|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 10, 2014 19:40:36 GMT -5
Oh, I see. When SDP said the external reality is in us, he meant in the separate person. At least it's all in the same (limited) context. Yeah. I do think it can be worthy of some exploration, as it can come as quite a shock to realize that the internal contains the external JUST AS MUCH as the external contains the internal. Another example, a seed. sdp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 9:36:06 GMT -5
Not REALLY, no. But from the illusory point of view of a body/mind organism that contains the belief that a multiplicity and diversity of objects actually exists, it certainly SEEMS to. What about a 'body.mind' that acknowledges the actual direct experience of multiplicity AND oneness happening simultaneously, manifesting to the individuated experiencer according to where that experiencer places their attention? what about the experiencer that acknowledges what is actually happening without fitting that happening into their preferred model? Proposed: "multiplicity AND oneness happening simultaneously" = "preferred model"
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 11, 2014 17:37:26 GMT -5
What about a 'body.mind' that acknowledges the actual direct experience of multiplicity AND oneness happening simultaneously, manifesting to the individuated experiencer according to where that experiencer places their attention? what about the experiencer that acknowledges what is actually happening without fitting that happening into their preferred model? Proposed: "multiplicity AND oneness happening simultaneously" = "preferred model" Possibly.. but, i also prefer to 'let it go' in favor of a more clear understanding, so.. that would be a more clear statement of my 'preferred model', a willingness to let understandings go in favor of a more clear understanding..
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 11, 2014 19:33:55 GMT -5
Yep I was conscious of that assumption prior to the inquiry. I'd heard the idea that everything exists in awareness, but when I'd investigated it, it still seemed like objects were separate and independent. I would get occasional "flashes" of things not existing if they weren't in awareness, but there was a lot of thinking smothering the glimpses. I could test this with things like trying to see both sides of a coin. When I turn a coin over, one side vanishes as the other appears. This not being able to find things outside of awareness is part of "the weakening" that happened at the sig retreat in 2012. I can do an experiment now by closing my eyes, noticing awareness and what I can perceive visually (sparkly dark). When I open my eyes, objects burst forth and appear, but it's clear they are made of seeing, with that seeing coming from/out/in awareness, so the things in front of me, in my direct experience, are made of awareness. I'm not sure if I'd say it has been fully broken, but it's currently on much shakier ground Are you conscious now then of the new assumption that's replaced the old one? The new assumption?
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 11, 2014 19:44:32 GMT -5
Yep I was conscious of that assumption prior to the inquiry. I'd heard the idea that everything exists in awareness, but when I'd investigated it, it still seemed like objects were separate and independent. I would get occasional "flashes" of things not existing if they weren't in awareness, but there was a lot of thinking smothering the glimpses. I could test this with things like trying to see both sides of a coin. When I turn a coin over, one side vanishes as the other appears. This not being able to find things outside of awareness is part of "the weakening" that happened at the sig retreat in 2012. I can do an experiment now by closing my eyes, noticing awareness and what I can perceive visually (sparkly dark). When I open my eyes, objects burst forth and appear, but it's clear they are made of seeing, with that seeing coming from/out/in awareness, so the things in front of me, in my direct experience, are made of awareness. I'm not sure if I'd say it has been fully broken, but it's currently on much shakier ground This is why the discussion of where, if ever, experience is objective rather than subjective, becomes important. We can see that some folks see their interpretation of events as the subjective part and the event itself is somehow objective. Actually, a perceived event is already subjective, and the apparent identified objects moving through time and space external to a perceiver is a subjective conclusion and not something perceived. We don't actually know anything about all that through the act of perceiving. All we know is that appearances are apparently appearing, about which there's nothing to say without imagining all sorts of things. The rest is conjecture that has become so habitual that we have trouble seeing it as such. There's nothing wrong with imagination and stories about what is appearing, it's just that it's useful to understand where, in the process of experiencing, this begins. understood, and that's the direct experience. I notice myself oscillating between observing the flow of appearances, and then jumping into some kind of mental scramble to interpret or find meaning, then going back to just the observation - just the regular flow of observation I guess.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 21:24:00 GMT -5
Are you conscious now then of the new assumption that's replaced the old one? The new assumption? If the objects are made of awareness instead of having their own independent existence, the assumption is the opposite of the objectivist material assumption. I'm not saying that you've thought this through or go through this thought process either when you had the insight or when you revisit it as a form of practice. To be clear, countering material realism with it's opposite number can be transformative, and the only use of this analysis of it is simply to bring what is most assuredly an assumption out into the forefront so that it can be witnessed. If you're still interested I'll go on and define this opposite assumption further. Not to disparage your experience or how you've expressed your ideas, but I can also demonstrate a pair of subtle self-contradictions in what you've written in our dialog, but I'll only do that if you're interested.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 11, 2014 21:56:41 GMT -5
If the objects are made of awareness instead of having their own independent existence, the assumption is the opposite of the objectivist material assumption. I'm not saying that you've thought this through or go through this thought process either when you had the insight or when you revisit it as a form of practice. To be clear, countering material realism with it's opposite number can be transformative, and the only use of this analysis of it is simply to bring what is most assuredly an assumption out into the forefront so that it can be witnessed. If you're still interested I'll go on and define this opposite assumption further. Not to disparage your experience or how you've expressed your ideas, but I can also demonstrate a pair of subtle self-contradictions in what you've written in our dialog, but I'll only do that if you're interested. Ah ok, I get what you mean, and I don't want to just get stuck in the assumption swapping game. Very happy (and appreciative) for you to go into it further.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 22:00:34 GMT -5
This is why the discussion of where, if ever, experience is objective rather than subjective, becomes important. We can see that some folks see their interpretation of events as the subjective part and the event itself is somehow objective. Actually, a perceived event is already subjective, and the apparent identified objects moving through time and space external to a perceiver is a subjective conclusion and not something perceived. We don't actually know anything about all that through the act of perceiving. All we know is that appearances are apparently appearing, about which there's nothing to say without imagining all sorts of things. The rest is conjecture that has become so habitual that we have trouble seeing it as such. There's nothing wrong with imagination and stories about what is appearing, it's just that it's useful to understand where, in the process of experiencing, this begins. understood, and that's the direct experience. I notice myself oscillating between observing the flow of appearances, and then jumping into some kind of mental scramble to interpret or find meaning, then going back to just the observation - just the regular flow of observation I guess. If you know where the stories begin, you'll never take them quite so seriously again. The stories are fine, it's the believing in them that causes trouble.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 11, 2014 22:41:54 GMT -5
understood, and that's the direct experience. I notice myself oscillating between observing the flow of appearances, and then jumping into some kind of mental scramble to interpret or find meaning, then going back to just the observation - just the regular flow of observation I guess. If you know where the stories begin, you'll never take them quite so seriously again. The stories are fine, it's the believing in them that causes trouble. Where would you say they begin? Just arising from the same place as everything else? Ah,...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 22:52:04 GMT -5
If the objects are made of awareness instead of having their own independent existence, the assumption is the opposite of the objectivist material assumption. I'm not saying that you've thought this through or go through this thought process either when you had the insight or when you revisit it as a form of practice. To be clear, countering material realism with it's opposite number can be transformative, and the only use of this analysis of it is simply to bring what is most assuredly an assumption out into the forefront so that it can be witnessed. If you're still interested I'll go on and define this opposite assumption further. Not to disparage your experience or how you've expressed your ideas, but I can also demonstrate a pair of subtle self-contradictions in what you've written in our dialog, but I'll only do that if you're interested. Ah ok, I get what you mean, and I don't want to just get stuck in the assumption swapping game. Very happy (and appreciative) for you to go into it further. Thanks Earnie. The opposite of the materialist assumption turns objectivity inside out. In objective reality, we appear in/as matter that has an existence independent of what we are. In subjective reality, we appear in/as awareness and nothing that appears to us is independent of what we are. On one hand, you wrote that you didn't see awareness as having a creative nature: Do you have a sense that you're creating what appears to you? Not really. But in reading the OP, it struck me that the realization that the objects were made of awareness is exactly that it is awareness that is creating the objects. Likely WIBIGO imo is that in one context, in explaining the direct experience of the entanglement of yourself with what appears to you, "you" meant "the awareness that you are", while in another context, when I asked you that question point blank, you answered as Earnie the dude, the individual. Your answer is quite valid, as the concept of personal creation has a context that involves different meanings of the words attention and awareness, but creation, in the context of the way that Spira uses the word "Awareness" to point, is impersonal. Be that as it may, the point is that this assumption -- that reality is subjective -- underlies the direct experience that you describe, and I'm not referring to the assumption as an intellectual construct, but as something woven into the tapestry of our world view. While you wrote that you were previously conscious of the material assumption: Would you say that you were conscious of that assumption of materiality prior-to the inquiry? Yep I was conscious of that assumption prior to the inquiry. ... it seemed to me that you also indicated that this sometimes seems to shift in and out of focus: I'm not sure if I'd say it has been fully broken, but it's currently on much shakier ground In my experience, and from what I've learned of others, when we think of the stuff as stuff with objective existence, sometimes we're conscious of that, and sometimes we're not. Only you can say for yourself what you're conscious of, but my guess is that so it would go for the subjectivist assumption: sometimes we would be conscious that we are operating from the assumption, other times not. Neither assumption is correct, and while I'm not discouraging your inquiry or advocating that you throw away the pointer of Awareness just yet, I just want to draw to your attention that there is no model of reality, either objective or subjective, that is valid.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 12, 2014 2:06:20 GMT -5
If you know where the stories begin, you'll never take them quite so seriously again. The stories are fine, it's the believing in them that causes trouble. Where would you say they begin? Just arising from the same place as everything else? Ah,... I mean where the stories begin in the process of perceiving. Everything is mind, but not everything is thought. What you sense has a quality about it, which is strangely and wonderfully a feeling quality of sorts, but you don't know what that is. In truth, it isn't something more than that.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 15, 2014 18:16:24 GMT -5
Ah ok, I get what you mean, and I don't want to just get stuck in the assumption swapping game. Very happy (and appreciative) for you to go into it further. Thanks Earnie. The opposite of the materialist assumption turns objectivity inside out. In objective reality, we appear in/as matter that has an existence independent of what we are. In subjective reality, we appear in/as awareness and nothing that appears to us is independent of what we are. On one hand, you wrote that you didn't see awareness as having a creative nature: But in reading the OP, it struck me that the realization that the objects were made of awareness is exactly that it is awareness that is creating the objects. Likely WIBIGO imo is that in one context, in explaining the direct experience of the entanglement of yourself with what appears to you, "you" meant "the awareness that you are", while in another context, when I asked you that question point blank, you answered as Earnie the dude, the individual. Your answer is quite valid, as the concept of personal creation has a context that involves different meanings of the words attention and awareness, but creation, in the context of the way that Spira uses the word "Awareness" to point, is impersonal. Be that as it may, the point is that this assumption -- that reality is subjective -- underlies the direct experience that you describe, and I'm not referring to the assumption as an intellectual construct, but as something woven into the tapestry of our world view. While you wrote that you were previously conscious of the material assumption: Yep I was conscious of that assumption prior to the inquiry. ... it seemed to me that you also indicated that this sometimes seems to shift in and out of focus: I'm not sure if I'd say it has been fully broken, but it's currently on much shakier ground In my experience, and from what I've learned of others, when we think of the stuff as stuff with objective existence, sometimes we're conscious of that, and sometimes we're not. Only you can say for yourself what you're conscious of, but my guess is that so it would go for the subjectivist assumption: sometimes we would be conscious that we are operating from the assumption, other times not. Neither assumption is correct, and while I'm not discouraging your inquiry or advocating that you throw away the pointer of Awareness just yet, I just want to draw to your attention that there is no model of reality, either objective or subjective, that is valid. Thanks Laughter. I can see how there is a flipping between objective and subjective perspectives on things. When I was out driving yesterday and noticing things from the subjective perspective, it was a bit of "oops,.. there aren't any separate people, and if there aren't any people, it's not like there is an exception just for me ........" hmmm. re your point about do you sense that you're creating what appears - yep I was answering from the Earnie perspective. From the subjective experience, it is "me" creating reality. Eyes open and a world appears, eyes close and it disappears. The computer only gets created when I go to use it, and it vanishes when I go get a cup of tea. I can see how I can't hold on to either the subjective or objective perspective as the truth - they are both there but just different Having said that, seeing the world more subjectively (without any need to push aside or discount the objective perspective) is less effortful and taxing than the objective perspective.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 15, 2014 19:26:29 GMT -5
Thanks Earnie. The opposite of the materialist assumption turns objectivity inside out. In objective reality, we appear in/as matter that has an existence independent of what we are. In subjective reality, we appear in/as awareness and nothing that appears to us is independent of what we are. On one hand, you wrote that you didn't see awareness as having a creative nature: But in reading the OP, it struck me that the realization that the objects were made of awareness is exactly that it is awareness that is creating the objects. Likely WIBIGO imo is that in one context, in explaining the direct experience of the entanglement of yourself with what appears to you, "you" meant "the awareness that you are", while in another context, when I asked you that question point blank, you answered as Earnie the dude, the individual. Your answer is quite valid, as the concept of personal creation has a context that involves different meanings of the words attention and awareness, but creation, in the context of the way that Spira uses the word "Awareness" to point, is impersonal. Be that as it may, the point is that this assumption -- that reality is subjective -- underlies the direct experience that you describe, and I'm not referring to the assumption as an intellectual construct, but as something woven into the tapestry of our world view. While you wrote that you were previously conscious of the material assumption: ... it seemed to me that you also indicated that this sometimes seems to shift in and out of focus: In my experience, and from what I've learned of others, when we think of the stuff as stuff with objective existence, sometimes we're conscious of that, and sometimes we're not. Only you can say for yourself what you're conscious of, but my guess is that so it would go for the subjectivist assumption: sometimes we would be conscious that we are operating from the assumption, other times not. Neither assumption is correct, and while I'm not discouraging your inquiry or advocating that you throw away the pointer of Awareness just yet, I just want to draw to your attention that there is no model of reality, either objective or subjective, that is valid. Thanks Laughter. I can see how there is a flipping between objective and subjective perspectives on things. When I was out driving yesterday and noticing things from the subjective perspective, it was a bit of "oops,.. there aren't any separate people, and if there aren't any people, it's not like there is an exception just for me ........" hmmm. re your point about do you sense that you're creating what appears - yep I was answering from the Earnie perspective. From the subjective experience, it is "me" creating reality. Eyes open and a world appears, eyes close and it disappears. The computer only gets created when I go to use it, and it vanishes when I go get a cup of tea. I can see how I can't hold on to either the subjective or objective perspective as the truth - they are both there but just different Having said that, seeing the world more subjectively (without any need to push aside or discount the objective perspective) is less effortful and taxing than the objective perspective. Aye, you've been lured into the discussion about imagined conditions, supposing you don't exist or that your computer doesn't exist when you're not actually seeing it.. so, what say you when your auto is stolen and the police say, "what car, i don't see a car", it would be fitting for them to cite you for reporting the theft of something that doesn't even exist by your own admission...
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 15, 2014 20:11:03 GMT -5
Thanks Laughter. I can see how there is a flipping between objective and subjective perspectives on things. When I was out driving yesterday and noticing things from the subjective perspective, it was a bit of "oops,.. there aren't any separate people, and if there aren't any people, it's not like there is an exception just for me ........" hmmm. re your point about do you sense that you're creating what appears - yep I was answering from the Earnie perspective. From the subjective experience, it is "me" creating reality. Eyes open and a world appears, eyes close and it disappears. The computer only gets created when I go to use it, and it vanishes when I go get a cup of tea. I can see how I can't hold on to either the subjective or objective perspective as the truth - they are both there but just different Having said that, seeing the world more subjectively (without any need to push aside or discount the objective perspective) is less effortful and taxing than the objective perspective. Aye, you've been lured into the discussion about imagined conditions, supposing you don't exist or that your computer doesn't exist when you're not actually seeing it.. so, what say you when your auto is stolen and the police say, "what car, i don't see a car", it would be fitting for them to cite you for reporting the theft of something that doesn't even exist by your own admission... In my current understanding, I have no issue in acknowledging a subjective and an objective perspective. I can see why there might be a conflict between the two perspectives, but I don't feel it. If my car gets stolen, sure I'll call the cops - same-same with the million other "if this, then that" things. I haven't gone all wacko on "... like,... There is no car,.... *bong gurgle*,... Man....." I'm happy to accept that this understanding may or may not change, and I'm just gonna keep on exploring for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 20:48:00 GMT -5
Thanks Earnie. The opposite of the materialist assumption turns objectivity inside out. In objective reality, we appear in/as matter that has an existence independent of what we are. In subjective reality, we appear in/as awareness and nothing that appears to us is independent of what we are. On one hand, you wrote that you didn't see awareness as having a creative nature: But in reading the OP, it struck me that the realization that the objects were made of awareness is exactly that it is awareness that is creating the objects. Likely WIBIGO imo is that in one context, in explaining the direct experience of the entanglement of yourself with what appears to you, "you" meant "the awareness that you are", while in another context, when I asked you that question point blank, you answered as Earnie the dude, the individual. Your answer is quite valid, as the concept of personal creation has a context that involves different meanings of the words attention and awareness, but creation, in the context of the way that Spira uses the word "Awareness" to point, is impersonal. Be that as it may, the point is that this assumption -- that reality is subjective -- underlies the direct experience that you describe, and I'm not referring to the assumption as an intellectual construct, but as something woven into the tapestry of our world view. While you wrote that you were previously conscious of the material assumption: ... it seemed to me that you also indicated that this sometimes seems to shift in and out of focus: In my experience, and from what I've learned of others, when we think of the stuff as stuff with objective existence, sometimes we're conscious of that, and sometimes we're not. Only you can say for yourself what you're conscious of, but my guess is that so it would go for the subjectivist assumption: sometimes we would be conscious that we are operating from the assumption, other times not. Neither assumption is correct, and while I'm not discouraging your inquiry or advocating that you throw away the pointer of Awareness just yet, I just want to draw to your attention that there is no model of reality, either objective or subjective, that is valid. Thanks Laughter. I can see how there is a flipping between objective and subjective perspectives on things. When I was out driving yesterday and noticing things from the subjective perspective, it was a bit of "oops,.. there aren't any separate people, and if there aren't any people, it's not like there is an exception just for me ........" hmmm. re your point about do you sense that you're creating what appears - yep I was answering from the Earnie perspective. From the subjective experience, it is "me" creating reality. Eyes open and a world appears, eyes close and it disappears. The computer only gets created when I go to use it, and it vanishes when I go get a cup of tea. I can see how I can't hold on to either the subjective or objective perspective as the truth - they are both there but just different Having said that, seeing the world more subjectively (without any need to push aside or discount the objective perspective) is less effortful and taxing than the objective perspective. Thanks for the pleasant chat Earnie.
|
|