What Is, Is

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

It's not that anyone needs to be ready to "hear a tautology", but rather that one needs to be ready to accept 'what is'.

I, myself, would never have been able to accept 'what is', unless I was ready for it. And even then, I only realized the need for acceptance after pondering the syllogism for a couple of weeks (the syllogism is what led to the tautology). Hence, the realization for the need to accept can take any number of forms or circumstances. Neither the syllogism nor the tautology is likely to be understood by everyone.

Okay, you're talking about accepting everything. Now I understand that, but I don't know what this syllogism is. Did I miss it? I'm curious to know how you concluded that you have to accept 'what is'.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

If you see a rope as a snake, is "what is" a snake or is it a rope?

It's a rope that I'm mistaking for a snake. That would be 'what is' to me.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Seems the same happened to ChristsLight. Telling people about your cold is kind of like yawning around other people I guess.

It also could be that you're, like, the devil incarnate or sumthin.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

It also could be that you're, like, the devil incarnate or sumthin.

Maybe. Does that mean I get to party with Jacko when I die in hell?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Okay, why is it difficult for you to relate to what we're saying when you're in this mode?

Well, to be fair, sometimes, I relate very well to what you say. Sometimes, I relate very well to what others say. Sometimes I don't relate at all to what some say(like Reject's insistence on using the word "HIM" as "Intelligence").

Currently, my only difficulties with undertanding what some in this subforum issue, deal mainly with definitions (which can be treated subjectively, as we've seen), and with text walls that treat of some highly complex explanation that require a considerable amount of time and effort for me to process, when I'm in a mode (i.e., "Being mode") that, most often, tends to simply "witness" thought, because I no longer identify with it. (Though, to be honest, I still, occasionally, "slip", and identify with thought, which can lead to problems, like confusion).

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, Arcane one, if you can put aside your 'who said whats' and your 'giraffes' for minute, and answer a question, we might be able to have a productive dialogue.

Is everything (meaning, everything) illusion to you? Is there nothing (meaning nothing) real to you?

I just explained my definition of illusion to you. How would it be possible to have a productive dialog if you aren't hearing me, and then tell me not to talk about how you aren't hearing me?

Thanks for defining 'everything' as 'everything' and 'nothing' as 'nothing', but you didn't define 'real' which I told you I needed a definition of.

I think the dialog is going well so far, don't you??

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Okay, you're talking about accepting everything. Now I understand that, but I don't know what this syllogism is. Did I miss it? I'm curious to know how you concluded that you have to accept 'what is'.

I'd go looking for it, but it's easier to just write it here--

Truth is that which is so,
That which is not Truth, is not so,
Therefore, Truth is all there is.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

If you see a rope as a snake, is "what is" a snake or is it a rope?

After much exhaustive investigation, I've concluded that he means 'what is' is a snake, which finally gets us close to the question of, why should it be necessary, or even a good thing, to accept that a rope is a snake?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

It's a rope that I'm mistaking for a snake. That would be 'what is' to me.

Okay, now the definition of 'what is' has changed again. What if you don't know it's a rope? Wouldn't a snake be 'what is' for you?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Maybe. Does that mean I get to party with Jacko when I die in hell?

Well, I would think you'll be the one throwing the party.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, to be fair, sometimes, I relate very well to what you say. Sometimes, I relate very well to what others say. Sometimes I don't relate at all to what some say(like Reject's insistence on using the word "HIM" as "Intelligence").

Currently, my only difficulties with undertanding what some in this subforum issue, deal mainly with definitions (which can be treated subjectively, as we've seen), and with text walls that treat of some highly complex explanation that require a considerable amount of time and effort for me to process, when I'm in a mode (i.e., "Being mode") that, most often, tends to simply "witness" thought, because I no longer identify with it. (Though, to be honest, I still, occasionally, "slip", and identify with thought, which can lead to problems, like confusion).

I see. Do you see the only way processing information can happen is if you again identify with the thought process?

Is there something aware of this you that's in being mode and then vacillating back and forth being identified with thought?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Well, I would think you'll be the one throwing the party.

Yeah that would be obvious eh? Sorry I get excited.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I just explained my definition of illusion to you. How would it be possible to have a productive dialog if you aren't hearing me, and then tell me not to talk about how you aren't hearing me?

Thanks for defining 'everything' as 'everything' and 'nothing' as 'nothing', but you didn't define 'real' which I told you I needed a definition of.

I think the dialog is going well so far, don't you??

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Okay, now the definition of 'what is' has changed again. What if you don't know it's a rope? Wouldn't a snake be 'what is' for you?

Nevermind, Arcane one. I won't ask you anymore questions.

But, then, please allow me the courtesy of not having to answer yours. If you don't get it by now, then any further attempts to answer frivolous questions is simply a waste energy.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I'd go looking for it, but it's easier to just write it here--

Truth is that which is so,
That which is not Truth, is not so,
Therefore, Truth is all there is.

Oh, okay, I remember that now. I didn't relate it to acceptance of 'what is' because you defined 'what is' basically as 'what appears to you', and this has nothing to do with Truth.

If we assume you think that what appears is Truth, nothing that appears is actually as it appears to be. A rope that appears to be a snake is not a snake.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yeah that would be obvious eh? Sorry I get excited.

Well, that's understandable. Party down! wooHoo!

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I see. Do you see the only way processing information can happen is if you again identify with the thought process?

Yes, actually. I have to do it, sometimes, like for work. But, then, that's probably why it's called, "work".

Is there something aware of this you that's in being mode and then vacillating back and forth being identified with thought?

The short answer would be no. I'm either in "Being mode" (which, again, is for lack of a better term), or I'm not, and identifying with thought.

I think (though I'm not sure) that a parallel to "Being mode" is being "in the Vortex", as LoA proponents talk about.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Nevermind, Arcane one. I won't ask you anymore questions.

But, then, please allow me the courtesy of not having to answer yours. If you don't get it by now, then any further attempts to answer frivolous questions is simply a waste energy.

Well, to be frank (oh, wait, I'm Arcanum) you're the one who isn't understanding. You don't know what your own term 'what is' means and you've changed the definition half a dozen times so that nobody can figure it out. You talk about accepting what happens without taking into account that you're misinterpreting most of what happens, and are therefore trying to accept your own misunderstanding. You seem to equate this appearance of illusions to Truth and then use this as the basis for trying to accept your own illusions. You imagine to be positioning yourself as Being and therefore can't understand what the rest of us deluded ones are talking about, when the truth is much closer to the opposite. Like lots of folks, when you're put on the spot you go unconscious and can't hear what's being said and start seeing all sorts of things that aren't there, which of course you have to accept, which creates more stress for you, which you have to deny. It all gets extremely complicated with a lot of wasted energy.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Well, to be frank (oh, wait, I'm Arcanum) you're the one who isn't understanding. You don't know what your own term 'what is' means and you've changed the definition half a dozen times so that nobody can figure it out. You talk about accepting what happens without taking into account that you're misinterpreting most of what happens, and are therefore trying to accept your own misunderstanding. You seem to equate this appearance of illusions to Truth and then use this as the basis for trying to accept your own illusions. You imagine to be positioning yourself as Being and therefore can't understand what the rest of us deluded ones are talking about, when the truth is much closer to the opposite. Like lots of folks, when you're put on the spot you go unconscious and can't hear what's being said and start seeing all sorts of things that aren't there, which of course you have to accept, which creates more stress for you, which you have to deny. It all gets extremely complicated with a lot of wasted energy.

Nice well-articulated rant, I'll give you that much.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

It's a rope that I'm mistaking for a snake. That would be 'what is' to me.

Yet you say "what is" is what you understand to be.

Thus why I'm saying you're actually filtering "what is" into little conceptual components that you can "conceive" (or not).

I see what you're trying to do, Beingist. But you're vacillating back and forth between "being" and trying to figure out being. You say you just be, and witness thoughts, but then you have a thread where you want others to debunk your belief that "what is, is." In one breath you use reason, and in the next you throw it out the window.

In the light of the recent threads on Hawkins' levels of consciousness, I'd predict you were on the cusp of the levels of reason and that of love, but that your mind is still in the process of trying to grasp on to its concepts for dear life.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

After much exhaustive investigation, I've concluded that he means 'what is' is a snake, which finally gets us close to the question of, why should it be necessary, or even a good thing, to accept that a rope is a snake?

That would be consistent with his definition, but it appears that such clarity eludes us.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Yet you say "what is" is what you understand to be.

Whoops! Looks like you left out one "is."

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

In the light of the recent threads on Hawkins' levels of consciousness, I'd predict you were on the cusp of the levels of reason and that of love, but that your mind is still in the process of trying to grasp on to its concepts for dear life.

Actually, I was recently putting myself at the cusp of acceptance and reason.

Otherwise, you're probably correct about my mind is still trying to hold on. Nothing much I can do about that, but surrender it.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Actually, I was recently putting myself at the cusp of acceptance and reason.

Otherwise, you're probably correct about my mind is still trying to hold on. Nothing much I can do about that, but surrender it.

If you were moving toward reason, you'd find yourself moving toward greater logic, not using it less. The level of acceptance is actually not about the type of acceptance you are discussing here, but about accepting greater responsibility for your own life and the results being manifested in it.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

If you were moving toward reason, you'd find yourself moving toward greater logic, not using it less. The level of acceptance is actually not about the type of acceptance you are discussing here, but about accepting greater responsibility for your own life and the results being manifested in it.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, here, CL, but what caught my eye recently (yesterday, actually) was the egoic 'sensitivity' in acceptance that yet pops up on occasion, and so still needs to be transcended. Hence, I figure I'm either still on that cusp or am predominantly in reason, with the occasional 'sensitivity' in acceptance still popping up.

But, I see what you're saying about the use of logic. And since it seems apparent that I'm starting to let go of 'thinkingness', you may very well be right there, too.

Thanks for the insight.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Nice well-articulated rant, I'll give you that much.

At least I'm an articulate malicious gangster.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

At least I'm an articulate malicious gangster.

Articulate, yes. Malicious, nah.

Gangster? Meh, I'm not worried.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Nice well-articulated rant, I'll give you that much.

It's quite unfortunate because I don't sense that Arcanum is upset with you or trying to make you look foolish in the least bit. I think he, as I are merely trying to understand what this all actually means to you and where the clarity really lies.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

The short answer would be no. I'm either in "Being mode" (which, again, is for lack of a better term), or I'm not, and identifying with thought.

I think (though I'm not sure) that a parallel to "Being mode" is being "in the Vortex", as LoA proponents talk about.

When you're in 'Being mode', where are 'you'? Are you still there?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Yet you say "what is" is what you understand to be.

Thus why I'm saying you're actually filtering "what is" into little conceptual components that you can "conceive" (or not).

I see what you're trying to do, Beingist. But you're vacillating back and forth between "being" and trying to figure out being. You say you just be, and witness thoughts, but then you have a thread where you want others to debunk your belief that "what is, is." In one breath you use reason, and in the next you throw it out the window.

In the light of the recent threads on Hawkins' levels of consciousness, I'd predict you were on the cusp of the levels of reason and that of love, but that your mind is still in the process of trying to grasp on to its concepts for dear life.

Yes, it much appears to me like the dilemma most people end up facing where they think that letting go means they must give up thinking, being able to hold a job, function in the 'real world' and have meaningful relationships. The proverbial 'I'm not ready yet!'. I could say these are just scary thoughts but I don't think that would make much difference. Like the child afraid to walk into the dark room, there is no substitute to courage.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

When you're in 'Being mode', where are 'you'? Are you still there?

It's more like, "Who (or What) I am". When not in "Being mode", I'm more like ... just me. In either case, yes, I'm still 'here'.