|
Post by lolly on Nov 20, 2013 4:02:39 GMT -5
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? No, just a slight textural sensation.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2013 6:51:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. 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. The experiencer, the experiencer's knowledge, and the experience are what is actually happening, they are united and integrated by the experience happening, AND the experiencer is also separate from the happening.. that separation is made clear by the differing understandings of the same experience.. the voodoo man works his voodoo on those who have been conditioned/integrated into that belief, but to the person 'separate from' that culture/belief the voodoo has no effect.. I agree with Earnest's portrayal of his imagining, what i am trying to communicate is that in Earnest's 'description' of his experience with the coin, he reveals that his knowledge is in play.. the direct experience has no reference to advance to the imagining of there being no side to the coin.. from direct experience the experiencer simply acts accordingly, without conjuring a story about vanishing sides, the story is Earnest's application of knowledge and belief.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 20, 2013 7:12:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. The experiencer, the experiencer's knowledge, and the experience are what is actually happening, they are united and integrated by the experience happening, AND the experiencer is also separate from the happening.. that separation is made clear by the differing understandings of the same experience.. the voodoo man works his voodoo on those who have been conditioned/integrated into that belief, but to the person 'separate from' that culture/belief the voodoo has no effect.. I agree with Earnest's portrayal of his imagining, what i am trying to communicate is that in Earnest's 'description' of his experience with the coin, he reveals that his knowledge is in play.. the direct experience has no reference to advance to the imagining of there being no side to the coin.. from direct experience the experiencer simply acts accordingly, without conjuring a story about vanishing sides, the story is Earnest's application of knowledge and belief.. Be well.. Yeah, I get what Earnest is saying and I see it as a valuable experiment, but I get what you are saying there also. In a sense, first we have to acknowledge the coin, to then test to see what the sensory experience only of it is. In every day experience, the experience is such that we experience a 'coin', in the same way that we do experience 'people' even though we can look in different ways and from different angles and no longer find 'people'. As to what constitutes direct experience, I guess its a matter of definition...I can see it from both sides there and I can also see that in one way, there is only ever direct experience. Can you see the value in the experiment Tzu?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2013 7:37:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The experiencer, the experiencer's knowledge, and the experience are what is actually happening, they are united and integrated by the experience happening, AND the experiencer is also separate from the happening.. that separation is made clear by the differing understandings of the same experience.. the voodoo man works his voodoo on those who have been conditioned/integrated into that belief, but to the person 'separate from' that culture/belief the voodoo has no effect.. I agree with Earnest's portrayal of his imagining, what i am trying to communicate is that in Earnest's 'description' of his experience with the coin, he reveals that his knowledge is in play.. the direct experience has no reference to advance to the imagining of there being no side to the coin.. from direct experience the experiencer simply acts accordingly, without conjuring a story about vanishing sides, the story is Earnest's application of knowledge and belief.. Be well.. Yeah, I get what Earnest is saying and I see it as a valuable experiment, but I get what you are saying there also. In a sense, first we have to acknowledge the coin, to then test to see what the sensory experience only of it is. In every day experience, the experience is such that we experience a 'coin', in the same way that we do experience 'people' even though we can look in different ways and from different angles and no longer find 'people'. As to what constitutes direct experience, I guess its a matter of definition...I can see it from both sides there and I can also see that in one way, there is only ever direct experience. Can you see the value in the experiment Tzu? Yes.. as long as the 'illusion' is not used to promote ever greater illusions.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 20, 2013 10:51:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yeah, I get what Earnest is saying and I see it as a valuable experiment, but I get what you are saying there also. In a sense, first we have to acknowledge the coin, to then test to see what the sensory experience only of it is. In every day experience, the experience is such that we experience a 'coin', in the same way that we do experience 'people' even though we can look in different ways and from different angles and no longer find 'people'. As to what constitutes direct experience, I guess its a matter of definition...I can see it from both sides there and I can also see that in one way, there is only ever direct experience. Can you see the value in the experiment Tzu? Yes.. as long as the 'illusion' is not used to promote ever greater illusions.. Be well.. yes, understood.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2013 10:52:28 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. The experiencer, the experiencer's knowledge, and the experience are what is actually happening, they are united and integrated by the experience happening, AND the experiencer is also separate from the happening.. that separation is made clear by the differing understandings of the same experience.. the voodoo man works his voodoo on those who have been conditioned/integrated into that belief, but to the person 'separate from' that culture/belief the voodoo has no effect.. I agree with Earnest's portrayal of his imagining, what i am trying to communicate is that in Earnest's 'description' of his experience with the coin, he reveals that his knowledge is in play.. the direct experience has no reference to advance to the imagining of there being no side to the coin.. from direct experience the experiencer simply acts accordingly, without conjuring a story about vanishing sides, the story is Earnest's application of knowledge and belief.. Be well.. So the experiencers knowledge is part of what's actually happening, but the application of that knowledge is not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 13:24:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. The experiencer, the experiencer's knowledge, and the experience are what is actually happening, they are united and integrated by the experience happening, AND the experiencer is also separate from the happening.. that separation is made clear by the differing understandings of the same experience.. the voodoo man works his voodoo on those who have been conditioned/integrated into that belief, but to the person 'separate from' that culture/belief the voodoo has no effect.. I agree with Earnest's portrayal of his imagining, what i am trying to communicate is that in Earnest's 'description' of his experience with the coin, he reveals that his knowledge is in play.. the direct experience has no reference to advance to the imagining of there being no side to the coin.. from direct experience the experiencer simply acts accordingly, without conjuring a story about vanishing sides, the story is Earnest's application of knowledge and belief.. Be well.. An experiencer and it's knowledge are just another way for the dream seeker to avoid simply Being. Trying to Understand or develop Clarity about ones own nature is a dualistic concept that keeps seekers on the path to enlightenment.... There is no one who is an experiencer, All's there is 'IS BEING'....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 14:28:25 GMT -5
An experiencer and it's knowledge are just another way for the dream seeker to avoid simply Being. Trying to Understand or develop Clarity about ones own nature is a dualistic concept that keeps seekers on the path to enlightenment.... There is no one who is an experiencer, All's there is 'IS BEING'.... So nobody is there to be greedy? Greediness is both unreal and real. Greediness arises (real) but there is no person(unreal) being greedy. There is just Freedom pretending to be greedy. There has never been a you or me who has ever been greedy...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 14:45:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. The experiencer, the experiencer's knowledge, and the experience are what is actually happening, they are united and integrated by the experience happening, AND the experiencer is also separate from the happening.. that separation is made clear by the differing understandings of the same experience.. the voodoo man works his voodoo on those who have been conditioned/integrated into that belief, but to the person 'separate from' that culture/belief the voodoo has no effect.. I agree with Earnest's portrayal of his imagining, what i am trying to communicate is that in Earnest's 'description' of his experience with the coin, he reveals that his knowledge is in play.. the direct experience has no reference to advance to the imagining of there being no side to the coin.. from direct experience the experiencer simply acts accordingly, without conjuring a story about vanishing sides, the story is Earnest's application of knowledge and belief.. Be well.. So the experiencers knowledge is part of what's actually happening, but the application of that knowledge is not? Actually that he'd even include the experiencer's knowledge in that list is all ya' need to know about Tzuth. To define the experiencer in terms of the experience is a recursive tangled hierarchy. The root of this is, of course, ironically ... oneness! In Tzuth, "oneness" is "What's happening". But the bottom line is that all of this minding based on a circular definition ("the experiencer's experience") is all just map-making, model ship building ... and as been pointed out to Tzu' over and over again, based on how he reacts to what other's write, it sure seems as though he takes these ideas about reality for reality itself. Based on what he writes, it sounds as though he takes what appears to him as actuality.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 20, 2013 14:52:34 GMT -5
Haha! Actually laughed out loud with that. Everything you said is true, though. It's just another version of "If x were really y, then I could be happy." Then to ask, "What are you doing to make y happen?" completes the diversionary tactic and off we go. So are you greedy? Sure, about some things. No about others. This question can keep you busy interminably. Is that your plan?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:00:24 GMT -5
Actually that he'd even include the experiencer's knowledge in that list is all ya' need to know about Tzuth. To define the experiencer in terms of the experience is a recursive tangled hierarchy. The root of this is, of course, ironically ... oneness! In Tzuth, "oneness" is "What's happening". But the bottom line is that all of this minding based on a circular definition ("the experiencer's experience") is all just map-making, model ship building ... and as been pointed out to Tzu' over and over again, based on how he reacts to what other's write, it sure seems as though he takes these ideas about reality for reality itself. Based on what he writes, it sounds as though he takes what appears to him as actuality. All I see him saying is if one sees a cup it is a cup. No matter if the mind is still or moving it is a cup. Ask any enlightened one "is this a dallor bill" and he will say, "yes!" Any name you want to give to any object that appears to you is an ideation.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 20, 2013 15:02:38 GMT -5
All I see him saying is if one sees a cup it is a cup. No matter if the mind is still or moving it is a cup. Ask any enlightened one "is this a dallor bill" and he will say, "yes!" Any name you want to give to any object that appears to you is an ideation. Yep~*
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:04:19 GMT -5
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. Better yet, rather than you making the brew ... you turn a corner open a door and see a steaming cup on a table in front of you. The liquid is brown ... it looks like tea. Could be liquid nitrogen.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:06:14 GMT -5
Any name you want to give to any object that appears to you is an ideation. If I could name the cup anything, does that mean it's not a cup? No ... but that's not the point. Did you notice that you're asking me about what the appearance of the object means?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:08:50 GMT -5
Common sense is an incredibly useful tool for navigating in and coping with the world.
Notice that the word "Common" refers to a consensus.
|
|