Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > P.D. I don't believe in enlightenment! However, I like to read your mails! Sometimes I think you can get a tad " schoolmasterly " ....the same applies to Pete and some others. This is a ridiculous stance. You can't expect from others to assimilate completely your " idiosyn-crazy! " . The same applies also to me, but I do not expect it, because I am not enlightened, no spiritual teacher and have no particular spiritual message to spread. > > It is interesting to see how religions (re-ligare) try to sweat the split they themselves have caused. Therefore I say Niz, Ramana, Buddha, Jesus, etc are wrong.... > > There is nothing in need of " re-ligare " , there is nothing in need of making a " One " out of it but these concepts themselves, e.g. Eternity and One. > > Tetralemma, nevertheless, seems to be a reasonable stance. > > Stop making sense, so to speak! > > Have to get a flight to Berlin! > > Bye! > > Kip Kip - They spoke to human suffering. I agree that nothing needs to be reunited. But that doesn't mean people don't experience splits and dilemmas, and suffer as a result. And if someone speaks to human beings' dilemmas in a way that helps them experience understanding, resolution of dilemma, and peace - great! At the same time, an organization may grow around that person, and the organization may bring its own dilemmas and contradictions. This is the story of human history. And what a relief to live without carrying a history! As long as there is human suffering, there will be those who speak to that suffering in a way that assists resolution and liberation (from suffering). And someone who does that is likely to be venerated, to have an organization grow around them, and have that organization bring dilemmas associated with hierarchy, imposition of ideas and culture, etc. So it goes! Doncha love it? Maybe not. And if not, it drops away. Unless you take a history class and have to recall it in order to get a good grade! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > toombaru > > Your statement is no different from: > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > analyzed. " > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > process. > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > concept. > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > rephrase: > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > Bill Good questions, Bill. No, nothing actually continues, just the image is treated as a continuity. But the image indeed is fluctuating moment to moment, even if it is treated as if it were a static continuing thing. And no, nothing in experience ever stays the same, not even once. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > toombaru > > > > Your statement is no different from: > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > analyzed. " > > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] > > > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > > process. > > > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > > concept. > > > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > > rephrase: > > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things material can be accomplished to a certain, limited extent. > > However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and then ask it to isolate its impressions of its own " actions " . > > It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain. > > > > In regard to your inquiry above: > > The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them. > > These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are addressed to an entity that simply has no existential reality. > toombaru cogative? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > No experience > > -geo- > > Yes. > > And no " no " > > the negation of negation is neither positive nor negative, nor both, nor something else that is neither positive nor negative wow you're right. wouldn't it be easier to just say.. " the negation of a negation is the negation of a negation. " ? it doesn't sound any more..or less..profound either way. it's simple really. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > Finally, someone actually answered the question! And anyone really paying attention will come to the same conclusion that geo did... Thank you geo. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:>> Bill> But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently> pertains to what has arisen in time.> > geo> Yes, you can analyse til its bottom falls off, but if what analyses is changing> in time, and so does the analysed, the result of such analysis ... also. Obvious.> > Conclusion: analysis inherently pertains ONLY to what has arisen in time, and the result> of such analysis depends on the analyser that usually is not the same today as it was> yesterday.Excellent!And the same can be said for the "beloved ego"...that is the ever-invented ego....as it is never the same.BillCaveat: some subtleties ignored for simplicity sake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be> > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time.> > > toombaru> >> > Your statement is no different from:> > "It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be> > analyzed."> > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time]> >> > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a> > process.> >> > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently> > pertains to what has arisen in time.> >> > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct> > concept.> >> > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said.> >> > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll> > rephrase:> > Does anything in experience ever stay the same?> >> > Bill> >> > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things material can > be accomplished to a certain, limited extent.> > However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and then ask it > to isolate its impressions of its own "actions".> > It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain.> > > In regard to your inquiry above:> > The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate > things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them.> > These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are addressed > to an entity that simply has no existential reality.I am disappointed in your reply toombaru.On multiple counts.A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reasoning error inprevious post regarding "It is a misconception that...." You don'teven address that here. This suggests I am wasting my time incommenting on your posts.B) I didn't "factor in" any "self" whatsoever. It is you doing thatall on your own, as usual.C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) youwouldn't even venture with your comments about "separate things",as if nothing persists then there can be no "things" except as mere appearance.Here is geo's reply for reference:<<<> > "Does anything in experience ever stay the same,> > even for one second?geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving.>>>What can I conclude from A-C?Here are some possibilities:1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words,where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holdingthat word high over-head yelling, "Illusion! Illusion!" all the whilenever having read the word in context or paying any attentionto what was actually said. ["finding diamonds in a dream mountain"quite a piece of schlock]2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything andanything in consciousness is moving.Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I continue to read such impertinent responses as you havedolloped up in this last.Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for youmy friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up!Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > even for one second? > > > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > > > > Finally, someone actually answered the question! > > And anyone really paying attention will come to the same > conclusion that geo did... > > Thank you geo. > > Bill > If nothing stays the same.......nothing exists. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Kip: > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively > isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Dear Toombaru, > > > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know > > Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. > > But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. > > Russell's Paradox arises from the assumption that a class can > be meaningfully defined from any well-defined property p(x), > i.e. we can define the set R = { x such that p(x) is true } > > If p(x) = x does not belong to x, we get Russell's Paradox. > > As I indicate in my reply to toombaru's post, his statement above > resolves to: > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > analyzed. " > > But only that which has arisen in time can be analyzed, as analysis > is inherently after the fact. Hence, it can be safely said that there > exists x such that x has arisen in time and x can be analyzed. > > Hence, toombaru's assertion is: > A) false > B) Russell's Paradox does not arise from toombaru's assertion. > > Bill Bill - Good point. There is a paradox also to analysis, given what you are saying. Analysis takes time. That which is being analyzed takes time. Time is change. The thing being analyzed is changing as the analysis and analyzer is changing. Therefore, any analysis can only arrive at a provisional conclusion, not a definitive (final) conclusion. The assumptions involved in setting up an analysis require (for a perfect or true analysis) that the one who is doing the analysis would be outside the conditions being studied, and able to have an objective point of view to arrive at conclusions. But the conditionality of time prevents this scenario from ever being fully so, although typically analyzers take steps to try to provide as objective an analysis as possible. I would suggest that thought assumes a static position from which to observe, and a separation from the observed, and these assumptions are basic to performing an analysis involving linear logic. Thought assumes the ability to form and manipulate images of an object being studied from an outside position. At the point that one is aware that thought is changing, there is no separate position thought can take with respect to the thought, that the image of the object being studied is a thought image that is part of the thought ... analysis breaks down. So, all analysis involves a kind of " suspension of disbelief, " a suspension of disbelief in the non-objective nature of thought, and the actual inability of thought to have an image of an object that exists outside of that thought. Which is funny when you consider that thought is the basis of what is taken for reality, along with associated features such as language, sensory perception and memory (all of which form a complex together, which I'm referring to in shorthand as " thought. " ) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 - billrishel Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 3:55 PM Re: From Bill on GR > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > toombaru > > > > Your statement is no different from: > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > analyzed. " > > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] > > > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > > process. > > > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > > concept. > > > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > > rephrase: > > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > > > Bill > > > > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things material > can > be accomplished to a certain, limited extent. > > However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and then > ask it > to isolate its impressions of its own " actions " . > > It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain. > > > In regard to your inquiry above: > > The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate > things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them. > > These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are addressed > to an entity that simply has no existential reality. I am disappointed in your reply toombaru. On multiple counts. A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reas oning error in previous post regarding " It is a misconception that.... " You don't even address that here. This suggests I am wasting my time in commenting on your posts. B) I didn't " factor in " any " self " whatsoever. It is you doing that all on your own, as usual. C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) you wouldn't even venture with your comments about " separate things " , as if nothing persists then there can be no " things " except as mere appearance. Here is geo's reply for reference: <<< > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > even for one second? geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. >>> What can I conclude from A-C? Here are some possibilities: 1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words, where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holding that word high over-he ad yelling, " Illusion! Illusion! " all the while never having read the word in context or paying any attention to what was actually said. [ " finding diamonds in a dream mountain " quite a piece of schlock] 2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything and anything in consciousness is moving. Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I continue to read such impertinent responses as you have dolloped up in this last. Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for you my friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up! Bill geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to consider that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:09:05 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 3:58 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > even for one second? > > > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > > > > Finally, someone actually answered the question! > > And anyone really paying attention will come to the same > conclusion that geo did... > > Thank you geo. > > Bill > If nothing stays the same.......nothing exists. toombaru geo> Exactly. Consciousness is empty of entity, of...of.... how shell we put it....of reality? It is just patterns... LOL avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:09:05 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Your statement is no different from: > > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > analyzed. " > > > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to > time] > > > > > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > > > process. > > > > > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > > > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > > > > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > > > concept. > > > > > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > > > > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > > > rephrase: > > > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things > material can > > be accomplished to a certain, limited extent. > > > > However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and > then ask it > > to isolate its impressions of its own " actions " . > > > > It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain. > > > > > > In regard to your inquiry above: > > > > The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate > > things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them. > > > > These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are > addressed > > to an entity that simply has no existential reality. > > I am disappointed in your reply toombaru. Disappointed? You expected something different? > On multiple counts. > > A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reasoning error in > previous post regarding " It is a misconception that.... " You don't > even address that here. I stated that since " things " don't exist........a hypothetical question about their changing is meaningless. It would be like asking what kind of disease caused Sleeping Beauty's slumber. This suggests I am wasting my time in > commenting on your posts. You have your very own time......and you can waste it? I would respectively suggest that the solution to your question lies deeper than any speculation that another dream character could concoct from there personal experience. > > B) I didn't " factor in " any " self " whatsoever. It is you doing that > all on your own, as usual. Anything downstream from " I " is factoring in the assumption of self. > > C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) you > wouldn't even venture with your comments about " separate things " , > as if nothing persists then there can be no " things " except as > mere appearance. > > Here is geo's reply for reference: > <<< > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > >>> > > What can I conclude from A-C? > > Here are some possibilities: > 1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words, > where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holding > that word high over-head yelling, " Illusion! Illusion! " all the while > never having read the word in context or paying any attention > to what was actually said. [ " finding diamonds in a dream mountain " > quite a piece of schlock] > > 2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything and > anything in consciousness is moving. From the perspective of conceptual consciousness....that is the way it appears. If there are no separate things....(and there aren't)....how could they be moving and or changing? How can one speculate about the nature of the imaginary? > > Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I > continue to read such impertinent responses as you have > dolloped up in this last. You expect courtesy in matters such as these? That may apply to normal human interaction......but in this arena.... .....in this place where dreams are broken.......one should not hide behind convention. This is no time to be nice. " Your " " time " is running out. The Golden Ring may never pass through your private dream again. > > Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for you > my friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up! > > Bill > I love who ever it is you think you are. But if there still exists the belief structure that there is an entity here that can " wake up " ......you are still floundering in the consensus dream. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Your statement is no different from: > > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > analyzed. " > > > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to > time] > > > > > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > > > process. > > > > > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > > > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > > > > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > > > concept. > > > > > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > > > > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > > > rephrase: > > > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things > material can > > be accomplished to a certain, limited extent. > > > > However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and > then ask it > > to isolate its impressions of its own " actions " . > > > > It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain. > > > > > > In regard to your inquiry above: > > > > The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate > > things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them. > > > > These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are > addressed > > to an entity that simply has no existential reality. > > I am disappointed in your reply toombaru. > On multiple counts. > > A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reasoning error in > previous post regarding " It is a misconception that.... " You don't > even address that here. This suggests I am wasting my time in > commenting on your posts. > > B) I didn't " factor in " any " self " whatsoever. It is you doing that > all on your own, as usual. > > C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) you > wouldn't even venture with your comments about " separate things " , > as if nothing persists then there can be no " things " except as > mere appearance. > > Here is geo's reply for reference: > <<< > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > >>> > > What can I conclude from A-C? > > Here are some possibilities: > 1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words, > where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holding > that word high over-head yelling, " Illusion! Illusion! " all the while > never having read the word in context or paying any attention > to what was actually said. [ " finding diamonds in a dream mountain " > quite a piece of schlock] > > 2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything and > anything in consciousness is moving. > > Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I > continue to read such impertinent responses as you have > dolloped up in this last. > > Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for you > my friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up! > > Bill so there! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > > > > > > > Finally, someone actually answered the question! > > > > And anyone really paying attention will come to the same > > conclusion that geo did... > > > > Thank you geo. > > > > Bill > > If nothing stays the same.......nothing exists. > > toombaru of course Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > > > > > > > > > > Finally, someone actually answered the question! > > > > > > And anyone really paying attention will come to the same > > > conclusion that geo did... > > > > > > Thank you geo. > > > > > > Bill > > > > If nothing stays the same.......nothing exists. > > > > toombaru > > of course > > Bill > Then how does one answer a question about the nature things? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > Kip: > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively > > isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Dear Toombaru, > > > > > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know > > > Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. > > > But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. > > > > Russell's Paradox arises from the assumption that a class can > > be meaningfully defined from any well-defined property p(x), > > i.e. we can define the set R = { x such that p(x) is true } > > > > If p(x) = x does not belong to x, we get Russell's Paradox. > > > > As I indicate in my reply to toombaru's post, his statement above > > resolves to: > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > analyzed. " > > > > But only that which has arisen in time can be analyzed, as analysis > > is inherently after the fact. Hence, it can be safely said that there > > exists x such that x has arisen in time and x can be analyzed. > > > > Hence, toombaru's assertion is: > > A) false > > B) Russell's Paradox does not arise from toombaru's assertion. > > > > Bill > > > Bill - > > Good point. > > There is a paradox also to analysis, given what you are saying. > > Analysis takes time. > > That which is being analyzed takes time. > > Time is change. > > The thing being analyzed is changing as the analysis and analyzer is changing. > > Therefore, any analysis can only arrive at a provisional conclusion, not a definitive (final) conclusion. > > The assumptions involved in setting up an analysis require (for a perfect or true analysis) that the one who is doing the analysis would be outside the conditions being studied, and able to have an objective point of view to arrive at conclusions. But the conditionality of time prevents this scenario from ever being fully so, although typically analyzers take steps to try to provide as objective an analysis as possible. > > I would suggest that thought assumes a static position from which to observe, and a separation from the observed, and these assumptions are basic to performing an analysis involving linear logic. Thought assumes the ability to form and manipulate images of an object being studied from an outside position. > > At the point that one is aware that thought is changing, there is no separate position thought can take with respect to the thought, that the image of the object being studied is a thought image that is part of the thought ... analysis breaks down. > > So, all analysis involves a kind of " suspension of disbelief, " a suspension of disbelief in the non-objective nature of thought, and the actual inability of thought to have an image of an object that exists outside of that thought. > > Which is funny when you consider that thought is the basis of what is taken for reality, along with associated features such as language, sensory perception and memory (all of which form a complex together, which I'm referring to in shorthand as " thought. " ) > > -- Dan A brilliant elaboration and elucidation, Dan. This entire issue has an interesting correlation to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which asserts that the assumption of an independent observer with respect to time is false, although this discussion goes beyond that. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:04 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Kip: > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > cognitively > isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Dear Toombaru, > > > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know > > Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. > > But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic > > reasoning. > > Russell's Paradox arises from the assumption that a class can > be meaningfully defined from any well-defined property p(x), > i.e. we can define the set R = { x such that p(x) is true } > > If p(x) = x does not belong to x, we get Russell's Paradox. > > As I indicate in my reply to toombaru's post, his statement above > resolves to: > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > analyzed. " > > But only that which has arisen in time can be analyzed, as analysis > is inherently after the fact. Hence, it can be safely said that there > exists x such that x has arisen in time and x can be analyzed. > > Hence, toombaru's assertion is: > A) false > B) Russell's Paradox does not arise from toombaru's assertion. > > Bill Bill - Good point. There is a paradox also to analysis, given what you are saying. Analysis takes time. That which is being analyzed takes time. Time is change. The thing being analyzed is changing as the analysis and analyzer is changing. Therefore, any analysis can only arrive at a provisional conclusion, not a definitive (final) conclusion. The assumptions involved in setting up an analysis require (for a perfect or true analysis) that the one who is doing the analysis would be outside the conditions being studied, and able to have an objective point of view to arrive at conclusions. But the conditionality of time prevents this scenario from ever being fully so, although typically analyzers take steps to try to provide as objective an analysis as possible. geo> It is the self - just that. We are not talking of math. but the nature of what is. I would suggest that thought assumes a static position from which to observe, and a separation from the observed, and these assumptions are basic to performing an analysis involving linear logic. Thought assumes the ability to form and manipulate images of an object being studied from an outside position. geo> Thought ACTUALLY DOES manipulate images - thinking they are not so. At the point that one is aware that thought is changing, there is no separate position thought can take with respect to the thought, that the image of the object being studied is a thought image that is part of the thought ... analysis breaks down. So, all analysis involves a kind of " suspension of disbelief, " a suspension of disbelief in the non-objective nature of thought, and the actual inability of thought to have an image of an object that exists outside of that thought. geo> Thought does have the ability to make an image. That is mostly what it does. You seem to be regarding thought as something else then yourself. An object outside of that thought? The same question again: - is an apple different from the awareness of an apple? You say yes and no. How yes? Which is funny when you consider that thought is the basis of what is taken for reality, along with associated features such as language, sensory perception and memory (all of which form a complex together, which I'm referring to in shorthand as " thought. " ) -- Dan avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:10:07 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 3:55 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Your statement is no different from: > > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > analyzed. " > > > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] > > > > > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > > > process. > > > > > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > > > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > > > > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > > > concept. > > > > > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > > > > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > > > rephrase: > > > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things material > > can > > be accomplished to a certain, limited extent. > > > > However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and then > > ask it > > to isolate its impressions of its own " actions " . > > > > It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain. > > > > > > In regard to your inquiry above: > > > > The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate > > things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them. > > > > These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are addressed > > to an entity that simply has no existential reality. > > I am disappointed in your reply toombaru. > On multiple counts. > > A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reas oning error in > previous post regarding " It is a misconception that.... " You don't > even address that here. This suggests I am wasting my time in > commenting on your posts. > > B) I didn't " factor in " any " self " whatsoever. It is you doing that > all on your own, as usual. > > C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) you > wouldn't even venture with your comments about " separate things " , > as if nothing persists then there can be no " things " except as > mere appearance. > > Here is geo's reply for reference: > <<< > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > >>> > > What can I conclude from A-C? > > Here are some possibilities: > 1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words, > where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holding > that word high over-he ad yelling, " Illusion! Illusion! " all the while > never having read the word in context or paying any attention > to what was actually said. [ " finding diamonds in a dream mountain " > quite a piece of schlock] > > 2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything and > anything in consciousness is moving. > > Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I > continue to read such impertinent responses as you have > dolloped up in this last. > > Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for you > my friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up! > > Bill > > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to consider > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. the measure of movement infers a way to record, to register the previous aspects of the movement. so time as a measure of movement infers registration in memory, and comparison of stimuli by thought. so, time is not just a measure of movement. time is the application of memory through thought. unless you suppose a way to measure movement without memory being involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > Kip: > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > cognitively > > > isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Toombaru, > > > > > > > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many > people know > > > > Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's > reach. > > > > But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic > reasoning. > > > > > > Russell's Paradox arises from the assumption that a class can > > > be meaningfully defined from any well-defined property p(x), > > > i.e. we can define the set R = { x such that p(x) is true } > > > > > > If p(x) = x does not belong to x, we get Russell's Paradox. > > > > > > As I indicate in my reply to toombaru's post, his statement above > > > resolves to: > > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > analyzed. " > > > > > > But only that which has arisen in time can be analyzed, as analysis > > > is inherently after the fact. Hence, it can be safely said that > there > > > exists x such that x has arisen in time and x can be analyzed. > > > > > > Hence, toombaru's assertion is: > > > A) false > > > B) Russell's Paradox does not arise from toombaru's assertion. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Bill - > > > > Good point. > > > > There is a paradox also to analysis, given what you are saying. > > > > Analysis takes time. > > > > That which is being analyzed takes time. > > > > Time is change. > > > > The thing being analyzed is changing as the analysis and analyzer is > changing. > > > > Therefore, any analysis can only arrive at a provisional conclusion, > not a definitive (final) conclusion. > > > > The assumptions involved in setting up an analysis require (for a > perfect or true analysis) that the one who is doing the analysis would > be outside the conditions being studied, and able to have an objective > point of view to arrive at conclusions. But the conditionality of time > prevents this scenario from ever being fully so, although typically > analyzers take steps to try to provide as objective an analysis as > possible. > > > > I would suggest that thought assumes a static position from which to > observe, and a separation from the observed, and these assumptions are > basic to performing an analysis involving linear logic. Thought assumes > the ability to form and manipulate images of an object being studied > from an outside position. > > > > At the point that one is aware that thought is changing, there is no > separate position thought can take with respect to the thought, that the > image of the object being studied is a thought image that is part of the > thought ... analysis breaks down. > > > > So, all analysis involves a kind of " suspension of disbelief, " a > suspension of disbelief in the non-objective nature of thought, and the > actual inability of thought to have an image of an object that exists > outside of that thought. > > > > Which is funny when you consider that thought is the basis of what is > taken for reality, along with associated features such as language, > sensory perception and memory (all of which form a complex together, > which I'm referring to in shorthand as " thought. " ) > > > > -- Dan > > A brilliant elaboration and elucidation, Dan. > > This entire issue has an interesting correlation to Einstein's Theory of > Relativity, > which asserts that the assumption of an independent observer with > respect to time > is false, although this discussion goes beyond that. > > Bill > No discussion can go beyond that. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to consider > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. ----------- that's good, and I almost agree. Note that movement itself is due to measurements. So more precisely, I suggest, movement and time both are measurements. Any metaphysical notion of time is a confusion IMO. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 - billrishel Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:34 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > Kip: > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively > > isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Dear Toombaru, > > > > > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know > > > Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. > > > But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. > > > > Russell's Paradox arises from the assumption that a class can > > be meaningfully defined from any well-defined property p(x), > > i.e. we can define the set R = { x such that p(x) is true } > > > > If p(x) = x does not belong to x, we get Russell's Paradox. > > > > As I indicate in my reply to toombaru's post, his statement above > > resolves to: > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > analyzed. " > > > > But only that which has arisen in time can be analyzed, as analysis > > is inherently after the fact. Hence, it can be safely said that there > > exists x such that x has arisen in time and x can be analyzed. > > > > Hence, toombaru's assertion is: > > A) false > > B) Russell's Paradox does not arise from toombaru's assertion. > > > > Bill > > > Bill - > > Good point. > > There is a paradox also to analysis, given what you are saying. > > Analysis takes time. > > That which is being analyzed takes time. > > Time is change. > > The thing being analyzed is changing as the analysis and analyzer is changing. > > Therefore, any analysis can only arrive at a provisional conclusion, not a definitive (final) conclusion. > > The assumptions involved in setting up an analysis require (for a perfect or true analysis) that the one who is doing the analysis would be outside the conditions being studied, and able to have an objective point of view to arrive at conclusions. But the conditionality of time prevents this scenario from ever being fully so, although typically analyzers take steps to try to provide as objective an analysis as possible. > > I would suggest that thought assumes a static position from which to observe, and a separation from the observed, and these assumptions are basic to performing an analysis involving linear logic. Thought assumes the ability to form and manipulate images of an object being studied from an outside position. > > At the point that one is aware that thought is changing, there is no separate position thought can take with respect to the thought, that the image of the object being studied is a thought image that is part of the thought ... analysis breaks down. > > So, all analysis involves a kind of " suspension of disbelief, " a suspension of disbelief in the non-objective nature of thought, and the actual inability of thought to have an image of an object that exists outside of that thought. > > Which is funny when you consider that thought is the basis of what is taken for reality, along with associated features such as language, sensory perception and memory (all of which form a complex together, which I'm referring to in shorthand as " thought. " ) > > -- Dan A brilliant elaboration and elucidation, Dan. This entire issue has an interesting correlation to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which asserts that the assumption of an independent observer with respect to time is false, although this discussion goes beyond that. Bill geo> Do you think einstein understood the nature of centerless existence? Well.....this willl take us nowhere..... avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:39:50 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > This entire issue has an interesting correlation to Einstein's Theory of > Relativity, > which asserts that the assumption of an independent observer with > respect to time > is false, although this discussion goes beyond that. > > Bill That is interesting. The formulation of time and experience is indeed interesting, fascinating, captivating. I'm very interested, because it's how we manage to be talking to each other! Perhaps it is my interest/fascination that allows all this to happen, although that certainly doesn't mean I control my interest. I'm helplessly interested. Captivated, you might say. I am captivated by the time that constructs me as I construct it. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:37 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 3:55 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Your statement is no different from: > > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > > analyzed. " > > > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] > > > > > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > > > process. > > > > > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > > > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > > > > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > > > concept. > > > > > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > > > > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > > > rephrase: > > > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things > > material > > can > > be accomplished to a certain, limited extent. > > > > However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and then > > ask it > > to isolate its impressions of its own " actions " . > > > > It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain. > > > > > > In regard to your inquiry above: > > > > The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate > > things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them. > > > > These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are > > addressed > > to an entity that simply has no existential reality. > > I am disappointed in your reply toombaru. > On multiple counts. > > A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reas oning error in > previous post regarding " It is a misconception that.... " You don't > even address that here. This suggests I am wasting my time in > commenting on your posts. > > B) I didn't " factor in " any " self " whatsoever. It is you doing that > all on your own, as usual. > > C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) you > wouldn't even venture with your comments about " separate things " , > as if nothing persists then there can be no " things " except as > mere appearance. > > Here is geo's reply for reference: > <<< > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > >>> > > What can I conclude from A-C? > > Here are some possibilities: > 1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words, > where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holding > that word high over-he ad yelling, " Illusion! Illusion! " all the while > never having read the word in context or paying any attention > to what was actually said. [ " finding diamonds in a dream mountain " > quite a piece of schlock] > > 2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything and > anything in consciousness is moving. > > Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I > continue to read such impertinent responses as you have > dolloped up in this last. > > Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for you > my friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up! > > Bill > > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to consider > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. the measure of movement infers a way to record, to register the previous aspects of the movement. so time as a measure of movement infers registration in memory, and comparison of stimuli by thought. so, time is not just a measure of movement. time is the application of memory through thought. unless you suppose a way to measure movement without memory being involved. geo> No, memory is invoved for sure. What you are not considering is that memory is matter. So thought is matter in movement: time. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:42:52 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 - billrishel Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:44 PM Re: From Bill on GR > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to consider > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. ----------- that's good, and I almost agree. Note that movement itself is due to measurements. So more precisely, I suggest, movement and time both are measurements. Any metaphysical notion of time is a confusion IMO. Bill geo> matter, manifestation, measurment, movement ....time. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:48:40 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > This entire issue has an interesting correlation to Einstein's Theory of > > > Relativity, > > > which asserts that the assumption of an independent observer with > > > respect to time > > > is false, although this discussion goes beyond that. > > > > > > Bill > > > > That is interesting. > > > > The formulation of time and experience is indeed interesting, fascinating, captivating. > > > > I'm very interested, because it's how we manage to be talking to each other! > > > > Perhaps it is my interest/fascination that allows all this to happen, although that certainly doesn't mean I control my interest. > > > > I'm helplessly interested. Captivated, you might say. > > > > I am captivated by the time that constructs me as I construct it. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > Consciousness is in the world. > The world is in consciousness. > > > > LOL > > > > > toombaru you put de lime in de coconut and shake 'em all up.. ..b b.b. 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.