XPost: alt.support.depression, alt.support.schizophrenia, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: slider@anashram.com   
      
   On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:30:41 +0100, one  wrote:   
      
   > slider wrote:   
   >> one wrote:   
   >>> slider wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> the higher principles won the day and   
   >>>> the so-called white version of morality lost...   
   >>>   
   >>> Not sure about the topic at this point.   
   >>   
   >> ### - we've been playing around with language & perception in order to   
   >> perhaps arrive at a higher truth/understanding, you avoiding being   
   >> pinned   
   >> down by escaping-off into ambiguity & plays on words, whereas my basic   
   >> argument has been steadily along the lines of, e.g., this quote:   
   >>   
   >> "Anyone who perceives their shadow and light simultaneously sees   
   >> themselves from two sides and thus gets in the middle." --Carl Jung ;)   
   >>   
   >> this spelling/marking the 'end' of the dualistic approach...   
   >   
   > You seemed to be seeing a white   
   > version of morality and higher principles   
   > won the day. I might be able to see what you   
   > say and then again, call it a selective perception.   
      
   ### - we're merely following a particular line of thought here, that   
   debate (as demonstrated in & by that true-story movie) is a viable tool   
   for the reasons already provided...   
      
      
      
      
   >>>> i mean, i look around here and everyone's cups are already filled to   
   >>>> overflowing, there's no room for anything more or different, people   
   >>>> don't   
   >>>> like/resent anything 'different', they like to feel that they've gots   
   >>>> it   
   >>>> all nailed down already...   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't know about, everyone. Nor everyone's cup   
   >>> being as you say it appears to you to be.   
   >>>   
   >>> You appear to have a projection screen projecting screens   
   >>> that screen what apears to you to be, stereotyping.   
   >>   
   >> ### - no, taking into account that words & terms are not (and cannot be)   
   >> definitive, and are in fact often completely misleading, we're thus   
   >> forced   
   >> to use language/words in novel ways to communicate...   
   >   
   > Okay.   
   >   
   >> iow: we can't take anything said literally, knowing its limitations all   
   >> we   
   >> can honestly do is to 'allude' to certain things people already know in   
   >> a   
   >> variety of ways, knowing that the other person understands what one is   
   >> 'trying' to say through a veil of inaccurate words... poetry being one   
   >> such use of novel language to allude to things that cannot be accurately   
   >> defined... thus metaphor, similes & analogy are the only tools we   
   >> have...   
   >> there are always exceptions to any rule but we're not talking about   
   >> those   
   >> (we, for example, might be/represent those exceptions, standing on the   
   >> sidelines observing/making-observations)   
   >   
   > Presumptions continue to continue. Axioms,   
   > as it were and communicating can be interesting.   
      
   ### - yes, exactly that... once both parties have a mutual context/frame   
   they both accept, it's possible to talk about it in many different ways   
   and the other person still knows what the other is saying... anyone   
   overhearing it might thus hear something very different altogether   
   (because they lack the original context) so it all sounds like nonsense to   
   them, thus your acquaintances have dropped out because they've lost the   
   thread heh... they've been left behind coz they couldn't keep up ;)   
      
      
      
      
      
   > People who were diagnosed with a mental illness,   
   > having had a Christ or cosmic consciousness type   
   > of experience, may say they are God or a shaman   
   > and be unable to communicate how great it is nor   
   > heal so-called, average, people who might be   
   > perpetuating forms of what is called evil.   
      
   ### - there's no such thing as good or evil except as concepts in people's   
   heads, concatenations of a divided mind... ditto any of the dualistic   
   pairings which don't actually exist in nature as separate items (hot/cold,   
   good/bad/ up or down etc etc) their being split/divided being only a   
   perceptual illusion created by the rational mind which only functions   
   based on perceiving everything as being divided   
      
      
      
      
   >>>>> The world is said to be sacred.   
   >>>>> Trying to change it is not advised.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ### - are you suggesting/saying that the tibetan buddhists are in   
   >>>> error   
   >>>> working to enlighten the whole world? that it's not advisable??   
   >>>   
   >>> Paradigms vary.   
   >>>   
   >>> I was saying what a saying is   
   >>> given a Taoist paradigm, imo.   
   >>   
   >> ### - nevertheless, we still both know what we're talking about in the   
   >> context its currently been framed,   
   >   
   > I'm not sure what you are talking about.   
   > What occurs to me are techniques, ways.   
   >   
   > Trying to enlighten the world presumes   
   > the world is not enlightened.   
      
   ### - kinda... in dualistic terms (because that's all we have) it presumes   
   humanity is on a path/journey from dark to light, from ignorance to   
   understanding, from dualism to unity, which, because it's impossible to be   
   accurate is all just a way of talking about strange phenomena, none of   
   it's to be taken literally, yet we both know/understand what we're   
   alluding to...   
      
      
      
      
   > From a pov of expanded consciousness, there   
   > may be viewed as well as experienced a Self   
   > who sees through all eyes and hears with   
   > every ear being all beings even being   
   > Being, Existence. Figure-ground types   
   > of reversals might be common for mystics.   
   >   
   > If there is such a Self, at play, who plays   
   > all parts, masking its elves sewing two speak,   
   > then to be concerned with enlightenment may   
   > be called being a tad bit involved in the play.   
   >   
   > Perspectives vary.   
      
   ### - an expanded view is where it's at for sure, that's the whole aim,   
   but to gain that expansion takes a little work, not so much by struggling   
   to learn something new, but by un-learning something already learned and   
   thus emptying one's cup ;)   
      
      
      
   > I find our conversation being a discussion.   
   > For a time being to discuss eternity is curious, imo.   
      
   ### - for sure there's an exchange occurring, and yes we're discussing   
   higher/expanded awareness in a roundabout manner & way because it's   
   impossible to be direct about such things (i.e., it's impossible to   
   discuss the irrational in rational terms and definitions, so we have to   
   work around it)   
      
      
      
   >>>> or does   
   >>>> that perhaps only apply to those who don't really know what they're   
   >>>> doing,   
   >>>> an injunction as such to those people to wait until they 'do' know   
   >>>> what   
   >>>> they're doing!   
   >>>   
   >>> When being spontaneous, one does.   
   >>> When being drawn by a cause, one does.   
   >>>   
   >>> How to do without doing, to be in the Zone,   
   >>> to transcend right and wrong could be an other   
   >>> mode and still yet suggest a duality exists.   
   >>   
   >> ### - the vast majority of humanity lives entirely in a dualistic   
   >> good/bad   
   >> interpretation of life,   
   >   
   > Sounds like hyperbole to me. A statement   
   > with presumptions to be taken for granted.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)