bo wrote:
Here you again say one thing and do the other: You say (correspondingly) "that bit edginess is not to be taken seriously", but you were very offended, when noticing the (misunderstood) buddhism insult.
to refresh the memory, i wrote:
...you claimed buddhism being about doing, now it's about putting things into label-drawers.
don't insult buddhism, have nothing to do with th issue and cannot defend, only through silence. if you can't or don't want to use it, ok, just state "no more x-ism in my thread" and i respect that. but if you don't see that it's just words we use to make more refined distinctions that can we feedback with experience, thus refining it as well,...
you surely agree, now that you see clearly what i wrote, that your "you were very offended" is more than inappropriate, as i was not offended at all. i just pointed out the inadequacy of what you stated about buddhism.
though you're right that the emphasis, the touchstone fo buddhism, is experience, one's own authentic experience.
but that doesn't necessarily mean dualizing thinking(talking) and doing. non-action is not this or that. it's not even neither.
then you say:
See, I have heard so many times (especially esotericly inclined) people stating , for example:
"That does not much affect me, I take it with serenity."
"I am happy (with my partner)."
"I have no problems with death."
And in every case it was facade. A mental attitude only valid as long as it does not depend on. And buddhism philosphy (and that of most religions and esoteric streams) indeed invites to merely take the attitude without the substance. (Thatswhy for me its about doing.)
i am not esoterically inclined. i am dialectically turning around both exo- and eso- teric teachings of all the cultures and time-periods i can come across. that's why i see your inclination towards "it being about doing" as dualism, just a reaction to another extreme (the 'esoteric people's' failure to live up to their lofty ideals)
you are my teacher as i am your teacher. i learn you learn. you teach i teach. ...
Bah, I was speaking about the teacher-pupil-relation. It even has a certain stronger flavor in buddhism. And not about learning something from someone other. You again avoid contents.
now i admit i must have completely misunderstood you. i dont know then how you meant it first time you mentioned it, nor do i understand it now.
what contents do i again avoid ?
or did you mean 'exclusively one-way relationship?' like teacher>student ? if so then my last post in
Tetraspace Beings on the difference between duality & dualism, and especially the part on what is dualistic tendency in (thought/expression/action) is appropriate to you. then yes, you can consider it one-way, and i might seem to you as teacher.
but that would be a misunderstanding, an inappropriate generalisation.
andWhatsMore, in buddhism, if you mention it, the teacher-pupil relationship is in different context totally. the pupil is not a specialist in certain knowledge-domain, and is not usually leading life independent of living with his teacher - master. he completely relies on him/her, and especially, what master transmits is essentially a state of Being, not this or that information or knowledge-structure in text-based form, as we do here.. so it's up to the pupil to figure it out authentically - to do it personally, and thus to transcend the need for external objective master by finding the true Guru withi him/herself - to actualize one's own primal mindful awareness.
after I use the mirror metaphor for 3rd (!) time in this thread, it passes through your attention threshold
You *use* and mention a lot, I can also use many things you never have heard of. See? If you explain something, then damn do it with context (especially words), understandable to the listener!
you can and you do. that's what makes it interesting for me: the difference of expressions over identical base. and as far as the context goes, it's always present, you just choose to ignore it sometimes, like with quoting the builder-exemple from my last post in this thread without context, where it was clearly ex.plained within its validity-context, of when does it apply. you cut it out, paste it and deny it, even telling me to mind context. oh bo.
You even state
if you wanna understand me, then don't wobble that much on terminologies, philosophical or whatever, words are not equivalents to meanings !
So and how is the meaning conveyed? Via words. And what happens if the meaning of the words differs between the discussion partners? confusion. Of course it is absolutely irrelevant insisting on using words in a common context, what only counts is the meaning *ironicly* :twisted:
yes i do state that. and that's what i mean. i mean we can communicate even if our words differ greatly, if we can see where their meanings overlap. it's not a confusion, a problem ,it's a possibility to unify global structure of both discussion-partners into a coherent whole allowing to talk about the same in other words.
the meaning is not conveyed via words only, perhaps not even mainly. the meaning is conveyed via the words, their syntax & grammar, and their context. and it (the meaning) 's (usually, if one is) interpreted.
though it is true that meaning in text-based discussion is more words-dependent than in actual body & speech-based communication.
So back to the mirror metaphor. Indeed you *explained* it overall 2 (!)times. At least it passes my attention threshold at all. What one can not say about you, regarding my base assumptions/questions of this thread. I even heard of the mirror analogy. When I read it first in my youth it was in context how materialism explaines consciousness, not to say that it was one of the greatest nonsense I ever heard (bit exaggerated). And though you dont mention it in materialism context, it has materialism context as I already stated. So if you want to discuss the mirror analogy please open a new thread.
if your base assumptions did not pass my attention, i would not react so much to them, even though you seem to think i react to somethink else now.
second, you ignore semantics, that's why you can write what i put into italics in the above quote. that 'mirror analogy' and the one i mentioned are not the same just because they are both under the same word-label of 'mirror analogy'. there are myriads of mirror analogies, some even very stupid, and the one i stated i a certain particular one, not some other, or even general 'mirror analogy'. it's even a question if such a thing as general 'mirror analogy' or 'chair' or 'self' or whatever even exists.
therfore, i didn't want to discuss some 'miror analogy' as such. i found it partly structurally coupled with your perception/will formulation and so i just offered it. i won't start a new thread on it, nor will i elaborate on it anymore if you didn't find it useful yet.
1. What I really know, that I perceive something (subjectiveness).
you can see that you cannot really do without object(your 'something') even if you wanna start with just subjectivity, you t(r)icked in the first one already.
No, you are tricked in your hidden objectivity-assumption ("what really IS"). My "something" is in no way an object it is the percept.
hey man ! you flippin again. i don't say forget objectivity
! i say it's unavoidably both at the same time, if there's one, there's other as well, no way round it !
and with that "something...not object...it is percept", you kiddin us both? percept is object ! there is perceiver-perception-percept. what's so difficult about it ? triadic format of (agent - action - object of action).
for any sense(perception): sense-consciousness/sense-organ/sense-field. it's all in your above sentence (I(agent) / percepive (action) / something (object of action).
i suppose you don't wanna argue that 'something' from your sentence is not the object of action of 'I' from your sentence.
so again, in your base there's FROM THE START the polarity of subject/object. IT IS ONE STRUCTURE GODAMIT ! (insert 'furious & mad ' emoticon here )
?
then:
I also realize over the time of our discussion, that the typical philosophical discussion type is not my cup of tea. It is about saying this and that has to do with this and that and this can be seen by looking at this or that analogy. I prefer clear and reliable conclusions and statements near to mathematical rigorousness (when I argue).
you see, you prefer structure over relation. broad connectivity brings undecidability, and that is not desired by certain mindsets. it needs other skills to navigate the fuzzy.
The rest of ad1 and ad2(.1) is all inconclusive (this superior word I learned from Wendy!) babble not coming to the point. (insert a smiley if you want)
just parroting a word without understanding its challenge, (same as with 'self-referentiality' which links with
undecidability which equals
inconclusiveness) is nothing to celebrate.
and those ad1 & ad2.1, well yeah, they were quite modality-free expressions for your habitual mind to grasp (as you can see from your statement of its inconclusiveness).
but if you think so, let you have it.
If you want to show that some contemplation is wrong, then the acceptable way for me is to lead it to a contradiction. And not to simply impose a completely different system and assert that this is the true one. Of course leading something to a contradiction is much more difficult, because first one must transform the own terminology into the other as far as possible.
i never wanted to show that your contemplation is wrong.
that's why i didn't impose (not at all 'completely different') system.
i showed you another one, from thousands of people that dedicated their whole Beings and lifes to finding out what you pondered over in starting this thread.
without your dualist tendency to fight opposites and so to misunderstand offering for an attack, you would see (through words), APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE, and see that what i told you:
_is not a "completely different system"
_is actually a meta-system for your little system, embedding it within itself and even giving more reinement and scope to it..
so you would grasp as much as you could, and apply it to 'your' model, thus evolving it. but let you have it so, why communicate at all. let all people change their terminology as much as possible to you before they can explain you anything.
(now i wonder how do you understand wendy's PG ? or is she doing a personal version in your terminology ?
bo, they can not build the house in the same quality
Ok, here we have simply a different opinion. I never have heard that buddhist builders are favoured over other, or even about great buddhist builders.
nowhere did i claim what you never heard. and again this is exemple how you ignore the explanation of statements context and react to it then. in short, if you read my above explanation in its context (at least its paragraph, please) you cannot misunderstand how i meant it, exactly, not over or exagerated. simple.
i would not. i stand up to that again: you can do it(to consider consciousness using (simple) consciousness), but it doesn't bring understanding/results.
*boring* mathematical logic does exactly this (what regards the self-references) and brings understanding/results. So self-reference can not be the point.
cannot only if you don't grasp the challenge of self-referentiality that breeds undecidability, by clinging to the decidable.
and whatsmore, you didn't sexplained (though i asked that) what do you consider pseudo and what proper self-reference.
"sexplained" *gg* *nudge*
No, I didnt explain because it was not that important and the term was not well-chosen. I meant pseudo-self-reference simply a self-reference that does not hurt, is not important, has no grip, dont causes roblems.
then tell me something about 'inconclusive babble'. and again, those problems are possibilities.
nstead of going to library
I already have a book "Bewusstsein" by Metzinger (though not here yet but lend to someone), which contains collected articles to the topic. I hate reading long texts (and this book is thick). And I couldnt find some striking ideas or solutions in it either.
ADD: I wonder what book this was, where I read about the mirror analogy. Was it Ouspensky "Tertium Organum"? Do you perhaps know it? Except the mirror analogy, it appealed very sophisticated to me and I could agree with everything. (*dwelling in memories*)
i, to the contrary, like reading long texts, short texts, any texts as far as they're tasty, sexy and thought-provoking.
and although i read >1000 books, i didn't read ouspensky's tertium organum, so i don't know. the mirror analogy i built upon was rather from dzogchen longsde teachings of namkhai norbu rinpoche, where crystal, mirror, and crystal-ball are used to symbolically represent the ways in which energy can manifest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
now to your 13th march post (to progress a little bit):
as i see it, in the first paragraph you re-postualte perception/will as a feedback-loop. that's ok as far as i think for the moment.
then:
Till now we have explained (objects and) self-objectivity. I.e. the subject realizes certain laws in its perception and will and becomes able to reach certain goals (grabbing an apple for example) for sure. And this confidence that things always will behave this way and the goal can reached always this way, is objectively true for this subject. And I call it self-objectivity in contrast to things that have to be sure for almost all people. Though this is not applicable in the moment, because the subject has no concept yet of self, world and especially not of "other people". The self-objectivity is not restricted to what we would call reality for the subject, but can also concern to reliably produce certain mental images, or for example the proper use of memory (which is still one of things that waits to become explained, because it seems essential for a subject to have memory, or isnt it?).
i would explain through skandhas, but then, you were never interested. actually all that you are trying to explain is explainable through skandhaa.
still, without skandhas, i think that your self-objectivity and objectivity are both just 2 types of objectivity. so what ? it is codependent to subject, even though it doesn't have to be as-yet conceptualized subject, that comes just when the intellectual formation aka concept aka impulse aka 3rd skandha is running as homeostatic application in 5th skandha of consciousness.
oh
i again explain through skandhas. sorry.
that's why i gave you essentials, to avoid that ! you react again to a different thing form what i meant. (you see ?) i meant what i wrote and that was that the thinking on Idea/Essence distinction took place already, that it was not my own distinction, and i gave you reference for those who gave the gifts of their thoughts to these matters, which you didn't. and i was doing that just in reaction to your accuse that it's me who's inventing these distictions. which you did instead of understanding them.
. So what do you think I think you react to? *gg*
) in as much meta as is possible.