a Plist thematic trope....

[David Morris]

And, yes, the "mind" as is commonly thought, is constructed on the concept
of a personal identity.  That identity concept is not ultimately real. It
is a fictional construct required for functionality in this world.
Reincarnation is Reality.

David Morris

On Thursday, August 6, 2015, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I understand it, the common conception of a personal mind is as the
> interpreter of mundane (yet the only) reality. But its view is a fiction,
> "conditioned," or forged by eons of evolutionary experience. It is
> a required evolutionary prerequisite to higher self mind that will
> eventually emerge in all. Why this maze of reality is our challenge to
> traverse is a bigger question. "Fuck God" is a valid sentiment.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kbob42 at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> As the "mind" is not the tool that comprehends or experiences ultimate
>> reality, or not what we usually "think of" as mind.
>>
>>
>> Www.innergroovemusic.com
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 12:12 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not "this" but not-not "this" is null in math.  No result. No useful
>> information.
>> It is the Koan a Pynchon plays with.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>> On Thursday, August 6, 2015, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. But non-non duality isn't non-duality. THAT is the point of neti
>>> neti: "neither yet not neither" isn't exactly "both/and." It is much more
>>> inclusive. It is NOT anything you can exclude, even duality.
>>>
>>> David Morris
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 6, 2015, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It sounds like non-duality, neti neti, not this, not this...what "I am"
>>>> is not this, and not this...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Www.innergroovemusic.com
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:07 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A common Eastern way to measure/perceive/describe Reality is to
>>>> use double naught adjectives.  The "Naught/notNaught" adjective is the most
>>>> slippery kind. It isn't this thing/concept, but it isn't not that
>>>> thing/concept. "Is-ness" is only understood as a paradox, and only
>>>> experienced by spiritual (real) channels. Every Eastern description
>>>> is first negated, but that negation is also negated.  The goal of that
>>>> spiritual path is to always question ones's perception of Reality as an
>>>> invitation for a higher inherent reality to emerge, almost a paradox
>>>> -embracing madness, Ultimate Reality.  A challenging path, to say the least.
>>>>
>>>> David Morris
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, August 6, 2015, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski ([kɔˈʐɨpski]; July 3, 1879 – March 1,
>>>>> 1950) was a Polish-American independent scholar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He thought that certain uses of the verb "to be", called the "is
>>>>> of identity" and the "is of predication", were faulty in structure, e.g., a
>>>>> statement such as, "Elizabeth is a fool" (said of a person
>>>>> named "Elizabeth" who has done something that we regard as foolish).
>>>>> In Korzybski's system, one's assessment of Elizabeth belongs to a
>>>>> higher order of abstraction than Elizabeth herself. Korzybski's remedy was
>>>>> to deny identity; in this example, to be aware continually that "Elizabeth"
>>>>> is not what we call her. We find Elizabeth not in the verbal domain, the
>>>>> world of words, but the nonverbal domain (the two, he said, amount to
>>>>> different orders of abstraction). This was expressed by Korzybski's most
>>>>> famous premise, "the map is not the territory". Note that this premise uses
>>>>> the phrase "is not", a form of "to be"; this and many other examples show
>>>>> that he did not intend to
>>>>> abandon "to be" as such. In fact, he said explicitly[citation
>>>>> needed] that there were no structural problems with the verb "to be" when
>>>>> used as an auxiliary verb or when used to state existence or location.
>>>>> It was even acceptable at times to use the faulty forms of the verb
>>>>> "to be," as long as one was aware of their structural limitations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150806/8b108523/attachment.html>