Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 23:46:06 GMT
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.When I perceive a person first hand, I assume it is a perceiver, though I don't know. I don't know how that fits in with your definition of knowledge. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 23:49:17 GMT
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! We give more importance to realization than we do to experience, which is how it should be. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 23:57:08 GMT
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! 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,' Yeah, that's how I see it too. To assign any truth value to the world of form is to posit an objective universe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 1:16:12 GMT
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! 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,' You mean you are just now learning that the content of Consciousness 'IS' Consciousness? You don't need Enigma stating that for you to see that, right? Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 24, 2017 3:46:53 GMT
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,' You mean you are just now learning that the content of Consciousness 'IS' Consciousness? You don't need Enigma stating that for you to see that, right? Hehe Just now learning the content of Consciousness IS Consciousness? Of course not...how the heck did you arrive at that? And no, I don't 'need' E to state things for me to see them, but if I like the way he said something that does represent something I've seen, I'm likely gonna comment on it. You seem to be trying every which way to be contrary here. Don't worry, It's coming across loud and clear; You DO know the other is a perceiver....and it bugs the hell outta you when folks say they don't & when they refer to content as 'appearance.'  |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2017 7:52:25 GMT
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.  If you don't know you don't know. I can't see how you could know, as what you are suggesting doesn't make sense. Can you say more about these fundamental points of perception. I've never heard you talk before of fundamental objects so this should be interesting....are they eternal? Doesn't it just make more sense that points of perception are boundaried by individualization? And that they are not fundamental? |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2017 7:53:46 GMT
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.When I perceive a person first hand, I assume it is a perceiver, though I don't know. I don't know how that fits in with your definition of knowledge. How does your assuming that create the experience of surety? You consciously assume it? But yes, 'assumed' knowledge is still knowledge. All knowledge contains assumption. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2017 7:55:08 GMT
We give more importance to realization than we do to experience, which is how it should be. If you are experiencing the concept of an appearance, that's an experience. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2017 8:00:35 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'. To go back to this. To speak of a point of perception IS to speak of a physical universe out there. Individualization, points of perception, physical universe.....is all the same context. Why do you argue that a paperclip has no point of perception (but sentient beings do), if points of perception are not in the physical context? If points of perception are fundamental as you just implied, why would you say that sentient beings have them, but paperclips do not? You've basically messed up on this one, but as is often the case for us humans, admitting a mistake is hard to do eh. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 24, 2017 13:53:34 GMT
Yes, I beleive I am. Cloud memory. If you don't know you don't know. I can't see how you could know, as what you are suggesting doesn't make sense. Can you say more about these fundamental points of perception. I've never heard you talk before of fundamental objects so this should be interesting....are they eternal? Doesn't it just make more sense that points of perception are boundaried by individualization? And that they are not fundamental? I thought I was arguing against fundamental objects, like vehicles. A point of perception and an individualization are the same. |
|
