Problems with "Not Having Problems"

This is the place to post whatever questions you have related to the teachings of Eckhart Tolle. The rest of us will do whatever we can to help you achieve a better understanding :)

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:48 pm

Phil2 wrote:
Webwanderer wrote:
Phil2 wrote:Agreeing intellectually is one thing ... but we see too often here (and also elsewhere) that this intellectual understanding can easily be lost in the fire of real interactions ...

I said nothing of agreeing 'intellectually'. Is this misrepresentation what you need to find comfort in this defensive structure you've built?

And more emoticons. Do they help make your case? Or do they help with your need to be right?



Are you irritated by emoticons WW ?

:lol:

A little, when people who I think would know better use them to hurt others.

Would you say that your dreams are also "facts" ?

Yes.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Phil2 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:01 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
Would you say that your dreams are also "facts" ?

Yes.


ok I see we do not have the same definition of the word 'fact' ... hence the confusion engendered ...

Reminds me an oldie song "Dream is my reality" (from a French movie called La Boum (ie. The Party)

:)
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:39 pm

Phil2 wrote:
Webwanderer wrote:
Would you say that your dreams are also "facts" ?

Yes.


ok I see we do not have the same definition of the word 'fact' ... hence the confusion engendered ...

How would you know from a simple 'yes'? Have you considered the context of my answer? You have concluded that our definitions are not the same, yet how could you know without looking deeper?

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Enlightened2B » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:45 pm

Phil2 wrote:
ok I see we do not have the same definition of the word 'fact' ... hence the confusion engendered ...


Or....or....you're merely bending the definition of the word fact, so that it fits into your argument to incorporate your own perspective.

It's like saying...'The movie the Godfather is the greatest movie of all time' and then calling that statement a fact and then saying....
Well I didn't know what the definition of the word fact is". Yeah, ok. My four year old niece could see the transparency of that claim from a mile away.

I've read your posts Phil. You're a very intelligent guy. There is no question about that. I don't think you could possibly misinterpret a term like fact to the degree you are actually portraying here.

I think you know quite well what you're doing here and you're merely attempting to win an argument because you've already been pushed into a corner by a few people in this thread, instead of looking in the mirror and taking responsibility and seeing that there is always room for growth, you choose to do exactly what you villify society and others for, that is, you choose to fight back and defend, defend, defend. Yet, you're the one that claims that there is 'no you'. So, what are you defending? Who is defending? It's comical to see the incredible hypocrisy in your posts and how nothing you say EVER on this board, matches your actions. You can't accept any kind of constructive criticism.

At this point, after all of the posts I and others have brought to your attention, I don't think there is any way of getting through to you. I mean that.

I think you will continue to be stubborn in your narrow, limited, perspective of the world and ultimately, I have to accept and love you for that.

So I do love you Phil. Perhaps you incarnated into this life for the very purpose of experiencing what it is like to be ultra, ultra limited.

Maybe one day, you will actually wake up and maybe you won't. Either way.....so be it.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby rachMiel » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:32 pm

I think Phil is using "fact" in the sense that Krishnamurti used it:

A fact is a clear direct seeing of what-is without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, memory.

I never liked Krishnamurti's use of the term fact. First, it's a loaded term, with a strong conventional meaning that Krishnamurti's take skews. Secondly, it presupposes that it is possible to see what-is in an "objective" (factual) way without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, or memory ... and this doesn't seem likely to me.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby tod » Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:18 pm

rachMiel wrote:I think Phil is using "fact" in the sense that Krishnamurti used it:

A fact is a clear direct seeing of what-is without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, memory.

I never liked Krishnamurti's use of the term fact. First, it's a loaded term, with a strong conventional meaning that Krishnamurti's take skews. Secondly, it presupposes that it is possible to see what-is in an "objective" (factual) way without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, or memory ... and this doesn't seem likely to me.


Good point rM.

I like what Greg Goode says in his book "The Direct Path" : "In this freedom, we can love our path and books and teachers. We can be drawn to it more than any other. But it's not because we think this love is warranted by the way things really are. We're free from the impression that there is a way things really are. If a fan of our path tells us that our path is more accurate and gets it right more precisely than other paths, we'd say "Gets what right?""
tod
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Enlightened2B » Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:23 pm

rachMiel wrote:I think Phil is using "fact" in the sense that Krishnamurti used it:

A fact is a clear direct seeing of what-is without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, memory.

I never liked Krishnamurti's use of the term fact. First, it's a loaded term, with a strong conventional meaning that Krishnamurti's take skews. Secondly, it presupposes that it is possible to see what-is in an "objective" (factual) way without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, or memory ... and this doesn't seem likely to me.


That's a fair enough definition in my book and one that I can very much resonate with, but, if you look at the post which triggered this whole discussion here, from Phil, earlier in the thread, clearly, that definition of 'fact' does not apply in any way to Phil's post.

Therefore, I don't see how Phil could be using the term 'fact' in the way Krishnamurti used it. I think Phil is using the word 'fact' in the way that PHIL likes to use it. Basically meaning, anything out of Phil's mouth is a fact, which in a way, is true if perceived from that unique perspective. :D

Edit:

Actually, I agree with you RachMiel about the definition. It does imply objectivity now that I think about it. None of us can perceive full objectivity from our limited human perspectives. Good point and I'm glad I caught that.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby rachMiel » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:18 pm

I say "take" where Krishnamurti says "fact." I see us all sharing takes in this forum. Some resonate more, some less.

Imo the closest one can come to a fact is one's moment-to-moment experience. And, paradoxically, that's as *subjective* as it gets!
Last edited by rachMiel on Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:22 pm

rachMiel wrote:I think Phil is using "fact" in the sense that Krishnamurti used it:

A fact is a clear direct seeing of what-is without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, memory.

Phil shows little use of this definition when he cites facts. And if he believes he does adhere to it then he is blind to his own bias. That however is quite common for those trumpeting their particular view as facts.

I never liked Krishnamurti's use of the term fact. First, it's a loaded term, with a strong conventional meaning that Krishnamurti's take skews. Secondly, it presupposes that it is possible to see what-is in an "objective" (factual) way without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, or memory ... and this doesn't seem likely to me.

I see no problem with K's definition. Unfortunately it can only apply to a narrow context. For example, Phil asked if I would say my dreams are facts. As Phil was not specific, I answered in the narrow context in 'yes'. I have dreams. That is a fact. Are my dreams real? Yes, they are real dreams. That too is a fact. I sometimes dream about X, Y, and Z. More fact.

I did not address whether I thought my dreams were an alternate universe or some such thing. But without being specific to what I was answering to, one could jump to the conclusion (which Phil did) that our definition of fact was different. In coming to that conclusion Phil violated most of Krishnamurti's requirements for a factual statement. This last sentence of course, is my perspective and not an aforementioned narrow range fact. It's merely the way I see it.

The thing is is that most of what is stated in this forum, and life in general, is not fact at all, but belief and perspective. I'm good with that because I recognize it as perspective from the git-go. But Phil goes beyond that when he claims the high ground by stating some belief of his is 'fact'.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Phil2 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:30 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:I think you will continue to be stubborn in your narrow, limited, perspective of the world and ultimately, I have to accept and love you for that.


Right E2B better not resist and love 'what is' ... and stick to facts ...

You really made me laugh with your comments :lol:
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Enlightened2B » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:35 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
The thing is is that most of what is stated in this forum, and life in general, is not fact at all, but belief and perspective. I'm good with that because I recognize it as perspective from the git-go. But Phil goes beyond that when he claims the high ground by stating some belief of his is 'fact'.

WW


Yep. That sums it up.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Phil2 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:44 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
rachMiel wrote:I think Phil is using "fact" in the sense that Krishnamurti used it:

A fact is a clear direct seeing of what-is without judgement, interpretation, conditioning, memory.

Phil shows little use of this definition when he cites facts. And if he believes he does adhere to it then he is blind to his own bias. That however is quite common for those trumpeting their particular view as facts.

W


ok It seems we need some clarifications here.

'fact' is a word and according to the context it can refer to different meanings, like any word finally ... the word is a symbol, a signpost pointing to some reality ...

So I see at least 3 different definitions of facts:

1) the first one would be anything that one perceives is a fact, therefore a dream is a fact as WW said above ... also an illusion is a fact ... a mirage in the desert is a fact ... but also ego (which is an illusion created by thought) is also a fact, though a powerful one ...

2) the second one, to which I generally refer, is the common sense of fact, ie. some 'real' thing of the material/manifested world ... in this sense a dream or a belief is not a 'fact' because the dream is a pure product of imagination ... there is no 'substantial' reality ... in this definition, ego is not a fact because ego is unsubstantial, purely conceptual ... this understanding is generally referred to as 'relative facts'

3) the third one is the absolute fact, and in this sense there is only one real true fact which could be called 'I-am-ness' or beingness or awareness or presence or 'what is' or Self or whatever other name pointing to the reality of being. This is the absolute fact. Which needs no proof and no demonstration, it is obvious and self-evident for anyone.

I must admit that sometimes I switch from the second understanding to the third one, but I never consider the first understanding to be 'fact', I rather call it 'illusion'.

Hope I did clarify somewhat this rather confused situation ...
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby lmp » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:18 pm

rachMiel wrote:I say "take" where Krishnamurti says "fact."


Is it a fact that you say take or is it a take?
lmp
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 7:23 pm

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Enlightened2B » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:21 pm

Phil2 wrote:
2) the second one, to which I generally refer, is the common sense of fact, ie. some 'real' thing of the material/manifested world ... in this sense a dream or a belief is not a 'fact' because the dream is a pure product of imagination ... there is no 'substantial' reality ... in this definition, ego is not a fact because ego is unsubstantial, purely conceptual ... this understanding is generally referred to as 'relative facts'

3) the third one is the absolute fact, and in this sense there is only one real true fact which could be called 'I-am-ness' or beingness or awareness or presence or 'what is' or Self or whatever other name pointing to the reality of being. This is the absolute fact. Which needs no proof and no demonstration, it is obvious and self-evident for anyone.

I must admit that sometimes I switch from the second understanding to the third one, but I never consider the first understanding to be 'fact', I rather call it 'illusion'.

Hope I did clarify somewhat this rather confused situation ...


So, if that's the case that you switch between 2 and 3, then....explain, if you will, why you referred to this post here as a fact:

We live in an hypocritical society where it is considered shameful to beg for money or food ... this is not the case in many other cultures eg. Asian culture where begging is not considered shameful (many Buddhist monks beg for their food and people consider it as an opportunity for their karma to help monks by giving them offerings) ... this is due to our 'materialistic' approach based on material exchange: I give you food or money IF you give me your work, this is 'conditional' (there is a 'IF') ... so we always have to 'merit' things by our own actions, we learn this very early at school, when we do the 'right' things, what others expect from us, then we are rewarded ... this could be called 'conditional love': I love you BECAUSE you do what I tell you, else I reject you or punish you ... this is not 'unconditional love' which is 'I love you for what you ARE ' (not for what you 'DO' or don't do) ... therefore we have learned very early to 'cheat' and adopt attitudes expected by others, to conform to the rules, which is the hypocrisy in which we live, we wear 'masks', a social 'facade' ... there is no truth in this, we are not 'real' ... we become alien to ourselves, second-hand persons ... hence all the neuroses of our time ... there is no consistency between what we think, what we say and what we do ...


This is where you referred to it as a fact and blatantly said that your statement was not a judgement, but a fact:

You are making a confusion between a 'judgement' and a mere statement of facts ... seeing 'what is' is not a judgement ...


So, you're clearly saying that your post above about society is a fact.

Ok, well, please Phil, enlighten us on how this relates to your above definitions of the word 'fact'.

If the only absolute fact is I AM, well, clearly your post does not in any possible way, fit into category number 3 since the post is a judgmental diatribe against society from start to finish. Anyone who is anyone can notice this.

Then, number 2 says this: in this definition, ego is not a fact because ego is unsubstantial, purely conceptual ... this understanding is generally referred to as 'relative facts'

Umm, so, you're basically admitting that your initial post about society is not a fact, because it is merely an ego perspective! If you then claim that it is not ego perspective, then I'd LOVE to know what perspective that your initial post about society came from? Are you insinuating that you alone hold Source's greater perspective of totality? Or you insinuating it is an objective fact that society is hypocritical? Can you not admit that your claim that society is hypocritical is merely your own opinion of society and not an objective fact, or are you going to continue to claim this statement as a mere fact? Let's just start with that one sentence alone about society being hypocritical. Can you know that to be true as an absolute fact? If you say no, then the rest of your post is already established as a mere unique perspective of Phil, which is....an opinion.

Phil, I don't know how much clearer any of us can show you the incredible contradictory, hypocritical nature of your own posts. You're only putting yourself more in a corner here with your posts. Because it's obvious to everyone on this board that you are merely defending a position, which is just so ironically your own Ego perspective doing as such.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Problems with "Not Having Problems"

Postby Phil2 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:29 pm

Yawn, is it that late already ? ...

:)
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron