07-24-2010, 12:05 AM
nemo quoted : "He maintained that 'to comprehend' is to fix our attention on a specific point, from where things can be explained. The more accepted that point is by people in general, the truer we find it.
"But the universe is not reasonable, its essence is beyond all description. Security and common sense are islands floating around in a bottomless sea, and we only cling to them out of fear.
"If you continue on the path of knowledge, you will soon discover that explanations are placebos, since they never fulfill what they promise. For each thing they clarify, they generate a trail of contradictions. In fact, we never understand anything; true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting. That is the nature of the lessons of the nagual."
Nemo,
Know that even you yourself are not outside of this rationalization. What you present here in this thread is your rational and you use others acceptance to help reinforce it, such as this quote you give reinforces your own POV. It too is rational.
"explanations are placebos"
Yet you provide via your own words...explanations of what you believe rationally.
"But the universe is not reasonable"
Yet here you are reasoning with us about this very point.
"its essence is beyond all description"
Yet you describe it to us (multiuniverse posts).
"In fact, we never understand anything"
Yet you feel you DO understand.
"true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting."
How can there be a teaching then if, as you said, there's nothing to understand? Because even bodily knowledge would convey understanding.
Its one thing to frown upon rationalization, but to use the very vehicle of it to do this is simply contradictory and actually is an adherence to rationality itself.
"But the universe is not reasonable, its essence is beyond all description. Security and common sense are islands floating around in a bottomless sea, and we only cling to them out of fear.
"If you continue on the path of knowledge, you will soon discover that explanations are placebos, since they never fulfill what they promise. For each thing they clarify, they generate a trail of contradictions. In fact, we never understand anything; true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting. That is the nature of the lessons of the nagual."
Nemo,
Know that even you yourself are not outside of this rationalization. What you present here in this thread is your rational and you use others acceptance to help reinforce it, such as this quote you give reinforces your own POV. It too is rational.
"explanations are placebos"
Yet you provide via your own words...explanations of what you believe rationally.
"But the universe is not reasonable"
Yet here you are reasoning with us about this very point.
"its essence is beyond all description"
Yet you describe it to us (multiuniverse posts).
"In fact, we never understand anything"
Yet you feel you DO understand.
"true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting."
How can there be a teaching then if, as you said, there's nothing to understand? Because even bodily knowledge would convey understanding.
Its one thing to frown upon rationalization, but to use the very vehicle of it to do this is simply contradictory and actually is an adherence to rationality itself.