|
Post by question on Sept 15, 2011 20:23:29 GMT -5
Enigma, I think what you call consciousness I would simply call experience. Awareness I would call that which all experiences have in common. But it's really a logical deduction. We would need to experience the common denominator in isolation, before we can say that it isn't merely a logical figure. But I can't 'experience' something that is by definition not an experience, which I think doesn't primarily imply that the common denominator is an actuality prior to all experience, but rather that we have made a logical mistake in thinking that the common denominator is necessarily independent of experience. The common denominator could of course be independent of experience, but it's a unverifiable speculation. In your terms this would then mean that although awareness is present in all consciousness it doesn't imply that awareness can persist without consciousness, which means that we don't know that there is a God who is ever NOT waving his arms. If we can't find awareness in isolation of consciousness then the distinction remains conceptual and its scope remains limited to ideas, the pointer isn't pointing anywhere, we remain on the game board. There is a habit of mind that assumes experience has such a solidity that it needs no external reference, and yet the reality of all of it is much like moving in an elevator at constant velocity; one does not experience movement from within the movement. In the larger context, movement can only be experienced from stillness, time can only be experienced from timelessness. Similarly, consciousness can only be known from that which transcends consciousness. All events are the verification of the presence of that which transcends events. This is the common denominator. What you say appeals to intuition and for a couple of hours I was tempted to just file away as a classic example of Dennett's intuition pump, but I know that your thinking has more substance than that. So I trust that the problem must be with me, but can't see a fault in my reasoning, I think the critique from my last post still applies. I am reminded of Merrell-Wolff's maxim that "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". [1] This statemant is one that few non-theologian academic philosophers would bother to address as it implies that substance is neither ponderable nor perceptible. Merrell-Wolff understood this. He differentiates three modes of knowledge: perception, conception and introception. [2] Within perception the maxim is obviously useless. From within cognition it seems that we can only ever take it on faith as the statement implies that it defies logic. The way I understand him is that his maxim can be understood only with what he calls introception. Would this be a fair description or do you think that it is indeed possible to see the unambiguous truth of that maxim from within cognition? Has someone who has not realized what you have realized but still claims to fully understand your point simply not reflected on it sufficiently to doubt it. Or has he understood the point (using traditional thinking) deeply enough to understand that the doubt is misplaced? [1] www.integralscience.org/gsc/#real [2] www.integralscience.org/gsc/#fund
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 15, 2011 20:44:06 GMT -5
There is a habit of mind that assumes experience has such a solidity that it needs no external reference, and yet the reality of all of it is much like moving in an elevator at constant velocity; one does not experience movement from within the movement. In the larger context, movement can only be experienced from stillness, time can only be experienced from timelessness. Similarly, consciousness can only be known from that which transcends consciousness. All events are the verification of the presence of that which transcends events. This is the common denominator. What you say appeals to intuition and for a couple of hours I was tempted to just file away as a classic example of Dennett's intuition pump, but I know that your thinking has more substance than that. So I trust that the problem must be with me, but can't see a fault in my reasoning, I think the critique from my last post still applies. I am reminded of Merrell-Wolff's maxim that "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". [1] This statemant is one that few non-theologian academic philosophers would bother to address as it implies that substance is neither ponderable nor perceptible. Merrell-Wolff understood this. He differentiates three modes of knowledge: perception, conception and introception. [2] Within perception the maxim is obviously useless. From within cognition it seems that we can only ever take it on faith as the statement implies that it defies logic. The way I understand him is that his maxim can be understood only with what he calls introception. Would this be a fair description or do you think that it is indeed possible to see the unambiguous truth of that maxim from within cognition? Has someone who has not realized what you have realized but still claims to fully understand your point simply not reflected on it sufficiently to doubt it. Or has he understood the point (using traditional thinking) deeply enough to understand that the doubt is misplaced? [1] www.integralscience.org/gsc/#real [2] www.integralscience.org/gsc/#fundGo for the introception Question....there is a 5000 year old text called the vigyan bhairav tantra that gives 112 techniques of "Intentional effort" that can get you to introception....Osho has a contemporary commentary in a work titled "the book of secrets"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2011 21:32:21 GMT -5
Has someone who has not realized what you have realized but still claims to fully understand your point simply not reflected on it sufficiently to doubt it. Or has he understood the point (using traditional thinking) deeply enough to understand that the doubt is misplaced? I would say that what we call realization is the transposing of cognition and clarity from it's normal function. Instead of thinking leading to clarity, realization is a non-cognitive clarity that 'informs' mind through cognition. As such, cognition can never lead to realization as realization must be transcendent and cannot be a conclusion. No amount of rearranging the blocks in box will reveal the container that the box is in. Also, this non-cognitive clarity is not knowledge about something but rather the seeing of the actuality of a thought pattern from 'outside the box', which actually results in the collapse of that pattern. Much can be said about the absence of that knowledge, though cognition can never cognize it's way to that absence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2011 7:00:15 GMT -5
Good morning mates!
I’ve got to get this out before my truckload of a workday starts.
Mike Snider’s one two punch –- “what’s looking through your eyes is the same as what’s looking through my eyes” and ZD’s retelling of his invitation to consider whether what’s looking through your eyes now is the same or different as what has been looking through your eyes this entire life –- brass knuckles adjusted by Enigma and y’all, really knocked me out. I was teetering and then ZD’s tiny retelling was just the touch to put me on the mat.
Together they’ve seemed to have sliced through the entire space-time continuum, like butter. Butter just on the brink of dissolving into a little pool. I all of a sudden completely understand the meaning of when someone says “my entire life flashed before my eyes” -- that’s it folks! It really does, it’s not like just a retelling of highlights and such as portrayed in movies. Your entire life does just flash before your eyes, like everything else.
Blah blah blah – there’s all sorts of pretty thoughts just pouring forth right now. And also some great sadness – I understand now why E advises folks to sob on the kitchen floor right now. Jeez – adolescence was such a bear. And no offense to bears, by the way – they actually seem fine. Just constant self-torture. Torture don't work folks -- just more bad information.
I could go on but I really really don’t have the time to do that. I wish I had today to just walk. I retold the ZD’s Mike Snider thingy to my wife last night, who’s understandably been real skeptical of the time I’ve been devoting to this ‘nondual’ stuff, and it really gave her pause. I’m not going to get my hopes up, but when she, after a while, said, “wow, that’s really deep” – not something I’ve ever heard her say, btw – I could only nod in agreement “that’s what I’m thinking too.”
Here’s why I wanted to write this to you all. It’s sort of a support group. And I need some advice. There’s an upwelling of stuff going on.
Observe the observer Attend the Actual Notice Sob Laugh Stand as awareness All of the above None of the above’
My hunch is to stand as awareness and watch. Attend the Actual, notice. And I’m puzzled why I would observe the observer right now. It seems like there’s a lot to notice right now.
Gotta go
Edit: observing the observer = you are that = I am spoonful of mashed potatos...okay. it makes sense but i'm not real interested in sense right now other than as a pointer
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 16, 2011 7:09:48 GMT -5
How does one communicate what total stillness is like? One can't because it can't be imagined. How about staring at a wall for 10 years?
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 16, 2011 11:21:30 GMT -5
Has someone who has not realized what you have realized but still claims to fully understand your point simply not reflected on it sufficiently to doubt it. Or has he understood the point (using traditional thinking) deeply enough to understand that the doubt is misplaced? I would say that what we call realization is the transposing of cognition and clarity from it's normal function. Instead of thinking leading to clarity, realization is a non-cognitive clarity that 'informs' mind through cognition. As such, cognition can never lead to realization as realization must be transcendent and cannot be a conclusion. No amount of rearranging the blocks in box will reveal the container that the box is in. Also, this non-cognitive clarity is not knowledge about something but rather the seeing of the actuality of a thought pattern from 'outside the box', which actually results in the collapse of that pattern. Much can be said about the absence of that knowledge, though cognition can never cognize it's way to that absence. I understand how the idea makes sense after the fact of realization, because then the idea has an actual referent to which the idea is pointing. But prior to your own realization, was the idea a certainty to you? @max: If you allow me, I would like to ask you the same question. I assume that you haven't had the same realization as Enigma, yet you seem to be certain that the idea he presents is entirely consistent and a logical certainty beyond the shadow of a doubt? The reason for my question is trivial. There are many people who claim to understand that primordial persistent awareness must be a fact and that it is indeed already grounded in logic, they are absolutely certain of that idea without even having had a realization of that awareness. Yet despite my best efforts I can't come to the same conclusion and certainty, which makes me wonder whether I'm too 'stupid' to understand the idea or whether those people have taken the idea on faith and haven't reflected on it deeply enough to notice that it can't in itself be a certainty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2011 12:05:46 GMT -5
hah! question, your problem is the opposite of being too 'stupid' -- you've probably heard that before.
i don't know what's going on right now -- i distrust terms like realization and certainty. there's just been an insight i suppose. i'm letting whatever is happening happen. let it stew.
nothing was certain ever. to doubt is to question. a question can be asked and not have an answer. is this true? that question can always be asked. it's just a question -- sometimes it can bear some fruit sometimes not.
enigma helped me apply mind to a set of questions. the realization i suppose was that because awareness can not be located, the question of 'is it here or there?' makes no sense. the question is obsolete.
previous to that I had become comfortable with the concept of awareness or presence or whatever as a natural state -- john wheeler really helped with this. so the idea that awareness can not be located was not new.
the story ZD retold applied that same realization to a sense of time. zd also says i'm a spoonful of mashed potatos among others -- this is still a koan to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2011 13:24:26 GMT -5
I would say that what we call realization is the transposing of cognition and clarity from it's normal function. Instead of thinking leading to clarity, realization is a non-cognitive clarity that 'informs' mind through cognition. As such, cognition can never lead to realization as realization must be transcendent and cannot be a conclusion. No amount of rearranging the blocks in box will reveal the container that the box is in. Also, this non-cognitive clarity is not knowledge about something but rather the seeing of the actuality of a thought pattern from 'outside the box', which actually results in the collapse of that pattern. Much can be said about the absence of that knowledge, though cognition can never cognize it's way to that absence. I understand how the idea makes sense after the fact of realization, because then the idea has an actual referent to which the idea is pointing. But prior to your own realization, was the idea a certainty to you? @max: If you allow me, I would like to ask you the same question. I assume that you haven't had the same realization as Enigma, yet you seem to be certain that the idea he presents is entirely consistent and a logical certainty beyond the shadow of a doubt? The reason for my question is trivial. There are many people who claim to understand that primordial persistent awareness must be a fact and that it is indeed already grounded in logic, they are absolutely certain of that idea without even having had a realization of that awareness. Yet despite my best efforts I can't come to the same conclusion and certainty, which makes me wonder whether I'm too 'stupid' to understand the idea or whether those people have taken the idea on faith and haven't reflected on it deeply enough to notice that it can't in itself be a certainty. I understand what you're questioning here. First of all, what we call realization of Truth is precisely the same 'function' as the realization of non-volition or the realization of the futility of dualistic happiness or the realization of the reality of Love or any other 'transcendent' realization that you may have had. The effect of that particular realization is all encompassing, but the 'mechanics' are not different. To imagine that it is somehow uniquely different than the way in which any realization occurs would be to add a confusing layer of mystique to it. So we can TRY to talk about realization in general as a different mode of seeing, much like Wolfe did. I understand what Wolfe is talking about but I can't 'borrow' his words. I have to talk about what I'm seeing. Uncertainty is a property of thought, inherent in the self defining nature of conceptualization, and so thought can only support itself with other thoughts, which are also supported by other thoughts, which is what the process of logic and reason is. We can certainly pretend that there is certainty within thought if we make it sufficiently complex and convincing, but it cannot be so. Mind cannot actually know anything for certain. As such, we can't say that self evident truth is evident within the context of thought, which would mean it is not self evident but rather evident on the basis of other evidence. IOW, conceptual understanding rests on the 'truth' of other concepts, while self evident Truth does not. In this, the issue of evidence or verification does not arise at all, not because it is overwhelmingly convincing, but because the function of uncertainty, integral to the conceptualization process, has itself collapsed in the absence of conceptualization. To put it simply, doubt is a function of mind, realization is not. Hencely, realization does not call for certainty simply because it is not encumbered by conceptualization. When the straight jacket of conceptualization is not donned to begin with, it's not necessary to overcome it's implied limitations. So what we're saying is that realization, in it's raw essence before mind conceptualizes it, is not conceptual at all. In it's most common form, this is the 'AHA!' moment that I believe everyone has experienced, but perhaps most have not understood. It's a bit difficult to reflect upon with mind because that moment was both instantaneous and transcendent. That is, it did not occur as a concept and did not occur in mind's formulated sense of continuity that we call time. Initially, it's not clear what is seen in that 'AHA!' moment, and yet it is clear that 'something' is seen. Mind will need to conceptualize it in some way before it can be said what is known. That's the process that is occurring now; looking, seeing, conceptualizing, typing, followed by you reading, conceptualizing, translating, and possibly looking and seeing. If you do not also look and see, the circle is incomplete and the seeing 'here' does not translate into seeing 'there', and the communication fails utterly. So what is this seeing that is not the seeing of something conceptual? Essentially, it is the expansion of perspective beyond the boundaries that define perspective, which means that it is no longer a perspective as such, which is why it is not conceptual. When one sees from 'outside the box' one is not seeing from another larger box or context, but from a kind of empty space in which all the boxes appear. There is nothing to be said about that space as a perspective because it is the origin of perspectives. There really is nothing to be said about what is seen from that space because all that appears are perspectives, but this is the point. What is seen is what is NOT so, and in this seeing there is not knowledge, but rather the collapse of knowledge as a paradigm of some kind of actual reality. From a practical standpoint, the perspective of a separate, volitional entity is seen as an imaginary perspective. The notion of separation is seen as an idea only, the concept of boundaries of any kind is seen as merely conceptual. Oneness is not so much the realization of oneness as true, but the realization that separation is false. It's not the acquisition of knowledge, but rather a loss. Perhaps it can be seen that nothing is needed beyond this loss. Oneness does not need to be conceptualized or understood or believed or proven once the idea of separation has been seen through completely. It's the idea of separation that causes the trouble, not the absence of the actuality of oneness. That actuality is already 'what is' in the absence of the idea of separation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2011 13:35:17 GMT -5
hah! question, your problem is the opposite of being too 'stupid' -- you've probably heard that before. i don't know what's going on right now -- i distrust terms like realization and certainty. there's just been an insight i suppose. i'm letting whatever is happening happen. let it stew. nothing was certain ever. to doubt is to question. a question can be asked and not have an answer. is this true? that question can always be asked. it's just a question -- sometimes it can bear some fruit sometimes not. enigma helped me apply mind to a set of questions. the realization i suppose was that because awareness can not be located, the question of 'is it here or there?' makes no sense. the question is obsolete. previous to that I had become comfortable with the concept of awareness or presence or whatever as a natural state -- john wheeler really helped with this. so the idea that awareness can not be located was not new. the story ZD retold applied that same realization to a sense of time. zd also says i'm a spoonful of mashed potatos among others -- this is still a koan to me. it just shows that one size doesn't fit all. Hehe. There are some folks who are so enamored of the intellectual process that it becomes an end in itself, and I don't usually engage with such folks because we don't share the same interest. In Question, however, I see not only a wonderfully functioning mind but also the inclination to relax the boundaries and peek outside of this process, so it becomes a bit interesting. Most are going to fall dead asleep with what I just wrote to Question, but most of us could use a little more beauty sleep. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 16, 2011 13:39:58 GMT -5
Dang it enigma, you are so quick to answer and you write with such clarity that it often leaves me unable to say what I want to say because it echoes you too much and you say it so much freaking better than I can. Hahaha. Stop posting so much clear stuff man! Hahahaha. I think I'm gonna begin building the Enigma statue of pure heart soon.
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Sept 16, 2011 13:40:42 GMT -5
hah! question, your problem is the opposite of being too 'stupid' -- you've probably heard that before. i don't know what's going on right now -- i distrust terms like realization and certainty. there's just been an insight i suppose. i'm letting whatever is happening happen. let it stew. nothing was certain ever. to doubt is to question. a question can be asked and not have an answer. is this true? that question can always be asked. it's just a question -- sometimes it can bear some fruit sometimes not. enigma helped me apply mind to a set of questions. the realization i suppose was that because awareness can not be located, the question of 'is it here or there?' makes no sense. the question is obsolete. previous to that I had become comfortable with the concept of awareness or presence or whatever as a natural state -- john wheeler really helped with this. so the idea that awareness can not be located was not new. the story ZD retold applied that same realization to a sense of time. zd also says i'm a spoonful of mashed potatos among others -- this is still a koan to me. it just shows that one size doesn't fit all. Hehe. There are some folks who are so enamored of the intellectual process that it becomes an end in itself, and I don't usually engage with such folks because we don't share the same interest. In Question, however, I see not only a wonderfully functioning mind but also the inclination to relax the boundaries and peek outside of this process, so it becomes a bit interesting. Most are going to fall dead asleep with what I just wrote to Question, but most of us could use a little more beauty sleep. Hehe. Haha, well I loved every sentence! I even gave you a karma point and I don't ususally give those. Not that you need them, hehe!
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 16, 2011 13:42:29 GMT -5
Yes I for one am for people getting a ton more sleep. There are some ugly people out there. I just peeked in the mirror and saw something scary.....oh wait....son of a.....
Hahahaha.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2011 13:50:50 GMT -5
Dang it enigma, you are so quick to answer and you write with such clarity that it often leaves me unable to say what I want to say because it echoes you too much and you say it so much freaking better than I can. Hahaha. Stop posting so much clear stuff man! Hahahaha. I think I'm gonna begin building the Enigma statue of pure heart soon. If you declare me a pure heart Buddha, it might throw me into a deep depression and then you'll have to come save me. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2011 13:54:12 GMT -5
Yes I for one am for people getting a ton more sleep. There are some ugly people out there. I just peeked in the mirror and saw something scary.....oh wait....son of a..... Hahahaha. Did your reflection disappear? -----Subtly reaching for my vampire stakes----- ;D
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 16, 2011 13:55:24 GMT -5
Hahaha. Get ready cause the waters are gonna be cold. Luckily I got my waders.
|
|