What he said.
On Mar 26, 1:18 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reality is that it is there and that it is not me.
>
> I look at a teacup. Is it a teacup or is it just my seeing a teacup?
> If it is a teacup it is real. If it is just my seeing a teacup then it
> is not real.
>
> This is the typical way of looking at reality.
>
> The problem with this is revealed in the mystic traditions. If
> abstraction is the process of thinking of something that cannot exist
> without something else, as existing without that something else, then
> the idea of reality becomes an abstraction. The experienced is not
> conceivable apart from experiencing of some kind and reality and to
> the extent that it is conceived of that way, becomes the illusion of
> worlds behind the scenes.
>
> Now this abstraction lies so deep in our ideas that all of us are
> capable of imagining the universe with no one in it, no one
> experiencing it. We do that easily and we ascribe the term reality to
> that abstraction. That is "the universe" and the fact that it is
> experienced is considered a contingent fact that might have been
> otherwise. It is just luck that we experience the universe. If
> evolution had gone the other way then .... Its simple, just imagine
> the world before people or sentient beings evolved or imagine it after
> they are gone. We are almost completely unaware of the how our real
> absence (not just a temporal structure with a point that has us arrive
> and end - but complete absence) would erode the hypothetical nature of
> "it". It is easy to see how its color would be undefinable but much
> harder to see how its spatial material structure, the stuff of set
> theory and mathematical modeling, would become equally meaningless.
>
> Only in the mystical traditions are the notions of reality appreciated
> and the presenting of already-merging-originally is experienced. The
> world is correctly experienced as a verb and the meaning of its
> reality -or perhaps better "reality-ing" becomes clear. Here the
> notion of reality is seen as being meaningful, as having meaning and
> therefore is not separate from, nor reducible to, mind. It is meaning-
> ing itself around us and throughout us. This does not then exclude our
> temporalizing and spatially abstracting the essent, of recognizing
> material structures and of understanding the relationship of those
> structures to our own incarnation, but all of this becomes essential
> material and is not the One reality at the center. It is just
> contingent structure.
>
> Those states of conscious are hard to come by but their insight is
> invaluable in comprehending the meaning of reality.
>
> While the notion of reality as being that which is "other than
> thought" has uses the problem with it is that it cannot handle the
> mystical experience of reality. It is ignorant of the Tao.
>
> Consider these two statements: "When we say something is a fantasy, we
> mean that it isn't a part of the world of our natural senses. It
> exists soley in the subjective mind." "When we say something is real
> we seem to be implying that the object is perceived through senses
> other than pure thought"
>
> The first problem is that reality as it is usually meant is not
> ascribed to something that is seen sensually as opposed to
> cognitively. For example if I induce the sight of a cow electrically
> by stimulating the right neurons (or even by projecting light in a
> realistic way into our eyes, we would usually say that the cow that I
> experienced is not real even though I saw it. Alternatively we may say
> that it was a "real experience" but not a "real cow". My "just seeing
> it" means that it was subjective and therefore not real. So the
> distinction between mind and senses is not the key. It is the
> distinction between that which is "purely subjective" and that which
> is not that is the key.
>
> However, the problem is that in reality itself the meaning and being
> are kind of the same thing. It is the meaning-ing of being and the
> being of the meaning-ing of being originally as one experience.
> Otherwise being becomes roughly "that which is not meaning", or at
> least "that which is not just meaning" - something again other to pure
> meaning - and becomes something other, something necessarily
> meaningless.
>
> I am sure that I am being clumsy here but the essence of my comment is
> that a notion of reality that makes distinction between either sensory
> vs cognitive content or objective vs subjective entities will not work
> because of its failure to realize the Tao.
>
> Being in reality is completely meaningful.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
