|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 20:33:22 GMT -5
Post by silence on Nov 22, 2013 20:33:22 GMT -5
If anything survives it is doubt. At some point doubt is applied to absolute certainty. Maybe that's when the laugh happens. Doubt is a conceptual movement of mind just as knowing about something is. The type of certainty that gets talked about doesn't leave any room for doubt. It's a type of certainty that vanquishes both knowing and doubt.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 20:41:49 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 20:41:49 GMT -5
If anything survives it is doubt. At some point doubt is applied to absolute certainty. Maybe that's when the laugh happens. Doubt is a conceptual movement of mind just as knowing about something is. The type of certainty that gets talked about doesn't leave any room for doubt. It's a type of certainty that vanquishes both knowing and doubt. like maxy said ... it's when the laugh happens.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 22:08:45 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 22, 2013 22:08:45 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Max: I'm not interested in 'redefining' reality.. But here's how you opened our conversation: Great! So, rather than 'the' definition of reality, i'm more inclined to accept the Wiki condensed version, as 'a' definition, leaving open the opportunity for revisions as we explore that definition's relationship with 'isness'.. I think that's where my misunderstanding was. Not a big deal. When you say this: -- the difference between thinking and being comes to mind. It's like maybe someone ponders out loud "what is reality?" and someone else just *pulls up a chair* or *takes a swig of coffee*. The point is that "reality" and the attempt to define it just brings stirs up a hot mess of concepts. As I understand what you say, questioning reality is just mind play. There's nothing wrong with that per se. It's play. I see no contradiction in what you and I are saying. There's no problem calling something 'just an appearance.' It's factually true and not very profound. And it has no impact, as you point out, on being...*pulls up a chair*. Well see here's where we may differ. Stating that "the 'chair' actually exists as a 'chair'" and basing that statement on an argument of the consistency of an object's function or whatever, is a philosophical argument. If you want to go that route, there's lots of philosophizing to be done. I'm mildly interested but time poor. Lots of text has been spilled on that stuff, dissertations collecting dust. Your still mind thing is much more interesting. *pulls up a chair* is that. The philosophizing and making statements is a different activity. [soapbox]"Common sense" is a term that has different meanings to different people. It's used all the time by politicians, for example. Usually it means something like "I'm right and they're wrong and it's so obvious that I don't need to say anything more about it." Studies have been done and shown that CS has no bearing whatsoever on reality (!). It's just a label used by folks to express a feeling of righteousness. Some folks think of it as like Ye Old Farmer's Almanac. Oh yes the grasshoppers chirped early this Summer so that means we'll have an especially harsh Winter. Or maybe it is a straight up reference to the 5 senses, which every one can access. Or maybe it's meant as an intuitive feeling akin to BS detection, a nagging sense that something ain't right. [/soapbox] How are you using the term? Pulling up a chair to T-giving dinner is a different kettle of fish than pondering the thought experiment of the coin. The latter is a philosophical exercise, the former is an action performed by the body to get closer to food. The 'former' is common sense, the latter is mind-play.. the former generally happens without engaging the mind in existential thoughts about 'pulling up a chair', because pulling up a chair simply happens, it 'works' as a self-evident result of the happening.. mind-play is engaged when some measure of belief is employed in the conveyance of concepts 'as if' those concepts simply worked, those concepts are not self-evident.. Please don't mistake my openness to revising my understanding of reality, based on experiential information, as equating with 'redefining' reality.. The 'still mind' functions in 'unison with' what is happening, since it has suspended the 'thinking' that would create illusions/appearances about what is happening, and.. the illusions/appearances confuse the experiencer's awareness of the options/choices and so conflict arises, within the experiencer's understanding and about what the experiencer 'thinks' they are perceiving.. the still mind sees what is happening and acts accordingly, rather than consulting with its beliefs and prejudices and preferences.. Common-sense is about what actually works, in spite of the misapplied uses of the term.. my use of the term 'common-sense' refers to that which actually works, that which is 'self-evident'.. as in the analogy of asking for a 'chair', and having a 'chair' brought to the situation that matches the request, it 'works'.. a still mind observes that functional simplicity, and when comparing it with the 'Wiki' definition of 'reality', the still mind's awareness understands no inconsistency.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 25, 2013 11:14:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 11:14:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. But here's how you opened our conversation: I think that's where my misunderstanding was. Not a big deal. When you say this: -- the difference between thinking and being comes to mind. It's like maybe someone ponders out loud "what is reality?" and someone else just *pulls up a chair* or *takes a swig of coffee*. The point is that "reality" and the attempt to define it just brings stirs up a hot mess of concepts. As I understand what you say, questioning reality is just mind play. There's nothing wrong with that per se. It's play. I see no contradiction in what you and I are saying. There's no problem calling something 'just an appearance.' It's factually true and not very profound. And it has no impact, as you point out, on being...*pulls up a chair*. Well see here's where we may differ. Stating that "the 'chair' actually exists as a 'chair'" and basing that statement on an argument of the consistency of an object's function or whatever, is a philosophical argument. If you want to go that route, there's lots of philosophizing to be done. I'm mildly interested but time poor. Lots of text has been spilled on that stuff, dissertations collecting dust. Your still mind thing is much more interesting. *pulls up a chair* is that. The philosophizing and making statements is a different activity. [soapbox]"Common sense" is a term that has different meanings to different people. It's used all the time by politicians, for example. Usually it means something like "I'm right and they're wrong and it's so obvious that I don't need to say anything more about it." Studies have been done and shown that CS has no bearing whatsoever on reality (!). It's just a label used by folks to express a feeling of righteousness. Some folks think of it as like Ye Old Farmer's Almanac. Oh yes the grasshoppers chirped early this Summer so that means we'll have an especially harsh Winter. Or maybe it is a straight up reference to the 5 senses, which every one can access. Or maybe it's meant as an intuitive feeling akin to BS detection, a nagging sense that something ain't right. [/soapbox] How are you using the term? Pulling up a chair to T-giving dinner is a different kettle of fish than pondering the thought experiment of the coin. The latter is a philosophical exercise, the former is an action performed by the body to get closer to food. The 'former' is common sense, the latter is mind-play.. the former generally happens without engaging the mind in existential thoughts about 'pulling up a chair', because pulling up a chair simply happens, it 'works' as a self-evident result of the happening.. mind-play is engaged when some measure of belief is employed in the conveyance of concepts 'as if' those concepts simply worked, those concepts are not self-evident.. Please don't mistake my openness to revising my understanding of reality, based on experiential information, as equating with 'redefining' reality.. The 'still mind' functions in 'unison with' what is happening, since it has suspended the 'thinking' that would create illusions/appearances about what is happening, and.. the illusions/appearances confuse the experiencer's awareness of the options/choices and so conflict arises, within the experiencer's understanding and about what the experiencer 'thinks' they are perceiving.. the still mind sees what is happening and acts accordingly, rather than consulting with its beliefs and prejudices and preferences.. Common-sense is about what actually works, in spite of the misapplied uses of the term.. my use of the term 'common-sense' refers to that which actually works, that which is 'self-evident'.. as in the analogy of asking for a 'chair', and having a 'chair' brought to the situation that matches the request, it 'works'.. a still mind observes that functional simplicity, and when comparing it with the 'Wiki' definition of 'reality', the still mind's awareness understands no inconsistency.. Be well.. Common sense in that usage is independent of still mind. Someone may bring a chair to the Thanksgiving Table and the mind might be awash in all sorts of drama and thinking and obsessing (in fact, that seems most likely). "It's always 'bring a chair to the table' it's never 'hey could you do me a favor? could you please bring a chair to the table?...as long as I can remember... do this do that...when will I ever be treated with respect?" Still mind chair bringer may be awash in sensations instead, the smell of the food being cooked, the chatter from the Monopoly game, the hushed argument down the hall, the football game being broadcast in the basement, the dust particles drifting through the sunbeams, the feeling of an old wood chair and its weight...."
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 25, 2013 21:09:05 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 25, 2013 21:09:05 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The 'former' is common sense, the latter is mind-play.. the former generally happens without engaging the mind in existential thoughts about 'pulling up a chair', because pulling up a chair simply happens, it 'works' as a self-evident result of the happening.. mind-play is engaged when some measure of belief is employed in the conveyance of concepts 'as if' those concepts simply worked, those concepts are not self-evident.. Please don't mistake my openness to revising my understanding of reality, based on experiential information, as equating with 'redefining' reality.. The 'still mind' functions in 'unison with' what is happening, since it has suspended the 'thinking' that would create illusions/appearances about what is happening, and.. the illusions/appearances confuse the experiencer's awareness of the options/choices and so conflict arises, within the experiencer's understanding and about what the experiencer 'thinks' they are perceiving.. the still mind sees what is happening and acts accordingly, rather than consulting with its beliefs and prejudices and preferences.. Common-sense is about what actually works, in spite of the misapplied uses of the term.. my use of the term 'common-sense' refers to that which actually works, that which is 'self-evident'.. as in the analogy of asking for a 'chair', and having a 'chair' brought to the situation that matches the request, it 'works'.. a still mind observes that functional simplicity, and when comparing it with the 'Wiki' definition of 'reality', the still mind's awareness understands no inconsistency.. Be well.. Common sense in that usage is independent of still mind. Someone may bring a chair to the Thanksgiving Table and the mind might be awash in all sorts of drama and thinking and obsessing ( in fact, that seems most likely). "It's always 'bring a chair to the table' it's never 'hey could you do me a favor? could you please bring a chair to the table?...as long as I can remember... do this do that...when will I ever be treated with respect?" Still mind chair bringer may be awash in sensations instead, the smell of the food being cooked, the chatter from the Monopoly game, the hushed argument down the hall, the football game being broadcast in the basement, the dust particles drifting through the sunbeams, the feeling of an old wood chair and its weight...." What are you imagining about common-sense and still minds? your mind went to its imagining place and conjured scenarios for a purpose that as of yet eludes me.. "in fact", you've imagined a scenario that suits your beliefs.. it 'seems' like a 'word-association' game, where a statement was made and you responded with how 'you' personally recall similar situations.. common-sense gets the chair, without attachments to drama or sensation, though those may be present.. common-sense understands the simplicity of letting go of beliefs/drama to get something done.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 26, 2013 8:52:27 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 8:52:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Common sense in that usage is independent of still mind. Someone may bring a chair to the Thanksgiving Table and the mind might be awash in all sorts of drama and thinking and obsessing ( in fact, that seems most likely). "It's always 'bring a chair to the table' it's never 'hey could you do me a favor? could you please bring a chair to the table?...as long as I can remember... do this do that...when will I ever be treated with respect?" Still mind chair bringer may be awash in sensations instead, the smell of the food being cooked, the chatter from the Monopoly game, the hushed argument down the hall, the football game being broadcast in the basement, the dust particles drifting through the sunbeams, the feeling of an old wood chair and its weight...." What are you imagining about common-sense and still minds? your mind went to its imagining place and conjured scenarios for a purpose that as of yet eludes me.. "in fact", you've imagined a scenario that suits your beliefs.. it 'seems' like a 'word-association' game, where a statement was made and you responded with how 'you' personally recall similar situations.. common-sense gets the chair, without attachments to drama or sensation, though those may be present.. common-sense understands the simplicity of letting go of beliefs/drama to get something done.. Be well.. Why did you choose to highlight those certain words? It's sort of a puzzler to me. I don't understand your last sentence either. How can common-sense understand anything? Also letting go of beliefs/drama just seems totally irrelevant to whether someone gets a chair or not. Beliefs and drama don't need to be let go of to get a chair. I suppose if you had a belief/drama about the chair being a grizzly bear?? Certainly that may hinder someone from getting a chair. The way you use common sense, as I understand it, is basically when someone does something with very little thought about that particular action. Someone asks for a chair. Chair-getter goes and gets a chair. The chair-getter employs what you call "common sense" to get the chair. No internal investigation is necessary about what the utterance 'chair' means, no discerning subatomic probability clouds...just getting the chair. The point I was bringing up is that the same chair-getter may or may not have a still mind. The mind of the chair-getter may have all sorts of thinking going on, examples of which I gave. Or the mind of chair-getter may be 'still' -- very little thinking is going on, if any. There may be just the presence of bodily stimulation but no thinking -- stillness as I understand it is a state devoid of thought (mind) but present with any physical stimulation. The reason I'm contrasting 'common sense' and 'still mind' is to try and understand what you mean by the terms. They may seem obvious to you but to me not so much. Sorry for any confusion during my attempt to understand what you mean.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 26, 2013 22:08:04 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 26, 2013 22:08:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. What are you imagining about common-sense and still minds? your mind went to its imagining place and conjured scenarios for a purpose that as of yet eludes me.. "in fact", you've imagined a scenario that suits your beliefs.. it 'seems' like a 'word-association' game, where a statement was made and you responded with how 'you' personally recall similar situations.. common-sense gets the chair, without attachments to drama or sensation, though those may be present.. common-sense understands the simplicity of letting go of beliefs/drama to get something done.. Be well.. Why did you choose to highlight those certain words? It's sort of a puzzler to me. I don't understand your last sentence either. How can common-sense understand anything? Also letting go of beliefs/drama just seems totally irrelevant to whether someone gets a chair or not. Beliefs and drama don't need to be let go of to get a chair. I suppose if you had a belief/drama about the chair being a grizzly bear?? Certainly that may hinder someone from getting a chair. The way you use common sense, as I understand it, is basically when someone does something with very little thought about that particular action. Someone asks for a chair. Chair-getter goes and gets a chair. The chair-getter employs what you call "common sense" to get the chair. No internal investigation is necessary about what the utterance 'chair' means, no discerning subatomic probability clouds...just getting the chair. The point I was bringing up is that the same chair-getter may or may not have a still mind. The mind of the chair-getter may have all sorts of thinking going on, examples of which I gave. Or the mind of chair-getter may be 'still' -- very little thinking is going on, if any. There may be just the presence of bodily stimulation but no thinking -- stillness as I understand it is a state devoid of thought (mind) but present with any physical stimulation. The reason I'm contrasting 'common sense' and 'still mind' is to try and understand what you mean by the terms. They may seem obvious to you but to me not so much. Sorry for any confusion during my attempt to understand what you mean. The words are highlighted to illustrate where i perceive 'imagining' a scenario for a purpose that doesn't seem related to common-sense or a still mind.. The 'still mind', as i understand it, is a mind not actively thinking about what it is experiencing, allowing the experience to reveal its relationship with the experiencer.. common-sense is the ability to discern what 'works' from mind-play and imagined scenarios believed to be real.. common-sense is the willingness to to let go, realizing that remains is real.. When the mind becomes still and alert, there are no beliefs, no knowings, no realizations, there is what is happening.. common-sense doesn't imagine what someone else's thoughts and motives might be, it simply asks.. and, if the answers are inconsistent with what is happening, common-sense tries to understand and resolve the inconsistency.. Common-sense 'understands' that the request to bring a chair is not a request for existential debate about what a chair 'is'.. common-sense 'understands' that imagination plays contrasting roles in the human experience, it can reveal limitless possibility, or it can trap the imaginer in a prison of illusions, and.. common-sense is not attached to a specific result, it adapts to what is actually happening, willing to let go of ideas, beliefs, wants, and knowings to see if they are real.. There is technique for catching monkeys, by putting dates into hollow gourds through hole barely larger that the date.. the monkey will reach inside and grab the date, but the hole is too small for the the monkey's hand and the date to come out.. the monkeys are so 'attached' to getting what they want, the date, that they will not let go, and they are captured.. common-sense, just let go.. Be well..
|
|