tsuki

Calling yourself crazy over it is a classic reaction. Fear of insanity is a powerful tool of homeostasis. I've been there. Going crazy is so much fun. It is to see how crazy it is that everybody pretends to be normal. Congratulations! Keep it going!

Reality has this miraculous capacity to reference itself. Any theory is real and any theory describes reality. All current theories are true. All past theories are false. Any theory contains the entirety of truth by openness to transcendence. To try to capture the self-reference is to produce an anchor for reference. Reality is fed by theories. Are you the food that you eat?

No amount of text and videos can change your life. You may be able to change your life right now. Are you? You may be able to change your life after you've watched the videos and read the texts.

@Prabhaker So, this explanation of story is a commentary?

@Principium Nexus The integral part of any language is a possibility to introduce new words. A mapping of words is not a map of language. Language is not based on words. A mapping of words is at best a temporal snapshot of a written subset of a given language. There are no semantic units such as 'words' in language in general. You can convey meaning depending on the intonation and punctuation while you speak. The same goes for written language. There is a meaning conveyed in the way I format these posts with line breaks. There is meaning in the context of my avatar and post history. Not to mention other forms of language such as non-lyrical songs, or paintings. They convey meaning without syntactical units ('words'). We can't even agree on whether the frame is a part of a painting! Word-embeddings that you posted in the context of machine learning are extremely limited. They require one-hot encoding of a subset of words and are fundamentally closed. Language is expansive and a definition of its boundaries is a context for its expansion. Any expression contains the entirety of language within it. You cannot capture language by boundaries, as boundaries are language in itself.

There is nothing to be grasped. By trying to grasp - you make it something. Don't.

Hahaha Why would a Buddha explain this story?!

@MarkusSweden ?

There are no rooms without doors, or windows. A window is not a frame or glass. A window is a lack of a wall.

To see everything as a conditioned response is to miss that this very seeing must in fact be conditioned. What is the difference between perfect illusion and reality?

Language is an expression of human expression. To express the structure of language is to use language. To have a complete model of language is to create something that contains itself. The shape of language is fractal. The problem with fractals is that they are expressed as a self-referential rule that is applied ad-infinitum. The language-fractal would have to be expressed as a rule and this rule would have to be contained within it. Even if you had the bootstrapping rule - you would not have the structure of language. You would never obtain the structure of language, as fractals are infinitely detailed. You can never see a Mandelbrot set in its full glory. You can only have an approximation, just like you have now without defining it. Language is the self-awareness of expression. To try to express language is to be fundamentally lost.

That is because you mistake realization for a 'new paradigm'. Realization is a brief moment of clarity in which you are able to reinterpret your paradigm in a new, unconstrained way. To keep hold of the new interpretation as a new paradigm to apply is a mistake. The goal is to keep the possibility of unconstrained, applicable reinterpretation. The new paradigm should be treated as a food for a new realization. Not as a result. Ego is the constraint.

What is the difference between arguing and sharing?

@Rilles @MarkusSweden @Nahm It is not an argument! It is the forum doing its self-inquiry! Asking itself: what am I?

Well, if it seems like arguing to you then at least I'm constructively answering the original question. It would be a disaster if this thread got derailed now, wouldn't it? Or are these the rules of Zen monastery that you so desperately try to obey? Perhaps this place is simply a hoax to lure in stupid people so that they become enlightened by observing their own stupidity? I have nothing to teach. I am asking questions to deepen my ignorance. I actually hope that you will teach me what is the difference between argument and sharing. We're doing wonderful I think.

I swear, like a second ago you said yourself that the teaching that you already know is useless. What we are doing here is practice. What do you think is the point of a forum about enlightenment? Why are you wasting your time here? Telling everybody what enlightenment is, or isn't. Maybe you were an unstoppable force trying to find an immovable object? To practice with?

Let me try to put it this way: Everything is an interpretation. I am your interpretation. The whole 100% me. Even if you saw me in flesh, I would still be 100% your interpretation. There is no difference between me and you. I am you. Ring any bells? Enlightenment? Nonduality?

Boom, and you're back. I'm sorry man. Good luck! That's predicated on your notion of what enlightenment is. See the self-reference? You reject what does not fit your agenda. It's okay.

Nothing! I was playing a mirror for you so that you know yourself! This it the illusion of time/cause and effect @Faceless always talks about!

What I was trying to say is that it is inherently impossible to use interpretation for any benefit. To use is to evaluate. Interpretation is an evaluation. To use an interpretation is to evaluate evaluation. That is an evaluation in itself. It is an illusion of control to say that one can choose how to interpret things. There is no meta-morality to defer the evaluation to, as the meta-morality is a matter of amoral choice that does not depend on reason (evaluation). The link that I posted referred to the second paragraph where you proposed difficulty in communication because of written language. It is not any more difficult. The idea is critiqued by Derrida and the link contains it. Not that I'm pointing any errors in your post though. It's up to you what you do with the knowledge I directed you towards.

It does. You are always arguing and measuring yourself when you miss the fact that you interpret other people's behavior.

That is precisely what I'm trying to say.

Is it then fair to say that you are always arguing with yourself when you argue with other people? That you miss the point that you always respond to your own interpretation of other people's words? This is self-reference at its prime. You are not talking to me, but to an image of me that you formed. There is no inherent, transmittable meaning in my words. You make the meaning up as you read these words. To say that you are arguing about anything, or that you measure other people's enlightenment is an absurdity. You are always the other people. Just as there is no me. There is a monitor, pixels and breath. You made me up.

And what is thought, exactly? @Truth I'll get back to you bro, just hang on .

Tell me then. I would very much like to know, as I don't know myself . Isn't it the root cause of your distress about other people lying though? That you think that you know what enlightenment is? That you measure other people's enlightenment through your personal interpretation of it? Isn't that what all arguments are about? Trying to establish definitions? That my cake is better because it has strawberries?