|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 6:36:32 GMT -5
Okay, then I misinterpreted the implication That's another something that "enlightened folks" can sometimes do, as well. lol how dare you! Surely not! (Tempted to go with classic Greta meme, but went with this instead
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 6:44:10 GMT -5
That's another something that "enlightened folks" can sometimes do, as well. lol how dare you! Surely not! (Tempted to go with classic Greta meme, but went with this instead .. picture Tolle doing Greta .. " You! .. you walk .. in the OO-CEAN .. with your bare feet! .. polluting the homes of the innocent creatures .. with your FILTHY SKIN! ..."
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 30, 2023 7:29:12 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." Just a bit of friendly input, but perhaps try and pace yourself. Clearly there is a number of contentions you're keen to work through which have probably built up a bit due to circumstances and that's fine. But maybe try to focus them a bit more, be succinct, and wait for some answers before you go on too far ahead. I think Reefs had specifically requested along these lines and probably both from a personal and moderator POV. Also mentioning he's not here as often. Obviously things ebb and flow and we can mix it up, and sometimes the situation does call for a thorough breakdown of a post or a text wall response. But I think the scattergun approach will turn folks off and it runs the danger of becoming a chore. My motto is quality over quantity, (at least in my own mind, hehe), and I treat it as a marathon rather than a sprint. But I appreciate everyone is different. And I'm sure you'll understand when I say that sometimes with the finer aspects of these topics, less really is more. Just my 2 cents anyway, and I hope it doesn't come across as too condescending.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 30, 2023 7:45:24 GMT -5
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. I'd say it's the opposite. It takes no effort at all to point out that distinctions are intrinsic to experience. It just requires pointing out that you are experiencing! Of course, this all rests on the definition of 'distinction', and I accept that definitions vary, and there's really no value to trying to assert a 'correct' definition. If someone says that distinctions are the problem, I'm like....okay, that's fine.....but then what about separation... Actually, I'm noticing over the last couple of days that it also rests on the definition mind, and that the other side have to employ a particularly narrow conception of mind in order to get to where they want to be with it all. One which effectively places sub-conscious mental processing as somehow prior to mind ... or distinct from, if you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 8:07:30 GMT -5
lol how dare you! Surely not! (Tempted to go with classic Greta meme, but went with this instead .. picture Tolle doing Greta .. " You! .. you walk .. in the OO-CEAN .. with your bare feet! .. polluting the homes of the innocent creatures .. with your FILTHY SKIN! ..."
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 8:08:30 GMT -5
I'd say it's the opposite. It takes no effort at all to point out that distinctions are intrinsic to experience. It just requires pointing out that you are experiencing! Of course, this all rests on the definition of 'distinction', and I accept that definitions vary, and there's really no value to trying to assert a 'correct' definition. If someone says that distinctions are the problem, I'm like....okay, that's fine.....but then what about separation... Actually, I'm noticing over the last couple of days that it also rests on the definition mind, and that the other side have to employ a particularly narrow conception of mind in order to get to where they want to be with it all. One which effectively places sub-conscious mental processing as somehow prior to mind ... or distinct from, if you prefer. ah yes, I see what you are saying there
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 30, 2023 8:12:28 GMT -5
The point is that they're all distinctive prior to the after the fact descriptions …. although of course, not separate. And I consider there is good reason for acknowledging that, which may come out in the wash. Nah. I got nuther one for ya. This morning I bent down to pick something up off the floor and my hand naturally rested on the side of the bath as I knelt. The bath is enamel and as my hand came to rest on it there was a sensation of coldness. This precipitated the arising of the thought, 'that's cold', shortly followed by ' the temperature must have dropped outside since yesterday'. Both of which are obviously mental overlays to the sensation itself. But I took the opportunity the trace the occurrence as a whole backwards, and I'm adamant that the sensation 'coldness' was distinctive prior to the aforementioned mental overlays. So whilst the distinctive sensation of coldness arose prior to the conception and classification of it, it was only subsequently recognised as such. Which is why I posit distinctiveness in conjunction with sensation and perception. I'm adamant that it was perceived and apparent at a more fundamental level than the idea and classification of it.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 30, 2023 8:22:37 GMT -5
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 ". Looks a bit like pointer-licking to me, idk. At the very least we're going around in circles now.
Edit- Also .... this
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 8:36:20 GMT -5
Of course, I thought that was clear, that's the meaning of in a conceptual sense. Spell-check typo here so doing a two-for-one. Well, then if that's clear to you you have to ignore the point that ND is not about abstractions in order to conclude that ChatGPT is a good analogy for ND. There's still an error in both links. I don't remember my point.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 30, 2023 8:47:27 GMT -5
. 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.
That repsonse was from a query made in the context of members particiapting in a non-dual online forum. It speaks to the participants and their "personal truth" (beliefs, bias, conditioning, etc) Not to the Absolute truth.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 9:03:08 GMT -5
It's a piece of software that is running on pieces of hardware that are both created and maintained by humans. I think Zazeniac expressed it well earlier, do you have to be afraid of pointy things or the people using pointing things? But, if we're talking "suchness"....with suchness reigning supreme over thing-ness, transcending thingness but also thereby, including thingness, isn't the piece of software that is running on pieces of hardware no different than the person, shoe, paper-clip, all of which you've said you have realized via Kensho/CC, to BE a perceiving/experiencing, perceiver?
I seem to recall that when it came to the question of "are appearing people actually perceiving/perceivers," that you answered that from the relative position there was no direct knowing of an appearing person's perception, but that you did say that from an impersonal vantage point, that "yes," you had realization based, Absolute, certain knowing that all appearing people and even objects/things, such as socks and paperclips, were in fact, All unique perceivers/experiencers. Do I have that right?
If that is so, then I assume that absolute knowing, being realization based, would have to be NOW, direct and imminent knowing vs. a memory of the past Kensho/CC content?
And if so, and it's Absolute True that you DO know a person....a paperclip (A piece of software?) for Absolute certain to be a unique experiencer/perceiver, if it is in fact an immediate/NOW knowing, wouldn't you also then have immediate/Direct knowing of "the content" of that known perception/experience?
These are very pertinent questions. When I communicate with others here, I assume I talking to a relative consciousness, minds. I have no problem with anyone's realizations. But the language, I think E devised, is that realization informs the mind. So then, I'm talking to another mind, not the Infinite. So, having said that, I yield to figs questions. I guess I'll add, is it possible there is distortion from the Infinite to the page? Everyone here is necessarily using abstractions, here.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 9:18:53 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! **) Yes, but I'm not sure how many people understand what "slurp slurp slurp" is pointing to. An amoeba is intelligent, and it "knows" how to find what it wants to eat, but is there any abstraction involved in that activity? A few of the most intelligent animals appear to have some level of abstraction, but based upon the latest research how far down the food chain that goes is questionable. A few highly-intelligent birds can apparently imagine two to four hypothetical future actions necessary to acquire a food reward, but it doesn't appear that dogs can do that. Dogs are intelligent, but whether they can match the birds in this regard is doubtful. Abstract thinking is not necessary for recognizing food. It appears to be the difference between gnosis and episteme.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 9:28:30 GMT -5
There is no separate reality for others; there is only one reality that encompasses us all. We are all one entity. The concept of "my reality" and "your reality" does not exist in this context. Yup. This is Ultimately so. Individuated, discrete "experiences" is the realm of the relative, only. To try to drag that into the Absolute context to arrive at an Absolute knowing/Truth about the existence of actual, multiple realities, is to commit a context error/mix.
The ultimately reality encompasses/couches the appearance of distinct, unique, personal realities. No need to deny that appearance so long as it's seen for what it is.
Kind of obvious, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 9:40:00 GMT -5
Who said distinctions were a problem? The distinction between clean and dirty water ain't gonna' quench yer thirst. I believe that was part of what ZD was saying.... he said distinctions are imagination/meta-reality, and ideally, they are dropped. To be fair, I don't necessarily have a problem with what ZD says once I grasp his definitions. If I have a quibble, it's the same quibble in my other message.....there's no 'true or false reality'. There's no perception of reality that is 'obstructed' by abstraction compared to a perception of reality that is 'free' from obstruction. As Tenka says, it's all 'mindful'. No. I'm not saying that distinctions should be dropped. They're already internalized in the subconscious, so the internal dialogue is an unnecessary overlay that acts to obscure the obvious. The problem for most adults is that they believe their thoughts, and their thoughts are part of a "consensus trance state" in the words of Charles Tart or what some of us call "the consensus paradigm." Again, most adults live in their heads, and the path of ND is, essentially, getting out of one's head and seeing through the illusions that comprise the consensus paradigm. After one sees through those illusions, then there's non-abidance in mind, or freedom from the mind's shenanigans and life becomes rather simple, direct, and down-to-earth. What you see is what you get, chopping wood and carrying water. The reason that Tolle and so many sages specifically target the internal dialogue as problematic is because that was what plagued them the most prior to their own realizations.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 9:40:45 GMT -5
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." Just a bit of friendly input, but perhaps try and pace yourself. Clearly there is a number of contentions you're keen to work through which have probably built up a bit due to circumstances and that's fine. But maybe try to focus them a bit more, be succinct, and wait for some answers before you go on too far ahead. I think Reefs had specifically requested along these lines and probably both from a personal and moderator POV. Also mentioning he's not here as often. Obviously things ebb and flow and we can mix it up, and sometimes the situation does call for a thorough breakdown of a post or a text wall response. But I think the scattergun approach will turn folks off and it runs the danger of becoming a chore. My motto is quality over quantity, (at least in my own mind, hehe), and I treat it as a marathon rather than a sprint. But I appreciate everyone is different. And I'm sure you'll understand when I say that sometimes with the finer aspects of these topics, less really is more. Just my 2 cents anyway, and I hope it doesn't come across as too condescending. Correct. I just logged in and see 8 notifications from Figgles alone and at least 10 pages to catch up with. Anyway, here's what I am going to do. I promise to answer all her questions in all her posts to me today and tomorrow, no matter how many posts. But starting from next month, I am not going to promise anything anymore. I may reply or may not reply at all. This matter is not rocket science. With two open minds engaged, it can be sorted out in just a couple of post already. If it can't be sorted out after ten posts, then another hundred are not going to bring more clarity either. It's just going to be a waste of time and will annoy everyone involved. Think about it, if the student asks the teacher and the teacher answers with great clarity but the student doesn't get it and asks another hundred times and still doesn't get it, whose fault is it? And will asking another hundred times bring more clarity?
|
|