|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
X Marks the Spot
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Anonymous Coward |
|
Post Content
|
...
Sorry, I take things and run with them.One is always framed by it's opposite. As it delivers the most abject/objective vantage point. All that it is not is what other is.
Cheers, A festbock salud!
Quoting: Dionysian Fullaflattus Brea, as to the first bold: they already are and agreed. Dion, as to the second: we spend a lot of time talking about moving away from 'duality'... thinking of stuff as compared to a single 'oposite'. and while i agree with u that a thing can be better understood when also contemplating what it is *not*, don't you think Christ's lessson (trinity over duality) and the growing understanding of the rainbow nature of the human personality (sex identity being just an example) should also teach that if we wish to go a step further we can compare a thing to system instead of 'things' instead of a singular 'thing'. i guess i'm trying to say that it seems incomplete to balance an idea on only one other idea. the singular lamniscate might be as imaginary as zero and infinity. six fold geometry sujests itself to me. It is not a duality unless you construe it as one. In fact it is tripartite and in realization monopolar. As to realize a thing you must be it. When they tell you they want one with everything they mean it. Transcendental and Temporal are the parts that leap to mind. good morning can we say that by structuring 2 or more we can become the singular affect of what we have constructed thus we know how we got there but we no longer express how we got there we express what we are having arrived hmmm. there are many percieved singular effects. the mind of a beehive. the mind/body of a human. the mind of God. these all seem like singluar 'effects' and certainly the experienc3e of ego is a singular effect, yes? but to understand the singular we usually frame it as a dulaity of oposing 'forces': oposites. my thought, both today, and a diferent day was/is that framing an idea or a personality in only two mnytually apposing terms is incomplete and leads to false logic and icorrect conclusions. i agree that being there is more important than understanding how the path moved us there, but i still seek to frame the singular, just one more step beyond duality, and yes maybe trinity, but my thoughts took me to a pair of trinities, balanced like a lamniscate with each trinity at right angles to the other. nice to have that thoguht brought back to me
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
