Some of my stuff--

[Floatsy]

I guess the question is: what is the (your) attitude towards "realization of the fantasy"

And any further elucidation of any points is fun for me lol

[firstandlast]

"First comes the word, then comes knowledge of the word, then fantasy of the knowledge, and then realization of the fantasy—"

Alright, I will explain how I came to this formula--

First comes the word; which means something has to be there in the first place, if there was nothing there in the first place.. then there would be nothing to do anything with-- So the word, is anything; the word is a symbol and my definition of symbol is any pattern that can be considered a whole on its own--

then comes knowledge of the word; this basically means how does this whole exist, and how does it exist among other wholes (if it does)-- That is, you get to know the different dimensions of this symbol-- This, is rather different from fantasy; because this suggests that what we are talking about is already there to be witnessed--

fantasy of the knowledge; this is tricky especially if the symbol you are working with includes fantasy-- However, the idea of this is along the lines of, now that you understand this whole, what different arrangements could be made with this whole; and your ability in this is limited to how well you know the whole.. That is, if you do not break down the whole into many different wholes, then you are still dealing with it one one level-- You cannot transmute a hat into a entirely different material if you have only thought of it in its basic qualities such as shape and texture.. you might turn the hat into a bowl or coin purse for street art.. but you would be unable to completely transform it-- So your fantasy is quite dependent on your knowledge or level of familiarity--

Realization of the fantasy; this could also be said to be manifestation of the imagination-- This depending on your familiarity with imagination itself can be as simple as saying I want the hat on one end of the table to be at the other end.. and getting up and moving it-- Realization of the fantasy-- However, I use the word realization for a reason, suggesting one does not even need to get up and move it.. they simply need to realize that their fantasy is not separate from that which is being fantasized-- That in itself would take a great deal of work.. but I am trying to reach the depth of how far such a formula can go; especially if you are dealing with the symbol of all symbols or whole of all wholes, which include all symbols and all wholes-- Which ultimately would lead you to realizing that the fantasy is not separate from that which is being fantasized about, and that which being fantasized about is not separate from the reality in which it is fantasized-- Thus, we can deal with arrangements in quite a many ways--

[Floatsy]

Thank you very much, firstandlast. I liked that, I have a different interpretation, and some parts I will leverage yours i.e. I like how you see those parts. I'll be back later to discuss that one.

floatz

[Floatsy]

OK firstandlast, sorry for the delay! I was between things and need to concentrate a bit more when reading your posts

Originally Posted by firstandlast

"First comes the word, then comes knowledge of the word, then fantasy of the knowledge, and then realization of the fantasy—"

Alright, I will explain how I came to this formula--

Yay.

Originally Posted by firstandlast

First comes the word; which means something has to be there in the first place, if there was nothing there in the first place.. then there would be nothing to do anything with-- So the word, is anything; the word is a symbol and my definition of symbol is any pattern that can be considered a whole on its own--

Hmm interesting. I had interpreted it as from "that" - there is this. From darkness ..hmm

Sort of like Buddha's teaching on dependent origination.

Avijjapaccaya sankhara;
sankharapaccaya viññanam;
viññanapaccaya namarupam;
namarupapaccaya salayatanam;
salayatanapaccaya phasso;
phassapaccaya vedana;
vedanapaccaya tanha;
tanhapaccaya upadanam;
upadanapaccaya bhavo;
bhavapaccaya jati;
jatipaccaya jaramaranam-soka-parideva-dukkha-
domanassupayasa sambhavanti, evametassa kevalassa
dukkhakhandhassa samudayo hoti."

"avijjayatveva asesaviraga-nirodha sankharanirodho,
sankharanirodha viññananirodho,
viññananirodha namarupanirodho,
nanamarupanirodha salayatananirodho,
salayatananirodha phassanirodho,
phassanirodha vedananirodho,
vedananirodha tanhanirodho,
tanhanirodha upadananirodho,
upadananirodha bhavanirodho,
bhavanirodha jatinirodho,
jatinirodha jaramaranam-soka-parideva-dukkha-domanass-upayasa
nirujjhanti, evametassa kevalassa dukkhakhandhassa nirodho hoti."

OK your definition now noted.

Originally Posted by firstandlast

then comes knowledge of the word; this basically means how does this whole exist, and how does it exist among other wholes (if it does)-- That is, you get to know the different dimensions of this symbol-- This, is rather different from fantasy; because this suggests that what we are talking about is already there to be witnessed--

OK

I had thought coming to know the World is thus.

Originally Posted by firstandlast

fantasy of the knowledge; this is tricky especially if the symbol you are working with includes fantasy-- However, the idea of this is along the lines of, now that you understand this whole, what different arrangements could be made with this whole; and your ability in this is limited to how well you know the whole.. That is, if you do not break down the whole into many different wholes, then you are still dealing with it one one level-- You cannot transmute a hat into a entirely different material if you have only thought of it in its basic qualities such as shape and texture.. you might turn the hat into a bowl or coin purse for street art.. but you would be unable to completely transform it-- So your fantasy is quite dependent on your knowledge or level of familiarity--

I see, interesting, I like that perspective. I guess this is related to your training of extending the opposites to commonality etc. and recognizing that we are owners eg. of both the viewpoints we share as well all that we do not, owners of all perspectives etc.?

Originally Posted by firstandlast

Realization of the fantasy; this could also be said to be manifestation of the imagination-- This depending on your familiarity with imagination itself can be as simple as saying I want the hat on one end of the table to be at the other end.. and getting up and moving it-- Realization of the fantasy-- However, I use the word realization for a reason, suggesting one does not even need to get up and move it.. they simply need to realize that their fantasy is not separate from that which is being fantasized-- That in itself would take a great deal of work.. but I am trying to reach the depth of how far such a formula can go; especially if you are dealing with the symbol of all symbols or whole of all wholes, which include all symbols and all wholes-- Which ultimately would lead you to realizing that the fantasy is not separate from that which is being fantasized about, and that which being fantasized about is not separate from the reality in which it is fantasized-- Thus, we can deal with arrangements in quite a many ways--

Ohh I see... you are talking about work far beyond my current level of knowledge.

So active participation in creation through learning and of the many different potentialities at play. Fascinating!

I had interpreted it (from my initial read) as realizing that the fantasy/word is imagination - imagination imagines that which it then goes on to live and live within, and it is both part of the creation as well as created. (back to the dependent origination)

Hmm methinks a bit more practical experience is needed here.

Thanks for the elaboration! and the banter!

floatz

[Abbara]

I am reading. I simply have been caught up in my own whirlpool of life. Thank you all. Very entertaining exchanges. Thought provoking poetry.