For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
Lausten – “Nothing is ‘bad’. I was using the term ‘not bad’ as in ‘okay’ or ‘a reasonable effort’. In this case is was understatement because you went from ‘undefined potentia’ to ‘the word is the THING’ in two steps. Either you’re making it up as you go along, or that is giant leap of knowledge.
I don’t have difficulty considering things if they make any sense at all, which you don’t. I’m perfectly capable of discussing things that came before language. We have the language of math to help us with that.“
Since we are discussing “unbounded no-thing”, math is no more adequate than English in the matter. It would seem that there isn’t any potential for us to work with here. We might as well consider it bad Haiku and move on.
“An acorn becomes a tree at around 4 to 6 feet according to my tree identification guide. Why would you say a tree is not a tree?“
Since my question remains irrelevant, I’m afraid yours must as well.
Write4U – “And here is a review of Bohm’s Lifework; http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:“
Thank you. I am grateful for the link to Bohm’s work. The following quote taken from the segment on his dialogues with Krishnamurti, pretty much says exactly what I have been getting at. Right down to the use of the term “no-thingness”.
“The Bohm-Krishnamurti dialogue set a profound precedent in being one of the first enduring dialogues between a leading Western physicist and a world-renowned Eastern spiritual master. Their discussions probed deeply into various dimensions of human knowledge and experience, including in-depth discussions of the limitations of human thought, the nature of insight and intelligence beyond thought, as well as many other topics such as truth, reality, death, existence, fragmentation, and the future of humanity. In exploring the distinction between truth and reality, for example, some of the jewels of insight that emerged may be summarized as follows (which, in the spirit of Bohm and Krishnamurti themselves, should perhaps be read slowly and contemplatively to be absorbed). There is a gulf between truth and reality; they are not the same thing. Illusion and falsehood are certainly part of reality, but they are not part of truth. Truth includes all that is; it is one. Reality is conditioned and multiple. Truth is beyond reality; it comprehends reality, but not vice versa. Reality is everything; truth is no-thingness. We need truth, but our minds are occupied with reality. We seek security in reality, but authentic security comes only in complete nothingness, that is, only in truth. The seed of truth is a mystery that thought cannot encompass; it is beyond reality.“
This should save us days of ineffectual back and forth. It being the only point I really needed to make.
Lausten – “sooooo, you intend to be ambiguous, you don’t want to say anything that actually means anything, did I get that right?“
No, you didn’t get it right. Please see my response to Write4U’s comment #133.
Write4U – “Are you becoming a Bohmian convert?“
Truth isn’t something that one converts to, just learns to recognize.
I am grateful for confirmation from such heavyweights as him and Krishnamurti.
I am also pleasantly surprised.
Responding to Write4U. I’m using the terms “truth” and “reality” as they were used in the article about Bohm and Krishnamurti.
Mathematics and English don’t exist in “truth”, only in “reality”.
Our experience (interpretation of observations) is the subjective expression of the objective.
subjective and objective don’t exist in “truth” only in “reality”.
The infinities of mathematics do not exist in “truth” only in “reality”
So, for sure, if one is contemplating “truth”, Mathematics or English won’t do.
And, when contemplating “reality”, I prefer to increasingly engage the whole being.
Since in “truth” there is no difference.