GENIUS FORUMS

This is the God Nihilism, since it turns everything into nothing but "itself".

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

I mean you know, the more I think about it, since we're talking about understanding, there must be a reason.

Construction project.

this and such as it is.

the being of a chair isn't an issue for the chair.

But chair isn't a thing, it's a concept. Immanent ought to sit on the concept we call banana and tell me why understanding discriminates between concepts. You haven't really answered the question either, Dennis.

But chair isn't a thing, it's a concept. Immanent ought to sit on the concept we call banana and tell me why understanding discriminates between concepts. You haven't really answered the question either, Dennis.

A banana as thing-in-itself?

minus it's perceived properties and uses in relation to human being?

Leyla Shen wrote:Another bloody god argument! "Immanent": the Uncaused Cause.

Yes Leyla I think it is a smart 'god' argument. It is a pity that people can't start from the basic premise that we live and die. Nothing else, no more brain work needed. The rest is speculation, entertainment, religious dogma and ego stroking.

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

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

Not-OK is your firewall protection ardy.

movingalways wrote:

Thingness is correctly attributed to that which has essence, and incorrectly attributed to that which is merely perceived as having essence.

Explain to me how you separate perception from essence.

Our perceptions are distinctions that relate, whether these be understood truly as perceptions or misconceived as things. If our attention is shallow, we believe that they exist the way we see them, or we attribute essence to them (that is, we think that they exist by their own power).

But the only thing that exists by its own power, i.e., by its own definition, is understanding. This power of existing is to have essence, to be something actual.

movingalways wrote:

A tree is a thing 'bounded' by its contrasts. How does a tree define a tree?

A tree is a concept which can be misconceived as a thing.

Give me an example of a thing that is not a concept.

The existence of understanding is not conceptual, but actual. This does not mean that there is no concept of understanding; it means that this concept is necessary by self-definition. The difference lies in that the existence of limited things as limited is conceptual, i.e., they cannot be understood as actual things since this is to abandon their real definitions.

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

Understanding is the one thing, self-defined. This means that it is not limited by anything else, i.e., for there is nothing else to impose a limitation upon it. Thus everything that can be defined (can be understood) must necessarily be understood (since understanding exists), and only that which's definition contains a contradiction (that which is a non-definition) cannot be; such as the square circle.

It is interesting that you say "cares to" discriminate between concepts. Understanding is in perfect expression of its own timeless essence.

Immanent, for me, it is simple. Understanding/knowing includes concepts.

ardy wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Another bloody god argument! "Immanent": the Uncaused Cause.

Yes Leyla I think it is a smart 'god' argument. It is a pity that people can't start from the basic premise that we live and die. Nothing else, no more brain work needed. The rest is speculation, entertainment, religious dogma and ego stroking.

The basic premise is that 'we' exist, the basic premise that nullifies birth and death.

movingalways wrote:Immanent, for me, it is simple. Understanding/knowing includes concepts.

Yes.

movingalways wrote:

ardy wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Another bloody god argument! "Immanent": the Uncaused Cause.

Yes Leyla I think it is a smart 'god' argument. It is a pity that people can't start from the basic premise that we live and die. Nothing else, no more brain work needed. The rest is speculation, entertainment, religious dogma and ego stroking.

The basic premise is that 'we' exist, the basic premise that nullifies birth and death.

Movingalways: True at a fundamental level yet a standard statement in Zen is: No Birth, No Death and No Path. In answer to the question "Pain not being real, in what path of existence would you be reborn after death?" from the long quote I put on 'Is this the issue we go over and over'. Could be interpreted a couple of ways, one as once enlightened no more re-birth or it could mean, no re-birth therefore no death.

Our birth and death is a dualistic concept that keeps us from the truth of the everything, but were we born from our mother? and will we die? Is a different thing all together.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

But chair isn't a thing, it's a concept. Immanent ought to sit on the concept we call banana and tell me why understanding discriminates between concepts. You haven't really answered the question either, Dennis.

A banana as thing-in-itself?

minus it's perceived properties and uses in relation to human being?

A concept as concept-in-itself?

plus it's perceived properties and uses in relation to all concepts-in-themselves?

The existence of a banana is not conceptual, but actual. This does not mean that there is no concept of banana; it means that this concept is necessarily a definition.

The difference lies in that the existence of limited things as limited is conceptual, i.e., they cannot be understood as actual things since this is to abandon their real definitions.

Either all things are actual or no things are actual.

Quoth the omniscient one:

Understanding is the one thing, self-defined. This means that it is not limited by anything else, i.e., for there is nothing else to impose a limitation upon it.

The limitation upon understanding is, by definition, ignorance. That is, where ignorance exists, understanding does not.

There appears to be a firewall between me and banana but truly we are both dependent origination.
love the little guys.
that understanding.

void of inherent existence.

er, I mean unconditional love for the little guys.

a conceived of peeled banana move I heard about is substituted sex pistol which requires a sex organ in order to.
equipment meets equipment.
network of relations so to speak.

Dennis, step 1) re-read your comment above. Step 2) recognize you're an idiot, who has openly abandoned reason and logic and replaced it with love the for little guys- bananas.

I pushed your button.
puppet on a string.

Dennis Mahar wrote: a conceived of peeled banana move I heard about is substituted sex pistol

Are you sure above just doesn't make any sense?

It must be because I'm angry that you write in another language which is not english.

Stop deflecting, half the time you write shit that makes no sense, it has nothing to do with me.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote: a conceived of peeled banana move I heard about is substituted sex pistol

Are you sure above just doesn't make any sense?

It must be because I'm angry that you write in another language which is not english.

Stop deflecting, half the time you write shit that makes no sense, it has nothing to do with me.

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

comprehension failure as usual.

Leyla Shen wrote:The existence of a banana is not conceptual, but actual. This does not mean that there is no concept of banana; it means that this concept is necessarily a definition.

A banana is a definition that necessarily relates to other definitions. It interacts with the definition Leyla Shen. This is why you say it is actual; since it interacts with your body. But it is defined in the way it is discerned from other relative definitions, and is thus not a thing of itself, but part of the whole. Leyla Shen is also part of the whole, for she interacts with the banana.

The difference lies in that the existence of limited things as limited is conceptual, i.e., they cannot be understood as actual things since this is to abandon their real definitions.

Either all things are actual or no things are actual.

All limited distinctions are conceptual parts of the actual thing.

Leyla Shen wrote:Quoth the omniscient one:

Understanding is the one thing, self-defined. This means that it is not limited by anything else, i.e., for there is nothing else to impose a limitation upon it.

The limitation upon understanding is, by definition, ignorance. That is, where ignorance exists, understanding does not.

Ignorance is not a definition in other sense than the definition of extent of knowledge, i.e., the limits of the limited mind. That is, a conceptual thing in understanding.