Mike,

PS, I agree it is the "Buddhist line" that I've been defending against Bill's 
solipsism ad infinitum..

Edgar



On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:23 AM, [email protected] wrote:

> Edgar,
> 
> When have you ever said that?? Btw, ego has nothing to do with my stance. 
> I've been stating the Buddhist line ever since I've been here and you've just 
> about disagreed with everything I've ever said (or just got basic Buddhist 
> principles plain wrong). 
> 
> 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 1:28:51 PM 
> 
>  
> 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?
>>>>>>>> > > > > 
>>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > 
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to