Translucense

[Eodnhoj7]

It's not what the dictionary said, you just picked the one that agreed with you and then I showed another one.

2. Non dualism isn't a concept we apply meaning to, to say this is ignorance of it.

Again, what is the point. None of your threads seem to have a point or direction. So I say it again, what is the point here? What are you getting at?

1. The definition applies to the context in which it occurs. Multiple definitions are the result of multiple contexts.

2. It is a definition by way of negation, it describes by what is not. As a definition it is a concept.

3. If my threads have no point or direction then why bother with them?

1. No, you're just picking what agrees with you to make the point. Even by your definition you're still wrong.

2. No, but again to complicated to explain.

Again, what's the point?

1. That is an assertion. Definitions have multiple meanings under multiple contexts. Under the context I provided the definition stands. You are the one picking definitions.

2. If it is to complicated to explain then you do not understand what you think.

3. The point...does it matter? Whats your point in all of this?

[Darkneos]

I’ll repeat, what’s your point?

[Eodnhoj7]

I’ll repeat, what’s your point?

And what is the point of there being a point?

[Darkneos]

I’ll repeat, what’s your point?

And what is the point of there being a point?

What’s your point?

[Eodnhoj7]

I’ll repeat, what’s your point?

And what is the point of there being a point?

What’s your point?

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

[Darkneos]

And what is the point of there being a point?

What’s your point?

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

Wrong again, what’s your point?

[Eodnhoj7]

What’s your point?

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

Wrong again, what’s your point?

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

[Darkneos]

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

Wrong again, what’s your point?

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

Wrong again. What’s your point.

[Eodnhoj7]

Wrong again, what’s your point?

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

Wrong again. What’s your point.

Why does there have to be a point?

[Darkneos]

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

Wrong again. What’s your point.

Why does there have to be a point?

Wrong again. What’s your point.

[Dontaskme]

1. To make something clear, through rhetoric or rather the use of words, is to make something transparent in the respect that it is now "see through" as its definition allows one to see connections that go beyond said thing. This "seeing through" allows the now clear thing to no longer be a barrier to understanding as its limits become transparent as a result of its perceived connections.

This point to me, is saying that knowledge of self, is always open and transparent, and that such knowledge can only point to the translucent state of being, insofar as there is here, only white invisible tanslucent light observing/seeing itself as and through the action of self-reflection, and that self-reflection can only point itself back to the projector/screen, which is always this white invisible tanslucent light on which all projections of self appear as perceived.

2. The observation of change is the observation of transparency as the phenomenon changing into another is the phenomenon being seen through another thus showing a vacuous yet clear, or rather 'see through', nature to being.

This point to me, is saying pretty much what I have said in the first point, and in my opinion is very well put, and is a very good description of what you are attempting and succeeding to show us, that I have to agree with.

3. It is difficult to rationalize the Truth as rationalization requires the dividing up of said Truth, through definitions, with this division resulting in hindrances as the fine lines of definitions now become barriers.

I totally agree, to rationalise the irrational is to place illusory barriers where they cannot exist anywhere in a place that is everywhere at once.

4. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require a distinction. A distinction requires a standing apart of one thing from another. This "standing apart" results in contradiction. Order is contradiction.

Yes I agree, order requires contradiction, and this apparent contradiction is totally necessary when it comes to defining or distinction that apparently places an illusory barrier, a "standing apart" in this boundless translucent nature of self-reflection, which is the pure clarity of knowing exactly, what is the truth, as and through contradiction.

[Darkneos]

1. To make something clear, through rhetoric or rather the use of words, is to make something transparent in the respect that it is now "see through" as its definition allows one to see connections that go beyond said thing. This "seeing through" allows the now clear thing to no longer be a barrier to understanding as its limits become transparent as a result of its perceived connections.

This point to me, is saying that knowledge of self, is always open and transparent, and that such knowledge can only point to the translucent state of being, insofar as there is here, only white invisible tanslucent light observing/seeing itself as and through the action of self-reflection, and that self-reflection can only point itself back to the projector/screen, which is always this white invisible tanslucent light on which all projections of self appear as perceived.

2. The observation of change is the observation of transparency as the phenomenon changing into another is the phenomenon being seen through another thus showing a vacuous yet clear, or rather 'see through', nature to being.

This point to me, is saying pretty much what I have said in the first point, and in my opinion is very well put, and is a very good description of what you are attempting and succeeding to show us, that I have to agree with.

3. It is difficult to rationalize the Truth as rationalization requires the dividing up of said Truth, through definitions, with this division resulting in hindrances as the fine lines of definitions now become barriers.

I totally agree, to rationalise the irrational is to place illusory barriers where they cannot exist anywhere in a place that is everywhere at once.

4. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require a distinction. A distinction requires a standing apart of one thing from another. This "standing apart" results in contradiction. Order is contradiction.

Yes I agree, order requires contradiction, and this apparent contradiction is totally necessary when it comes to defining or distinction that apparently places an illusory barrier, a "standing apart" in this boundless translucent nature of self-reflection, which is the pure clarity of knowing exactly, what is the truth, as and through contradiction.

Wrong.

[Dontaskme]

5. If all is boundaries, and boundaries are distinctions from other boundaries (otherwise without distinction there would be no boundary), then there is a boundary between boundaries thus making the boundary as a contradictive in nature. This contradiction makes the boundary as fundamentally 'see through', thus no longer a boundary, considering the opposition of boundaries makes the nature of the boundary as empty as the act of standing apart through distinction creates a gap through separation; the boundary is a gap and the gap is empty of distinction. This emptiness of the boundary makes it paradoxically not a boundary thus there is nothing is stop one from seeing through it to further boundaries.

Yes, I agree, the contradiction is necessary insofar as the purveyor of knowledge is concerned, and that when this knowledge is known, it becomes apparently clear as and through contradiction, that knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality.

[Darkneos]

5. If all is boundaries, and boundaries are distinctions from other boundaries (otherwise without distinction there would be no boundary), then there is a boundary between boundaries thus making the boundary as a contradictive in nature. This contradiction makes the boundary as fundamentally 'see through', thus no longer a boundary, considering the opposition of boundaries makes the nature of the boundary as empty as the act of standing apart through distinction creates a gap through separation; the boundary is a gap and the gap is empty of distinction. This emptiness of the boundary makes it paradoxically not a boundary thus there is nothing is stop one from seeing through it to further boundaries.

Yes, I agree, the contradiction is necessary insofar as the purveyor of knowledge is concerned, and that when this knowledge is known, it becomes apparently clear as and through contradiction, that knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality.

Wrong.

[Dontaskme]

You want people to just accept your words without putting in the work and that doesn’t fly in philosophy.

Sometimes within the realm of human mentation, it just becomes so effortlessly possible to put into words a truth in such a way that is so obviously simple and easy that no one knows what the hell you are talking about. That's how true and real philosophy is expressed, the more complex you make this, the more it is accepted as being true, and the opposite is also true, the simple is also accepted to be true. And people can only hear from others what resonates with their own truth.

However, it seems that some people are never satisfied with anyones truth but their own.

It does help however, to drop all artificially induced concepts of truth in order to arrive at the non-conceptual truth.

Sometimes, what is very simple is complex, and what is complex is very simple.

No one is exempt from knowing truth, because there is only your truth, and all our truths are sourced from the exact same place,namely, here now, nowhere and everywhere.

As for putting in the work, all one is required to do is do the no body home work. Which is simple and easy, a child can do it.