|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:16:38 GMT -5
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that perception/experience is always filtered, and that filter is abstraction. The filter has nothing to do with the ineffable. well, we were talking about abstraction/filter, and you mentioned 'the ineffable'. I don't really see the pointer as relevant to the discussion, but I went with it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:16:45 GMT -5
The desert mirage is an example of a perception that is distorted by the thinking process overlaid on top of what is seen. Well, yes I agree but it's a slightly different context...now we are in the context of 'mistaken/incorrect perceptions'. But in the absence of the mirage, the experience/perception is still filtered, it's still one step removed. A baby sees a dog. An adult sees a dog. The difference is the intensity of the abstraction. It's not that the baby is seeing a 'true reality' and the adult a 'false reality', it's just degrees of 'steps removed'. Human adults can be quite far removed. Also why even very abstract adults know their beingness, the abstraction filter can be very strong, but not totally removed/divorced. It's just an example of a "perception of reality that is 'obstructed' by abstraction compared to a perception of reality that is 'free' from obstruction". Nothing more, nothing less. The context was established by the example that was invited.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:17:57 GMT -5
The filter has nothing to do with the ineffable. well, we were talking about abstraction/filter, and you mentioned 'the ineffable'. I don't really see the pointer as relevant to the discussion, but I went with it. whatevs.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:18:48 GMT -5
Well, yes I agree but it's a slightly different context...now we are in the context of 'mistaken/incorrect perceptions'. But in the absence of the mirage, the experience/perception is still filtered, it's still one step removed. A baby sees a dog. An adult sees a dog. The difference is the intensity of the abstraction. It's not that the baby is seeing a 'true reality' and the adult a 'false reality', it's just degrees of 'steps removed'. Human adults can be quite far removed. Also why even very abstract adults know their beingness, the abstraction filter can be very strong, but not totally removed/divorced. It's just an example of a "perception of reality that is 'obstructed' by abstraction compared to a perception of reality that is 'free' from obstruction". Nothing more, nothing less. The context was established by the example that was invited. It's an example of a 'mistaken perception', it's not an example of an obstruction. Obstruction exists in every perception, it's just a question of how MUCH obstruction.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 30, 2023 6:19:18 GMT -5
This and zd's posts remind me of Tolle telling folks to observe the world without labels. Exactly, and it goes beyond labels. IOW, a primary distinction might be a distinct image, but until it's labeled with a word, the image can't be talked about. As noted before, the intellect deals with images, ideas, and symbols. If the mind is quiescent, one interacts with the world through direct sensory perception without distinction. Without distinction the observer and the observed are, by definition, indistinguishable, and that is exactly what happens during a CC. The world is seen, but it is not known what is doing the seeing. Duality collapses, and the world comes alive in the most extraordinary way. In saying this are you not separating 'one interacting' …. from …. 'the world', at a fundamental level, and effectively reifying both?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:19:33 GMT -5
well, we were talking about abstraction/filter, and you mentioned 'the ineffable'. I don't really see the pointer as relevant to the discussion, but I went with it. whatevs. Seems a little passive aggressive....is there a problem?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:22:02 GMT -5
It's just an example of a "perception of reality that is 'obstructed' by abstraction compared to a perception of reality that is 'free' from obstruction". Nothing more, nothing less. The context was established by the example that was invited. It's an example of a 'mistaken perception', it's not an example of an obstruction. Obstruction exists in every perception, it's just a question of how MUCH obstruction. dwad
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:22:52 GMT -5
whatevs. Seems a little passive aggressive....is there a problem? nah nah jest havin' fun. .. ain't tryin' to mess wit' ya' either, just writing as truthfully as I can.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:25:15 GMT -5
I see it as an extreme way of referring to WIBIGO. Some of the experiences that make the nature of boundary clear, can be quite extreme. The extreme version is G-d imagining the world into apparency. Which is closer to where I'm coming from than the other side. The thought of "God imagining" isn't active in a " quiescent mind ".
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:25:49 GMT -5
It's an example of a 'mistaken perception', it's not an example of an obstruction. Obstruction exists in every perception, it's just a question of how MUCH obstruction. dwad It's really not. I set up the context of the discussion and your example is a different context. Enlightened folks see mirages in deserts too (and have mistaken perceptions) because their experience/perception is still filtered/abstracted. Enlightened folks still have conditioning.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:26:35 GMT -5
Seems a little passive aggressive....is there a problem? nah nah jest havin' fun. .. ain't tryin' to mess wit' ya' either, just writing as truthfully as I can. That's cool, I was being truthful with you in asking if there's a problem. It seemed like their might be, but I might be mistakenly perceiving.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:26:46 GMT -5
It's really not. I set up the context of the discussion and your example is a different context. Enlightened folks see mirages in deserts too (and have mistaken perceptions) because their experience/perception is still filtered/abstracted. Enlightened folks still have conditioning. never implied otherwise
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:27:06 GMT -5
nah nah jest havin' fun. .. ain't tryin' to mess wit' ya' either, just writing as truthfully as I can. That's cool, I was being truthful with you in asking if there's a problem. It seemed like their might be, but I might be mistakenly perceiving.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:28:23 GMT -5
It's really not. I set up the context of the discussion and your example is a different context. Enlightened folks see mirages in deserts too (and have mistaken perceptions) because their experience/perception is still filtered/abstracted. Enlightened folks still have conditioning. never implied otherwise Okay, then I misinterpreted the implication
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:33:54 GMT -5
Okay, then I misinterpreted the implication That's another something that "enlightened folks" can sometimes do, as well.
|
|