GENIUS FORUMS

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scare+quote wrote:scare quote
n.
Either of a pair of quotation marks used to emphasize a word or phrase or to indicate its special status, especially to express doubt about its validity or to criticize its use.

Noam Chomsky irradiates his writing with these, often using a dozen or more in a single page, and they are largely responsible for why I can't be bothered to read Noam Chomsky.

[laughs] Really? I love Noam and have not noticed this! Though, admittedly, I have only read a selection of his political essays.

Though the sentiment is somewhat overdue (remiss on my parrt not in thought, but in deed only), it's good to see you writing to the forum again, Trevor.

Though the sentiment is somewhat overdue (remiss on my parrt not in thought, but in deed only), it's good to see you writing to the forum again, Trevor.

Thanks. We'll see if it lasts; I'm moving to a group home shortly where they don't have Internet, and have no intention of ever getting it, so it looks like I'll be having to sneak wireless broadband in through the cellphone network. The first and last problem of any new living arrangement.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

Though the sentiment is somewhat overdue (remiss on my parrt not in thought, but in deed only), it's good to see you writing to the forum again, Trevor.

Thanks. We'll see if it lasts; I'm moving to a group home shortly where they don't have Internet, and have no intention of ever getting it, so it looks like I'll be having to sneak wireless broadband in through the cellphone network. The first and last problem of any new living arrangement.

I forbid you from leaving Genius Forums!

In any event, there is always the public library internet computers to keep in contact. Carl told me that one.

Anywho,

Live long ... but prosper, Trevor.



Tomas


.

Never fear, tomas. Necessity forces invention, and they didn't outlaw laptops.

I need Internet for banking, e-mail, setting up engagements, and keeping up-to-date with pop culture. I've got a friend who's a network engineer who will make sure I won't go wanting; I'll probably just have a little black box of Internet connectivity hiding under a pile of clothes, and a cellphone bill with a few extra numbers on it. They're pretty good with privacy where I'm going: unless they suspect drugs, I don't think even the staff goes into anyone's room.

Best case scenario, someone in the neighbourhood forgot to put a password on their router, so I don't need to do anything fancy. Worst case scenario, I know a few places with free wireless.

LS,
Since you believe that the several quoted mystics from all six major religious traditions, all well recognized as enlightened ones, are "in denial" (just like me), you are clearly not to be taken seriously in a forum subtitled (however pretentiously) "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment."

BTW, regarding your repeated misunderstanding, as follows:
"Mutual understanding between what, exactly? Two separate and personal selves?"...
and... "Since you clearly have not transcended the illusory self to such an extent that you continue to assert that I have one"
and..." And…transpersonal? Since you have already stated that there are no real boundaries, why do you engage in such a thing as “transpersonalism”?....

It is very basic to the whole field of transpersonal psych... all the way to grokking enlightenment... that individuals do not just disappear as manifest beings, each in unique form with a unique life. The subject of *having separate identities* is another matter, as that precisely is the ubiquitous illusion which enlightenment sees through and those still sleeping in the dream of ego-as-identity (such as your-"self") do not.

I'll conclude with the most trivial of your objections, my use of those pesky "inverted commas." Trevor's reference to Chomsky on the subject nailed it better that I did. A I said tho, a trivial re-arrangement of your priorities for discussion in this forum is way overdue.

Bye,
mikiel


mikiel

mikiel,

LS,
Since you believe that the several quoted mystics from all six major religious traditions, all well recognized as enlightened ones, are "in denial" (just like me), you are clearly not to be taken seriously in a forum subtitled (however pretentiously) "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment."

Do you recall what happens when the page is unavailable? Clearly not. Was a strange kind of irony…

Besides, I assume people who write to this forum have something more to say and do than refer members to other websites. Stop being so evasive and answer the god-damned questions.

It is very basic to the whole field of transpersonal psych... all the way to grokking enlightenment... that individuals do not just disappear as manifest beings, each in unique form with a unique life. The subject of *having separate identities* is another matter, as that precisely is the ubiquitous illusion which enlightenment sees through and those still sleeping in the dream of ego-as-identity (such as your-"self") do not.

It appears one with any sort of (but perhaps misplaced) faith really does have to go at you with a sledgehammer.

If individuals appear as manifest beings, each in unique form with a unique life, that is what constitutes separate identities.

I'll conclude with the most trivial of your objections,

Of course you will. Your incompetence and ignorance know no bounds.

…my use of those pesky "inverted commas." Trevor's reference to Chomsky on the subject nailed it better that I did.

Yes, Trev’s a favourite of mine. Nice, clean communicator with a choice sense of irony. And, you mean, of course, Trevor knows what inverted commas are used for and you don’t. Had you been perceptive enough, you might also have gained some insight into why he hasn’t entered into dialogue with you.

A I said tho, a trivial re-arrangement of your priorities for discussion in this forum is way overdue.

A trivial rearrangement of my priorities, now? mikiel, I strongly suggest you superglue a dictionary to your forehead and memorise one common word a night and DO NOT open your mouth again for another ten or so years--about how long it might well take you to gain consistency in thought and expression and start making sense in a word span of greater than two.

Oh, what a thankless task this selfless, compassionate work is…

m: "Here's some context for you, shared here a few time before. the same "realization" from mystics of several Traditions, all of whom realize identity in unity with The One."
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless

LS: "Actually, I found the page. It’s just in denial, like you"

LS: "Do you recall what happens when the page is unavailable? Clearly not. Was a strange kind of irony…"
Which story are you going with... "page unavailable" or "actually I found the page?"

LS: "Besides, I assume people who write to this forum have something more to say and do than refer members to other websites. Stop being so evasive and answer the god-damned questions."

m: It does not imply omniscience, but gnosis, which can be stated, as Jesus did, "I and the Creator are one."

LS: "Without a proper and clear context, this simply comes across as just another meaningless platitude."

Note: Link supplied requested context. It also supplied a bunch of testimony from enlightened ones from many traditions as to how personal identity is an illusion and universal Identity is the gnostic realization common to all who awaken into conscious unity. And I have answered the god-damn question in my own terms all over this forum since I joined, most recently above... that the uniqueness of individuals remain after they transcend their illusory egoic identity. Over and over, but you still don't get it. What was that about needing a sledge hammer to get a point across?

So, again to conclude with your trivial obsession about my misuse of quotes, as per, "Trevor knows what inverted commas are used for and you don’t."
Actually I use them for all the reasons Chompsky states plus the ones I stated... all of the above. You are the one with the tight-assed school marm "proper usage" burr in a place that is difficult to extract.
"One thing you can't hide... is when you're crippled inside."

I wish you luck in your recovery.
PS: If Tevor has a bone to pick with me, that's his business.
mikiel

Sorry again for the delay David.

David Quinn wrote:The simple act of perceiving differentiation doesn't require us to go that extra step and project boundaries onto this perceived differentiation

So you reckon conceptual boundaries are projections. Do you reckon perceptual differentiations are projections too?

, or even worse, to believe that the "things" we have created via this boundary-projection are real.

You say conceptually projected boundaries are not real, do you also characterize perceptual differentiations as not real?

The "things" we perceive in the empirical world are almost invariably a bundle of differentiations themselves. A tree is comprised of leaves, branches, trunk, bark, etc - all of them perceived differentiations. The differentiations within the tree are just as prevalent as those which occur outside it. And yet we decide to bunch together a set of these differentiations and call this collection a "tree", and reject all the other differentiations as being "not the tree". There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root.

What do you mean they are arbitrary? The purposes we have are exactly the purposes we have, how is that arbitrary? Arbitrary compared to what? Compared to some other imaginary purposes that we might have in some other imaginary situations in some other imaginary world?

The important thing is to develop the flexibility of mind which can project and withdraw boundaries at will.

Wouldn't this "important thing" be arbitrary at root too, if we were to follow on from what you said above? Kind of questionable to want to hang onto this one important arbitrary thing, while simultaneously attempting to undermine all these other "things" because they are arbitrary.

David Quinn wrote:

The "things" we perceive in the empirical world are almost invariably a bundle of differentiations themselves. A tree is comprised of leaves, branches, trunk, bark, etc - all of them perceived differentiations. The differentiations within the tree are just as prevalent as those which occur outside it. And yet we decide to bunch together a set of these differentiations and call this collection a "tree", and reject all the other differentiations as being "not the tree". There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root.

The creation of concepts is not arbitrary but very purposeful. The concepts actually have their own reality apart from their physical manifestation--that is, if they are derived from a physical thing. Concepts that have no actual physical manifestation are obviously real, and quite influential.