Edgar, Using the 'carrot and stick' approach with children by telling them if they're good Santa Claus will bring them presents Christmas Eve but if they're bad they'll get none (or it used to be a lump of coal).
That's usually a useful and effective approach. Does that make Santa Claus real? ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > 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/
