|
Post by lolly on Nov 19, 2013 6:32:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. I don't see any beliefs in what I'm doing with the coin. What I experience is what I see, the textured surface of the coin, and what I feel, the temperature. In that moment, there is no taste to the coin, no smell or sound. In that moment, the rest is referring back to either a memory or a belief. To your point about where does the sun go, what to do with clothes out of the current season, is my car outside etc. I don't have any issue with beliefs about the whereabouts of my car, or will summer follow spring. All that stuff does a great job in helping me function in the world. I would be a total numpty to throw away what I've learnt through experience, eg fires are hot, brown snakes are poisonous. To your line "unconditional sincerity in the discussion we are having, we would let go of the effort expended to create illusions from imagined situations" That's what I think I am actually doing. Going directly and what is perceived through the senses RIGHT NOW. "the illustration you are trying to make seem valid" - what is more valid than what I am experiencing? I am totally not looking to make a point or support a belief. My interest is in seeing things as they are. To be frank (and not being a smart ar$e) this is what I find when I approach the world with a still and quiet mind (although that is not mandatory) Something that comes to mind, but may be completely unrelated, is memories of being outside at the beach on a starry summer night when I was 18 or so. The tide was out and the stars were reflected on the thin sheen of water covering the sand. Looking down I wondered what it would be like to be actually looking down into the stars (not standing on a beach looking a reflection) then I looked up and wondered was I looking up into the sky with the earth under my feet, or was I stuck to the earth looking down at the stars. This gave me a tangible jolt of falling into uncertainty. How do you define 'now'? it isn't a 'point', is it? people define 'now' in very broad set of definition.. some say that 'it's all now', others say that in it the unmeasureable instant of existence, and i understand it as relative.. 'now' is relative to the experience of it, the flash of lightning is instantaneous while the rumble of thunder may last for many seconds.. talk to athletes who regularly slip into the 'zone', time slows way down as the fighter sees a punch coming so slowly that the evade/intercept and counter seems effortless, but to the observer it happens as quick blur.. the basketball player slips between defenders so quickly and gracefully that to see it in slow motion it looks like ballet.. time/now is a variable that varies by the experiencer's choice of definitions.. when the coin is in your hand, the experience/now of it is the duration of the sensory perception, and.. when you put the coin in your pocket you forget about it until the next stimulus that brings the coin into your awareness, and i suppose it can be construed to say that the 'coin doesn't exist' in your awareness for the duration of the forgetfulness, but.. the consistency of its reappearance as inspired by some stimulus is fairly valid evidence that it really didn't vanish.. When you were 18, and looking at the stars, didn't 'now' seem eternal? it's still with you, even 'now', isn't it.. defining 'now' to suit a set of condition needed to 'make a point' is a useful expedient for that intention, and it is also useful to embrace the experience in its entirety, without the mental gymnastics needed to 'make the point'.. Be well.. I think by 'now', it means this present manifest perception, as opposed to the memorised or imagined.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 19, 2013 7:23:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. I don't see any beliefs in what I'm doing with the coin. What I experience is what I see, the textured surface of the coin, and what I feel, the temperature. In that moment, there is no taste to the coin, no smell or sound. In that moment, the rest is referring back to either a memory or a belief. To your point about where does the sun go, what to do with clothes out of the current season, is my car outside etc. I don't have any issue with beliefs about the whereabouts of my car, or will summer follow spring. All that stuff does a great job in helping me function in the world. I would be a total numpty to throw away what I've learnt through experience, eg fires are hot, brown snakes are poisonous. To your line "unconditional sincerity in the discussion we are having, we would let go of the effort expended to create illusions from imagined situations" That's what I think I am actually doing. Going directly and what is perceived through the senses RIGHT NOW. "the illustration you are trying to make seem valid" - what is more valid than what I am experiencing? I am totally not looking to make a point or support a belief. My interest is in seeing things as they are. To be frank (and not being a smart ar$e) this is what I find when I approach the world with a still and quiet mind (although that is not mandatory) Something that comes to mind, but may be completely unrelated, is memories of being outside at the beach on a starry summer night when I was 18 or so. The tide was out and the stars were reflected on the thin sheen of water covering the sand. Looking down I wondered what it would be like to be actually looking down into the stars (not standing on a beach looking a reflection) then I looked up and wondered was I looking up into the sky with the earth under my feet, or was I stuck to the earth looking down at the stars. This gave me a tangible jolt of falling into uncertainty. How do you define 'now'? it isn't a 'point', is it? people define 'now' in very broad set of definition.. some say that 'it's all now', others say that in it the unmeasureable instant of existence, and i understand it as relative.. 'now' is relative to the experience of it, the flash of lightning is instantaneous while the rumble of thunder may last for many seconds.. talk to athletes who regularly slip into the 'zone', time slows way down as the fighter sees a punch coming so slowly that the evade/intercept and counter seems effortless, but to the observer it happens as quick blur.. the basketball player slips between defenders so quickly and gracefully that to see it in slow motion it looks like ballet.. time/now is a variable that varies by the experiencer's choice of definitions.. when the coin is in your hand, the experience/now of it is the duration of the sensory perception, and.. when you put the coin in your pocket you forget about it until the next stimulus that brings the coin into your awareness, and i suppose it can be construed to say that the 'coin doesn't exist' in your awareness for the duration of the forgetfulness, but.. the consistency of its reappearance as inspired by some stimulus is fairly valid evidence that it really didn't vanish.. When you were 18, and looking at the stars, didn't 'now' seem eternal? it's still with you, even 'now', isn't it.. defining 'now' to suit a set of condition needed to 'make a point' is a useful expedient for that intention, and it is also useful to embrace the experience in its entirety, without the mental gymnastics needed to 'make the point'.. Be well.. I thought I was avoiding mental gymnastics...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 19, 2013 13:53:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. How do you define 'now'? it isn't a 'point', is it? people define 'now' in very broad set of definition.. some say that 'it's all now', others say that in it the unmeasureable instant of existence, and i understand it as relative.. 'now' is relative to the experience of it, the flash of lightning is instantaneous while the rumble of thunder may last for many seconds.. talk to athletes who regularly slip into the 'zone', time slows way down as the fighter sees a punch coming so slowly that the evade/intercept and counter seems effortless, but to the observer it happens as quick blur.. the basketball player slips between defenders so quickly and gracefully that to see it in slow motion it looks like ballet.. time/now is a variable that varies by the experiencer's choice of definitions.. when the coin is in your hand, the experience/now of it is the duration of the sensory perception, and.. when you put the coin in your pocket you forget about it until the next stimulus that brings the coin into your awareness, and i suppose it can be construed to say that the 'coin doesn't exist' in your awareness for the duration of the forgetfulness, but.. the consistency of its reappearance as inspired by some stimulus is fairly valid evidence that it really didn't vanish.. When you were 18, and looking at the stars, didn't 'now' seem eternal? it's still with you, even 'now', isn't it.. defining 'now' to suit a set of condition needed to 'make a point' is a useful expedient for that intention, and it is also useful to embrace the experience in its entirety, without the mental gymnastics needed to 'make the point'.. Be well.. I thought I was avoiding mental gymnastics... Generally speaking minding comes in two flavors: -a- Model building in an effort to come to some form of conceptual resolution. -b- Critical examination of a model to reach its point of failure. Yes, this post could be considered an example of -a- : in the end, no conceptual structure is completely free of recursion. It gets tricky sometimes because any given bit of minding will usually involve a tangle of the two, in that the author will likely spend some effort criticizing a model (an example of -b-) other than the one he's either synthesizing or promoting (an example of -a-). When it gets tricky what you did there is always the trump card because minding ... is ... minding.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 19, 2013 17:28:07 GMT -5
I thought I was avoiding mental gymnastics... Generally speaking minding comes in two flavors: -a- Model building in an effort to come to some form of conceptual resolution. -b- Critical examination of a model to reach its point of failure. Yes, this post could be considered an example of -a- : in the end, no conceptual structure is completely free of recursion. It gets tricky sometimes because any given bit of minding will usually involve a tangle of the two, in that the author will likely spend some effort criticizing a model (an example of -b-) other than the one he's either synthesizing or promoting (an example of -a-). When it gets tricky what you did there is always the trump card because minding ... is ... minding. Hmmm,.. I don't get it. I thought the coin thing was a variation on the Douglas Harding experiments and that it was a form of direct seeing. Could you pls explain how the coin thing is creating a mental model.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 19, 2013 17:39:33 GMT -5
Generally speaking minding comes in two flavors: -a- Model building in an effort to come to some form of conceptual resolution. -b- Critical examination of a model to reach its point of failure. Yes, this post could be considered an example of -a- : in the end, no conceptual structure is completely free of recursion. It gets tricky sometimes because any given bit of minding will usually involve a tangle of the two, in that the author will likely spend some effort criticizing a model (an example of -b-) other than the one he's either synthesizing or promoting (an example of -a-). When it gets tricky what you did there is always the trump card because minding ... is ... minding. Hmmm,.. I don't get it. I thought the coin thing was a variation on the Douglas Harding experiments and that it was a form of direct seeing. Could you pls explain how the coin thing is creating a mental model. Sorry man -- I wasn't referring to the experiment with the coin face as a model. I was referring to what you had responded to -- the question about how to define now -- I took your reply to that as naming the question as mental gymnastics and was agreeing with your naming it such.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 19, 2013 17:52:36 GMT -5
Hmmm,.. I don't get it.hI I thought the coin thing was a variation on the Douglas Harding experiments and that it was a form of direct seeing. Could you pls explain how the coin thing is creating a mental model. Sorry man -- I wasn't referring to the experiment with the coin face as a model. I was referring to what you had responded to -- the question about how to define now -- I took your reply to that as naming the question as mental gymnastics and was agreeing with your naming it such. ah,... extreme fatigue, head cold and the internet... you 3 should not be allowed together..... Thanks laughter
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 19, 2013 20:40:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. Generally speaking minding comes in two flavors: -a- Model building in an effort to come to some form of conceptual resolution. -b- Critical examination of a model to reach its point of failure. Yes, this post could be considered an example of -a- : in the end, no conceptual structure is completely free of recursion. It gets tricky sometimes because any given bit of minding will usually involve a tangle of the two, in that the author will likely spend some effort criticizing a model (an example of -b-) other than the one he's either synthesizing or promoting (an example of -a-). When it gets tricky what you did there is always the trump card because minding ... is ... minding. Hmmm,.. I don't get it. I thought the coin thing was a variation on the Douglas Harding experiments and that it was a form of direct seeing. Could you pls explain how the coin thing is creating a mental model. "The coin thing" is a model in that you can't 'unlearn' what you already know to be so.. you can construct a model that pretends the coin only has one side, but it's an imagined story that you 'know' isn't so, it's a model used to make a point.. holding a coin in your hand, it's unlikely that you will ponder the mystery of the vanishing side, but it becomes useful to your cause to construct and convey a mental model/story about the coin and your concept of direct experience.. You can still the mind, so that what you 'believe' doesn't influence the interactions you are having with your existence, and.. the still mind doesn't conjure stories about vanishing sides of the coin, it simply pays attention to what is happening and interacts accordingly.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 19, 2013 22:12:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hmmm,.. I don't get it. I thought the coin thing was a variation on the Douglas Harding experiments and that it was a form of direct seeing. Could you pls explain how the coin thing is creating a mental model. "The coin thing" is a model in that you can't 'unlearn' what you already know to be so.. you can construct a model that pretends the coin only has one side, but it's an imagined story that you 'know' isn't so, it's a model used to make a point.. holding a coin in your hand, it's unlikely that you will ponder the mystery of the vanishing side, but it becomes useful to your cause to construct and convey a mental model/story about the coin and your concept of direct experience.. You can still the mind, so that what you 'believe' doesn't influence the interactions you are having with your existence, and.. the still mind doesn't conjure stories about vanishing sides of the coin, it simply pays attention to what is happening and interacts accordingly.. Be well.. What is the point that you think im trying to make?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 20, 2013 0:24:35 GMT -5
Greetings.. "The coin thing" is a model in that you can't 'unlearn' what you already know to be so.. you can construct a model that pretends the coin only has one side, but it's an imagined story that you 'know' isn't so, it's a model used to make a point.. holding a coin in your hand, it's unlikely that you will ponder the mystery of the vanishing side, but it becomes useful to your cause to construct and convey a mental model/story about the coin and your concept of direct experience.. You can still the mind, so that what you 'believe' doesn't influence the interactions you are having with your existence, and.. the still mind doesn't conjure stories about vanishing sides of the coin, it simply pays attention to what is happening and interacts accordingly.. Be well.. What is the point that you think im trying to make? I think the point is that a coin, or any object, is destroyed and replaced several billion times a second at the quantum level, that the universe has no essential form at all and the entire shebang is entirely subjective... The state of matter is in relation to the state of the observer. The coin is solid in respect to the physical body, but has a frequency in respect to more sensitive forms... Schrodinger's cat was the same kind of thing, so it all ended with the wave-function of particles.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2013 1:51:00 GMT -5
He's pointing out to you that it's the opposite. Knowing anything about the other side of the coin requires you to imagine/remember/believe that when you turn it over there will be what you expect to be there. About the only time when suspending belief counts is when you're watching a magic show. It's far from reasonable to go around thinking like that. Just - be - attentive in life as much as humanly possible. From my perspective, the discussion is currently about recognizing the difference between what you experience and what you think/believe about what you experience.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 20, 2013 1:53:20 GMT -5
About the only time when suspending belief counts is when you're watching a magic show. It's far from reasonable to go around thinking like that. Just - be - attentive in life as much as humanly possible. From my perspective, the discussion is currently about recognizing the difference between what you experience and what you think/believe about what you experience. And why would it be expected to be much of a difference in them?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2013 2:01:30 GMT -5
If you break it down what do you get? - see one side of a coin (and maybe the edge) - feel coolness that slowly fades away Like silence says, you have to go FROM what you directly perceive TO memory, imagination or beliefs to say that the coin has a reverse side. Why? I directly perceive one side with my hand while I directly perceive the other side with my eyes. True to say though, I could also imagine a coin there. Also true if I had never once experienced a coin in any way material or imaginary, I'd be ignorant of the existence of coins. You can feel the image on the coin with the palm of your hand?
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 20, 2013 2:06:52 GMT -5
What is the point that you think im trying to make? I think the point is that a coin, or any object, is destroyed and replaced several billion times a second at the quantum level, that the universe has no essential form at all and the entire shebang is entirely subjective... The state of matter is in relation to the state of the observer. The coin is solid in respect to the physical body, but has a frequency in respect to more sensitive forms... Schrodinger's cat was the same kind of thing, so it all ended with the wave-function of particles. Lolly,. that is really intense! And BTW has nothing to do with anything I've been discussing. On a similar vein,. say I make a cup of tea with boiling water, put it on a table and take a few steps back from the table. I can see steam coming up, but is the cup of tea hot, cold or neither? AFAIK,.. there is no model, no construct, no headgames, no trick,. just the direct experience - without referring to thoughts, beliefs or memories.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2013 2:27:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hmmm,.. I don't get it. I thought the coin thing was a variation on the Douglas Harding experiments and that it was a form of direct seeing. Could you pls explain how the coin thing is creating a mental model. "The coin thing" is a model in that you can't 'unlearn' what you already know to be so.. you can construct a model that pretends the coin only has one side, but it's an imagined story that you 'know' isn't so, it's a model used to make a point.. holding a coin in your hand, it's unlikely that you will ponder the mystery of the vanishing side, but it becomes useful to your cause to construct and convey a mental model/story about the coin and your concept of direct experience.. You can still the mind, so that what you 'believe' doesn't influence the interactions you are having with your existence, and.. the still mind doesn't conjure stories about vanishing sides of the coin, it simply pays attention to what is happening and interacts accordingly..Be well.. No, Earnest is talking about what's happening. You are talking about what's happening AND your knowledge, beliefs and memory about what's happening. Not saying you shouldn't, just saying you are.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2013 2:30:25 GMT -5
From my perspective, the discussion is currently about recognizing the difference between what you experience and what you think/believe about what you experience. And why would it be expected to be much of a difference in them? I don't know that it would be expected.
|
|