot have a concept of it. To say that the universe has borders implies it has an inside but no outside. So if there is nothing outside the All, how can it have anything inside? But the objection is equally valid to ask how there cannot be an account of everything? So there must be an All, but at the same time, there can't be. So it's either infinite or circular or perhaps that's two ways of saying the same thing.
But to address your point above, you haven't provided any reason or explanation for calling logic a conceptual artifact of duality.
Logic is true/false and that's an artifact of duality. Because we exist within a duality, we discovered logic. Logic is a consequence, artifact, offshoot, outgrowth of the duality we found ourselves in.
Who experiences this "conceptual artifact" and how?

I suppose everyone experiences logic as there's no way to avoid it.
Also, duality is basically the same as nonduality when taken as a whole, so how can it have artifacts?
I mean artifact as in consequence. Not like pottery n stuff. Maybe you can recommend a better word.
There is no distinction between empirical and logical because any act of empiricism is an instance of logic.
Yes, empirical observation is an instance of logic in the mind,

So empirical observation = instance of logic
but empirical things are not instances of logic nor do they occur in the mind.
Substitution: "but instances of logical things are not instances of logic nor do they occur in the mind."

Define "mind". There is no mind without something to be mindful of. "Mind" is the system or whole continuum of organism and environment.

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Organism-

To claim things exist outside of observation requires faith and extrapolation from the known to the unknown. Or we could use logic to claim that objects must exist without subjects because subjects are made of objects. Yes, but that's a logical observation or an extrapolation. Did the chicken or egg come first? We can't have eggs without chickens nor chickens without eggs. If neither exists without the other and the relationship is codependent, then it's obvious that one could not have preceded the other. Chickens came from ancestors who laid eggs.
I said before that we can't make logical statements about all things because there is no reference point outside of everything by which to make an observation.
But I'm not making logical statements about all things! I'm making logical statements about specific things, and then stating in *addition* that such statements, and the things they are about, receive their all only from all things.
Oh I see. So what do we hang our hat on with that realization?
Because of its codependent origination: dual/nondual?
The sum of all duality, or all codependent origination, is nonduality.
I agree but even the nondual must be contrasted to what it is not, which is the dual.
So you agree that duality is nonduality, but object to the lack of a contrast between duality and nonduality?
The duality is realizing that a coin has a heads and a tails, but the nonduality is realizing the coin is one, but even the coin itself is contrasted to what it is not.
It's an infinite regression and you'll never get to the bottom of it because you can't step outside yourself.
If I'm my thought of myself then so are you. Thus you are contradicting yourself (me) when you tell me that I can't step outside myself. Or perhaps I'm your thought of myself, or your thought of both myself and yourself, in which case I want a divorce!
LOL ok but I keep the house! How can you step outside yourself to take an objective view of anything?
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:04 am
Pam: You are fooling yourself if you believe you can stop your mind from seeking.
It depends on what we call my mind.
Serendipper: Some years ago I planted strawberries, mainly as a way of decorating a retaining wall (ego I guess), but also to get some berries to eat. Ever since, I've been slaving away fighting the droughts, slugs, weeds, and fortifying the dirt. What the drought would kill, I'd buy more to replace. I'd spend countless evenings watering and just when it seemed like the plants were really starting to take hold and thrive, the deer came and ate every leaf. I'd look up at the sky and ask the universe why I'm not allowed to have strawberries. Why is it so intent on preventing a nice garden? So should I continue seeking to have strawberries or should I say to hell with it? I can't fight the universe and I can get a whole tub of berries from the store for a couple bucks.

It really doesn't matter what I put my hand to, the universe is intent on dispatching every resource in its infinite army to fight me. Alan says I'm doing it, but I don't understand that. Am I really such a rascal? But I do have a choice... I can say to hell with it. I don't have to seek. Why would I? I won't win anyway.

So that's why I say motivation should be for fun because when it invariably falls apart, I at least had a good time doing it. If fiddling with the strawberries is no longer fun, I'll let the weeds have it and go do something else that is fun.
You are making this too easy for me!

How is giving up planting strawberries to go and do something else not seeking?
Because giving up is not a method of trying to grow strawberries, although it could be if I were to say that I'll not interfere as a strategy to try to grow them.

So we have:
-Trying to grow berries
-Not-trying to grow berries as a method of trying to grow berries
-Not caring if berries grow or not.
Truth: you (That which thinks) are not separate from the thoughts of the universe so stop looking up and asking Up why things (thoughts) are not going your way, ask yourself. You may not like the answer you get, but guaranteed, it will cause you to 'do something', aka to seek.
I see what you're saying and it just means I'm a rascal.
So Alan is right, there is no part of You, the universe, unseen or seen that is not You, the universe. So if you curse You, You are cursed, how does it feel? :-)
Yes he says I cannot spit on the sky and soil it because the spit falls back in my face.
The logic is actually very simple - you cannot go outside of You, try it and if you are successful, send me a postcard and describe what you see or hear that is not You.
Yes I'll be sure to pick up postcards and some "out of this world" gifts for everyone :D
What's the reward for living a life of truth instead of relativism? The reward is the same as having strawberries (ego) and just as futile because I'd still be seeking. And it's only because of the relativists that we could pride ourselves on being absolutists because we need the damned in order to have the saved. The delusion is in thinking the absolute exists and it's just another way of setting ourselves apart with a sense of accomplishment of having attained something special relative to those who have not. Purity becomes the contaminant.
The relativists are ignorant because they don't realize, as you do not (yet) realize that I and the Father (the universe, the Tao, existence, pick your concept) are One. The absolute doesn't exist because it is You in every moment of your thinking! Which is why when you contradict yourself, you're being ignorant, and in the process, suffering your ignorance.

Ignore-ance. Ignorance is ignoring what is obvious. These concepts aren't something that can be realized overnight, especially for a westerner, and I feel I have to grow into it. It's taken me about a year of obsessively listening to Alan just to get as far as I am and I found myself many times asking who the idiot is... me or him. I shine the sun? Really? That's not easy to understand! Learning is a process of growth and takes time and possibly the realization of futility. The fool who persists in his folly will become wise. The key is to persist in the folly in order to realize futility.
What is the reward for a life of truth? You don't contradict yourself, aka you are the absolute causality.

If that's true then I do not die and there is no life of truth except in the game of life which ends in death.
Let's consider an example: Suppose we agree to meet at 5 and you make sacrifices out of consideration for me to be on time. I don't show up because I decided to play video games and totally forgot or thought it not necessary to let you know I changed my mind. Would you just forget it and think "oh well, no harm done"? What would you do differently the next time we make an appointment? Would you eternally be the butt of my devious nature? That reminds me of Bill Murray.

I was surprised to learn that Bill does what he wants, when he wants, and with seemingly no regard for anyone else, which has caused the bodhisattva to miss lots of opportunities
I don't sacrifice me because being the absolute causality, the concept of sacrifice is just plain silly. If you didn't show up, I'd call you to make sure you were okay (weren't sick or dead) and if you said to me, "I forgot" (you are not required to provide a reason, feel free to do so if you want) I'd ask you if you want to reschedule our meeting. I am the causality of me so if you (who is a part of my causality) doesn't show up, I'd watch TV or go for a walk or check out Genius Forum. :-)
So you'd be the ideal wife for every guy to pull wool over her eyes lol. At what point would you say "Enough is enough! I can't handle your inconsideration any longer!" If I kept giving you my word and not keeping it, eventually you'd not be able to believe me. After the 50th time of my not showing up, would you bother to even get dressed?
Whatever Bill is causing, you can be sure that Bill is experiencing it directly, immediately (effects). And if indeed Bill is causing things without regard for anyone else, then he is awake to the truth that there is no one else. Imagine for a moment, if everyone were awake to the truth that they are the absolute causality of themselves...
But it's not an expression of not-self, it's more of an expression of a rascal-self wherein Bill agrees to meet at a certain time and place for a shoot, but doesn't show up seemingly just to piss people off.

You and I are characters in this movie or game and our characters have agreed to play by rules of morality, so enforcing the morality is part of the plot. And so to act unnaturally would be acting in accordance with knowing you're just a character in a movie rather than faithfully portraying the character by realizing that although you are only a character, the point is to have a good movie. But what is a good movie?

Alan talked at length about the Joker and, admittedly, all that turns my stomach to think that an entity would get kicks from tripping others, but I suppose it just means I have not yet realized there are no others. But that poses another question:

If, let's say, Mr All is the only one that exists, and he is playing all the parts that is me and you and everything else, and he enjoys playing the parts of characters who poke fun of other characters, then what does that say about him? The one you call the real me.

Alan says the Joker was necessary to remind the King not to take things too seriously and it was an important function since we can't have kings too full of themselves. I suppose that means it's not good to be too absorbed in our role?

He says the Hindu would applaud the Christian for being totally taken-in by his role; for there is one who has convinced himself of the most magnificent dilemma... eternal bliss vs eternal damnation... and it all rides on this one life. Bravo! No one could have imagined such a dramatic play as that! Does the Christian wake to find the joke is on him or is it the Hindu? What does all this mean about the nature of God?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback »

Serendipper: So we have:
-Trying to grow berries
-Not-trying to grow berries as a method of trying to grow berries
-Not caring if berries grow or not.
The absolute You does not try to do anything. You seek to find the ideal growing conditions for berries, you cause these ideal conditions, if the berries don’t grow, they don’t grow. It is the ego that tries and then curses the universe when its trying efforts are not rewarded. Do you see how the concept of ‘trying’ is the delusion, what Buddhist’s would call the efforts of the false self?
Serendipper: So you'd be the ideal wife for every guy to pull wool over her eyes lol. At what point would you say "Enough is enough! I can't handle your inconsideration any longer!" If I kept giving you my word and not keeping it, eventually you'd not be able to believe me. After the 50th time of my not showing up, would you bother to even get dressed?
If you continued to be ignorant, showing no signs of waking up to the truth that your constant self-contradiction was causing you suffering, I would tell you that I no longer want your ignorance in my life.

In conventional terms, I have been a wife for 43 years and a mother for 41. I hold my husband and children to the truth of their word as do I believe they hold me to the truth of my word. Being with the causality of 'another' isn't complicated when truth is valued about everything else.

Serendipper:
Pam: Truth: you (That which thinks) are not separate from the thoughts of the universe so stop looking up and asking Up why things (thoughts) are not going your way, ask yourself. You may not like the answer you get, but guaranteed, it will cause you to 'do something', aka to seek.
I see what you're saying and it just means I'm a rascal.
From the position of the ego, the false self, you are a rascal. From the position of you that is not not interpreting dualistically – rascal/not rascal – you are, as Alan Watts says, simply spitting ‘rascal’or whatever new name you are calling yourself in lieu of being a rascal, on your face. The goal is to quit calling yourself names, ultimately, they are naught but diversions to either speaking/living truth or not speaking/living truth. Think about this for a moment: a name cannot be true.
But it's not an expression of not-self, it's more of an expression of a rascal-self wherein Bill agrees to meet at a certain time and place for a shoot, but doesn't show up seemingly just to piss people off.
Let’s say for the fun :-) of it that Bill is not showing up just to piss people off, he is thinking ‘what a fine rascal am I!' Because of the truth of not being separate from what he is causing, he will reap what he sows, he will piss people off and suffer the consequences. What are the likely consequences of pissing off the producers and directors and fellow actors? Not too challenging to come with the answer. :-) Bottom line, be a rascal all you want, but you can’t cheat the causality of your rascally-false-self!
You and I are characters in this movie or game and our characters have agreed to play by rules of morality, so enforcing the morality is part of the plot. And so to act unnaturally would be acting in accordance with knowing you're just a character in a movie rather than faithfully portraying the character by realizing that although you are only a character, the point is to have a good movie. But what is a good movie?
The goal of having wisdom of the true nature of Self is to quit playing the unconscious game of being a character in a movie you falsely believe someone or something else other than you is causing. What movie do you want to cause?

Alan talked at length about the Joker and, admittedly, all that turns my stomach to think that an entity would get kicks from tripping others, but I suppose it just means I have not yet realized there are no others. But that poses another question:

If, let's say, Mr All is the only one that exists, and he is playing all the parts that is me and you and everything else, and he enjoys playing the parts of characters who poke fun of other characters, then what does that say about him? The one you call the real me.
The Mr. All that is playing all the parts that is me and you and everything else if not an entity that is dualism-dependent (I’m a Joker one moment and a Priest in another moment), instead, the All (not MR. All) is the law of causality or the law of the Spirit of life, an impersonal force or will or spirit.
Alan says the Joker was necessary to remind the King not to take things too seriously and it was an important function since we can't have kings too full of themselves. I suppose that means it's not good to be too absorbed in our role?

He says the Hindu would applaud the Christian for being totally taken-in by his role; for there is one who has convinced himself of the most magnificent dilemma... eternal bliss vs eternal damnation... and it all rides on this one life. Bravo! No one could have imagined such a dramatic play as that! Does the Christian wake to find the joke is on him or is it the Hindu? What does all this mean about the nature of God?
You must ask God this very important question of identity, there is no other way to find out for sure. The question I asked God and kept asking God until I got the truthful answer was: how can you divide yourself into two separate, absolute worlds, one of bliss and one of damnation and still be connected to both worlds in order to ‘run both shows?’ Not logical, not logical at all!
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jupiviv »

Serendipper wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:03 amThe information is contained in the transmission, not bestowed by the interpreter.
You just rephrased your original red herring. My point wasn't about what the receiver of any communication, specifically, does or does not do. It was that the meaning of a piece of communication occurs in the mind of whoever it is that understands it. If communication literally contains meaning within itself, then understanding communication itself isn't necessary, which in turn means that any communication whose meaning isn't automatically understood is meaningless.
I think the only way we understand our experience of things are through concepts.
Certainly, but the things we experience aren't concepts themselves.
To say that the universe has borders implies it has an inside but no outside.
If "universe" is synonymous with the All, then it has no borders.
Logic is true/false and that's an artifact of duality. Because we exist within a duality, we discovered logic. Logic is a consequence, artifact, offshoot, outgrowth of the duality we found ourselves in.
Logic is a part of duality, like everything else. If that's what you mean by "artifact" then that's fine. This doesn't however make it a concept, though there are certainly concepts *about* logic.
but empirical things are not instances of logic nor do they occur in the mind.
Substitution: "but instances of logical things are not instances of logic nor do they occur in the mind."
It's not a substitution. "Logical things" would, according to my definition of "logic", mean anything that can be experienced (empirically or otherwise).
Define "mind". There is no mind without something to be mindful of. "Mind" is the system or whole continuum of organism and environment.
Mind is that which experiences things. As far as I can tell the minds of human beings are their brains. Of course, as you say, without the environment there is no mind, and in that sense things like minds and muffins and golden dried up leaves are continua.
But I'm not making logical statements about all things! I'm making logical statements about specific things, and then stating in *addition* that such statements, and the things they are about, receive their all only from all things.
Oh I see. So what do we hang our hat on with that realization?
That is up to you.
So you agree that duality is nonduality, but object to the lack of a contrast between duality and nonduality?
The duality is realizing that a coin has a heads and a tails, but the nonduality is realizing the coin is one, but even the coin itself is contrasted to what it is not.
Why this obvious equivocation? A coin is a finite thing. The duality I'm speaking of is the sum of all finite things, so there is nothing it is not.
How can you step outside yourself to take an objective view of anything?
I'm already myself, so can't step outside myself; that at least is an objective view of something.
Locked