|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 1:11:55 GMT -5
No, actually, the context of that dichotomy was established by what you wrote here: Without someone to appear to, there are no appearances, and without one to sense, there are no senses: perception requires a perceiver. "Universal Mind"?  Haha...Leaving aside Universal Mind as an unknowable idea, the 'sensor' herself is only an appearance...subject and object are the same...both a part of the same Happening. Thought doesn't happen without a thinker. See it seems to me that you're trying to replace the old model of an objective reality with ... something else.  An ear is both a transducer and a filter. " Thoughts" by your definition happen: aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind ... so if it's information it starts at the ear. Do you have some need here to model the source of the information that the ear generates? Do you have some question about why different ears will generate different and yet similar information that can lead to mind-to-mind agreement about the information generated? There is none. There is no such model. "Actual" can only ever be a pointer. There is no explanation for the commonality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 2:19:33 GMT -5
Haha...Leaving aside Universal Mind as an unknowable idea, the 'sensor' herself is only an appearance...subject and object are the same...both a part of the same Happening. 1. Thought doesn't happen without a thinker. 2. See it seems to me that you're trying to replace the old model of an objective reality with ... something else. 3. An ear is both a transducer and a filter. " Thoughts" by your definition happen: aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind 4. ... so if it's information it starts at the ear. 5. Do you have some need here to model the source of the information that the ear generates? 6. Do you have some question about why different ears will generate different and yet similar information that can lead to mind-to-mind agreement about the information generated? 7. There is none. There is no such model. "Actual" can only ever be a pointer. There is no explanation for the commonality. 1. Where is this thinker?...In my experience, its precisely so that thought happens without a thinker... Use your own empirical investigation, and see if you can actually find a 'thinker' doing the thinking, bet you can't find one if you really look, without the assumption that one 'must' be there. 2. Nah, I'm not replacing the assumed 'thinker' with anything ;-) 3. Nah, using the phrase 'in the mind' the way i did was a kind of lazy turn of phrase on my part, or at best a concession to common vernacular...a better turn of phrase may be: Mind is a movement, and it encompasses all experience and happenings...the movement that is mind is the alpha and omega, the source and the product, of all that IS.........and all that IS, is thought appearing AS mind. 4. Thats a big leap from thin air into a conditioned logic assumption that you made there, and kind of assumed: "if so, then...." 5. Thats a straw man, I make no assumption that the ear generates anything, cept maybe ear wax ;-)....try to remember a song VERY clearly, can you hear it?.....did your ear generate that sound? Where is the sound occurring? 6. A continuation of the strawman, but I'll dance a bit to this one....NO, I don't have a question about what you wrote there, seems more likely that there is mind-to-mind coherence of 'sensory thoughts', because its all one mind on some level. ;-) If you and I walk on the same sidewalk at the same time, and both look at it, we are in a way having the same, or very similar connected thoughts in a kind of connected profound intimacy...two thought/thinking waves in the same current of thought...who by the way, also share a similar thought about the anatomy of ears  7. Sure there are, explanations abound, and talking about them is one of the ways our mind 'knows and gnosis' itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 2:36:22 GMT -5
how do you teach anyone who is so strongly attached to his/her ideas that s/he won't listen to anything that's said? Steve Cundiff said: What is the taste of an apple, before its an apple?Seung Sahn Said: If you see a very strong man blowing smoke in the buddha statue's face, and dropping cigarette ashes in his lap, what should you do, knowing that violence may erupt in the temple if you confront him?
If you remain with your very first response, then you will have learned all that I have to teach that has any merit. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 21, 2014 2:57:00 GMT -5
You seem quite determined. Yeah He Does! I winder what desire that particular 'determination' is feeding... I'm working on a theory.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 3:01:24 GMT -5
Yeah He Does! I wonder what desire that particular 'determination' is feeding... I'm working on a theory. Haha, well if he's soo determined not to investigate, a theory might be all w/he gets lol |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 21, 2014 3:02:24 GMT -5
Haha...Leaving aside Universal Mind as an unknowable idea, the 'sensor' herself is only an appearance...subject and object are the same...both a part of the same Happening. Thought doesn't happen without a thinker. See it seems to me that you're trying to replace the old model of an objective reality with ... something else. An ear is both a transducer and a filter. " Thoughts" by your definition happen: aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind ... so if it's information it starts at the ear. Do you have some need here to model the source of the information that the ear generates? Do you have some question about why different ears will generate different and yet similar information that can lead to mind-to-mind agreement about the information generated? There is none. There is no such model. "Actual" can only ever be a pointer. There is no explanation for the commonality. I wouldn't call sensory perception 'thought' cuz I like the distinction of thought and sense perception. However, I would toss all of it into a box called appearances. No 'physical', no 'outside', no perciever and perceived, just appearances. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 21, 2014 3:03:33 GMT -5
Haha...Leaving aside Universal Mind as an unknowable idea, the 'sensor' herself is only an appearance...subject and object are the same...both a part of the same Happening. Thought doesn't happen without a thinker. See it seems to me that you're trying to replace the old model of an objective reality with ... something else. An ear is both a transducer and a filter. " Thoughts" by your definition happen: aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind ... so if it's information it starts at the ear. Do you have some need here to model the source of the information that the ear generates? Do you have some question about why different ears will generate different and yet similar information that can lead to mind-to-mind agreement about the information generated? There is none. There is no such model. "Actual" can only ever be a pointer. There is no explanation for the commonality. I wouldn't call sensory perception 'thought' cuz I like the distinction of thought vs sense perception. However, I would toss all of it into a box called appearances. No 'physical', no 'outside/inside', no perceiver/perceived, just appearances. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 21, 2014 3:09:46 GMT -5
I'm working on a theory. Haha, well if he's soo determined not to investigate, a theory might be all w/he gets lol The theories start showing up when the cigarette smoke gets too thick for anything else.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 4:59:28 GMT -5
1. Thought doesn't happen without a thinker. 2. See it seems to me that you're trying to replace the old model of an objective reality with ... something else. 3. An ear is both a transducer and a filter. " Thoughts" by your definition happen: 4. ... so if it's information it starts at the ear. 5. Do you have some need here to model the source of the information that the ear generates? 6. Do you have some question about why different ears will generate different and yet similar information that can lead to mind-to-mind agreement about the information generated? 7. There is none. There is no such model. "Actual" can only ever be a pointer. There is no explanation for the commonality. 1. Where is this thinker?.. .In my experience, its precisely so that thought happens without a thinker... Use your own empirical investigation, and see if you can actually find a 'thinker' doing the thinking, bet you can't find one if you really look, without the assumption that one 'must' be there. Don't ask me pal. Those were your words about sensory perception as undifferentiated from thought in mind: thoughts are really auditory sensory perceptions appearing in your mindall sensory experiences originate and happen in the mind, not outside of yourselfBackpedal a bit faster perhaps. btw, the only straw man in this conversation so far was yours: the difference between you and me, is that you separate 'real' sensory perceptions from 'imagined' sensory perceptionsWhere, exactly, did I write anything of the sort?  2. Nah, I'm not replacing the assumed 'thinker' with anything ;-) Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: the sensory thats that occur are occurring in the same unified mindreally, its all one mind, as evidenced by our capacity to have a "shared" sensory thought.... ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. 3. Nah, using the phrase 'in the mind' the way i did was a kind of lazy turn of phrase on my part, or at best a concession to common vernacular... You're embarrassing yourself. You used that "lazy turn of phrase" at least 5 times in the dialog: Ahh...I forgot that many of you are only just now beginning to realize that all of these appearances are just aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind, with no independent 'reality' of their own lol are they not both in your mind? If you spend a few days observing sensory perceptions VERY closely, you will see that 'sensory' perceptions arise in the mind just like any other thoughts. even 'word' thoughts are really auditory sensory perceptions appearing in your mindall sensory experiences originate and happen in the mind === a better turn of phrase may be: Mind is a movement, and it encompasses all experience and happenings...the movement that is mind is the alpha and omega, the source and the product, of all that IS.........and all that IS, is thought appearing AS mind. (** yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn **) Dude, collect your thoughts and get them straight. First admit that you're daydreaming about a flawed model. Within that context, the idea of mind as movement can be interesting and useful, but not if you take the model so seriously that you forget that it's just a play of ideas. 4. Thats a big leap from thin air into a conditioned logic assumption that you made there, and kind of assumed: "if so, then...." When you don't differentiate between the senses and what's derived from them then it makes sense to start speaking in terms of information. In order to keep "It's all mind" (no capital 'M', mind you) from devolving into a speewitchual thumb-sucking fest it's important to keep things rational, and that means that what we're either saying "it's all information" or we're drawing pictures of angels, demons and unicorns and might even entertain the self-delusion that we're some sort of creator or savior. 5. Thats a straw man, I make no assumption that the ear generates anything, cept maybe ear wax ;-)....try to remember a song VERY clearly, can you hear it?.....did your ear generate that sound? Where is the sound occurring? No, it's not a straw man, because I didn't put those words about "it's all one Mind" in your mouth, you wrote them. You want to model the commonality of experience. That's fine. I say it can't be done without resorting to mythology, or, at the very least, speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 5:06:21 GMT -5
Thought doesn't happen without a thinker. See it seems to me that you're trying to replace the old model of an objective reality with ... something else. An ear is both a transducer and a filter. " Thoughts" by your definition happen: ... so if it's information it starts at the ear. Do you have some need here to model the source of the information that the ear generates? Do you have some question about why different ears will generate different and yet similar information that can lead to mind-to-mind agreement about the information generated? There is none. There is no such model. "Actual" can only ever be a pointer. There is no explanation for the commonality. I wouldn't call sensory perception 'thought' cuz I like the distinction of thought and sense perception. However, I would toss all of it into a box called appearances. No 'physical', no 'outside', no perciever and perceived, just appearances. Appearances seems betterer to me than "it's all thought" as the latter strikes me as an item on the agenda to objectify the pointer of nonduality as "Mind". That said, appearances appear, which means that they appear to ... *something* ... so it's all in a context that's after the subject-object split. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 21, 2014 5:27:21 GMT -5
'You' are the vehicle through which you 'happen', you are the body, the mind, and the thoughts, and so much more.. the theories and beliefs fall away in the mind's stillness, where the happening is made known without the manipulated influences of desires, beliefs, and knowings.. 'mind' is the medium through which we interact and interconnect, it organizes information into meaningful patterns which, if clear, reveals what is actually happening.. too often, it is distorted by the stories, theories, and beliefs..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 7:57:09 GMT -5
1. Where is this thinker?.. .In my experience, its precisely so that thought happens without a thinker... Use your own empirical investigation, and see if you can actually find a 'thinker' doing the thinking, bet you can't find one if you really look, without the assumption that one 'must' be there. Don't ask me pal. Those were your words about sensory perception as undifferentiated from thought in mind: thoughts are really auditory sensory perceptions appearing in your mindall sensory experiences originate and happen in the mind, not outside of yourselfBackpedal a bit faster perhaps. btw, the only straw man in this conversation so far was yours: the difference between you and me, is that you separate 'real' sensory perceptions from 'imagined' sensory perceptionsWhere, exactly, did I write anything of the sort? 2. Nah, I'm not replacing the assumed 'thinker' with anything ;-) Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: the sensory thats that occur are occurring in the same unified mindreally, its all one mind, as evidenced by our capacity to have a "shared" sensory thought.... ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. 3. Nah, using the phrase 'in the mind' the way i did was a kind of lazy turn of phrase on my part, or at best a concession to common vernacular... You're embarrassing yourself. You used that "lazy turn of phrase" at least 5 times in the dialog: Ahh...I forgot that many of you are only just now beginning to realize that all of these appearances are just aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind, with no independent 'reality' of their own lol are they not both in your mind? If you spend a few days observing sensory perceptions VERY closely, you will see that 'sensory' perceptions arise in the mind just like any other thoughts. even 'word' thoughts are really auditory sensory perceptions appearing in your mindall sensory experiences originate and happen in the mind === a better turn of phrase may be: Mind is a movement, and it encompasses all experience and happenings...the movement that is mind is the alpha and omega, the source and the product, of all that IS.........and all that IS, is thought appearing AS mind. (** yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn **) Dude, collect your thoughts and get them straight. First admit that you're daydreaming about a flawed model. Within that context, the idea of mind as movement can be interesting and useful, but not if you take the model so seriously that you forget that it's just a play of ideas. 4. Thats a big leap from thin air into a conditioned logic assumption that you made there, and kind of assumed: "if so, then...." When you don't differentiate between the senses and what's derived from them then it makes sense to start speaking in terms of information. In order to keep "It's all mind" (no capital 'M', mind you) from devolving into a speewitchual thumb-sucking fest it's important to keep things rational, and that means that what we're either saying "it's all information" or we're drawing pictures of angels, demons and unicorns and might even entertain the self-delusion that we're some sort of creator or savior. 5. Thats a straw man, I make no assumption that the ear generates anything, cept maybe ear wax ;-)....try to remember a song VERY clearly, can you hear it?.....did your ear generate that sound? Where is the sound occurring? No, it's not a straw man, because I didn't put those words about "it's all one Mind" in your mouth, you wrote them. You want to model the commonality of experience. That's fine. I say it can't be done without resorting to mythology, or, at the very least, speculation. This debate perfectly illustrates my frustration with mystical, unitive ideas of some absolute singular mind. It's not all one I tell ya! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 8:48:02 GMT -5
'You' are the vehicle through which you 'happen', you are the body, the mind, and the thoughts, and so much more.. the theories and beliefs fall away in the mind's stillness, where the happening is made known without the manipulated influences of desires, beliefs, and knowings.. 'mind' is the medium through which we interact and interconnect, it organizes information into meaningful patterns which, if clear, reveals what is actually happening.. too often, it is distorted by the stories, theories, and beliefs.. That seems about right :-) Now, just resolve that paranoia issue, and you could be a real guru ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 8:54:14 GMT -5
2. Nah, I'm not replacing the assumed 'thinker' with anything ;-) Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: the sensory thats that occur are occurring in the same unified mindreally, its all one mind, as evidenced by our capacity to have a "shared" sensory thought.... ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. The simplest explanation for coordinated experience between others is that there is an external world. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 9:01:31 GMT -5
Don't ask me pal. Those were your words about sensory perception as undifferentiated from thought in mind: Backpedal a bit faster perhaps. btw, the only straw man in this conversation so far was yours: Where, exactly, did I write anything of the sort? Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. You're embarrassing yourself. You used that "lazy turn of phrase" at least 5 times in the dialog: === (** yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn **) Dude, collect your thoughts and get them straight. First admit that you're daydreaming about a flawed model. Within that context, the idea of mind as movement can be interesting and useful, but not if you take the model so seriously that you forget that it's just a play of ideas. When you don't differentiate between the senses and what's derived from them then it makes sense to start speaking in terms of information. In order to keep "It's all mind" (no capital 'M', mind you) from devolving into a speewitchual thumb-sucking fest it's important to keep things rational, and that means that what we're either saying "it's all information" or we're drawing pictures of angels, demons and unicorns and might even entertain the self-delusion that we're some sort of creator or savior. No, it's not a straw man, because I didn't put those words about "it's all one Mind" in your mouth, you wrote them. You want to model the commonality of experience. That's fine. I say it can't be done without resorting to mythology, or, at the very least, speculation. This debate perfectly illustrates my frustration with mystical, unitive ideas of some absolute singular mind. It's not all one I tell ya! Man, where there is confusion here is that there are kinda two parts of what I was saying, and observational part, and a speculative part...and Laughter kinda ran his campaign against the speculative part lol I just threw in the bit about a 'unified' mind as an end tie up, because it fits logically with an observational fact that anyone who has an inclination to investigate can observe for themselves....and that is that upon close inspection, so called sensory perceptions appear in what we call mind in the same way as any other thought. Why some 'thoughts' can be shared more directly with others is open to speculation if you are so inclined, but the most obvious explanation would be that on some level, we can share the same sensory thought because its all one mind, but again, thats a supposition...Sensory perceptions being not significantly different types of appearances than any other kind of thought is not a supposition for me though. |
|
