Philosophical Speculations

lorenzop wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:52 pm This may be an example of symantics - for example I use the term thinking and perception as being of the same category, not as two different things . . .
I find the explanation of thinking\perceiving as an activity modulated by reality, I find this explanation more useful. More so than thinking\perceiving as plucking already existing thoughts\perceptions from an existing pool of thoughts. This latter explanation does not require a reality or environment - or if we pluck thoughts\perceptions from a pool, but this 'plucking' is modulated by a reality - then suggesting that the thoughts already exist (as spiritual beings or otherwise) doesn't really gain us anything.

What is the "reality" modulating thinking-perceiving, if it is not itself of a thinking nature?

No one has suggested there is a pool of thoughts anywhere. There isn't a pool of anything in reality. Such a pool implies a person can stand as a 3rd person spectator, observing a basket of thoughts, or anything else, as isolated objects somewhere apart from him. But there is no such perspective in reality, only in pure isolated abstraction. One must be adopting this perspective if anything that has been previously written was taken to suggest our thinking plucks thoughts from a 'pool of thoughts'.

lorenzop wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:52 pm This may be an example of symantics - for example I use the term thinking and perception as being of the same category, not as two different things . . .
I find the explanation of thinking\perceiving as an activity modulated by reality, I find this explanation more useful. More so than thinking\perceiving as plucking already existing thoughts\perceptions from an existing pool of thoughts. This latter explanation does not require a reality or environment - or if we pluck thoughts\perceptions from a pool, but this 'plucking' is modulated by a reality - then suggesting that the thoughts already exist (as spiritual beings or otherwise) doesn't really gain us anything.

I understand your stance to see thoughts and perceptions on the same plane. This makes it difficult to speak of thinking because, as you say, it all reduces to semantics. Let’s try another approach.

Some time ago you said that you can’t imagine things in your mind’s eye so most of the exercises given here are no option for you. But let’s try something else. I guess you won’t have any trouble focusing your attention on various objects in your surroundings. Do an experiment, pick a random point, say, the corner of the table, and hold your attention still at it for a few seconds, then move to another point. It’s not important what the object is – it acts only as an anchor point. Try to feel the act of focusing your attention itself.

Then, after you get a good feel for this, try with eyes closed and focus your attention at random points. The eyes are closed only to avoid distractions, there’s no need to conceive of some parallel imaginary space or anything like that. You are in the same room space. Think of it as if instead of closing your eyes, the lights simply go down. Then you focus your attention in the space where, for example, the chair should be, the table and so on. But this is only for reference. In reality you need not try to imagine anything at the points of focus. At the center of the experiment is the very act of pointing your ray of attention at various points in space. You can also try something more advanced like smoothly moving the focus of your attention in circular, spiral, rectangular, etc. paths.

Now if you really did this experiment I guess you would agree that what you experience is not thought/perception in the traditional sense. There isn’t any object that you try to focus on. No thought appears, neither do you pluck a thought out of some pool. All your experience is entirely within your willing of the movement of the focus of attention within empty space.

In your view, what would you call this thing that you’re doing? Is it some ‘playback’ of reality or there’s something more in it which has to be taken into account if we are to move towards a fuller experience of reality?

I interpret the phrase 'close the eyes' as withdraw the senses, meaning all the senses are no longer extended - so for myself, when closing the eyes, there is no longer any space. It's like deep sleep except the mind is still active.
So, with eyes closed, if asked to picture or imagine a family member, or pet, etc., I conjure an abstraction and give it a name. 'Give it a name' means I assign properties or attributes.
IOW, I begin with nothing, and spin/bootstrap this nothing into a something.

lorenzop wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:14 pm I interpret the phrase 'close the eyes' as withdraw the senses, meaning all the senses are no longer extended - so for myself, when closing the eyes, there is no longer any space. It's like deep sleep except the mind is still active.
So, with eyes closed, if asked to picture or imagine a family member, or pet, etc., I conjure an abstraction and give it a name. 'Give it a name' means I assign properties or attributes.
IOW, I begin with nothing, and spin/bootstrap this nothing into a something.

OK, Lorenzo, I don't see any reason to continue. You practically addressed nothing of the suggested experiment and the question. I also especially tried to circumvent the 'close eyes' problem that you snatched at, by saying that it should be taken in the same sense as the lights in the room going out. The fact that there's no visual stimuli doesn't mean we can't conceive of space. You can still reach out with your hand and feel spatial extension. But anyway, since you clearly have no interest in going into these matter I don't see any point to continue.

After 50+ years of daily mediation, 'closing the eyes' immediately equates to shutting down the senses with no longer any extention into space . . . so I can't translate 'closing the eyes' as simply turning off the lights - and so I can't do your experiment.

Re your question: "In your view, what would you call this thing that you’re doing? Is it some ‘playback’ of reality or there’s something more in it which has to be taken into account if we are to move towards a fuller experience of reality?" My answer still stands . . . I am spinning or bootstrapping nothing into something.

lorenzop wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:45 pm After 50+ years of daily mediation, 'closing the eyes' immediately equates to shutting down the senses with no longer any extention into space . . . so I can't translate 'closing the eyes' as simply turning off the lights - and so I can't do your experiment.

Re your question: "In your view, what would you call this thing that you’re doing? Is it some ‘playback’ of reality or there’s something more in it which has to be taken into account if we are to move towards a fuller experience of reality?" My answer still stands . . . I am spinning or bootstrapping nothing into something.

Lorenzo, every post you write is a bewildering mystery to me. I am never able to foresee what you will say, not even remotely. And I would have bet you were a very young person. May I ask you, what do you find in meditation that you don’t find in the rest of your waking life? To be clear, it's just a question I am not trying to go anywhere with it.

lorenzop wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:45 pm After 50+ years of daily mediation, 'closing the eyes' immediately equates to shutting down the senses with no longer any extention into space . . . so I can't translate 'closing the eyes' as simply turning off the lights - and so I can't do your experiment.

Re your question: "In your view, what would you call this thing that you’re doing? Is it some ‘playback’ of reality or there’s something more in it which has to be taken into account if we are to move towards a fuller experience of reality?" My answer still stands . . . I am spinning or bootstrapping nothing into something.

Come on, Lorenzo. When you close your eyes in a normal environment, you immediately lose sense of touch, hearing, and smell? Obviously not. Like Federica, I am somewhat surprised (only somewhat, at this point) that you are creating abstract states of being which cannot possibly be correct in order to support your intellectual position that there are no deeper layers to your own inner activity.

Interestingly enough, the goal of meditations towards higher cognition is indeed to 'shut down' the senses without losing consciousness, but someone who attains this state would no longer have any doubts about the supra-sensory reality of their thinking activity and would experience how that reality is what modulates the normal waking conceptual life.

Federica wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:18 pm

lorenzop wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:45 pm After 50+ years of daily mediation, 'closing the eyes' immediately equates to shutting down the senses with no longer any extention into space . . . so I can't translate 'closing the eyes' as simply turning off the lights - and so I can't do your experiment.

Re your question: "In your view, what would you call this thing that you’re doing? Is it some ‘playback’ of reality or there’s something more in it which has to be taken into account if we are to move towards a fuller experience of reality?" My answer still stands . . . I am spinning or bootstrapping nothing into something.

Lorenzo, every post you write is a bewildering mystery to me. I am never able to foresee what you will say, not even remotely. And I would have bet you were a very young person. May I ask you, what do you find in meditation that you don’t find in the rest of your waking life? To be clear, it's just a question I am not trying to go anywhere with it.

meditation will have thoughts,sensations and etc. like waking - what mediation has\offers that normal waking does not is opportunities for unboundedness, quiet mind no thoughts or sensations.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:25 pm

lorenzop wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:45 pm After 50+ years of daily mediation, 'closing the eyes' immediately equates to shutting down the senses with no longer any extention into space . . . so I can't translate 'closing the eyes' as simply turning off the lights - and so I can't do your experiment.

Re your question: "In your view, what would you call this thing that you’re doing? Is it some ‘playback’ of reality or there’s something more in it which has to be taken into account if we are to move towards a fuller experience of reality?" My answer still stands . . . I am spinning or bootstrapping nothing into something.

Come on, Lorenzo. When you close your eyes in a normal environment, you immediately lose sense of touch, hearing, and smell? Obviously not. Like Federica, I am somewhat surprised (only somewhat, at this point) that you are creating abstract states of being which cannot possibly be correct in from a order to support your intellectual position that there are no deeper layers to your own inner activity.

Interestingly enough, the goal of meditations towards higher cognition is indeed to 'shut down' the senses without losing consciousness, but someone who attains this state would no longer have any doubts about the supra-sensory reality of their thinking activity and would experience how that reality is what modulates the normal waking conceptual life.

not exactly immediately lose sense of touch and etc. upon beginning meditation - - - but for me, Cleric's specific instruction of 'close the eyes' does equate to a withdrawal of the senses and no longer having any extention into space.
Perhaps I could modify the experiment to: close the eyes and imagine you are sitting in a large dark empty room . . . I would have to first practice putting the empty room in place before I could image the edge of a table in the room. I think I would do better with the experiment with eyes and senses fully open.

Re someone living a life from Being - they may have gratitude and devotion to reality itself, and give all credit to reality . . . and not claim it's due to one's "supra-sensory reality of their thinking activity " This is possible. Besides, one's thinking activity and reality are in the same plane or realm anyways.

lorenzop wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:02 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:25 pm

lorenzop wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:45 pm After 50+ years of daily mediation, 'closing the eyes' immediately equates to shutting down the senses with no longer any extention into space . . . so I can't translate 'closing the eyes' as simply turning off the lights - and so I can't do your experiment.

Re your question: "In your view, what would you call this thing that you’re doing? Is it some ‘playback’ of reality or there’s something more in it which has to be taken into account if we are to move towards a fuller experience of reality?" My answer still stands . . . I am spinning or bootstrapping nothing into something.

Come on, Lorenzo. When you close your eyes in a normal environment, you immediately lose sense of touch, hearing, and smell? Obviously not. Like Federica, I am somewhat surprised (only somewhat, at this point) that you are creating abstract states of being which cannot possibly be correct in from a order to support your intellectual position that there are no deeper layers to your own inner activity.

Interestingly enough, the goal of meditations towards higher cognition is indeed to 'shut down' the senses without losing consciousness, but someone who attains this state would no longer have any doubts about the supra-sensory reality of their thinking activity and would experience how that reality is what modulates the normal waking conceptual life.

not exactly immediately lose sense of touch and etc. upon beginning meditation - - - but for me, Cleric's specific instruction of 'close the eyes' does equate to a withdrawal of the senses and no longer having any extention into space.
Perhaps I could modify the experiment to: close the eyes and imagine you are sitting in a large dark empty room . . . I would have to first practice putting the empty room in place before I could image the edge of a table in the room. I think I would do better with the experiment with eyes and senses fully open.

Re someone living a life from Being - they may have gratitude and devotion to reality itself, and give all credit to reality . . . and not claim it's due to one's "supra-sensory reality of their thinking activity " This is possible. Besides, one's thinking activity and reality are in the same plane or realm anyways.

If you don't lose the sense of touch, how could you not feel extension in space through your body in the chair, on the floor, your arms, legs, etc?

The problem is you are trying to do exactly what Cleric suggested not to do - don't try to imagine anything which you aren't experiencing, to set up some parallel space of experience in your thought. Just experience what you are doing inwardly when focusing the ray of your attention. The only reason to close the eyes, or go into a dark space, is to avoid the usual visual distractions which normally drown out experience of what we are doing inwardly when focusing attention. Then we can sense something there which lives independently of our perceptions or thoughts about what we are perceiving. What is this something, as you actually experience it, in your view?

The goal here is the Truth, whatever that is. If it happens to be there is absolutely no deeper level to our inner activity, then that's the Truth and I wouldn't be grateful for something that is false, only valid in my abstract concepts. Likewise, if our gratitude is directed towards an externalized concept of "Being" or "Reality", because this gives us comfort at any given time, but there are in fact deeper layers of our own Being which manifest in our thinking, we shouldn't expect that gratitude to translate into any longer term spiritual growth. We are then only grateful to our own concept of Being, which is ironically what you also want to avoid. The only question should be what is True about the depths of our inner activity, regardless of how it makes us feel at any given time. Only this way can we know whether our gratitude is directed to Being as such or, rather, back at ourselves and our own concepts.