Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 - johnmp_nr <johnmp_nr > > **I am not looking for agreements. I am looking for infinity to say > something zero point inside apparent conventionality without Lewis' or > JP's self blocking the conversation. The conversation between you two was a bit a of a brain squeeze for me. I like these words above though. " Something " pinged. Now I am sitting here waiting for infinity to say something zero point and nothing comes. Pretty sure joni got blocked, and the idea of " there are no more words " has just turned into breathing and a sort of smile. Joni xo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 - johnmp_nr Nisargadatta Sunday, June 12, 2005 2:18 AM Re: permeable walls JP: How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) be produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? Lewis: it arises inexplicably. JP: Does it really? It seems fairly evident that we both agree it doesn't. Lewis: Yes, for me it does. Then I make post hoc explanations about how I imagine or conceive it to have happened. **Yes, but surely you can let go of that and say that it does not really arise inexplicably? Or, more simply, it does not arise inexplicably? Why assert it? Lewis: I use any conception as is needed. JP: What do you want? Lewis: Agreement in this case does not matter. JP: Agreement can even be dulling. Lewis: As you read these words, you are understanding what is being said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? JP: Playfully, relatively, as a dream-like pretense, yes. Actually, no. Lewis: No need to assert it as this or that. It is moot always for me. Lewis: ...all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning JP: Agreed. Lewis: There is no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity. **Yes, no agency emphasis (no tautological counterpart emphasis). Lewis: At the level of analysis presented it was stated clearly that it is a process (semiosi and in a process all is one (agency, semiotics and semiosis) unless there is a focus to see one aspect over another. Lewis: What is actuality? **In this dialogue, a worm on a hook, and I was hoping not to catch anything. Lewis: You believe in actuality (whatever that is). **There is no actuality. JP: In this way your, permeable walls, imagery can be problematic. Lewis: It is obvious that the permeability of the walls is not in your liking or perspective. Change it to what you like or dispose of it. What do you want me to do? Think and be like you? **No. I want to see how tenacious you are. Resistance inhibits the disappearance of abstractions (participants, you and I). JP: That which may appear as a handhold at one level may be a finitude obstacle at another level. Lewis: Ok. Change it to what you like so it is more satisfying. It is not a question of what is satisfying. It is a question of intellectualization. Thus far this is all (stripped down) abstractions, all semaphoring into a vacuum called self. Lewis: You are seeing emphasis where there is none intentionally made. JP: Yes, and more problematically, smelling ontology because of the tenacity of your imagery and the subtle use of quotation marks. Quotation marks are exceedingly deceptive as defense against reification in that reification is exactly what they most often protect by obfuscating tautology. Lewis: The smell of ontology and tenacity of the imagery is in you. **It's in relativity. Lewis: You can do what you want with the metaphor. The quotation marks too. It was made up for discussion like many things I make here and elsewhere for exploration and dialogue. **Perhaps less emphasis on making exploration and dialogue and more emphasis on selflessness would net less ontology on everyone's part. Lewis: I use it as necessary and put it down or dispose of its use if it is no longer viable. It is transient stuff, just like you are. **Yes, Lewis, just like I am. Lewis: Also there is a confusion and mixing of levels of analysis where there is a descent to a more fundamental level of analysis with the question on meaning while hanging on to the ideas of the level above it as it is done and these ideas in the level above are emergent from the level below. JP: Indeed, conceptualizations dissolve in the descent. Now, can any actuality of one's self remain? Lewis: That was not the point....JP. **Yes, Lewis, it was the point all along...right from the beginning (a beginning well a priori to this dialogue). There is no difference between epistemology (or, derivatively, semiotics), ontology and self. Lewis: Now are you trying to root for some conception of self I may hold or if I have an intact self or some other thing, like an ego or some bundle of skandahs or neuronal firings that are mistaken for me or some other conceptualization? **Yes, is there any other rooting going on here (on this board)? Lewis: If so, just ask plainly and avoid seeking needless agreements. **I am not looking for agreements. I am looking for infinity to say something zero point inside apparent conventionality without Lewis' or JP's self blocking the conversation. **If you say that is impossible, then I will move on in kindness and gratitude for the time you've shared, noble sir. Lewis: We were not talking about a self or any of that. And agreements are unecessary unless you think you are Nagarjuna trying to use another's argument against him/her so that they see the error of their thinking, logic, beliefs and so on. **I do not want Lewis to see the error of his thinking. I want his thinking out; I want him out. Lewis: If so, you are wasting your time. There is no thing here to argue about. **No argument there. Lewis: ...there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to. **What about Lewis? Pete: Present When Absent Watching the Sky Last Night SomeOne Forgot to Watch. Alone and Alive Was the Night, Teeming With Stars Anna: It Is the Meditation of One, It Is the Meditation of NoOne. The Hearing of This Is Silence. ** 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 June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > JP: How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) > be produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? > > Lewis: it arises inexplicably. > > JP: Does it really? It seems fairly evident that we both agree it > doesn't. > > Lewis: Yes, for me it does. Then I make post hoc explanations about > how I imagine or conceive it to have happened. > > **Yes, but surely you can let go of that and say that it does not > really arise inexplicably? Or, more simply, it does not arise > inexplicably? Why assert it? **Lewis: Sure. It does not arise inexplicably....We can also say it does not arise at all. It is. Or on another pole, it is not. Or paradoxically both or it is neither. Or, there is no meaning at all only meaninglessness. Or, There is no meaning and there is no meaninglessness. How about those? Other plays can be imagined take your pick, JP. All can do work in certain contexts. As contexts changes so can the answers. No need to assert. A question answered in one way possible in a context. It is always moot or there is no final answer. But hey, you want to talk, no? > > Lewis: I use any conception as is needed. > > JP: What do you want? Lewis: [.........] > > Lewis: Agreement in this case does not matter. > > **JP: Agreement can even be dulling. **Lewis: So fly free. > > > Lewis: As you read these words, you are understanding what is being > said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn > in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in > those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? > > JP: Playfully, relatively, as a dream-like pretense, yes. Actually, > no. > > Lewis: No need to assert it as this or that. It is moot always for > me. > > Lewis: ...all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for > the arisings of inseparable meaning > > **JP: Agreed. > > Lewis: There is no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity. > > **Yes, no agency emphasis (no tautological counterpart emphasis). > > Lewis: At the level of analysis presented it was stated clearly that > it is a process (semiosi and in a process all is one (agency, > semiotics and semiosis) unless there is a focus to see one aspect > over another. > > Lewis: What is actuality? > > **In this dialogue, a worm on a hook, and I was hoping not to catch > anything. **Lewis: If you are hungry and your mouth is open, the worm on the hook always will be there for you. > > Lewis: You believe in actuality (whatever that is). > > **There is no actuality. **Lewis: OK. There is no actuality. > > JP: In this way your, permeable walls, imagery can be problematic. > > Lewis: It is obvious that the permeability of the walls is not in > your liking or perspective. Change it to what you like or dispose of > it. What do you want me to do? Think and be like you? > > > **No. I want to see how tenacious you are. Resistance inhibits the > disappearance of abstractions (participants, you and I). > **Lewis. Ok. How it be doing dat since the tenacity has been bound in your incessant questioning, seeking some thing in the origin of words and my respnding to them. So your tenacity in rooting for something becomes mine because I reply and don't say to you, as some no nonsense posters might say, fuck off dimwit? We are in the middle always. As for disappearing participants, they always seem to reappear. > > JP: That which may appear as a handhold at one level may be a finitude obstacle at another level. > > Lewis: Ok. Change it to what you like so it is more satisfying. > > It is not a question of what is satisfying. It is a question of > intellectualization. Thus far this is all (stripped down) > abstractions, all semaphoring into a vacuum called self. > **Lewis: You are seeing what? A vacuum called the self? Do you talk to vacuums? Is this a well worn, oft repeated line issued here to demonstrate some thing? What is being demonstrated? What is being said? Getting to the root of all reality or some thing like that with words? > Lewis: You are seeing emphasis where there is none intentionally > made. > > JP: Yes, and more problematically, smelling ontology because of the > tenacity of your imagery and the subtle use of quotation marks. > Quotation marks are exceedingly deceptive as defense against > reification in that reification is exactly what they most often > protect by obfuscating tautology. > > Lewis: The smell of ontology and tenacity of the imagery is in > you. > > **It's in relativity. **Lewis: Whatever....You seek it, create it (smell and tenacity), hand it to me, I hand it back and you hand me some thing else, relativity. You take a long time to get it, JP. Who needs these particular creations? I do not. Take it away. If you want to talk about creations by examining them on an exploration table together then let us do that, but if you want or expect me to take these sort of creations home, forget it. They are of no use to me. Just fun to examine and explore. > > Lewis: You can do what you want with the metaphor. The quotation > marks too. It was made up for discussion like many things I make > here and elsewhere for exploration and dialogue. > > **Perhaps less emphasis on making exploration and dialogue and more > emphasis on selflessness would net less ontology on everyone's part. **Lewis: Hey, JP that is what I am about here in this place at the moment. If you do not like it or cannot deal with it as it is, as it happens, there are other expressions you can do your thing with and where you can get what you are about. You can easily go play somewhere else if you don't like it here with me. It is in you do as you are. Creating selflessness and selfishness by default now? Now what are these? Where are these located? Here, take back your imagined selflessness and all the baggage that comes with it. I have no need for such a concept. > Lewis: I use it as necessary and put it down or dispose of its use > if it is no longer viable. It is transient stuff, just like you are. > > **Yes, Lewis, just like I am. **Lewis: So you are just transient stuff? Good. How is your appetite recently? > > Lewis: Also there is a confusion and mixing of levels of analysis > where there is a descent to a more fundamental level of analysis > with the question on meaning while hanging on to the ideas of the > level above it as it is done and these ideas in the level above are > emergent from the level below. > > JP: Indeed, conceptualizations dissolve in the descent. Now, can any > actuality of one's self remain? > > Lewis: That was not the point....JP. > > **Yes, Lewis, it was the point all along...right from the beginning (a beginning well a priori to this dialogue). There is no difference > between epistemology (or, derivatively, semiotics), ontology and > self. **Lewis: No JP. If you want to involve in an intellectual exploration or discussion of some thing, then it is easier not to mix levels. Now if you like to do that, mix and confuse levels, then that is ok with me. I will point it out and untangle that when it happens. If you do not like your expressions and reasoning to be to be untangled, there is no thing I can do about it. If you speak straight and worry not about or try to create and situate what I am, as a vacuumous self or whatever, the levels stay as they are and do not mix. > > Lewis: Now are you trying to root for some conception of self I may > hold or if I have an intact self or some other thing, like an ego or > some bundle of skandahs or neuronal firings that are mistaken for me > or some other conceptualization? > > **Yes, is there any other rooting going on here (on this board)? **Lewis: Well, for one, I do not see any selves, just expressions and I work with that as it goes. I do not need to imagine an issuer. The expression is enough. As it changes so does my creation of it and in relation to it. Now, those who seek selves are dullwitted, for as you say, it is a vacuum, and searching in a vacuum gives what, so go ahead and root as you, perhaps, imagine all others to do, as you imply above. All you will get back from me in that regard is the dirt you overturn in your futile rooting for what you say is not and then, conveniently, say is. > > Lewis: If so, just ask plainly and avoid seeking needless > agreements. > > **I am not looking for agreements. I am looking for infinity to say > something zero point inside apparent conventionality without Lewis' > or JP's self blocking the conversation. **Lewis: Oh. Well, if you did not see it already, you ain't going to see it now. So, you will have to create and go to those expressions, that fantasy world of expressing, that matches it and get it. As for me, I don't be dealing with no infinities that talk through selves that mess up its words. I am not divided into Lewis and some imagined infinity or primoridal being or other fiction. You have perhaps wasted your time in looking for " infinity to say something zero point inside apparent conventionality without Lewis or JP's self blocking the conversation. " That is your mythpoetic creation. Such creations are for tail chasing. > > **If you say that is impossible, then I will move on in kindness and > gratitude for the time you've shared, noble sir. > **Lewis: Peace, JP. Good fortune with finding that infinity that says.... > Lewis: We were not talking about a self or any of that. And > agreements are unecessary unless you think you are Nagarjuna trying > to use another's argument against him/her so that they see the error > of their thinking, logic, beliefs and so on. > > **I do not want Lewis to see the error of his thinking. I want his > thinking out; I want him out. **Lewis: Oh, you want to annihilate me? Hahaha! Your body of expression is becoming fast an ongoing hilarity to me. You create me and then want me to get rid of your creation. What an amusing thing to say for consideration. Are you ribbing me? If you are serious, then go into nondual deprogramming and work with those expressions that are appearing as self-proclaimed jnanis, absolute monists, theists, no selfers, and other expressions showing belief and practice of dual existences, split and sectioned being, I am That and I am not the body, egos and true selves and all that. Take this magic show on the road to them, JP. You will have a field day finding exactly what you want. You know, JP, this is one of the more amusing and enjoyable aspects of these lists. The creation of others and then the demand that these creations be accepted as true and then for these creations to do this and that, and to act this way and that. I do it too, to experience and explore how expression changes and re-forms and go with it as is as it can or cannot, see what is revealed and learning from it. Now when a creation is put to me that I am this or that, it is in as it is in goes and it either can or cannot work as it goes, that is, as to the working taste of it, well or poorly or not all, and a response or not as it goes at the moment. You last statment is hilariously sweet. Perhaps you are struggling with egoness or conceptions of it, so that you see it in my expression and perhaps in others, is that it? Or perhaps you are just pretending to be dullwitted. Are you pretending to be dullwitted, JP? Forrest Gump's mother says, stupid is as stupid does. Or you are looking for some thing else? Forget me. I am no thing to be concerned about. > Lewis: If so, you are wasting your time. There is no thing here to > argue about. > > **No argument there. > > Lewis: ...there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to > point to. > > > **What about Lewis? **Lewis: What about me? It is not clear is it? So, create me as you want, JP, pack it up, put it with the others, if there are any, and deal with it as you are wont, enjoy, amuse, suffer, grapple..., do whatever with it. Its yours, all yours. I do not need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Lewis, your semantics paradigm is protecting your self. In it's essence, your paradigm can be summed as a contradiction: contextual tautology. For you, the " tautology " is a non-dual intellectualization and the " context " is the defense against the implication (dissolution of self) of tautology. Do you see that? In tautology, there cannot be context. Context requires arising, but tautology nullifies arising. And yet, context is the axis upon which your thinking turns. Examples: You repeat, " fun to examine and explore " , and yet you say " no emphasis on subjectivity " . You repeat, " arisings of inseparable meaning " and yet how can meaning arise if inseparable? [Answer: irregardless of the contradiction, your " context " axis requires its arising in order to maintain your substantive self.] [Note: context IS emphasis] ============= Tautology (intellectualization): Lewis said: - there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to - You create me - The expression is enough - Such creations are for tail chasing - I do not see any selves, just expressions - I do not need to imagine an issuer - no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity - It is moot always for me Context (protected self): Lewis said: - it arises inexplicably... Yes, for me it does - I do it too, to experience and explore - As it [the expression] changes so does my creation of it - it is easier not to mix levels - that is what I am about - Just fun to examine and explore - As for disappearing participants, they always seem to reappear - I use any conception as is needed - to experience and explore how expression changes - see what is revealed and learning from it Revealings at the edges: - stupid is as stupid does - I reply and don't say to you...fuck off dimwit - Oh, you want to annihilate me? Hahaha! - What about me? It is not clear is it? - I do not need it - As for me, I don't be dealing with no infinities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis, your semantics paradigm is protecting your self. Lewis: Words are just that with their meanings made and interpeted just so or not, or in any way you wish. You can have the whole shebang. I have no thing to protect. The metaphor is a figment of imagination. You can have it. Do you want it? No. You want me! Well here I am again in my glory! > > In it's essence, your paradigm can be summed as a contradiction: > contextual tautology. Lewis: Ok. You can say that. That is fine. > > For you, the " tautology " is a non-dual intellectualization and the > " context " is the defense against the implication (dissolution of self) > of tautology. Do you see that? In tautology, there cannot be context. > Context requires arising, but tautology nullifies arising. > > And yet, context is the axis upon which your thinking turns. Lewis: Context requires arising, tautologies nullifies arising, so there can be no context.... Do you want me to drink this word soup? You are mixing levels because you seek the specter. Context is verbal thought and words, especially here. All of it. If it is not words, it is no thing, if it is no thing then there are no words. But words are the basis of the [imagined] context, tautologies, conceptualizations and the whole of communication and semiosis in language and thought. Try again. Your are in the room and you can't get out. A prisoner for the walls are seen. > > > Examples: > You repeat, " fun to examine and explore " , and yet you say " no emphasis > on subjectivity " . Lewis: Am I somehow removed from language and not involved in it? How about you? I make the stuff, put in on an exploration table that I and others also make and talk about it as an object among many objects with words all in the same made up word stuff. The context you refer to is words as well, no escaping words and the fragmentation they bring into various levels of description and analysis. You and I as long as we use words are within them. And so what you say has no privilege or ascendancy over any others. Now if you would like to say that something outside of words has occurred here please tell me what the context outside of words is? Show it to me. Demonstrate it. Speak it. Now what you are doing is simple. You are creating a word context to fit my words and the metaphor into and to elevate that context to some sort of reality made with your words as central, hence, you make contextual tautology in your hope to catch a specter you think is me. And in this, you hope to corner, snare, catch, and dispatch a self of your own creation. It is like trying to catch your shadow in your hand. It is your creation that is out of your control because you do not know how you created it. Now can you see you are specter hunting with words and that that is always shadow chasing and futile? See JP chase his shadow. See JP come back and say no, I am not chasing my shadow, I am chasing down and trying to catch Lewis' self and I want it to die. Now specter hunter, some words: ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lewis: Now are you trying to root for some conception of self I may hold or if I have an intact self or some other thing, like an ego or some bundle of skandahs or neuronal firings that are mistaken for me or some other conceptualization? **Yes, is there any other rooting going on here (on this board)? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now to play the same game in a different way, let me say that perhaps in your enthusiasm to catch your created specter, you forget that you are within words and there is no escaping using them in here or that the specter is made of words and all you have manufactured for it. So you are using words and trying to capture a word specter, (self) of your own making. You create with words a " contexutal tautology " as a lariat and try to rope the word self with it. So, in turn I demonstrate that you are a merely a specter hunter that you admittedly are, and are not interested at all in discussing a metaphor, a usable or non usable thing of no consequence except to those who are interested in it, on a exploratory table mutually constructed. So you being a hunter you hope to catch your prey with words, using them as bait. Why? Do you need me? Do I excite you, thrill you so? Do you lust after me. Do you want me? > > You repeat, " arisings of inseparable meaning " and yet how can meaning > arise if inseparable? [Answer: irregardless of the contradiction, your > " context " axis requires its arising in order to maintain your > substantive self.] > > [Note: context IS emphasis] Lewis: Substantive self? What is that? (regardless not irregardless my dear). In any case, what difference does it make? It is of no significance to you. You are not interested in metaphors like that one and only wish to hunt specters. Now, whatever you say, I can say more and you can say more, creating more on top of each creation with words. Going around and around. You only want me to die in the way you conceive me, you want somehow that I die as you see me for you, in front of you, in some sort of agonizing realization of my protected self, or perhaps the ego I cherish and protect with a metaphor. This is too much. Well, I gave you my carcass and you still want more. Such a greedy fellow. Take your fill above and below. You have plenty to feed on so you can enlarge your abdomen and burst your intestines with me, me, me. > > ============= > > > Tautology (intellectualization): > > Lewis said: > - there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to > - You create me > - The expression is enough > - Such creations are for tail chasing > - I do not see any selves, just expressions > - I do not need to imagine an issuer > - no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity > - It is moot always for me Lewis: Yes > Context (protected self): > > Lewis said: > - it arises inexplicably... Yes, for me it does > - I do it too, to experience and explore > - As it [the expression] changes so does my creation of it > - it is easier not to mix levels > - that is what I am about > - Just fun to examine and explore > - As for disappearing participants, they always seem to reappear > - I use any conception as is needed > - to experience and explore how expression changes > - see what is revealed and learning from it Lewis: Yes. > > > Revealings at the edges: > - stupid is as stupid does > - I reply and don't say to you...fuck off dimwit > - Oh, you want to annihilate me? Hahaha! > - What about me? It is not clear is it? > - I do not need it > - As for me, I don't be dealing with no infinities Lewis: Yes. Lewis: Well, we have intellectualization, protected self and revealings at the edges. Your categories for creating me. There is plenty more here to add to your selections. Work away. Now what is the expected or anticipated reaction, JP to this demonstration of the specter and the art of specter hunting. What would you like to see next? More words that indicate to you that there is a protected self, I imagine, which, of course, in your specter hunting will be anything that alerts your framework for word assessment and evaluation for specter detection. So let me give you this to create me more vividly and you can feed and gorge on this created me at home and wherever you go. JP, you are a way out of your league. When you gather the understanding necessary to go toe to toe with the likes of me, a supreme giant of a well protected specter of unlimited proportions come back and give me a visit. And if you are still chasing shadows and feasting on vacuums, running around in circles of words and not realize you are doing it, and thinking it makes a difference in anyway and trying to get others to do the same, stay your hands and think twice. You are just a small _____ learning to think your way out the maze you do not realize you are in and believing you can get somewhere in nowhere. Think on, think on. Lost are you in room of words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Lewis, it is as if you constantly repeat this mantra: 1) " Here is this meaning on an examining table. " 2) " This meaning is indistinguishable. " This is contradiction (that which is indistinguishable cannot be examined). The first part is the context, arising, emphasis, focus. The second part is the tautological nullification of the first part. The arising appears to be required for your self. The nullification of the arising appears to be non-dual intellectualization. ------------- Note: you are saying " metaphor " (repeatedly) as a trojan horse for arisings, focus, emphasis, contexts. -------------- JP: Lewis, your semantics paradigm is protecting your self. JP: In it's essence, your paradigm can be summed as a contradiction: contextual tautology. JP: For you, the " tautology " is a non-dual intellectualization and the " context " is the defense against the implication (dissolution of self) of tautology. JP: In tautology, there cannot be context. Context requires arising, but tautology nullifies arising. JP: And yet, context is the axis upon which your thinking turns. > Lewis: Context requires arising, tautologies nullifies arising, so there can be no context.... Do you want me to drink this word soup? - " word soup " - Tautology (nullification of arising) ------------------ Examples of the speed with which you flip back and forth. It seems that you are unaware that you are doing this. > words are the basis - " basis " - Context (arising) > of the [imagined] context, tautologies, conceptualizations and the whole of communication and semiosis in language and thought. - " imagined " - Tautology (nullification of arising) ------------------ JP: You repeat, " fun to examine and explore " , and yet you say " no emphasis on subjectivity " . > Lewis: I make the stuff, put in on an exploration table that I and others also make and talk about it as an object among many objects - " I make " " exploration table " " as an object " - Context (arising) > with words all in the same made up word stuff. " made up " Tautology (nullification of arising) ------------------ > no escaping words and the fragmentation they bring into various levels of description and analysis. You and I as long as we use words are within them. - " fragmentation " , " levels " , " within them " - Context (arising) > And so what you say has no privilege or ascendancy over any others. - " no privilege or ascendancy " - Tautology (nullification of arising) ------------------ > [you] are not interested at all in discussing a metaphor, - " metaphor " - Context (arising) > a usable or non usable thing of no consequence - " usable or non usable " , " no consequence " - Tautology (nullification of arising) > except to those who are interested in it, on a exploratory table - " those interested " , " exploratory table " - Context (arising) > mutually - Tautology (nullification of arising) > constructed. - Context (arising) -------------- JP: You repeat, " arisings of inseparable meaning " and yet how can meaning arise if inseparable? [Answer: irregardless of the contradiction, your " context " axis requires its arising in order to maintain your self.] [Note: context IS emphasis] Tautology (intellectualization): Lewis said: - there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to - You create me - The expression is enough - Such creations are for tail chasing - I do not see any selves, just expressions - I do not need to imagine an issuer - no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity - It is moot always for me Lewis: Yes Context (protected self): Lewis said: - it arises inexplicably... Yes, for me it does - I do it too, to experience and explore - As it [the expression] changes so does my creation of it - it is easier not to mix levels - that is what I am about - Just fun to examine and explore - As for disappearing participants, they always seem to reappear - I use any conception as is needed - to experience and explore how expression changes - see what is revealed and learning from it Lewis: Yes. Revealings at the edges: Lewis said: - stupid is as stupid does - I reply and don't say to you...fuck off dimwit - Oh, you want to annihilate me? Hahaha! - What about me? It is not clear is it? - I do not need it - As for me, I don't be dealing with no infinities Lewis: Yes. - [additional ad hominem deleted] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis, it is as if you constantly repeat this mantra: 1) " Here is this > meaning on an examining table. " 2) " This meaning is > indistinguishable. " LewisL Number 2 is your interpretation. Never said it. Anything in words can be further divided in words and made distinct or overturned. > This is contradiction (that which is indistinguishable cannot be > examined). Lewis: This is your interpreation. > > The first part is the context, arising, emphasis, focus. The second > part is the tautological nullification of the first part. Lewis: In your model, that is always the case. Now I think your model tries to exist withour words as if it has some preminent status to evaluate all words withour words. This is mistaken. But if you wish to hold to that then do so. I do not mind. > > The arising appears to be required for your self. The nullification of the arising appears to be non-dual intellectualization. Lewis: What ever you think about self and arisings is your conceptualization of how things go. Now, I have said to you before, that it is words and words alone here and that you cannot escape it and you return again with the same thing and insist that it is true. I tell you it is mistaked to think that you are outside of words. You return to insist with out demonstrating context as I requested. You cut what you do not want to appear and keep and post what you do. So around it goes. I can continue forever in this idiocy. > ------------- > > Note: you are saying " metaphor " (repeatedly) as a trojan horse for > arisings, focus, emphasis, contexts. Lewis: It is not a trojan horse. It was the basis upon whihc this conversation started. However, your turned into a withc hunt for specters, mu specter and wants to eliminate it. Your words: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Lewis: We were not talking about a self or any of that. And > agreements are unecessary unless you think you are Nagarjuna trying > to use another's argument against him/her so that they see the error > of their thinking, logic, beliefs and so on. > > **I do not want Lewis to see the error of his thinking. I want his > thinking out; I want him out. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now your own stated motivation plays out here. You hunt and hunt and insist and insist as if that will make any difference. Every thing you do below can be done with your words applying your model to it as it goes so I do so for your reading pleasure. > > -------------- > > Lewis: JP, your semantics paradigm is protecting your self. > > Lewis: In it's essence, your paradigm can be summed as a contradiction: contextual tautology. > > Lewis: For you, the " tautology " is a non-dual intellectualization and the " context " is the defense against the implication (dissolution of self) of tautology. > > Lewis: In tautology, there cannot be context. Context requires arising but tautology nullifies arising. > > Lewis: And yet, context is the axis upon which your thinking turns. > > > JP: Context requires arising, tautologies nullifies arising, so > there can be no context.... Do you want me to drink this word soup? > - " word soup " > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > ------------------ > > Examples of the speed with which you flip back and forth. It seems > that you are unaware that you are doing this. Lewis: I am fully aware of what is going in this conversation and flipping back and forth is part of it. I create and destroy and I make and distance, I come close and then go far away, I make apart and then I make whole again. I do anything I want as I want as you do. Your examples below point to nothing else but that and so? Is there something miraculous in this? Something different than any other speaker? Perhaps you are free of this? A perfection of some sort perhaps or an imperfection searching for other imperfections you think are posing as perfection? > > > > words are the basis > - " basis " > - Context (arising) > > > of the [imagined] context, tautologies, conceptualizations > and the whole of communication and semiosis in language and thought. > - " imagined " > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > ------------------ > > JP: You repeat, " fun to examine and explore " , and yet you say " no > emphasis on subjectivity " . > > > Lewis: I make the stuff, put in on an exploration table that I and > others also make and talk about it as an object among many objects > - " I make " " exploration table " " as an object " > - Context (arising) > > > with words all in the same made up word stuff. > " made up " > Tautology (nullification of arising) > > ------------------ > > > no escaping words and the fragmentation they bring into various > levels of description and analysis. You and I as long as we use words > are within them. > - " fragmentation " , " levels " , " within them " > - Context (arising) > > > And so what you say has no privilege or ascendancy over any others. > - " no privilege or ascendancy " > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > ------------------ > > > [you] are not interested at all in discussing a metaphor, > - " metaphor " > - Context (arising) > > > a usable or non usable thing of no consequence > - " usable or non usable " , " no consequence " > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > except to those who are interested in it, on a exploratory table > - " those interested " , " exploratory table " > - Context (arising) > > > mutually > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > constructed. > - Context (arising) > > -------------- > > JP: You repeat, " arisings of inseparable meaning " and yet how can > meaning arise if inseparable? [Answer: irregardless of the > contradiction, your " context " axis requires its arising in order to > maintain your self.] > > [Note: context IS emphasis] > > > Tautology (intellectualization): > Lewis said: > - there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to > - You create me > - The expression is enough > - Such creations are for tail chasing > - I do not see any selves, just expressions > - I do not need to imagine an issuer > - no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity > - It is moot always for me > > Lewis: Yes > > Context (protected self): > Lewis said: > - it arises inexplicably... Yes, for me it does > - I do it too, to experience and explore > - As it [the expression] changes so does my creation of it > - it is easier not to mix levels > - that is what I am about > - Just fun to examine and explore > - As for disappearing participants, they always seem to reappear > - I use any conception as is needed > - to experience and explore how expression changes > - see what is revealed and learning from it > > Lewis: Yes. > > Revealings at the edges: > Lewis said: > - stupid is as stupid does > - I reply and don't say to you...fuck off dimwit > - Oh, you want to annihilate me? Hahaha! > - What about me? It is not clear is it? > - I do not need it > - As for me, I don't be dealing with no infinities > > Lewis: Yes. > > - [additional ad hominem deleted] You do not know what ad hominem is. Look it up at Wikipedia. Lewis: You have taken my words and put them into your specter hunting model. And in doing so have done nothing except to futilely attempt to point to some specter. Now some will find your specter and other will not. And so? Have you gotten your jollies? Are you still desirous of me, need me? Perhaps even love me, since you continue to come back here despite my pushing you away? Truly you love me, JP and need me. I am you at the moment. Your words fit the same model and do the same thing if applied. I do not use your model for their is no need to search for specters. But you fit perfectly into my metaphor. You are enclosed in a room of words with me. And somehow you think that you can escape that. And so you erase every mention of it in these posts to go after me, your prey and your need, as if your truly flimsy model had any strength at all to do what it is designed to do. I watch you struggle to rope me and corral me for your purpose. And each time the your lariat of words falls unto no thing, you try again. Now if you were paying attention that is what you do with my words and metaphor. You just let it drop at your feet and you look at it saying, Pffft. Well, if you can't see this picture then you have learned nothing. Now go suck your thumb and if you want to come back for more pablum try to bring something different to this room. These last words are especially made for you. Now use them to entangle your thinking even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 [From msg #25194] JP: How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) be produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? Lewis: it arises inexplicably. **Does it really? It seems fairly evident that we both agree it doesn't. **Lewis: Yes, for me it does. No. I do not agree with you. It arises inexplicably for me. --- Above is what you are defending. That " inexplicable arising " of meaning is, in essence, your self. It is the reason you are compelled to repeat " metaphor " . You are using the word " metaphor " as a shell for arisings, but then the moment that the arising is brought to consciousness, your non-dual intellectualization cannot tolerate the arising so it nullifies the arising with a direct contradiction - you write, " arisings of inseparable meaning " . So here are these two conditions which you posit: 1) inexplicable arising of meaning 2) arisings of inseparable meaning To repeat the point of my previous post, it is a contradiction to say that meaning both arises and is inseparable. If it is inseparable, how can it arise? ----------------------------- FYI, besides quotation marks, you nullify with various other stock expressions. Lewis writes: -it is moot always for me -tautologies -no emphasis -mixing levels -change it to what you like -transient stuff - " no thing " to point to -figment -imagined -you be you -any conception as is needed -as contexts changes so can the answers [the word, " tautologies " , basically sums it up] JP --- Lewis Burgess wrote: > > Lewis, it is as if you constantly repeat this mantra: 1) " Here is this meaning on an examining table. " 2) " This meaning is indistinguishable. " > LewisL Number 2 is your interpretation. Never said it. Anything in words can be further divided in words and made distinct or overturned. > > This is contradiction (that which is indistinguishable cannot be > > examined). > > Lewis: This is your interpreation. > > > > > The first part is the context, arising, emphasis, focus. The second > > part is the tautological nullification of the first part. > > Lewis: In your model, that is always the case. Now I think your model > tries to exist withour words as if it has some preminent status to > evaluate all words withour words. This is mistaken. But if you wish to > hold to that then do so. I do not mind. > > > > > The arising appears to be required for your self. The nullification > of the arising appears to be non-dual intellectualization. > > Lewis: What ever you think about self and arisings is your > conceptualization of how things go. Now, I have said to you before, > that it is words and words alone here and that you cannot escape it > and you return again with the same thing and insist that it is true. I > tell you it is mistaked to think that you are outside of words. You > return to insist with out demonstrating context as I requested. You > cut what you do not want to appear and keep and post what you do. So > around it goes. I can continue forever in this idiocy. > > > > ------------- > > > > Note: you are saying " metaphor " (repeatedly) as a trojan horse for > > arisings, focus, emphasis, contexts. > > Lewis: It is not a trojan horse. It was the basis upon whihc this > conversation started. However, your turned into a withc hunt for > specters, mu specter and wants to eliminate it. > > Your words: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Lewis: We were not talking about a self or any of that. And > > agreements are unecessary unless you think you are Nagarjuna trying > > to use another's argument against him/her so that they see the error > > of their thinking, logic, beliefs and so on. > > > > **I do not want Lewis to see the error of his thinking. I want his > > thinking out; I want him out. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Now your own stated motivation plays out here. You hunt and hunt and > insist and insist as if that will make any difference. Every thing you > do below can be done with your words applying your model to it as it > goes so I do so for your reading pleasure. > > > > -------------- > > > > Lewis: JP, your semantics paradigm is protecting your self. > > > > Lewis: In it's essence, your paradigm can be summed as a > contradiction: contextual tautology. > > > > Lewis: For you, the " tautology " is a non-dual intellectualization > and the " context " is the defense against the implication (dissolution > of self) of tautology. > > > > Lewis: In tautology, there cannot be context. Context requires > arising but tautology nullifies arising. > > > > Lewis: And yet, context is the axis upon which your thinking turns. > > > > > JP: Context requires arising, tautologies nullifies arising, so > > there can be no context.... Do you want me to drink this word soup? > > - " word soup " > > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > > ------------------ > > > > Examples of the speed with which you flip back and forth. It seems > > that you are unaware that you are doing this. > > Lewis: I am fully aware of what is going in this conversation and > flipping back and forth is part of it. I create and destroy and I make > and distance, I come close and then go far away, I make apart and then > I make whole again. I do anything I want as I want as you do. Your > examples below point to nothing else but that and so? Is there > something miraculous in this? Something different than any other > speaker? Perhaps you are free of this? A perfection of some sort > perhaps or an imperfection searching for other imperfections you think > are posing as perfection? > > > > > > > > words are the basis > > - " basis " > > - Context (arising) > > > > > of the [imagined] context, tautologies, conceptualizations > > and the whole of communication and semiosis in language and thought. > > - " imagined " > > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > JP: You repeat, " fun to examine and explore " , and yet you say " no > > emphasis on subjectivity " . > > > > > Lewis: I make the stuff, put in on an exploration table that I and > > others also make and talk about it as an object among many objects > > - " I make " " exploration table " " as an object " > > - Context (arising) > > > > > with words all in the same made up word stuff. > > " made up " > > Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > > ------------------ > > > > > no escaping words and the fragmentation they bring into various > > levels of description and analysis. You and I as long as we use words > > are within them. > > - " fragmentation " , " levels " , " within them " > > - Context (arising) > > > > > And so what you say has no privilege or ascendancy over any others. > > - " no privilege or ascendancy " > > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > > ------------------ > > > > > [you] are not interested at all in discussing a metaphor, > > - " metaphor " > > - Context (arising) > > > > > a usable or non usable thing of no consequence > > - " usable or non usable " , " no consequence " > > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > > > except to those who are interested in it, on a exploratory table > > - " those interested " , " exploratory table " > > - Context (arising) > > > > > mutually > > - Tautology (nullification of arising) > > > > > constructed. > > - Context (arising) > > > > -------------- > > > > JP: You repeat, " arisings of inseparable meaning " and yet how can > > meaning arise if inseparable? [Answer: irregardless of the > > contradiction, your " context " axis requires its arising in order to > > maintain your self.] > > > > [Note: context IS emphasis] > > > > > > Tautology (intellectualization): > > Lewis said: > > - there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to > > - You create me > > - The expression is enough > > - Such creations are for tail chasing > > - I do not see any selves, just expressions > > - I do not need to imagine an issuer > > - no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity > > - It is moot always for me > > > > Lewis: Yes > > > > Context (protected self): > > Lewis said: > > - it arises inexplicably... Yes, for me it does > > - I do it too, to experience and explore > > - As it [the expression] changes so does my creation of it > > - it is easier not to mix levels > > - that is what I am about > > - Just fun to examine and explore > > - As for disappearing participants, they always seem to reappear > > - I use any conception as is needed > > - to experience and explore how expression changes > > - see what is revealed and learning from it > > > > Lewis: Yes. > > > > Revealings at the edges: > > Lewis said: > > - stupid is as stupid does > > - I reply and don't say to you...fuck off dimwit > > - Oh, you want to annihilate me? Hahaha! > > - What about me? It is not clear is it? > > - I do not need it > > - As for me, I don't be dealing with no infinities > > > > Lewis: Yes. > > > > - [additional ad hominem deleted] > > You do not know what ad hominem is. Look it up at Wikipedia. > > Lewis: You have taken my words and put them into your specter hunting model. And in doing so have done nothing except to futilely attempt to > point to some specter. Now some will find your specter and other will > not. And so? Have you gotten your jollies? Are you still desirous of > me, need me? Perhaps even love me, since you continue to come back > here despite my pushing you away? Truly you love me, JP and need me. I > am you at the moment. > > Your words fit the same model and do the same thing if applied. I do > not use your model for their is no need to search for specters. But > you fit perfectly into my metaphor. You are enclosed in a room of > words with me. And somehow you think that you can escape that. And so > you erase every mention of it in these posts to go after me, your prey > and your need, as if your truly flimsy model had any strength at all > to do what it is designed to do. I watch you struggle to rope me and > corral me for your purpose. And each time the your lariat of words > falls unto no thing, you try again. Now if you were paying attention > that is what you do with my words and metaphor. You just let it drop > at your feet and you look at it saying, Pffft. Well, if you can't see > this picture then you have learned nothing. > > Now go suck your thumb and if you want to come back for more pablum > try to bring something different to this room. > > These last words are especially made for you. Now use them to entangle > your thinking even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > [From msg #25194] > > JP: How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) > be produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? > > Lewis: it arises inexplicably. > > **Does it really? It seems fairly evident that we both agree it > doesn't. > > **Lewis: Yes, for me it does. No. I do not agree with you. It arises > inexplicably for me. > > --- > > Above is what you are defending. That " inexplicable arising " of > meaning is, in essence, your self. Lewis: JP. I am not defending. I simply reject your idea as it is for me. You can believe whatever you want about me. I reject your idea. I am not arguing with you. I reject your idea. I am not trying to disprove your idea. I reject your idea. I am not trying to say you are wrong. I reject your idea of how I abstract my experience. Do you understand? I reject your idea of how I abstract my experience. You cannot tell me how to do it, nor can you know in any way how it occurs in me. Do you understand, JP? I reject your imposition since you cannot possibly know in any case. I reject your idea. Is it clear now? Or will you come back and try to impose your view on me again? > > It is the reason you are compelled to repeat " metaphor " . You are using > the word " metaphor " as a shell for arisings, but then the moment that > the arising is brought to consciousness, your non-dual > intellectualization cannot tolerate the arising so it nullifies the > arising with a direct contradiction - you write, " arisings of > inseparable meaning " . Lewis: Are you stupid JP? How is it that you are inside of me? Or any one. Are you telepathic? Are you are a spirit possessing me that you can see all that happens as it does? All this from words written without any questions beyond a limited bait traps? Compelled? Not tolerate? non-dual intellectualization? nullifies? Now where did you get these? These are imaginative creations set to words. It is mere psychologizing, as all of what you have written is. You somehow think you can know what the other is by psychologizing words. How do I know? I can see you making me up in the words you write. I can see it as plain as day. Oh yes, I am blind to it. Well let's say that is the case. I still reject your idea. For example, the metaphor to me is tool a heuristic. I say it is so. I do not need that tool for living it is something to talk about with others. I put in down or dispose of it when it is finished being used as I have done with many others. Now, if you have questions about the tool I tell you how I constructed it and if you have further questions, I do my best to explain. Now I have done that. It is nothing more than that. You disagree with the tool for whatever reason and I say ok, have it your way it is ok. Ok, it can be taken that way or another, yes. My experience is like this and so I constructed it like that. Ok, still not up to your standards fine, trash the whole thing it is only a tool. I do not need it and if you do not like do not use it as I have said to you...... But instead of accepting that as said to you in so many different ways, plus me trying to turn you off with some nasty bit of language, you keep coming back, trying to put back the metaphor back into my hand and then insist that I am holding it and protecting it and defending it and all this nonsense and then bring in some bullshit about the self that I am defending somehow in and with this metaphor and how you want me (self) out of the way so infinity can speak...You refuse to see anything but this creation of yours, which you evaluate and judge. It is ludicrous. If you cannot accept that your view is rejected, that is worthless to me, I have no use for it, that is your problem that you consistently try to make mine by coming back with more of the same. Now I say to you, deal with it at home. Your " contextual tautology " is not worth deconstructing because it is constructed on a psychologizing basis and seeks specters and it is always the case as you insist it is so. You believe it so there is no discussion of it, as your purpose has been clearly stated that you want self me out what the hell that is to you. And since, I do not seek specters (selves) it is worthless. That being so, everytime you give it to me, I throw it in the trash can. It may have value to some other or to you. For for me it worthless, of no general or heuristic value whatsoever. So your continued insistence on the matters below underlines some problem with hearing and understanding what rejection is. Your opinion and ideas in this case are rejected by this nasty well protected specter called Lewis. The next time you write, you will not get this much. If you decide to speak around an exploratory table on some matter you are welcome. If not go bother some one else. Stamped REJECTED for the manyeth time: 6/14/05 > > So here are these two conditions which you posit: > 1) inexplicable arising of meaning > 2) arisings of inseparable meaning > > To repeat the point of my previous post, it is a contradiction to > say that meaning both arises and is inseparable. If it is > inseparable, how can it arise? > > ----------------------------- > > FYI, besides quotation marks, you nullify with various other stock > expressions. > > Lewis writes: > -it is moot always for me > -tautologies > -no emphasis > -mixing levels > -change it to what you like > -transient stuff > - " no thing " to point to > -figment > -imagined > -you be you > -any conception as is needed > -as contexts changes so can the answers > > [the word, " tautologies " , basically sums it up] > > > JP > --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 The following are two conditions which you posit (they are not ideas that I have about you): 1) inexplicable arising of meaning 2) arisings of inseparable meaning It is a contradiction to say that meaning both arises and is inseparable. If it is inseparable, how can it arise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > The following are two conditions which you posit (they are not ideas > that I have about you): > > 1) inexplicable arising of meaning > 2) arisings of inseparable meaning > > It is a contradiction to say that meaning both arises and is > inseparable. If it is inseparable, how can it arise? Lewis: Ok, JP. Take the second and put it in the context you found it. That is show the words were it was stated as such. Include any text leading up to it and immediately before it and after it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 The following are two conditions which you posit (they are not ideas that I have about you): 1) inexplicable arising of meaning 2) arisings of inseparable meaning It is a contradiction to say that meaning both arises and is inseparable. If it is inseparable, how can it arise? Message 25169 > So, in trying to do this impossible task [figuring out meaning production] all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning, thought and language and all the other abstractions made to be arising with those (emotions, intentions, images, perceptions, etc.) and all that will result from all of this will be similar to what was presented to you and to which you now ask a question where the answer is obvious to the clear. It arises inexplicably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > The following are two conditions which you posit (they are not > ideas that I have about you): > > 1) inexplicable arising of meaning > 2) arisings of inseparable meaning > > It is a contradiction to say that meaning both arises and is > inseparable. If it is inseparable, how can it arise? Lewis: Ok, JP. Take the second and put it in the context you found it. That is show the words were it was stated as such. Include any text leading up to it and immediately before it and after it. > Message 25169 So, in trying to do this impossible task [figuring out meaning production] all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning, thought and language and all the other abstractions made to be arising with those (emotions, intentions, images, perceptions, etc.) and all that will result from all of this will be similar to what was presented to you and to which you now ask a question where the answer is obvious to the clear. It arises inexplicably. Lewis: I will insert what I requested since you seem incapable of doing so. This is what was said: It does not matter. It is clear to me, that meaning arises simultaneously with language and thought and that all three abstractions are not in any way separate as it goes. And the possiblity of knowing how this occurs has not ever been and seems it will never be available to the understanding. As you read these words, you are understanding what is being said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? Now all one has to do is to figure out how one does that or more appropriately how one did that because you are unable to see how meaning, thought and language arise fullblown as it does in the mooment, in the popular jargon the now. All explanations will be post hoc ones abstracted from short and long term memories held in attention and constructed and manipulated and in doing that laborious job, one will never know how. One can only think or believe one knows how. So, in trying to do this impossible task all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning, thought and language and all the other abstractions made to be arising with those (emotions, intentions, images, perceptions, etc.) and all that will result from all of this will be similar to what was presented to you and to which you now ask a question where the answer is obvious to the clear. It arises inexplicably. There are no words. Can you take that bit? Not many people like that they cannot have the slightest idea of how anything happens as it does. Not one thing. All we have is post hoc metaphors, tautologies, analogies, explanations, theories, scriptures, teaching and other fictions, conceits, imaginings and concpetualizations to try to make secondary sense of what is obviously immediate and inexplicable and inexpressible. Lewis: Now look at this. I say it twice in two two ways. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " It is clear to me, that meaning arises simultaneously with language and thought and that all three abstractions are not in any way separate as it goes. And the possiblity of knowing how this occurs has not ever been and seems it will never be available to the understanding. " " Now all one has to do is to figure out how one does that or more appropriately how one did that because you are unable to see how meaning, thought and language arise fullblown as it does in the mooment, in the popular jargon the now. All explanations will be post hoc ones abstracted from short and long term memories held in attention and constructed and manipulated and in doing that laborious job, one will never know how. One can only think or believe one knows how. So, in trying to do this impossible task all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning, thought and language and all the other abstractions made to be arising with those (emotions, intentions, images, perceptions, etc.) and all that will result from all of this will be similar to what was presented to you and to which you now ask a question where the answer is obvious to the clear. It arises inexplicably. There are no words. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It says that the arising of meaning, thought and language does so full blown in the moment instanteously, as inseperable, as one whole in an inexplicable manner and that is abstracted in retrospect into pieces of meaning, thought, language, intentions, images, perceptions and so forth and then spoken about as such. An example was given of reading about the cat that shows how meaning arises instanteously as the words, language is read and that how one does that can only be done in retrospect and with abstractions of the kinds mentioned as a secondary sense. Now you can say spontaneously speak words in a language using its lexicon to convey an intended meaning. You do not have an idea how those words form and emerge and only in post hoc analysis is that whole separated into components that make sense. So that in the inseparable whole abstract components are analytically contructed. This whole arises inexplicably. And each part if examined separately arises inexplicably. It does not matter how one tries to examine the origins, it all arises iexplicably. So as to Number 1, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it does not arise inexplicably. You have not done so. I await your demonstration, your knowledge of how a single phrase is formed without using a post hoc explanation. In number 2, that you say I posit, is a falsity. You have cut the sentence off, removed it from its context and examples, placed it as if that was what was said and then ask me to comment on this creation of yours. You have interpreted in the way you see it and have not understood it as intended. In that I cannot help you. And it needs no more explanation. Now all you have to do is demonstrate Number 1. And in your failure to do so, you will perhaps understand your misunderstanding of what was written originally and trash the falsity you made. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 JP: The following are two conditions which you posit (they are not ideas that I have about you): 1) inexplicable arising of meaning 2) arisings of inseparable meaning It is a contradiction to say that meaning both arises and is inseparable. If it is inseparable, how can it arise? ----------------- Are you reaffirming the first? As for the second, you indicate it is misrepresented. Are you saying that the arising is separable? JP ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Per Message 25169 Lewis: It says that the arising of meaning, thought and language does so full blown in the moment instanteously, as inseperable, as one whole in an inexplicable manner and that is abstracted in retrospect into pieces of meaning, thought, language, intentions, images, perceptions and so forth and then spoken about as such. An example was given of reading about the cat that shows how meaning arises instanteously as the words, language is read and that how one does that can only be done in retrospect and with abstractions of the kinds mentioned as a secondary sense. Lewis: Now you can say spontaneously speak words in a language using its lexicon to convey an intended meaning. You do not have an idea how those words form and emerge and only in post hoc analysis is that whole separated into components that make sense. So that in the inseparable whole abstract components are analytically contructed. This whole arises inexplicably. And each part if examined separately arises inexplicably. It does not matter how one tries to examine the origins, it all arises iexplicably. Lewis: So as to Number 1, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it does not arise inexplicably. You have not done so. I await your demonstration, your knowledge of how a single phrase is formed without using a post hoc explanation. Lewis: In number 2, that you say I posit, is a falsity. You have cut the sentence off, removed it from its context and examples, placed it as if that was what was said and then ask me to comment on this creation of yours. You have interpreted in the way you see it and have not understood it as intended. In that I cannot help you. And it needs no more explanation. Lewis: Now all you have to do is demonstrate Number 1. And in your failure to do so, you will perhaps understand your misunderstanding of what was written originally and trash the falsity you made. -------------------------- Message 25169 Lewis: It is clear to me, that meaning arises simultaneously with language and thought and that all three abstractions are not in any way separate as it goes. And the possiblity of knowing how this occurs has not ever been and seems it will never be available to the understanding. As you read these words, you are understanding what is being said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? Now all one has to do is to figure out how one does that or more appropriately how one did that because you are unable to see how meaning, thought and language arise fullblown as it does in the mooment, in the popular jargon the now. All explanations will be post hoc ones abstracted from short and long term memories held in attention and constructed and manipulated and in doing that laborious job, one will never know how. One can only think or believe one knows how. So, in trying to do this impossible task all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning, thought and language and all the other abstractions made to be arising with those (emotions, intentions, images, perceptions, etc.) and all that will result from all of this will be similar to what was presented to you and to which you now ask a question where the answer is obvious to the clear. It arises inexplicably. There are no words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: JP: The following are two conditions which you posit (they are not ideas that I have about you): 1) inexplicable arising of meaning 2) arisings of inseparable meaning It is a contradiction to say that meaning both arises and is inseparable. If it is inseparable, how can it arise? ----------------- Are you reaffirming the first? Lewis: The first is an abstraction of my abstracted experience as it is and put into words. > As for the second, you indicate it is misrepresented. Are you saying > that the arising is separable? JP Lewis: What I say is below, JP. Nisargadatta/message/25248 It does not matter. It is clear to me, that meaning arises simultaneously with language and thought and that all three abstractions are not in any way separate as it goes. And the possiblity of knowing how this occurs has not ever been and seems it will never be available to the understanding. As you read these words, you are understanding what is being said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? Now all one has to do is to figure out how one does that or more appropriately how one did that because you are unable to see how meaning, thought and language arise fullblown as it does in the mooment, in the popular jargon the now. All explanations will be post hoc ones abstracted from short and long term memories held in attention and constructed and manipulated and in doing that laborious job, one will never know how. One can only think or believe one knows how. So, in trying to do this impossible task all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning, thought and language and all the other abstractions made to be arising with those (emotions, intentions, images, perceptions, etc.) and all that will result from all of this will be similar to what was presented to you and to which you now ask a question where the answer is obvious to the clear. It arises inexplicably. There are no words. Can you take that bit? Not many people like that they cannot have the slightest idea of how anything happens as it does. Not one thing. All we have is post hoc metaphors, tautologies, analogies, explanations, theories, scriptures, teaching and other fictions, conceits, imaginings and concpetualizations to try to make secondary sense of what is obviously immediate and inexplicable and inexpressible. Lewis: Now look at this. I say it twice in two two ways. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " It is clear to me, that meaning arises simultaneously with language and thought and that all three abstractions are not in any way separate as it goes. And the possiblity of knowing how this occurs has not ever been and seems it will never be available to the understanding. " " Now all one has to do is to figure out how one does that or more appropriately how one did that because you are unable to see how meaning, thought and language arise fullblown as it does in the mooment, in the popular jargon the now. All explanations will be post hoc ones abstracted from short and long term memories held in attention and constructed and manipulated and in doing that laborious job, one will never know how. One can only think or believe one knows how. So, in trying to do this impossible task all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning, thought and language and all the other abstractions made to be arising with those (emotions, intentions, images, perceptions, etc.) and all that will result from all of this will be similar to what was presented to you and to which you now ask a question where the answer is obvious to the clear. It arises inexplicably. There are no words. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It says that the arising of meaning, thought and language does so full blown in the moment instanteously, as inseperable, as one whole in an inexplicable manner and that is abstracted in retrospect into pieces of meaning, thought, language, intentions, images, perceptions and so forth and then spoken about as such. An example was given of reading about the cat that shows how meaning arises instanteously as the words, language is read and that how one does that can only be done in retrospect and with abstractions of the kinds mentioned as a secondary sense. Now you can say spontaneously speak words in a language using its lexicon to convey an intended meaning. You do not have an idea how those words form and emerge and only in post hoc analysis is that whole separated into components that make sense. So that in the inseparable whole abstract components are analytically contructed. This whole arises inexplicably. And each part if examined separately arises inexplicably. It does not matter how one tries to examine the origins, it all arises iexplicably. So as to Number 1, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it does not arise inexplicably. You have not done so. I await your demonstration, your knowledge of how a single phrase is formed without using a post hoc explanation. In number 2, that you say I posit, is a falsity. You have cut the sentence off, removed it from its context and examples, placed it as if that was what was said and then ask me to comment on this creation of yours. You have interpreted in the way you see it and have not understood it as intended. In that I cannot help you. And it needs no more explanation. Now all you have to do is demonstrate Number 1. And in your failure to do so, you will perhaps understand your misunderstanding of what was written originally and trash the falsity you made. Lewis 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.