Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > dan330033 [dan330033] > > > > Nice selection, Bill ... > > > > A good " fit " ... > > > > Hey, it almost sounded like he > > said something there for a second ... > Kinda like you, huh? > > > Like, " I'm not cognizing myself while I'm > > cognizing, but I am cognizing that I'm > > not cognizing the one who's cognizing > > what's being cognized ... " > Now this actually makes sense. > > Just be careful you don't fall into a state > of hyper-cognosis! > > > > > But, that could never work! > > > > That would make that which is noncognizable > > into a cognizable nonthing that is assumed > > not to be cognizable, but which > > yet can be cognized as the one > > who cognizes ... > Oops! I didn't give the warning about hyper-cognosis > soon enough. > > -Bill It's just impossible to affirm without negating, or negate without affirming. Hypercognosis or even cognosis can only undermine itself, so why affirm anything or negate anything cognitively? Probably because that's how cognosis cognizes. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 > It's just impossible to affirm without negating, > or negate without affirming. > Hypercognosis or even cognosis can only undermine itself, > so why affirm anything or negate anything > cognitively? > Probably because that's how cognosis cognizes. I.e., there is no need to answer the question " why affirm or negate? " because " it's just happening " . I find your distinction of negating and affirming interesting. Are those the possibilities? Negating and affirming both refer to the making of assertions. What of poetic utterances? Regarding: > > > Like, " I'm not cognizing myself while I'm > > > cognizing, but I am cognizing that I'm > > > not cognizing the one who's cognizing > > > what's being cognized ... " You speak here of " the one who's congnizing " . The cognition of " the one who's congnizing " is (if I understand your usage here) simply phenomenal appearance. Now, in: " I am cognizing that I'm not cognizing the one who's cognizing what's being cognized ... " , the part that follows the word 'that' is evidently a cognition *within* phenomenal appearance. What I'm trying to get at here is that there are two " logical types " involved in the use of cognizing/cognition here. In terms of " the one who's cognizing " the cognition is phenomenal appearance. But the concepts expressed in emails such as these are not the concepts of the " the one who cognizes " but are the " apparent concepts " of someone who appears to exist within phenomenal appearance. The cognition of " the one who cognizes " is simply the appearance of Now. If what-we-are is " the one who cognizes " , then simple attention to the Now is as close as attention can get to what-we-are. *Perhaps* abiding in Now leads to an " apperception " of the noumenality out of which phenomenal appearance arises, i.e. an apperception of " the one who cognizes " . But there is little point in speculating on that. It is enough to simply abide in Now. -Bill Wei Wu Wei links: Regarding 'apperception' of what-we-are: http://www.weiwuwei.8k.com/whyarewe.html Contents of The Tenth Man by Wei Wu Wei: http://www.weiwuwei.8k.com/tmcontents.html > dan330033 [dan330033] > > > Nice selection, Bill ... > > > > > > A good " fit " ... > > > > > > Hey, it almost sounded like he > > > said something there for a second ... > > Kinda like you, huh? > > > > > Like, " I'm not cognizing myself while I'm > > > cognizing, but I am cognizing that I'm > > > not cognizing the one who's cognizing > > > what's being cognized ... " > > Now this actually makes sense. > > > > Just be careful you don't fall into a state > > of hyper-cognosis! > > > > > > > > But, that could never work! > > > > > > That would make that which is noncognizable > > > into a cognizable nonthing that is assumed > > > not to be cognizable, but which > > > yet can be cognized as the one > > > who cognizes ... > > Oops! I didn't give the warning about hyper-cognosis > > soon enough. > > > > -Bill > It's just impossible to affirm without negating, > or negate without affirming. > Hypercognosis or even cognosis can only undermine itself, > so why affirm anything or negate anything > cognitively? > Probably because that's how cognosis cognizes. > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2002 Report Share Posted October 3, 2002 Really, fellows! You should keep this obcene exchange private. There could be younger more sensitive viewers reading this. ))) Pete --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: > > It's just impossible to affirm without negating, > > or negate without affirming. > > > Hypercognosis or even cognosis can only undermine > itself, > > so why affirm anything or negate anything > > cognitively? > > > Probably because that's how cognosis cognizes. > I.e., there is no need to answer the question " why > affirm > or negate? " because " it's just happening " . > > I find your distinction of negating and affirming > interesting. Are those the possibilities? Negating > and affirming both refer to the making of > assertions. > What of poetic utterances? > > Regarding: > > > > Like, " I'm not cognizing myself while I'm > > > > cognizing, but I am cognizing that I'm > > > > not cognizing the one who's cognizing > > > > what's being cognized ... " > You speak here of " the one who's congnizing " . > The cognition of " the one who's congnizing " is > (if I understand your usage here) simply > phenomenal appearance. > > Now, in: > " I am cognizing that I'm not cognizing the one > who's cognizing what's being cognized ... " , > the part that follows the word 'that' is evidently > a cognition *within* phenomenal appearance. > > What I'm trying to get at here is that there are > two " logical types " involved in the use of > cognizing/cognition here. In terms of " the one > who's cognizing " the cognition is phenomenal > appearance. But the concepts expressed in emails > such as these are not the concepts of the " the > one who cognizes " but are the " apparent concepts " > of someone who appears to exist within phenomenal > appearance. > > The cognition of " the one who cognizes " is simply > the appearance of Now. > > If what-we-are is " the one who cognizes " , then > simple attention to the Now is as close as attention > can get to what-we-are. > > *Perhaps* abiding in Now leads to an " apperception " > of the noumenality out of which phenomenal > appearance > arises, i.e. an apperception of " the one who > cognizes " . > But there is little point in speculating on that. > It is enough to simply abide in Now. > > -Bill > > Wei Wu Wei links: > Regarding 'apperception' of what-we-are: > http://www.weiwuwei.8k.com/whyarewe.html > > Contents of The Tenth Man by Wei Wu Wei: > http://www.weiwuwei.8k.com/tmcontents.html > > > > dan330033 [dan330033] > > > > Nice selection, Bill ... > > > > > > > > A good " fit " ... > > > > > > > > Hey, it almost sounded like he > > > > said something there for a second ... > > > Kinda like you, huh? > > > > > > > Like, " I'm not cognizing myself while I'm > > > > cognizing, but I am cognizing that I'm > > > > not cognizing the one who's cognizing > > > > what's being cognized ... " > > > Now this actually makes sense. > > > > > > Just be careful you don't fall into a state > > > of hyper-cognosis! > > > > > > > > > > > But, that could never work! > > > > > > > > That would make that which is noncognizable > > > > into a cognizable nonthing that is assumed > > > > not to be cognizable, but which > > > > yet can be cognized as the one > > > > who cognizes ... > > > Oops! I didn't give the warning about > hyper-cognosis > > > soon enough. > > > > > > -Bill > > > It's just impossible to affirm without negating, > > or negate without affirming. > > > Hypercognosis or even cognosis can only undermine > itself, > > so why affirm anything or negate anything > > cognitively? > > > Probably because that's how cognosis cognizes. > > > -- Dan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.