The Mystic....

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Talking Ass »

I see your point. But that isn't why Dennis irritates. If some day Dennis articulates 'terror', I will jump up and applaud.

Also, you are launching into an argument against a whole windmill you have in your mind. I am not opposed to those definitions, in se. My 'theology' could just as well function within a purely 'invented' interpretive structure.

Unfortunately, I think you are polarizing these (my) critiques of aspects of what you have written. If you have had to fight against those things to gain the freedom you have, that is understandable. You are not alone there. There is much to fight against.
Pye wrote: "Centuries and centuries of humans looking for their being when they can only ever become..."
Are becoming...
Last edited by Talking Ass on Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
fiat mihi
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

Alex writes: 'Predicate' in the sense I am using it only means some 'driving ideas', and it would not be honest to say either de Beauvoir or Sartre did not establish certain 'driving ideas' and were not pushed along by them.
For a fellow who likes frisking around linguistics, you might have recognized the rhetorical opportunity I took to turn your word into the point :)
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Talking Ass »

You and Diebert share that natty characteristic.
"For a fellow who likes frisking around linguistics, you might have recognized the rhetorical opportunity I took to turn your word into the point".
My complaint is that what you have written (as a tirade of sorts) is just not related to what I am writing, and desiring to communicate. So 'the point' becomes only your point. Again, I am not opposed to your definitions---or your predicates!
fiat mihi
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

Alex: Unfortunately, I think you are polarizing these (my) critiques of aspects of what you have written.
Alex, I wasn't aware I was making this about you or your critiques at all. You asked what might be behind some of this thinking, and I obliged.
Alex: If you have had to fight against those things to gain the freedom you have, that is understandable. You are not alone there. There is much to fight against.
whose windmills? (!)

gosh, I forgot how angular it is to speak to you sometimes :) Perhaps persona has the habit now of inserting itself forward before all, if persona is what we're about . . . .
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Talking Ass »

I didn't ask such a thing. My first post in this thread was a statement, as usual. But if you are explaining your views as arising from French Existentialism, yes that makes sense. With the lovely Marxian underpinning too! It is inevitable.

You got me all wrong, ALL wrong. I am soft and furry and round and quite lovable.

Have you spent much time around farm animals? We are a peculiar lot...
fiat mihi
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Mystic....

Post by David Quinn »

Talking Ass wrote:Thank you, David. While I don't call myself wise---really for modesty's sake---nevertheless it is not hard for me to understand why you'd see me in that light.
I don't think you do understand why I consider you to be ignorant, to be honest. But in any case, the point I was making had nothing to do with you personally. I was addressing a deep spiritual matter.

This book, which I have just gone through fairly carefully, has been for me extraordinarily useful. It is a wonderful book and one I'll refer to for a long time. I'm surprised it isn't better known. I have been groping around trying to locate and pull up again ideas and images that can be used as a sort of 'protective wall' against some of the destructive ideas that Q-R-S play within. I have, as you know, seen it and described it (their ideation) as a symptom of nihilism, which I still think it largely is (though that is not all it is).

I can perfectly understand why you like that book. He echoes your own driving ideas.

But let me ask you this: How do you square the idea of valuing "religious imagination" with that of needing to go beyond the abstract and attending directly, with our phsyical bodies, to the here and now?

Or to put the same question another way: How do you square the idea that I am a nihilist with the idea that I value the abstract?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Mystic....

Post by David Quinn »

Pye wrote: conditions, conditions. yes. And when our vision is acute, and we suss out what conditions/causes are bringing about what kinds of effect, we can consider what monkeying with those conditions might bring about. We're free, you see, to do that. Bound to the concrete world and waking up to its plasticity . . . . unobliged to any metaphysics; focused upon a malleable self rooted entirely in the 'earthly' world, rejecting the conditions of temporal life no more, becoming what we are. the hardest thing, as Nietzsche said..
It still sounds like that you can't make up your mind about the reality of causality. It seems that you want to affirm it, it is what your reasoning mind tells you is true, but then, every time, just when this affirmation is about to be made something inside you is triggered, causing you to reject it. There is a sensitivity towards "metaphysical ideas" which always gets in the way.

You are right in saying that there is nothing behind the world of changing appearances, save for other changing appearances. There is no such thing as an eternal substance underlying the world of change. And yet - and I can't emphasize the importance of this enough - there is an eternal aspect to change, to becoming, and uncovering that aspect is the key to all wisdom. It would be a shame if you allow your loathing of metaphysics to prevent the uncovering of this.

-
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Mystic....

Post by cousinbasil »

Pye wrote:I can't speak for Dennis' mood, but I can understand why people can become uncomfortable around some of his thoughts, do I ever. It isn't fun to suck in a lungful of terror your first breath away from the nipple . . . .
Does Dennis wike his wittle nipple? There, there, Dennis. Say, who's your new friend with the nipples?
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Talking Ass gives Darshan to His favored disciples. Free!

Post by Talking Ass »

David wrote: "I don't think you do understand why I consider you to be ignorant, to be honest. But in any case, the point I was making had nothing to do with you personally. I was addressing a deep spiritual matter."
Oh, I think I do. I once suggested that we 'paraphrase' each other, a most useful exercize, like Charades! When one paraphrases another the one paraphrased (or mimicked) gets to see what the paraphraser got right and what they got wrong. If one is honest it can be wonderful learning. Good, clean fun in any case!

And you do know (I hope) that I was joshing you. I know that you were making a statement about your view of my unwise condition. I caught it in mid-air, did a switch-a-roo on it, and sent it back at you.

The interesting thing here is that we both see each other as defective and needing a corrective. See, I also think you suffer from a 'deep spiritual ailment'.
"I can perfectly understand why you like that book. He echoes your own driving ideas."
Yes, you are right. I have thought about this, myself. Am I attracted to his ideas because I am looking for a miracle rescue so as not to face the annihilation of Value which is also, to some extent, the annihilation of 'self'?

Pye spoke of a 'terror' when one pulls away from 'the tit' to face 'reality'. And it is true that the 'modern' issue is quite precisely such an issue. One whole defensible 'structure' for organizing perception was seen to crumble (the Medieval Christian world-view)...and no other structure arose (or can arise?) to replace it. But does it really hinge on this? I am not so sure. Any system of perception and any organization of perception is in this sense a 'temporary construct' and will eventually be superceded. It is not impossible that our present construct (system of perception) will in the future be seen as partial or even 'ignorant'. So, it is not the system that we should pay attention, nor the specific symbols or metaphors, but to 'messages' that are brought through these things to the perceiving eye (I). That is essentially my 'endeavor': to define a path to that 'messenger'. It is really very Hermetic which is in keeping with my orientation.
But let me ask you this: How do you square the idea of valuing "religious imagination" with that of needing to go beyond the abstract and attending directly, with our phsyical bodies, to the here and now?
Well, let us take 'religious imagination' out of your quotation marks and let it stand there, naked and shivering (or is it just shy?) for a minute. I would say that you too, and Dennis too if you don't mind me saying, and everyone else who writes here, is quite involved in the use of imagination. You 'imagine' your God-as-everything-EVERYTHING! when you mention it, recite it, refer to it. This is actually 'religious imagination' except you don't describe it as such. You lack, I suggest, the honesty to do so. We are all 'imagining' the world we live in and we see ourselves in it when we speak about it. Both as 'self-talk' and as exposition (or 'preaching', which is your angle). But what you care to do is strip away what you identify as 'phantasy'...or mythology...or that whole construct of Ptolemaic (and any other) 'falsely imagined cosmology', and you think that by doing that you are face-to-face with Reality.

And I say that I do not think this is so. You are still face-to-face with an imagined construct, hence to an 'imaginal world', and as I say you are as much in a 'novelesque' as anyone, but in your case it has certain rigorous features. It is colored with your own aesthetic. You have also pumped it full of valuation, except that it is valuation of a different order. And it is also a deliberate de-valuation. But brother, it is active and in no sense is it neutral. And in this I say it is just as much religiously driven...as religiously driven views.

But what I am interested in is standing back and examining the 'imagined universe' and perceiving, and understanding, and dealing with, meaning as it comes through. I don't quite know how to express it. If I were to say that "Meaning comes through the very structure of the Space-Time-Matter manifestation and will do so in this and any 'world' that arises", I could almost see that as a Zennish statement. Meaning, somewhere on the other side of this Reality (existence, manifestation) some other being perceives Meaning too. What if it is Part-and-Parcel of Existence? I just don't believe any one of you has the insight or the authority to make definitive statements (you with your Zennish anti-Woman trip and, say, Pye with her pandering wall-eyed French Existentialist with a Gauloise hanging on his lip, trip).

And so I return to this idea:
"The twentieth century may have its epiphanies but it is not a favorable time for the greater visions and wider circumspections. Its intellectuals are out of their depth in dealing with those dimensions of experience for which earlier epochs have found a language."
But in returning to it (and I think you also return to it, or turn to it), I do not discover exactly what you discover.

In my own case, the issue of 'dealing with our physical bodies in the here and now' is in no sense incommensurate with communication from and through the Messenger (a way of perceiving or the fact that we perceive---it is a special Hermetic term and one has to linger over it) and coming to terms with a symbolic meaning-language which (I assume anyway) is part-and-parcel of this and any created world, universe, dimension, manifestation.

You do just this, as we all do.
Last edited by Talking Ass on Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
fiat mihi
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

David writes: And yet - and I can't emphasize the importance of this enough - there is an eternal aspect to change, to becoming, and uncovering that aspect is the key to all wisdom. It would be a shame if you allow your loathing of metaphysics to prevent the uncovering of this.
I'm not at all sure that this to which you refer is necessarily 'metaphysical.' If it exists, then it does, and couldn't be referring itself to something that isn't. This might be an opportunity for you to clarify what you mean by meta-physical. I've left plenty of what I think it to mean here. You might have some other explanation for that which precedes or exceeds existence itself (i.e. "meta").

And if you mean to speak directly to the spiritual, there's no refutation of such a thing here, but rather an understanding of its very concrete presence . . . . I can't grasp definitive edges to matter and energy, even with both hands :)


Alex, I'm reading you; just don't always have responses for your everything. :)
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Talking Ass »

David wrote: "There is an eternal aspect to change, to becoming, and uncovering that aspect is the key to all wisdom."
Pye, in order to get this you have to have (shhhhhhh!) 'religious imagination'.
fiat mihi
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

(you with your Zennish anti-Woman trip and, say, Pye with her pandering wall-eyed French Existentialist with a Gauloise hanging on his lip, trip).
Alex! Give up your slotted thinking, man! :) Once you're in it, you can't peep over the edges or see anything else . . . .

You and your punk cousin ought not be thinking I speak for Dennis or Dennis speaks for me. I don't know what you're ignore-button issues are with him, but you're splashing them my way . . . . I'm not Dennis's academic interpreter and he's not my poetic postulator. I've understood something of what he's been saying. So sue me :)
Alex: Pye, in order to get this you have to have (shhhhhhh!) 'religious imagination'.
Well now, that sounds like something. You might ask him what he means . . . .
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Your terror is :
David is right.

You know he is and you can't declare it so.

To open up scares the shit out of you.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Talking Ass »

Pye, I already know what he [David] means!

The existentialist with the Gauloise is Sartre, not Dennis! But I get you point. I promise to make greater distinctions. Again, you are dealing with a farm animal, Pye. Did you ever read the Kafka story A Report to an Academy? Now there's an [ape] that knows himself! I have only just begun to know myself. But someday I shall write my Report to an Academy!
I've understood something of what he's been saying.
And he is saying something. You do have that talent for discerning and valuing the messages there. If I had a hat I'd tip it.
fiat mihi
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

Alex asks: Did you ever read the Kafka story A Report to an Academy? Now there's an [ape] that knows himself! I have only just begun to know myself. But someday I shall write my Report to an Academy!
Well now, I suspect at bottom anyone's "report to the academy" will look a lot like Kafka's other story of the strange animal in The Burrow . . . . (a joke I hope I am not alone in getting:)
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Talking Ass »

You are alone. Except there is a donkey munching daffodils in the field behind you who gets it!

Literary allusion, gotten! Ma would be proud...

Paranoid, over-fastidious rodent mapping his own territory, expanding ever-deeper into himself, then coming to the surface for hyper-paranoid self-serving expeditions! I don't know if I should laugh or cry so I'll do both...

;-)
fiat mihi
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Dennis Mahar »

So anyway,
what's language for and what's it do?

equipment?

it's got a 'to do' about it.

it sure can be a nasty piece of work.

it's best use is to get at being,
to open up being.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Kunga »

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............................
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........................
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
zzzzzzzzz.....................z
zzzzzz................
zzz..........
zen............................................................................
http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton ... smoke3.jpg




geddit ?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Mystic....

Post by David Quinn »

Pye wrote:
David writes: And yet - and I can't emphasize the importance of this enough - there is an eternal aspect to change, to becoming, and uncovering that aspect is the key to all wisdom. It would be a shame if you allow your loathing of metaphysics to prevent the uncovering of this.
I'm not at all sure that this to which you refer is necessarily 'metaphysical.' If it exists, then it does, and couldn't be referring itself to something that isn't. This might be an opportunity for you to clarify what you mean by meta-physical. I've left plenty of what I think it to mean here. You might have some other explanation for that which precedes or exceeds existence itself (i.e. "meta").

In this instance, "metaphysical" refers to anything above or beyond the world of becoming. As I say, I agree that to engage in metaphysics in this sense is delusional.

And yes, nothing can ever precede existence, obviously.

As to my concern with you, do you consider the idea that all things are caused to be a metaphysical idea?

And if you mean to speak directly to the spiritual, there's no refutation of such a thing here, but rather an understanding of its very concrete presence . . . . I can't grasp definitive edges to matter and energy, even with both hands :)
I can't blame you for that. It is impossible to grasp anything at all, definitive or otherwise. There is nothing to grasp.

He who grasps this is enlightened.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Talking Ass gives Darshan to His favored disciples. Free

Post by David Quinn »

Talking Ass wrote:
But let me ask you this: How do you square the idea of valuing "religious imagination" with that of needing to go beyond the abstract and attending directly, with our phsyical bodies, to the here and now?
Well, let us take 'religious imagination' out of your quotation marks and let it stand there, naked and shivering (or is it just shy?) for a minute. I would say that you too, and Dennis too if you don't mind me saying, and everyone else who writes here, is quite involved in the use of imagination. You 'imagine' your God-as-everything-EVERYTHING! when you mention it, recite it, refer to it. This is actually 'religious imagination' except you don't describe it as such. You lack, I suggest, the honesty to do so. We are all 'imagining' the world we live in and we see ourselves in it when we speak about it. Both as 'self-talk' and as exposition (or 'preaching', which is your angle). But what you care to do is strip away what you identify as 'phantasy'...or mythology...or that whole construct of Ptolemaic (and any other) 'falsely imagined cosmology', and you think that by doing that you are face-to-face with Reality.

And I say that I do not think this is so. You are still face-to-face with an imagined construct, hence to an 'imaginal world',
Not at all. This goes to the heart of your ignorance, an ignorance that is still besotted with form. You still haven't the slightest idea of what it means to rationally strip everything away until there is nothing left.

To invest nothing at all in any world whatsoever - this is wisdom.

But what I am interested in is standing back and examining the 'imagined universe' and perceiving, and understanding, and dealing with, meaning as it comes through. I don't quite know how to express it. If I were to say that "Meaning comes through the very structure of the Space-Time-Matter manifestation and will do so in this and any 'world' that arises", I could almost see that as a Zennish statement. Meaning, somewhere on the other side of this Reality (existence, manifestation) some other being perceives Meaning too. What if it is Part-and-Parcel of Existence?
Wouldn't such a being be in the same position as us? Is he sitting over there deriving meaning from us? I can't see how your proposition advances the situation in any way.

-
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

David asks: As to my concern with you, do you consider the idea that all things are caused to be a metaphysical idea?
I do not. Causality is entirely rooted in the interplay between things, between forces, and in this sense, is existential to its very roots. You will not get from me one peep of protest over this most fundamental of realities, causality. This here's merely a linguistic issue.

It's probably unfortunate, in my estimation, that the word "meta-physical" means for many not-physical, but rather "spiritual," as though such a thing transcends, exceeds, or stands outside of 'physical' existence. It has embedded in it the invitation to separate oneself into body (material/matter) and mind (spiritual/energy), so its word-hood is already fraught with assumptive complications. Like I mentioned, there's no separating these things, matter and energy (material and spiritual), and so I take any opportunity I can to wrestle with the assumptive hangovers from that word.

Further, there must be some distinction between this very concrete is one wants to speak of (the spiritual) and the other kinds of world-outside/before/beyond-this-one pathologies that properly earn the colloquial use of the word "metaphysics."

In light of this, I would not be thinking of you as a metaphysician at all, given many of your comments above. Your being sensitive and developed toward the spiritual elements of existence doesn't mean you have to hang your hat with the metaphysicians. Best not to, really :)
Last edited by Pye on Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

Dennis: So anyway,
what's language for and what's it do?
I'll have a go at this :)

Thinking itself is abstraction: the representations of phenomena abstracted in the mind. If I'm thinking about my morning tea cup, the tea cup itself is not wedged into my brain box: only its representative abstraction. So it goes with all things with which we think.

Language is representative abstraction. I'm thinking there aren't just portions of language that are metaphors (stand-ins for things), but that all of language is metaphor - stand-ins/abstractions of the phenomenal world.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

. . . and this internal abstractor/translator of phenomena is standing on the razor's edge of everything. That would be you - every you. Depending upon this internal translator's acuity of representation, one's foot could slip and get cut-off from 'reality' if they fall on the blind side of the knife. One leans toward that side the farther they lean away from the world they seek to abstract.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Pye »

Now, here is something that might be of interest to some: the subject of language qua language is the bedrock of the analytical tradition to which most anglo-american university philosophy departments ascribe. It is just as true that some american universities house the so-called "opposite" tradition, known variously as the continental speculative tradition. At one of the big uni's at which I teach, the philosophy department is beset with pettiness between both.

Their bottom-most distinctions lay thusly: since the 19th-20th century ascension of analytics - the teaching of argumentative structure and linguistic logic - in other words, how that which can be spoken is spoken of - is defended as the only business of philosophy. Philosophy is not supposed to "do" something but examine itself. If it uses itself to become something, it runs the danger of dogmatism. For an analytic, everything is about the use, function, the positivist assumption that language has proper structure and argumentation has certain rules. I get spare money on the side doing editing/proofreading for the articles of tenure-seeking academicians, and these are largely still a wittgensteinian descent into the labyrinths of word and meaning. It's all about language qua language now.

The continental-speculative tradition, however, is equally critical of philosophy that does nothing (but sort of digest its own mechanisms). This latter tradition is now where philosophy that does something resides (philosophies of ethics, human rights, art; philosophies of the application of other disciplines, history, science, religion, feminism, eastern traditions, etc.). It assumes something hanging on an analytical framework, and is also critical of philosophic frameworks at all. This is where a more skeptical tradition, but with a greater degree of activism lays.

My estimation of the analytical/continental divide is partly, that there is no such clear divide (we'll be spared that digression here); and the other-partly - and most importantly - is its "metaphysical" error. Analytics assumes there is a structure to argument before there is an argument, even that a thing called "argument" precedes the existence of such a phenomenon in the world; that language itself is a system into which we plug our little words. It's little slips like this - away from existence and into the assumption of essence-beneath - that characterize the pathology of the metaphysical tendency. Physicists display the same tendency when they locate as "things" that which are really only processes.

There are so many other problems that arise from the assumption of this philosophic divide: of course a person needs their best analytical acuity to abstract things into thinking. But that thinking does not take place until there are things to abstract. Analytic acuity only appears as a result of argument and speech, and that acuity can only be measured by its best shot at the something it's abstracting. Further, it's an odd task: teaching others the structure of argument whilst also demanding philosophy not do anything with it.

Weirdly, Alex, this rolls around to you, and why I sometimes find it angular to talk to you. I'm thinking you are caught up in language systems as systems; types of thought as types, and that you don't want to do anything with philosophy. As much healthy skepticism as you apply, your focus is more on the how of speech, its fascinating forms and slipperies, and not on the world it's seeking to abstract. This makes you so much more about speakers, persons, and speech ways - your "angle-in." :) True as the private circumstances of those speaking-selves are, they are also conscious-of something, and trying to look at it together; trying to get you to look, I'm thinking, for all your years posting here . . . . :) It's probably what others have estimated in you as a misdirected gaze. S'not that you can't think. S'where you have restricted your gaze . . . . :)
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Mystic....

Post by Dennis Mahar »

I'
ll have a go at this :)

Thinking itself is abstraction: the representations of phenomena abstracted in the mind. If I'm thinking about my morning tea cup, the tea cup itself is not wedged into my brain box: only its representative abstraction. So it goes with all things with which we think.

Language is representative abstraction. I'm thinking there aren't just portions of language that are metaphors (stand-ins for things), but that all of language is metaphor - stand-ins/abstractions of the phenomenal world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


that would be the 'call to thing itself' where the thing is brought forward and focused and have it stand out which gives it the appearance of existing from its own side.
in doing that there's an 'unthought' present.

That 'unthought' presence, mostly forgotten, ignored, or unrealised,
is being,
the opening or clearing that gives 'the thing itself' its existence.

perhaps you are bringing to light such in this next insight


and this internal abstractor/translator of phenomena is standing on the razor's edge of everything. That would be you - every you. Depending upon this internal translator's acuity of representation, one's foot could slip and get cut-off from 'reality' if they fall on the blind side of the knife. One leans toward that side the farther they lean away from the world they seek to abstract.

The situation with Alex is fundamentally stupid.
He thinks emptiness means annihilation of Self.
Of course, it means Self lacks inherent existence.
After 20 trillion attempts by many he persists in his error.

So, what we have is a 'who you are being' in a conversation.
integrity of being in a conversation is 'listening' or 'reading with comprehension'.
this failure of Alex,
has David declare,
'deaf to nonduality' and rightly so.

the schemozzle persists as a language fiasco grounded in an unwillingness to 'take a look'.
Locked