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

All that we experience is through the mechanism of the body/mind. We perceive objects, conceive thoughts, feel various sensations, have various internal experiences, etc.

All experiencing of any object is based on a necessarily limited point-of-view created by the focusing mechanism of attention.

Certainly objects exist, but can they be recognized for what they actually are in reality – that is, not just defined by our limited point-of-view-based experiencing of them?

What do you think? Can there be recognition of what any object or being actually is in reality?

What do you think? Can there be recognition of what any object or being actually is in reality?

a reply to: bb23108

I don't think we, in this reality, can possibly know. Not with, like you said, our limited perception. The computer in front of you is basically empty space, yet you and I perceive such things as solid. We know darn well that it's only a very tiny bit of solid and even that isn't solid. I think we know reality once we cross over to our spiritual base of existence. We simply can't see the smallest of small with our scientific equipment, yet.

a reply to: bb23108

Actually you've got it backwards. We are creating everything we are perceiving.

We aren't a body or mind ... we are a consciousness using a body and a mind to experience what we've created.

Everything has already happened, and we're just experiencing it ... in that, we get to choose how we experience it. You can walk around and say "I've created this, now how do I want to experience it, as the creator or as the victim?"

a reply to: blujay
So you are a supporter of solipsism?

How did you go about creating everything you are perceiving?

In other words, are you saying that apart from your perception of an object, that object does not exist in reality?

What do you think? Can there be recognition of what any object or being actually is in reality?

Through our senses, yah. Outside them, no. Read my signature.

Until you are allowed to see over there, outside, further, whatever. When they 'show up', you will know.

a reply to: blujay

We are creating everything we are perceiving.

Our senses are passive, they don't 'create' anything.

We use our hands for that.

a reply to: bb23108

Certainly objects exist, but can they be recognized for what they actually are in reality – that is, not just defined by our limited point-of-view-based experiencing of them?

No. Objects cannot be recognized without being recognized. If you remove that "limited point-of-view", there is no recognition at all.

What do you think? Can there be recognition of what any object or being actually is in reality?

Yes. By looking at an object, examining it, feeling it, we are handling, examining, and looking at the object as it is. It isn't anything other than what it already is.

originally posted by: intrptr
Through our senses, yah. Outside them, no. Read my signature.

Your signature says that "Things are the way they are not the way you perceive them." So that seems to contradict your statement that we can recognize the actual reality of an object through our senses.

Our senses rely on perception and any thing perceived takes time to experience - so how is that an actual recognition of what an object actually is in reality? All such perceptions are memory - that is, they are already of the past as it takes time to have the experience of perceiving.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
Yes. By looking at an object, examining it, feeling it, we are handling, examining, and looking at the object as it is. It isn't anything other than what it already is.

But all those perceptions are limited and even in the past - so how can that be exactly as the object is in reality?

Perceptions are memories - it takes time, for example, for the light from an object to reach the eye, for the eye to process it to the brain, etc. - for the perception to be experienced. A very short time, in this example, but time nonetheless. The object could have actually changed by the time we perceive it.

So we are not actually recognizing the object as it actually is in reality through this perception, but are experiencing a not-so-distant memory of how it was a very short time ago.

originally posted by: bb23108
Our senses rely on perception and any thing perceived takes time to experience - so how is that an actual recognition of what an object actually is in reality? All such perceptions are memory - that is, they are already of the past as it takes time to have the experience of perceiving.

Does seeing take time? Does hearing take time?

It maybe the hearing a story that says - 'it takes 8 light minutes for the light to leave the sun and get to your eyes' - that may make you believe that seeing takes time.

Is seeing happening? When is seeing happening?

Experiencing is happening - there is no time involved.

a reply to: bb23108

But all those perceptions are limited and even in the past - so how can that be exactly as the object is in reality?

Perceptions are memories - it takes time, for example, for the light from an object to reach the eye, for the eye to process it to the brain, etc. - for the perception to be experienced. A very short time, in this example, but time nonetheless. The object could have actually changed by the time we perceive it.

So we are not actually recognizing the object as it actually is in reality through this perception, but are experiencing a not-so-distant memory of how it was a very short time ago.

Are you saying the object we are perceiving is actually some other object?

a reply to: Itisnowagain
For example, It does take significant time for the light of a distant star to reach our eyes - in fact, the star could be long gone by the time we experience that image of it.

This is my point - that the image is of a past event - that is, when the light was emitted from the star and travelled all that way. The image is not what that star may even appear as now.

The seeing itself is seemingly happening in the present, but the image represented (re-presented) is not the recognition of what the object actually is in reality.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
Are you saying the object we are perceiving is actually some other object?

We perceive an "historical" image (a memory) of the actual object, we do not experience the actual object directly.

a reply to: bb23108

We perceive an "historical" image of the actual object (a memory), we do not experience the actual object directly.

Then how are we able to get a memory of it?

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne
We have all kinds of memories based on what we perceived in the past.

Like a camera, the body-mind creates an image of that object that we then perceive.

Retrieving the memories is another function of the brain-mind.

all we have are our senses. everything we ever see, hear, feel, taste, touch or do stems from our ability to interpret them, with the tools available to us. but our imagination can go further. we can imagine more than we can experience. it's a gift.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4
Yes, and so can we recognize what an object actually is in reality?

a reply to: bb23108

yes.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
a reply to: bb23108

yes.

Care to elaborate?

a reply to: bb23108

We have all kinds of memories based on what we perceived in the past.

Like a camera, the body-mind creates an image of that object that we then perceive.

Retrieving the memories is another function of the brain-mind.

I'm not sure I understand.

How do we gain a memory of an object if all we perceive are memories of objects? When I hold a coffee mug, I am directly interacting with a coffee mug, and nothing shows that this mug is a memory.

I am curious as to what kind of perspective you are comparing the human perspective to, that you find the human perspective limited?