Page 14 of 14

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:16 pm
by Logik
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
But who said that you did get to the right conclusion?
Who needs to say it?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
I do NOT recall doing so.
Do you need to say it?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
Is it really that OBVIOUS that YOUR method worked?
Is it really not obvious that my method worked?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
I have already pointed out how YOUR method did NOT work. But maybe that was NOT that OBVIOUS.
Using my method I concluded that you have drawn a distinction between "self" and "the universe".
To claim that my method didn't work is the same as to claim that I was mistaken.

If you drew a distinction between "self" and "universe" then I was correct.
If you didn't draw a distinction between "self" and "universe" then I was mistaken.

Did you or did you not draw a distinction between "self" and "universe"?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
And, WHAT is that 'thing' EXACTLY?

What is 'it' made up of and composed of?
It doesn't matter.

You don't need to know what a circle is composed of to know that it's different to a square. You merely have to recognise that there is a difference between the two things.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
Are you SURE?
I am not sure. It is possible that you lied to me about having a notion of "self".

If you didn't lie to me then I am sure.
If you lied to me then I am not sure.

Did you lie to me?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
But this is NOT the case at all. Because I have yet to gain clarity of what you are actually talking about and proposing as being separate.
It does't matter.

You admitted that you are not the universe.
You admitted that you have a notion of self.

Therefore your recognize that there is a difference between "self" and "the universe".
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
But just remember you have absolutely NO idea of what 'self' means to me. Nor even if that is even a Real Self?

In fact I would be rather surprised if you have ANY clue of what 'self' means to you, and your self.
I don't know what it means to you, but I do know what it doesn't mean to you.

When you say "self" you don't mean "the Universe".
When you say "self" you don't mean "every thing".
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
Now, what shall we do with this FACT?
Well, this line of reasoning started with you saying "That depends on what you are referring to when you use the word 'thing'."

And so I asked you whether you draw a distinction between "The universe" and "self".
Seeming that you do - I can now give you an ostensive definition of a "thing" by providing you with two examples.

The universe is a thing.
The self is a thing.

Any concept that you recognise as being different from any other concept is a "thing".

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:34 am
by Age
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:16 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
But who said that you did get to the right conclusion?
Who needs to say it?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
I do NOT recall doing so.
Do you need to say it?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
Is it really that OBVIOUS that YOUR method worked?
Is it really not obvious that my method worked?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
I have already pointed out how YOUR method did NOT work. But maybe that was NOT that OBVIOUS.
Using my method I concluded that you have drawn a distinction between "self" and "the universe".
To claim that my method didn't work is the same as to claim that I was mistaken.

If you drew a distinction between "self" and "universe" then I was correct.
If you didn't draw a distinction between "self" and "universe" then I was mistaken.

Did you or did you not draw a distinction between "self" and "universe"?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
And, WHAT is that 'thing' EXACTLY?

What is 'it' made up of and composed of?
It doesn't matter.

You don't need to know what a circle is composed of to know that it's different to a square. You merely have to recognise that there is a difference between the two things.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
Are you SURE?
I am not sure. It is possible that you lied to me about having a notion of "self".

If you didn't lie to me then I am sure.
If you lied to me then I am not sure.

Did you lie to me?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
But this is NOT the case at all. Because I have yet to gain clarity of what you are actually talking about and proposing as being separate.
It does't matter.

You admitted that you are not the universe.
You admitted that you have a notion of self.

Therefore your recognize that there is a difference between "self" and "the universe".
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
But just remember you have absolutely NO idea of what 'self' means to me. Nor even if that is even a Real Self?

In fact I would be rather surprised if you have ANY clue of what 'self' means to you, and your self.
I don't know what it means to you, but I do know what it doesn't mean to you.

When you say "self" you don't mean "the Universe".
When you say "self" you don't mean "every thing".
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am
Now, what shall we do with this FACT?
Well, this line of reasoning started with you saying "That depends on what you are referring to when you use the word 'thing'."

And so I asked you whether you draw a distinction between "The universe" and "self".
Seeming that you do - I can now give you an ostensive definition of a "thing" by providing you with two examples.

The universe is a thing.
The self is a thing.

Any concept that you recognise as being different from any other concept is a "thing".
Okay. Thank you.

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:36 am
by AlexW
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:32 am
It is only through the use of the words, the definitions, the terms, and the languages that we use, and, from the BELIEF that our own "version" of the Truth is the living Truth that is the reason WHY we do NOT come to an agreement. The actual real and living Truth is in the form of and comes from THAT what IS in agreement. Only THAT what IS in agreement by ALL would be what IS actually thee Real Truth. The living Truth is living deep within EVERY one existing deep down, way past this pretentious self, and living with the Real and True ALWAYS existing living Self.
I actually find the "living truth" is not "deep within" at all - it is always here/now. I find that, especially when the mind is quiet, this truth is perfectly present and can be sensed in all experience.
I have to admit that I have come to a point in this discussion where things simply get too complicated - I am not really too fond of such long ping pong games of words. I do thank you though for your dedication and effort in trying to explain your position - I really appreciate it - it has been very interesting indeed.

See, for me, reaching a certain mental level of understanding is nice, agreement in such understanding is even better, but no matter how "accurate" the understanding might be, it will and can never replace the reality of the moment, of direct experience where thought has finally slowed down and taken its appropriate position - in the passenger seat, not the drivers seat.

This living knowledge is a sensual, a felt, organic thing that no conceptual understanding can bring about. As such I think we have spent enough time discussing this topic with each "other" (by the way: I agree with you - there are no others - there are only thoughts that speak of such entities) - to me it feels like this discussion is not really going anywhere besides into more and more complex thought patterns, which seem to be less and less to the point...

As you said, the Truth is very simple - better to live this simplicity than to clog it up with (thought based) complexity.

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:20 am
by Age
AlexW wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:36 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:32 am
It is only through the use of the words, the definitions, the terms, and the languages that we use, and, from the BELIEF that our own "version" of the Truth is the living Truth that is the reason WHY we do NOT come to an agreement. The actual real and living Truth is in the form of and comes from THAT what IS in agreement. Only THAT what IS in agreement by ALL would be what IS actually thee Real Truth. The living Truth is living deep within EVERY one existing deep down, way past this pretentious self, and living with the Real and True ALWAYS existing living Self.
I actually find the "living truth" is not "deep within" at all - it is always here/now. I find that, especially when the mind is quiet, this truth is perfectly present and can be sensed in all experience.
This is exactly what I just said. The 'living Truth' is always here/now. Just get past the 'pretentious self', which is just what you term; 'when the mind is quiet', then the 'living Truth' is revealed. (Jabbering thoughts, monkey mind, noisy mind, thinking, and other words are just terms referencing human beings or people, themselves.)

You say the 'living Truth' is always here/now. Are you able to explain in any detail WHAT this 'living Truth' IS, or WHAT It actually entails?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:36 am
I have to admit that I have come to a point in this discussion where things simply get too complicated - I am not really too fond of such long ping pong games of words. I do thank you though for your dedication and effort in trying to explain your position - I really appreciate it - it has been very interesting indeed.

See, for me, reaching a certain mental level of understanding is nice, agreement in such understanding is even better, but no matter how "accurate" the understanding might be, it will and can never replace the reality of the moment, of direct experience where thought has finally slowed down and taken its appropriate position - in the passenger seat, not the drivers seat.
Again, this is exactly what I have been saying. The 'pretentious, (or small), self' is just the thoughts (and emotions) within the human body. By getting rid of this 'self' from the drivers seat and put it aside, then the Real and True Self, Who IS the KNOWING, can take over and keep steering in the RIGHT direction.

But it sounds like you have some trouble, or it takes you some time, to slow down (what you also refer to as quieting the mind) and to move over into the passengers side.

After you discover and/or learn Who/What the Mind actually IS, then just being thee Real Self becomes much simpler, quicker, and easier.

You have alluded to the perception/fact that you, yourself, have had 'direct experience', if so, then what did you find? What were you directly experiencing and/or directly experienced to? Did you find the Real Self and ALL or any of those answers to Life's, alleged, mysteries?

Your BELIEF, and insistence, that an 'accurate understanding' of ALL-OF-THIS can NEVER be obtained IS a major contributing in 'you' beings stuck right here, where 'you' are now, in NOT being able to accurately and fully UNDERSTAND ALL-THERE-IS.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:36 am
This living knowledge is a sensual, a felt, organic thing that no conceptual understanding can bring about.
Conceptual understanding originates and comes from the sensual.

As such I think we have spent enough time discussing this topic with each "other" (by the way: I agree with you - there are no others - there are only thoughts that speak of such entities) - to me it feels like this discussion is not really going anywhere besides into more and more complex thought patterns, which seem to be less and less to the point... [/quote]

That is truly amazing, from My perspective this discussion was going somewhere more and more obvious and simplistic, and heading straight towards the mark.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:36 am
As you said, the Truth is very simple - better to live this simplicity than to clog it up with (thought based) complexity.
If that is what you want to do, then so be it. Enjoy.

I will keep learning to communicate better.

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
by surreptitious57
AGE wrote:
There is an i which is just a human being . A human being is made up of two parts a visible human body part and an invisible ( to the human
eyes ) part . The human body visible part is obvious . The other part is the invisible thoughts and emotions within a human body . i call this
invisible part the person or some times known as the personality . This is the you of which the label age is one

Now within EVERY one of these human beings lays a Truth a True knowledge or a Knowing and with this Truth there is a Real and True I which
will be the answer to the question Who am I ? This Truth within is called a Knowing because It is the exact same within each and EVERY body

i refer to this I as the Mind but some people refer to It as Allah / God / Enlightenment or other names

From the perspective of the capital I there is only one NOW

But from the perspective of the little i or the you ( of which age is also one ) there are many different NOWs because of the reason you gave

Absolutely EVERY thing depends on the observer and from WHAT perspective one or One is LOOKING from
I dont accept the existence of Mind as God

To me Mind is simply ALL THERE IS and as such it cannot be limited to just human beings who for most of known time have not actually existed
Therefore putting Mind inside the minds of human beings makes them unique but from the perspective of the Universe they are nothing special
So I cannot see why an infinitesimal part of the Universe should be regarded as equal to it when it cannot in actuality ever achieve such a state
It has not been specifically mentioned but I still reject any attempt [ implicit or explicit ] to elevate the human mind beyond what it actually is

I prefer to focus on Existence itself which is eternally changing but equally so is also the eternal ALL THERE IS
From THAT perspective there is only one NOW because that is Gods Eye View [ albeit without any actual God ]

There will come a time when the human species is no more but Existence / Reality / Universe / Mind will still be here and forever as well
This state of being is the only eternal one that will always be and is therefore more important than human beings merely passing through

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:20 am
by Age
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
AGE wrote:
There is an i which is just a human being . A human being is made up of two parts a visible human body part and an invisible ( to the human
eyes ) part . The human body visible part is obvious . The other part is the invisible thoughts and emotions within a human body . i call this
invisible part the person or some times known as the personality . This is the you of which the label age is one

Now within EVERY one of these human beings lays a Truth a True knowledge or a Knowing and with this Truth there is a Real and True I which
will be the answer to the question Who am I ? This Truth within is called a Knowing because It is the exact same within each and EVERY body

i refer to this I as the Mind but some people refer to It as Allah / God / Enlightenment or other names

From the perspective of the capital I there is only one NOW

But from the perspective of the little i or the you ( of which age is also one ) there are many different NOWs because of the reason you gave

Absolutely EVERY thing depends on the observer and from WHAT perspective one or One is LOOKING from
I dont accept the existence of Mind as God
So be it.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
To me Mind is simply ALL THERE IS and as such it cannot be limited to just human beings who for most of known time have not actually existed
Who implied/said that Mind is limited to just human beings?

I certainly would NOT say anything like that.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
Therefore putting Mind inside the minds of human beings makes them unique but from the perspective of the Universe they are nothing special
To me there is NO 'minds of human beings'. There is only one Mind.

So I cannot see why an infinitesimal part of the Universe should be regarded as equal to it when it cannot in actuality ever achieve such a state.

i am NOT sure what you are referring to here.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
It has not been specifically mentioned but I still reject any attempt [ implicit or explicit ] to elevate the human mind beyond what it actually is
What do you say the human 'mind' actually IS?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
I prefer to focus on Existence itself which is eternally changing but equally so is also the eternal ALL THERE IS
Speaking of ALL-THERE-IS, you say that 'Mind' is simply ALL-THERE-IS. Now, ALL-THERE-IS is made up of physical matter also, so WHERE and WHAT IS 'Mind' exactly?

Is there any real difference between Existence and ALL-THERE-IS?

If no, then there is no use in saying that they both equally are changing eternally.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
From THAT perspective there is only one NOW because that is Gods Eye View [ albeit without any actual God ]
That is good to see that those thoughts have changed and now you see things differently.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
There will come a time when the human species is no more but Existence / Reality / Universe / Mind will still be here and forever as well
.

Yes human beings will either become extinct by wiping themselves out or from some other cause, OR, they will become extinct by evolving into what was inevitably going to BE-come anyway.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:18 am
This state of being is the only eternal one that will always be and is therefore more important than human beings merely passing through
I am not sure why any human being would even consider that there are somehow more important than any thing else, including the Universe, Its Self.

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:25 am
by surreptitious57
AGE wrote:
Who implied / said that Mind is limited to just human beings ?
To me MIND cannot be limited to just human beings because it is defined as ALL THERE IS
As it is EVERYTHING then it equally must apply to anything that is non human beings also

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:36 am
by surreptitious57
AGE wrote:
To me there is NO minds of human beings . There is only one Mind
To me there is both : the minds of human beings which are an infinitesimal part of Mind
The mind is simply the name which many human beings give to the function of the brain
Other human beings prefer the word thoughts but to me they are what the mind produces

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:55 am
by surreptitious57
AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
From THAT perspective there is only one NOW because that is Gods Eye View [ albeit without any actual God ]
That is good to see that those thoughts have changed and now you see things differently
I do not think I see things differently because I ALREADY accepted the existence of one NOW from the perspective of ALL THAT EXISTS
However from the infinitesimally smaller perspective of individual human beings there will be many different NOWS being experienced
So it all depends on which frame of reference one is experiencing this : from an absolute perspective or a more localised / regional one

And so everything is relative because from the reference frame of a photon there is no such thing as time
But from the reference frame of a human being who is observing that photon there is such a thing as time
Neither of these observations is wrong however as no two points in spacetime will reference identical ones

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:02 am
by surreptitious57
AGE wrote:
human beings will either become extinct by wiping themselves out or from some other cause
OR they will become extinct by evolving into what was inevitably going to BE come anyway
What do you mean by BE come ? Is this the same as eternal death that is the end of suffering in all of its forms ?
I suppose that one could regard death as a type of evolution though I prefer to think of it as a type of transition

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:09 pm
by Age
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:25 am
AGE wrote:
Who implied / said that Mind is limited to just human beings ?
To me MIND cannot be limited to just human beings because it is defined as ALL THERE IS
As it is EVERYTHING then it equally must apply to anything that is non human beings also
Yes I understood that, and I agree wholeheartedly, up to a certain point. I was just wondering why you thought to write that, especially considering that this is more or less what I have been saying all along also.

Re: Mind or minds

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:56 pm
by Age
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:02 am
AGE wrote:
human beings will either become extinct by wiping themselves out or from some other cause
OR they will become extinct by evolving into what was inevitably going to BE come anyway
What do you mean by BE come ?
THAT what humans will be-come, or evolve into, (that is if they are not wiped out first).

For example what has happened to the species that human beings have evolved FROM? They have gone extinct, but this is only because of evolution. Not because of some other form of extinction. Human beings that exist now, (through evolution), came-to-BE. Just like 'whatever' that will come-to-be (through evolution) will BE-come. Evolution does NOT stop, and human beings are NOT the last form in evolution.

THAT, what human beings will BE-come ( through evolution), is WHAT will BE.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:02 am
Is this the same as eternal death that is the end of suffering in all of its forms ?
I was NOT looking from that perspective. ( But it could be seen as that from a certain perspective. AFTER human beings have evolved into THAT, which they will BE-come, some might see this as, and say, that is an eternal death of human beings and an end of suffering.)

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:02 am
I suppose that one could regard death as a type of evolution though I prefer to think of it as a type of transition
This was not the line that I was going down, but fair enough.