It's only Us

All phenomena get meaning solely when they are defined. And all phenomena are defined by Us. It’s only Us. If I push the definition of Self aiming to include all of "creation" inside it, and if I push the Real to infinity, all I am doing is that I just created my own theology. How could ever this theology, or any other, be something else but merely an idea born out of the human mind alone?

Nothing Holy
😵

So we are all part of the One, and when we realize this fully we realize that it is not One but Zero

(my words are failing me dear beetle, however I will continue, especially if you guys keep inspiring me through this bizarre adventure that is the SF !! bear in mind this is my first online forum experience, and despite having been on here for about 18 months, I am still woking out the nuances and workings of conversing online. Its still a blast for me😵 )

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So we are all part of the One, and when we realize this fully we realize that it is not One but Zero

(my words are failing me dear beetle, however I will continue, especially if you guys keep inspiring me through this bizarre adventure that is the SF !! bear in mind this is my first online forum experience, and despite having been on here for about ...[text shortened]... am still woking out the nuances and workings of conversing online. Its still a blast for me😵 )

If the unconditioned (abstract) reality is indeed the purest realism, it cannot be "realized" because it is not represented by an external form; this is the reason why it is said: "If you use your mind in order to study (the unconditioned/ abstract) reality, you will understand neither (the nature of) your mind nor (the unconditioned) reality"
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
All phenomena get meaning solely when they are defined. And all phenomena are defined by Us.

I think those claims are false. But I could be misunderstanding what you mean by 'meaning' and what you mean by 'defined', and maybe even what you mean by 'us'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think those claims are false. But I could be misunderstanding what you mean by 'meaning' and what you mean by 'defined', and maybe even what you mean by 'us'.

A landscape is a phenomenon that is defined as such solely by us, and its definition is used in order to ease us to talk about a specific state of the nature. However the word “landscape” itself is not the factual landscape because it merely depicts a specific state of our mind that represents the factual landscape.
I argue that both landscapes (the factual and our definition) are representational, because both the sensorimotor worldspace and the mental worldspace are real and existing landscapes
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
If the unconditioned (abstract) reality is indeed the purest realism, it cannot be "realized" because it is not represented by an external form; this is the reason why it is said: "If you use your mind in order to study (the unconditioned/ abstract) reality, you will understand neither (the nature of) your mind nor (the unconditioned) reality"
😵

Yes, I've given up trying to consciously "study reality" . The intellectual abstractions can only take you so far, however some "phantom mechanisms" in my mind are still playing out a "game" that I know it cannot "win".🙂

The left brain/intellectual side of my thinking has its place, but it does not rule the vehicle anymore..

Originally posted by black beetle
A landscape is a phenomenon that is defined as such solely by us, and its definition is used in order to ease us to talk about a specific state of the nature. However the word “landscape” itself is not the factual landscape because it merely depicts a specific state of our mind that represents the factual landscape.
I argue that both landscapes (the fa ...[text shortened]... both the sensorimotor worldspace and the mental worldspace are real and existing landscapes
😵

I disagree. 'Landscape' is merely a word we use to describe a real phenomena. Of course the word 'landscape' is not the factual landscape anymore than any other noun is the object it describes.

An animal or computer can see a landscape whether we exist or not. Whether they use the word 'landscape' is hardly relevant.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. 'Landscape' is merely a word we use to describe a real phenomena. Of course the word 'landscape' is not the factual landscape anymore than any other noun is the object it describes.

An animal or computer can see a landscape whether we exist or not. Whether they use the word 'landscape' is hardly relevant.

Edit: " 'Landscape' is merely a word we use to describe a real phenomena."

Yes, therefore we define only a specific phenomenon as "landscape" by means of using this word only. This is what I meant when I said it is Us the ones who define the phenomena. The phenomena are themselves undefined pior we define them;

Edit: "Of course the word 'landscape' is not the factual landscape anymore than any other noun is the object it describes."

Yes. However, the notion "landscape" in your mind and in my mind is the map of the factual landscape and therefore it is real (although it is not the territory), but in another realm of existence and not in the environment (in the World 1, according to Popper). Popper would further affirm that the notion "landscape" (in our minds) is fully existent in the World 3, ie in the world of our ideas
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
All phenomena get meaning solely when they are defined. And all phenomena are defined by Us. It’s only Us. If I push the definition of Self aiming to include all of "creation" inside it, and if I push the Real to infinity, all I am doing is that I just created my own theology. How could ever this theology, or any other, be something else but merely an idea born out of the human mind alone?

Nothing Holy
😵

This post and ensuing discussions are very interesting. Some very significant sub posts could be had...

-the difference between brain and mind.

-the neuro-chemical basis of human perception, as well as the modes of perception of other forms of life. These are often very different , in which case which perceived world is more "real"?

The use of language and definitions. Language is a product of mind, and like a feedback mechanism it often reinforces how we (as mind) perceive things.

Is something real because you see it, knock into it etc?

A phenomena is certainly perceived, but current science indicates a lot of "unreality" about it too, such as relatively enormous spaces (99.8 per cent) between nucleus and electrons, as well as the now very furry nature of what an atom or electron actually is. Some accounts see them as simply "forces" working together.
But what is the basis of these "forces" and through what medium do they interrelate?

Anyway, here is an apropros question you have probably heard before, that I think helps us to think about "reality" and mind...

If a tree falls in a forest with nothing to hear it, does it make a sound?

I maintain it doesn't. No sound at all.

Originally posted by Taoman
This post and ensuing discussions are very interesting. Some very significant sub posts could be had...

-the difference between brain and mind.

-the neuro-chemical basis of human perception, as well as the modes of perception of other forms of life. These are often very different , in which case which perceived world is more "real"?

The use of langua ...[text shortened]... nothing to hear it, does it make a sound?

I maintain it doesn't. No sound at all.

If I never had a brainnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

Ohhhhhhhhh what a world this would be!

I mean, if I ~NEVER~ used some stupid carnal concept, that being ignorance..

One GRAND day, all will ~AWAKE~ that we are ~tapped to the MAIN FRAME~ sorta speak.. LOVE

Originally posted by Taoman
This post and ensuing discussions are very interesting. Some very significant sub posts could be had...

-the difference between brain and mind.

-the neuro-chemical basis of human perception, as well as the modes of perception of other forms of life. These are often very different , in which case which perceived world is more "real"?

The use of langua ...[text shortened]... nothing to hear it, does it make a sound?

I maintain it doesn't. No sound at all.

Edit: "If a tree falls in a forest with nothing to hear it, does it make a sound?"



The foal galloped uncontrolled, its rider in disbelief
😵

"One GRAND day, all will ~AWAKE~ that we are ~tapped to the MAIN FRAME~ sorta speak.. LOVE"

We are the "Mainframe", awake right now, its all ok.

"....and when we realize this fully we realize that it is not One but Zero"

When a reference is made to this "zero" or "emptiness, the prime significance is that we are at the last unable to define it, 'It' is neither One nor is 'It' zero, but strangely in a sense both, but that is not quite correct either.
But the essence of it is to cease defining anything ultimately (but it is of course ok relatively, for living purposes), to cease mental comparisons and categories, and allow it simply to be or not be.

This existence is "one" in the sense that all is linked and interdependent on all else, it is empty or zero in the sense that what 'It' is cannot be grasped or bounded, and in the sense that for instance, light cannot be defined without darkness. One must simply let go and float with this Thusness, allow this "Emptiness" to speak of its own way and time. It contains all, even the concept of mystery...It is a wonderful infinitely unfolding Mystery and "God" will ever be a mystery unto "Himself" (in theistic personification).

By the way, it is not necessary to spend long years in meditation in a cave or become a person of unstainable purity or spiritual magnificence to see this. It is available to all at every moment. Our "self" is a construct, that like a body, is required to exist in this manifested way. But ultimately we too are this Emptiness.
Clinging to things like a "self" or a "doctrine" or "a cause" gets in the way, even though all these things are natural and at times helpful in human life.

Life is there each day, out of whatever "empty" event occurs to this "empty" self, let the drama unfold and the challenges and joys be met and happiness obtained.

Forgive my poor words, they are but a stumbling pointing.

Originally posted by Taoman
When a reference is made to this "zero" or "emptiness, the prime significance is that we are at the last unable to define it, 'It' is neither One nor is 'It' zero, but strangely in a sense both, but that is not quite correct either.
But the essence of it is to cease defining anything ultimately (but it is of course ok relatively, for living purposes), to ce ...[text shortened]... ained.

Forgive my poor words, they are but a stumbling pointing.

The foal rides hell for leather all the way up the stream, its rider eyeing the gateless gate😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes, therefore we define only a specific phenomenon as "landscape" by means of using this word only. This is what I meant when I said it is Us the ones who define the phenomena. The phenomena are themselves undefined pior we define them;

And I disagree that the word 'landscape' is what enables me to understand the concept, or observe it. It is only the word I use when trying to communicate that concept to you. I can observe a landscape and enjoy its beauty without having a word to describe it, and without knowing a single word of English. I do not need to define it, and the phenomena does not need to be defined to exist.