GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius:

Need I say anything more? Inexpressible! Absolutely Inexpressible!

That's why the Tao is considered predicateless.
And Language depends on a predicate.
Tao shows up when Language takes a holiday.
And Languaging is Fun...really good Fun...a really, really Fun Activity...
It's such a pleasure...a Conversation...quite extraordinary...quite beautiful...
An astonishlingly sublime design feature in an astonishingly well-crafted Universe..
O Tao...I am Impressed.

frank

suergaz wrote::D

You all course around each other but you all maintain that nothing inherently exists! Fishy philosophers! You're only philosophers when you're netted!

Um, Er..share the love!

Zag, I did mention somewhere to you that thing’s inherently exist; I was not joking. What your are saying is about reaching a conclusion after starting from a certain point (ignorance), going around (earnestly thinking), reaching a conclusion (understanding, realization), and this realization allows you to actually stand up and look around, and you then realize that you are back to where you started from, and can actually see it as a circle now. Hence, what there is, is necessarily IS, inherently, at any point of Infinity, making it Infinity in itself. (I don't know if I put that correctly?)

Now, If your are smart enough to know that, aren't you smart enough to know that you did have to actually travel all the way to actually comprehend it, hence, you cannot just declare what you have realized and expect others to simply accept, because most have actually not stood upright as yet, and cannot see the fact in your declaration, whatever you call it, and have come to understand Reality IN that word. But remember, Reality is not IN any particular word, but is absolutely all that there IS. The word ‘Infinity’ has come to represent the fullest understanding one could have for whatever exists, as is, good, good for you.

If you are hell bent on your desire that all should necessarily share what you have, which is understandable, then at least try changing your tactics. Yes, you can help, but learn to speak their language first, which you already know since you did travel. Or did you? That is what people doubt in your stubborn (for them) simple (for me) declaration.

You see, if you have had an apple, which I have never ever tasted, you simply cannot explain to me how it tastes. A realization is just like the taste rather than an apple itself. And the word Infinity represents the apple rather than the taste. So what do you do?

So don't get disheartened, just think about it, and how to go about it.

By the way, I'm not a philosopher, and say, things do not inherently exist :D

.

frank wrote:Sapius:

Need I say anything more? Inexpressible! Absolutely Inexpressible!

That's why the Tao is considered predicateless.
And Language depends on a predicate.
Tao shows up when Language takes a holiday.
And Languaging is Fun...really good Fun...a really, really Fun Activity...
It's such a pleasure...a Conversation...quite extraordinary...quite beautiful...
An astonishlingly sublime design feature in an astonishingly well-crafted Universe..
O Tao...I am Impressed.

frank

And yet! I' not less Impressed by the words that express your realizations, and help me share the meaning in them, doubling the Fun! Err...No. Multiplying! :D

.

Sapius:

Zag, I did mention somewhere to you that thing’s inherently exist; I was not joking. What your are saying is about reaching a conclusion after starting from a certain point (ignorance), going around (earnestly thinking), reaching a conclusion (understanding, realization), and this realization allows you to actually stand up and look around, and you then realize that you are back to where you started from, and can actually see it as a circle now. Hence, what there is, is necessarily IS, inherently, at any point of Infinity, making it Infinity in itself. (I don't know if I put that correctly?)
Now, If your are smart enough to know that, aren't you smart enough to know that you did have to actually travel all the way to actually comprehend it, hence, you cannot just declare what you have realized and expect others to simply accept, because most have actually not stood upright as yet, and cannot see the fact in your declaration, whatever you call it, and have come to understand Reality IN that word. But remember, Reality is not IN any particular word, but is absolutely all that there IS. The word ‘Infinity’ has come to represent the fullest understanding one could have for whatever exists, as is, good, good for you. If you are hell bent on your desire that all should necessarily share what you have, which is understandable, then at least try changing your tactics. Yes, you can help, but learn to speak their language first, which you already know since you did travel. Or did you? That is what people doubt in your stubborn (for them) simple (for me) declaration. You see, if you have had an apple, which I have never ever tasted, you simply cannot explain to me how it tastes. A realization is just like the taste rather than an apple itself. And the word Infinity represents the apple rather than the taste. So what do you do? So don't get disheartened, just think about it, and how to go about it.

What a sigh! Even Zagreus is human enough to suffer a little impatience from time to time! What does one do when one has exhausted every reasonable examination through all possible understandings to be had in certain words and terms? Do I sit and wait? If my own words give me wings, would I be teaching anything from disappointment? From disheartened condition? No, I must be permitted my disbelief!

By the way, I'm not a philosopher, and say, things do not inherently exist :D

Why do you say it if it isn't true, but only true as anothers understanding of the matter? You can only be true to everyone through yourself.

Diebert wrote:

Sue: If “experiences are not reality” – what is?

Experiences lie in reality, is what I said. That there's a totality beyond our senses is something that cannot be experienced. But we can use reason to find out about it. But even while reasoning is a form of experiencing, one is only experiencing a reflection, not the whole. Since there can only be one reality, the whole, we can say with certainty that our experiences do not equal reality.

What do you mean by “reflection”?

By knowing our experiences are only appearances, and not things in themselves, we understand this manifestation of Reality. Even your thought that “our experiences do not equal reality” is itself an appearance. So you're correct that they are not the whole of Reality, but they are a creation of Reality.

Sue: Saying that Reality is “beyond thought” is absurd. It’s in the same vein as, “We can never know Reality” – which is also absurd.

There's a difference between the whole of reality being "beyond thought" and "never knowing (about) reality".

Upon taking another look at the whole paragraph where I found your “beyond thought” idea (below*), I see that you are saying that thoughts are “mental forms” (appearances), and that understanding this fact can lead you to “discover reality beyond experience”. Do I understand you correctly?

*Diebert: Experiences are not reality, and this can be established by our interpretations and investigations. Thoughts are mental forms that have the potential to invoke reason, because of their specific structure, and this helps one to discover reality beyond experiences; beyond thought, beyond feeling.*

Sue: The only way we know anything is through our thoughts, therefore what we are experiencing must be Reality.

No, you can only say you are experiencing. While that experience cannot lie outside reality, it doesn't equal reality or say anything meaningful about it.

Depending on how conscious you are, you can work out some meaningful things to say about Reality. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here doing philosophy. For example, what you say in your sentence above has meaning – to you, and to others.

I understand your point to be that thoughts cannot tell us anything about Reality, because Reality is formless and empty. But, I think you will agree with me that even the thought that Reality is formless and empty is also an appearance. So, my point is: before an individual can develop the radically deeper understanding of the nature of Reality, they first need to understand how thoughts come about and what thoughts really are. Would you agree?

And the interesting question should not be 'is this real?' but 'is this true?' All else outside truth is delusional and we should call it 'unreal' though not separated from the totality of course.

But we can’t ignore the fact that what appears to us in any moment is actually real and true. If I say that what is in front of my eyes at this very moment is not real and true, I then make everything absurd.

For example: I used to keep in a cage a fake budgie which was always being mistaken as a real one. People who did not know that the budgie was fake would talk to it and tell me how pretty and tame it was. I would agree with them and add that it was the best pet I’d ever owned. They would continue to look at it, even commenting on the fact that there was neither water nor food in its cage. I would say that I only fed it when it whistled. Most people would work out in a moment or two that the bird was indeed a fake, but once or twice, because the person’s attention was drawn toward something else, they would continue to believe that I owned a pet budgie.

So, to all newcomers my budgie was alive, which at that moment was real and true. To those who discovered him to be a fake, this also was real and true. To those that continue to think him alive, that too was real and true. And to those few who asked what happened to the fake budgie, and I informed them of his demise at the hands of small children – that too was also real and true.

What we can always be certain of is that what appears to us - appears to us.

Sue: If you experience something, you experience it. Say you experience drinking a cup of tea; you can say with certainty that you are experiencing drinking a cup of tea. You’re not, for example, diving off a diving board into a pool below when you are experiencing drinking a cup of tea. (Unless your brain misfired, then you’re going to get wet.)

Brains misfire all the time. So although we know for sure we are experiencing, we cannot say how real or true it is. Reality is for most people a bit more complex than drinking tea and jumping in swimming pools. Delusions are likewise a bit more complex, more related to how we interpret situations, our ethics, our views on things at large. It's most of the time not about getting 'wrong' sensory input because of brain injury.

Yes, it is correct that we can never know anything outside of our own minds. Therefore, what appears before us is all the information we have to make sense of our world. If you are conscious, you will be able to work out that all that appears to us is our reality; and if you are unconscious, you will think that reality is outside our perception. The conscious person says “what appears to me, appears to me”. The unconscious person considers their reality to be something more than what it is. They are never satisfied with life as it unfolds before their eyes, they have to colour it with love and hate, with good and bad, with the past and the future – covering the truth of their lives under the filth of their attachments.

Sue: If you experience a realization of Truth, you, at that moment, are experiencing a realization of Truth. At the moment of this experience, you contrast the realization of Truth with what is not a realization of Truth. By doing so, your realization of Truth comes into existence. In the next moment you may experience a realization that the realization of Truth you had a moment ago was incorrect. By contrasting the past moment’s realization against your memories of what is true, and not-true, you have discarded the past realization and have replaced it with the present one. In the following moments, depending on how attached you are to understanding Truth, you could continue to contrast this new realization against memories of thoughts that you have already reasoned as truths, and non-truths, and in this way continue reasoning out whether or not this new realization is taking you closer to Truth, or further away from it.

This is hard to follow. You don't appear to say anything but describing the process of learning in general. And the same way we can learn about reality, if we'd say that Truth is the reality of things we're after.

Yes, the above paragraph is a ‘nuts and bolts’ description of how people learn to think about Truth. Most people never consider their thoughts, let alone the manner in which they think, so discussing it on this level can be interesting and useful.

Sue: So understanding Reality is perhaps a moment away; all you need do is open your mind to it. Once you’ve got a good, strong grip on your intellectual understanding of Reality, you can then begin to consider what is meant by the Tao.

If you see the reflection of the moon in the water, one doesn't 'experience the moon', but you're experiencing the reflection of the moon. You can reason out the existence of the moon in the heavens by logic, after perceiving such perfect reflection. But still one is not experiencing the moon, one is experiencing the reasoning.

And all the while one stands in the moonlight but our senses are not made to experience the whole.

Yes, and appearances are all we have to work with.

The moon in the water, in the sky, in my dream, in my imagination, in my drawing – is the moon. It appears to me in all these different ways at different times, but it is still the moon.

-
Sue

PS. Sorry about confusing one of Bof1's thoughts as one of yours.

What a sigh! Even Zagreus is human enough to suffer a little impatience from time to time! What does one do when one has exhausted every reasonable examination through all possible understandings to be had in certain words and terms? Do I sit and wait? If my own words give me wings, would I be teaching anything from disappointment? From disheartened condition? No, I must be permitted my disbelief!

You Don’t Say! :D

You think I never knew how human you are? You didn’t have to declare the above for me to know. I can sense that human-ness in you through sensing the subtle human-ness hidden in the conversation between you and the forum hosts. Say, don’t you generally hide that to bring forth more emphasis on Infinity. And you accuse me of, of, yes “Because it's the one thing you fail to tell us yet allude to it often!” Humn..

Your words surely do give you wings, but the real strength to fly lies in the wind.

S: By the way, I'm not a philosopher, and say, things do not inherently exist :D

Z: Why do you say it if it isn't true, but only true as anothers understanding of the matter? You can only be true to everyone through yourself.

Others understanding of the matter is not exactly what you think is their understanding, which you superficially pick up for the words you read.

By Infinity, do you mean 1+1+1+1…………… add infinitum? Surely not!

Why don’t others understand or realize it as you do?

Now, what do you do?

People want to know how you grew them, so they can grow one for them selves. Isn’t that what you want? Or are you going to fly for them since it is all one and only Infinity?

Your wings did not suddenly pop out. Tell us how you grew them?

Final realization may be a sudden pop up window, but start telling us about the computer first, which is not exactly the pop up window, is it? And most of us are not even familiar or know much about a computer, then how do you expect us to understand what a pop up window is?

That is where the first point of understanding that “things do not inherently exist” comes in, and don’t underestimate them who say it. For they may be back to traveling after seeing the circle, and know that one has to actually travel, do the work, to see that circle, they cannot simply explain how that tastes, but simply show the direction that leads to that apple.

In saying that, I’m not necessarily lying, because in it’s own right, eventually it does point towards Infinity, making only just that remain. And then, possibly, Vallah! Wings!

Sapius, you wrote:

(1) No, No - THING is experiencing any thing at all Leyla. You have to go back to school as far as realizing that Nothing INHERENTLY exists so to speak, but yet there is EXPERIENCE. It is created through the duality of all that there is, so no-thing is actually experiencing as such, except say pure experiencing happening in and of the NOW.

This is the problem that arises when one cannot super-impose two different perspectives into one super-imposed perspective, and keeps forgetting one or the other, hence seeing contradictions, or regress.

Funny, that’s exactly the problem I see in your comments, (1) and (2).

(2) That comparative-ness (in 1) does not actually arise when talking about experiences, and I though you might know how, for all and any 'direct' appearance experienced (through computing of A=A) are pre-computed thoughts being experienced, including thoughts, be it physical objects or an abstract idea.

It is also what I see happening in the sole expression of love and hate in linear time as singular, diametrically opposed extremes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that?!

Steven, I have noted -- and appreciate -- your last post. I will get back to it soon.

.

Sapius:

You Don’t Say! :D

You think I never knew how human you are? You didn’t have to declare the above for me to know. I can sense that human-ness in you through sensing the subtle human-ness hidden in the conversation between you and the forum hosts. Say, don’t you generally hide that to bring forth more emphasis on Infinity. And you accuse me of, of, yes “Because it's the one thing you fail to tell us yet allude to it often!” Humn..

Your words surely do give you wings, but the real strength to fly lies in the wind.

My wings then to the wind! They were fishy to begin with. I'll swim. 'It' may be inexpressible, but I am irrepressible!

Quote:
S: By the way, I'm not a philosopher, and say, things do not inherently exist :D

Z: Why do you say it if it isn't true, but only true as anothers understanding of the matter? You can only be true to everyone through yourself.

S:Others understanding of the matter is not exactly what you think is their understanding, which you superficially pick up for the words you read.

I see their understanding because I've had it. They will have mine, and it will become theirs too. If they're ashamed to take it
from me they can have it when I'm gone. I'm possibly more understanding than you imagine.

By Infinity, do you mean 1+1+1+1…………… add infinitum? Surely not!

I mean eternity, but then I'm human.

Why don’t others understand or realize it as you do?

I'm...me?.

Now, what do you do?

I demand to be addressed as great sage equal of heaven upon penalty of ridicule.

People want to know how you grew them, so they can grow one for them selves. Isn’t that what you want? Or are you going to fly for them since it is all one and only Infinity?

Your wings did not suddenly pop out. Tell us how you grew them?

It's like when a mummy and a daddy love eachother very much.

Final realization may be a sudden pop up window, but start telling us about the computer first, which is not exactly the pop up window, is it? And most of us are not even familiar or know much about a computer, then how do you expect us to understand what a pop up window is?

I don't know how, I just do. I expect it...

That is where the first point of understanding that “things do not inherently exist” comes in, and don’t underestimate them who say it.For they may be back to traveling after seeing the circle, and know that one has to actually travel, do the work, to see that circle, they cannot simply explain how that tastes, but simply show the direction that leads to that apple.

Do you doubt my love? My respect? Once one sees the circle, there is no direction to signal.

In saying that, I’m not necessarily lying, because in it’s own right, eventually it does point towards Infinity, making only just that remain. And then, possibly, Vallah! Wings!

Lay low, lay low, the wind does blow, and ones head will be whipped if not taken in tow. :D

Leyla,

Funny, that’s exactly the problem I see in your comments, (1) and (2).

Could you please point it out exactly.

Sapius wrote:

Sue: Each moment I am reborn in Reality. At no time am I separated from it. Each moment, depending on my causes, I am either deepening my understanding of Reality, or remaining ignorant of it. Either way, it is Reality’s doing, not mine.

Unwise: Well said; I would only add the best we can do is surrender to reality and in this way enjoy its momentum.

Unwise, I can understand until the ‘well said’ part, which shows you agree to it and are of like mind, but if you did actually understand that, then you wouldn’t really add anything at all.

Whatever you add actually includes what Sue actually means in those words. Surrendering or otherwise, is reality too, and your suggestion that all we can do is to surrender to Reality, actually means nothing, because me shouting from a mountain top, don’t surrender, would be Reality too, And I actually did nothing. So, we are actually doing nothing other than being what IS. Surrendering suggests surrendering to something, and how can we surrender to that which we already are. But simply understanding this, gives a satisfaction to a Self, that’s all, and that too is Reality.

If you mean that the understanding is the “surrendering”, then I agree, but that is already apparent in Sue’s words.

.

Actually it was me who said what you quoted.

And you are right that the understanding was already apparent in Sue`s words.

Sapius,

S: This is the problem that arises when one cannot super-impose two different perspectives into one super-imposed perspective, and keeps forgetting one or the other, hence seeing contradictions, or regress.

L: Funny, that’s exactly the problem I see in your comments, (1) and (2).

S: Could you please point it out exactly.

[laughs] Damn irony.

Well, I have been. But I will say, a tango in the dark with you looks more like one performed slapstick style in a Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis comedy rather than with the grace and skill of Al Pacino and Gabrielle Anwar in Scent of a Woman. You make such a reluctant, untrusting woman for a man who has blind-sight by virtue of physicality! [Dips Sapius swiftly in her arms, looking down into his eyes...]

Go on, lift that leg -- I dare you; and try not kicking me in the head this time.

And, Sapius to Steven:

"Thought + Truth + Space + Time + Any thing that one can think or imagine = Reality = All (Absolutely) that there IS = not a dream."

Where you goin'? Are you stuck in a past conversation, or am I missing something?

I don’t think anything Steven said even remotely alluded to a dream.

~

I have a question for you, Steven. You wrote:

The second dimension, a straight line ("two points"), would be two thoughts combined to reach a truth ("the quickest path between two points is a line" - "the quickest/surest realization is a truth").

How do you see Ultimate Truth fitting in with your thoughtful description of the conception of reality here?

.

I have a question for you, Steven. You wrote:

Steven: The second dimension, a straight line ("two points"), would be two thoughts combined to reach a truth ("the quickest path between two points is a line" - "the quickest/surest realization is a truth").

Leyla: How do you see Ultimate Truth fitting in with your thoughtful description of the conception of reality here?

Leyla,

I'd say subject and object are the two points, and their sum total, A=A, the line of truth.

[edit: syllables]

Leyla wrote:

Sue: No, my point is that the thought allowing you to completely understand Reality can arise at any time.

Which is the same as saying, given the rest of your work, it arises always in the now by (the conscious individual) comprehending uncertain ideas/thoughts/conclusions of (and thus as) past and future as ideas/thoughts/conclusions in the form of knowledge/memory and thus as certainty NOW; that is, instead of as actualities independent of NOW (past) and potentialities dependent on it (future).

On that basis, that NOW thought that you refer to here -- the one that allows you to completely understand Reality -- can only ever arise NOW rather than “at any time,” if you are to be logically consistent, no?

Therefore, I find it pretty meaningless to state that one can realise "Truth" in one moment only to realise a "Truth" closer to Ultimate Truth in the next.

The closer to Truth one is, the more NOW they are.

But maybe it's just me!

The first point you raise refers to the fact that we only have this moment – NOW – and do not know for certain if we had a past or will have a future. My saying that “at any time” the thought could arise that allowed you to understand Ultimate Truth is correct in one sense: for we cannot know for sure when that thought will arise, but we know that when it does occur it will be in the ‘present’. It is also correct in another sense: all that is necessary to understand, and therefore know Ultimate Truth is available within each thought that arises. The reason most people never see this, is because they do not take their own minds seriously enough to take a proper look.

This leads me to your next point. You say that you find my idea of a person realizing Truth one moment and then in the next moment realizing another Truth that he considers closer to Ultimate Truth “pretty meaningless”. Well, the example I gave may seem a bit extreme, but it’s not implausible. But the main point of my using the word ‘Truth’ – capital T and all – was to show that when a thought arises, all the beliefs, intuitions, knowledge, feelings, impressions and realizations packed into that thought, are the composition of The Truth you are at this moment living by. This fact is something that most people baulk from having any responsibility for. They go on doing the things they do, content in the knowledge that they don’t understand Truth, and therefore don’t have to be consistent or responsible for anything they do or say. Some people push responsibility away completely by saying that there is no way they can know anything at all about the Truth. But all these people are lying to themselves and to others. If you are applying these beliefs, intuitions, feelings, etc to the way you live, then this is your Truth – capital T and all. It may not match up at all with the definition of ‘Truth’, but that doesn’t stop people from living according to this Truth as if it did.

There is no getting away from it. If you say you don’t know the Truth, you are then admitting that you are living a lie. If you say you do know the Truth, then you are responsible for ensuring that the Truth you live pertains to the definition of ‘Truth’: that which is true for everything, always. Pushing the responsibility for a life full of lies onto some mysterious, far away Truth only goes to show how little people value their own minds. They are quite prepared to strut their stuff on the world stage, but not quite prepared to look inside their own minds to work out what’s what.

There really is no excuse for ignorance, because as I’ve already said, everything that is needed to understand everything is present in our own mind. People just need to take responsibility for their own minds and their own thoughts and then they will see this for themselves.
-
Sue

Beingof1 wrote:

Sapius wrote:

Sue: Each moment I am reborn in Reality. At no time am I separated from it. Each moment, depending on my causes, I am either deepening my understanding of Reality, or remaining ignorant of it. Either way, it is Reality’s doing, not mine.

Unwise: Well said; I would only add the best we can do is surrender to reality and in this way enjoy its momentum.

Unwise, I can understand until the ‘well said’ part, which shows you agree to it and are of like mind, but if you did actually understand that, then you wouldn’t really add anything at all.

Whatever you add actually includes what Sue actually means in those words. Surrendering or otherwise, is reality too, and your suggestion that all we can do is to surrender to Reality, actually means nothing, because me shouting from a mountain top, don’t surrender, would be Reality too, And I actually did nothing. So, we are actually doing nothing other than being what IS. Surrendering suggests surrendering to something, and how can we surrender to that which we already are. But simply understanding this, gives a satisfaction to a Self, that’s all, and that too is Reality.

If you mean that the understanding is the “surrendering”, then I agree, but that is already apparent in Sue’s words.

.

Actually it was me who said what you quoted.

And you are right that the understanding was already apparent in Sue`s words.

Please accept my apologies. Generally I try to be certain of to whom I respond or quote, being a human after all, I’m not infallible.

To tell the truth, at times I drive past my own home to reach a dead end, and then realize I live five streets ago. At times when I reach home, I stand there thinking for a few seconds, Is this my home? Not very often though, say once every few years.

I will take better care next time. Thanks for pointing it out.

PS: That does not mean I have a faulty memory, there are logical reasons behind such temporal momentary states, out of certain experiences.
:)

Leyla,

[laughs] Damn irony.

Well, I have been. But I will say, a tango in the dark with you looks more like one performed slapstick style in a Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis comedy rather than with the grace and skill of Al Pacino and Gabrielle Anwar in Scent of a Woman. You make such a reluctant, untrusting woman for a man who has blind-sight by virtue of physicality! [Dips Sapius swiftly in her arms, looking down into his eyes...]

Go on, lift that leg -- I dare you; and try not kicking me in the head this time.

I’m quite baffled at your response, (not really though, so please don’t try to explain), and that what could have warranted such a response? (Rhetorical question demanding no response)

Your comment: Funny, that’s exactly the problem I see in your comments, (1) and (2).

My question: Could you please point it out exactly.

I questioned that in a most humble and earnest of manners, and I guess, out of your inherently ingrained habit, you seen to have yet again interpreted that as some sort of hidden arrogance on my part. Well…. to that.

In my opinion, you do not even seem to touch the toenail of “masculinity” or maturity that Pye actually displays in her thoughts. The closest you could ever get to a supposed “masculinity”, is being a female wrestler, for you have no real idea at all in what one means by Masculinity and Femininity in context of clear thinking, actually you don’t know either of them.

However, I do agree, one should really have a good laugh time to time, I’m glad you enjoy existence. However, I’m not familiar with the characters you mention, so it doesn’t mean much to me, otherwise I would have had enjoyed it too. But I’m familiar with the style you speak in, I find is at almost all chat room based forums.

So, with all due respects, I am compelled to say, be my guest, and with all the femininity that I may have, I say, from the bottom of my heart, I wish you all the best, with the same respect that I have come to respect every jot or a title that exists, for I know how absolutely invaluable existence is, and ultimately that is all that there is.

And, Sapius to Steven:

S: "Thought + Truth + Space + Time + Any thing that one can think or imagine = Reality = All (Absolutely) that there IS = not a dream."

L: Where you goin'? Are you stuck in a past conversation, or am I missing something?
I don’t think anything Steven said even remotely alluded to a dream.

I really don't know where I'm going, or where I am, except that I AM. You are quite rright in rhetorically asking that. Of course Leyla, actually you never miss anything at all since you can see it all, on the other hand, I still have my shortcomings, you know. I don’t know it all. Please enjoy existence, any which way you do, logically speaking of course!

Again, with all due respects, I must take your leave now. :)

It is a logical demand, not an emotional response. No hard feelings, please.

Sue,

sue hindmarsh wrote:

Diebert wrote:

But even while reasoning is a form of experiencing, one is only experiencing a reflection, not the whole.

What do you mean by “reflection”?

Many things folded into one word.

A state of being reflected. Something, such as light, radiant heat, sound, or an image, that is reflected. Mental concentration; careful consideration. A thought or an opinion resulting from such consideration. A manifestation or result (effect). The folding of a membrane from the wall of a cavity over an organ and back to the wall. The folds so made.

The part that is aware of being a part and how it's an illusive thing since it contradicts truth.

Sue wrote:By knowing our experiences are only appearances, and not things in themselves, we understand this manifestation of Reality.

Understanding is a big word here. One starts to understand how reality manifests.

Sue wrote: I understand your point to be that thoughts cannot tell us anything about Reality, because Reality is formless and empty. But, I think you will agree with me that even the thought that Reality is formless and empty is also an appearance. So, my point is: before an individual can develop the radically deeper understanding of the nature of Reality, they first need to understand how thoughts come about and what thoughts really are. Would you agree?

Yes.

Sue wrote:

Diebert wrote:And the interesting question should not be 'is this real?' but 'is this true?' All else outside truth is delusional and we should call it 'unreal' though not separated from the totality of course.

But we can’t ignore the fact that what appears to us in any moment is actually real and true. If I say that what is in front of my eyes at this very moment is not real and true, I then make everything absurd.

The experiencing itself is real, as in 'valid'. But so say it is 'true' forms a higher order of judgement and requires first a truthful state of mind. Just undergoing it doesn't make it true. An animal in the field doesn't know 'truth' nor does it has to know it, since it just is.

For example: I used to keep in a cage a fake budgie which was always being mistaken as a real one.

The important thing here is that you knew it was fake and you observed others being mistaken about it, or appearing to be.

So, to all newcomers my budgie was alive, which at that moment was real and true.

This is where I differ. There is a quality in experiencing that can make a difference. The highest quality is self-awareness and the highest form of self-awareness is consciousness of truth. If the bird was used by miners going into a mine they would be fools and might die because of a lack of observance. If their whole life would be lived like that, suffering will be created for them and the people around them. Very real, but not true in the sense it was all based on a delusional process of observation.

What we can always be certain of is that what appears to us - appears to us.

But not every thought or experience we can call truth. We discern between truth and lie. And we start to doubt if certain experiences (thoughts, opinions, subconscious reactions) are 'true' or not. And so we start to investigate.

The conscious person says “what appears to me, appears to me”. The unconscious person considers their reality to be something more than what it is. They are never satisfied with life as it unfolds before their eyes, they have to colour it with love and hate, with good and bad, with the past and the future – covering the truth of their lives under the filth of their attachments.

So this 'conscious' person is now only left painting with truth and lie then? What is covered by that?

Sue wrote:

Diebert wrote: If you see the reflection of the moon in the water, one doesn't 'experience the moon', but you're experiencing the reflection of the moon. You can reason out the existence of the moon in the heavens by logic, after perceiving such perfect reflection. But still one is not experiencing the moon, one is experiencing the reasoning.

And all the while one stands in the moonlight but our senses are not made to experience the whole.

Yes, and appearances are all we have to work with.

The moon in the water, in the sky, in my dream, in my imagination, in my drawing – is the moon. It appears to me in all these different ways at different times, but it is still the moon.

You can call it 'the moon' but to be more precise one sees a dream-moon, a drawed out moon or a reflected moon. One can hitchhike on a rocket and jump around in a space-suit but still we see some 'helmet-moon' through the strong visor of our suit or see a flat photo-moon from our camera, perhaps experience reduction of gravity with other senses. We can make quite an useful model of the moon so we can predict tides, calculate orbits for the rocket and so on.

We do not only have basic appearances to work with but we use logic and reason as higher faculties so create a greater understanding of 'moon' even if we'll never know it in its fullness. But we can now distinguish between a more true representation and a false one. If you paint a moon made out of cheese, or fantasize about it, it can be challenged as not having much to do with the Moon that orbits the Earth.

A difference is made and valued.

Sapius wrote:

Of course Leyla, actually you never miss anything at all since you can see it all, on the other hand, I still have my shortcomings, you know.

Who?

I thought there was no experiencer "as such" -- just EXPERIENCING.

So, I have no idea what you are obviously not saying. Except I say there is an experiencer! Hence, I agree "you" have "your" shortcomings!

(Blimey.)

PS: And, while I'm at it, who is Pye?

Leyla.

I thought there was no experiencer "as such" -- just EXPERIENCING.

You thought correctly.

So, I have no idea what you are obviously not saying. Except I say there is an experiencer!

Only form the egotistical point of view, not Reality that is all that there is, hence, there is only experience happening in the Now.

Leyla: Hence, I agree "you" have "your" shortcomings!
PS: And, while I'm at it, who is Pye?

Simply reference points, in and of Reality, and yet, reference points really think quite something of themselves.

Of course, you could say ‘you too’, and I would then say, most welcome.

Leyla:
I thought there was no experiencer "as such" -- just EXPERIENCING.

Sapius: You thought correctly.

Leyla: So, I have no idea what you are obviously not saying. Except I say there is an experiencer!

Sapius: Only form the egotistical point of view, not Reality that is all that there is, hence, there is only experience happening in the Now.

To begin with, experience is of self Sapius. If there is experience, there is an experiencer.

suergaz wrote:If there is experience, there is an experiencer.

I've been reading a little Neitzsche of late, and he talks about this line of thought in particular. He calls this the 'tyranny of grammar' (or something like that).

An experience grammatically implies an experiencer, but is this something which is actually true, or just a function of the way our language works? Can the language be leading us astray here?

In the twilight of the idols, Nietzsche wrote "I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar."

The tyranny of grammar is in that of its belief that finds no relief in more.

My words- "If there is experience there is an experiencer" is not such a straight case. An experience implies an experiencer before it can in any sense do so grammatically.

suergaz wrote:My words- "If there is experience there is an experiencer" is not such a straight case. An experience implies an experiencer before it can in any sense do so grammatically.

What I've actually been reading Beyond Good and Evil (the Walter Kaufmann translation; any spelling errors are mine, but the italics are in the original). Some relevant bits:

In Section 16,

…I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free ourselves from the seduction of words!
Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself: When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, “I think,” I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an “ego,” and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking – that I know what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is happening is not perhaps “willing”, or “feeling”? In short, the assertion “I think” assumes that I compare my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further “knowledge,” it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me.

And in Section 34,

Why couldn’t the world that concerns us – be a fiction? And if somebody asked, “but to a fiction there surely belongs an author?” – couldn’t one answer simply: why? Doesn’t this “belongs” perhaps belong to the fiction, too? Is it not permitted to be a bit ironical about the subject no less than the predicate and the object? Shouldn’t philosophers be permitted to rise above faith in grammar?

DHodges wrote:

suergaz wrote:If there is experience, there is an experiencer.

I've been reading a little Neitzsche of late, and he talks about this line of thought in particular. He calls this the 'tyranny of grammar' (or something like that).

An experience grammatically implies an experiencer, but is this something which is actually true, or just a function of the way our language works? Can the language be leading us astray here?

I have never read him, but I very much agree, because language itself is based on our experiencing a self as an individual thing, but where does a thing begin or end in and of Reality is not the concern of the language makers.

‘Experiencing’ in such context translates as but awareness “IN” Reality, not OF Reality, and not as in a memorized “experience” from the viewpoint of a referential point (self) bound in duality. “His” awareness is necessarily “through” experiences, which “he” realizes as being just awareness in Reality for he cannot find an actual Self in a sea of causality, hence for “him”, who realizes the fact of not being an actual Self, the thought of Self or Self-ness disappears, “he” too is just IS, not even “Self” remains.

The Self is deluded into “experiencing” a Self because of duality; removing this delusion “his” eyes are now open in the NOW. And then for “him”, it is only pure and simple ‘experiencing’, which is not the same as memorized experience, and “his” realized existence is pure experiencing for “him” because it is not a blank “awareness” due to still being a thing bound by a necessary duality which is also Reality, and the realization that “he” is not all Reality by “him Self” because of the thing-ness that still remains, since Reality is not a Thing to have a Thing-ness to begin with, ‘his’ thing-ness is not deluded yet again to consider itself as being some Universal Self, or Reality, or Infinity. or emptiness, or Tao. That is absolutely impossible, simple logic.

It is not so easy to be or thence to explain, what it is to be AND not to be at the same time in and of the NOW, two seemingly logical opposite “facts”, that need to be super-imposed into one non-contradictory thought, through the Realization of the True Nature of Reality expressed in the only “thing” Truly ALIVE, The Now.

I cannot blame anybody for not understanding, for that can be Realized only on ones own, and that will certainly become more and more common, it is only a matter of time, a long long time of course. Ironically, it is nothing more than an absolute change of perspectives, persisting continuously, hence felt to be permanent. Nothing else actually ever changes, but nothing else is ever the same again. Actually a rather difficult position to be in, and who ever said it was absolutely right, ignorance is indeed bliss.

Now I do expect one to say, then ‘Who’ is it that is talking all this, of course it is "me", but I’m no more than a thing that references itself so because of duality. My thing-ness does not disappear just because my mentality has drastically altered; in effect I remain just as a thing-ness, not necessarily a Thing so to speak. Now how can one further explain this?

DHodges wrote:

suergaz wrote:My words- "If there is experience there is an experiencer" is not such a straight case. An experience implies an experiencer before it can in any sense do so grammatically.

What I've actually been reading Beyond Good and Evil (the Walter Kaufmann translation; any spelling errors are mine, but the italics are in the original). Some relevant bits:

In Section 16,

…I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free ourselves from the seduction of words!
Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself: When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, “I think,” I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an “ego,” and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking – that I know what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is happening is not perhaps “willing”, or “feeling”? In short, the assertion “I think” assumes that I compare my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further “knowledge,” it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me.

And in Section 34,

Why couldn’t the world that concerns us – be a fiction? And if somebody asked, “but to a fiction there surely belongs an author?” – couldn’t one answer simply: why? Doesn’t this “belongs” perhaps belong to the fiction, too? Is it not permitted to be a bit ironical about the subject no less than the predicate and the object? Shouldn’t philosophers be permitted to rise above faith in grammar?

Dave, you see, that is too complicated a read for me, but, form the section 16, I can some what decipher what it is pointing to, and I think of it in the terms that what we consider to be “My” Mind, is actually one and the same thing. It is indeed a grammatical problem, plus a necessary delusion that couldn’t have been initially avoided. In fact, is necessary, only then could it be realized as illusory, and Reality known.

Mind, which is actually just a neuro-chemical process, dependant on ultimately infinite casual conditions (It is very essential to first understand causality and it’s in-depth implications) which is capable of differentiating (A=A), including its own nature as opposed to what is not such a process, and hence defines it’s “self”, (a process), Mind.

And due to the same capabilities (A=A) it (when I say “it” I’m referring the process, Mind)) was first able to identify things through sensual perceptions, including it’s own un-casually-connected BODY because it did not know how existence worked, hence defines that as Mine, Me, hence I. (grammar) which creates a mistaken identity actually.

Lets say well and good so far. So who is thinking it is My body, the mental process or the body? Of course the mental process. So how logical is it for this stupid process that generally says my hand, my brains, and my whatever, then suddenly says MY Mind? Don’t we generally speak in those terms?! Amazing actually! I find that to be the first deluded thought when I hear it. And that happens because this process has come to believe that the body is ME, not Me is ME as a thinking Process, hence My Mind, saying so as if the body had a thought of its own, how illogical. It has mistakenly inferred an I to the body instead of it’s Real self, which is but a process actually. And calls itself an I because it does not see a connection of causality between “his” total self, BODY + the PROCESS, and the rest of the things it experiences. It thinks that since it doesn’t see its self physically connected or attached to things, then it is obvious that it must be a thing on its own. And that is because it has not yet come to realize the real implications of causality that leaves neither his body nor the thinking process itself hanging high and dry unconnected in Totality.

Now, many introduce a third party, hundreds of assumptions, emerging from the question that ‘who’ is it then that is actually thinking? Hey! Who else, but the process itself? There is no another ‘who?’. It is just a process that is indeed dependant on the body itself, which is further dependant on causality, and that the I (a “thinking” process), is no more than a product of the same process of causality, Totality, one and all.

Just this has to be Realized; the first step that will eventually help dissolve the illusion of an independently existing Self.

In many ways you get yourself in Language...
As a child you get 'fat, skinny, short, tall, smart, stupid, Aussie, Yank, Eastie, Westie, rich, poor, handsome, ugly, liberal, democrat, sad, happy, good, bad'.....there's a Menu of epithets that can be tagged upon you....it's a Social Thang...language being a Social Thang...it's designed to 'fit you in' somewhere...

It's Bullshit.

The amazing proclivity of Human towards Nouning and Adjectiving...as a means to Control or get 'it' under control...

There's a huge body of salt water laid upon the Earth...it is 'One'...but Humans have carved it up into 'Atlantic, Pacific, Southern, Bering, Japan, China, various Straits etc..etc..

People 'believe' it...it's hilarious...many don't realise it's 'made up'...they 'think' it's true...hehe.

frank