UnbornTao

We do need or require language if we want to be able to enjoy what it allows for - communication included. Language is a particular context. And context itself doesn't seem to necessarily require language - unless it does, for example with arithmetic (math being the language-context.) Could you help me clarify what you're attempting to unpack with those examples? Without language there's no symbol in the first place. You can obviously act and distinguish stuff without the need for language. And its invention also allows for realms of new distinctions. Language, as I view it now, is the contextual possibility for a particular thing - like a sound - to represent something that is not that thing - anger, for example (a shout representing anger.) We can see these aren't simplistic subjects at all! Jesus.

Agree. I wouldn't count on Bethesda for that, though.

Aren't we working to become conscious of what's existentially true, in this context? What is being, reality, Now, etc.

It seems to me you could ask what one is without having to necessarily bring up the other, at least in this case.

The distinction already includes how something differs from - and is similar to - other things. This and/or that. That is different from this. This is similar to that. Sometimes it's about refining the distinctions, becoming clearer as to what they are, so that we can better relate to them. For example, as you suggest, thinking isn't the same as contemplating. Failing to make fine distinctions usually leads to conflating - or "con-fusing" (fusing with) - things. The act of distinguishing isn't limited to the intellect. I think you might be holding that notion. Every time you learn, you make a new distinction, or refine one you already had. So this process is directly related to learning new things. Sure. On the other hand, what's true doesn't care about our obsession with - or requirement for - value or utility. It simply requires that something be true, at any level. Yet again, moving in this direction tends to empower learning and skill development. I suppose that's part of the organic nature of groups of people coming together to investigate a subject. People contribute what they can, and the process is likely to be chaotic and messy - especially if the subject is inherently complex. Moreover, it's not always theorizing that's happening. The thread is more like a tool than a resolution to the problem. And of course, jokes, drama, and other extraneous things may also occur.

Right, I didn't think about that. But assessment, evaluation, and judgment are based on interpretation, so the idea of them being truly neutral and objective is hard to see. What would that even mean? Isn't interpretation inherently subjective? I may be dense here, but it seems worth looking into. Maybe "fair," "impartial," or "just" would be more accurate qualifiers, at least from my perspective. But I get your point. Group contemplation!

An assumption is an unrecognized belief you operate from - like the water a fish swims in. Your sense of reality is based on a set of unexamined assumptions. What do we assume assumption is? A judgment is a positive or negative value assessment of something. The point of contemplation is to start from scratch, though. Thinking existentially. Wrestling with that process in order to personally find out what's true.

Hard to tell. The work done beforehand probably did help - the act of openly dwelling on something - yet the realization itself is always immediate. In a sense, we are always starting anew with this ontological work.

You might find this read inspiring: https://archive.org/details/PerfectBrilliantStillnessDavidCarseEbookPDF/mode/2up Apparently, Terence Stamp narrated the audiobook version.

The power of "stop it": https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/jul/21/id-had-28-years-of-depression-now-it-was-gone-comic-paul-foot-on-three-seconds-that-changed-his-life? Doesn't need to take 28 years, though - three seconds.

A bubble bursting.

I think you were helpful to her.

@Anton Rogachevski As long as we are moving in the direction of 'authentic experience,' we’re making progress.

@Anton Rogachevski GPT:

Cool. May have some sexual undertones, on the other hand, haha.

Where can that be found? This are the people you generally can trust had something real going on with them - probably some sort of awakening.

But where is the fucker? There's a story of a renowned Chan (Zen) monk who taught for many years, giving lectures all over China. After having done that for a time, at some point, upon attaining enlightenment, he burned all of his previous teachings, considering them worthless. It's an interesting perspective. I did some research - my story is a largely fictional interpretation. It might have been based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangyan_Zhixian --- Burn my sutras ✅ Watch for tiles hitting the ground ⬜

Thank you for the doubt!

@Vali2003 No problem.

That's part of the trick, isn't it? Until we've had several enlightenments, it's just an educated guess, a possibility. Don't we all already assume we know what enlightenment is? Getting clear on what's actual and what's conceptual is a theme that keeps coming back to bite us. The mind lies a lot. Thank you, I often appreciate our discussions. This is challenging - even the Zen guys fall into the trap of "admiring the Buddha when you meet him on the road." In other words, they still confuse customs, teachings, traditions, and assumptions with actual breakthroughs and insights. How can we use thinking in a way that stays within the ballpark of genuine discovery? How do we create a useful and effective perspective or framework for this ontological work? Your work might already be moving in that direction. Instead of becoming just another belief system, it has to become increasingly real.

The article has merit and is certainly an intelligent take. I also appreciate its underlying pointer toward authentic experiences and the direction it proposes. Still, it's challenging to provide feedback right now, as I'm focused on more grounded inquiries - picture a Zen monk destroying every belief he holds. For what it's worth, I still think we tend to believe we are our minds, and that we can think our way to what's true.