The seer and and the seen

[Truly Enlightened]

It's not clear at all, and it certainly is not what I meant. To simply say to someone you may not be aware of, be exposed to, have the necessary or prerequisite context to understand something, can be said of anyone perceived as not really grasping what is being spoken about, without it being an insult to their intelligence. Someone easily can say the same thing to me depending on what it is they are trying to explain to me that I am not "getting". That's just a common reality for any of us.

If I actually thought you had comprehension problems, as if your brain were somehow defective or incapable of understanding, I would not have been spending the amount of energy and time into communicating these things with you! I'd just go, "Oh, he's not very bright," and politely not waste my time or yours any further. I would have probably only posted one or two posts and moved on.

So please understand, I am not belittling your intelligence in saying you don't get something. I am saying that for a very simple reason. You aren't getting what I am saying. And the evidence of that is because in the vast majority of your responses to me you restate what you think I am saying, and it's not accurate at all. That means you aren't getting what I said. Not that you're not capable of it.

I believe you could be, but it require deconstructing these assumptions of reality that have been conditioned into our minds. But underlying that is the desire to move beyond those assumptions to investigate truth. Most people aren't comfortable doing that, as it does have the effect of shaking lose how we believe about things. Pretty much the same sort of thing like that shaking lose of our long-held beliefs and assumptions when we realize that the myths of the Bible aren't historical and scientific facts. It's the same thing being applied to the "rationalist" model of reality, as opposed to the "mythic" model of reality. Both are models of the mind.

What my posts are is to demonstrate how these are essentially doing both the same function, in the same ways, just with different sets of symbols. It's still the same thing.


You see, that's interesting to me. Your reaction to things he says is the same as to me! Are we both this ego-driven creature you imagine those who challenge your ideas of reality must be, because who else but someone with defects would think like us? I find his posts informative to me, as they fit into how I have of my own accord come to see these things. It's really one thing he and I, and numerous others on this site I could name have in common. Context. The context of experience. And oddly enough, we all come to see the same things.


The one thing we do all have in common is not ego-gratification. The exact opposite is the truth. We have ego-recognition. We see and understand what the human ego is and what it does, and out of a genuine desire for truth, release the ego. That is what meditation is for. Transcending the ego. Getting it out of the way. As it is the ego that is responsible for clouding reality. It is freedom from the voices of the ego that liberate us to see reality without that narcissistic lens colorizing everything.

From your perspective you seem to have to see it that way, because frankly that is the only context you have to look at it from. It's what it would be for you. It's a projection. And I do not mean that as an insult to you, but as a simple recognition of how our minds work.


What is relevant is when I do answer your question in good faith, and your response is something like I'm an egotist looking for groupies, that is relevant. That is saying you aren't actually interested in understanding my response. That is disappointing intellectually to me, to say the very least. Can you understand how you sound to me?

So the question I have of you is can you respond to me, and others, without the rhetorical, insulting insinuations that we are "egotists seeking groupies" and other undeserved and unbecoming nonsense in these discussions? That is my only criteria here. That you show me personal respect. If you fail once more in this, then you'll be written off permanently, and you will bear full responsibility for that.


It very much does. Yes. It details how the mind takes in information and process it. Do you have any basis to dispute otherwise? Can you share that? I'm always interested in other researchers points of view of these matters.


I think it is hard for us to think in terms like this because it goes against our habituated ways of thinking about things. No, it's not easy to see the eyes that are seeing. That's the point. And 'biased beliefs"? Nonsense. Has nothing to do with this. Is it really necessary to inject that sort of "you're fat and ugly too," type responses into these discussions?


They are challenges to our normal assumptions about reality. So yes, they do require some deeper considerations. I've spent years doing just that, rather than being quick to dismiss them out of hand because they sound so "foreign" to may "normal" ways of thinking about things. It does require effort. No doubt about that.

​

Ah, but the simplicity is there. The complexity is only there because it takes assumptions of reality we have not examined, and breaks them apart for examination. It's only complex, because the mind has it's hooks into our views of reality and it becomes necessary to pry loose those fingers which are tightly gripping it, in order to go deeper into understanding with one's whole being.

It is complex to examine the mind and its habits. But once you realize all of that is an illusion, then all this becomes quite simple. The entire universe can be understood in a single drop of rain. It moves beyond intellectualizing all of this, into the simple state of being, which is the mystical realization.

What is interesting to me, is the pattern of behavior that eclectic mind-body proponents all seem to have in common. They all obfuscate and falsely equivocate most ordinarily understood terms. They all create new labels for new terms, without defining or falsifying them. They all blame others for not understanding their convoluted ideas(elitism), and objectively unsupported claims. They all avoid defining any terms clearly and specifically, by adding more to their ambiguity. They all will deny, add to, or change the meaning of terms, whenever they are challenged. They simply claim that their ideas are just a new way of looking at reality, and that it is convention, presuppositions, faulty mental conditioning and sensory assumptions, that prevents us from seeing the true nature reality. All without providing one shred of evidence to support any of their claims. All this, simply to challenge the most obvious and well-understood assumptions about reality. I call this exploiting the human condition, human reasoning, and the minds inability to distinguish between what is imaginary and what is real without using its senses.

Intelligence is like energy, it doesn't exist unless it is being used. When I do use it, it allows me to critically think, and understand the difference between right and wrong, logical and illogical, and sense and nonsense. In other words my intelligence is based on knowledge, experience, and evidence. Your premises all seem to be based on half-truths, undefined truths, relative truths, unsupported truths, or unfalsifiable truths. Any conclusions based on these types of premises, will always be correct or correct, depending on how they are interpreted. This is not science, it is pure sophistry, and certainly not in my area of expertise. Do you at least KNOW or UNDERSTAND how the body works? Do you understand that our conscious state represent less than 5% of our entire mental processing(perception)? The brain is not there for the "you", the "I am", the "subject", or to internalize the true meaning of life and the true nature of reality. It is only there to maintain the body's health and wellbeing, and provide a real-time environmental sensory interface system to maintain a positive feed-back loop. Do you at least understand how all our organs, bio-neural-chemical-hormonal processes are interdependent, interconnected, and how they interact with the physical brain? We are not represented as something that is greater than the sum of our parts. We are represented AS the sum of our parts.

What you also don't seem to understand, is that these perceptual assumption you want to deconstruct, have evolved for a reason. You never address WHY we are all sensory conditioned, or why this is beneficial to our species. Or, the importance of why emotions, feelings, and our basic individual nature, is a part of this human condition for a reason. Explain the need for this deconstruction? I'm sure primitive man was not interested in the importance of this mind-body duality, or pontificating the true nature of reality. If there is an evolutionary advantage in understanding the metaphysical nature of reality, then it will evolve naturally over time. Sometimes the idle mind is truly the Devil's workshop. You completely ignore the major role that genetics play in the conditioning of the mind and body. You seem to not understand that the body is a biological system, not simply a conscious, non-conscious system. If you change or modify one aspect of the body's processes, it will compensate, or adapt to the changes. elsewhere. Therefore, the whole can never be enhanced, it can only be diminished or maintained. This is also thermodynamically valid. Also, changes to the whole, may have associated psychological and physiological dangers. For example, meditating for hours a day.
Dangers of Meditation
Meditation Is More Complex Than Science Suggests – Member Feature Stories – Medium
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_meditation_have_negative_side_effects

Have you even considered why the things I say to you are completely understandable? And, why your comments are clearly and easily misunderstood? You know that your claims can't be disputed rationally, because they are irrational conceptual claims. You can talk about the relevancy of believing in Santa Clause for children, but in the end Santa is not real. And, redefining "real" in the psychological and metaphysical sense, will still not make him real. Until you can falsify any of your claims, or at least clearly define them, they will always remain your own conceptual belief.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The world would be oceanic for them. They would have no fixed ideas, nor assumptions of any sort. They would need some sort of framework in place first in order to formulate any assumptions, suppositions, suggestions, guesses, ideas, etc.

So what was his answer?

He said(I'm interpreting) that no child could be born without any senses to perceive reality. If it was born it would be alive(physically), and dead(figuratively) at the same time. He doesn't understand what a hypothetical is. Don't worry, I'm sure your feet won't fit in his shoes. The 5% of the perceptual information that the brain uses to freely associate, would be missing. Therefore there would be absolutely NO perception or conception of any aspect of reality. There would be only the unconscious maintenance of the body's metabolism, and our genetic expression and control. This would exist only temporally, because of the absence of any sensory loops. The organism would soon die, hence no organism ANYWHERE without senses actually exists. Is this the mental and infiltered purity that you seek?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And for those who cling to no one in the face of certain death, we call heroes, not martyrs.

...which has zero to do with my point, that it was claimed something contrary.

 

[Windwalker]

What is interesting to me, is the pattern of behavior that eclectic mind-body proponents all seem to have in common. They all obfuscate and falsely equivocate most ordinarily understood terms. They all create new labels for new terms, without defining or falsifying them.

Personally, I don't accept as true that I am doing any of these things. I doubt any others cast into this net of yours would accept your statement about them as true either. This is a common complaint I hear from those who feel frustrated that the understanding of reality they have through their definitions of words is understood outside those boxes, those filters of language. All I can say to this is, yes, of course there is more than one way to talk about reality using the same words.

Words do have not static meanings. Words evolve. As others explore the depths of reality, common words get chosen to be "fleshed out" a little more, look beneath the surface meanings in "common use", and explode understanding far beyond those. You will commonly find this in any philosophy department. And when dealing with these beyond the meat and potatoes reality of commerce and consumption meaning does in fact get "fuzzy", by comparison.

I'm going to share something I saved that I've posted before because of how many times I run into this where people's perception of "dictionary definitions" as static meanings that everyone must adhere to because they define reality, treating dictionaries as if they were divine revelation, like the Word of God, or something:

The authors of dictionaries are usually some kind of committee. Based on the amount of work a dictionary requires they cannot all be experts in all the relevant fields for every word - you would have to have the entire faculty of several universities working on every dictionary for that! Terms often are loosely defined, sometimes in ways that do deviate from how they actually are used in the relevant fields.

Dictionaries, like every other sufficiently large work made by humans, contain approximations, errors, flaws and oversights. You should not rely on dictionaries to limit understanding to words. At best, they are a starting point, but to really understand words you have to talk to those within the relevant fields. They are the authorities, not dictionaries.​

One key element you are missing here is that what the mystic is speaking about, cannot be defined. The reality of it is non-linear, or non-dual - not divided between a this and a that. Words are dualistic in nature. When used to speak of the nondual, they are not being used as precise definitions. They are metaphors. They are fingers pointing to the moon, and not the moon itself. Everything you said above, you could apply to any poet. But does that destroy the truth of which they speak?

If it sounds to you like I'm just making up gobbledygook, then you'll see that actual research is in fact saying exactly the same things we are. Can Language Influence Our Perception of Reality?    - presented by University of California and SlateCustom

From the article [highlights added]:

Subtle linguistic differences and figures of speech can frame our approaches to difficult problems, beyond just the economy. That’s what research from the University of California, San Diego, is showing. Choose your metaphors carefully, people. They do more than just describe a problem—they help shape the solution.

Lera Boroditsky, associate professor of cognitive science at UC San Diego has spent years examining how different languages might encourage different cognitive abilities. A growing body of evidence suggests that a person’s mother tongue shapes the way they think about many aspects of the world, including space and time. The results, Boroditsky says, have broad implications in the spheres of politics and law.​

Sounds identical to what we "obfuscators" have been saying, doesn't it? Semiotics is a field that has been exploring this for some time as well. So, what I am saying is not just "made up". This is being examined by researchers and thinkers for quite some time.

They all blame others for not understanding their convoluted ideas(elitism), and objectively unsupported claims.

Who does that? I'm not "blaming" you. I fully understand, and am quite sympathetic to this, as it affects me personally as well. All manner of assumptions about truth and reality cloud my perception of reality too. It's programmed right into all of us through culture and language. The difference is, I understand this is true and it affects all of us, and you deny it's true.

They all avoid defining any terms clearly and specifically, by adding more to their ambiguity.

The question I have in response is, why do you need to have reality defined? Can't you just accept it "as is" without defining it?

They all will deny, add to, or change the meaning of terms, whenever they are challenged.

Who defined the meanings of words? God? There are many ways to speak of the meanings of words like "love, truth, beauty, goodness, hope, faith, life, light, etc.". Do you think any of those can't be spoken of in a myriad of ways, while all using the same word? That is all that any of "us" are doing. We're not "redefining it", we're expanding understanding of what it can mean, like the use of the word "love".

I'll come back to this point if it gets overlooked in your subsequent responses.

They simply claim that their ideas are just a new way of looking at reality, and that it is convention, presuppositions, faulty mental conditioning and sensory assumptions, that prevents us from seeing the true nature reality. All without providing one shred of evidence to support any of their claims.

There is a universe of evidence. I experience it. They experience it. Experience is evidence. This is not just mental speculations, but lived reality. What we "think" about any of it, is not the truth of it. The truth of it is that is what is experienced. It is just something that you do not rationally "figure out" by defining the meanings of words. It is transrational, beyond rational thought.

All this, simply to challenge the most obvious and well-understood assumptions about reality.

You think everyone has to perceive and experience reality the same way, in the most well-understood assumptions kind of way in order to be in touch with reality? Who defined reality this way? Majority vote?

Intelligence is like energy, it doesn't exist unless it is being used. When I do use it, it allows me to critically think, and understand the difference between right and wrong, logical and illogical, and sense and nonsense.

Yes, and it is a useful tool. I use it all the time. But, I do not make the unsupported belief, assumption, leap of faith that it is THE tool to understand all of human reality. That is the core problem here. That is "logical positivism", which starts with the idea that ideas are the keys to all understanding. It's a statement of faith, not rationality. All is takes is one experience of the "transcendent" in order to blow that self-constructed house of cards to smithereens.

The difference it seems between us, between you and I, is that even though I use rationality, I hold it's value lightly in my hand, like a saw I'll pick up when the task calls for it. Whereas it appears you might think it should be attach to your arm as a permanent extension of your flesh and use it for everything from cutting word, to brushing your teeth, to looking at the night sky on a cool Autumn's eve and wondering what it is to be you in the place and time of the universe.

Most people don't live life like that, try as many may wish to be a Mr. Spock instead of an "illogical human". I honestly doubt you really do either, yet you make the argument we should?

In other words my intelligence is based on knowledge, experience, and evidence. Your premises all seem to be based on half-truths, undefined truths, relative truths, unsupported truths, or unfalsifiable truths.

They are supported by experience. In fact, it is experience that informs my understanding, and trying to put words to it is fully a secondary action, not what defines its actuality for me. But they are subjective in nature. They can't be "falsified". The only thing that confirms them, is the experience of them itself. You can't understand them "objectively" as your immediate presence in them is required, just like saying you cannot understand the nature of swimming if you never get in the pool. There is no rational cop out in that statement.

Any conclusions based on these types of premises, will always be correct or correct, depending on how they are interpreted.

First, I know of no mystic who makes "conclusions". Conclusions are at the end of a logical puzzle. All the mystic does is "affirm" the reality of what was experienced. What we think about it, is a product of the rational mind, which always falls far short of the reality of what was exposed, encountered, and realized. I think this can be be explained by understanding the difference between apprehension and comprehension.

This explanation here is something I will direct you back to in the future, so I'd suggest reading this brief explanation. I find it greatly helpful in communicating how I understand these things: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension - DifferenceBetween.com

From the explanation linked to [Emphasis added]:

The words apprehension and comprehension refer to two different mental processes of grasping or taking hold of experience. Apprehension is the ability to understand something by relying on tangible or concrete experience. A simple example is when you touch the fire it will burn your finger. This experience can lead you apprehending that you should not touch fire. Whereas comprehension does not require concrete experience to understand, it is the ability to understand through reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation. Comprehension means the complete process of understanding, to perceive, interpret and process knowledge. In the examination point of view a comprehension means an exercise characterized by questions based on a short paragraph or text. A comprehension is to test the aptitude of the student.

Linguists tend to define comprehension as ‘understanding and deciding’. They define apprehension as ‘understanding and hesitating’. It is thus for sure that comprehension ends in decision whereas apprehension ends in hesitation. Comprehension at time paves the way for discussion too, whereas apprehension paves the way for imagination​

If you still don't see anything else I've try to explain, understanding this above may help to bridge the gap in our understandings. I'll leave at this point and pick up others later. I have hope it is possible this can be understood and we're both talking a common ground here.

 

[viole]

You must tell that to the many Christian martyrs over the years, who clung to God in the face of not surviving.

Well, that is where things can start misfiring. I am sure those martyrs were pretty sure to be surviving in their imaginary hereafter.

A bit like those guys that committed collective suicide because that was the only way for their souls to board a UFO that was hiding behind a comet.

Beliefs, no matter how unsubstantiated and irrational, can lead people to die for them. There might even be a positive correlation between absurdity and the will to die for it. Who knows?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Truly Enlightened]

...which has zero to do with my point, that it was claimed something contrary.

It was not claimed at all. Which is why I pointed it out. I thought it was worth mentioning the many heroes, when face with certain death, do not necessarily cling to any religious belief at all. Their sacrifice is a humanitarian secular act of selflessness, not a religious act for some conceptual reward or promise. The terrorist that destroyed the twin towers, were also considered martyrs. I thought heroes should also be mentioned to point out the distinction. These were just my thoughts, obviously not relevant to yours.

 

[atanu]

I'm certain that you are not the one dimensional thinker(garbage in, garbage out), that you appear to be.

Did you think that a perspective is a concept that is limited only to humans beings, or living things?

Do you know of any other perspective?

Perspective also mean a frame of reference, or a position. "From the moons perspective, the earth would seem small". If it makes you feel any better, there is a DUCK sitting on top of the traffic lights. This DUCK watches all that cars come to a halt every time the traffic signals turn red. The DUCK'S perspective is objective, and each individual driver's perspective is subjective. Is this clearer now?

How much you may try, in all those there is only your perspective. When you talk of perspective of a lamp post, it is your perspective, since you are the seer of the lamp post.

Are you conscious of the hours that past when you are asleep?

That is the main point. Why do you think that 'your' intellect-senses is all there to consciousness. It is a limited foolish prison view.

The fact that one members "I slept well" and comes back as the same person indicates that the seer-knower of the "I" does not slumber.

Do not confuse 'ego' with 'self'.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Personally, I don't accept as true that I am doing any of these things. I doubt any others cast into this net of yours would accept your statement about them as true either. This is a common complaint I hear from those who feel frustrated that the understanding of reality they have through their definitions of words is understood outside those boxes, those filters of language. All I can say to this is, yes, of course there is more than one way to talk about reality using the same words.

Words do have not static meanings. Words evolve. As others explore the depths of reality, common words get chosen to be "fleshed out" a little more, look beneath the surface meanings in "common use", and explode understanding far beyond those. You will commonly find this in any philosophy department. And when dealing with these beyond the meat and potatoes reality of commerce and consumption meaning does in fact get "fuzzy", by comparison.

I'm going to share something I saved that I've posted before because of how many times I run into this where people's perception of "dictionary definitions" as static meanings that everyone must adhere to because they define reality, treating dictionaries as if they were divine revelation, like the Word of God, or something:

The authors of dictionaries are usually some kind of committee. Based on the amount of work a dictionary requires they cannot all be experts in all the relevant fields for every word - you would have to have the entire faculty of several universities working on every dictionary for that! Terms often are loosely defined, sometimes in ways that do deviate from how they actually are used in the relevant fields.

Dictionaries, like every other sufficiently large work made by humans, contain approximations, errors, flaws and oversights. You should not rely on dictionaries to limit understanding to words. At best, they are a starting point, but to really understand words you have to talk to those within the relevant fields. They are the authorities, not dictionaries.​

One key element you are missing here is that what the mystic is speaking about, cannot be defined. The reality of it is non-linear, or non-dual - not divided between a this and a that. Words are dualistic in nature. When used to speak of the nondual, they are not being used as precise definitions. They are metaphors. They are fingers pointing to the moon, and not the moon itself. Everything you said above, you could apply to any poet. But does that destroy the truth of which they speak?

If it sounds to you like I'm just making up gobbledygook, then you'll see that actual research is in fact saying exactly the same things we are. Can Language Influence Our Perception of Reality? - presented by University of California and SlateCustom

From the article [highlights added]:

Subtle linguistic differences and figures of speech can frame our approaches to difficult problems, beyond just the economy. That’s what research from the University of California, San Diego, is showing. Choose your metaphors carefully, people. They do more than just describe a problem—they help shape the solution.

Lera Boroditsky, associate professor of cognitive science at UC San Diego has spent years examining how different languages might encourage different cognitive abilities. A growing body of evidence suggests that a person’s mother tongue shapes the way they think about many aspects of the world, including space and time. The results, Boroditsky says, have broad implications in the spheres of politics and law.​

Sounds identical to what we "obfuscators" have been saying, doesn't it? Semiotics is a field that has been exploring this for some time as well. So, what I am saying is not just "made up". This is being examined by researchers and thinkers for quite some time.


Who does that? I'm not "blaming" you. I fully understand, and am quite sympathetic to this, as it affects me personally as well. All manner of assumptions about truth and reality cloud my perception of reality too. It's programmed right into all of us through culture and language. The difference is, I understand this is true and it affects all of us, and you deny it's true.


The question I have in response is, why do you need to have reality defined? Can't you just accept it "as is" without defining it?


Who defined the meanings of words? God? There are many ways to speak of the meanings of words like "love, truth, beauty, goodness, hope, faith, life, light, etc.". Do you think any of those can't be spoken of in a myriad of ways, while all using the same word? That is all that any of "us" are doing. We're not "redefining it", we're expanding understanding of what it can mean, like the use of the word "love".

I'll come back to this point if it gets overlooked in your subsequent responses.


There is a universe of evidence. I experience it. They experience it. Experience is evidence. This is not just mental speculations, but lived reality. What we "think" about any of it, is not the truth of it. The truth of it is that is what is experienced. It is just something that you do not rationally "figure out" by defining the meanings of words. It is transrational, beyond rational thought.


You think everyone has to perceive and experience reality the same way, in the most well-understood assumptions kind of way in order to be in touch with reality? Who defined reality this way? Majority vote?


Yes, and it is a useful tool. I use it all the time. But, I do not make the unsupported belief, assumption, leap of faith that it is THE tool to understand all of human reality. That is the core problem here. That is "logical positivism", which starts with the idea that ideas are the keys to all understanding. It's a statement of faith, not rationality. All is takes is one experience of the "transcendent" in order to blow that self-constructed house of cards to smithereens.

The difference it seems between us, between you and I, is that even though I use rationality, I hold it's value lightly in my hand, like a saw I'll pick up when the task calls for it. Whereas it appears you might think it should be attach to your arm as a permanent extension of your flesh and use it for everything from cutting word, to brushing your teeth, to looking at the night sky on a cool Autumn's eve and wondering what it is to be you in the place and time of the universe.

Most people don't live life like that, try as many may wish to be a Mr. Spock instead of an "illogical human". I honestly doubt you really do either, yet you make the argument we should?


They are supported by experience. In fact, it is experience that informs my understanding, and trying to put words to it is fully a secondary action, not what defines its actuality for me. But they are subjective in nature. They can't be "falsified". The only thing that confirms them, is the experience of them itself. You can't understand them "objectively" as your immediate presence in them is required, just like saying you cannot understand the nature of swimming if you never get in the pool. There is no rational cop out in that statement.


First, I know of no mystic who makes "conclusions". Conclusions are at the end of a logical puzzle. All the mystic does is "affirm" the reality of what was experienced. What we think about it, is a product of the rational mind, which always falls far short of the reality of what was exposed, encountered, and realized. I think this can be be explained by understanding the difference between apprehension and comprehension.

This explanation here is something I will direct you back to in the future, so I'd suggest reading this brief explanation. I find it greatly helpful in communicating how I understand these things: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension - DifferenceBetween.com

From the explanation linked to [Emphasis added]:

The words apprehension and comprehension refer to two different mental processes of grasping or taking hold of experience. Apprehension is the ability to understand something by relying on tangible or concrete experience. A simple example is when you touch the fire it will burn your finger. This experience can lead you apprehending that you should not touch fire. Whereas comprehension does not require concrete experience to understand, it is the ability to understand through reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation. Comprehension means the complete process of understanding, to perceive, interpret and process knowledge. In the examination point of view a comprehension means an exercise characterized by questions based on a short paragraph or text. A comprehension is to test the aptitude of the student.

Linguists tend to define comprehension as ‘understanding and deciding’. They define apprehension as ‘understanding and hesitating’. It is thus for sure that comprehension ends in decision whereas apprehension ends in hesitation. Comprehension at time paves the way for discussion too, whereas apprehension paves the way for imagination​

If you still don't see anything else I've try to explain, understanding this above may help to bridge the gap in our understandings. I'll leave at this point and pick up others later. I have hope it is possible this can be understood and we're both talking a common ground here.

Your exposé on the fact that words have different meanings was interesting, but not very relevant. Unless you were trying to imply that because words(terms) have different meanings, we should look beneath the surface of their common usage, and "fleshed out" a little, to look for a deeper meaning of the terms. This is just a convoluted distraction, and has nothing to do with my point. My point was that if you don't define the terms that you are using, IN THE CONTEXT THAT YOU ARE USING THEM, then you are not communicating, you are just obfuscating. Once you have defined the words/terms, in the context you are using them in, then you CAN be held accountable for the consistency of their usage. Without this phraseology or nomenclature accountability, any argument can seem rational. This is why I asked you to define the words and their context For example, when I use the word "real", I defined it as all things(objects) that are composed of matter, and can be perceived. In other words, anything that occupies space, and is in the form of a liquid, solid, or a gas. I do not need to layer or obfuscate my definitions with unnecessary superlatives. There is a big difference between the intrinsic meaning and reference of your terms, and their function and purpose in the context they are being used. Since all things are based on their simplicity, this should not be such a literary and syntactical hardship. Basically, if you cannot define it, then you cannot affirm it.

What assumptions about reality are programmed into us? What is the mechanism used to make these faulty assumptions? I personally do not need my reality defined. I am under no illusion that my senses are sending faulty assumptions to my mind. Because of our subjective perspective, it is impossible for any two people to experience reality in exactly the same way. This fact was stated by me many times before.
​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Personally, I don't accept as true that I am doing any of these things. I doubt any others cast into this net of yours would accept your statement about them as true either. This is a common complaint I hear from those who feel frustrated that the understanding of reality they have through their definitions of words is understood outside those boxes, those filters of language. All I can say to this is, yes, of course there is more than one way to talk about reality using the same words.

Words do have not static meanings. Words evolve. As others explore the depths of reality, common words get chosen to be "fleshed out" a little more, look beneath the surface meanings in "common use", and explode understanding far beyond those. You will commonly find this in any philosophy department. And when dealing with these beyond the meat and potatoes reality of commerce and consumption meaning does in fact get "fuzzy", by comparison.

I'm going to share something I saved that I've posted before because of how many times I run into this where people's perception of "dictionary definitions" as static meanings that everyone must adhere to because they define reality, treating dictionaries as if they were divine revelation, like the Word of God, or something:

The authors of dictionaries are usually some kind of committee. Based on the amount of work a dictionary requires they cannot all be experts in all the relevant fields for every word - you would have to have the entire faculty of several universities working on every dictionary for that! Terms often are loosely defined, sometimes in ways that do deviate from how they actually are used in the relevant fields.

Dictionaries, like every other sufficiently large work made by humans, contain approximations, errors, flaws and oversights. You should not rely on dictionaries to limit understanding to words. At best, they are a starting point, but to really understand words you have to talk to those within the relevant fields. They are the authorities, not dictionaries.​

One key element you are missing here is that what the mystic is speaking about, cannot be defined. The reality of it is non-linear, or non-dual - not divided between a this and a that. Words are dualistic in nature. When used to speak of the nondual, they are not being used as precise definitions. They are metaphors. They are fingers pointing to the moon, and not the moon itself. Everything you said above, you could apply to any poet. But does that destroy the truth of which they speak?

If it sounds to you like I'm just making up gobbledygook, then you'll see that actual research is in fact saying exactly the same things we are. Can Language Influence Our Perception of Reality? - presented by University of California and SlateCustom

From the article [highlights added]:

Subtle linguistic differences and figures of speech can frame our approaches to difficult problems, beyond just the economy. That’s what research from the University of California, San Diego, is showing. Choose your metaphors carefully, people. They do more than just describe a problem—they help shape the solution.

Lera Boroditsky, associate professor of cognitive science at UC San Diego has spent years examining how different languages might encourage different cognitive abilities. A growing body of evidence suggests that a person’s mother tongue shapes the way they think about many aspects of the world, including space and time. The results, Boroditsky says, have broad implications in the spheres of politics and law.​

Sounds identical to what we "obfuscators" have been saying, doesn't it? Semiotics is a field that has been exploring this for some time as well. So, what I am saying is not just "made up". This is being examined by researchers and thinkers for quite some time.


Who does that? I'm not "blaming" you. I fully understand, and am quite sympathetic to this, as it affects me personally as well. All manner of assumptions about truth and reality cloud my perception of reality too. It's programmed right into all of us through culture and language. The difference is, I understand this is true and it affects all of us, and you deny it's true.


The question I have in response is, why do you need to have reality defined? Can't you just accept it "as is" without defining it?


Who defined the meanings of words? God? There are many ways to speak of the meanings of words like "love, truth, beauty, goodness, hope, faith, life, light, etc.". Do you think any of those can't be spoken of in a myriad of ways, while all using the same word? That is all that any of "us" are doing. We're not "redefining it", we're expanding understanding of what it can mean, like the use of the word "love".

I'll come back to this point if it gets overlooked in your subsequent responses.


There is a universe of evidence. I experience it. They experience it. Experience is evidence. This is not just mental speculations, but lived reality. What we "think" about any of it, is not the truth of it. The truth of it is that is what is experienced. It is just something that you do not rationally "figure out" by defining the meanings of words. It is transrational, beyond rational thought.


You think everyone has to perceive and experience reality the same way, in the most well-understood assumptions kind of way in order to be in touch with reality? Who defined reality this way? Majority vote?


Yes, and it is a useful tool. I use it all the time. But, I do not make the unsupported belief, assumption, leap of faith that it is THE tool to understand all of human reality. That is the core problem here. That is "logical positivism", which starts with the idea that ideas are the keys to all understanding. It's a statement of faith, not rationality. All is takes is one experience of the "transcendent" in order to blow that self-constructed house of cards to smithereens.

The difference it seems between us, between you and I, is that even though I use rationality, I hold it's value lightly in my hand, like a saw I'll pick up when the task calls for it. Whereas it appears you might think it should be attach to your arm as a permanent extension of your flesh and use it for everything from cutting word, to brushing your teeth, to looking at the night sky on a cool Autumn's eve and wondering what it is to be you in the place and time of the universe.

Most people don't live life like that, try as many may wish to be a Mr. Spock instead of an "illogical human". I honestly doubt you really do either, yet you make the argument we should?


They are supported by experience. In fact, it is experience that informs my understanding, and trying to put words to it is fully a secondary action, not what defines its actuality for me. But they are subjective in nature. They can't be "falsified". The only thing that confirms them, is the experience of them itself. You can't understand them "objectively" as your immediate presence in them is required, just like saying you cannot understand the nature of swimming if you never get in the pool. There is no rational cop out in that statement.


First, I know of no mystic who makes "conclusions". Conclusions are at the end of a logical puzzle. All the mystic does is "affirm" the reality of what was experienced. What we think about it, is a product of the rational mind, which always falls far short of the reality of what was exposed, encountered, and realized. I think this can be be explained by understanding the difference between apprehension and comprehension.

This explanation here is something I will direct you back to in the future, so I'd suggest reading this brief explanation. I find it greatly helpful in communicating how I understand these things: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension - DifferenceBetween.com

From the explanation linked to [Emphasis added]:

The words apprehension and comprehension refer to two different mental processes of grasping or taking hold of experience. Apprehension is the ability to understand something by relying on tangible or concrete experience. A simple example is when you touch the fire it will burn your finger. This experience can lead you apprehending that you should not touch fire. Whereas comprehension does not require concrete experience to understand, it is the ability to understand through reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation. Comprehension means the complete process of understanding, to perceive, interpret and process knowledge. In the examination point of view a comprehension means an exercise characterized by questions based on a short paragraph or text. A comprehension is to test the aptitude of the student.

Linguists tend to define comprehension as ‘understanding and deciding’. They define apprehension as ‘understanding and hesitating’. It is thus for sure that comprehension ends in decision whereas apprehension ends in hesitation. Comprehension at time paves the way for discussion too, whereas apprehension paves the way for imagination​

If you still don't see anything else I've try to explain, understanding this above may help to bridge the gap in our understandings. I'll leave at this point and pick up others later. I have hope it is possible this can be understood and we're both talking a common ground here.

Where in all your abstract, obfuscated harangue, do you once provide any evidence to support your "universe of evidence" claim? Not one single example. Also, to experience reality, you must first perceive reality. You can certainly experience dreams, logic, and other unconscious states of reality, but these experiences are conceptual, and not perceptual. Therefore, one represents the representation of physical reality, and the other represents the illusion of physical reality. Since you haven't defined "objective understanding", you are free to make this statement. Of course it is meaningless, since we can't objectively acknowledge/know anything. Can you objectively acknowledge/know what is happening in Viet Nam? Our understanding of ANYTHING, is limited only to our subjective perspective.



The difference between us is that you simply create terms that support your logic, and then call your logic rational. You want people to question their own perception of reality, and then challenge its validity. Humans are not perfect. This is a given. Therefore their senses and what they sense, are also not perfect. But there is a big difference in an imperfect assumption about reality, and a false assumption about reality. The latter being irrational at best. Are you suggesting that a humans can become fictional characters like Spock? Another straw man.




​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Personally, I don't accept as true that I am doing any of these things. I doubt any others cast into this net of yours would accept your statement about them as true either. This is a common complaint I hear from those who feel frustrated that the understanding of reality they have through their definitions of words is understood outside those boxes, those filters of language. All I can say to this is, yes, of course there is more than one way to talk about reality using the same words.

Words do have not static meanings. Words evolve. As others explore the depths of reality, common words get chosen to be "fleshed out" a little more, look beneath the surface meanings in "common use", and explode understanding far beyond those. You will commonly find this in any philosophy department. And when dealing with these beyond the meat and potatoes reality of commerce and consumption meaning does in fact get "fuzzy", by comparison.

I'm going to share something I saved that I've posted before because of how many times I run into this where people's perception of "dictionary definitions" as static meanings that everyone must adhere to because they define reality, treating dictionaries as if they were divine revelation, like the Word of God, or something:

The authors of dictionaries are usually some kind of committee. Based on the amount of work a dictionary requires they cannot all be experts in all the relevant fields for every word - you would have to have the entire faculty of several universities working on every dictionary for that! Terms often are loosely defined, sometimes in ways that do deviate from how they actually are used in the relevant fields.

Dictionaries, like every other sufficiently large work made by humans, contain approximations, errors, flaws and oversights. You should not rely on dictionaries to limit understanding to words. At best, they are a starting point, but to really understand words you have to talk to those within the relevant fields. They are the authorities, not dictionaries.​

One key element you are missing here is that what the mystic is speaking about, cannot be defined. The reality of it is non-linear, or non-dual - not divided between a this and a that. Words are dualistic in nature. When used to speak of the nondual, they are not being used as precise definitions. They are metaphors. They are fingers pointing to the moon, and not the moon itself. Everything you said above, you could apply to any poet. But does that destroy the truth of which they speak?

If it sounds to you like I'm just making up gobbledygook, then you'll see that actual research is in fact saying exactly the same things we are. Can Language Influence Our Perception of Reality? - presented by University of California and SlateCustom

From the article [highlights added]:

Subtle linguistic differences and figures of speech can frame our approaches to difficult problems, beyond just the economy. That’s what research from the University of California, San Diego, is showing. Choose your metaphors carefully, people. They do more than just describe a problem—they help shape the solution.

Lera Boroditsky, associate professor of cognitive science at UC San Diego has spent years examining how different languages might encourage different cognitive abilities. A growing body of evidence suggests that a person’s mother tongue shapes the way they think about many aspects of the world, including space and time. The results, Boroditsky says, have broad implications in the spheres of politics and law.​

Sounds identical to what we "obfuscators" have been saying, doesn't it? Semiotics is a field that has been exploring this for some time as well. So, what I am saying is not just "made up". This is being examined by researchers and thinkers for quite some time.


Who does that? I'm not "blaming" you. I fully understand, and am quite sympathetic to this, as it affects me personally as well. All manner of assumptions about truth and reality cloud my perception of reality too. It's programmed right into all of us through culture and language. The difference is, I understand this is true and it affects all of us, and you deny it's true.


The question I have in response is, why do you need to have reality defined? Can't you just accept it "as is" without defining it?


Who defined the meanings of words? God? There are many ways to speak of the meanings of words like "love, truth, beauty, goodness, hope, faith, life, light, etc.". Do you think any of those can't be spoken of in a myriad of ways, while all using the same word? That is all that any of "us" are doing. We're not "redefining it", we're expanding understanding of what it can mean, like the use of the word "love".

I'll come back to this point if it gets overlooked in your subsequent responses.


There is a universe of evidence. I experience it. They experience it. Experience is evidence. This is not just mental speculations, but lived reality. What we "think" about any of it, is not the truth of it. The truth of it is that is what is experienced. It is just something that you do not rationally "figure out" by defining the meanings of words. It is transrational, beyond rational thought.


You think everyone has to perceive and experience reality the same way, in the most well-understood assumptions kind of way in order to be in touch with reality? Who defined reality this way? Majority vote?


Yes, and it is a useful tool. I use it all the time. But, I do not make the unsupported belief, assumption, leap of faith that it is THE tool to understand all of human reality. That is the core problem here. That is "logical positivism", which starts with the idea that ideas are the keys to all understanding. It's a statement of faith, not rationality. All is takes is one experience of the "transcendent" in order to blow that self-constructed house of cards to smithereens.

The difference it seems between us, between you and I, is that even though I use rationality, I hold it's value lightly in my hand, like a saw I'll pick up when the task calls for it. Whereas it appears you might think it should be attach to your arm as a permanent extension of your flesh and use it for everything from cutting word, to brushing your teeth, to looking at the night sky on a cool Autumn's eve and wondering what it is to be you in the place and time of the universe.

Most people don't live life like that, try as many may wish to be a Mr. Spock instead of an "illogical human". I honestly doubt you really do either, yet you make the argument we should?


They are supported by experience. In fact, it is experience that informs my understanding, and trying to put words to it is fully a secondary action, not what defines its actuality for me. But they are subjective in nature. They can't be "falsified". The only thing that confirms them, is the experience of them itself. You can't understand them "objectively" as your immediate presence in them is required, just like saying you cannot understand the nature of swimming if you never get in the pool. There is no rational cop out in that statement.


First, I know of no mystic who makes "conclusions". Conclusions are at the end of a logical puzzle. All the mystic does is "affirm" the reality of what was experienced. What we think about it, is a product of the rational mind, which always falls far short of the reality of what was exposed, encountered, and realized. I think this can be be explained by understanding the difference between apprehension and comprehension.

This explanation here is something I will direct you back to in the future, so I'd suggest reading this brief explanation. I find it greatly helpful in communicating how I understand these things: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension - DifferenceBetween.com

From the explanation linked to [Emphasis added]:

The words apprehension and comprehension refer to two different mental processes of grasping or taking hold of experience. Apprehension is the ability to understand something by relying on tangible or concrete experience. A simple example is when you touch the fire it will burn your finger. This experience can lead you apprehending that you should not touch fire. Whereas comprehension does not require concrete experience to understand, it is the ability to understand through reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation. Comprehension means the complete process of understanding, to perceive, interpret and process knowledge. In the examination point of view a comprehension means an exercise characterized by questions based on a short paragraph or text. A comprehension is to test the aptitude of the student.

Linguists tend to define comprehension as ‘understanding and deciding’. They define apprehension as ‘understanding and hesitating’. It is thus for sure that comprehension ends in decision whereas apprehension ends in hesitation. Comprehension at time paves the way for discussion too, whereas apprehension paves the way for imagination​

If you still don't see anything else I've try to explain, understanding this above may help to bridge the gap in our understandings. I'll leave at this point and pick up others later. I have hope it is possible this can be understood and we're both talking a common ground here.

Since I seem to be severely limited in how much I can post, I apologize for the three posts.

There are many types of mystics from many types of religions, so you COULDN'T KNOW which ones make conclusions, and which one's affirms conclusions. If you can't show it, then you don't know it. I'm going to assume that what you are saying is in good faith. And, that it is simply your best understanding that you are asserting. So I will say again, to avoid more of this rather lengthy distraction. I concede that words have different meanings. I concede that you have devoted over half of your post to say that words have different meanings. Now when you finish citing that words have different meanings, can you please define the words that YOU use, as they apply in the context that YOU are using them? Thank you.​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Do you know of any other perspective?



How much you may try, in all those there is only your perspective. When you talk of perspective of a lamp post, it is your perspective, since you are the seer of the lamp post.



That is the main point. Why do you think that 'your' intellect-senses is all there to consciousness. It is a limited foolish prison view.

The fact that one members "I slept well" and comes back as the same person indicates that the seer-knower of the "I" does not slumber.

Do not confuse 'ego' with 'self'.

There are only two perspective categories that pertain to the human perspective. Subjective and Objective. Within these two categories there are, art, relative, theoretical, psychological, the one to five point, linear, and infinite perspectives. Just to name a few. From which perspective do people and cars seem not to be moving? From the plane flying over them, or from the people and cars on the ground? I do not confuse ego with self. Although ego is a part of self. Unless you define the properties of seer, you can claim the "prpor" of the lamp post, and its perspective would still be the same.

That is the main point. Why do you think that 'your' intellect-senses is all there to consciousness. It is a limited foolish prison view.

The fact that one members "I slept well" and comes back as the same person indicates that the seer-knower of the "I" does not slumber.

I have no idea what my intellect has to do with my consciousness. Or, what being aware of a good night sleep has to do with the "seer-knower of the "I" does not slumber" even means. Sorry, this is far too cryptic for my limited intellect.

 

[Windwalker]

Your exposé on the fact that words have different meanings was interesting, but not very relevant. Unless you were trying to imply that because words(terms) have different meanings, we should look beneath the surface of their common usage, and "fleshed out" a little, to look for a deeper meaning of the terms. This is just a convoluted distraction, and has nothing to do with my point. My point was that if you don't define the terms that you are using, IN THE CONTEXT THAT YOU ARE USING THEM, then you are not communicating, you are just obfuscating. Once you have defined the words/terms, in the context you are using them in, then you CAN be held accountable for the consistency of their usage.
​

Must you have everything spelled out in black and white terms for you to see truth?
​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Must you have everything spelled out in black and white terms for you to see truth?
​

Although "..for you to see the truth.." couldn't be any more vague, I do expect those making extraordinary claims, to at least define and clarify their terms. If you can't do this, then stop making extraordinary truth claims, or hiding behind false equivocations, convoluted logic, disjointed and non-connective terms, and falsifiability. Depositing your creative line of reasoning, would only obscure the obvious(reality, perception) and create a mental vulnerability(cognitive dissonance). Soon you would begin to doubt existence itself, and become susceptible to all manner of beliefs(rational or irrational). It is the EVIDENCE that separates us from doubt and belief. So, yes I do expect your usage of terms to be consistent, defined, and applicable. Experiments have demonstrated that even with evidence, just how easy doubt and conformity can effect our behavior.

Five students were told to look at a screen with five black vertical lines on it. Each line was labeled from A to E. The lines were all of different lengths. The students were asked to choose(A to E) which of the lines was clearly the longest. For a time all students chose correctly. Four of the students were then told to deliberately pick the shortest line, instead of the longest. The 5th students did not understand why the others were always choosing the wrong line. The 5th student for a time continued to pick what was clearly the longest line, while the others always picked the shortest line. Eventually, the 5th student began picking the shortest line, instead of the longest. The more intelligent the student was, the more time it took before he eventually converted. In the end, all converted to choosing the wrong answer. This is just the nature of the human condition. And, for many, just another means to exploit human nature.

You are doing the same thing, and ignoring the obvious evidence. You are simply questioning the obvious, and when the obvious questions back, you must rely on negative inferences, accusations, distractions, contrived logic, and obfuscations, to add some sense of credibility to your rationale. So I understand that clearly defining your terms would certainly be counterintuitive, and counterproductive to that rationale.

 

[atanu]

There are only two perspective categories that pertain to the human perspective. .....

So, a lamp post has no perspective of its own. That was my point.

I have no idea what my intellect has to do with my consciousness. Or, what being aware of a good night sleep has to do with the "seer-knower of the "I" does not slumber" even means. Sorry, this is far too cryptic for my limited intellect.

I agree to the red part and therefore see no point in continuing.

For other readers I note that the awareness of having had no awareness in deep sleep is indicative of awareness.

 

[atanu]

Although "..for you to see the truth.." couldn't be any more vague, I do expect those making extraordinary claims, ....

There is nothing extraordinary in the claim that there is a subject that witnesses the states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

 

[Windwalker]

Although "..for you to see the truth.." couldn't be any more vague, I do expect those making extraordinary claims, to at least define and clarify their terms. If you can't do this, then stop making extraordinary truth claims, or hiding behind false equivocations, convoluted logic, disjointed and non-connective terms, and falsifiability.

You find the claim that reality is Love, Light, and Life, that it can be experienced that way by an ordinary person, to be an "extraordinary claim"? Are you sure you are talking with me, and not a fundamentalist Christian claiming God created the world is six literal days? What I am claiming is easy enough to verify. Have the experience.

 

[Windwalker]

There is nothing extraordinary in the claim that there is a subject that witnesses the states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

Hah! I just saw this after I posted my response above. Perfect.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So, a lamp post has no perspective of its own. That was my point.



I agree to the red part and therefore see no point in continuing.

For other readers I note that the awareness of having had no awareness in deep sleep is indicative of awareness.

You have not made any points at all. You have just made assertions. The lamp post does indeed have its own perspective, by virtue of its position in space and time, and in relation to the position of the cars. Also, not being dead is indicative of being alive, and being alive is indicative of not being dead. But if you are NOT aware that you are dead, then this is still awareness. Is this the profound logic that you are peddling? I do agree with you, we should definitely avoid insulting both our intelligence any further.

There is nothing extraordinary in the claim that there is a subject that witnesses the states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

Maybe there is nothing extraordinary about any claim that implies that there is a subject(an I am, a sentiency, a reference, etc.), that exists and witnesses all conscious states, including waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. But, without defining it, this "subject" is just a bit unclear. Since this is not an extraordinary claim, I guess evidence is unnecessary?

 

[Windwalker]

Since this is not an extraordinary claim, I guess evidence is unnecessary?

Since it's not an "extraordinary claim," then "extraordinary evidence", as they saying goes, is not required. Simple evidence will do. Experience it. That's enough. That'll do.

 

[atanu]

You have not made any points at all. You have just made assertions. The lamp post does indeed have its own perspective, ...

That is your perspective and not a lamp post's.

Maybe there is nothing extraordinary about any claim that implies that there is a subject(an I am, a sentiency, a reference, etc.), that exists and witnesses all conscious states, including waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. But, without defining it, this "subject" is just a bit unclear. Since this is not an extraordinary claim, I guess evidence is unnecessary?

What evidence you require as proof that you exist as the subject?