|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:09:37 GMT -5
Any name you want to give to any object that appears to you is an ideation. Yep~*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 15:15:42 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. It's also a myth, don't you think? It's basically a term that is used for bolstering some sort of argument. It basically means that it is the correct course of action and everyone knows this, but none of this needs to be supported with evidence because duh it's so obvious that you must be a pinhead to even question it. When, actually, much of what is labeled 'common sense' may have shaky underpinnings.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:26:16 GMT -5
No ... but that's not the point. Did you notice that you're asking me about what the appearance of the object means? It seems to me enlightened people give money a lot of meaning. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 20, 2013 15:29:53 GMT -5
No ... but that's not the point. Did you notice that you're asking me about what the appearance of the object means? It seems to me enlightened people give money a lot of meaning. No, they give a lot of money meaning.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 20, 2013 15:32:33 GMT -5
No, they give a lot of money meaning. so we have 'meaning' ...correct? Not sure exactly what you're getting at.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:40:29 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. It's also a myth, don't you think? It's basically a term that is used for bolstering some sort of argument. It basically means that it is the correct course of action and everyone knows this, but none of this needs to be supported with evidence because duh it's so obvious that you must be a pinhead to even question it. When, actually, much of what is labeled 'common sense' may have shaky underpinnings. Yes, on one hand, as a tool to be used in an argument it's a sign that the person wielding it has come to the end of their rope ... that the argument they're presenting is both intellectually bankrupt and potentially devoid of any useful insight. On the other hand consider what I might, if granted certain latitude, refer to as the subjective experience of ATA ... sense perception truly devoid of any ideation about that perception. In that stillness there is an underlying commonality, despite the undeniable and unequivocal fact of unique perspective. Abandoning any theory for that commonality is a sort of nice step along the way toward an embodied, non-intellectual understanding of that commonality that we might even say is a sort of prerequisite to it. The question of why you and I both see a coin or a cup, offer similar descriptions of the qualities of the objects, and can both become familiar with what they're used for and agree on that function is a question. Any answer to that question is an idea, as is the question. Actuality, is only a word, only an idea. Truly looking at what is without thought involves letting go of any idea about that commonality, and that is what is referred to by "simply be". There is no movement in this commonality as there is no mover and no background for motion to occur relative to, but there is the appearance of that. It is that appearance that we can perhaps express by the idea of common sense.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 20, 2013 15:40:43 GMT -5
Not sure exactly what you're getting at. (** muttley snicker **) Not you, too?! Heck, you probably don't even know what yer gettin' at. *snicker*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 15:45:36 GMT -5
It's also a myth, don't you think? It's basically a term that is used for bolstering some sort of argument. It basically means that it is the correct course of action and everyone knows this, but none of this needs to be supported with evidence because duh it's so obvious that you must be a pinhead to even question it. When, actually, much of what is labeled 'common sense' may have shaky underpinnings. Yes, on one hand, as a tool to be used in an argument it's a sign that the person wielding it has come to the end of their rope ... that the argument they're presenting is both intellectually bankrupt and potentially devoid of any useful insight. On the other hand consider the subjective experience of ATA ... sense perception truly devoid of any ideation about that perception. In that stillness there is an underlying commonality, despite the undeniable and unequivocal fact of unique perspective. Abandoning any theory for that commonality is a sort of nice step along the way toward an embodied, non-intellectual understanding of that commonality that we might even say is a sort of prerequisite to it. The question of why you and I both see a coin or a cup, offer similar descriptions of the qualities of the objects, and can both become familiar with what they're used for and agree on that function is a question. Any answer to that question is an idea, as is the question. Actuality, is only a word, only an idea. Truly looking at what is without thought involves letting go of any idea about that commonality, and that is what is referred to by "simply be". There is no movement in this commonality as there is no mover and no background for motion to occur relative to, but there is the appearance of that. It is that appearance that we can perhaps express by the idea of common sense. Sounds a lot like letting go all of all beliefs and attachments, still the mind yada yada...common sense is the new still mind?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 20, 2013 15:46:54 GMT -5
It's also a myth, don't you think? It's basically a term that is used for bolstering some sort of argument. It basically means that it is the correct course of action and everyone knows this, but none of this needs to be supported with evidence because duh it's so obvious that you must be a pinhead to even question it. When, actually, much of what is labeled 'common sense' may have shaky underpinnings. Yes, on one hand, as a tool to be used in an argument it's a sign that the person wielding it has come to the end of their rope ... that the argument they're presenting is both intellectually bankrupt and potentially devoid of any useful insight. On the other hand consider the subjective experience of ATA ... sense perception truly devoid of any ideation about that perception. In that stillness there is an underlying commonality, despite the undeniable and unequivocal fact of unique perspective. Abandoning any theory for that commonality is a sort of nice step along the way toward an embodied, non-intellectual understanding of that commonality that we might even say is a sort of prerequisite to it. The question of why you and I both see a coin or a cup, offer similar descriptions of the qualities of the objects, and can both become familiar with what they're used for and agree on that function is a question. Any answer to that question is an idea, as is the question. Actuality, is only a word, only an idea. Truly looking at what is without thought involves letting go of any idea about that commonality, and that is what is referred to by "simply be". There is no movement in this commonality as there is no mover and no background for motion to occur relative to, but there is the appearance of that. It is that appearance that was can perhaps express by the idea of common sense. That just seems like your own defense mechanisms coming into pay -- fighting against common sense -- Tbh in my lifetime, I've rarely seen anyone use the common-sense as a ploy as it were. i think you are getting a little paranoid -- like worried about winning one for the gipper or giffer or whatever. Anyone who would use common sense as a ploy I think would be instantaneously recognized for the fallacy that it is. Just sayin' If I've misconstrued any of what you said, Im ready for my pie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 15:51:25 GMT -5
Anyone who would use common sense as a ploy I think would be instantaneously recognized for the fallacy that it is. Just sayin' If I've misconstrued any of what you said, Im ready for my pie.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:53:25 GMT -5
Yes, on one hand, as a tool to be used in an argument it's a sign that the person wielding it has come to the end of their rope ... that the argument they're presenting is both intellectually bankrupt and potentially devoid of any useful insight. On the other hand consider the subjective experience of ATA ... sense perception truly devoid of any ideation about that perception. In that stillness there is an underlying commonality, despite the undeniable and unequivocal fact of unique perspective. Abandoning any theory for that commonality is a sort of nice step along the way toward an embodied, non-intellectual understanding of that commonality that we might even say is a sort of prerequisite to it. The question of why you and I both see a coin or a cup, offer similar descriptions of the qualities of the objects, and can both become familiar with what they're used for and agree on that function is a question. Any answer to that question is an idea, as is the question. Actuality, is only a word, only an idea. Truly looking at what is without thought involves letting go of any idea about that commonality, and that is what is referred to by "simply be". There is no movement in this commonality as there is no mover and no background for motion to occur relative to, but there is the appearance of that. It is that appearance that we can perhaps express by the idea of common sense. Sounds a lot like letting go all of all beliefs and attachments, still the mind yada yada...common sense is the new still mind? Still mind plays through my mind the same as ATA. I take it to be a gap in the stream of conceptually-based thought. To say that it's just sense perception just doesn't quite capture it completely of course, but there is perception, and there is no abstract thought. How beliefs and attachments relate to that isn't really all that simple or straightforward, and if it was that easy to simply just drop them on the urge to do so then I would imagine that there would be no debate on this forum, no industry in psycotropics, and any search for books on spirituality on Amazon would come back empty.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 15:57:56 GMT -5
Yes, on one hand, as a tool to be used in an argument it's a sign that the person wielding it has come to the end of their rope ... that the argument they're presenting is both intellectually bankrupt and potentially devoid of any useful insight. On the other hand consider the subjective experience of ATA ... sense perception truly devoid of any ideation about that perception. In that stillness there is an underlying commonality, despite the undeniable and unequivocal fact of unique perspective. Abandoning any theory for that commonality is a sort of nice step along the way toward an embodied, non-intellectual understanding of that commonality that we might even say is a sort of prerequisite to it. The question of why you and I both see a coin or a cup, offer similar descriptions of the qualities of the objects, and can both become familiar with what they're used for and agree on that function is a question. Any answer to that question is an idea, as is the question. Actuality, is only a word, only an idea. Truly looking at what is without thought involves letting go of any idea about that commonality, and that is what is referred to by "simply be". There is no movement in this commonality as there is no mover and no background for motion to occur relative to, but there is the appearance of that. It is that appearance that was can perhaps express by the idea of common sense. That just seems like your own defense mechanisms coming into pay -- fighting against common sense -- Tbh in my lifetime, I've rarely seen anyone use the common-sense as a ploy as it were. i think you are getting a little paranoid -- like worried about winning one for the gipper or giffer or whatever. Anyone who would use common sense as a ploy I think would be instantaneously recognized for the fallacy that it is. Just sayin' If I've misconstrued any of what you said, Im ready for my pie. What it comes down to is that there are some ideas that point away from ideas. Other ideas that don't. Commonsense is one of those ideas that's tricky, in that it seems to point away from ideas, but it's actually the opposite. Would you consider: "Why would I call that anything other than a cup?", "of course a coin has the other side, why would I think that just because I can't see it?" to be commonsense?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 16:00:51 GMT -5
Yes, on one hand, as a tool to be used in an argument it's a sign that the person wielding it has come to the end of their rope ... that the argument they're presenting is both intellectually bankrupt and potentially devoid of any useful insight. On the other hand consider the subjective experience of ATA ... sense perception truly devoid of any ideation about that perception. In that stillness there is an underlying commonality, despite the undeniable and unequivocal fact of unique perspective. Abandoning any theory for that commonality is a sort of nice step along the way toward an embodied, non-intellectual understanding of that commonality that we might even say is a sort of prerequisite to it. The question of why you and I both see a coin or a cup, offer similar descriptions of the qualities of the objects, and can both become familiar with what they're used for and agree on that function is a question. Any answer to that question is an idea, as is the question. Actuality, is only a word, only an idea. Truly looking at what is without thought involves letting go of any idea about that commonality, and that is what is referred to by "simply be". There is no movement in this commonality as there is no mover and no background for motion to occur relative to, but there is the appearance of that. It is that appearance that was can perhaps express by the idea of common sense. That just seems like your own defense mechanisms coming into pay -- fighting against common sense -- Tbh in my lifetime, I've rarely seen anyone use the common-sense as a ploy as it were. i think you are getting a little paranoid -- like worried about winning one for the gipper or giffer or whatever. Anyone who would use common sense as a ploy I think would be instantaneously recognized for the fallacy that it is. Just sayin' If I've misconstrued any of what you said, Im ready for my pie. Actually hun', I'm using commonsense as an offensive weapon here .
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 20, 2013 16:06:32 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.. Tzu,. either you're not telling the truth, or you have some fundamental issues with how you perceive the world. Tea only has a temperature when you take a sip. When its on the table in front of you, or across the room, or in another country,. you can't perceive the temperature. To say that its hot/cold/whatever, you need to go back to thoughts. There is nothing wrong with that, but its not what you are directly experiencing through your senses. A lemon is bitter when you bite it, dog shit smells when you sniff it. You yourself have argued a similar point about the painting above the computer in your room. No one (unless they are some kind of remote viewing freak) can tell you what it is. This is no different to perceiving the reverse side of a coin etc etc etc. "the direct experience has no reference to advance to the imagining of there being no side to the coin.. " All I see is you disappearing further and further into mental abstractions and story-land to try and maintain your view of the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 16:09:48 GMT -5
dog nuts smells when you sniff it. Oh really? Are you one of those dog whisperers, able to 'speak their language'?
|
|