Did sombody say "Zen?"
Doron,
This may be my opportunity for your commentary on this famous qutation of William Blake from his Marriage of Heaven And Hell:
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
Did sombody say "Zen?"
Doron,
This may be my opportunity for your commentary on this famous qutation of William Blake from his Marriage of Heaven And Hell:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No Doron the contradictions are in the claims of the person that claims to be researching what they claim to be non-researchable that they then claim not to be researching. Are you claiming you are now just a figment of my imagination? Oh, wait, so now your not thinking about your level where thoughts don’t exist and is the source of thoughts, because your not “using thoughts” in your thinking?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Did sombody say "Zen?"
Doron,
This may be my opportunity for your commentary on this famous qutation of William Blake from his Marriage of Heaven And Hell:
I is that, you is that, all is that, where that is simpler than any definition of it.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well ‘thoughtless’ is certainly the best description of your notions that you have given so far.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
So stop to force research on the non-reseachable by being aware of the source your thoughts.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
A typical reply of one who is not aware of the source of his thoughts.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Says the man who claims he is not ‘using thoughts’ in his ‘thinking’ about ‘the source of his thoughts’ where thoughts don’t exist in his ‘thoughtless’ notion that only he thinks he can think about.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Another typicel reply of one that is not aware of the difference between thoughts and the source of the thoughts, which is not a thought.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Stop forcing it yourself, since you are the only one claiming to be researching what they claim to be non-researchable.
The forcing and contradictions are all yours Doron.
and stop forcing you thoughts on to a realm you claim to be thoughtless
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
My brain is the source of my thoughts; do you happen to have one of those? Well certainly from your posts the thoughtless nature of your thoughts is readily apparent, so perhaps you’d better stick with that and try not over stressing your brain which must be atrophied from lack of use.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No The Man, I say exactly the opposite, which is:
The source of thoughts is not reseachable exactly because it is not a thought.
The Man said:
You are the one who is not aware of the source of your thouhgts, which is not a thought, and as a result you indeed forcing your thoughts on a realm that is thoughtless (the source of the thoughts, which is not any thought).
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Your physical complexity enables you to be aware of the source of your thoughts, which is simpler than any thought.
The complex and the simple complement each other.
This is exactly the model of Cybernetic Kernel at page 11 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf .
Last edited:
Since we all know that at least one of the sources of thoughts is the human brain, we get from the above:
doronshadmi: "The brain is not researchable exactly because it is not a thought."
Well, this is very frustrating for brain researchers, who actually made some impressive progress over the last 20 years....
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No Doron you have said…
Claiming that you “research” “the non-researchable” that is “not the non-researchable”. Your whirling dervish notions may keep your head spinning, but it is of no consequence to anyone else.
Again if your are claiming your “source of thoughts is not researchable” then you are claming that you have no basis within your own notions to say whether or not it is in fact ‘The source of thoughts” or is in fact “not a thought”. You do understand that we can and do research things that are “not a thought”, don’t you?
Uhm you do remember that brain thing, right, it’s not a ‘thought’, is the source of thoughts (by all current research) and is, well, researchable.
No, neurons firing in ones brain “enables you to be aware of the source of your thoughts” which is your brain and it is not ‘simpler than any thought’. Any thought is just, at its most basic, a certain pattern of neuron firings in ones brain and ones brain contains all possible patterns or thoughts it could have at that time. So the brain is not itself a thought, is the source of ones thoughts, is researchable and specifically more complex then any given thought.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Neurons firing in ones brain, is the result of the interaction between the complex and the simple, where each neuron is local w.r.t what you call brain, and brain is non-local w.r.t what you can neuron.
If your brain is aware of itself as a the source of its thoughts, this awareness is not itself a thought, and this level is not researchable because it is simpler than any thought (you cannot get it by thinking about it).
Neuron, Brian, Local, Non-local, Definition, Relation, Element, Complex, Simple or any other agreed concepts are all represented at the level of thoughts, but I am talking about self-awareness, which is not itself a thought.
You don't get it because you are not aware of yourself without thoughts (yet).
The complexity of man's brain enables him to be aware of himself without thoughts, and you do not get that level because your awareness is not trained to get itself at the level of the source of its thoughts (yet), which is not a thought because it is simpler than any thought.
Again, people along history that got it, described it (where any description or thought about it, is not it) as simultaneously the most intimate (local) experience AND the most non-personal (non-local) experience, and this is exactly REI.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well that is just your ‘thoughtless’ notion.
What, so before that moment it was “a thought” and was researchable? Clearly you ‘get it’ by ‘not thinking about it’.
Oh, so that excludes your notions since obviously no one agrees with them, not even you.
No Doron I think you were more accurate before, that I don’t ‘get’ or more precisely do not agree with you notions and claims because I, well, think.
Doron “people along history” “got” that the Earth is flat (some groups still do), they ‘got’ that the Earth is the center of the universe, they ‘got’ that ‘bad blood’ needs to be drained from the body and they ‘got’ that heretics needed to be tortured into repentance or burned at the stake. What “people along history” “got” was often simply wrong. As far as your notions go, you’ve ‘got’ nothing, except contradiction, because you claim them to be based on your research of what you claim you can not research and result specifically from your claims of thinking about a lack of thought.
This is just your typical dodge, Doron, claiming we can not research your levels and in order to ‘get’ your notions we can not think about them. Your insistence is just that people simply accept your notions and that is certainly not a new paradigm but just one of the oldest paradigms going, the paradigm of the credulous.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man said:
You can think about it.
But Thinking about the self-awareness is not self-awareness itself because at self-awareness state itself no thought exists.
Again, I am not talking about some thought about X, but about X at its self state, which is not any thought about it. You simply get yourself at the level of thoughts and as a result you do not get what I am talking about.
Self-awareness is the simplest state of once mind, and as long as you do not experience that simplest Self-awareness state of your mind, which is not a thought about that state, you are unable to get OM.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Do you accept these notions because you have been “Thinking about the self-awareness” or do you just simply accept them without any consideration at all and expect others to simply be equally as credulous?
As usual Doron totally misconstrues the meaning of a word or phrase like ‘Self-awareness’ so badly that his interpretation is the exact opposite of the actual meaning. For those interested see…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
- Status