There is a lot of talk in the history of philosophy about the connection between conception and perception. Psychology has taken up the topic in some detail.
I appreciate your point about choosing our attention. I believe that my happiness is maintained by what I pay attention to and what I ignore. It is a balance because you have to include some stuff that might just bite you in the butt later if left unattended. Also life has some stuff like death of loved ones that must be experienced pretty fully IMO to make my life complete. It doesn't exactly make me "happy" but sometimes pain is worth feeling rather than running away from. I take it case by case. I have learned not to accept the pain that my imagination can conjure up about loved ones. If you have ever hung with a cancer survivor you learn how to choose your worries wisely. I used to enjoy mixing my perceptions with the conception of a creator so I know it's charms. These days I am happy just to do my best to pay attention to what nourishes me which is mostly stuff that makes me happy, but not always. I'm sure I have plenty of other conceptions that shape my perceptions even without a the God concept. But I'm trying to keep it as simple as I can. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Stu" wrote: "Love, truth and beauty is the recognition of this > harmony around us. They are part of nature, its part of us. No > supernatural stuff need apply. Even a hardened materialist can > appreciate the organic unity of these ideals." > > Edg: You know those Necker cubes where the diagram of a "box" shifts > perspectives back and forth before your eyes -- with the brain being > challenged to mindfully hold one of two perspectives? > > That's the process of enlightenment to me -- you just suddenly flip to > the other POV. Blake would approve, eh? And this is echoed in the > adages of the masses such as "Fish or cut bait," "Stand for something > or fall for anything," and/or "Do you see the glass as half full or > half empty." Note that communal wisdom underlines the natural ability > of all folks to DIRECT ONE'S ATTENTION. > > The appreciation of beauty is obviously not so hard wired that it > prevents us from seeing ugliness. I remember taking my children onto > my lap when they were crying or pissed off, and I'd usually be able to > tweak their minds such that they began to laugh even while their tears > or their clenched fists were still griddle hot processes. > > Like that, beauty is always there, but the secret of life is that > ugliness is as valuable as beauty. Yeah, Shiva's needed to dance a > jig -- gotta have a destruction phase to progression. > > In Art there's photorealistic works that amaze one with the exquisite > gem edges, leashed iridescence, and shiny glintings, and we swoon. > > Generally missed by all who view such an artwork is that using one's > eyes to see creates just such an artwork -- looking at the back of > one's hand is just such an experience with its 3000 lines per inch > detail, its 10,000 hues seen, its astounding depth of view, its > perfect structures, anatomies, and sense of light -- and, ITS REAL! > > Flip onto that perspective 24/7, eh? -- ya think it might be a mental > technique that would evolve ya? I laugh that there's all these videos > games out there that are straining to achieve realism, yet, every kid > has reality smacking his face like bugs on a windshield on a dark road > in mid-summer Iowa -- like Huxley's birds calling "Attention!" in his > dystopia "Island." Smack, smack, smack. > > Heaven is right there in our faces down to the neenee-nana-nanosecond. > Each view, each sound, each report from any sense is as rich as, > well, as rich as God could create. Try flipping into God > consciousness -- you can do it just like being able to see a Necker > cube change. I think anyone has this ability to suddenly shift into > ephiphany at ANY MOMENT, "caused" by ANY INPUT. > > 'Course, there's no such thing as input, but you know what I mean. > > Edg >
