What gives us the Ability to <fill in the blanks>

[Marblehead]

But does subject exist if objects don't?

Now that's a good question.  Redundant but still good.

[steve]

after sleep and a re-read, ... 'Does the unwitnessed tree fall?,' I say ,Sure , as in Aussies account, the ramifications persist ,so the event mustve happened though unwitnessed. If no one ever encountered the fallen tree, then from a human perspective, the event appears formless,,as in Steves definition , and the event is undefined as a drop of water in an endless sea. Im thinking the Koan is designed to tire out your deductive process trying to reconcile those two considerations. Re: meaning,, I dont see Steves or Aussies posts as endorsing there being any Meaning ,outside of the meaning one attributes to an event. Though Im curious what argument can be made For , Meaning ,which exists in some way independent of an ascriber.

 

I'm curious also, I suspect meaning is assigned like form.

However, what gives rise to that meaning may be related to the deep connection between all things at a level that is beneath recognition for many of us. 

In that sense, it is not limited to a single perspective but a manifestation of the connection between all perspectives. 

Great question and I intend to contemplate that further... time to go to work!

[idiot_stimpy]

Answering the first post, language.

[Stosh]

Let me rephrase it, without you - the subject, does anything matter? If the subject ceases to exist, the object too ceases to exist right?

No it doesn't matter without someone attributing significance to it. ,,,,No, an object is independent of an observer. If that was not true , the dark side of the moon would not have existed until 1959, at which time when the Luna 3 satellite took pix of it, all the craters would have had to form simultaneously and yet in a fashion indicating they hadn't.   Even so , from a purely logical standpoint which does not accept inference as valid evidence ,, there was no dark side until it was seen. It was undefined, and the only honest thing one could claim about it was that they had no idea if it would have one ( dark side) 

[dwai]

Oh, No, No, No.  The Earth existed very well for 4.5 billion years without some human animal making a subjective opinion of it.

Does the fact the Earth existed for 4.5 billion years have any bearing on you, the individual subject, after you cease to exist? It doesn't for me (if I cease to exist)

[Marblehead]

Does the fact the Earth existed for 4.5 billion years have any bearing on you, the individual subject, after you cease to exist? It doesn't for me (if I cease to exist)

Hehehe.  Nothing is going to matter to me after I cease to exist because there won't even be a me to care.  And really, the age could just as well be 5.5 billion years as far as I'm concerned.

 

Sure, there were people here, born and died, before I was born and the process will continue after I have passed on.  All I can do is wish them well, but then, I will be dead so I won't even be able to do that in person.

 

The cycles of creation and destruction.  Once upon a time our sun didn't even exist.  Good thing Earth hadn't been born yet.

 

Does anything really matter?

[Stosh]

I'm curious also, I suspect meaning is assigned like form.

However, what gives rise to that meaning may be related to the deep connection between all things at a level that is beneath recognition for many of us. 

In that sense, it is not limited to a single perspective but a manifestation of the connection between all perspectives. 

Great question and I intend to contemplate that further... time to go to work!

Ahh, I didnt expect that angle, very interesting, the 'perspective of all perspectives..' So,, the universe cares about its own development ??. and prefers what ? ,,owls over mice?? sentience manifest ? ..... I dont see this being the answer to all yet. The universes rules are unwavering therefore the outcome cant be prompted hedged or affected by the universe. Us within it can possibly affect outcome but dont know what to bring about or why, and if yin invites yang, the script of the universe is designed for us to fail in getting the universes desires fulfilled unless,, the mission of the universe is to screw with us... You may be onto a fundamental truth there.

[Stosh]

Because it gets in the way of the full and objective experience.

... Are you Sure about that? it seems somewhat ironic.

[Marblehead]

... Are you Sure about that? it seems somewhat ironic.

I am sometimes an irony.  But that doesn't matter.

 

Thinking too much holds us back from living spontaneously.  Should I do this?  Or maybe that?  What might happen if I do this?

 

And no, we don't have to interpret our experiences.  But we should have some.  The nicest  ones I have had were those I had no idea what was about to result from what I was doing.  Oh, sure, I have gotten myself in a pickle a few times.  No big deal.  It's only life.  (Dylan said that.  It's life and life only.)

[leth]

Yes indeed. Subject only experiences objects via sensory apparatuses.

 

I'm assuming here that subject means 'that which expriences' and object are more specifically ontological objects, if i am wrong in this assumption, then i am sorry for that and would like to be both corrected and have a explanation of what is really meant.

 

But does subject exist if objects don't? Forms and labels are after experiencing.

 

Here i am going to assume the same meanings of the terms (but the later sentance makes me unsure of this interpretion here).

 

Are not experiences themselves experienced in forms and lables, or more precisecly concepts. What concepts are involved in the first experiences of the external world? How do we map these concepts of the first external world into an experience without the use of concepts? And are there no other possible source of experiences than that which is formed from expeirence of the external world? What about abstract concepts that do not map to any ontological objects. Even though they might arise as a further development of concepts that are maped to ontological objects, they must somehow form in a process which is not reallt based in ontological objecs which leads me to think that our way of forming concepts is not inherently related to ontological objects. What about meditation, why do we expereince things that seems inherently unconnected with the external world when we meditate?

[Stosh]

I am sometimes an irony. But that doesn't matter.

 

Thinking too much holds us back from living spontaneously. Should I do this? Or maybe that? What might happen if I do this?

 

And no, we don't have to interpret our experiences. But we should have some. The nicest ones I have had were those I had no idea what was about to result from what I was doing. Oh, sure, I have gotten myself in a pickle a few times. No big deal. It's only life. (Dylan said that. It's life and life only.)

Its funny you should say that, ..It does seem that its second thoughts which limit what I would do more than the first ones... but then why would anyone start making second thoughts in the first place? Edited October 7, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Its funny you should say that, ..It does seem that its second thoughts which limit what I would do more than the first ones... but then why would anyone start making second thoughts in the first place?

Excellent!  You said that better than I did, I think.

 

Yes, it was our first thought that was the "living spontaneously".  But then we thought better of doing that whatever.

[dwai]

I'm assuming here that subject means 'that which expriences' and object are more specifically ontological objects, if i am wrong in this assumption, then i am sorry for that and would like to be both corrected and have a explanation of what is really meant.

 

 

Here i am going to assume the same meanings of the terms (but the later sentance makes me unsure of this interpretion here).

 

Are not experiences themselves experienced in forms and lables, or more precisecly concepts. What concepts are involved in the first experiences of the external world? How do we map these concepts of the first external world into an experience without the use of concepts? And are there no other possible source of experiences than that which is formed from expeirence of the external world? What about abstract concepts that do not map to any ontological objects. Even though they might arise as a further development of concepts that are maped to ontological objects, they must somehow form in a process which is not reallt based in ontological objecs which leads me to think that our way of forming concepts is not inherently related to ontological objects. What about meditation, why do we expereince things that seems inherently unconnected with the external world when we meditate?

What we do is live the narrative of the left brain interpreter module. What most people consider experience is really after the fact. It could be a fraction of a second after the actual experience or longer than that.

 

Direct experience moves us beyond thinking mind. Say you are walking by the ocean and suddenly there's a beautiful sunset or sunrise. The beauty of it can be so mesmerizing that you stop thinking and just feel - awe, joy, sorrow etc. These emotions are more direct than descriptions we give after the fact.

 

Meditation is like that. When you are in the gap between thoughts there is no description, no labels, well because there are no thoughts. Then a thought is triggered and the mind starts flowing again. In that gap there is only awareness, no object. We describe it (like I'm doing it now) after the fact...

[leth]

What we do is live the narrative of the left brain interpreter module. What most people consider experience is really after the fact. It could be a fraction of a second after the actual experience or longer than that.

 

Direct experience moves us beyond thinking mind. Say you are walking by the ocean and suddenly there's a beautiful sunset or sunrise. The beauty of it can be so mesmerizing that you stop thinking and just feel - awe, joy, sorrow etc. These emotions are more direct than descriptions we give after the fact.

 

Meditation is like that. When you are in the gap between thoughts there is no description, no labels, well because there are no thoughts. Then a thought is triggered and the mind starts flowing again. In that gap there is only awareness, no object. We describe it (like I'm doing it now) after the fact...

 

 

Well is not the metacognition that one can have during this state state, also a form of understanding?

What i'm tryint to say is that this awareness, which i term metacognition (while i have to say that it is not strictly speaking cognition) can be trained to be there and strong in many situations and i dare say even in quite meditation.

This awareness which i have termed metacognition, is a bit like an experience of an expereince so perhaps it should better be termed metaexperience than metacognition, but it is not strictly speaking expereince either. It is hard to describe, but it is an awareness of internal process but also has the capability to alter those internal processes. It can ignore thoughts, it can folow lines of thought, it can explore memories and embrace emotions. It can do many things, yet is not simply cognition. And i would like to say that it is possible to deepen ones connection to it, to sort of train it to be more prevalent in life, this is in a sense what mindfullness is about.

 

But we do actually experience it in the now, and not only analytically afterwards, and we are capable of actually describing it as it is happening, if we just direct it to start such cognitive processes and let cognition analyse it.

 

That is my experience.

[dwai]

Well is not the metacognition that one can have during this state state, also a form of understanding?

What i'm tryint to say is that this awareness, which i term metacognition (while i have to say that it is not strictly speaking cognition) can be trained to be there and strong in many situations and i dare say even in quite meditation.

This awareness which i have termed metacognition, is a bit like an experience of an expereince so perhaps it should better be termed metaexperience than metacognition, but it is not strictly speaking expereince either. It is hard to describe, but it is an awareness of internal process but also has the capability to alter those internal processes. It can ignore thoughts, it can folow lines of thought, it can explore memories and embrace emotions. It can do many things, yet is not simply cognition. And i would like to say that it is possible to deepen ones connection to it, to sort of train it to be more prevalent in life, this is in a sense what mindfullness is about.

 

But we do actually experience it in the now, and not only analytically afterwards, and we are capable of actually describing it as it is happening, if we just direct it to start such cognitive processes and let cognition analyse it.

 

That is my experience.

I think different people behave and react differently based on a vast variety of things, including their cultural backgrounds etc. My friend has done some excellent research on this topic.

 

http://www.biocultural.org/about_bri.html

 

Also lot of articles he has written about this topic here -- http://www.medhajournal.com/index.php/en/medha-gold/indic-classics-and-bio-cultures

 

He tabulates the concept of biocultures here --

 

http://www.biocultural.org/humanities.html

 

(tried pasting the table chart 2 from above webpage but to no avail)

Edited October 7, 2015 by dwai

[Seth Ananda]

I might be entering this convo a bit late.

 

But I see reasoning as coming from our ability for abstraction, our ability to think about thinking.

 

But what allows us to think?  I cant see how something can think without consciousness, as consciousness is there between and behind the thoughts that are happening, and any meditator or sunbaker will be well aware that thinking can cease temporarily.

 

But what about the whole consciousness awareness thing? What is it?

 

In my self examination, the type of consciousness that moves around, that focuses on things and excludes other things, I call that awareness.

Awareness weirdly is also very influenced by language, belief, prejudice, like and dislikes. This has been demonstrated over and over again with tests on peoples perceptual filters, the things they notice, edit out or read into the simple act of observing.  

 

But there is another type of consciousness that awareness exists within. When my awareness is busy focusing on my keyboard typing to you motley lot, it tends to be excluding a bunch of other stuff. like my foot. Was not really thinking about it. Then Baxter my pet scorpion - the little bastard - comes up and stings my heel!  

Well, the deeper consciousness was already aware of that, and the scorching pain brings awareness back to my foot really bloody quickly.  I take a minute to drop the bugger into a bottle of rum, but then afterwards me and my awareness come back to the keyboard, once again focusing on you guys and forgetting about the conscious background.

The question is, and is one that starts to obsess people who meditate, is just what is that conscious background?

It does not seem to really change or alter unlike the constantly shifting awareness. Chemical induced personality shifts don't alter it. hypnotherapy does not seem to alter it. Trance states don't seem to alter it.  Loosing body parts does not seem to alter it either.

How far does it go?  Certain experiences can make it seem unending and all pervasive.

 

They however are experiences where the awareness itself, that changeable thing suddenly dilates out in what it is capable of being aware off, right back (seemingly) to a deep awareness of consciousness as being all encompassing.

Is it really? Who knows, and I doubt that that is something that can be proven, but its certainly worth checking out for yourself.


P.S. No animals were hurt in the making of this post.

[dwai]

I might be entering this convo a bit late.

 

But I see reasoning as coming from our ability for abstraction, our ability to think about thinking.

 

But what allows us to think? I cant see how something can think without consciousness, as consciousness is there between and behind the thoughts that are happening, and any meditator or sunbaker will be well aware that thinking can cease temporarily.

 

But what about the whole consciousness awareness thing? What is it?

 

In my self examination, the type of consciousness that moves around, that focuses on things and excludes other things, I call that awareness.

Awareness weirdly is also very influenced by language, belief, prejudice, like and dislikes. This has been demonstrated over and over again with tests on peoples perceptual filters, the things they notice, edit out or read into the simple act of observing.

 

But there is another type of consciousness that awareness exists within. When my awareness is busy focusing on my keyboard typing to you motley lot, it tends to be excluding a bunch of other stuff. like my foot. Was not really thinking about it. Then Baxter my pet scorpion - the little bastard - comes up and stings my heel!

 

Well, the deeper consciousness was already aware of that, and the scorching pain brings awareness back to my foot really bloody quickly. I take a minute to drop the bugger into a bottle of rum, but then afterwards me and my awareness come back to the keyboard, once again focusing on you guys and forgetting about the conscious background.

 

The question is, and is one that starts to obsess people who meditate, is just what is that conscious background?

 

It does not seem to really change or alter unlike the constantly shifting awareness. Chemical induced personality shifts don't alter it. hypnotherapy does not seem to alter it. Trance states don't seem to alter it. Loosing body parts does not seem to alter it either.

 

How far does it go? Certain experiences can make it seem unending and all pervasive.

 

They however are experiences where the awareness itself, that changeable thing suddenly dilates out in what it is capable of being aware off, right back (seemingly) to a deep awareness of consciousness as being all encompassing.

Is it really? Who knows, and I doubt that that is something that can be proven, but its certainly worth checking out for yourself.

 

 

P.S. No animals were hurt in the making of this post.

Yes syntax is befuddling to say the least. I use pure awareness and objectless consciousness to mean the same thing...that unchanging background. It's evident even in regular waking, walking, talking state. That background is there like a cooling, soothing background.

 

I used to have a different concept/idea about all this until I met my present Master. He dispelled all notions of "killing the ego" etc. His way is to accept the fact that we are mortals with a physical body, an identity that has been developed due to various reasons (voluntary and involuntary). His way is to understand that there is a "higher Self" within us...he calls it our spiritual mind. With his way the "self" is just an expression of that background consciousness. The spiritual mind connects us to the Dao (is non-different from Dao). All work happens through that...but that is truly a very intimate, yet impersonal consciousness. That's why some call it the True Self.

Edited October 8, 2015 by dwai

[leth]

I think different people behave and react differently based on a vast variety of things, including their cultural backgrounds etc. My friend has done some excellent research on this topic.

 

Sure, people do behave and react different depending on who they are. I don't see how that is relevant to what i wrote, or what your point is in pointing this out in respons to my post.

 

http://www.biocultural.org/about_bri.html

 

The most amazing part about that article is how it got published in Experimental Gerontology.

 

And once again how is it relevant to the discussion?

[dwai]

Sure, people do behave and react different depending on who they are. I don't see how that is relevant to what i wrote, or what your point is in pointing this out in respons to my post.

 

 

The most amazing part about that article is how it got published in Experimental Gerontology.

 

And once again how is it relevant to the discussion?

 

I think you missed the point. I'm saying the act of cognition (either volitional or not) is dependent on various factors. And a good theory around this is the concept of Bio-cultures. 

 

 

I sense a tinge of aggression here, when none is needed or warranted...friend

[Everything]

I think the brain in combination with the heart gives us this ability. Cause we need to think, but we also need to feel that thought wether it feels good or not.

[leth]

I think you missed the point. I'm saying the act of cognition (either volitional or not) is dependent on various factors. And a good theory around this is the concept of Bio-cultures. 

 

Surely cognition is really dependant on lingusitic context in one way or another. (and thus in extension cultural context), and this is very much how i interpreted your post.

But one again I don't understand why you brought that up, what is the point you're trying to make?

 

I sense a tinge of aggression here, when none is needed or warranted...friend

 

No aggression, i am just curious on what you're trying to communicate, so i am questioning you, my friend.

 

Where does this thought of aggression arise? Is it something about my syntax? And why would you say that my syntax would indicate aggresion? Much of our way of interepretion of emotions dissapears when we communicate through text, it is in a way suboptimal way of communicating because of this. (but that is why we have smilies i guess) How come you're interpreting my semantics as aggression?

[Stosh]

Surely cognition is really dependant on lingusitic context in one way or another. (and thus in extension cultural context), and this is very much how i interpreted your post.

But one again I don't understand why you brought that up, what is the point you're trying to make?

 

 

No aggression, i am just curious on what you're trying to communicate, so i am questioning you, my friend.

 

Where does this thought of aggression arise? Is it something about my syntax? And why would you say that my syntax would indicate aggresion? Much of our way of interepretion of emotions dissapears when we communicate through text, it is in a way suboptimal way of communicating because of this. (but that is why we have smilies i guess) How come you're interpreting my semantics as aggression?

Im not saying you are upset,  but I read it that way as well. Smilies notwithstanding. For me the thing was several iterations of 'not relevant ', in almost as many sentences. 

[leth]

Im not saying you are upset,  but I read it that way as well. Smilies notwithstanding. For me the thing was several iterations of 'not relevant ', in almost as many sentences. 

 

Is it my inability to understand how something is relevant that is interpreted aggresive?

Is it my way of expressing this inability to understand?

 

Could you please explain?

[Stosh]

Is it my inability to understand how something is relevant that is interpreted aggresive?

Is it my way of expressing this inability to understand?

 

Could you please explain?

Well Dwai , isn't especially tender , he can handle dispute. But for some folks any kind of questioning at ALL is taken as an attack . BUT  I'm not the best speaker to advise anyone on how to tone down a post in fact I suck at it , and am often misconstrued. All I'm saying is that I thought that post  read that way, not that your overall style of writing needs any adjustment at all. 

[Marblehead]

I think that ... Oh!, never mind.