Inflate or destroy self?

Okay.



Aha. This is intended as some kind of insult. Okay, have a ball. But I can see no reason why I should not assume I have every bit as much choice as you.

The insult seems to fail.

Give it another try, Fresco. I can handle it if you manage to actually get one off.

What makes "everyday selves" superficial...other than guesswork on your part?

Let me note that Christian mystics, like Saint Teresa and St. John of the Cross have never been far from the suspicion (and wrath?) of the Church hierarchy who probably suspected their mystical understones.

I don't know. You'd have to ask a Sufi. Many of them are still around, although they've been marginalized by Islamism (aka radical political Islam).

Now that I have you in a self-critical mode (surprisingly enough, that's not a mode you non-selfers seem very comfortable with...), let me point out that you may chose another term than "non-dual". It's a negative concept that means very little, like if I defined myself as "non-mystic"... It would tell you little about what I actually embrace. From what you told me, you're beyond 2 and beyond 1.... and probably also beyond 3, 4, 5, 6, and beyond 0 too! So don't get fixated on poor number 2.

"The a2k fresco" agrees with you. It is evoked like other selves, yet it has had sufficient reinforcement from its non-a2k philosophical transactions and reading to be comfortable with its general position.

Numbers (beyond one and two) are irrelevant here. The real distinction is between divided and undivided.

Okay so "undivided mystic" could work?

Read a bit of Shakespeare Frank. His genius lay in his understanding and illustration of that superficiality (the shifting nature of personality).

I've dug out this website just for you. ! Note the introductory paragraph.
http://www.shakespeareforalltime.com/the-rejection-of-falstaff/

Ahhh...you are saying that Shakespeare KNOWS that there is no self.

Damn...if I had known that, I woulda...

...written everything I already written to you, Fresco.

But (and I hate to break this to you) Shakespeare is DEAD...so I cannot discuss his guesses about REALITY with him. So I'll sticke with you. (Word play intended.)

Do you think that's what they might mean by holy (or whole) person?

What about zero ? I know the question is about singular n plural but you guys being descontructivists n all I just thought of zero to describe your tastes...

Good question. In most zen monasteries and centers of Japan you'll find the dominant symbol to be a rough calligraphy of zero:
It is both empty and eternal, without beginning or end.

Yes it makes sense, I suppose "nothingness" has no beginning nor end...probably that's why we don't see it !

One and one is one...

The guy in the video should be arrested he is making the world a boring place weeew...

Hmmm... Someone needs a hug.

...wife spoils me already I'm a lucky bastard ! So, no not really...nothing against hugging but to much and the world becomes silly, like in Christmas...I rather have the company of honest people...

The Maya symbol for the "number" zero was an EMPTY conch shell. Clever if you ask me. But in zen buddhism everything is fundamentally empty, including the "self". All is part of Heraclitian world containing the emptiness of change and impermanence.

But then one has to ask what changes if nothing is defined ? Isn't that what you believe ? How do you measure change if things are not something in the first place ? Change requires sameness before change can happen...

True, especially if by change I were stressing transformation of static form X into static form Y). I prefer to think of it in terms of changing, of a continous PROCESS of everything becoming (something else).