Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Thinking?

Phoenix

Re: Thinking?
March 21, 2013, 06:02:30 PM
Look at yourselves, all busy thinking. Do you see where it leads?
Complication added to complication. An increasingly fragile house of cards that fewer and fewer people can follow.
What is this 'proof' that thinkers demand? Permission, from somebody else, before 'agreement'?
What is the point?

Thinking is time-out from being.
Why live, when you can think? Why experience, when you can hypothesize? Why be anything when you can so easily claim to be it, instead?

I'll tell you why.
Insecurity.
Thinking = video game.
A simulation of life that lets you get up and walk away from every error.
Unlike the actual life that real men indulge in and dare to be part of.
Errors made there result in actual consequences.

Real men think when thinking is required. The other 90% of the time, they do life.
They sometimes make mistakes, and sometimes they die. But when they die, they die in the perfect satisfaction of knowing that while life was theirs, they lived it.

Crow, the fact that I'm talking about complex philosophical concepts doesn't mean I have trouble grasping them, it doesn't mean I'm hunched over my computer pondering my replies for great periods of time. It doesn't take me any more effort to reply to this thread than it takes for you to reply to this thread. We're both just talking. It seems to me like you're thinking just as much as the rest of us but you're just not admitting it.

Re: Thinking?
March 21, 2013, 06:10:25 PM
I knew you'd say something like that.
I know what thinking is, whereas you do not.
Thinking is something you can not help but do, whereas I have the ability to not-think.
I understand, too, that not being able to not-think, you are unable to imagine what it is.
How can you know something you don't know?

This is why people who do know, sometimes write about it.
Not to impress, not to put-down, not for any other purpose than to offer it to those who don't.
This is mostly met with those who do not know what is offered, claiming loudly, and often abusively, that what is offered is crap.

Such is life.

Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: Thinking?
March 21, 2013, 06:17:37 PM
I've elaborated my views on thinking to quite an extent in this thread (which you started). If you're going to finally say that you know what thinking is and I don't, then offer some counterpoints to what I've said or at least agree to disagree and indicate where our views diverge. Try too hard to be mysterious and people will realize that you're trying too hard.

This is precisely the problem with the erroneous notion of 'infinity'. Convention is to be discarded unequivocally. Absolute reality is ineffable. None of it can be said, explained or refuted because it's completely beyond the grasp of convention and logic. It's proudly illogical and blissfully blind.

Re: Thinking?
March 21, 2013, 06:37:59 PM
What leads you to believe that I am 'trying', let alone 'trying too hard'?
What I do is utterly effortless. Which, really, is my whole point.
No need to think.
Why use a stone axe when you have a laser?

Try to imagine this...
Crystal clarity with no effort. Immediate. Complete. To instantly know whatever needs to be known, as it needs to be known. And nothing more. No clutter. No debris. Nothing messy or burdensome.

I can do this because I care nothing for explanations. I deal with nuts and bolts reality.
I have no need to have anything explained, or to be able to explain anything.
Can you imagine being able to access all knowledge, instantly, clearly, completely, without any need to learn it first?
Without having to cart it all around inside your skull forever?

This is why Genesis is so fascinating. Don't eat that fuckin' apple! You'll be sorry if you do!
And why?
Because without that apple, you are free to know.
But if you eat it, you'll be crushed forever beneath the massive thinking-machine you've unwittingly sat beneath.

Squawk!

Re: Thinking?
March 21, 2013, 11:00:13 PM
I've elaborated my views on thinking to quite an extent in this thread (which you started). If you're going to finally say that you know what thinking is and I don't, then offer some counterpoints to what I've said or at least agree to disagree and indicate where our views diverge. Try too hard to be mysterious and people will realize that you're trying too hard.

This is precisely the problem with the erroneous notion of 'infinity'. Convention is to be discarded unequivocally. Absolute reality is ineffable. None of it can be said, explained or refuted because it's completely beyond the grasp of convention and logic. It's proudly illogical and blissfully blind.

why the notion of infinity is erroneous? It is as logical as life. If life is logical. Waybe it's not. Life is too busy to live to care if it's logical or not.
Infinity is what is non finite. It is growing, living. It's what is behind all form.
Well, it's depend what do you consider is life.


Well I don't know  if that makes sense. I'm not good with words unless it is to stir up the imagination thru art.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Re: Thinking?
March 21, 2013, 11:06:58 PM
Your words, while sometimes not symmetrically fluent, convey meaning very well.
Then again, I am a crow. Crows would have no trouble understanding you.
Squawk!

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 04:39:53 AM
why the notion of infinity is erroneous? It is as logical as life. If life is logical. Waybe it's not. Life is too busy to live to care if it's logical or not.
Infinity is what is non finite. It is growing, living. It's what is behind all form.

Can you say more on this topic?

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 04:55:54 AM
Yes. The wanderer is not very lost at all.
He drops in sometimes and delivers mind-boggling statements.
Then disappears again :)
Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 05:04:24 AM
What leads you to believe that I am 'trying', let alone 'trying too hard'?
What I do is utterly effortless. Which, really, is my whole point.
No need to think.
Why use a stone axe when you have a laser?

Try to imagine this...
Crystal clarity with no effort. Immediate. Complete. To instantly know whatever needs to be known, as it needs to be known. And nothing more. No clutter. No debris. Nothing messy or burdensome.

This is my view, too. I use thinking to debunk thinking, and once it's debunked there's no going back. I remember earlier in my journey how I had beliefs and opinions that had to be remembered. I always pursued Truth ruthlessly, but then I reached a point where I didn't have to remember anymore. I planted the base of my paradigm in a priori logic, the stuff that's the only option, and I went from there. Now I approach every situation organically. Reality to me is not just what is seen, but also what is known. I scale the limits of a situation via necessity as the mother of invention: one thing leads to another and there's no in-between. It's not as natural to me as observation, it is observation. One does not only perceive the tangible edges of things, one perceives the flow of things. I don't go around questioning reality, I've already seen it and once you see you can't go back; but when I have conversations with people I just ask questions based on the incongruence of their views and inevitably I arrive at the same building blocks that my paradigm is founded on. I don't have any specific approach because it always leads back to the same place, I just adjust to the situation and circumstance so that my words and actions are effective. I can't remember what I can't forget. It's like two plus two equaling four, I don't have to remember that the answer is four, I just have to look at the two plus two and automatically I know the answer is four, there's no effort involved. Sure it takes some practice when you get into more difficult equations, but after a while it again becomes natural--when it doesn't become natural then there must be a monkey wrench somewhere, my ego is getting hung up somewhere. The freedom of not having to remember, the stillness and peacefulness it affords, is indeed magical. The realization of completeness. And I realize that this human life is only one state of awareness and that I'll be thrust into other states in the future, so this is why I don't just settle for contentment the first time I experience it, this is why I seek to expand upon it--I want to know my ego inside and out, I want to dissolve myself countless times, I've experienced so much and the same things always remain at the end. I know that whatever situation I, as an individual agent of consciousness ever find myself in, I know that I'll always have full awareness of my component parts--desire, intention, thought, emotion--and that awareness is what creates willpower, otherwise there is no will. I always will know, I always will be.

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 05:27:25 AM
I feel we are talking about two very different states here.
If I understand you, you are convinced you are infallible, owing to whatever you feel you have discovered.
While I know I am infallible, because I know that what I know, doesn't originate in me.

I write things I didn't know, until they are written. Clearly, my thinking mind is not producing what comes out.
But as soon as I proof-read it, I know now.
Sometimes I relate from experience, but the experience itself seems, in retrospect, like something guided.
Events that should have killed me, didn't, and somehow couldn't.
I live a charmed life.
The only demands made of me, in return for my survival, is that I learn.

If what you have works for you, that's great. Lucky you. Few could claim that.
I observe, though, that for as long as you give oxygen to your ego, it will hold you back.
I observe, too, that you don't fight me any more. It's better, no?

Squawk!

Phoenix

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 05:43:25 AM
I observe, though, that for as long as you give oxygen to your ego, it will hold you back.
I observe, too, that you don't fight me any more. It's better, no?

Since I'm already 'infallible', as you put it, there's no risk to myself, so my ego only holds me back in the area of contentment while it also allows me to cope with the stupidity of modern society so that I may accomplish certain things (I could choose to remove myself more from society but I don't). Three steps forward and one step back? I'll take it. Plus it prepares me for the adventures I intend to have in the astral universe after my physical body dies, as some of the territory there is pretty mucky indeed.

I don't fight you anymore because you repelled my attacks, and it taught me something about you. Then again, there's probably a correlation between the decreased rate of my attacks and the decreased rate of your posting about "leftists".

My interactions with you have helped me learn about your paradigm, and I've come to realize that many others share your type of paradigm. I'm glad to have learned about it, the knowledge will serve me well.

I think at this point we'll have to agree to disagree, if for no other reason than the fact that we're both really repeating ourselves quite a bit by now, but for what it's worth:

- I don't believe that what I know originates in me. The facts refer to external structures. As for the process of learning, well, that's involves quite series of events.. (not trying to be clever here, I just find your point awkward to address)

- I don't believe that my mind produces what comes out. My mind has no mind of its own, it's just a tool (guns don't kill people, people kill people, etc). I've repeated this many times and I don't just mean it in an abstract sense. I never think exclusively without awareness, thinking would only supplement awareness at the same time and be directed by it. Thinking isn't in charge.

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 05:58:40 AM
You are becoming clearer.
I really couldn't make any sense of most of what preceded your latest posts.
We all have to find a path to follow, and very few are anything like the same.
If it was easy, everyone would be doing it :)
Squawk!

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 03:42:35 PM
why the notion of infinity is erroneous? It is as logical as life. If life is logical. Waybe it's not. Life is too busy to live to care if it's logical or not.
Infinity is what is non finite. It is growing, living. It's what is behind all form.

Can you say more on this topic?


I don't know if I can right now. My head is like a river, sometime, it is full, sometimes it is dry. I'm dry right now.

Try to be a tree. Let the energy flow thru you.
It's all I can say right now.

If I can say something intelligent about the subject, I will post it. In the meanwhile, I will continue my wanderings out of the internet.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 04:37:45 PM
Better yet, just know you are a tree.
That is why cutting trees down is not something to undertake lightly.
Trees die, by themselves, by and by. Then, with some satisfying effort, they can become heat-exchangers that keep you warm while you harvest them, and keep you warm again, while you burn them in your stove.
Squawk!

Re: Thinking?
March 22, 2013, 05:49:00 PM
Cargést, how do you know that what you call "infinity" exists?

We wouldn't be having this discussion if it didn't; there can't be anything without awareness ("to be is to be perceived" also implies "to be perceived is to be").

Quote
How can it "be proven that the infinite can - indeed, does - rest apart from the finite, by examining the qualities of these kinds of existence"? You admit the 'infinite' is indistinguishable, ineffable. How do you know it's truly infinite in scope rather than simply really, really vast? Proving that something is different than everything else in every imaginable way is one thing, but concluding that it must be 'infinity' rather than something very, very different and as yet unknown is another thing entirely. If you know of something through sheer experience of it, if you know that it is there and that it is much different than anything else you've ever encountered, I can accept that. But to specifically qualify it as infinite rather than finite, how can you 'feel' that?

I'm not qualifying it in the slightest, I am simply using a word which is commonly employed to point towards what I'm attempting to communicate - the emphasis in my exegesis is on the "attributeless" nature of this so-called "infinite".  As it is, "infinite" is a relatively apt word, as it is certainly such that not only do all finite things appear in it, but even the infinite measures of finite things (time, space, etc.) appear in it.

You yourself must be aware of that which is different from anything you encounter - have you ever encountered the encounterer?