Mind Enlightenment vs. SR

Zendancer: It sounds like you're saying the same thing that all the rest of us are saying. The observer is the observed. All seeming separation is a cognitive illusion. Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.

someNOTHING! said:
OK, yeah, the explaining reality gig can get a little crossways. It's an odd word in a certain sense, because there's the consensual reality paradigm in comparison with a more (shall we say) expanded version of reality. Btw, that's kinda snorta what the dream dealio refers to.... it's all God's Dream of/as Consciousness. As has been mentioned, the convos that happen here are not really meant to be based on that consensual reality paradigm or even searching for something that is going to necessarily make sense to anyone ONLY referencing it. So, there's a certain amount of latitude that needs to be given by all involved with respect to that.

Then, there are times when an interlocutor sounds like they are tinkering on the edge and perhaps, luckily, prone to slipping and falling into that broader, boundless paradigm. That can be sensed to a degree. But, it is common for habitual, well-rutted consensual reality-based trains of thoughts to jump in and repair the slippage, so to speak. Convos might get a little edgy around those times, which is the sparring. In the end, we just have typed language to go by, and then there's the sense of when someone might actually have realized the pointers or just has a conceptual understanding. So, again, the edginess can be there looking to see what becomes of a little extra poke.

Does that make sense?

It's never anything personal, really.






I think we treat the concept of "foundation" differently, and I do remember poking at it before. Generally speaking, I'd suggest that such convos, as found here, tend to destabilize any sense of foundation (in my interpretation of the word). Again, this destabilization can bring out emotional expressions which are indicative of unconscious beliefs. That is, when triggered, the peep might go unconscious and start to express a defensive stance (i.e., a border issue of sorts), which then adds to the edginess of the convo going forward until one or both parties pulls back or there's a resolution. I guess these situations sometimes bring about the perceived need to ban folks.

Messy at times? Oh, yes. It helps to suspend judgment of presumed intention, maybe change one's approach to questioning, or perhaps try to see "synonyms" in one's own language to what and why something might be being conveyed.

I'd say walk/talk "issues" often tend to be matter of perception, logic, etc, so can be tricky due to the potential for assumptions. I generally assume peeps have a general "impression" of another interlocutor and their story in their own mind prior to making any kind of conclusion about the other's walk/talk issue. I tend to pause and consider the potential alternatives, which might involve trying to see how they're perceiving the context.

Context is another thingy that I tend to treat as a conceptual structure, due to my background in language, intercultural studies, and views on mind. Meaning needs a context. I understand when someone might says things like "contextless context" or some other way of expressing a non-conceptual Truth, and I might even poke at it to see if they have fully absorbed the implications of why they are using it. Language does not really arise in a conceptual void, so that is why I appreciate the concept of "pointers", but also understand why some will claim they can be used in attempts to escape (i.e., as part of a defensive / self-preservation / denial strategy), as is alluded to sometimes.

All that said, "self" is a structure in the mind, and it seeks fulfillment and/or meaning in the context of its perceived life. SR is not really "about" such things, though it can have have profound impacts on the dream of that individuated perspective. Expressing points of view in a meaningful fashion via language "about SR" is fraught with potential misunderstandings that are not really the fault of anyone in particular, if you know what I mean.

Am I still making sense? I know it's gotten wordy.