muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Nov 14, 2020 18:18:13 GMT
Stop speculating about what I mean and get present to what I wrote: change is self-evident. We can relate that to time, if you'd like, but first, you have to actually read what I actually wrote without following some new line of thought about it that has nothing to do with what I mean by it. Defining the self-evident is TMT. "Change is self evident" sounds an awful lot to me like "time is self evident." But you seem to be saying that you do not in fact, equate them. I'm asking questions to try to find out why. Ok. "Time" implicates all sorts of things, like, for instance, the imagined past and future, whereas "Change" is cleaner, with less baggage. Feel it?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 15, 2020 3:05:25 GMT
"Change is self evident" sounds an awful lot to me like "time is self evident." But you seem to be saying that you do not in fact, equate them. I'm asking questions to try to find out why. Ok. "Time" implicates all sorts of things, like, for instance, the imagined past and future, whereas "Change" is cleaner, with less baggage. Feel it? Not really much cleaner at all considering you introduced the term 'change' into a conversation asserting time to be an illusion, to help rebut that assertion.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Nov 15, 2020 12:19:29 GMT
Ok. "Time" implicates all sorts of things, like, for instance, the imagined past and future, whereas "Change" is cleaner, with less baggage. Feel it? Not really much cleaner at all considering you introduced the term 'change' into a conversation asserting time to be an illusion, to help rebut that assertion. We each are fixed in our opinion of the other and it doesn't matter how often we reply to each other at this point. You're convinced I'm promoting illusion, and I'm convinced you've missed the context of the dialog, which was to suggest to Raj that "creation" is premised on "time", so pursuing questions about "creation" has no existential value. Now, you're likely thinking to disagree with my characterization of what you're convinced of, but try to get present to how that's just a trick to make yourself right.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 15, 2020 22:23:21 GMT
Not really much cleaner at all considering you introduced the term 'change' into a conversation asserting time to be an illusion, to help rebut that assertion. We each are fixed in our opinion of the other and it doesn't matter how often we reply to each other at this point. You're convinced I'm promoting illusion, and I'm convinced you've missed the context of the dialog, which was to suggest to Raj that "creation" is premised on "time", so pursuing questions about "creation" has no existential value. Now, you're likely thinking to disagree with my characterization of what you're convinced of, but try to get present to how that's just a trick to make yourself right. No, you were pretty much spot on actually.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 15, 2020 22:47:22 GMT
Enjoyed this post of yours on ST. Brings to mind a convo I had on fb. I posted about a local restaurant that was demanding names and numbers for contact tracing purposes...to warn those who were interested. I'd shared how hubby and I refused to hand our info over and were thus, denied access, so we calmly gathered ourselves up and left. A few friends responded that out in B.C. pretty much all the restaurants were doing this, so if they wanted to eat out, they were giving fake names and numbers to get around it. I jokingly responded they could have a bit of fun with it...."Ben Dover...867-5309" kinda thing. Another friend entered the conversation to say she liked it when restaurants took names as it allowed her to feel safe....& that those who gave fake names were being 'bad humans...unkind...unethical' because those who are living in fear of the virus, depend upon those measures to feel safe. I tried to explain to her that there is nothing kind about pandering to the delusional fears of others....that for those who believe our personal rights are being infringed upon all for a virus that is not near as deadly as we're being told, and that by not allowing folks in if they are unwilling to give their names/numbers, the restaurant is discriminating against them...that there is nothing at all unethical about finding ways to circumvent what we see to be wrong in the 1st place. A reasonably civil debate ensued for a few posts, but ultimately, she wrapped up the convo by telling me that she had to unfriend me due to my lack of morals.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 23, 2020 18:10:27 GMT
I'm pretty much with you for most of that. As I see it, what you say above is pointing to the inherent emptiness of all perceivables. The world is experienced differently after this has been realized, and to say the world loses 'substance' after, imo, is accurate. I think you go too far in saying 'irrelevant,' though....this strikes me as someone who is more trying to turn away from the world mentally and emotionally rather than one who truly sees the world as absent the substance he once saw it as having.
Absent 'substance' does not equal no longer caring about life...no longer caring about the story and the characters in it. Indeed, 'the depth' of caring/interest changes post SR, but to say that ALL interest goes imo, involves a misunderstanding. Interest is an integral facet of experience that arises absent a 'someone' who is interested. You need not deny interest to make the point that there is no SVP.
You've now shifted from pointing, talking about what life is like post SR. All you say above is 'in the dream' story-telling...which you seem to be conflating with Truth (not entirely sure though).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 23, 2020 22:19:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 23, 2021 1:05:35 GMT
It's not a "correct understanding" about free will/absence of free will that 'leads to' silence and peace, it's a realization that what you thought WAS, isn't. And it's not even accurate to say that that realization 'leads to' silence and peace, but more that they go hand in hand.
The idea that all one has to do is to correctly, conceptually grasp the idea that free will is not the case and then he will be free is a nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 14, 2021 5:03:32 GMT
Once again Reefs, you are erroneously positing a 'person' and his envisions of the future as actually 'causal' to manifestation.
Whether there is 'deliberation' regarding visualization of a wanted future event, or absence of deliberation regarding a manifest future event, matters not in the big scheme of things. There is no separation....remember?
The story's unfolding is not dependent upon anything that unfolds/appears previously. And all visualization, even deliberation itself relative to the story, is itself an appearance...an facet of the unfolding.
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Mar 16, 2021 4:28:23 GMT
Once again Reefs, you are erroneously positing a 'person' and his envisions of the future as actually 'causal' to manifestation. Whether there is 'deliberation' regarding visualization of a wanted future event, or absence of deliberation regarding a manifest future event, matters not in the big scheme of things. There is no separation....remember? The story's unfolding is not dependent upon anything that unfolds/appears previously. And all visualization, even deliberation itself relative to the story, is itself an appearance...an facet of the unfolding. No separation!!!! Truly wonderful....
|
|