Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:38 am**

can we consider a language barrier as a potential? I won't get a joke if I don't understand the language, or even know a joke is being told, heh!. "jibber-jabber"

Or maybe it's just too "noisy"? Perhaps the universe speaks at such a whisper that you must use all of your senses just to hear it, much less "get it"? This indeed requires "serious" effort.

(those questions earlier were indeed intended more as "statements", --A, how observant!

)

(Go Rin No Sho, anyone?)

Polish the twofold spirit heart and mind, and sharpen the twofold gaze perception and sight. When your spirit is not in the least clouded, when the clouds of bewilderment clear away, there is the true void....
....By knowing things that exist, you can know that which does not exist. That is the void....

It's reality is actual in the only way that counts...that we perceive it.

better

Since my interpretation is subjective (faulty and incomplete), I prefer pure perception of Reality. Pure perception is obtained by complete removal of interpretation.

The spirit of a warrior is not geared to indulging and complaining, nor is it geared to winning or losing. The spirit of a warrior is geared only to struggle, and every struggle is a warrior’s last battle on earth. Thus the outcome matters very little to him. In his last battle on earth a warrior lets his spirit flow free and clear. And as he wages his battle, knowing that his intent is impeccable, a warrior laughs and laughs. Don Juan Matus

sounds easy.....

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:02 am**

No one seriously doubts this reality. Even Descartes was bluffing. To doubt the reality of this world we share is inauthentic. However, to question it with the aim to highlight the very reality you pretend to question is "philosophy." There's a very fine line.

We definitely do not have the entire picture. Quantum mechanics is bridging the divide between philosphy and physics. I believe that reality is much more inter-subjective than either subjective or objective. I do not think we truly understand what "physical" means. I think it means something much more like what people mean by "spiritual." But this doesn't mean that I believe in the supernatural--just that I think that what is actually natural would freak a lot of people out if they truly looked at reality head-on. Shrooms seem to help.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:24 am**

The Esmer wrote:Since my interpretation is subjective (faulty and incomplete), I prefer pure perception of Reality. Pure perception is obtained by complete removal of interpretation.

Our perception is as faulty and subjective as our interpretation.

Malik, what do you mean by inter-subjective as opposed to plain subjective? Consensual hallucination?

--A

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:41 am**

The Esmer wrote:Our perception is only as faulty and subjective as our interpretation is.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:28 am**

Or our interpretation is as faulty as our perception? Again, I don't see much of a difference. Perception and interpretation are interdependant.

--A

Posted: **Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:29 am**

Interdependant, yes, but only where interpretation is concerned. If they are indeed seperate, then they can be seperated. You need to perceive to interpret, but you do not need to interpret to perceive.

(good points, Malik23!

)

Posted: **Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:55 am**

You think that hallucinogens help you perceive without interpreting? Fwiw I think they make you interpret the perceived differently. If this way is completely different from the way you normally interpret input, you may trick yourself into thinking that you perception is free of interpretation, while it is really just interpreted differently.

Posted: **Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:15 am**

no, i was just complimenting Malik on his pov.

shrooms alter your interpretation because they interfere with your normal sensory input, and alter your interpretation. This is a physical matter, one of the mind, which does the interpreting. Alter the mind, alter the interpretation, perception appears distorted. Pure perception is free from any influence of any kind, especially the mind. Their is a peculiar conundrum, and it is "knowledge without thought". The idea that awareness and perception exist independently of the mind and the eyes, and suggests neither the mind or the eyes are required to apprehend reality. How can one talk about knowledge without thought? No thoughts, no words, no discussion. heh. That is why one cannot describe what one perceives when one is not interpreting.

Posted: **Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:28 am**

Aah, we may be getting somewhere here...pure perception is free of any interpretation...but then are we capable of pure perception?

--A

Posted: **Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:24 am**

pure perception is self truth...impossible to share, explain, justify or prove.

Posted: **Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:55 am**

Avatar wrote:Aah, we may be getting somewhere here...pure perception is free of any interpretation...but then are we capable of pure perception?

--A

covenantparadox wrote:pure perception is self truth...impossible to share, explain, justify or prove.

pure perception is perception reduced to it's very essence, or "irreducible residue", and is exactly, purely, the same for everyone. Therefore, if we employ perception in "equal measure" to the "perceivable" as it exists, we become "equal to everything", and "everything is equal". If everything is equal, there can be no variation.

Perception is a force, a "tool" if you will, that exists of itself in the universe, we merely "employ" it. If we do not "distort" "reality", by "interpreting" it, it remains pure, and unchanged, and therefore it is:

The Esmer wrote: "Reality" as "it is", as perceived "as itself."

One can choose to limit reality to the boundaries of their interpretations, or one may choose to observe reality to the limits of perception itself.

Reality as a subjective experience will naturally differ, and suffer, because it is interpreted and described by the individual perceiver, who is the one "distorting" their perception, by interpreting and describing it by applying "suppositions of reasonableness", or "logical assumptions", based on "personal observations", or "individual interpretations" drawn from "limited knowledge", to attempt to explain, or "describe", that which they cannot interpret, or define, but only perceive, or observe, or discover, "The Meaning", or "Intent". This does not imply "conscious thought", but merely "discoverable cause", "observable impetus", or "obvious intent".

Something "Truly Obvious", in the absolute strictest sense of the words, (as all "words" are in this "hypothesis", or at least in the strictest sense as defined), cannot be disagreed upon, or "misinterpreted". Because of this "rule", it also cannot be described, but can be "agreed upon".

The "real" "Reality" exists "below", or "behind", or "within" the "subjective reality", if you will, or simply the observation of the "fabric of the universe", or "underlying structure", or "energy matrix", and the "Indescribable Force" that "commands it", or "Intends" it, to remain in constant motion and change, or "creation and death".

This "Reality" exists without us, and were all perceivers to "cease to exist",

"Reality" would not, and "Perception" would remain for anything to "employ" it,
provided "Reality" then "supplies" new "perceivers".

Reality can exist without perceivers, but cannot exist without perception.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:57 am**

But are we capable of it? I can see what you're saying about the underlying structure of the reality our perceptions create for us, but I'm not convinced that it is possible for humans to strip away those filters and "see things as they truly are...infinite."

Our distortion of "reality" seems inbuilt, automatic, and inescapable.

--A

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:05 am**

Our fellow men are black magicians. And whoever is with them is a black magician on the spot. Think for a moment, can you deviate from the path that your fellow men have lined up for you? And if you remain with them, your thoughts and your actions are fixed forever in their terms. That is slavery. The warrior, on the other hand, is free from all that. Freedom is expensive, but the price is not impossible to pay. So, fear your captors, your masters. Don't waste your time and your power fearing freedom.

Internal dialogue supports and reinforces the world as we live it. If we stop talking to ourselves, we are able to perceive without influence of the ME, self importance.

Language cannot describe seeing, so we do not even know it exists.

We are bound by the syntax of language. Once we stop the internal dialogue we are not bound by syntax - our awareness is open to the perceptions of infinity.

sustainedaction.org/_nagualist/_NNL5/the_threshold_of_seeing.htm

would you allow me to "interpret" that for you?

We "perceive Intent" when we "intend Perception".

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:30 am**

I can't tell if you're disagreeing with, agreeing with, or avoiding my question/point.

--A

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:45 am**

Avatar wrote:Our distortion of "reality" seems inbuilt, automatic, and inescapable.

--A

Internal silence, "not-interpreting", or "not-doing"

,is the escape. Distortion is "interpretation", or "internal dialogue", and is inbuilt, and automatic, but not "beyond control". One simply "intends" "internal silence" and one then "perceives Intent". All "higher" religions have this one factor in common, which lends "credibility" thru "synonymity".

And all you have to do to "prove it", --A, is to "do it", "intend it". The same goes for "everyone".

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:53 am**

The Esmer wrote:Reality can exist without perceivers, but cannot exist without perception.

Are you hinting, that reality is not physical? I hope you are, otherwise the above line makes no sense.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:05 am**

The very presence of the "physical" is what demands that it exists without the "perceptor". But that it is "there" also demands that it is "perceivable". But the "essence" of "everything" is "energy", which is not "physical" but "non-material property capable of causing changes in matter", or "Intent".

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:20 am**

You're still losing me with "intent," Esmer.
IMHO, "non-material property capable of causing changes in matter" is not "intent." Does the rain intend to flood the rivers? Does it intend to water the plants? Does a hurricane intend to destroy coastal communities? Does the sun intend to warm the Earth? Does fire intend to burn a home?
Energy does not require intent to "cause changes in matter," IMO.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:23 am**

"Intent" is not "conscious thought", although your "language syntax" demands it.
Some "force", or "energy", or "non-material property capable of causing changes in matter",
"makes", or "is required by", all of what you mentioned to "happen".

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:03 pm**

You sound like you've been visiting the Sentecenter.

That's pretty much their definition. They separate awareness into two categories: The General Awareness category, and the Conscious Awareness category. OK. Maybe. But they go further by saying we exist as two separate entites, our phsical entity, and our energy entity, and there's where they lose me.
BTW--the site appeared in a searched list for "intent," and seeing as how the snippet in the search resembled your idea, I chose to go there.
(Go to the homepage and read the title. I think you'll get a laugh!

)

Kevin's Watch

Philosophical Subject of the Moment