GENIUS FORUMS

Sue,

...as I have answered quite a few of your questions, some in great detail – the Near-Death essay for example.

Could you please direct me to that essay? I might have missed it. Thanks.

.

scott wrote:

It doesn't mean that because all forms are empty, they're all meaningless or not real. The way things come to be is real...when you're looking at a tennis ball, you are actually looking at a tennis ball. When you meet a woman, you are really meeting a woman. The mirage is real. It has meaning.

For all intents and purposes for living on this planet the Tao churns out forms for me to relate to...these forms are pretty much what I make them Mean...the Meaning I put on them...to put a Binding Meaning on the Form Woman...that she is a 'fuckhead' isn't what I find...I find some individual Women to be 'enlightened'...way beyond most Men I've encountered..you can't simply construct a Category Woman...and assign properties to it and then 'fit up' all Women to suit your prejudice....

I approach a Woman or Man in an 'empty' Condition about them and then they 'fill me up' with themselves...then I decide if it's worth going on...if they're gonna drive me mad with 'demands' and 'co-dependance'...I'm outta there...

I look for a Form that has Meaning for Me and then I Play...

sapius wrote:

I agree, but do you think it is possible for him not to know that, considering the ‘self respecting’ thing comes first?

And how can one know about self respect without respecting another first?

He respects himself as a Power Animal...he defines himself that way...He needs a Herd so he 'scares up' some Sheep...He respects power...It's a Joke...

frank

Sue Hindmarsh:

That isn’t exactly true, as I have answered quite a few of your questions, some in great detail – the Near-Death essay for example.

Your second post is discussion - your first is just posturing for position.

But because the bulk of your writing has no point, it is impossible to respond to.

I agree(to what I write to you) - can you yet understand why?

Why do you say this at the end of your post?

-because on this thread you have said quite a bit about "reality" in regard to your experience:

How did you derive this point?

I will agree that the lions share of what I wrote to you has been dealing with your presumptions and therefore; very little in the way of philosophy. That is why I ask repeatedly - like a broken record - ask questions.

Will this will go right by you again? You are missing what is so clear - you make a list of assumptions - I answer them - now it is me who is emotional, paranoid, and protecting my ego?
That does not make any sense at all.

I respond to what you say and you blame me for what you yourself write? What is up with that?

Oh - its the agenda - no questions, just more finger pointing, how quaint. Is that what you call philosophy with a point?

Philosophy is exploring the truth of everything, and the ego is part of everything.

The ego is a phantom. Its existence is confined to the mind.

Sometimes the "experience" was just an experience; other times it is "reality". What's it to be: real, or something else?

Very simple and understood by everyone.

You can fantasize eating a meal - it is a very real fantasy of eating - it is not the same thing as actually eating.

See how easy it is to ask a question to find out if I am deluded or not? Did I use logic to answer your question?

The insight that the self is God comes from seeing that everything in the universe is connected. In this way the self can be considered as being - everything (God).

An important step in the path to discovery.

This is a useful first step in understanding that things do not exist inherently, but depend on other things for their existence. This causal relationship between things means the self is also caused, and therefore has no other existence other than through those causes.

And what are the causes of the self?

A major consequence of understanding that the self does not exist inherently, is that you no longer take seriously your attachment to your past idea of ‘you’ as a separate entity. As a whim of God, you can’t fall in love, or hate anything, or worry about your future, or pine for your past. Because you can’t fall in love with what is you, or hate what is you, or worry about something you have no control over, or pine for something you can never know anything about for certain.

OK

From this, you can continue on making more discoveries.

Can you teach me something I do not know?

You seriously believe I have not considered all this? I would say your discernment of where a person is at in their understanding is a projection of yours.

But by all means - you believe I could not know this because up until this last post - you just make assumptions.

You should reread what I wrote to Kelly in the Chuang Tzu thread then ask yourself if I understand what you just wrote.

No. This "reality beyond your experience" must still be part of your experience otherwise you'd have no knowledge of it.

Then why are you asking me to deny me experience and catcall it "shallow and paranoid". Why is sharing my experience "protecting my ego"?

Are we there yet?

Consciousness arises due to its causes and falls away due it causes, but the causes neither have a beginning, nor an end. We cannot know all the causes which bring consciousness into existence, as we cannot know all the causes that end it. What we can be certain of is that consciousness, along with everything else, is caused, and that those causes are eternal.

If you are certain that something else causes consciousness then it should be a rather simple matter to point out when consciousness begins.

Can you tell me when your consciousness began?

Yes, we can only know consciousness, along with everything else, through our senses.

No, not at all.

Example; if you lose the sense of sight, are you less conscious?
Now eliminate all the five senses one by one.

You can lose all five senses and still be conscious and therefore; it transcends awareness.

You are obviously trying to use radio waves as some sort of analogy to explain how consciousness works. You’ll have to spell it out further to make clear what you are trying to get at.

The source of consciousness transcends the physical - it is a conclusion of pure logic. Your brain can be told what to think with or without stimulas from the senses and therefore; transcends the idea it is a feedback loop.

In fact experience itself transcends the physical as all experience can - according to the lowest common denominator - only be singular in perception.

The physical must have comparisons for existence; perception is singular in experience and therefore; the Ultimate Reality.

A=A.

I am enjoying this, we are discussing. I am asking you questions and you are in turn asking me questions - its how we progress.

I know that I am caused to know that everything is caused. So, there is everything accounted for.

As you said above reality and experience are one and the same - the cause of experience is your consciousness.
It is irreducible and cannot be refuted.

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.

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

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.

.

Suergaz wrote:

Sue: Above, I wrote of "one realization of Truth" being replaced by "another realization of Truth". This can happen when you doubt the validity of your original concept of Truth. For example: The thought arises that I exist, which fits perfectly into my concept that the Truth is: all things inherently exist. The next thought that arises is: nothing can exist independently from other things. Depending on how attached I was to my original idea of Truth, I could either ignore this new thought, or be open to it. Let’s say that I am blessed with an open mind and a keenness to understand everything with certainty. I judge this new thought to be more rational, because I see that all things are dependent on all other things for their existence. So, this thought is obviously taking me closer to understanding a Truth that is for everything and for all time.

suergaz:What if your next thought was that your original idea of truth is not made less true by your new one?

Sue:Then you would be insane, and any further thinking would be a waste of time.

suergaz:Then how would you ever be "understanding a Truth that is for everything and for all time."?

It may be just me, but I think it's funnier with that heavenly hell of a punchline which went unanswered.

The “original idea of truth” that I wrote as an example, was that all things inherently exist. The “new one” was that nothing can exist independently from all other things. Therefore, the first is that things have inherent existence and the second that things do not have inherent existence. To then have a third thought that “your original idea of truth is not made less by your new one” would be, as I wrote, insane.

A thing cannot be considered to have, and not have, inherent existence. It can only be described as having one, or the other.*

If this* was your next thought, there would be hope for you after all.

Sue

Sapius, you asked:

Not unless you take “physical objects” to be more solid an appearance than thoughts. Are you saying that? Otherwise, there is no difference in that regard.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

Your above question was in response to the original argument last posed to you as follows:

Tell me how this...:

"The a priori one- and two-dimensions are logically necessary to the human experience of three- and four-dimensional objects, even though such objects -- 1 and 2D -- literally cannot be experienced as empirical objects (only as a priori, ie via pure logic)."

...has anything to do with being a "mixed experience or character of or to some Reality in fairyland."

Do you mean to say that experiencing a physical object is precisely the same in every way as experiencing a thought? Give me more substance of thought than merely proclaiming "its all experience," which any old wanker can conclude. Address the argument itself, and directly, in other words.

After your above comment, you wrote:

Leyla, actually you don’t make any sense to me in saying that, neither should it make to you. How can any thing be experienced if not through thoughts?

That’s why when there’s a 10000 tonne truck heading in my direction, I don’t deliberately drive in its path on the opposite side of the road. Do you?

I can think about driving in the path of a 10000 tonne truck, or I can actually do it to see how it feels. Is there no difference, Sapius? If there were not difference, I’d wager that you would see many more people walking on water, driving their cars into trucks, stabbing themselves, not blowing other people up (since there’d be no point, really, would there?) and so on.

Again, is there NO difference, Sapius? Prove that there is NO difference in the experience of physical objects and thought objects, without pure logic (which you are necessarily having to undermine at the same time as use to prove your own “counter” argument) . This is, and continues to be, the crux of my argument.

Can you address it, because I don’t believe -- in all this time -- that you have.

Sapius: Hence, anything discovered through “pure logic”, is necessarily an experience rather than just a discovery beyond experience.

Do you think you could drop the purely logical sermon on all experience as pure logic; just for a moment…

.

Sue:

The “original idea of truth” that I wrote as an example, was that all things inherently exist. The “new one” was that nothing can exist independently from all other things. Therefore, the first is that things have inherent existence and the second that things do not have inherent existence.

No, because the 'new' thought-"nothing exists independently from all other things" does not mean things lack inherent existence.

A thing cannot be considered to have, and not have, inherent existence. It can only be described as having one, or the other

Yes, one thing. Inherent existence.
Test it yourself. Can you describe the non-existence of a thing?
Not essentially. You can only describe existence after existence.

Sapius wrote:

The Near-Death essay.

Could you please direct me to that essay? I might have missed it. Thanks.

This thread, page 7, June 14 - near the bottom of the page.

Sue

Frank,

For all intents and purposes for living on this planet the Tao churns out forms for me to relate to

You are a form, Frank.

...these forms are pretty much what I make them Mean...the Meaning I put on them

That's just delusion. I think part of you cares about understanding the truth, but that part is overshadowed with the bigger part that claims to understand everything already. You are only the giver-of-meaning in your own mind.

To the part of you that cares...all of this philosophy you have is the ego. I know this part of you wants to find what's real and stop making things up. That's why you're on a philosophy forum sharing your ideas...it's why girls put on makeup and go to the mall. For recognition. The reason why they want to be recognized? To know themselves.

So if you want to continue painting your face everyday, it's all right. I just want you to know that it isn't close to philosophy or truth.

...to put a Binding Meaning on the Form Woman...that she is a 'fuckhead' isn't what I find...I find some individual Women to be 'enlightened'...way beyond most Men I've encountered

It seems that way, but when these women are confronted, in my experience their enlightenment fails. One of the QRS once said that women are closer to enlightenment, but are incapable of achieving it.

It seems women are enlightened when they walk around like angels, and never harm anyone, and are usually happy. You have to look at what they care about. Why they care about it. What they do about it. Do they always talk about the truth? Or do they talk about other spiritual things, not having anything to do with the truth? Do they seek to destroy your ego, while maintaining their own?

I once thought a lot of women were enlightened. At times, it seems like they were born without attachment...such is not the case. Women are human beings just like men.

The fact of the matter is, men are more able to take on the path to truth. They seek. Women accept.

But you're right about this:

..you can't simply construct a Category Woman...and assign properties to it and then 'fit up' all Women to suit your prejudice....

It's wrong to say all women are incapable of enlightenment. I know one who is without doubt (in my mind), perfectly enlightened. You are pretty right....it's too easy to say "typical" of women. But, when something is true then it is true. In my life, I've found women to be all of the worst said about them.

I approach a Woman or Man in an 'empty' Condition about them and then they 'fill me up' with themselves...then I decide if it's worth going on...if they're gonna drive me mad with 'demands' and 'co-dependance'...I'm outta there...

It's good to see each person for what they are. The bad thing about women is, you don't know who they are until it's too late. I'm not just talking in terms of a relationship, either. Friendships with women haven't worked for me.

It's a bad thing to be hurt by someone and continue to be open to them. That's delusion, and sadly it's what a lot of guys do with women.

Whatever, though. This issue is so overdebated here, and it's such a problem in most men's lives today. I met a man today who said "I wish I could shave my head like you, that's how I like it. My wife said I can't anymore...you put a ring on their finger and it's like they lose their brains!" I just had to laugh at the brainlessness of this guy. How could any self-respecting person marry someone they thought was inferior? Is it out of pity? Do men forget how stupid these women are when they look at them naked, or kiss them? Once they put on some clothes and push you away, they're stupid again?

I look for a Form that has Meaning for Me and then I Play...

Perhaps one day you'll get sick of playing.

Leyla,

1. Leyla: Do you mean to say that experiencing a physical object is precisely the same in every way as experiencing a thought?

2. Sapius: Not unless you take “physical objects” to be more solid an appearance than thoughts. Are you saying that? Otherwise, there is no difference in that regard.

(3. Yes, that’s what I’m saying.)

2a. Sapius: Leyla, actually you don’t make any sense to me in saying that, neither should it make to you. How can any thing be experienced if not through thoughts?

According to your very clear answer in 3, I can actually say nothing further, philosophically speaking of course, because all experiences come down to being through appearances to the mind which is already an abstraction, be it “empirical” or “abstract”, without exceptions, for what is empirical if not an abstraction of what is ‘thought’ to be sensed, the mind being no more than a data processing system, which deduces every thing, but that is according to me.

Regarding 2a, which immediately followed the quote 2 in my earlier reply, is actually talking about the absurdity of 1. itself, other than the point 2 which I asked for the sake of clarification which you have already given in 3.

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. If you are interested in knowing how I think so, then please let me know. Only then could we come back to how one can know something and not consider that an experience, and how an approaching truck is also experinnced through abstraction, and we react to any such thing, through thinking, abstraction.

.

scott:

Friendships with women haven't worked for me.

It's a bad thing to be hurt by someone and continue to be open to them. That's delusion, and sadly it's what a lot of guys do with women.

Whatever, though. This issue is so overdebated here, and it's such a problem in most men's lives today. I met a man today who said "I wish I could shave my head like you, that's how I like it. My wife said I can't anymore...you put a ring on their finger and it's like they lose their brains!" I just had to laugh at the brainlessness of this guy. How could any self-respecting person marry someone they thought was inferior? Is it out of pity? Do men forget how stupid these women are when they look at them naked, or kiss them? Once they put on some clothes and push you away, they're stupid again?

Philosophy is discovering the Obvious.

And what's discovered here Scott is a 'body of Meaning' based on Wounded Feelings..

It's the squawk of Victimness...

A Victimness that then proceeds to turn on it's Perpetrator ( Woman) in a vain attempt to recover self esteem..

Be honest..you got into a power struggle with a gal and got rolled...

frank

Be honest..you got into a power struggle with a gal and got rolled...

frank

:D

Scott wrote:

It's wrong to say all women are incapable of enlightenment. I know one who is without doubt (in my mind), perfectly enlightened.

I’d be interested to know more about this woman. Is she someone you know personally?

Sue

Sapius:

According to your very clear answer in 3, I can actually say nothing further, philosophically speaking of course, because all experiences come down to being through appearances to the mind which is already an abstraction, be it “empirical” or “abstract”, without exceptions, for what is empirical if not an abstraction of what is ‘thought’ to be sensed, the mind being no more than a data processing system, which deduces every thing, but that is according to me.

Well, I think you’re far from alone on that score.

For tonight, I have one more question.

What difference do you see between what you said above and what I said originally, quoted below:

The a priori one- and two-dimensions are logically necessary to the human experience of three- and four-dimensional objects, even though such objects -- 1 and 2D -- literally cannot be experienced as empirical objects (only as a priori, ie via pure logic).

OK, make that two questions. If abstract thought is experience, what is experiencing it -- another pre-computed abstract thought?

.

Frank,

Philosophy is discovering the Obvious.

And what's discovered here Scott is a 'body of Meaning' based on Wounded Feelings..

It's the squawk of Victimness...

I've had wounded feelings, and I've had overwhelming feelings of confidence, and I've had friendly feelings, etc. To put me into the wounded-victim box just isn't realistic.

Although, you could have put me in that box at a few points in my life.

A Victimness that then proceeds to turn on it's Perpetrator ( Woman) in a vain attempt to recover self esteem..

I used to do that. Now I just look at it realistically. Maybe there is a small part of me that feels the need to recover my self esteem by putting women down...I'll admit that. It doesn't run my life, though. If you look at my posts, I've got mostly an even eye towards men and women. Perhaps you're only reading what you want to see in my posts...that I hate women.

Be honest..you got into a power struggle with a gal and got rolled...

I told one of my girlfriends how I felt...that I could spend the rest of my life with her. She didn't understand and led me on, when really she didn't want it.

One of my close friends for a long time just drifted away. We had been friends for 10+ years. We would talk pretty much every night about deep subjects, such as the truth, religion, politics, etc. She moved to a bigger city, and got a boyfriend and now she doesn't talk to me at all. I see her online every once in a while and I'll say hi, and she will say she's busy.

So there wasn't a power struggle really anywhere...but I guess I did get rolled. That's the way this world works, though. Old friends go, but new friends come. Then the new friends go, and newer friends come. Perhaps some old friends come back.

Sue,

I’d be interested to know more about this woman. Is she someone you know personally?

I met her online a few years ago. She's an American Siddha guru that lives in Mexico, sometimes Seattle and sometimes India. Her website is http://www.kundalinisupport.com

scott wrote:

You are a form, Frank.

Form is Content...Content is Form.
Content changes therefore Form changes.
This is why 'things' are said to lack an inherent Nature...and that Form is emptiness...emptiness is Form..

Toss the word 'Reality' out of your lexicon and replace it with the word 'Activity'....now you know 'what is'.

The Tao proceeds...is a procession...perpetual motion...an unfolding...

You are a process that perishes.

The Tao has no opinion of you.

You provide the Meaning.

There's nothing to be upset or finicky about...Suffering is optional.

frank

Leyla,

What difference do you see between what you said above and what I said originally, quoted below:

Leyla: The a priori one- and two-dimensions are logically necessary to the human experience of three- and four-dimensional objects, even though such objects -- 1 and 2D -- literally cannot be experienced as empirical objects (only as a priori, ie via pure logic).

Very honestly speaking, if they are one and the same thing, I did not notice it, because at the very first impression it immediately seems to be quite complicated due to the introduction of those 1D’s and 2D’s, and especially the “pure logic” thing that you think must necessarily be some thing different than what is one working with. Because, I would then ask, what “pure logic” are you taking about? When there is only one abstraction that is taking place. I also ask you, do you mean a higher abstraction is taking place within an already thinking abstraction? Or just a different realization through the same abstraction, based in the just one plain logic, A=A, not some other more “pure” form of logic.

AH! It just dawned to me! What you mean by “pure Logic”, is actually ‘abstraction’! What a fool I have been. :D

But then, are you telling me that there is something that can be discovered but not experienced? (Which is what actually started this discussion) But experiencing is knowing, and knowing is experiencing, and that’s what abstraction does. It let’s me know that a truck is approaching, hence we have experienced that thought, and also that that there is nothing that inherently exists, for example, so what’s the difference in that context? I was just confused as to which ‘pure logic’ is being introduced that understands the latter, and is somehow different when knowing involves the empirical world.

Leyla: OK, make that two questions. If abstract thought is experience, what is experiencing it -- another pre-computed abstract thought?

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.

Frank:Toss the word 'Reality' out of your lexicon and replace it with the word 'Activity'....now you know 'what is'.

This says it all that I have said in the preciding post, Leyla.

Frankee boy, O! Boy!

Need I say anything more? Inexpressible! Absolutely Inexpressible!

No emoticons could justify that!

I need a holiday :D

.

: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!

[sigh]

Two more sighs like that and I'm out of here.

Leyla,

Your argument brings to mind Plato's Theory of Forms: The a priori existence of conception that governs the experience of the aesthetic. While we can never experience the forms in their perfection, we can theoretically know of them through the experience of the material plane.

What's responsible for logic?

It has to be the contrast of the ideal with the apparent. The primary dimensions [1D, 2D], with their more tangible forms: Both contingent upon one another for existence. Pure logic is then defined as the unseen contrast between the ideal and the apparent.

You could even deduce that the existence of no-dimension, is a direct expression of unconsciousness - or the regressive effect of Weininger's "henid." In order to keep the structure of coherency, the pure logic of the first and second dimensions/contrasted with the third and fourth dimensions, must be intuitively maintained, to form consciousness. A revolution in consciousness would be the ability to isolate each dimension, and examine it, to explore reality. The "I" would be all four dimensions aligned.

Thought + Truth + Space + Time.

The first dimension, a single point, could be the initial thought. 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"). The third dimension would be space: the Mind. In space you could effectively explore the truth (through "physical" objects and mental constructions. Is there a difference?) combining vectors (straight lines), for newer truths. Building a constellation mind-map!

:)

The fourth dimension: Time. With the combination of time (memory), space (the mind and its vectors of truth), could be explored in greater depth than before. With the realization that space-time was actually your own mind, newer and newer combinations could be linked together through the space-time continuum (memory + explorative thought), allowing for newer and newer insights, and subsequent realities to form.

suergaz wrote: Leyla [sigh]
Zag: Two more sighs like that and I'm out of here.

Just curious. Would that be out of anything else other than a 'sigh'? :D

.

R. Steven Coyle wrote:You could even deduce that the existence of no-dimension, is a direct expression of unconsciousness - or the regressive effect of Weininger's "henid." In order to keep the structure of coherency, the pure logic of the first and second dimensions/contrasted with the third and fourth dimensions, must be intuitively maintained, to form consciousness. A revolution in consciousness would be the ability to isolate each dimension, and examine it, to explore reality. The "I" would be all four dimensions aligned.

Thought + Truth + Space + Time.

The first dimension, a single point, could be the initial thought. 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"). The third dimension would be space: the Mind. In space you could effectively explore the truth (through "physical" objects and mental constructions. Is there a difference?) combining vectors (straight lines), for newer truths. Building a constellation mind-map!

:)

The fourth dimension: Time. With the combination of time (memory), space (the mind and its vectors of truth), could be explored in greater depth than before. With the realization that space-time was actually your own mind, newer and newer combinations could be linked together through the space-time continuum (memory + explorative thought), allowing for newer and newer insights, and subsequent realities to form.

Steven, generally I find your posts quite flowing with artistic expression and poetry, which in itself I do very much appreciate, just that my English is not that good so I cannot respond like wise, but some of your posts, like this one, is perfectly clear to me.

All that you say is well and good, but also look at it this way…

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

.