Bill, "Useful and effective" are good criteria for knowing something IS real...
Edgar On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > The explanation you gave below is a good example of pluralistic thinking. > You have explained the act perception using pluralistic logical concepts > which includes dividing the world up into many separate and distinct parts. > This is what human intellect does. Discrimination is it's job. I have no > argument with these any more than I have an argument with the many rules of > chess...as long as you don't form attachments to them by believing they are > real - useful and effective, maybe; but not real. > > Experience on the other hand is real. It is monistic which means there is no > discrimination, no divisions, no logical concepts; just pure awareness - not > consciousness which is pluralistic, but awareness which is monistic. > > You ended your comment below with "You can't just make things up that are > contrary to the way biology actually works...". What's ironic about that > statement is biology is not how things 'actually work'. Biology is an > explanation (and usually a temporary one) of how scientist think things > 'really work'. It's actually science and scientists who 'make up things' > using discrimination and logic to describe what they perceive; and they call > that 'how things really work' - that is until someone else comes along and > develops a better logical model. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: >> >> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
