you could try that, but it'd just be more of the same.
10,000 things and counting...

Hong


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Mike,
>
> OK, I finally managed to pick myself up off the floor!
>
> What difference does it make??????
>
> OK, I hope I really have managed to stop laughing now.....
>
> Try stepping on a piece of rope and then a rattlesnake and maybe, just
> maybe, you might understand the difference!
>
> Jeeeez....
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:44 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> Edgar,
>
> Sorry, I'm not following. What difference does it make whether it's a
> snake or a piece of rope if thats what I sincerely perceive at the time?
> It's my reaction that is important.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> * From: * Edgar Owen <[email protected]>;
> * To: * <[email protected]>;
> * Subject: * Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but
> how plain is that?
> * Sent: * Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:25:37 PM
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Funny! Because Bill's (and now apparently your) "just this" at night would
> have been the snake that was really a piece of rope!
>
> That's why "just this" JUST doesn't cut it. I can imagine Bill at the
> magic show yelling "just this" as every illusion is performed believing
> they are all real because they are his direct experience!
>
> By claiming the immediate experience of "just this" is reality you mistake
> illusion for reality..... In the cases above it's obvious, but if you
> understand the biology of perception you understand it happens EVERY
> TIME....
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:50 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> Edgar,
>
> There many gold standards for what reality is, but surely what we
> experience as humans is all we have to go on? If I see a snake at night,
> how I react at that time is far more important than in the morning
> realising it was just a piece of old rope.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
>
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> * From: * Edgar Owen <[email protected]>;
> * To: * <[email protected]>;
> * Subject: * Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but
> how plain is that?
> * Sent: * Sun, Jul 7, 2013 1:29:39 PM
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> The point is that Bill's "just this" is something produced by complex
> sensory and cognitive processes. It does NOT correspond to raw reality as
> he would have us believe. It's the RESULT of a very complex sequence of
> processes.
>
> That's why Bill's just this is actually "just this ILLUSION mistaken for
> reality"....
>
> True you don't experience reality like this. Because you ARE NOT
> EXPERIENCING REALITY AT ALL!
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> Edgar,
>
> But you don't experience reality like that. Do you have to understand the
> endocrine system to take a pee?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> * From: * Edgar Owen <[email protected]>;
> * To: * <[email protected]>;
> * Subject: * Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but
> how plain is that?
> * Sent: * Sun, Jul 7, 2013 12:58:56 PM
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> That's very bad biology. There are 3 general stages involved. Raw sensory
> experience which occurs separately in each different sense organ. There is
> considerable pre-processing there where eg. edges and motion are
> preferentially detected. 2nd there is perception in the optic lobes, 3rd
> the brain itself makes what is perceived into objects in the context of
> one's internal model of reality.
>
> You can't just make things up that are contrary to the way biology
> actually works...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Bill! wrote:
>
>
>
> Edgar,
>
> What's causing confusion is you continue to look at experience only from a
> pluralistic POV. From a pluralistic POV there is a distinction between
> sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. From a monistic POV there is no
> distinction. It's just experience. Experience is only separated into the
> different senses when pluralism arises along with perception. It's then
> that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Before pluralism there is just
> experience - Just THIS!
>
> It doesn't matter if my perception is different (worse or better - like
> eyesight or hearing) than yours. For example blurry vision doesn't produce
> a different experience than clear vision. The vision being blurry or clear
> is a perception, not an experience. The same goes for vision and touch. If
> a person is blind but can feel then they are sentient and do experience;
> BUT a blind person or deaf person does not have the same perception as a
> person who sees and hears well.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
> >
> > So why is the experience of you different from someone who needs
> glasses, or a blind person?
> >
> > Which has the 'true' experience of the 'true' reality?
> >
> > Which is the true 'just this' when you have 3 different just thises?
> >
> > Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 7, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > > Edgar,
> > >
> > > Experience (awareness of the 'real world') is not dependent upon
> eyeglasses, corneas or eyes. It is however dependent upon what we call
> senses. If you were not sentient then you could not experience and would
> have no awareness.
> > >
> > > There would be nothing.
> > >
> > > ...Bill!
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Panda,
> > > >
> > > > Good point. Which is the REAL world Bill. With or without glasses?
> With or without corneas? With or without eyes?
> > > >
> > > > After all reality does NOT consist of focused light images of
> 'things'....
> > > >
> > > > Edgar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:43 AM, pandabananasock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Are you wearing glasses right now?
> > > > > Can you see the frames in your periphery?
> > > > > Did you see them before I asked?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Reply via email to