|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 22:49:05 GMT -5
Well, the reason I don't know if others are perceiving is because appearances are empty. I'm guessing you've heard that before. Let's face it, that's not the actual reason. Clue me in.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 23:22:22 GMT -5
In my book, that's contextual confusion. On the one hand you say that oneness is the case and that everything moves as one but then you say that apart from appearances appearing we don't know anything certain about them. We certainly can say something absolutely true about the relative realm as a whole. It is an extension of Source and as such it has all the qualities of Source, i.e. aware, conscious, intelligent and alive. And that can be realized and seen directly. So there's no need to get comfy with uncertainty in that regard. This is the actual oneness realization we call CC. So apparently we disagree on what oneness really means and the practical implications of it. Yes, following a oneness realization, there are some certainties and confirmations. If Awareness is aware of itself (or Consciousness is conscious of itself), then a conversation about whether something is conscious/aware (or not) might be interesting (like the AI robots and humans conversation), but is ultimately misconceived. To assign any spiritual significance or value to the question of whether something is aware/conscious or not, is therefore also misconceived. Consciousness conscious of itself refers to the expression as a conscious point of perception, not an appearance to that point of perception. (i.e. a rock)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 1:52:52 GMT -5
I am more interested in the actual real life consequences of those realizations. And the way Enigma presents his case, I can't see any. So what's the realization worth? If you have realized that you can't really know if your fellow humans are even sentient but on the other hand you can't help but treat them as sentient in your everyday life then that's a realization without actual real life consequences. And as such it is not different from a mental conclusion. Yes I agree. To call it a 'realization' is a mistake then, as it is an intellectually drawn conclusion. One of the last points I made on the subject was that if a solipsist genuinely doesn't know if there are other experiencers, then every time someone or something indicates clearly that they are experiencing, the solipsist has to consider that the other person might be either mistaken or lying lol. But the reality is that I'm sure they don't consider that, which means that the intellectually drawn conclusion has no significance, it's just something to talk about on forums really. Ah, I haven't seen that over there. Yes, solipsism is a nonsense, no matter how you look at it. And its also somewhat self-defeating if you really think it thru, especially when you compare the solipsists talk with his actual walk. Where we disagree though is your assertion over there that Enigma fell into the solipsism trap for one very simple reason: the solipsist doesn't know what impersonal means. And I still remember vividly a time when Enigma and I were trying to explain to you and Figgles what impersonal means (or mostly what it doesn't, hehe). The main issue I have with playing the not-knowing card is that if in the end, despite knowing better, the way 'Joe SR' experiences the world is identical to how 'Joe non-SR' experiences the world then we've successfully assassinated the term SR and just anybody can pose as another 'Joe SR' because we are just playing silly word games.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 2:48:30 GMT -5
In my book, that's contextual confusion. On the one hand you say that oneness is the case and that everything moves as one but then you say that apart from appearances appearing we don't know anything certain about them. We certainly can say something absolutely true about the relative realm as a whole. It is an extension of Source and as such it has all the qualities of Source, i.e. aware, conscious, intelligent and alive. And that can be realized and seen directly. So there's no need to get comfy with uncertainty in that regard. This is the actual oneness realization we call CC. So apparently we disagree on what oneness really means and the practical implications of it. I don't see appearances as 'aware, conscious, alive, intelligent by virtue of them being appearances in Consciousness. I don't believe rocks are any of those things. That's conflating consciousness with appearances in Consciousness. That's a bit of a misrepresentation. I'm not talking about a belief, an ontology or conclusion. I am talking about a realization that is on par with SR. In fact, as ZD noted, this realization gives a much deeper understanding of the world, your Self (and Source) than SR. The realization is that everything is alive, intelligent and conscious and aware. And that is seen directly. It's basically seeing Source as Source thru the eyes of Source. It's what I would call the actual oneness realization as compared to SR. So it starts with seeing that everything is alive and conscious and then you can rationalize it as everything is consciousness but not the other way around! That's important. Usually folks do it the other way around. They start with consciousness is all there is and that's philosophizing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 2:59:13 GMT -5
Let's face it, that's not the actual reason. Clue me in. Well, we've been at this point last year already, remember? You either have a reference for what I am talking about or you don't. If you do, then we should understand each other effortlessly. If you don't, you can either assume I am hallucinating because you are done and have it all figured out or you are open to the possibility that there's something you haven't realized yet. And as I remember, you chose the latter. And I still very much appreciate that noble gesture.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 3, 2018 15:57:01 GMT -5
Ok, well, despair always involves suffering for sure, but to see why I think defining suffering that way doesn't work I'd say that hopelessness might not. The distinction being one where someone concludes that something they were purposing toward is just so unlikely that they might as well give up the purpose. Negative emotions are the smoke, but there might not be any fire, and we all know where that debate leads. To me the whole notion of a six-second enlightened angry-floorburger rule just doesn't work. I've been careful to not pin it on a specific emotion as well, that's why I phrased it that way at first, i.e. the bottom of the emotional scale. And there's quite a collection of emotions there to choose from. Andy asked for an example that would apply to both SR and non-SR folks and the first thing that came to mind was hopelessness as in a bleak economic outlook. Makes sense? Right, there's a point of disagreement here that I don't think more dialog with resolve, but that's ok. It strikes me as similar to the one I arrived at with E' about sloppyist Joe's months ago now. It's mostly not about what I want you to understand about where I'm coming from, but more about how what I'd say to someone interested in the topic is different from what you say.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 3, 2018 17:22:26 GMT -5
Yes I agree. To call it a 'realization' is a mistake then, as it is an intellectually drawn conclusion. One of the last points I made on the subject was that if a solipsist genuinely doesn't know if there are other experiencers, then every time someone or something indicates clearly that they are experiencing, the solipsist has to consider that the other person might be either mistaken or lying lol. But the reality is that I'm sure they don't consider that, which means that the intellectually drawn conclusion has no significance, it's just something to talk about on forums really. Ah, I haven't seen that over there. Yes, solipsism is a nonsense, no matter how you look at it. And its also somewhat self-defeating if you really think it thru, especially when you compare the solipsists talk with his actual walk. Where we disagree though is your assertion over there that Enigma fell into the solipsism trap for one very simple reason: the solipsist doesn't know what impersonal means. And I still remember vividly a time when Enigma and I were trying to explain to you and Figgles what impersonal means (or mostly what it doesn't, hehe). The main issue I have with playing the not-knowing card is that if in the end, despite knowing better, the way 'Joe SR' experiences the world is identical to how 'Joe non-SR' experiences the world then we've successfully assassinated the term SR and just anybody can pose as another 'Joe SR' because we are just playing silly word games. Well, what is happening on gab is a kind of metaphysical solipsism...there's quite a lot of interesting stuff on google about it, we aren't the first by any means to have had this discussion. But I have explored it intensely in the last 6 months and I can spell out their logic very easily and in two sentences. They say: In a nightly dream I don't know if the characters in the dream are experiencing. Therefore, I...as awareness...don't know if the characters in the dream of awareness, are experiencing. I have torn this apart in many different ways well over a hundred times. Probably more like a thousand lol. Tenka has too. In a nutshell though, it is identity poker. But if Enigma isn't saying that, then...okay...I guess. And yeah I have all sorts of problems with mixing what spiritual folks call 'not-knowing' with a solipsist not-knowing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 3, 2018 17:33:27 GMT -5
Yes, following a oneness realization, there are some certainties and confirmations. If Awareness is aware of itself (or Consciousness is conscious of itself), then a conversation about whether something is conscious/aware (or not) might be interesting (like the AI robots and humans conversation), but is ultimately misconceived. To assign any spiritual significance or value to the question of whether something is aware/conscious or not, is therefore also misconceived. Consciousness conscious of itself refers to the expression as a conscious point of perception, not an appearance to that point of perception. (i.e. a rock) Alright, even if I accept your point about consciousness conscious 'of itself' as applying to specific expressions, consciousness is conscious, and awareness is aware. The only exception to this would be if these words are used as pointers...like an equivalent to 'the ineffable' or 'nothingness'. So if we say that awareness is aware (or consciousness is conscious), then we can't talk about humans, AI bots, or rocks being aware or conscious. To talk about that is a different context (as I already said). If 'awareness' is realized, then the issue of whether ' something in particular' is aware, is misconceived. Only when we step into the context of 'somethings' can we say that a human is experiencing and an AI bot is not. But in this very same context, it makes no sense at all to say that humans AREN'T experiencing. We know they are. If your claim to not know if humans are experiencing was true, then every time a human indicates to you that s/he is experiencing (which is pretty much all the time), you would have to consider that the human is either lying or mistaken. And I am sure that you don't consider that. Again, my point has always been that it's not wrong to have a conversation about whether humans, AI bots and rocks are experiencing, but in non-dual terms, it is a misconceived conversation with a misconceived assumption, and that to apply spiritual significance to the conversation, is also misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 3, 2018 17:49:57 GMT -5
In my book, that's contextual confusion. On the one hand you say that oneness is the case and that everything moves as one but then you say that apart from appearances appearing we don't know anything certain about them. We certainly can say something absolutely true about the relative realm as a whole. It is an extension of Source and as such it has all the qualities of Source, i.e. aware, conscious, intelligent and alive. And that can be realized and seen directly. So there's no need to get comfy with uncertainty in that regard. This is the actual oneness realization we call CC. So apparently we disagree on what oneness really means and the practical implications of it. I don't see appearances as 'aware, conscious, alive, intelligent by virtue of them being appearances in Consciousness. I don't believe rocks are any of those things. That's conflating consciousness with appearances in Consciousness. Well the point of the concept of 'appearances' (or 'expressions') is to indicate that they aren't 'real' or 'actual' in the way that what they appear in (or to), is. So if you say 'appearances/expressions appear in/to Consciousness' it means that Consciousness is all that is real. Also, as much as you don't like 3 layer cakes, even a 2 layer cake is misconceived....the idea of appearances/expressions AND Consciousness is misconceived. They aren't two. So if we collapse to a one layer cake (which isn't much of a cake), then what we are left with isn't 'appearances/expressions', it is 'Consciousness' (if we want to we can get rid of the one layer too). But to stay with the one layer...'Consciousness'. Now, where is the question of whether ' others are experiencing'? We can only ask that question if we create the second layer. If we have 'Consciousness' AND 'expressions/appearances'. With two layers, now we have the statement ' I exist as an expression in relation to you as an expression'. So we can know that if we are asking the question about whether 'others are experiencing', we are talking within the context of expressions/appearances...we are starting from the assumption that expressions/appearances are 'real', and that 'I' and 'you' are expressions/appearances. Now this context is fine...that's what we are talking in when we are talking about AI bots and humans. But the point remains that in non-dual terms, it is misconceived. In non-dual terms, there is no 'I and you'...and it is invalid to say 'I am perceiving you'. Sorry dude, the movement became impossible to deny
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 4, 2018 9:07:58 GMT -5
I don't see appearances as 'aware, conscious, alive, intelligent by virtue of them being appearances in Consciousness. I don't believe rocks are any of those things. That's conflating consciousness with appearances in Consciousness. That's a bit of a misrepresentation. I'm not talking about a belief, an ontology or conclusion. I am talking about a realization that is on par with SR. In fact, as ZD noted, this realization gives a much deeper understanding of the world, your Self (and Source) than SR. The realization is that everything is alive, intelligent and conscious and aware. And that is seen directly. It's basically seeing Source as Source thru the eyes of Source. It's what I would call the actual oneness realization as compared to SR. I agree. Apparently, and I'm basing this upon numerous accounts in the literature, there are various kinds of CC experiences, from short and shallow to long-lasting and deep. The Japanese use the term "daikensho" to distinguish the deep ones. A daikensho experience reveals that what we call "the universe" is alive, unified, infinite, mind-bogglingly intelligent, and aware.This is experienced directly by Source through some unknown organ of perception, or through some circuit of the intellect that is not normally activated. This realization is at least as important as SR, and maybe more so. After such an experience, one never again thinks about the universe/reality in the same way as before. Realizations come in different sequences for different people. Some people attain SR and then later have a oneness realization, and vice versa. There are also all kinds of other realizations that can occur either as separate distinct realizations or in combination with other realizations. A few of them include: 1. Everyone is doing exactly what they must be doing at each moment 3. Time, space, causality, thingness, separateness, and all other distinctions are imaginary 4. The illusion of "if"-thinking (imagining alternative events) 5. The difference between relative meaning (imaginary) and absolute meaning 6. The difference between judging and discerning 7. The illusion of volition 8. The illusion of personal selfhood What's the difference between someone who's had all of these realizations (a sage) and someone who hasn't? A sage interacts with the world directly rather than indirectly through thoughts ABOUT the world. She doesn't think about appearances, consciousness, reality, meaning, how anything "ought" to be, or how any person "should" act. She accepts the world at face-value, and life is simple, uncomplicated, and obvious. She doesn't try to control thoughts, and doesn't care whether the mind is active, silent, or even "running on autopilot" because she knows that Source is doing everything, and she is one-with THAT. She's free, at peace, and happy, but she doesn't think about freedom, peace, or being happy. She is rarely, if ever, self-reflective.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 4, 2018 9:15:21 GMT -5
Yes I agree. To call it a 'realization' is a mistake then, as it is an intellectually drawn conclusion. One of the last points I made on the subject was that if a solipsist genuinely doesn't know if there are other experiencers, then every time someone or something indicates clearly that they are experiencing, the solipsist has to consider that the other person might be either mistaken or lying lol. But the reality is that I'm sure they don't consider that, which means that the intellectually drawn conclusion has no significance, it's just something to talk about on forums really. Ah, I haven't seen that over there. Yes, solipsism is a nonsense, no matter how you look at it. And its also somewhat self-defeating if you really think it thru, especially when you compare the solipsists talk with his actual walk. Where we disagree though is your assertion over there that Enigma fell into the solipsism trap for one very simple reason: the solipsist doesn't know what impersonal means. And I still remember vividly a time when Enigma and I were trying to explain to you and Figgles what impersonal means (or mostly what it doesn't, hehe). The main issue I have with playing the not-knowing card is that if in the end, despite knowing better, the way 'Joe SR' experiences the world is identical to how 'Joe non-SR' experiences the world then we've successfully assassinated the term SR and just anybody can pose as another 'Joe SR' because we are just playing silly word games. Yes. The biggest difference between 'Joe deeply realized' and "Joe unrealized" is that JDR is not attached to culturally-conditioned thoughts about the world, and is not self-referentially and self-reflectively related to whatever is happening.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 11:59:20 GMT -5
I've been careful to not pin it on a specific emotion as well, that's why I phrased it that way at first, i.e. the bottom of the emotional scale. And there's quite a collection of emotions there to choose from. Andy asked for an example that would apply to both SR and non-SR folks and the first thing that came to mind was hopelessness as in a bleak economic outlook. Makes sense? Right, there's a point of disagreement here that I don't think more dialog with resolve, but that's ok. It strikes me as similar to the one I arrived at with E' about sloppyist Joe's months ago now. It's mostly not about what I want you to understand about where I'm coming from, but more about how what I'd say to someone interested in the topic is different from what you say. I'd say the more riddles the more gets lost in translation. So talk to me as you would to a child or a golden retriever.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 15:21:14 GMT -5
Right, there's a point of disagreement here that I don't think more dialog with resolve, but that's ok. It strikes me as similar to the one I arrived at with E' about sloppyist Joe's months ago now. It's mostly not about what I want you to understand about where I'm coming from, but more about how what I'd say to someone interested in the topic is different from what you say. I'd say the more riddles the more gets lost in translation. So talk to me as you would to a child or a golden retriever.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 22:18:53 GMT -5
Well, what is happening on gab is a kind of metaphysical solipsism...there's quite a lot of interesting stuff on google about it, we aren't the first by any means to have had this discussion. But I have explored it intensely in the last 6 months and I can spell out their logic very easily and in two sentences. They say: In a nightly dream I don't know if the characters in the dream are experiencing. Therefore, I...as awareness...don't know if the characters in the dream of awareness, are experiencing. I have torn this apart in many different ways well over a hundred times. Probably more like a thousand lol. Tenka has too. In a nutshell though, it is identity poker. But if Enigma isn't saying that, then...okay...I guess. And yeah I have all sorts of problems with mixing what spiritual folks call 'not-knowing' with a solipsist not-knowing. If they've arrived there by comparing dream experience with waking experience then they are violating their other dogma, namely that looking at experience cannot reveal any kind of truth. But I've already pointed that out two years ago. I've been reading a bit about metaphysical solipsism and it really is just the way how the intellect would understand what we call Oneness. But what we call Oneness cannot be grasped by the intellect. It requires a realization (CC). Now, Oneness is implied in SR, but I'd argue that a full understanding of Oneness and its implication requires a CC. Here's a good definition of solipsism: Notice the connection to idealism. Here's the definition of idealism: So if you combine those definitions it's pretty obvious how they get from 'all ideas are inherently empty' to all 'appearances are inherently empty' to 'apart from that appearances appear we can't say anything about them' to 'I don't know if others are genuine perceives or not' ... It's the only logical conclusion when your only tool of understanding is the intellect. So in a sense, solipsism is a very honest intellectual position because it describes very accurately how the world is experienced thru the intellect. However, metaphysical solipsism (aka I am Source or God or Awareness and everything appears to me) is a very dishonest intellectual position, because it is basically just identity poker (as you've pointed out) and no one ever does or can walk that talk. And so the term 'bankrupt philosophy' sums it up quite well. It has no actual practical consequences in real life.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 22:31:13 GMT -5
That's a bit of a misrepresentation. I'm not talking about a belief, an ontology or conclusion. I am talking about a realization that is on par with SR. In fact, as ZD noted, this realization gives a much deeper understanding of the world, your Self (and Source) than SR. The realization is that everything is alive, intelligent and conscious and aware. And that is seen directly. It's basically seeing Source as Source thru the eyes of Source. It's what I would call the actual oneness realization as compared to SR. I agree. Apparently, and I'm basing this upon numerous accounts in the literature, there are various kinds of CC experiences, from short and shallow to long-lasting and deep. The Japanese use the term "daikensho" to distinguish the deep ones. A daikensho experience reveals that what we call "the universe" is alive, unified, infinite, mind-bogglingly intelligent, and aware.This is experienced directly by Source through some unknown organ of perception, or through some circuit of the intellect that is not normally activated. This realization is at least as important as SR, and maybe more so. After such an experience, one never again thinks about the universe/reality in the same way as before. Realizations come in different sequences for different people. Some people attain SR and then later have a oneness realization, and vice versa. There are also all kinds of other realizations that can occur either as separate distinct realizations or in combination with other realizations. A few of them include: 1. Everyone is doing exactly what they must be doing at each moment 3. Time, space, causality, thingness, separateness, and all other distinctions are imaginary 4. The illusion of "if"-thinking (imagining alternative events) 5. The difference between relative meaning (imaginary) and absolute meaning 6. The difference between judging and discerning 7. The illusion of volition 8. The illusion of personal selfhood What's the difference between someone who's had all of these realizations (a sage) and someone who hasn't? A sage interacts with the world directly rather than indirectly through thoughts ABOUT the world. She doesn't think about appearances, consciousness, reality, meaning, how anything "ought" to be, or how any person "should" act. She accepts the world at face-value, and life is simple, uncomplicated, and obvious. She doesn't try to control thoughts, and doesn't care whether the mind is active, silent, or even "running on autopilot" because she knows that Source is doing everything, and she is one-with THAT. She's free, at peace, and happy, but she doesn't think about freedom, peace, or being happy. She is rarely, if ever, self-reflective. Then Zen seems to be mostly about CC (original face). What is SR called in Zen?
|
|