|
|
You
Aug 22, 2016 9:22:38 GMT -5
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 9:22:38 GMT -5
"...and then you got those teeth? They're kinda big, dude."
"Well...they are a provisorium."
"What's that?"
"They are not permanent. They are just to cover the gap."
"Men, I'm happy you said that. Otherwise you gotta get a new name, Laffy."
"What name?"
"Big-teeth-tuutsy or somethin'..."
|
|
|
|
You
Aug 22, 2016 15:01:07 GMT -5
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 15:01:07 GMT -5
Just listen.... Can 'hearing' be 'heard'? Surely, 'hearing' always happens silently? Just look.... Can 'seeing' be 'seen'? Surely, 'seeing' always happens formlessly? Now.... Can 'perceiving' be 'perceived'? Surely, 'perceiving' always happens 'changelessly'? What might this indicate about You, the Perceiver?  These words are as meaningless as....you name it! |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 22, 2016 17:33:55 GMT -5
Just listen.... Can 'hearing' be 'heard'? Surely, 'hearing' always happens silently? Just look.... Can 'seeing' be 'seen'? Surely, 'seeing' always happens formlessly? Now.... Can 'perceiving' be 'perceived'? Surely, 'perceiving' always happens 'changelessly'? What might this indicate about You, the Perceiver? These words are as meaningless as....you name it! Correct! And yet, in some way or other, 'perceiving' IS ACTUALLY happening, isn't it? |
|
|
|
You
Aug 22, 2016 18:26:05 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 22, 2016 18:26:05 GMT -5
Q1. I don't know as you have not defined anything. You have not shared any precise thoughts for me to contemplate to be able to judge yes or no. Q2. That you think your conclusions are correct expressions of what is occuring in every person. Do you accept what is described as a commonly shared experience such as perception as being a self evident truth within yourself, a truth that has no need of proof because it is self evident to you. Imo, how i contemplate, 'Perception' has not been described. All that has been stated is there is a phenomena called 'perception'. I cannot evaluate your's or relinquish's definition of 'perception' because none has been expressed. And according to my interpretation of relinquish's OP, what you are now asking is moving away from what he originally expressed. Unless you are working at establishing something that leads back to the OP data. But to directly answer this new question of yours...i assume it's a question( there's no ?)...to me it seems illogical to state, "no need of proof because it is self evident to you", for it seems to me that when a person declares something is evident, they already have judged\decided they have enough evidence\proof that the thing exists, that they then express it thus, 'It is self evident', or 'It is evident to me.' I theorise you may have a different understanding of 'evident' and 'perception'. And just in case...if you only asked if i think perception is a commonly experienced phenomena, i would easily answer, yes. But that's not what you asked, hence the answer i gave. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 22, 2016 18:49:23 GMT -5
Just for the sake of clarity, I think a slight distinction should be set between the terms 'perception' and 'perceiving'.
A 'perception' is a perceived (experienced) form of any kind, such as a sight, sound, smell, taste, texture, thought, feeling, emotion, etc. In other words, there can be multiple different changing perceptions.
These are all perceived by one who is 'perceiving' (that is to say, by a 'perceiver').
Here and now, 'perceiving' is happening. The question is, is there any MANNER in which 'perceiving' can happen that is different to the manner in which it is happening here and now?
|
|
|
|
You
Aug 24, 2016 3:59:45 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 24, 2016 3:59:45 GMT -5
Just for the sake of clarity, I think a slight distinction should be set between the terms 'perception' and 'perceiving'. I assume,generally speaking, that everyone knows the difference between 'perception' and 'perceiving'. The former is a noun, the latter, a verb. Here and now, 'perceiving' is happening. The question is, is there any MANNER in which 'perceiving' can happen that is different to the manner in which it is happening here and now? By 'manner', do you mean these - sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought, feeling, emotion? |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 24, 2016 17:54:47 GMT -5
Just for the sake of clarity, I think a slight distinction should be set between the terms 'perception' and 'perceiving'. I assume,generally speaking, that everyone knows the difference between 'perception' and 'perceiving'. The former is a noun, the latter, a verb. Here and now, 'perceiving' is happening. The question is, is there any MANNER in which 'perceiving' can happen that is different to the manner in which it is happening here and now? By 'manner', do you mean these - sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought, feeling, emotion? Again, we need to break it down a bit for clarity's sake. Sight, sound, smell, taste and touch are all perceptions, and they are all subject to change. When, for instance, sight is not occurring, the absence of sight is 'seen'. In this way, seeing is occurring whether or not sight is occurring. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching are the five 'primary elements' of perceiving. We can take any one of these elements (let's take hearing) and ask the same question I asked of perceiving; Is there any MANNER in which hearing can happen that is different to the manner in which it is happening here and now (i.e. silently)? Furthermore, is silence itself subject to change? Is there any silence that is different to the silence that is present here and now? Can anything be truly silent other than silence itself? Also with formlessness. Does seeing have a form? Is there any formlessness that is different to the formlessness that is present here and now? Is it subject to change? Silence, formlessness and changelessness are all 'attributes' of each other. This is what I mean by 'the manner in which perceiving is happening'. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 25, 2016 5:49:16 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 25, 2016 5:49:16 GMT -5
Again, we need to break it down a bit for clarity's sake. It seems irrational to me to say 'we need to break it down', when it is only you that is clarifying your thoughts. Why use "we" when there is only one, 'you' , that is performing the clairification? Why can't you just say "I will break it down, I need to clarify some more." For it seems to me the latter is a more accurate depiction of what is occurring in reality. And genuinely curious, do you know why you used "we" when talking about only your effort? Anyways, i already disagree with your defintions set forth on the 1st 4 lines, so that your 5th line makes no sense to me. And i'm currently recovering from a mild physical injury and am too mentally tired to allocate the mental effort your thoughts deserve, and will come back to your post later. And by 'disagree', i don't mean i think you're definitions are wrong, it's just by the time i come to the 5th line, i don't understand the question because my definitions are not the same as yours, and i am using mine whch creates the lack of understanding of your question, though i imagine the question makes sense to your due to your different definitions. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 25, 2016 17:43:21 GMT -5
Again, we need to break it down a bit for clarity's sake. It seems irrational to me to say 'we need to break it down', when it is only you that is clarifying your thoughts. Why use "we" when there is only one, 'you' , that is performing the clairification? Why can't you just say "I will break it down, I need to clarify some more." For it seems to me the latter is a more accurate depiction of what is occurring in reality. And genuinely curious, do you know why you used "we" when talking about only your effort? Anyways, i already disagree with your defintions set forth on the 1st 4 lines, so that your 5th line makes no sense to me. And i'm currently recovering from a mild physical injury and am too mentally tired to allocate the mental effort your thoughts deserve, and will come back to your post later. And by 'disagree', i don't mean i think you're definitions are wrong, it's just by the time i come to the 5th line, i don't understand the question because my definitions are not the same as yours, and i am using mine whch creates the lack of understanding of your question, though i imagine the question makes sense to your due to your different definitions. I guess I used the word "we" with the hope that this conversation could be an opportunity for us to explore the matter together. I hope you feel better soon, Jay. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 26, 2016 8:19:32 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 26, 2016 8:19:32 GMT -5
I guess I used the word "we" with the hope that this conversation could be an opportunity for us to explore the matter together. Yeah, but both of us exploring the topic is not the action of you clarifying your own words. I don't see any problem in using 'we' to denote two or more people doing something...but this below... Again, we need to break it down a bit for clarity's sake. ...is one person, you. I hope you feel better soon, Jay. Saving your previous post so i can spend time on it offline, as i fatigue quickly and never get to finish a post. Cheers, will recover soon, i know the drill, just have to back off to re-energise. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 26, 2016 8:26:10 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 26, 2016 8:26:10 GMT -5
Why have you ceased interacting with me on this topic, satchitananda? Depends on the nature of the individual and the experience one is attempting to assign subjective truth\fact to it. State a specific incident and i might be able to express more thoughts on the matter. Wasn't the specific incident your response to what stillness said? Out of all the things relinquish said, which one specifically would you like me share what i think would be acceptable proof it's correct? Q1. I don't know as you have not defined anything. You have not shared any precise thoughts for me to contemplate to be able to judge yes or no. Q2. That you think your conclusions are correct expressions of what is occuring in every person. Do you accept what is described as a commonly shared experience such as perception as being a self evident truth within yourself, a truth that has no need of proof because it is self evident to you. Imo, how i contemplate, 'Perception' has not been described. All that has been stated is there is a phenomena called 'perception'. I cannot evaluate your's or relinquish's definition of 'perception' because none has been expressed. And according to my interpretation of relinquish's OP, what you are now asking is moving away from what he originally expressed. Unless you are working at establishing something that leads back to the OP data. But to directly answer this new question of yours...i assume it's a question( there's no ?)...to me it seems illogical to state, "no need of proof because it is self evident to you", for it seems to me that when a person declares something is evident, they already have judged\decided they have enough evidence\proof that the thing exists, that they then express it thus, 'It is self evident', or 'It is evident to me.' I theorise you may have a different understanding of 'evident' and 'perception'. And just in case...if you only asked if i think perception is a commonly experienced phenomena, i would easily answer, yes. But that's not what you asked, hence the answer i gave. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 14:12:26 GMT -5
Why have you ceased interacting with me on this topic, satchitananda? Wasn't the specific incident your response to what stillness said? Out of all the things relinquish said, which one specifically would you like me share what i think would be acceptable proof it's correct? Do you accept what is described as a commonly shared experience such as perception as being a self evident truth within yourself, a truth that has no need of proof because it is self evident to you. Imo, how i contemplate, 'Perception' has not been described. All that has been stated is there is a phenomena called 'perception'. I cannot evaluate your's or relinquish's definition of 'perception' because none has been expressed. And according to my interpretation of relinquish's OP, what you are now asking is moving away from what he originally expressed. Unless you are working at establishing something that leads back to the OP data. But to directly answer this new question of yours...i assume it's a question( there's no ?)...to me it seems illogical to state, "no need of proof because it is self evident to you", for it seems to me that when a person declares something is evident, they already have judged\decided they have enough evidence\proof that the thing exists, that they then express it thus, 'It is self evident', or 'It is evident to me.' I theorise you may have a different understanding of 'evident' and 'perception'. And just in case...if you only asked if i think perception is a commonly experienced phenomena, i would easily answer, yes. But that's not what you asked, hence the answer i gave. I've stopped interacting with you on this topic because I can't be bothered. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 26, 2016 17:40:38 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 26, 2016 17:40:38 GMT -5
I've stopped interacting with you on this topic because I can't be bothered. What had you perceived in our interaction that resulted in your judgement that you were wasting your time with me? |
|
|
|
You
Aug 28, 2016 15:58:09 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 28, 2016 15:58:09 GMT -5
I assume,generally speaking, that everyone knows the difference between 'perception' and 'perceiving'. The former is a noun, the latter, a verb. By 'manner', do you mean these - sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought, feeling, emotion? Again, we need to break it down a bit for clarity's sake. Sight, sound, smell, taste and touch are all perceptions, and they are all subject to change. When, for instance, sight is not occurring, the absence of sight is 'seen'. In this way, seeing is occurring whether or not sight is occurring. To me, that's two different types of 'seeing' you are speaking of. That's not one type that has changed. The former, Sight - Seeing - Perceiving by eyesight. The latter, 'seeing you can't see through your eyes', Seeing - Perceive, an idea or situation, mentally; Get to know or become aware of. Two different definitions of 'seeing' because of two different types of seeing. Seeing with the eyes and seeing with the mind. The former, "Can you see?, as in the physical object in front of you. The latter, "Can you see?", as in do you understand...the fuller version being, "Do you see what i mean?" The former is about conveying info to comprehend, be aware of a physical object, the latter is about conveying info to comprehend, to understand another's thoughts about the object, or to create one's own thoughts of it. If you see only one 'seeing\sight' that has changed, then that is your understanding to do with as you see fit. I see you have expressed two types of sight...so i see\understand no transformation has occurred. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching are the five 'primary elements' of perceiving. Yep, i agree, only one mechanism of perception, the mind's ability to process incoming data from the five senses. The mind uses the incoming data from the eyes and constructs an image, thus the mind, the consciousness, the self, the individual, is now aware of the object in the environment. The mind comprehends; the eye cannot do this. The eye only receives and transmits data. Regarding the one mechanism of perception humans have, the common phrase, "Look with your eyes", is ambiguous. "Look through your eyes" clarifies it. We can take any one of these elements (let's take hearing) and ask the same question I asked of perceiving; Is there any MANNER in which hearing can happen that is different to the manner in which it is happening here and now (i.e. silently)? According to my current understanding, i would never ask this question as it doesn't make sense to me to ask it, it seems pointless. And i calculate that according to your current understanding, as expressed above regarding 'sight perception changing', this question does make sense to you. To answer your question, and speaking generally, no. The ear sensor translates the varying air pressure waves of energy upon the eardrum and connected bones, etc, into digital or analogue electrical impulses which is sent to and decoded by the mind into what we refer to as Sound. I know of no other way a human perceives physical sound. Furthermore, is silence itself subject to change? Is there any silence that is different to the silence that is present here and now? The term 'silence' is a human construct. It is a mental construct, a construct(ion) of thoughts describing a phemomena experienced, generally accepted as meaning - no sound is heard. I think if someone wants to define another type of 'silence', they are free to do so, though i foresee potential confusion, based on the wealth of misunderstanding already occurring between people due to some illogical social habit of assigning different meanings to one word. All words are made up, they always have been and it's still very easy to make new ones up. I see no rational reason to assign a new different meaning to an established word when a new one could be made for the new definition of the new experience. Silence already has a clear definition. If you have experienced a different type of silence, perhaps you could assign a new word to it, to avoid potential confusion\misunderstanding. Can anything be truly silent other than silence itself? The question does not make sense to me. Silence is the action of being silent, and many things can be silent, can behave silently while having more attributes other than silence. One does not have to be purely comprised of silence to be able to behave silently. Also with formlessness. Does seeing have a form? Is there any formlessness that is different to the formlessness that is present here and now? Is it subject to change? Q1. Which 'seeing' are you referring to, eye sight or mind sight? Q2. Can you perceive a formless thing, or can you define or describe something that is formless, as it seems to me that if it is formless, you have no way of perceiving it. It's like saying, "See over there, that thing is invisible." I look in that direction and ask, "What thing, i can't see it?" You say, "Of course you can't see it, it's invisible." I then ask, "How can you say there is something there if you can't see it?" To assign the attribute of 'formless' to something, means to me it now has or always had a form.(for humans have the abilty to assign attributes the phenomena actually has, and also assign ones it doesn't) So it makes no logical sense to me to describe something as formless, as you have to perceive it to assign the attribute 'formless'...as in, "Oh i perceive it, it appears to have no form." That is, if you perceive it, it has to have some type of form, and if it's formless, then you can't perceive it. If you mean 'physical formlessness', it would be helpful if you specified this. Q3. My thoughts on 'change' has been previously expressed. Silence, formlessness and changelessness are all 'attributes' of each other. How so, please elaborate. Use something you perceive has no form as the test piece, so i can follow your train of thought. This is what I mean by 'the manner in which perceiving is happening'. I just use the comonly accepted and established definitions of words. I experience and am aware, according to my understanding, when i am perceiving and the basics of how i perceive and how i can use it to function beneficially, harmoniously, with the least amount of suffering inflicted upon myself and others within this realm i exist in in my human form. It is still unclear to me what your understanding of the phenomena is, and\or if there are specific things you wish to convey, though i am enjoying the exploration, and hope i can better understand your thoughts on the matter. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 28, 2016 16:06:46 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Aug 28, 2016 16:06:46 GMT -5
I've stopped interacting with you on this topic because I can't be bothered. I have an interesting theory( got it while dreaming last night, yes i was dreaming of you, you slap happy polar bear) as to why you have ceased interacting with me on this subject, based on the phrase, "I can't be bothered." Would you like to hear it?...of course you would. but it's dawn, and the weather is nice, so i'm off for a nice Zen walk on the traintracks, and i just finished my long response to relinquish and i need to get some nature rays into me to replenish and revitalise, as i've been sitting and writing for hours. |
|
