Meaning

Originally posted by JS357
Then with -animate replacing -organic we have nature having done it. It has broken through the AI horizon without deservedly being attributed the "A" in "AI". There is nothing that is not natural.

There is nothing that is not natural, yes. Now we can go deeper in the OP and let it rain:

Methinks all the observers (the sum of the sentient and the non-sentient beings) share information among themselves and act in concert as a single observer (Observer Universe) by means of a quantum cause-effect and a quantum Darwinism nexus that contain the mind-only potentiality of all the probabilities that trigger into being whatever is manifested herenow. The huge number of the observers that participate “in concert”, makes this Holo-process chaotic to us.
Earlier, our Taoman said we cannot proceed without asserting “meaning”. Sure thing, we do attribute “meaning” for our convenience in order to embrace Chaos -however this “meaning” is always empty, never objective, always subjective, never in separation from our individual mind and/ or our collective subjectivity and, as such, it lacks of inherent existence. We simply make it up.

That being said, I evaluate the realities that are promoted thanks to the differ interactions of the observers, and the realities that are perceived by each sentient being, as fractals of that holistic, ever changing, unique, chaotic to us reality. And it cannot be properly said that a metaphysic universe awaits discovery; we should have no problem to state “I don’t know” instead of bubbling in our ignorance “G-d did it”
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
There is nothing that is not natural, yes. Now we can go deeper in the OP and let it rain:

Methinks all the observers (the sum of the sentient and the non-sentient beings) share information among themselves and act in concert as a single observer (Observer Universe) by means of a quantum cause-effect and a quantum Darwinism nexus that contain the min ...[text shortened]... ld have no problem to state “I don’t know” instead of bubbling in our ignorance “G-d did it”
😵

>>"Sure thing, we do attribute “meaning” for our convenience in order to embrace Chaos -however this “meaning” is always empty, never objective, always subjective, never in separation from our individual mind and/ or our collective subjectivity and, as such, it lacks of inherent existence. We simply make it up."

Missed this, No. You are yourself defining my statement intends meaning as "inherently existing". If it is "inherently existing" then it is not dependent on our "making it up", is it? You cannot have it both ways bb.
Our meanings are not just our meanings - they ere meanings that we participate in. They arise not just with us but within a context that we are experiencing. Our very response is a flow of further meaning. This is very close to "mind stream" type concepts.

Meanings are dependently originating, they do NOT exist 'out there' for us to find them. They do NOT exist 'in here' subjectively as a prexistent emotional-reasoning, they arise. Inherently existent entities, including meanings, do not exist not even in cold hard mathematics. Are you saying therefore our dependently originating experiences and their holisitically arisen meanings (as in the same mathematics) are not real in any sense at all? I posit that they are the most important reality "experience" we can have, the highest and most significant and ALL THE MORE for being dependently orginating within the whole ever moving conjunction. You sound quite nihilistic.

Originally posted by Taoman
>>"Sure thing, we do attribute “meaning” for our convenience in order to embrace Chaos -however this “meaning” is always empty, never objective, always subjective, never in separation from our individual mind and/ or our collective subjectivity and, as such, it lacks of inherent existence. We simply make it up."

Missed this, No. You are yourself defining ...[text shortened]... orginating within the whole ever moving conjunction. You sound quite nihilistic.

Edit: “Missed this, No. You are yourself defining my statement intends meaning as "inherently existing". If it is "inherently existing" then it is not dependent on our "making it up", is it? You cannot have it both ways bb.”

I said not such a thing. Why did you came to this conclusion? I said we attribute empty meaning for our convenience because we cannot proceed in the Floating World without asserting a specific meaning to whatever we observe;


Edit: “Our meanings are not just our meanings - they ere meanings that we participate in. They arise not just with us but within a context that we are experiencing. Our very response is a flow of further meaning. This is very close to "mind stream" type concepts.”

Yes;


Edit: “Meanings are dependently originating, they do NOT exist 'out there' for us to find them. They do NOT exist 'in here' subjectively as a prexistent emotional-reasoning, they arise. Inherently existent entities, including meanings, do not exist not even in cold hard mathematics.”

Yes;


Edit: “Are you saying therefore our dependently originating experiences and their holisitically arisen meanings (as in the same mathematics) are not real in any sense at all?”

I said not such a thing;


Edit: “I posit that they are the most important reality "experience" we can have, the highest and most significant and ALL THE MORE for being dependently orginating within the whole ever moving conjunction.”

Yes. And this experience is empty;


Edit: “You sound quite nihilistic.”

Methinks you misunderstood me; I have the feeling I sound as Madhyamika as it gets😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “Missed this, No. You are yourself defining my statement intends meaning as "inherently existing". If it is "inherently existing" then it is not dependent on our "making it up", is it? You cannot have it both ways bb.”

I said not such a thing. Why did you came to this conclusion? I said we attribute empty meaning for our convenience because we ...[text shortened]... thinks you misunderstood me; I have the feeling I sound as Madhyamika as it gets😵

I know you are not nihilistic in view, but it sounded like it. The sentence grabbed me. Firstly, it appears to make too strong a link between meanings to our subjectivity as a bare statement - that it is just our subjectivity (your words). The tenor of your discussion of meaning here concentrates on it being empty, i.e not inherently existing. You would agree that it is also important to embrace and celebrate our meanings and our positive quest of constructing and attending unto them?

The emphasis spectrum like all else has a middle way. I think giving the impression that meaning is all just subjectivity sounds quite dismissive of its living importance and fails to acknowledge enough that meanings are real in the sense of active, though indeed participative and dependently arising. If we burn the buddhas of a myriad meanings or attend to the pile of ashes, meaning will still arise like smoke. To keep saying all is empty, can sound like that itself is an inherently existing "fact" or meaning. I need but refer to the 'emptiness of emptiness'.

I wished to emphasise the importance of meaning and its greater connectiveness apparent in synchronicitous events, which appears to be little referred to in the responses to this post. My expression has probably not helped.

Originally posted by black beetle
There is nothing that is not natural, yes. Now we can go deeper in the OP and let it rain:

Methinks all the observers (the sum of the sentient and the non-sentient beings) share information among themselves and act in concert as a single observer (Observer Universe) by means of a quantum cause-effect and a quantum Darwinism nexus that contain the min ...[text shortened]... ld have no problem to state “I don’t know” instead of bubbling in our ignorance “G-d did it”
😵

yeah... it's so hard to explain to theists that even they are just making up meaning that suits them , despite them saying it's the work/word of G-d.
They need to create meaning , usually one that suits their egos, out of the bible (or whereever else they get their info from). Yet they claim it as truth, something that is unchanging forever.

Either way you go ,( 'I don't know' or 'G-d did it' ), you cannot escape the journey of learning that must be undertaken to turn your (invented) meaning into something more substantial.
The difference being that the ones who say that they don't know have observed there situation more accurately than the others who are spoon fed their "truth".

It doesn't matter where you enter the circle of truth, as long as you do, and, with all things , the first step is the hardest. But as you progress with your learning you realize that everyone will need to learn the same things. The order is not important as in the "higher realms" there is no better or worse , no harder and easier. Every lesson, no matter how small , is just as important as the others.


That being said, it is important to also remember not to mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself, ie once your meaning has served it's purpose , it should be discarded immediately, lest the ego gets a hold of it and tries to use it as a 'banner of truth', to rest your hat on... but I'm sure you are aware of these intricasies .. hehe 🙂

Originally posted by Taoman
I know you are not nihilistic in view, but it sounded like it. The sentence grabbed me. Firstly, it appears to make too strong a link between meanings to our subjectivity as a bare statement - that it is just our subjectivity (your words). The tenor of your discussion of meaning here concentrates on it being empty, i.e not inherently existing. You would agree ...[text shortened]... be little referred to in the responses to this post. My expression has probably not helped.

Edit: “I know... ...not inherently existing.”
Yes;


Edit: “You would agree that it is also important to embrace and celebrate our meanings and our positive quest of constructing and attending unto them?"

No. I accept everything just the way it is. I do not, under any circumstances, depend on a partial feeling and thus my own meanings are not the Way;


Edit: “The emphasis spectrum like all else has a middle way. I think giving the impression that meaning is all just subjectivity sounds quite dismissive of its living importance and fails to acknowledge enough that meanings are real in the sense of active, though indeed participative and dependently arising.”

Meanings are real –but empty. I do not use my own meaning or practice on my own meaning beyond what is useful. After having my own meaning exploited, I discard it;


Edit: “If we burn the buddhas of a myriad meanings or attend to the pile of ashes, meaning will still arise like smoke.”

Buddhas do not cultivate meaning, otherwise they would taste karma. The pile of ashes and the smoke is empty;


Edit: “To keep saying all is empty, can sound like that itself is an inherently existing "fact" or meaning. I need but refer to the 'emptiness of emptiness'.”

Emptiness is non existent; emptiness is a corrective to a view that cannot be properly said that it holds. I keep saying that all is empty to anybody who attributes inherent existence to whatever, I don’t say that emptiness is inherently existent;


Edit: “I wished to emphasise the importance of meaning and its greater connectiveness apparent in synchronicitous events, which appears to be little referred to in the responses to this post.”

Go beyond!
With a settled spirit we accumulated practice day by day, we polish our Two Sights and we end up not with one, but with Two Truths. When the mirror is not in the least stained, we see directly the glimpse of the void. Taking the void as the Way, the Way is void;


Edit: “My expression has probably not helped.”

Even the Conqueror used a flower! Your expressions are valuable to me. Namaste😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
yeah... it's so hard to explain to theists that even they are just making up meaning that suits them , despite them saying it's the work/word of G-d.
They need to create meaning , usually one that suits their egos, out of the bible (or whereever else they get their info from). Yet they claim it as truth, something that is unchanging forever.

Either ...[text shortened]... rest your hat on... but I'm sure you are aware of these intricasies .. hehe 🙂

Yes, yes😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “I know... ...not inherently existing.”
Yes;


Edit: “You would agree that it is also important to embrace and celebrate our meanings and our positive quest of constructing and attending unto them?"

No. I accept everything just the way it is. I do not, under any circumstances, depend on a partial feeling and thus my own meanings are not th ...[text shortened]... elped.”

Even the Conqueror used a flower! Your expressions are valuable to me. Namaste😵

Edit: "No. I accept everything just the way it is."
I suggest "the way it is" includes the meanings attached to "the way it is"

Edit: "I do not, under any circumstances, depend on a partial feeling and thus my own meanings are not the Way;"

I have sought to define what meaning is for me...it is definitley not limited to partial personal feelings. The meanings underlying in this discussion are shared by us - the meaning of communication, of clarifying, of encountering each other are not mine or yours alone. They are participated also by observers of this discussion and further meaning ricochets. These meanings (connections, patterns, relationships, outcomes, feelings, thoughts) do not end with any individual.

Edit: "Meanings are real –but empty. I do not use my own meaning or practice on my own meaning beyond what is useful. After having my own meaning exploited, I discard it;

Yes meanings are real but empty (i.e. dependently arising). Phrases like "my own meaning" are problematical for me. Our "self" is dependently arising. There is actually no inherently existing "self" to own a meaning. Meaning, like selves are all part of one interdependently ever arising Way, with the meanings and connections being constantly overtaken by new ones. The Path appears as we walk it, without edges and disappears behind us. The Way is mysteriously very connected to arising meaning for me. To say "one's own meaning" is not the Way is to me a brave negative defining.

You do not mention synchronicity again? Do you accord it any reality?

Originally posted by Taoman
Edit: "No. I accept everything just the way it is."
I suggest "the way it is" includes the meanings attached to "the way it is"

Edit: "I do not, under any circumstances, depend on a partial feeling and thus my own meanings are not the Way;"

I have sought to define what meaning is for me...it is definitley not limited to partial personal feelings. The ...[text shortened]... ing.

You do not mention synchronicity again? Do you accord it any reality?

Edit: “I suggest "the way it is" includes the meanings attached to "the way it is".

The Floating World comes out of causes and conditions. When it is raining and I am experiencing the rain, I accept that it is raining. This is what I mean when I say “I accept everything just the way it is”. I attribute no meaning to the rain itself although I recognize the causes and the conditions from which this phenomenon emerged. In this context, meaning is both purely subjective and noise. Since I discard this noise, I do not suggest that “the way it is” includes the meanings attached to “the way it is”. Now, you can replace the observer rain with the observer Floating World: I attribute no meaning to the Floating World itself. In other words, I am experiencing directly the differ phenomena I perceive in the Floating World instead of attributing meaning to my differ experiences;


Edit: “I have sought… …do not end with any individual.”

Methinks you just described what a language is! The differ meanings of communication, of clarifying etc are to me simply a projection of the minds that communicate, clarify etc, and as such they are fully dependent to these minds. They are a product of the individual and collective subjectivity that communicate, clarify etc. These meanings end with any individual.



Edit: "Yes meanings… …to me a brave negative defining.”

You just projected your own way out of your own meaning!
Methinks one’s own meaning must be discarded as a projection of one’s mind, otherwise one ends up with attachment –and attachment is not the Way. I make no projections, and when I make them I am aware of their nature and I discard them as empty. By knowing what exists, I know what exists not. Taking the void as the Way, I see the Way as void. No mystery, no metaphysics.


Edit: “You do not mention synchronicity again? Do you accord it any reality?”

Synchronicity to me is action-reaction; Yin-Yang is a relative view, and Triskelion a relative synthesis that contains this view;
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “I suggest "the way it is" includes the meanings attached to "the way it is".

The Floating World comes out of causes and conditions. When it is raining and I am experiencing the rain, I accept that it is raining. This is what I mean when I say “I accept everything just the way it is”. I attribute no meaning to the rain itself although I recogni ...[text shortened]... n-Yang is a relative view, and Triskelion a relative synthesis that contains this view;
😵

Sorry for delay due to circumstances bb. I wish to consider your response unhindered by distractions.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “I suggest "the way it is" includes the meanings attached to "the way it is".

The Floating World comes out of causes and conditions. When it is raining and I am experiencing the rain, I accept that it is raining. This is what I mean when I say “I accept everything just the way it is”. I attribute no meaning to the rain itself although I recogni n-Yang is a relative view, and Triskelion a relative synthesis that contains this view;
😵

Thank you bb. In this discussion I feel we are like being on the same train but in different carriages and the door between them is jammed. I think we may be defining "meaning" (and "synchronicity" now) in a different manner. Or we may simply disagree, which I suspect is the case. I am still not sure which and it may well be both. Nevertheless I receive much from our interactions as usual.

The Floating World is very real experientially, but that includes experiencing it as a Floating World. All is a projection I agree and best not attached to too much lest it cause unnecessary suffering. But then I see that this projecting is part of the projection also. We are again left with the non-definability, the non-locality, the "emptiness", the dependent origination of all upon all. Indra's net comes into view.

Synchronicity is a phenomenon experienced by meaning attributing minds - an acausal coming together of so-called external events with the inner significances, projected by minds in the "Floating World". To me the fact that such phenomenon are so experienced indicates that it is indeed a "Floating World", full of projections and interdependencies.

Does it exist or does it not exist? From one direction we see a particle, from the other we see nothing but vague interacting "waves" of who knows what moving in nothing. The Buddhist monks and the wandering Daoists enjoyed the Way nevertheless.

For me the word 'meaning' in my OP is not a personal attachment, though it is experienced personally. The words "Meaning", "Way", "Suchness" are a Triskelion I guess.

It's raining monk. I am going inside I am getting cold, projection or not. 😉

Originally posted by Taoman
Sorry for delay due to circumstances bb. I wish to consider your response unhindered by distractions.

Delays are quite normal and they are not a problem at all😵

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you bb. In this discussion I feel we are like being on the same train but in different carriages and the door between them is jammed. I think we may be defining "meaning" (and "synchronicity" now) in a different manner. Or we may simply disagree, which I suspect is the case. I am still not sure which and it may well be both. Nevertheless I receive much ...[text shortened]... s raining monk. I am going inside I am getting cold, projection or not. 😉

Edit: “Thank… …I receive much from our interactions as usual.”

You are a Taoist. I am not a Taoist; and I communicate with you as a Madhyamika and mainly in Madhyamaka terms because I have no other skilful means available in order to reach you other than typing these words. I balance between Madhyamaka and Chan. Our systems are different, so our views are different. You attribute to the Way inherent existence; I pay homage to all the sentient beings with Perfected Nature, to all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and to me the Way is empty. Also, the very way we understand the Way, the Absolute Kosmic Reality, is different, although we are both aware of the existence of the Way. To me, the tetralemma holds.
From our interaction I receive at least as much as you, and thankful I remain;


Edit: “The Floating World… …Indra's net comes into view.

Yes!


Edit: “Synchronicity… … interdependencies.”

Yes;


Edit: “Does… … nevertheless.”

Methinks the tetralemma holds –and it is empty;


Edit: “For me the word 'meaning' in my OP is not a personal attachment, though it is experienced personally. The words "Meaning", "Way", "Suchness" are a Triskelion I guess.”

To me, even Gankyil is empty;


Edit: “It's raining monk. I am going inside I am getting cold, projection or not. ”

Very well! The reality of the Floating World is an illusion that always must be taken seriously😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “Thank… …I receive much from our interactions as usual.”

You are a Taoist. I am not a Taoist; and I communicate with you as a Madhyamika and mainly in Madhyamaka terms because I have no other skilful means available in order to reach you other than typing these words. I balance between Madhyamaka and Chan. Our systems are different, so our view The reality of the Floating World is an illusion that always must be taken seriously😵

Trees half bare.
crane's beak piercing
the new moon;
the south calls.

R.M.L.

(The bow is deep and long)

Originally posted by Taoman
Trees half bare.
crane's beak piercing
the new moon;
the south calls.

R.M.L.

(The bow is deep and long)

Namaste
😵