Contradiction and the Absolute

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert to Serendipper: Causality assumes only causes, each of which must be also caused and that means nothing is by definition really separated!

Absolutely true.

Diebert to Pam: Two selves or "not two selves", that does not matter, either would still invoke it. In any case terms like awareness or "Awareness" do not have meaning beyond the subject-object dynamic. Their usage is downright suspect, as if trying to invite back through the back door what was just pushed out the front door.

While I believe I understand what you mean in your answer to me, it is possible to be be aware of distinctions/differentiation without being aware of the subject. Herein lies the way of living the truth of no causal separation. As evidenced by both your statements above, It seems to me as if intellectually you are aware there is no causal separation, but do not yet know (in the fullest sense of the word) that there is no causal separation.

It is not that one does not have to go through the process of invoking a subjective-objective-dynamic as if to bring a self into life, they do, but eventually this invocation of a self fails to deliver a truthful way of living and then what?

Why would someone resist letting go of the illusory subject-object dynamic? Perhaps the fear that the loss of the division-dynamic would result in the loss of awareness of substance or reality?

Delusion belongs to belief in separation regardless of how subtle or well meaning is that deluded belief.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

We had a good thing going, but evidently I've threatened your worldview which prompted the "flight, not fight" emotional response of issuing threats of receiving the cold-shoulder

Well, from my perspective there was no good thing yet going but certainly it was not some kind of competition or fight. The emotional charge you keep introducing, here with words like fight, threats and cold-shoulders are needless. Please own up to this! The major difference we seem to have is that you try to reason from emotion and faith. It's a doomed undertaking. You can't accomplish anything of interest that way for anyone else but your own pleasure. So this is why the discussion does not continue, as my intention is not to teach you about the role of emotion and faith in your inner life. It's a path you have to walk before dealing with philosophy. Again, without spite: good luck.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

it is possible to be be aware of distinctions/differentiation without being aware of the subject. Herein lies the way of living the truth of no causal separation. As evidenced by both your statements above, It seems to me as if intellectually you are aware there is no causal separation, but do not yet know (in the fullest sense of the word) that there is no causal separation.

Having objects without subject? What you achieve with this desire is the displacement of subject or self into another shape or form. The ego function of the subject always tries to remove itself from the image as it does not thrive under any self-awareness. This is why you imply there is a way to do this. But all that would do, for certain, is creating a dislocated subject which manages to stay out of sight. It might be something you should not examine as why spoil a good party?

It is not that one does not have to go through the process of invoking a subjective-objective-dynamic as if to bring a self into life, they do, but eventually this invocation of a self fails to deliver a truthful way of living and then what?

Then one can transform the understanding of what "truthful way of living" could mean.

Why would someone resist letting go of the illusory subject-object dynamic? Perhaps the fear that the loss of the division-dynamic would result in the loss of awareness of substance or reality?

Any identification with or by structure will fear or oppose the undoing or doubt of that structure. Fear for freedom, as explored within existentialism, appears to be something similar. It ties to all change, which certainly can include death. But it's not about ending with nothing at all. Causality would forbid it :)

Delusion belongs to belief in separation regardless of how subtle or well meaning is that deluded belief.

Belief itself is already the separation, deluded or concentrated, dispersive or reflecting. A power against the forces.

[jupiviv]

If it is interpreted by someone else in the intended way, then the same meaning occurs in their mind as well. To the extent they can't discern *any* meaning in the statement, it is gibberish to them.

Yes exactly, but that doesn't mean the meaning wasn't contained therein; not objectively, but subjectively.

If meaning occurs in the mind of a person (whether issuer, or, one or several interpreters), then the medium through which that meaning is conveyed does not contain it. I don't understand how containment can be either objective or subjective.

Self-evidence is relative to the self doing the observing. If all selves have the same interpretation, then it's seemingly objective, but not really since it's still a collection of opinions. If the selves are different, then truth will be different depending who you ask. Either way, no objective statement can be made and it's up to you to determine whether that is true or not.

It is logically impossible to tell whether or not all selves have the same interpretation of a phenomenon. It is also impossible to tell if an interpretation of a phenomenon by another self is subjective or not. On the other hand, it is possible to tell if one is interpreting a phenomenon truthfully, and if someone else shares that interpretation. A definition of truth based upon the perceived nature of other selves' interpretation of phenomena is fallacious, since any such definition implicitly depends upon one's own interpretation of phenomena, as you demonstrated above.

It's not a question of whether you are a part of something or not, but whether that something is merely finite or the All. If it is the All, then the quality of "being part of it", or indeed any other quality, means nothing in relation to you or any other finite thing. It only means something in relation to the All, and since it's supposed to apply to you and not to the All, it might as well mean nothing. One might say, "we are totally distinct from the All", and mean the same thing.

The All can occupy all available places to occupy and still be finite. If we are continuous with the All, then there is no us, but just the All. There is no fate because there is no one to be fated.

But even saying "there is just the All" is just another clever way of making the error of relating to the All on our own terms. If you had said "the All occupies all available places and hence is infinite" you would be making the same error. The error lies in using a finite thing to relate to the All, instead of putting oneself directly in relation to it. If you earnestly seek God in marriage, your wife will eventually get bored and start giggling at things that aren't funny, and you will most certainly regret it. If you seek God in celibacy, your inner wife will eventually get bored and nag your resolve or your sanity (whichever comes first) out of your skull, and you will regret that as well.

We can never relate ourselves to the All as parts of a whole, or as expressions or manifestations of an eternal will (or Will, as Schopenhauer would have it), if "part", "whole", "expression" etc are understood in the same sense as in the case of finite things. Being a part of the All, or a vessel of the All's will, or a chain in the causal web, are not qualities, states or principles which can be understood, attained or realised in order to embrace truth and virtue. They can't even be understood with the "zennish", clever, sophistic sort of cafe philosophy/spirituality/intellectualism that prevails in our age. The great suras and asuras of this age - the Trumps, Trudeaus, Jordan Petersons and Jeremy Corbyns - prance around the whirlpool of non-sequiturs that now passes for information & rational discourse, and the sordid Nibelungs spin round and round, adding their own non-sequiturs to the current when the spinning overwhelms them.

If everything is a non-sequitur the term loses its meaning as it indeed almost has for many people in our Just-In-Time global energy system/economy. But the All is the supreme non-sequitur and abides no other. Thus spoke Zarathustra, indulging his love of Wagner through the prancing Rhijn nixie called "life" (whom he, unfortunately, did not marry):

Then life looked pensively behind her and around her and said softly: "Oh Zarathustra, you are not faithful enough for me!

You do not love me nearly as much as you say; I know you are thinking of leaving me soon.

There is an old heavy, heavy growling bell: it growls at night all the way up to your cave –

– when you hear this bell toll the hour at midnight, then you think between one and twelve about –

– you think, oh Zarathustra, I know it, about how you will soon leave me!” –

"Yes," I answered, hesitating. "But you also know –" And I said something in her ear, right in it between her tangled yellow, foolish shaggy locks.

"You know that, oh Zarathustra? No one knows that." –

And we looked at each other and gazed at the green meadow, over which the cool evening had just spread, and we wept together. – But at that moment I loved life more than I ever loved all my wisdom. –

But I digress. No matter how beautiful, clever or reasonable one's visions of All-comprising, All-channeling or All-being might be, they shall not share their pillow with the Gay Science, for it is abomination. By themselves, they are harmless, but when placed in the service of that aforementioned modern spirituality they become dangerous. An assertion is made, like "you are part of the external world", and then it is followed up with non-sequiturs like "the final barrier between the knower and the known is broken down" and "there is just the process". It doesn't matter, because even the original assertion was a non-sequitur. The real motive is the wish to be reborn in the heavenly realms of form and formlessness. Such a wish, if uttered in moist anticipation beneath certain peepal trees, might be taken into consideration by the resident arhat spirit. If it is granted, the wisher shall possess the power to transform his non-sequiturs into a formless "the process" and back again. The only problem is that this is not wisdom - it is an ataraxia produced by reproducing assorted pieces of reasoning imported from the Orient within an air-conditioned mind.

Something marvelous has happened to me. I was transported to the seventh heaven. There sat all the gods assembled. As a special dispensation, I was granted the favor of making a wish. "What do you want," asked Mercury. "Do you want youth, or beauty, or power, or a long life, or the most beautiful girl, or anyone of the other glorious things we have in the treasure chest? Choose-but only one thing." For a moment I was bewildered; then I addressed the gods, saying: My esteemed contemporaries, I choose one thing-that I may always have the laughter on my side. Not one of the gods said a word; instead, all of them began to laugh. From that I concluded that my wish was granted and decided that the gods knew how to express themselves with good taste, for it would indeed have been inappropriate to reply solemnly: It is granted to you. - Kierkegaard, Either/Or