Truth

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

the body parts are ticking over there, heart, lungs, liver, kidney (unrevealed).
tool-being.

sharp pain.
self-awareness kicks in.
broken tool.
thwarted ambition.
terror of nothing.
necessity is the mother of invention.

Survive!
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Bobo »

If words cannot refer to things neither does truth, and if truth cannot refer to things then would it refer to what? So truth would use words to refer to things, and if truth use words to refer to words that would be fine as long as it doesn't refer to things. If it refer to things it does not depend only upon words.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Truth

Post by Kunga »

Dennis Mahar wrote:necessity .

Survive!
The Big Bang's need to explode itself into the womb of space ?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

what goes unrecognised is that :

when the shit hits the fan (afflictive emotion)

what is signalled is a belief in inherent existence/permanence.

panther preys upon.(desire).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Could it be said not being a person (embodied) is more fundamental than being a person (encultured)?

Does philosophy/religion tend to dismiss embodiment as 'loathsome animality' and a point of shame?
But it's some form of (sub)culture informing you about what's fundamental or not. In other cultures one might just march on to the frontline with the rest.

Distinctions are being made where there are non. Philosophy enables people to discover a way more fundamental body beyond person and culture.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote:
Dennis Mahar wrote:Who am I being when language disappears?
Another concept
Yes indeed, language doesn't stop just because you turn the volume down a bit. Even the disappearing act is hidden in a contruct. Some story of "having disappeared". It's an enticing story though. Sssssh! Chinese whispers: emptiness and meaningless, empathy and meanless, emperor and mean leash.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Nah,
way more happens subliminally.
nonconceptual mind.

'we'll talk about it later'
or try to wrap language around what's already been and gone.
commentary.
names and forms: second hand rose.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:consciousness is attuned to get stuff.
to go after


to organise it in a particular way.

contact and intention for object.

the object is an unreliable source for attachment in order to
wish it well.

self-esteem placed in the hands of the object.
handing power over to it.
object dependent.
co-dependent.
it was only a possibility, a dream about inherent existence.

Who am I being when language disappears?
When one realizes the delusion of inherent existence, the lie of an objective reality 'out there' that 'gets stuff', consciousness as subjectivity does not cease discovering its objects, just as you have not stopped discovering bliss, a discovery you have admitted includes, amongst other objects, the object "anger." By your metaphysics of being object dependent, are you not bliss dependent? Anger dependent? When you wish an object well, are you not attached to the object, first by acknowledging its energy as being friend, foe or neutral, and second, by wishing it well? It seems to me that your philosophy of bliss binds you not once, but twice to your objects.

Consciousness without a self (subjective consciousness) must still move toward an object. The only difference between wise consciousness and ignorant consciousness is that wise consciousness does not attach itself to its objects beyond the initial movement 'toward'. This is what I was addressing earlier when I was speaking of ontological attachment, the inherent union of subject to its objects. This is where the principle of logic projection or imagination enters the picture. Let's say consciousness thinks of going camping (spirit movement toward the object "camping.") It logically thinks of how to "make it so", the causal patterns of getting from a position of "not camping" to a position of "camping." Along the way of thinking, of planning, it may have to let go of its camping "objects", but unlike previous times when it believed in a self, it does so without anger, grief or a sense of disappointment, or if these factors of clinging arise, they are brief in duration.

I once held the belief that subjective consciousness had to completely detach itself from its objects, but I realized that not only was that view a false view of subjectivity, but that to do so is to render consciousness mute. Perhaps at some future moment consciousness will no longer be a part of existence, but this is a future that no conscious man can predict (for obvious reasons).
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

A mind of love and kindness is complete.
Needs-dependent on no other.
Wishes well.

not rocket science.
meet you there!
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

single-pointed focus kicks in.
causes/conditions.

this obsession that causality generates suffering only went out with button up boots.
get over it.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:A mind of love and kindness is complete.
Needs-dependent on no other.
Wishes well.

not rocket science.
meet you there!
Nothing exists in a vacuum, not even bliss.

The link you are missing is that in order to wish well, to generate bliss, you must first determine that wishing well/bliss generation is necessary. Do you agree with this conclusion? If so, then can you put into words what goes through your mind while you are determining that "wishing well" is necessary? In other words, what are your reasons for generating bliss?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:single-pointed focus kicks in.
causes/conditions.

this obsession that causality generates suffering only went out with button up boots.
get over it.
How did you conclude that my view is that causality only generates suffering?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

you link the names and forms causality and suffering consistently in sentences.
Make it look like a life sentence.

It's cost me 40 grand in 3-ply tissues.
Nothing exists in a vacuum
WTF?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Nah,way more happens subliminally. Nonconceptual mind.
Just because the concepts are smaller and murkier, doesn't mean they stopped at subliminal level. But you might have some relatively clunky idea of what the word "concept" means to others. Something mathematical perhaps or bits and peaces, functions and properties. My understanding of the conceptual is broader as a result of chasing them down ruthlessly. How they arise, what gives form to them. And one then finds smaller forms, fragments, embryonic stages, henids but they are not "non-conceptual" just harder to sense and conceptualize as such without the experience and will to get deeper.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:you link the names and forms causality and suffering consistently in sentences.
Make it look like a life sentence.

It's cost me 40 grand in 3-ply tissues.
Nothing exists in a vacuum
WTF?
Why did you give that woman you met at the bus stop a moment of body-bliss? Was it not because of your consciousness of suffering? Is that not why you come here? Your 40 grand spent on 3-ply tissues is evidence of your continuing consciousness of suffering.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

It's a joke. (tissues).

looky here,
everything you've written is a description of causes/conditions of some sort or another.
reporting like a journalist about this and that.
Not once have you deviated.

emptiness/bliss.
can you 'hear' it.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Thu May 01, 2014 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote: everything you've written is a description of causes/conditions of some sort or another.
All we're hearing is words... of some sort or another. More pixels on the screen. Anyone can play the blender game!

The difference is Dennis, some people actually care, for a second, in a context, to reflect upon them.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Don't muck it up lad.
No justifiers.

everything said/written is a report concerning causes/conditions.
not different from that.

cannot be refuted.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

You don't sound happy Dennis. As if having actual concerns is too much pain and trouble for you. So you negate and reject all verbs in sight.

Your "bliss" is nothing but a way to whack the mole. A mantra. You can whack this "mole" too if you want, confirming only the menace for Dennis.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Dennis Mahar »

you just said causes/conditions.
cannot be refuted.
Gregory
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:15 am

Re: Truth

Post by Gregory »

True (adj.) - in accordance with fact or reality.

Given that the statement makes no reference to any other idea to further relate to a fact or reality, its use of the word 'true' appears to simply have been improperly used.
Locked