Mystical experiences vs radical recontextualizations

[Rinne]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Is money real? Nope. But we still need to earn it to feed ourselves.

Is food real? Nope. But we still need to eat it in order to keep the illusion of our bodies going.

Is time real? Nope. But we still need to set our clocks to the same time so we can coordinate.

?

[now is forever]

On 23.7.2018 at 4:02 PM, tsuki said:

There are always contents of perception. These contents are what we call facts. Facts are self-apparent (obvious).

 

On 2.8.2018 at 11:48 PM, Leo Gura said:

 

@tsuki The trick is that the notion of "facts" is itself already theory-laden.

To believe in "facts" is already to buy into the false idea that there is an external objective reality independent of the subject.

 

what about calling them solutions, detanglements, unravelings. it‘s all about problem solving  

a fact sounds to concrete like there was really a point to it. well there might be a point to it, but if you zoom in... that might be not the case anymore.

@tsuki that’s the problem with nihilism- you say no, no, no, until it’s totally pointless. and empty. that’s, why you have to stop zooming in at one point to see at least the outlines. non rationally.

if there was no content at all, there wouldn’t be context. context can only be created because there is universal content.

Edited August 4, 2018 by now is forever

[Zweistein]

@Feel Good you have some points there, too! 

Will o wisp has finally arrived at the tower now, too. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Zweistein

[tsuki]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a very important distinction. If you fail to make this distinction you will get yourself into all sorts of trouble.

Most everyday language is coming from and speaking about the relative domain. This needs to be clearly understood. So if your spouse says to you: "Hey, did you take the trash out?" you do not reply with, "I don't exist and trash is just an illusion."

When a question is asked from the relative domain, the answer must meet the question where it is at.

And as for the Absolute domain, it's really hard to speak about anyway. So anything you say about it will ultimately devolve into contradictions and paradoxes because language is dualistic.

@Leo Gura
The notion that language is inherently dualistic is what is both the reason for, and the conclusion you draw from your example.
The dualistic nature of language is what lets you understand the question about trash as relative.
This is what you bring to the table when your spouse asks the question and it determines the possibility space of answers.
Duality of language is a cyclic dependency that upholds the distinction between the relative and the absolute as a necessity.

From my point of view, language is not inherently dualistic. It is a choice you (consciously, or unconsciously) make.
I am sure that I am projecting, because this response is dependent on my personal understanding of what you wrote thus far, and if it somehow misrepresents your understanding of language, then please guide me out of it.
However, if you disagree that language can be non-dual, then please hear me out as I will try to sketch a perspective from which it is apparent to me.

The dualistic notion about language is the 'filter' through which we project meaning on the question about the trash.
Broadly speaking, this filter treats language as a tool to establish relationships in the relative domain.
Asking: "Hey, did you take the trash out?" is the question about the relationship between the trash and our living space.
If I wanted to answer this question, I would then establish relationship as positive, or negative. Say that the trash is out, or not.
From this point of view, any other answer would not be an answer to this question, because it asks about the relationship.
This notion is most prominently explained in the Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, which he concludes just like you:

Quote

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent

The problem with this approach is that language is not only used to establish relationships, but also to carve the absolute into pieces between which the relationships are established. So now, 'the trash' and 'the living space' can be described, by pointing finger at them and calling them names. But pointing a finger is also a form of a relationship that has to be understood first! How do you point a finger at pointing a finger? How do you explain what pointing a finger is without prior language? Therefore, by the very nature if it - the dualistic notion of language can never be completed. 
I believe that this is the true meaning of the Tractatus - it is a critique of the dualistic view of the language, and not a defense of it.

The non-dual view of language is more in line with his second book, Philosophical Investigations. 
From this point of view, language is like trying to learn the game of chess from a Chinese master through the internet with no chat.
All you can do is move the pieces and let him correct you. This is only possible because we both arrive at this context with presupposition that I am supposed to learn, and he is supposed to teach. With this presupposition however, it is incredibly difficult for the student to establish a rule and change the game of chess. How much time would it take for the master to understand that he is supposed to let me do the illegal move?
This way, in real communication, it is absolutely crucial that we approach the situation as neither the teacher, nor the pupil, so that we can understand each other. This undifferentiated openness, the unknown, is the absolute that underlies all language.

From this point of view, all interactions are ways to establish oneness. Even conflict is nothing else than one person doing an illegal move and the other correcting them. It takes time to understand that there is a mismatch of context, but approaching the situation as neither the pupil, nor the teacher is what preserves the possibility of interaction. From this point of view, there are no 'bad situations' one may get when he does not distinguish relative and the absolute. It is that any distinction between us is the root of all problems.

In this sense, asking whether I took the trash out is not about the trash at all. It is a question whether our relationship (I=you=we) is complete enough so that my spouse does not have to concern herself with this banal matter of taking the trash out.
So the proper response is not saying: yes I did, or: no, I didn't. The proper response in this context is: don't worry about the trash, honey.

And yes - you can say that the trash do not exist and it can be a valid answer, if oneness is established in relation to spiritual culture.
Problems that arise when you respond in this way come from 'the other' when what you do is so unlike any other interaction that you previously had that they do not even recognize it as a form of communication. It's like meeting the Chinese master, and starting up front with establishing a rule that it is okay to throw pieces at your opponent. The trouble it gets you in is predicated on the lack of intelligence on both parts.

One is hasty enough to establish a rule too quickly, and the other is not open enough to notice his will to do so.
First, you need to learn to play chess, then show the master that you are his match, and only then you can start to make your own rules so that he understands it. It is entirely possible to throw pieces at each other intelligently, but it takes time and skill.
Or unconditional willingness to stay open, which is an inner relationship to the Absolute.

A more civil conversation in this tone would be:
"Hey, did you take the trash out?"
"Why would we want to take them out if we just brought them in?"
(the trash are the same as grocery = the trash doesn't exist)

Edited August 4, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

8 hours ago, Feel Good said:

I wondered why i intuitively sign my communications with emojis. I understand that its my responsibility how others interpret me. I'm surprised at the lack of understanding of this "fact" in the forum. People seem to assume that their own worldview is somehow apparently obvious to everyone else and don't know that their words are bring merely interpreted from the standpoint of the observer. 

Funny how such fundamental insights are not really accounted for when people are attempting to explain their issues. I hope helpers also provide context when attempting to answer a question rather than leave a drive by one liner like "everything is a lie" to someone who is suffering psychological issues. Context is king and understanding it saves a whole bunch of confusion and grief in the long run.

I'm also aware of the fact that I betray my own worldview here

@Feel Good No amount of emojis or explanations can transmit the context. Symbols are empty by themselves.
They arrive at us unexpectedly and are observed only through the filter of beliefs.
We project all meaning upon them, and by doing that, we push our own buttons.
It is the willingness to move our own buttons in a way that pushing hits the right ones is what establishes oneness of the I=you=we.

It is the precondition of any perception.

Edited August 4, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

7 hours ago, now is forever said:

@tsuki that’s the problem with nihilism- you say no, no, no, until it’s totally pointless. and empty. that’s, why you have to stop zooming in at one point to see at least the outlines. non rationally.

@now is forever It is not pointless and empty.
As you zoom in, it is meaningful, then you zoom in some more and it is meaningless, then some more and it is meaningful, then meaningless, ad infinitum.
There is no difference between zooming in and out. Zooming is zooming.

Edited August 4, 2018 by tsuki

[Zweistein]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

@Feel Good No amount of emojis or explanations can transmit the context. Symbols are empty by themselves.
They arrive at us unexpectedly and are observed only through the filter of beliefs.
We project all meaning upon them, and by doing that, we push our own buttons.
It is the willingness to move our own buttons in a way that pushing hits the right ones is what establishes oneness of the I=you=we.

It is the precondition of any perception.

@tsuki How do you=I=we perceive the difference between teacher and pupil? You don't want the difference to be there, right? What if you=I=we change our perspectives?

[now is forever]

@tsuki it sounds very lonely tsuki

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by now is forever

[Leo Gura]

@tsuki All language is dualistic. For language to work at all it requires making relative distinctions.

You're way overcomplicating this.

The Absolute cannot be spoken or even thought.

Wittgenstein did not fathom nonduality and his philosophy is not worth much even though he has a few great lines to quote.

Derrida's analysis of language is much more on-point.

[Zweistein]

How could we possibly synchronize our clocks & efforts more? This is the question, I'm asking myself these days. (I'm tired of feeling lonely*). ???

*don't project anything dramatic into these words. It's really not that bad actually.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Zweistein

[Zweistein]

2 minutes ago, Feel Good said:

Sometimes people can go too far into their heads with this work ^^^

It's good to balance the study meditation and a social life. I have found some of your information to be treading the bizarre territory. 

Haven't we all been there? ?

[now is forever]

 

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

@now is forever It is not pointless and empty.
As you zoom in, it is meaningful, then you zoom in some more and it is meaningless, then some more and it is meaningful, then meaningless, ad infinitum.
There is no difference between zooming in and out. Zooming is zooming.

we talked about that before, do you remember the image? is there no end to it really? there is something called „bedeutungsebene“ in german... in english it would be significant level. but if i would translate that it would be more level of meaning.

Edited August 4, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@tsuki All language is dualistic. For language to work at all it requires making relative distinctions.

You're way overcomplicating this.

The Absolute cannot be spoken or even thought.

Wittgenstein did not fathom nonduality and his philosophy is not worth much even though he has a few great lines to quote.

Derrida's analysis of language is much more on-point.

@Leo Gura I am not bringing Wittgenstein to the table to treat him as an authority on what language is.
Nobody should ever care what anybody else meant by what they wrote.
The only important thing is what was understood. All language, regardless of what is being said, is a metaphor.
There is not much difference when it comes to complexity.

So, for now it seems like you are not acknowledging the question that I asked, but that's okay.
We're not dealing with the same thing yet, so perhaps there is nothing to share.

Thank you for your time, Leo. I appreciate it.
I just hope that I can ask you some more questions in the future, as I am a curious fellow and I respect you very much.

[Zweistein]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Is time real? Nope. But we still need to set our clocks to the same time so we can coordinate.

In a world of only illusion, illusion becomes the reality.

@tsuki These words helped me understand - maybe they can help you, too?

If we want to break the cycle of the "Never-ending story", don't we=you=I have to clean our inner-most mirrors constantly? If we don't do that, wouldn't history repeat itself over and over?

[tsuki]

50 minutes ago, Zweistein said:

@tsuki How do you=I=we perceive the difference between teacher and pupil?

@Zweistein As non-originated disappointment, as described in this post:

Or did you mean my disposition towards it? I generally treat it as a way to grow. To increase my=your=our intelligence.
It is a pleasant feeling, even it makes me uneasy/annoyed at times.

2 hours ago, Zweistein said:

You don't want the difference to be there, right?

Right. For that to happen, I=you=we would have to be infinitely intelligent=totally at peace.

2 hours ago, Zweistein said:

What if you=I=we change our perspectives?

That is what I am doing right now. Going back to the original post: I'm making my context explicit through contemplation.
This way I can punch a hole the context it and return to the unknown. It's a cycle.

1 hour ago, Zweistein said:

If we make a more serious effort to synchronize our clocks, how could we possibly do that? This is the question, I'm asking myself these days. I'm tired of feeling lonely. ???

If we want to break the cycle of the "Never-ending story", don't we=you=I have to clean our inner-most mirrors constantly? If we don't do that, wouldn't history repeat itself over and over?

(read the quote carefully ^^^^^^)

You feel lonely because you meticulously keep polishing your mirror. I don't.
In the effort of trying to stop the cycle from repeating itself, you repeatedly polish your mirror.
This very polishing is what makes you lonely. That is because there is nobody else than you=I=us.
'Others' appear through disappointment because you project meaning onto the world. This projection is dependent on beliefs.
If you polish your beliefs out, then the world becomes meaningless. Doesn't that make you lonely?
You can only have company if you allow your dirt/beliefs to grow and let 'others' disappoint you.
This is how the world is meaningful. To see the I=you=we despite the dirt.

I take care of my mirror in a different way.
When I see something beautiful, I enjoy it.
When I see a monster, I acknowledge that the mirror is dirty and study the dirt curiously.
There is no need to polish the mirror this way, as long as you keep in mind that there is dirt and mirror.

Does this metaphor make any sense to you?

[now is forever]

@tsuki where do you want to punch a hole? and why do you think women polish their mirror? 

the also polish the mirror for others by the way.

Edited August 4, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

15 minutes ago, now is forever said:

@tsuki where do you want to punch a hole? and why do you think women polish their mirror?

@now is forever Punching a hole is a figure of speech. It's about saying clearly what I mean and seeing my own folly. I'm not there yet.
And how did femininity slip into your understanding of whatever I was saying? I said nothing about women.

@Zweistein said that we need to clean our mirrors to break the cycle.
I simply said that there is no way to escape the cycle.
There is one cycle, or another cycle. That's all.
There is also a relationship between cleaning the mirror and loneliness that I wanted to point out.

Reading it now, it feels like I projected too much onto that little metaphor.
I'm sorry if I missed.

Edited August 4, 2018 by tsuki

[Zweistein]

@tsuki

If we=you=I contemplate, is it true that we cannot break/escape the cycle, what result would we=you=I get?

Do you wanna contemplate insights one can gain from reading the "Never-ending story"? I know it's freaky, it's a children's book. But I think it was written for the younger generation on purpose.

P.S. it feels to me like we are talking about the same things with different words.

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Zweistein

[now is forever]

@tsuki there is a difference in the understanding of women and men it‘s so obvious. that’s a concrete duality there. women are basically impersonating the mirror all the time.

you are talking to a woman aren’t you? so telling her to stop polishing mirrors is almost telling women in general to stop breathing.

Edited August 4, 2018 by now is forever

[Zweistein]

If we contemplate, could it be true that women have some sort of "watching out that nobody gets hurt" attitude/gene/mother instinct? Does that help to understand what @now is forever means?

P.S. Does everyone have their feelings "under control" still? Or, let's put it that way, can we still use them wisely to keep learning from this discussion?

@now is forever May i cite you?  (Please correct, if I remember it wrongly) "After throwing a wheel, it's all a matter of returning to the center fast enough" ? 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Zweistein