Guest guest Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 You and I have been trying hard to help Dan aim his verbal gun. Poor guy, he shoots south, when he aims north. He has been consistently saying the right ideas with the wrong words. Now, at least for once, he is saying right: > > P: You're blind to the fact that your view of awareness > > as the ground of everything is as much of a story, and > > as causal, and limiting as the story of the brain. You > > just have replaced the word God for Awareness, but the > > longing for a Heavenly Father remains intact. You gave > > up your teddy bear to sleep with an inflatable doll. Haha! > >D: Where are you getting this " awareness is the ground of everything? " > > From you, not me. P: Where could I be getting it than from your posts such as: D: " No, the brain is not producing awareness, it is a construct associated with other constructs. It is a portion of the field, and a portion of a field doesn't produce the field. " P: So, you deny the brain produces awareness, and declare awareness " the field " of which the brain is a portion. How else can that be read other than: awareness produces the brain and every mental event. If that is not positing awareness as some sort of ground, it's very damn close. > >D: I don't believe awareness is the ground of everything. > > How silly. P: OK. I misunderstood, the silly way you write. I'm glad that you finally have stopped equivocating, and are making it plain as per below: > > D:If awareness were the ground of everything what would be the ground of awareness? > > Nothing? > > And what would be the ground of nothing? > > There is no ground of everything, nor is there a ground of nothing. > > There isn't even an everything, which could have a ground. > > But so what? > > This nothing that gets named every conceivable name, isn't a nothing. > > Nothing is just another name. > > > >D: And what if you stopped obfuscating, and lived as the acausal? > > You wouldn't care if a million stories of causation were formulated, whether based on brains or awareness or nothing or god or whatever ... > > You would see beyond all that nonsense, and be beyond it. > > Dan P: Imagine that! I thought you were obfuscating, And you thought I was. Language, eh! I have to care about what kind of stories are told because stories are dust in the eyes, and the stories that you have been telling seem quite dusty to me. But that's all in the past, from now on Dan will write as clear as sunlight, and abhor stories, and affirm perception unadorned by abstract words. P: Well, Bob, what do you think? Is Danny's cork shooting toy gun shooting straight, at last? 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.