Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

Federica
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Federica »

Cleric K wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 10:15 pm
Federica wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 11:22 pm Well, I see a clear difference between thinking and willing (as it’s called here) on one hand, and feeling on the other.
What I am trying to say is that love, gratitude, seem to be part of the fabric of the universe, like an omnipresent grace. In our most ideal state we should be constantly able to feel these, for everything and everyone, not because we produce the feelings but because we are open to them, and so we nourish them and relay them to others, to ourselves and to the world.


By the way, we will and think very specific and peculiar gestures that are extremely differentiated, especially thinking, whilst we simply ‘feel gratitude’. There seems to be only one gratitude. When I feel grateful I haven't cooked the gratitude, like I am cooking and serving these thoughts right here, I have simply accessed it, by seeing it, by being open to it. But the opportunity for feeling grateful was there regardless. The opportunity for gratitude is everywhere. Not that this openness does not require much work to be enabled and maintained. But the work is not on gratitude. It’s not about finding the recipe to make it from within ourselves. It's on openness to gratitude. As soon as we are able to see it, gratitude embraces us. Love is the same.


This soul plumbing work is certainly under our responsibility, I speak from experience, I have been working hard on that. On it depends the openness that allows us to feel gratitude and love and to relay them - on it also depends our ability to disconnect us from infective negative feelings relayed by others, so we can help them heal instead of being captured by their same ailment.
When these exact same plumbing skills allow us to relate to others in a way that stops the spreading chains of negative feelings, replacing them with graceful ones, we say that forgiveness has happened.
Hi Federica,

I would like to explore together with you two things.

The first is related to the fact that, as you say, we don't cook the feeling, we don't create the water. We can really see this more clearly in thinking and then move on to feeling.

If we're very precise in our inner observations it wouldn't be quite truthful to say that we create out of ourselves the perceptions of the thoughts. In certain sense they are something independent. As you say, we feel involved in the thought but then we see how its tail recedes away as a memory picture. If we're careful we can't say that we somehow produced the 'substance' of this memory picture ourselves. We would be much less pretentious if we simply say "Somehow my thinking gestures, my willful weaving in meaning, becomes impressed in the field of consciousness (the World Content), like a seal becomes impressed in wax. I don't perceive the seal because it is the invisible meaning that fills my being as pure intuition. I only perceive the effects of this weaving in meaning, which are reflected in the 'substance' of the World Content". Of course all this should be grasped as imaginative artform expressing first-person living experience, and not as some theoretical model of the mind. I believe that you have no problem with this kind of inner expressing, as you've already showed. The same can't be said about others who simply can't see words like this as living testimonies for inner realities. Instead they try to imagine some floating seal and some wax and say "Well, that's a nice theory but such a seal and wax are nowhere to be found in my experience."

So we've established that our inner experience justifies us to differentiate between what we do through our spiritual gesticulation in meaning, and the perceptual effects in the World Content. In a similar sense but about feeling, you say that what we invisibly do with our spiritual activity as plumbing is different from what we perceive as feeling atmosphere in the World Content. And that's quite correct in the exactly same sense as it is about thinking. But we should also be aware that there's a potential trap here. I tried to illustrate this in the Central Topic series with the hysteresis image, where the meaning that we think most of the time is about something which is not the thinking itself. We think about the weather, the dog, the table but the wax impressions of these thoughts do not directly reflect anything back about the fact that there's a thinking process which impresses them. That's why we say that thinking is in the blind spot almost all of the time. When we do something like the vowels exercise or we simply move a light dot in our imagination and try to feel as closely as possible how the thought-tails reflect our inner activity, then we become conscious of the fact that the wax impressions are not only about the vowels or the light dot but also about the living process that impresses them. This was metaphorically illustrated as the hysteresis process spiraling into unity - meaningful intent and reflection come together. Of course, this unity is not perfect. We can still clearly distinguish between the meaningful gesture and the impression. So we still have no right to say that we create the wax out of ourselves.

That's all good. But the abovementioned trap is that if we overemphasize this differentiation, we practically forcefully open the hysteresis again. We want to emphasize the distinction and say "These thought perceptions have nothing to do with the activity I'm performing, they are of completely different nature. What I innerly do doesn't look like the thought perceptions. What I do is the plumbing in meaning. This only creates the circumstances for the thought to be perceived." And as said, this is technically correct but let's ask ourselves for example: what do I do if I want to think the sound 'aaaaa'? Do we find ourselves doing some plumbing which has nothing to do with the sound 'a', yet we perceive precisely that sound? As an exaggerated example, do we try to weave in the meaning of, say, a circle in order to hear the sound 'a'? Or when we want to hear 'a' we simply think 'a'?

My point here is to guard against inserting abstract fillers between our gesticulating in meaning and the perceptions, in order to emphasize how unrelated the two sides are. While this is exaggerated in the case of thinking, it is much easier to be taken as a matter of course in feeling. The reason is that feelings are elusive for the average person of today. Most people can hardly, for example, summon (this is the inner gesture) the actual feeling of joy. In theory it seems logical to be able to do so. If we can will the impression of the sound 'a' with our activity, why shouldn't it be possible to will something which reflects to us as the actual atmosphere of joy? Yet this doesn't seem to happen for the average person. They might be able to summon a vague degree of the feeling, through the inner gesture of trying to remember how joy feels like, but most people wouldn't be able to intensify this feeling to the degree that it fills the soul content. This is not limited only to feelings. If we close our eyes and try to remember how red looks like as vividly as possible, most people wound barely see anything. Please note that even though we say "try to remember" the goal is actually to fill our soul with the quality of redness through and through. Remembering speaks only about the fact that we try to utilize an inner degree of freedom of our spirit. That's why I spoke about memories as creating new degrees of freedom. For example, if we want to remember how green feels like, we'll have to exercise a different degree of freedom. Somehow we know what 'button' to press with our spirit in order to summon the quality of redness or the quality of greenness. What about remembering that color which we have never seen in our life? We don't have the 'button' for that yet, we don't have the degree of freedom. If at some point we behold the quality of that exotic color, then we'll also attain to a new degree of freedom, new 'button', through which we'll know what to innerly do if we want to remember that color and once again fill our soul space with its quality (even if very dimly). If we have extraordinarily vivid imagination then we might be able to remember colors with such intensity that they feel no different that a color impressed through the senses or in a dream. The same holds true for feelings too. Through spiritual training we can increase the vividness of this 'remembering' tremendously.

Now everything we said about the plumbing and the perceived effects still holds. My goal here is only to protect from the trap to imagine that our inner activity is bound to remain completely dissimilar from the actual feeling. It's true that this holds true for feeling to a greater extent than in thoughts. If we want to think about a dog we simply think about a dog. It makes no sense to say "I want to think about a dog but I can't", because we already thought about it by saying this. With feelings we have one more level of indirection. When we first experienced joy in our life it was possible to condense the feeling into the concept of joy. Now the word 'joy' (or we could use a gesture, picture, color, etc.) symbolizes the feeling of joy. It is a holographic token. As we saw, it is easy to remember the token. We simply have to think about it. To remember also the feeling of which the token is conceptual condensation, we need much greater inner strength. If we have that strength innately or we gain it through training then we can not only remember the concept (the token) but also fill our soul space with the quality of joy.

Of course, in order to attain to that strength, we need a lot of plumbing, which, as you say, may have no immediate relation to joy. We may need to develop our ability to concentrate, to let go of some habits, recurring feelings and so on. All of these are hinderances for our ability to remember joy with great intensity. But when the path is cleared and we've gained the strength, it no longer makes sense to say for example "If I want to remember joy, I have to do some completely different plumbing, I have to remember, say, pain". No, if we want to remember and fill our soul with joy we need to focus directly on it, just like when we want to fill our soul with the sound 'a' we focus our thinking directly on it. I repeat that the distinction between the inner gesture of summoning the feeling of joy and the actual feeling of joy is still valid. It's not like we produce joy out of ourselves, just like we don't produce the wax of thought perceptions, yet we certainly have a role in bringing it forward. As you said previously, we can imagine that these feelings are embedded in the background of existence but most of the time our inner atmosphere interferes destructively with them and they seem non-existent. In this sense yes - summoning joy is really manipulating the interference pattern such that joy can come forward and fill the soul. The point, though, is that once we have advanced with the preparatory plumbing, which truly may seem unrelated to joy, then in the end our final summoning gesture can really be called 'filling our soul with joy'. In other words, once we have gained the inner strength, our final action should focus directly on joy in order to lift it from the infinite potential, and not in some other direction.

Of course there are many things for one to object here. It can be said that joy, even if we can remember it with great intensity such that it practically happens to us at the moment, is not 'real' joy because we ourselves bring it forward. Real joy should come only externally, otherwise we're 'cheating'. Well, we can talk a lot about these things too but my example with joy is once again arbitrary. We can substitute it with any other feeling.

As a side note, we can say that when we speak of will we have even one more layer of indirection. If I want to move my arm, first I can most easily summon the concept of moving hand. This is only the token. Then, if I have the inner strength I can imagine/remember quite vividly how hand movement feels like. I can move my imaginary hand. But then I need even greater strength if this imagination has to intensify to the level of what we call the 'outer' world. So our inner world has few rings (they are not really rings, they all fill the entirety of inner space and are superimposed, but let's call them rings). The most pliable is the ring where thoughts are impressed in the sound, color, etc. 'substance'. Then we have the ring of more substantial feelings which require greater inner strength to move. And finally we have the ring of the sensory spectrum which requires third level of strength. All these rings together form the spectrum of inner world as it metamorphoses from 'frame to frame' and we can be active in this metamorphosis by working in the three rings.

As usual the post turned out quite long so I'll leave the second topic for a separate writing. Please excuse any writing errors above because I'm already quite sleepy and don't have the energy to go through the text once more.

I was too optimistic, what I’ve written so far is not stable. Thinking and feeling as described don’t come easily to me so I have to constantly nudge myself back into your words, trying to consolidate the ideas every time. And that was before I read the last part on summoning joy and the three circles. I have to let it settle a little longer so hopefully I can spare you at least some of the worst. Thank you for this whole-picture overview.
Federica
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Federica »

Cleric K wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:24 pm
Now on second thought, in case I'm getting nearer, I think it will be more appropriate to tackle this core issue directly. Otherwise, what I was about to write in the second part would probably remain misplaced.

If you prefer, you can first say whether the first part above makes sense.

Next, I think it will be the best if you try to explicate more about the state outside of time in the way you experience it. Few core points to consider are:
* Are you talking about the timeless state as something that can only be asymptotically approached? Or it is a state for which we can say upon return "I experienced that timeless state, I was 'there'."
* If the state can really be experienced, can we (our thinking being) have consciousness of it at all? Think about duration. If that state was completely timeless, shouldn't it be impossible to recall of ever experiencing it? Everything that we can claim to have experienced, when looked back upon, can be conceived as a scene within the stream of metamorphosis of our first-person World state. If the timeless scene we're talking about was truly timeless, wouldn't it look from the perspective of our thinking self, as a zero-length blink of an eye? I don't know at what circumstances you experience the timeless state but most probably it is some kind of meditation. Probably when looking back on the experience you can say that it began some time after you began meditating and ended upon your return to normal cognition. Even though while the mystical state lasted, time and space didn't exist for you, as you look back you can say, as contradictory as it may sound, that this state of non-existence of time, lasted for certain amount of time. If that was not the case you shouldn't be able to tell that you have gone through the experience. It should feel as a missing segment of memory - you closed your eyes for meditation at one position of the wall clock and then when you opened them the clock was at t+10 minutes. As far as your thinking self is concerned, it was blinking of the eyes, except that together with the blink the clock jumped 10 minutes forward. Please note that this is not the case even in deep dreamless sleep. When we wake up we may not remember anything but we certainly feel that we have spent time sleeping. That is, the only thing we remember from the night is the dark duration of the sleep. Otherwise, our falling to sleep and waking up would be like blinking of the eyes, except that after the blink the clock would have moved and the Sun would be up.

I hope it's clear what is at hand here. Can we really experience absolutely timeless state and still have consciousness that we have gone through that state?

I emphasize that all interest is entirely in the first person experience. That is, we seek the timeless state as something of which we can speak from direct experience, and not as some theoretical model held by the intellect.


On second thought, I will answer this first, it seems more straightforward.
Cleric, I tried to explain before that I don’t have mystical tendencies or aspirations but obviously I haven’t been convincing.
I don’t go about my day saying to myself: nice here I have one spare hour let me sit down and have a timeless meditation. I don’t experience ‘states outside time’. If for this reason the intuitions about time that I was trying to convey are to be labeled abstractions, then be it. I don’t think they are, to the extent that they don’t come from blowing soapy idea-bubbles into a geometrical space and then playing around arranging and connecting them in a way that’s satisfactory in some sense. I do make a constant effort to stay close to experience. But intuitions cannot be experiences, or can they? Is a thought experiment an abstraction?


Anyway I will try to explicate. I mean there is not too much more to explicate, other than what I wrote before. As I said, I am not good at quilting intuitions together, and if this is childish, be it, but hopefully not as childish as to believe that I can sit down, meditate a bit, take the door out of spacetime, then get back on planet Earth in time for afternoon tea, and later come to this forum with my travel report. Makes me think, I should probably also mention I don’t take and never took drugs/prescription drugs. What else…


But it’s a good exercise, I will try to collect the fragments of change in the way I look at time that I brought into my life experience over the last, say two years. I used to have a conventional, default comprehension of time, until I realized - of course in connection with other spiritual or philosophical inquiries - how much we stretch and lose ourselves in furious, useless back and forth mental rushes in the future and in the past, in connection with other detrimental thoughts and matching feelings. It’s an enormous fuss we kick up then spend ridiculous amounts of energy maintaining. As I realized we actually have the freedom to not entertain that fuss which only lives in thought space. So if we bring our focus and intent back to the now - not as a short moment in time, but as the felt experience that doesn’t exist when we go to the past or to the future in thinking - we can find interesting degrees of control at our disposal.
Sticking to experience not only means ‘let’s stay away from abstraction’ it also means ‘this right now is the only state we can really have a grip on', instead of dispersing ourselves fantasizing about past or future, indulging in making up something unreal and then doing as if it was real (and here I guess you would object: thinking is creating a reality, and ok, I shall reconsider all this reflection in this light, but here I am trying to report my status of insights at the moment I entered this forum).


Anyway in this intent to limit conceptual and emotional dispersion along the time dimension I have found much stability and strength. My life has improved so there must be some value in it. And asymptotically, as you say, I did find a benefit in trying to apply myself to stabilize the mind’s tendency to rush everywhere by becoming still and focusing on sense perceptions. The way I try to keep thought/time at bay in these moments is by trying to disconnect the content of sensory perception from concepts. Trying to get directly to the content, without processing it and packaging it up into a sealed idea with a name-tag. I apply myself to refrain from labeling through language and refrain from compartmentalizing perception, applying arbitrary contours to objects, and I know you would object it’s impossible, but something along these lines must be possible, because I do see there is a tightness that can be loosened up there, with benefit, in terms of an increased sense of control, and enjoyment, and also gratitude. I don’t follow any specific instructions, I have been reading and listening to a few. I have found some compelling for a while, but then there’s been a pattern of growing doubtful and critical and after a while searching further.


That’s about it. Here you can paste that ‘last paragraph’ that you and Ashvin liked, plus the thought memory tails and what not and there you have it, that’s where I am when it comes to my current understanding of time.
Federica
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Federica »

Reading again what I wrote this morning: 'As I said, I am not good at quilting intuitions together, and if this is childish, be it, but hopefully not as childish as to believe that I can sit down, meditate a bit, take the door out of spacetime, then get back on planet Earth in time for afternoon tea, and later come to this forum with my travel report.' it occurs to me that it could be read like I am saying that you are childish. In case anyone read it this way, please know that what I meant is: 'if this is childish be it, but hopefully I am not childish to the point that I believe...'
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 2021
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Federica wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:32 pm Reading again what I wrote this morning: 'As I said, I am not good at quilting intuitions together, and if this is childish, be it, but hopefully not as childish as to believe that I can sit down, meditate a bit, take the door out of spacetime, then get back on planet Earth in time for afternoon tea, and later come to this forum with my travel report.' it occurs to me that it could be read like I am saying that you are childish. In case anyone read it this way, please know that what I meant is: 'if this is childish be it, but hopefully I am not childish to the point that I believe...'
For what it's worth, I didn't read it that way ... I'm just grateful that you started, or at least revived and extended an interesting thread, and then actually participated in it !
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Federica
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Federica »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:51 pm For what it's worth, I didn't read it that way ... I'm just grateful that you started, or at least revived and extended an interesting thread, and then actually participated in it !
: )
Thank you so much, Shu !
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 2021
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Federica wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 1:35 pm
Soul_of_Shu wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:51 pm For what it's worth, I didn't read it that way ... I'm just grateful that you started, or at least revived and extended an interesting thread, and then actually participated in it !
: )
Thank you so much, Shu !
Just a brief aside ... it's interesting how language works: when we notice the distinction we tend to make between the connotation of 'childish' and 'childlike', with the former usually taken to be belittling, while the latter can be taken to be a desirable quality, as in "Unless we become like a child again, one cannot enter the Kingdom" ... so perhaps we all can aspire to be more childlike.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1007
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Cleric K »

Thank you, Federica! All this makes it much more clear to me.
Federica wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:56 am The way I try to keep thought/time at bay in these moments is by trying to disconnect the content of sensory perception from concepts. Trying to get directly to the content, without processing it and packaging it up into a sealed idea with a name-tag.
Actually I wrote quite a long post (again!) but decided that I don't want to overwhelm you. Plus you're responding in several threads so time is limited. I'll try to focus on something particular and hopefully the other things will be addressed consequently.

Let's look again at what you call 'the content' at which we're getting directly, without any processing. I'll return you to the example of the baby raised in a dark cellar and years later brought in Nature.

Here materialists are somewhat more objective than many idealists because they would say "The fact that I'm not processing the perceptions through trains of intellectual thought doesn't mean that there isn't subconscious processing. This explains why I and the baby from the cellar would have very different experiences of Nature. Even though I'm not doing anything intellectually, through all my life I've been thinking about perceptions and I've engrained grooves and channels in my psyche which now completely effortlessly add meaning to my field of consciousness. The child hasn't gone through such process and thus it is faced with a blooming confusion of completely unknown sense stimuli."

What is your take on this? Please be aware that I'm not trying to point you away from this contemplative state that you have found so valuable. It's quite the opposite. Not only that I'm also pointing you at it but am also hinting that we can continue going through it, as if going through a pinhole and turning reality inside out in the process.

The point here is to see how you feel about it. Whether you admit as a possibility that quieting down thinking is a prerequisite but in itself doesn't at all guarantee that the content we now behold is necessarily the ground truth of reality. If our normal human development leads to the point that instead of storm of sensations, as the cellar child would face, we behold the soothing natural landscape with birds, flowers, streams and so on, then could it be possible that through even additional work on our inner plumbing we can have quite different intuition about the contents of reality?

This may look like an insignificant question but it actually makes a world of difference. In one case we behold the world of perceptions and see them as something finished, complete in themselves, untainted by us. A color is a color, a feeling is a feeling, that's it. But what if all our perceptions are really holes in our intuition? Holes which in the course of development will be filled with meaning? (for more on this you might want to see this post)
Federica
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Federica »

Cleric K wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:34 pm Thank you, Federica! All this makes it much more clear to me.
Federica wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:56 am The way I try to keep thought/time at bay in these moments is by trying to disconnect the content of sensory perception from concepts. Trying to get directly to the content, without processing it and packaging it up into a sealed idea with a name-tag.
Actually I wrote quite a long post (again!) but decided that I don't want to overwhelm you. Plus you're responding in several threads so time is limited. I'll try to focus on something particular and hopefully the other things will be addressed consequently.

Let's look again at what you call 'the content' at which we're getting directly, without any processing. I'll return you to the example of the baby raised in a dark cellar and years later brought in Nature.

Here materialists are somewhat more objective than many idealists because they would say "The fact that I'm not processing the perceptions through trains of intellectual thought doesn't mean that there isn't subconscious processing. This explains why I and the baby from the cellar would have very different experiences of Nature. Even though I'm not doing anything intellectually, through all my life I've been thinking about perceptions and I've engrained grooves and channels in my psyche which now completely effortlessly add meaning to my field of consciousness. The child hasn't gone through such process and thus it is faced with a blooming confusion of completely unknown sense stimuli."

What is your take on this? Please be aware that I'm not trying to point you away from this contemplative state that you have found so valuable. It's quite the opposite. Not only that I'm also pointing you at it but am also hinting that we can continue going through it, as if going through a pinhole and turning reality inside out in the process.

The point here is to see how you feel about it. Whether you admit as a possibility that quieting down thinking is a prerequisite but in itself doesn't at all guarantee that the content we now behold is necessarily the ground truth of reality. If our normal human development leads to the point that instead of storm of sensations, as the cellar child would face, we behold the soothing natural landscape with birds, flowers, streams and so on, then could it be possible that through even additional work on our inner plumbing we can have quite different intuition about the contents of reality?

This may look like an insignificant question but it actually makes a world of difference. In one case we behold the world of perceptions and see them as something finished, complete in themselves, untainted by us. A color is a color, a feeling is a feeling, that's it. But what if all our perceptions are really holes in our intuition? Holes which in the course of development will be filled with meaning? (for more on this you might want to see this post)

Hi Cleric. I haven't forgotten my due reply to the ‘first part’. It’s taking time but more than by time I feel limited by my pace so I reluctantly agree it was a good idea to restrain the topic to one question!

The child would be born the day it comes out of the dark, in a sense, although with a lag between vision and hearing on one hand and all other perceptions on the other. (By the way, why not pick the example of a newborn baby?)

But to the core of your question, I do recognize that there is an implicit, instant meaning-making activity that can largely not be unlearnt. Maybe simply making that unlearning effort is beneficial. If I consider my case, where I am not very dedicated and assiduous with doing it regularly, also the simple fact of knowing that the exploration is available at any time and place is in itself beneficial, at least for the sake of feeling more appeased.

This image of pinhole occurred to me when I was reading your essay on time, trying to imagine the idea of asymptotic progression, I imagined that when progress starts to drag, the way out would be a way down, from horizontal into a pinhole...
I surely feel eager to start exploring the possibility that there is more to the content of reality than the world as I perceive it now and that it can be accessed through work. I realize that what I came up with so far is useful but also inconclusive.

Cleric I notice how you patiently acknowledge everything that can even remotely be acknowledged in what I say, and lightly adjust words and turns of the reasoning. Thank you.
Federica
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Federica »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:01 pm
Federica wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 1:35 pm
Soul_of_Shu wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:51 pm For what it's worth, I didn't read it that way ... I'm just grateful that you started, or at least revived and extended an interesting thread, and then actually participated in it !
: )
Thank you so much, Shu !
Just a brief aside ... it's interesting how language works: when we notice the distinction we tend to make between the connotation of 'childish' and 'childlike', with the former usually taken to be belittling, while the latter can be taken to be a desirable quality, as in "Unless we become like a child again, one cannot enter the Kingdom" ... so perhaps we all can aspire to be more childlike.
This is the type of nuances that don't come spontaneously to me in English, please keep sharing such insights if you feel inclined to do so!
Federica
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Nature of memory and time - Split from "Why do we reincarnate without memories"

Post by Federica »

Cleric K wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:34 pm In one case we behold the world of perceptions and see them as something finished, complete in themselves, untainted by us. A color is a color, a feeling is a feeling, that's it. But what if all our perceptions are really holes in our intuition? Holes which in the course of development will be filled with meaning? (for more on this you might want to see this post)
I hardly understand anything in that post. I will try reading the thread from the beginning.
Post Reply