Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...

JLNobody, you write:

"I wish I had read more of David Chalmers, but when I look at experience, I see only content, never blank consciousness as a kind of empty vessel waiting to be filled with phenomena/content. I may be wrong, but that's the way it seems to me right now.¸"

No not an "empty vessel waiting to be filled".

But often where my head is supposed to be there is just opened space. Visually we are always looking 'from' opened space, and That can be noticed. That there is no observer, or in this case 'seer' is known through seeing, through visual experience, and therefore transcends theory and/or speculation etc.

Now, it`s very odd that open space can be 'seeing', but that is the emptiness at our center. Even while the ego is present there is this 'open space seeing', i.e. right now. Right now there is nothing looking, and there never has been anything looking. That`s Atman.

So in every looking, seeing this words, we also see our own emptiness, our transparency, our own Non-Being, our Nothingness etc.

And if we notice this Nothingness-that-sees, then we are awake to our Self as Nothing. Somewhat that is, as there is still ego-identification.

And the ego-sense descends below the shoulders into the lower body, though usually still very much present.

0 Replies

Twyvel, is paying attention "opening a space"? If so, that is well put. When I said there seems to be only content, I mean that there is no-one in the form of conscious ego or "subject" perceiving "objects". There is only content which is the seer/seen (Tat tvam asi). I like the image of the empty center or the Atman which is nothing because it is everything. That is to say, when "I" see, Brahmin (as Atman) is seeing, not "little me."

0 Replies

pegasus

No, what I said has nothing to do with idealism.
Remember I said that there is a dark, sharp and heavy thing in the water. It is there. But that is not a rock. Rock is a concept. Of course, all concepts, all language, in the beginning, came from our human sensorial experience. That is why I reject all kinds of metaphysics (including God, soul and ... materialism): because, by definition, metaphysics supposes something beyond our experience.

The problem of the rock it is not the fact it stands there when you leave. I think that is not important (although it is not a fact of experience, but an idealistic construct). The problem is that you look at the beach and do not refer to the thing that is perceived by your senses, but to a concept.
I gave this example months ago: at night, you look to the sky and what do you see? Little bright lights. That is all. But you say: I see stars. Star is a concept, part of a theory.

As for the last part of my post, I was talking about intentionality, more in the perspective of Heidegger than Husserl.
But all I said, believe me, has nothing to do with idealism and specially with Berkeley. In fact it is the opposite, because my philosophic perspective is based on experience, on the intentional interaction between me and things.

0 Replies

Quote:

Remember I said that there is a dark, sharp and heavy thing in the water. It is there. But that is not a rock. Rock is a concept.

Rock is a concept, granted. But are not dark, sharp and heavy concepts as well?

Quote:

metaphysics supposes something beyond our experience.

Let me get this straight, you don't believe in anything we cannot experience? Some people can experience God.

Quote:

I gave this example months ago: at night, you look to the sky and what do you see? Little bright lights. That is all. But you say: I see stars. Star is a concept, part of a theory.

What is "little bright lights"? Is that not a concept?

You go on about concepts, but forget that you are the one to chose wich concept to invoke and when. That the concept "rock" is invoked when you see a stone has to have some significance.

It might be that I just missed the entire point of the discussion, in the path it has taken, but it might also be that this discussion is going nowhere. I don't know.

0 Replies

Cyracuz

Quote:

Rock is a concept, granted. But are not dark, sharp and heavy concepts as well?

Yes. It is impossible to communicate without using concepts. I was simply trying to establish the difference between sensorial experience and conceptualization.

Quote:

Let me get this straight, you don't believe in anything we cannot experience? Some people can experience God.

Good for them. I can't. But keep in mind that what I meant by experience has to do with a physical reality. Mystic experience has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

You go on about concepts, but forget that you are the one to chose wich concept to invoke and when. That the concept "rock" is invoked when you see a stone has to have some significance.

Of course it has significance. Go to a dictionary and look on "rock". Smile

0 Replies

Val says "Star is a concept, part of a theory." I agree. All of our concepts for "things" are theories. Indeed, there are no "brute" facts in nature; all facts are little theories, residing in general and tacit theoretical schemes.

By the way, the "experiences" most people (fundamentalists in particular) have of "God" are not mystical experiences. They are emotionally charged fantasies resting on belief systems. There may be exceptions within Christianity. I'm thinking of Teresa of Avila and Meister Eckhart, bona fide (I presume) mystics who apply the theological imagery/language of their culture to otherwise ineffable realizations.

0 Replies

JLNobody

Quote:

When I said there seems to be only content, I mean that there is no-one in the form of conscious ego or "subject" perceiving "objects". There is only content which is the seer/seen (Tat tvam asi).

Okay.

Quote:

when "I" see, Brahmin (as Atman) is seeing, not "little me.

Yes. Nice placement.

"is paying attention "opening a space"?"

In seeing we (Atman) create space, visual space. ( Image, we actually ?'create' space. Talk about transcending reason/logic, Smile

)

I guess that space is always opened, but at >this end<, what we are looking out of, can appear to be opaque. Most have a third person image, a mirror image of them self-as-a-seer, (and that they ?'are' a ?'seer'). E.g. the face you see as me I also see, not sensorial, but mentally.

E.g. I have your third person image of me incorporated into a whole self image.

But I think it is always open, open ended:

When we pay attention, we get:

scene-----space------nothing

or

Nothing/Void/Atman/----------space---------scenery/landscape/objects/world/body/others.

So maybe it is somehow, "opening a space"Interesting.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Quote:

By the way, the "experiences" most people (fundamentalists in particular) have of "God" are not mystical experiences. They are emotionally charged fantasies resting on belief systems.

I beg to differ. The question of wether one believes in God or not is probably the most useless question I know, since there is no real definition of what God is.

But still, when I am out walking under the stars, when I see a sunset and think about the infernal reality of the harmonic picture I'm viewing, when I see a hawk take a sparrow or I look at the tranquil ebb and flow of the sea, I get a sense of how immense this miracle is that everything happens in perfect synergy. The fact that we exist strikes me as nothing less than a miracle, and whenever I think about these things, (wich is often since I am reminded of them wherever I look) I am filled with a sense of something so much greater than my ability to comprehend it. It's the divine. It is God, and it is what fools call magic.

What is written about God, what people say about God, all these things are irrelevant.

So, to clarify:
I don't believe what people say and write about God, because they are untrue. I know this because I can see God, as I explained above.

0 Replies

And Val, I think you can see God. Everyone can. They just don't know what they're looking at. Smile

0 Replies

Yes, Cyracuz, we all see "God" (ultimate reality) in every thing, but do not recognize it--including a pile of dog poop--for what it is. Of course, having a conceptual "recognition" of the immanent God is not to really "see" it. THAT would be a mystical non-conceptual realization.

0 Replies

>What< is looking can be called god, or not, but it is said to be impersonal. It is not the ?'person' or a self that looks.

To really ?'see' , as JLNobody puts it, is to be Emptiness, The Nothingness at the Helm.

0 Replies

Remember this?

Knock!, knock!
God: "Who's there"?
You: "Me."
God: "Go away"!

After some serious contemplation...

Knock! knock!
God: "Who's there"?
You: "You."
God: "Come in."

There is no personal God who turns you away or lets you in. You do both by virtue of your understanding of your true nature.

0 Replies

Understanding is All.

But what is Understanding?

0 Replies

Krishna awareness?

0 Replies

REALIZING your true nature? But IMMEDIATELY, not intellectually. People who think that by meditaton they can acquire "information" or "theoretical insights" ABOUT their nature are in for disappointments, IMHO. So, I should have said "realization" rather than "understanding."

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Remember this?

Knock!, knock!
God: "Who's there"?
You: "Me."
God: "Go away"!

After some serious contemplation...

Knock! knock!
God: "Who's there"?
You: "You."
God: "Come in."

There is no personal God who turns you away or lets you in. You do both by virtue of your understanding of your true nature.

Does {God = You = Rock = Beach = Halley's Comet = Other Posters in This Discussion = Me = Emptiness = All = One?}
:wink:

0 Replies

Extra medium, I think this is the point where it starts getting confusing. The point when explanations start going in loops. God is you but you are not God.

This is almost impossible to some people to understand and they go: "Hey, you're saying the same thing, just the other way around."

It's almost like saying: "Heh, look at this, they've even made a book of the Lord of the rings now!"

It's called displaying ignorance. Some wear it like a banner. I am not saying that any of you do. There's no grounds to claim such a thing.

I am just saying that the thread has taken a turn towards it's origin. Concious thought is fallible, since it is controlled by the fleeting and unconstant ego. The waking "I" knows nothing but limitation. It is how it defines itself. Thus it is impossible to realize your true nature if every thought you think is a concious effort, based on a concious want to solve a problem you have conciously identified.

So don't fend off chaos. Our true tasks are beyond the borders of our egos, and so we walk in our father's footsteps.

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

Understood. Good points.

I posted that symbolic idea almost as a button-pusher--to see everyone's thoughts on the idea... though of course even thinking about it taints it and changes it...its just there...no need really to say it all the time.

Cyracuz wrote:

It's called displaying ignorance. Some wear it like a banner. I am not saying that any of you do. There's no grounds to claim such a thing.

Yes. Every post on this entire website could be argued to do this. Ever word we utter could almost be this.

Perhaps its better to sit in a cave with a vow of silence. Yet even there again, even then, one has the opportunity to turn things back onto itself.

Perhaps to even consider the questions of existence puts one on that path.

Ironically, perhaps we often have the answers to many questions only when we stop seeking the answers, completely.

Or once one realizes certain things, they continue to fetch the water and chop the wood.

0 Replies

Good considerations extra medium. That is what life is about in my opinion. Finding the balance between active and passive existence. Well, the balance sorts itself, we have only to reconcile ourselves to it.

0 Replies

val wrote:

pegasus

No, what I said has nothing to do with idealism.
Remember I said that there is a dark, sharp and heavy thing in the water. It is there. But that is not a rock. Rock is a concept. Of course, all concepts, all language, in the beginning, came from our human sensorial experience. That is why I reject all kinds of metaphysics (including God, soul and ... materialism): because, by definition, metaphysics supposes something beyond our experience.

The problem of the rock it is not the fact it stands there when you leave. I think that is not important (although it is not a fact of experience, but an idealistic construct). The problem is that you look at the beach and do not refer to the thing that is perceived by your senses, but to a concept.
I gave this example months ago: at night, you look to the sky and what do you see? Little bright lights. That is all. But you say: I see stars. Star is a concept, part of a theory.

As for the last part of my post, I was talking about intentionality, more in the perspective of Heidegger than Husserl.
But all I said, believe me, has nothing to do with idealism and specially with Berkeley. In fact it is the opposite, because my philosophic perspective is based on experience, on the intentional interaction between me and things.

Val, I was under the impression that any concept was, according to your reply, a result of a specific mental awareness and interaction; that, in a word, the rock is a product of that cognition. Did I get it wrong, or was this the point you were making?

Of course, I did not mention that your view is consistent with Berkeley's idealism; but, I did mention its relation to it, and, if I recall correctly, that view was idealistic.

0 Replies

Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know