Mind, identity, and consciousness -- was RE: Riddles

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> Dan,

>

> Obviously I have failed to communicate.

> Perhaps another day I will find a better way

> to communicate about consciousness.

 

Hi Bill.

 

I thought you did communicate.

 

>

> Besides, the following item in your message

> is worth the whole trip:

> > It's very dark in here.

>

> Ah! Now that is sweet!

 

See?

 

It's too dark for anything to

be seen.

 

It's that bright.

 

> I sent that last message with some misgivings

> because it was too analytic for my taste, but

> it wanted to write itself so I let it.

 

Which gets back to the tautology of a " you "

or " I " which claims to allow or not

allow things.

 

Maybe

> with that little blood-letting I can now return

> to my poetic roots.

 

However you post is fine with me.

 

I'm enjoying the conversation.

 

It's all movements of consciousness,

or Mickey Mouse,

so, what's not to communicate?

 

Consciousness already is consciousness,

or " what is " is always with and of itself,

and whatever movements of words

occur don't change that one way

or the other ...

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dan,

 

> Consciousness already is consciousness,

> or " what is " is always with and of itself,

> and whatever movements of words

> occur don't change that one way

> or the other ...

Clearly. It's not about the words. And yet

they are our medium here. How to speak of what

is beyond words without getting tangled up in

them?

 

That last question, for whatever reason, is an

important question for " me " . When I said I had

failed to communicate, I simply meant that the

words I had used about consciousness had led to

too much entanglement (in my assessment) and so

I had learned something here in the Communication

About Ineffables lab.

 

> > I sent that last message with some misgivings

> > because it was too analytic for my taste, but

> > it wanted to write itself so I let it.

 

> Which gets back to the tautology of a " you "

> or " I " which claims to allow or not

> allow things.

I don't know what to say here. Should " I " avoid

using the term 'I' to avoid giving the (mistaken?)

impression that " I " am deluded into cognizing myself

as some entity?

 

> I'm enjoying the conversation.

Ditto.

 

-Bill