|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2023 23:10:52 GMT -5
No, Andy it is not a Sage or authority. It is a wonderful compilation/distillation of many Sages and teachers, who themselves say the same thing in their own way. Posting here eliminates any bias against personalities, living or dead, but apparently not against the AI itself. Then it does sound like you are posting it as if its an authority of sorts. I guess this can be clarified....do you consider the information that it shares to be useful? And if so, then to what end? I'd say it is terribly flawed as a compiler of spiritual information, because it has no capacity to discern. Edit - out of every subject there is to be talked about on the planet, spirituality is probably THE most personal, intimate and intuitive subject there is. It requires discernment, sensitivity, the capacity to directly experience. I can actually think of subjects that the AI might be useful for e.g science, because the knowledge is relatively impersonal and objective. So...yeah...I guess I am biased against AI in spiritual conversations. With respect to you, I find the 'chatbot' a gross intrusion into what is deeply personal. Almost like a....violation of the sacred. And there's already too much violation of the sacred on the planet right now. One way to look at it is the difference between reading a book, like say, The Power of Now, vs. having an in-person dialog with Tolle. Obviously there's quite a bit more going on with the AI chats, it's on a different level from just passive reading, but I think this comparison generalizes: the AI is a static, impersonal and inert representation of something that was ultimately generated by one or more people.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 29, 2023 23:12:54 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure where you draw the line with 'intellect', so how would you answer it in a way that is clear and would satisfy the kind of non-dualist that prefers not to engage with ideas like 'inner being' or 'atman' or 'higher self' etc? Intellect = concepts and logic. Only armed with this, you cannot tell if you are Zhuang Zhou who dreamed being a butterfly or if you are a butterfly now dreaming he is Zhuang Zhou. That's the whole point of the butterfly story, you can't resolve this intellectually. The question has to be resolved in a different way. I would do it as Tenka suggested. You start with the fundamentals, i.e. there is only what you are. And if your hypothetical non-dualist can only argue in the absolute context, the conversation is essentially over at this point already. If your ontology can't account for individual experiences, integrate it somehow, it has no practical value and is useless for practical matters and questions like these. What specifically do you mean by "account for individual experiences, integrate it somehow"?
The seeing of the entirety of experiential content as a temporal expression of the unwavering/abiding, couches and includes the experience of unique, discrete experience/apparent windows of perception. There is no need to account for or integrate that which is clearly seen/known to be fundamentally not separate.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 29, 2023 23:16:34 GMT -5
Well, ZD just agreed with my assessment. You don't understand his perspective. So that's that. If he in retunr understands your perspective or not is a different matter entirely. And you may be actually right. However, from ZD's perspective, most of what your perspective considers is irrelevant from ZD's perspective anyway. So it would be a waste of time and effort for him to try and understand all the intricate details of your ontology. Does that make sense? That's a given, obviously. I wouldn't expect anybody to accept my ontology. I just say living from I don't know is a better place that living from I know. Living from I know means you shut the door to possibilities. I just went to notifications, I'll go back and read his agreement to your assessment (which I haven't read yet). All I ask, how do we know we are not just a frog in a well? An apprehension of/reference for "unbounded, abiding, ground of Awareness" takes care of that. When the locus of seeing shifts from the erroneous viewpoint of an SVP to beyond and that shifted locus is the new set point of seeing, all sense of being limited.....bound, has lost it's substance....an experience of such is now couched within the greater/pervasive/all encompassing vantage point that is "beyond" the fray....beyond all sense of limitation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2023 23:18:30 GMT -5
I'm not sure that's the crux of the conversation though. Much depends on definition....and you have clarified yours at different stages...but the crux is whether 'distinctions' can be eliminated from everyday experience. Your definitions do generally make decent sense to me, though I don't understand what the difference is for you between 'distinction' and 'separation'. For example, I'd say that in 'Oneness', there is no separation, but distinctions are included i.e ZD and andrew are distinctions within Oneness. Maybe you would have a different way to express that.....? What are ZD and andrew to you? What word would you use? Yes, it's probably confusing to many here. What he likely means though is categorization, classification, designation which is what the intellect does, Watts calls it thing-ifying. It's how THIS (or _______) becomes a thing or object to the intellect/mind, i.e. THIS (or _______) becomes something the intellect or minds can deal with, because the intellect/mind cannot apprehend THIS directly. The way the term 'distinction' is usually used here, it goes hand in hand with perception. No distinction would mean no perception - blank. And that's not what is meant here or else realizing suchness would mean the absence of any sense perception. That is not the case. The world doesn't have to dissolve into a distinctionless white soup of light in order to realize suchness. It can be realized right here right now with normal, raw (!) sensory perception still functioning. The mountain metaphor pretty much applies to realizing suchness. First there is a mountain, then no mountain, then a mountain again. First the mountain is seen as a mental category only, then the mountain is seen directly and prior to any mental categories, then both perspectives become integrated. The first mountain perspective is the perspective of someone living in his head, lost in abstractions, seeing the mountain only via a mental image, indirectly and therefore not actually seeing a mountain, only the phantom of a mountain. That's the pure thingness stage. The second mountain perspective is the perspective of someone actually seeing the mountain directly, as THIS (or _______), prior to any mental imagery and so at this stage you have no idea of or label or category for what you are looking at. The third mountain perspective is the integration of both perspectives, i.e. you can see the mountain as THIS and also categorize it as 'mountain' without losing your clarity that the category mountain is not the actual mountain, you don't confuse the symbol with the actual. So one perspective is the abstract world, the mental world which is symbolic and the other is the non-abstract world, the physical world which is what is actual, what the symbolic world tries to reference or re-present. So the abstract world you can talk about, write about because it consists of categories, classes, labels... and is merely symbolic for the non-abstract, the physical world, which is essentially unspeakable. We all know that no description of the taste of honey will ever give you the actual experience of the taste of honey. And no description or image of a tree will ever be able to represent the actual tree. If we are stuck in the world of abstractions, we don't actually live, we just exist like the AI. And if we escape into the non-abstract world, we cannot function in society. So to live in society a normal and yet spontaneous and carefree life, both perspectives have to be integrated, i.e. you then can deal with abstractions when you have to or want to but your world is not defined by these abstractions, you are deeply rooted in the non-abstract world, the ground of being, which gives rise to the abstract world, the matrix. And regardless of realization there are various states of body/mind that happen prior-to the function of mind to generate distinctions - which is the crux of the criticism here. The "pro-distinction crew" has to word-lawyer pretty hard though. It's not a distinction that knocks you off a horse by the neck. Those states prior-to the functioning of mind can happen deliberately, with the intent to create them, or not, but either way, they have a major potential to inform.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2023 23:21:57 GMT -5
Yes, it's probably confusing to many here. What he likely means though is categorization, classification, designation which is what the intellect does, Watts calls it thing-ifying. It's how THIS (or _______) becomes a thing or object to the intellect/mind, i.e. THIS (or _______) becomes something the intellect or minds can deal with, because the intellect/mind cannot apprehend THIS directly. The way the term 'distinction' is usually used here, it goes hand in hand with perception. No distinction would mean no perception - blank. And that's not what is meant here or else realizing suchness would mean the absence of any sense perception. That is not the case. The world doesn't have to dissolve into a distinctionless white soup of light in order to realize suchness. It can be realized right here right now with normal, raw (!) sensory perception still functioning. The mountain metaphor pretty much applies to realizing suchness. First there is a mountain, then no mountain, then a mountain again. First the mountain is seen as a mental category only, then the mountain is seen directly and prior to any mental categories, then both perspectives become integrated. The first mountain perspective is the perspective of someone living in his head, lost in abstractions, seeing the mountain only via a mental image, indirectly and therefore not actually seeing a mountain, only the phantom of a mountain. That's the pure thingness stage. The second mountain perspective is the perspective of someone actually seeing the mountain directly, as THIS (or _______), prior to any mental imagery and so at this stage you have no idea of or label or category for what you are looking at. The third mountain perspective is the integration of both perspectives, i.e. you can see the mountain as THIS and also categorize it as 'mountain' without losing your clarity that the category mountain is not the actual mountain, you don't confuse the symbol with the actual. So one perspective is the abstract world, the mental world which is symbolic and the other is the non-abstract world, the physical world which is what is actual, what the symbolic world tries to reference or re-present. So the abstract world you can talk about, write about because it consists of categories, classes, labels... and is merely symbolic for the non-abstract, the physical world, which is essentially unspeakable. We all know that no description of the taste of honey will ever give you the actual experience of the taste of honey. And no description or image of a tree will ever be able to represent the actual tree. If we are stuck in the world of abstractions, we don't actually live, we just exist like the AI. And if we escape into the non-abstract world, we cannot function in society. So to live in society a normal and yet spontaneous and carefree life, both perspectives have to be integrated, i.e. you then can deal with abstractions when you have to or want to but your world is not defined by these abstractions, you are deeply rooted in the non-abstract world, the ground of being, which gives rise to the abstract world, the matrix. Yeah. That was very solid reading, cheers. The only point I could raise to stimulate debate would be that it's hard to find a line where the abstraction begins and ends. The distinction between 'reality' and 'abstract conceptual reality' is definitely a very useful one, but in the context of experience, it could be said that even dogs are abstracting when they recognize their food. It's just that humans do it in a very intense, conceptual and extreme way. So much so, that it can tangibly feel like a shift to a whole new reality when that intensity falls away. I think it might be closer to the truth that what has fallen away is the reliance on the concepts, and the faith and level of value that is invested in them. So abstracting still happens after, but it's almost as if it doesn't. It's just that we are now in healthier balance. Only if you generate that abstract thought about the scenario. .. (** slurp! slurp! slurp! **)
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 29, 2023 23:52:03 GMT -5
The question is based on a context mix. You can talk about intelligence or consciousness or aliveness in the context of suchness or in the context of thingness. In the context of suchness, there are no boundaries and so you cannot compare machines to human. Because in this context, there is only THIS. And THIS is seeing everything from the perspective of THIS as THIS. In this context you can say that it is all conscious, alive and intelligent. But once you start comparing machine to human, you are in the thingness context, where boundaries exist, where there is this and that. And then you can't say anymore that it is all conscious, alive and intelligent. You've quite perfectly described the issue with a supposed "Absolute, realized Knowing that people and rocks and paperclips are ALL each, unique, discrete perceivers/experiencers. The question of knowing regarding persons as actual perceivers/experiencers," is/was a relative question only. But it got answered with an Absolute answer and that's the issue. The question was about "a person," specifically, vs. arising content as a whole. The moment we begin talking about "Absolute, certain knowing/seeing" that each person is a unique, discrete perceiver/experiencer (and so are paper-clips/rocks/socks) we've entered into a misconceived context mix. But that WAS the assertion made. If there are no boundaries at all....by what means are you identifying/denoting a rock from a sock....a person from a paperclip to then know each specific item to be having it's own unique experience? How do you know a "paper-clip" to be having it's own unique perception/experience if there's no boundary appearing by which to denote "the paperclip." Apparent "Boundaries" by which an object/thing/person can be denoted/distinguished, were always inherent to the question of knowing, to the assertion of absence of knowing/misconceived question. To know of a particular 'thing/object' as having it's own, unique, discrete perception/experience, is to necessarily speak from the 'thingness' context. For all boundaries to be overlooked in favor of seeing the common "nature/ground" to content as a whole, absent dividing it up to denote specific objects, is indeed the "suchness" context. An Absolute knowing that "a" specific object....a "paperclip" is to invoke those boundaries that you say are not in play. Yes, precisely! This has always been my issue with your assertion of "Absolute knowing that "A" person..."A" paperclip...."A" sock, is having it's own, discrete, unique experience/perception...that each, singular object/thing has been realized to be "an" experiencer/perceiver. You've taken a seeing re: Fundamentals of All appearance (in general) and have applied that general "nature" (which can ever only be a pointer!) to specific, appearing objects/things to then arrive at your Absolute knowing of "discrete/unique" people, socks, rocks that 'each' are, an experiencer/perceiver. But your answer IS of the "thingness" context. (I know for Absolute certain that the appearing person...the sock....the rock....is having it's own unique perception/experience...that IT is a unique perceiver/experiencer.) From the get-go, you entered into the conversation to clearly and firmly refute the assertion of not knowing/question is misconceived, by saying that you DID know each of those things/objects to be perceivers. I totally agree, the question was always a relative one. The moment we try to take it into the Absolute context, we've got a misconception on our hands. But that's was your assertion...that socks are having their own unique perception/experience....as I recall you even went as far as suggesting that a sock did have a different kind of "experience/perception" than a person or an animal, but you were quite firm in your counter to the assertion of not knowing/misconceived question, that a sock was Absolutely known, via CC/Kensho realization, to be "a unique perceiver/experiencer."
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 29, 2023 23:58:52 GMT -5
So is the apparent wave merely 'imagined' or is there an appearing, distinction by which the wave IS/can be, experientially denoted? You seem to be using the term "imagined" to cover stuff that actually is a mental overlay upon what appears (lines of longitude/latitude) as well as the way fundamental separation is completely and 'erroneously' imagined, bur also you seem to be using that term to describe the delineation between appearing things, by which we are even able to denote the concrete from the area within which it is to be poured into. Relatively speaking, I think it's important to see what is merely imagined vs. what does appear, if there is interest in being more conscious as to what's going on, vs. what is merely assumed or erroneously inferred. In that context, an appearing tree denoted as an appearing tree, does not involve imagination. Seeing the tree to be a separate something that exists in it's own right, does involve erroneous imagining. 'Fundamental' boundaries are only ever imagined,as Separation is ultimately a delusion...an illusion. But is it so that the distinction perceived between an apparent, experienced truckload of concrete and an appearing area that will be filled with concrete is in the very same way, ALSO "imagined"?
Relatively/experientially speaking, are we only imagining distinction? as I see it...distinction DOES appear.
Yes, I tend to agree. The wave is a movement 'within' the ocean, albeit it's appearance is a perceived relative experience. Which means two supposedly simultaneous experiences of that movement from different perspectives will be unique. Much like Einstein's train thingy. But it is an experiential movement nonetheless, which means it is sensory, or psycho-somatic. It appears, tangibly. This is why I would distinguish the wave from lines of latitude, which don't meet that criteria and therefore can be said to be purely imaginary, albeit for a functional purpose. Yes, precisely. Really well put.
& If we clump together ALL appearance...all content....all 'waves' to denote such as "Imaginary" then there's no means by which to distinguish an illusion/delusion from that which IS appearing.
Fundamental Separation is imagined. Distinction is not....distinction does appear. The appearance of distinction never was the problem. Erroneously imagining/mistaking that to be evidence of "fundamental separation," was/is.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 0:12:24 GMT -5
All distinctions are mind created and therefore imaginary in the way that I am using the word. If the mind is quiescent, where can any distinctions be found?Are "distinctions" per se, problematic? Really? I'd say most folks would use the term "distinct" if they were pressed to pick the more accurate term. You seem here to be conflating distinction/apparent boundary with fundamental "separation." Distinction per se is not a problem. Mistaking it for "fundamental" actual, separation, is. You'd have a pretty hard time in day to day experience if not for being able to denote 'distinction'.....one apparent thing/object from another. Distinction does not equal separation. Can you explain how conventional thinking, mental distinctions "reinforce the sense of separateness"? That one isn't tracking for me. The falling away of internal dialogue/mental, self-referential chitter-chatter is all good....I do agree that's what seems to happen when the SVP has been seen through, however, I don't really get how that plays into the discussion about all distinction as imaginary. Again, regardless of how quiet the mind is, distinct objects DO continue to appear after SR/waking up...and none of that is problematic. It's "imagined" separation that needs to be seen for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 0:36:37 GMT -5
I understand the issue, but using language it's difficult to communicate what's being pointed to. Agreed, but i think that's why it's important to not use the terms "separate/distinct" interchangeably. They have very different meanings in Nonduality speak. Absent 'distinct' boundaries, an appearing tree could not be denoted as a tree. The very fact you can speak about/write about "a tree," is an indication that you very much do in fact have reference for a tree as a distinct thing. Again, distinction does not equal "fundamental separation." That distinguishing is 'distinction' not 'separation.' To distinguish one tree from another, does not mean that you are necessarily therefore regarding each tree to be "fundamentally/actually" separate from the other. The way mind makes distinctions, categorizes and labels things, really is not a problem. Imagining that each apparent, distinct thing has it's own inherent, separate existence in it's own right....that IS a problem. That's the delusion of separation that SR sees for what it is. The moment the most subtle of senses arises...there, is distinction. An overlay of ideation/imagining that fundamental separation is the case, is the only thing standing in the way of "suchness/thusness." Distinction co-abides just fine with suchness. The two are not at odds. I can engage distinct objects, tell one kind of tree from another, pick an apple from 'this' branch and then another apple from 'that' branch, and all the while, "suchness" reigns.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 0:49:02 GMT -5
Question: What would the world look like to someone without mind-made distinctions. ChatGPT: To someone who perceives the world without the filter of mind-made distinctions, their experience would be characterized by a sense of unity, interconnectedness, and a direct, unmediated perception of reality. Here are some aspects that might characterize their perception: Unity of Existence: Without the influence of mind-made distinctions, this person would perceive a deep underlying unity in everything. They would see that all objects, beings, and phenomena are interconnected and part of a larger whole. The boundaries and separations that are commonly perceived would be seen as illusory. Direct Experience: Their perception would be rooted in direct experience rather than conceptual thinking. They would engage with the world through their senses, experiencing the richness and vibrancy of each moment. Their awareness would be more focused on the present moment rather than being preoccupied with past or future thoughts. Non-Dual Perspective: Non-duality emphasizes the absence of inherent separation between self and the external world. Without the influence of mind-made distinctions, this person would have a non-dual perspective, perceiving themselves as an integral part of the seamless fabric of existence. There would be a sense of oneness and interconnectedness with all that is. Transcendence of Judgment: Distinctions often give rise to judgments and evaluations based on concepts of right and wrong, good and bad. Someone without mind-made distinctions would transcend these judgments and see the inherent value and perfection in each moment and in every aspect of existence. Their perception would be free from the limitations of subjective evaluations. Intuitive Knowing: With the absence of mind-made distinctions, this person's knowing would be more intuitive and direct. They would have a deep sense of insight and understanding that arises spontaneously from a place of interconnectedness and wisdom. They would tap into a profound intuitive intelligence that transcends conceptual thinking. This and zd's posts remind me of Tolle telling folks to observe the world without labels. If there is 'a world' of any sort TO observe, distinction has arisen. The merest arising sense is a distinction arising within/to the unwavering, unmoving ground of awareness.
To observe with an application of labels to everything is akin to whole "lines of latitude/longitude" application. Mentally labelling things constantly involves a mental overlay upon basic experience....an overlay applied upon basic, appearing content.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 0:54:00 GMT -5
This answer does come across very much as a collaboration, as if it has reached into several sources and tried to compile them, and so there's a fair amount of contradiction and confusion. Trying to think of a very simple question to ask. Maybe....'are the colours in a rainbow distinct from each other, or are they separate from each other? What is the difference between seeing the colours of a rainbow, and imagining them?' . Interesting. Do you have examples of contradictions in any of the replies I’ve posted here? Did you notice it’s statement above that non-duality doesn’t negate apparent distinctions? "The non-dual perspective encourages exploration, open-mindedness, and the recognition of the fluid and ever-evolving nature of truth."
If the nature of truth is recognized as being 'ever-evolving,' that's not the non-dual perspective.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 1:03:04 GMT -5
Though a camera doesn't perceive the world meaningfully. Humans, dogs and babies do. We move around a tree rather than bump into a tree, meaningfully. Meaning is another distinction. Meaning can be ascribed to anything, but in a state of no-mind the idea of meaning is meaningless. I once wrote this humorous short poem: Everything else has meaning, Except meaning, If you know what I mean. In terms of freedom/liberation.....distinction is not a problem. Even after the separate, volitional person has been realized to be nothing more than a delusion, distinct objects and things remain a facet of experience. Imagined fundamental separation is what binds and seemingly limits.
There is no inherent problem to regarding the wrist as distinct from the upper part of the arm. No down-side to that. There is a down-side though in regarding the body/mind/person to be what you are and that as that, you exist separately from all else.
It's very possible in one moment to see that the arm/hand are ultimately one 'thing,' and then in the next, I can scratch on itch precisely on 'the wrist'.....there's no issue with either pov.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 1:09:57 GMT -5
FWIW, I'll stick with my claim that all distinctions are mind-based. Suchness is prior to thingness. Thingness is mind-made, but suchness is beyond the mind. So does "distinctions are mind based," then mean that distinctions are "bad/wrong/something to try to do away with"?
As I see it, suchness and distinction is not at war. Suchness and "separation" ARE! It's entirely possible to go about your business, quietly or not, interacting with the world of things, and all the while, have suchness reign supreme.
Being free from the world does not require he world to disappear.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 2:35:11 GMT -5
Then it does sound like you are posting it as if its an authority of sorts. I guess this can be clarified....do you consider the information that it shares to be useful? And if so, then to what end? I'd say it is terribly flawed as a compiler of spiritual information, because it has no capacity to discern. Edit - out of every subject there is to be talked about on the planet, spirituality is probably THE most personal, intimate and intuitive subject there is. It requires discernment, sensitivity, the capacity to directly experience. I can actually think of subjects that the AI might be useful for e.g science, because the knowledge is relatively impersonal and objective. So...yeah...I guess I am biased against AI in spiritual conversations. With respect to you, I find the 'chatbot' a gross intrusion into what is deeply personal. Almost like a....violation of the sacred. And there's already too much violation of the sacred on the planet right now. One way to look at it is the difference between reading a book, like say, The Power of Now, vs. having an in-person dialog with Tolle. Obviously there's quite a bit more going on with the AI chats, it's on a different level from just passive reading, but I think this comparison generalizes: the AI is a static, impersonal and inert representation of something that was ultimately generated by one or more people. yes, I don't come to the forum to read a representation that is created by something that has zero experience of the representation. On a science forum, it might be a useful summary. On a spiritual forum, I want to know what's going on with the actual individual.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 2:38:44 GMT -5
Yeah. That was very solid reading, cheers. The only point I could raise to stimulate debate would be that it's hard to find a line where the abstraction begins and ends. The distinction between 'reality' and 'abstract conceptual reality' is definitely a very useful one, but in the context of experience, it could be said that even dogs are abstracting when they recognize their food. It's just that humans do it in a very intense, conceptual and extreme way. So much so, that it can tangibly feel like a shift to a whole new reality when that intensity falls away. I think it might be closer to the truth that what has fallen away is the reliance on the concepts, and the faith and level of value that is invested in them. So abstracting still happens after, but it's almost as if it doesn't. It's just that we are now in healthier balance. Only if you generate that abstract thought about the scenario. .. (** slurp! slurp! slurp! **) I'm saying that at the very finest level, even direct experience is an abstraction. A baby experiencing its Mom is an abstraction. There's still a movement of mind involved, a cognition....something that is 'representative'. So then what we are talking about is a continuum, in which abstractions get more and more intense, to the degree that we can experience being 'separate' from what is being experienced.
|
|