Prostitution and Eternal Values

[Arising_uk]

The same way you know that you were born by a thing called a mother. Face is just a concept humans have invented to make sense of life. ...

Or more reasonably a word we give to that thing on top of the body that issues sounds and makes shapes which we might want to refer another to.

No they are not the same thing, a thing cannot be not a thing... just as the concept apple cannot be the concept orange..concepts are fixed things that cannot change. To know that requires the opposite knowing to exist in the same moment which is one unitary knowing appearing as duality.

You say they are not the same thing and then say they are unitary so that makes them the same thing as you have all things as concepts.

Same reason why when you show a pet dog or a cat a book and ask them to read it ..they can't read it....and don't need to read it to function ..reading is in the illusory story of other, it's a fiction...believed to be real.

What have cats and dogs got to do with this. If something can be said it can be said clearly, if you use words contradictorily you are forever speaking falsehood.

Humans read only what they want to hear.

Not in academic philosophy and hopefully not upon a philosophy forum.

The brain already understands what is meaning in the human dimension from it's conditioning of language that has been imputed into it from birth...

But reading has to be taught.

...speaking clearly or writing clearly is totally irrelevant to the brain, the brain already understands human language and it's meaning.

It's true you can butcher spoken English and still get a meaning across but try this with the French. It's not true that clarity in speaking and writing are irrelevant to language and meaning as language is the tool we use to communicate our thoughts and the clearer the better as language can be ambiguous and even worse contradictory.

See here why..


I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.

Old news to me but see here why this is not quite right and how interweeble memes are not a sound source of knowledge.
https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/ma ... cmabridge/

[Arising_uk]

What on earth is an external world?

Why the "inner" then?

External is a concept known by no thing aka consciousness, no one has seen an external world except as an idea...how does the eye approach the external...where ever the eye is.. so is what it is looking at...what the eye is looking at is not somewhere external to it..it is right here square alongside the eye that is looking, there is no gap ..the eye and what it sees are always in the exact same place, namely, here now the only place there is... here and there are mental concepts, an illusory relative division the mind makes via the attempt to make sense of spacial awareness which is actually everywhere at once... the concept is the object and the awareness aka the eye is the space...these two opposites are what define each other as appearing separate..but it's an illusion, the separation does not exist except in the mind of concepts...where ever you go there you are, you cannot separate yourself from where you always are...to be in two places at once... here and there don't exist in the real world except as concepts.

Try approaching the external and see if you can grab hold of it? where is it? move forward to grab hold of it and you'll see that as you move the eye moves with you..you can never get past the horizon....the eye is in the exact same place every time, the external is an illusion.. there is nothing external to the eye..what the eye sees is inseparable from what it is looking at.

What's this "eye" you talk about?

[Yrreg]

"Are you suggesting that if the earth were destroyed, eternal values as universal truths would no longer exist?"

If the earth were destroyed we would not be anymore existing, so no need at all for us to ask the question about eternal values existing - as we don't exist, how can we ask?

First, you must talk about things like eternal values, only as you know you and I exist, and not bring in a contrary to fact condition.

That is not to my view sound philosophy, but fiction for your amusement.

[Greta]

There is no logical reason to think that our process or current developmental stage is some sort of model pinnacle of rightness, intelligence, awareness, or unique divineness. It's more likely that we are one branch of creative possibility gone wonky... in order to inform the entire cosmic network of what happens on that path. But, no reason to get down on ourselves -- let's have a sense of humor and love about it, while demonstrating our phenomenal capability for shifting beyond it!

Heh, I don't think anything is going wonky. I just see a planet reforming, presumably into a form that will allow it to best reproduce on other worlds.

This restructure, like any restructure, will not be pleasing to most of the planet's life. The reformation of the Earth by blue-green algae during the Permian extinction event - the most lethal of all extinctions - brought free oxygen to the oceans and atmosphere and allowed complex life to exist. However, it was not popular with the Earth's existing denizens

A side note: I've wondered if I shouldn't say some of the things I do in such provocative ways. ... I would just like to say that the very best strategy for getting through fear and terror is tapping into love. Even if there's not understanding or agreement -- love transforms everything into a more expansive vibration. If someone doesn't know how to have love... that's a really good quality to acquire.

I know the feeling well . If one is to grow and progress, ideally we leave childish things behind, including the fun of baiting deluded types with inflated egos and toxic attitudes.

By engaging with Nick and a few others we are effectively debasing ourselves, even as we expose their brittleness and misconceptions. It's retrograde activity that is unlikely to bring insights, inspiration or even interest, aside from the jousting. Certainly they won't learn anything.

It is that very brittleness that lies at the core of their personal mythologies, that are charged with the task of keeping them from complete despair and collapse and, most importantly, give them a way of attacking safe targets - the most weak and vulnerable in society.

[Yrreg]

Dear colleagues here, please you who ascribe to eternal values, give one eternal value and where it is in the eternal existence of reality.

Now, in regard to prostitution, it is a non-eternal value at all, but a very common practice in man's time and space.

And as far as man goes into the past, it has always been practised by mankind, namely, that there be humans who want sexual service which they are willing to pay for.

And they are humans who are willing to sell this service to fellow humans who do want to buy it.

What's wrong with that? Except that there be groups of people i.e. humans who band together to enact a norm scil. law, binding on themselves that they will not allow this practice in their midst, on pain of punishment to be meted out by them who make the law and enforce it.

[Dontaskme]

"Are you suggesting that if the earth were destroyed, eternal values as universal truths would no longer exist?"

If the earth were destroyed we would not be anymore existing, so no need at all for us to ask the question about eternal values existing - as we don't exist, how can we ask?

First, you must talk about things like eternal values, only as you know you and I exist, and not bring in a contrary to fact condition.

That is not to my view sound philosophy, but fiction for your amusement.

Of course we need to ask the question about eternal values existing..for without asking this question we've only got halve the story about who it is that exists in the first place...come on lets try and be intelligent about this.

One has to exist first to know one exists...You have existed before you knew you existed, this is obvious, because you could not know you exist without being here to be aware you exist....existence is always prior to the knowing of existence...the proof of that is when you were a baby and you had no concept of your self as a separate being...in that state all life is nondual one without a second...which means eternal.

When the sense of ''separate self'' kicks in...it is known as knowledge...''I know I exist''...but that sense of ''separate self'' is a mental construct, it's a concept...the division between ''eternal and temporal'' or put in another context ''nondual and duality''...is made right there and then in the moment of ''separate self'' realisation...but the division is pure illusory...that which is totally and absolutely whole can never be divided or measured...there is no such ''separate entity'' anywhere in existence as a ''separate self''....it's a totally fictional entity, a story told by humans via the mind consisting of conceptual language...conceptual language is the illusory add on material imposed upon that what is already here present as this eternal not-knowing existence that had to be prior to anything known about it... else ''anything known'' could never have been possible...known.



...therefore all knowledge is illusory..informing illusory fictional reality...but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater completely here....it's not that reality is not real, it is real, it's an illusion appearing very very real... and that real illusory existence is the unknowable known.

I really don't get why you educated people cannot grasp the simple concept that opposites must exist in the same moment.


Of course eternal has to be...because temporal exists...or to be more precise ...eternal/temporal...are known concepts that cannot be known to exist independently..they are one and the same concept here now, mutually arising in conjunction with each other, complimentary opposites existing as ONE SEAMLESS REALITY.

You really could not say anything about not existing anymore without knowing existing...the opposites exist in the same moment, the same place here in consciousness...what we have here is the eternal non-moving space (awareness) within which ''temporal moving objects'' have there being inseparable from the space..they are one and the same No-thing.

Existence prior to being known is eternal, it has to be, it's so obvious...the temporal arise and fall in eternity infinitely...energy is neither created nor destroyed...this is obvious.

If you do not understand what I have said here..then read it over 100 times until it sinks in...this knowledge is free of charge, they do not teach you this knowledge at school or university...

You have to find this new knowledge on philosophy forums...given away by selfless people for free.

.

[Dontaskme]

Why the "inner" then?

What's this ''inner'' you talk about?

What's this "eye" you talk about?

[Dontaskme]

...speaking clearly or writing clearly is totally irrelevant to the brain, the brain already understands human language and it's meaning.

It's true you can butcher spoken English and still get a meaning across but try this with the French. It's not true that clarity in speaking and writing are irrelevant to language and meaning as language is the tool we use to communicate our thoughts and the clearer the better as language can be ambiguous and even worse contradictory.

This is old news to me..but allow me to be very clear and precise about this..the knower of such knowledge is the unknowable known...that's the only clarity worth knowing about.

.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

Try approaching the external and see if you can grab hold of it? where is it? move forward to grab hold of it and you'll see that as you move the eye moves with you..you can never get past the horizon....the eye is in the exact same place every time, the external is an illusion.. there is nothing external to the eye..what the eye sees is inseparable from what it is looking at.

Regardless of what DAM intended, is the above a phenomenological claim? As the quote stands, it's true. Was Kant within the phenomenology (anachronism!) when he said that the numinous cannot be known ?

If you would satisfy my curiosity, Dontaskme, can you understand and agree with Kant's claim that the noumenous cannot be known?

For example, your face. You cannot know your face as it is in itself so to speak(noumenon). All you can know about your own face is sensation that seems to arise thereabouts, a photo, or a reflection in a glass(phenomenon).

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:

Try approaching the external and see if you can grab hold of it? where is it? move forward to grab hold of it and you'll see that as you move the eye moves with you..you can never get past the horizon....the eye is in the exact same place every time, the external is an illusion.. there is nothing external to the eye..what the eye sees is inseparable from what it is looking at.

Regardless of what DAM intended, is the above a phenomenological claim? As the quote stands, it's true. Was Kant within the phenomenology (anachronism!) when he said that the numinous cannot be known ?

No, it's not a claim..it's a disclaimer.

If you would satisfy my curiosity, Dontaskme, can you understand and agree with Kant's claim that the noumenous cannot be known?

For example, your face. You cannot know your face as it is in itself so to speak(noumenon). All you can know about your own face is sensation that seems to arise thereabouts, a photo, or a reflection in a glass(phenomenon).

I'm always happy to oblige curiosity.

Yes, I agree with Kant..

However, and this is the aha moment...because I can know myself via my reflected image...I can also know myself as the reflector that cannot be known.

For without the reflector being here first...how could I be reflected?

It's pure magic how that happens.

.

This is what is meant in the zen poem here...

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection; The water has no mind to retain their image.

The human mind is like the glass...it's the looking glass upon itself.
.

Intention is of the spirit, the unseen one.

Intention is the rider of the will...totally free.

.

[Dontaskme]

Also Belinda for your curiosity ...the reflector has to be here first, (PURE non-conceptual AWARENESS)and the reflected is the second coming...(pure consciousness) aka christ consciousness...aka the immaterial in-form-ation...as and through the body mind mechanisms that are the created ones, aka things...aka concepts.

This is what is meant by the following ...

The beginning and the end. In the New Testament Book of Revelation, God says, “I am Alpha and Omega,” meaning that he is the beginning and end of all things. In the Greek alphabet, alpha is the first letter and omega is the last.

If you are both the first and last which is just another word for ONE which is just another word for ZERO

Then YOU have ALWAYS EXISTED....YOU cannot NOT EXIST.

When jesus said to himself as he lie dying on the cross...My work is done.

This meant the imagined ego self has to die before the real self which is eternal life living itself can show up...in other words..we cannot show up to our own show..there is no room in here for two..

.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

Yes, I agree with Kant..

However, and this is the aha moment...because I can know myself via my reflected image...I can also know myself as the reflector that cannot be known.

For without the reflector being here first...how could I be reflected?

I agree with what you wrote. The "oceanic" insight is however, also available to ontological materialists, and also to mystics who have no interest in any philosophy. I understand it can also be induced by mind-altering substances; and that is not intended to disparage.

It would seem that Kant was not a mystic or psychedelic.

I am neither a mystic nor have I taken psychedelic drugs to change my brain-mind. I know of no studies of such experienced subjects that correlate their "oceanic" experience with eternal values. Of course I would like this to be so!

My use of inverted commas around "oceanic" is because that is what Maharishi called the brain-mind state and it's a neat metaphor.

[Dontaskme]

I agree with what you wrote. The "oceanic" insight is however, also available to ontological materialists, and also to mystics who have no interest in any philosophy.

Okay, so what?

I understand it can also be indiuced by mind-altering substances.

So I've heard, but I've never personally touched stuff like that, it's not really that advisable to go down that route. I've never even smoked weed. I hate being out of control...lol

Bye the way children are naturally in the nondual state...that is until they are poisoned by society.

I guess I just never really grew up.

[Dontaskme]

It would seem that Kant was not a mystic or psychedelic.

Narh, probably not..he's just another nobody like everyone else.

[Belinda]

It would seem that Kant was not a mystic or psychedelic.

Narh, probably not..he's just another nobody like everyone else.

Jest because I agree with you in some matters does not mean I agree with you all together. Kant was cleverer than you or me. You write an awful lot of thoughtless guff.