|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 11:12:26 GMT -5
I will give an example. In elementary school looking at a map of the world, I could always see South America fitting into Africa like two puzzle pieces. I never mentioned it to anyone. It took some guy, don't recall his name, to devise the idea of continental drift, and we eventually came to know that South America and Africa actually did once fit together. The actuality came before the theory, but the theory discovered the actuality. That came from just looking... The idea did not negate the fact. There are some so-called distinctions which are imaginary and some which are not. Phrenology used to be called a science, the bumps on your head were supposed to correspond to your character. That was definitely imaginary. It seems if we take things the way you say we should, the imaginary is part of the whole. Is that not what Gopal's OP is about? Is this not what the whole climate debate is about? It seems that if man didn't exist, the planet would be doing fine, we wouldn't have the pollution we do. If man didn't exist we wouldn't have tons of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants, which are just a fancy way to boil water, that's going to last for thousands of years, and we have to keep very good bookkeeping on all that, or somebody is going to dig it up in 50,000 years, and die. So it seems man has gone against the flow. If we took things to be as they were before modern man existed, say 100,000 years ago, I could agree with you. Alan Watts said that nature is always squiggly, no straight lines. I completely agree. But man has made *straight lines*, building buildings and laying out city grids. So you either have to say houses and buildings are imaginary, or qualify your statements. I'd say man's ~imagination~ has screwed up the planet. It seems all the problems we have in the world, poverty, famine, murder, terrorism, war, come from man's imagination, corrupt ideas in disagreement with the natural. Name one distinction that is not imaginary. Maybe not what you were looking for, new thread. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 11:41:12 GMT -5
ZD's use of the word 'imagination' is a little unconventional, but going with your definition, I agree that imagination can be very destructive, but it can also be a wonderful thing. Ultimately, every thing in front of me, including this laptop and the fire, came from someone's imagination. Imagination is part of our creative capacity, can be good or bad. I often use the word "imagination," because I think of the intellect as the "image making" or "image creation" function of mind, but words like "cognition," "distinction," "thought," "reflection," "differentiation," and "discrimination," point to the same function. The intellect not only allows humans to imaginatively cut the world up into abstract parts, and to represent those abstractions with symbols, it also allows humans to manipulate those symbols in the "mind's eye", and we use words like "calculation," "evaluation," "addition," "subtraction," etc. to point to that functionality. What a rock IS is NOT imaginary, but the image/idea/symbol "rock" is totally imaginary. The distinction "rock" was internalized in the subconscious when we were young, so we know what it is in two completely different ways (gnosis and episteme) and do not have to think any thoughts about it to know what we know. The problem for most adults is that they can't stop thinking/imagining/talking to themselves in their heads long enough to realize the difference between the actuality of what a rock IS and the idea/image/symbol "rock." Of course, the fundamental problem is imagining that there is a separate entity that observes reality. This is why there are at least two major existential realizations necessary for attaining freedom--(1) seeing through the illusion of separate things and (2) seeing through the illusion of a separate observer of things. People who have had those two major realizations and who have become detached from the consensus paradigm do not lose the ability to imagine, but they live in a world of suchness, or being, rather than an imagined meta-reality created, projected, and continually reinforced by mind talk. We use the term "SR" for people who penetrate the illusion of selfhood and discover the Self, but the term "TR" (THIS realization) may be a better pointer. After TR life becomes simple and straight forward. The idea that there is a SVP who rides a roller coaster of emotions or a roller coaster of any other kind no longer has any meaning. THIS unfolds however it unfolds and there is nothing (no thing) separate from that unfolding. As long as there is the idea that one is a SVP, life will seem to oscillate between highs and lows. Yes, I really don't mind what words people use, but obviously it helps if we each understand the definitions that people are using. Pretty sure I understand what you mean by 'imagination' and it makes easy sense to me. Though actually, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the word 'distinction' (I had a quick glance at SDP's thread too). The way I use the word, there would be no experience/perception without distinction. It's where the rational/calculating aspect of the mind comes in useful, without that aspect there would be no contrast, so no feeling, touching, seeing etc. So for me, the problem isn't 'distinction', it's the super strong emphasis that humans put on distinctions, which then creates a sense of 'object separation' (or meta-reality) So I think you are using the word 'distinction' a bit differently....? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 11:45:06 GMT -5
Gopal's mechanism for coping with life's ups and downs, the roller coaster, is akin to my grandmother's, the old adage, "this too shall pass." Different than the Mongol horses eating the crops adage where the very notion of "up" and "down" comes into question. If I'm ruminating about it, I prefer the latter. Interpreting the value or detriment of events is a dubious endeavor. Some Buddhists I've read lately, say suffering (down) is the harbinger of Peace. But I'm avidly opposed to rumination. It's the cause of seesaws and roller coasters. Yes! I was literally going to say the word 'this too will pass' to Gopal. I love that Mongol horses story, it had quite a strong impact on me when I first read it, and I'm also more inclined to that 'way'. However, once 'the cat is out of the bag', so to speak, it's too late. What I mean is, once the judgement has been made and once the felt upset has arisen, then there's no going back to the no-judgement, and then perhaps 'this too will pass' becomes useful. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 12:47:04 GMT -5
I often use the word "imagination," because I think of the intellect as the "image making" or "image creation" function of mind, but words like "cognition," "distinction," "thought," "reflection," "differentiation," and "discrimination," point to the same function. The intellect not only allows humans to imaginatively cut the world up into abstract parts, and to represent those abstractions with symbols, it also allows humans to manipulate those symbols in the "mind's eye", and we use words like "calculation," "evaluation," "addition," "subtraction," etc. to point to that functionality. What a rock IS is NOT imaginary, but the image/idea/symbol "rock" is totally imaginary. The distinction "rock" was internalized in the subconscious when we were young, so we know what it is in two completely different ways (gnosis and episteme) and do not have to think any thoughts about it to know what we know. The problem for most adults is that they can't stop thinking/imagining/talking to themselves in their heads long enough to realize the difference between the actuality of what a rock IS and the idea/image/symbol "rock." Of course, the fundamental problem is imagining that there is a separate entity that observes reality. This is why there are at least two major existential realizations necessary for attaining freedom--(1) seeing through the illusion of separate things and (2) seeing through the illusion of a separate observer of things. People who have had those two major realizations and who have become detached from the consensus paradigm do not lose the ability to imagine, but they live in a world of suchness, or being, rather than an imagined meta-reality created, projected, and continually reinforced by mind talk. We use the term "SR" for people who penetrate the illusion of selfhood and discover the Self, but the term "TR" (THIS realization) may be a better pointer. After TR life becomes simple and straight forward. The idea that there is a SVP who rides a roller coaster of emotions or a roller coaster of any other kind no longer has any meaning. THIS unfolds however it unfolds and there is nothing (no thing) separate from that unfolding. As long as there is the idea that one is a SVP, life will seem to oscillate between highs and lows. Yes, I really don't mind what words people use, but obviously it helps if we each understand the definitions that people are using. Pretty sure I understand what you mean by 'imagination' and it makes easy sense to me. Though actually, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the word 'distinction' (I had a quick glance at SDP's thread too). The way I use the word, there would be no experience/perception without distinction. It's where the rational/calculating aspect of the mind comes in useful, without that aspect there would be no contrast, so no feeling, touching, seeing etc. So for me, the problem isn't 'distinction', it's the super strong emphasis that humans put on distinctions, which then creates a sense of 'object separation' (or meta-reality) So I think you are using the word 'distinction' a bit differently....? In a technical sense, the bolded could be considered true because without thoughts about reality, the idea of experience or perception by a separate observer would not arise. However, I doubt that you mean those words in that technical and extremely limited sense. If we imagine someone whose mind Is totally silent going about his/her business, there is no psychological separation of any kind, and that person sees and feels whatever is happening in the same way as anyone else but without the intellectual overlay. S/he is one-with "what is" and there is no reflection about either self or other-than-self. We can say that s/he is experiencing whatever is happening and perceiving whatever is perceived, but the individual with a silent mind would not think that sort of thing because there would be no mind talk. S/he would simply be doing whatever is being done via subconscious mental processing that is below the level of conscious thought. As I've noted before (and has been pointed out explicitly by people like Gary Weber and Ramana), mind talk and imagining is a habit and is not necessary for ordinary everyday functionality. The reason that mind talk is NOT necessary is because adults have already subconsciously internalized millions of consensually conditioned distinctions, and those distinctions are "known" through the body or through what Buddhists sometimes call "Big Mind." From the "outside perspective" of someone looking at a mentally-silent human it might seem as if the silent human must be thinking in terms of "contrast," etc, but from the "inside" perspective of the silent human that idea would be absent and inapplicable. A silent human would simply see "what is" and respond accordingly. No images, ideas, or symbols would be consciously necessary. As far as a definition for the word "distinction" we can use the words of G. Spencer Brown in his book about this subject "Laws of Form." In essence, he says that a distinction is a recognition (imagining) of differing states of value. Specifically, "There can be no distinction without motive, and there can be no motive unless contents are seen to differ in value." And, "A distinction is drawn by arranging (or imagining) a boundary with separate sides so that a point on one side cannot reach the other side without crossing a boundary." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 13:06:54 GMT -5
It's interesting how much the recent work in AI for self-driving cars reflects all this. Basically, there are steps...
1. Camera sensors, radar, etc, take in raw photons and create a pile of raw "data". It's like the visual field, but just raw color, no "ideas".
2. (The hard part) A massive amount of software translates that field of color/data into "things", drawing outlines and labeling them "person", "lane divider line", "crosswalk", "car", "stop light", "roadkill".
3. Programmed rules like "follow line", "avoid person", etc.
It's not surprising of course, because they are attempting to recreate human intelligence. But when you have to build it from scratch you really get to see all the parts. Without #2, the car has no "intelligence" and can't drive itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 13:27:22 GMT -5
Yes, I really don't mind what words people use, but obviously it helps if we each understand the definitions that people are using. Pretty sure I understand what you mean by 'imagination' and it makes easy sense to me. Though actually, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the word 'distinction' (I had a quick glance at SDP's thread too). The way I use the word, there would be no experience/perception without distinction. It's where the rational/calculating aspect of the mind comes in useful, without that aspect there would be no contrast, so no feeling, touching, seeing etc. So for me, the problem isn't 'distinction', it's the super strong emphasis that humans put on distinctions, which then creates a sense of 'object separation' (or meta-reality) So I think you are using the word 'distinction' a bit differently....? In a technical sense, the bolded could be considered true because without thoughts about reality, the idea of experience or perception by a separate observer would not arise. However, I doubt that you mean those words in that technical and extremely limited sense. If we imagine someone whose mind Is totally silent going about his/her business, there is no psychological separation of any kind, and that person sees and feels whatever is happening in the same way as anyone else but without the intellectual overlay. S/he is one-with "what is" and there is no reflection about either self or other-than-self. We can say that s/he is experiencing whatever is happening and perceiving whatever is perceived, but the individual with a silent mind would not think that sort of thing because there would be no mind talk. S/he would simply be doing whatever is being done via subconscious mental processing that is below the level of conscious thought. As I've noted before (and has been pointed out explicitly by people like Gary Weber and Ramana), mind talk and imagining is a habit and is not necessary for ordinary everyday functionality. The reason that mind talk is NOT necessary is because adults have already subconsciously internalized millions of consensually conditioned distinctions, and those distinctions are "known" through the body or through what Buddhists sometimes call "Big Mind." From the "outside perspective" of someone looking at a mentally-silent human it might seem as if the silent human must be thinking in terms of "contrast," etc, but from the "inside" perspective of the silent human that idea would be absent and inapplicable. A silent human would simply see "what is" and respond accordingly. No images, ideas, or symbols would be consciously necessary. As far as a definition for the word "distinction" we can use the words of G. Spencer Brown in his book about this subject "Laws of Form." In essence, he says that a distinction is a recognition (imagining) of differing states of value. Specifically, "There can be no distinction without motive, and there can be no motive unless contents are seen to differ in value." And, "A distinction is drawn by arranging (or imagining) a boundary with separate sides so that a point on one side cannot reach the other side without crossing a boundary." I thought of a good question to ask you that might help me to understand your definition. I Understand that in absolute samadhi, there is only absolute 'frozen' awareness. Nothing else. Now I would describe this state as a 'distinction free' state (based on my definition of 'distinction'). Now obviously there is a difference between absolute samadhi and your normal waking experiencing/perceiving state. So in terms of your definition of 'distinction', how would you characterize that difference in state? Would you say that 'distinction' is absent in both states? If so, what would you say IS present in your normal waking experiencing/perceiving state, that is absent on absolute samadhi? So whereas I would use the word 'distinction' to talk about the difference, what word would you use? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 13:29:39 GMT -5
It's interesting how much the recent work in AI for self-driving cars reflects all this. Basically, there are steps... 1. Camera sensors, radar, etc, take in raw photons and create a pile of raw "data". It's like the visual field, but just raw color, no "ideas". 2. (The hard part) A massive amount of software translates that field of color/data into "things", drawing outlines and labeling them "person", "lane divider line", "crosswalk", "car", "stop light", "roadkill". 3. Programmed rules like "follow line", "avoid person", etc. It's not surprising of course, because they are attempting to recreate human intelligence. But when you have to build it from scratch you really get to see all the parts. Without #2, the car has no "intelligence" and can't drive itself. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 13:33:27 GMT -5
I will give an example. In elementary school looking at a map of the world, I could always see South America fitting into Africa like two puzzle pieces. I never mentioned it to anyone. It took some guy, don't recall his name, to devise the idea of continental drift, and we eventually came to know that South America and Africa actually did once fit together. The actuality came before the theory, but the theory discovered the actuality. That came from just looking... The idea did not negate the fact. There are some so-called distinctions which are imaginary and some which are not. Phrenology used to be called a science, the bumps on your head were supposed to correspond to your character. That was definitely imaginary. It seems if we take things the way you say we should, the imaginary is part of the whole. Is that not what Gopal's OP is about? Is this not what the whole climate debate is about? It seems that if man didn't exist, the planet would be doing fine, we wouldn't have the pollution we do. If man didn't exist we wouldn't have tons of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants, which are just a fancy way to boil water, that's going to last for thousands of years, and we have to keep very good bookkeeping on all that, or somebody is going to dig it up in 50,000 years, and die. So it seems man has gone against the flow. If we took things to be as they were before modern man existed, say 100,000 years ago, I could agree with you. Alan Watts said that nature is always squiggly, no straight lines. I completely agree. But man has made *straight lines*, building buildings and laying out city grids. So you either have to say houses and buildings are imaginary, or qualify your statements. I'd say man's ~imagination~ has screwed up the planet. It seems all the problems we have in the world, poverty, famine, murder, terrorism, war, come from man's imagination, corrupt ideas in disagreement with the natural. , but going with your definition, I agree that imagination can be very destructive, but it can also be a wonderful thing. Ultimately, every thing in front of me, including this laptop and the fire, came from someone's imagination. Imagination is part of our creative capacity, can be good or bad. He means imagery or abstraction, (mental) representation would also work. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 15, 2022 13:34:31 GMT -5
Gopal's mechanism for coping with life's ups and downs, the roller coaster, is akin to my grandmother's, the old adage, "this too shall pass." Different than the Mongol horses eating the crops adage where the very notion of "up" and "down" comes into question. If I'm ruminating about it, I prefer the latter. Interpreting the value or detriment of events is a dubious endeavor. Some Buddhists I've read lately, say suffering (down) is the harbinger of Peace. But I'm avidly opposed to rumination. It's the cause of seesaws and roller coasters. Yes! I was literally going to say the word 'this too will pass' to Gopal. I love that Mongol horses story, it had quite a strong impact on me when I first read it, and I'm also more inclined to that 'way'. However, once 'the cat is out of the bag', so to speak, it's too late. What I mean is, once the judgement has been made and once the felt upset has arisen, then there's no going back to the no-judgement, and then perhaps 'this too will pass' becomes useful. It depends on the backdrop, right? It turns out my deaf dog also has epilepsy. She has a habit of turning on me (rare) when I pet her. Before I knew she had epilepsy my reaction was wholly different than what it is now. Reactions are fickle creatures. I've learned to catch myself, but not always. Why I categorize myself as a swimmer where the ego/mind still surfaces now and again. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 13:40:35 GMT -5
Floating is only possible when you realize roller-coaster. When you know you are in the down side of the rollercoaster, It will protect you from going too deep in unhappiness, so you remain calm. But when you do not know it's the down side of the roller-coaster, you would automatically enter into deep side of the roller-coaster. So when you are on the 'down side', is your way of handling that (or protecting yourself), 'to know that you are on the down side of the rollercoaster'? It keeps you calm rather than getting stressed and anxious about the unhappiness? Sort of a form of stoicism. That's also my impression. To me it basically is giving up, giving in to circumstances because nothing that one tried to get control over one's life worked. It's more like resignation (accepting bondage) than walking off the battlefield (which would be liberation). Which means instead of a life in flow and thriving and fulfilling your potential, you will get an even distribution of good and bad, i.e. a life of mediocrity. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 13:41:42 GMT -5
Yes! I was literally going to say the word 'this too will pass' to Gopal. I love that Mongol horses story, it had quite a strong impact on me when I first read it, and I'm also more inclined to that 'way'. However, once 'the cat is out of the bag', so to speak, it's too late. What I mean is, once the judgement has been made and once the felt upset has arisen, then there's no going back to the no-judgement, and then perhaps 'this too will pass' becomes useful. It depends on the backdrop, right? It turns out my deaf dog also has epilepsy. She has a habit of turning on me (rare) when I pet her. Before I knew she had epilepsy my reaction was wholly different than what it is now. Reactions are fickle creatures. I've learned to catch myself, but not always. Why I categorize myself as a swimmer where the ego/mind still surfaces now and again. yes, that's my experience too. Though I don't generally consider it a problem to be solved, I sort of accept the periodic arising of it. Based on my life context, there are times when I even consider it useful and appropriate. On the other hand, sometimes I consider whether it is useful and appropriate, and I decide 'No', and I continue on anyway. At some point after that, I may well have to 'wind my neck in' lol (British phrase). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 13:44:57 GMT -5
Gopal's mechanism for coping with life's ups and downs, the roller coaster, is akin to my grandmother's, the old adage, "this too shall pass." Different than the Mongol horses eating the crops adage where the very notion of "up" and "down" comes into question. If I'm ruminating about it, I prefer the latter. Interpreting the value or detriment of events is a dubious endeavor. Some Buddhists I've read lately, say suffering (down) is the harbinger of Peace. But I'm avidly opposed to rumination. It's the cause of seesaws and roller coasters. But how does that square with Gopal's assertion that he's the ruler, the master of his universe? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 13:46:12 GMT -5
Rollercoaster realization is missing. It is realized. It's not easy to see or notice otherwise half of the world might have known this truth, you see everybody gets angry, sad, irritated but still they don't have the clue that life is rollercoaster so they apply the responsibility on other people and they enter into angry mode. The one who knows the rollercoaster knows that situation will change according to the side of the rollercoaster. TR realization supersedes ideation. For Gopal, there is no such thing as TR, because according to him nothing exists outside of ideation. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 13:49:29 GMT -5
I often use the word "imagination," because I think of the intellect as the "image making" or "image creation" function of mind, but words like "cognition," "distinction," "thought," "reflection," "differentiation," and "discrimination," point to the same function. The intellect not only allows humans to imaginatively cut the world up into abstract parts, and to represent those abstractions with symbols, it also allows humans to manipulate those symbols in the "mind's eye", and we use words like "calculation," "evaluation," "addition," "subtraction," etc. to point to that functionality. What a rock IS is NOT imaginary, but the image/idea/symbol "rock" is totally imaginary. The distinction "rock" was internalized in the subconscious when we were young, so we know what it is in two completely different ways (gnosis and episteme) and do not have to think any thoughts about it to know what we know. The problem for most adults is that they can't stop thinking/imagining/talking to themselves in their heads long enough to realize the difference between the actuality of what a rock IS and the idea/image/symbol "rock." Of course, the fundamental problem is imagining that there is a separate entity that observes reality. This is why there are at least two major existential realizations necessary for attaining freedom--(1) seeing through the illusion of separate things and (2) seeing through the illusion of a separate observer of things. People who have had those two major realizations and who have become detached from the consensus paradigm do not lose the ability to imagine, but they live in a world of suchness, or being, rather than an imagined meta-reality created, projected, and continually reinforced by mind talk. We use the term "SR" for people who penetrate the illusion of selfhood and discover the Self, but the term "TR" (THIS realization) may be a better pointer. After TR life becomes simple and straight forward. The idea that there is a SVP who rides a roller coaster of emotions or a roller coaster of any other kind no longer has any meaning. THIS unfolds however it unfolds and there is nothing (no thing) separate from that unfolding. As long as there is the idea that one is a SVP, life will seem to oscillate between highs and lows. Yes, I really don't mind what words people use, but obviously it helps if we each understand the definitions that people are using. Pretty sure I understand what you mean by 'imagination' and it makes easy sense to me. Though actually, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the word 'distinction' (I had a quick glance at SDP's thread too). The way I use the word, there would be no experience/perception without distinction. It's where the rational/calculating aspect of the mind comes in useful, without that aspect there would be no contrast, so no feeling, touching, seeing etc. So for me, the problem isn't 'distinction', it's the super strong emphasis that humans put on distinctions, which then creates a sense of 'object separation' (or meta-reality) So I think you are using the word 'distinction' a bit differently....? He means categorizing, classifying, labeling. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 13:50:44 GMT -5
ZD's use of the word 'imagination' is a little unconventional, but going with your definition, I agree that imagination can be very destructive, but it can also be a wonderful thing. Ultimately, every thing in front of me, including this laptop and the fire, came from someone's imagination. Imagination is part of our creative capacity, can be good or bad. He means imagery or abstraction, (mental) representation would also work. The conceptual distinction between (mental) representation and (non-mental) representation is a useful one, and I respect the value of it, but as we look closer at the line between the two, it seems nebulous. That's when Tenka steps in and says, 'it's all a thought/representation', and I respect his point of view on that too. I think my honest position is that it's a matter of degree. If there's too much trust and value in the 'representative' aspect of the mind, it intensely filters our experience in such way that creates a sense of 'separate things' ('meta-reality/mental representation'). At the other end of the scale, there's an off switch which is 'absolute samadhi'. |
|
