|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 21:05:50 GMT
Precisely, Preciocio.  I like how you put that.  Nice to see not all ST members are falling under the spell of the almighty CC experience.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 21:21:55 GMT
yes. Agreed. If one were to conclude that he in fact does know that the characters who appear to him, are devoid of conscious, self awareness, that could happen.
Yup. It's a conversation that dovetails very nicely with the one about 'not knowing.'
And I like how you say, "I don't experience the belief or the disbelief in other focal points." That's really what it means to 'not know' and in that void, there is openness to possibility, absent mind settling upon any one in particular. & contrary to what some may think, The freedom left in the wake of that 'mind settling' gives space for true Love and empathy to flow.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 1, 2018 1:05:36 GMT
I think that was shown to be the case in subsequent posts, and given nothing more than Andy's and Reefs' characterization of the MS giraffe, I likely would have responded similarly and given those damn metaphysical solipsists a piece of my mind.  Hell yeah....Those freakin' idjits. Hey you can't say that here!....Oh, wait, yeah you can. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 1, 2018 1:25:49 GMT
Andrew, it's important to see that you are in quite a different position in terms of your argument than Reefs and ZD, for the express reason that unlike them, you do not agree that you know that you exist. This is one of the reasons why I find it so incredibly disingenuous how Reefs is banding together with you to argue against the absence of knowledge pertaining to that which appears....he clearly DOES acknowledge that he exists, the two of you argued quite vehemently over that one in fact, for quite a long period of time, in the past. In the past, he went as far to say that The only thing one can be certain of, is that he exists.' Thus, Your entire ontology is worlds apart from either ZD's or Reefs. They know I am/existence...whereas you see it as just another appearance. What this means is that you have not even reached the modicum of clarity necessary to know Being as the foundation to all that arises. You've lumped it in with other stuff that appears vs. seeing that Being/I am existence, is what all the other stuff arises/appears within. (The world is in you). Reefs? If you happen to be reading along, would love to hear an explanation of how/why this changed.....did your CC experience add one more knowing to that one and only thing you said could be known for certain? If so, that's a pretty big deal...to go from seeing that I am/existence is all you can be certain of, to possessing certainty about that which appears to I am/existence.....a monumental shift in seeing. Wacky stuff goin on over there.  Andy isn't getting that there are things that are known by virtue of the simplicity of the statements made. One has to exist before one can ponder one's existence. Appearances appear by virtue of the appearance of the appearances. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 1, 2018 1:42:55 GMT
Or maybe he just doesn't want to get permanently banned from the ST forum.  Hey...dude...you're full out aligning with someone who says he does not know I am/existence. (Andrew) E is NOT arguing for separation. He acknowledges that he exists...like you used to say, he says that's a certainty. The realization that all is One, all is consciousness does not equal a subsequent knowing that every appearing object being consciously self aware. What you've done is wrongly assumed that 'being OF consciousness' necessarily equals 'being consciously self aware'. You've assigned attribute to that which has none and then made a couple of wrong turns from there to arrive at your faulty conclusion. He taunts me about not responding to him when he knows that not responding to him was part of the arrangement between the two of us to try to circumvent a potential banning. What would you call that?  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 1, 2018 1:51:38 GMT
 Seriously? Could a guy who writes the kind of poetry he writes be seeing/experiencing a two-dimensional, flat world? Have you read where he speaks of "God tears"...as i recall, one time as he silently observed a tree...? I'm pretty sure E sees and experiences and thus, engages a world of intense aliveness and vibrancy, just as you yourself do ZD....the difference is, he also clearly sees that beyond that appearance/experience of vibrancy, he knows nothing. Even the appearance of vibrancy/aliveness, is 'an empty appearance,' for which he has no knowledge of, beyond that it appears. It's enough for him that a vibrant world appears...he fully engages that appearance, but all absent knowledge beyond that. (E I hope I haven't misrepresented you here...) Thanks. I'm glad somebody has been paying attention. I hadn't read that post. That one made me a little sad.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 1, 2018 3:42:51 GMT
Andrew, it's important to see that you are in quite a different position in terms of your argument than Reefs and ZD, for the express reason that unlike them, you do not agree that you know that you exist. This is one of the reasons why I find it so incredibly disingenuous how Reefs is banding together with you to argue against the absence of knowledge pertaining to that which appears....he clearly DOES acknowledge that he exists, the two of you argued quite vehemently over that one in fact, for quite a long period of time, in the past. In the past, he went as far to say that The only thing one can be certain of, is that he exists.' Thus, Your entire ontology is worlds apart from either ZD's or Reefs. They know I am/existence...whereas you see it as just another appearance. What this means is that you have not even reached the modicum of clarity necessary to know Being as the foundation to all that arises. You've lumped it in with other stuff that appears vs. seeing that Being/I am existence, is what all the other stuff arises/appears within. (The world is in you). Reefs? If you happen to be reading along, would love to hear an explanation of how/why this changed.....did your CC experience add one more knowing to that one and only thing you said could be known for certain? If so, that's a pretty big deal...to go from seeing that I am/existence is all you can be certain of, to possessing certainty about that which appears to I am/existence.....a monumental shift in seeing. Wacky stuff goin on over there. Andy isn't getting that there are things that are known by virtue of the simplicity of the statements made. One has to exist before one can ponder one's existence. Appearances appear by virtue of the appearance of the appearances. Yup. Wacky indeed.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 1, 2018 3:44:42 GMT
Or maybe he just doesn't want to get permanently banned from the ST forum. Hey...dude...you're full out aligning with someone who says he does not know I am/existence. (Andrew) E is NOT arguing for separation. He acknowledges that he exists...like you used to say, he says that's a certainty. The realization that all is One, all is consciousness does not equal a subsequent knowing that every appearing object being consciously self aware. What you've done is wrongly assumed that 'being OF consciousness' necessarily equals 'being consciously self aware'. You've assigned attribute to that which has none and then made a couple of wrong turns from there to arrive at your faulty conclusion. He taunts me about not responding to him when he knows that not responding to him was part of the arrangement between the two of us to try to circumvent a potential banning. What would you call that? Being a prick. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 1, 2018 15:10:33 GMT
Surely to God, You know damn well by now, he's not doing that.  How long have you been conversing with E on forums? If you truly haven't grasped yet that E has seen through any and all potential 'separation' you're really not paying attention. I think You're being disingenuous here...and no doubt, you're merging into another morph of your own argument. Whenever you start saying stuff like, "It is very fine for him to....and that's absolutely fine with me," we're usually right on the cusp of another morph. Let's face it Andrew, you are not 'fine with' the assertion being made at all. You have a deep revulsion to the idea that perhaps appearing people are nothing more than apparitions, appearing characters in a waking dream who have no sense of existence, mere empty shells, devoid of experiential capacity. That idea terrifies and horrifies you. Your comfort in life depends upon your sense that you have things all sewn up logically....that you have a mental grasp upon what's going on. The funny thing is, that to really, truly see what's going on, you have to transcend mentation and logic. You have to at least be willing to let go of it. Your fear prevents you from that. And again for the record, no one here is 'questioning' whether or not there are other viewpoints....rather, we are saying that there is an absence of knowing about that. Once it is seen that the popcorn bag is empty, you stop fishing around for a handful of popcorn. How many times do you have to be told; 'individuation does not equal separation.' You keep equating the two...can you see that that's actually on YOU? Obviously you cannot fathom how delineation could be, absent actual separation. It explains much. Individuation, delineation, difference, is not at odds with Oneness. The last thing we want is to equate individual, delineation, with actual separation. To do so, while maintaining 'there is no separation,' is to become a brown bear. Again, it is YOU who personalizes "I am/existence" and then assumes that the other is doing so as well. To simply see/know 'I exist' is not to assign personhood to that existence. There need not be any sense of personal 'ownership' in the visceral, immediate knowing of existence....but you keep insisting that it's there. The direct, visceral knowing of existence is unquestionable, whereas all knowledge pertaining to that which appears to/within existence, beyond that it appears, involves surmising, extrapolating, concluding. You really don't know anything about an appearance other than it is not separate from I am/existence, it arises to/within existence. I am/existence is the most certain knowing you can have. It's irrefutable. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4965/consciousness-nature-appearances?page=68#ixzz5BQrXoyjD |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 1, 2018 15:16:58 GMT
Hey there Gabby Advocate...that was really well said. |
|
