Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Transcendental or Immanence?
12-11-2016, 06:48 AM
Post: #21
In any case, if you mean "Self", the answer is "Limitation" or "Boundary". It is likely to misunderstand what I mean by that and take the simplest or most likely expected understanding. I do not by it mean that "Ego is limiting", I am not talking about that, but I am saying "Limitation" itself is or = "Self" or "I" or "Boundary" itself. That means the entity "Limitation", and "entity" might need to be looked up as well. Self = Limitation, looking up what self means won't help as much as looking up what Limitation and Boundary mean, again this relates to Hermes as Terminus or Termination.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2016, 06:53 AM
Post: #22
Sounds like the thread I made on abjection, where boundaries and limits are created through the abject, which is actually a form of violence and revolt against the self, making one 'other to ones self'. So the subject is a 'strayed deject'.

The Hume quote is essentially saying that 'the I can't be found' and so the self is empty.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2016, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2016 07:12 AM by JintheNinja.)
Post: #23
@death, thanks because I didn't know what I actually wrote ?.... Lol
I needed you to quote my quote and tell me! Hurrah rhetoric!
Yes I believe God is both, but I Don't use continental philosophy to describe theologically complex principals. U follow?

@onticle, i am neither dual nor non dual, I am context dependent Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2016, 07:15 AM
Post: #24
(12-11-2016 06:53 AM)Ontical Wrote:  Sounds like the thread I made on abjection, where boundaries and limits are created through the abject, which is actually a form of violence and revolt against the self, making one 'other to ones self'. So the subject is a 'strayed deject'.

The Hume quote is essentially saying that 'the I can't be found' and so the self is empty.

That is very interesting, and you're one of the best minds on this website simply because you use it, but don't stop using it, beautiful and amazing things can be produced by its functioning.

The self or "I" is Limitation. That does not mean "you are defined by what you are not" in the way in which I am saying it. So that is not the correct interpretation of what I am saying. I am saying the Limits itself. The Limits are the Self and is Self, Boundary itself. In order to understand that, it can help to look up the words being used and what they tend to mean. By saying "Self is a reaction to Limits" one is differentiating between Self and Limits, so is saying something entirely different than what I am saying.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2016, 11:48 PM
Post: #25
Self is a restriction and closure not belonging to an interior? I know I mentioned the abject, but what about liminality, liminal space itself? Where order is in the process of change, is that what you would call the self, the liminal?

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 06:35 AM
Post: #26
(12-11-2016 11:48 PM)Ontical Wrote:  Self is a restriction and closure not belonging to an interior? I know I mentioned the abject, but what about liminality, liminal space itself? Where order is in the process of change, is that what you would call the self, the liminal?

No. Mainly because I haven't looked up that word, so I probably wouldn't use it, and if I did, I'd start becoming concerned about proving my usage, and it would lead to a whole lot of trouble for me. So no.

The self as limitation/boundary.

Meaning as defined by violence.

What these mean, I can explain, it isn't a puzzle or a mystery or a riddle, its just that for some weird reason things just don't get understood nicely and peoples minds go all over the place.

What it means is that the notion of "self" extends all the way to encompass everything at its "boundary" or "limitation". For example, people often think that the "self" is something that is looking out, and then they include little things with various justifications, yet they have no control or knowledge or awareness of the activities of their individual blood cells for example, yet all those things which they don't have control over apparently they call their "self", so "control" clearly has nothing to do with what people call their own or consider their own. In the negation of all things related to the "self" which people call their "self" and more importantly the arbitrary ways in which they justify these things or consider some things their own and some things not their own. Meanwhile, they tend to think of things which actually no one else has any knowledge of or access to, public property, for example, everything and anything you see. None of it is seen by anyone else, only you are seeing it, if you are seeing at all, which I can not be certain of for example.

The reason I've been seen to make the bold sounding claim that I literally "know everything" and how I "know absolutely everything" is because "everything is all I can know".

Again, these are not riddles, and there are no real mysteries about any of this, it just takes one to think or maybe it is a blessing to understand.

What you have access to or what you are accessing can be called your "self", and none have access to it, it is all inclusive, and it is the shape of your boundaries.

That means, if you stand on the edge of a mountain, for as far as you can see, and as far as you can think, that is you and your self. It isn't actually far at all, its just the information which you're made of that moment, it is the "shape of your experience" and that is all you ever are, a shape of information. It has nothing to do with the appearance of what you can control or not, its just that whatever is being accessed is part of you or what you are, inside of you.

This is understood scientifically too. What you hear for example is absolutely unique information because it is "you hearing as you" and no one else has heard that. The only way to hear it, would be to absolutely take on your shape in that moment, and then they would be you, there would be no differentiation and they wouldn't exist except as you. If they had the experience of "being you and also someone else who is accessing you" that is a different experience as "being you", a different shape, because it contains different information.

The reason that "meaning" is determined by "violence" simply means that abrupt and active force, without permission, is how reality or comprehension is brought about or comes to be. It means more than that as well. It means the one who wins the meaning game is the one with the most force and power or is the most convincing, and nothing is more convincing than what is apparent, what is present, what is imposed and can not be denied, which I call "violence". Meaning, people believe in the grass because its forced upon them, its actively real seeming, it imposes itself on them unquestionable, it rapes their senses without permission. All meaning is violent and violence and violently imposed, and the most meaningful is the most violent of all, and even the definitions of things are imposed by violence, and this statement is true in the most mundane ways of thinking about it, or with the most simple or human examples, like the reality of a bite, or in the most abstract ways or "higher level thinking" or whatever one may want to call it, its always true.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)