Paradox of transcendence

[hades]

Transcendence: 1. the belief that Reality conforms to the individual, an illusion based on presumption 2. the degree of separation between the ego and the past

is that so?

[Steven Coyle]

Depends on how you define transcendence.

[hades]

Depends on how you define transcendence.

then its not much of a transcendence at all

[Steven Coyle]

Depends on how you define transcendence.

then its not much of a transcendence at all

Now you're being too modest.

What shapes our world - definitions.

How would you define transcendence?

[David Quinn]

Hades wrote:

DQ: Is that what you imagine?

H: of course, we all do, and when we see it for what it is, how can we take it seriously??

Are you sure that you are truly seeing it for what it is? Or have you merely locked yourself inside a particular piece of imagining?

The idea that "all there is is imagining" might simply be just a piece of deluded imagining on your part, in which case you are currently being deceived by your own imagination. How have you established that you are not being deceived by your own imagination?

Paradox? Transcendence.....Masculine and Feminine?
jokes

Yes, that is what you are currently imagining. But is it a true or false imagining?

-

[hades]

Or have you merely locked yourself inside a particular piece of imagining?

The idea that "all there is is imagining" might simply be just a piece of deluded imagining on your part, in which case you are currently being deceived by your own imagination. How have you established that you are not being deceived by your own imagination?

Good point.

The idea "all there is is imagining" is delusion. Now see it for what it is, it burns everything else including itself, what is left?

Paradox? Transcendence.....Masculine and Feminine?
jokes

Yes, that is what you are currently imagining. But is it a true or false imagining?

-

True or false are of that imagining, see them for what they are :)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

hades,

Good point.

The idea "all there is is imagining" is delusion. Now see it for what it is, it burns everything else including itself, what is left?

Fish sausages travelled several thousand light years from Melmac: damn disco twist... it fell seven stories; no fault of mine. >:(

True or false are of that imagining, see them for what they are :)

Rice, macaroni, and pick up some milk and eggs too while you're out.

---

Everyone else: I've had enough of this postmodern idiot. I think he's so far gone that he won't be able to figure out one reason to consider this paragraph more intelligible than my replies to him.

[hades]

Everyone else: I've had enough of this postmodern idiot. I think he's so far gone that he won't be able to figure out one reason to consider this paragraph more intelligible than my replies to him.

I've had enough of him too!
Who does he think he is?!!!!

[David Quinn]

Hades,

The idea "all there is is imagining" is delusion. Now see it for what it is, it burns everything else including itself, what is left?

If that idea is really a delusion, then it cannot burn anything. A delusion is basically a belief in something which doesn't exist. It lacks substance. And yet here you are trying to present your idea as though it does have substance - in fact, substance enough that it can burn through every other idea.

In short, you are wanting to have it both ways.

The only way that such an idea could begin burning things is if it was true. But you can't recognize and accept this at the moment because it undermines the pieces of imaginings which you are currently attached to.

And you also didn't deal with the question of how you have established that you are not currently being deceived by your own imagination.

DQ: Yes, that is what you are currently imagining. But is it a true or false imagining?

H: True or false are of that imagining, see them for what they are :)

Again, you're presenting this piece of imagining as a truth, which is somehow supposed to override everyone else's truths. It's part of the core hypocrisy inherent in your current imaginings.

What you're basically saying to the world is, "Everyone's truths are imaginary and therefore insignificant, except mine. Although mine are imaginary also, they are somehow magically significant and cut through everyone else's."

Again, it's a case of wanting it both ways.

-

[hades]

If that idea is really a delusion, then it cannot burn anything. A delusion is basically a belief in something which doesn't exist. It lacks substance. And yet here you are trying to present your idea as though it does have substance - in fact, substance enough that it can burn through every other idea.

All ideas lack substance. Everything you want to label "truth" lacks substance.

You might as well argue that ideas don't burn anything, burning is for wood. The point utterly escapes you. This is fine :)

The only way that such an idea could begin burning things is if it was true. But you can't recognize and accept this at the moment because it undermines the pieces of imaginings which you are currently attached to.

If you say so.
Wise ideas point to the emptiness of things, including themselves, you don't want to see this, because you need something to hold onto, something solid you can call truth, nature, reality. Dream some more.

And you also didn't deal with the question of how you have established that you are not currently being deceived by your own imagination.

How could I be deceived if I don't grasp anything in particular?

Again, you're presenting this piece of imagining as a truth, which is somehow supposed to override everyone else's truths. It's part of the core hypocrisy inherent in your current imaginings.

If you wish to see the truth

then hold no opinions for or against anything.

To set up what you like against what you dislike

is the disease of the mind. - Seng' Tsan

What you're basically saying to the world is, "Everyone's truths are imaginary and therefore insignificant, except mine. Although mine are imaginary also, they are somehow magically significant and cut through everyone else's."

Again, it's a case of wanting it both ways.

-

My truths as well as others truths, are comedies, I see them for what they are. Empty, Transient, Imaginary, Jokes.
You've replaced women with ideas, and you sound very protective of them! How sweet!


Do not search for the truth;

only cease to cherish opinions.

Although all dualities come from the One,

do not be attached even to this One. - Seng'Tsan


Wise words that point to their own self-destruction and emptiness. Who would dare to call these Truths?

[David Quinn]

Hades,

DQ: If that idea is really a delusion, then it cannot burn anything. A delusion is basically a belief in something which doesn't exist. It lacks substance. And yet here you are trying to present your idea as though it does have substance - in fact, substance enough that it can burn through every other idea.

H: All ideas lack substance. Everything you want to label "truth" lacks substance.

In the very making of this claim, you are treating it as though it has substance.

If it didn't have any substance, it would lack the power to call other ideas into question.

Again, it's a case of you wanting to have it both ways. "All ideas lack substance - except, funnily enough, this one."

You might as well argue that ideas don't burn anything, burning is for wood. The point utterly escapes you. This is fine :)

Why do you always smile when you put down others? It's rather a strange habit, the sort of thing that insincere gurus and criminal-types do.

DQ: The only way that such an idea could begin burning things is if it was true. But you can't recognize and accept this at the moment because it undermines the pieces of imaginings which you are currently attached to.

H: If you say so.
Wise ideas point to the emptiness of things, including themselves, you don't want to see this, because you need something to hold onto, something solid you can call truth, nature, reality. Dream some more.

Alas, I don't believe in your dream.

You have said on numerous occasions that it is impossible to point to Enlightenment or emptiness. So why are you suddenly talking about wise ideas pointing to emptiness on this occasion? This is about the third or fourth time you have flopped back and forth between these two contradictory positions.

This indicates to me that you haven't really thought these matters through and resolved these contradictions. And given that you have firmly attached yourself to the idea that all thought is empty comedy, it is unlikely that you ever will.

DQ: And you also didn't deal with the question of how you have established that you are not currently being deceived by your own imagination.

H: How could I be deceived if I don't grasp anything in particular?

There is a world of difference between not grasping at things, via the true understanding the reality, and blocking out of one's mind, via mental trickery, the fact that one is still grasping at things.

All you have done is gather together a bag of mental tricks which you use to evade becoming conscious of anything about yourself. It's the cleverness of a fox, rather than the wisdom of a sage.

DQ: Again, you're presenting this piece of imagining as a truth, which is somehow supposed to override everyone else's truths. It's part of the core hypocrisy inherent in your current imaginings.

H: If you wish to see the truth

then hold no opinions for or against anything.

To set up what you like against what you dislike

is the disease of the mind. - Seng' Tsan

Why are you quoting this fellow? You have stated on numerous times that seeing the truth is impossible, that no mental activity of any kind can achieve it. He is directly arguing against your own point of view.

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

hades,

I've had enough of him too!
Who does he think he is?!!!!

If concepts lack substance, why did you respond to the paragraph that I directed toward everyone else, but not to the very valid sentences I posed toward you? You seem to have taken that bit more seriously, but I assure you the other sentences were posing a very important problem -- in fact, they were in complete agreement with everything you said, but you failed to respond adequately.

Are you acting randomly? Or do you simply refuse to answer questions posed toward you?



Someone other than hades:
1) synthetic bubblegum base
2) Corey Feldman in "The Goonies"
3) Triple by-pass
Therefore, be sure to drink two litres of water per day.

[hades]

In the very making of this claim, you are treating it as though it has substance.

Again, it's a case of you wanting to have it both ways. "All ideas lack substance - except, funnily enough, this one."

All things lack substance; cars, buildings, planets, women, money. I just have the courage to take this meaning to its logical conclusion and I include beliefs, ideas, concepts, ideologies, statements and 'truths, as all lacking substance and are simply imaginary comedies. (including the idea that all things lack substance).

Its like the buddha said, use the raft to get to the other side, then leave the raft behind...

Why do you always smile when you put down others? It's rather a strange habit, the sort of thing that insincere gurus and criminal-types do.

I'm strange like that.

You have said on numerous occasions that it is impossible to point to Enlightenment or emptiness. So why are you suddenly talking about wise ideas pointing to emptiness on this occasion? This is about the third or fourth time you have flopped back and forth between these two contradictory positions.

This indicates to me that you haven't really thought these matters through and resolved these contradictions. And given that you have firmly attached yourself to the idea that all thought is empty comedy, it is unlikely that you ever will.

I like to show the futility of trying to point to that which is unpointable. I'm strange like that. :D
=]

=O

;)

There is a world of difference between not grasping at things, via the true understanding the reality, and blocking out of one's mind, via mental trickery, the fact that one is still grasping at things.

I see the mind for what it is. The various ideas it generates are of no concern to me, why would they be? They aren't even mine.

All you have done is gather together a bag of mental tricks which you use to evade becoming conscious of anything about yourself. It's the cleverness of a fox, rather than the wisdom of a sage.

Anything I become conscious of is not myself. How could it be?

What can a fox do with the wisdom of a sage? You and I are different animals.

Why are you quoting this fellow? You have stated on numerous times that seeing the truth is impossible, that no mental activity of any kind can achieve it. He is directly arguing against your own point of view.

-

He is not arguing. He is not presenting a different point of view.


Do not search for the truth;
only cease to cherish opinions

If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.

If only you could do as he said, drop this and that, you would see that him and I are saying the same thing.

Either way, its fine, you do as you wish.

[xerosaburu]

My thoughts on transcendence.

[hades]

My thoughts on transcendence.

Only thing to transcend is your thoughts on transcendence, then you will always be where you have been, seeing things for what they are.

[xerosaburu]

Only thing to transcend is your thoughts on transcendence, then you will always be where you have been, seeing things for what they are.

Declaring something to be transcendence or redefining it for convenience is not at all the same thing.

As for seeing things as they are, that's as impossible as a non-transcendent entity understanding transcendence through transcendence.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

xero, Existence (another word for "Reality") is not a thing. To say "Existence exists" is a ridiculous sentence (Reality reals, Being is, God gods, Tao taos, the Infinite infinites etc etc).

So technically you are right. No transcendent thing ever exists, but only because if [it] is transcendent, then [it] is not a thing.

I have no idea why you are having this much difficulty with the concept. You had the logic down in the first post, but you were unable to draw the appropriate conclusion. You decided transcendence was a lie because transcendent things don't exist.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

xero, Existence (another word for "Reality") is not a thing. To say "Existence exists" is a ridiculous sentence (Reality reals, Being is, God gods, Tao taos, the Infinite infinites etc etc).

Actually, the famous line about in Tao Te Ching about Tao that cannot be named does exactly that: playing around with the idea that the 'Tao taos'. The character for Tao is used three times exactly the same, just like the character for 'name' on the second line. Cute.

Literary the Chinese reads something like :

Tao can tao, not constant tao
Name can name, not constant name

With the character for Tao meaning both:
as noun: road, way, path, approach
as verb: speak, tell, lead, guide

All this ambiguity is used on purpose, very deliberate, thoughtful, pointed and potentially lethal.

For more detail: http://www.friesian.com/taote.htm

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Tao can tao, not constant tao

Diebert, I read that as in agreement with what I said. A tao that taos is not Tao. An existence that exists is not Existence.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Tao can tao, not constant tao

Diebert, I read that as in agreement with what I said. A tao that taos is not Tao. An existence that exists is not Existence.

There seems to be crucial difference with how you said it. Not sure about your capitalizing though.

Lets pull it into the abstract:

Some A that is doing A does not equal A.

Here A is defined as object (noun) as well as activity (verb) but also as constant (unbeing, undoing). And those are being compared. But Some A = Some A and Doing A = Doing A and still A=A. You could say the context, the reference to A is making the difference. It changes it.

Logic is not being subverted, no tricks are being played. You can define A as noun and verb in any context that asks for it.

You wrote: "Existence is not a thing". You could have said "Existing is not a verb". But of course it's all these things perfectly. Another example: The reason that can be reasoned is not the never-changing reason". Reason exists, reasoning exists and the never-changing reason encompasses both but does not equal them because they're changing all the time. Like everything else but we still speak with coherency, reason and skill about all kinds of stuff.

Or at least, we should try.

[Steven Coyle]

(Reality is formless.)

[xerosaburu]

xero, Existence (another word for "Reality") is not a thing.

Actually it is. Anything which has boundaries is a thing.

Existence has boundaries, therefore existence is a thing.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

xero, what are the boundaries of Existence?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Diebert,

There seems to be crucial difference with how you said it. Not sure about your capitalizing though.

I was trying to indicate the notion that if you are talking about a "tao" that can tao, you aren't actually talking about Tao at all. You are giving it a property that it would be nonsensical for it to have.

If I had to, I would actually translate the first line of the Tao te Ching directly (with no extra words), and simply change the grammar to one which is more logical (like an implication).

tao can tao -> not-Tao

For instance, if someone starts talking about the Tao and how it tells them things, or does really anything in particular (even tao-ing), they are not talking about the Tao at all.

You wrote: "Existence is not a thing". You could have said "Existing is not a verb". But of course it's all these things perfectly.

I think you are confusing the part with the whole. Existence (another word for the Totality) cannot be a thing: it includes all things -- and can't possibly include itself.

I do not believe that there is a similar problem with the verb "existing". I can be sitting here, just existing, and encounter no logical contradiction when I ponder in what sense I am existing.

Reason exists, reasoning exists and the never-changing reason encompasses both but does not equal them because they're changing all the time.

That is certainly true, but the point that I've been trying to make is that the "never-changing reason" (in other words, Reason with a capital R) itself does not reason. It does not do what it encompasses. A being can exist, but Being cannot. To speak otherwise is simply a misunderstanding of the scope of Being.

[Steven Coyle]

Trevor/Diebert,

For instance, if someone starts talking about the Tao and how it tells them things, or does really anything in particular (even tao-ing), they are not talking about the Tao at all.

How else would they recognize Tao?

I've always interpreted the passage as a reference to spiritual impermanence.

Existence (another word for the Totality) cannot be a thing: it includes all things -- and can't possibly include itself.

In other words, The Totality exists only as a mental construct.

?

A being can exist, but Being cannot.

How can you know about Being, if not for the being?