Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2015 4:42:18 GMT -5
I understand perfectly. You feel it necessary to construct your language as you do. It ain't English man, and you know it. If you understood perfectly, then I wasn't speaking in Urdu! I'm more than capable of looking deeper than the qualia. And you've lost your native language my son.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 18, 2015 4:46:36 GMT -5
If you understood perfectly, then I wasn't speaking in Urdu! I'm more than capable of looking deeper than the qualia. And you've lost your native language my son. I didn't suggest that you or anyone else aren't capable of looking deeper than qualia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2015 5:16:59 GMT -5
I'm more than capable of looking deeper than the qualia. And you've lost your native language my son. I didn't suggest that you or anyone else aren't capable of looking deeper than qualia. Are we at your boundary then.. ? "..there seems to me to be something deeper than qualia."
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on Apr 18, 2015 6:21:47 GMT -5
andrew,
No, I didn't tell there is no organism. I told mind conceptually cuts inseparable integral direct experience to discret parts, one of those has a label "organism". So, there is that, what is named "organism", but there is no separate object as "organism", because it's the way of describing, and not the way of existing! What is "love" for you? Seems, you again separate relative parts of experience (love, smell, color) and then try to attach this concepts to each other. And again, I mean direct experience is not how it's look like through prism of mind. There is no separate parts in direct experience. Separate parts are only the concepts, which are just thoughts and which are necessary for describing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 18, 2015 6:34:12 GMT -5
I didn't suggest that you or anyone else aren't capable of looking deeper than qualia. Are we at your boundary then.. ? "..there seems to me to be something deeper than qualia."
Yes there does seem to me to be something deeper, though I am reminded of what Q used to say about being hijacked by intuition and he made a valid point. I am somewhat romantic so if I am being hijacked, I'm okay with that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 18, 2015 6:39:53 GMT -5
andrew,
No, I didn't tell there is no organism. I told mind conceptually cuts inseparable integral direct experience to discret parts, one of those has a label "organism". So, there is that, what is named "organism", but there is no separate object as "organism", because it's the way of describing, and not the way of existing! What is "love" for you? Seems, you again separate relative parts of experience (love, smell, color) and then try to attach this concepts to each other. And again, I mean direct experience is not how it's look like through prism of mind. There is no separate parts in direct experience. Separate parts are only the concepts, which are just thoughts and which are necessary for describing. Right, so there is no organism, there is just the thought of organism, yes? I don't mean anything complicated by 'love', just the 'love' that we all know....I'm guessing that that would probably be another quale in your model. Logically, I have no argument with what you are saying, it just doesn't 'resonate' with me to say that there is no 'something' to love 'something else'. However, it is just an intuitive resonance, I can't prove it. How would you answer the question, 'what is loved'? Is it a question that doesn't fit the model and is therefore unanswerable?
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on Apr 18, 2015 6:56:27 GMT -5
andrew, No, any statement can't represent direct experience, because language is possible because mind, which is the instrument of division. There is no point in arriving at a conclusion, because it's gonna be just another concept. The point is to distinguish direct experience and its describing through mind.
No, no, no... There can be a lot of meanings of this word. And VERY different!
Because it was an explanation how mind works. It was "dry" explanation, just mechanism. It's not all my vision.
Love is One Fource, that moves all Universe. And very Love looks like this multiplicity.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 18, 2015 7:21:23 GMT -5
andrew, No, any statement can't represent direct experience, because language is possible because mind, which is the instrument of division. There is no point in arriving at a conclusion, because it's gonna be just another concept. The point is to distinguish direct experience and its describing through mind. No, no, no... There can be a lot of meanings of this word. And VERY different! Because it was an explanation how mind works. It was "dry" explanation, just mechanism. It's not all my vision. Love is One Fource, that moves all Universe. And very Love looks like this multiplicity. Yes, there can be lots of meanings of the word 'love', I just didn't mean anything particular or special by it, largely because my key point was just that it intuitively seems as if individuals love individuals, rather than redness loves blueness, or heat loves cool etc. If I'm understanding you here then, you're not saying then that there are no individuals, no flowers , and no organisms, you are literally just interested in talking about the nature of direct experience. Have I got that right? If so, like I said, I have no problem with the model.
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Apr 18, 2015 12:40:27 GMT -5
jay17It was not tottaly perfect example So your statements contain error, you have not correctly expressed that which you mean to describe?
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Apr 18, 2015 13:23:22 GMT -5
I would say that the evidence of 'love' suggests to me that there are individual consciousnesses that love individual consciousnesses. Have you lost the ability to speak English? What didn't you understand? I understand perfectly. You feel it necessary to construct your language as you do. It ain't English man, and you know it. If you understood perfectly, then I wasn't speaking in Urdu! Seems to me Wren is similar to enigma, Reefs, and Envy Adams.(she who shall not be named) Say something that they perceive is in opposition to the beliefs they hold so dear, and if they are disturbed enough, they will attempt to devalue\discredit the statement by way of character assassination. This time claiming there's something wrong with your mindtank and you've lost the ability to speak english. And i'm with you andrew, and i see it this way...if Wren fully understands what you have written, then his\her? claim it's not english is irrational, because anyone banging two brain cells together can easily see it's english. But the irrational statement\claim\accusation is merely a vehicle to express disapproval of your statement, to express his\her? emotional disturbance. And it has been my experience, that some of the main reasons why people behave irrationally and attack others is due to fear and hatred, a defense-offense mindset. Fearful their beliefs are being threatened, attacking that which they do not like\agree with. Hatred - "The emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action." And please, no need for anyone to get worked up about this, posts like this will be extremely rare from me. I would rather spend my time far more productively, and enjoyably, by having mutually beneficial convos\interactions\connections with people who do not suffer from Knowitallitis, insecurities and use denigration as part of their interface protocols.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 18, 2015 13:55:01 GMT -5
If you understood perfectly, then I wasn't speaking in Urdu! Seems to me Wren is similar to enigma, Reefs, and Envy Adams.(she who shall not be named) Say something that they perceive is in opposition to the beliefs they hold so dear, and if they are disturbed enough, they will attempt to devalue\discredit the statement by way of character assassination. This time claiming there's something wrong with your mindtank and you've lost the ability to speak english. And i'm with you andrew, and i see it this way...if Wren fully understands what you have written, then his\her? claim it's not english is irrational, because anyone banging two brain cells together can easily see it's english. But the irrational statement\claim\accusation is merely a vehicle to express disapproval of your statement, to express the emotional disturbance. And it has been my experience, that some of the main reasons why people behave irrationally and attack others is due to fear and hatred, a defense-offense mindset. Fearful their beliefs are being threatened, attacking that which they do not like\agree with. Hatred - "The emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action." And please, no need for anyone to get worked up about this, posts like this will be extremely rare from me. I would rather spend my time far more productively, and enjoyably, by having mutually beneficial convos with people who do not suffer from Knowitallitis and use denigration as part of their interface protocols. yes, that's pretty much how I see things happening here a lot of the time, and I wondered at the time whether Wren was disapproving more of something I had said there, or even somewhere else, than she was my use of language. Seemed better to address it at face value though. I also don't want a palava over this though, there's enough of that on the other thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2015 14:02:40 GMT -5
Are we at your boundary then.. ? "..there seems to me to be something deeper than qualia."
Yes there does seem to me to be something deeper, though I am reminded of what Q used to say about being hijacked by intuition and he made a valid point. I am somewhat romantic so if I am being hijacked, I'm okay with that. Are romance and intuition the same now?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 18, 2015 14:06:01 GMT -5
Yes there does seem to me to be something deeper, though I am reminded of what Q used to say about being hijacked by intuition and he made a valid point. I am somewhat romantic so if I am being hijacked, I'm okay with that. Are romance and intuition the same now? The same? No.
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on Apr 19, 2015 4:42:21 GMT -5
jay17It was not tottaly perfect example So your statements contain error, you have not correctly expressed that which you mean to describe? yeah, every example has limitations They all are just mental models
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 19, 2015 7:16:02 GMT -5
So your statements contain error, you have not correctly expressed that which you mean to describe? yeah, every example has limitations They all are just mental models It's amazing how the process of mind can miss the simplicity of this in the spinning.
|
|