Enlightenment

[Leyla Shen]

And by the way, form necessarily lacks essence. That's elementary, not bloody genius!

[Dennis Mahar]

There is no private essence. The fact that the ego is constituted by an idea of a private essence, does not mean that the idea is correct. It remains an idea. That is, the ego can only be expressed as a misconception.

Yes.
No form is its own ground.
groundlessness.

one truth.

potty-training is somewhat difficult and registers the occasional 2 yo tantrum as it goes.
clickety click.

[Leyla Shen]

Don't fret, dear. In a few years' time, when you have matured, that groundless "it" of yours will register its own projected self meaning instead.

[Dennis Mahar]

Reasoning depends on data, it doesn't operate under its own steam.

what is set in train from.

Here's a datum for you.

There is no private essence. The fact that the ego is constituted by an idea of a private essence, does not mean that the idea is correct. It remains an idea. That is, the ego can only be expressed as a misconception.

there are no grounds upon which ego exists other than conceptualisation.
an error in thinking.

[Leyla Shen]

And yet such misconception is being posited by you, viz: subjectivity = ego.

[Dennis Mahar]

subjectivity is experienced,
causes/conditions.
caused.
conditional.

conceptualising mind.
spirited that way.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The Tao is mentioning causes/conditions, therefore is dependent arising. Therefore it lacks its own essence. A conception.

All essence is connected to proper understanding. Getting the gist. A different ball game than playing that old where's-your-essence shtick.

you have to genuflect (bend the knee) to it to give it meaning.

Too late, you already did that before even any fingers hit the keys!

Every posture,
every click,
every space,
every hesitation,
every move also those decided not to make,
keys decided not to press,
grammar to apply or not to apply,
words reached for,
words abandoned,

... are still the heavy carriers of meaning, intent, subtext and genuflections as well. Can't disown or ignore it just because of some personal dislike!

[Dennis Mahar]

I'm not disputing that Diebert, never did.
It lacks inherent existence.
it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.
you provide the meaning.

that recognition dissolves affectivity in the form of afflictive emotion.
the conceptualising mind is understood.

the experiential form:
embodied
encultured
enactive
affective
extended environmentally

the Buddha focused on affectivity.
causality.

the designator 'femininity' refers to 'drama queen'...affectivity overkill.

the thang is spirit is quite happy to be bound.
the prime dualities,
bondage and freedom never quite broken.
the left hand has to know what the right hand is doing.
that is wisdom.

from the object oriented philosophy of spirit a human machine and a lawnmower is no different except the lawnmower is useful.

[Pam Seeback]

the Buddha focused on affectivity.
causality.

Of which bliss is not exempt. Feeling is the 'female' effect, a condition that is caused. As is will the 'male' effect, a condition that is caused. And by your own admission, the masculine, will, precedes the feminine, bliss.

Which leaves the logical conclusion that to be caused to experience will and feeling is to enter into causes and conditions, one's meaning (of the moment). I assert that wise or conscious spirit does this consciously, the left hand (the male) knows what the right hand (female) is doing, enlightenment, unity of reasoning and feeling. Unlike those who are caused to be conditioned to reasoning and feeling but lack its metaphysical positioning, male first, female second, and therefore, lack mastery of either and then, both.

[Dennis Mahar]

The Buddha sat down by the tree disgusted because all reasoning failed him to that point.
He 'grokked' it.
Spirit.
He emerged in bliss.
In 82,00 ways he said form is empty, empty is empty.

it's about the object appearing.
an object-oriented philosophy.
seeing thru the names and forms.

[Pam Seeback]

There cannot be an at-easement with naming, a naturalness with naming, if it's coming-into-being is considered a disconnect from its source.

Dennis "rebels" against naming, sentences, structures, posters with too much thought and so on but by doing all that he rebels mostly against himself. It's an emotional thing, an internal conflict being played out as external "teaching" (and in some way it always is perhaps!). And it's an endless resource of course. Like all discontent, it's stuttering and repeating the same words. Stuck in a loop. The wheel of suffering existence. But it's great to contrast with at times! The other solution is to fulfill his (denied) death wish and close off all remaining dialog here.

Contrast --> will --> arousal into meaning or values (understanding), the way consciousness works. No actual other, but appearance of other that is hard-wired into its existential 'identity.' It would seem that this hard-wiring of contrast into understanding infers a default position of discontent. Ironically, the act of becoming detached so one can cease being discontent is the supreme act of discontentment.

[Pam Seeback]

The Buddha sat down by the tree disgusted because all reasoning failed him to that point.
He 'grokked' it.
Spirit.
He emerged in bliss.
In 82,00 ways he said form is empty, empty is empty.

it's about the object appearing.
an object-oriented philosophy.
seeing thru the names and forms.

What I am saying is that it is impossible for someone to exist in an objective world. As you said correctly above, in an object oriented world, a lawnmower is equal to a man. But a lawnmower does not experience bliss. Bliss is an affective experience. Enjoyment of God is the Woman of God. Anyone who claims an objective existence (Woman deleted) is either outright lying or is in hard core denial.

Do you claim bliss to be an objective knowing or experience?

[TheImmanent]

The objective is a riddle to the subjective, but the subjective is unproblematic to the objective.

[Pam Seeback]

The objective is a riddle to the subjective, but the subjective is unproblematic to the objective.

Objects (concepts, things, forms) such as "lawnmower" is not the objective, they are objects appearing within subjective consciousness. There is no objective reality. Which means any thoughts of problematic or unproblematic arise within subjectivity.

[TheImmanent]

The objective is a riddle to the subjective, but the subjective is unproblematic to the objective.

Objects (concepts, things, forms) such as "lawnmower" is not the objective, they are objects appearing within subjective consciousness. There is no objective reality. Which means any thoughts of problematic or unproblematic arise within subjectivity.

There is nothing but objective reality. Any subjectivity arise within it. A single essence is real, many essences are not.

[Pam Seeback]

The core point is that without subjectivity (observation, naming, analysis) objects do not exist.

[Pam Seeback]

And since subjectivity and its objects arise together, it is a pointless exercise for consciousness to ponder the nature of objects.

[Dennis Mahar]

insisting on difference.

geddit?

[Pam Seeback]

Once again you avoided answering a question.

[TheImmanent]

And since subjectivity and its objects arise together, it is a pointless exercise for consciousness to ponder the nature of objects.

Subjectivity are ideas refering to a private essence, i.e., a misconception. There are no objects of subjectivity and no private essence.

[Dennis Mahar]

Once again you avoided answering a question

insisting on difference.

can't that be seen?

A is A.

[Pam Seeback]

I asked you if you viewed bliss as an objective experience as in independent of attachment to subject.

[Pam Seeback]

And since subjectivity and its objects arise together, it is a pointless exercise for consciousness to ponder the nature of objects.

Subjectivity are ideas refering to a private essence, i.e., a misconception. There are no objects of subjectivity and no private essence.

Your thoughts are private to me are they a misconception?

[TheImmanent]

And since subjectivity and its objects arise together, it is a pointless exercise for consciousness to ponder the nature of objects.

Subjectivity are ideas refering to a private essence, i.e., a misconception. There are no objects of subjectivity and no private essence.

Your thoughts are private to me are they a misconception?

No, but that is.

[Leyla Shen]

Pam, what do you mean by "consciousness" in the following context:

The core point is that without subjectivity (observation, naming, analysis) objects do not exist.

And since subjectivity and its objects arise together, it is a pointless exercise for consciousness to ponder the nature of objects.