The Dilemma

[bito]

When the seeker of truth discovers that thought/language is that which seems ( ;) asheera) to separate us, he or she is faced with a dilemma.

How to speak so as to share and yet not betray this most amazing and yet so obvious a discovery.

Is that why we come here? To find our way through this maddeningly-delicious paradox?

:blink: :lol:

[vicente]

the seeker of truth

Seeker of Truth is an oxymoron.

"the goal, which you have invented, is responsible for the search. As long as the goal is there (arising from that which thinks its the Seeker), so long will the search continue" UG Krishnamurti

[Nick_A]

Hello Bito

How to speak so as to share and yet not betray this most amazing and yet so obvious a discovery.

Is that why we come here? To find our way through this maddeningly-delicious paradox?

People post for a variety of reasons. I always like it when those preaching the value of silence are posting the most. :) Naturally there is a desire to share and sometimes to be impressive etc. but there is also a genuine desire to communicate which must be respected.

It really requires a great effort on both the speaker and listner, or in this case writer and reader, to share something spiritually objective. The first problem is language itself. Words not only have a literal meaning but also a subjective emotional connotation. Take the word God for example. People will kill each other over subjective differences in the perception of the word and the emotions that arise from reading or hearing the word.

We would need a universal language to genuinely communicate but we don't know what it even means and I think what was suggested in the Book of Acts is probably closer to it.

Sacred text can sometimes do this with people open to it. It is written to bypass our ordinary subjective emotions in order for us to experience genuine "feelings" and an artificially organized inner allignment of our being bringing us closer to the perception of objective reality. This can allow a person to get a glimpse of their inner possibilities from this temporary freedom from imagination that ordinarily denies us of any conception of reality keeping us in this prison.

Find a person who will not prostitute the sacred through their speech and you will find a real master and something extremely rare. In all fairness, I believe most do not even realize that they do it. Just to witness this in yourself is a big expserience and I can testify to this from myn own personal experience. So if one person is BSing another, what quality of communication can there be? It is our way and is one of the reasons that everything continues as it does.

[sahyo]

( ;) asheera)*



;)

[sahyo]

paradox



oxymoron



:lol:

[bito]

It really requires a great effort on both the speaker and listner, or in this case writer and reader, to share something spiritually objective.

I find this as well. Speaking of being, purity, love, truth, absolute is like grasping water, but we continue grasping. The option of not speaking, in order to 'preserve' its ungrasp-able-ness is always open, but then, what of the joy of communicating this exquisite Joy?

Sacred text can sometimes do this with people open to it. It is written to bypass our ordinary subjective emotions in order for us to experience genuine "feelings" and an artificially organized inner allignment of our being bringing us closer to the perception of objective reality. This can allow a person to get a glimpse of their inner possibilities from this temporary freedom from imagination that ordinarily denies us of any conception of reality keeping us in this prison.

A most common sense explanation for why one is drawn to read sacred text and spiritual writings. I see training wheels on a bicycle... :)

Your words are as a clear lake.

[bito]

There is a movie title that captures this maddeningly-delicious paradox of 'feeling-seeing' God and being unable to express this feeling-seeing most beautifully: "The Unbearable Lightness of Being".

Perhaps it is this 'unbearable-ness' that brings us here to post...perhaps 'thebigview' that we cannot 'see'? :)

[Nick_A]

God morning Bito

Thanks for the compliment. My clarity of thought? My ex wife never said that. :)

Seriously, I know what you mean about this big view and it is a paradox because the mind wants to conceptualize it making it smaller which only secceeds in making it bigger. This doesn't make communication any easier. :) I am a fan of Meister Eckhart. He had this way of writing that could capture something much deeper then ordinary meaning. Read what he says here in regards to your question:


"The mind never rests but must go on expecting and preparing for what is yet known and what is still concealed. Meanwhile, man cannot know what God is, even though he be ever so well of what God is not; and an intelligent person will reject that. As long as it has no reference point, the mind can only wait as matter waits for him. And matter can never find rest except in form; so, too, the mind can never find rest except in the essential truth which is locked up in it--the truth about everything. Essence alone satisfied and God keeps on withdrawing, farther and farther away, to arouse the mind's zeal and lure it to follow and finally grasp the true good that has no cause. Thus, contented with nothing, the mind clamors for the highest good of all."

It has been quite a revelation for me when I began to experience in reality that I knew nothing concerning God so how can it really be explained other than superficially. The real gift and the expression of real undersstanding IMO is when the words convey the presence of esoteric thnking, the connected process of what unites the higher with the lower, rather than just phrases that excite and justify our normal egotism. Meister Eckhart had this ability since it was a reflection of his understanding which was far more than just the usual head knowledge coupled with wishful thinking.

[bito]

Nick

Thank you for the wisdom of Meister Eckhart. I read his words many years ago; an intellectual-ecstatic to be sure.

"As long as it has no reference point, the mind can only wait as matter waits for him".

This quote-slice from your Eckhart quote says so much that rings true to me. Some here seem to be claiming that one can sustain a 'state' of no-referencing, of Now, and I do not see how this is possible. Unless one remains in meditation-bliss 24/7, thought comes whether or not we want it to or not. As Eckhart says, matter waits...

:)

[bito]

Meister Eckhart had this ability since it was a reflection of his understanding which was far more than just the usual head knowledge coupled with wishful thinking.

This wishful thinking is a blind alley that perhaps most who seek to know the Unknowable find themselves at one point in their inner journey. I found myself in this alley for many years...a long dark night indeed. From fantasizing about the afterlife to believing (read: hoping) that consciousness will, at some unknown 'moment' in the future, collectively ascend to a higher plane of being. I was one wishing seeker...:duh:

You know, Nick, when I think about why I came here to thebigview, I realize it was to finally say to myself...no more wishing, bito...only waiting...only waiting... :)

Thanks again...you cannot know how your posts have touched me...

[Nick_A]

Hello bito

I must admit being a little surprised at your expression of appreciation. Usually I am the bad guy for lacking in emotion and being more practical. Actually I went through years of that in college also since I lacked this passion. Finally by luck or whatever, I learned that there were people in all faiths that understood that emotion was as variable in its quality as thought and its quality was not necessarily related to its intensity of our expression. This is really unsheltered waters. The meditation-bliss you describe can be purely the result of imagination, escapism, and good scotch or it can be the result of something genuine beyond the limitations of our egotism. Its value must be questioned but how many are willing to do it?

Recently I read Prof. Jacob needleman's classic: "Lost Christianity". In fact it is where I discovered the journal of Father Sylvan. In the beginning, Prof. Needleman is in conversation with Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh on the question of the emotion of a Christian. Prof Needleman is saying about the motives of the seeker:

"He might come wanting to be lifted, inspired, moved to joy or sadness--and this the churches in the West are trying to produce because many leaders of the church are turning away from the mechanical, the routine--"

"He gently waved aside what I was saying and I stopped in mid sentence. There was a pause, and then he said: 'No. Emotion must be destroyed."

He stopped, reflected and started again, speaking in his husky Russian accent: 'We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach...feeling.'

Yes we do have to get out of our own way but, as we know, this is much easier said then done. There is love and there is love. The words are the same but their origin is different but they are confused with one another. Jesus spoke of it but only a few have understood it. I am just grateful that there are those and always have been those that understood this and their efforts and their written word has helped me. I agree that we have to wait but is this a passive waiting or is this an active process?

Maybe we can discuss some ideas as we go along.

[bito]

I must admit being a little surprised at your expression of appreciation. Usually I am the bad guy for lacking in emotion and being more practical. Actually I went through years of that in college also since I lacked this passion. Finally by luck or whatever, I learned that there were people in all faiths that understood that emotion was as variable in its quality as thought and its quality was not necessarily related to its intensity of our expression. This is really unsheltered waters.

Some of the most empathetic/intuitive individuals I know are not emotionally expressive. I am an introvert myself, and although my feelings run very deep, they are not expressed outwardly to the world as such.

You mentioned faith; I am not a person of faith in the religious sense. The faith I 'feel' is the faith of absolute trust in the Invisible that 'both' Is and sustains Existence. It is a knowing more than a faith, but faith 'lives' there...difficult to describe in words :)

I agree that we have to wait but is this a passive waiting or is this an active process?*

I see it as a marriage of both. Passive in the sense of not wanting the world to fit one's vision of what it should be (acceptance that the universe is perfect just as it is - the bigview concept again), but active in the sense of creating a personal life that reflects one's knowing of love. I do believe that love is so very, very simple; it is we confused and fearful humans that have managed to complicate it over the past few thousand years.

Maybe we can discuss some ideas as we go along.

:)

[slayer]

[bito...] (acceptance that the universe is perfect just as it is - the bigview concept again)

Perfect? You pervert the English language when you use "perfect" this way. But more importantly, you pervert reason.

This trite little saying is just some psychobabble therapeutical nonsense. It isn't even a metaphysical position; it's counseling for the weak.

[Nick A...] The first problem is language itself....Take the word God for example. People will kill each other over subjective differences in the perception of the word and the emotions that arise from reading or hearing the word.

In the perception of the word? You mean over the meaning or definition of the word. Here's a novel solution: define "God" whenever you're using the term, especially in an argument. This will rid you of the problem you seem to think language cannot solve.

[Nick A...] We would need a universal language to genuinely communicate but we don't know what it even means and I think what was suggested in the Book of Acts is probably closer to it.

Well, we do know what "universal language" means. It means a language that everyone knows that has the benefit of being completely clear. There is no such language, but then we don't need it. We're communicating just fine now without one.

[Nick A...] Sacred text can sometimes do this with people open to it. It is written to bypass our ordinary subjective emotions in order for us to experience genuine "feelings" and an artificially organized inner allignment of our being bringing us closer to the perception of objective reality. This can allow a person to get a glimpse of their inner possibilities from this temporary freedom from imagination that ordinarily denies us of any conception of reality keeping us in this prison.

This is jibberish. Did you notice that you said that a sacred text can allow us to experience an artificially organized inner allignment [sic] of our being? I know, it's not what you wanted to say.

Sacred texts are written in natural languages, so how are they exempt from the limitations you've attributed to language itself? Answer: they're not exempt.

How does this bypassing work? Let me guess. You don't know, you just know it happens?

You have genuine feelings, which are supposed to be different from your ordinary subjective emotions? Aren't all emotions subjective? Aren't they all ordinary? I guesswhen you're trying to make up a new kind of emotion, a genuine emotion, they're not.

How does one experience an artificially organized inner alignment? Better yet, what does that mean?

An inner possibility? What is that?

Freedom from imagination? I didn't know that your ability to imagine wasn't controllable. Feel free to seek therapy. Or, join Disney -- they could use you.

Keeping us in this prison? The prison of your mind? Now I couldn't agree with you more on this, for surely you've been sentenced to a cruel fate.

Whenever you attain any type of sophisticated level of understanding about almost any topic, you'll find that those who speak clearly, using simple language, are the ones who have some idea of what they're talking about. The others are typically posers. This is especially true in philosophy.

Your language is confusing and incoherent. And it's not that it just seems that way to me, but that it is. I'm a competent English speaker and I know the concepts and terms you throw around, but they don't fit together the way you seem to think.

I now submit exhibit 'A' to the court: Asheera's mind.
I now submit exhibit 'B' to the court: Asheera's posts.

I rest my case,

slayer

[sonrisa]

:goodlaugh: :shakehead:

[Nick_A]

Hello slayer

You leave me speechless. :) I can see that there is no way that I could explain this to you and in reality there is nothing really wrong with this. I know this sounds trite but a person must both need to understand and have a feeling that their understanding is limited before understanding is possible. Normally we seek to justify ourselves rather than desire to understand. I remember reading recently where one man speculated whether it was possible that the need to know could be equal for the need for pleasure in more than a select few. I doubt it myself.

In the perception of the word? You mean over the meaning or definition of the word. Here's a novel solution: define "God" whenever you're using the term, especially in an argument. This will rid you of the problem you seem to think language cannot solve.

God is Meaning. This is the definition. What gives a person the most meaning is their God. Did it help?

We're communicating just fine now without one.

I cannot answer this. Even a man and woman professing love for one another divorce after marriage because they didn't understand each other. Yet you believe communication is just fine within a world in turmoil. There is no way for me to respond.

This is jibberish. Did you notice that you said that a sacred text can allow us to experience an artificially organized inner allignment [sic] of our being? I know, it's not what you wanted to say.

Again, there is no way to explain this since you openly reject it. Our physical bodies can align themselves. The head knows what it should do. The hands and feet etc. also know their purpose. Under normal circumstances it is relatively easy for the person to stand straight up and feel how the body is aligned and what its parts can do. The human psych is quite different. It exists in chaos without the understanding that it is so. Sometimes a person's psych is accidentally aligned from some sort of shock. Ancient knowledge of man's being can sometimes do this. In those times it was the goal of real art to produce just such alignment and the resultant emotions associated with this alignment. It was possible for a person to experience the higher and lower in their own common presence and get a taste of the balanced human psych. ART of this quality way was an ARTificial way of allowing a person to experience an aspect of reality. In modern times of course art has become a medium for imagination and its results are purely subjective. Ancient art was based on mathematics in order to produce the desired affect.

How does this bypassing work? Let me guess. You don't know, you just know it happens?

In sacred text, often the truth being communicated is in the contradiction much like in a Zen koan. The associative mind becomes confused when things don't make immediate sense and cannot function in this confusion. This opens a path for the knowledge to pass through the domain of associative and begin to be digested by higher mind. I know in my case that sometimes a week after reading something of this nature all of a sudden it becomes clear. It was being digested in a way beyond my normal comprehension.

Freedom from imagination? I didn't know that your ability to imagine wasn't controllable.

We live in a dream. As we are, we do not have a choice. It is your imagination that allows you to believe you do not live mostly in a dream with brief appearances of consciousness.

Yes this imagination does not allow us to recognize our situation. Here is one of my favorite old stories about this though I doubt if it will help:

"There is an Eastern tale that speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the
same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence
about the pasture where the sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell
into ravines and so on, and above all, they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and
their skins, and this they did not like.

"At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them, first of all, that they
were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned; that on the contrary, it
would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master
who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place,
he suggested that if anything at all were going to happen to them, it was not going to happen just then, at any
rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further, the magician suggested to his
sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to some that they
were eagles, to some that they were men, to others that they were magicians.

"After this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again, but quietly
awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins."

Welcome to the world of our imaginary self importance.

[slayer]

Nick A,

You know, a year ago I would have cut and pasted many of your responses (pronounced /claims/), berated you, attacked your claims, and attached the appropriate labels to them:e.g., "stupid," "naive," "contradictory," "incoherent," etc. More recently, long having grown tired of the sophistry and incompetence in this forum, I would have just added the labels, sparing myself a lot of work. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, you being new to me, and so I'm going to address the claims you've made. This isn't me bestowing some great honor on you, it's a statement of fact and an advanced warning that should you prove similarly dense and dogmatic as the typical member here, I'll simply end our discussion.

I know this sounds trite but a person must both need to understand and have a feeling that their understanding is limited before understanding is possible.

If the person already understands, then understanding is and was already possible. Nothing else is needed. If you're using "understands" in two different senses, then you need to make this explicit; otherwise, what you say just sounds silly.

Normally we seek to justify ourselves rather than desire to understand. I remember reading recently where one man speculated whether it was possible that the need to know could be equal for the need for pleasure in more than a select few. I doubt it myself.

I'm willing to grant you that our egos sometimes get in the way of being as objective as we can be. At least I think that's what you were saying. And I'm willing to speculate with you that our need to know, for the majority of us, isn't stronger than our need for pleasure.

But how would this get you your claim that we can't weigh things objectively, without our egos and desire for pleasure biasing our objective view? Whatever assumptions you're making, I'm not seeing nor making. You'll have to say a whole lot more in order to make some logical connection from what I've conceded to what you've claimed. Until then, it's just psychobabble. And let's not forget, that this disabling of our objectivity will only apply to certain beliefs or claims. No ones ego is going to get in the way of concluding that it's raining when drops of water are falling from the sky.

God is Meaning. This is the definition. What gives a person the most meaning is their God. Did it help?

No, it didn't help. In fact, I don't know why you are telling me what God is to you. You and I aren't having a discussion about God, we were having a discussion about the confusion language supposedly creates.

Even a man and woman professing love for one another divorce after marriage because they didn't understand each other. Yet you believe communication is just fine within a world in turmoil. There is no way for me to respond.

What does any of this have to do with my claim that we are communicating just fine now? Why is love being brought up in our discussion about communication? When you say "they didn't understand each other", you mean they didn't know each other very well and found the reasons the other gave for their deeds unreasonable (not non-reasonable). This not understanding each other has nothing to do with language and communication. If you respond with 'men are from Mars and women are from Venus', then you have a different argument to make, one about the way the sexes use language. That's not a criticism on language.

The world being in turmoil isn't a good objection. What does it show? Why couldn't it just be the case, as it so clearly seems to be, that we simply have come to a point where our beliefs clash? For instance, you think abortion is murder and I think it's not. We'll now be on the opposite ends of a heated political issue. Same thing with our way of life in America and what Islamic fundamentalists believe is a moral way of life. We have clashes not because we don't "understand" each other, but because we do. So the turmoil is the world isn't the clear cut example that's going to win you this argument, as you so obviously believe. You might want to rethink your position and arguments before you adopt the attitude that your points or examples are self-evidently compelling.

Again, there is no way to explain this since you openly reject it.
My rejection of what you said in no way impinges on your ability to explain it.

Our physical bodies can align themselves. The head knows what it should do. The hands and feet etc. also know their purpose. Under normal circumstances it is relatively easy for the person to stand straight up and feel how the body is aligned and what its parts can do.
This is sloppy talk leading to sloppy thinking. How does the head KNOW anything? Do you perhaps mean the brain or the mind? And if you do, it's still a strange way of talking. The brain doesn't know, we know. The mind doesn't know, we know. And most certainly the hands and feet don't KNOW anything, let alone their purpose. A person doesn't feel that his body is aligned, he just understands what uses his hands, feet, etc., can serve and how they can work together to accomplish certain feats.

Okay, let's fast forward because I haven't come across one comment that even sounds intuitive, let alone argued for. We live in a dream? Argue for this. The imagination prevents us from achieving objectivity? Argue for this. Your story is just a story. You want a story with the exact opposite message? I can make one up for you, you know. This story of yours shows nothing. Nothing you've said is backed up by even the semblance of a good argument. All of your beliefs are unjustified. You really do live in a dream, the dream of your own alleged insight past a nonexistent veil. Learn to reason properly. Learn to weigh arguments properly. Then you'll get past your own inflated ego, which is something you share with the rest of these idiots here, and then maybe you'll attain anything remotely commonsensical and right.

You have this belief that the world is an illusion, a dream, and that somehow you've caught the lie by the tail. The rest of us are naively walking about as if we were living in reality, able to perceive the world as it is. Oh you enlightened fools, how good it must feel to be privy to such information. How elevated of intellect you must feel. Guess what, geniuses, the people who most need to feel this way are the people incapable of justly feeling this way. None of you will ever attain a level of understanding that will be praiseworthy for something beyond a monkey. You're so lost and backwards thinking that I would be surprised if any of you could think yourselves back out of the paper bags you've chosen to hide inside.

Feel elevated. Feel intelligent. Feel in the know. Feel enlightened. I am not here to deny you these feelings. You need them, I know.

I am not here to wake you,

slayer

[Corri]

Slayer:

Interesting screen name.

Okay, let's fast forward because I haven't come across one comment that even sounds intuitive, let alone argued for. We live in a dream? Argue for this.... Nothing you've said is backed up by even the semblance of a good argument.

I'd be interested in an example of what you think is a good argument, if you feel so disposed.

Learn to reason properly. Learn to weigh arguments properly. Then you'll get past your own inflated ego, which is something you share with the rest of these idiots here, and then maybe you'll attain anything remotely commonsensical and right.

Reason in relation to what? A logical argument? How do you argue what goes past logic? (ie., what motivated the man to kill his wife?)

When you say "they didn't understand each other", you mean they didn't know each other very well and found the reasons the other gave for their deeds unreasonable (not non-reasonable). This not understanding each other has nothing to do with language and communication.

I don't think that's what Nick meant, but I don't want to speak for him. In any event, concluding that he meant, " you mean they didn't know each other very well and found the reasons the other gave for their deeds unreasonable (not non-reasonable)" is an assumption on your part, and you continued your argument as if this were a truth, and came to a conclusion you assume to be truth as well.

So now I am rather confused on what your supposition of a sound argument is.

Corri

[Corri]

The world being in turmoil isn't a good objection. What does it show? Why couldn't it just be the case, as it so clearly seems to be, that we simply have come to a point where our beliefs clash? For instance, you think abortion is murder and I think it's not. We'll now be on the opposite ends of a heated political issue. Same thing with our way of life in America and what Islamic fundamentalists believe is a moral way of life. We have clashes not because we don't "understand" each other, but because we do. So the turmoil is the world isn't the clear cut example that's going to win you this argument, as you so obviously believe. You might want to rethink your position and arguments before you adopt the attitude that your points or examples are self-evidently compelling.

This is so much bullpucky, and to me a very clear illustration that you do not understand communication, including language. If it (language and communication) were as simple a process as you make it sound, this issue would be resolved already. We don't clash because we understand one another... we clash because we think we understand one another... we assume, and accept those assumptions as truth, and pile more assumptions on top of those... until very, very soon, everybody is talking, no one is listening. communication is tossed completely out the window, and no one understands a damn thing, except for the fact that they assume that they do.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Slayer

This isn't me bestowing some great honor on you, it's a statement of fact and an advanced warning that should you prove similarly dense and dogmatic as the typical member here, I'll simply end our discussion.

At the end of your post you suggest that I have a problem with egotism. We all do but have you ever really considered what you've just said. If I am not considered worthy, you will berate me.

Yes, people do these things on web sites and for the life of me, I do not see the attraction. If I were walking down the street and came upon a person who could only walk with great difficulty, would I berate them as being unworthy of being on the same street as me? If I come across as person with a mental problem that forces them to be delusional, will I berate them? I hope not? Yet this is what people on web sites often want to do. Maybe a person appears "dogmatic" and "incoherent" because of some sort of traumatic experience. This is never considered important. The only thing of importance is that they occupy space on a thread and such low lives should be driven off by those in the know. Again, I don't know how to answer this

If the person already understands, then understanding is and was already possible. Nothing else is needed. If you're using "understands" in two different senses, then you need to make this explicit; otherwise, what you say just sounds silly.

It only appears silly because understanding is relative, In order to grow in the understanding of mathematics for example, one must understand some math to begin with. Understanding is not a black and white issue. In matters of the human condition, there are different degrees of understanding. It isn't as if you either do or do not understand.

But how would this get you your claim that we can't weigh things objectively, without our egos and desire for pleasure biasing our objective view?

The human condition is not a grouping of things that can be considered objectively. It is true that in tic tac toe for example I've worked out the variables so that if I begin I cannot lose. But human being is highly complex. The mistake IMO we make is that we believe that we have this one big "I" that could objectively know ourselves so that we could "weigh" ourselves objectively. I am not alone in this. It is not just an idea of esoteric Christianity but Buddhism as well for example. You seem to think that we have this choice to weigh human nature, our own nature, with something other than our egos.. I submit that we do not realize how far we are from this.

The survival of our egos is not dependent on judging if it is raining or not or similar such things where we can be more or less objective. Our egos deprive us of knowing our true selves and human purpose which is far deeper and directly threatens our egos existence. This is why in virtually all the ancient traditions it is asserted to "die" to ourselves since all we really know of ourselves is our perverted ego. Of course a lot of modern traditions just make this "true self" into something it is not and just another form of egotism but this cannot be helped and just another example of how powerful this walking dream is on us.

What does any of this have to do with my claim that we are communicating just fine now?

Words convey two different meanings. The first is a literal meaning. The second is an emotional meaning. People can use the same words but they provoke differing emotions. One woman may talk about a sunset as a romantic setting and meaning a pleasant connotation when the word is used. Another may have been abused during a sunset and now the word provokes an unpleasant connotation. This has nothing to do with the literal meaning of a sunset but the differing emotional understandings limit communication.

Why couldn't it just be the case, as it so clearly seems to be, that we simply have come to a point where our beliefs clash?

What creates these conflicting beliefs? They just don't appear out of thin air but are just extensions of what we've experienced and judged before. If our lives were of a more conscious quality than maybe there would not be all these conflicting beliefs. You used abortion as an example. What creates our attitude towards abortion? It is the sum of what has been experience and judged before. Do you think there was anything conscious before, during, or after the sex act itself that lead to pregnancy and abortion? Of course not. These acts aren't planned on a large scale but just happen as does everything else in our lives. Lacking consciousness, what is possible but conflicting beliefs?

If people understood the purpose of human life itself and the human condition as it is, maybe life itself would not be taken so superficially to begin with. Human perspective could replace imagination.

The brain doesn't know, we know. The mind doesn't know, we know. And most certainly the hands and feet don't KNOW anything, let alone their purpose.

You are beginning from the premise that you have this one "I" that governs everything. This is why you assume "We know' Actually we don't. Our physical bodies are just responding in an organized fashion. Granted the foot is not arguing with the hand saying "mind your own business". I just used a picturesque way of explaining that their separate functions are cooperative. Man's psych is not like this. We are in opposition to ourselves.

You have this belief that the world is an illusion, a dream, and that somehow you've caught the lie by the tail. The rest of us are naively walking about as if we were living in reality, able to perceive the world as it is. Oh you enlightened fools, how good it must feel to be privy to such information. How elevated of intellect you must feel. Guess what, geniuses, the people who most need to feel this way are the people incapable of justly feeling this way. None of you will ever attain a level of understanding that will be praiseworthy for something beyond a monkey. You're so lost and backwards thinking that I would be surprised if any of you could think yourselves back out of the paper bags you've chosen to hide inside.

Beginning to acquire an objective look at the human condition including my own is not a pleasant thing. It doesn't make me feel good.

You conclude it to be backward thinking only because you are only using inductive reason. You underestimate the value of the higher direct experience in Buddhism referred to as satori and gnosis in Christianity. This allows for us to use the complimentary deductive reasoning as well in considering the human condition. This is something else again but I will conclude this post with another of my saved excerpts as to the balance of inductive and deductive reason.

"In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

[Nick_A]

Hello Corri

This is so much bullpucky, and to me a very clear illustration that you do not understand communication, including language. If it (language and communication) were as simple a process as you make it sound, this issue would be resolved already. We don't clash because we understand one another... we clash because we think we understand one another... we assume, and accept those assumptions as truth, and pile more assumptions on top of those... until very, very soon, everybody is talking, no one is listening. communication is tossed completely out the window, and no one understands a damn thing, except for the fact that they assume that they do.

I agree and much of a culture is based on this. How to make people believe us so as to feed our self esteem. Advertising would be meaningless without this. It tells us what to buy to make ourselves presentable and effective. Imagination replaces sincere attempts at communication. it is so subtle that we are not really aware of it and what is lost because of it.

[Corri]

Nick:

Imagination replaces sincere attempts at communication.

I am not sure how you are defining imagination. Let us establish this first. My understanding of this word does not lead me to the same conclusion.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Imagination is the excess of desire over ability. When we lack the ability to be ourselves but maintain desire "to be", this lack is rationalized. this rationalization allows us to accept what is contradictory in our own presence. It is the power of imagination manifested as self deception. We are unable to see ourselves for what we are which in turn could allow us "to be".

[slayer]

Corri, you're so incompetent, it's ridiculous.

I'd be interested in an example of what you think is a good argument, if you feel so disposed.
Here you go. We perceive things and we think that they exist independently of us. So when I see a car coming at me, and I get struck by the car, then I get hurt. When I see a lake and I jump in the lake, I get wet. Only crazy people think they're only imagining the car, the accident, and their bodily injuries. Only fools think the lake is in their mind only and that they're imagining that they're wet. We act as if our perceptions are veridical and that the world is independent of our minds. This tacit belief gets confirmed every single day, every single minute, by the consistency which we perceive. I see my computer, I type something, and lo and behold people see it and respond. The world is my argument. What's yours?

Reason in relation to what? A logical argument? How do you argue what goes past logic? (ie., what motivated the man to kill his wife?)
Reason in relation to what? What an odd question. Anyway, we use logic when we reason. Perhaps that answers your confused question. What motivated the man to kill his wife? LOL. Uhm, jealousy? Uhm, hate? Uhm, anger? Uhm, what does it freakin' matter! I've already made up my mind, you're a waste of my time. But I'll continue because I'm masochistic.

So now I am rather confused on what your supposition of a sound argument is.
It isn't MY supposition, relativist, it's the definition. A sound argument is one that is both valid and has all true premises, to include the conclusion.

Now to Nick A.

It only appears silly because understanding is relative, In order to grow in the understanding of mathematics for example, one must understand some math to begin with. Understanding is not a black and white issue. In matters of the human condition, there are different degrees of understanding. It isn't as if you either do or do not understand.
Understanding English sentences may be relative in the sense that each of us has our own understanding, that is, interpretation, which is what you really mean. But the English sentence itself means something, and this isn't a matter of relativism, you relativist. Here's what you wrote!

[Nick A...] Sacred text can sometimes do this with people open to it. It is written to bypass our ordinary subjective emotions in order for us to experience genuine "feelings" and an artificially organized inner allignment of our being bringing us closer to the perception of objective reality. This can allow a person to get a glimpse of their inner possibilities from this temporary freedom from imagination that ordinarily denies us of any conception of reality keeping us in this prison.

Again, I'm letting you KNOW that you just said that a sacred text can allow for an artificially organized inner alignment of our being.

There's nothing you can say to make that not the case. It's a fact. Your relativism can't contaminate English, so you lose. You're so deluded and corrupted by relativism that to you nothing seems to have the force it does. Perception suggests that what we perceive is real, independent of us, yet you think otherwise. Language suggests that the words and sentences have a specific meaning, or perhaps meanings, but to you it's all relative. You're wrong.

There's nothing really to talk to you two about. You're beyond reason.

You've found your home,

slayer

[Corri]

Imagination is the excess of desire over ability.

Welp, there's the sticking point. We've got a radical difference of meaning. I understand 'excess of desire over ability,' but calling that 'imagination' is throwing a wrench into the flow of communicating, at least for me. Perhaps we can dicker with this and come to a mutual consent so as to further the conversation.

Corri

[Corri]

Slayer:

I'd be interested in an example of what you think is a good argument, if you feel so disposed.

Here you go. We perceive things and we think that they exist independently of us. So when I see a car coming at me, and I get struck by the car, then I get hurt. When I see a lake and I jump in the lake, I get wet. Only crazy people think they're only imagining the car, the accident, and their bodily injuries. Only fools think the lake is in their mind only and that they're imagining that they're wet. We act as if our perceptions are veridical and that the world is independent of our minds. This tacit belief gets confirmed every single day, every single minute, by the consistency which we perceive. I see my computer, I type something, and lo and behold people see it and respond. The world is my argument. What's yours?

At what point did I declare that I am imagining a lake and imagining that I am wet? Sounds like many more assumptions on your part, which I do not see as logical or rational.

Reason in relation to what? What an odd question. Anyway, we use logic when we reason. Perhaps that answers your confused question.

Because you find my question odd, you now assume I am confused. Again, how is this rational or logical? This is your definition of a sound argument:

A sound argument is one that is both valid and has all true premises, to include the conclusion.

Yet you ignore your own definition by operating on assumptions, not truths, making your argument suspect, not valid. So who here is confused? Who is lacking logic and reason?

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

By all means tell me your definition of imagination. I am also curious as to why my definition appears so disagreable.

[slayer]

At what point did I declare that I am imagining a lake and imagining that I am wet? Sounds like many more assumptions on your part, which I do not see as logical or rational.
Just how dense are you? The lake and car examples were just that, examples! Nobody is assuming you're imagining those things, I'm simply giving you an ordinary type of experience. So your accusation is misguided, as usual.

Because you find my question odd, you now assume I am confused. Again, how is this rational or logical?
From the fact that you asked a confused question, why isn't the inference that you're confused a good one? Stop throwing the word "assumption" around as if it were a damning charge. Some assumptions are good, some are bad, some are true, and some are false. I've made a good inference, and undoubtedly a true one too.


This is your definition of a sound argument:

A sound argument is one that is both valid and has all true premises, to include the conclusion.

Yet you ignore your own definition by operating on assumptions, not truths, making your argument suspect, not valid. So who here is confused? Who is lacking logic and reason?
Hey, genius, assumptions and truth are not mutually exclusive notions. That is, I can make an assumption that is true. So stop drawing inferences from your poor understanding of these terms. To answer your question: you look to be the only one here confused. Oh, you and Nick_A, that is.

Now stop pestering with your naive understanding of things and with your poor man's rhetoric.

You haven't said one correct thing yet. Worse, you haven't defended anything you've claimed.

Keep up the good work,

slayer

[Nick_A]

Slayer

I would suggest that if you really want to argue it is better to get married and have at it. :)

Again, I'm letting you KNOW that you just said that a sacred text can allow for an artificially organized inner alignment of our being.

There's nothing you can say to make that not the case. It's a fact. Your relativism can't contaminate English, so you lose.

How can I explain this to you. I experienced it myself. If some day you experience it, you will know what I am referring to. There is nothing for us to argue about. Argument in marriage is more fun. At least then you can have the joys of making up. :)

[Corri]

At what point did I declare that I am imagining a lake and imagining that I am wet? Sounds like many more assumptions on your part, which I do not see as logical or rational.

Just how dense are you? The lake and car examples were just that, examples! Nobody is assuming you're imagining those things, I'm simply giving you an ordinary type of experience. So your accusation is misguided, as usual.

If you do not recall, I said I'd be interested in an example of what you think is a good argument. I am still waiting for a good example based upon your definition: A sound argument is one that is both valid and has all true premises, to include the conclusion. So if you have not assumed that I'm imagining those things, then where is the example? You have yet to present any truthful premise or conclusion. Only assumptions.

From the fact that you asked a confused question, why isn't the inference that you're confused a good one?

Because it is in fact an inference (supposition), not a fact, and this goes against your definition of a sound argument.

Reason in relation to what? What an odd question. Anyway, we use logic when we reason. Perhaps that answers your confused question.

Not in all cases, (especially in physics) and therefore my question is not confused, but quite sound.

Hey, genius, assumptions and truth are not mutually exclusive notions. That is, I can make an assumption that is true.

Yes, you can. And with equal probability, you can make an assumption that is false. And that is why we call it an assumption. In communication, one can often times clear up an assumption by asking for clairification, which you seem to have great difficulty doing. You just move forward on your assumptions, build your case, and call yourself logical and reasonable. Through our discourse here, you are quickly showing that you are anything but logical and reasonable.

Stop throwing the word "assumption" around as if it were a damning charge. Some assumptions are good, some are bad, some are true, and some are false. I've made a good inference, and undoubtedly a true one too.

Wow. Yet another assumption. I'm not throwing around the word as a damning charge. I am pointing out that you have a propensity for always claiming your assumptions as truth, and that is not logical, reasonable or sound.

Corri

[Corri]

Nick:

Okay, here is your definition:

Imagination is the excess of desire over ability.

Let's say I imagine a scene in my head, and I then paint that image on canvas. I've used my imagination to create an idea. I've used my 'imaginings, my thoughts, my ponderings,' to create. My everyday definition of imagination is the act or power of forming mental images of what is not present.

So then, I pause, for I do not understand how you view this as 'desire in excess of my ability.' I just want to clear that up, is all. Because I am not clear, our views do seem to be radically different. They may not, in fact, be different... but I'd like to know before we continue.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corrie

Imagination can also be defined as a function that takes the place of a necessary function. If imagination substitutes itself for consciousness without our knowledge, the necessary function of consciousness has been replaced by an illusion of ourselves. This is imagination.

However there is directed attention, creative thought, and visualization. This is the intellectual use of imagination and it is doing what it is intended to do. The ability and desire match. You imagine the scene and paint it. However, imagining ourselves to be what we are not and denying ourselves the necessary knowledge of ourselves is just catering to the fact that our desire is beyond our ability to know ourselves since we lack what should be normal human consciousness,

[Corri]

Oh my goodness... I get what you've said, but wow, is that one heck of a pill to swallow in one gulp. Okay, give me an example to help me ease digestion....

Corri

[sahyo]

You imagine the scene and paint it.



painting can happen without imagining

[Corri]

painting can happen without imagining

Of course it can... does. But when 'talking of painting,' painting and/or imagining is no longer. It's talk.

Corri

[Corri]

Slayer:

This is going nowhere. It is bullshit rhetoric and is useless. So... if we are going to disagree about reason and logic, let's at least humor ourselves, shall we? Okay. Sound argument. I'm borrowing this from Owen.

Nothing exists, is contradictory.
Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

(Nothing exists) <-> ~(Something exists)
Something exists <-> ~(Nothing exists)

Something exists, means, there is an x such that: x exists.
Something exists, means, Ex(x exists). (ExE!x)

x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).

Something exists, means, Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Nothing exists, means, ~Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Because, (nothing exists) <-> ~(something exists).


But, ExEy(x=y) is a theorem.

1. Ax[x=x] and 2. AxAy[x=y -> (Fx <-> Fy)] are the axioms of identity theory, within first order predicate logic.


ExEy(x=y)

Proof:

1. Ax(x=x) -> a=a
2. a=a -> Ey(a=y).
3. Ey(a=y) -> Ex[Ey(x=y)].
4. Ax(x=x) -> ExEy(x=y).
5. ExEy(x=y).
By axiom 1, Ax(x=x).

If we use the second order Leibnitz-Russell definition of identity,
x=y =df AF(Fx <-> Fy), then ..

x=x means AF(Fx <-> Fx), which is clearly tautologous for all x.


Therefore ~ExEy(x=y) is a contradiction.

i.e. Nothing exists is a contradiction.

Do you:

1) Consider this an example of a sound argument
2) Agree with Owen's logic and conclusion

In my mind, all Owen has done here is proven a contradiction. He has not proven anything in regard to the existence of Nothing. Meaning, that the existence of nothing is only contradictory, not that it is an untruth (not real). Contradiction does not pr0ve non-existence. Contradiction does defy logic and reason.

Can we agree on something herein?

Corri

[sahyo]

But when 'talking of painting,' painting and/or imagining is no longer. It's talk.



not talk

[Corri]

not talk

:lol: no, it's not talk.

[sahyo]

:lol: no, it's not talk.



:lol:

so does still seem?:


It's talk.

[bito]

Imagination can also be defined as a function that takes the place of a necessary function. If imagination substitutes itself for consciousness without our knowledge, the necessary function of consciousness has been replaced by an illusion of ourselves. This is imagination.

However there is directed attention, creative thought, and visualization. This is the intellectual use of imagination and it is doing what it is intended to do. The ability and desire match. You imagine the scene and paint it. However, imagining ourselves to be what we are not and denying ourselves the necessary knowledge of ourselves is just catering to the fact that our desire is beyond our ability to know ourselves since we lack what should be normal human consciousness,

Are you saying that if we know ourselves (our natures) and understand our desires and manifest these desires in our life, then ego-consciousness is being channeled freely (no fragmented psyche), which then 'opens up' doorways to higher states of consciousness?

[fu*]

The brain doesn't know, we know. The mind doesn't know, we know.

]And most certainly the hands and feet don't KNOW anything


So "we" are seperate (something other than), brain, or mind, or body?


What is this "we" you speak of Slayer?

What is this thing..... this "we", that is not "brain" or "mind" or 'body'?

[Corri]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 2 2004, 07:20 AM




:lol: no, it's not talk.



:lol:

so does still seem?:


It's talk.



No seem to start with. (Uh, God, you hurt my head)... it... is... no seem or sense to make... by anyone. No one.

And there is no reason to even state that, Asheera. So what point, then, to conceptual exchange? Words? Language?

Corri

[Nick_A]

Hello bito

Are you saying that if we know ourselves (our natures) and understand our desires and manifest these desires in our life, then ego-consciousness is being channeled freely (no fragmented psyche), which then 'opens up' doorways to higher states of consciousness?

This is a long way off. When we begin to truly know ourselves it is not a pleasant experience. That is why books that tell the truth don't make the best seller list. They don't tell you how wonderful you are. Unfortunately what we discover is that our fragmented state is a part of us and that we are in opposition to ourselves. It doesn't just go once we are aware of it. This is why St. Paul in the Bible described himself as the "Wretched Man" in Romans 7.

It is a long and difficult process to separate the wheat from the tares, the real from the unreal, within ourselves. Actually, if a person prematurely learned the truth about themselves and the position they are in objectively, they could go mad from such a shock.

When consciousness connects the aspects of the ego in the way that it should, a connection is made to higher aspects of our common presence and a man would develop consciously in accordance with his possibility just as an acorn can change into an oak only without the necessity of consciousness. Without the proper soil, light, water etc. the acorn just dies and feeds the earth or is eaten. Without proper nutrition in the form of conscious impressions of our contact with external life, we also die as an undeveloped seed.

A person has a real essential self. This self acquires a personality that becomes part of a family and culture. More often than not, this personality does not reflect the essential self. Instead it lives its life for it. A conscious man could adopt a personality for whatever purpose and be as comfortable with aristocracy as with peasants from being free to adopt a personality. We instead are governed by our personality that dominates our essential selves and denies its growth. It is like the husk of an acorn feeding on the kernel as opposed to the husk serving as food and protection for this kernel of life and seed of an oak. We can begin to become aware of our situation but it is a long way off to become able to contend with it as we may desire to.

There is a distance between knowing ourselves and profiting from this knowledge.

[sahyo]

(Uh, God, you hurt my head)



:lol:

hehehe

can "you hurt my head"? ;)


So what point, then, to conceptual exchange?



was "conceptual exchange" happening?

:)

[sahyo]

When consciousness connects the aspects of the ego



:lol:

[Corri]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 2 2004, 01:07 PM

(Uh, God, you hurt my head)



:lol:

hehehe

can "you hurt my head"? ;)


So what point, then, to conceptual exchange?



was "conceptual exchange" happening?

:)

it seems as though you can... :) just kidding.


So what point, then, to conceptual exchange?



was "conceptual exchange" happening?

(wow. you pay more attention to me than I do.) Seeing your point. :)

Corri

[bito]

Hi Nick

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on self. Truly, you are a man who cares deeply about humanity.

This is why St. Paul in the Bible described himself as the "Wretched Man" in Romans 7.

Wiser words were never spoken.

I truly believe that all we can do is laugh at this insane truth. Could laughter be obejctive truth?

:)

[bito]

Nick

It dawned on me that the wording I used in the above post might sound flippant and I wanted to tell you that that was not my intent. Far from it. There is love and life and compassion - yes, compassion :) in your cosmological vision, and for me, when all is said and done, what matters more than this? That we imagine and create from love... :thumbsup:

We talked about compassion in an earlier post. How can we not feel compassion for the human condition for its existential quest? No other creature on this earth is self-aware - just we lucky old hu-mons (if you are a Star Trek Voyager fan, you will get this poor attempt at Ferengi humor).

Speaking of humor, a wee tidbit from Steven Hawking:

Who's fault is the Big Bang?

...not mine!

:)

[Nick_A]

The people that have developed themselves to the degree that they are capable of compassion and now exist with an awareness of "home" are often misunderstood and as the Bible points out, persecuted for beginning to undersand what our collective misguided egotism requires remaining hidden. When I read the following quotation from Meister Eckhart it shook me to realize that there was this minority that really understood what, as a whole, we are completrely oblivious of. From the sermon "Young Man, Arise":

"Pity them my children, they are far from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines. "

[sahyo]

The people that have developed themselves to the degree that they are capable of compassion



called compassion not 'a-result'

[Nick_A]

Asheera

If compassion isn't a result and just is, why aren't we compassionate?