Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 13:35:05 GMT
Check what I said originally, and even in the messages after, and you will see I haven't expanded the definition. How can there be finite perception without finite individuality? I mean you've expanded it beyond the common idea of a physical apparatus. Finite perception, yes. An intermediary vehicle to provide sense perception, no.as Ive expanded it because we are spiritual folks so are likely to be open to the idea of beings that arent flesh and bone. Im asking how a perception point can be limited without an individualized boundary of some kind. Even in new age circles which might talk of high dimension beings that can exist in many places and times, at the same time....there is still an individualization/vehicle i.e the being is not the totality. The way you are talking is as if a point of perception can exist in space. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 13:44:14 GMT
Okay. So would you say there is surety in that experience? When you perceive a mountain, there is surety that it has a backside. If you weren't sure you would probably be wondering if it was a set prop in a film. The unseen back side of the mountain is built into, and part of, your perception of the mountain. Similarly, when you perceive other people, animated perceiving is built into that perception. There is surety to it. Whereas when you perceive a chair, animated perceiving is not built into, or part of, that perception. What you call 'built in' to perception, I call assumption. Mind fills in the blanks about what is not perceived. If it's not being directly perceived, it's not there, mostly because there is no 'there', which is also assumed. Assumption is fine, but im not sure a 'mountain' is ever directly perceived. The brain compiles the information in such way that 'the mountain' is known. Theres no tangible poin between assumption and 'true information'. It is a package deal. The massive majority of our perceptions, there is a natural surety as to what is perceived. Just occasionally may we have cause to doubt that surety and analyze what we are perceiving. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 14:31:58 GMT
I mean you've expanded it beyond the common idea of a physical apparatus. Finite perception, yes. An intermediary vehicle to provide sense perception, no.as Ive expanded it because we are spiritual folks so are likely to be open to the idea of beings that arent flesh and bone. Im asking how a perception point can be limited without an individualized boundary of some kind. Even in new age circles which might talk of high dimension beings that can exist in many places and times, at the same time....there is still an individualization/vehicle i.e the being is not the totality. The way you are talking is as if a point of perception can exist in space. A point of perception doesn't exist in space. Space is an illusion as part of perception itself. Hencely, no vehicle required. You want individual limitation to be formed by a vehicle, and in the physical context that's fine, but ultimately the vehicle is also an appearance and the boundaries are inherent to the point of perception. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 14:56:02 GMT
What you call 'built in' to perception, I call assumption. Mind fills in the blanks about what is not perceived. If it's not being directly perceived, it's not there, mostly because there is no 'there', which is also assumed. Assumption is fine, but im not sure a 'mountain' is ever directly perceived. The brain compiles the information in such way that 'the mountain' is known. Theres no tangible poin between assumption and 'true information'. It is a package deal. The massive majority of our perceptions, there is a natural surety as to what is perceived. Just occasionally may we have cause to doubt that surety and analyze what we are perceiving. The surety, or certainty, is part of the illusion, which is why "I'm talking about it. You're also sure that the moon is in the sky when it's not being perceived. Everything is happening in Consciousness. There is no 'out there' for there to be a moon out there. No mountain 'out there'. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 15:27:02 GMT
Ive expanded it because we are spiritual folks so are likely to be open to the idea of beings that arent flesh and bone. Im asking how a perception point can be limited without an individualized boundary of some kind. Even in new age circles which might talk of high dimension beings that can exist in many places and times, at the same time....there is still an individualization/vehicle i.e the being is not the totality. The way you are talking is as if a point of perception can exist in space. A point of perception doesn't exist in space. Space is an illusion as part of perception itself. Hencely, no vehicle required. You want individual limitation to be formed by a vehicle, and in the physical context that's fine, but ultimately the vehicle is also an appearance and the boundaries are inherewnt to the point of perception. Ah, i would say that perception points are part of the illusion. So, if we say there ARE points of perception, then they are part of the illusionary physical universe of individuation. So to me, you are mixing contexts....unless... Are you suggesting that points of perception are more real or fundamental than what is experienced and perceived? If so, what determines the boundary of perception? |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 15:32:54 GMT
Assumption is fine, but im not sure a 'mountain' is ever directly perceived. The brain compiles the information in such way that 'the mountain' is known. Theres no tangible poin between assumption and 'true information'. It is a package deal. The massive majority of our perceptions, there is a natural surety as to what is perceived. Just occasionally may we have cause to doubt that surety and analyze what we are perceiving. The surety, or certainty, is part of the illusion, which is why "I'm talking about it. You're also sure that the moon is in the sky when it's not being perceived. Everything is happening in Consciousness. There is no 'out there' for there to be a moon out there. No mountain 'out there'. Yes I agree the surety is part of the illusion, but also, this surety comes from.knowledge. Sometimes when i talk I have a vague inkling of where i am going but it doesnt come clear to me until it unfolds. Here, i am making connections between surety, knowledge and perception. I am challenging the suggestion that when you perceive a person, that the knowledge of that person as being an animated perceiver, is absent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 17:00:10 GMT
When the mind experiences trees and people and sunshine, or 'what is', the mind is still... When the mind experiences a 'full appearance' or an 'empty appearance' or 'what is not', the mind is moving...  It is an unusual way to express it, but I know what you mean. Experiencing either full or empty appearances, requires us to experience the mental construct of 'appearance'. When in reality, what is experienced is 'mountain', or 'tree'...or whatever. 'Appearance' is just a word to talk about absence of objective reality, we don't actually experience 'an appearance' let alone a full or empty one. Yes, the 'thought' appearance, is knowing or knowledge about a perception. It is formed in the past and is ressurected through memory. So we give more importance to the minds past knowledge than we do the actual perception.  |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 18:06:14 GMT
It is an unusual way to express it, but I know what you mean. Experiencing either full or empty appearances, requires us to experience the mental construct of 'appearance'. When in reality, what is experienced is 'mountain', or 'tree'...or whatever. 'Appearance' is just a word to talk about absence of objective reality, we don't actually experience 'an appearance' let alone a full or empty one. Yes, the 'thought' appearance, is knowing or knowledge about a perception. It is formed in the past and is ressurected through memory. So we give more importance to the minds past knowledge than we do the actual perception. yep! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 23, 2017 21:41:16 GMT
Assumption is fine, but im not sure a 'mountain' is ever directly perceived. The brain compiles the information in such way that 'the mountain' is known. Theres no tangible poin between assumption and 'true information'. It is a package deal. The massive majority of our perceptions, there is a natural surety as to what is perceived. Just occasionally may we have cause to doubt that surety and analyze what we are perceiving. which is why "I'm talking about it. You're also sure that the moon is in the sky when it's not being perceived. Everything is happening in Consciousness. There is no 'out there' for there to be a moon out there. No mountain 'out there'. Yes! Excellent post. After God knows how many pages of argument, you've managed to capture the most important bits in 4 succinct sentences....5...?  The 'no out there,' part, really ties it all together. In insisting upon the presence of surety, certainty, it could be argued, one is insisting upon an 'out there,' |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 23:37:53 GMT
A point of perception doesn't exist in space. Space is an illusion as part of perception itself. Hencely, no vehicle required. You want individual limitation to be formed by a vehicle, and in the physical context that's fine, but ultimately the vehicle is also an appearance and the boundaries are inherewnt to the point of perception. Ah, i would say that perception points are part of the illusion. So, if we say there ARE points of perception, then they are part of the illusionary physical universe of individuation. So to me, you are mixing contexts....unless... Are you suggesting that points of perception are more real or fundamental than what is experienced and perceived? Yes, I beleive I am. Cloud memory.  |
|
