|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2012 22:33:49 GMT -5
Another interesting squirrel satsang today. One of the squirrels asked about silence, and since I remained silent on the matter, she answered the question. She said the only way you can know about movement is from silence. She went on about it for a while and was very clear and was obviously looking and seeing. When she was done, I asked 'So what are you that you know this?' I was fascinated that she couldn't answer that question. ;D Another interesting thing is that she alternated three times between 'looking' with perfect clarity, and thinking with utter confusion, and when she looked, her hearing improved and sounds had a greater depth, and when she thought, her hearing would degrade back to it's usual condition. Cool, what a wonderful experience it is to witness an aha moment in a squirrel. Yes, there's something precious about the gaping mouth and buck teeth....Not referring to Marie, of course. It was very interesting to watch. There seemed to be an energetic shift when clarity was present, like an involuntary release even though mind hadn't caught up with the implications. When mind went to work on those implications, there was tunnel vision and the clarity was lost. This gets back to what I say about the sovereignty of that seeing. There was no doubt in her voice in the beginning, but by the end she was dizzy and confused and asking me to work on her energy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 12, 2012 3:04:35 GMT -5
She went on about it for a while and was very clear and was obviously looking and seeing. When she was done, I asked 'So what are you that you know this?' I was fascinated that she couldn't answer that question. ;D You asked her mind a question. The emptiness that you proclaim turns to fascination too quickly.
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 12, 2012 3:20:23 GMT -5
The all kinds of Quale going on, as well as patterning is consciousness. And consciousness never does find awareness, because consciousness(Quale) doesn't say I am this, but rather Awareness says you are that. Awareness and consciousness don't exist, they are not saying anything. Awareness isn't doing anything, it doesn't exist. If you want to know what red circle is then just look at it. Qualia don't report to anything, they are just there, being what they are.
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 12, 2012 3:22:02 GMT -5
Here, troll, just for you: Reality is made up of all sensations that you are experiencing right now, for example sounds, colours, feelings, etc. So, no sensation, no reality and no truth, according to your logic. If you are deprived of sensation, you must cease to exist, then. Still says nothing about experience being truth, so you're still wrong. Yes, no qualia no reality. I don't understand anymore what you're trying to say with the 'experince is not truth'. If there is a truth where else could one find it?
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 12, 2012 3:23:57 GMT -5
There is nothing abstract about qualia. There is no word, including "qualia", that isn't an abstraction. Some words like "water", "fire" or "dirt" are less abstract than other words, but the word water isn't what the word water refers to. Thanks for the info, Captain Obvious. If words like awareness/consciousness/Self/truth/being/life were pointing to the same direction then I would be using those words, but for me they point exactly not in the correct direction, which is why I'm not using them. The meaning of the word 'qualia' is exactly only found when you let the word go and look at direct experience. This point is not ambiguous at all. If you don't understand this point, if you don't accomplish to let the word go and look at direct experience then you simply will never understand the qualia model.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2012 3:26:23 GMT -5
She went on about it for a while and was very clear and was obviously looking and seeing. When she was done, I asked 'So what are you that you know this?' I was fascinated that she couldn't answer that question. ;D You asked her mind a question. The emptiness that you proclaim turns to fascination too quickly. Emptiness isn't the absence of interest, it's the absence of 'you'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2012 5:03:56 GMT -5
There is no word, including "qualia", that isn't an abstraction. Some words like "water", "fire" or "dirt" are less abstract than other words, but the word water isn't what the word water refers to. Thanks for the info, Captain Obvious. If words like awareness/consciousness/Self/truth/being/life were pointing to the same direction then I would be using those words, but for me they point exactly not in the correct direction, which is why I'm not using them. old quaint saying -- six of one, half-dozen of the other The meaning of the word 'qualia' is exactly only found when you let the word go and look at direct experience. letting go of words ... hmmm ... yeah, that sounds like a plan ... a good plan ...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2012 10:51:17 GMT -5
Thanks for the info, Captain Obvious. If words like awareness/consciousness/Self/truth/being/life were pointing to the same direction then I would be using those words, but for me they point exactly not in the correct direction, which is why I'm not using them. old quaint saying -- six of one, half-dozen of the other The meaning of the word 'qualia' is exactly only found when you let the word go and look at direct experience. letting go of words ... hmmm ... yeah, that sounds like a plan ... a good plan ... Maybe that's the issue I'm having with all of this; the words become far too important and folks want to make absolute distinctions about words that mean only what they say they mean. There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2012 11:40:19 GMT -5
The all kinds of Quale going on, as well as patterning is consciousness. And consciousness never does find awareness, because consciousness(Quale) doesn't say I am this, but rather Awareness says you are that. Awareness and consciousness don't exist, they are not saying anything. The denial of Awareness, is where the Quale model falls apart as a reliable description of reality. Quale fails to account for the obvious. Being that which cannot be known in reality, or Awareness. It fails to even entertain the possibility of an abstract Quale, or a Quale that cannot be known. Of course that would only validate Awareness and not deny it. So as a model for reality, Quale is incomplete at best.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 12, 2012 11:51:15 GMT -5
old quaint saying -- six of one, half-dozen of the other letting go of words ... hmmm ... yeah, that sounds like a plan ... a good plan ... Maybe that's the issue I'm having with all of this; the words become far too important and folks want to make absolute distinctions about words that mean only what they say they mean. There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. That's pretty much my impression as well. Lots of logical deduction about which term fits where within a larger verbal equation. People get so lost in the terminology that the conversations quickly become so detached from their actual life that it borders on delusions of grandeur.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2012 12:07:14 GMT -5
Cool, what a wonderful experience it is to witness an aha moment in a squirrel. Yes, there's something precious about the gaping mouth and buck teeth....Not referring to Marie, of course. It was very interesting to watch. There seemed to be an energetic shift when clarity was present, like an involuntary release even though mind hadn't caught up with the implications. When mind went to work on those implications, there was tunnel vision and the clarity was lost. This gets back to what I say about the sovereignty of that seeing. There was no doubt in her voice in the beginning, but by the end she was dizzy and confused and asking me to work on her energy. ;D Yeah, very coolio... ;D
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 12, 2012 12:31:27 GMT -5
Maybe that's the issue I'm having with all of this; the words become far too important and folks want to make absolute distinctions about words that mean only what they say they mean. There are all sorts of ways to talk about what's going on, and I agree with most of them, and they're all wrong. That's pretty much my impression as well. Lots of logical deduction about which term fits where within a larger verbal equation. People get so lost in the terminology that the conversations quickly become so detached from their actual life that it borders on delusions of grandeur. Yes, I agree, most people are content with what their intuitions tells them and they don't bother to consult direct experience. One can point them to direct experience all day long, even with the simplest and most precise terminology known to mankind, it's still useless unless there is actual interest in truth.
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 12, 2012 12:37:56 GMT -5
Awareness and consciousness don't exist, they are not saying anything. The denial of Awareness, is where the Quale model falls apart as a reliable description of reality. Quale fails to account for the obvious. Being that which cannot be known in reality, or Awareness. It fails to even entertain the possibility of an abstract Quale, or a Quale that cannot be known. Of course that would only validate Awareness and not deny it. So as a model for reality, Quale is incomplete at best. Awareness doesn't exist. No quale is ever 'known'. Qualia reveal their nature by virtue of being present, not by virtue of being 'known', and not by virtue of something being 'aware' of them. The QM is the most robust ontological model known to man. Look at direct experience if you want to undertstand that this is true. I have no idea what you mean by 'abstract quale'. Give an example please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2012 13:50:50 GMT -5
The denial of Awareness, is where the Quale model falls apart as a reliable description of reality. Quale fails to account for the obvious. Being that which cannot be known in reality, or Awareness. It fails to even entertain the possibility of an abstract Quale, or a Quale that cannot be known. Of course that would only validate Awareness and not deny it. So as a model for reality, Quale is incomplete at best. Awareness doesn't exist. No quale is ever 'known'. Qualia reveal their nature by virtue of being present, not by virtue of being 'known', and not by virtue of something being 'aware' of them. The QM is the most robust ontological model known to man. Look at direct experience if you want to undertstand that this is true. I have no idea what you mean by 'abstract quale'. Give an example please. Actually when we look at a setting sun, it is not present as QM dictates. In fact we are looking at an image of the sun that happened 8 minutes ago. So the image of the setting sun doesn't actually reveal the true state of the sun. Or put another way, if while observing the sun set, the sun were to disintegrate, we would still be seeing the image of the sun for another 8 minutes, while the true nature of the sun as not being there, is not revealed by the QM model. I'm aware of too many anomalies in QM for it to be reliable when it comes to the description of reality in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 12, 2012 15:36:49 GMT -5
Awareness doesn't exist. No quale is ever 'known'. Qualia reveal their nature by virtue of being present, not by virtue of being 'known', and not by virtue of something being 'aware' of them. The QM is the most robust ontological model known to man. Look at direct experience if you want to undertstand that this is true. I have no idea what you mean by 'abstract quale'. Give an example please. Actually when we look at a setting sun, it is not present as QM dictates. In fact we are looking at an image of the sun that happened 8 minutes ago. So the image of the setting sun doesn't actually reveal the true state of the sun. Or put another way, if while observing the sun set, the sun were to disintegrate, we would still be seeing the image of the sun for another 8 minutes, while the true nature of the sun as not being there, is not revealed by the QM model. I'm aware of too many anomalies in QM for it to be reliable when it comes to the description of reality in my experience. Wow, no offense, but from this post it should be obvious to everyone that you're very confused. I recommend that you start practising ATA. First you need to get clear of what direct experience means, then you can bring your ideas to it and start to systematically deconstruct them, which is what the QM can assist you with. But first you need to find the correct context, so, do some ATA first, because until them we're just debating ideas, and it would be simply a waste of time for both of us.
|
|