Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jan 9, 2020 15:15:59 GMT
Like Reefs who doesn't see milk but still manages to pick it up and bring it home?
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jan 9, 2020 21:32:33 GMT
If we're speaking in that context, then there is also no 'layer of raw perception.' Things DO appear, and yet they are appearance only. Same goes for a perceived 'raw layer.' "All perceivables are stains." Niz 'raw perception' can mean an absence of any interpretive overlay onto what is physically sensed, and without that, there's no chance of any sort of illusion derived from the senses.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 9, 2020 21:44:53 GMT
If we're speaking in that context, then there is also no 'layer of raw perception.' Things DO appear, and yet they are appearance only. Same goes for a perceived 'raw layer.' "All perceivables are stains." Niz 'raw perception' can mean an absence of any interpretive overlay onto what is physically sensed, and without that, there's no chance of any sort of illusion derived from the senses. Sure it 'can' mean that, but doesn't seem to in the posts quoted. Perception absent an overlay of mind's judgements and conclusions and assumptions, is what I would call 'direct experience.' And it is important in terms of understanding delusions/illusions and how they come into play, to see that difference.But it's also important to see that direct experience is still, well, experience, thus, not Truthy. And....the general recognition of objects/things is not 'an illusion derived from the senses'....nor dependent upon 'imagination' as ZD says.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jan 9, 2020 21:55:03 GMT
'raw perception' can mean an absence of any interpretive overlay onto what is physically sensed, and without that, there's no chance of any sort of illusion derived from the senses. Sure it 'can' mean that, but doesn't seem to in the posts quoted. Perception absent an overlay of mind's judgements and conclusions and assumptions, is what I would call 'direct experience.' And it is important in terms of understanding delusions/illusions and how they come into play, to see that difference.But it's also important to see that direct experience is still, well, experience, thus, not Truthy. And.... the general recognition of objects/things is not 'an illusion derived from the senses'....nor dependent upon 'imagination' as ZD says. For most people it is, to one degree or another. Most people ( by far) are conditioned to believe, to some extent, that the objects they perceive are real, in their own right. This is what an "objective reality" means. Underlying that belief is the notion that 'raw perception' is the basis of reality, and that they are a process defined by the objects of their body and their mind, within that objective reality. And the forefront-conscious aspect of the belief isn't really even as interesting as how it is propagated to and through the subconscious, and therein lies the basis of the existential illusion.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 9, 2020 22:01:44 GMT
Sure it 'can' mean that, but doesn't seem to in the posts quoted. Perception absent an overlay of mind's judgements and conclusions and assumptions, is what I would call 'direct experience.' And it is important in terms of understanding delusions/illusions and how they come into play, to see that difference.But it's also important to see that direct experience is still, well, experience, thus, not Truthy. And.... the general recognition of objects/things is not 'an illusion derived from the senses'....nor dependent upon 'imagination' as ZD says. For most people it is, to one degree or another. Most people ( by far) are conditioned to believe, to some extent, that the objects they perceive are real, in their own right. This is what an "objective reality" means. Underlying that belief is the notion that 'raw perception' is the basis of reality, and that they are a process defined by the objects of their body and their mind, within that objective reality. And the forefront-conscious aspect of the belief isn't really even as interesting as how it is propagated to and through the subconscious, and therein lies the basis of the existential illusion. As I see it, basic recognition of objects/things is something entirely different than that conditioned belief (what I would call the delusion of) taking appearing things to be objectively existent in their own right. It's important not to conflate the appearance of/recognition of things/objects/boundaries/distinction with the delusion of separation. But yes, I do agree that for those who are under the delusion of separation, an objectively existent world, perception absent ideation about it, is being mistaken for 'the ground' or as you say 'basis of reality.'
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jan 9, 2020 22:17:44 GMT
For most people it is, to one degree or another. Most people ( by far) are conditioned to believe, to some extent, that the objects they perceive are real, in their own right. This is what an "objective reality" means. Underlying that belief is the notion that 'raw perception' is the basis of reality, and that they are a process defined by the objects of their body and their mind, within that objective reality. And the forefront-conscious aspect of the belief isn't really even as interesting as how it is propagated to and through the subconscious, and therein lies the basis of the existential illusion. As I see it, basic recognition of objects/things is something entirely different than that conditioned belief (what I would call the delusion of) taking appearing things to be objectively existent in their own right. It's important not to conflate the appearance of/recognition of things/objects/boundaries/distinction with the delusion of separation. But yes, I do agree that for those who are under the delusion of separation, an objectively existent world, perception absent ideation about it, is being mistaken for 'the ground' or as you say 'basis of reality.' Well, sure, it's similar to the notion that once the mind is seen for what it is, it doesn't matter if it's noisy or quiet. The relative, is relative, but all relativity is mind made. Just because we will all agree that a glass full of ocean water isn't in the ocean anymore doesn't mean that "you" have really separated out the "water" in the "glass" from an "ocean".
Now, I plead guilty, ahead of time to having mixed linguistic-existential contexts in that last sentence, but I've done so consciously, and to illustrate a particular point.
There really isn't any object that isn't based on consensus. Some people find that out by dropping acid. I'd agree that isn't the realization of the existential truth, so I understand why you find it important not to conflate the two, but it is .. deep water. It reflects an unconventional view that is, nonetheless, absent the existential falsity of a consensus trance objective reality.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 9, 2020 22:53:36 GMT
Well, sure, it's similar to the notion that once the mind is seen for what it is, it doesn't matter if it's noisy or quiet. I don't see the similarity. The basic recognition of 'things,' of recognizing milk as milk when you grab a jug to drink some, does not hinge upon imagining milk. Appearances are not the same as imaginings. Do you agree or disagree? IF one regards milk to be an objectively, existent thing in it's own right, that's an entirely different thing. It does involve surmising, assumption, erroneous conclusion. I'm not sure; Are you arguing against what I said here or agreeing?
Do you figure babies who are not yet part of that 'consensus experience' don't recognize their bottles when they see them? Right, not even close. Thus, I don't know why that idea gets so much airtime when folks talk about SR. It really has no relevance to the realization of 'no separation' and often serves as a red herring. Unconventional views are not transcendent views.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jan 9, 2020 23:33:59 GMT
Well, sure, it's similar to the notion that once the mind is seen for what it is, it doesn't matter if it's noisy or quiet. I don't see the similarity. The basic recognition of 'things,' of recognizing milk as milk when you grab a jug to drink some, does not hinge upon imagining milk. Appearances are not the same as imaginings. Do you agree or disagree? IF one regards milk to be an objectively, existent thing in it's own right, that's an entirely different thing. It does involve surmising, assumption, erroneous conclusion. I'm not sure; Are you arguing against what I said here or agreeing?
Do you figure babies who are not yet part of that 'consensus experience' don't recognize their bottles when they see them? Right, not even close. Thus, I don't know why that idea gets so much airtime when folks talk about SR. It really has no relevance to the realization of 'no separation' and often serves as a red herring. Unconventional views are not transcendent views. The reason it gets airtime is because it's quite significant, and the reason it's significant is because it reflects an absence of existential falsity.
It's a path thing hun'. Not everyone astral travels or speaks with the dead or has a complete mental/emotional breakdown, meditates to a state of nothing but pure awareness or even really takes a good look at what they believe in on their way to the existential truth, but some do, and those are significant for the same reason. Conversely, I really can't imagine someone coming to the realization with a noisy mind, but I can't rule out that possibility by any process of abstract reasoning. Not everyone goes on an acid trip or otherwise meditates to this understanding about objects along the way to the existential truth. But some of us do.
The baby has no name for "bottle", or "milk", and your description of the baby, the bottle, and the process of feeding the child is all after-the fact. There is no noun that has the immediacy of experience, much less the immediacy of existence. Nouns are never not the result of a process, and a secondary process at that.
No, not all appearances are imagined, you'll have to take that dialog up directly with ZD. But there is no noun, no name, and no object - physical, or product of imagination, that isn't the result of consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 5:59:34 GMT
The reason it gets airtime is because it's quite significant, and the reason it's significant is because it reflects an absence of existential falsity. If we're talking about the same thing here, (seeing beyond perceivable things/objects to some sort of perceived, unified substrate), it really does not actually reflect an absence of existential falsity at all. That would require getting the heck outta the dream to see the entirety of dream content, including a perceived, unified substrate, for what it is. The 'world' one sees while on an acid trip, while relatively speaking seems to be transcendent of the everyday world, is actually not transcendent at all. So long as you are perceiving something, anything at all, in terms of a manifest reality, you're still 'in' the dream. If we're talking about awakening to the Truth, those experiences have no special significance at all, any more than any other experience, other than that they are 'special' and thus, mind may be even more reticent than usual to let them go, to lay them on the fire. Precisely, what understanding? If it's other than objects/things perceived are appearance only, it's 'in the dream' stuff, no? The idea that objects/things cannot be perceived/recognized absent a consensus regarding that object, I don't agree with at all. One need not have a name for an object to recognize/perceive 'something' appearing. I'm not sure how the 'noun' stuff ties in with my post, but will say "Consensus" is itself just an appearance within the dream....it can't even be known for certain if there are in fact other points of view that are actually in agreement. Consensus anyway would only apply to labels that are assigned to objects....and Labels, names, words, are not necessary to recognize 'something' that is appearing.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 6:14:20 GMT
It's not at all. Absolute knowing about appearances is not necessary for appearances to compel and engage interest. You don't seem to understand what 'split-mind' means. It means there are two competing interests. Two competing desires, two competing ideas in play.
Regardless of what you may think, you 'actually' do not know anything for absolute certain about anything at all that appears, other than that it appears, because there is nothing inherently Truthy about any appearance. And yet, all of it, as it appears, compels interest, engages interaction and even ignites love.
|
|