|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2012 20:58:46 GMT -5
The problem is nobody is interested in greasy spots. The QM is pretty greasy, and to that extent, a useful trip, but until one is willing to step back and say it doesn't say anything about anything, peeps are still licking the grease off their fingers. Sometimes I try to talk about the reward of that absence, cuz lets face it, it's all about reward, but how to talk about that? Rewards come in currency, whether that is money, a return favor, emotional elation, self-esteem, security in society, etc. what kind of reward are you talking about? Freedom.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 12, 2012 21:09:21 GMT -5
Rewards come in currency, whether that is money, a return favor, emotional elation, self-esteem, security in society, etc. what kind of reward are you talking about? Freedom. To? From? Do I get to see you shoot lightning from your arse? ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2012 21:16:14 GMT -5
To? From? Do I get to see you shoot lightning from your arse? ;D From.
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Aug 12, 2012 21:27:42 GMT -5
But most of the time qualia are not recognised at all, they are just present without being known. [/quote} How do you know that? If you pay attention to direct experience then such certainty/knowing will appear. What is there to know of "paying of attention" if not the knowing of the "paying of attention"? Knowing knows of a focus of thoughts when there is a focus of mental activity. This focus of mental activity is what you're calling paying attention to something. When there is no focus of mental activity no "paying of attention" is known. Nothing can "pay attention" because there is nothing to pay attention to anything else. The knowing knows of itself that it wasn't there a moment ago and that its scope is limited even while it operates. But the knowing knows this of itself only, outside of knowing there is nothing known... yellow, ouch, vroom, but not known... and you can't know this because obviously it would be known only if knowing were to again arise. Then how can you claim to know this? It seems that you are claiming that there is an objective reality separate from the knowing of that reality. Your problem is really that you're playing with definitions and you've confused yourself in the process. ALL definitions have to be reduced to qualia. In the QM even 'presence' is reduced to qualia, i.e. presence is identical with vroom vroom or ouch ouch. So whenever in the context of ontology you say X is impossible without Y then you have to go to direct experience and see if the question even makes sense before you go about trying to find an answer. This time you have abstracted from direct experience to conclude that there is some kind of universal presence. Not at all. It's you who is claiming a "presence" without the knowing of it. I say that there is just "this" and that "this" ALWAYS includes the knowing of it. There is no "this" without the knowing of it. There is no "presence". There is nothing that exists separate from, or outside of, the knowing of it. Knower, known and knowing are "this". Anything outside of what presently appears as "this" is pure imagination.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 13, 2012 0:30:13 GMT -5
Anyone that seriously thinks that the Sun can disintegrate in a split second is really a waste fresh air. Peter please ban me. Sounds like you figure he should be punished. Have you been talking to Arisha?? Your hearing's out.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 13, 2012 0:34:58 GMT -5
Anyone that seriously thinks that the Sun can disintegrate in a split second is really a waste fresh air. Peter please ban me. Do you think that he was serious or just creating a thought experiment? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experimentYou're one of Enigma's thought experiments.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2012 1:03:07 GMT -5
Sounds like you figure he should be punished. Have you been talking to Arisha?? Your hearing's out. Okay, I'll work on getting the wax out of my ears, as long as I can keep breathing fresh air.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2012 1:06:02 GMT -5
You're one of Enigma's thought experiments. Bad day?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 13, 2012 2:07:28 GMT -5
You're one of Enigma's thought experiments. Bad day? Bad enigma.
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 13, 2012 3:16:39 GMT -5
But most of the time qualia are not recognised at all, they are just present without being known. [/quote} How do you know that? What is there to know of "paying of attention" if not the knowing of the "paying of attention"? Knowing knows of a focus of thoughts when there is a focus of mental activity. This focus of mental activity is what you're calling paying attention to something. When there is no focus of mental activity no "paying of attention" is known. Nothing can "pay attention" because there is nothing to pay attention to anything else. Yes, that's what I'm saying, 'attention' and 'knowing' is how reality sometimes manifests. Reality is not objective, reality is merely real. Reality is not known. This last sentence is a representation from within knowing, the actual experience is lived and not represented. This last sentence was also merely a representation. You can't close the gap, 'knowing' is an isolated context to itself, just like yellow can be said to be an isolated context to itself to the extent that it reveals nothing about anything except itself. As long as you hold on to knowing there will always remain a conflict because there remains an imagined relation between reference and referent, even though the referent doesn't exist except as a perpetual promise made by the reference. You're still married to 'knowing', which is why you're conflating 'knowing' and 'presence', you have to surrender 'knowing'. It sounds bigger a problem than it actually is, the so-called problem is tiny and it is only a problem that 'knowing' creates for itself in order to convince itself of its supremacy. Your last sentence is correct, if you take it seriously then it will resolve then entire paradox.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2012 7:51:50 GMT -5
Question, methinks emptymirror is using 'knowing' in the gnosis sense and you're arguing 'knowing' in the episteme sense?
Knowing in the gnosis sense is not other than presence. In the episteme sense it's herp derp all day long.
'Reality can only be lived' is pointing to the same thing as knowing in the gnosis sense, eh? A bodily 'knowing.' ___________________
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 13, 2012 9:01:11 GMT -5
Question, methinks emptymirror is using 'knowing' in the gnosis sense and you're arguing 'knowing' in the episteme sense? Knowing in the gnosis sense is not other than presence. In the episteme sense it's herp derp all day long. 'Reality can only be lived' is pointing to the same thing as knowing in the gnosis sense, eh? A bodily 'knowing.' ___________________ If I have given rise to the appearance that presence and knowing is the same then I am at fault for being inarticulate, I think it is not helpful to talk about any kind of knowing to someone who is caught in the web of his thoughts. I have always tried to used 'knowing' with the disclaimer that it merely means that the qualia in question hides nothing about its true nature. 'Gnostic knowing' is also dubious at best. Especially if you come from ATA there is the danger of getting stuck in 'attention'. I'm pointing out that knowing and attention are temporary qualia, they are not fundamental. My evidence comes from direct experience. EM on the other hand is talking about logical arguments, he assumes that presence is knowing, then naturally concludes that I must be wrong in saying that knowing is just qualia. When I tell him to look at direct experince then he is doing so through his intuition/assumption and naturally concludes that the presence of qualia is evidence of the validity of his assumption... in effect he is still caught in TMT. I can't do more than tell him to look at direct experience without using mind as a safety net, because there is simply no way for me to prove his assumption wrong, it's not possible... not because his assumption is so strong, but rather because it is structured so that it escapes falsification, and whatever evidence you present, if this evidence is viewed from within the assumption then it remains not only compatible with the assumption but also as proof of the assumption's validity, it's perfectly circular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2012 9:48:32 GMT -5
Question, methinks emptymirror is using 'knowing' in the gnosis sense and you're arguing 'knowing' in the episteme sense? Knowing in the gnosis sense is not other than presence. In the episteme sense it's herp derp all day long. 'Reality can only be lived' is pointing to the same thing as knowing in the gnosis sense, eh? A bodily 'knowing.' ___________________ If I have given rise to the appearance that presence and knowing is the same then I am at fault for being inarticulate, I think it is not helpful to talk about any kind of knowing to someone who is caught in the web of his thoughts. I have always tried to used 'knowing' with the disclaimer that it merely means that the qualia in question hides nothing about its true nature. 'Gnostic knowing' is also dubious at best. Especially if you come from ATA there is the danger of getting stuck in 'attention'. I'm pointing out that knowing and attention are temporary qualia, they are not fundamental. I don't get the distinction between attention and qualia. Attention and focus seem to me to describe the context for qualia. Looking at a target a constricted focus of attention on X means that the X and it's immediate white surroundings are in sharp focus and the outer rings of 1 and 2 are in lesser focus. Attention is being paid to the entire image. The qualia is just sharp X, fuzzy rings 1, 2.... There is no chair qualia, merely sensations in the rump. Those sensations are not in focus but are in the realm of attention, similar to the fuzziness of 1 and 2. blah blah When you say that attention being a temporary qualia I don't understand. Attention to me describes the universe of qualia. Can you give an example? Direct experience as I understand the way emptymirror is using it, is none other than 'knowing' in the gnostic sense. I agree with your hesitation with using it because of the more common understanding of that term as thought drenched. It could be called This or what is or presence or the Actual or __________.
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 13, 2012 11:52:17 GMT -5
I don't get the distinction between attention and qualia. Attention and focus seem to me to describe the context for qualia. Looking at a target The 'fuzzy/sharp' stuff is just visual qualia. You can put attention on the fuzzy qualia, and you can also look at the sharp qualia without attention, one does not necessitate the other. When conscious attention is there then attention is present to itself (we could say same as yellow is present to itself), usually though attention manifests by picking a target, such as a colour, sound, or sometimes even the moment itself, sometimes the though 'I exist'. Attention can't abstract from itself, it can't subtract itself. To understand this don't just look at the attention, look at what happens once attention is activated, and look at what happened to the object in the transition from when atention was not focused on the object and to when attention is focused on the object. For example you look at the 'x', and completely forget (even if only for a split-second) about 1,2,3. Then (for whatever reason) attention picks up on the fuzzy2, notice the difference of fuzzy2 from when attention was absent to fuzzy2 to the moment when attention became present to fuzzy2. The absence of attention is the important part here, notice how the qualia:fuzzy2 was actually there, but not attended to, and once attented to you can't really say that it even existed at all, you can't muster such conviction. When attention wasn't present to fuzzy2 is the important part, it shows that attention is not permanent, attention comes and goes. This is the not-knowing that is not just the absence of epistemic knowing but also the absence of gnostic knowing, this not-knowing isn't known at all, it can not be grasped. The problem runs much deeper and into a 'place' much more disturbing. The place where you can attend to stuff and feel a sort of conviction is cozy, but it is still a holding on to 'false' knowledge, a vehicle of letting it go is the not-knowing that I described above. Reality is not known, this is very important, if you think that reality is known then you are too selective, knowing is a very rare occurence, most of our lives is lived without paying attention, qualia are merely present, they are not known. One can develop the capacity of holding attention for a long time, but the question is why, what's wrong with not being attentive? If you view attention in the correct context then the desire to be attentive will be understood to not be much different than for example that you would like to see your favourite colour more often. I'm not saying that it's bad to be attentive, I'm just saying that there is no good reason to become attached to it, and there is even less good reason to imagine it to be more than it actually is.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 13, 2012 12:08:06 GMT -5
I don't know about you, Q, but paying attention seems to come with the reward of having a smoother and more pleasant experience. Less stubbed toes, higher work performance, diffusing interpersonal conflicts before they build up too much, making the mind more functional etc, etc. I can see where someone would value attentiveness over inattentiveness.
|
|