The question of death

[TheImmanent]

The Inquiry has been presented with dichotomous agendas over time:

essence precedes existence
existence precedes essence

different strokes, different folks.

Bliss and wonder goes so deep it doesn't seem to bottom out.
The whole bizzo is incredibly funny.

The guy with many masks at his own masquerade ball is a shout for joy.
nice party.

Send in the clowns.

The difficulty of understanding self-definition when one is accustomed to dualistic thinking.

[Dennis Mahar]

No singularity, no plurality.
Not one, not two.

we're having a chat ( different content, not the same)
we're having a chat ( same context, not different)

duality is imputed on parts.
nonduality is imputed on wholes.

for harmonious relations context is decisive.
contents are void.

[TheImmanent]

No singularity, no plurality.
Not one, not two.

we're having a chat ( different content, not the same)
we're having a chat ( same context, not different)

duality is imputed on parts.
nonduality is imputed on wholes.

for harmonious relations context is decisive.
contents are void.

Contents are what they are. Conceptual.

[Dennis Mahar]

When you say 'self definition'.
do you mean self-referencing.

The UN is a bodymind in effect. The US is a bodymind in effect.
These Ogs define themselves in relation to other Orgs.
An Organisation of many parts into a unified whole.
We can't actually find the UN or the US in any of the parts or independent of the parts.

Anythng that happens for or against the precepts of the UN or US is in relation to those precepts.
Self-refencing out of a self-definition.

a bit of a fiasco.

One of the broad sweeps of Neitzsche was to declare:

up ya' nose with a rubber hose!
you don't get to tell me who I am,
that's my job!
Thus Sprach Zarathustra.
self-referencing.

What was opened up was the notion that facticity (herd conditioning) doesn't define me.

I am not contents, rather an empty space, a context for the world to show up in as an event.

Of course, you're referencing another Context to live out of.

There is a tendency for mindedness to gestalt wholes in order to ameliorate chaos.

The dreaming mind of the child throws up random, chaotic events that frighten the child.
The parents say 'it is only a dream' which contains in it a sense of order for coping.

The mind likes to proceed in an orderly fashion on solid ground.
any port in a storm,

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There is no difference between reality and...mind, existence,consciousness, appearances, essence, you. These could not be any different from reality.

Then stop separating them. This is what you are doing by attributing them each a separate essence. You divide reality when there is only oneness.

lol. I just wrote exactly that to you, which is what you are doing. You're imagining "essence" and separating it from "reality" for some reason.

If you were to have written, "everything is reality" that would have been more precise and just as useless :)

[TheImmanent]

When you say 'self definition'.
do you mean self-referencing.

The UN is a bodymind in effect. The US is a bodymind in effect.
These Ogs define themselves in relation to other Orgs.
An Organisation of many parts into a unified whole.
We can't actually find the UN or the US in any of the parts or independent of the parts.

Anythng that happens for or against the precepts of the UN or US is in relation to those precepts.
Self-refencing out of a self-definition.

a bit of a fiasco.

One of the broad sweeps of Neitzsche was to declare:

up ya' nose with a rubber hose!
you don't get to tell me who I am,
that's my job!
Thus Sprach Zarathustra.
self-referencing.

What was opened up was the notion that facticity (herd conditioning) doesn't define me.

I am not contents, rather an empty space, a context for the world to show up in as an event.

Of course, you're referencing another Context to live out of.

There is a tendency for mindedness to gestalt wholes in order to ameliorate chaos.

The dreaming mind of the child throws up random, chaotic events that frighten the child.
The parents say 'it is only a dream' which contains in it a sense of order for coping.

The mind likes to proceed in an orderly fashion on solid ground.
any port in a storm,

Thought is self-defined and self-referencing. One cannot use ideas (thought) to discredit thought. There is nothing to point to, which is not thought. When you say that things exist in relation, interdependent, you are pointing thought at thought, unknowingly. For the concepts do not exist as things, but as thought. They were never something separate from thought to begin with. Your way of understanding dependent arising as necessary for something to exist, is itself an expression of thought. Thought does not exist in relation to anything else, for there is nothing but thought.

What do you think your ideas of external things are? How did they get into your head, and what is your head?

The external things are concepts, your head is a concept, and you are thought conceived under conceptual limitations.

[TheImmanent]

There is no difference between reality and...mind, existence,consciousness, appearances, essence, you. These could not be any different from reality.

Then stop separating them. This is what you are doing by attributing them each a separate essence. You divide reality when there is only oneness.

lol. I just wrote exactly that to you, which is what you are doing. You're imagining "essence" and separating it from "reality" for some reason.

If you were to have written, "everything is reality" that would have been more precise and just as useless :)

What is the reality of a misconception? The reality of a misconception is as a misconception. There is no object of a misconception. This is the difference. You interpret your perceptions as the face of reality.

[Dennis Mahar]

a thought is 'under pressure'.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You interpret your perceptions as the face of reality.

Actually, I doubt reality has a face, or arms and legs for that matter.


What Dennis means by "under pressure" is that a thought is an attempt.

I can do this, I can do this.

[TheImmanent]

a thought is 'under pressure'.

By thought. Self-definition.

[Dennis Mahar]

It's cold=It's cold.
impression.

a possibility for 'it's cold'.
under pressure.
impressed upon.
mindedness.

dress for the conditions.(deed).

[TheImmanent]

It's cold=It's cold.
impression.

a possibility for 'it's cold'.
under pressure.
impressed upon.
mindedness.

dress for the conditions.(deed).

An impression is nothing but thought. Outside pressure is the idea of thought under conceptual limitations, interacting with other conceptual limitations. Still thought. The same essence, conceived in itself and through itself.

[Dennis Mahar]

Thought is thinking for the most part about what is not thought.
generating environment, bodies, sorrows, pleasures, activities.
thought 'chooses' reality.

reality is conditioned thought.
(submission)

[TheImmanent]

Thought is thinking for the most part about what is not thought.
generating environment, bodies, sorrows, pleasures, activities.
thought 'chooses' reality.

reality is conditioned thought.
(submission)

A misconception has no object (does not portray reality), but a misconception is still thought. Self-affirming thought is reality.

[Dennis Mahar]

There has to be misconception or whatever persists couldn't persist.

Self-affirming thought is reality.

a possibility generated by thought?

'by thought' is your basic premise and you're excluding 'self-affirming thought' from the 'by thought' base.

you've got types of thought,
self-affirming
not self-affirming

one does and one doesn't portray.
dualistic thought.

What are you getting at?

a thing is in fact a thought
a thinker and a thought are not different, only thought.
not self-affirming thought is limiting or failing to protect Reality.

Guardianship.

everybody is protecting an 'integrity' or 'whole'.

a whole can't be mentioned without referring to parts as you've shown ( self-affirming/not self-affirming thought) and parts cannot be mentioned without referring to a whole.

[TheImmanent]

There has to be misconception or whatever persists couldn't persist.

This point is mute since a misconception is not separate from thought.

Self-affirming thought is reality.

a possibility generated by thought?

A necessity by the nature of thought, i.e., through its self-definition, by which everything (ideas) is. Possibility is an idea.

'by thought' is your basic premise and you're excluding 'self-affirming thought' from the 'by thought' base.

I did not exclude anything. Thought only defines with itself. No example to the contrary can be given.

you've got types of thought,
self-affirming
not self-affirming

one does and one doesn't portray.
dualistic thought.

Dualistic thinking is not to make discernments; dualistic thinking is to interpret the discernments as separate things-in-themselves. Different ideas are not separate from thought.

a whole can't be mentioned without referring to parts as you've shown ( self-affirming/not self-affirming thought) and parts cannot be mentioned without referring to a whole.

Since the essence of thought is indivisible other than conceptually it can be known through self-awareness in the limited mind. The infinite array of conceptual parts must not be known in order to know the essence.

[Dennis Mahar]

Under the impression.

[TheImmanent]

Under the impression.

Dualistic thinking.

[Dennis Mahar]

Well, it's understood what thought/language does.
Splits.
Like the bud indicated, how is it explained with this strange characteristic of language.
To explicate in language is what we've got.

under the impression
impressionable

Stare with soft eyes at an object or another human for hours at a time 'til the disposition to name, name, name dies away to complete and utter detachment.
once that detachment is formed as a way of being, grasping is completely understood.
present time is understood.
what language does is understood.
oh what tangled webs are weaved.
fine threads tossed out spider like for reaching, for withdrawing for attaching for detaching.
in order to,
a means to an end
tool-being.
a thought 'does'.
games conditions.

a movie is completely and utterly absent of meaning.
a dependent arising,

prepositions are vital.

[TheImmanent]

Well, it's understood what thought/language does.
Splits.
Like the bud indicated, how is it explained with this strange characteristic of language.
To explicate in language is what we've got.

under the impression
impressionable

Stare with soft eyes at an object or another human for hours at a time 'til the disposition to name, name, name dies away to complete and utter detachment.
once that detachment is formed as a way of being, grasping is completely understood.
present time is understood.
what language does is understood.
oh what tangled webs are weaved.
fine threads tossed out spider like for reaching, for withdrawing for attaching for detaching.
in order to,
a means to an end
tool-being.
a thought 'does'.
games conditions.

a movie is completely and utterly absent of meaning.
a dependent arising,

prepositions are vital.

Your statement was not an example of dualistic thinking because you made distinctions, but because you implied that there is a separate nature under the impression of another separate nature. There is nothing to express or impress thought but thought itself. Nor is a distinction separate from thought. Nor must a distinction be dissolved in such a way that there is no conception in order for the mind to be free from dualistic thinking; a distinction must merely be understood as a distinction, i.e., as a conceptual thing. Knowing sight as seeing and sounds as hearing, rather than as manifest things-in-themselves, does not make the limited mind blind and deaf.

[Dennis Mahar]

There's only one distinction.

meaningmaker.

wholes constructed out of parts.

the sprout does not inherently exist in the seed.
causes/conditions are the sprout.
dependent arising.

[TheImmanent]

There's only one distinction.

meaningmaker.

wholes constructed out of parts.

the sprout does not inherently exist in the seed.
causes/conditions are the sprout.
dependent arising.

Things that have nothing in common with each other have no way to interact. For there to be dependent arising there must be a common essence, shared by all arising things, which itself does not arise.

[Dennis Mahar]

Ineffable silence.

that perfect feeling when time just slips.
bliss.

[TheImmanent]

Ineffable silence.

that perfect feeling when time just slips.
bliss.

Bliss is the common essence. Bliss is thought in self-expression. Time slips, since it does not arise and does not cease, but is always present as the essence of things.

[Dennis Mahar]

there ultimately is no such thing as a self independent from the rest of the universe