Review Ending unnecessary Suffering by Peter Ralston

[AION]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

The beauty of this is that the groundlesness is form. It must circle back around in an endless paradox to the finite mind. 

Only if you are a rookie 

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, AION said:

Only if you are a rookie 

Haha.

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, AION said:

That is not what Wilber and Ralston says. 😭 Form does exist but the ground is formless. 

They say that the ground is empty pure consciousness 

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

They say that the ground is empty pure consciousness 

@AIONDon't let me answer him for you.

Edited 4 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@AIONDon't let me answer him for you.

Have you reading willber? From what I read he's very inconsistent, not clear about the basis of his view .

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

Have you reading willber? From what I read he's very inconsistent, not clear about the basis of his view 

Fuck Wilber.

[Breakingthewall]

30 minutes ago, AION said:

That is not what Wilber and Ralston says. 😭 Form does exist but the ground is formless. 

You cry a lot but then saying nothing. If you read so much Ralston sure you could explain his view 

[Inliytened1]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You cry a lot but then saying nothing. If you read so much Ralston sure you could explain his view 

I think he's extremely intelligent it just takes some time to process.  Let's hear what he has to say.  It's ok to be scared too.  If nothing that is fine. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I think he's extremely intelligent it just takes some time to process.  Let's hear what he has to say.  It's ok to be scared to.  If nothing that is fine. 

Scared about what? He's interested in spirituality, the point is not a competition about who's right but refine our vision, contrast any paradigm to see if it stands or it's a mistake , of contains any mistake 

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

Scared about what? He's interested in spirituality, the point is not a competition about who's right but refine our vision, contrast any paradigm to see if it stands or it's a mistake 

Exactly.   Yet you do not practice what you preach  You don't.   I mean you have your views and if it isn't it well...

[Breakingthewall]

15 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Exactly.   Yet you do not practice what you preach  You don't.   I mean you have your views and if it isn't it well...

I have points of view, if I expose them here isn't not to convince you it's to see how you debunk them by logic, if you can. To find contradiction and mistakes 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

I have points of view, if I expose them here isn't not to convince you it's to see how you debunk them by logic, if you can. To find contradiction and mistakes 

 

Hehe.  Too much ease in that.  Bring me something tangible. 

[AION]

58 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Have you reading willber? From what I read he's very inconsistent, not clear about the basis of his view .

Inconsistent about what?

[Breakingthewall]

25 minutes ago, AION said:

Inconsistent about what?

He says that the foundation of reality is "spirit", and that its development always tends toward systems of greater complexity. He also says that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality. The contradictions would be:

1. This spirit he speaks of would be something with characteristics and will. This will would be greater complexity. From an absolute perspective, there is no possible "greater complexity," there must be infinite complexity flowing in local cycles of creation and destruction. There is no tendency toward nor a will, since there is no causal arrow except at the local level.

2 The spirit he speaks of already introduces an impossible paradox: a conscious being with will, but unlimited. Consciousness and will are limits. Consciousness and will are local; they cannot be absolute. In the absolute, there are zones not subject to will or consciousness. How many? Infinite. The only possible will is the inevitability of the absence of limits. The only possible consciousness is that which arises in complex, self-referential systems. The only possible "spirit" is the total fact of being, absolutely cleansed of any quality except being, which implies everything.

For me the view of Wilber closes the mind in a defined idea of reality as an entity, and this prevent liberation. The point is that a conceptual frame that put any subtle barrier is a total closure. 

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I have points of view, if I expose them here isn't not to convince you it's to see how you debunk them by logic, if you can. To find contradiction and mistakes 

 

I hope so.

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

He says that the foundation of reality is "spirit", and that its development always tends toward systems of greater complexity. He also says that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality. The contradictions would be:

1. This spirit he speaks of would be something with characteristics and will. This will would be greater complexity. From an absolute perspective, there is no possible "greater complexity," there must be infinite complexity flowing in local cycles of creation and destruction. There is no tendency toward nor a will, since there is no causal arrow except at the local level.

2 The spirit he speaks of already introduces an impossible paradox: a conscious being with will, but unlimited. Consciousness and will are limits. Consciousness and will are local; they cannot be absolute. In the absolute, there are zones not subject to will or consciousness. How many? Infinite. The only possible will is the inevitability of the absence of limits. The only possible consciousness is that which arises in complex, self-referential systems. The only possible "spirit" is the total fact of being, absolutely cleansed of any quality except being, which implies everything.

For me the view of Wilber closes the mind in a defined idea of reality as an entity, and this prevent liberation. The point is that a conceptual frame that put any subtle barrier is a total closure. 

You keep not embracing paradox.  If you did that it would just break all of your logic. Which you cannot have. 

[nufan]

thanks for the love  ... you break my heart!

i just read some , bored to read all

i finished my break free experience !

 for those searching for a cure , could mean something(or i think so) 

i wont say much now... case i am still fuzzy 

thanks for the love, maybe see you soon

but the second part i'll keep it to myself!

it just me me and god only now!

of course i need to mature further

take care

i could say after all , iam closer to you than ever!

i rearranged the order of what i call me ,in my 17. after a brief psychotic break, 

child was first, then the monkey, then it was just play!

cheers 

btw ... true story

 

 

Edited 2 minutes ago by nufan

[Inliytened1]

Jesus kill me with the font.  I'm fucking blind but I'm not that blind.  Warn us.