Zenbob/not-philosophy-at-all

[Guest guest]

>Zenbob wrote: Dear Ivan, Greg, Dan & Others:

>

>I have made brief comments as I was able, during my recovery from foot

>surgery, and so have been swamped with email, but I have attempted to fathom

>this on going dialogue and understand why there seems to be any polarities

>about it at all.

>

>Most of the statements made are either A) clearly based on working objective

>definitions

>B) abstract metaphors for meta existence (that's fine!)

>C) extensions of absolute statements not supported by

>either A or B in a logically positive manner.

>

>So, when folk cannot agree on semantics, it is clear that disputes or

>misunderstandings will arise. This can be fun, or futile.

 

Dan writes: I vote for keeping it fun - I've never assumed that my words

could or should "capture"

reality. Best to leave my words flying around the void as they will.

Misunderstanding is okay if it can serve as a door, if it is opened into

what is

beyond understanding. Logical positivism doesn't seem especially useful

for discussions about nondual reality, whereas metaphor and ANALOGY (which

I thank you for offering) seem more fitting. When logic is used for

a discussion about nonduality, it is best if the logic is such that it

accounts

for its own limits and assumptions and by viewing these, dissolves itself

as it operates. That is to say, logic has its place in the scheme of

things, and can

be useful, and is most useful here when it can reveal its limits

in the service of transcending itself. This isn't anti-logic, it's

transcendent

logic.

> -snip- We are all creatures of light. We are all creatures of Form.

>There is the duality...but it is only a matter of semantics...

>not reality.

>

>I convey my love and mind via electrons to all!

>

 

Ah - so that's what that electron shower was... quite refreshing...

My electric love right back atcha - Dan