Self Analysis implies abstraction, which nourishes division-duality

[tsuki]

@Faceless @robdl  From the point of view of ?, knowledge is used and does not pre-determine the outcome of choice.
As you look at ? from ?? (infinite creativity/freedom), there is no freedom unlike in ??.
?? feels like it is free because there is no ???.

From the point of view of ??? looking at ??,  it is as constrained as ? when you look at it from the point of view of ??.

Edited August 8, 2018 by tsuki

[Faceless]

?? this impkes mechanical fragmentation 

?this undivided attention (wholeness) 

 

Thought (the fragment) can never see (the whole) truth 

what do you guys think? 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[tsuki]

If you have no ??, it 'feels like' ? is free.
When ? observes itself (?), there is freedom.

But, as you look at ? from the point of view of ?? - the difference of freedom/love is vast.

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, tsuki said:

From the point of view of ?, knowledge is used and does not pre-determine the outcome of choice.

To me from the view of ? there is no choice . 

You know?

[SoonHei]

Just now, Faceless said:

 ? 

 

@Faceless @tsuki what is  ?  ?? thanks

[tsuki]

1 minute ago, Faceless said:

To me from the view of ? there is no choice . 

You know?

Because you look from the point of view of ??.
To ? as it looks on itself, there is choice.
As ?? looks at itself, there is choice.

It doesn't mean that there is no reason to go from ? to ?? though.

[Faceless]

7 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

@Faceless @tsuki what is  ?  ?? thanks

?action of holistic insight-perception. Or perception without the limitation of fragmentation. 

??Fragmentation being selective, bias, partial, limited seeing influenced by the veil of (experience, knowledge, memory) as the i . 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[tsuki]

5 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

@Faceless @tsuki what is  ?  ?? thanks

@SoonHei You can think of ? as the I. ?? is the observer of the I.
As you look at the I, you automatically 'create' the observer of the I.
When you look through your own eyes in everyday experience, there is no observer of the I. There is just I.

Unless you have experienced the observer of the I, looking clearly at the I, you shouldn't concern yourself with this discussion.
It will only confuse you.

[Faceless]

6 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Because you look from the point of view of ??.

As long as one looks from this?? (fragmentation-time) the perception continues to be cut to pieces. Thought-self cuts all things to peices. 

[tsuki]

2 minutes ago, Faceless said:

?action of holistic insight-perception. Or perception without the limitation of fragmentation. 

??Fragmentation being selective, bias, partial, limited seeing influence by the veil of (experience, knowledge, memory) as the i . 

No. I disagree.

As ? looks at itself, it is holistic.
As ?? looks at ?, then ? looks fragmented.
As ?? looks at itself, it is holistic, but much, much more holistic than ?.
The freedom of ?? is much much greater than ?.
As ?? looks at ?, it looks as if it is completely determined.

[SoonHei]

1 minute ago, tsuki said:

It will only confuse you.

that's the only thing i connected with and understood lol 

and confused I am.

 

this does seem juicy though. i'll tag this thread for my post-woke days  

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, tsuki said:

You can think of ? as the I. ?? is the observer of the I.

That is not how I am using it. 

To me, ??is the i and ? is the holistic perception that the observer is the observed. 

This could be creating confusion in our communication 

[who chit]

3 minutes ago, tsuki said:

???.

The one (non-thought)-perceiving false/separate I self -acting as observer/witness -to movement/content of mind/thoughts?

[tsuki]

?? is the possibility of zooming out of the mind of ? and inspecting its structure.
As you write your wisdom on the forum, you inspect ? from the point of view of ??.

[robdl]

1 minute ago, Faceless said:

That is not how I am using it. 

To me, ??is the i and ? is the holistic perception that the observer is the observed. 

This could be creating confusion in our communication 

If you guys aren't using the  ?/??/??? nomenclature the same way, and other readers are confused by it, I'd suggest returning to normal language

 

 

[Faceless]

originally I was implying the absense of ? at all was to see the whole. 

 

But i I adapted to communicate. Now we can say they ?? this implies and symbolizes duality-division followed by action, which is incomplete-finite. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

If you guys aren't using the  ?/??/??? nomenclature the same way, and other readers are confused by it, I'd suggest returning to normal language

 

 

I think we are not. 

nobody read this?

 

[tsuki]

4 minutes ago, robdl said:

If you guys aren't using the  ?/??/??? nomenclature the same way, and other readers are confused by it, I'd suggest returning to normal language

@robdl There is no normal language about it.
? is the I.
?? is the observer of the I.
??? is the observer of the observer of the I.
???? is the observer of the observer of the observer of the I.
...

I don't think that it is useful to write it out in normal language.
@Faceless, I am trying to point something out to you, so perhaps it would be wiser if you tried to understand what I mean as these symbols?

Edited August 8, 2018 by tsuki

[robdl]

Symbolize it if you must due to language's limitations, but just be on the same page about what the symbols mean so we can understand the convo

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

Originally I was using this ?to imply action influenced by division-duality. Being incomplete-finite-partial. 

 

But we can use ?? being two to represent duality-diction as well. As in being split-broken.