The question of death

[Dennis Mahar]

The act of definition or boundary demarcation is a truth for conventionally valid mind.
and falls ultimately.
2 truths existentially.

[ardy]

comprehension failure as usual.

Dennis if you weren't so obscure comprehension might be possible. Still if you became comprehensible then your strange quotes would be gone, and we would have just another poster!

[Dennis Mahar]

Not-OK is your firewall protection ardy.
what's the payoff?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not-OK is your firewall protection ardy. What's the payoff?

Not getting your viral infection? Just guessing.

[Dennis Mahar]

nose pressed against the glass looking for substance again? and again, and again are you?
Bliss.

[Leyla Shen]

Perhaps someone would care to give me a coherent explanation as to why, if all that exists is understanding, understanding cares to discriminate between concepts.

I find understanding such a large and obscure net to catch almost nothing. 'Understanding is everything' and actions are a very distant and not wanted bed fellow. Yet the whole of our world is built on actions not understanding. Many times understanding comes before action but many times actions without thought have saved us and brought about deep insights that understanding can only dream [and does] about!

Agreed, with one minor adjustment; the distinction between action and understanding is analytical. As with all abstract dualities, they arise together as contrast or contradiction in consciousness, and not independently of each other.

[Dennis Mahar]

the needle and the damage done.
overts.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yet the whole of our world is built on actions not understanding. Many times understanding comes before action but many times actions without thought have saved us and brought about deep insights that understanding can only dream [and does] about!

Ardy, to think or to speak some understanding means as well to act, both as initiatory and spontaneous events. To explain that, some good thinking from Hannah Arendt came to mind, from The Human Condition.

To act, in its most general sense, means to take an initiative, to begin (as the Greek word archein, "to begin,", "to lead," and eventually "to rule," indicates), to set something in to motion. Because they are initium, newcomers and beginners by virtue of birth, men take initiative, are prompted into action. "That there be a beginning, man was created before whom there was nobody", said Augustine in his political philosophy. This beginning is not the same as the beginning of the world! It is not the beginning of something but of somebody, who is a beginner himself. With the creation of man, the principle of beginning came into the world itself, which, of course, is only another way of saying that the principle of freedom was created when man was created but not before.

It is in the nature of beginning that something new is started which cannot be expected from whatever may have happened before. This character of startling unexpectedness is inherent in all beginnings and in all origins. The new always happens against the overwhelming odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all practical, everyday purposes amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle. The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable.

Action and speech are so closely related because the primordial and specifically human act must at the same time contain the answer to the question asked of every newcomer: "Who are you?" This disclosure of who somebody is, is implicit in both his words and deeds. Without the accompaniment of speech, at any rate, action would not only lose its revelatory character, but, and by the same token, it would lose its subject, as it were, not acting men but performing robots would achieve what, humanly speaking, would remain incomprehensible. Speechless action would no longer be action because there would no longer be an actor, and the actor, the doer of deeds, is possible only if he is at the same time the speaker of words.

Completely speechless or thoughtless actions would also be meaningless, robotic actions: interchangeable really, random. Arendt points out a "primordial" notion of action and speech, which is one of initiation and deliberation. This creates the distinction between automatic, reactionary thought and initiatory thinking and acting. Action represents therefore dealing with unpredictability and irreversibility, and their "remedies": the power of promise and the power to forgive. The concept of forgiveness would be "beginner's mind" or ability to reset relations and learn new ones.

In contrast to revenge, which is the natural, automatic reaction to transgression and which because of the irreversibility of the action process can be expected and even calculated, the act of forgiving can never be predicted; it is the only reaction that acts in an unexpected way and thus retains, though being a reaction, something of the original character of action. Forgiving, in other words, is the only reaction which does not merely re-act but acts anew and unexpectedly, unconditioned by the act which provoked it and therefore freeing from its consequences both the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven.

Yes, all thinking breaks with the present and removes you from the flow but also offers the possibility to respond more spontaneously and less automatic, to find new solutions: adapt and reset. Thought and action are completely intertwined that way to the degree being thoughtless means being powerless or unresponsive, or just irresponsible. Definitely we need thought to learn the new while unlearning the old. Thought is a never-ending improvisational exercise to do exactly that: preparing or announcing all forms of action.

[Dennis Mahar]

The imputing mind generates environment, body, pleasures, sorrows, activities.
Think about that.
Really.
every move you make.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Seeker - Dennis lives in his own creation, as we all do. His is very different to the average and difficult to get a 'normal' mind around his concepts and language. I also notice he does not give any explanations of what he is thinking, which makes it kind of funny/interesting, assuming you are not attached to what he is saying.

The keywords here are "doesn't give any explanations of what he is thinking".

Dennis is under the impression that if you write down a bunch of words like: extended, far, mood, moved, together, it makes an actual sentence. He then goes on to call it comprehension failure when we aren't comprehending sentences such as:

a conceived of peeled banana move I heard about is substituted sex pistol which requires a sex organ in order to.

Either he missed the first 6 years of schooling, or his mind has decayed and he no longer bothers with trying to make sense or use reason. In his view, it is us who have "failed' to comprehend him.

[TheImmanent]

Seeker - Dennis lives in his own creation, as we all do. His is very different to the average and difficult to get a 'normal' mind around his concepts and language. I also notice he does not give any explanations of what he is thinking, which makes it kind of funny/interesting, assuming you are not attached to what he is saying.

The keywords here are "doesn't give any explanations of what he is thinking".

Dennis is under the impression that if you write down a bunch of words like: extended, far, mood, moved, together, it makes an actual sentence. He then goes on to call it comprehension failure when we aren't comprehending sentences such as:

a conceived of peeled banana move I heard about is substituted sex pistol which requires a sex organ in order to.

Either he missed the first 6 years of schooling, or his mind has decayed and he no longer bothers with trying to make sense or use reason. In his view, it is us who have "failed' to comprehend him.

Action, time and the objects of desire are insubstantial and depend on the same dualistic conceptualization. The insubstantiality of time is illustrated by the past tense of ”peeled banana move” and the construct of action/object is illustrated by their interdependent and somewhat arbitrary definitions. This was my interpretation.

Since language is dualistic in nature it cannot properly describe what is non-dualistic. Re-conceptualized language can illustrate this and point the way for the mind to think outside set theory. This may be especially useful when the speaker/listener does not share the same paradigm. A good approach is as that to a riddle. But, of course, if one still thinks that language accurately depicts reality it makes no sense.

[Dennis Mahar]

Goals...desire
Problems....satisfactory means.
Mass...the equipment in order to for the sake of.

Games condition.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Yes, let us forget to reply, to use reason, to explain, and instead we will repeat riddles.

[Dennis Mahar]

Gamer.
your subtext isn't hidden
Conditions.

bliss

[Dennis Mahar]

Seeker,
you hold that god does everything.
you scream at people they are wrong, deluded, insane.
Your problem in that case is with god.
irritable, restless, discontent with god.

on the basis god does everything, you say having children, having a job, going to uni is insane.
Your complaint is god.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Wtf? I hold that god does everything?

I now see 'god' as a completely useless word, you'll have to elaborate, do you mean reality?

I don't scream at anyone, and you are deluded, there is a very obvious reason as to why. You refuse to use reason or explain, you just make a statement and expect that it should be taken as truth because you have repeated it, while ignoring any relevant inquiry or discussion. You remind me of people with websites talking about discovering the "love and light" through opening the third eye in your brain while selling 'shift buttons' that help raise awareness. In fact, you are almost identical to those people, I wouldn't be surprised if you have tried earning money off your bullshit. (As we already know you have paid for similar bullshit like Scientology classes)

Also having children is definitely based on delusional thinking, having a job on the other hand is often a necessity, none of which is relevant to the discussion 'free will'.

[Dennis Mahar]

What reason?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You refuse to use reason or explain, you just make a statement and expect that it should be taken as truth because you have repeated it, while ignoring any relevant inquiry or discussion.

[Dennis Mahar]

Emptiness is a condition.
empty is empty is a condition.
descriptions of reality.

what reason?

[Dennis Mahar]

forget metaphysics which is a pile of junk derived from 'they say' (facticity).

withdraw those projections.

Being-in-time is your direct experience.
the bookends, birth and death.
Machinery.

start, middle, stop.

Like playing music, start, middle, stop.
There's 'the think' and 'the feel'.

playin' guitar blues involves generating 'the feel', (the groove)
there's also 'the think' in that to make it coherently 'the blues'.
chords, pentatonics, modes, solo runs, intros, outros, turnarounds.

the blues can come out of any temporal mood you're at,
joy, fear, anger,sorrow.

It's all Bliss. (the ultimate 'feel')

access all areas for that comprehension.
you provide the meaning.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It's all Bliss. (the ultimate 'feel')

Well at least you wrote a little more, but you are still being extremely vague, time to see if you will elaborate further.

One of the inquiries I mentioned, if it is all bliss, then why do we talk about suffering as an existing experience? "Suffering is an option" seems contradictory when later stating that it is always and already bliss.

[Dennis Mahar]

Take what you got.
Being-in-Time.
a start, middle, stop.

irritable, restless, discontent comes out of 'grass must be greener on the other side'. (religion)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Let me repeat the inquiry, do you agree that there are people coming from the perspective that they are suffering and to them, in all respects, there is suffering. The same way you would agree that there is laughter, etc. Yes?

(I'm not saying your not in 'bliss' or that all you have to do is realize emptiness to be in bliss or whatever, I'm just asking if you agree that people suffer?)

[Dennis Mahar]

The Inquiry has never found inherent existence.

[Cahoot]

Let me repeat the inquiry, do you agree that there are people coming from the perspective that they are suffering and to them, in all respects, there is suffering. The same way you would agree that there is laughter, etc. Yes?

(I'm not saying your not in 'bliss' or that all you have to do is realize emptiness to be in bliss or whatever, I'm just asking if you agree that people suffer?)

Sure, Dennis agrees with that.

Proceed.