From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2024-04-23, D  wrote:   
   >   
   >>> The idea that I believe is alluded to by non-dualist points   
   >>> of view is that the notions of self and other(-than-self,   
   >>> which includes impersonal "other" like "the world") appear   
   >>> part and parcel. In other words, as soon as any notion   
   >>> implying separation from the ineffable underlying reality   
   >>> is conceived, all the rest follows - or "magically appears"   
   >>> - as supporting conceptuality, because no concept stands   
   >>> utterly alone: they're mutually inter-defined.   
   >>>   
   >>> So, yes, of course it takes notions of self and other   
   >>> to organize a mammoth hunt once the notion of "the world"   
   >>> containing selves, others, and mammoths is accepted as a given,   
   >>> as "reality". What I refer to as absence of (the notion of)   
   >>> self actually refers to the absence of notionality altogether,   
   >>> sometimes described as a serene, peaceful awareness sans the   
   >>> madness of insisting that awareness be discriminated into   
   >>> an endless series/collection of separate notions declared   
   >>> to be "reality". The peace/serenity of raw, undifferentiated   
   >>> awareness winds up replaced with a representational reality   
   >>> that we try - as selves believing in ourselves and all the   
   >>> supporting conceptuality - really hard to consider "real   
   >>> reality". But it seems to me (read: "me" in the context of   
   >>> this message) the ensuing mostly peaceless madness thereof   
   >>> screams something about it necessarily goes horribly wrong.   
   >>>   
   >>> But, as usual, attempting to describe what can't be   
   >>> described quickly feels unsatisfying in the context of   
   >>> believing in one's self, in "the world", and all the rest   
   >>> of the supporting purely conceptual cast.   
   >>   
   >> Also don't mix levels. The self is an excellent tool   
   >> for surviving in the material universe. If you want to   
   >> go "beyond" and discuss transcending and those kind of   
   >> experiences, that's when this might (depending on your   
   >> philosophical position) hit you in the face. =)   
   >   
   > Yes! "Mixing levels" was what I feared most in failing to   
   > be clear. But, like I said, it's a tough topic, because   
   > not realizing there might be more than one conceptual   
   > level the verbiage might be applied to makes it impossible   
   > to understand.   
      
   True. We are literally trying to argue _from_ the I to convey an   
   experience _without_ the I. On the other side, the person is   
   using his I to understand what's it like without an I. Conceptually that's   
   pretty close to impossible, if not impossible. Only direct experience,   
   without the intermediary layer of words and thought, will convey it fully.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)