|
Post by earnest on May 18, 2015 6:14:16 GMT -5
Not directly, but I could be wrong. What's the direct difference between remembering my breakfast spoon and imagining riding a dragon to work? The memory of the breakfast spoon is based on an actual experience, riding a dragon to work is purely imagined.. yeah I know that but the in the moment experience of either thinking about the spoon or imaging the dragon seem awful similar.
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on May 18, 2015 6:35:57 GMT -5
Not directly, but I could be wrong. What's the direct difference between remembering my breakfast spoon and imagining riding a dragon to work? The memory of the breakfast spoon is based on an actual experience, riding a dragon to work is purely imagined.. Yeah There are experience through physical senses and experience, which mind models. Both can be describe in words. But they should be distiguished The second is a work of imagination. But it's not very good to oppose first and second as real and unreal, maybe as intermediate step only… Because that ability to model is a part of experience. The first and second - one whole experience, the problem occured, when people lose themselves in fantasies as in single reality and don't see whole experience
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 18, 2015 6:38:52 GMT -5
Do you see a difference between 'imagined' and 'indirect'? Not directly, but I could be wrong. What's the direct difference between remembering my breakfast spoon and imagining riding a dragon to work? They are similar in a way, but we could perhaps say one is a remembrance and one is imagining. To me, a spoon can be experienced directly or indirectly (though I do understand the comments people have made about it not being 'a spoon' if it is perceived directly), but either way, it is still being perceived in the moment. Then there are other things like imagining a spoon, remembering a spoon, discussing a spoon. My definition/understanding is a bit unusual, in the sense that perhaps many people would say that indirect experience would be reading about a fruit (for example) rather than tasting the fruit. That too is a valid definition/understanding, but my definition/understanding is more about the way that something is experienced/perceived in the moment.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 18, 2015 6:45:15 GMT -5
Not directly, but I could be wrong. What's the direct difference between remembering my breakfast spoon and imagining riding a dragon to work? They are similar in a way, but we could perhaps say one is a remembrance and one is imagining. To me, a spoon can be experienced directly or indirectly (though I do understand the comments people have made about it not being 'a spoon' if it is perceived directly), but either way, it is still being perceived in the moment. Then there are other things like imagining a spoon, remembering a spoon, discussing a spoon. My definition/understanding is a bit unusual, in the sense that perhaps many people would say that indirect experience would be reading about a fruit (for example) rather than tasting the fruit. That too is a valid definition/understanding, but my definition/understanding is more about the way that something is experienced/perceived in the moment. Yeah I know that's why I said remember and imagine. What happens if I imagine the dragon stealing my spoon?! then its both!?! fking dragons,... shoo!! That's basically my understanding of direct vs indirect - the whole menu vs the meal analogy. I'm neither a meal-tarian or a menu-ist, but I find knowing the difference is helpful, and I'd rather eat the meal than spend forever trying to lick pictures off the menu.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 18, 2015 7:13:16 GMT -5
They are similar in a way, but we could perhaps say one is a remembrance and one is imagining. To me, a spoon can be experienced directly or indirectly (though I do understand the comments people have made about it not being 'a spoon' if it is perceived directly), but either way, it is still being perceived in the moment. Then there are other things like imagining a spoon, remembering a spoon, discussing a spoon. My definition/understanding is a bit unusual, in the sense that perhaps many people would say that indirect experience would be reading about a fruit (for example) rather than tasting the fruit. That too is a valid definition/understanding, but my definition/understanding is more about the way that something is experienced/perceived in the moment. Yeah I know that's why I said remember and imagine. What happens if I imagine the dragon stealing my spoon?! then its both!?! fking dragons,... shoo!! That's basically my understanding of direct vs indirect - the whole menu vs the meal analogy. I'm neither a meal-tarian or a menu-ist, but I find knowing the difference is helpful, and I'd rather eat the meal than spend forever trying to lick pictures off the menu. never trust a dragon with your spoon! I learned that lesson a long time ago hehe Based on the meal/menu analogy, I'm not seeing how it would be possible for any human to only ever be reading a menu. Even if someone spent their whole life reading a dictionary, they would still be experiencing the dictionary. In which case, do you see it as a matter of degrees or imbalance or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 18, 2015 7:26:32 GMT -5
Yeah I know that's why I said remember and imagine. What happens if I imagine the dragon stealing my spoon?! then its both!?! fking dragons,... shoo!! That's basically my understanding of direct vs indirect - the whole menu vs the meal analogy. I'm neither a meal-tarian or a menu-ist, but I find knowing the difference is helpful, and I'd rather eat the meal than spend forever trying to lick pictures off the menu. never trust a dragon with your spoon! I learned that lesson a long time ago hehe Based on the meal/menu analogy, I'm not seeing how it would be possible for any human to only ever be reading a menu. Even if someone spent their whole life reading a dictionary, they would still be experiencing the dictionary. In which case, do you see it as a matter of degrees or imbalance or something like that? In general terms I dunno. This is why I was so interested in Jay's experience with the LU people. When they asked whatever they asked he said "a separate self" (or something similar,I'm not going back to check) I felt like he was giving me menu answers, i wanted to know what his "eating the meal" experience was. I don’t find a separate self when I look for myself so I'm really curious when someone says they do - and how do they *know* it. I can't say I'm right and they're wrong, but I am very curious.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 18, 2015 7:35:42 GMT -5
never trust a dragon with your spoon! I learned that lesson a long time ago hehe Based on the meal/menu analogy, I'm not seeing how it would be possible for any human to only ever be reading a menu. Even if someone spent their whole life reading a dictionary, they would still be experiencing the dictionary. In which case, do you see it as a matter of degrees or imbalance or something like that? In general terms I dunno. This is why I was so interested in Jay's experience with the LU people. When they asked whatever they asked he said "a separate self" (or something similar,I'm not going back to check) I felt like he was giving me menu answers, i wanted to know what his "eating the meal" experience was. I don’t find a separate self when I look for myself so I'm really curious when someone says they do - and how do they *know* it. I can't say I'm right and they're wrong, but I am very curious. Yeah I can't comment on that, though it seems to me that much of these discussion points depend on definitions.
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on May 18, 2015 13:07:29 GMT -5
Yeah There are experience through physical senses and experience, which mind models. Both can be describe in words. But they should be distiguished The second is a work of imagination. But it's not very good to oppose first and second as real and unreal, maybe as intermediate step only… Because that ability to model is a part of experience. The first and second - one whole experience, the problem occured, when people lose themselves in fantasies as in single reality and don't see whole experience I agree, the thoughts one has of the dragon ride is all imagination - thinking of something that has not actually been experienced. But recalling the actual experience one had of the spoon is not imagination. It is an accurate account of the actual experience. There is no falsity\illusion in those thoughts. But for unproven reasons, many Advaitaists claim that all thoughts are false\illusory accounts of existence, so they created the concept of Direct Experience to distinguish the difference between truth and false\illusory experiences of existence. I awoke from my dreams this morning, confident i am getting close to ending my exploration of this concept. Don't know if I can explane that moment about thoughts… Let's try next example. People dance on the beach and stay their steps on sands. So that steps represent those people we can say. And the same thoughts represents direct experience. When we say "thoughts describe direct experience" we recon there is two realities, outside, which is perceived by senses and inner, which is created by mind. But it's not. Mind's descriptions is not inner copy of outside. There's no outside and inside, that all whole experience, which is consists of physical phenomena, psychic phenomena and mental phenomena. There is connection between mental phenomena (thoughts, memories etc) and other phenomena, but thoughts are not a copy of other phenomena! So, it's ok to say thoughts are false in context, that they can't express direct experience. In thoughts everything seemes to have real boundaries, limits, everythings seemes like many separate objects. In awareness of direct experience you still experience multiplicity, but there is ONE TASTE of it, boundaries doesn't perceive as fact.
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on May 18, 2015 13:11:03 GMT -5
You can't deny spoon, because you perceive it, but you also can't state spoon as reality, because you can't find a real boundaries of it. There is an appearance of boundaries, not boundaries.
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on May 18, 2015 13:13:12 GMT -5
That's the difference. There is appearance of multiplicity. Through mind it looks like real multiplicity, because mind emphasizes it by concepts, so to say
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on May 18, 2015 13:16:10 GMT -5
Conceptualy there is multiplicity. Experientially there is an appearance of multiplicity. Factually there is reality, which looks like awareness of phenomena, multiplicity, and which is described through subject-process-object in mind as real multiplicity
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 13:47:34 GMT -5
Conceptualy there is multiplicity. Experientially there is an appearance of multiplicity. Factually there is reality, which looks like awareness of phenomena, multiplicity, and which is described through subject-process-object in mind as real multiplicity Yes, one could say that we appear to live in two seemingly very different worlds, the empirical world of time and space and the timeless world of the transcendent Absolute.
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on May 18, 2015 13:55:19 GMT -5
Conceptualy there is multiplicity. Experientially there is an appearance of multiplicity. Factually there is reality, which looks like awareness of phenomena, multiplicity, and which is described through subject-process-object in mind as real multiplicity Yes, one could say that we appear to live in two seemingly very different worlds, the empirical world of time and space and the timeless world of the transcendent Absolute. None of that world are Absolute, but Absolute is both of that, Absolute expresses itself as timeless and time, as sansara and nirvana
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on May 18, 2015 14:14:46 GMT -5
transcendental and immanent both
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 18, 2015 15:25:46 GMT -5
We'll see A word can never be the object. You can only directly see the spoon in the moment. If it is subsequently reported, then the seeing of it is not in the moment. The importance of direct seeing crops up in various spiritual traditions because it teaches how to be present. If it is then described it entirely defeats the objective. Yep, and I'm not going to talk about it anymore, the conversation has reached its end.
|
|