|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 16, 2021 2:21:14 GMT
For the sake of discussion, in the extreme hypothetical, it's possible for people to see the SVP as a mistake of mind but still have other existential illusions, like, say, a physical reality. Hmmm.....see, I don't get that. How can the SVP go and a physical reality remain? A physical reality is the realm of the SVP....the whole sand castle comes down when the SVP goes, as I see it. I'll keep this in mind next time I stumble across some expression of it by an author of content generator, and maybe we can pick this up from there.  |
|
|
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 16, 2021 4:09:05 GMT
For the sake of discussion, in the extreme hypothetical, it's possible for people to see the SVP as a mistake of mind but still have other existential illusions, like, say, a physical reality. Hmmm.....see, I don't get that. How can the SVP go and a physical reality remain? A physical reality is the realm of the SVP....the whole sand castle comes down when the SVP goes, as I see it. Bingo/cherry/top. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 16, 2021 21:34:10 GMT
Hmmm.....see, I don't get that. How can the SVP go and a physical reality remain? A physical reality is the realm of the SVP....the whole sand castle comes down when the SVP goes, as I see it. Bingo/cherry/top.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 17, 2021 0:50:54 GMT
Ok.
Getting back to my original point about Zendancer's post though--I say he IS talking about SR when he says what he says below. Is there some 'other' shift in perception, other than SR, that illuminates THIS as sovereign and separation as a product of imagination?
Strictly speaking, you'd have to put this to ZD and he'd have to answer. Anything I write is a straw-dog. Notice how this is your thought, essentially putting the term "SR" - and, as what you mean by "SR" - into his writing.
By my understanding of relating this to his story (which I think, in ZD's case, in particular, is very relevant), his seeking ended when he realized the separate person seeking had been an illusion all along, and the shift in perception happened both gradually over time, and with a few very specific and dramatic discontinuities during certain key events. Now, I agree that your interpretation of his implication that shifting attention away from self-referential thought may very well cause SR is reasonable. But, by the same token he's acknowledged more than once that concluding SR can be caused is an error. I disagree, btw, with his idea that SR is neither causal or acausal, because "acausal" means the absence of a cause, so, it seems to me that denying both is unnecessary, but more importantly, perhaps a source of confusion. A seeker will object to "acausal", for a number of reasons, including confusion, but I think that dealing with the objection directly is better than backing away from the pointer that SR is acausal. But, you see, that's just me.
The problem with pinning all this down with clear, simple abstract ideas is that leads to what inevitably represents a dogma. You can litigate ZD into a corner, and be completely in the right, in relative terms of truth and falsity, but that essentially misses the point of why he was writing and what he was trying to get across to begin with.
Now, I suspect you might be tempted to reply to this in bits and pieces with a cut-wall, but that's applying the distinguishing, intellectual facet of mind. This isn't a criticism .. but, what happens if you refrain from that? And, so he did! Thanks again for asking.
What ZD is demonstrating here, again, is his mistaken belief that SR is the taking on of new knowledge vs. a seeing through/subtraction of previous knowledge/absence.
For him, the seeing through of the sense of me isn't SR, (& I don't think he actually has reference for an actual absence of 'me' but rather, just the idea of an absence of me). In his version of SR, there must be the taking on of new knowledge... a seeing of "a what" that sees the world in the absence of a personal me.
SR is subtractive and reveals that there is no such thing...that, seeing/looking/witnessing, all happen absent a 'what' that 'does' such.
|
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 17, 2021 18:54:24 GMT
Strictly speaking, you'd have to put this to ZD and he'd have to answer. Anything I write is a straw-dog. Notice how this is your thought, essentially putting the term "SR" - and, as what you mean by "SR" - into his writing.
By my understanding of relating this to his story (which I think, in ZD's case, in particular, is very relevant), his seeking ended when he realized the separate person seeking had been an illusion all along, and the shift in perception happened both gradually over time, and with a few very specific and dramatic discontinuities during certain key events. Now, I agree that your interpretation of his implication that shifting attention away from self-referential thought may very well cause SR is reasonable. But, by the same token he's acknowledged more than once that concluding SR can be caused is an error. I disagree, btw, with his idea that SR is neither causal or acausal, because "acausal" means the absence of a cause, so, it seems to me that denying both is unnecessary, but more importantly, perhaps a source of confusion. A seeker will object to "acausal", for a number of reasons, including confusion, but I think that dealing with the objection directly is better than backing away from the pointer that SR is acausal. But, you see, that's just me.
The problem with pinning all this down with clear, simple abstract ideas is that leads to what inevitably represents a dogma. You can litigate ZD into a corner, and be completely in the right, in relative terms of truth and falsity, but that essentially misses the point of why he was writing and what he was trying to get across to begin with.
Now, I suspect you might be tempted to reply to this in bits and pieces with a cut-wall, but that's applying the distinguishing, intellectual facet of mind. This isn't a criticism .. but, what happens if you refrain from that? And, so he did! Thanks again for asking.
What ZD is demonstrating here, again, is his mistaken belief that SR is the taking on of new knowledge vs. a seeing through/subtraction of previous knowledge/absence.
For him, the seeing through of the sense of me isn't SR, (& I don't think he actually has reference for an actual absence of 'me' but rather, just the idea of an absence of me). In his version of SR, there must be the taking on of new knowledge... a seeing of "a what" that sees the world in the absence of a personal me.
SR is subtractive and reveals that there is no such thing...that, seeing/looking/witnessing, all happen absent a 'what' that 'does' such.
I've always rezzed with the description of realization as an absence, and prefer that as a mode of explanation and pointing on the topic, but I don't share your conclusions about ZD. Each of you, E', ZD and several others on that forum sometimes write what I've come to think of as inadvertent poetry, and I rezz with all of it. I've also encountered obvious and stark clarity from people who rarely write a line of poetry, deliberate or otherwise, and I've disagreed and to some degree even debated various topics with each and every one of you. Even in debate there's always been an opening at the root of my mind, and it is particularly that opening which is the driver of debate.
Mostly, to my eye, the differences are about relative meaning, preferred modes of expression, and past/current conditioned perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 17, 2021 19:51:01 GMT
And, so he did! Thanks again for asking.
What ZD is demonstrating here, again, is his mistaken belief that SR is the taking on of new knowledge vs. a seeing through/subtraction of previous knowledge/absence.
For him, the seeing through of the sense of me isn't SR, (& I don't think he actually has reference for an actual absence of 'me' but rather, just the idea of an absence of me). In his version of SR, there must be the taking on of new knowledge... a seeing of "a what" that sees the world in the absence of a personal me.
SR is subtractive and reveals that there is no such thing...that, seeing/looking/witnessing, all happen absent a 'what' that 'does' such.
I've always rezzed with the description of realization as an absence, and prefer that as a mode of explanation and pointing on the topic, but I don't share your conclusions about ZD. Each of you, E', ZD and several others on that forum sometimes write what I've come to think of as inadvertent poetry, and I rezz with all of it. I've also encountered obvious and stark clarity from people who rarely write a line of poetry, deliberate or otherwise, and I've disagreed and to some degree even debated various topics with each and every one of you. Even in debate there's always been an opening at the root of my mind, and it is particularly that opening which is the driver of debate.
Mostly, to my eye, the differences are about relative meaning, preferred modes of expression, and past/current conditioned perspective.
Yup, & that's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 18, 2021 9:31:22 GMT
And, so he did! Thanks again for asking.
What ZD is demonstrating here, again, is his mistaken belief that SR is the taking on of new knowledge vs. a seeing through/subtraction of previous knowledge/absence.
For him, the seeing through of the sense of me isn't SR, (& I don't think he actually has reference for an actual absence of 'me' but rather, just the idea of an absence of me). In his version of SR, there must be the taking on of new knowledge... a seeing of "a what" that sees the world in the absence of a personal me.
SR is subtractive and reveals that there is no such thing...that, seeing/looking/witnessing, all happen absent a 'what' that 'does' such.
I've always rezzed with the description of realization as an absence, and prefer that as a mode of explanation and pointing on the topic, but I don't share your conclusions about ZD. Each of you, E', ZD and several others on that forum sometimes write what I've come to think of as inadvertent poetry, and I rezz with all of it. I've also encountered obvious and stark clarity from people who rarely write a line of poetry, deliberate or otherwise, and I've disagreed and to some degree even debated various topics with each and every one of you. Even in debate there's always been an opening at the root of my mind, and it is particularly that opening which is the driver of debate.
Mostly, to my eye, the differences are about relative meaning, preferred modes of expression, and past/current conditioned perspective.
You always agree with people whoever talks intelligently or appears to be meaningful talk. You are not seeing the truth behind their writing. Even though somebody goes against their realization, you still agree with them. |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 18, 2021 18:51:00 GMT
I've always rezzed with the description of realization as an absence, and prefer that as a mode of explanation and pointing on the topic, but I don't share your conclusions about ZD. Each of you, E', ZD and several others on that forum sometimes write what I've come to think of as inadvertent poetry, and I rezz with all of it. I've also encountered obvious and stark clarity from people who rarely write a line of poetry, deliberate or otherwise, and I've disagreed and to some degree even debated various topics with each and every one of you. Even in debate there's always been an opening at the root of my mind, and it is particularly that opening which is the driver of debate.
Mostly, to my eye, the differences are about relative meaning, preferred modes of expression, and past/current conditioned perspective.
You always agree with people whoever talks intelligently or appears to be meaningful talk. You are not seeing the truth behind their writing. Even though somebody goes against their realization, you still agree with them. Are you referring to any other situation other than that I don't debate ZD?
There's much that I disagree with what lots of people write, but most of it I refrain from debating about these days. It's all various matters of degree, various facets of perspective, some relevant to "realization", other's not so much, and none of what I've described in this sentence isn't colored by my own conditioned filter. It's also situational, and personalized, in one-to-one terms, and about relationships, and to debate I have to have a motivation to debate. I'm really no different from anyone else on that score.
For instance, I actually disagree with E' on quite a bit, but I've explored all of it with him over the years, and almost all of it comes down to what I would or wouldn't say to someone interested in the existential truth and how I'd say it, rather than a disagreement about the underlying existential, non-relative meaning of what he's pointing to. For example, I don't disagree with him about his pointers of the absence of volition or the absence of relative causality and the nature of time, but I think about them and communicate about them in different ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 19, 2021 14:32:31 GMT
You always agree with people whoever talks intelligently or appears to be meaningful talk. You are not seeing the truth behind their writing. Even though somebody goes against their realization, you still agree with them. Are you referring to any other situation other than that I don't debate ZD?
There's much that I disagree with what lots of people write, but most of it I refrain from debating about these days. It's all various matters of degree, various facets of perspective, some relevant to "realization", other's not so much, and none of what I've described in this sentence isn't colored by my own conditioned filter. It's also situational, and personalized, in one-to-one terms, and about relationships, and to debate I have to have a motivation to debate. I'm really no different from anyone else on that score.
For instance, I actually disagree with E' on quite a bit, but I've explored all of it with him over the years, and almost all of it comes down to what I would or wouldn't say to someone interested in the existential truth and how I'd say it, rather than a disagreement about the underlying existential, non-relative meaning of what he's pointing to. For example, I don't disagree with him about his pointers of the absence of volition or the absence of relative causality and the nature of time, but I think about them and communicate about them in different ways.
OH! Then what do you disagree with ZD? Do you believe that volition is true? |
|
|
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 19, 2021 19:18:37 GMT
I've always rezzed with the description of realization as an absence, and prefer that as a mode of explanation and pointing on the topic, but I don't share your conclusions about ZD. Each of you, E', ZD and several others on that forum sometimes write what I've come to think of as inadvertent poetry, and I rezz with all of it. I've also encountered obvious and stark clarity from people who rarely write a line of poetry, deliberate or otherwise, and I've disagreed and to some degree even debated various topics with each and every one of you. Even in debate there's always been an opening at the root of my mind, and it is particularly that opening which is the driver of debate.
Mostly, to my eye, the differences are about relative meaning, preferred modes of expression, and past/current conditioned perspective.
You are not seeing the truth behind their writing. Even though somebody goes against their realization, you still agree with them. Well, she talks to you too!  |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 19, 2021 19:21:48 GMT
You always agree with people whoever talks intelligently or appears to be meaningful talk. You are not seeing the truth behind their writing. Even though somebody goes against their realization, you still agree with them. Well, she talks to you too! Laffy is a man! |
|
|
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 19, 2021 21:06:43 GMT
Well, she talks to you too! Laffy is a man! Oh, I thought you were talking to Figs. My bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 19, 2021 23:51:30 GMT
Oh, I thought you were talking to Figs. My bad. Hehe....and for a minute I thought you were just being politically correct and ignoring "polarizing gender titles".
House introduces gender-neutral language in new rules for Congress
New reforms promote inclusion and diversity.
|
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 20, 2021 4:03:42 GMT
Are you referring to any other situation other than that I don't debate ZD?
There's much that I disagree with what lots of people write, but most of it I refrain from debating about these days. It's all various matters of degree, various facets of perspective, some relevant to "realization", other's not so much, and none of what I've described in this sentence isn't colored by my own conditioned filter. It's also situational, and personalized, in one-to-one terms, and about relationships, and to debate I have to have a motivation to debate. I'm really no different from anyone else on that score.
For instance, I actually disagree with E' on quite a bit, but I've explored all of it with him over the years, and almost all of it comes down to what I would or wouldn't say to someone interested in the existential truth and how I'd say it, rather than a disagreement about the underlying existential, non-relative meaning of what he's pointing to. For example, I don't disagree with him about his pointers of the absence of volition or the absence of relative causality and the nature of time, but I think about them and communicate about them in different ways.
OH! Then what do you disagree with ZD? Do you believe that volition is true? Not in any conventional sense, no. One example is that ZD doesn't like the idea of watching thoughts. I do. |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 20, 2021 4:11:01 GMT
Oh, I thought you were talking to Figs. My bad. Hehe....and for a minute I thought you were just being politically correct and ignoring "polarizing gender titles".
House introduces gender-neutral language in new rules for Congress
New reforms promote inclusion and diversity.
Settle down there hun'! |
|
