|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 6:01:01 GMT -5
I'm happy to see how gopal responds to what I have raised here, it will serve our purpose well enough, I'm not interested in lawyering the fine print with you. The question is whether eyes are involved with perceiving or not. Right, see, you make up a fictional past and then refuse to face what's actually in the archives. The two truths in question were: "is it true we perceive through our eye or is it true that we are directly perceiving the world"? Only Doooofus Guy turns that into "can you see an oncoming bus if you were blind?". The physical sensation of sight hasn't been denied. The question posed involves the notion of truth, and the idea of "direct perception". Approaching either of those ideas involves an expansion of orientation to the question beyond logic, analysis and conceiving of yourself and the world as a machine. If you want to go with that wording that's fine with me because again, they are both contextually true statements. What you are failing to see is that the fact that gopal couldn't see truth in both of the statements I offered, has already illustrated the point. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 18, 2016 6:14:02 GMT -5
Oh what would that look like? There would be no arguing that the moon comes from outside of yourself. I think the notion of it being inside presupposes the outside, so the argument isn't really pertinent to which sphere the world exists within or without, but the complete absence of its relative locale as a whole. The subjective nature of the moving world can't be rationalised in terms of the biochemistry of the sense organs. The biochemistry doesn't have a direct link to 'immersive experience' with which we are familiar. Hence, the qualia of subjective experience does not imply a universe exists apart from the immediate perception thereof. The perception of the body is not apart from the perception attributed to its senses, and in fact, it is a singularity, rather than the dual paradigm which describes an objective cause of subjective experience. When we see taste smell etc, of course this is reliant on the relevant neurology, but rather than 'me' being aware of 'it', the awareness is dispersed throughout the sensation - I mean, there isn't an awareness of per se so much as there is awareness with. On the whole, then, as an individual senses outward into the surrounding environment, being its central locale, that environment is equally alive and aware, or as I like to say it, 'the universe is made of watching'. People argue that the appearance isn't conscious, but there is no locale for what is conscious at all, and regarding the realm of the changing world, the source of awareness is everywhere, like a field. The observation of a tree, then, is not compartmentalised as 'it' and 'me' as much as it is the space that encompasses the relative positions entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 18, 2016 6:19:41 GMT -5
Well, I understand it. And it has a certain amount of elegance to it - no apparent contradictions. But I can't help but see it as conjecture. I mean, how could anyone know if that's true? You're basically describing the origins of consciousness. Hey quinn....if you replied to this I haven't gotten to it yet...but add this to my earlier reply. You said you see this as conjecture. I left the other reply saying I had a predilection for this teaching, but it's not just that. Even in the first meeting there were some things I could verify. Later, a finer energy was discussed. And later I was given a preparatory practice called the sixty point sensing exercise. And then after some weeks of practicing it, I noticed a something. ...And later at a meeting I asked about it, what is it. The reply, energy. That was forty years ago. So a practice and experience proved an aspect of the teaching. Things like this encouraged me to continue, and I have since verified many other things. So the predilection is not without foundation. No, I didn't reply, I just 'liked' it. I liked your answer about a predilection because it's honest. It got me looking at my own predilections. The fact that you get verification along the way...maybe confirmation bias?  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 18, 2016 6:23:35 GMT -5
Yes, the point is what you are (or maybe more specifically, discovering what you are not). I agree widdat. That's central. Next point...living it. I think it can be very difficult to differentiate between 'rationalizing justifications' and 'following one's path'. Really? Wow, watching the judgment machine in action is like replacing the dirt path with a high-speed monorail. And it's really not all that hard to notice it as it's happening, and the more day-to-day interaction the more opportunity for it, and the less routine that interaction is all the more so. What? What do you think I said? I'm talking about how difficult it is to judge whether someone on the path is right where they need to be or stuck. I don't know what you're referring to with the "judgment machine". |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 6:30:26 GMT -5
well, you again illustrate here the lack of absolute context in your model, so you have no place getting involved in an argument about the nature or content of it. In your case, the denial of an absolute context is what keeps you stuck in brown bearism. In my model there is an absolute context, and in this context there is no hierarchy of any kind. Any supposed "model" of mine is in your imagination only, I was engaging with your model to demonstrate that you cries of "Brown Bear!" are complete projection.  I'm not denying an absolute context, just disagreeing with you about what that context is and what the implications of it are. Here, explain this idea of how there's no hierarchy in the absolute context. How, exactly, can you describe the rock and the murderer in the absolute context such that they are equated? There are lots of different ways to talk about this, but one way is to say that they are both aspects of god or come from the same source, so absolutely , they are equal. 'When the game is over, the king and pawn go back in the same box'. They are equally divine, equally of god, equally god. They both arise from emptiness and fall back into emptiness. In the absolute context, I am you, and you are I. We are the same. Difference is relative and oneness is absolute. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 6:32:16 GMT -5
I have always acknowledged that that pointer has value in some contexts, but gopal has no interest in pointers, and so addressing him in terms of pointers is...pointless! Well no, in the past you've spent 100's of pages and weeks and weeks arguing down the ideas of the absolute and the unchanging. Why bring gopal into this? Yes I have challenged pointers for sure, but I see value too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 6:34:59 GMT -5
And my point is that if self-image was important to me, I would do what you do, and put effort into digging. If it wasn't important to you you wouldn't paint these portraits of yourself and others that depend on erasing the actuality of the words in the archive. Then you misunderstand the motivation behind the action. If I cared about self image it would be quite easy to communicate and present info in such way that would support that. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 18, 2016 6:40:54 GMT -5
I'm just curious about why you say the same things over and over again. Strikes me that it's for the same reason lots of peeps do that, and I can't really exclude myself from that company. Expression seeks an outlet and there's interest in how other minds will react to that expression. Our characters, mood, and whatever brought us to where we are modulate the entire affair, of course. :) I'm prone to repetition myself, but typically tire of any theme within a week or two, or as soon I recognise it as 'part of the pattern'. To me, which is just a personal view and others might not share it, to say one thing, receive the same argument, then say the same thing, to receive the argument, and it goes on... seems to lack any progression. I believe this is because these notions are attached to 'the truth', and as such become artifacts of knowledge, and thereby become items which require constant validation through affirmation - like - broken record. The position taken and adhered to only centralises persons in that righteous position, and that in turn, by seeking validation, creates the demand for agreement (to affirm) or disagreement (the opportunity to affirm for oneself). In my case, I only understand what is meant by what is said, which is really simple because it's just a few lines and it isn't highly articulate. It can't become highly articulate because it doesn't actually progress in conversation into deeper understandings. It is possible that there are other dimensions to it than being right or being wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 7:05:35 GMT -5
You got it wrong yesterday, and you've got it wrong again here today. Those aren't what you responded to gopal with the idea that both ideas are true. If you'll own up to your interest in the past I'll be happy to quote back to you what you actually did respond to. It's not hard at all in this instance because the thread of the dialog links directly back to it. The differential in meaning between what you've morphed gopals words to and what he actually wrote is quite significant.  I'm happy to see how gopal responds to what I have raised here, it will serve our purpose well enough, I'm not interested in lawyering the fine print with you. The question is whether eyes are involved with perceiving or not. What I need to respond? You are not getting this simple logic of perceiver is not looking through the eye. Perceiving directly perceiving, that means,perceiving is not perceiving through some kind of medium called 'eye'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 7:35:24 GMT -5
I'm happy to see how gopal responds to what I have raised here, it will serve our purpose well enough, I'm not interested in lawyering the fine print with you. The question is whether eyes are involved with perceiving or not. What I need to respond? You are not getting this simple logic of perceiver is not looking through the eye. Perceiving directly perceiving, that means,perceiving is not perceiving through some kind of medium called 'eye'. yes we all know the absolute context. What you are being asked is if it is true in another context to say that the eye is involved in perceiving. It's a yes or no answer, but if you don't really understand the idea of context, then it's probably quite hard to answer. Basically, if someone says to you....'Gopal, if you close your eyes you won't be able to see the tree ten feet in front of you'. Is that a true statement? It's not a trap, it's asking you if you can acknowledge that a truth depends on the meaning, presuppositions and assumptions of the question/statement. Gopal lives in India is contextually true. I am presupposing the existence of a 'Gopal' and the existence of an 'India', and then making a link between the two. Gopal lives in Brazil would be contextually false. It's really not complicated, it just requires us to be able to settle into the idea that truth and falsity is a bit more relaxed than we may have thought. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 7:52:04 GMT -5
Exactly like that!  Satch: the rest of what you write reveals that you've got quite a bit of intellectual baggage packed into the word "real" that you don't even really seem conscious of.  One of the best scenes ever in a movie, Point Break. Rookie undercover FBI agent Johnny Utah/Keanu Reeves jumps out of a plane without a parachute rather than let "bad guy" bank robber/surfer Bodhi/Patrick Swayze get away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 8:17:33 GMT -5
What I need to respond? You are not getting this simple logic of perceiver is not looking through the eye. Perceiving directly perceiving, that means,perceiving is not perceiving through some kind of medium called 'eye'. yes we all know the absolute context. What you are being asked is if it is true in another context to say that the eye is involved in perceiving. It's a yes or no answer, but if you don't really understand the idea of context, then it's probably quite hard to answer. Basically, if someone says to you....'Gopal, if you close your eyes you won't be able to see the tree ten feet in front of you'. Is that a true statement? It's not a trap, it's asking you if you can acknowledge that a truth depends on the meaning, presuppositions and assumptions of the question/statement. Gopal lives in India is contextually true. I am presupposing the existence of a 'Gopal' and the existence of an 'India', and then making a link between the two. Gopal lives in Brazil would be contextually false. It's really not complicated, it just requires us to be able to settle into the idea that truth and falsity is a bit more relaxed than we may have thought. Closing and opening eyes are different perception movement. India is in my perception,everything is in perception. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 8:25:52 GMT -5
yes we all know the absolute context. What you are being asked is if it is true in another context to say that the eye is involved in perceiving. It's a yes or no answer, but if you don't really understand the idea of context, then it's probably quite hard to answer. Basically, if someone says to you....'Gopal, if you close your eyes you won't be able to see the tree ten feet in front of you'. Is that a true statement? It's not a trap, it's asking you if you can acknowledge that a truth depends on the meaning, presuppositions and assumptions of the question/statement. Gopal lives in India is contextually true. I am presupposing the existence of a 'Gopal' and the existence of an 'India', and then making a link between the two. Gopal lives in Brazil would be contextually false. It's really not complicated, it just requires us to be able to settle into the idea that truth and falsity is a bit more relaxed than we may have thought. Closing and opening eyes are different perception movement. India is in my perception,everything is in perception. I really don't think you read what I said there. If it is said that Gopal lives in India, is that a lie or a falsity? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 8:29:18 GMT -5
Dude, you're the one clutching hope of someone offering proof of the unreality of the appearances in your consciousness. I prefer to travel much lighter. How can an appearance in consciousness be unreal if it..... appears? You're confused. Everybody needs to get on the same page concerning definitions. I noticed figgles also defines appearance different from Gopal. We can't understand each other unless we understand each other's definitions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 8:31:20 GMT -5
Closing and opening eyes are different perception movement. India is in my perception,everything is in perception. I really don't think you read what I said there. If it is said that Gopal lives in India, is that a lie or a falsity? India is appearing. |
|
