Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 D: There's nothing that isn't relative. > > So, only nothing isn't relative. > > Not the nothing that is relative to something. > > But the nothing that is the only thing that isn't relative. > > - D - > >P: Can we say that nothingness is without stating an oxymoron? The only thing we can say about a non-relative nothingness is that it is unknowable. A nice little Koan there Pete. Sus P: Well, I don't know if it qualifies as a koan, but it's a very hard bone for a philosophical old dog to chew on. Negation in language is a dark horse. It seems to be, while being not. Negation needs a positing of an existent to negate. So, as Sartre stated being precedes nothingness because all negations need a something to negate. A nothingness that negates no thing can only negate itself. And so, an ontological nothingness is the oxymoron par excellence. One, that never can transcends the realm of intuition, and be coherently verbalized. Pete http://cerosoul.wordpress.com http://awakefiction.wordpress.com Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > D: There's nothing that isn't relative. > > > > So, only nothing isn't relative. > > > > Not the nothing that is relative to something. > > > > But the nothing that is the only thing that isn't relative. > > > > - D - > > > >P: Can we say that nothingness is without stating an oxymoron? > The only thing we can say about a non-relative nothingness > is that it is unknowable. We can also say that it's be-able. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > D: There's nothing that isn't relative. > > > > > > So, only nothing isn't relative. > > > > > > Not the nothing that is relative to something. > > > > > > But the nothing that is the only thing that isn't relative. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > >P: Can we say that nothingness is without stating an oxymoron? > > The only thing we can say about a non-relative nothingness > > is that it is unknowable. > > We can also say that it's be-able. It's unbreakable. Even beyond Tupperware. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > D: There's nothing that isn't relative. > > > > > > > > So, only nothing isn't relative. > > > > > > > > Not the nothing that is relative to something. > > > > > > > > But the nothing that is the only thing that isn't relative. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > >P: Can we say that nothingness is without stating an oxymoron? > > > The only thing we can say about a non-relative nothingness > > > is that it is unknowable. > > > > We can also say that it's be-able. > > It's unbreakable. > > Even beyond Tupperware. > > > - D - > And it's non-sticky. Unlike bugars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > D: There's nothing that isn't relative. While agreeing in spirit, I prefer: " Everything is relative. " Usually sweeping statements that start with, " Everything is ____, " go out on a creaky limb, but in this case, seems to me, just the opposite. " Everything " there means anything anyone can come up with, and anything anyone can come up with is necessarily relative. The fundamental reason for that, IMV, is that meaning in any linguistic sense (is there another kind?) is necessarily context sensitive, or context bound. We simply cannot escape the fact that anything we or anyone says is only as *interpreted* per a particular linguistic context [which means in a particular linguistic community at a particualr time]. Even what I have just said above is relative, not absolute, because it can only make sense (if at all) per a particular context of interpretation. > > > > So, only nothing isn't relative. > > > > Not the nothing that is relative to something. > > > > But the nothing that is the only thing that isn't relative. > > > > - D - > > > >P: Can we say that nothingness is without stating an oxymoron? > The only thing we can say about a non-relative nothingness > is that it is unknowable. The term " agnostic " has been appropriated to designate someone who says, " *If* there is a God he/she/it is unknowable. " To say *any absolute* is unknowable seems to go deeper than that. Many atheists, for example, will still have absolutes that they cling to. It would be nice to have a term for this agnosticism of a deeper kind. > > > > > A nice little Koan there Pete. Sus > > P: Well, I don't know if it qualifies as a koan, > but it's a very hard bone for a philosophical > old dog to chew on. > > Negation in language is a dark horse. Classic! > It seems to be, > while being not. Negation needs a positing of an > existent to negate. So, as Sartre stated being precedes > nothingness because all negations need a something to > negate. A nothingness that negates no thing can only > negate itself. And so, an ontological nothingness is > the oxymoron par excellence. One, that never can > transcends the realm of intuition, and be coherently > verbalized. The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's eye. And " nothing " more. The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference to something* (urr, nothing). Bill > > Pete > > > http://cerosoul.wordpress.com > > http://awakefiction.wordpress.com > > > Pete > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 - billrishel Nisargadatta Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:11 AM Re: Nothingness' Koan D: There's nothing that isn't relative. While agreeing in spirit, I prefer: " Everything is relative. " Usually sweeping statements that start with, " Everything is ____, " go out on a creaky limb, but in this case, seems to me, just the opposite. " Everything " there means anything anyone can come up with, and anything anyone can come up with is necessarily relative. The fundamental reason for that, IMV, is that meaning in any linguistic sense (is there another kind?) is necessarily context sensitive, or context bound. We simply cannot escape the fact that anything we or anyone says is only as *interpreted* per a particular linguistic context [which means in a particular linguistic community at a particualr time]. Even what I have just said above is relative, not absolute, because it can only make sense (if at all) per a particular context of interpretation. geo: In the other hand, there is nothing that is not absolute as per existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > eye. And " nothing " more. > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > to something* (urr, nothing). > > Bill P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction: our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. How that strikes you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. Inthis sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. geo: The way you put it, nothingness is a figure of imagination, a concept. Then you ask whether that concept can arise while unconscious. Obviously not. The "real" nothingness is not the absence of anything: it is totally full. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6 wrote:>> >> >> > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > eye. And " nothing " more.> >> > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is> > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea> > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > to something* (urr, nothing).> >> > Bill>> P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In> this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction:> our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious.>> How that strikes you?>B: It's a cool idea... my first impression. To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimensionof awareness, and consciousness is more like the fartin the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , realor illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness. The real meat of your comment is the last sentence, though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousnessgoes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and givingup of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) andin the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown upby consciousness... there is what could be called anartifact of the system's own processing... a " sensation " amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what tocall it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also bereferenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to take up such topics and make something of them (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetuallyof the " make something of <whatever> " variety). To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attemptto refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kindof profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of theconscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream.Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > > eye. And " nothing " more. > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > Bill > > > > P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In > > this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our > > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction: > > our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. > > > > How that strikes you? > > > > B: It's a cool idea... my first impression. > > To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimension > of awareness, and consciousness is more like the fart > in the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , real > or illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness. > > The real meat of your comment is the last sentence, > though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousness > goes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and giving > up of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind > of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) and > in the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up > by consciousness... there is what could be called an > *artifact *of the system's own processing... a " sensation " > amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what to > call it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also be > referenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or > " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts > to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to > take up such topics and make something of them > (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetually > of the " make something of <whatever> " variety). > > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream. > > Bill :-) oh horseshit. and everything that doesn't go with that. the song the ends before it starts: the no note samba-no-samba. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream. > > Bill > > And... awareness is never ever absent. Only the thought of its absence is > eventually present. > -geo- P: Haha! As Tooms says, " A swing, and a miss! " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream. Bill And... awareness is never ever absent. Only the thought of its absence is eventually present. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > D: There's nothing that isn't relative. > > While agreeing in spirit, I prefer: > " Everything is relative. " > Usually sweeping statements that start with, " Everything is ____, " > go out on a creaky limb, but in this case, seems to me, > just the opposite. " Everything " there means anything anyone > can come up with, and anything anyone can come up with is > necessarily relative. > > The fundamental reason for that, IMV, is that meaning in > any linguistic sense (is there another kind?) is necessarily > context sensitive, or context bound. We simply cannot escape > the fact that anything we or anyone says is only as *interpreted* > per a particular linguistic context [which means in a particular > linguistic community at a particualr time]. > > Even what I have just said above is relative, not absolute, > because it can only make sense (if at all) per a particular > context of interpretation. > > > > > > > So, only nothing isn't relative. > > > > > > Not the nothing that is relative to something. > > > > > > But the nothing that is the only thing that isn't relative. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > >P: Can we say that nothingness is without stating an oxymoron? > > The only thing we can say about a non-relative nothingness > > is that it is unknowable. > > The term " agnostic " has been appropriated to designate > someone who says, " *If* there is a God he/she/it is unknowable. " > To say *any absolute* is unknowable seems to go deeper than that. > Many atheists, for example, will still have absolutes that they > cling to. It would be nice to have a term for this agnosticism > of a deeper kind. > > > > > > > > > > > A nice little Koan there Pete. Sus > > > > P: Well, I don't know if it qualifies as a koan, > > but it's a very hard bone for a philosophical > > old dog to chew on. > > > > Negation in language is a dark horse. > > Classic! > > > It seems to be, > > while being not. Negation needs a positing of an > > existent to negate. So, as Sartre stated being precedes > > nothingness because all negations need a something to > > negate. A nothingness that negates no thing can only > > negate itself. And so, an ontological nothingness is > > the oxymoron par excellence. One, that never can > > transcends the realm of intuition, and be coherently > > verbalized. > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > eye. And " nothing " more. > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > to something* (urr, nothing). > > Bill Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > > eye. And " nothing " more. > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > Bill > > > > P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In > > this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our > > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction: > > our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. > > > > How that strikes you? > > > > B: It's a cool idea... my first impression. > > To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimension > of awareness, and consciousness is more like the fart > in the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , real > or illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness. > > The real meat of your comment is the last sentence, > though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousness > goes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and giving > up of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind > of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) and > in the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up > by consciousness... there is what could be called an > *artifact *of the system's own processing... a " sensation " > amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what to > call it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also be > referenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or > " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts > to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to > take up such topics and make something of them > (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetually > of the " make something of <whatever> " variety). > > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream. > > Bill The absence as never-having-had-any-reality of divisions based on the past and memory. The end of any anchor found in so-called knowledge and accumulation of experiences. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > > eye. And " nothing " more. > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > Bill > > > > P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In > > this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our > > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction: > > our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. > > > > How that strikes you? > > > > B: It's a cool idea... my first impression. > > To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimension > of awareness, and consciousness is more like the fart > in the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , real > or illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness. > > The real meat of your comment is the last sentence, > though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousness > goes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and giving > up of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind > of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) and > in the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up > by consciousness... there is what could be called an > *artifact *of the system's own processing... a " sensation " > amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what to > call it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also be > referenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or > " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts > to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to > take up such topics and make something of them > (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetually > of the " make something of <whatever> " variety). > > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream. > > Bill I knew I missed toom and anna but I had forgotten I missed you too. Perhaps what you wrote upstairs is horseshit but what shit! Smells a lot like something I keep trying to say. So thanks. All paths lead to Rome but when you get there is no Rome Love Lene > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > Bill > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > - D - > I agree. This nothingness is not " non-being " . It's more of an unknowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > - D - > > > > I agree. > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > It's more of an unknowing. ah yes.. and the cloud thereof. much too busy. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM Re: Nothingness' Koan Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > Bill > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > - D - > I agree. This nothingness is not " non-being " . It's more of an unknowing. --- It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > - D - > > > > I agree. > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > It's more of an unknowing. > > --- > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > -geo- P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM Re: Nothingness' Koan Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > - D - > > > > I agree. > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > It's more of an unknowing. > > --- > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > -geo- P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to no avail.....there is a fence there. Remember: you may fool some....others...... no. The ones that really smile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > - D - > > > > I agree. > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > It's more of an unknowing. Unknown, not in the known - can't be analyzed or imparted. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > --- > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > -geo- > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to no > avail.....there is a fence there. > Remember: you may fool some....others...... no. The ones that really smile. D: Not seeing any " escape " in that comment. It is not " about. " Period. You can't say what it is or isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > -geo- > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to > no > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > It's interesting he said what he did. > > I don't see anything childish in your statement above, e.g. " it' is an unknowing about... " > > The feeling of childishness must be inside Pete. > > He certainly didn't get it from your words. Pete addressed the attempt to find something to hold onto, and used the metaphor of a child looking to hold onto a breast or a thumb. Trying to find something that can be known about this to say what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > Unknown, not in the known - can't be analyzed or imparted. > > - D - are you trying to identify the unknown dabbo? that's departed. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > -geo- > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to no > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > Remember: you may fool some....others...... no. The ones that really smile. > > D: Not seeing any " escape " in that comment. > > It is not " about. " Period. You can't say what it is or isn't. it doesn't matter if you can see an escape. you can't see a lot of things dabbo. no offense. and no defense will be tolerated. ..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.