GENIUS FORUMS

You've got to be very careful when you 'fool around' with Eastern Philosophy/Language...
It has in it's design a series of mental traps that the tyro gets caught up in and is expected to find his way out of...
It's set up that way.

On the question of 'What is Sophie?'

After millennias of Meaning Making..since the time a caveman pointed at Sophie and grunted 'Sophie' and thought what is that?

It hasn't been answered absolutely.

We've had a lot of conjecture about her metaphysics...her ethics...her sex...whether she exists...whether she's rational or irrational...

Poor old Soph is so encumbered with concepts these days it's a miracle she can be seen at all, so deep she is buried in bullshit.

It's indeed hilarious.

Now tell me, 'What is Sophie?'

frank

No need to frown, Sapius! Just enjoy!

Sapius wrote:

Any Thing is a Thing because of causality, which necessarily has the basic nature of All Things. (A=A, separated-ness), which is now a definable separated-ness through cognitive awareness, which further helps realize the true implications of the connectivity (caused) and reflective-ness (awareness), both created by a perpetually on the move Causality in and of the NOW. Hence is created an awareness of Things through and by other Things. Things to Things.

So Things must stand separated for awareness to take place, which would fall flat on its face otherwise, common sense actually.

Diebert replied:

The problem which I'm sure you're encountering when discussing this with people is how people somehow think that thought is a whole different world than feeling. Or sense ('direct') perception is somehow different than complex abstraction. This is caused by the immensely rare detachment that is needed from our core mental constructing to see there is no exception to the construct. There is only a difference in quality, a difference in how far the construct knows itself, and not what is outside the construct.

As a people, I will take this opportunity to speak for myself here in relation to Sapius‘s problems with “people.”

Knowing the construct is the notion commonly referred to around here as “masculinity” and feeling -- (“direct”) perception/consciousness/awareness -- is also here considered masculine as fundamental to the ability to know, to actively define and thus identify/differentiate. One can only know (be aware of through such definition) the NOW in the “masculine” sense by virtue of having (causally) actively defined and separated it rather than “flowing along within it.” Such a distinction is (in this forum’s lexicon) a masculine “perception.”

There is no construct to be aware of therefore as a thing without the (masculine) separation of that which is aware of it and things to be aware of. This is ultimately why you find it necessary to place the word "direct" in quotation marks, incidentally. As if you could get any more direct than that...

To say there is only NOW is the ultimate understanding of that. Every time you say something about NOW, you carve up the NOW into you, me, us, them and various its and label it as “the construct.” Thus, through “masculinity,” the quality of the construct and thereby the “feminine” is understood and the absolute NOW (the Infinite) is not and can not be made into a thing (never comes into existence) itself; ever.

Your As will always appear as your As. Whilst A=A is absolute -- true in all possible worlds -- one's own As can only be what they are by definition (whether or not you care to draw a distinction between abstraction and feeling). Just how substantial (the quality of) such definition may or may not be depends on the ability to discern and, thus, the quality of discernment. In other words, the universality of A=A does not automatically imply the universality of every individual's As. That accounts for the diversity of existence. One's As only speak their own truth (or lies) as actively and causally discerned (or not) by the speaker of them and those who are listening.

Nothing esoteric about it.

.

Now tell me, 'What is Sophie?'

From "Waking Life"

(a philosophic roto-scoped cartoon)

"To realize you are a dream character, in another person's dream . . . is true self-awareness."

steven:

"To realize you are a dream character, in another person's dream . . . is true self-awareness."

Hey, we could work that up a treat and get us some R-E-S-P-E-C-T...

I'm thinkin' Book & Movie...

'fore long we got ourselves a harem of 'cute' devotees and a chaffeured Merc...

frank deepak

Leyla Shen wrote:One can only know (be aware of through such definition) the NOW in the “masculine” sense by virtue of having (causally) actively defined and separated it rather than “flowing along within it.” Such a distinction is (in this forum’s lexicon) a masculine “perception.”

So what would you call, in this forum's lexicon, the non-masculine sense of knowing or perceiving. Is that the "flowing along"? Isn't that the unconscious process by definition?

We're all born female, becoming male is an option - a deviation.

frank wrote:

diebert wrote:All Understanding is separation
All Remembering is separation
All Thinking is separation
All Feeling is separation
All Sensing is separation
All Consciousness is separation

Yeah, that's how the Ego 'sees' it.

Frankly, that's just awareness.

Ego, in Buddhist sense, is attachment to any particular state of separation. A state not yet penetrated by awareness and thereby invisible to the inner eye. Looking whole perhaps.

Frank wrote: We are intensely interdependant...the feeling of separation is the illusion..and that gets created by Language...

Feeling is separation. Intensity is separation. Interdependency is still a form of separation. Language tries to express awkwardly this same separation. What's your point?

Frank wrote:The 'I' is a product of Language.

The other way around, if any. Or even better: the 'other' makes language possible.

Frank wrote:Poor old Soph is so encumbered with concepts these days it's a miracle she can be seen at all, so deep she is buried in bullshit.

You know Frank, I agree with this. It's a very very big problem and it's becoming worse. I might give up writing altogether, the word being too devalued to do the work. Meaning crucified by the nihilist 'Jews' of postmodernism.

In these times we might have to go back, more than ever before to 'baby' language, big screen movies, huge colorful shiny rattlers to put even the simplest message out.

Desperate times. Flood & Ark.

diebert wrote:

Feeling is separation. Intensity is separation. Interdependency is still a form of separation. Language tries to express awkwardly this same separation. What's your point?

I'm a Therapist.

I look for a moment in a Person's life when they first 'felt' separate or acquired an Ego and 'split off'...

Just yesterday I worked with a fellow who 'got' an Ego Identity at the exact moment when he was 5 years old when he found his Mother's Wedding Certificate...
On the Certificate his Mother's Name was written Barbara Mary Joseph Surname ( I can't say the real name)..
The Mother is very Catholic.
The fellow's name is Christopher.

Yesterday the fellow realised that he took it to mean that Christopher and Christ were the same thing and his Ma wanted him to be Jesus...
In his 5 yo Mind she was Mary/ Joseph (her middle names) and he was meant to be Jesus.

He 'plunged' into Catholicism to please his Ma.

He's 52 and every day he looks skyward and asks 'Am I doing alright'...asks that of God.

He has a morbid fear of 'letting anyone down' and experiences anxiety about having to do everything perfectly so no-one gets 'let down'...
If he thinks he 'let someone down' he plunges into guilt/shame.

All this has made him feel separate...we spent hours working thru' this yesterday and he came to understand 'his Life'...all the charge 'blew off' and he laughed uproariously and now he feels 'connected' for the first time in a long, long time...

I say people get the 'feeling of separation' from Language.

frank

Diebert asked:

One can only know (be aware of through such definition) the NOW in the “masculine” sense by virtue of having (causally) actively defined and separated it rather than “flowing along within it.” Such a distinction is (in this forum’s lexicon) a masculine “perception.”

D: So what would you call, in this forum's lexicon, the non-masculine sense of knowing or perceiving. Is that the "flowing along"? Isn't that the unconscious process by definition?

Yes. I meant the "feminine" is perceived by the masculine (obvioulsy).

.

frank wrote:I'm a Therapist.

Often the ones driven to activities like giving therapy resonate deeply with the 'brokenness' of the client. This is how empathy bonds are formed needed to put trust in someone. What drives you toward giving therapy?

frank wrote:I look for a moment in a Person's life when they first 'felt' separate or acquired an Ego and 'split off'...

And what therapists are often being told is the ego's own fantasy of how and why. It's just extending its play and you are facilitating.

frank wrote:Just yesterday I worked with a fellow who 'got' an Ego Identity at the exact moment when he was 5 years old when he found his Mother's Wedding Certificate...

No, he probably conjured up this memory to 'make sense', to provide a 'reason'. If there was anything to that moment it was the moment his religious fixation started to manifest consciously, caused by countless of factors of course.

frank wrote:He's 52 and every day he looks skyward and asks 'Am I doing alright'...asks that of God. He has a morbid fear of 'letting anyone down' and experiences anxiety about having to do everything perfectly so no-one gets 'let down'...

He has a problem to function, caught in some extreme egotistic game. And as a therapist you're there to help him function again still in the bounds of his ego of course.

That's fine of course but what has it to do with spirituality? Giving the blind a trained dog to prevend him being run over isn't gonna cure the blindness. It just makes social functioning smoother. Good for him though!

frank wrote:All this has made him feel separate...we spent hours working thru' this yesterday and he came to understand 'his Life'...all the charge 'blew off' and he laughed uproariously and now he feels 'connected' for the first time in a long, long time...

I say people get the 'feeling of separation' from Language.

Or perhaps your 'language' helped him out of his particular delusion into one which is easier to function in. You're doing fine work, I've no problem with it.

But don't make the mistake confusing it with knowing anything about how ego works at the core.

diebert wrote:

You know Frank, I agree with this. It's a very very big problem and it's becoming worse. I might give up writing altogether, the word being too devalued to do the work. Meaning crucified by the nihilist 'Jews' of postmodernism.

The true spirit of Post Modernism was meant to be 'open-minded to Meaning wherever it sprung from'...

When Feyeraband asserted that:
The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS.. he went too far.

Aristotle foresaw his coming and said:
Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion.

As did Lucretius:
If anyone thinks nothing is to be known, he does not even know whether that can be known, as he says he knows nothing.

There is a tacit assumption within postmodernism that no theory will ever explain all things, but there is no real reason for this assumption (other than that history showed that no theory had yet explained all things).

I think we have to go with the conclusion of the many Great Thinkers who assert that:

Absolute Truth comes from Necessary Connection which requires One Thing to Connect the Many Things...

I think this is the Activity of Philosophers that accords them the Greatest Value...
Science, thinking the Universe is an artifact with which you can cut this out and cut that out without consequences...could mean doom for us...
Philosophers can contribute Wisdom...the Wisdom of the intense connection of Things...

It would be retrograde for Humanity to lose your wonderful temperament Diebert and clear thinking...

Just that lexicon thang masculinity/femininity wounds rather than heals...delusion, ignorance/ wisdom could be interchanged.

Philosophy is meant to 'transform' rather than possibly ridicule..

Philosophy is best dressed and most effective in a Language of Kindness and Compassion and Connection which best reflects it's essential Message.

frank

diebert wrote:

Or perhaps your 'language' helped him out of his particular delusion into one which is easier to function in. You're doing fine work, I've no problem with it.

But don't make the mistake confusing it with knowing anything about how ego works at the core.

Yes, Language is capable of transforming.

The delusion is his Contents in his Ego...the Contents are given by Culture/ Language...

People naturally have a Wisdom or Common Sense but in order to 'fit in' to their Culture they start believing nonsense...grasping a Script to get approval in their Herd.

Getting to the bottom of their Story and getting it understood restores that healthy structure to their Common Sense.

frank

Diebert wrote:

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

Sue: What do you mean by “reflection”?

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

It’s not clear what you’re trying to get at.

Sue: 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.

Truth is simple and straight-forward. What I said above is a clear example of how Truth can be understood, and therefore known.

Sue: 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.

Diebert, you agreed with my above statement, but then wrote -

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.

- and muddied up what was already at its most clearest.

A “truthful state of mind” is simply a mind that knows and lives according to the Truth. The Truth is at this moment before our very eyes: things arise casually, and therefore have no inherent existence. This means we experience the appearance of things, not things in themselves. Our minds and our senses are also appearances, because they too are caused. Things and our minds arise together casually.

An animal in the field doesn't know 'truth' nor does it has to know it, since it just is.

That's okay for animals, but if you are lucky enough to be a human, you give your life to know the Truth.

Sue: 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.

It appeared fake to me, but it is impossible for me to be certain if it was real, or fake.

Sue: 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.

The people who use the fake budgie to go down into the mine will die. They were caused to see the fake budgie as real. The miners that take a real budgie down the mine have a greater chance of survival, but they too are caused. Either way, both scenarios are but the whim of Nature.

A “delusional process of observation” is to consider “self-awareness” to be anything other than an appearance.

Sue: 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.

When you are looking for what is true and what is not, you are looking for certainties – and this is one:

All we have is the abstract world of the mind: therefore, it is the only reality we can ever know.

Sue: 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?

They don’t need to cling to anything, so they are not “painting” anything.

How can you cling to appearances?

What is covered by that?

Once you have uncovered the fact that all things are appearances, it is impossible to cover it up again.

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.

Is the moon that can’t be known in its “fullness” outside our minds?

No. There is only the moon that appears to our mind. We recognize the moon in: photos, sculptures, paintings, reflections, and dreams, as well as being able to make calculations and predict tides using the moon because we Homo sapiens appear to share enough similar sensory perception to enable us to share our different experiences of the moon.
-
Sue

.
Sapius writes:

PS: I wouldn't underestimate Frank . . . .

Havers, no. And I think I 'notified' him of this early on :)

franks writes:

I say people get the 'feeling of separation' from Language.

OK, try this on for size, frank:

The 'feeling of separation' is already there (for consciousness is consciousness-of). That said-Language might come along and represent and reify that separation on the abstract playing field is no more blameworthy than the reification of anything else that language abstracts. Language abstracts unity and clarity and other things like that, too.

All language is metaphor (linguistic replacement for the what-is). Agreed? In that sense, you could have your "separation" wholesale.

(sorry for the hit-and-run clipped postings. The luxurious time-off is now swirling into another eddy . . . . But I'm reading (Sapius, et al, Sue & Diebert's, Jason's, etc.) - I am at least keeping up on the reading here, everybody's. hope to be more substantive soon.)


.

Pye:

All language is metaphor (linguistic replacement for the what-is). Agreed?

Wittgenstein:
The first step toward language was to link acoustically or otherwise commutable signs / symbols to sense impressions. Most likely all sociable animals have arrived at this primitive kind of communication - at least to a certain degree. ... If language is to lead at all to understanding, there must be rules concerning the relationships between the signs on the one hand, and on the other hand there must be a stable correspondence between signs and impressions.
In an early stage the words may directly correspond to impressions. At a later stage this direct connection is lost in so far as some words convey relations to perceptions only if used in connection with other words (e.g. 'is', 'or', 'thing'). Then word groups rather than single words refer to perceptions. When language thus becomes partially independent from the background of impressions a greater inner coherence is gained.
Only at this further development where frequent use is made of so called abstract concepts, language becomes an instrument of reasoning in the true sense of the word. But it is also this development which turns language into a dangerous source of error and deception. Everything depends on the degree to which words and word -combinations correspond to the world of impression.
Thus we may conclude that the mental development of the individual and his way of forming concepts depend to a high degree upon language. This makes us realise to what extent the same language means the same mentality. In this sense thinking and language are linked together.
What distinguishes the language of science from language as we ordinarily understand the word? How is it that scientific language is international? What science strives for is an utmost acuteness and clarity of concepts as regards their mutual relation and their correspondence to sensory data.

Wittgenstein:
'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. ... But what are the simple constituent parts of which reality is composed? - What are the simple constituent parts of a chair? - The bits of wood of which it is made? Or the molecules or atoms? ...The fluctuation of scientific definition: what today counts as an concomitant of a phenomena will tomorrow be used to define it.'

The Taoists taught to refrain from 'formulation, conception' else one would become prey to the Human Condition of being 'lost in Language...'
...of being 'separated from what-is' by apprehending 'what is' through a 'skin' of Theory or Script and trying to 'fit' everything into the Script...which is basically Alter-Is...

The fundamental thing about Language is that it is based on the Sentence comprising Subject, Verb and Predicate...which means 'something is being said about 'something'...
Those who have 'made it', report back that in the real Universe there are no things...the Universe just 'hangs together' As Is...

Liebnitz:
A distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much rein must not be given to a man's imagination under pretext of its being a clear and distinct intellection.

Wittgenstein:
Naming appears as a queer connection of a word with an object - And you really get such a queer connection when the philosopher tries to bring out the relation between name and thing by staring at an object in front of him and repeating a name.
... the meaning of a word is its use in the language.
And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer.

Language can be a Trap.

frank

Diebert,

S: I apologize if there is some mix-up. It is not actually that easy to word such things, especially for me. :D

D: It's fine. We all have that struggle which is also a challenge. What drives us to try? I wish more people would put such effort and self-criticism toward what they unleash on their keyboard.

What drives us to try is either a twisted will to the consciousness of others -- or the purest form possible of self-criticism through the understanding of otherness.

Only in the latter case is there no internalised emotionalism; when frustration -- and the like -- are known as one’s own, and not something caused by “the ignorance of the other.”

No matter what regard you may hold yourself in, you disrespect only self when you act on that basis as if your understanding of others lies outside your understanding of them. It would be literally impossible to offend the fully enlightened individual even slightly since he has every individual in him. Only the unenlightened emotionally internalise offence in any degree and to the degree and duration of the understanding/non-understanding of otherness and, therefore, others.

How can you know what is in another’s mind, for the instant such a thing occurs, you are already of the same mind.

Therefore, I find it uncharacteristic, Diebert, to consider you as lamenting such a thing. Are you?

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Diebert,

S: I apologize if there is some mix-up. It is not actually that easy to word such things, especially for me. :D

D: It's fine. We all have that struggle which is also a challenge. What drives us to try? I wish more people would put such effort and self-criticism toward what they unleash on their keyboard.

What drives us to try is either a twisted will to the consciousness of others -- or the purest form possible of self-criticism through the understanding of otherness.

Only in the latter case is there no internalised emotionalism; when frustration -- and the like -- are known as one’s own, and not something caused by “the ignorance of the other.”

No matter what regard you may hold yourself in, you disrespect only self when you act on that basis as if your understanding of others lies outside your understanding of them. It would be literally impossible to offend the fully enlightened individual even slightly since he has every individual in him. Only the unenlightened emotionally internalise offence in any degree and to the degree and duration of the understanding/non-understanding of otherness and, therefore, others.

How can you know what is in another’s mind, for the instant such a thing occurs, you are already of the same mind.

Therefore, I find it uncharacteristic, Diebert, to consider you as lamenting such a thing. Are you?

Leyla, you appear to read way too much into what I wrote. Or could you perhaps try to rephrase it for me? I didn't get the lamenting and emotionalism parts. What has that to do with effort or struggle?

.
writes frank:

Language can be a Trap.

can, as it has been said so many times; as you say and let others say again here (p.s. I prefer the Tractatus of all the damn things!)

frank, my understanding of the great caution and even ridicule of language in Zen teaching tradition addresses itself to the twisting in conceptual madness that prevents a person from finding their ass with both hands; hence, the painful smack of the very real shoe on the head at just the right time; hence the administering of koans like alcohol to a drunk until they throw up all over themselves the result of their excessive indulgence.

Language can be a trap. With that in mind, let's try to say things anyway . . . . with the greatest of Zen clarity that we can muster . . . .

.

.
Leyla writes:

It would be literally impossible to offend the fully enlightened individual even slightly since he has every individual in him.

:) (sharing skin with you on this one, Leyla :)

.

pye:

Language can be a trap. With that in mind, let's try to say things anyway . . . . with the greatest of Zen clarity that we can muster

Let's look at this masculinity/femininity thing that is reified or thingified by the Language...does it exist outside Language or does it exist merely as words inside the Language...?
Has it meaning only inside a sentence?

David Quinn writes:
It has long been known by science that everything we perceive in the world is a construction of the brain. The senses receive data from the outside world in the form of frequencies, wavelengths, energy pulses and the like. They then transform this data into electro-chemical messages and relay them to the processing centres of the brain, which, in turn, construct a three-dimensional world out of them using memory as a template.

Note that we never experience the "outside world" in any shape or form. The entire scope of our experiences is confined to what the brain happens to create. The people we love and hate, the large solid buildings in which they live, the distant mountains, the stars and galaxies in the sky - all of them are constructions of the brain. In a very real sense, the brain is all we ever experience.

In many ways, the construction that the brain creates is an arbitrary one. After all, there is no real need for it to make a strictly accurate rendition of what is really "out there". Its prime concern is merely to construct a world that best suits the practical needs of our species. The senses themselves have primarily evolved for this purpose.

Any conclusion that we care to reach concerning what lies beyond the construction will be nothing more than a tentative inference, one that is created within the construction itself.

HERE IT IS:

TRUMPETS! MARCHING GIRLS!
Bom Bom Ba Ba Ba Bom Bom Bom

The path to enlightenment is simply one of halting deluded mental habits. Because Reality is the totality of all there is, we are already fully immersed in it. So there is no "place" in particular where we have to go, either physically or mentally, in order to experience it. All that needs to be done is to halt the habitual projection of false assumptions upon what is experienced. And as I have argued throughout these chapters, this can really only be done by intellectually understanding the formlessness of Reality and the emptiness of all things.

Persistant reification of things 'makes' them REAL as a Sentence in your Head....

pye wrote:

All language is metaphor (linguistic replacement for the what-is). Agreed?

I think we could say Language obfuscates 'what is'....that Language is 'Alter Is'...

In that sense, you could have your "separation" wholesale.

We pay a high price.

The Story you have about Yourself, your friends, family, workmates, society....you made it up...
It's in your Head...it's told in Language...

It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

You live inside a little 'cocoon'....inside a little space helmet...
you have your own private Idaho...

me too...

We don't tell our Story because others might think we are crazy....so we hide it...and are separated by that...

We're trying to figure it out.

frank

Frank:

I think we could say Language obfuscates 'what is'....that Language is 'Alter Is'...

One could say that, but it wouldn't be true.

suergaz:

One could say that, but it wouldn't be true.

If something happens outside me...I receive an impression via senses...

What happens next?

frank

frank wrote:suergaz:

One could say that, but it wouldn't be true.

If something happens outside me...I receive an impression via senses...

What happens next?
What happened before?

frank

Pye,

Leyla: It would be literally impossible to offend the fully enlightened individual even slightly since he has every individual in him.

Pye: :) (sharing skin with you on this one, Leyla :)

Nice to know that Pye, but I would go a little bit deeper than that. Firstly, calling it “enlightened” or “fully” as such, in necessarily a though of thinking that such a Thing actually exists and can be attained.


Look at it logically. I say that because what I know as a logical Realization, actually the opposite really happens, because every individual Thing remains exactly absolutely individual, but an individuality of an individual, which I already Know does not exist on its own, hence conceptually disappears, and since “I” still remain as an experiencing individual, now conceptually merges with all that there is, in effect “becoming” all the there is, that is seen as a reflection of an Alive “I” in the Now reflected in every and all Things, absolutely, rather than a deluded though that every individual is now in me, which necessarily leads to “I” am All that there is, which is already actually absurd in it’s self, even conceptually.

Hence the thought, “how could actually, any thing else offend me, because essentially All is one and the same at it’s CORE”, rather than, “How could any thing actually offend me, because “I” and All else is one and the same Thing”, Big difference, at least for me. All that there is, is not a Thing in the first place, and one cannot loose it’s thing-ness, so how could it be any other thought than a deluded pride of a False-Ego still working in the background, as a wilshful thinking.

Please note where I place the word ‘actually’. ‘Actually any Thing’ against ‘Any Thing actually’. The former still retains Things, the latter removes Things as in Literal elimination due to thinking that things said not to inherently exist do not exist in whatsoever form, an actual logical impossibility.

For an example, shit is shit and remains shit, it does not become me or become fragrant as a rose, but at the core of what existence is, there is really no difference between shit and me or the rose, essence-tially speaking of course. So, if one flings shit at me, I cannot essentially hold neither the shit nor the person flinging it at me responsible, but at the same time, I can always hold up a newspaper to protect myself, or retaliate in a like manner or move out of its way if I can, the decision is mine depending on casual conditions, and “my” reaction depends on how logical I am hence it becomes my caused condition. But if the shit has anyhow landed on my face, then it has to necessarily be a casual occurrence out of my control, and hence again, I can hold neither the shit nor the person actually responsible for such an act of stupidity, for ultimately that is not his fault at all for it cannot be something beyond casual conditions, including my own. So what could actually offend ME? Casual conditions? Absurd actually! But that is I.

Diebert,

Leyla, you appear to read way too much into what I wrote.

Heh. And some wonder why I object to the idea of creative reading. :)

I didn't get the lamenting and emotionalism parts. What has that to do with effort or struggle?

In the meantime, and in the hope of more clarity, the prelude to my post was your questioning (which I considered a good one) as to why what drives us to try to word truth, not so much the effort or struggle aspect. So, I began to investigate "the why."

What I found was the fruitlessness of wishing for such a thing (though, I should tell you, I definitely understand it).

The idea of lamentation came from your use of the verb “unleash” coupled with your desire to see less of it.

Or could you perhaps try to rephrase it for me?

I will do that, hopefully tomorrow.

~

Pye, it is a fruitful understanding, indeed. :)

~

And, frank:

Alter-is? That’s straight out of the Scientology Axioms. I could have sworn I saw Dianetics or Scientology processing in one of your previous posts, too.

I am interested, have you read any of L Ron Hubbard’s works; if so, which ones? If not, what kind of therapist training have you had?

.

.
Sapius writes:

Nice to know that Pye, but I would go a little bit deeper than that. Firstly, calling it “enlightened” or “fully” as such, in necessarily a though of thinking that such a Thing actually exists and can be attained.

Actually Sapius, the words "enlightened" and "fully" really did not matter to me as much in Leyla's sentence as the experience itself that she describes.

It is almost as though in the assumed offence itself, one's whole understanding floods toward the person who speaks it and why. I could never speak about a thing like this as a rule to remember from the ass-end and then behave accordingly. It is a phenomenon that happens "all by itself," on my clearer days, where such an understanding floods through and past me. In other words, it is not something I experience conceptually, anyway, but actually and phenomenally.

On clearer days :)

.