Moderator: Moderators - Public
Bryan wrote:I also have confusions about Hadit's described isolation and intimacy.
If Hadit is alone, existentially isolated, then how is intimacy ("experiencing each circumstance or event as intimately as possible") even remotely possible for Hadit? He desires intimate union with Nuit, but if he is by nature isolated, then any ammount of actual intimacy, and his isolated nature would cease to exist. Is this the meaning of "but whoso gives one particle of dust shall lose all in that hour"? Does any engagement with Nuit destroy Hadit, or am I being too literal about this?
Bryan wrote:Hadit is the "secret center", the Hidden One, the distinctive "point of view." In buddhist and yogic practice, this is often referred to as "the witness," which is unbounded and unmodified by what it witnesses, and absolutely unmoved.
Jim Eshelman wrote:I don't think we can address Hadit adequately with such a logic.
Jim Eshelman wrote:A logic explicitly founded on 4D time-space can't be counted on to assess 5D or 6D perspectives.
danica wrote:Los, I would completely agree with you if you were saying "I didn't experience it, it does not exist for me."
But what you are basically saying (all the time!) is: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever."
See the difference? An open mind on the one side, a closed mind on the other; the first one is capable of evolving, the other keeps on torturing itself, running in circles - and when expressed aggressively, seems very much boring to people with whom it tries to communicate
Los wrote:So what ideas do they represent? Well, there’s not necessarily a “right” way to attribute ideas to these symbols. The best you can do is to be consistent in the attributions. Seriously arguing about it or trying to figure out the “right” attributions or trying to resolve perceived incongruities from being able to attribute apparently contradictory things to the same symbol is, at the end of the day, about as productive as seriously arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
danica wrote:what you are basically saying (all the time!) is: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever."
Al-Shariyf wrote:Like him or not, he killed it with his theory of Hadit. Kudos to you Los.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:But then [Los] ends his post with a nice pithy pun that equates those who attempt to grapple with symbols at a non-logically defined level with the simple-minded. It breaks his internal consistency in a shallow attempt to throw dirt.
nowhere did Jim suggest that there was a "higher type of logic" on which his point depended. As I understand him (and please correct me if I'm wrong), symbols encompass ideas which transcend 4D space-time and therefore cannot accurately be described using 4D logic.
And, as Danica said, when it comes to Los and the possibility of something that is not logic: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever."
Aion wrote:Its called a theoretical model.
But we've already had this same conversation about three times now.
Takamba wrote:Aion wrote:Its called a theoretical model.
But we've already had this same conversation about three times now.
"See the problem with making sh!t up? If you can do it, I can do it. I just find it harder to keep a straight face while doing it." - LOS
I do not know why anyone engages with him. He's a looped track, a broken record. A troll by any other name is still a troll.
Bryan wrote:I suppose another way to frame my question is, "Is Hadit's nature modifiable? Is Hadit touchable by conditions?"
Jim Eshelman wrote:But you can extract the oxygen and it's back to being the same oxygen molecule.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest