|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2014 10:22:48 GMT -5
volition or non volition a non discussion, really who cares, what difference does it make? zero If you can see yourself as non-volitional, you might let go of the need to control and to judge yourself and others for their misbehavior. You might also begin to question what makes your particular sock puppet separate from other sock puppets. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 9, 2014 10:26:55 GMT -5
volition or non volition a non discussion, really who cares, what difference does it make? zero If you can see yourself as non-volitional, you might let go of the need to control and to judge yourself and others for their misbehavior. You might also begin to question what makes your particular sock puppet separate from other sock puppets. Philosophically, yes -- IRL, not so much.....time & a place... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2014 10:33:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. To have a cosmic consciousness experience, where there is no sensation of 'body', is not the same as there being no 'person', no individuation.. just as the choose to believe in no chooser, is not the same as an actuality where no chooser exists.. Volition is a description of what is actually happening, some people choose to deny the happening, regardless of what it's called.. "truth/true" are value judgments made by the experiencer making that claim, attachment to the mind's image of what happened, rejecting what's happening 'now' in favor of the imagery held in that experiencer's mindscape.. The entirety of discussion about volition, pro and con, is the experiencer's conceptualization of it, a fundamental choice made by that chooser's freedom to do so.. IF we discussed what is actually happening, without insisting that a special description must be true, it would be possible to expand beyond this recurring 'no volition/no chooser' conflict.. I have no interest or need to invoke volition/chooser into a description about what is actually happening, until someone insists that it is 'truth/true' or 'the case'.. those insisting that specialized descriptions of their personal mindscapes must be the only valid descriptions of what is happening are limited by their their attachment to their choice of beliefs about what is happening.. rather than look and see for themselves, they would rather tell others what 'they should see', and berate them for not seeing it the way they 'should'.. Be well.. The difficulty is with the word 'actual'. What one sees as 'actually' happening is different from what another sees as 'actually' happening, depending on what they think constitutes 'actuality'. Its a very abstract idea....a dog knows food, it knows joy, it knows fear...but it doesn't know the difference between 'actual' and 'not-actual'. Yes, claiming that what one experiences is actual (or face value), is an attempt to validate one's stories about what is actually happening. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2014 10:39:57 GMT -5
The difficulty is with the word 'actual'. What one sees as 'actually' happening is different from what another sees as 'actually' happening, depending on what they think constitutes 'actuality'. Its a very abstract idea....a dog knows food, it knows joy, it knows fear...but it doesn't know the difference between 'actual' and 'not-actual'. Yes, claiming that what one experiences is actual (or face value), is an attempt to validate one's stories about what is actually happening. Yes there is that, but what I meant is that whereas one may say that what is experienced is 'actual', another may say that what is prior to experiences is 'actual', or another may say that what is intrinsic to all experiences is 'actual'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2014 10:47:02 GMT -5
After I wrote that it occurred to me that it might have been more prudent to say that 'it seems that a dog knows'. So, fair point. Pretty sure I get what you mean by the bolded bit, nevertheless, it could be said that the variety of contrasting experiences are 'not-actual' and the abiding isness within all experiences is 'actual'. 'Isness' isn't a word I tend to use, but I'm trying to offer an example that illustrates the point that what is 'actual' means different things to different people. Personally, I like the statement 'Love is all that is Real' but I understand that that wouldn't work for you....and its not something that I would insist on in every conversation. I tend to think that the experiences of individuals for example, of the same event (obviously from various angles and vantage points) are real or actual; it's the only fair way to try and crystallize what I'm trying to put forth: so, when people observe this same event and come together to sort out what really happened, is when it gets interesting - mainly because people have differing agendas hidden away from the others and sometimes their own selves. This is why I agree with the bolded of what Tzu said. So how does one separate experience from interpretation so that he knows what's actual and what's a story? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2014 10:52:46 GMT -5
If you can see yourself as non-volitional, you might let go of the need to control and to judge yourself and others for their misbehavior. You might also begin to question what makes your particular sock puppet separate from other sock puppets. Philosophically, yes -- IRL, not so much.....time & a place... As a philosophy or belief, it won't change anything. As a realization, it will change the way you see and respond to 'real life'. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 9, 2014 10:53:41 GMT -5
I tend to think that the experiences of individuals for example, of the same event (obviously from various angles and vantage points) are real or actual; it's the only fair way to try and crystallize what I'm trying to put forth: so, when people observe this same event and come together to sort out what really happened, is when it gets interesting - mainly because people have differing agendas hidden away from the others and sometimes their own selves. This is why I agree with the bolded of what Tzu said. So how does one separate experience from interpretation so that he knows what's actual and what's a story? It's fairly simple for me: The experience is the event(s) itself/themself, iow, what I call WIBIGO. Interpretation is afterwards, when a person is either beginning to sort out for themselves and/or discussing it with others, iow interpreting the whys and hows. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 9, 2014 10:56:53 GMT -5
Philosophically, yes -- IRL, not so much.....time & a place... As a philosophy or belief, it won't change anything. As a realization, it will change the way you see and respond to 'real life'. And I agree, to a point. After thinking about all this stuff for such a long time, I thought yeah, we're all a bunch of Hitlers or Hitler's followers during the worst, but do we then toddle on down the road and just shrug it off? I think it is helpful to not philosophically condemn everyone and their mother, but there's a time to make those judgment calls and do whatever one can to stop the horrific terrorism and torture that goes on in most of our very own family homes and communities. Yes! I do believe I now see and understand what you are getting at, too. ETA: You better start slapping me and choking me now.......this could take a while.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 11:20:13 GMT -5
This is essentially Reefs point on the question of "truth": "truth" comes along for the ride in the abstraction of "actuality". Regardless of the nature of experience -- which can itself come into controversy -- any description of experience involves abstraction. Here are three different descriptions of the same experience: 1) I went to Tasty Cream and chose the homemade strawberry ice cream last Friday. 2) I went to Tasty Cream and had the homemade strawberry ice cream last Friday. 3) Homemade strawberry ice cream was experienced at the Tasty Cream last Friday. The third might seem contrived to some perspectives. To mine, it still does. Now, what's going on there? Is there some conditioning that leads to the perception of contrivance? But notice that, objectively speaking, there are a decreasing number of abstractions from (1) to (3). yup. I would also say the third one sounds contrived, which is interesting. In my opinion, the reason that the third one sounds contrived to me is because of my deeply ingrained conditioning to conceive of myself as an individuated entity separate from everything that I take myself not to be. This is an intersection, that I find interesting, between noticing, acausality, and the nature of personhood/conditioning. The reaction of contrivance is noticed, which is of course, mind-stuff mixed with emotion. This has an appearance of being the effect of a cause, in this case, of a complex of thoughts and feelings centered on the notion of "me", or "I". But the set of distinctions involving that conditioning really has no boundary. It's the result of a machine put in place billions of years before I was born. Life arose somehow, humanity emerged from that and eventually developed a culture, including language, that has self-reference so intricately woven into it's fabric as an unquestioned assumption as to essentially go mostly unnoticed. When it is questioned, the questioning seems so odd and foreign as to usually be dismissed, and often unconsciously resisted with great tenacity. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 11:30:32 GMT -5
After I wrote that it occurred to me that it might have been more prudent to say that 'it seems that a dog knows'. So, fair point. Pretty sure I get what you mean by the bolded bit, nevertheless, it could be said that the variety of contrasting experiences are 'not-actual' and the abiding isness within all experiences is 'actual'. 'Isness' isn't a word I tend to use, but I'm trying to offer an example that illustrates the point that what is 'actual' means different things to different people. Personally, I like the statement 'Love is all that is Real' but I understand that that wouldn't work for you....and its not something that I would insist on in every conversation. I tend to think that the experiences of individuals for example, of the same event (obviously from various angles and vantage points) are real or actual; it's the only fair way to try and crystallize what I'm trying to put forth: so, when people observe this same event and come together to sort out what really happened, is when it gets interesting - mainly because people have differing agendas hidden away from the others and sometimes their own selves. This is why I agree with the bolded of what Tzu said. The differential between "actuality" and "truth" is a dwad. There's nothing more real than the present moment, but to elevate experience as unquestionable is just objectivist material realism in disguise, no matter what other opinions might be present about non-material phenomenon, like say OOBE. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 9, 2014 11:40:18 GMT -5
I tend to think that the experiences of individuals for example, of the same event (obviously from various angles and vantage points) are real or actual; it's the only fair way to try and crystallize what I'm trying to put forth: so, when people observe this same event and come together to sort out what really happened, is when it gets interesting - mainly because people have differing agendas hidden away from the others and sometimes their own selves. This is why I agree with the bolded of what Tzu said. The differential between "actuality" and "truth" is a dwad. There's nothing more real than the present moment, but to elevate experience as unquestionable is just objectivist material realism in disguise, no matter what other opinions might be present about non-material phenomenon, like say OOBE. Truth to me is basically a totally philosophical notion. Actual to me, means events that physically happen. I have no idea what 'objectivist material realism' means -- never herd of it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2014 11:48:28 GMT -5
yup. I would also say the third one sounds contrived, which is interesting. In my opinion, the reason that the third one sounds contrived to me is because of my deeply ingrained conditioning to conceive of myself as an individuated entity separate from everything that I take myself not to be. This is an intersection, that I find interesting, between noticing, acausality, and the nature of personhood/conditioning. The reaction of contrivance is noticed, which is of course, mind-stuff mixed with emotion. This has an appearance of being the effect of a cause, in this case, of a complex of thoughts and feelings centered on the notion of "me", or "I". But the set of distinctions involving that conditioning really has no boundary. It's the result of a machine put in place billions of years before I was born. Life arose somehow, humanity emerged from that and eventually developed a culture, including language, that has self-reference so intricately woven into it's fabric as an unquestioned assumption as to essentially go mostly unnoticed. When it is questioned, the questioning seems so odd and foreign as to usually be dismissed, and often unconsciously resisted with great tenacity. It could be that. I considered the contrivance before and wondered if it was the conditioning, and it could be that. Then I also sat for a minute and considered the nature of 'I'. Yes the self-reference is a big old abstraction that can be done without, but in another way, the 'I' is incredibly...'natural', in the sense that if speaking occurs, then there is always going to be an 'I' involved. So I'm not sure if its the conditioning that makes it sound contrived, or if its the sense of avoiding what is natural that creates the sense of contrivance. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 12:09:36 GMT -5
The differential between "actuality" and "truth" is a dwad. There's nothing more real than the present moment, but to elevate experience as unquestionable is just objectivist material realism in disguise, no matter what other opinions might be present about non-material phenomenon, like say OOBE. Truth to me is basically a totally philosophical notion. Actual to me, means events that physically happen. I have no idea what 'objectivist material realism' means -- never herd of it. Oh, well taking events that physically happen as "actual" (which is just another way of saying that they are true), is a worldview that is based on an assumption of an objective reality outside of you that you are a part of. Let's say you go for a walk in the park, pick up a rock and hold it in your hands for a sec, put it back down and walk away. Later on in the evening, as you're lying in bed, is the rock still where you left it? Does the rock have an existence that's independent and separate from your interaction with it? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 9, 2014 12:18:02 GMT -5
Truth to me is basically a totally philosophical notion. Actual to me, means events that physically happen. I have no idea what 'objectivist material realism' means -- never herd of it. Oh, well taking events that physically happen as "actual" (which is just another way of saying that they are true), is a worldview that is based on an assumption of an objective reality outside of you that you are a part of. Let's say you go for a walk in the park, pick up a rock and hold it in your hands for a sec, put it back down and walk away. Later on in the evening, as you're lying in bed, is the rock still where you left it? Does the rock have an existence that's independent and separate from your interaction with it? Sigh...to me, using the word truth is a can of worms, whenever it is used. On the rock question, I'd say it is easy to see that the rock is separate. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 12:18:32 GMT -5
In my opinion, the reason that the third one sounds contrived to me is because of my deeply ingrained conditioning to conceive of myself as an individuated entity separate from everything that I take myself not to be. This is an intersection, that I find interesting, between noticing, acausality, and the nature of personhood/conditioning. The reaction of contrivance is noticed, which is of course, mind-stuff mixed with emotion. This has an appearance of being the effect of a cause, in this case, of a complex of thoughts and feelings centered on the notion of "me", or "I". But the set of distinctions involving that conditioning really has no boundary. It's the result of a machine put in place billions of years before I was born. Life arose somehow, humanity emerged from that and eventually developed a culture, including language, that has self-reference so intricately woven into it's fabric as an unquestioned assumption as to essentially go mostly unnoticed. When it is questioned, the questioning seems so odd and foreign as to usually be dismissed, and often unconsciously resisted with great tenacity. It could be that. I considered the contrivance before and wondered if it was the conditioning, and it could be that. Then I also sat for a minute and considered the nature of 'I'. Yes the self-reference is a big old abstraction that can be done without, but in another way, the 'I' is incredibly...'natural', in the sense that if speaking occurs, then there is always going to be an 'I' involved. So I'm not sure if its the conditioning that makes it sound contrived, or if its the sense of avoiding what is natural that creates the sense of contrivance. Yes, I understand what you mean, and that's a question that we can only answer for ourselves.  Now, as one thinker to another, you might find some of the stuff that comes up under the google of "language recursion" to be interesting and applicable to the topic. If nothing else, it will give you more stuff to correspond with top' if he ever get's off his fat ass and gets his dissertation done. |
|
