Mike, Funny. That's exactly what I said so why are you "completely disagreeing with me"?
I suspect just because your ego insists you have to preserve itself? Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:26 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Edgar, > > I think you'll find that I've been arguing here that "just THIS!" isn't > really the full picture. But anyway, I completely disagree with you. Yes, > there is an ultimate reality, but that reality can only be known > subjectively. That's why my iPad creates sensations for me, but absolutely > none for you. This is why Buddha taught that reality can only be known within > "this fathom long body". If someone shows Dave and John a picture of a nude > woman they will both have totally different reactions to it depending on a > multitude of personal factors. The photo stays the same, but the reactions > are what counts. > > 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: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 12:09:41 PM > > > 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, [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>; >> To: <[email protected]>; >> 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, [email protected] 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: [email protected] <[email protected]>; >>> To: zen group <[email protected]>; >>> 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: [email protected] <[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 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 <[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? >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
