S:C

Thank you for explaining your point of view, @Nungali! I guess I understand you better now.

Are you not? Luminous blob? I am confused.

here you go, cat https://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-38.htm

Very much agree with your first observations and paragraphs. How should there be knowledge of the absolute? We may have conceptions about it in our own relative minds, no? Or perhaps you mean that all relative conceptions of the absolute together are the Absolute because they appear on the projection surface of mind?

Thanks, that’s probably the most helpful answer. I‘m also not sure what is kabbalistic ‘tradition’ and what is nungalis interpretation here…

What’s got the poor cow got to do with it?

It would seem that the differentiation between ‚four worlds‘ is arbitrary and not necessarily a consequence of the diagramm. Why are several spheres a world? Is this intuitive or experiential gnowledge for you? (Seems I‘d need to take a look at that book of yours, bes! Seems very complex.)

Are all three pillars ‚humane‘? (As in residing in a human spirit?)

How can there be any deviance from the principle (the dao part) anyhow?

First questions first: Are the fruits on the cards of the high priestess pomegranates?

For whom is this relevant? Is it a ‚travel route’? Shouldn’t it be more like a cycle? I don’t think it’s linear, is it? A few symbols don’t explain themselves in this context…

interesting…

I am a little rusty in the lingo. Especially with the Advaitins. And I lack understandable explanations - which are not available in my language, as far as I see. Where do the concepts of „substantiality“ differ concerning svabhava… ? @dwai could you provide us with a translation of please? (Don‘t know how or why this got an orange colouring…) So the Advaitins despite their focus on impermanence see ‚God‘ while the Buddhists do not? Empty of substance in both views?

Would you be able and willing to give a reference for this quote please?

Does anyone else find it funny that the measurement unit for high impedance is called ohm? I wonder whether good old Georg did some meditation on his last name.

Is this not a word in the English language? sorry… there should be one like this. there it is…

When treaded categories fall away, the search for structure continues for the functional mind. Garfield/Priest discuss it nicely, Why mountains are mountains or the like… (I forgot).

無? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) mu is translated as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance:

Sorry, I cannot explain it understandably.

That more how I understood it, @Apech Language (in that view) constitutes reality. Claiming an observation via language seems to constitute a different layer of reality (for lack of better words), in that view. To rely on feelings, wishes and personal needs and preference is therefore deemed ‚valid enough’, just as well as empirical sense data (both faulty, but necessary nonetheless). A claim that is backed up, constitutes reality. Language is reality, then, not a map thereof. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Judith Butler is the name I associate with your question. It might be, that there has been someone before, who proposed that conceptual change and also the linguistic turn, but she made the most noise. So it seems to rely on the concept of a performative model of gender, e.g. it relies on language theory (‚performative‘), which originated in the wake of Austin, Searle etc. An act of speaking is conceptually separated into several sub acts, where one of them is ‚illocutionary‘, e.g. creates a reality of itself through speaking, as empirical sense data is frowned upon as a reliable source for observation, language instead is used as the source. Or so I understood it.

Would you care to make it a topic?

I tend to disagree. whatever truth might be reached may still feel warlike and painful, considering the boundaries would get only get dimmer or thinner then… (not fully disappearing) while not ready for dissolution if that makes sense at all.

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. this has been wondering me for years now… what is the meaning of this sentence, is it related to perception?

because? his perspective is/was provocative to the then common/current standard? what are you referring to exactly?