The map is actually the territory?

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, tsuki said:

You are almost seeing it, I can tell.
Are you seeing how this thing spins itself trying to produce a result that disproves itself?
This is the paradox of reality. This is why you see yourself as you stare at the text I'm writing.

There is one difference between someone insane and extremely intelligent. The answer is: you.
What is the difference between not understanding somebody because you're too stupid and him being incomprehensible lunatic? The answer is: you.
Is someone saying something to you, or are you producing the meaning out of thin air?

From what I can tell, I am producing both the someone who is saying and the meaning, but ONLY if I accept logic as absolute truth. If I do not accept logic, then I can't make sense out of anything whatsoever, reality wouldn't even exist, because it's a notion...

[Saumaya]

4 minutes ago, Scholar said:

 That's another logical claim! You are saying it cannot be absolutely true, but that's a logical claim, and if that logical claim is not absolutely true you just cancelled your own statement. Can you not see how these kind of "truths" actually dissolve? They are destroying themselves, and maybe that is why they are actually not true? But then again, that would be logical...

How can you just accept these claims and accuse me of mental masturbation? Why do you simply trust Leo that mental masturbation actually exists? Because it was LOGICAL to you?

@Scholar Forget Leo. Talk for yourself. It is a paradox, if that too is a logical claim, then that too is a paradox and so on...saying that it is a logical claim is also a logical claim.

[tsuki]

Just now, Scholar said:

From what I can tell, I am producing both the someone who is saying and the meaning, but ONLY if I accept logic as absolute truth. If I do not accept logic, then I can't make sense out of anything whatsoever, reality wouldn't even exist, because it's a notion...

Thoughts think themselves. There is no reality, there is only you.
What is the difference between you not understanding reality and reality playing itself out as you?
You have control if you understand. If you don't - the thing plays itself.

[Saumaya]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

From what I can tell, I am producing both the someone who is saying and the meaning, but ONLY if I accept logic as absolute truth. If I do not accept logic, then I can't make sense out of anything whatsoever, reality wouldn't even exist, because it's a notion...

Reality doesn't stem from the mind, perception does. And if it does, that too is a logical claim.

[Scholar]

I'm just more confused, because all of what you are saying is logical, even the entire "loop/circular reasoning"-notion is logical! You derived to that "truth" by just another circular reason, so it is just as invalid/valid as the everything else.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Scholar

[tsuki]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

I'm just more confused, because all of what you are saying is logical, even the entire "loop/circular reasoning"-notion is logical! You derived to that "truth" by just another circular reason, so it is just as invalid/valid as the everything else.

See this: logical process itself is illogical.
Why is there logic at all? 

1) Mary ran over a cat.
2) The cat died.

Where is the logical connection that points 1 -> 2? It's a feeling. It's illogical!

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, tsuki said:

See this: logical process itself is illogical.
Why is there logic at all? 

1) Mary ran over a cat.
2) The cat died.

Where is the logical connection that points 1 -> 2? It's a feeling. It's illogical!

Who says that it is logical that 1 ->2? That's not logical, obviously, but how does that proof that logical processes are illogical? And if you proved that, you proved it with logic either way. And if logic was invalid, the statement that logic is invalid is invalid, at least if we apply logic. If we don't, anything goes.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Scholar

[tsuki]

@Scholar Consciousness is unconscious from a different perspective.
When you move your hand, does your conscious process make the hand move? Does it move your muscles?
Try first moving your hand, and try to move your hand by moving the muscles themselves to mimic the other. Can you?
 

How do you know that you consciousness is the one moving your hand, and not narrating your thoughts, as the hand moves by itself?

[tsuki]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Who says that it is logical that 1 ->2? That's not logical, obviously, but how does that proof that logical processes are illogical? And if you proved that, you proved it with logical either way. And if logic was invalid, the statement that logic is invalid is invalid.

@Scholar Logic is a feeling that A follows B. How is it logical that A follows B?

When you see the two above sentences, how do you know that they correlate? Logic is an illusion. It's groundless.

Edited February 21, 2018 by tsuki

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, tsuki said:

@Scholar Consciousness is unconscious from a different perspective.
When you move your hand, does your conscious process make the hand move? Does it move your muscles?
Try first moving your hand, and try to move your hand by moving the muscles themselves to mimic the other. Can you?
 

How do you know that you consciousness is the one moving your hand, and not narrating your thoughts, as the hand moves by itself?

I don't know what this has to do with the conversation. But I can say that any statement I will make will be derived from logic, no matter what I will conclude. But how can I trust logic? 

[Saumaya]

15 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I'm just more confused, because all of what you are saying is logical, even the entire "loop/circular reasoning"-notion is logical! You derived to that "truth" by just another circular reason, so it is just as invalid/valid as the everything else.

How are you confused? That too is a logical claim

[tsuki]

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't know what this has to do with the conversation. But I can say that any statement I will make will be derived from logic, no matter what I will conclude. But how can I trust logic? 

At this point all I have to say is this: applying logic is illogical. Logic cannot prove its own method.
You apply logic and get results. You treat results as reality. By treating them as such, you create it.

There is no difference between you being in control by understanding things and things playing themselves and you narrating a story afterwards.
The answer to your enlightenment lies in the answer to the question: where is logic grounded? Once you answer this question sincerely and see what changes in the world, you may become enlightened.

[Nahm]

@Scholar No one could tell you what you are. It’s too good to be true! You’d reason it away with logic.  I can’t say I blame you one bit. When I experienced God directly, not only was all of my logic wrong (wrong as in tiny and actually nonexistent), but there was a sensation in the head, a rewiring of the falsities with the truth that lasted a few days. The best logic is light years away from a drop of real-izing. When a memory would surface, it was met with the absolute truth, and each false memory / understanding, was the cosmic joke playing over for around two weeks. Almost nonstop love, joy, and laughter, euphoric refilling with correction. I had to work on capacity to handle the love for months. Seeing the simplest things, is so beautiful, I have to hold back tears until I’m alone somewhere. To not look like a fool in maya, even knowing it is me lol!

At the same time, knowing how the cave works, is no reason not to share our experiences of Self, of absolute, of God. WIthout sharing the experience, the emotion, the dramatic night & day change in how life is experienced, etc, the trigger words of McKenna - agape, death awareness, etc, etc, do tend to limit the communication to a far greater extent than the cave analogy alone. It reduces it to conceptual, so the listener, imo, is completely justified to attempt to relate to logic offered, with logic. 

[Saumaya]

9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't know what this has to do with the conversation. But I can say that any statement I will make will be derived from logic, no matter what I will conclude. But how can I trust logic? 

Is that statement derived from logic? That too is a logical claim

Edited February 21, 2018 by Saumaya

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Saumaya said:

@tsuki Is that statement derived from logic? That too is a logical claim

Yes, maybe the greeks were right about the divinity of Logos?

2 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Scholar No one could tell you what you are. It’s too good to be true! You’d reason it away with logic.  I can’t say I blame you one bit. When I experienced God directly, not only was all of my logic wrong, but there was a sensation in the head, a rewiring of the falsities with the truth that lasted a few days. The best logic is light years away from a drop of real-izing. When a memory would surface, it was met with the absolute truth, and each false memory / understanding, was the cosmic joke playing over for around two weeks. Almost nonstop love, joy, and laughter, euphoric refilling with correction. I had to work on capacity to handle the love for months. Seeing the simplest things, is so beautiful, I have to hold back tears until I’m alone somewhere. To not look like a fool in maya, even knowing it is me lol!

At the same time, knowing how the cave works, is no reason not to share our experiences of Self, of absolute, of God. WIthout sharing the experience, the emotion, the dramatic night & day change in how life is experience, etc, the trigger words of McKenna - agape, death awareness, etc, etc, do tend to limit the communication to a far greater extent than the cave analogy alone. It reduces it to conceptual, so the listener, imo, is completely justified to attempt to relate to logic offered, with logic. 

But you didn't ever abandon logic, you can't really, because you use it to create notions. I think we might have different understandings of logic. Non of your logic was proven wrong, what was proven wrong was claims about reality your previously made. You then used the newly attained information, and with logic, you constructed a new notion of reality. You still have a notion of reality, even if it is just that direct experience is reality. It is still a notion, and thus it is still Maya, isn't it? All ideas are maya, even the ones that you find logical after having experience enlightenment.

[Nahm]

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You do not understand my point.

His claim that he even was on the moon is a logical claim. Once he is back on the planet, he only has a memory of having been on the moon. The memory exists, and from that memory he makes a claim. That requires logic. And it also requires logic to make the claim that experience equals reality. That notion itself is logical.

What I am saying is, aren't ALL notions, including ALL spiritual notions, maya? Aren't THEY ALL delusion? Thus no claim whatsoover can be trusted, no matter how much you spin this around. ANY claim about ANYTHING is still a claim, isn't it?

I'm not new to spirituality and non-duality. I know everything you are talking about, but all of it is still derived from logic. "Absolute can only be experienced" is a logical claim, and you accept multiple delusions just so you can even make that claim. 

That is of course for you to say, I can only attest to you that I do not misunderstand your point, and you have not been to the moon. The moon is not a place, that could be remembered. The moon (absolute, God)  is you, and you are never the person again, who would “remember”. But this can not be understood, if you are still the person, logic is the hammer. 

[Saumaya]

1 minute ago, tsuki said:

@Saumaya He doesn't see the connection between A and B, and he does not see that he abandons logic this very instant.

Yup...

[Nahm]

Just now, Scholar said:

Yes, maybe the greeks were right about the divinity of Logos?

But you didn't ever abandon logic, you can't really, because you use it to create notions. I think we might have different understandings of logic. Non of your logic was proven wrong, what was proven wrong was claims about reality your previously made. You then used the newly attained information, and with logic, you constructed a new notion of reality. You still have a notion of reality, even if it is just that direct experience is reality. It is still a notion, and thus it is still Maya, isn't it? All ideas are maya, even the ones that you find logical after having experience enlightenment.

You can certainly be without logic, as it is maya. 

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Nahm said:

You can certainly be without logic, as it is maya. 

Then we indeed have a different understanding of logic. For me, all thoughts, all notions, contain inherently logic. Thus our discussion is pointless because we are talking about two different things.

Or rather, you can be without logic, but you cannot think without it. Logic is like the ground of language and thought, it is what makes it emerge.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Scholar

[tsuki]

Just now, Scholar said:

Then we indeed have a different understanding of logic. For me, all thoughts, all notions, contain inherently logic. Thus our discussion is pointless because we are talking about two different things.

@Scholar Let me ask you: where does truth come from?