Seek and ye shall find. That's the whole trick.

[kavaris]

Oh oh. This gets our minds twisted up into a knot like lemniskos like, its a puzzle for the mind, right?  For there was something else i was tryin to express, which was "how simple" we believe things are, as a result of seeing things *simply*, like... Starting from this first.. Think of "mindfulness". It assumes that there werent already "mindful" qualities within; spirituality assumes we werent already spritual/or more spiritual, and philosophy assumes we hadnt established some seed of philosophy without explicitly mentioning it as a philosophy. You can continue that with everything else. or ill ask the ques., "What else can just *be*, without there requiring a thing to fill it in with the paint bucket tool? What else are we creating, and, is it adding to that which already *is*? Can there even be a *thing* without there being *mistakes that were made* in the process leading up to?... Like, its very complicated when you are looking at it like that, since everything would often, more than likely, require *mistakes made* in the process leading up to, like, its not so *simple* when you really dig into it is all. Thats usually followed then by "its not that hard", like, but that lasts for like 5 seconds until you realize thats b.s., as its exceedingly complicated once you start asking questions, which is all you can ever do right? To be sitting silent is to ask the question of, whether or not a truck isnt driving through your wall, like... We dont just sit in quiet, we actively engage the stuff of mind

Edited 17 hours ago by kavaris

[UnbornTao]

Is this basically saying "people see what they want to see"?

If so, couldn't agree more!

[Joshe]

A different tact with AI-assistance:

---

The frame that says "I have no frame, I just want truth" is the hardest one to see. It's the final boss.

Most frames are visible enough to question. "I'm a Christian" - you can see that's a frame. "I believe in materialism" - you can see that's a frame. You know you're standing somewhere.

But "I just want truth" or "I have no frame, I just see what's real" - that one hides itself. Because it looks like the absence of a frame. It feels like neutrality. It presents itself as the thing you get after you've removed all frames.

So you never question it. Why would you? It's not a position - it's just "being honest" or "seeking truth" or "seeing clearly."

But it is a position. You selected "truth" as your orientation. You preferred it. Experiences reinforced it. Accumulation happened. Now it's invisible.

The reason it's the "final boss" is because every other frame can be seen and dropped. But the frame that says "I drop frames and just see truth" can't see itself as a frame. It's disguised as the solution to frames.

It's the one that survives every other deconstruction - because it looks like deconstruction itself.

So you strip away belief after belief, framework after framework, and feel like you're getting closer to raw reality. But the thing doing the stripping - the orientation toward "truth" - is never examined. It's the last one standing, pretending it's not standing anywhere.

---

If you seek "reality without frames", you will find a state of consciousness that feels like "reality without frames". This is universal. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Explain what you mean by 'orientation toward truth', and 'conceptual frame' ?

These are going to mean different things to users.

Be sure these two things can be equivocated - to me they are not the same.

To me; a frame adds structure to what is seen as a content-full lens, like a set of assumptions/filters that interpret experience. But 'orientation to truth' or 'I want truth' doesn't appear as a structure to reality. I see it as a constraint on inquiry. It could also be viewed as an orientation to falsehood in an effort to reveal and deconstruct.

I do understand and agree with the OP. We hunt for feathers, we will find feathers. More feathers than anyone not looking.

But I will need to see a really good breakdown of the above 2 terms. Orientation to truth appears to answer questions about evaluation, no? Making this a frame seems like a stretch, as frames answer questions about reality. And therein lies the confusion - a simple difference in understanding of terms might be the issue.

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru