The seer and and the seen

[Audie]

You don't have any overlay you see and translate the world through? Really?


Are they? Not from my perspective. From your's clearly it is.


Only if you are now calling God, "McDonalds". Maybe I should reconsider their "happy meal".

Guess its time to say, "Whatevs.".

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don’t think it’s possible to say we completely understand anything and we can’t always know where our limitations or errors might lie. Of course, you’re the only one here who appears to be claiming a complete understanding of something.


A physicist remarked that if one knew everything there is to know about a single drop of water, he would pretty much
have a handle on the mysteries of the universe.

It have seen it written this way;

"...Nay, earthly and heavenly, material and spiritual, accidental and essential, particular and universal, structure and foundation, appearance and reality and the essence of all things, both inward and outward -- all of these are connected one with another and are interrelated in such a manner that you will find that drops are patterned after seas, and that atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities ......"

Regards Tony

 

[Audie]

It have seen it written this way;

"...Nay, earthly and heavenly, material and spiritual, accidental and essential, particular and universal, structure and foundation, appearance and reality and the essence of all things, both inward and outward -- all of these are connected one with another and are interrelated in such a manner that you will find that drops are patterned after seas, and that atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities ......"

Regards Tony

Thanks. I kind of dont think that is it either,
but it is good reading.

 

[sealchan]

Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

It is a common misbelief that the knower/seer has to have any understanding about themselves in order to know anything. Yet I would agree that lack of an understanding of the process of knowing limits the quality and character of what is known.

 

[sealchan]

It have seen it written this way;

"...Nay, earthly and heavenly, material and spiritual, accidental and essential, particular and universal, structure and foundation, appearance and reality and the essence of all things, both inward and outward -- all of these are connected one with another and are interrelated in such a manner that you will find that drops are patterned after seas, and that atoms are structured after suns in proportion to their capacities and potentialities ......"

Regards Tony

Fractals? Systemic behaviour?

 

[sealchan]

Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

I once contemplated, as a sort of mantra, the phrase "the eye cannot see itself seeing"...this is the problem of self-reference in a rational system.

There is more than one way to construct a rational system (description) of knowledge each of which rely one one or more unprovable axioms ("givens").

By attempting to bridge two separate ways of knowing truth yields a strong subjective experience of truth that dissolves as quickly as it can be formed. What is left behind is a significant, temporary experience of personal meaning.

 

[atanu]

And there is no way that the object can be studied, except from a third party POV. And that is not what the object is.

At analogy level it does not work since the seer sees and knows. Object is seen.

But what you wrote is true at absolute level of knowing when in meditation, the seer, seeing, and seen remains as non dual existence-awareness. But that is not the subject here.

 

[atanu]

I once contemplated, as a sort of mantra, the phrase "the eye cannot see itself seeing"...this is the problem of self-reference in a rational system.

There is more than one way to construct a rational system (description) of knowledge each of which rely one one or more unprovable axioms ("givens").

By attempting to bridge two separate ways of knowing truth yields a strong subjective experience of truth that dissolves as quickly as it can be formed. What is left behind is a significant, temporary experience of personal meaning.

You can write more about it, explaining why you think such experiences are temporary only.

Sometime one may get flash of intuition but the knowledge effect of that may have more than temporary impact?

 

[atanu]

It is a common misbelief that the knower/seer has to have any understanding about themselves in order to know anything. Yet I would agree that lack of an understanding of the process of knowing limits the quality and character of what is known.

I do not agree. See, in deep sleep, dream, and waking states, the seer has different forms and the world seen are similar to the form of the seer in respective states.

So, in my understanding, it is essential to know the real form of the seer to know the form of the reality (and to mitigate misery, as per Vedanta). What we take as reality is sensual creation that is not same in waking, dreaming , and sleeping.

 

[HonestJoe]

That is debatable.

I’ll take that. How I perceive it may well be different to how you perceive it and we could both be wrong.

I'd argue we can't because you cannot take the one that looking, and get rid of it in order to look at it without its presence. It's like trying to see your eyes you are looking out of. You can see a reflection of them, but that is not your eyes that is the thing doing the actual seeing itself. Seeing, is a subjective experience. You can't "study it", to understand what is it to actually see. You have to do it. You can't tell what an orange tastes like, by researching it without every actually tasting it.

I don’t really disagree with any of that but as I see it (no pun intended), the problem applies to everything. It doesn’t matter whether I’m (trying to) study myself, you or a rock, the same limitations apply in our ability to observe and interpret those observations with confident that they’re a true impression of reality.

I just don’t think the concept needs all the flowery “spiritualism” ideas brought in to it or any kind of hard divisions drawn when it can be (and has been) addressing in purely practical, technical terms (“You can’t observe without changing the observer” for example).

It's not a thing. It's not outside of you. It's not an object of study. Do you know yourself because you studied yourself? Tell me how that came about in your life?

Knowing from study and knowing from experience aren’t the same thing. There can be (and often is) crossover though. The difference is largely a matter of formality of process and emotional detachment (as much as we’re capable of).

Because I am.

That’s the kind of flowery bull**** I’m talking about. It’s just circular philosophy that doesn’t actually tell us anything. You don’t know anything (none of us do), you just don’t want to accept our ignorance so you wrap it up in something else.

 

[Windwalker]

I don’t really disagree with any of that but as I see it (no pun intended), the problem applies to everything. It doesn’t matter whether I’m (trying to) study myself, you or a rock, the same limitations apply in our ability to observe and interpret those observations with confident that they’re a true impression of reality.

But this is where I see the problem. Look at your word choices here. How is an "impression of reality", a "true impression"? What makes an impression "true"? Through objectivity, which itself is simply a subjective impression? Any impression originates and remains held in subjectivity.

What we see in society is a "consensus reality", which we take for granted as reflecting actual, true objectivity. A consensus reality is an agreed upon point of reference as reflecting a truth greater than any one individual in the group. It is in reality, a "collective subjective impression". It directly ties into the use of language, where the meaning of the word is an agreed upon convention. That then takes over from "objective truth" and replaces it with a collective subjectivity.

This explains why people get so bent out of shape when someone uses these common words, or takes common concepts, and twists and bend them in the wind to show they aren't fixed objects at all. "Flowery words," and such are terms people throw at their use of language in an attempt to dismiss them challenging these conventions of thoughts taken for granted as reflective of the actuality of existence. This of course is seen in all ages when the poets and mystics come along and challenge this "consensus truth".

But it is the poets and the mystics that keep humanity human, keeping the waters fresh and moving, rather than the water becoming stagnant, under the mistaken impression that truth and reality are static objects, fixed in time and space. Conventions of truth are useful, but they can also imprison the mind and soul in a Flatland reality of two dimensional models of reality; "impressions" taken as objective truth, or "true impressions".

Can we use technical terms instead? Both yes and no. Yes, because technically it does touch on exactly the same thing mystics have been saying all along, showing technically why and how that happens. But no, in the sense of this. This "flowery" language serves a practical purpose. It is a metaphor, not a descriptor.

The reason to use metaphors (so-called "flowery" language), is because it inspires the imagination to see beyond boxing in reality into the definitions of words. People conflate reality, with the definition of words. "Webster's says...." is quoted like it were God's Word telling us the facts of reality. If you keep the words "open", which is what metaphors do, then it keeps the mind and soul open, and the mind and soul can soar to heights untold because the chains of language-as-reality have been escaped.

Knowing from study and knowing from experience aren’t the same thing. There can be (and often is) crossover though. The difference is largely a matter of formality of process and emotional detachment (as much as we’re capable of).

I agree with this in principle, but it's more than this. To set aside emotional attachments is of course something we should seek to do, rather than letting bursts of emotions cloud our thinking. But on the other hand, limiting imagination, taking a finger pointing at the moon as the object it is pointing to, calling that the truth and rejecting anything outside that impression, is equally as distorting of truth as letting your emotions get in the way. Being the seer, puts on in a position to see both these clouding emotions, and these limitations of language as equally obscuring of truth. The seer is not your emotional body.

That’s the kind of flowery bull**** I’m talking about. It’s just circular philosophy that doesn’t actually tell us anything.

Did you not catch that when I said "I am", I was actually quoting from Descartes? "I think, therefore I am"? Do you deride Descartes as flowery bull****? If so, thank you for the compliment.

You don’t know anything (none of us do), you just don’t want to accept our ignorance so you wrap it up in something else.

I do know something. I exist. Do you not know this about yourself too? I can doubt everything, but I cannot doubt that I exist. Awareness is actually there. "I am".

 

[HonestJoe]

But this is where I see the problem. Look at your word choices here. How is an "impression of reality", a "true impression"? What makes an impression "true"? Through objectivity, which itself is simply a subjective impression? Any impression originates and remains held in subjectivity.

Yes. There presumably is some “true reality” but we have no way of knowing for certain what it is. The point remains that this issue entirely encompasses the entire “seer”/”seen” distinction and applied equally to both.

This explains why people get so bent out of shape when someone uses these common words, or takes common concepts, and twists and bend them in the wind to show they aren't fixed objects at all.

If you use words that have commonly understood and routinely used meanings but “twists and bend them” to mean something entirely different, how can you expect anyone to xylophone? (“xylophone” now means “understand” because I say so. )

Can we use technical terms instead? Both yes and no. Yes, because technically it does touch on exactly the same thing mystics have been saying all along, showing technically why and how that happens. But no, in the sense of this. This "flowery" language serves a practical purpose. It is a metaphor, not a descriptor.

I don’t mind the flowery language as metaphor, philosophical musings or inspiration. I am objecting to it being presented as definitive explanations of asserted facts as there were in the OP.

It is taking something we don’t (and often can’t) know but presenting their faith as definitive and unchallengeable fact without even trying to explain how it is even possible. And as soon as you try to get in to fuller understand of their claims, the words twist and turn away from any difficult questions, challenges and inconsistencies. After all, we still have no understanding of what “seer”, “seen” or “spirituality” were actually meant to mean in the context of the OP because none of their common-used definitions make any sense there.

Did you not catch that when I said "I am", I was actually quoting from Descartes? "I think, therefore I am"? Do you deride Descartes as flowery bull****? If so, thank you for the compliment.

Descartes presented his statement as part of a much wider philosophical work to inspire further thought and consideration. You misquoted him as a non-answer to a direct question. You could be quoting 80s pop hits and have as much relevance.

I do know something. I exist. Do you not know this about yourself too? I can doubt everything, but I cannot doubt that I exist. Awareness is actually there. "I am".

You know you perceive your own existence, which has a certain level of circular logic but you don’t (and can’t) know exactly what you really are. Your perception of yourself is no or less clear than your perception of anything else. It makes no difference whether you’re looking at “seer” or “seen” (or both).

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You answered your own question here:

A "best guess representation" is not the reality of what you are seeing. That's why. It's a mental model, and a model is not the actuality of the thing.

But to be clearer in what I was saying, I did not say there was no real reality to be perceived, nor that the senses aren't how we interface with it. What I was saying is that what we perceive, how we translate its reality into our minds, becomes mistaken as the reality of the thing itself. What we are actually seeing, what we believe is reality, is our mental images of it.


I think what might help explain what I'm talking about in here is to reference something else I just posted in another thread. You'll see how it dovetails with what I am saying here, and how it perhaps better explains what I'm saying:

Before our minds had developed sufficiently in order to process language and the meaning of words, our experience of the world and ourselves was through pure sensation without the boxes of words. Every pore of our bodies acted as receptors to the world. It was an awakening from the state of a formless reality into the world of form. Sense and sensation was all there was filling our brains with data about the world. All was just vague, magical, and at times terrifying images filling our conscious minds without context. It was a major download of data into brains through our conscious awareness.

And then came words. When our brains developed the capacity to create and hold concepts, we were told "this is a chair. This is a car. This is the color red," and so forth. This vast Openness that was reality was now becoming reduced and contained into word objects. "This is a tree", pulled it away from pure sensation to a thought that could be stored in the mind in memory to be experienced. The reality of the tree, and the mental object called tree became fused to each other, and reality shrunk down in size.

This process of course continued and expanded at blinding rates, objectifying as many objects as possible into a vast complex of mental objects with names attached to them. Even our own self-identities became one of these metal objects, especially pronounced during early adolescence entering into puberty and the accelerated socialization that goes along with that. The collapse of our experienced reality moved from pure subconscious awareness, a pure pre-verbal reality, into a world of words and mental objects.

The ego or self-identity became a projection of concepts about one's own self on the screen of mental objects, pulling us further and further away from this Oceanic state of just simple pure awareness without the judgement of words and ideas. We then naively began looking "out there" from something that had been lost "in here", that "hole" that got created for something that slipped away from us unawares through this gradual process of enculturation.

So what is the mystical experience? It is similar to the Oceanic state of the preverbal mind, but rather than being seen as a regression, it is an awakening to a natural state in us that got suppressed underneath a mountain of words and mental objects which replaced reality with an image of reality in our minds. The mystical state is a less a return to that, than it is a move forward into a transverbal reality, where we understand the error of mistaken identities created by words.​

Yes, reality exists. What I am saying is very few actual see that reality because they have obscured its reality with a projection of mental objects shrouding it from our senses. We mistake what we look at, with our idea of it. We conflate reality with how our minds translate it to us. As I touched on in what I quoted from myself above, this move into language is what collapsed reality into a mental-reality, one which is created by convention of words and culture. We live in a bubble-universe of thoughts and ideas.

What the mystic does is to step outside that bubble reality, that artificial reality of language and culture, to allow the *reality* of what is to simply shine forth and inform us of itself, beyond words. To try to capture "what is" into a net of our thoughts, is to change its reality, like killing a bird to put into your collection in order to "study it". The problem is, it's now no longer a bird! It's a lifeless husk of what once was a bird. Thus it is with everything we collapse into a world of named objects.


What is not obvious to most, is that while they experience a "waking state", it too is actually still a dream state. They experiences the objects floating around in their minds projected on the world, as the world itself. It's still dreaming. It's still not being awake in the world.

One of the most common reports of the mystic states the shock of awakening to see what you have been seeing the whole time, but never saw. "It was there the whole time, and I couldn't see it. It was never anywhere else but right here in front of me". It's "hidden" right before our eyes, because our eyelids are closed looking instead at our ideas of reality mapped out to our minds through language and culture. Why do you suppose the common practice of mystics is to first quiet, and then move beyond our own thoughts?


I actually say that same thing about the majority of people. We confuse what we believe is true, formed through language and culture, with actual knowledge of reality. It's just really a case of mistaken identity, confusing our belief about reality, with reality itself.


I do not engage in word salads. If you don't understand something, assume I'm not an idiot. Assume you don't understand the context, and ask for clarification instead.

Let me rephrase then, "Why do YOU assert that the things we perceive through our senses are not real?" You stated that what we perceive is not real, and I claim that it is real. So how am I answering my own question? Never mind, I feel another convoluted wordy denial coming on. We cannot trip over mental concepts, or mental models, now can we? The objective reality may not be exactly what our sense organs are perceiving, but from our perspective, it is the only reality we have. If you are a blind-sighted person, your perception of reality will be different from a sighted person. But less-so from a blind- sighted and deaf person. The only way we can know the true nature of what our senses are perceiving, is if we could somehow look into our 4 dimensional Universe from a higher dimensions. This is impossible of course, and totally irrelevant from our physical perspective. We have no other method of interfacing/interacting with our reality without using our senses. It is this constantly evolving and adapting sensory mechanism, that we have depended on for our survival, for hundreds and thousands of years. Inferring that they are somehow inadequate or superfluous, is only depositing half-truths and unfounded inferences. Also, saying that only a few can see this true reality, is just plain false and dishonest. No human can see reality from outside of themselves. This would give them an objective perspective. Only a God would have this perspective.

I agree that the brain's best-guess mental representation of reality is NOT the true reality. I know that color does not exist. Color is just synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields that propagates at the speed of light through a vacuum. I know that sound is only a succession of compression and rarefaction waves that propagates through some medium(air, gas, water, etc.). I know that taste and smell are only the molecular binding of molecules in the air, with our taste and olfactory sense organs(bulbs). I know that the action potential generated by our neurons all are the same electro-chemical signal. I also know that we have specialized peripheral receptors, to determine what is hard, wet, painful, hot, cold, or soft. What makes them real, is how the brain compartmentalizes and represents them to the mind. This will determine whether you are listening to Beethoven, enjoying a steak, or knowing if the house was on fire. Our perception of reality may not be a true representation of reality, but to ignore the brains best-guess representations, you do at your own risk.

When a human looks at a tree, he has a mental image of a tree. He also has an understanding of what a tree is. When a squirrel looks at a tree, he doesn't have the language to define the tree, but he nonetheless understands the nature, purpose, and existence of the tree. What makes you think that humans are so different from the millions of other species on the planet? Will their world be formless their entire life? Remember, we started as the dumbest creatures in the animal kingdom(despite some genetic and instinctual controls), and depending on how smart our parents were, developed into the most complex and specialized of all creatures. We can actually control our environment, maintain an internal dialogue, and postpone our pleasure rewards. Regression would only take us back to a dumb state of awareness, not enlightenment. You also seem to be ignoring the role that our genes play in the development of our personalities, emotions, cognition, intelligence, and behavior. At no time in our physical, social, and mental development was there ever a state of pure unfiltered awareness. We started from chaos, achieved some order, and eventually will return to chaos.

How can we conceive of anything at the subconscious level of awareness? Are you aware of the workings of your subconsciousness? Maybe you can mentally control the billions of neurons in the brain, or change how they are being compartmentalized? Or, how they communicate with each other? We are only aware of concepts, through cognition, at the conscious level of awareness. If you want to BELIEVE that to understand our true reality, we need to access our subconscious mind, by mentally turning off all sensory signals to the brain, then Oslo is waiting. Otherwise you are trapped in your own subjective perspective, just like the rest of us. Believe me, it's not as bad as the alternative.​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

How can skeptics who believe the entire universe could be an in-the-moment-projection or a matrix deny unseen reality?

How can skeptics who cannot see tell those who have seen the unseen they haven't seen it?

How can people devoted to science not understand the limits of science, regarding metaphysics, like love, justice and spirit?

With all due respect, I think you need to stop watching too many Sci-Fi flicks, until you can understand the underlaying science behind them. And trying to shame critical thinkers in the narrative, just ain't working either.

 

[sealchan]

I do not agree. See, in deep sleep, dream, and waking states, the seer has different forms and the world seen are similar to the form of the seer in respective states.

So, in my understanding, it is essential to know the real form of the seer to know the form of the reality (and to mitigate misery, as per Vedanta). What we take as reality is sensual creation that is not same in waking, dreaming , and sleeping.

I believe that in the dream state what we have is the brain operating without the high energy input of the senses. This provides us with experiences where our inner world can push back and distort our outer world experience. To the extent that we have a memory of such experiences, we can profit from them by understanding how they reflect our unique, personal and subjective response to the outer world.

Inspired by my study of C.G. Jung's method of dream analysis and some other techniques that other Jungians have developed, I have looked extensively at my own dreams and the dreams of others and found out some truths about myself as well as some truths about how dreams reflect the objective nature of the psyche. This has also greatly aided me in my understanding and interpretation of spiritual texts.

So I think I agree with you here to a degree. I think that knowing the seer, or the self, is possible but only through what Jung might call symbols of the collective unconscious. I might call this knowing ourself through the available metaphors of a brain that can create meaning (concepts, ideas of all kinds) through the operation of the cognitive function intuition which perceives by cross-referencing experience/perception between multiple cortical maps in the cerebral cortex. Such I think is the basis of intuition, a perceptive function, which operates as a complementary opposite to sensation. Together these cognitive functions provide the root of our consciousness in the form of differentiated and integrated perceptions or experiences of reality.

Spiritual knowledge is a biased form of perception in that it favors intuition over sensation. In that way it provides us with a "dream-like" sense of being separated from the material world or, alternately, of the material world being an illusion from which we might be awaken. To counter this our practical knowledge of the physical world provides us with a "solid-sense" of a reality that is there as much as we are mortal. This can render the spiritual as wishful-thinking or "airy-fairy" fluff as opposed to the more "grounded" reality visible all around us.

In my view neither the spiritual nor the material world views are superior...each teaches us our truth even as they provide a mutually inhibitory (enantiodromatic) influence on each other as complementary opposite cognitive experiences.

 

[Segev Moran]

Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

The study of the seen slowly merges with the study of the seer.
If you'll examine the latest quantum discoveries, you'll realize the seen is nothing but an illusion.
The seen cannot exist without the seer the same as the seer cannot exists without the seen.
I have yet, btw, to encounter anyone who claimed for a complete understanding of the seen... and if one claims so, it will probably be a lie

 

[sealchan]

You can write more about it, explaining why you think such experiences are temporary only.

Sometime one may get flash of intuition but the knowledge effect of that may have more than temporary impact?

They are like looking at something with two eyes and seeing in depth...something we take for granted with vision. Each eye has a slightly different view of the world which the brain "corrects". An object in the background might be blocked by an object in the foreground moreso for one eye than the other, but the final image we have is not the "double-image" one can get by bringing the eyes intentionally out of focus. The brain resolves this difference between two two-dimensional maps of the visual world by recognizing a third dimension of depth is a consistent bridge that explains the discrepancies between the two eyes. This recognition is not conscious but a result of the mapping of the two separate eye maps onto a third area in the cortex which serves to map distance as a function of differences in the two eye maps.

So also for trying to reconcile two different rational systems of knowledge. Each system may have a different view on a object (or topic or idea) such that the two points of view never come into agreement. The trick is to resolve the two different views by making reference to a third degree of freedom in one's understanding. This third degree is often identified as a spiritual dimension because it has no one-to-one correlation with the physical reality.

At each point between the two rational systems of knowledge where they touch on a similar subject matter but present different perspectives, we might seek to reconcile these differences in various ways. We might posit a second or third fundamental quality to reality. We might try to dismiss one perspective in favor of the other. Close one eye for the sake of the other so to speak.

The reconciliation is one which steps outside and beyond the justification of either rational system. The two are held together briefly while the knower perceives their union. But this is a subjective perception. The rational systems, supported by their respective communities of knowers, will have a more ambivalent response to such connections. Some will "get it", some will "refute it", some will be "eh".

The human brain has the ability to analogize, metaphoricize, etc... This is a creative power which produces many perceptions. Which one become part of the culture depends on factors beyond individual control. Whether one or another becomes a part of a culture's axioms of spirituality (religious beliefs) is also a matter beyond individual control.

What might provide lifelong meaning for one knower is by no means a truth that any other knower might reach. It is, perhaps, something which only God can determine.

 

[Windwalker]

Let me rephrase then, "Why do YOU assert that the things we perceive through our senses are not real?" You stated that what we perceive is not real, and I claim that it is real. So how am I answering my own question? Never mind, I feel another convoluted wordy denial coming on.
​

I did not say this, nor would. There is something there. However, what we imagine a thing to be, and its actual reality are not the same thing. What we see, is a reflection of our minds overlayed on top of it, which we then misake as the truth of it, rather than simply a convention of how to perceive and talk about it.

There is nothing convoluted or wordy about that, is it? The only reason I add so many words is to attack it from multiple angles in the hope that the simple statement I just made can be understood. Do you understand the above? If so, that's all that needs to be said.

You stated that what we perceive is not real, and I claim that it is real.

I did not state this. You misinterpreted what I said. It's plenty real, but what we imagine it is, is not its actuality. It's a projection of our minds, shaped and molded through language and culture. And the reason I think you don't see this, apparently, is because they are the set of eyes you see reality with, and don't realize the illusory nature of that. To you, what you think about it, is what it is. A "tree" is what you perceive a tree to be. But from another perception, it is not that at all!

So how am I answering my own question? Never mind, I feel another convoluted wordy denial coming on.

Oh pish! Is it truly necessary to try to make me look at fault here? There is nothing like that going on here.

We cannot trip over mental concepts, or mental models, now can we? The objective reality may not be exactly what our sense organs are perceiving, but from our perspective, it is the only reality we have.

Okay, this is what I am saying. But, do you then take it to the next step and recognize that there is in fact more than one valid perception of truth and reality, even when they seem to contradict each other? Do you believe that collectively, there is only one "right way"?

If you are a blind-sighted person, your perception of reality will be different from a sighted person. But less-so from a blind- sighted and deaf person. The only way we can know the true nature of what our senses are perceiving, is if we could somehow look into our 4 dimensional Universe from a higher dimensions.

What I hear in this appears to expose an assumption that there is supposedly a "right" perception of reality. Note your use of the words, "But less-so" from the blind and deaf person. Why is this "less"? You see, inherent in this is pure bias of one's own perception as reflective of the reality of things, or that it is "better" or "closer" to the truth of it you can get. This is inherently flawed and deeply self-biased, assuming the truth of it is something just laying around out there for "better minds" to be able to figure out.

Do you not see this? Maybe the deaf-blind person is closer to the truth than the sighted person? How would you know otherwise? Maybe, there is another way to approach all this that avoids that pitfall you exposed through your wording?

This is impossible of course, and totally irrelevant from our physical perspective. We have no other method of interfacing/interacting with our reality without using our senses.

What about sensory deprivation techniques? There is plenty of awareness going on there, without the benefit of the senses. What do you think meditation does? What do you think its technologies are aiming towards? In reality, the senses, like emotions, can obscure our perceptions. Meditation exposes how this is going on in this way.

It is this constantly evolving and adapting sensory mechanism, that we have depended on for our survival, for hundreds and thousands of years. Inferring that they are somehow inadequate or superfluous, is only depositing half-truths and unfounded inferences.

I wouldn't word it as "only", but I do accept they are in fact partial truths. Why do you call that "only"? To recognize the limitations of our perceptions, does not negate the value of them. If you think I am saying that, then you in fact do not understand what I am saying. I am saying we need to take the truths we perceive, as a partial, limited perspective, and hold our beliefs of what is reality with an opened hand. The problem I have with all this talk of science can tell us the truth of reality, is the blinding of oneself to the fact that it too is a perspective of truth, partial, limited, and at best a two-dimensional model of an actuality vastly beyond our ideas of what it could possibly be.

There is a limit to the perspectives gained through the intellect. There is an endpoint to reason that moves into a "deficient phase", which Jean Gebser detailed in his work on the structures of consciousness. That is all this is to point out. It is to basically, blow a gaping hole straight into the side of logical positivism. All of this is something which postmodernity has already exposed, say whatever you will about how I labor to explain these things. The Existentialists certainly saw the flaw in it as well.

Also, saying that only a few can see this true reality, is just plain false and dishonest.

Yes, it very much is false and dishonest. I didn't say that. What you just said is not true of my perspective on this.

I would however say that anyone can step outside of their normal modes of seeing and translating the world and be informed by Reality herself without words, thoughts, ideas, concepts. Clearing these out of the way, allows truth to be held by the mind much more lightly, as impressions of reality. Anyone can access this, and pretty much everyone has at some point in their lives, albeing most bury or repress that since it threatens the world of truth as they know it, creating instability and insecurity, "Others might think me mad!".

Being able to see all of that at play in ourselves, not holding it as the reality of things, allows us to be open, to be receptive to the many and varying shades of truth that move over our the fields of perceptual awareness all the time. It opens us to "more". Whereas the closed mind, the linguistic mind, is constrained and limiting to truth. It filters out Reality and only allows that which fits into the frameworks themselves to be seen as truth. That is the core problem. That is what I actually am saying.

Is this making more sense now? Or does this still sound "convoluted" to you?

No human can see reality from outside of themselves. This would give them an objective perspective. Only a God would have this perspective.

Actually, that's not true. Any human can see themselves from outside of themselves. What do you think psychotherapy allows to happen? The person can step outside the narrative streams, the structures of reality that have been created in themselves that obscures other truth to enter in, illuminating their experience of themselves and the world at large. This action of stepping outside of themselves, transforms their being. This is exactly what meditation does. And in a metaphorical sense, yes, it can become a "God perspective".

When someone realizes the Self, all perspectives are dissolved and you simply "are". In that state, every perspective becomes clear as to its "relative reality". It is truth, but relative truth, not absolute truth. Absolute Truth, is not a proposition truth. It is "no truth", in that it cannot be stated as a truth in itself, apart from all other relative truths. It embraces all perspectives, and none at all. And yes, I know that sounds convoluted, but that is because it is inherently paradoxical in nature, since it goes beyond what language can express in its dualistic terms.
​

Our perception of reality may not be a true representation of reality, but to ignore the brains best-guess representations, you do at your own risk.
​

Correct. I never said we should not make use of our perceptions. We all need structures or frameworks of reality in order to navigate the world. But it's when we take those and say they are reality itself, then we collapse reality into that framework, limiting ourselves to that framework. We move from Reality, into an artificial construct of reality and shut Reality out. One can in fact, and what I am saying in all of this, make use of and live within these frameworks, as a matter of convenience and practicality. But not limit ourselves to the world that is defined by them. The mystical experience, liberates us from that prison of words that most of us, certainly myself included, find ourselves trapped within.

What makes you think that humans are so different from the millions of other species on the planet? Will their world be formless their entire life?

Nothing makes me think that. I don't think that. Also, I don't believe the squirrel exists in a state of formlessness. They too are taught what the world is through others that adopt whatever map of reality it is that squirreldom came up with in deep history. We all do the same thing, to one degree of sophistication or another.

Regression would only take us back to a dumb state of awareness, not enlightenment.

Correct. If you read what I reposted in what I said in the other thread, you'll see I explicitly stated just this view you agree with. Enlightenment is not regression to an infantile state, as Freud saw it. I addressed this in that post.

​

 

[Windwalker]

To finish with a few more points of clarification.... (yes, I do use a lot of words, but they aren't unnecessary).

You also seem to be ignoring the role that our genes play in the development of our personalities, emotions, cognition, intelligence, and behavior.

No I don't. Of course they do.

At no time in our physical, social, and mental development was there ever a state of pure unfiltered awareness. We started from chaos, achieved some order, and eventually will return to chaos.

Chaos does not exist. The Formeless, is not chaos. It is the Ocean, and within that Ocean all forms emerge. The piece of page we write words on, is not chaos. It is "formless", not a jumble of unorganized letters.

Now, as far as there never being a state of pure unfiltered awareness in our development, that's not entirely correct. Satori or Kensho, or Enlightenment, or Awakening experiences can happen at any time during anyone's development. However, they are not a developmental stage themselves. Anyone can have what Maslow termed a "Peak Experience", which is in essence stepping outside all of that to a place far beyond or outside what is developmentally exposed. After that brief experience, we then fall right back into wherever we were at developmentally.

I assume you are familiar with these peak experiences?

How can we conceive of anything at the subconscious level of awareness?

We don't conceive of them. We simply allow them to arise and manifest themselves into our waking consciousness. They are they all the time, but suppressed by virtue of the "thinking mind", full of it's linguistic structures of this and that. As I said, we mostly live inside this world of thoughts, ideas, concepts, and don't see what the rest of the mind actually sees. This is the reason for things like meditation, or psychotherapeutic techniques, and such. To get access to this.

Are you aware of the workings of your subconsciousness?

Through meditation, yes. Of course. It's a world full of images and symbols. Carl Jung, as well as many others wrote quite a lot about it, not to even mention the mystics of the ages.

Maybe you can mentally control the billions of neurons in the brain, or change how they are being compartmentalized? Or, how they communicate with each other?

Not mentally control, in the sense of imposing an active thought upon them. But we can in fact change how they are compartmentalized and communicate with each other. There are many psychotherapeutic techniques that do just that, such as EMDR, or Brainspotting, which remapps the neural pathways that became disconnected from each other through trauma, for instance. Meditation practice rewires the brain as well, as is well researched. We can in fact rewire our brains. I can tell you from personal experience, that certainly is true.

We are only aware of concepts, through cognition, at the conscious level of awareness.

Yes, conceptual reality is a product of the thinking mind. Do you believe that it is only that which shapes, influences, and defines ourselves and reality? I actually doubt you do.

If you want to BELIEVE that to understand our true reality, we need to access our subconscious mind, by mentally turning off all sensory signals to the brain, then Oslo is waiting. Otherwise you are trapped in your own subjective perspective, just like the rest of us. Believe me, it's not as bad as the alternative.

Oslo? I don't get the reference.

To clarify this last point, I do not believe that to deny the thinking mind is the key to a fully awakened reality. I believe the first step is to gain perspective which shows us, which allows us to recognize that the thinking mind is not the true measure of all truth. That recognition, is a first step in liberation. But liberation without integration, is not truly a liberation, but risks instead a dissociation. We still think. We still live in a conceptual world. To escape into God from the world of thoughts and ideas to find truth, is just as bad as escaping God, or the Self into the world of thoughts to find truth. Integration requires a recognition between the Absolute and the relative, and living with an opened-eyed awareness of both. That, is nonduality. That is a paradoxical reality.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe that in the dream state what we have is the brain operating without the high energy input of the senses. This provides us with experiences where our inner world can push back and distort our outer world experience. To the extent that we have a memory of such experiences, we can profit from them by understanding how they reflect our unique, personal and subjective response to the outer world.

Inspired by my study of C.G. Jung's method of dream analysis and some other techniques that other Jungians have developed, I have looked extensively at my own dreams and the dreams of others and found out some truths about myself as well as some truths about how dreams reflect the objective nature of the psyche. This has also greatly aided me in my understanding and interpretation of spiritual texts.

So I think I agree with you here to a degree. I think that knowing the seer, or the self, is possible but only through what Jung might call symbols of the collective unconscious. I might call this knowing ourself through the available metaphors of a brain that can create meaning (concepts, ideas of all kinds) through the operation of the cognitive function intuition which perceives by cross-referencing experience/perception between multiple cortical maps in the cerebral cortex. Such I think is the basis of intuition, a perceptive function, which operates as a complementary opposite to sensation. Together these cognitive functions provide the root of our consciousness in the form of differentiated and integrated perceptions or experiences of reality.

Spiritual knowledge is a biased form of perception in that it favors intuition over sensation. In that way it provides us with a "dream-like" sense of being separated from the material world or, alternately, of the material world being an illusion from which we might be awaken. To counter this our practical knowledge of the physical world provides us with a "solid-sense" of a reality that is there as much as we are mortal. This can render the spiritual as wishful-thinking or "airy-fairy" fluff as opposed to the more "grounded" reality visible all around us.

In my view neither the spiritual nor the material world views are superior...each teaches us our truth even as they provide a mutually inhibitory (enantiodromatic) influence on each other as complementary opposite cognitive experiences.

Wow. There is a lot you touching upon in this densely packed post. I could spend a few days unpacking it. Nicely done! For the most part I think you make some incredibly valid points. I differ on a few points, and I could see having a whole conversation or more on those, which I'm sure we'd find mutually rewarding (different perspectives and all). I may grab one of those points later for discussion. I'd enjoy hearing your perspectives.