100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: crow on March 10, 2013, 11:36:52 AM

Title: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 10, 2013, 11:36:52 AM
People think. Although, often, you might think they don't.
Even in this, judgement is the first thought people have.
Is he thinking, or is he incapable of thinking?
What is thinking, anyway?

I find thinking to be a system of comparison.
Compare this, to that, and decide which serves best, for whatever I desire.
And so thinking becomes about desire.
What do I want? How best to achieve it?
Observe, compare, decide.

But what if desire is removed from the process?
What if everything is left as whatever it is, without choosing the one over the other?
Start doing this, and you discover the often overlooked ability to observe.
Observation requires no thought. Because nothing needs to be done. No choice has to be made.
Without any need to make decisions, what use is thinking?

"I think that is crap", perhaps. And judgement creeps back in.
"It is what it is", perhaps. And judgement does not arise.

This is the essence of taoism. Summed up, in as few words as possible, it distils down to: "It is what it is".
And this way of seeing things renders thought redundant.
This is not to say that thought becomes extinct, impossible, or even undesirable.
When the need arises for thought, then thought arises.
But any other time, it does not.

It seems very close to impossible to convey this to those who are unable to see it.
And so, over time, I learn to observe this impossibility, and leave it be.
When something seems to be non-existent, it seems very difficult, to some, to accept it may exist.
Lacking the ability to detect something, however, does not mean that something is not there.

Left-brained individuals, for example, are often unable to entertain the possibility of God.
Because God does not come with an instruction manual, or whatever constitutes proof, to such people.
This, however, does not mean that God does not exist.
It means that the one trying to see it, can not.

Learning to suspend judgement is a good way to start learning to suspend thought.
And when you can do that, the unseen becomes seen.
There may be something to be said for being blind, but being able to see is probably quite useful, too.


Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 11, 2013, 10:45:16 PM
In my view, the value of thinking and the admitted extent to which it's often of a judgmental nature hinges largely upon the degree to which one thinks about 'things' as specifically-delineated conventional forms versus the extent to which one thinks about patterns and underlying forces. To wit, it's impossible to be judgmental about something that does not exist; mental deconstruction of things is a matter of understanding, not judgment.

For example you can have a chair, you can have a chair with a cushion, you can have a chair without a cushion, you can have a (broken) chair with only three legs, you can have an office in which there is a chair, you can have the atoms comprising a chair. If you define a chair atom by atom, at what point does a chair cease to become a chair if you ignore some of its atoms one by one? How many atoms can you ignore before you come to the last straw and remove the final atom causing the chair to become something else? Every 'thing' is fundamentally relative and absolutely physically bound to its context. A chair couldn't even exist without the empty space around it delineating its form--if the entire whole of reality were shaped like a chair, it could never be sat in, painted, moved, refurnished or labeled "chair" because nothing would exist beyond it.

Things are also physically bound in terms of action, as you can have a tree that a chair can be made out of and you can have soil made from the decomposed wood of a tree. Indeed a chair decomposes over great periods of time atom by atom, so at what point is an atom the final straw? What if a chair is launched as a projectile or used as a weapon? Many of these examples seem mundane, but some human cultures never used chairs and if they came upon one would have much different ideas about it than you or me. Presidents of paper manufacturing companies might see trees as money, heck many business executives may see people as money. Specifically-delineated conventional forms intrinsically consist of highly personalized perspective, and people's perspectives would only become so highly personalized due either to ignorance (infancy, misinformation, emotional blockage, etc), convenience or a combination thereof. Convenience pertains to personal needs and wants, personal desires, which involves the ego and judgment.

Thinking about things in a more holistic sense, however, precisely deconstructs the rigid definitions of things and thereby deconstructs the ego. Constantly keeping in mind slews of rigid definitions, constantly maintaining rigid labels on everything around you--even while you're reading this--also takes a lot of effort, whereas being open to possibilities allows for a more relaxed and mindful state of awareness. Eventually it becomes easier to recognize how 'things' affect other 'things' around them in periphery ways beyond their standard roles and uses, and with this additional information deeper correlations in reality's patterns can be observed and the underlying forces of trends are more readily discernible.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 11, 2013, 11:23:11 PM
From the outside, your mind seems deranged.
How does it seem to you?
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 11, 2013, 11:33:10 PM
Seems to me like a tool that changes depending how I use it.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 11, 2013, 11:46:47 PM
Is it ever calm? Does it ever not question?
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 12, 2013, 12:10:51 PM
I often use my mind to think softly and slowly, and I would be calm during the process. Other times I'm calm without using my mind at all. Sometimes I'm not calm, too.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Cargést on March 13, 2013, 08:21:26 AM
I don't read anything disfunctional into Transcix's post.  It seems quite sensible to me, as a general way of being here.  Certainly, I "deconceptualised" this mind a short while ago, and, while timid in its unanchored state, it has become receptive, free, open.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Goatreich on March 15, 2013, 03:34:28 PM
 ???
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Ratatosk on March 17, 2013, 07:53:50 AM
@ crow

If thinking was not part and parcel of desire it seems unlikely that it would exist in a being. Highjacking and rewiring it past it's original purpose is fabulous, but only obscurant, much like those sci-fi moviemakers trying to make a new beast by piecing together parts into a new whole.

With a little introspection the weird beasts can all be traced back to the component animals, just so can all objects in mindspace be tracked back to desire.

I once thought that the state of pure being was the "jewel of the lotus" in a gnostic sense, being the only true non-desire based mode of existence, but then it seems our whole beings are geared towards maintaining being, its just that other things get in the way much like paint on a canvas.

@ Transcix

Totally agree. What we normally describe as objects are in fact parts of a continuous whole, and all "things" in an environment are co-determined, as are all "events". I believe it is practicality that makes us delineate as such, being itself the servant of survival.



Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 17, 2013, 10:36:20 AM
Like ego, thinking serves to get the teenager past its teenage years.
Look at it as maturation.
There are more efficient ways to survive.
And more rewarding ways, too.

Most people try to analyse the idea of not-thinking by thinking about it.
Not likely to bear fruit, is it?

I offer what I know. Now you know it. Forget about it. It will germinate, or it won't.
There is nothing to prove, disprove, agree-with, or understand.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Perennial_Man on March 17, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
Verily, men have given unto themselves all their good and bad. Verily, they took it not, they found it not, it came not unto them as a voice from heaven.

Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator.

Valuing is creating: hear it, ye creating ones! Valuation itself is the treasure and jewel of the valued things.

Through valuation only is there value; and without valuation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear it, ye creating ones!

Change of values- that is, change of the creating ones. Always doth he destroy who hath to be a creator.

Creating ones were first of all peoples, and only in late times individuals; verily, the individual himself is still the latest creation.

Peoples once hung over them tables of the good. Love which would rule and love which would obey, created for themselves such tables.

Older is the pleasure in the herd than the pleasure in the ego: and as long as the good conscience is for the herd, the bad conscience only saith: ego.

Verily, the crafty ego, the loveless one, that seeketh its advantage in the advantage of many- it is not the origin of the herd, but its ruin.

Loving ones, was it always, and creating ones, that created good and bad. Fire of love gloweth in the names of all the virtues, and fire of wrath.

Many lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: no greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than the creations of the loving ones- "good" and "bad" are they called.

Verily, a prodigy is this power of praising and blaming. Tell me, ye brethren, who will master it for me? Who will put a fetter upon the thousand necks of this animal?

A thousand goals have there been hitherto, for a thousand peoples have there been. Only the fetter for the thousand necks is still lacking; there is lacking the one goal. As yet humanity hath not a goal.

But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity be still lacking, is there not also still lacking- humanity itself?
Thus spake Zarathustra.

-From 15. The Thousand and One Goals - Thus Spake Zarathustra. Honestly, I was thinking of crow when I read this section. Classic oration!
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 18, 2013, 10:58:07 AM
I hear Zarathustra knew what he was talking about, but personally, I can extract no meaning from his words.
I often experience this inability to fathom words.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: WAAAAAAGH! on March 18, 2013, 12:02:11 PM
Yet trees are not 'trees', until so named and seen
and never were so named, tifi those had been
who speech's involuted breath unfurled,
faint echo and dim picture of the world,
but neither record nor a photograph,
being divination, judgement, and a laugh
response of those that felt astir within
by deep monition movements that were kin
to life and death of trees, of beasts, of stars:
free captives undermining shadowy bars,
digging the foreknown from experience
and panning the vein of spirit out of sense.
Great powers they slowly brought out of themselves
and looking backward they beheld the elves
that wrought on cunning forges in the mind,
and light and dark on secret looms entwined.
He sees no stars who does not see them first
of living silver made that sudden burst
to flame like flowers bencath an ancient song,
whose very echo after-music long
has since pursued. There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-pattemed; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth.

-Tolkien
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 18, 2013, 12:34:48 PM
I am often reminded of Galileo and the Catholic Church.
It seems the way of men, to label anything hitherto unknown as wrong.
Or worse.

I wonder, too, how anyone ever learns anything new, if using only what they already know, to assign value, or worthlessness to whatever they stumble across.

Reality is the support-system of all men.
Yet so many of them are unable to even detect it.


Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: WAAAAAAGH! on March 18, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Why did the apple fall?

Was it because of gravity?

Or

Did the apple fall because it needed to reach the ground where it could be eaten or spawn a new tree?
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 18, 2013, 11:31:02 PM
@ Transcix

Totally agree. What we normally describe as objects are in fact parts of a continuous whole, and all "things" in an environment are co-determined, as are all "events". I believe it is practicality that makes us delineate as such, being itself the servant of survival.

If being is the servant of survival then it (ala necessity) must be the mother of invention, I much prefer to view it this way. :)

Why did the apple fall?

Was it because of gravity?

Or

Did the apple fall because it needed to reach the ground where it could be eaten or spawn a new tree?

As it can be asked why the apple fell, it can just as easily be asked why it stayed on the tree all the time before it fell.

Lovely poem by Tolkien, I never saw it before. My only argument with it is that it seems to promote feeling and imagination as if to combat the clinical sterility of reality proper... I disagree with this dichotomy as I think reality is very colorful because feeling and imagination is as real as any other part of reality both in terms of perspective as well as empiricism.. I believe if I imagine a flower then its image in my mind is there physically, perhaps only by the slightest whim of creation and the subtlest density of physical substance, but then perhaps what the mind sees is even simpler--and therefore all the more spectacular-- than life's more overtly tangible simple pleasures like "real" flowers by the side of the road. Feelings, energy, thoughts all exist in a physical way, although, at the core of reality, in the basest grain of reality, Emptiness is both consciousness and physical matter simultaneously (though so subtly as to be hardly either at all), and since humans come from Emptiness and are made of it so eventually the mind becomes still and the physical substance can no longer be observed, the density falls away, as surely as eyeballs cannot extend from their sockets and rotate 360 degrees to look back at themselves (ironically what they would see would look quite like an abyss).
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: WAAAAAAGH! on March 19, 2013, 07:17:25 AM
1) Yes you may ask that question as well.

2) My understanding of the poem was that Myth translates Truth through imagination. As opposed to the clinical empiricism which is no reflection of reality at all.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Cargést on March 19, 2013, 10:06:57 AM
reality proper

Please point me towards this; if you refer to physicality, would not the term "relativity" be more apt than "reality"?
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Perennial_Man on March 19, 2013, 04:16:58 PM
Why did the apple fall?

Was it because of gravity?

Or

Did the apple fall because it needed to reach the ground where it could be eaten or spawn a new tree?

The evolution of thorns, non-Metal, truly inspires such thinking. What base life form ever started chewing on plants and when would plants have started reacting? Humans in our last feww thousand years are incredibly pessimisstic. All I hear from the Lord's word these days is pessimissm, yet it comes from human mouths. They, as Nietzsche -- Hail -- confirms desire an end to human experience; If they knew what down-going they were destined for, they may perhaps go more peacefully and lay less waste for the Overman!
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 19, 2013, 09:35:41 PM
reality proper

Please point me towards this; if you refer to physicality, would not the term "relativity" be more apt than "reality"?

I suppose how I would say it is that everything can be measured on a spectrum of physical density, some things are denser or subtler than others, but everything is physical to some extent. My point on getting on this is to emphasize that matter and thought is both made up of the same stuff and so physicality isn't clinical or sterile just as thought isn't magical, although each can seem that way if viewed in stark contrast from the perspective of the other.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Cargést on March 20, 2013, 05:25:47 AM
It seems to me that "reality" becomes a sticky term when juxtaposed with "things": any thing, in arising and ceasing, has no existence of its own, is not real on its own; it may only seem to be real to the awareness, perhaps through a perspective (e.g. a person).  Ultimately, it is not unless "I am", as one might say.  All of this "thingness", these thoughts, sensations, these objects of perception, even these apparent "perceivers", can be discarded as illusory, though I myself am prone to playing the game if it interests me (as we ought?).  What is left to reality, then?  I should think only that which is actually fundamental, that which by itself (independently) can be said to be real: without quality, without attribute; nothing can be said of it, but that it is before all else, that nothing would be without it, and that you are that.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: WAAAAAAGH! on March 20, 2013, 08:09:33 AM
Why did the apple fall?

Was it because of gravity?

Or

Did the apple fall because it needed to reach the ground where it could be eaten or spawn a new tree?

The evolution of thorns, non-Metal, truly inspires such thinking. What base life form ever started chewing on plants and when would plants have started reacting? Humans in our last feww thousand years are incredibly pessimisstic. All I hear from the Lord's word these days is pessimissm, yet it comes from human mouths. They, as Nietzsche -- Hail -- confirms desire an end to human experience; If they knew what down-going they were destined for, they may perhaps go more peacefully and lay less waste for the Overman!

Instinct, genetic memory, mutation the answer is irrelevant. For all we know roses grew thorns because poison had to write that song. Perhaps things are as they are so that the human can learn what Truth ultimately is and be shepherds.

As for desires and down-goings, I'm reminded of Inferno. The souls that populate hell are not there by punishment or compulsion. They are there out of will. The Soul that desires only the lower things, goes to them after the body dies. Interestingly enough, the three tiers of the Divine Comedy represents each of Platos 3 faculties of the soul.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 20, 2013, 10:11:06 AM
Some of you characters don't seem able to even agree what 'real' means.
Bird flies into window and knocks itself out. -> Window is real.
Bird can't see it, but that does not make it not-real.
Human stubs toe on rock. -> Rock is real.
Human failed to see it, but still, rock is real.

So what if rock is mostly empty space and made up of swirling galaxies of electrons?
It still hurts toe when toe has high enough velocity relative to rock.
Rock is real. Window is real. Bird is real. Toe is real.

Thinking, you see, makes real into unreal.
Thinking human ceases to be real, to thinking human.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Cargést on March 20, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Bird flies into window and knocks itself out.  Regains consciousness.  Did it ever knock itself out?

Human stubs toe on rock.  Pain subsides.  Was there ever any stubbing?  Was there even a toe, or a rock?

Universe expands.  Universe contracts.  I am.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 20, 2013, 12:43:56 PM
It seems to me that "reality" becomes a sticky term when juxtaposed with "things": any thing, in arising and ceasing, has no existence of its own, is not real on its own; it may only seem to be real to the awareness, perhaps through a perspective (e.g. a person).  Ultimately, it is not unless "I am", as one might say.  All of this "thingness", these thoughts, sensations, these objects of perception, even these apparent "perceivers", can be discarded as illusory, though I myself am prone to playing the game if it interests me (as we ought?).  What is left to reality, then?  I should think only that which is actually fundamental, that which by itself (independently) can be said to be real: without quality, without attribute; nothing can be said of it, but that it is before all else, that nothing would be without it, and that you are that.

Ah, I see where our views diverge. I'm saying no 'thing' exists independently or autonomously in an absolute sense. I'm also saying that it's healthy to regard things largely in this absolute sense (but not so much as to loose touch with the necessary practicalities of mundane reality). But I'm certainly not saying that 'things' do not exist, as Crow says an illusion must exist at least to the extent it's perceived lest it not be perceived at all in the first place.

It's the epitome of irony if we say that 'things' don't exist because they are false labels, and then label them with the word "illusory" and take that to imply a complete, wholesale absence of existence--if that were true then the label "illusory" would fall straight away without anything tangible to reference or latch onto.

As the adage goes, nothing finite can exist apart from the infinite. Everyone agrees. But then, it follows that nothing infinite can exist apart from the finite. So really there's just one whole, one matrix, and this whole isn't infinity, it doesn't perpetually extraneously overflow every bound and delineation, rather it's finite, flowing precisely in its channels, (thankfully) unable to accommodate mutually-exclusive possibilities. You could even say it's logical. :D
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Tralfamadorian on March 20, 2013, 01:33:24 PM
Some of you characters don't seem able to even agree what 'real' means.
Bird flies into window and knocks itself out. -> Window is real.
Bird can't see it, but that does not make it not-real.
Human stubs toe on rock. -> Rock is real.
Human failed to see it, but still, rock is real.

So what if rock is mostly empty space and made up of swirling galaxies of electrons?
It still hurts toe when toe has high enough velocity relative to rock.
Rock is real. Window is real. Bird is real. Toe is real.

Thinking, you see, makes real into unreal.
Thinking human ceases to be real, to thinking human.
This begs the question: if thought isn't real, then how does one know that the thought upon which that conclusion is based is true, or "real"?

Also,

So long as the behavior corresponds to reality, does it really fucking matter what's going on inside my, or anyone else's, head? I realize that thought and action are connected to an extent; to use an extreme example, murder must be premeditated before it is committed. But really, as long as the carpenter excels at his craft and acts out of virtue in his dealings with other individuals, does it really fucking matter if he has purged his mind of thought, or cleansed his heart of desire, or accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, or whatever other bullshit mystical panaceas that humans have devised throughout the ages?
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Goatreich on March 20, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
Liszt said that no man could capture the beauty of heaven, so he instead focused on hell.  :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1A0LcXBZkk
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Cargést on March 21, 2013, 08:33:03 AM
Transcix, I'm using "real" in the Parmenidean sense, such that, if it isn't the infinite whence the finite comes - if it isn't you - it isn't real.  It's perfectly apt to replace all labels with "illusion" - at least then you know you're looking at one, and not many!  At that, if it's called an illusion, it is most certainly implied that it exists ("to be is to be perceived"), and yet is not real (just as my notion of Donkey Kong exists, though the character is not real).

It can be proven that the infinite can - indeed, does - rest apart from the finite, by examining the qualities of these kinds of existence.  The finite is finite not only in form, but also temporally: it is born, it grows, it decays, it dies.  Furthermore, one might develop words with which to describe the finite, and one might entertain notions of the finite.  It is the qualities, the attributes, of the finite which allow us to label certain parts as distinct from others in the first place.  One cannot do this with the infinite: though we point to it with that word, it is actually colourless, tasteless, formless, soundless, and so on.  Attributeless, it is non-distinct, and indistinguishable.  There is no quality to hold and say "yes, this is it" - the holder cannot hold itself.  However, while one could not read words if there were no page, one could see the page without words on it.

Advaita Vedanta is specifically geared towards this kind of "self-discovery".  The method is not to provide you with an experience, or an ideal, or any such thing that your mind might grab and hold onto in order to proclaim its own advancement.  The method is to allow the infinite to express through the finite its own self-recognition in that manifestation.  This is done through consistently dropping all things - "neti, neti", "not this, not that" - until one is no longer identified with any phenomenon.  Not the body, not the mind, not the feelings, nor the world, nor anything that arises and ceases.  What is left?  Only the one who watches all of this, eternally untouched by what is occurring within itself.  "The Kingdom of God comes with no signs to be perceived": this is how illusion and reality can be distinguished between, for the one is distinguishable, the other not.  When all phenomena cease - say, when the body is dead, and no sensation remains - still there is the awareness of that lack of phenomena.  In that timeless time, it is only I, alone, and no illusion.  Clearly I exist apart from any phenomenon.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 21, 2013, 09:10:24 AM
Cargést, how do you know that what you call "infinity" exists? 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?


So long as the behavior corresponds to reality, does it really fucking matter what's going on inside my, or anyone else's, head? I realize that thought and action are connected to an extent; to use an extreme example, murder must be premeditated before it is committed. But really, as long as the carpenter excels at his craft and acts out of virtue in his dealings with other individuals, does it really fucking matter if he has purged his mind of thought, or cleansed his heart of desire, or accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, or whatever other bullshit mystical panaceas that humans have devised throughout the ages?

If a carpenter's thoughts are critical and negative about his craft and his life, then the carpenter isn't focused. Also, the carpenter wouldn't be content, either. Unfocused and discontent, he probably wouldn't be the best carpenter.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 10:19:59 AM
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.



 
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 21, 2013, 11:02:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 11:10:25 AM
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.

Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 21, 2013, 11:17:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 11:37:59 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.

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.

Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: lost_wanderer on March 21, 2013, 04:00:13 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.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 04:06:58 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.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Cheeseburger Zombie on March 21, 2013, 09:39:53 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?
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 09:55:54 PM
Yes. The wanderer is not very lost at all.
He drops in sometimes and delivers mind-boggling statements.
Then disappears again :)
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 21, 2013, 10:04:24 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.

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.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 10:27:25 PM
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?

Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Phoenix on March 21, 2013, 10:43:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 10:58:40 PM
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 :)
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: lost_wanderer on March 22, 2013, 08:42:35 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?


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.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: crow on March 22, 2013, 09:37:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Thinking?
Post by: Cargést on March 22, 2013, 10:49:00 AM
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?