'ISness"

Andrew- at some point some of the players on this forum might actually be doing some kind of pointy pussing together. I dont know about that but it wouldnt surprise me. I think its possible there is more happening on this forum than might meet the eye. Just speculatin' though

Oh when the saints go marching in
oh when the saints go marching in
oh lord I want to be in that number
when bob grabs andy by the hand
or when lamont tries drowning phroggy,
or when hybrid says something skimpy on nouns,
or when sound takes a cool photo,
or when wind of grace, the brightest of us all
washes her hands of the whole damn thing,
or when gem speaks his wisdom that none of us understand,
or when shaman speaks his wisdom that all of us understand,
and porto grins at andy and says,
“not eeeeven this?”
Oh yes I want to be in that number,
coz I got noth'n else tooooo dooooo.

Originally Posted by hybrid

every **** tom and harry think so. and every joe and jane think otherwise.
and the conflict begins here , mostly word wars.
so they do happen because of the minds propensity to disagree. and we disagree because we don't understand what they are saying. and we don't understand because we are not listening from the absolute truth.

we don't listen from the absolute truth because we love to waddle on the surface of relative truth.
,

Yeah, sounds about right to me.

Originally Posted by andrew g

That was clever and made me chuckle. But I think if we look closely, 'doesnt' and 'is' are the same thing, and I think 'be' and 'is' are the same thing. They fix 'things' eternally and constantly.

Yer just trying to rob me of my 'cleverness' self definition so that Lisa will give you more ice cream cones.

Originally Posted by andrew g

I think if everyone realized that there is no relative truth there would be no more conflict - the idea of relative truth is an oxymoron in itself. I think for as long as humans are caught in this duality of truth/falsity, there will be conflict.

I don't think relative truth can ever be seen that way since it is integral to functioning in life. It's only necessary to see that it's only meaningful within the context of life, that it's all conceptual and self defining and free floating, like a play on a stage, and can never say anything meaningful outside of that play as 'the play is the thing'. There isn't something outside of what is imagined to be happening here. This is IT, but none of the stories are ultimately True. Nothing has any reality beyond the play itself, and so the idea of reality loses it's meaning.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Phroggy

I don't think relative truth can ever be seen that way since it is integral to functioning in life. It's only necessary to see that it's only meaningful within the context of life, that it's all conceptual and self defining and free floating, like a play on a stage, and can never say anything meaningful outside of that play as 'the play is the thing'. There isn't something outside of what is imagined to be happening here. This is IT, but none of the stories are ultimately True. Nothing has any reality beyond the play itself, and so the idea of reality loses it's meaning.

I agree that sharing meaning and perceiving ''things'' (which I think is basically what we are talking about) is integral to functioning in life on THIS earth. I will leave it there!

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Phroggy

Yer just trying to rob me of my 'cleverness' self definition so that Lisa will give you more ice cream cones.

Hehe you saw through my strategy!

Originally Posted by Phroggy

I don't think relative truth can ever be seen that way since it is integral to functioning in life. It's only necessary to see that it's only meaningful within the context of life, that it's all conceptual and self defining and free floating, like a play on a stage, and can never say anything meaningful outside of that play as 'the play is the thing'. There isn't something outside of what is imagined to be happening here. This is IT, but none of the stories are ultimately True. Nothing has any reality beyond the play itself, and so the idea of reality loses it's meaning.

Good stuff.
So, what is it that knows/sees/perceives the play?

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Portto

Good stuff.
So, what is it that knows/sees/perceives the play?

I would say that which we might say is prior (but isnt really) is the knowing, the seeing and the perceiving itself. But it doesnt perceive 'the play' as such because it IS 'the play'. In order for 'the play' to be known, seen and perceived there has to be some kind of egoic thing slightly going on.

That's really good, Andrew :)

[andrew g]

Cool :) .