Impenetrable Darkness/Lewis

[Guest guest]

[NonDualPhil] Ummon's Emptiness

 

 

:

 

> L- b3: Pete, I do not point anywhere, especially to a " generic

> unknown which seems to exist. " For me there is no thing beyond words.

> So pointing to something beyond words for me is an absurdity. Where

> are very different in that, I imagine or is that not the case?

>

> P-c3: Let me remind you, Lewis, that many times you have referred

> to your words, actions, your capabilities, and incapabilities

> as coming from an " unknown darkness. " Wasn't that a pointing outside

> words? Or is this darkness from which your words issue somehow

> a word too with no referent? If so, where do words come from

> in your opinion?

 

L-c3: It was not an " unknown darkness " just a " darkness " or an

impenetrable darkness or recently, a " pellucid darkness " in this

appearance (commonly called my body/mind complex) where it cannot be

seen or understood how things emerged, be they thoughts, language,

behavior or whatever. This is not an " unknown darkness " as an

ineffable, but daily experience in this appearance that is labeled,

defined and content described for it and this changes as more

experiences are had and more words can be carefully applied. It is in

experience that I am able and unable to undergo this or that experience

and behavior in response to a response as it goes; that there is

wonder, curiosity, awe and perplexity in it as it goes and that I have

no access to its operations that generate preferences and behaviorals

such as speech, writing, walking and so on. The feelings are in the

lower chest and when writing in the throat. It is a " homeodynamic it "

defined in words in accord with my experiences in living.

 

I am always in relation to my environment of my own making from the

forms and appearances that are in and around and of me inseparable

through the senses. And all of it is the labeling, defining and

explanation of experiences had to and with others and by default it is

heard and made and noticed and altered by me as it goes.

 

The referent is my abstracted experiences in words that occur in daily

life with the appearances and forms. Each experience is an abstraction

of experiences at another analytic position and those at another

analytic abstraction removed from that experience and this is done

until there is no way to abstract any more and experiences end and then

so do words end; that is, there is no going further in it and there is

only a circling round to other experiences formed into words. The

referent is simply the words and the attendant perceptions, sensations,

images, emotions, thoughts, imaginings, intentions, conceptions (all

words fragmenting experience) inseparably related to them and composing

these experiences as abstractions as I have said on a number of

occasions.

 

For example, I have explained before my examination of " me. " Who am I?

I am me. Who is me? Me is me. And when " me " tries to examine " me " there

is no thing to get a hold onto, to experience, as it is like a dog

chasing its tail. It cannot be done no matter how it is tried. " Me " is

" me " and it is not accessible to experience, it cannot be examined, so

there is no description in words without an experience to abstract from

and it ends there. No words to make or imagine " me. " It cannot be done.

 

I experience this clearly and it is a futility for " me " to examine " me "

even though " me " appears. So it is clear that there is no directly

experienceable, examinable me and thus a describable " me " cannot be

formed directly. So there are only capacities and incapacities that try

to do this examination and describing and these appear as it goes in

living and are related to " indescribable me " in some indescribable way.

I cannot get to it no matter how I try. So in it, there are only a

range of assorted capacities and incapacities that can be examined and

cataloged and labeled Lewis or whatever and that expresses differently

in this way or that from an impenetrable darkness in the appearance as

I go on in living. That is the best that can be done.

 

There has not been any generalization of this experience beyond my

appearance as some kind of " homeodynamic it " being in everyone or being

everywhere or outside. Stefan is only one who shared this sort of

experience in his way in public. It is all an abstraction by

examination of what occurs and is undergone and put into words. There

is no thing more than those word descriptions on it. I cannot

understand any thing more than that. I imagine no thing beyond it,

because there is no experience or arisings to use to imagine from and

therefore there is no way to apply words to make some thing

intelligible in them. So for " me " there is no thing beyond words. I can

imagine a referent out of thin air as some people do and then describe

that and believe it making an object out it, but that is pure

imagination and delusion to me. I did that before and realized the

error in it as it is for me. Others do as they do. I have tried a

failed to directly make an object out of " me " as I can about some thing

done or seen.

 

I have put this out for it to be challenged in many ways and so far

there is no answer to it. Just more words, which is precisely the

experience I undergo