|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 11:01:00 GMT -5
I hope this OP does not turn into long, but it may. Almost everything here will be analogy. ZD asked: Name one distinction that is not imaginary. Of course I considered immediately, but could find nothing that would satisfy ZD, I don't know if this will either. But there is a movement from the known into the unknown. If we consider everything is known, this closes the door. First we have to distinguish between attention and awareness. I'm sure as a kid you once took a magnifying glass and focused the sun on a piece of paper and set it on fire. That's focused attention, it's like a laser. I saw the following on Brain Games a couple of years ago, but it's pretty clear. Your attention has a very narrow focus. Turn on your TV, a cable channel that always has a news scroll at the bottom. Looking at the center of your TV your attention has about the width of a dime held at arms length. To see more you have to actually move your eyes and look in a different place. So, look at the center of your TV. You can't read the scroll at the bottom. The only way to read the scroll at the bottom is to shift your eyes to the bottom. So what's awareness? Awareness can take in more all at once. Attention is like a spot light, awareness is like a flood light. Attention is used in self-observation, awareness is used in self-remembering. The Gurdjieff teaching (which, By the way, he didn't originate, it just came through him, in other words, he himself had teachers) has a different meaning to awakening from that expressed here on ST's. So, everyone here is asleep. The teaching's use of the term sleep, is functional, what is our present state of consciousness. You'll either read and try this, or you won't, I have zero control, I'm just putting this out there. I'll take darkness as an analogy for sleep. Now, pretend or imagine the room where you spend most of your time at home, is dark, no light. You have never seen light, don't know what it is. You may have heard of talk of light here and there, but have no reference for ~what light is~. That's our analogy. Now, we're starting from scratch, so you don't know there's no light. So you are in a sort of way, blind, but not really, because you have the capacity to see light. Now, in this post I am giving you a gizmo, I'm telling you, this is a gift, possibly an important gift. So this gizmo is a fancy flashlight, it has a lot of buttons on it, but you don't know what a flashlight is, having never seen light. So we stumble around in our favorite room, we bump into things, stump our toe from time to time. We find our cozy chair and sit, and listen. We play with the gizmo in our hands, and we accidentally hit a button that temporarily flashes the light on, but then back off. Wow! What was that? Part of the room lit up for a part of a second. So this gizmo suddenly becomes interesting, you play with it more, poke it and squeeze it. Something happened but you don't know what. Eventually you hit the light flashes on button again. Now, the flash of light should show you something has been amiss. You now know there is something more to life and experience. You keep exploring the gizmo. Eventually you find the switch on the gizmo that keeps it turned on, for a limited 3 seconds. But from that you eventually find the light switch that turns on the the lamp in the room, and illuminates the whole room. OK, this is turning into long, so I'll try to get to the point. I guess some quotes will be useful here. Now you have to read the quotes within the context of the dark room, and your realization you have been without sight. The ability to see was a hidden capacity, an inherent right by nature, by the way to organism is constructed, but you have not been aware of this previously. ZD asked, show me a distinction. So this is our distinction, still an analogy, darkness and light. But we don't know what the analogy actually represents, because we are indeed asleep. self-remembering means, finding the switch on the gizmo/flashlight, and turning on the lamp. So Gurdjieff asked: What is the most important thing that we notice during self-observation? And we have several paragraphs of trying to answer. And so Gurdjieff says: Not one of you has noticed the most important thing that I have pointed out to you, that is to say, not one of you has noticed that you do not remember yourselves. (He gave particular emphasis to these words, notes Ouspensky). With you, 'it speaks', 'it observes', 'it thinks', 'it laughs'. In order to really observe oneself one must first of all remember oneself. (He again emphasized these words, again notes Ouspensky). Try to remember yourselves when you observe yourselves and later on tell me the results. Only those results will have any value that are accompanied by self-remembering. Otherwise you yourselves do not exist in your observations. In which case what are all your observations worth? ( emphasis sdp) In Search of the Miraculous pages 117, 118 Unlike PD Ouspensky, who left Gurdjieff after about ten years, Madame Ouspensky remained a student of Gurdjieff all her life, despite living and working with her husband for over 20 further years until he died. It was Madame Ouspensky who published In Search of the Miraculous after her husband died, upon Gurdjieff's direction. Some quotes from her. Personality, imagination, opinions consists of the whole unreal structure of thought which keeps us asleep. Where our attention is, there we are. We are not what we should be. As long as we do not know and realize this, we have no possibility of change. To the degree that we realize we are not, we have the possibility of becoming. ( emphasis sdp) As we are we cannot perceive Reality, we cannot even imagine what Reality is like. The first real change comes as a perception we are not separate individuals with separate existence. We only exist as part of a larger whole. Either we belong to a growing part or else we belong to the part that can only increase in chaos. This is our choice. Someone asked about imagination. Our System says, as long as we allow imagination to control us, nothing can come. The chief characteristic of imagination is that it gives no result. It is a deceiver. You can imagine a tree-but try to get an apple off it. Not even a cow will be satisfied with imaginary food. Choice is between real and unreal. If you want something real, imagination immediately becomes poisonous. Where imagination is, nothing real can exist. We need to be on guard against imagination. All struggle is against imagination. Important thing is to learn not to trust oneself. Nothing is possible if we start from wrong point of view- if we think of ourselves as existing and as complete. We are in the world so that we can complete ourselves. ( emphasis sdp) from Saturday Evenings at Mendham, Conversations with Madame Ouspensky I should leave it there. But the darkness is an analogy for sleep, the light from the flashlight is an analogy for attention/self-observation, the lamp turned on = awareness/self-remembering. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 11:26:14 GMT -5
An analogy is an imaginary distinction. The idea of attention and awareness are other imaginary distinctions. The "living truth" is not hidden; it lies right in from of everyone's eyes, and no distinctions are necessary in order to see it. If one insists on imagining, one will remain trapped in a dead meta-reality created by the intellect.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 11:43:14 GMT -5
An analogy is an imaginary distinction. The idea of attention and awareness are other imaginary distinctions. The "living truth" is not hidden; it lies right in from of everyone's eyes, and no distinctions are necessary in order to see it. If one insists on imagining, one will remain trapped in a dead meta-reality created by the intellect. . (That's the whole point). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 11:48:04 GMT -5
From page V of the introduction to "Laws of Form:"
"The theme of this book is that a (imaginary--my addition) universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism (can be imagined to--my addition) cut off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological science, and can begin to see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the original act of severance. The act is itself already remembered , even if unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish different things in a world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we please."
As a result of conditioning, a human adult has unconsciously internalized millions of distinctions, and those distinctions comprise what many of us refer to as "the consensus paradigm"--a meta-reality reinforced with incessant mind talk. The "living truth," however, underlies that meta-reality, and it is what gives rise to it. If we look at the world without imagining what we see, we see "what is," and "what is" is beyond name or form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 12:41:20 GMT -5
From page V of the introduction to "Laws of Form:" "The theme of this book is that a (imaginary--my addition) universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism (can be imagined to--my addition) cut off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological science, and can begin to see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the original act of severance. The act is itself already remembered , even if unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish different things in a world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we please." As a result of conditioning, a human adult has unconsciously internalized millions of distinctions, and those distinctions comprise what many of us refer to as "the consensus paradigm"--a meta-reality reinforced with incessant mind talk. The "living truth," however, underlies that meta-reality, and it is what gives rise to it. If we look at the world without imagining what we see, we see "what is," and "what is" is beyond name or form. Franklin Merrell-Wolff had a phrase, that was (as usual with him) a bit of a mouthful... "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". It led to some interesting meditations for me a few times. Does that (or a simpler restatement) resonate with you? Related question: can you see what Is? Or is This (to use your word) never an object of consciousness? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 12:48:12 GMT -5
From page V of the introduction to "Laws of Form:" "The theme of this book is that a (imaginary--my addition) universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism (can be imagined to--my addition) cut off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological science, and can begin to see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the original act of severance. The act is itself already remembered , even if unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish different things in a world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we please." As a result of conditioning, a human adult has unconsciously internalized millions of distinctions, and those distinctions comprise what many of us refer to as "the consensus paradigm"--a meta-reality reinforced with incessant mind talk. The "living truth," however, underlies that meta-reality, and it is what gives rise to it. If we look at the world without imagining what we see, we see "what is," and "what is" is beyond name or form. This has very little to do with the OP, which you probably could not bear to read, in full. No problem. But having said that, I think you have missed G Spencer Brown's whole point by adding imaginary. He wrote the Laws of Form. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness (The Heart Sutra) doesn't say form does not exist. Your whole ontology, your words, are based on definitions of words. Words always represent something else, that's what they're for. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's the best my computer skills will show vibrations. Your _________ is actually a very good representation, no ups or downs. The universe is functional, it means little to say is isn't REAL. Crest and trough define each other, there isn't one without the other. In the sense of the OP, if I hold an acorn in my hand, and I say it's an oak tree, in potential, you might say that's just your imagination. If I plant it and in 5 years show it to you and you still say it's imaginary, not an oak tree, conversation becomes irrelevant. Your definition of imaginary is not very functional. If I show you an apple and a picture of an apple, and you are hungry, tell me they are both imaginary. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 13:09:44 GMT -5
From page V of the introduction to "Laws of Form:" "The theme of this book is that a (imaginary--my addition) universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism (can be imagined to--my addition) cut off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological science, and can begin to see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the original act of severance. The act is itself already remembered , even if unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish different things in a world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we please." As a result of conditioning, a human adult has unconsciously internalized millions of distinctions, and those distinctions comprise what many of us refer to as "the consensus paradigm"--a meta-reality reinforced with incessant mind talk. The "living truth," however, underlies that meta-reality, and it is what gives rise to it. If we look at the world without imagining what we see, we see "what is," and "what is" is beyond name or form. Franklin Merrell-Wolff had a phrase, that was (as usual with him) a bit of a mouthful... "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". It led to some interesting meditations for me a few times. Does that (or a simpler restatement) resonate with you? Related question: can you see what Is? Or is This (to use your word) never an object of consciousness? That's an interesting mouthful, but I'm not sure exactly what he's pointing to with those words.  All of us see and directly interact with "what is," but most adults interpret what they see and interact with in terms of abstractions via mind talk. As Tony Parsons famously said to a woman who asked about some red shoes that she had purchased, "No one has ever purchased a pair of red shoes!" haha! ITSW, we could say, "No one has ever seen a tree!" The image/idea/symbol "tree" is an imaginary abstraction that divides reality into two imaginary states--tree and not-tree. Everyone can see what a tree IS, but what a tree IS is cannot be captured by any words or ideas because what a tree IS has no actual boundaries. I used to wonder what a dog sees when it looks at a tree because it doesn't walk into a tree. Only after a particular realization (that Zen calls "passing through the gateless gate") did I finally understand the difference between the idea and the actuality. A standard Zen interview question that teachers ask is "What is this?" while holding up some object or pointing to some object. They're NOT asking "How may this be distinguished?" They're asking what it IS. If we ask how something can be distinguished, we are asking for a noun. If we ask what something IS, we are asking for a verb. If a Zen teacher holds up a book and asks, "What is this?" S/he is investigating whether the student understands the issue and can respond spontaneously and without reflective thought. If the student so much as opens his/her mouth, understanding is absent.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 13:25:53 GMT -5
From page V of the introduction to "Laws of Form:" "The theme of this book is that a (imaginary--my addition) universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism (can be imagined to--my addition) cut off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological science, and can begin to see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the original act of severance. The act is itself already remembered , even if unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish different things in a world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we please." As a result of conditioning, a human adult has unconsciously internalized millions of distinctions, and those distinctions comprise what many of us refer to as "the consensus paradigm"--a meta-reality reinforced with incessant mind talk. The "living truth," however, underlies that meta-reality, and it is what gives rise to it. If we look at the world without imagining what we see, we see "what is," and "what is" is beyond name or form. This has very little to do with the OP, which you probably could not bear to read, in full. No problem. But having said that, I think you have missed G Spencer Brown's whole point by adding imaginary. He wrote the Laws of Form. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness (The Heart Sutra) doesn't say form does not exist. Your whole ontology, your words, are based on definitions of words. Words always represent something else, that's what they're for. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's the best my computer skills will show vibrations. Your _________ is actually a very good representation, no ups or downs. The universe is functional, it means little to say is isn't REAL. Crest and trough define each other, there isn't one without the other. In the sense of the OP, if I hold an acorn in my hand, and I say it's an oak tree, in potential, you might say that's just your imagination. If I plant it and in 5 years show it to you and you still say it's imaginary, not an oak tree, conversation becomes irrelevant. Your definition of imaginary is not very functional. If I show you an apple and a picture of an apple, and you are hungry, tell me they are both imaginary. This posting reminded me of the surrealist painting of a pipe with the words underneath stating "This is not a pipe." I took that point one step further by mounting an actual pipe in a glass framed wall hanging with the words, "This is also not a pipe." I hung both "works of art" in a meditation room where many of our friends used to meet. There is no crest or trough (or any other separate thing) unless one chooses to imagine those things. There is only ___________________. One either understands what this sentence is pointing to or one does not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 13:42:56 GMT -5
Franklin Merrell-Wolff had a phrase, that was (as usual with him) a bit of a mouthful... "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". It led to some interesting meditations for me a few times. Does that (or a simpler restatement) resonate with you? Related question: can you see what Is? Or is This (to use your word) never an object of consciousness? That's an interesting mouthful, but I'm not sure exactly what he's pointing to with those words. [...] I think the pointer is similar to neti-neti – if you can see it (ie, be conscious of it) then it is not Self. Like Niz saying to focus on "Being" or the "I am". Or the idea that Sunlight (Awareness) is real, but invisible; while the objects illuminated by the light are visible and fleeting. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 14:23:13 GMT -5
That's an interesting mouthful, but I'm not sure exactly what he's pointing to with those words. [...] I think the pointer is similar to neti-neti – if you can see it (ie, be conscious of it) then it is not Self. Like Niz saying to focus on "Being" or the "I am". Or the idea that Sunlight (Awareness) is real, but invisible; while the objects illuminated by the light are visible and fleeting. I look at it somewhat differently although I understand the neti-neti pointer. When I refer to THIS, I'm referring to the entire field of all being that includes (using the classic metaphor) the movie projector, the movie, as well as the one who watches the movie. People realize THIS in different ways, and this morning I thought about starting a thread to illustrate some of the different ways that this happens. Feelers like Tyler Matthew and Mike Snider apparently apprehend THIS through a different process than thinkers who often have numerous realizations that result in a sequential detachment from thoughts. They both end up with the same understanding, but how they get there differs. More about this later. FWIW, from my POV whatever is being seen is also THIS being seen by THIS. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 14:25:02 GMT -5
From page V of the introduction to "Laws of Form:" "The theme of this book is that a (imaginary--my addition) universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism (can be imagined to--my addition) cut off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological science, and can begin to see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the original act of severance. The act is itself already remembered , even if unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish different things in a world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we please." As a result of conditioning, a human adult has unconsciously internalized millions of distinctions, and those distinctions comprise what many of us refer to as "the consensus paradigm"--a meta-reality reinforced with incessant mind talk. The "living truth," however, underlies that meta-reality, and it is what gives rise to it. If we look at the world without imagining what we see, we see "what is," and "what is" is beyond name or form. Franklin Merrell-Wolff had a phrase, that was (as usual with him) a bit of a mouthful... "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". It led to some interesting meditations for me a few times. Does that (or a simpler restatement) resonate with you? Related question: can you see what Is? Or is This (to use your word) never an object of consciousness? Yes, suchness vs. thingness. Excellent question. Yes, THIS (or the Infinite) actually has to be seen as THIS (or the Infinite), directly. But it cannot be an object. It can only be seen as from prior to any subject/object split. And that kind of seeing can only happen with the eyes of the Infinite, not the physical eyes or the eyes of the mind. You know the saying, it takes one to know one. In that sense, in order to realize God (or the Infinite) you have to become God (or the Infinite). Then the Infinite recognizes ITSELF as the Infinite, directly. There is only what you are, as Tenka likes to say, or the Self is all there is, as Ramana liked to say. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 14:42:07 GMT -5
Franklin Merrell-Wolff had a phrase, that was (as usual with him) a bit of a mouthful... "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". It led to some interesting meditations for me a few times. Does that (or a simpler restatement) resonate with you? Related question: can you see what Is? Or is This (to use your word) never an object of consciousness? Yes, suchness vs. thingness. Excellent question. Yes, THIS (or the Infinite) actually has to be seen as THIS (or the Infinite), directly. But it cannot be an object. It can only be seen as from prior to any subject/object split. And that kind of seeing can only happen with the eyes of the Infinite, not the physical eyes or the eyes of the mind. You know the saying, it takes one to know one. In that sense, in order to realize God (or the Infinite) you have to become God (or the Infinite). Then the Infinite recognizes ITSELF as the Infinite, directly. There is only what you are, as Tenka likes to say, or the Self is all there is, as Ramana liked to say. Exactly. With TR THIS wakes up to Itself because there is no "other." |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2022 19:31:08 GMT -5
From page V of the introduction to "Laws of Form:" "The theme of this book is that a (imaginary--my addition) universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism (can be imagined to--my addition) cut off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological science, and can begin to see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the original act of severance. The act is itself already remembered , even if unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish different things in a world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we please." As a result of conditioning, a human adult has unconsciously internalized millions of distinctions, and those distinctions comprise what many of us refer to as "the consensus paradigm"--a meta-reality reinforced with incessant mind talk. The "living truth," however, underlies that meta-reality, and it is what gives rise to it. If we look at the world without imagining what we see, we see "what is," and "what is" is beyond name or form. Franklin Merrell-Wolff had a phrase, that was (as usual with him) a bit of a mouthful... "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". It led to some interesting meditations for me a few times. Does that (or a simpler restatement) resonate with you? Related question: can you see what Is? Or is This (to use your word) never an object of consciousness? Frank maybe should have spent some time out in the sun on a hot day. By a deserted lake. Nearby a big, flat smooth rock that he could sit on after he got out of the water. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2022 19:34:07 GMT -5
Franklin Merrell-Wolff had a phrase, that was (as usual with him) a bit of a mouthful... "substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability". It led to some interesting meditations for me a few times. Does that (or a simpler restatement) resonate with you? Related question: can you see what Is? Or is This (to use your word) never an object of consciousness? That's an interesting mouthful, but I'm not sure exactly what he's pointing to with those words. In a light most favorable to Frank, it would be something along the lines of .. "the substantive physical world quiets the mind". Like a sunset, perhaps. "Pondering" .. it has a bad rap, too closely associated with thought. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2022 19:40:03 GMT -5
This has very little to do with the OP, which you probably could not bear to read, in full. No problem. But having said that, I think you have missed G Spencer Brown's whole point by adding imaginary. He wrote the Laws of Form. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness (The Heart Sutra) doesn't say form does not exist. Your whole ontology, your words, are based on definitions of words. Words always represent something else, that's what they're for. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's the best my computer skills will show vibrations. Your _________ is actually a very good representation, no ups or downs. The universe is functional, it means little to say is isn't REAL. Crest and trough define each other, there isn't one without the other. In the sense of the OP, if I hold an acorn in my hand, and I say it's an oak tree, in potential, you might say that's just your imagination. If I plant it and in 5 years show it to you and you still say it's imaginary, not an oak tree, conversation becomes irrelevant. Your definition of imaginary is not very functional. If I show you an apple and a picture of an apple, and you are hungry, tell me they are both imaginary. This posting reminded me of the surrealist painting of a pipe with the words underneath stating "This is not a pipe." I took that point one step further by mounting an actual pipe in a glass framed wall hanging with the words, "This is also not a pipe." I hung both "works of art" in a meditation room where many of our friends used to meet. There is no crest or trough (or any other separate thing) unless one chooses to imagine those things. There is only ___________________. One either understands what this sentence is pointing to or one does not. The looking glass that Alice went through .. it looked so slim, so trivial, when viewed on edge. And then, from the front and the back. Just a piece of furniture. |
|
