I'm out the Cave!

EP, I often write an expression then, after reading it, revise it drastically. That "censorship"--which I probably don't do enough--is the little version of what I mean. The larger version is the general perspective that I find myself expressing.
It should be obvious that my perspective (which is essentially an attempt to transcend the dualism built into our language) is not readily defensible. That's why I try to keep my debating efforts to a minimum. And when I DO compete with other positions it is usually in jest. I like to "express" (and in the process discover) how my perspective looks in words--AND I like to read those of others.

TO ELABORATAE, PQ:
I said: "Good, PQ. But I also like the paradox that we are always BOTH in and out: When we think about our experiences (dualistically) we are "in" the cave; when we just are our experiences (non-dualstically) there is no cave--and no 'us'.

My elaboration:
PQ, my preference for a "both-and" rather than an "either-or" approach only can apply to "philosophical" matters. In everyday life it seems we are culturally and pragmatically required to make choices and express preferences. But that does not make "picking and choosing" between supposed opposites the way to sense Reality. Actually, the best (and only) way to "sense Reality" is to remain silent and just see what's happening. This is essentially a "mystical" stance, a form of meditation. When I say that outside of the cave I am just in another, if larger, form of cave, I refer to the EFFORT to "understand" the world in a transcental way. That CAN'T be done, I suspect: ALL UNDERSTANDING IS A FORM OF DELUSION. Looking at one's immediate experience ONLY as it is occuring here and now, directly WITHOUT trying to understand it by separating a "self" from it, from "objectifying" it, as it were, makes poor sense given the logic we live by and the grammar with which we organize our reality. But just looking (as in the "passive awareness" of meditation) seems good enough when you are doing it, a kind of divine ignorance.

Thanks for asking; I probably should have edited this for clarity. I hope you don't take back the nice things you said.

JLN Ima post so you don't edit.

You speak with plenty of clarity...

Whoops. I don't believe I missed this post. I think I must have overlooked it during the 'A2K changing' chaos.

I certainly don't take back the nice things I said. Thank you JL.
I get it. I suppose it's the final step? That makes it sound as if I've reached at a conclusion, which I don't like, but the conclusion is that there is no conclusion, like you said on morals, no black and whites, just a sea of greys.
Is this what Socrates meant when he said that he thought he was wiser than the sophist philosophers, as he realsied the extent of what he didn't know. And what Hume meant when he said that Logic was an internal habit rather than an external way of reaching truth?
Another paradox is that when people state their beliefs objectively they're illuminating their own subjectivity.

Ages ago I remember reading something and I've been trying to rack my brains to remember where I read it but I can't. It was something to do with the 'veil of maya' an Indian philosophy. I'll come back.

Oh.
Put 'Maya (illusion)' into wikipedia.
It appears we have achieved enlightenment.

Wow! with my many failed efforts to get online after Craven's changes I think I know first-hand what Plato's cave people felt like. Now, with Osso's and Craven's help, I think I'm now in the light.

Hey, congratulations!

Ok, so I'm just finishing ' a very short into to indian philosophy.'
JL, can I ask- that wonderful paragraph you wrote is in essence, to my understanding, a summarised version of the buddha's teachings of reality. I don't know if you'll like me saying that or not. Whats your take, if you have one?

I just came out of a really good drafty bit.

Here, drink this, it will warm you up.

Pentacle Queen, sorry I've taken so long to respond. I'm not sure what you mean by my "take" (on what?).
JL

Pentacle Queen, sorry I've taken so long to respond. I'm not sure what you mean by my "take" (on what?). I'm sure that I have one, even though it's no more than a momentary response to "stimuli".
JL

You're never out of the cave Queenie. It's just a conceit thinking you are. It makes you feel superior. It's like that cliche--"I'm fine".

the problem with plato and his cave is that plato is his cave, a cave all to often visited by aristotle where they would enjoy different illusions together.

And dys is enjoying his own allusion.

Brilliant way of putting it.

I know you're never out. The reason for the thread was that I finally popped out of quite a large bit and couldn't believe this was 'it' so I made a thread and within a few days I knew it wasn't as ultimate as i first thought. Which is good.
The only thing you can do is to 'transend' it, by realising you're thoughts about the cave are the cave. Like dyslexia just said.

Oh, don't worry JL, but I have kind of forgotten the tack I was going along on. Basically I think a lot of what I read about the buddha echoed things I'd heard you say on here.
I agree with the large majority of it I seem to remember. I'll try and remember what my real question was.

You can look in the opposite direction--towards the outside.



Basil Willey.

A diploma is a shadow of the institution which bestows it. A name is a shadow of the family line which gives it.

That's really good, Dys. We ARE our caves; where else can our illusions come from?