|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2023 4:02:53 GMT -5
I got a new book yesterday, it came yesterday. It's a ND-Enlightenment book. (Yes, I keep trying). Oddly, he emphasizes the word distinction. No, I don't get ZD's ontology, I'm sure it's consistent, within his mind. I think ZD accepts an exterior world (acknowledging for him there isn't an inner and an outer). But he is a contractor, you kind of have to. E used to drive me bananas, he seemed to *believe* the whole universe arises anew from nothing at every moment. That loses me. So I don't get ZD's use of the word distinction (he wrote about it a couple of days ago). But the new book-guy basically says when the unmanifest makes one distinction, the manifest world begins. That sounds pretty same in my book. So for me, rocks and water and s__t and stuff has existed for 13.8 billion years. New book-guy doesn't say it (about 1/2 done, big letters), but the Big Bang could be called the first distinction. IOW, the mind can't make distinctions unless they already exist. I even think that's the whole point of G Spencer's Laws of Form. (But haven't read it in years). The Big Bang would not be a distinction until THIS evolves into an organism that can make that distinction. For an amoeba there never was a Big Bang because the Big Bang is an idea that is beyond its capacity to imagine. The act of distinction, from my POV, is an intellectual/imaginative projection. To put it another way, THIS can't know itself (even indirectly) until it can imaginatively divide itself into two separate and imaginary states--an observer and that which is observed. I think that this is how G. Spencer described the situation, but I would state it somewhat differently. I would say that THIS cannot know itself (even indirectly) until it can imagine itself as divided into two imaginary states--an imaginer and an imagined "other." G. Spencer basically says that if we/THIS make a single distinction a world comes into existence, and that's what I was pointing to when I discussed what the word "exist" can be taken to mean. A world (ex-ists) "comes forth from" THIS that is fundamentally indivisible via an act of imaginative abstraction. IOW, we imagine existence into existing, and if there is no imagining, there is only "what is"/THIS undivided into artificial and abstract states. I understand why applying the word "imaginary" to things like trees is bothersome to people, but the word is not being applied to what the tree IS; it's only being applied to the concept of the tree as a separate thing being seen by a separate observer. Like G. Spencer, I'm pointing to an act of the intellect when I refer to an act of distinction. THIS cannot know itself directly; it can only be itself. In order to know/episteme itself as something (some thing), it must imagine itself as divided into abstract states. This is why the Tao Te Ching begins, "The Tao that can be named (distinguished) is not the Tao." Any 'ole "new-age thinker" can understand that the distinction between the Earth and a tree, is arbitrary.  Reefs and I like to taxonimize various existential misconceptions. That one can be evidence of the "oneness web" (as opposed to the "oneness blob").  Of course, thought is not the way to approach any of this ... but if people insist ..  I take the following approach to Andy's old point from years ago now about distinguishing between clean and dirty water. The reaction to water that looks or tastes off is sensational, so it's prior to any "internal" movement of mind. The cue, the impetus and event that triggers the reaction is "external" : the state of the water. The distinction of a line on a map also has an "external" cue, but unless the border is marked in some way, if you're out in the wilderness, there is no external cue. Still, the thought might occur, "have I crossed?". The cue, the trigger, is "internal". A day of the week is sort of in between. Other people, calendars and all sorts of other cues tell you what day it is, but, again, not if you're away from civilization, not if you're unplugged. Other than learning the initial distinction between "Monday" and "Tuesday", the distinction is generated "internally", and the cue might be either "internal" or "external". But for dirty water, the cue, the trigger, the impetus, the relative cause, is entirely "external".
Need I say more?  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 3, 2023 5:19:35 GMT -5
The Big Bang would not be a distinction until THIS evolves into an organism that can make that distinction. For an amoeba there never was a Big Bang because the Big Bang is an idea that is beyond its capacity to imagine. The act of distinction, from my POV, is an intellectual/imaginative projection. To put it another way, THIS can't know itself (even indirectly) until it can imaginatively divide itself into two separate and imaginary states--an observer and that which is observed. I think that this is how G. Spencer described the situation, but I would state it somewhat differently. I would say that THIS cannot know itself (even indirectly) until it can imagine itself as divided into two imaginary states--an imaginer and an imagined "other." G. Spencer basically says that if we/THIS make a single distinction a world comes into existence, and that's what I was pointing to when I discussed what the word "exist" can be taken to mean. A world (ex-ists) "comes forth from" THIS that is fundamentally indivisible via an act of imaginative abstraction. IOW, we imagine existence into existing, and if there is no imagining, there is only "what is"/THIS undivided into artificial and abstract states. I understand why applying the word "imaginary" to things like trees is bothersome to people, but the word is not being applied to what the tree IS; it's only being applied to the concept of the tree as a separate thing being seen by a separate observer. Like G. Spencer, I'm pointing to an act of the intellect when I refer to an act of distinction. THIS cannot know itself directly; it can only be itself. In order to know/episteme itself as something (some thing), it must imagine itself as divided into abstract states. This is why the Tao Te Ching begins, "The Tao that can be named (distinguished) is not the Tao."
Reefs and I like to taxonimize various existential misconceptions. That one can be evidence of the "oneness web" (as opposed to the "oneness blob"). . But only one with a relatively high degree of penetrating insight can understand that due to the nature of conditionality, arbitrariness is a fallacy. I actually quite like "oneness verb", anyway. What's wrong with that? Well, yeah. Actually. Internal and external …. "what, is distinct from what?"  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 3, 2023 10:02:03 GMT -5
The Big Bang would not be a distinction until THIS evolves into an organism that can make that distinction. For an amoeba there never was a Big Bang because the Big Bang is an idea that is beyond its capacity to imagine. The act of distinction, from my POV, is an intellectual/imaginative projection. To put it another way, THIS can't know itself (even indirectly) until it can imaginatively divide itself into two separate and imaginary states--an observer and that which is observed. I think that this is how G. Spencer described the situation, but I would state it somewhat differently. I would say that THIS cannot know itself (even indirectly) until it can imagine itself as divided into two imaginary states--an imaginer and an imagined "other." G. Spencer basically says that if we/THIS make a single distinction a world comes into existence, and that's what I was pointing to when I discussed what the word "exist" can be taken to mean. A world (ex-ists) "comes forth from" THIS that is fundamentally indivisible via an act of imaginative abstraction. IOW, we imagine existence into existing, and if there is no imagining, there is only "what is"/THIS undivided into artificial and abstract states. I understand why applying the word "imaginary" to things like trees is bothersome to people, but the word is not being applied to what the tree IS; it's only being applied to the concept of the tree as a separate thing being seen by a separate observer. Like G. Spencer, I'm pointing to an act of the intellect when I refer to an act of distinction. THIS cannot know itself directly; it can only be itself. In order to know/episteme itself as something (some thing), it must imagine itself as divided into abstract states. This is why the Tao Te Ching begins, "The Tao that can be named (distinguished) is not the Tao." Any 'ole "new-age thinker" can understand that the distinction between the Earth and a tree, is arbitrary. Reefs and I like to taxonimize various existential misconceptions. That one can be evidence of the "oneness web" (as opposed to the "oneness blob"). Of course, thought is not the way to approach any of this ... but if people insist .. I take the following approach to Andy's old point from years ago now about distinguishing between clean and dirty water. The reaction to water that looks or tastes off is sensational, so it's prior to any "internal" movement of mind. The cue, the impetus and event that triggers the reaction is "external" : the state of the water. The distinction of a line on a map also has an "external" cue, but unless the border is marked in some way, if you're out in the wilderness, there is no external cue. Still, the thought might occur, "have I crossed?". The cue, the trigger, is "internal". A day of the week is sort of in between. Other people, calendars and all sorts of other cues tell you what day it is, but, again, not if you're away from civilization, not if you're unplugged. Other than learning the initial distinction between "Monday" and "Tuesday", the distinction is generated "internally", and the cue might be either "internal" or "external". But for dirty water, the cue, the trigger, the impetus, the relative cause, is entirely "external".
Need I say more? Perhaps. If the ideas of "internal" and "external" fall away, then what? I'm coming at this from the POV where there is no difference between a sensation-al response and a mental response if no distinctions of any kind are imagined. In the emptiness/fullness of "what is," unfolding however it unfolds, isn't any act of distinction a secondary mental activity? Without making any cognitive distinctions the flow of life is whatever it is--beyond concepts or labels. It seems to me that even distinguishing the idea of a physical response to something is still a mental distinction, and without making distinctions (through which states differing in value are imagined) no concepts or words are applicable. If one defines thought in the way that Tenka defines thought (a perception is a thought), then what I'm pointing to does not apply. I'm simply suggesting that if one "knows" what is seen and experienced directly (gnosis), then intellectual reflection and the idea of distinction (episteme) both fall away. If I look around my office in mental silence, I see "what is," and I "know" (gnosis) what's being seen because distinctions were made in the past and internalized so that no reflective thought is necessary. In the past I've mentioned a humorous distinction, labeled "glurch," defined as "any person who stops the line from moving forward." Does a glurch exist prior to being distinguished/imagined and named? After being distinguished, it's hard NOT to imagine a glurch as the reason why one's line has stopped moving forward. ITSW, most of us think of body organs as things like a heart, lung, liver, stomach, etc, but some scientists now consider human skin to be the largest organ composing a human body. Without making that distinction how many people would imagine skin as a body organ? Aren't ideas of "hot" and "cold" also cognitive distinctions? I'm sure that this is the reason that the old ZM told the monk to go where there is no hot or cold. This is probably a dead horse, so I'll stop beating it now. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 3, 2023 14:52:12 GMT -5
... But for dirty water, the cue, the trigger, the impetus, the relative cause, is entirely "external".
Need I say more? Not really. You can be hypnotized to react to regular water as if it tasted or looked "dirty". So you don't react to the "external". Obviously, there isn't much that you can say more. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 4, 2023 2:21:09 GMT -5
Any 'ole "new-age thinker" can understand that the distinction between the Earth and a tree, is arbitrary. Reefs and I like to taxonimize various existential misconceptions. That one can be evidence of the "oneness web" (as opposed to the "oneness blob"). . But only one with a relatively high degree of penetrating insight can understand that due to the nature of conditionality, arbitrariness is a fallacy.  I actually quite like "oneness verb", anyway. What's wrong with that? Well, yeah. Actually. Internal and external …. "what, is distinct from what?" What is realized is that there is no internal, no external, we're just making all that shit up. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 4, 2023 2:31:03 GMT -5
... But for dirty water, the cue, the trigger, the impetus, the relative cause, is entirely "external".
Need I say more? Not really. You can be hypnotized to react to regular water as if it tasted or looked "dirty". So you don't react to the "external". Obviously, there isn't much that you can say more.
No doubt. Yes, I understand your position and have no interest in trying to influence it. The reaction to the dirty water is inevitable if it's polluted enough, regardless of hypnotic state at the time of drinking it, and so the next rung on the conceptual ladder is that of an entangled hierarchy between "inner" and "outer".  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 4, 2023 14:47:20 GMT -5
Not really. You can be hypnotized to react to regular water as if it tasted or looked "dirty". So you don't react to the "external". Obviously, there isn't much that you can say more.
No doubt. Yes, I understand your position and have no interest in trying to influence it. The reaction to the dirty water is inevitable if it's polluted enough, regardless of hypnotic state at the time of drinking it, and so the next rung on the conceptual ladder is that of an entangled hierarchy between "inner" and "outer". Again wrong (not that I keep tabs). You wrote: ... But for dirty water, the cue, the trigger, the impetus, the relative cause, is entirely "external". ... You got carried away. I'm sure you heard about hypnotic anesthesia for surgery. 'entangled hierarchy between "inner" and "outer"' ...? Ridiculous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2023 22:47:33 GMT -5
No doubt. Yes, I understand your position and have no interest in trying to influence it. The reaction to the dirty water is inevitable if it's polluted enough, regardless of hypnotic state at the time of drinking it, and so the next rung on the conceptual ladder is that of an entangled hierarchy between "inner" and "outer". Again wrong (not that I keep tabs). You wrote: ... But for dirty water, the cue, the trigger, the impetus, the relative cause, is entirely "external". ... You got carried away. I'm sure you heard about hypnotic anesthesia for surgery. 'entangled hierarchy between "inner" and "outer"' ...? Ridiculous. Calling people "wrong" and "ridiculous" is what the humanoids call "arguing". You've said about 200 times that you're not arguing, so you appear to have a split mind, which causes all kinds of problems. Argue, and own it. Or don't argue. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 4, 2023 23:33:51 GMT -5
Again wrong (not that I keep tabs). You wrote: You got carried away. I'm sure you heard about hypnotic anesthesia for surgery. 'entangled hierarchy between "inner" and "outer"' ...? Ridiculous. Calling people "wrong" and "ridiculous" is what the humanoids call "arguing". You've said about 200 times that you're not arguing, so you appear to have a split mind, which causes all kinds of problems. Argue, and own it. Or don't argue. You're welcome. I haven't cared about your opinions for long time, on both boards. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2023 23:42:03 GMT -5
Calling people "wrong" and "ridiculous" is what the humanoids call "arguing". You've said about 200 times that you're not arguing, so you appear to have a split mind, which causes all kinds of problems. Argue, and own it. Or don't argue. You're welcome. I haven't cared about your opinions for long time, on both boards. I'm shocked. I thought you were my disciple. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2023 4:36:15 GMT -5
No doubt. Yes, I understand your position and have no interest in trying to influence it. The reaction to the dirty water is inevitable if it's polluted enough, regardless of hypnotic state at the time of drinking it, and so the next rung on the conceptual ladder is that of an entangled hierarchy between "inner" and "outer". Again wrong (not that I keep tabs). .. here's a lede for ya': if the water is polluted with enough hydrocarbons or spiked with enough poison like cyanide, then the hypnotized drinker will either get sick or even die. How do you prove that wrong?  You wrote: ... But for dirty water, the cue, the trigger, the impetus, the relative cause, is entirely "external". ... You got carried away. I'm sure you heard about hypnotic anesthesia for surgery. 'entangled hierarchy between "inner" and "outer"' ...? Ridiculous. You're inviting an irrelevant change in subject. I've already acknowledged your point about how hypnosis can bypass an initial external cue. The cause referred to in the original scenario is defined by the consequent result that the unhypnotized individual doesn't drink the water. You have changed the semantic by altering the context. Follow the lede above to address "carried away" ...  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 8, 2023 6:47:43 GMT -5
From QZD.
shadowplay wrote:
This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.)
Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation.
I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?!
sdp wrote:
There is a curious story from the Bible about Jesus healing a blind guy. Makes you consider it's not just made-up stuff. They asked him what he saw. He said: I see trees walking. He had probably felt trees before, the sense of touch, had a kind of *distinction*, big thingy with small thingy's coming off it (limbs). So he connected that, his newly-seeing, to people, walking.
But for babies, everything, sensing, is a learning process. A mother's face is one of their first distinctions. Of course, their mother's breast, is distinctly found (gets shoved into) immediately. A baby has more neurons than it will ever have in its whole life, but few connections between neurons. (We keep trimming neurons throughout our life. One huge pruning process takes place about age 10-11, you keep neurons that have made firm connections with others [called mylination], a huge amount that have not made connections get cut away, gone forever). That's what *distinctions* ARE, connections between neurons.
|
|
Reefs and I like to taxonimize various existential misconceptions. That one can be evidence of the "oneness web" (as opposed to the "oneness blob"). 
Of course, thought is not the way to approach any of this ... but if people insist .. 
