Leo vs Sam Haris

[Amit]

13 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

You are confusing the infinitude of consciousness for the finitude of rationality.

consciousness can be anything even rationality.

[Amit]

@Nahm Yes, it is.

[Jacobsrw]

49 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I totally understand that. And that's exactly my point!!

Without having a frame of reference to contrast the two different perspectives how could you know that?  You have to first experience what's it's like to be ignorant deluded rational person in order to be able to transcend.  The first thing that a blind man does after he gets healed from his blindness is throwing away the stick that guided him for lots of years  

I agree and have already touched on this earlier. Rationality is used in the conceptual domain to understand mind. To move into metaphysics one must leave concepts and rationality all together. Both are useful but at different times.

This by no means validates rationality efficient in the domain of interpreting consciousness itself which is my point. Ones own experience is the only force of guidance in that regard.

Also consider that one can be awakened without having to be deluded and requiring rationality. Some individuals in the past have been reported to be born awakened with no distinction otherwise. Or some reached awakening spontaneously via intuition where existence of rationality we’re completely void. Rationality is not a prerequisite to awakening.

@The observer You are straw manning while contradicting yourself. You are vouching for rationality in one breath then disregarding it in another. You are in fact, demonstrating relative and objective in your own argument.

Your argument undermines the purpose of mind in the domain of consciousness. Relativity is the activity of mind from which concepts are organised. Ultimately none are any truer than any other. However, this doesn’t mean rationality is as useful as any other approach or that it will provide you access to truth. This is your conflation. You creating vague statements that assume because rationality is a reflection of truth it will serve just as equally valuable in deriving it. 

Just because a gun is truth, doesn’t mean shooting someone will produce enlightenment. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Jacobsrw]

30 minutes ago, Amit said:

consciousness can be anything even rationality.

Exactly right. Consciousness is primary, rationality is secondary.

[Someone here]

40 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

 

@The observer

Just because a gun is truth, doesn’t mean shooting someone will produce enlightenment. 

Shooting me will produce enlightenment. The ego is the veil. Once the ego dies all that is left is pure truth. Lol

[The observer]

3 hours ago, Jacobsrw said:

 

@The observer You are straw manning while contradicting yourself. You are vouching for rationality in one breath then disregarding it in another. You are in fact, demonstrating relative and objective in your own argument.

Your argument undermines the purpose of mind in the domain of consciousness. Relativity is the activity of mind from which concepts are organised. Ultimately none are any truer than any other. However, this doesn’t mean rationality is as useful as any other approach or that it will provide you access to truth. This is your conflation. You creating vague statements that assume because rationality is a reflection of truth it will serve just as equally valuable in deriving it. 

Just because a gun is truth, doesn’t mean shooting someone will produce enlightenment. 

 

Rationality is a necessity for communication. We can't have a conversation without language. Language = rationality. But that's something you know, and it is kindergarten compared to my main point. 

There isn't actually a mind, nor consciousness. These are merely pointers towards nothing. Consciousness is not the truth. It is imaginary. It does not even help to say that it is a label that points to the actual thing, because there isn't actually an actual thing that is consciousness. To say that there is something called "consciousness" means that you have already gone too far. The mind loves that, even though the mind doesn't actually exist either. I use these pointers (mind, consciousness, rationality, I, you, it, etc...) to serve the communication, but I understand that eventually they all without an exception, are just pointers, and that they're void of any truth whatsoever. Apparently, you believe otherwise. You believe that the pointers carry innate truths. You believe that rationality have truth to it, but limited compared to metaphysics. You believe that pointers actually point to actual things. The truth is that they do not. That's the whole point. But of course, it's paradoxical to say that because here I am using rationality to undermine rationality. And here's where things get interesting. There is a solution to this paradox. There is a leap of consciousness that occurs when you realise that a pointer is just a pointer and not the actual thing, and that the map is not the territory. Not on an intellectual level, like it seems to be the case, but more on an actual conscious level. Now you might think that you have already realised that, or that I'm acting arrogant or something. I'm telling you, you have not realised anything. That's apparent to me from the things you wrote. And I am not saying that to be superior. I'm just trying to show you how your mind is tricking you. Take it or leave it, it's up to you.

In SD terms, you're simply using a stage Green lens right now, and you don't seem to be able to take it off, even temporarily. You have outgrown Orange's rationality and are now operating from Green's relativity. There's greater understanding beyond that. I am pointing towards that. But there is a serious leap here, so I understand that it's not easy.

[Leo Gura]

Rationality is highly limited and it's always co-opted by the ego-mind for purposes of its survival.

Rationality is the chief mechanism of self-deception. Every deluded person thinks he is rational.

[dinone]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Sam Harris is not awake.

Like every real christian will say... he has not met Jesus yet! 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, dinone said:

Like every real christian will say... he has not met Jesus yet! 

He's not met Allah yet and the 72 virgins

[Amit]

@Leo Gura some people have not even scored their first virgin?

[Jacobsrw]

@The observer I feel you are misconstruing what I have been saying throughout. And once again, you’ve created a straw man. I’ve already stated concepts and language need to be transcended in order to interpret the essence reality. Then here you are denigrating what I say by using the same concepts and language to bolster your argument ?

All imaginary aspects of mind are truth. Even illusions have a reality to them, they just aren’t of the same equivalency. You seem to ignore this. Your argument against imaginary illusions is itself an illusion, yet still a truth. Because whatever is occurring is truth. Nothing = everything (full circle). Your analogy seems to be dualistic. Nothing = existence and Illusions = non-reality. This is a tu quoque fallacy. Ultimately, theres no “truth” and “not-truth”. All is truth. Just because an illusion misrepresents reality doesn’t mean it holds no truth (this is from where I was stating some things hold more efficiency than others).

Existence or consciousness if we want to call it that - which you seem to be critiquing while equally using - is but full of degrees and gradations.

Yes ultimately there is nothing and no term can represent that. However, that doesn’t help your point. You’re making criticisms against using conceptually driven terms to explain the uncommunicable while having to equally do it yourself. You’ve painted yourself into a corner, then put yourself on an elitist pedestal. I recommend being careful of this.

Nothing of what we say will ever impart nearly at all what we are attempting to explain. That may be something we can both agree on.

Ill leave it here, since you’ve seemed to have concocted a list of ad-hominem projections that assume much about who I am and where I’m coming from. You’ve missed the crux of what was first shared. Nothing I can say to change that unfortunately.

Appreciate your contribution nonetheless. Take care ?

Edited May 25, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Jacobsrw]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

Shooting me will produce enlightenment. The ego is the veil. Once the ego dies all that is left is pure truth. Lol

 Haha no. You believe that conceptually because of what you’ve been informed of. Go do it and then tell me of your awakening.

If you shoot someone you will still remain as deluded as you were before, that’s the point. There are different avenues which assist ones awakening more so than others. Claiming all to be equally effective in doing so is just a constructed deception. Awakening is not binary.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[The observer]

@Jacobsrw That was not my point at all. I'm sorry, but you're talking about something else entirely. I'm talking about transcending the mind. You don't seem to be interested in that, you don't seem to even be able to intuit what that is, and you seem to be stuck at transcending rationality, but it's okay. Nothing you said I actually disagree with. It's just that I don't take any of it, or any other pointers for that matter, to be actually true. And when I try to point that out to you, I use language, so it seems contradictory and you accuse me of strawmanning arguments. You seem to get distracted by the pointers easily and forget what they're pointing to, when you should instead look at what they're pointing to and then immediately discard them. You say that all is truth. I don't disagree with that. That's not the point of the discussion, that's why I ignore it. "truth/true" is a concept, just like "falsehood/false". They're all pointers that you use to communicate with another person. But if you believe that they inherently have meaning when you're alone with yourself, and that being is truth or true or consciousness or imagination or any other mental construct, then that's exactly what I'm pointing out. The pointers assume that the thing we call being (in this case, I prefer the term being) has qualities. These qualities are add-ons from the mind. They're not inherent to being. To say that being is true must mean that something else that is not being is false. To say that being is imaginary must mean that something else that is not being is not imaginary. That's dualistic thinking, and it's a function of the mind. To get out of this problem and still not transcend the mind, the mind keeps its ownership and says: nothing = everything, although the mind uses many other convenient rationalizations to keep itself alive. And to be more deceptive, the mind creates a new category for this kind of rationality and calls it "metaphysics", and it assumes that it's superior to the former kinds, while in fact that is not the case. The mind wants being to have interpretations, because without that, the mind becomes obsolete. Notice, there is a meaning assumed in the pointers 'truth, nothing and everything', that's a function of the mind, and it requires transcendence to see that. I'm talking about transcending/detachment of meaning altogether, while not disregarding it at all. The mind loves meaning. It does not want to let go of it. It doesn't help to say that no words can communicate being. I'm not talking about communicating being, all communication is between humans and it requires a mind. I'm talking about realising it, which, from your own words, I believe you haven't yet. Realising being isn't something that you can rationalize about and say: reality is truth, all is true, reality = non-reality, nothing = everything, etc... If you still use these constructs when you're alone with yourself and think that they represent anything at all, then that's exactly what I'm talking about, that means that you haven't transcended the mind yet, and that you aren't realised. Does that make sense?

Appreciate your contribution too.

Edited May 26, 2020 by The observer

[Jacobsrw]

@The observer that makes sense and I feel we agree on all those points.

As I mentioned earlier, all that we say will never hold the capacity to communicate the very thing we are trying to. Language is a redundancy, though a useful one. You may have misunderstood my contention regarding the limits of the mind. They should already be implicit in what I’ve said earlier. The mind cannot be used to interpret the core of reality, yet we still require it.

To me, meaning is relative and in fact, meaningless. However, meaning still plays a part. It allows for mind to be used in a distinction based manner. Which is where metaphysics and rationality hold different purposes. That was my the main point I was attempting to convey. Even though they may be figments of imagination within a field of nothing, they still remain  useful to a finite self dominated by ego - which all humans are. 

You could be right I may be fixated on pointers for the time being. The irony is, they are a necessary inflection point to cross. One consumed by ego cannot simply skip over them. Anyone who is unawakened fears privileging them self such a title, that’s the chief deception. Nonetheless, I’ll do my best to exercise the humility to still admit it.

I agree. Pointers are important but fundamentally must be disposed with, I stated this earlier I believe. Although, that doesn’t render them useless. I guess I was expressing how pointers although stemming from the same place (nothingness) they still exemplify inherently different qualities in supporting ones journey. I still maintain that metaphysics is more useful than rationality when conceptualising spirituality, but again, when speaking about these topics to those attached to either one, they will either revere what I say or completely disagree with it. Or worse, confuse what I am saying for idealism. 

Ultimately, it’s not a matter of whether people disagree or not but the understanding for how each cog of reality has a purpose.

To know how to leave an illusion one must have first been deluded by it to know it was never real.

I feel we are trying to do the impossible here by trying communicate the incommunicable. I appreciate our dialogue but I feel we may now be wasting our efforts.

I feel the best we can do is just BE and derive our our understanding from the void ?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Carl-Richard]

On 25.5.2020 at 10:39 AM, Amit said:

So Sam Harris made the claim that he is Awake, but you are saying he is not, you got some beef against him?

Did he actually say he is awake?