Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?

a reply to: bb23108

No comments. I'm not sure that I can expound on anything hasn't already been said.

AllIsOne, I was wondering where you were going with Deep Blue.Where you pointing to raw ability to calculate? How many calculations per second do you figure human consciousness is capable of? Am I getting warm?

a reply to: preludefanguy

Ultimate reality may not be affected, but conventional reality is definitely affected by our senses.

Only if we respond to the incoming data.

If I place you in front of a TV for instance, you may know everything they let you, but you will have exactly zero effect on the reality without getting up, going outside and doing something.

originally posted by: AllIsOne
a reply to: bb23108

I've realized that you are set in your ways. Be well my friend.

Do you think Truth is a variable? Perhaps it may be, as you already noted, since everything we experience is constantly in flux, as confirmed by our senses.

But does this preclude the possibility of an unconditional, unchanging reality as the Source or "medium" of all such appearing and disappearing - that can only necessarily be "known" beyond the usual mechanisms of experience?

Is this not of utmost importance to really find out, instead of just believing what is apparently the case presented by our sensory experience?

What is your fundamental being - that aspect you call "I", the self-aware consciousness? Is that experienced with the five senses? Does it actually ever change regardless of how much the body may age?


P.S. So you are not going to indulge my curiosity about the meaning of your name "AllIsOne"?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: preludefanguy

Ultimate reality may not be affected, but conventional reality is definitely affected by our senses.

Only if we respond to the incoming data.

If I place you in front of a TV for instance, you may know everything they let you, but you will have exactly zero effect on the reality without getting up, going outside and doing something.

Okay, but isn't the going outside another experience of sensory data? And yes, I understand the difference between what is virtual as presented by TV, video games, movies, the internet, etc., - but is not ALL of our conventional experience still truly only a perception or psychic re-presentation of what we presume to be conventional reality?

Do you ever directly experience anything outside of a psychic (perceptual) re-presentation of what we assume to be our objective reality?

This is the crux of the thread's initial question.

a reply to: bb23108

Do you think Truth is a variable?

Yes ... What may be true in one instance may be not true in the next
The sky is raining ... the sky is not raining now

There are countless stars in the Universe ... new stars are born ... others die (change to something else)

Though truth is always truth ... it is mutable ... it is subject to change

My "Fortune Cookie" thought for the day

a reply to: bb23108

Do you ever directly experience anything outside of a psychic (perceptual) re-presentation of what we assume to be our objective reality?

You can tell if its real by touching it.

Done here.

originally posted by: intrptr
You can tell if its real by touching it.

But isn't the sense of touch just another form of perception (sensed as feeling or sensation rather than sensed as an image, etc.) - i.e., still a re-presentation of input from an apparent object via the nervous system to the brain, etc., and therefore still not a direct experience or real knowing of the object itself?

originally posted by: intrptr
Done here.

Care to first elaborate as to why?

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: preludefanguy

Ultimate reality may not be affected, but conventional reality is definitely affected by our senses.

Only if we respond to the incoming data.

If I place you in front of a TV for instance, you may know everything they let you, but you will have exactly zero effect on the reality without getting up, going outside and doing something.

Okay, but isn't the going outside another experience of sensory data? And yes, I understand the difference between what is virtual as presented by TV, video games, movies, the internet, etc., - but is not ALL of our conventional experience still truly only a perception or psychic re-presentation of what we presume to be conventional reality?

Do you ever directly experience anything outside of a psychic (perceptual) re-presentation of what we assume to be our objective reality?

This is the crux of the thread's initial question.

Perception is not psychic. The question then falls apart.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Perception is not psychic. The question then falls apart.

definition of psychic: of or relating to the psyche

Replace the word "psychic" with "perceptual" and "psyche" with "mind" - if that helps you understand the meaning better.

Where else do you consciously experience perceptions if they are not of your psyche or brain-mind?

a reply to: bb23108

I love the Myth of Eros Psyche and have painted my own version of it ... The Marriage of Psyche and Eros
There are several versions of the Myth

For me Psyche represents the soul of the mind/body
Eros of course is Love and also the soul

Upshot of the version I love is ... Whilst Psyche is alive on Earth, she can only meet Eros in her dreams
Upon their wedding day however Psyche dies but is united with Eros forever in Eternity

a reply to: bb23108

What is 'absolute god' ? This seems to me to be another construct of the mind trying to understand and label something that it cannot

what is the actual living unconditional divine reality? is it separate from this?

language does create division, however, with language we can also form cohesion; language can become the foundations upon which we can come to try and understand reality as it is, but one can never name it, language can infer the scaffolding of reality, can set up thoughts which catch a glimpse of reality, but never directly define it in the absolute

yes, distractions and a mind that does not stop definitely make up the necessary conditions for the separate self to arise and maintain, and in a way, language is a reflection of the infinite potential as is the 'separate' self, a reflection and a refraction

we can go back to the idea of the mountain and the valley, the void and the voidless, form and formlessness, they define each other, they cannot be without the other, they go hand in hand; infinite potential begets all particulars, and all particulars pay homage to infinite potential

language is an expression of that equation, it is a mental reflection and abstraction of the particulars, and in the ability to shift and change, it is an expression and reflection of the infinite potential, language can be seen as sacred in this way

reality it seems, is found somewhere in the middle, between creation and non-creation; without this middle ground, things would be fixed and nothing could arise or things would have no bearing and nothing could arise

again, any being or intelligence that can be observed, inferred, understood, contemplated, is not ultimate in anyway, it is finite by way of its own mechanism of becoming, being measured, being understood, there is no total absolute being as it simply cannot exist, beings only exist within the framework of conditioned reality; and conditional reality is always changing

a reply to: intrptr

my lungs change the air around me, the cells on my skin, in my body change decompose and blend into the environment, gas passes

you're saying a plant doesnt have an effect on its reality around it?

There is no way to be disconnected from it, no matter where you find yourself, you always have a part in reality, it sounds to me like you are speaking from the viewpoint of utilitarianism, do something!

we are ALWAYS doing something, it is just happening, but what that is is up to our defining it, and as a social species, agreeing upon those definitions

we have an effect on it simply by our sensory gateways too, as they actively shape what we are experiencing, our mental gateways, our emotional gateways, and in turn we churn out what has been processed through us, one cannot simply exist in a bubble or void which is disconnected from reality around it

What this Is we cannot say but this That Is is constantly appearing different.
It may appear as words or symbols but those words and symbols cannot describe any thing. The word or description gives rise to the illusion that there are things - when really there is simply what is happening.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Perception is not psychic. The question then falls apart.

definition of psychic: of or relating to the psyche

Replace the word "psychic" with "perceptual" and "psyche" with "mind" - if that helps you understand the meaning better.

Where else do you consciously experience perceptions if they are not of your psyche or brain-mind?

Do you scratch your psyche when you have an itch? When you stub your toe, do you hold your head afterwards? When you're thirsty, do you pour water on your head? Perceptions are experienced throughout the entire body.

What color is your psych? How big is your brain? What does your psych look like? It seems there is no perception in the psyche whatsoever.

Double post.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Double post.

"Double post"
Is that a cryptic message

Please explain ...
Is it your perception of a form of duality ... can you touch it, lick it, smell it. feel it vibrating in your middle ear or hitting your eyeballs with photons ... how do you know it is a double post how can you prove to us it was a double post

Was it really a double post ... a repeating of the previous post ... or did you write something really naughty and censored it to cover your tracks

How will we ever know it was truly a double post ... It will remain an enigma and mystery for Eternity alas

(Goofing around only)

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope



Do you scratch your psyche when you have an itch?

Step by step what scratches the itch? What knows there is an itch? What knows how to scratch it? What produces the activity which then scratches it?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Do you scratch your psyche when you have an itch? When you stub your toe, do you hold your head afterwards? When you're thirsty, do you pour water on your head? Perceptions are experienced throughout the entire body.

What color is your psych? How big is your brain? What does your psych look like? It seems there is no perception in the psyche whatsoever.

Everything we experience occurs as a psychic event - it always involves a perception. The sensation of itching is another perception. The seeing of my hand scratching my body is another perception. The relief felt from scratching, is another perception. The sensation of the body and one's sense of the various parts comprising it and where they are located, are all perceptions.

How is this not obvious to you that all we ever experience are perceptions or psychic phenomena mediated by the nervous system and brain-mind, and that at best may approximate some sense of our actual reality?

Your body is dependent on its environment, is inherently connected with it. Without the environment, the body dies almost immediately. The body-brain-mind is one complex, and just as the physical aspects of the body are connected to, and completely dependent on, the environment, so too are the psychic aspects of this complex connected to, and completely dependent on, the environment.

The psyche or mind is not some restricted space inside the head - our psyche is connected to the totality that is unlimited psyche or mind, ultimately consciousness itself. The body-brain complex is a transmitter/receiver mechanism in this psychic (perceptual) totality.

You are just not sensitive to the whole in terms of mind being beyond the physical - but if you would allow yourself to feel beyond your current fixation on mental knowledge, and consider what I am saying here, you might begin to see that just like the physical body is dependent on the environment, so too are the mental/conscious/psychic aspects of the body-mind connected to and dependent on the environment.

So why do you insist on limiting the boundaries of the body-mind complex to just the physical, especially since you say that you are such a great believer and lover of what the body is altogether?

Why fixate on, and live on the basis of, some mental deductions that are inherently limited to the logic of the five senses, when your actual consciousness can grant you much deeper insight into your real situation here?

This requires real open exploration, not just some mental rationalism. At least consider allowing for the expansion of the very limited boundaries you are assuming about the body-mind - and find out what is really the truth, regarding your self-aware consciousness.