Bill, Then 'whose' experience is it? And whose perception is it that arises in "your" mind if not your self's?
Edgar On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Bill! wrote: > Edgar, > > I understand why you think my POV (and maybe the Buddhist/zen POV also) is > 'solipsism', but there is an importance difference which you are ignoring. > > 'Solipsism' in every definition I've read includes a focus on a belief in a > 'self', in fact an exclusive belief in 'self'. Here is just one example: > > "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications > and that the self is the only existent thing; also: extreme ." - > Merriam-Webster Online > > My POV (and what I believe to be the POV of all zen teachings) is the 'self' > is delusive. My POV does not focus on the 'self' and claim it is the only > existent thing. My POV focuses on experience (sensory, monisitic) and denies > the existence of a 'self' - except as a delusion. > > I'd be willing to read other definitions of 'solipsism' or hear your own > definition that convinces you that the gist of what I've been saying is an > example of 'solipsism'. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > 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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > > > 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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > > >> 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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > > >>> 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, uerusuboyo@... 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: uerusuboyo@... <uerusuboyo@...>; > > >>>> 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: yonyonson@... <yonyonson@...>; > > >>>> 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 <edgarowen@...> 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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > > >>>>> 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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > > >>>>>> 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, uerusuboyo@... 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 <edgarowen@...>; > > >>>>>>> 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? > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
