Enlightenment Genetics

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

 

Little you, not actual you. Actual you isn't separate from imagination itself.

Right, but can "actual you" possess something? 

[Jonas Long]

8 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

I think I understood just fine.  He called what I was saying the materialist paradigm..which taken out of the context I was speaking from could be considered that.  But from his perspective he was literally saying that states of consciousness (from the context  that consciousness is all there is) is the materialist paradigm    which is actually a perversion of the idealist paradigm.  So yeah, you got me.  But it is still a lack of understanding of what the materialist paradigm is. 

The paradigm you describe is more materialist than you realize.  You pay lip service to idealism, but a lot of where you're coming from is very much based in materialism. 

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Jonas Long said:

The paradigm you describe is more materialist than you realize.  You pay lip service to idealism, but a lot of where you're coming from is very much based in materialism. 

How so?

[Phil]

19 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

I think I understood just fine.  He called what I was saying the materialist paradigm..which taken out of the context I was speaking from could be considered that. 

But from his perspective he was literally saying that states of consciousness (from the context  that consciousness is all there is) is the materialist paradigm    which is actually a perversion of the idealist paradigm.  So yeah, you got me.  But it is still a lack of understanding of what the materialist paradigm is. 

No, it was meant as to what you said in the context you said it, and is not a perversion of anything. @Jonas Long readily see’s it as well. That’s how paradigms work. You can’t see what’s being said because of the paradigm, which is really just another way of saying beliefs.

 

There isn’t really anything that can be added to the suggestion of checking direct experience and a hundred bucks ta’ boot. 

 

Also, there’s no lack. That’s projection. Also belief, and not coincidently, paradigmatic. 

 

Nothing wrong with it btw. 

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

No, it was meant as to what you said in the context you said it, and is not a perversion of anything. @Jonas Long readily see’s it as well. That’s how paradigms work. You can’t see what’s being said because of the paradigm, which is really just another way of saying beliefs.

 

There isn’t really anything that can be added to the suggestion of checking direct experience and a hundred bucks ta’ boot. 

 

Also, there’s no lack. That’s projection. Also and not coincidently, paradigmatic. 

He doesn't readily see anything.  He jumped to your defense because he doesn't like me.  Or he doesn't like what I represent.  So he took something completely out of context to try and attack me.   And it was a very weak argument.   Let's see what he has to say about how the idealist paradigm is more materialistic than I deemed.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Robed Mystic said:

He doesn't readily see anything.  He jumped to your defense because he doesn't like me.  Or he doesn't like what I represent.  So he took something completely out of context to try and attack me.   And it was a very weak argument.   Let's see what he has to say about how the idealist paradigm is more materialistic than I deemed.

That’s from the same paradigm. It’s the rose colored glasses thingy. Nobody’s attacking you. Relax. All’s well. 

[Jonas Long]

Just now, DMT Elf said:

But even little you can and does possess intelligence as a subset of universal intelligence.

Right, but the intelligence little you possesses is limited. 

[Jonas Long]

6 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

He doesn't readily see anything.  He jumped to your defense because he doesn't like me.  Or he doesn't like what I represent.  So he took something completely out of context to try and attack me.   And it was a very weak argument.   Let's see what he has to say about how the idealist paradigm is more materialistic than I deemed.

This right here is coming from a materialistic paradigm.  

[Robed Mystic]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

That’s from the same paradigm. It’s the rose colored glasses thingy. Nobody’s attacking you. Relax. All’s well. 

I'm not sure what you are saying.   What's from what paradigm?   

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Jonas Long said:

This right here is coming from a materialistic paradigm.  

That's coming from consciousness being in the brain? 

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

That's coming from consciousness being in the brain? 

"Me" not liking "you", all that shit, that's materialistic thinking. 

[Jonas Long]

5 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

True, but it's possible to make it less limited.

Less limited is still limited. 

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Jonas Long said:

"Me" not liking "you", all that shit, that's materialistic thinking. 

How so?  Please...elaborate.

[Jonas Long]

Just now, Robed Mystic said:

How so?  Please...elaborate.

It's self evident.  Me not liking you implies a me and a you. 

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, DMT Elf said:

So what? Would you rather be more limited or less limited?

The only point(I think) is that it's limited in some way shape or form, not whether there are degrees of limitation. I've kind of forgotten what that started off being about though... 

[Mandy]

11 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

But even little you can and does possess intelligence as a subset of universal intelligence.

You are a thought, posession is a thought, and intelligence is a thought. A thought can call another thought intelligent, but it would just be a thought. 

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Jonas Long said:

It's self evident.  Me not liking you implies a me and a you. 

There being distinctions is paradigm independent my friend.  Consciousness holds separation in its hand, no different than a brain could.  

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

There being distinctions is paradigm independent my friend.  Consciousness holds separation in its hand, no different than a brain could.  

That's your misunderstanding of the idealist paradigm.  I'm your idea, that I am separate from you, that I don't like you is your idea.  That you're better at chess than me.  None of those things hold weight outside a materialist paradigm. 

[Robed Mystic]

3 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

That's your misunderstanding of the idealist paradigm.  I'm your idea, that I am separate from you, that I don't like you is your idea.  That you're better at chess than me.  None of those things hold weight outside a materialist paradigm. 

Let me clear up a key misunderstanding for you.  You are thinking that one who has seen non-duality then must not embrace duality.   This is a mistake.  For to embrace duality IS non-duality.   

Edited April 4, 2023 by Robed Mystic

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Robed Mystic said:

Let me clear up a key misunderstanding for you.  You are thinking that one who has seen non-duality then must not embrace duality.   This is a mistake.  For to embrace duality IS non-duality.   

You can't embrace something that's imaginary.