|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 20:56:41 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Nov 12, 2013 20:56:41 GMT -5
Over the course of reading some of what's on that website lolly posted, something dawned on me. Considering the fact that what I previously took to be fact being in reality uncertain, there are no means available to fully ascertain the nature of myself. And continuing to try is pointless. Attend the Actual. For some reason I placed emphasis on actual, and defined actual as my sensory perceptions. But my sensory perceptions (just gonna type SPs from now on) are just as reliable or unreliable as my thoughts and memories. There is no 'this' to compare to 'that' because it's all subjective to begin with, leaving only SPs that break down into 'this' making up what is. Holy horsenuts, Robin, I think we're onto something. Correct me if I sound out of line.. Whatever you take actuality to be, in terms of the conception of it, will be ever incomplete. FWIW, in my experience, SP's certainly seem sort of sharper, clearer ... less obscured when I follow the prescription to ATA. That we are discussing the relationship between actuality and SP to begin with is just an artifact of the inherent limitation of a given body/mind. This idea of a relationship is an idea, and in that, we can see that it is not what is attended in ATA. It sounds like you're going in a different direction than me. I'm not interested in defining things, I was pointing out a misconception I held. The point I was trying to make is what 'Joe Bauers' said: "This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about." And that because sensory perception is no longer an 'acceptable' method (not that I'm saying there IS an acceptable method) of figuring out the 'who am I' game, there no longer appears to be a way to figure it out. There is only what is doing what it does. Meaning I'm the biggest tard of all time.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 21:01:17 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2013 21:01:17 GMT -5
Whatever you take actuality to be, in terms of the conception of it, will be ever incomplete. FWIW, in my experience, SP's certainly seem sort of sharper, clearer ... less obscured when I follow the prescription to ATA. That we are discussing the relationship between actuality and SP to begin with is just an artifact of the inherent limitation of a given body/mind. This idea of a relationship is an idea, and in that, we can see that it is not what is attended in ATA. It sounds like you're going in a different direction than me. I'm not interested in defining things, I was pointing out a misconception I held. The point I was trying to make is what 'Joe Bauers' said: "This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about." And that because sensory perception is no longer an 'acceptable' method (not that I'm saying there IS an acceptable method) of figuring out the 'who am I' game, there no longer appears to be a way to figure it out. There is only what is doing what it does. Meaning I'm the biggest tard of all time. I don't see that difference in direction based on what you've written there -- I understood the misconception you've described, and am in a agreement and have no critique of that part of what Joey_Q wrote. The point I was making is that there's no other conception to replace the misconception with. There's nothing to be retarded from.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 12, 2013 21:17:58 GMT -5
Post by silence on Nov 12, 2013 21:17:58 GMT -5
Over the course of reading some of what's on that website lolly posted, something dawned on me. Considering the fact that what I previously took to be fact being in reality uncertain, there are no means available to fully ascertain the nature of myself. And continuing to try is pointless. Attend the Actual. For some reason I placed emphasis on actual, and defined actual as my sensory perceptions. But my sensory perceptions (just gonna type SPs from now on) are just as reliable or unreliable as my thoughts and memories. There is no 'this' to compare to 'that' because it's all subjective to begin with, leaving only SPs that break down into 'this' making up what is. Holy horsenuts, Robin, I think we're onto something. Correct me if I sound out of line.. That's the thing. Your sensory perceptions aren't functioning separately from your thoughts and memories to begin with. You hear a bird chirp and you instantly through the process of thought and prior memories recognize what that sound is and form an experience of hearing a bird chirp. It is accurate in the sense that you have not had some malfunction and identified the sound as a diesel truck but it is irrelevant in terms of what is actual or real. There's no real vs. unreal to pit against each other.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 1:33:55 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 1:33:55 GMT -5
Over the course of reading some of what's on that website lolly posted, something dawned on me. Considering the fact that what I previously took to be fact being in reality uncertain, there are no means available to fully ascertain the nature of myself. And continuing to try is pointless. Attend the Actual. For some reason I placed emphasis on actual, and defined actual as my sensory perceptions. But my sensory perceptions (just gonna type SPs from now on) are just as reliable or unreliable as my thoughts and memories. There is no 'this' to compare to 'that' because it's all subjective to begin with, leaving only SPs that break down into 'this' making up what is. Holy horsenuts, Robin, I think we're onto something. Correct me if I sound out of line.. Yes, this is the difficulty I have with terms like 'reality' and 'what is' and 'actual' and such, and why I rarely use those terms. There is nothing solid under our alleged feet; no foundation, which is why I talk about it all collapsing into a little greasy spot. Still, there may be value in differentiating between what we see, and what we think about what we see. Not because what we see is any more solid than what we think, but because what we think about it is another meta-reality layered on top of the sensing, and it's in this meta-reality that problems arise that lead to suffering. IOW, the bodily senses are not causing psychological suffering. As such, how 'actual' that experience is, isn't particularly relevant. It is, however, imagination right from the start. The time/space framework in which everything else we experience is placed, is created in the mind.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 1:45:14 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 1:45:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's like he says, 'the blue jeans I'm wearing are not suitable for a formal dinner, but of course this is not a formal dinner', to which you replay, 'Are you okay with not suitable'? Your words look like a purposeful distortion. Are they? No.. it's a curiosity about the ethics of an activist moderator.. your question looks like a purposeful attempt to influence the perceptions of others, creating the illusion that i might distort Laughter's words, is it? Be well.. A more aggressive level of discussion is permissible in non-NAT's, and I see value in it in terms of direct, honest, open communication. Why would you challenge the ethics of a moderator who adhere's to those guidelines? Regardless, what I was challenging was the way you did it, and I've already adequately described that. You are, of course, free to distract from that challenge by trying to make it appear that I'm being manipulative instead of you.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 1:48:28 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 1:48:28 GMT -5
Whatever you take actuality to be, in terms of the conception of it, will be ever incomplete. FWIW, in my experience, SP's certainly seem sort of sharper, clearer ... less obscured when I follow the prescription to ATA. That we are discussing the relationship between actuality and SP to begin with is just an artifact of the inherent limitation of a given body/mind. This idea of a relationship is an idea, and in that, we can see that it is not what is attended in ATA. It sounds like you're going in a different direction than me. I'm not interested in defining things, I was pointing out a misconception I held. The point I was trying to make is what 'Joe Bauers' said: "This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about." And that because sensory perception is no longer an 'acceptable' method (not that I'm saying there IS an acceptable method) of figuring out the 'who am I' game, there no longer appears to be a way to figure it out. There is only what is doing what it does. Meaning I'm the biggest tard of all time.But you can't really know that's what you are, right?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 2:00:17 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 2:00:17 GMT -5
It sounds like you're going in a different direction than me. I'm not interested in defining things, I was pointing out a misconception I held. The point I was trying to make is what 'Joe Bauers' said: "This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about." And that because sensory perception is no longer an 'acceptable' method (not that I'm saying there IS an acceptable method) of figuring out the 'who am I' game, there no longer appears to be a way to figure it out. There is only what is doing what it does. Meaning I'm the biggest tard of all time. I don't see that difference in direction based on what you've written there -- I understood the misconception you've described, and am in a agreement and have no critique of that part of what Joey_Q wrote. The point I was making is that there's no other conception to replace the misconception with. There's nothing to be retarded from. No right answers. UG used to tell the peeps that would invite him to dinner that the only purpose in asking him questions was to perpetuate the asker. That the questions came out of preferred answers, and there was no interest in any answer other than the one that caused the question. He repeatedly told them he had nothing at all to offer them and they should go away. Hehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 2:02:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 2:02:29 GMT -5
Whatever you take actuality to be, in terms of the conception of it, will be ever incomplete. FWIW, in my experience, SP's certainly seem sort of sharper, clearer ... less obscured when I follow the prescription to ATA. That we are discussing the relationship between actuality and SP to begin with is just an artifact of the inherent limitation of a given body/mind. This idea of a relationship is an idea, and in that, we can see that it is not what is attended in ATA. It sounds like you're going in a different direction than me. I'm not interested in defining things, I was pointing out a misconception I held. The point I was trying to make is what 'Joe Bauers' said: "This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about." And that because sensory perception is no longer an 'acceptable' method (not that I'm saying there IS an acceptable method) of figuring out the 'who am I' game, there no longer appears to be a way to figure it out. There is only what is doing what it does. Meaning I'm the biggest tard of all time. These threads are kinda converging :-) spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/160901
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 2:24:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 2:24:15 GMT -5
Mamza I'm kinda interested in more details about how this realization came to you?
What was going on, what were you doing just before during and after the realization?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 6:39:40 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 13, 2013 6:39:40 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. No.. it's a curiosity about the ethics of an activist moderator.. your question looks like a purposeful attempt to influence the perceptions of others, creating the illusion that i might distort Laughter's words, is it? Be well.. A more aggressive level of discussion is permissible in non-NAT's, and I see value in it in terms of direct, honest, open communication. Why would you challenge the ethics of a moderator who adhere's to those guidelines? Regardless, what I was challenging was the way you did it, and I've already adequately described that. You are, of course, free to distract from that challenge by trying to make it appear that I'm being manipulative instead of you. That's the challenge, are you so infatuated with boorish behavior that you cannot engage in direct open and honest discussion without that level of illusion? I challenge a moderator who contributes to the illusion being perpetrated, where the message is oneness, but the deeds are divisive and self-fulfilling, revealing his attachment to divisiveness and creating conflict.. you know, the same tactics you use under the guise of 'helping' others agree with your version of 'truth'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 10:20:01 GMT -5
Post by silence on Nov 13, 2013 10:20:01 GMT -5
Mamza I'm kinda interested in more details about how this realization came to you? What was going on, what were you doing just before during and after the realization? Taking a hallucinogen will do the trick if there was ever any doubt.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 10:21:18 GMT -5
Post by silence on Nov 13, 2013 10:21:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. A more aggressive level of discussion is permissible in non-NAT's, and I see value in it in terms of direct, honest, open communication. Why would you challenge the ethics of a moderator who adhere's to those guidelines? Regardless, what I was challenging was the way you did it, and I've already adequately described that. You are, of course, free to distract from that challenge by trying to make it appear that I'm being manipulative instead of you. That's the challenge, are you so infatuated with boorish behavior that you cannot engage in direct open and honest discussion without that level of illusion? I challenge a moderator who contributes to the illusion being perpetrated, where the message is oneness, but the deeds are divisive and self-fulfilling, revealing his attachment to divisiveness and creating conflict.. you know, the same tactics you use under the guise of 'helping' others agree with your version of 'truth'.. Be well.. You actually talk about oneness 10x more than anyone here. It's the same story line that played out with Arisha.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 13:57:40 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 13:57:40 GMT -5
Greetings.. A more aggressive level of discussion is permissible in non-NAT's, and I see value in it in terms of direct, honest, open communication. Why would you challenge the ethics of a moderator who adhere's to those guidelines? Regardless, what I was challenging was the way you did it, and I've already adequately described that. You are, of course, free to distract from that challenge by trying to make it appear that I'm being manipulative instead of you. That's the challenge, are you so infatuated with boorish behavior that you cannot engage in direct open and honest discussion without that level of illusion?I challenge a moderator who contributes to the illusion being perpetrated, where the message is oneness, but the deeds are divisive and self-fulfilling, revealing his attachment to divisiveness and creating conflict.. you know, the same tactics you use under the guise of 'helping' others agree with your version of 'truth'.. What you say here would be considered attack on the NAT's, and moved. So apparently that question is for you. How would you answer it?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 13, 2013 18:23:44 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Nov 13, 2013 18:23:44 GMT -5
Mamza I'm kinda interested in more details about how this realization came to you? What was going on, what were you doing just before during and after the realization? I dunno. It just popped up. Shubam, there it is. I think I was just reading over responses to my initial question in this thread. Assuming Mr. Bauer is Q as I'm now inclined to believe because the word qualia popped up, his response was pretty much how I felt about it. Q has a more advanced intellect than me though, and put it into words that helped realign the blocks in my brain. Been there. It might, it might not. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Hard to remember afterward though.
|
|