--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > For unity, the inner and the outer cease, inner life will go > > > > down the tube, come to an end, and be replaced with something > > > > more interesting, more connected, more seamless, contiguous, > > > > and mysterious, because there is no way to understand it. > > > > > > If there is no longer any inner life, how is this "something" > > > that replaces it found to be interesting and mysterious? What > > > is it that does the finding? What is it that is interested? > > > > The human mind still functions, but it is just like other > > things we could describe as objects in the field of experience, > > for example, a thought is essentially experienced the same way > > one experiences a potato. > > Well, but you said the mind was *replaced* by this "something."
That is language for you. The word 'something' refers to a change of perspective of experience, not an object or a perhaps not even a state of consciousness. And I did not use the word 'mind' in that paragraph you quoted, I was not saying the mind is replaced, though I can see how one could assume that conclusion. It remains, everything remains except one's former perspective. The mind ceases to be the ruler, the measure of experience. > > What does the experiencing of a thought? I think you may have left out a word, or more than one word in the above sentence, it does not make sense. Slow down, you may be rushing it here. You are normally more careful than this. > > I get that it's hard to describe and understand. At a > certain stage of explanation, it becomes pointless, I think, > to attempt to resolve contradictions. It may be that your > explanations here have reached that stage. I would agree with this. But it is fun to try even if failure is guaranteed. And speaking of failure, I had better get off my ass and get some work done today. The mind becomes a tool for accomplishment, I hope. > > > > > > But the sense that there is an inside and outside to experience is gone, > > all experience is contiguous, consciousness is not located in any > > particular place, like a glob of peanut butter spread evenly over the > > surface of a piece of white bread, filling in all the holes of the texture > > of the bread. Consciousness is not observing, it is the very things > > experienced. The dualistic model of consciousness is no longer applicable, > > the idea that anything or any experience is transcendent is out the window, > > but the monist model of consciousness really doesn't work either. > > > > There is a focus, in that there is a POV related to sensory input > > converging on the body, but the sense of a 'me' that this is happening to > > is extraordinarily diminished, a vague sense of confluence. It is really > > hard to describe and understand because thought is no longer the moderator > > of the sense of what is real. > > > > There are still thoughts and emotions, and they float in the field of > > experience, so the experience of some aspect of experience being > > interesting, more attended to than something else in experience still > > occurs just like before one got into spiritual pursuits, but the whole > > effect of experience is much more homogeneous. > > > > I recall reading something about Taoism in which the natural primordial > > state is described as like an uncut block of wood, before the sculptor > > imagined and realised a scene in that wood. Like a mental image of > > Michaelangelo imagining the statue of David in the block of marble. No one > > else imagined this for that block of stone. It is interesting that he did > > not fully finish some works, left them only partially realised. Perhaps he > > was experiencing the virtual nature of thought, something of its unreality. > > >
