16 Sep '07 02:23>
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI really don’t have a problem with talking about the ineffable—except, of course, for talking about it.
[b] “I think I’ll whack it over there, and I know he’ll toss it back here...”
Too true, too true. It's almost as if we both know the words to the other's favorite song.
Another thought occured while de-analogizing my efforts. The very thing you touched on, 'the oneness of the all,' as it were, the singularity that tel and LJ cannot reach beyond: ...[text shortened]... ageless, boundary-less) beyond the known (time, age, boundary). Just a thumbnail thought.[/b]
If someone says something like, “You know, I like to think of it this way...”, and then proceeds to describe a particular religious or philosophical paradigm, I don’t really have a problem. Of course, if that’s posted here in a debate forum, I might take a crack at something that seems out-of-whack to me, and they are free to whack back. Lucifershammer, for example, has thumped me as much as anybody in terms of challenging the basic assumptions of non-dualism. I like that: it forces me to think.
Even LJ has cautioned me about rejecting what I have come to call the “supernatural category” outright. And I try to me more careful about how I phrase that—i.e., even in the face of the ineffable, I see no good reason to admit the supernatural category.
You and I have discussed before the “paradigm clash.” I have recently come to understand just how much that limits discourse. I am a non-dualist, you are a dualist—even when we use the same language, we are not talking about the same thing, because our axiomatic base is so different. I am—for lack of a better phrase—a “strong hermeneutist.” You think that one can arrive at the correct, objective interpretation. Exegetically, I think you are doing midrash; you think you are simply discovering the truth.
We can have wonderful discussions (and we have), but we are at impasse at the get-go. I used to think there must be some way around that; I no longer do.