“…I don't understand why you seem to consider using our senses as questionable….” – Gruff
Our senses have a function, true. However, senses have little if anything to do with ultimate truth. It was in this context that I made the comment. Senses, even within the same individual change over time… and in some cases are clearly distorted or even missing. So, subjective and unreliable equate to being at the very least questionable in this context. “…Whatever name that is put to what most people around the world come to perceive as a table does not change it's functionality, nor does it change it's chemical and physical properties beyond what any particular table's makeup is. A table can also be examined at much greater esoteric levels but that does not change its functionality. Whether it is composed of strings (as in the theory of) or mere electromagnetic bonding or even something beyond that, it is still functionally a table -- a raised place upon which to perform certain functions.” – Gruff Of course. All of this is obvious…and I believe I even said some of it directly. Yet, none of this has anything to do with the actual way reality is…it only has to do with subjective appearances. When one can see BOTH, subjective and objective, then one is well on the road to enlightenment. “However, I find your final statement to be most perceptive in that everything we examine can be ultimately distilled as a reflection of the true nature of our minds. I'm not sure if it applies to reality though since reality may be nothing more than a reflection of that nature. It may be the only place where the perceived and the perceiver are one. Or as the Senator in Enemy of the State said, it may be that the only privacy we have is what is in our own heads and that may be enough.” – Gruff Yes, and when one arrive at such recognitions, the nature of mind itself becomes more than an electro-chemical endeavor. And, I agree that all is mind as you suggest the possibility of. Yet, IF this is the case, and I think it is, there is absolutely no privacy for us since all is one…and this brings us to the question of omniscience. On Sep 11, 6:52 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > Ornamentalmind, I became involved with Baha'i a bit earlier. Sometime > in the mid sixties. I was living in the Hollywood/Beverly Hills/Los > Angeles area at the time. I met Jimmy and Dash well before they were > Seals & Crofts. I was a regular at the Firesides held by Marsha Drake > and her three daughters, two of whom were dating Jimmy and Dash. > Marsha was Jimmy's and Dash's agent. After the Firesides we'd all go > down to whatever club they were playing and I'd have to dance with the > girls while their guys played on. Eventually Jimmy, Dash and the > three sisters (whose names I can't recall) became the Dawnbreakers > (after Nabíl's Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá'i Revelation) > but weren't successful. The Dawnbreakers played Las Vegas a couple of > times but eventually broke up and that was when Seals & Crofts became > a name and got famous. This was well after I broke away from Baha'i. > I did notice however, that the religion was very popular with > entertainment types. > > I don't understand why you seem to consider using our senses as > questionable. Granted, some people's senses are more questionable > than others, but then there are those whose senses I've come to trust > and believe, at times even including my own. > > Whatever name that is put to what most people around the world come to > perceive as a table does not change it's functionality, nor does it > change it's chemical and physical properties beyond what any > particular table's makeup is. A table can also be examined at much > greater esoteric levels but that does not change its functionality. > Whether it is composed of strings (as in the theory of) or mere > electromagnetic bonding or even something beyond that, it is still > functionally a table -- a raised place upon which to perform certain > functions. > > However, I find your final statement to be most perceptive in that > everything we examine can be ultimately distilled as a reflection of > the true nature of our minds. I'm not sure if it applies to reality > though since reality may be nothing more than a reflection of that > nature. It may be the only place where the perceived and the > perceiver are one. Or as the Senator in Enemy of the State said, it > may be that the only privacy we have is what is in our own heads and > that may be enough. > > On Sep 10, 9:24 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I too have looked closely at the Bahai faith…first heard of it back in > > the early 70s at a Seals & Crofts concert in Florida. I’ve studied > > many of their tenets, talked with their members and been a member of > > online discussions. And, if one of my links was from their library it > > was only by chance. I selected the first two that seemed to be at > > least fairly accurate about Nagarjuna. > > > When it comes to what we ‘sense’ (using any number of our specific > > physical senses…something that has been found to be a questionable > > practice almost forever), we clearly do not see things like a ‘table’… > > what our senses pick up our brain may interpret as being a table, but > > what is it? If examined more closely, we find atoms and space…if even > > more closely….well, we could go down to even the concept of strings. > > So, what is it we see? Yes, on a practical level, we can accept its > > appearance…however, for those who wish to examine things in more > > detail rather than merely succumbing to utilitarianism, such further > > determinations must be made…in the exact same spirit as scientific > > inquiry. So, when ‘we’ (few agree upon what it is to be a human being) > > touch (something that is impossible in a physical way due to > > electromagnetic activity) something, the thing being touched as well > > as that perceived as being the one who touches are in fact > > imaginations created within our thinking… > > > It is for these reasons I find such lines of inquiry to be valid in an > > attempt at learning the true nature of reality and mind.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
