Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:00 pmHave you enjoyed Toad?
Nope ... in this case it just happened ... not even involving any spiritual practice. But who knows, perhaps a Daemon booted this corporeal butt into That which shall remain nameless, and utterly identity-free.
yes. I remember from years ago one story you shared involving a bird and another one some sort of poltergeist-scenario in the house you had just moved into, and all that without licking at any toads or wilderbeasts, thats what you are alluding to?
Re: Criticism
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:38 pm
by Soul_of_Shu
Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:17 pmyes. I remember from years ago one story you shared involving a bird and another one some sort of poltergeist-scenario in the house you had just moved into, and all that without licking at any toads or wilderbeasts, thats what you are alluding to?
No, those are just some of various so-called paranormal events that are still very much related to this apparency of a relational subject><object dynamic. The 'Toad-like' event utterly dispels and does away with all such relational events, or any distinct 'self' in relation to 'other-than-self.' As such, language being a function of the relational subject><object dynamic, miserably fails in offering any depiction of it. At best one could say it's the dazzling eternal emptifullness of Awareness being nothing but Awareness, without any phenomenal or thought-form content whatsoever, but even that seems like a sorry bit of babbling in retrospect.
Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:17 pmyes. I remember from years ago one story you shared involving a bird and another one some sort of poltergeist-scenario in the house you had just moved into, and all that without licking at any toads or wilderbeasts, thats what you are alluding to?
No, those are just some of various so-called paranormal events that are still very much related to this apparency of a relational subject><object dynamic. The 'Toad-like' event utterly dispels and does away with all such relational events, or any distinct 'self' in relation to 'other-than-self.' As such, language being a function of the relational subject><object dynamic, miserably fails in offering any depiction of it. At best one could say it's the dazzling eternal emptifullness of Awareness being nothing but Awareness, without any phenomenal or thought-form content whatsoever, but even that seems like a sorry bit of babbling in retrospect.
No thats fine. I am sure it is cumbersome to talk about/articulate it. I envy you.
Re: Criticism
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:02 pm
by Eugene I
Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:47 pm
No thats fine. I am sure it is cumbersome to talk about/articulate it. I envy you.
It seems that, like with many other people, with Shu it happened spontaneously. But there is also a path to get "there" and there are guides and books and practices that can help. Here is one of them, I would say, of all the books on the topic (Spira's included which are also very good of course) it's probably one of the most practical no-nonsense guide to awakening, highly recommended.
Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:47 pm
No thats fine. I am sure it is cumbersome to talk about/articulate it. I envy you.
It seems that, like with many other people, with Shu it happened spontaneously. But there is also a path to get "there" and there are guides and books and practices that can help. Here is one of them, I would say, of all the books on the topic (Spira's included which are also very good of course) it's probably the most practical no-nonsense guide to awakening, highly recommended.
Awesome, I appreciate it. Mark
Re: Criticism
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:18 pm
by Mark Tetzner
I did not know that the interview with BK and Spira and Koch is now out, I heard rumors the other day.
Re: Criticism
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:33 pm
by Soul_of_Shu
Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:18 pm
I did not know that the interview with B. and Koch is now out.
Yes, already shared and commented upon in a thread of its own, but hey, the more the merrier
Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:18 pm
I did not know that the interview with B. and Koch is now out.
Yes, already shared and commented upon in a thread of its own, but hey, the more the merrier
Re: Criticism
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:13 pm
by AshvinP
Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:13 pm
It's not dualism but continuous (non-discrete) nature of the universe of ideas. The universe of ideas is shared so it is possible to have and share exactly the same ideas that MAL or other people have, it's just that in reality it very rarely happens and most often our ideas are only closely related but not exactly the same. Two ideas can be infinitesimally close to each other and one can approach the other asymptotically, but they still would be different.
This is also related to epistemological discrete-vs-continuous approach to knowledge. In a discrete approach the ideas either match (both true) or do not match (one is true, the other is inevitably false), it's a black-and-white vision of ideal reality. With that approach you will always be in confrontation with other people when you find that their ideas do not exactly match with yours, because the black-and-white paradigm will force you to think that in such case they are plain wrong. The continuous approach is more allowing and open, there is no expectation for other people ideas to exactly match with yours because it practically always never happen (even though in principle possible). Instead of "right-or-wrong" judgement about other people ideas and opinions, you would have "close enough" evaluation of them which is more accommodative and practically leads to cooperation rather than confrontation.
You once again the presuppose the dualism in your comment above. The very concept of "my" idea and "your" idea is dualism. You are still imagining discrete beings who have ideas inside their skull, or 'alter space', or whatever. Reality under a consistent monism-idealism is more like two people in physical world observing the same plant-idea. If one person happens to be standing on one side of the plant at one time and another on another side at another time, that is when their visual interpretations of the same plant idea don't seem to match. It is the same with our Thinking-sense organ, our spiritual "I".
I also know you hold implicit dualism bc of the many times you previously commented that there is a reality out there in MAL space which does not care about our ideas of it.
JeffreyW wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 2:54 am
I would never use the word “just” to modify poetic. Poetic thought is the way to experience truth as non-reductive esthetic understanding. There is far more profound truth in a Beethovens symphony than in all the works of Einstein.,
I see the roles exactly reversed from what you ask. Science exists to feed the practical needs of technology and take us to the edge of what can be objectified, where they mystery beckons to us with all new questions - it shines a beacon on where the poets are to meet. For me it is far more interesting fro what it discovers that it can’t explain than for what it can.
Let me rephrase the question - why can't the esthetic inquiry and knowledge form the basis of an entirely new, objective, rigorous, and precise science? If we have moved past the Cartesian dualism of knowledge which is "subjective" as opposed to "objective", then what is still preventing that new science from developing?
Now that is an interesting and timely question as we realize that the universe is essentially non-computational and without our conceptions of time, space, and deterministic causality. Traditional scientific method has thus hit an impassible roadblock and without rethinking its approach will proceed no further. I would eliminate “objective” from your list because the inheritance of subject/object metaphysics is the underlying hindrance. I would also question “precise”, as it presumes a preciseness in the underlying reality which I doubt exists. It does require a more “imaginative” non-reductive approach while avoiding metaphysical assertion - a big problem now in physics. I think Roger Penrose and Carlo Rovelli are small steps in that direction. I’m especially intrigued by Penrose’s notion that reason is not the most elemental feature of consciousness, but rather what he calls intuition, which he sees as our ability to not only follow rules, such as a computer, but also understand the why and transcend rules. He also eliminates subject/object metaphysics with his idea of entangled consciousness. Rovelli’s important step is to think metaphorically/poetically about observations.
