|
Post by zendancer on Jul 12, 2010 16:42:08 GMT -5
Klaus: Does it matter whether your answer is 80% or 100%? Nope, not unless it does. The koan thing is just for fun. Some people get into them and some don't. Some people learn things from them that are interesting and some don't care. I'm just playing here, so please don't get serious on me. LOL.
I once went for an interview where I was asked the koan about the wind and the flag (was the wind moving? Was the flag moving? Was mind moving? etc). In response I did something physical and the teacher said, "That's only 90%. What's missing?" Only then did I realize that something else needed to be added to get to 100%. I thought that was pretty cool, and it helped me be a bit more precise in my answers to some future koans I was asked.
Koans can sometimes help one attend more intimately to the actual, but if they don't turn you on, then fuhgetaboutit. It's no big deal.
As for the other issues, same same. We sure don't want language or thoughts to interrupt this dance. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Jul 12, 2010 16:47:54 GMT -5
enigma,
Ha,ha.
To quote you, "Don't know, really, and don't care so much.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Jul 12, 2010 17:05:26 GMT -5
zendancer,
Sometimes one has to be serious to see the humor in being serious.
|
|
|
Post by question on Jul 12, 2010 18:25:33 GMT -5
Motivated by Enigma's claims, I've been doing research on the "mental visualisation". I'm shocked to be honest. Of course I was aware of the term and idea behind it, I've seen the idea depicted in movies such as "Fight Club" or "I Heart Huckabees", but I always thought it was just a metaphor.
It indeed appears like most people do actually SEE mind-images and can produce them at will. The degree to which this can be done seems to vary highly. Some claim to see images just like in real life, for some the images are murky, some don't see any images at all. There seem to be at least three modes of mental representation: pictorial, propositional and relational, most often mixed with each other to varying degrees. I've come across some reports that almost exactly match my experience: Representation is not pictorial but mostly relational, sometimes aided by language (a "roar" if imagining a tiger) or even slight gestures (subtle eye movement in the recollection of a landscape, subtle muscle movement in the recollection of playing football).
In my case and in the reports of other people whose experience matches mine, there is no direct correlation of a mental "representation" to what is seen, heard or felt.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 12, 2010 19:53:04 GMT -5
Question: As a visualizer, who can "see-through" structures being designed, and walk through the three-dimensional spaces mentally, and see mental representations of what is actual, it was fascinating to learn that not all people see images in a similar manner. Cool.
You may already know this, but Tibetan Buddhists have lots of visualization practices. Apparently it is possible to intensify and "flesh out" more completely the kind of mental images one sees after a certain amount of practice.
|
|
waddicalwabbit
Full Member
Let's all go down the wabbit hole
Posts: 125
|
Post by waddicalwabbit on Jul 12, 2010 20:48:54 GMT -5
OMG. I'm fixing to read all this again now that's its grown and I'm scared to death! When is a chair NOT a chair. Help me, Jesus. OK, I'm diving in. Don't expect to hear from me for awhile but if I'm not out in a couple days, please send someone.
|
|
|
Post by mansuit on Jul 12, 2010 22:58:33 GMT -5
Let's revisit that chair. Without delving too deep into non-duality babble, couldn't we say the chair- what is appearing before me, in my awareness, is just a bundle of concepts? On the surface -"Chair" the noun I have assigned to this thing before me, a name based on all my other experiences of "chairs", and then beyond that, "wood", "leather" whatever the chair is made of. Again, concepts based on previous conceptual experiences. And then, beyond that it gets sketchy...now I go from conceptual experiences of what I have named- chair, wood, leather, and into heresay- it is made of atoms, and protons, electrons. I don't know this, but I believe because I have been conceptually programmed to believe it..what I have learned about chairs in general. And beyond that- quarks...all the way to nothing. Take away all the concepts..from the surface down...chair, wood, leather, atoms, protons, electrons, quarks, and it is made of nothing. What is seen then? I would say- NO thing is seen, only the awareness seeing...but that is non-duality malarky. Well, could I then use this same unraveling to look at myself?
This is of course an intellectual workout- I have no freakin' idea what I am talking about..just trying to sound it out...like a 5 year old learning to read..
Michael
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 12, 2010 23:36:48 GMT -5
enigma, Ha,ha. To quote you, "Don't know, really, and don't care so much. Groovycool.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 12, 2010 23:47:36 GMT -5
Motivated by Enigma's claims, I've been doing research on the "mental visualisation". I'm shocked to be honest. Of course I was aware of the term and idea behind it, I've seen the idea depicted in movies such as "Fight Club" or "I Heart Huckabees", but I always thought it was just a metaphor. It indeed appears like most people do actually SEE mind-images and can produce them at will. The degree to which this can be done seems to vary highly. Some claim to see images just like in real life, for some the images are murky, some don't see any images at all. There seem to be at least three modes of mental representation: pictorial, propositional and relational, most often mixed with each other to varying degrees. I've come across some reports that almost exactly match my experience: Representation is not pictorial but mostly relational, sometimes aided by language (a "roar" if imagining a tiger) or even slight gestures (subtle eye movement in the recollection of a landscape, subtle muscle movement in the recollection of playing football). In my case and in the reports of other people whose experience matches mine, there is no direct correlation of a mental "representation" to what is seen, heard or felt. That is indeed interesting, Question. Makes me wonder a bit why that is, and what the implications might be. My Dad told me one time, when he was in his 60's, that he's never experienced a dream, or at least remembered one. It totally floored me. Never figured out why that was either.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 12, 2010 23:49:26 GMT -5
OMG. I'm fixing to read all this again now that's its grown and I'm scared to death! When is a chair NOT a chair. Help me, Jesus. OK, I'm diving in. Don't expect to hear from me for awhile but if I'm not out in a couple days, please send someone. Don't forget to drop bread crumbs.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 12, 2010 23:55:21 GMT -5
Let's revisit that chair. Without delving too deep into non-duality babble, couldn't we say the chair- what is appearing before me, in my awareness, is just a bundle of concepts? On the surface -"Chair" the noun I have assigned to this thing before me, a name based on all my other experiences of "chairs", and then beyond that, "wood", "leather" whatever the chair is made of. Again, concepts based on previous conceptual experiences. And then, beyond that it gets sketchy...now I go from conceptual experiences of what I have named- chair, wood, leather, and into heresay- it is made of atoms, and protons, electrons. I don't know this, but I believe because I have been conceptually programmed to believe it..what I have learned about chairs in general. And beyond that- quarks...all the way to nothing. Take away all the concepts..from the surface down...chair, wood, leather, atoms, protons, electrons, quarks, and it is made of nothing. What is seen then? I would say- NO thing is seen, only the awareness seeing...but that is non-duality malarky. Well, could I then use this same unraveling to look at myself? This is of course an intellectual workout- I have no freakin' idea what I am talking about..just trying to sound it out...like a 5 year old learning to read.. Michael I would say you have described what the mind conceptualizes as a chair, and I say this is not the chair. At the risk of being seriously misunderstood, and not to be too overly malarkyish, I say the chair is vibrantly alive, intimately personal, and completely empty.
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Jul 12, 2010 23:57:32 GMT -5
There's that famous, but likely apocryphal, story about Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman when they were working together on Marathon Man. To prepare for a scene, Hoffman had gone for a few days without sleep and looked pretty rough. Olivier asked him why he was putting himself through such an ordeal and Hoffman replied that he was trying to be convincing in the role. Olivier replied, "It's called acting dear boy".
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Jul 12, 2010 23:59:44 GMT -5
Wabbit, are you okay? I'm weally quite nervous about all of this. Call me, pwease, call me .....
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Jul 13, 2010 0:06:04 GMT -5
and yes Enigma, I understand all too well what it's like to be broken ...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 13, 2010 3:40:01 GMT -5
Enigma wrote, "I would say you have described what the mind conceptualizes as a chair, and I say this is not the chair. At the risk of being seriously misunderstood, and not to be too overly malarkyish, I say the chair is vibrantly alive, intimately personal, and completely empty."
Yuppers, that's about as far as one can go in language. When I look at a chair, or any thing else, for that matter, I see ___________, the blank space pointing to the living truth that is beyond conception. I don't know if it is possible to fully grok this until one passes through the "gateless gate" and experiences what the word "oneness" signifies.
|
|