Edgar, The example I cited below was to challenge your previous statement in this thread that:
[Edgar} "Useful and effective" are good criteria for knowing something IS real... The use of 'carrot and stick' coercion using delusive threats such as Santa Claus, heaven/hell or karma are most often "useful and effective". You're correct that fact doesn't make those delusions real, but the coercion only works if the people being deluded believe they are real. The very definition of the belief in something that is not real is delusion. It's the belief in delusions that make them "useful and effective"; and it's your belief that being "useful and effective" makes something real that's blinding you to the fact that they are delusions. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > O for God's sakes Bill. It doesn't make Santa Claus real, it makes the > approach real... > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > 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/
