Contradiction and the Absolute

[Serendipper]

Serendipper: So we have:
-Trying to grow berries
-Not-trying to grow berries as a method of trying to grow berries
-Not caring if berries grow or not.

The absolute You does not try to do anything. You seek to find the ideal growing conditions for berries, you cause these ideal conditions, if the berries don’t grow, they don’t grow. It is the ego that tries and then curses the universe when its trying efforts are not rewarded. Do you see how the concept of ‘trying’ is the delusion, what Buddhist’s would call the efforts of the false self?

Yes of course I see and that's where the concept of "fun" originates. Fun is the only thing one doesn't have to try to do.

Serendipper: So you'd be the ideal wife for every guy to pull wool over her eyes lol. At what point would you say "Enough is enough! I can't handle your inconsideration any longer!" If I kept giving you my word and not keeping it, eventually you'd not be able to believe me. After the 50th time of my not showing up, would you bother to even get dressed?

If you continued to be ignorant, showing no signs of waking up to the truth that your constant self-contradiction was causing you suffering, I would tell you that I no longer want your ignorance in my life.

Ok, now with that established, what if you've found everyone to be ignorant? Would you tell society you no longer want it in your life or would you figure there is something wrong with you?

In conventional terms, I have been a wife for 43 years and a mother for 41. I hold my husband and children to the truth of their word as do I believe they hold me to the truth of my word. Being with the causality of 'another' isn't complicated when truth is valued about everything else.

How do you compel someone else to value the truth?

Serendipper:

Pam: Truth: you (That which thinks) are not separate from the thoughts of the universe so stop looking up and asking Up why things (thoughts) are not going your way, ask yourself. You may not like the answer you get, but guaranteed, it will cause you to 'do something', aka to seek.

I see what you're saying and it just means I'm a rascal.

From the position of the ego, the false self, you are a rascal. From the position of you that is not not interpreting dualistically – rascal/not rascal – you are, as Alan Watts says, simply spitting ‘rascal’or whatever new name you are calling yourself in lieu of being a rascal, on your face. The goal is to quit calling yourself names, ultimately, they are naught but diversions to either speaking/living truth or not speaking/living truth. Think about this for a moment: a name cannot be true.

Well I do not typically label myself, but rascal is just a placeholder to save typing. Alan says everyone has the "element of irreducible rascality", including all interpretations of god, and it's similar to the concept of yetzer hara. It's the salt in the stew wherein salt in large quantities is horrible, but in certain small quantities is delightful and in fact necessary to make stew. He parallels that with the left and right hand of the god of the bible and that is paralleled with the hindu "hide and seek". When "hide" has its day, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, but when "seek" has its day, the right hand discovers what the left hand was doing. That is an analogy for the scientific view of the universe that everything is on and off in oscillation. So the true nature of me, it would seem, has to have a left and right hand.

But it's not an expression of not-self, it's more of an expression of a rascal-self wherein Bill agrees to meet at a certain time and place for a shoot, but doesn't show up seemingly just to piss people off.

Let’s say for the fun :-) of it that Bill is not showing up just to piss people off, he is thinking ‘what a fine rascal am I!' Because of the truth of not being separate from what he is causing, he will reap what he sows, he will piss people off and suffer the consequences. What are the likely consequences of pissing off the producers and directors and fellow actors? Not too challenging to come with the answer. :-) Bottom line, be a rascal all you want, but you can’t cheat the causality of your rascally-false-self!

Bill doesn't care about the consequences of what's sown because what grows is carnal. It makes no difference to him how his character in the play is punished. An analogy is to suppose I drive a truck through the woods and beat it up really well, I walk away from the truck and care not what condition it's in. The actor in the play cannot be harmed; just the character. When people get shot in movies, the actor doesn't also die. So, essentially, Bill is directing his character to antagonize other characters while being completely immune from consequences because none of the characters actually exist.

And so this begs the question of buddhistic goal of reducing suffering: What suffering? There is no one there to suffer. If that is the truth the Buddha woke up to, then why bother to reduce the suffering that doesn't exist?

You and I are characters in this movie or game and our characters have agreed to play by rules of morality, so enforcing the morality is part of the plot. And so to act unnaturally would be acting in accordance with knowing you're just a character in a movie rather than faithfully portraying the character by realizing that although you are only a character, the point is to have a good movie. But what is a good movie?

The goal of having wisdom of the true nature of Self is to quit playing the unconscious game of being a character in a movie you falsely believe someone or something else other than you is causing. What movie do you want to cause?

One where growing strawberries is difficult, but not impossible ;) In other words, I want strawberries to be too difficult for others to grow, but easy enough that I can figure it out so that I can brag about it and others can say "good job!" :D See? I'm a rascal! I want a game where I win all the time, but such games don't exist because if I win all the time, it wouldn't be a game. It's the eternal vexation of desiring all good and no bad. How does one transcend that without also dissolving away? Because the point of the game is to have something to do, so transcending the game is defeating the purpose of having the game. Transcendence is often also just another way of trying to beat the game.

Alan talked at length about the Joker and, admittedly, all that turns my stomach to think that an entity would get kicks from tripping others, but I suppose it just means I have not yet realized there are no others. But that poses another question:

If, let's say, Mr All is the only one that exists, and he is playing all the parts that is me and you and everything else, and he enjoys playing the parts of characters who poke fun of other characters, then what does that say about him? The one you call the real me.

The Mr. All that is playing all the parts that is me and you and everything else if not an entity that is dualism-dependent (I’m a Joker one moment and a Priest in another moment), instead, the All (not MR. All) is the law of causality or the law of the Spirit of life, an impersonal force or will or spirit.

That impersonal force must have a front and back, inside and out, what it is and what it isn't. Why the desire to squeeze it into a nondual box?

Alan says the Joker was necessary to remind the King not to take things too seriously and it was an important function since we can't have kings too full of themselves. I suppose that means it's not good to be too absorbed in our role?

He says the Hindu would applaud the Christian for being totally taken-in by his role; for there is one who has convinced himself of the most magnificent dilemma... eternal bliss vs eternal damnation... and it all rides on this one life. Bravo! No one could have imagined such a dramatic play as that! Does the Christian wake to find the joke is on him or is it the Hindu? What does all this mean about the nature of God?

You must ask God this very important question of identity, there is no other way to find out for sure. The question I asked God and kept asking God until I got the truthful answer was: how can you divide yourself into two separate, absolute worlds, one of bliss and one of damnation and still be connected to both worlds in order to ‘run both shows?’ Not logical, not logical at all!

We can't have the saved without the damned or there would be nothing to be saved from if everyone were saved. Salvation is dependent upon damnation in order for salvation to exist.

Christians say hell is eternal separation from God who is all-good, which makes no sense because it begs the question of having good without bad. Other interpretations of hell is simply being in the presence of God is hell, which was Lucifer's problem when he compelled 1/3 of the angels to follow him out of heaven which had become hell through supposed tyrannical leadership in his view. Others may see such tyranny as bliss. So God didn't create two worlds, but one world and what you make of it depends on how you look at it.

The creators of Southpark depicted Saddam Hussein going to heaven just in time to participate in a play about "how stealing hurts you deep inside". I'm no Saddam Hussein, but that would be hell even for me! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppNHaCN1A84

[Serendipper]

The information is contained in the transmission, not bestowed by the interpreter.

You just rephrased your original red herring.

I don't see how this is a red herring. It may be a different topic for discussion, but to say red herring implies malicious intent to discredit your argument by leading it off course.

My point wasn't about what the receiver of any communication, specifically, does or does not do. It was that the meaning of a piece of communication occurs in the mind of whoever it is that understands it.

I agree. Yes, if radio transmission is broadcast, then those with receivers tuned appropriately will discern the meaning encoded in the transmission.

If communication literally contains meaning within itself, then understanding communication itself isn't necessary, which in turn means that any communication whose meaning isn't automatically understood is meaningless.

There are radio signals zipping around my head right now, but I'm not tuned to them, so are they meaningless? I believe we are sending signals to outer space right now in search of life, but if no one is there to receive them, are they meaningless?

If the bark caused me to fall out of the tree, was it the bark of a dog or the bark of the tree? I know what I'm talking about, but do you?

I think the only way we understand our experience of things are through concepts.

Certainly, but the things we experience aren't concepts themselves.

Right, and that takes us back to truth and logic being concepts.

To say that the universe has borders implies it has an inside but no outside.

If "universe" is synonymous with the All, then it has no borders.

If it has no borders, then how can it contain anything?

Logic is true/false and that's an artifact of duality. Because we exist within a duality, we discovered logic. Logic is a consequence, artifact, offshoot, outgrowth of the duality we found ourselves in.

Logic is a part of duality, like everything else. If that's what you mean by "artifact" then that's fine. This doesn't however make it a concept, though there are certainly concepts *about* logic.

Concepts are all we can understand, so logic is the conceptual consequence (artifact) of the dualistic reality. What's wrong with that statement?

but empirical things are not instances of logic nor do they occur in the mind.

Substitution: "but instances of logical things are not instances of logic nor do they occur in the mind."

It's not a substitution. "Logical things" would, according to my definition of "logic", mean anything that can be experienced (empirically or otherwise).

I stumbled upon this the other day "Thinking is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas." - Goethe (Last paragraph before the table of contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner )

That's what I have been suggesting all along. Logic is just as much empiricism as visual observation.

Define "mind". There is no mind without something to be mindful of. "Mind" is the system or whole continuum of organism and environment.

Mind is that which experiences things. As far as I can tell the minds of human beings are their brains. Of course, as you say, without the environment there is no mind, and in that sense things like minds and muffins and golden dried up leaves are continua.

Yes, well said!

But I'm not making logical statements about all things! I'm making logical statements about specific things, and then stating in *addition* that such statements, and the things they are about, receive their all only from all things.

Oh I see. So what do we hang our hat on with that realization?

That is up to you.

I am unable to discern the meaning transmitted. You must re-transmit ;)

You are making statements about specific things and stating furthermore that the statements about specific things receive their all from all things. So you're saying everything is a continuum and there are no specific things?

So you agree that duality is nonduality, but object to the lack of a contrast between duality and nonduality?

The duality is realizing that a coin has a heads and a tails, but the nonduality is realizing the coin is one, but even the coin itself is contrasted to what it is not.

Why this obvious equivocation? A coin is a finite thing. The duality I'm speaking of is the sum of all finite things, so there is nothing it is not.

The sum of all finite things is finite. The only way to produce an infinite answer is to include infinity in the summation. If you stop at any finite point and say "that is all the things", then your summation will be finite.

How can you step outside yourself to take an objective view of anything?

I'm already myself, so can't step outside myself; that at least is an objective view of something.

I suppose it's an objective view of everything that is not you.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Point noted but really, aren't all problems the same? We break them down according to the scientific method (or whatever) and run it through the mill then churn out an answer. Rinse and repeat.

Washing all problems with that particular detergent so that is all blends as a question-answer game does not address any problem. But it might make you sleep better. So does prozac I suppose.

Where do we draw the line between the animalistic infantiles and the redeemable primate? The line seems blurred. It's like asking what day it is that we become old. I mean, one day we're young and another day we're old, but nobody can remember the day it happened.

The point however was that growing up opens ones up to a whole new wider range of suffering and pain: as now one starts to know. It's not a matter of undoing it all.

, but when and how did that knowledge come into being? And who decided it was a good idea to have thumbs? Who was directing traffic that day?

Are you asking a scientific question here? In the most general sense it came into being like anything else came into being. But somehow you are able to recognize particular causes and respond to that recognition. Which is also a cause of suffering.

If nature and especially the animal nature can't be trusted, then how can anything be trusted?

Doubt is the start of all philosophy, never its end conclusion. Unless you refuse to walk any path and prefer the talk.

Healthy instincts insist you go on living.

Not for an ant. Ants exist for the colony. The colony must survive; ants are expendable and replaceable.

We were not discussing the behavior and consciousnesses of ants but more like you and me, remember? You get easily distracted? Or has the distraction become the fuel for you? Just wondering out loud, "poking fun".

I agree that instinct is a major force to reckon with, but nothing is written in stone saying life must go on.

Yes and no. If a property of life would indeed be the desire to continue (as defining structure), it would be true by definition. It just must go on. Then again, in reality, forces of nature can be blind: the drive to survive can end up leading to extinction.

It's the "ego" which looks for easy routes as to prosper unchallenged, not caring one single bit.

No, I think it's the ego that's responsible for the desire to live for something, especially some cause.

No it's the ego trying to free itself from the very thing it's bound by. But there might be a use for all the friction. And what is life if it's not desire, cause and direction? Remove it and you're left with basically death or stagnation.

Yes, that's what the Japanese Zens do... live in harmony with nature,

Not so sure about that. Do they? Perhaps it's as their "gardening": all highly maintained, stylized and carefully composed arrangements with a highly artistic impact.

If you mean values: yes, valuing truth above all else is the condition for truth to arrive and arise in the first place.

So truth only exists if I say so.

No, once you start valuing enough, like if its existence would matter to you. It's a bootstrap situation I suppose. Starts with desire, a will, like anything else starts I suppose.

It's just to illustrate that reality is subjective. A man and woman can sit next to each other and the man will be warm while the woman feels cold. The truth is that they both experience reality differently and have different truths.

But any experience of temperature is no "truth" or "lie" to begin with. The difference here is not a philosophical issue at all. Still you seem to bring it up as if you make a point?

So is homosexuality wrong and why? Is murder? Lying, stealing? All the truths we hold to be self-evident are only truths if we says so, like rules in a game. No other animal observes such, but we make a game of it.

It seems you are the one making a game of it here! After talking about sensations relative to some ambient temperature, you are now introducing moral issues. Again, it's just talking about truth (being logical, scientific or philosophical) in rather absurd contexts. What's the point? What's the meaning of your blue sock? That kind of thing.

[jupiviv]

to say red herring implies malicious intent to discredit your argument by leading it off course.

A red herring implies faulty logic and/or obtuseness. I'm not accusing you of any malintent.

My point wasn't about what the receiver of any communication, specifically, does or does not do. It was that the meaning of a piece of communication occurs in the mind of whoever it is that understands it.

I agree. Yes, if radio transmission is broadcast, then those with receivers tuned appropriately will discern the meaning encoded in the transmission.

Equivocation of the literal and figurative meanings of the terms "radio transmission", "tuned", "receiver" and "encoded".

If communication literally contains meaning within itself, then understanding communication itself isn't necessary, which in turn means that any communication whose meaning isn't automatically understood is meaningless.

There are radio signals zipping around my head right now, but I'm not tuned to them, so are they meaningless? I believe we are sending signals to outer space right now in search of life, but if no one is there to receive them, are they meaningless?

I was not asserting that communication must always be understood. In fact I was pointing out that *your* argument [that meaning is contained within the media of communication itself] would require that assertion to be true.

I think the only way we understand our experience of things are through concepts.

Certainly, but the things we experience aren't concepts themselves.

Right, and that takes us back to truth and logic being concepts.

If truth is a concept there is no way to judge the truth of any concept, including the concept of truth. Likewise for logic.

But I'm not making logical statements about all things! I'm making logical statements about specific things, and then stating in *addition* that such statements, and the things they are about, receive their all only from all things.

Oh I see. So what do we hang our hat on with that realization?

That is up to you.

I am unable to discern the meaning transmitted. You must re-transmit ;)

How can one realise that which is forever real? At best, one can try to avoid creating false realities. I can't do that for you, or tell you how to do it, since you're the only reliable judge of whether or not you're being truthful.

You are making statements about specific things and stating furthermore that the statements about specific things receive their all from all things. So you're saying everything is a continuum and there are no specific things?

I'm saying that specific things are created by all things. Not in the literal i.e. temporal sense, but in the sense that ultimately they exist in relation to the All.

The sum of all finite things is finite. The only way to produce an infinite answer is to include infinity in the summation. If you stop at any finite point and say "that is all the things", then your summation will be finite.

You are equivocating the strictly mathematical definitions of "sum" and "infinity" with the definitions of those words both of us are using here within a completely different context. It's a pointless and rather tiresome exercise, imo.

I'm already myself, so can't step outside myself; that at least is an objective view of something.

I suppose it's an objective view of everything that is not you.

Primarily it's an objective view of myself, and by extension also of everything else.

[Serendipper]

Point noted but really, aren't all problems the same? We break them down according to the scientific method (or whatever) and run it through the mill then churn out an answer. Rinse and repeat.

Washing all problems with that particular detergent so that is all blends as a question-answer game does not address any problem. But it might make you sleep better. So does prozac I suppose.

You're right. It doesn't address a problem, it presents a problem, as does prozac for sleeping lol

Where do we draw the line between the animalistic infantiles and the redeemable primate? The line seems blurred. It's like asking what day it is that we become old. I mean, one day we're young and another day we're old, but nobody can remember the day it happened.

The point however was that growing up opens ones up to a whole new wider range of suffering and pain: as now one starts to know. It's not a matter of undoing it all.

That reminds me of a Sopranos bit:

Tony - Broke a woman's heart. Told her I couldn't see her no more. Sad, but there was no getting around it.
Melfi - Who is she?
Tony - Takes care of my uncle. Runs an elder care agency. She took care of my mother, too.
Melfi - Your former girlfriend's cousin?
Tony - That one, yeah.
Melfi - Is she your current cumare?
Tony - No, some brief fling kind of thing. You know, after a while, I felt like I had to cut off her leg. Not leg, affair. Did I say leg?
Melfi - Why did you cut it off?
Tony - Jesus, I am married.
Melfi - What happened?
Tony - I bought her the... It's this diamond pin that I send to every woman when I'm easing out the door, I'm such a fucking prick. You know what? This is all bullshit. It was she who gave me my walking papers! You believe that? What I meant was that... You know why she didn't want to see me anymore? She said that I was high maintenance. And this is after all the time and all the money and all the fucking Prozac and all the fucking cocksucking, motherfucking dream interpretations. And she says she didn't want to prop me up. And this from a broad that walks around on crutches half the time.
Melfi - Do you agree with her characterization of you?
Tony - I'm a miserable prick. I've said this since day one.
Melfi - And you're no longer interested in changing? In finding a way out?
Tony - No, I guess not. I said this last time. You just didn't want to hear it.
Melfi - You're paying me for my honest opinion. You should be in therapy.
Tony - All this fucking self-knowledge, what the fuck has it gotten me? Okay, maybe it got me some shit in the beginning. Some leadership strategies. All we do now is sit around half the time shooting the breeze about philosophy, the Italians, my uncle Eckley.
Melfi - I try to keep the focus on the work.
Tony - So when it goes off, it's my fault? Okay, fine, I accept that. You know what she says? This broad she's from Russia, dirt poor. She had some kind of osocarma disease in her leg when she was nine. She says that nowhere else in the world do people expect to be happy except for here in this country, and still we're not. And we got everything. And when we're not, what do we do? We go to shrinks. For what, $6 or $7 a minute?
Melfi - There's some truth to what she says. But should that be a source of shame? That when the desperate struggle for food and shelter is finally behind us we can turn our attention to other sources of pain and truth?
Tony - "Pain and truth"??? Come on, I'm a fat fucking crook from New Jersey.
Melfi - Now that the panic attacks and the baseline depression have been dealt with, the real work can begin.
Tony - I knew you'd say something like that.
Melfi - Because it's true. When we're not constantly having to put out fires we can really delve into who you are and what you're really after in your very brief time on this earth.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s04e11

, but when and how did that knowledge come into being? And who decided it was a good idea to have thumbs? Who was directing traffic that day?

Are you asking a scientific question here? In the most general sense it came into being like anything else came into being. But somehow you are able to recognize particular causes and respond to that recognition. Which is also a cause of suffering.

So knowledge or perhaps the use of knowledge, ie prosperity, is a cause of suffering. The pain and truth revealed once the desperate struggle for food is behind us.

If nature and especially the animal nature can't be trusted, then how can anything be trusted?

Doubt is the start of all philosophy, never its end conclusion. Unless you refuse to walk any path and prefer the talk.

What do you mean by philosophy? Philosophy is a preferred way of doing or thinking about something.

Healthy instincts insist you go on living.

Not for an ant. Ants exist for the colony. The colony must survive; ants are expendable and replaceable.

We were not discussing the behavior and consciousnesses of ants but more like you and me, remember?

Yes I remember. You brought up instincts and ants have instincts.

You get easily distracted? Or has the distraction become the fuel for you? Just wondering out loud, "poking fun".

No I'm more anti-ADD, extremely focused, OCD.

I agree that instinct is a major force to reckon with, but nothing is written in stone saying life must go on.

Yes and no. If a property of life would indeed be the desire to continue (as defining structure), it would be true by definition. It just must go on. Then again, in reality, forces of nature can be blind: the drive to survive can end up leading to extinction.

Yes exactly, the forces are blind except what they've learned through iteration and databasing evidenced by the existence of something. Extinction is perfectly fine since higher life comes from death. The dinosaurs had to get out of the way while providing us with a rich energy source for the discovery of new forms of pain and truth. If we go extinct, we'll be one of millions of species to have done so and so what? The show goes on and some other creature will parasite off what we've contributed.

It's the "ego" which looks for easy routes as to prosper unchallenged, not caring one single bit.

No, I think it's the ego that's responsible for the desire to live for something, especially some cause.

No it's the ego trying to free itself from the very thing it's bound by. But there might be a use for all the friction. And what is life if it's not desire, cause and direction? Remove it and you're left with basically death or stagnation.

Yes I agree and that's my question to Pam. If we realize the game is a game, then stop playing, what is the point to that? I mean, unless it's yet another way of beating the game (ie I'm better than you because I've transcended the game) which is still playing the game.

Yes, that's what the Japanese Zens do... live in harmony with nature,

Not so sure about that. Do they? Perhaps it's as their "gardening": all highly maintained, stylized and carefully composed arrangements with a highly artistic impact.

Well yes, they impact the environment, but they cut with the grain and not against it. They don't fight nature, but assist nature. Whether they actually do that is beside the point; it's what they're supposed to do if they follow their own Zen teaching.

If you mean values: yes, valuing truth above all else is the condition for truth to arrive and arise in the first place.

So truth only exists if I say so.

No, once you start valuing enough, like if its existence would matter to you. It's a bootstrap situation I suppose. Starts with desire, a will, like anything else starts I suppose.

Truth can either be a law which is an observed regularity that just happens to exist or truth can be an abstraction dissected from a duality on someone's authority. Neither are carved in stone. Truth cannot manifest until someone observes it.

It's just to illustrate that reality is subjective. A man and woman can sit next to each other and the man will be warm while the woman feels cold. The truth is that they both experience reality differently and have different truths.

But any experience of temperature is no "truth" or "lie" to begin with. The difference here is not a philosophical issue at all. Still you seem to bring it up as if you make a point?

I am making a point as I said in the previous reply.... truth is either a happenstance regularity or an abstraction on authority. Laws do not exist so truth cannot be a synonym.

So is homosexuality wrong and why? Is murder? Lying, stealing? All the truths we hold to be self-evident are only truths if we says so, like rules in a game. No other animal observes such, but we make a game of it.

It seems you are the one making a game of it here! After talking about sensations relative to some ambient temperature, you are now introducing moral issues. Again, it's just talking about truth (being logical, scientific or philosophical) in rather absurd contexts. What's the point? What's the meaning of your blue sock? That kind of thing.

The point is that truth exists only because we say so.

[Serendipper]

to say red herring implies malicious intent to discredit your argument by leading it off course.

A red herring implies faulty logic and/or obtuseness. I'm not accusing you of any malintent.

Oh ok. It's cool, but just saying that, well, here:

The origin of the expression is unknown. Conventional wisdom has long supposed it to be the use of a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to train hounds to follow a scent, or to divert them from the correct route when hunting; however, modern linguistic research suggests that the term was probably invented in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, referring to one occasion on which he had supposedly used a kipper to divert hounds from chasing a hare, and was never an actual practice of hunters. The phrase was later borrowed to provide a formal name for the logical fallacy and literary device. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

If a red herring fell from the basket onto the trail unintentionally, then it wouldn't lead one off the trail. But if a herring were found off the trail, you'd have to wonder how it got there.

My point wasn't about what the receiver of any communication, specifically, does or does not do. It was that the meaning of a piece of communication occurs in the mind of whoever it is that understands it.

I agree. Yes, if radio transmission is broadcast, then those with receivers tuned appropriately will discern the meaning encoded in the transmission.

Equivocation of the literal and figurative meanings of the terms "radio transmission", "tuned", "receiver" and "encoded".

Do you have objection to equivocation?

If communication literally contains meaning within itself, then understanding communication itself isn't necessary, which in turn means that any communication whose meaning isn't automatically understood is meaningless.

There are radio signals zipping around my head right now, but I'm not tuned to them, so are they meaningless? I believe we are sending signals to outer space right now in search of life, but if no one is there to receive them, are they meaningless?

I was not asserting that communication must always be understood. In fact I was pointing out that *your* argument [that meaning is contained within the media of communication itself] would require that assertion to be true.

Oh ok, so we agree now.

I think the only way we understand our experience of things are through concepts.

Certainly, but the things we experience aren't concepts themselves.

Right, and that takes us back to truth and logic being concepts.

If truth is a concept there is no way to judge the truth of any concept, including the concept of truth. Likewise for logic.

I have no issue with that. Do you?

I am unable to discern the meaning transmitted. You must re-transmit ;)

How can one realise that which is forever real? At best, one can try to avoid creating false realities. I can't do that for you, or tell you how to do it, since you're the only reliable judge of whether or not you're being truthful.

I don't know how to realize what is forever real because the idea that a thing can exist forever doesn't make sense to me.

You are making statements about specific things and stating furthermore that the statements about specific things receive their all from all things. So you're saying everything is a continuum and there are no specific things?

I'm saying that specific things are created by all things. Not in the literal i.e. temporal sense, but in the sense that ultimately they exist in relation to the All.

Oh I see, so there are no things; just abstractions or dissections from the All.

The sum of all finite things is finite. The only way to produce an infinite answer is to include infinity in the summation. If you stop at any finite point and say "that is all the things", then your summation will be finite.

You are equivocating the strictly mathematical definitions of "sum" and "infinity" with the definitions of those words both of us are using here within a completely different context. It's a pointless and rather tiresome exercise, imo.

I don't see how the sum of all things can be infinite using any definition of the word "sum". I think infinities are introduced by cameras looking at their own monitors.

I'm already myself, so can't step outside myself; that at least is an objective view of something.

I suppose it's an objective view of everything that is not you.

Primarily it's an objective view of myself, and by extension also of everything else.

An objective view of yourself is a subjective view of yourself. Yourself is the one thing you can never see.

If you can't see god, you can't know the true nature of reality, and you can never look at yourself, what does that tell you about what you are? Does that make sense or is it coincidence?

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper: Ok, now with that established, what if you've found everyone to be ignorant? Would you tell society you no longer want it in your life or would you figure there is something wrong with you?

It is not true that everyone is ignorant.

How do you compel someone else to value the truth?

You don’t because you can’t. However, when someone consistently demonstrates integrity of speech and action you can be confident that they value the truth.

Well I do not typically label myself, but rascal is just a placeholder to save typing. Alan says everyone has the "element of irreducible rascality", including all interpretations of god, and it's similar to the concept of yetzer hara. It's the salt in the stew wherein salt in large quantities is horrible, but in certain small quantities is delightful and in fact necessary to make stew.

How can you possibly know that everyone has the element of rascality in them?

He parallels that with the left and right hand of the god of the bible and that is paralleled with the hindu "hide and seek". When "hide" has its day, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, but when "seek" has its day, the right hand discovers what the left hand was doing.

Alan is describing the god of Genesis 2 that is born (that walks in the garden with two feet and does not know the whereabouts of his children), not The Unborn Father of Genesis 1.

That is an analogy for the scientific view of the universe that everything is on and off in oscillation. So the true nature of me, it would seem, has to have a left and right hand.

The only right and left hand you have is attached to your body, and even then, this is a conventional truth, not an ultimate truth, i.e., where does your hand begin and your arm end or vice versa?

And so this begs the question of buddhistic goal of reducing suffering: What suffering? There is no one there to suffer. If that is the truth the Buddha woke up to, then why bother to reduce the suffering that doesn't exist?

Good question and I’ll start off my answer with the truth: the Buddha didn’t show the way to reduce suffering, he showed the way to end suffering. The reason why it is necessary to end suffering that ultimately doesn’t exist (because ultimately there is no existent someone) is because most human mind’s are caught tightly in the delusion of ‘being’ an existent someone.

This is why truth is so important...seeking it...telling it...living it: truth transcends, as you call them, all of the masks of the god of hide-and-seek, of the 'I am here' that peeks 'in and out'. Truth doesn’t consider whether it is being a rascal or a god or woman or a man or a sage or a fool before it reveals itself, it simply reveals itself.

Because the point of the game is to have something to do, so transcending the game is defeating the purpose of having the game. Transcendence is often also just another way of trying to beat the game.

Transcending the game is to transcend the game of self, not doing. Once the game of being a rascal/not being a rascal, being a fool/not being a fool, etc. is over, all that 'remain' is something to do. Who is shooting the basket into the net – ‘just’ you. Who is peeing into the toilet – ‘just’ you. Who is getting out of bed – ‘just’ you. Who is laughing when your friend tells a joke - 'just' you. Putting on the (unnecessary) mask of self-identification = suffering an awareness of something that is not real or true.

That impersonal force must have a front and back, inside and out, what it is and what it isn't. Why the desire to squeeze it into a nondual box?

Nonduality is the doctrine of ‘no box.’

When you type on your keyboard are you thinking of the front and the back or the inside and the outside or what it is and what it isn't?

We can't have the saved without the damned or there would be nothing to be saved from if everyone were saved. Salvation is dependent upon damnation in order for salvation to exist.

Does the truth-of-what-needs-be-said-or-done consider salvation and damnation?

[Serendipper]

Serendipper: Ok, now with that established, what if you've found everyone to be ignorant? Would you tell society you no longer want it in your life or would you figure there is something wrong with you?

It is not true that everyone is ignorant.

Oh, well this time repeat same question with "seemingly everyone" substituted ;)

How do you compel someone else to value the truth?

You don’t because you can’t. However, when someone consistently demonstrates integrity of speech and action you can be confident that they value the truth.

Doesn't the pride of valuing the truth further the ego?

Well I do not typically label myself, but rascal is just a placeholder to save typing. Alan says everyone has the "element of irreducible rascality", including all interpretations of god, and it's similar to the concept of yetzer hara. It's the salt in the stew wherein salt in large quantities is horrible, but in certain small quantities is delightful and in fact necessary to make stew.

How can you possibly know that everyone has the element of rascality in them?

I suppose it's the same reason I know all electricity has plus and minus in it. Alan told another story of the holy men who smoke, drink, and have girlfriends and he said if they didn't have those eccentricities, they would cease to manifest.

He parallels that with the left and right hand of the god of the bible and that is paralleled with the hindu "hide and seek". When "hide" has its day, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, but when "seek" has its day, the right hand discovers what the left hand was doing.

Alan is describing the god of Genesis 2 that is born (that walks in the garden with two feet and does not know the whereabouts of his children), not The Unborn Father of Genesis 1.

So you think god is pure? Pure good, pure truth. What is the sound of one hand clapping? If the fundamental reality is good and true, then where did evil and error come from?

That is an analogy for the scientific view of the universe that everything is on and off in oscillation. So the true nature of me, it would seem, has to have a left and right hand.

The only right and left hand you have is attached to your body, and even then, this is a conventional truth, not an ultimate truth, i.e., where does your hand begin and your arm end or vice versa?

Where does truth begin and falsity end? It's the same place my hand ends and arm begins ;)

And so this begs the question of buddhistic goal of reducing suffering: What suffering? There is no one there to suffer. If that is the truth the Buddha woke up to, then why bother to reduce the suffering that doesn't exist?

Good question and I’ll start off my answer with the truth: the Buddha didn’t show the way to reduce suffering, he showed the way to end suffering. The reason why it is necessary to end suffering that ultimately doesn’t exist (because ultimately there is no existent someone) is because most human mind’s are caught tightly in the delusion of ‘being’ an existent someone.

By "reduce suffering" I meant to reduce it in the population by eliminating it in individuals. If individuals do not exist and suffering therefore does not exist, then what is the point? The Buddha may have well endeavored to reduce the suffering of video game characters by teaching them they are only characters and couldn't possibly be suffering.

This is why truth is so important...seeking it...telling it...living it: truth transcends, as you call them, all of the masks of the god of hide-and-seek, of the 'I am here' that peeks 'in and out'. Truth doesn’t consider whether it is being a rascal or a god or woman or a man or a sage or a fool before it reveals itself, it simply reveals itself.

So truth is a happening? If whatever happens is true, then truth is a synonym for a happening instead of a law or condition that dictates what happens; therefore truth is a property of an observation. <-- does that statement carry the property of truth?

Because the point of the game is to have something to do, so transcending the game is defeating the purpose of having the game. Transcendence is often also just another way of trying to beat the game.

Transcending the game is to transcend the game of self, not doing. Once the game of being a rascal/not being a rascal, being a fool/not being a fool, etc. is over, all that 'remain' is something to do. Who is shooting the basket into the net – ‘just’ you. Who is peeing into the toilet – ‘just’ you. Who is getting out of bed – ‘just’ you. Who is laughing when your friend tells a joke - 'just' you. Putting on the (unnecessary) mask of self-identification = suffering an awareness of something that is not real or true.

It seems then that transcendence of self is transcendence of the idea of truth. If self no longer exists, then "subject" is missing from the subject/object duality and therefore there is no "real" or "truth" to be discerned because there is no one to discern anything.

That impersonal force must have a front and back, inside and out, what it is and what it isn't. Why the desire to squeeze it into a nondual box?

Nonduality is the doctrine of ‘no box.’

Then how can it be a doctrine? Doctrines contain ideas and containers have to have insides and outsides.

An infinite box is not a box. A circle with infinite radius is a straight line with zero curvature.

When you type on your keyboard are you thinking of the front and the back or the inside and the outside or what it is and what it isn't?

I don't think I think about it when I type. im too wooried abuot speeling corrtecly :p

We can't have the saved without the damned or there would be nothing to be saved from if everyone were saved. Salvation is dependent upon damnation in order for salvation to exist.

Does the truth-of-what-needs-be-said-or-done consider salvation and damnation?

I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to be saved from something without having something to be saved from. The only way I can be one-up is if someone else is one-down.

[jupiviv]

Do you have objection to equivocation?

Only insofar as it is illogical, such as in the case of a few arguments you've made so far on this thread.

I was not asserting that communication must always be understood. In fact I was pointing out that *your* argument [that meaning is contained within the media of communication itself] would require that assertion to be true.

Oh ok, so we agree now.

That statement, if true, nullifies your other point (which is correct) about communication not being meaningless solely by virtue of lack of understanding on the part of any specific interpreter.

If truth is a concept there is no way to judge the truth of any concept, including the concept of truth. Likewise for logic.

I have no issue with that. Do you?

The premise is self-contradictory.

Oh I see, so there are no things; just abstractions or dissections from the All.

There are no inherently existent things.

I don't see how the sum of all things can be infinite using any definition of the word "sum". I think infinities are introduced by cameras looking at their own monitors.

Again, this is a pointless exercise.

An objective view of yourself is a subjective view of yourself. Yourself is the one thing you can never see.

I can see myself indirectly, through other things (including people). But I agree that there is no inherent difference between objective and subjective viewpoints, if that's what you mean.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It doesn't address a problem, it presents a problem, as does prozac for sleeping lol

Serotonin is simple the main chemical for regulating the sleep/wake cycles. Disturbances in the cycle or rhythm, caused by whatever circumstance, behavior or inclination, can be addressed by changing chemical balances. However the underlying disturbance ('suffering') is usually not addressed but the symptoms can be alleviated. In the same way it's often with breaking down any "problems" by running them through some mill and churning out final or doable solutions. It might get results but does not address the nature of any "problem", suffering or when it comes to it: reality and existence in terms of experience, orientation and representations of such in the mind.

Melfi - Because it's true. When we're not constantly having to put out fires we can really delve into who you are and what you're really after in your very brief time on this earth.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s04e11

The Soprano's was a great show and character study but it would be easier if you just summarize your point. The show didn't seem to look that kindly on the therapeutic process or psycho-analytical beliefs surrounding it. The rawer reality of lives completely wound up in personality structures and behaviors, to the degree of ones physical safety becoming linked to it, seemed completely new to Melfi. In fact, she got at some point seduced by these rawer power games, the reality and exhilarating immediacy of her psychopathic client.

So knowledge or perhaps the use of knowledge, ie prosperity, is a cause of suffering. The pain and truth revealed once the desperate struggle for food is behind us.

Certainly there is no actual suffering when there's no understanding of it. Pain and death are quite meaningless outside a consciousness to give it some context, to mark it as insufferable injustice. It's difficult to see the distinction between the vivid experience of pain, dread or fear and the experience of suffering. They can easily blend in the way we think about these things when the biggest sufferings become in our thinking associated with the biggest pains, injuries or discomforts, disease and death. But a being in excruciating pain is actually experiencing a narrowing consciousness and the capacity of actually suffering would be diminished. The witness reads it all differently though through empathy and projection.

Philosophy is a preferred way of doing or thinking about something.

No, we call preferred ways of doing or thinking about something simply preferences. It's a part of opinion, the simplest, most vague and shifty type of knowledge. Hardly rationalized.

The dinosaurs had to get out of the way while providing us with a rich energy source for the discovery of new forms of pain and truth. If we go extinct, we'll be one of millions of species to have done so and so what? The show goes on and some other creature will parasite off what we've contributed.

You are imagining some kind of direction or goal where there's no such thing being determined as of yet. The show might stop. Perhaps it was the only one. Would that influence your outlook?

If we realize the game is a game, then stop playing, what is the point to that? I mean, unless it's yet another way of beating the game (ie I'm better than you because I've transcended the game) which is still playing the game.

Of course one can change the definition of game to include all the primal processes we know. And as long as you are realizing you are playing the game of redefinition, it's all right. As for stopping anything, it's irrelevant as soon it's seen that nothing was started.

Truth can either be a law which is an observed regularity that just happens to exist or truth can be an abstraction dissected from a duality on someone's authority. Neither are carved in stone. Truth cannot manifest until someone observes it.

That depends. What if observation means simply being in accordance with the truth? Such truth then caused by the act of destroying anything that is untrue: any ignorance, chaos, disruption and distraction that obscures manifesting truth.

In those terms our awareness is always function of truth, which does not need to be just a function or by-product of awareness. But that implies something eternal and constant beyond the temporary and relative. It's what some people then call God or Tao.

The point is that truth exists only because we say so.

That's meaningless as long as you don't know exactly what makes you say one thing or be silent on another.

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper: Doesn't the pride of valuing the truth further the ego?

The only time pride enters into the picture with regards to valuing something is if one believes they own the value or the something.

Pam: How can you possibly know that everyone has the element of rascality in them?

Serendipper: I suppose it's the same reason I know all electricity has plus and minus in it. Alan told another story of the holy men who smoke, drink, and have girlfriends and he said if they didn't have those eccentricities, they would cease to manifest.

Your use of ‘suppose’ is evidence that you don’t know. What Alan Watts said is only meaningful to both you and me if you reason the truth of his words.

So you think god is pure? Pure good, pure truth. What is the sound of one hand clapping? If the fundamental reality is good and true, then where did evil and error come from?

When did I speak of purity or goodness in relation to god or truth? Put simply, the god of Genesis 2 is ignorant of the truth that there is no separation anywhere in reality. The Father of Genesis 1 represents the truth of no separation.

Where does truth begin and falsity end? It's the same place my hand ends and arm begins ;)

Truth does not begin, the truth of an undivided reality is realized.

By "reduce suffering" I meant to reduce it in the population by eliminating it in individuals. If individuals do not exist and suffering therefore does not exist, then what is the point?

Suffering is experienced because ignorance of a divided reality is experienced. Which means that until the truth of an undivided reality is realized, suffering will continue to be experienced.

So truth is a happening? If whatever happens is true, then truth is a synonym for a happening instead of a law or condition that dictates what happens; therefore truth is a property of an observation. <-- does that statement carry the property of truth?

The only truth that must be known so that one can live in accordance with truth is that reality is undivided.

It seems then that transcendence of self is transcendence of the idea of truth. If self no longer exists, then "subject" is missing from the subject/object duality and therefore there is no "real" or "truth" to be discerned because there is no one to discern anything.

Once it is known that reality is not divided in two, the belief of having or being a self that interprets/divides reality [rather than the truth that reality is undivided and therefore is interpreting itself] simply falls away.

Then how can it [nonduality] be a doctrine? Doctrines contain ideas and containers have to have insides and outsides.

If I say to you that reality is not two things, am I showing you an inside and an outside?

An infinite box is not a box. A circle with infinite radius is a straight line with zero curvature.

Intellectually you have an excellent grasp on what a circle represents but if you want to know what or if a circle is, then you’ll need to enter the realm of awareness wherein the circle appears.

[Serendipper]

Do you have objection to equivocation?

Only insofar as it is illogical, such as in the case of a few arguments you've made so far on this thread.

It would be helpful if you could illustrate how it is illogical. Here is the conversation:

JP: My point wasn't about what the receiver of any communication, specifically, does or does not do. It was that the meaning of a piece of communication occurs in the mind of whoever it is that understands it.

SD: I agree. Yes, if radio transmission is broadcast, then those with receivers tuned appropriately will discern the meaning encoded in the transmission.

JP: Equivocation of the literal and figurative meanings of the terms "radio transmission", "tuned", "receiver" and "encoded".

I was not asserting that communication must always be understood. In fact I was pointing out that *your* argument [that meaning is contained within the media of communication itself] would require that assertion to be true.

Oh ok, so we agree now.

That statement, if true, nullifies your other point (which is correct) about communication not being meaningless solely by virtue of lack of understanding on the part of any specific interpreter.

I think the statement that we agree is true because I cannot see where we disagree.

JP: If communication literally contains meaning within itself, then understanding communication itself isn't necessary, which in turn means that any communication whose meaning isn't automatically understood is meaningless.

(communication whose meaning isn't automatically understood is meaningless.)

SD: There are radio signals zipping around my head right now, but I'm not tuned to them, so are they meaningless? I believe we are sending signals to outer space right now in search of life, but if no one is there to receive them, are they meaningless?

(communication whose meaning isn't automatically understood is not meaningless.)

JP: I was not asserting that communication must always be understood. In fact I was pointing out that *your* argument [that meaning is contained within the media of communication itself] would require that assertion to be true.

(I was not asserting that communication must always be understood.)

Therefore we agree.

If truth is a concept there is no way to judge the truth of any concept, including the concept of truth. Likewise for logic.

I have no issue with that. Do you?

The premise is self-contradictory.

Truth is a concept and subjective. There is a way to judge truth, but not objectively. And that includes objectively judging the concept of truth, but doesn't exclude subjectively judging truth or logic. Logic has become conflated with truth in that if something is true then it's logical, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea to have that equivocation.

Oh I see, so there are no things; just abstractions or dissections from the All.

There are no inherently existent things.

Then there is no All.

I don't see how the sum of all things can be infinite using any definition of the word "sum". I think infinities are introduced by cameras looking at their own monitors.

Again, this is a pointless exercise.

Why is it pointless?

SD: The sum of all finite things is finite. The only way to produce an infinite answer is to include infinity in the summation. If you stop at any finite point and say "that is all the things", then your summation will be finite.

JP: You are equivocating the strictly mathematical definitions of "sum" and "infinity" with the definitions of those words both of us are using here within a completely different context. It's a pointless and rather tiresome exercise, imo.

An objective view of yourself is a subjective view of yourself. Yourself is the one thing you can never see.

I can see myself indirectly, through other things (including people). But I agree that there is no inherent difference between objective and subjective viewpoints, if that's what you mean.

Yes, I think that is what I mean. Your objective view of yourself is what you imagine other people would see, which is ironically less objective than your subjective view of yourself. Anyway, there is no way to look at yourself and that is the point I wanted to establish.

There are 3 things I can never see: myself, god, fundamental reality. Is it coincidence?

[Serendipper]

It doesn't address a problem, it presents a problem, as does prozac for sleeping lol

Serotonin is simply the main chemical for regulating the sleep/wake cycles.

Is that why serotonin is found mainly in the gut? lol

Although serotonin is well known as a brain neurotransmitter, it is estimated that 90 percent of the body's serotonin is made in the digestive tract. In fact, altered levels of this peripheral serotonin have been linked to diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and osteoporosis. http://www.caltech.edu/news/microbes-he ... -gut-46495

Serotonin mediates the animal's perceptions of resource; In less complex animals, such as some invertebrates, resources simply mean food availability.[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin#Functions

I have read that serotonin is required to be awake and SSRIs may inhibit sleep by disallowing the elimination of serotonin from the synapse. I'm not sure what ordinarily regulates serotonin, though.

Disturbances in the cycle or rhythm, caused by whatever circumstance, behavior or inclination, can be addressed by changing chemical balances.

Yes but I don't think the chemical balances are objectively determining or dictating health as much as it would seem since studies on identical twins demonstrate how genetics actually changes to some degree due to environmental influences which then produces another infinite regression of genetics affecting environment and environment affecting genetics etc. There is no kingpin or ultimate dictator causing illness.

However the underlying disturbance ('suffering') is usually not addressed but the symptoms can be alleviated. In the same way it's often with breaking down any "problems" by running them through some mill and churning out final or doable solutions. It might get results but does not address the nature of any "problem", suffering or when it comes to it: reality and existence in terms of experience, orientation and representations of such in the mind.

I suppose therefore that the problem of suffering can be mitigated by simply not seeing it as suffering, but blessing.

Oh! I bless the good lord for my boils
For my mental and bodily pains,
For without them my faith all congeals
And I'm doomed to hell's ne'er-ending flames.

Easier said than done, but suffering is a subjective interpretation which could be the root cause. Many times we suffer due to our expectations.

Melfi - Because it's true. When we're not constantly having to put out fires we can really delve into who you are and what you're really after in your very brief time on this earth.

The Soprano's was a great show and character study but it would be easier if you just summarize your point.

You didn't like that? That bit has stuck in my head since I first saw the show. The point is when the problem of food and shelter is behind us, we can focus on new sources of pain and truth (and then when those are solved, we'll find new sources, etc).

And there is the incidental but worthwhile point of the Russian woman with one leg who observes that in spite of our prosperity, we're still not happy.... or at least not as happy as a woman with one leg from Russia. She dumped Tony because SHE didn't want to have to hold Tony up (psychologically). So the poor little one-legged woman tired of supporting the big strong gangster rich man which seems like irony from multiple perspectives.

There is a lot of depth to that show. Perhaps you haven't given it a fair chance?

Anyway, our problems are eternal because they are impossible: we will always strive to find a condition of all-good and no-bad.

The show didn't seem to look that kindly on the therapeutic process or psycho-analytical beliefs surrounding it.

Who does? :D Some folks assert that psychology is not an actual science (presumably because it cannot be an actual science).

The rawer reality of lives completely wound up in personality structures and behaviors, to the degree of ones physical safety becoming linked to it, seemed completely new to Melfi. In fact, she got at some point seduced by these rawer power games, the reality and exhilarating immediacy of her psychopathic client.

It just goes to show that there can be no effective judge (ie doctor) because no one is perfect since everyone has some psychological "problem" or "thorn in their side". Jesus said, "get the beam out of your eye before you worry about the splinter in mine" and "when the blind lead the blind, they both fall in the ditch."

So, Melfi may have been privy to information from past research that may or may not have had relevancy, but without that, her and Tony were on equal playing field, as we all are. How can one pour their heart out to someone who hasn't fixed their own problems? Or worse yet... someone who doesn't know they have problems (or worse is not admitting it).

That reminds me of Alan Watts announcing he'd rather do business with someone who openly (more or less) admits to being a rascal rather than someone pious since the rascal is ironically being more truthful than the one who obsessively prides himself on his integrity (mistakenly claims not to be a rascal). It makes sense I suppose.

So knowledge or perhaps the use of knowledge, ie prosperity, is a cause of suffering. The pain and truth revealed once the desperate struggle for food is behind us.

Certainly there is no actual suffering when there's no understanding of it. Pain and death are quite meaningless outside a consciousness to give it some context, to mark it as insufferable injustice.

Agree totally.

It's difficult to see the distinction between the vivid experience of pain, dread or fear and the experience of suffering. They can easily blend in the way we think about these things when the biggest sufferings become in our thinking associated with the biggest pains, injuries or discomforts, disease and death. But a being in excruciating pain is actually experiencing a narrowing consciousness and the capacity of actually suffering would be diminished. The witness reads it all differently though through empathy and projection.

Yes all pain affects the same self-center which has developed a way to be conscious of something about which it imposes its will only to be denied.

Philosophy is a preferred way of doing or thinking about something.

No, we call preferred ways of doing or thinking about something simply preferences. It's a part of opinion, the simplest, most vague and shifty type of knowledge. Hardly rationalized.

What's your philosophy for eating pizza? Your preference is, for example, to eat the crust first and then the cheesy part. Your philosophy would be the reason for your preference. For example, you eat the crust before the cheesy part because you're saving the best for last (and that can only be understood by living it, as Keats said).

What's your philosophy for practicing science? Your preference may be the Scientific Method and your reasoning for that preference is something that I can only understand if I've observed it in my life as well.

What's your philosophy of life? Are you an absolutist or relativist? You'd have to explain your reasons in ways that you suspect I could relate and hope I could understand. Philosophy of life is typically what we call philosophy, but it's really merely a specific kind of philosophy.

So, we could say that philosophy is a rationale that can only be understood by the illustration of living life.

The dinosaurs had to get out of the way while providing us with a rich energy source for the discovery of new forms of pain and truth. If we go extinct, we'll be one of millions of species to have done so and so what? The show goes on and some other creature will parasite off what we've contributed.

You are imagining some kind of direction or goal where there's no such thing being determined as of yet.

You're right; there is no goal, but the universe has a noticeable track-record of desiring to become increasingly conscious as if it were a goal. But it could regress I suppose.

The show might stop. Perhaps it was the only one. Would that influence your outlook?

It has to stop and then it will restart. On/off. I believe the physical "laws" evolved into existence and if they did it once, then they can do it again.

If we realize the game is a game, then stop playing, what is the point to that? I mean, unless it's yet another way of beating the game (ie I'm better than you because I've transcended the game) which is still playing the game.

Of course one can change the definition of game to include all the primal processes we know. And as long as you are realizing you are playing the game of redefinition, it's all right. As for stopping anything, it's irrelevant as soon it's seen that nothing was started.

What do you mean nothing was started?

I've been saving this all week and want to get it off my desktop, so I'll stick it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism)

Within non-dualism, Lila is a way of describing all reality, including the cosmos, as the outcome of creative play by the divine absolute (Brahman).

Truth can either be a law which is an observed regularity that just happens to exist or truth can be an abstraction dissected from a duality on someone's authority. Neither are carved in stone. Truth cannot manifest until someone observes it.

That depends. What if observation means simply being in accordance with the truth? Such truth then caused by the act of destroying anything that is untrue: any ignorance, chaos, disruption and distraction that obscures manifesting truth.

You mean neti neti; we remove untruths and what we have left is truth? Well, it's still subjective because how do we objectively know we've eliminated all the untruths?

In those terms our awareness is always function of truth, which does not need to be just a function or by-product of awareness. But that implies something eternal and constant beyond the temporary and relative. It's what some people then call God or Tao.

How can there be a truth if there is no one to observe it?

Anyway, how are we defining "truth"?

Is truth = a happening? If synonymous with happening, then it's not truth in the colloquial sense.

Is truth = a law? Are the behaviors of "happenings" dictated or commanded? If so, by whose authority?

Since events can only either just-happen or be dictated, then we can conclude that events just happen and are observed to be regular and merely assumed to be objectively, universally, and absolutely true. Therefore truth is a property of an observation and pretty much defined to be subjective. If we don't accept that definition then we're likely to conflate "truth" with "existence", "law", "logic" and who knows what else.

The point is that truth exists only because we say so.

That's meaningless as long as you don't know exactly what makes you say one thing or be silent on another.

Your objection is meaningless once you realize there is no you ;)

If there is no truth and I claim there is no truth, I could still be right.

If there is a truth and I claim there is a truth, I cannot be sure I'm right.

[jupiviv]

I was not asserting that communication must always be understood. In fact I was pointing out that *your* argument [that meaning is contained within the media of communication itself] would require that assertion to be true.

Oh ok, so we agree now.

That statement, if true, nullifies your other point (which is correct) about communication not being meaningless solely by virtue of lack of understanding on the part of any specific interpreter.

I think the statement that we agree is true because I cannot see where we disagree.

You stated that communication *literally* contains meaning, truth, falsity etc. within themselves. My rebuttal was, in brief, that meaning has to occur - by definition - in the mind of at least one person, i.e., the original communicator of meaning, in order for it to be communicated. If it is understood by someone, it likewise occurs in the mind of that person. The actual medium/piece of communication itself contains/conveys no meaning. If it did, then understanding on the part of anyone would be unnecessary for meaningful communication to occur.

That's it! That is the whole of the *actual* argument! There is really no room for confusion or misunderstanding here. Yet you seem to be obsessed with semantic/sophistical acrobatics which have no connection to the subject matter or overall context. First you were arguing against the imaginary assertion (allegedly by me) that "communication must be understood in order to have meaning". Now you've started a game of agree/disagree. Presumably, in your mind, we should just keep going like this until all of our personal delusions can finally be accommodated within a simultaneously broad and abstruse conclusion. Sorry, but I'm not interested.

Truth is a concept and subjective.

If truth is subjective, then it is not "a" concept but many concepts. Since it is subjective, any and all concepts can be said to be truth-concepts. Thus, your statement is self-contradictory because it assumes - contrary to its own conclusion - that the concept that truth is not a concept and not subjective is not a truth-concept.

Oh I see, so there are no things; just abstractions or dissections from the All.

There are no inherently existent things.

Then there is no All.

There are no inherently existing things because the All is never not.

I don't see how the sum of all things can be infinite using any definition of the word "sum". I think infinities are introduced by cameras looking at their own monitors.

Again, this is a pointless exercise.

Why is it pointless?

Because the mathematical definitions of "sum" and "infinity" explicitly refer to finite things and not "the sum of all finite things", or the All.

Your objective view of yourself is what you imagine other people would see

No, my objective view of myself is identical to my objective view of other things and people. "Other people" also includes my past selves, specifically memories of my thoughts, feelings and actions in the past. There is no inherent difference between me and them.

[Serendipper]

Serendipper: Doesn't the pride of valuing the truth further the ego?

The only time pride enters into the picture with regards to valuing something is if one believes they own the value or the something.

Or if one believes one exists. Valuing the truth can only exist if there is someone to value it and so if you value it, you're perpetuating the illusion that there is someone to value the truth. Defining truth is defining yourself.

Pam: How can you possibly know that everyone has the element of rascality in them?

Serendipper: I suppose it's the same reason I know all electricity has plus and minus in it. Alan told another story of the holy men who smoke, drink, and have girlfriends and he said if they didn't have those eccentricities, they would cease to manifest.

Your use of ‘suppose’ is evidence that you don’t know.

How can I know? But if duality applies, then I know ;)

What Alan Watts said is only meaningful to both you and me if you reason the truth of his words.

His words carry meaning that has the property of truth.

So you think god is pure? Pure good, pure truth. What is the sound of one hand clapping? If the fundamental reality is good and true, then where did evil and error come from?

When did I speak of purity or goodness in relation to god or truth? Put simply, the god of Genesis 2 is ignorant of the truth that there is no separation anywhere in reality. The Father of Genesis 1 represents the truth of no separation.

What is the relevance of recognizing the distinction between the two gods?

Where does truth begin and falsity end? It's the same place my hand ends and arm begins ;)

Truth does not begin, the truth of an undivided reality is realized.

How do you know?

By "reduce suffering" I meant to reduce it in the population by eliminating it in individuals. If individuals do not exist and suffering therefore does not exist, then what is the point?

Suffering is experienced because ignorance of a divided reality is experienced. Which means that until the truth of an undivided reality is realized, suffering will continue to be experienced.

Yes but if reality is not divided then there is no one there to experience the suffering. If there is someone there, then reality is divided and realizing it's not would be in error.

So truth is a happening? If whatever happens is true, then truth is a synonym for a happening instead of a law or condition that dictates what happens; therefore truth is a property of an observation. <-- does that statement carry the property of truth?

The only truth that must be known so that one can live in accordance with truth is that reality is undivided.

Again, there is no one there to know anything or live in any way.

It seems then that transcendence of self is transcendence of the idea of truth. If self no longer exists, then "subject" is missing from the subject/object duality and therefore there is no "real" or "truth" to be discerned because there is no one to discern anything.

Once it is known that reality is not divided in two, the belief of having or being a self that interprets/divides reality [rather than the truth that reality is undivided and therefore is interpreting itself] simply falls away.

If it falls away, then who is left to say that it's gone?

Then how can it [nonduality] be a doctrine? Doctrines contain ideas and containers have to have insides and outsides.

If I say to you that reality is not two things, am I showing you an inside and an outside?

Reality is the interaction between subject and object like a coin is the interaction between heads and tails.

An infinite box is not a box. A circle with infinite radius is a straight line with zero curvature.

Intellectually you have an excellent grasp on what a circle represents but if you want to know what or if a circle is, then you’ll need to enter the realm of awareness wherein the circle appears.

Where is the door? :)

[Serendipper]

Oh ok, so we agree now.

That statement, if true, nullifies your other point (which is correct) about communication not being meaningless solely by virtue of lack of understanding on the part of any specific interpreter.

I think the statement that we agree is true because I cannot see where we disagree.

You stated that communication *literally* contains meaning, truth, falsity etc. within themselves. My rebuttal was, in brief, that meaning has to occur - by definition - in the mind of at least one person, i.e., the original communicator of meaning, in order for it to be communicated. If it is understood by someone, it likewise occurs in the mind of that person. The actual medium/piece of communication itself contains/conveys no meaning. If it did, then understanding on the part of anyone would be unnecessary for meaningful communication to occur.

Why didn't you say that before? "Literal" has 7 different meanings http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literal?s=t Yes of course the words have no meaning of themselves, but I endow them with meaning when I string them together and you discern meaning implied by their construction. Maybe I overcomplicated the problem since I never expected you'd be pointing out the obvious, but I do tend to miss easy solutions so it's entirely possible it's my fault.

That's it! That is the whole of the *actual* argument! There is really no room for confusion or misunderstanding here.

Yes because you finally cleared it up.

Yet you seem to be obsessed with semantic/sophistical acrobatics which have no connection to the subject matter or overall context.

How can my dancing partner say I dance too much?

First you were arguing against the imaginary assertion (allegedly by me) that "communication must be understood in order to have meaning".

Then you should have noticed and corrected my misinterpretation sooner because I can't be expected to know what I've misinterpreted. You're the wordsmith (how many languages do you know?) so find creative ways to convey. Exercise the noodle! :)

I think many internet disagreements can be traced to semantics as if people are speaking slightly different languages when they would probably otherwise agree if they could realize what each is talking about.

Now you've started a game of agree/disagree. Presumably, in your mind, we should just keep going like this until all of our personal delusions can finally be accommodated within a simultaneously broad and abstruse conclusion. Sorry, but I'm not interested.

That's why I said we agree (to end it) because obviously we do and did, but it was simply an issue of encode/decode error that you apparently recognized, but couldn't or wouldn't rectify with sufficient articulation in lieu of complaining that I can't read your mind.

Truth is a concept and subjective.

If truth is subjective, then it is not "a" concept but many concepts. Since it is subjective, any and all concepts can be said to be truth-concepts. Thus, your statement is self-contradictory because it assumes - contrary to its own conclusion - that the concept that truth is not a concept and not subjective is not a truth-concept.

Oh man, talk about acrobatics, but I think we may have different definitions in mind: truth is a property of an observation wherein a property is a concept among many concepts. A concept is a conceptualization or how we "think" about a thing.

Truth, imo, is not synonymous with "existence" as in: if something is true, then it exists; or if it exists, then it's true.

Truth is also not conflated with a happening or a law or commandment.

Truth is simply the subjective property of a subjective observation.

There are no inherently existent things.

Then there is no All.

There are no inherently existing things because the All is never not.

Oh I see what you're saying... the All would be less than All if something were cut from it. But the All is still a thing, right?

I don't see how the sum of all things can be infinite using any definition of the word "sum". I think infinities are introduced by cameras looking at their own monitors.

Again, this is a pointless exercise. Because the mathematical definitions of "sum" and "infinity" explicitly refer to finite things and not "the sum of all finite things", or the All.

Are you defining it to be impossible to define? What definition for "sum" did you have in mind?

Your objective view of yourself is what you imagine other people would see

No, my objective view of myself is identical to my objective view of other things and people.

You can't have an objective view of yourself; only other things and people, but even that's not objective, but subjective.

"Objective view" is not synonymous with "logical view". A true objective view would have no observer because all observers "taint" the view with their subjective interpretations of the object.

"Other people" also includes my past selves, specifically memories of my thoughts, feelings and actions in the past.

Good insight.

There is no inherent difference between me and them.

Correct

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper: Doesn't the pride of valuing the truth further the ego?

Pam: The only time pride enters into the picture with regards to valuing something is if one believes they own the value or the something.

Serendipper: Or if one believes one exists. Valuing the truth can only exist if there is someone to value it and so if you value it, you're perpetuating the illusion that there is someone to value the truth. Defining truth is defining yourself.

You are correct, one must believe in an existent self in order to value truth but the valuing of truth does not further the belief in an existent self. Out of ignorance, the self idea may believe it is going to gain something to enhance its repertoire by seeking the truth of things, but that delusion is soon dashed as the seeking goes deeper/higher.

Pam: How can you possibly know that everyone has the element of rascality in them?

Serendipper: I suppose it's the same reason I know all electricity has plus and minus in it. Alan told another story of the holy men who smoke, drink, and have girlfriends and he said if they didn't have those eccentricities, they would cease to manifest

.
Pam: Your use of ‘suppose’ is evidence that you don’t know.

How can I know? But if duality applies, then I know ;)

IF duality applies? :-)

Pam: What Alan Watts said is only meaningful to both you and me if you reason the truth of his words.

Serendipper: His words carry meaning that has the property of truth.

If you don't tell me why Alan Watt's words have the property of truth, then all you are doing is flinging Alan's dust into the air.

Pam: When did I speak of purity or goodness in relation to god or truth? Put simply, the god of Genesis 2 is ignorant of the truth that there is no separation anywhere in reality. The Father of Genesis 1 represents the truth of no separation.

What is the relevance of recognizing the distinction between the two gods?

Recognizing the distinction between the two gods is the key to enlightenment for those who use the bible as their raft or bridge or ladder to go beyond the self idea. The Father is the law of the Spirit of life, ultimate invisible cause. The Lord God is ignorance of invisible cause.

Pam: Truth does not begin, the truth of an undivided reality is realized.

Serendipper: How do you know?

Reality is a totality. A totality cannot be compared. This is the logical truth of an undivided reality. Stop thinking for a few minutes until your body and mind are still. Can you see in the stillness of thinking that it is only when you think of two that two exists for you? That when thinking is not present that reality is ultimately empty what the human mind thinks it is? This is the realized spiritual truth of an undivided reality. Have you ever consciously stilled your thoughts? You mentioned you have OCD or OCD tendencies, perhaps being still of thought is a particularly difficult challenge for you.

Serendipper: Yes but if reality is not divided then there is no one there to experience the suffering. If there is someone there, then reality is divided and realizing it's not would be in error.

You’re confusing the self idea (someone) with the awareness idea. When you identify with ‘being a self’, is that not different than identifying with being awareness? Where ‘I am a self’ separates you from other perceived selves, ‘I am awareness’ does not. So the first step (and the last because it ‘don’t come easy’, it's a process) in stopping the illusion of separateness is to identify with awareness, not with a self.

There is a reason why 'an awareness’ is grammatically incorrect. :-)

Look around you, before you think that someone is doing the looking, are you not 'just' looking? Why do you name this 'you' that is aware a someone?

Serendipper: Duality is the interaction between subject and object like a coin is the interaction between heads and tails.

Animals are a part of reality. Do animals think of themselves as an interaction between subject and object? Are animals aware of the concept of duality? No, only self-centred humans.

Pam: Intellectually you have an excellent grasp on what a circle represents but if you want to know what or if a circle is, then you’ll need to enter the realm of awareness wherein the circle appears.

Serendipper: Where is the door? :)

If it helps to imagine a door - the one Jesus spoke of - that opens up into the invisible world of causation, then by all means, imagine that door. If you do, you must not stop at seeing the door, you must walk up to the door, turn the knob and open the door. If you do cross the threshold of the imaginary door, let me know what happens. :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Look around you, before you think that someone is doing the looking, are you not 'just' looking? Why do you name this 'you' that is aware a someone?

There is never 'just' looking. The process of observation can only start with a split between subject and object. Without this there is no distinction. Without distinction there is no difference between looking and not-looking: blindness.

What you describe as "just looking" is then enhanced perception, that is: minimizing distractions and noise. Imagine running with baggy layers of clothes, a heavy backpack, aching feet while looking behind you in fear all the time. Then realize how running is improved by focus with proper gear, no extra weight, little pain and looking where you are going instead. But it's also clear that in both cases there's still "just running" underneath it. We are talking about quality and not any different nature.

Animals are a part of reality. Do animals think of themselves as an interaction between subject and object? Are animals aware of the concept of duality? No, only self-centred humans.

Again some graduation does exist. Complex interactions will need a self-image to enhance processing. This enhancement might create ghost images around which some beliefs can be formed. But at the base animals including ourselves are already acting non-dual and, for example, mostly amoral. Despite what might be believed.

[Serendipper]

...

Serendipper: Doesn't the pride of valuing the truth further the ego?

Pam: The only time pride enters into the picture with regards to valuing something is if one believes they own the value or the something.

Serendipper: Or if one believes one exists. Valuing the truth can only exist if there is someone to value it and so if you value it, you're perpetuating the illusion that there is someone to value the truth. Defining truth is defining yourself.

Pam: You are correct, one must believe in an existent self in order to value truth but the valuing of truth does not further the belief in an existent self. Out of ignorance, the self idea may believe it is going to gain something to enhance its repertoire by seeking the truth of things, but that delusion is soon dashed as the seeking goes deeper/higher.

Serendipper: If one must believe in self in order to value truth, then valuing truth requires the existence of self; therefore it's impossible to value truth without perpetuating the idea of self. It seems to me if one desired to be rid of the idea of self, one should realize there is no truth to underpin it. Once we realize there is nothing, then we dissolve away. Additionally, "seeking" perpetuates the self since there must be someone to seek. And "deeper/higher" defines a direction as if there is somewhere to go (a goal) and someone to get there. All of this perpetuates the self.

...

Pam: How can you possibly know that everyone has the element of rascality in them?

Serendipper: I suppose it's the same reason I know all electricity has plus and minus in it. Alan told another story of the holy men who smoke, drink, and have girlfriends and he said if they didn't have those eccentricities, they would cease to manifest.

Pam: Your use of ‘suppose’ is evidence that you don’t know.

Serendipper: How can I know? But if duality applies, then I know ;)

Pam: IF duality applies? :-)

Serendipper: If rascality exists and if people exist and if duality applies, then I know ;) Obviously I can't know any of those things, but within the context of those assumptions, I can draw a conclusion.

Pam: What Alan Watts said is only meaningful to both you and me if you reason the truth of his words.

Serendipper: His words carry meaning that has the property of truth.

If you don't tell me why Alan Watt's words have the property of truth, then all you are doing is flinging Alan's dust into the air.

Oh, you wanted me to explain his position? Goodness, he talked for hours at a time about it. Essentially it boils down to duality and that good can't exist without evil or rascality.

He mentions the ideal universe being 2/3 good and 1/3 evil where evil is continually in the process of losing, but never is lost and good is always in the process of winning, but never wins. Any other configuration won't work and is paralleled to a stew with a pinch of salt, or element of irreducible rascality, wherein too much salt is horrible and too little is bland.

If the universe were balanced in terms of good and evil, then there would be no perception of winning or losing or making any progress. If the universe were in favor of evil, then it would have destroyed itself long ago. If the universe were all good, there would be no point to having a universe since it would be a copy of the blissfully boring state of eternal thumb-twiddling.

So, that's how I know god must have an element of rascality, a left and right hand, since nothing could exist if it weren't so.

Pam: When did I speak of purity or goodness in relation to god or truth? Put simply, the god of Genesis 2 is ignorant of the truth that there is no separation anywhere in reality. The Father of Genesis 1 represents the truth of no separation.

What is the relevance of recognizing the distinction between the two gods?

Recognizing the distinction between the two gods is the key to enlightenment for those who use the bible as their raft or bridge or ladder to go beyond the self idea. The Father is the law of the Spirit of life, ultimate invisible cause. The Lord God is ignorance of invisible cause.

Oh, well, I already have so many rafts that I can't see the river lol

Pam: Truth does not begin, the truth of an undivided reality is realized.

Serendipper: How do you know?

Reality is a totality. A totality cannot be compared. This is the logical truth of an undivided reality.

Reality is a relationship between subject and object that can be divided, but upon doing so it will cease to be real. Therefore, truths can only be discerned subjectively and cease to exist once there is no subject to perceive them or no object to give them meaning.

Stop thinking for a few minutes until your body and mind are still. Can you see in the stillness of thinking that it is only when you think of two that two exists for you? That when thinking is not present that reality is ultimately empty what the human mind thinks it is? This is the realized spiritual truth of an undivided reality.

I see what you're saying and I don't mean to imply that reality is undivided, though it is polar like the earth is a whole with a north and south pole. Obviously it can't be divided like we can't cut a magnet in half to get a north pole separate from the south, but it is composed of two opposites.

Have you ever consciously stilled your thoughts?

When sleeping or watching movies. Stilling thoughts is the cessation of existence.

You mentioned you have OCD or OCD tendencies, perhaps being still of thought is a particularly difficult challenge for you.

Yes, sitting and doing nothing is very hard for me. I have friends who can sit in a treestand for 12 hrs waiting for a deer to wander by and I regard that as superhuman. Sometimes I go up in the stand and sit, but then realize some profound revelation and scurry back to my workstation to write it down or otherwise explore it after deciding that sitting up there is a colossal waste of time lol.

I get itches I just have to scratch and easily get obsessed with things and will disregard eating and sleeping at the behest of the compulsions. I make accomplishments, but I suffer as well, so it evens out. There really is no such thing as a disorder without begging the question of what is order.

Serendipper: Yes but if reality is not divided then there is no one there to experience the suffering. If there is someone there, then reality is divided and realizing it's not would be in error.

You’re confusing the self idea (someone) with the awareness idea.

If there is no "someone", then who is aware?

When you identify with ‘being a self’, is that not different than identifying with being awareness? Where ‘I am a self’ separates you from other perceived selves, ‘I am awareness’ does not. So the first step (and the last because it ‘don’t come easy’, it's a process) in stopping the illusion of separateness is to identify with awareness, not with a self.

Again, who is aware? Having a sense of awareness also perpetuates the idea of self, just a more high-minded self that prides itself on being aware of what others are not.

Look around you, before you think that someone is doing the looking, are you not 'just' looking? Why do you name this 'you' that is aware a someone?

That's just a distinction between the instinctual self and the cognitive self and is obscure because I cannot distinguish between the awareness caused by myself and that caused by an atom; awareness seems to be a property of the universe.

Serendipper: Duality is the interaction between subject and object like a coin is the interaction between heads and tails.

Animals are a part of reality. Do animals think of themselves as an interaction between subject and object? Are animals aware of the concept of duality? No, only self-centred humans.

Animals have egos and we get the word "cocky" from the rooster. Lately I've been trying to decide just what forms of life experience egos and I've tentatively decided it simply must be a property common to all life and has something to do with the will to survive, which is necessary to have a universe.

Pam: Intellectually you have an excellent grasp on what a circle represents but if you want to know what or if a circle is, then you’ll need to enter the realm of awareness wherein the circle appears.

Serendipper: Where is the door? :)

If it helps to imagine a door - the one Jesus spoke of - that opens up into the invisible world of causation, then by all means, imagine that door. If you do, you must not stop at seeing the door, you must walk up to the door, turn the knob and open the door. If you do cross the threshold of the imaginary door, let me know what happens. :-)

Well I can't imagine a door; there must actually be a door.

Reminds me of this Alan bit:

Now, be careful how you formulate this philosophically. This could correspond to the sort of person who feels unafraid and he feels very free because he is a complete fatalist. A lot of people are and are very happy in their fatalism. They feel they don't do anything and it just happens to them. They won't die until it's time to die so why worry? That's too passive. That is, he has felt that there is still some kind of little differentiation between himself as the experiencer on the one hand and the force or set of forces called fate on the other. He is pushed around, but he witnesses being pushed around. In this state he still has a little impurity left... and that is the sensation of being pushed around. There is still a fundamental division between the knower and the known. In this case, the fatalist case, the knower seems to be the passive thing and everything known, the objective world, appears to be the active end.

The important thing to find out is this: That the sensation of being the knower and the experiencer of all this, is not, as it were, aside from everything else that's going on, but it's part of it. Although you experience your existence subjectively, you are nevertheless part of the external world. You are in my external world just as I am in your external world. So in this way, the final barrier between the knower and the known is broken down. There is nobody being carried along by fate; there is just the process... and all that you are is part of the process.

He experiences no longer a passive relationship to the world, he simply sees that all that he is and all that he ever was, was something that the entire process was doing. At the time, when he felt himself to be separate, he sees in a certain way that that was just what he should have felt because that was what the process was doing in him, in exactly the same way as it was giving him brown or blue eyes. And that's going through the door and turning round to see there was no door. You're not fated; you're not trapped because there's nobody in the trap.

After hearing that I had to go for a long walk wherein I took very deliberate steps, not trying to get anywhere, but trying to make sense of this turn of events. For all my life, it seemed, had been a complete waste of time, but there was no one left to realize and regret it. I went through the door and not only discovered there was no door, but no one to walk through, much like Neo taking the red pill only to discover there was no red pill.

So what now then? Do I strive to become a lump of wood floating down the river and struggle to ignore that fact? Or do I go back in the game while struggling to ignore that it's only a game because I need some way to occupy eternity? Alan doesn't talk much about it, but he's let it escape a couple times that forsaking all this enlightenment stuff is what most people seem to do. Well, because there is nothing else to do and no where else to go; the game is all there is.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: There is never 'just' looking. The process of observation can only start with a split between subject and object. Without this there is no distinction. Without distinction there is no difference between looking and not-looking: blindness.

So your reasoning is that there is an actual subject-object relationship prior to awareness that splits upon becoming aware? I'm very surprised at your answer, a little bit shocked if truth be told, but it does explain your vision of the self as an inverted pyramid.

There is no hidden duality of subject or object so there can be no splitting.(Undivided) awareness or observation of distinctions, yes. I and the Father (the Law) are ONE.

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper, methinks that contradiction doesn't cause you suffering, that instead, you enjoy or perhaps even thrive on contradiction. If this is so, because I see contradiction as the base effect of ignorance, then there is no point in continuing our discussion. Happy contradiction hunting - perhaps one day you will exhaust yourself dividing yourself, perhaps not: whatever happens, our brief encounter, was, for me, most fruitful!

[Serendipper]

Serendipper, methinks that contradiction doesn't cause you suffering, that instead, you enjoy or perhaps even thrive on contradiction. If this is so, because I see contradiction as the base effect of ignorance, then there is no point in continuing our discussion. Happy contradiction hunting - perhaps one day you will exhaust yourself dividing yourself, perhaps not: whatever happens, our brief encounter, was, for me, most fruitful!

Then what's the sense to ending the discussion? You mentioned before that you'd "go for a walk or check the genius forum", so if you you don't talk to me, then why check the forum? ;)

[jupiviv]

You stated that communication *literally* contains meaning, truth, falsity etc. within themselves. My rebuttal was, in brief, that meaning has to occur - by definition - in the mind of at least one person, i.e., the original communicator of meaning, in order for it to be communicated. If it is understood by someone, it likewise occurs in the mind of that person. The actual medium/piece of communication itself contains/conveys no meaning. If it did, then understanding on the part of anyone would be unnecessary for meaningful communication to occur.

Why didn't you say that before? "Literal" has 7 different meanings http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literal?s=t Yes of course the words have no meaning of themselves, but I endow them with meaning when I string them together and you discern meaning implied by their construction. Maybe I overcomplicated the problem since I never expected you'd be pointing out the obvious, but I do tend to miss easy solutions so it's entirely possible it's my fault.

I made the same points repeatedly, and they were meant to counter your argument that "a statement is a thing because it is a series of words ... it is also a thing because it is a concept that conveys information". To my mind, it was clear enough which definition of "literal" I was using. But obviously there was a misunderstanding and now its cleared up. Presumably we can agree that statements are just series of words and not concepts or any sort of literal containers of meaning.

Truth is a concept and subjective.

If truth is subjective, then it is not "a" concept but many concepts. Since it is subjective, any and all concepts can be said to be truth-concepts. Thus, your statement is self-contradictory because it assumes - contrary to its own conclusion - that the concept that truth is not a concept and not subjective is not a truth-concept.

Oh man, talk about acrobatics, but I think we may have different definitions in mind: truth is a property of an observation wherein a property is a concept among many concepts. A concept is a conceptualization or how we "think" about a thing.

If truth is a property of observation, then what observation contains the truth of this same observation?

Oh I see what you're saying... the All would be less than All if something were cut from it. But the All is still a thing, right?

That's the point - unlike things, nothing can be added to or subtracted from the All. He who says the All is deficient is himself completely deficient.

Again, this is a pointless exercise. Because the mathematical definitions of "sum" and "infinity" explicitly refer to finite things and not "the sum of all finite things", or the All.

Are you defining it to be impossible to define? What definition for "sum" did you have in mind?

It's not about the definition, but what the definition refers to in this case, i.e., the All. Scratching one's back refers to the All as well.

You can't have an objective view of yourself; only other things and people, but even that's not objective, but subjective.

Like I said, me in the future and past is "other things and people", as is someone else in the present, future or past. So basically at any given moment there is just me and other things and people. There is no third entity, viz. "me experiencing or not being able to experience myself".

"Objective view" is not synonymous with "logical view". A true objective view would have no observer because all observers "taint" the view with their subjective interpretations of the object.

If this is objectively true, then this is not objectively true.

Also, a comment on the Alan Watts quote:

The important thing to find out is this: That the sensation of being the knower and the experiencer of all this, is not, as it were, aside from everything else that's going on, but it's part of it. Although you experience your existence subjectively, you are nevertheless part of the external world. You are in my external world just as I am in your external world. So in this way, the final barrier between the knower and the known is broken down. There is nobody being carried along by fate; there is just the process... and all that you are is part of the process.

He experiences no longer a passive relationship to the world, he simply sees that all that he is and all that he ever was, was something that the entire process was doing. At the time, when he felt himself to be separate, he sees in a certain way that that was just what he should have felt because that was what the process was doing in him, in exactly the same way as it was giving him brown or blue eyes. And that's going through the door and turning round to see there was no door. You're not fated; you're not trapped because there's nobody in the trap.

It certainly isn't wise to tempt fate by denying its existence and then insulting it by calling it "the process". If this process refers to the All, then things are not a part of it for the same reasons they might be a part of other things. If someone is trapped and in despair, or free and wise, and the "entire process" is doing that in them or as them, it isn't for the same reasons other things might be doing so.

There isn't any reason why things are a part of or created and directed by the All, because in relation to the All all things are as nothing. Even the All itself isn't a reason for those things, since what reason does nothing need? Marry or do not marry, be trapped by or be free of fate, realise your inseparability from other things or your isolation from them - whatever you do or think, if you relate it to the All you will regret it. If you are clever and decide to do both or neither or neither and both, and then relate that to the All, you will still regret it.

Rather, do what you truly believe is right, not what the All is making you do or doing as you or whatever else.

Let us now turn from Watts to Kierkegaard:

If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or if you do not marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret both. Laugh at the world’s follies, you will regret it; weep over them, you will also regret it; if you laugh at the world’s follies or if you weep over them, you will regret both; whether you laugh at the world’s follies or you weep over them, you will regret both. Believe a girl, you will regret it; if you do not believe her, you will also regret it; if you believe a girl or you do not believe her, you will regret both; whether you believe a girl or you do not believe her, you will regret both. If you hang yourself, you will regret it; if you do not hang yourself, you will regret it; if you hang yourself or you do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or you do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum of all practical wisdom. It isn’t just in single moments that I view everything aeterno modo, as Spinoza says; I am constantly aeterno modo. Many people think that’s what they are too when, having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate these opposites. But this is a misunderstanding, for the true eternity lies not behind either/or but ahead of it. - Either/Or

[jufa]

Dealing strictly with the topic issue itself and none of the comments, although I've read quite a few of the recent ones, If contradictions exist absolute doesn't. On the other hand, should absolute exist, what is the contradiction found? And can either be proved, or evidenced when perspective are singularly individualized, and not plural?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: There is never 'just' looking. The process of observation can only start with a split between subject and object. Without this there is no distinction. Without distinction there is no difference between looking and not-looking: blindness.

So your reasoning is that there is an actual subject-object relationship prior to awareness that splits upon becoming aware? I'm very surprised at your answer, a little bit shocked if truth be told, but it does explain your vision of the self as an inverted pyramid.

The shock should be that you are arguing for some state of awareness preceding the subject-object relationship. It's just a form of invocation which cannot stand. It's also overloading a term like "awareness" with properties in a theological way. Any experimental access to such kind of awareness does never transcend any subject-object, although it could morph and warp it to the degree it might be educational. However, truth cannot be found here, mostly indifference or deference: a refuge.

There is no hidden duality of subject or object so there can be no splitting.(Undivided) awareness or observation of distinctions, yes. I and the Father (the Law) are ONE.

What is hidden about any duality? It's appearance by definition, in thought, feeling, vision or imagined absence of such. The son and the father are one in the sense that the past and the future are: all visions of the future are continuations of the past (learned behavior, memory, law, habit, formation etc). And our hopes and dreams, our expectations define our ability to deal with the past, that is : appropriate it fully.