|
Post by lolly on Nov 11, 2018 7:17:16 GMT -5
Frankly, my take is that the not-knowing in question is a seekers position, but I've had enough dialog with E' to be convinced he's not confused about anything, and have reduced our disagreement down to one very fine point that I find, essentially, inconclusive. But my experience as a seeker, is that the seeking didn't get interesting, and, in fact, wasn't even done consciously, until the illusion of the SVP was seen clearly for what it was. This isn't to say that not everyone who's never considered the not-knowing in question is still seeking, but all the Joe C. Trancer's who never sought, definitely never considered it, and the notion of the fallacy of any and all sorts of objective reality is one that only Trancer's and seekers object to. The reason for the objection is quite obvious to me. Why doesn't E know that 'the same consciousness is looking through each pair of eyes'? Ask Tzu hehehe.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 7:23:01 GMT -5
I've also been engaging with Gopal's definition. This is what he said...''If you believe your body doesn't disappear when you stop looking at it, then you believe in objective reality.'' Based on that, I have suggested that he does, actually, believe in an objective reality. Well, the entire issue is flawed from the start. Objective/subjective are mental categories. SR being the case, the question if there is an objective reality shouldn't even arise. It's an absurd question to ask from the perspective of oneness. It makes sense only from the perspective of the SVP. So you are not going to see me choose one or the other. All I can say is that what comes closest to a so-called 'objective reality' and what I can agree with is Seth's camouflage model. But even that is more about a shared reality than an actual objective reality. A-H talk about an agreement based reality. That goes into the same direction. Interestingly, Seth also talks about the physical world as an idea construction and A-H about everything being perceptual, but that shouldn't be confused with the kind of radical subjectivity Gopal and some others seem to be suggesting (aka it's all just appearances). Anyway, to me this is just another day with another discussion about another misconceived question. Even though it does make sense that someone who doesn't know if others are conscious or not would have to ponder that kind of question first. I hope this settles your dispute with Laughter. My experience was that after tasting Oneness experientially, I suddenly couldn't find any basis for the SVP, and not just in an intellectual sense, but that it was an intellectually informing that finally made this clear. This wasn't the end of the confusion, but rather, the prelude to the most intense of it. It was an intellectual understanding of the fallacy of objective material reality which led up to stumbling into Oneness to begin with, and part of that confusion still involved that question: "how can there be many, when there is, undeniably, One?" So, you see, I completely disagree that the question only makes sense from the perspective of the SVP. There are other perspectives to which it arises, and I do agree, those are seeker-mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 7:25:20 GMT -5
I'm definitely not Jordan Peterson's biggest fan, but what he says about what is going on in the universities is very interesting, though I assumed it applied more to Canada/USA than anywhere else....guess I'm wrong. I did gender studies at university, also got high marks, but this was 20 years ago. My gender studies tutor had a very big impact on me, we explored Foucault, Lacan, Wittgenstein, Heidegger....it changed the way I understood 'the world' totally. Based on your experience, I am now curious as to what the situation is like at my old college, and where my tutor stands on it. The bit I highlighted was actually quite a realization for me at the time. I recall looking at two different chairs, and thinking something like...'Huh. We don't have different names for those 'chairs', I know and experience them both as 'chairs'. And yet we do have different names for 'humans', and I know and experience 'humans' in two different ways. Why is that, and more importantly, what does that say about the totality of all that is experienced?'. It was my first big insight into 'subjectivity'. Yea I was a high distinction student in Gender Studies - best grades of any subject - and I also read Foucault, and I used Foucault's Madness and Civilisation to formulate social theory in my mental health units, and Discipline and Punish for my understanding of power relations in society. I like Foucault. I read some Lacan in my own time, and actually put it to use in a Gender Studies unit called Sex, Violence and Transgression. I drew on Lacan's 'perversion' when I did a case study of the Papin sisters (who brutally murdered their employer). Lacan was kinda obsessed the incestuous homosexuality which he read into the case, though there was no evidence of that - but he was a Freudian, so go figure. My first Gender Studies lecturer, Jennifer Germon, was brilliant, and her course changed my world view big time. It made me understand social work, social systems, the social discourse, normalcy and social theory in a profound way - more than social work units taught me. I got it. She was no 'snowflake', that one. She was a universal force!
Sounds to me like a case of potential Stockholm syndrome goin' on over there.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 11, 2018 7:27:50 GMT -5
Yea I was a high distinction student in Gender Studies - best grades of any subject - and I also read Foucault, and I used Foucault's Madness and Civilisation to formulate social theory in my mental health units, and Discipline and Punish for my understanding of power relations in society. I like Foucault. I read some Lacan in my own time, and actually put it to use in a Gender Studies unit called Sex, Violence and Transgression. I drew on Lacan's 'perversion' when I did a case study of the Papin sisters (who brutally murdered their employer). Lacan was kinda obsessed the incestuous homosexuality which he read into the case, though there was no evidence of that - but he was a Freudian, so go figure.
My first Gender Studies lecturer, Jennifer Germon, was brilliant, and her course changed my world view big time. It made me understand social work, social systems, the social discourse, normalcy and social theory in a profound way - more than social work units taught me. I got it. She was no 'snowflake', that one. She was a universal force!
sydney.academia.edu/JenniferGermon
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 7:31:45 GMT -5
Objective material existence independent of the consciousness thereof. Everything is an extension of Source/All-That-Is. And the camouflage, isn't that, right? Not to be flip, and definitely not to play "gotcha'", but it seems to me you didn't relate it back and directly answer the original question. Perhaps you get a sense, from that, why E' goes to great lengths to disclaim that he makes any association with the word, "real".
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 7:40:43 GMT -5
She sounds great....a quick look suggests she addresses the nature of 'relationship' in a very real way that social work units probably didn't..? My LEAST favorite course was '20th century social policy'. It's hard for me to imagine my old tutor entertaining the new university mentality. Even though highly intellectual, he was also very....grounded. Was he was of his day.. of his generation? With a dependability that embodied the age in which he was born? I guess he was about 30, which was much younger than most of the other 'professors' around at that time, and extremely passionate about his work. For me at the time, it was inspiring, but it also had the effect of deconstructing my world view just enough to leave me quite confused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 7:44:08 GMT -5
Everything is an extension of Source/All-That-Is. And the camouflage, isn't that, right? Not to be flip, and definitely not to play "gotcha'", but it seems to me you didn't relate it back and directly answer the original question. Perhaps you get a sense, from that, why E' goes to great lengths to disclaim that he makes any association with the word, "real". The camouflage is the many in your question. .. "how can there be many, when there is, undeniably, One?"
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 7:48:33 GMT -5
Why doesn't E know that 'the same consciousness is looking through each pair of eyes'? Well, first off, are you conscious of having tried to construct a double-bind, or is that fact just coming to your attention as you read this sentence? Now, I'm progressing further into an unwillingness to discuss other folks understandings with you, but in this case I'm going to buck that trend, and that's because this particular point of contention is one that kicked off the great divide of the whole solipsist shebang to begin with, by my memory, the Christmas before last, in this very thread, and for which I bear most of the blame. My understanding of where E' is on this, is that he doesn't rezz with that pointer, and he disagrees with me that the not-knowing can come to an end. But after what he wrote here (that you, and figgles, pointedly ignored), I'm getting much closer to concluding that his and my pages are most definitely from the same book, so none of that disagreement is consequential, which is what I suspected all along, anyway. Yes, I know you don't see the disagreement as consequential (if you did, you would surely have to talk about it), but I'm not clear what the significance is of the page you linked. So maybe if I ask you this instead. The words, 'consciousness looking through each pair of eyes' were yours, right? I'm not misattributing them am I? Whereas E would likely say that he doesn't know if 'consciousness is looking through another pair of eyes. Why do you disagree on this point? What is the difference in your understandings that creates this disagreement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 7:48:52 GMT -5
Was he was of his day.. of his generation? With a dependability that embodied the age in which he was born? I guess he was about 30, which was much younger than most of the other 'professors' around at that time, and extremely passionate about his work. For me at the time, it was inspiring, but it also had the effect of deconstructing my world view just enough to leave me quite confused. Did you ever express to him that your world view was going through a transformation due to his understanding?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 7:50:50 GMT -5
Why doesn't E know that 'the same consciousness is looking through each pair of eyes'? Ask Tzu hehehe. I would guess that Tzu would agree that the same consciousness is looking through each pair of eyes, though I'm pretty sure he wouldn't use the word 'consciousness', it would be more like 'essence' or 'existence' or something like that. Tzzzzzuuuuuuuu? Are you there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 7:51:36 GMT -5
Well, first off, are you conscious of having tried to construct a double-bind, or is that fact just coming to your attention as you read this sentence? Now, I'm progressing further into an unwillingness to discuss other folks understandings with you, but in this case I'm going to buck that trend, and that's because this particular point of contention is one that kicked off the great divide of the whole solipsist shebang to begin with, by my memory, the Christmas before last, in this very thread, and for which I bear most of the blame. My understanding of where E' is on this, is that he doesn't rezz with that pointer, and he disagrees with me that the not-knowing can come to an end. But after what he wrote here (that you, and figgles, pointedly ignored), I'm getting much closer to concluding that his and my pages are most definitely from the same book, so none of that disagreement is consequential, which is what I suspected all along, anyway. Yes, I know you don't see the disagreement as consequential (if you did, you would surely have to talk about it), but I'm not clear what the significance is of the page you linked. So maybe if I ask you this instead. The words, 'consciousness looking through each pair of eyes' were yours, right? I'm not misattributing them am I? Whereas E would likely say that he doesn't know if 'consciousness is looking through another pair of eyes. Why do you disagree on this point? What is the difference in your understandings that creates this disagreement? I think the understanding was originally ZD's, and it made sense to Laughter.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 7:52:00 GMT -5
I guess he was about 30, which was much younger than most of the other 'professors' around at that time, and extremely passionate about his work. For me at the time, it was inspiring, but it also had the effect of deconstructing my world view just enough to leave me quite confused. Did you ever express to him that your world view was going through a transformation due to his understanding? To some extent yes, though it was only after I left that the confusion was more obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 8:03:21 GMT -5
Did you ever express to him that your world view was going through a transformation due to his understanding? To some extent yes, though it was only after I left that the confusion was more obvious. Ok. Don't forget that there is a distinct possibility that although he appeared certain in many of his views he was most likely using the environment of University to explore many of his ideas. And if he were to place his 30 year old self in the University climates of today then he would more easily recognise similar processes of exploration happening, fuelled by the interconnectedness of social media with it's ability to grip ideas and create what can be created with them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 8:05:07 GMT -5
I'm definitely not Jordan Peterson's biggest fan, but what he says about what is going on in the universities is very interesting, though I assumed it applied more to Canada/USA than anywhere else....guess I'm wrong. I did gender studies at university, also got high marks, but this was 20 years ago. My gender studies tutor had a very big impact on me, we explored Foucault, Lacan, Wittgenstein, Heidegger....it changed the way I understood 'the world' totally. Based on your experience, I am now curious as to what the situation is like at my old college, and where my tutor stands on it. The bit I highlighted was actually quite a realization for me at the time. I recall looking at two different chairs, and thinking something like...'Huh. We don't have different names for those 'chairs', I know and experience them both as 'chairs'. And yet we do have different names for 'humans', and I know and experience 'humans' in two different ways. Why is that, and more importantly, what does that say about the totality of all that is experienced?'. It was my first big insight into 'subjectivity'. Yea I was a high distinction student in Gender Studies - best grades of any subject - and I also read Foucault, and I used Foucault's Madness and Civilisation to formulate social theory in my mental health units, and Discipline and Punish for my understanding of power relations in society. I like Foucault. I read some Lacan in my own time, and actually put it to use in a Gender Studies unit called Sex, Violence and Transgression. I drew on Lacan's 'perversion' when I did a case study of the Papin sisters (who brutally murdered their employer). Lacan was kinda obsessed the incestuous homosexuality which he read into the case, though there was no evidence of that - but he was a Freudian, so go figure.
My first Gender Studies lecturer, Jennifer Germon, was brilliant, and her course changed my world view big time. It made me understand social work, social systems, the social discourse, normalcy and social theory in a profound way - more than social work units taught me. I got it. She was no 'snowflake', that one. She was a universal force!
I'd never even heard of gender studies. This site IS informative. All I know about gender's impact on a person comes from my mother. She was, by quite a distance, the smartest person I've ever met. She was reading Homer, in ancient Greek, by age of nine. She could read Dante in medieval Italian.She was a virtuosa on the piano. My father forced her to quit medical school because he felt threatened. Though she never once complained about it. We, her sons, saw the unfairness clearly. I've become a rabid feminist. I say this will change and be more equitable when women arm themselves and start taking heads, though my mother might have looked askance on such a view--she's passed away. I say a turning point in this was the battle of Kobane. Down with the patriarchy!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 11, 2018 10:09:23 GMT -5
Only once? That's extremely funny! Some of us have had numerous major realizations and countless minor ones. Perhaps a few more realizations might alter your understanding. I desperately wished to have many such realization but it is not happening after words. I don't know why! Try some koans in the meantime.
|
|