Mike, That is your local perception of reality. Obviously you and I perceive reality quite differently. But it's the same reality we both perceive....
You can't just define your own reality. That leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and delusions... That's another reason that Bill and your "just this" just doesn't cut it. All experience is always mediated and processed by one's internal biological and cognitive structure. Thinking that "just this" is somehow direct perception of actual external reality is just not true. That's exhaustively proven biological and physical fact. Doesn't matter how enlightened you may or may not be... Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Edgar, > > How about a bat or an ant? Plus, my reality is different to yours. This iPad > in front of me creates many sensations and perceptions, yet for you it > doesn't exist. But my previous point is that you can't know if something is > what you perceive it to be. The perception is more crucial than the apparent > reality of what it is (eg the snake and rope). > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Edgar Owen <edgaro...@att.net>; > To: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how plain > is that? > Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 11:35:42 AM > > > Mike, > > > There is no "our reality". There is only one reality. You can't define > reality as YOU like. It is self defining... > > Edgar > > > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:14 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> >> Edgar, >> >> You still haven't answered. You seem to be far more interested in >> metaphysical entanglements than reality. Like I said previously, reality has >> many definitions, but the one that counts is the one that affects our mental >> processes and how we respond to them. Trying to figure out whether an >> external object is what you think it is is beside the point because It's >> impossible to determine in all cases. However, how you react is real in 100% >> of cases and how you react will determine whether you suffer, or not, from >> that reaction. This is our reality. >> >> Mike >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >> >> From: uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk <uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk>; >> To: zen group <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >> plain is that? >> Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 1:32:37 AM >> >> >> Edgar, >> >> Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How would I know >> if it's a snake and not a piece of rope - especially if my reaction was to >> avoid it believing it to be poisonous? What if i killed it believing it was >> a snake I believed to be poisonous, but it turned out to be someone's >> harmless pet snake? Again, my reactions are central - not what it actually >> is - if that is all I have to go on at that time. They're all I have >> 'control' over. It's really not a difficult point to grasp. >> >> Mike >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad >> >> From: yonyon...@gmail.com <yonyon...@gmail.com>; >> To: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; >> Subject: Re: [Zen] "It's as plain as the nose on your face" ... but how >> plain is that? >> Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 10:39:57 PM >> >> >> >> 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 <edgaro...@att.net> 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, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk 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 <edgaro...@att.net>; >>> To: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; >>> 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, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk 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 <edgaro...@att.net>; >>>> To: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; >>>> 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, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk 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 <edgaro...@att.net>; >>>>> To: <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; >>>>> 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, 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? >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >
