Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 24, 2017 14:02:49 GMT
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. You consciously assume it? But yes, 'assumed' knowledge is still knowledge. All knowledge contains assumption. It doesn't. You're the one having the experience of surety. I know nothing. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 24, 2017 14:16:11 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'. 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.Wow! Let me know when you're interested in a discussion.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 15:00:23 GMT
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.'  So you have verified for yourself that the teachers theory about the content of Consciousness IS Consciousness is true? How is that not being dependant on the teacher? Hehe |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2017 15:08:55 GMT
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. A vehicle is just an expression of Consciousness, an illusionary form. I'm not saying these vehicles exist in an ultimate reality of spacetime...spacetime is also an expression. Sometimes I think that you think that just because there is no ultimate reality of spacetime, that there is no physical reality, no objectivity, no vibrational universe at all. There IS a physical reality/objectivity/universe, it's just not an 'ultimate' reality. A paperclip is an individualization, is that a point of perception now? |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2017 15:17:37 GMT
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. It doesn't. You're the one having the experience of surety. I know nothing. For someone that knows nothing, you sure debate and argue a lot. The truth is you have learned a ton of knowledge, and you express this knowledge. How would you describe an experience that you accept in the moment without question? You recently said that you experience animated perceivers. Is wondering and doubting and questioning part of that experience? Are you consciously thinking...'ah, but no experience is objective' in every moment? Or do you just mostly accept the world as it presents itself? Is 'acceptance' a better word? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 15:25:56 GMT
It doesn't. You're the one having the experience of surety. I know nothing. For someone that knows nothing, you sure debate and argue a lot. The truth is you have learned a ton of knowledge, and you express this knowledge. How would you describe an experience that you accept in the moment without question? You recently said that you experience animated perceivers. Is wondering and doubting and questioning part of that experience? Are you consciously thinking...'ah, but no experience is objective' in every moment? Or do you just mostly accept the world as it presents itself? Is 'acceptance' a better word? Yeah, it's time to run away from Enigma when his not knowing, turns to knowing... Hehe |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2017 15:27:43 GMT
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.Wow! Let me know when you're interested in a discussion. I believe that the core mistake is as I said...that in your desire to challenge a 'fundamental' or 'ultimate' universe, you sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater and deny that there is a physical reality (albeit an illusionary one). Here are the different options I see: First, the very idea of 'points of perception' is misconceived, and there are just appearances appearing in Impersonal Consciousness. So although it seems that there are 'points of perception', there aren't. Similarly, if perception = creation, then speaking of 'points of perception' also seems misconceived. Second, 'points of perception' are part of the physical individualized universe (in which case they shouldn't really be spoken of as 'appearances'). Here we might say a human being is/has a point of perception, but a chair does not. Third option, 'points of perception' are fundamental and eternal (as gopal suggests) and appearances appear to these points. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 16:17:16 GMT
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. So when Phil picks up a paper clip, does he assume it's not perceiving, though he doesn't really know...hehe The real question is, 'is it possible to look at something without creating an image of it and assuming that it is this or not that'?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 16:42:25 GMT
Wow! Let me know when you're interested in a discussion. ..that in your desire to challenge a 'fundamental' or 'ultimate' universe, you sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater and deny that there is a physical reality (albeit an illusionary one). Here are the different options I see: First, the very idea of 'points of perception' is misconceived, and there are just appearances appearing in Impersonal Consciousness. So although it seems that there are 'points of perception', there aren't. Similarly, if perception = creation, then speaking of 'points of perception' also seems misconceived. Second, 'points of perception' are part of the physical individualized universe (in which case they shouldn't really be spoken of as 'appearances'). Here we might say a human being is/has a point of perception, but a chair does not. Third option, 'points of perception' are fundamental and eternal (as gopal suggests) and appearances appear to these points. You are wise to doubt Phil's doctrine. Simply because the question is 'whether or not truth can be found through another'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 16:57:09 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. We give all of our importance to experience, because that is what we know. It's our surety, our security blanket. It's a fact that we can easily verify within ourselves right now. We don't have to imagine like Phil does, that there's something more important to us called realization... |
|
