Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 12, 2018 6:10:51 GMT
The moment you think you know for certain the 'qualities' of Source/God, is the moment you made a lolly-pop out of what should only ever be a pointer. "Quality" is the realm of minding/thought/ideation. None of which have any place in actual 'realization.' You used to know this, what happened? If, instead of concluding it's an extension of Source, we conclude it's an expression of source, like the bark of the dog, we see that the bark is not really warm and furry. When a realization is conceptual, it all depends on how one conceptualizes it.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 12, 2018 6:24:09 GMT
So this quality of aliveness (aware, conscious, intelligent), is it really just a pointer, or an actual recognizable 'quality'? You can't have it both ways. Read through all three of those posts. You contradict yourself like crazy. On one hand you say we can know these qualities for certain, then you say, "alive" is just a pointer. Clearly you are very confused. And what they've been saying for yonks is that the appearing other is conscious and perceiving. If that's a pointer it's pretty lickable
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 6:33:18 GMT
So this quality of aliveness (aware, conscious, intelligent), is it really just a pointer, or an actual recognizable 'quality'? You can't have it both ways. Read through all three of those posts. You contradict yourself like crazy. On one hand you say we can know these qualities for certain, then you say, "alive" is just a pointer. Clearly you are very confused. And what they've been saying for yonks is that the appearing other is conscious and perceiving. If that's a pointer it's pretty lickable It's basically understanding problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 14:22:12 GMT
Yes, who cares? is a great question, maybe even the greatest question one can ask. You stole that from the back of Melania's jacket! Let's put Melanias jacket in context. She wore it on a trip to visit migrant kids being detained in cages. She was furthering an agenda while making a political statement. And she was focused on caring (or lack thereof), but not the "I" which got the whole thing started. So I'm giving it a hard no that I stole it from her.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Nov 12, 2018 15:17:49 GMT
You stole that from the back of Melania's jacket! Let's put Melanias jacket in context. She wore it on a trip to visit migrant kids being detained in cages. She was furthering an agenda while making a political statement. And she was focused on caring (or lack thereof), but not the "I" which got the whole thing started. So I'm giving it a hard no that I stole it from her. Soooooo don't care 'bout any 'o 'dat.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2018 16:43:14 GMT
And yet, another. I know, right? Freakin' crazy he's now arguing what he's arguing. Proof I guess that his seeing back then was only conceptual...or perhaps realizations can somehow be lost? A good clunk on the melon perhaps?....no wait, that would be looking for cause within the dream. Damn... Who knows. Oh wait...he's just a figment in 'the' dream.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2018 16:51:13 GMT
The moment you think you know for certain the 'qualities' of Source/God, is the moment you made a lolly-pop out of what should only ever be a pointer. "Quality" is the realm of minding/thought/ideation. None of which have any place in actual 'realization.' You used to know this, what happened? If, instead of concluding it's an extension of Source, we conclude it's an expression of source, like the bark of the dog, we see that the bark is not really warm and furry. When a realization is conceptual, it all depends on how one conceptualizes it. Yeah, I totally see what you're saying there; The distinction between 'an expression' vs. 'an extension' makes a big and important difference if/when one is conceptualizing what's being pointed to...and I'm pretty sure with all the flip-flopping that's gone on where Reef's is concerned over the past few years, 'conceptualizing vs. actual realization' is what's happened. Excellent example you give there with the bark as 'an expression' of the dog, not possessing the 'quality' of furry. That's toadally the mistake that's being made in this whole 'that which has Self fundamental to it, must therefore possess the same qualities as Self.' Several things going wrong in that one assertion. For one, quality is being assigned to "Self" (that which defies capture...that which defies property/quality) AND, then, the logical error you describe, that also has pointer licking at it's helm.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2018 16:52:53 GMT
So this quality of aliveness (aware, conscious, intelligent), is it really just a pointer, or an actual recognizable 'quality'? You can't have it both ways. Read through all three of those posts. You contradict yourself like crazy. On one hand you say we can know these qualities for certain, then you say, "alive" is just a pointer. Clearly you are very confused. And what they've been saying for yonks is that the appearing other is conscious and perceiving. If that's a pointer it's pretty lickable LOL....indeed!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2018 17:02:39 GMT
And what they've been saying for yonks is that the appearing other is conscious and perceiving. If that's a pointer it's pretty lickable It's basically understanding problem. I think there is a basic issue of taking pointers and licking them...which indeed could be said to involve issues of understanding. If you look at Reef's initial argument where he used logic and said it's a 'no brainer,' that because it's all Consciousness then of course, by virtue of that, every appearing thing, is known for certain to be'conscious,' that's pretty clearly demonstrates that he's taking the pointer of "Consciousness" and making it a some-thing that possesses certain specific qualities, but the fact that both he and ZD continue to argue and morph their argument now between "it's just a pointer vs. these qualities of known for certain to be" as I see it, has 'I don't wanna admit I was wrong' written all over it. What we're seeing is ego in action. Reefs is now in full denial that he ever said "If It's all consciousness then of course, it's a no brainer that each appearing thing is by virtue of that, conscious," which tells me he himself has backed away from that idea...so at the very least, he's to some degree seeing that error. His argument has morphed since then considerably. Back then it was an obvious, no brainer, now the seeing that each thing is conscious, perceiving, experiencing, requires a super-duper, extra special woo-woo experience.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2018 17:38:01 GMT
Right. Agreed. If/when one is identified with/as a body/mind/thing and he sees through that, it will become abundantly clear that the identity so far has only been an idea construct...that there is actually nothing there, has been no-thing there, all along...and nothing means no-thing. If quality is being seen there, seeing through of identification, has not actually happened. And THAT is precisely what you've done when you insist that 'nature' is 'alive, conscious, perceiving, experiencing.' Those are graspable ideas, concepts, qualities, not pointers. A true realization of 'nature' does not have you coming away arguing for concrete, well known, ideas, qualities that you therefore say you know for certain, apply to each and every apparent thing. YOU are the one who has not actually apprehended your own true, fundamental nature....you think the realization of nature means the knowing of quality/property! You've simply swapped out identification with a particular 'thing' (body/mind) with identification with a particular set of qualities/properties. The actual nature of Self is beyond description...can be pointed to only. The fact that you are insisting upon specific terms (alive, conscious, perceiving, experiencing) clearly indicates that it's you who is looking through the eyes of an imagined SVP....it's you who has simply swapped out one identity for another.
|
|