Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Dec 19, 2019 17:36:21 GMT
But what if we said 'within Mr, Infinite'? Would that be like, an "appearance within Mr. Testicles"?? Sounds right to me.
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Jan 31, 2020 18:14:34 GMT
It seems that you do indeed have something you wanna say, and don’t yet feel satisfied either with the conceptions you are using to explain/point to what’s been realized AND/OR you believe that anyone critiquing your expression somehow doesn’t understand. So, at least to some extent, you then go on to assume and express that other may lack the insight/realization of what you are attempting to explain/point to. It is at this point your words betray a certain residue of not abiding in/as what you speak of. It happens, so no biggie. Something to mull... I Consciousness have to energetically shift away from the Awareness of Being Aware, the experience of myself, to converse with you Consciousness. I Consciousness have to do that, because You Consciousness are fixed through fascination, in the 'all encompassing' yet illusory Reality of personhood. I Consciousness don't have to do that, because everything is okay, and it doesn't matter if You Consciousness shift away from that illusory Reality or not. You do it every night anyway, when you Consciousness recede from that fixed illusory Reality created by the mind, to abide in you Consciousness. Therefore, it's not about words or understanding/not understanding. It's about whether you Consciousness, can keep or remember the Awareness of yourself while you reside in the minds 'all encompassing' illusory Reality of personhood. What I Consciousness is doing here is infinite folly, because I Consciousness don't share the limitation, or am stained, or am affected, by the illusory Reality of personhood with all it's neurosis. Nah 😐
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 1, 2020 16:57:46 GMT
Nope. It's really not so long as the one pointing and the one on the receiving end of the pointer, have reference for the 'realization' behind the pointer. Pointing is actually, very, very specific in that it is pointing to an absence, not the presence of something known.
It's only in the absence of reference for that realization, that a pointer will be perceived as 'ambiguous.' There is no 'double meaning' inherent in pointing to what is ultimately an absence...and there is no unmade choice involved in pointing, between alternatives.
Plain and simply: All true pointers are pointing to a realization, which necessarily means, to 'an absence...a seeing through of what is not so.'
Again, you used to know this:
Reefs: "Realization cannot be described since it's pointing to an absence as opposed to an experience."
Reefs: "Realization, however, cannot be created since it's not about replacing concepts or some new kind of information..."
Yes, of course, because pointers point to a realization...a seeing through....an absence and that defies capture by mind. Mind is all about acquiring knowledge...it balks at the idea of 'seeing through' knowledge...balks as the mere idea of 'an absence' of knowing/not knowing. The 'it's all live' convo is a stellar example of that.
No. That's like saying a realization becomes something other than an absence just because we are trying to talk about it...trying to explain it. All the talk in the world, all the mangling of a realization/pointer in the world does not actually make the pointer itself, 'ambiguous' or 'any less pointy.' Ambiguity only arises in the mind of the one who has no reference for the absence that the pointer is pointing to.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 1, 2020 17:09:21 GMT
A mind that is attached to a particular erroneous idea, to erroneous material knowledge, will necessarily see 'dogmatism' in the uncompromising nature of Truth.
Again, a stellar example is the insistence that sometimes realizations can mean the taking on/addition of new knowledge (It's all alive!) vs. the seeing through/absence of something previously known.
Plain and simply, realization is 'always' a seeing through of what is not so vs. a taking on of new knowledge. Any 'new knowledge' added, happens as the realization is gotten hold of by mind, conceptualized by mind, as mind becomes informed.
Don't make the mistake of taking mind's conceptualization of the Truth though, for the Truth. THAT is precisely what it means to 'lick a pointer.' At their foundation, all realizations are inherently an absence/seeing through. There is simply no getting around that....no concessions to that, no teensy bit of wiggle room for some 'special' kind of realization that defies that.
Realization = absence/seeing through...seeing what is not 'actually' so. And no, the uncompromising nature of that pointer does not equal 'dogmatism.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 1, 2020 17:14:36 GMT
So long as clarity reigns as to what is a pointer/realization vs. what constitutes mind's conceptualization of such, no problemo. Pointers are always 'ultimately' pointing to an absence. Period. No exceptions.
If you find yourself arguing for a taking on of new info as "realization," or outright arguing that realization sometimes means the addition of something known that was not previously known, then it is indeed time to start looking for that 'hidden ball.'
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 2, 2020 5:28:39 GMT
A mind that is attached to a particular erroneous idea, to erroneous material knowledge, will necessarily see 'dogmatism' in the uncompromising nature of Truth. Again, a stellar example is the insistence that sometimes realizations can mean the taking on/addition of new knowledge (It's all alive!) vs. the seeing through/absence of something previously known. Plain and simply, realization is 'always' a seeing through of what is not so vs. a taking on of new knowledge. Any 'new knowledge' added, happens as the realization is gotten hold of by mind, conceptualized by mind, as mind becomes informed. Don't make the mistake of taking mind's conceptualization of the Truth though, for the Truth. THAT is precisely what it means to 'lick a pointer.' At their foundation, all realizations are inherently an absence/seeing through. There is simply no getting around that....no concessions to that, no teensy bit of wiggle room for some 'special' kind of realization that defies that. Realization = absence/seeing through...seeing what is not 'actually' so. And no, the uncompromising nature of that pointer does not equal 'dogmatism.' One only claims dogmatism when he hears what he believes to be an unsupported falsity. If he hears a pointer that he believes is true, it's not considered dogmatic even though it is not supported by evidence. Dogmatic is his way of calling the one pointing, a liar, or at least misinformed. Of course, if he has no reference for what's being pointed to, he'll derive the same conclusion.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 2, 2020 5:35:11 GMT
So long as clarity reigns as to what is a pointer/realization vs. what constitutes mind's conceptualization of such, no problemo. Pointers are always 'ultimately' pointing to an absence. Period. No exceptions. If you find yourself arguing for a taking on of new info as "realization," or outright arguing that realization sometimes means the addition of something known that was not previously known, then it is indeed time to start looking for that 'hidden ball.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 2, 2020 16:35:47 GMT
A mind that is attached to a particular erroneous idea, to erroneous material knowledge, will necessarily see 'dogmatism' in the uncompromising nature of Truth. Again, a stellar example is the insistence that sometimes realizations can mean the taking on/addition of new knowledge (It's all alive!) vs. the seeing through/absence of something previously known. Plain and simply, realization is 'always' a seeing through of what is not so vs. a taking on of new knowledge. Any 'new knowledge' added, happens as the realization is gotten hold of by mind, conceptualized by mind, as mind becomes informed. Don't make the mistake of taking mind's conceptualization of the Truth though, for the Truth. THAT is precisely what it means to 'lick a pointer.' At their foundation, all realizations are inherently an absence/seeing through. There is simply no getting around that....no concessions to that, no teensy bit of wiggle room for some 'special' kind of realization that defies that. Realization = absence/seeing through...seeing what is not 'actually' so. And no, the uncompromising nature of that pointer does not equal 'dogmatism.' One only claims dogmatism when he hears what he believes to be an unsupported falsity. If he hears a pointer that he believes is true, it's not considered dogmatic even though it is not supported by evidence. Dogmatic is his way of calling the one pointing, a liar, or at least misinformed. Of course, if he has no reference for what's being pointed to, he'll derive the same conclusion. Yes. You've described that well.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 2, 2020 16:37:05 GMT
So long as clarity reigns as to what is a pointer/realization vs. what constitutes mind's conceptualization of such, no problemo. Pointers are always 'ultimately' pointing to an absence. Period. No exceptions. If you find yourself arguing for a taking on of new info as "realization," or outright arguing that realization sometimes means the addition of something known that was not previously known, then it is indeed time to start looking for that 'hidden ball.' Perfect.
|
|