06-16-2010, 12:00 AM
My bad. You did write "...Are you free to leave? Free to arrive? ..." This was never a question in regard my own connection. I initiated it, and in due time, I will terminate it, if I choose to do so.
Yes yes, but it is the perception that is being questioned...is such a perception free? A perception that perceives forms with essences "inside" them?
Gonzo wrote:"Cogito ergo sum" - that which thinks is the essence, located wherever one thinks."
Tiff wrote:Who is that? What does thinking look like so as to be located?
I'd guess you'ld be best off asking yourself those questions.
Well...this is a discussion we are entered into and so the questions are to examine the perspectives being made to support a view. I don't need to ask myself because I already have. Though, if you are not interested in such questioning, that's cool.
Gonzo wrote:"I didn't say stopping the world would terminate the experience of form. What I said was, imo, what the statement means is to "stop interpretation" of phenomena."
Tiff wrote:You were saying that it would be impossible to stay in human form and stop the world in any way outside of stopping interpretation. And if you ask me, just thinking its about stopping interpretation is not going far enough. That statement does not have the impetus to truly plummet the depths of what is occurring in this experience of phenomena.
Maybe I can clarify. don Juan advised to stop the world. I don't believe he meant that literally, since truly stopping the world would essentially mean its destruction. In my opinion, what he meant was for us not to get between objects and the names of objects; i.e., stop interpretation of the world.
Right, I'm not talking about literally. But not simply stopping interpretation either. I feel it's a more exerted effort than that. Because interpretation is sort of a natural occurrence. Its not like we should be able to look at a rock and not know it as a rock. Of course we know its a rock. That is an interpretation and it doesn't necessarily have to be stopped...so what does?
Gonzo wrote:In regard "here" and "there", you appear to be a proponent of the theory of non-dualism, with which I disagree, and would simply ask, "If there is something which is perceived, that implies there is a perceiver", which would describe dualism: i.e., a "here" and a "there", both of which are required to define one another.
Tiff wrote:There is no here and there is no there, that's only an interpretation. How did the perceiver begin? Where are his origins? Did first the perceive "become" and then the phenomena for him to perceive arose? And where did it arise from? How did all this dualism begin?
Damned if I know.
Right, so how can you be so sure about dualism then? That dualism is an absolute you seem to think...that nothing can be perceived beyond it. This is really a zen discussion topic...or at least, it has turned into one.
Reformated format
Yes yes, but it is the perception that is being questioned...is such a perception free? A perception that perceives forms with essences "inside" them?
Gonzo wrote:"Cogito ergo sum" - that which thinks is the essence, located wherever one thinks."
Tiff wrote:Who is that? What does thinking look like so as to be located?
I'd guess you'ld be best off asking yourself those questions.
Well...this is a discussion we are entered into and so the questions are to examine the perspectives being made to support a view. I don't need to ask myself because I already have. Though, if you are not interested in such questioning, that's cool.
Gonzo wrote:"I didn't say stopping the world would terminate the experience of form. What I said was, imo, what the statement means is to "stop interpretation" of phenomena."
Tiff wrote:You were saying that it would be impossible to stay in human form and stop the world in any way outside of stopping interpretation. And if you ask me, just thinking its about stopping interpretation is not going far enough. That statement does not have the impetus to truly plummet the depths of what is occurring in this experience of phenomena.
Maybe I can clarify. don Juan advised to stop the world. I don't believe he meant that literally, since truly stopping the world would essentially mean its destruction. In my opinion, what he meant was for us not to get between objects and the names of objects; i.e., stop interpretation of the world.
Right, I'm not talking about literally. But not simply stopping interpretation either. I feel it's a more exerted effort than that. Because interpretation is sort of a natural occurrence. Its not like we should be able to look at a rock and not know it as a rock. Of course we know its a rock. That is an interpretation and it doesn't necessarily have to be stopped...so what does?
Gonzo wrote:In regard "here" and "there", you appear to be a proponent of the theory of non-dualism, with which I disagree, and would simply ask, "If there is something which is perceived, that implies there is a perceiver", which would describe dualism: i.e., a "here" and a "there", both of which are required to define one another.
Tiff wrote:There is no here and there is no there, that's only an interpretation. How did the perceiver begin? Where are his origins? Did first the perceive "become" and then the phenomena for him to perceive arose? And where did it arise from? How did all this dualism begin?
Damned if I know.
Right, so how can you be so sure about dualism then? That dualism is an absolute you seem to think...that nothing can be perceived beyond it. This is really a zen discussion topic...or at least, it has turned into one.
Reformated format