That is correct.
Queen
Re: Queen
It comes from the memory of sound.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:24 pmlanguage is born of sound heard as concept. ...
And the concept comes from where?
The demand for knowledge triggers the thought process of remembering .. knowledge is born of remembered sound.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:24 pmA concept is an auditory illusion of sound. ...
No it's not, a concept can be thought without sound.
Animals in the wild listen and then react to the listening that has been remembered as sound. There are no actions in life, only reactions.
.
Re: Queen
There is no 'me' in a body.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:24 pm You is a concept born of language, ...
Depends what you mean? Whilst it is true that the 'me' that is the voice in my head is such a thing the me that is body which sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes is not.
Re: Queen
It's impossible to walk your talk. You can't just say there is such a thing as you on top of you talking. That is supposition.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:36 pm, I don't agree with much of it but my conversation with you is about how you do not appear to walk your talk.
.
Re: Queen
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... cef9b2.jpgArising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:36 pmAnd yet you tell us all that we are not understanding it? For all I know you could be correct about this 'reality' you chat about but what I am doing is pointing out that your words do not reflect what you say. Personally I'm with Kant in these matters and there is no 'knowing' about the noumena other than inferring there must be one.
A_UK ...sometimes I speak from the dream characters reference point, and sometimes I speak from the dreamers reference point. They are the same one dreaming difference where there is none.
Please get over the fact that sometimes I like to switch context in the way I write about non/ duality. Either you get it because you yourself know it and see it for what it is, and leave it at that, or you can agree and add something that is compatible with what's being discussed....but to keep constantly analyzing it as if it's a load of toss is what confuses me. You know all this stuff you said, so what's the problem?
.
Re: Queen
Yes, you are that, and many other things, such as a bundle of sensations and a range of identities, eg. mother, sister, daughter, friend, colleague, rival, and so forth. You are also an energetic lump that occupies a particular space, preventing other lumps from occupying that space at that time. You are goddess to your cells. You are a cell of humanity. A small piece of the Earth, of the Sun, of the galaxy. You are a small, temporal wet ripple on the Earth's surface. I could go on, but that's more than enough to get the point across :)
Re: Queen
Yes, within the dream I am all things, but notice I say the imagination of myself. ''Myself'' being the misnomer. There is no ''my''-self.Greta wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:22 pmYes, you are that, and many other things, such as a bundle of sensations and a range of identities, eg. mother, sister, daughter, friend, colleague, rival, and so forth. You are also an energetic lump that occupies a particular space, preventing other lumps from occupying that space at that time. You are goddess to your cells. You are a cell of humanity. A small piece of the Earth, of the Sun, of the galaxy. You are a small, temporal wet ripple on the Earth's surface. I could go on, but that's more than enough to get the point across
The I can only know I as a character in the dream of I
I am the dreamer of my dream the dream of I
AWARENESS cannot know itself as the character in the dream, awareness can only know itself as the awareness of the character in the dream inseparable from the dreamer dreaming the character.
The I am is the unknown dreamer (awareness) dreaming it is a thing (the object known) without an object to relate to I am nothing. I relate only to what I am, and I am all things and not-a-thing.
.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Queen
Er! How does that circle work? For me the concept is formed from the other representations of the senses and the word labels them.Dontaskme wrote:It comes from the memory of sound. ...
You seem unaware that one can 'think', I prefer 'thought' without sound?The demand for knowledge triggers the thought process of remembering .. knowledge is born of remembered sound. ...
Your point?Animals in the wild listen and then react to the listening that has been remembered as sound. ...
Not for this primate as we can plan and act.There are no actions in life, only reactions.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Queen
Have you forgotten your own words? There is the 'me' created by language.Dontaskme wrote:There is no 'me' in a body.
But I agree, the body is me.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Queen
Then you can't be speaking from different points.Dontaskme wrote: A_UK ...sometimes I speak from the dream characters reference point, and sometimes I speak from the dreamers reference point. They are the same one dreaming difference where there is none. ...
That by-and-large I think it a load of old toss. From a philosophical perspective I'm with Kant and think such stuff is make-believe but also I think it a useless metaphysic as in philosophy a metaphysic is used to ground one's ethics, politics and epistemology and latterly one's phil of mind and as such I think your's fails to provide for a 'castle in the air'.Please get over the fact that sometimes I like to switch context in the way I write about non/ duality. Either you get it because you yourself know it and see it for what it is, and leave it at that, or you can agree and add something that is compatible with what's being discussed....but to keep constantly analyzing it as if it's a load of toss is what confuses me. You know all this stuff you said, so what's the problem?.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Queen
There is most certainly a "me" that, ideally, lasts for about seventy or eighty years. After that, who knows?Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:34 pmYes, within the dream I am all things, but notice I say the imagination of myself. ''Myself'' being the misnomer. There is no ''my''-self.Greta wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:22 pmYes, you are that, and many other things, such as a bundle of sensations and a range of identities, eg. mother, sister, daughter, friend, colleague, rival, and so forth. You are also an energetic lump that occupies a particular space, preventing other lumps from occupying that space at that time. You are goddess to your cells. You are a cell of humanity. A small piece of the Earth, of the Sun, of the galaxy. You are a small, temporal wet ripple on the Earth's surface. I could go on, but that's more than enough to get the point across
Yet there would be no dream without the dreamer. The "dreamer" is a true and solid entity on the stage of life - completely real. The dream you refer to is the array of processes that "dreamers" (ie. thinking animals) conjure in their heads so as to survive.Dontaskme wrote:The I can only know I as a character in the dream of I
I am the dreamer of my dream the dream of I
What I see in front of me is a mess of EM energy, yet I interpret out of that mess a screen and keyboard in front of me. There's the dream. The keyboard and screen certainly do exist as ordered concentrations of EM energy but the dream is in the filtering - all the other stuff I don't perceive that allows me to distill the images of the screen and keyboard.
Another aspect of "the dream" is being internal. We are locked into an inside-out perspective - within the universe. Even our own outside-in perspectives are extremely limited and abstracted, eg. we cannot know what is happening in most internal parts of our body. So our perception is ultimately shallow. The "dream" (perception) is obviously shallower than the noumena.
Another issue is time. Time passes for us as entities subject to entropy. If there are fundamental Planck scale entities, then these are not subject to entropy or the arrow of time, in which case our perception of the arrow of time is a perspective effect that only applies to some of reality.
A dream is only so insofar as it differs from actual reality. Yet we have no arbiter for that. Perception of actual reality is not a dream. The defining quality of a dream or illusion is the lack of direct cause-and-effect, a lack of direct consequences. Incomplete perception of reality is not a dream either, although there may be dreamlike qualities involved.
Re: Queen
One simply cannot tell people they have never existed. It always leads to endless questioning... questions that can never be answered simply because reality has no requirement to question itself, and why would it need to? .. it's just here, and that's all there is to it.
.
.
Re: Queen
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:18 am One simply cannot tell people they have never existed. It always leads to endless questioning... questions that can never be answered simply because reality has no requirement to question itself, and why would it need to? .. it's just here, and that's all there is to it.
.
It is your mind that needs to stop asking questions. For every answer by its very nature creates another question.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Queen
You losing the plot?
As you are quoting and talking to yourself.
As you are quoting and talking to yourself.