Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 " Expecting the world to be fair to you because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge because you are a vegetarian. " - Anonymous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > " Expecting the world to be fair to you because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge because you are a vegetarian. " - Anonymous chuckle,chuckle I like this Toby. Like Clint eastwood says in the Unforgiven, " Deserve's got nothin' to do with it. " ))))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > " Expecting the world to be fair to you because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge because you are a vegetarian. " - Anonymous Yes, it has nothing to do with being a vegetarian. It's when you take away his credit card, that he can't charge. No charge for my bull, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Ahhh Dan... always full of wit... I enjoy the lighter side of your posts. Toby > > dan330033 [sMTP:dan330033] > Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:29 AM > Nisargadatta > Re: Quote > > Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " > <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > > > " Expecting the world to be fair to you because you are a good > person is like expecting the bull not to charge because you are a > vegetarian. " - Anonymous > > Yes, it has nothing to do with being a vegetarian. > > It's when you take away his credit card, that he can't charge. > > No charge for my bull, > Dan > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Ahhh Dan... always full of wit... I enjoy the lighter side of your posts. > > Toby I'm glad, Toby. There's nothing being said that's worth taking seriously -- seriously! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 > I'm glad, Toby. > > There's nothing being said that's worth taking seriously -- > seriously! > > -- Dan > > Except " consciousness " Dan. Consciousness is very, very serious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > I'm glad, Toby. > > > > There's nothing being said that's worth taking seriously -- > > seriously! > > > > -- Dan > > > > > Except " consciousness " Dan. Consciousness is very, very serious... It is? Not to me. Consider the possibility of lightening up with it. It's just a concept like any other. It comes and goes, just like any concept comes and goes. It either fits in with a conversation, or doesn't, just like any other concept in a discussion. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 > > Except " consciousness " Dan. Consciousness is very, very serious... > > It is? > > Not to me. > > Consider the possibility of lightening up with it. > > It's just a concept like any other. > > It comes and goes, just like any concept > comes and goes. > > It either fits in with a conversation, or doesn't, > just like any other concept in a discussion. > > -- Dan > > Oh Dan... any concept of consciousness is an illusion. By their very nature, concepts can not have a basis in reality. Even the word " consciouness " is illusive. My comment of taking consciousness seriously was an obviously poor attempt at joining in on your humour. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > > > Except " consciousness " Dan. Consciousness is very, very serious... > > > > It is? > > > > Not to me. > > > > Consider the possibility of lightening up with it. > > > > It's just a concept like any other. > > > > It comes and goes, just like any concept > > comes and goes. > > > > It either fits in with a conversation, or doesn't, > > just like any other concept in a discussion. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > Oh Dan... any concept of consciousness is an illusion. By their very nature, concepts can not have a basis in reality. Even the word " consciouness " is illusive. My comment of taking consciousness seriously was an obviously poor attempt at joining in on your humour. ;-) No, it was a good attempt, Toby. By taking you seriously, I was the one making a poor attempt. By the way, the concept that 'concepts cannot have a basis in reality' is no better than any other concept, that is, it is no more verifiable than any other thing said. If concepts are all equally unreal, they are also all equally real. If concepts don't relate to reality, then the concept that 'concepts relate to reality very well,' is just as good as the concept that 'concepts don't relate to reality' -- as neither can be verified or disproved. But if all concepts served equally, we couldn't be having these conversations -- we'd be saying random things, like you'd say, 'blue horses feel ceiling with tonality' and I'd respond, 'hardly a yonder faucet turns with nary a sunset until dawn.' So, concepts neither relate nor don't relate to a reality outside or inside -- but are always presented within a conceptual context that is included in/with the concept. So, concepts can relate to their context, or be out of context, but even when they are out of context, if they are understood that way (as absurd, silly, cold, mean, etc.), through that understanding, they are in context. Contextually yours, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Good stuff Dan. << If concepts don't relate to reality, then the concept that 'concepts relate to reality very well,' is just as good as the concept that 'concepts don't relate to reality' -- as neither can be verified or disproved. >> Yes. If something is always the case, or never the case, it is not a significant distinction. Basically it is tautologies that fall into this class. Talking about tautologies is talking about grammar. How much of the discussions on this list are really grammatical discussions, abeit rarely realized as such? [my guess, about 95%, the other 5% being " off topic " for the list.] The whole notion of grammatical discussions goes very deep, BTW. Dan! Could you give us a mini-lecture on the topic of grammatical discussions? << So, concepts neither relate nor don't relate to a reality outside or inside -- but are always presented within a conceptual context that is included in/with the concept. >> Great! And the notion of " context " is like God, always present, never seen, and only rarely " sensed " . There is no meaning without context. This means that " meaning " is *always* relative. There *are no* absolute statements. [This previous statement is self-referential. It seems to be an absolute statement. But keep in mind the context. There can be a context where there are absolute statements.] << So, concepts can relate to their context, or be out of context, but even when they are out of context, if they are understood that way (as absurd, silly, cold, mean, etc.), through that understanding, they are in context. >> And such an understanding is an understanding within a meta-conversation about the speaking. [A " meta-conversation " is talking about " how we are talking " .] I've enjoyed your conversation about the grammar of concepts. -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:48 PM Nisargadatta Re: Quote Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > > > Except " consciousness " Dan. Consciousness is very, very serious... > > > > It is? > > > > Not to me. > > > > Consider the possibility of lightening up with it. > > > > It's just a concept like any other. > > > > It comes and goes, just like any concept > > comes and goes. > > > > It either fits in with a conversation, or doesn't, > > just like any other concept in a discussion. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > Oh Dan... any concept of consciousness is an illusion. By their very nature, concepts can not have a basis in reality. Even the word " consciouness " is illusive. My comment of taking consciousness seriously was an obviously poor attempt at joining in on your humour. ;-) No, it was a good attempt, Toby. By taking you seriously, I was the one making a poor attempt. By the way, the concept that 'concepts cannot have a basis in reality' is no better than any other concept, that is, it is no more verifiable than any other thing said. If concepts are all equally unreal, they are also all equally real. If concepts don't relate to reality, then the concept that 'concepts relate to reality very well,' is just as good as the concept that 'concepts don't relate to reality' -- as neither can be verified or disproved. But if all concepts served equally, we couldn't be having these conversations -- we'd be saying random things, like you'd say, 'blue horses feel ceiling with tonality' and I'd respond, 'hardly a yonder faucet turns with nary a sunset until dawn.' So, concepts neither relate nor don't relate to a reality outside or inside -- but are always presented within a conceptual context that is included in/with the concept. So, concepts can relate to their context, or be out of context, but even when they are out of context, if they are understood that way (as absurd, silly, cold, mean, etc.), through that understanding, they are in context. Contextually yours, Dan ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Good stuff Dan. > > << > If concepts don't relate to reality, then the concept > that 'concepts relate to reality very well,' is just > as good as the concept that 'concepts don't relate > to reality' -- as neither can be verified or disproved. > >> > Yes. If something is always the case, or never the case, > it is not a significant distinction. Basically it is > tautologies that fall into this class. > > Talking about tautologies is talking about grammar. > How much of the discussions on this list are really > grammatical discussions, abeit rarely realized as such? > > [my guess, about 95%, the other 5% being " off topic " > for the list.] > > The whole notion of grammatical discussions goes very > deep, BTW. Dan! Could you give us a mini-lecture on > the topic of grammatical discussions? Good point, Bill. Wow, what an invitation -- I'm honored. Okay -- although I may say this really differently than you would. Perhaps you could share your lecture on this topic as well <s>. <Stepping up to podium>: To me, my comment wasn't so much about grammar, although I see how that relates -- as it was about understanding what concepts are, their limits, and how concepts operate -- if concepts don't have referents outside of conceptuality, then their meaning is always " in a relational conceptual context. " The discussions on these lists are often 'me and you exploring something we consider important, using words.' That's not necessarily a grammatical discussion, although sometimes is. I think where it gets odd, and grammatically strange, is when words are being used to try to convey " contextless and nonrelational truth " (which is the same thing as " the absolute " ) as if there could be such a thing in terms of words, concepts, experiences. Context is relational, and how concepts and verbal expressions of " truth " have meaning. If there is truth that is contextless, then all verbal discussions, which are relative, transitory, never could say anything about it -- whatever is said involves the relative understanding the readers and speakers bring to the words, and their understanding also has to be conceptual, relational, changing. Perhaps this is what you're getting at. Is there contextless truth? It's impossible to say yes or no -- yes or no always make sense only in a context of division, in which there is this possibility vs. that, and a way to compare versions of understanding those possibilities. Words and concepts couldn't address what is contextless, by their very nature. What this means, to me, is that there will always be something unsaid. What is unsaid is " the context of our contexts. " Because words are contextual and relational, they imply some kind of relation of all these contexts with each other. Addressing this is what tends to come out as absolutisms and tautologies. Because it can't be said. Yet, that doesn't mean it can't be intuited in clarity. It just isn't conveyed by statements like, " There is only Being, " " Everything is Nothing, " " God is all, " " I am God, " " I and God are one, " " Only Consciousness is. " Contextless truth that relates all contexts to and with each other, could never be conveyed by words, and makes all words utterly and equally empty of any inherent meaning, and empty of any interpersonally-derived meaning, either (as the persons would have no context in which to understand, feel, or experience). If someone is trying to address contextless truth through words and concepts, it comes out as " everything is blah, blah " ... or " there is only blah, blah " .. Such may be hints, but are very limited, including their grammatical and logical limitations, their tautologies ... so they seem more limited than a discussion which accepts a context of you and me discussing our relative understandings of things in context. Since words and concepts always involve contextual relations, even apparently context-negating expressions, like " all is blah, blah " involve a context -- which includes you and me, the discussants, what we understand " blah blah " to mean, and why we are trying to make comments about the nature of " what is " as some kind of " one thing. " So, I guess it all comes down to, " what am I doing posting here? " What am I wanting to give and receive? Do I want to prove I'm right and someone else wrong? Do I want to risk my concepts and see how others respond? Do I want to have fun? Do I want to share? Do I want to explore? Maybe all of the above pertain, at different times, and different contexts :-) <Stepping down from podium.> > << > So, concepts neither relate nor don't relate > to a reality outside or inside -- but are > always presented within a conceptual context > that is included in/with the concept. > >> > Great! And the notion of " context " is like God, > always present, never seen, and only rarely > " sensed " . There is no meaning without context. > This means that " meaning " is *always* relative. > There *are no* absolute statements. [This > previous statement is self-referential. It > seems to be an absolute statement. But keep > in mind the context. There can be a context > where there are absolute statements.] Exactly so! > > << > So, concepts can relate to their context, or > be out of context, but even when they > are out of context, if they are understood > that way (as absurd, silly, cold, mean, etc.), > through that understanding, they are > in context. > >> > And such an understanding is an understanding > within a meta-conversation about the speaking. > [A " meta-conversation " is talking about " how > we are talking " .] Indeed so. We intuit that our being includes an unspeakably inclusive metalevel, and so engage in metalanguage to be in a conversation commenting about the context of it, as we engage in it. > I've enjoyed your conversation about the > grammar of concepts. Likewise, I'm sure <s> We seem to convey content. But it turns out, that there's never any content that could be separable from the context which is the discussion, inclusive of the discussants. Beyond grammar, this understanding of context is inclusive of our own " birth and death " which is not birth and death of a separable entity with its own center for meaning-making -- but which is a fluid transitional expression of a beginningless and endless unspeakable context -- which is the interweaving and interpenetration of contexts. I am a word, a concept, so I am the context which the word includes and requires, of which it is never independent. As body-mind, with beginning and end, I include and am the universe without which the body-mind could not arise as such. So, while it may be true that " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God " as John said, that still doesn't express who I am prior to the Word, God, and Beginning -- the context of contexts which has never been discussed, nor ever will be - all our constructs of things that begin and end, our selves, worlds, experiencing, and " being-time " -- are imagined, contextual, derived through agreement and relation, linguistic and verbally formulated, and conceptual. Smiles, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 I find your writing very heady Dan, there is no heart felt nector in it. It seems you enjoy playing intellectual and philosophical word games, building complexity out of things that are ever so simple. While this can be enjoyable and stimulating for some probing thought and light hearted fun, it so often does not fulfill deep within. Share with me some of your heart Dan. Something simple, from a place of total and gentle vulnerability, rather than this intelligent intellectualism you have mastered so well. Drop that mask and let the soft Dan that sits just behind it shine through. Toby > > By the way, the concept that 'concepts cannot have > a basis in reality' is no better than any other concept, > that is, it is no more verifiable than any other > thing said. > > If concepts are all equally unreal, they are also > all equally real. > > If concepts don't relate to reality, then the concept > that 'concepts relate to reality very well,' is just > as good as the concept that 'concepts don't relate > to reality' -- as neither can be verified or disproved. > > But if all concepts served equally, we couldn't be having these > conversations -- we'd be saying random things, like you'd say, > 'blue horses feel ceiling with tonality' and I'd respond, > 'hardly a yonder faucet turns with nary a sunset until dawn.' > > So, concepts neither relate nor don't relate > to a reality outside or inside -- but are > always presented within a conceptual context > that is included in/with the concept. > > So, concepts can relate to their context, or > be out of context, but even when they > are out of context, if they are understood > that way (as absurd, silly, cold, mean, etc.), > through that understanding, they are > in context. > > Contextually yours, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > I find your writing very heady Dan, there is no heart felt nector in > it. Okay, I suggest that you find your nectar where ever else that might be for you, Toby. > It seems you enjoy playing intellectual and philosophical word > games, building complexity out of things that are ever so simple. No, the truth is so simple, that no words being posted anywhere can interfere. > While this can be enjoyable and stimulating for some probing thought > and light hearted fun, it so often does not fulfill deep within. You're looking to my words to fulfill you deep within? Please don't, they won't. > Share with me some of your heart Dan. What do you hope to get from that, Toby? > Something simple, from a place > of total and gentle vulnerability, rather than this intelligent > intellectualism you have mastered so well. " Truth is simple. " > Drop that mask and let > the soft Dan that sits just behind it shine through. If you're seeing a mask, that is an image you've created. So is the someone you imagine to be behind it. Remember, you're just reading words posted on the internet from total strangers, and they are just letters that appear on a screen -- the rest is what you do with that. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Dan and Toby, Very interesting dialog. It is funny because I can see where Toby is coming from... I used to feel the same about Dan. But now I don't feel that way. I'm more inclined to say, " Hey Toby, don't try to change Dan. Instead try to understand him. " But the directness of Toby's comments are good I think. And maybe he has a point here and there. Dan, I think you can at least admire Toby's directness. He is not playing games and it takes some courage to speak as directly as he is with you. For me, I just think it is an interesting exchange. Perhaps both parties have some discoveries in store. You are both very deep fellows, and both very genuine. I'm proud to call both of you friends. -Bill PS: If Dan were a wine, I think he'd be a *very dry* one. dan330033 [dan330033] Friday, August 01, 2003 6:44 PM Nisargadatta Re: Quote Nisargadatta , " Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > I find your writing very heady Dan, there is no heart felt nector in > it. Okay, I suggest that you find your nectar where ever else that might be for you, Toby. > It seems you enjoy playing intellectual and philosophical word > games, building complexity out of things that are ever so simple. No, the truth is so simple, that no words being posted anywhere can interfere. > While this can be enjoyable and stimulating for some probing thought > and light hearted fun, it so often does not fulfill deep within. You're looking to my words to fulfill you deep within? Please don't, they won't. > Share with me some of your heart Dan. What do you hope to get from that, Toby? > Something simple, from a place > of total and gentle vulnerability, rather than this intelligent > intellectualism you have mastered so well. " Truth is simple. " > Drop that mask and let > the soft Dan that sits just behind it shine through. If you're seeing a mask, that is an image you've created. So is the someone you imagine to be behind it. Remember, you're just reading words posted on the internet from total strangers, and they are just letters that appear on a screen -- the rest is what you do with that. Peace, Dan ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Dan, This is fantastic stuff you've written here. > dan330033 [dan330033] > Re: Quote > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Good stuff Dan. > > > > << > > If concepts don't relate to reality, then the concept > > that 'concepts relate to reality very well,' is just > > as good as the concept that 'concepts don't relate > > to reality' -- as neither can be verified or disproved. > > >> > > Yes. If something is always the case, or never the case, > > it is not a significant distinction. Basically it is > > tautologies that fall into this class. > > > > Talking about tautologies is talking about grammar. > > How much of the discussions on this list are really > > grammatical discussions, abeit rarely realized as such? > > > > [my guess, about 95%, the other 5% being " off topic " > > for the list.] > > > > The whole notion of grammatical discussions goes very > > deep, BTW. Dan! Could you give us a mini-lecture on > > the topic of grammatical discussions? > > Good point, Bill. Wow, what an invitation -- > I'm honored. Okay -- although > I may say this really differently than you would. > Perhaps you could share your lecture on this topic > as well <s>. We'll see. Looks like you may have covered the topic. The next step might be to put it in " common parlance " . Perhaps I could contribute to that part. > <Stepping up to podium>: Love it. > > To me, my comment wasn't so much about grammar, > although I see how that relates -- > as it was about understanding what concepts > are, their limits, and how concepts operate -- > if concepts don't have referents outside > of conceptuality, then their meaning > is always " in a relational conceptual context. " So your comment was about the grammar of the notion of " concept " . > The discussions on these lists are > often 'me and you exploring something > we consider important, using words.' > That's not necessarily a grammatical > discussion, although sometimes is. I'll let this go for now. > I think where it gets odd, and grammatically > strange, is when words are being used to > try to convey " contextless and nonrelational > truth " (which is the same thing as " the absolute " ) > as if there could be such a thing > in terms of words, concepts, experiences. As if the oxygen runs out at that level. > Context is relational, and how concepts and verbal > expressions of " truth " have meaning. > > If there is truth that is contextless, > then all verbal discussions, which > are relative, transitory, never could say anything > about it -- whatever is said involves > the relative understanding > the readers and speakers bring to the words, > and their understanding also has to be conceptual, > relational, changing. > > Perhaps this is what you're getting at. I agree with what you are saying. You seem to be saying there could be a non-contextual truth that is simply non-expressible. Maybe in a way analogous to how Godel showed that arithmetic cannot be axiomized... arithmetic is unexpressible axiomatically. I don't see the point of speculating on the existence of such a truth, since existence is itself relative....but I don't see debating the point as it seems essentially moot. > Is there contextless truth? It's impossible > to say yes or no -- yes or no always make > sense only in a context of division, in > which there is this possibility vs. that, > and a way to compare versions of understanding > those possibilities. > > Words and concepts couldn't address what is contextless, > by their very nature. So can we have a notion of " truth " that is trans-linguistic? Personally, it seems that the deeper I go the less I want to even contemplate a word to refer to the " inexpressible " . Perhaps it is that the " inexpressible " is becoming ever so much more *alive*... that, like Ruby Tuesday, " who could hang a name on it " . Even words like Truth and Essence, my old favorites, are losing their punch for me. > What this means, to me, is that there will always be > something unsaid. What is unsaid is " the context > of our contexts. " Absolutely marvelous! Gorgeous! Hats off to you. And then the minister said, " And remember my bretheren, that Ol' Context in the Sky.... and bow your heads in solemn reverence.... and know that Old Father Context is here with us now, guiding us in each and every step. " And then the congregation says, " Amen!...Amen!...Amen!.... " Oh, and Dan, could we say.... " The context of our contexts R us " ? > Because words are contextual and relational, they > imply some kind of relation of all these contexts > with each other. Because the relation of " all these contexts with each other " must occur in the context of all contexts... which we've already said is inexpressible. [Note the relation to the " naive set theory " notion of the set of all sets.] > Addressing this is what tends > to come out as absolutisms and tautologies. > Because it can't be said. Yet, that doesn't > mean it can't be intuited in clarity. > It just isn't conveyed by statements like, " There > is only Being, " " Everything is Nothing, " > " God is all, " " I am God, " " I and God are one, " > " Only Consciousness is. " It can't be said in the form of dialectical discourse. It can be expressed as poety... or in other forms of art... but such forms of expression are *implicit*. So I read you as saying that it can't be expressed *explicitly* (i.e. dialectically). > Contextless truth that relates all contexts > to and with each other, could never be conveyed by words, > and makes all words utterly and equally empty > of any inherent meaning, and empty of any > interpersonally-derived meaning, either (as > the persons would have no context in which to > understand, feel, or experience). Yes. And to *say* that means to have " experienced " (I use the word loosely) the utter stripping of all meaning. Which is a kind of emptiness, nothingness. But not even that really. But one must have come to a certain " voidness " where awareness, consciousness ....whatever... is stripped of every particle of concept. Kind of like, " The day the last period died... and and there were no words... and thought and speech were at a loss for words. " > If someone is trying to address contextless > truth through words and concepts, it > comes out as " everything is blah, blah " ... > or " there is only blah, blah " .. > Such may be hints, but are very limited, > including their grammatical and logical > limitations, their tautologies ... > so they seem more limited than a discussion which > accepts a context of you and me discussing > our relative understandings of things in context. Yes! And this is where the hang up in trying to talk about the " contextless " comes in, because in the very using of words a context can always be presumed by the reader/ listener. And there is no way to refute that, even if it is untrue. > Since words and concepts always involve contextual > relations, even apparently context-negating > expressions, like " all is blah, blah " involve > a context -- which includes you and me, the discussants, > what we understand " blah blah " to mean, and why > we are trying to make comments about the nature > of " what is " as some kind of " one thing. " > > So, I guess it all comes down to, " what am I doing > posting here? " What am I wanting to give and receive? > Do I want to prove I'm right and someone else wrong? > Do I want to risk my concepts and see how others respond? > Do I want to have fun? Do I want to share? Do > I want to explore? Maybe all of the above pertain, > at different times, and different contexts :-) > > <Stepping down from podium.> > > > << > > So, concepts neither relate nor don't relate > > to a reality outside or inside -- but are > > always presented within a conceptual context > > that is included in/with the concept. > > >> > > Great! And the notion of " context " is like God, > > always present, never seen, and only rarely > > " sensed " . There is no meaning without context. > > This means that " meaning " is *always* relative. > > There *are no* absolute statements. [This > > previous statement is self-referential. It > > seems to be an absolute statement. But keep > > in mind the context. There can be a context > > where there are absolute statements.] > > Exactly so! > > > > > << > > So, concepts can relate to their context, or > > be out of context, but even when they > > are out of context, if they are understood > > that way (as absurd, silly, cold, mean, etc.), > > through that understanding, they are > > in context. > > >> > > And such an understanding is an understanding > > within a meta-conversation about the speaking. > > [A " meta-conversation " is talking about " how > > we are talking " .] > > Indeed so. > > We intuit that our being includes an unspeakably > inclusive metalevel, and so engage in metalanguage > to be in a conversation commenting about the > context of it, as we engage in it. > > > I've enjoyed your conversation about the > > grammar of concepts. > > Likewise, I'm sure <s> > > We seem to convey content. > > But it turns out, that there's never > any content that could > be separable from the context which is > the discussion, inclusive of the > discussants. > Beyond grammar, this understanding of > context is inclusive of our own > " birth and death " which is not > birth and death of a separable entity > with its own center for meaning-making -- > but which is a fluid transitional > expression of a beginningless and endless > unspeakable context -- which is the interweaving and > interpenetration of contexts. Beautiful! You wax grammatically poetic. > I am a word, a concept, so I am the context which the word > includes and requires, of which it is never > independent. Are you sure about this? The words above must come from the context of all contexts... and the context of all contexts must be trans-linguistic... agree?... so the words spoken above must come from a non-lingusitic " trans-dimension " (for lack of a better word)... and hence " I am a word, a concept " cannot be descriptive of where those words originate. > As body-mind, with beginning and end, I include > and am the universe without which the body-mind > could not arise as such. And the body-mind without which the universe can arise as such? > So, while it may be true that " In the beginning was > the Word, and the Word was with God " as John said, > that still doesn't express who I am prior > to the Word, God, and Beginning -- the context of > contexts which has never been discussed, nor ever > will be - all our Some will say, " But you have been discussing it this whole post! " But I agree with you. Not sure how to respond to that kind of comment, however. > constructs of things that begin and end, our selves, > worlds, experiencing, and " being-time " -- are > imagined, contextual, derived through agreement and > relation, linguistic and verbally formulated, and > conceptual. > > Smiles, > Dan > What a treat! Boy, did you ever rise to the occasion. I sensed that you would be able to speak to that topic. I had no idea how well you would do so. Applause!!!!!!! -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Dan and Toby, > > Very interesting dialog. > > It is funny because I can see where Toby is coming > from... I used to feel the same about Dan. > > But now I don't feel that way. I'm more inclined to > say, " Hey Toby, don't try to change Dan. Instead try > to understand him. " > > But the directness of Toby's comments are good I think. > And maybe he has a point here and there. > > Dan, I think you can at least admire Toby's directness. > He is not playing games and it takes some courage to > speak as directly as he is with you. > > For me, I just think it is an interesting exchange. > Perhaps both parties have some discoveries in store. > > You are both very deep fellows, and both very > genuine. I'm proud to call both of you friends. > > -Bill > > PS: If Dan were a wine, I think he'd be a *very dry* one. Hi Bill -- I don't discount what Toby says, or anyone else. Each says what they have to say, at the time they say it. I'm glad you feel friendly toward me -- same here. What can we do, but speak from our experience, share our understanding, at the time we speak, however that comes out? There's an illusion that someone is commenting about someone else who is commenting about someone else. But, in fact, there is an ever-changing vista in which words are spoken and move on through space, along with all the other movements. Nothing is static. That's the beauty of " participation " -- which is never involving of choice on its deepest level. What and how can this be, except as it is? Thanks for your feedback, Bill -- take care, now, y'hear? Smiling, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 > Dan, > > This is fantastic stuff you've written here. Hi Bill -- I'm glad you enjoyed it as much as you did! I'm sure you enjoyed it because for you what I write here is experiential -- meaning the concepts aren't divorced from, or other than experience. Of course, if read from the perspective that these are intellectual constructs and one's experience is really very other than what is being described, the reaction will be different -- something along the lines of " you are very good at intellectual games and playing with concepts to get an effect. " Which is often a reaction I'll get to a post like this. So, thanks for your response! I know the language sounds dry -- but that is an attempt to be precise if possible. -- snip -- > I agree with what you are saying. You seem to be saying > there could be a non-contextual truth that is simply non- expressible. > Maybe in a way analogous to how Godel showed that arithmetic > cannot be axiomized... arithmetic is unexpressible axiomatically. Yes, there is something about ourselves that can't ever show up in the field of perception, experience, feeling, observation, participation. Godel dealt with logical proof, which means he was still assuming logic structures as meaningful. Where this all gets nonintellectual is when one experiences the end of any logic, relationship of sensations, and nothing to define an internal or external space apart from each other. > I don't see the point of speculating on the existence of such a > truth, since existence is itself relative....but I don't see debating > the point as it seems essentially moot. Well, I'm not saying that it exists or doesn't exist, but that it is the relativity of the relative. So, when you say " existence is relative " -- how can you know that? It implies something that can't be indicated, that allowed you to know at a metalevel in which the relativity is understood as such. If you are located within the relativity you can't see it -- if you are located outside it, there is something absolute. If you aren't in it, or outside it, you are it -- knowing it as such, unspeakably, and giving signals that are hints, but understanding that nothing has been shown by the hints. Probably why Jesus liked parables. And he insisted that you couldn't understand his parables unless you died (to self, to meaning, to the past). > > Is there contextless truth? It's impossible > > to say yes or no -- yes or no always make > > sense only in a context of division, in > > which there is this possibility vs. that, > > and a way to compare versions of understanding > > those possibilities. > > > > Words and concepts couldn't address what is contextless, > > by their very nature. > > So can we have a notion of " truth " that is trans-linguistic? > > Personally, it seems that the deeper I go the less I want to even > contemplate a word to refer to the " inexpressible " . Perhaps it is > that the " inexpressible " is becoming ever so much more *alive*... > that, like Ruby Tuesday, " who could hang a name on it " . Even > words like Truth and Essence, my old favorites, are losing their > punch for me. I agree. Probably, that's a good thing. > > What this means, to me, is that there will always be > > something unsaid. What is unsaid is " the context > > of our contexts. " > Absolutely marvelous! Gorgeous! > Hats off to you. > > And then the minister said, " And remember my bretheren, > that Ol' Context in the Sky.... and bow your heads in > solemn reverence.... and know that Old Father Context > is here with us now, guiding us in each and every step. " > > And then the congregation says, " Amen!...Amen!...Amen!.... " > > Oh, and Dan, could we say.... " The context of our contexts R us " ? Funny! Yes, it is who is really speaking, hearing, and which is not a who at all. There is nothing to say about this, because there is no distance apart -- everything already is included as is. > > Because words are contextual and relational, they > > imply some kind of relation of all these contexts > > with each other. > Because the relation of " all these contexts with each other " > must occur in the context of all contexts... which we've already > said is inexpressible. Yes. Inexpressible, and never not the case. How can it express, when it never has any space apart from itself, in which it could express itself? It invented the idea of space so it could show itself as a play in time. Why? No reason could apply. > [Note the relation to the " naive set theory " notion of the > set of all sets.] Yes. The Tao te Ching says " to travel far is to return. " It can't include all being/time/spaces by being some kind of superbeing in an absolute space. It includes all time/space/universes by not involving any time, nor occupying any space. > > Addressing this is what tends > > to come out as absolutisms and tautologies. > > Because it can't be said. Yet, that doesn't > > mean it can't be intuited in clarity. > > It just isn't conveyed by statements like, " There > > is only Being, " " Everything is Nothing, " > > " God is all, " " I am God, " " I and God are one, " > > " Only Consciousness is. " > It can't be said in the form of dialectical discourse. > It can be expressed as poety... or in other forms of > art... but such forms of expression are *implicit*. > So I read you as saying that it can't be expressed > *explicitly* (i.e. dialectically). Well, the clearest expression of it is nonexpression. That is, as there isn't any external space to express it, and no internal placement of a being which has its own point of view, from which to express something. But yes, out of this, can arise art and poetry as a paradoxical expression of the inexpressible, a hint. > > Contextless truth that relates all contexts > > to and with each other, could never be conveyed by words, > > and makes all words utterly and equally empty > > of any inherent meaning, and empty of any > > interpersonally-derived meaning, either (as > > the persons would have no context in which to > > understand, feel, or experience). > Yes. And to *say* that means to have " experienced " > (I use the word loosely) the utter stripping of all > meaning. Yes, it must. It couldn't be a holding of any meaning that could possibly dissolve -- as to be the context of all contexts is meaningless within any context, and to any being living within a context -- and has to include everything seemingly meaningless equally with everything seemingly meaningful. Which is a kind of emptiness, nothingness. > But not even that really. But one must have come to > a certain " voidness " where awareness, consciousness > ...whatever... is stripped of every particle of concept. > Kind of like, " The day the last period died... and > and there were no words... and thought and speech > were at a loss for words. " True. And words (or gestures, postures, imagery) are used because that's how we operate to signal experience -- and we never really can or do give an appropriate symbol -- It's difficult in the sense that it's alone, can't include someone into itself and retain that individual as such -- is devoid of any retention of meaning, not experiencing anything -- yet there's no isolation, no lack of meaning or experience, it's an empty fullness. And there is a dying involved in opening to/as this. The death of meaning, the past, the being who could continue or connect in some way. > > If someone is trying to address contextless > > truth through words and concepts, it > > comes out as " everything is blah, blah " ... > > or " there is only blah, blah " .. > > Such may be hints, but are very limited, > > including their grammatical and logical > > limitations, their tautologies ... > > so they seem more limited than a discussion which > > accepts a context of you and me discussing > > our relative understandings of things in context. > Yes! And this is where the hang up in trying to talk about > the " contextless " comes in, because in the very using of > words a context can always be presumed by the reader/ > listener. And there is no way to refute that, even if it is > untrue. Yes, the reader is a continuity of context, otherwise words couldn't be comprehended -- also true of the writer. -- snip -- > > I am a word, a concept, so I am the context which the word > > includes and requires, of which it is never > > independent. > Are you sure about this? Yes -- insofar as I can speak of myself. And what is unspeakable, of course, has never been said. > and the context of all contexts must be trans-linguistic... > agree?... so the words spoken above must come from > a non-lingusitic " trans-dimension " (for lack of a better > word)... Yes, I like trans-dimensional better than trans-linguistic. Like something which is not of this dimensionality comes in, and it turns out includes the entire dimenionality that is me, my time, my world, my experiential life, and yet is not of that dimensionality, doesn't have those rules, definitions, isn't spatial or temporal as we know those things. > and hence " I am a word, a concept " cannot be > descriptive of where those words originate. True. > > As body-mind, with beginning and end, I include > > and am the universe without which the body-mind > > could not arise as such. > And the body-mind without which the universe can arise > as such? Quite so! Well-said, and thanks for pointing that out. The division is imaginary, but necessary for conceptualization within our dimensionality of things like birth, death, gain, loss, health, sickness. > > So, while it may be true that " In the beginning was > > the Word, and the Word was with God " as John said, > > that still doesn't express who I am prior > > to the Word, God, and Beginning -- the context of > > contexts which has never been discussed, nor ever > > will be - all our > Some will say, " But you have been discussing it this whole > post! " But I agree with you. Not sure how to respond to > that kind of comment, however. Yes, there isn't one. I remember a Zen story about a fellow who ate a meal, then remarked, " I haven't had a bite to eat all day. " > > constructs of things that begin and end, our selves, > > worlds, experiencing, and " being-time " -- are > > imagined, contextual, derived through agreement and > > relation, linguistic and verbally formulated, and > > conceptual. > > > > Smiles, > > Dan > > > > What a treat! > > Boy, did you ever rise to the occasion. You, too! A pleasure! > I sensed that you would be able to speak to that topic. > I had no idea how well you would do so. > > Applause!!!!!!! Wonderful having this dialogue with you, Bill. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 Hi Bill and Dan, Thanks for your responses. It was my desire to share the internal treasure that is my experience of this world. Maybe an effort to share something that is already, or is not wanted or not neccessary. As you put so well Dan, " What can we do, but speak from our experience, share our understanding, at the time we speak, however that comes out? " You mentioned directness Bill. I would guess it to be a very difficult task to offend Dan. This is why I have no hesitation in communicating directly. These word games that go on are like those that Zen masters have played for years; they are known for it - who can get the most absolute in their comments? I have seen you Dan, cut down others comments where there was an opening to do so, while possibly missing there relative value (if such value exists). And from what I have read of your writing, your exactness to the absolute is often impecible and I admire that. But being a master swordsman brings with it great responsibility. Maybe something to ponder. For me it is not so much what is said, but the grace behind it that really communicates. Anyway, thanks again for your comments. Toby PS Referring to the internal, JDR comments, " The amount of grace is not determined by how much you know, but how much you surrender to what you know. " Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Dan and Toby, > > > > Very interesting dialog. > > > > It is funny because I can see where Toby is coming > > from... I used to feel the same about Dan. > > > > But now I don't feel that way. I'm more inclined to > > say, " Hey Toby, don't try to change Dan. Instead try > > to understand him. " > > > > But the directness of Toby's comments are good I think. > > And maybe he has a point here and there. > > > > Dan, I think you can at least admire Toby's directness. > > He is not playing games and it takes some courage to > > speak as directly as he is with you. > > > > For me, I just think it is an interesting exchange. > > Perhaps both parties have some discoveries in store. > > > > You are both very deep fellows, and both very > > genuine. I'm proud to call both of you friends. > > > > -Bill > > > > PS: If Dan were a wine, I think he'd be a *very dry* one. > > Hi Bill -- > > I don't discount what Toby says, or anyone else. > > Each says what they have to say, at the time they say it. > > I'm glad you feel friendly toward me -- same here. > > What can we do, but speak from our experience, share > our understanding, at the time we speak, however > that comes out? > > There's an illusion that someone is commenting about > someone else who is commenting about someone else. > > But, in fact, there is an ever-changing vista in which > words are spoken and move on through space, along > with all the other movements. > > Nothing is static. > > That's the beauty of " participation " -- which is > never involving of choice on its deepest level. > > What and how can this be, except as it is? > > Thanks for your feedback, Bill -- take care, now, y'hear? > > Smiling, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Hi Bill and Dan, > > Thanks for your responses. It was my desire to share the internal > treasure that is my experience of this world. Maybe an effort to > share something that is already, or is not wanted or not neccessary. > As you put so well Dan, " What can we do, but speak from our > experience, share our understanding, at the time we speak, however > that comes out? " > > You mentioned directness Bill. I would guess it to be a very > difficult task to offend Dan. This is why I have no hesitation in > communicating directly. > > These word games that go on are like those that Zen masters have > played for years; they are known for it - who can get the most > absolute in their comments? > > I have seen you Dan, cut down others comments where there was an > opening to do so, while possibly missing there relative value (if > such value exists). And from what I have read of your writing, your > exactness to the absolute is often impecible and I admire that. But > being a master swordsman brings with it great responsibility. Maybe > something to ponder. > > For me it is not so much what is said, but the grace behind it that > really communicates. > > Anyway, thanks again for your comments. > > Toby > > PS Referring to the internal, JDR comments, " The amount of grace is > not determined by how much you know, but how much you surrender to > what you know. " Hi Toby -- None of us have any choice about the manifestation that is us in the world. Sure, in the world we make choices, but that is just how the world views it. Including the entire situation which is the world, there is no choosing, yet all the choices manifest as they are to manifest. This means that whatever you say, you say, whatever I say, I say. It seems there is one being reacting to another, one being assessing another, one being forming an understanding of the other. And those seem to go back and forth. Yet, including the entire situation, I know that there is no going back and forth. Each moment manifests in purity, whole, as it is to manifest at that instant. Nothing is going back and forth. This is the peace of nonmovement, in the midst of all the apparent movements -- of which word-slinging is just one of millions of movements. Enjoying you enjoying me enjoying you, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2003 Report Share Posted August 5, 2003 Dan, Yes, ultimately there is no reacting and no bouncing back and forth, and ultimately there are no colors, no objects, no separation at all... just a sea of vibrational soup manifesting as the physicalness of what is, and even the physicalness is just as much non-physical as it is physical. But being in this life is to experience the diversity, being within the bouncing back and forth, being within the experience of colors and objects. This holds the glory and the trap which is as great the opportunity. Being in the peace of non-movement is to be moved by the non-movement itself. It is to give away the control of movement to non-movement. Being in flow with what is. Handing over the reigns and letting non-movement move you. It seems when non-movement moves us, grace manifests in the movement. When we move us, the grace diminishes. Some interesting comments on freedom of choice.... _ Through confusing words and abstractions with reality itself we have created an artificial role or personality for ourselves and in the process forgotten that it is just a role and not the real source of our actions. Society has tricked us into the belief that our minds are inside our heads and act independently from it at the same time it is telling us who we are and what we should be doing. But since the mind then includes all of one's social relationships, it is not inside the skin of the individual at all but is actually outside it. And that is just the paradox of the situation; society gives us the idea that the mind, or ego, is inside the skin and that it acts on its own, apart from society. Here, then, is a major contradiction in the rules of the social game. The members of the game are to play as if they were independent agents, but they are not to know that they are playing as if! It is explicit in the rules that the individual is self-determining, but implicit that he is so only by virtue of the rules. Furthermore, while he is defined as an independent agent, he must not be so independent as not to submit to the rules which define him. Thus, he is defined as an agent in order to be held responsible to the group for " his " actions. The rules of the game confer independence and take it away at the same time without revealing the contradiction. The ego-contradiction is the basic thorn which society has implanted since childhood and from which we are suffering without being able to see the vicious circle involved. We have been convinced that we are free and independent agents and yet, the very agent referred to is actually a social role that is defined by other people and has no real freedom to act at all. When beginning to understand the trap involved, the usual question is to ask what one should do to get out of it. And here is where Zen is rather ingenious. For we are told to " do " nothing to get out of it since the very doing will only be another level of the same contradiction that one is trying to see through. Instead of " doing " , or for that matter " not doing " , we need a kind of passive awareness of ourselves in every situation. For only awareness, now, in the present moment can reveal the true source of action, which is not the ego at all but rather the total environmental field of which the organism is only one side of a mutual polarity. ______ Hope you enjoyed. Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2003 Report Share Posted August 5, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Dan, > > Yes, ultimately there is no reacting and no bouncing back and forth, and ultimately there are no colors, no objects, no separation at all... just a sea of vibrational soup manifesting as the physicalness of what is, and even the physicalness is just as much non-physical as it is physical. > > But being in this life is to experience the diversity, being within the bouncing back and forth, being within the experience of colors and objects. This holds the glory and the trap which is as great the opportunity. > > Being in the peace of non-movement is to be moved by the non- movement itself. It is to give away the control of movement to non- movement. Being in flow with what is. Handing over the reigns and letting non-movement move you. It seems when non-movement moves us, grace manifests in the movement. When we move us, the grace diminishes. > > Some interesting comments on freedom of choice.... > _ > > Through confusing words and abstractions with reality itself we have created an artificial role or personality for ourselves and in the process forgotten that it is just a role and not the real source of our actions. Society has tricked us into the belief that our minds are inside our heads and act independently from it at the same time it is telling us who we are and what we should be doing. But since the mind then includes all of one's social relationships, it is not inside the skin of the individual at all but is actually outside it. > > And that is just the paradox of the situation; society gives us the idea that the mind, or ego, is inside the skin and that it acts on its own, apart from society. Here, then, is a major contradiction in the rules of the social game. The members of the game are to play as if they were independent agents, but they are not to know that they are playing as if! It is explicit in the rules that the individual is self-determining, but implicit that he is so only by virtue of the rules. Furthermore, while he is defined as an independent agent, he must not be so independent as not to submit to the rules which define him. Thus, he is defined as an agent in order to be held responsible to the group for " his " actions. The rules of the game confer independence and take it away at the same time without revealing the contradiction. > > The ego-contradiction is the basic thorn which society has implanted since childhood and from which we are suffering without being able to see the vicious circle involved. We have been convinced that we are free and independent agents and yet, the very agent referred to is actually a social role that is defined by other people and has no real freedom to act at all. > > When beginning to understand the trap involved, the usual question is to ask what one should do to get out of it. And here is where Zen is rather ingenious. For we are told to " do " nothing to get out of it since the very doing will only be another level of the same contradiction that one is trying to see through. Instead of " doing " , or for that matter " not doing " , we need a kind of passive awareness of ourselves in every situation. For only awareness, now, in the present moment can reveal the true source of action, which is not the ego at all but rather the total environmental field of which the organism is only one side of a mutual polarity. > ______ > > Hope you enjoyed. > > Toby It seemed overintellectualized to me, Toby. But if you enjoyed writing it, I'm glad! Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 > > It seemed overintellectualized to me, Toby. > > > > But if you enjoyed writing it, I'm glad! > > Love, > Dan > > Yes Dan, I agree with your assessment. I didn't write it though, it was a copy and paste thing I thought I'd throw in for a bit of fun. Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > > > > It seemed overintellectualized to me, Toby. > > > > > > But if you enjoyed writing it, I'm glad! > > > > Love, > > Dan > > > > > Yes Dan, I agree with your assessment. I didn't write it though, it was a copy and paste thing I thought I'd throw in for a bit of fun. > > Toby Well, Toby, that explains why it didn't fit. Of course, when you do something like that, it's an intellectual activity. Your spontaneous, genuine response from the heart, wouldn't require cutting and pasting to make a point. Or would it? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 > Well, Toby, that explains why it didn't fit. > > Of course, when you do something like that, > it's an intellectual activity. > > Your spontaneous, genuine response from the heart, > wouldn't require cutting and pasting to make > a point. Or would it? > > -- Dan > > Absolutely Dan, very good point. > Toby > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Wilson, Toby " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > > Well, Toby, that explains why it didn't fit. > > > > Of course, when you do something like that, > > it's an intellectual activity. > > > > Your spontaneous, genuine response from the heart, > > wouldn't require cutting and pasting to make > > a point. Or would it? > > > > -- Dan > > > > Absolutely Dan, very good point. > > > Toby Namaste, Toby. -- 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.