This Story So Real

Originally posted by Taoman
The problem appears to be the common one, the self-reference "I".
To me, "I" is a convenient reference to this participating "node" of awareness, within the Great Matrix of Awareness.
You or I as a totally independent entity, or anything else for that matter, divine or mundane, that could stand by itself, without any dependence on anything else is a fictio ...[text shortened]... st sentence...but then like some Mandelbrot it reawakens anew...unto infinity.

You say all that as though you know it is an absolute fact. That's a curious thing to me since it's merely a philosophical perspective based on conjecture. (my opinion) How can anyone know whether he would be the same person or not if someone close to them had never existed? How can one base their belief about the substance and meaning of life on a fictional premise?

"If we take something as real in itself, by itself alone, no-thing anywhere like that can be found."

How can you say that? This is a mighty big universe, and all that we know of it amounts to too little to justify the idea that some-thing doesn't exist that is self sufficient.

I understand where you're coming from. I really do. How strange it is that we frame reality in two distinctly different ways.

To be or not to be.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You seen "A Waking Life"? Highly recomended, filled with personal comentaries about life and whatnot.
One of them was this chick who was saying that to look at a picture of herself when she was younger and to think of herself now she had to invent a story. (Like she went to school here and met these people and this other stuff happenned and here she is ...[text shortened]... ns.
Good stuff, makes you wonder about that old photo of yourself. Who is that guy? who am I?

I still bear a resemblance to the bod that has "reincarnated" (by cell replacement) a few times physically in this life. But I am so different within and changed I am sometimes seriously embarrassed by my former constructed "self"! We and our "nows" are what matter most, eh?

Originally posted by josephw
You say all that as though you know it is an absolute fact. That's a curious thing to me since it's merely a philosophical perspective based on conjecture. (my opinion) How can anyone know whether he would be the same person or not if someone close to them had never existed? How can one base their belief about the substance and meaning of life on a fictional ...[text shortened]... ange it is that we frame reality in two distinctly different ways.

To be or not to be.

I state things as I understand them. I used to sprinkle, "It appears to me at present .." and such like around, but it begins to tire and sound a tad precious. Let's take it as read..whatever I say so confidently is how it appears to me at present, and the same I will assume for your opinion and experiences arising out of your story.
We are both terribly wrong, of course, because like any good story, its HOW you read it and respond to it NOW that counts! Nothing is finally and absolutely true because finally there is no one independent thing, entity or concept anywhere in existence to be such. And I say, what a relief! But you may produce a totally independent such, existing all by itself to show me wrong.

I'm waiting, josephw.

Originally posted by Taoman
I still bear a resemblance to the bod that has "reincarnated" (by cell replacement) a few times physically in this life. But I am so different within and changed I am sometimes seriously embarrassed by my former constructed "self"! We and our "nows" are what matter most, eh?

Aye, we are "the force of animation" not the animated.
(I think me and a friend coined that term although in hindsight he may have borrowed it from somewhere. How does the story go again? 🙂 )

Originally posted by Taoman
I state things as I understand them. I used to sprinkle, "It appears to me at present .." and such like around, but it begins to tire and sound a tad precious. Let's take it as read..whatever I say so confidently is how it appears to me at present, and the same I will assume for your opinion and experiences arising out of your story.
We are both terribly wr ...[text shortened]... totally independent such, existing all by itself to show me wrong.

I'm waiting, josephw.

I appreciate your patients Taoman. I mean that sincerely. After all, it's discussions like this that provoke, encourage, stimulate and challenge us to look closely at not only what the other is saying, but at our self as well. I enjoy our little debates, especially with you, black beetleReveal Hidden Contentand vistesd, because you guys don't try to make me feel like an idiot even when we both know when I can be wrong. Besides, I've learned a lot over these last half dozen years in this forum that I would not have otherwise learned.

But please bear with me again, because I seem to read in something you said that doesn't quite make sense to me.

"Nothing is finally and absolutely true because finally there is no one independent thing, entity or concept anywhere in existence to be such."

This statement contradicts itself. I know you're going to give an explanation, but there's something here worth exploring. imo

Originally posted by josephw
I appreciate your patients Taoman. I mean that sincerely. After all, it's discussions like this that provoke, encourage, stimulate and challenge us to look closely at not only what the other is saying, but at our self as well. I enjoy our little debates, especially with you, black beetle[hidden]I love that wave function concept[/hidden]and vistesd, because y ...[text shortened]... now you're going to give an explanation, but there's something here worth exploring. imo

Yes, you are seeing something I didn't, thank you. Words and concepts can ever trip you up. What I see in my statement now (I presume this is what you saw) is:
I state a "because" that sounds itself like being "finally and absolutely true". I laugh at myself!
These conundrums of language that get encountered are themselves perhaps the clearest indicator that something is amiss when we seek to tie down truths absolutely.

I have sought to tie down "truths" and they ever remain furry and a little slippery. There is truth there, but it appears to be bigger than language can encompass. I relate this to the "neither inherently existing or not inherently existing" vision of the Buddhist sages. Like things, truths are ever related to associations and contexts, their "parts", so to speak. They do not appear to me to exist all by themselves. They need a context and contexts can change. Something that is able to change, indeed that does change, and never "stays still", cannot be said to inherently exist as an unchangeable self-existing thing or truth.

This seems itself like an "absolute truth" doesn't it, like saying, "it is an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth!" So we appear stymied by the Great Paradox, the great Mystery. If things were fixed they would be lifeless and static, like a lifeless unmoving body. And how could we live fully if all the joys of discovery and surprise had been done? I love the wall of paradox. Its a bit like the Great Wailing Wall of Jerusalem. A reminder of of That which is greater than me, and that I, nor anyone else will never thankfully ever be able to box up. We wail at this mystery of paradox, but it also tells us we are part of That which is so much greater. It is about us, but it is not all about us.And paradox and mystery make for a great story.

Cheers josephw..