to put in fuller light some delicious contradictions still remaining.
Which may be "real", or artifacts of language or loopy logic.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That "CC/realization has nothing to do with any aspect of the body.
> > Nothing supports it" would imply that neither doorsteps nor
> > foundations are necessary for IT. Nor for the realization of IT --
> if
> > the latter acutally is a distinction of significance.
>
> Right.
> >
> > Though the "loophole" may be that IT is a catalytic type
> phenomenon.
> > The catalyst is required for the "reaction", but disappears and is
> not
> > required for the new state.
>
> Ed Zackerly. The realization of IT is completely independent of any
> steps we may take up until that point.
That the goal and path are quite different is reasonable if not
obvious. But the issue is, IMO, "is the path necessary to reach the
goal?" To most, the question is silly, and the answer (to them) is
obvious. However, that does not make it true.
Per Patrick's question, yours and Peter's original statements imply
that any "practice" -- the path -- is not necesary. But, IMO, you and
Peter sort of "dance" around that with discussions that imply that
"foundations" and "doorsteps" are necessary for realizing IT, but the
practice or path to bring about foundations and doorsteps is not.
My point is that either i) practice (path) is useful in preparing the
foundation and doorstep or ii) its not. And that foundation and
doorstep are i) necessary for realization, or ii) they are not.
Or, per my later points, one can take up a different dance around the
floor (and issue), and can deny logic is valid in this realm and
invoke Jaimani -- "all is paradox in this realm".
That dance is fine, if gracefully done. But then it leads to the later
points in the referenced post -- ~"then nothing can be said that is
true about IT -- because it is a paradox and the same thing can said
to be false." Thus any discussion of it can be reduced to jibberish.
(Which may be correct. But also necessarily false I guess too. Which
is jibberish. See my point?)
> >
> > Or perhaps "bootstrapping" is apt description. IT Itself pulls
> ITself
> > into ITs realization.
>
> Ed Zackerly.
>
> >
> > Whether catalytic or bootstrpped, the process still a temporal
> > phenomenon, "IT was not and then IT was". That seems utterly
> > inconsistant with the view that "It is utterly and completely
> > independent of any boundary." Certainly if that is so, it must not
> be
> > bound by temporal processes.
>
> Its not about "IT was not and then IT was". IT always was
My implied point was that IT always was. Thats the "contradiction" I
was raising. If IT is beyond boundaries, IT is beyond time and does
not come and go, does not "not Be" and then "BE". So we are saying the
same thing to this point.
(aka A)
>we just
> didn't see IT before,
But if that is so, then there is something that "we" did or became or
refined or whatever to see IT. Which implies path and practice. And
something that supports the "experience" of IT, which was not there
before. But Peter's original post (aka B) appears to deny this. Thus
in the realm of logic, you can't have both A and B as true.
So again, denying logic and proposing the similtenaity of truth and
falseness with all statements of IT is fine, but if hatis true, it
needs to be applied across the board. Thus, IF one is going down THAT
path, Peter's and your original statements about the independecne of
IT from any relative structure are true. But also can be FALSE. Thus,
if you go down this road, all discussions of IT can be reduced to
jibberish.
>or IT didn't allow itself to be seen before.
An IT that changes, that winks, that plays hide and seek? That sounds
pretty much like a relative structure, not an eternal IT.
>
> > Perhaps variations and imperfections of the [INTERPRETATION of
the] "experience" of IT, consciousness being alive within itself
explains some of the
> logical discrpency.
The above, [in brackets], is an important phrase I left out of the
origianl post.
>
> Ed Zackerly. Variations. Analagous to all rivers being made of
> flowing water, but each one unique due to the landscape. The water
> in every case though is H2O (ache-to-Oh!).
My point has to do with alternative, and sometimes perhaps, erroneous
interpretations of the "experience" of IT. For example, below. It may
feel like IT has no physiological basis, but that may be a
misinterpretation of the experience, it may indeed have such a
physiogical basis. We can swear the sun rises from the edge of the
earth, rises and circles the earth, but damned, no matter how
"OBVIOUS" that is, its not so.
>
> IT certainly feels like IT is self-sufficient as if it has
> > nothing to do with any aspect of the body, that nothing
> > supports it. But are other interpretations possible? Such as, IT
> could
> > absolutely feel like that, but indeed also have some physiological
> > correlates? (which raises the issue are correlates simply
> similtaneous
> > phenomenon, or causative?)
>
> Either no physiological corrrelates OR all phsiological correlates
> are the only two choices; either the infinity of all or the infinity
> of nothing.
I don't follow your general logic here as to why that is so. Sounds
like just a nice phrase thrown in.
But as an aside, if it is B) "OR all phsiological correlates" then
Peter's original statement is wrong.
> > Or, perhaps discussion of IT is a matter that is in all cases
> beyond
> > logic and words.
>
> Discussion isn't, but ultimate definition is. Unless we include all
> of the words that exist, in our definition...
I am saying that if one goes down the path of saying all statements
about IT are both true and false, its a paradox, etc, then that may be
correct, but then you have to face the fact that all discussions of IT
can be reduced to jibberish.
Going down that path is a realm of "A is true and false. B is true and
false. The statement that A is true and false is both true and
False..." So again, denying logic and proposing the similtenaity of
truth and falseness with all statements of IT is fine, but if true
needs to be applied across the board.
> In such a "realm", it would
> > seem quite arbitrary to give some statements discretionary
> importance
> > and claims of (universal ?) truth over another.
>
> Only if WE are making such distinctions. However that is not the
> case. If consciousness is alive within itself, and we are awake to
> the fact that we are only consciousness alive within itself, then it
> is the consciousness alone making such 'arbitrary' decisions.
I don't follow your point. It sounds to me like nice things, but
unfortuneatley does not address the main point IMO. Which is, IMO:
If one takes that view that IT cannot be discussed in logical terms
and proposes the similtenaity of truth and falseness with all
statements of IT, then that is fine. But if one has that view, it
needs to be applied across the board.
> And in such a realm,
> > any discussion that includes IT would be meaniningless and
> jibberish.
> No, consciousness clearly knows and understands itself. If we are
> not awake to the fact that we are completely just pure
> consciousness, then to the degree we don't know that, any discussion
> of consciousness with itself will appear to us to be meaningless and
> jibberish...
We agree that "experience" is necessary for any attempts of discussion
of IT.
However, it does NOT follow from that that all statements about IT
will be logically consistent and either true or false. If they are
not, then discussion is limited, or "without boundaries". That is, IF
its all paradox THEN all statements about it can be true and false.
The practical application of going down that road, for example, is
that Peter's statement that IT has no physiological correlates is
True. But also False. So where is the relevance or meaningfulness of
discussion?
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
