Why do alters of mind at large need to eat in order to stay alive?

[Starbuck]

I would say the water includes but transcends the ripple. In the same way, meaning is a dynamic metacognitive process and therefore analogous to a ripple. It can never reference its water-ness. And yet the nature of the 'all that exists water' is to ripple and vibrate. Meaning is build in but only at the nominal level of ripples. The water is always there and yet always transcends its own creation while being responsible for it. This can be known trans-rationally and when it is, nihilism is soo to be absurd.

That's just a variation of Kantian transcendental idealism except without even the knowing and loving God. In other words, it makes no sense and is nihilistic to boot. Try telling the above to anyone in real agony and see how they feel about it. I have a feeling it won't make them realize how absurd nihilism is, rather it will make them wonder why they are not more nihilistic than they already are.

There is all the meaning you will ever need, just don't expect it to ever be expressed in the dualism of language!

[AshvinP]

I would say the water includes but transcends the ripple. In the same way, meaning is a dynamic metacognitive process and therefore analogous to a ripple. It can never reference its water-ness. And yet the nature of the 'all that exists water' is to ripple and vibrate. Meaning is build in but only at the nominal level of ripples. The water is always there and yet always transcends its own creation while being responsible for it. This can be known trans-rationally and when it is, nihilism is soo to be absurd.

That's just a variation of Kantian transcendental idealism except without even the knowing and loving God. In other words, it makes no sense and is nihilistic to boot. Try telling the above to anyone in real agony and see how they feel about it. I have a feeling it won't make them realize how absurd nihilism is, rather it will make them wonder why they are not more nihilistic than they already are.

There is all the meaning you will ever need, just don't expect it to ever be expressed in the dualism of language!

Well I don't know how that fits with the assertion "meaning is built in only at the nominal level of ripples". Abstract conceptual language will never get very far into that meaning, although still far enough to be enlightening. That is not the only way to experience and communicate though. I have noticed people rarely challenege what Cleric writes in his imaginatively written posts. Even his critcics like Eugene are always saying they "agree". But I also know for a fact most people don't agree with his view or Western spiritual tradition in general. How can that be explained? If meaning were not objective in a way that holds together like Einstein theory of general relativity, then people would be calling him out left and right. But that can't be done because the inner meaning holds together unquestionably. It is only our personal preferences-prejudices which convince us to deny what our own Reason is telling us.

[Starbuck]

WB Yeats once wrote "Man can embody truth, but he cannot know it". Do you think he was being verbose or obscure? What would you read into those words?

[AshvinP]

WB Yeats once wrote "Man can embody truth, but he cannot know it". Do you think he was being verbose or obscure? What would you read into those words?

I have a feeling more poetic context of Yeats would reveal a deeper picture than that one line. But just from that isolated sentiment, I would say it may be assuming intellect is the only form of knowledge (or it's only addressing intellectual knowledge), and we should remember "embodiment" is only enriched by higher knowledge. The person who embodies without knowing is in the presence of truth, but the person who embodies with knowing is not only in its presence, but also constantly motivated to pursue ever-expanding spheres of the truth.