TurqB., you're a bit of a wild man, but that's all part of your charm. I enjoyed our conversation yesterday, but remain puzzled by the apparent lack of any congruence and understanding between us regarding the subject of reality/Reality. That's okay. I don't perceive myself to be any kind of authority on the subject, and have no vested interest in convincing you that there is any validity in anything I say. But I'd like to point out that the way you appear to be interpreting my words on the subject of reality does not actually represent my perspective at all. Maybe you are referring to another conversation you had with someone else...? If it is our conversation you are referring to, you haven't actually understood what I said. Not that you're short on understanding, but words, such as "reality", convey different conceptual meanings to each of us. I read the words you write, which appear to be an inferred representation of my understanding of reality/Reality, and they honestly don't represent my perception at all. When you speak back what you think I'm saying, it becomes something else entirely. I'll make an effort to communicate more clearly and not assume that there is any kind of shared understanding in regard to future topics. And maybe you could resist the impulse to make statements about what you think I believe and experience? Unless that's too much to ask. Like I said, your wildness is part of your charm.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <sandiego108@> > wrote: > > > > --- In > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" > > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> wrote: > > > > > > > Barry writes snipped: > > > > I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there > > > > being a Saganesque "billions and billions" of realities. > > > > That poses no problem for me whatsoever. > > > > > > TomT: > > > For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions > > > of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the > > > flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered > > > through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act > > > of perceiving. > > > Have fun. TOm > > > > so the "Saganesque" and "Baskin and Robbins store" containers > > are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for > > reality with a capital R. > > What I think we are saying (I hope Tom will > forgive me for speaking for him) is that we > don't feel any need to delude ourselves into > thinking that 1) there is such a thing as > Reality with a capital R, or 2) that we know > what it is. reality (or realities) with a > lowercase r is just fine for us. > > The point I've been trying to make is that > reality is merely a *concept*. It can't stand > on its own; it does not and cannot have an > existence independent of a perceiver. It needs > a perceiver to *perceive* reality, or to > distinguish it from (if such a thing existed) > non-reality. It's a codependent relationship. :-) > > And the moment you bring a perceiver into the > equation, you have Point Of View. That POV, in > the perceiver, has to color the nature of the > perceived. Some claim that they can attain a > state of consciousness or POV that is "color- > less," and that as a result what they perceive > is accurate -- Reality. I don't buy it. (As an > aside, you may feel that your SOC is "colorless," > but it took less than two days for most people > here to figure out who you were when you began > posting under another ID. How "colorless" is that?) > > I feel that the state of consciousness of UC or > BC is *just* as colored as any other, and that > what beings in that state of consciousness perceive > from the POV of UC or BC is *just* as much a > consensual reality based on interdependent > origination as the reality perceived by someone > in total ignorance. It's just a *different* > reality, that's all. > > I don't "get" the seeming need to believe that > one knows what Reality (capital R) is, or to > claim that one perceives it. It seems to be just > another way of saying, "I'm the best." I'm content > with enjoying the parade of realities as they go by. > > > As someone said recently somewhere else, "its a lot > > like ignorance, only with that 'darned' fullness". > > It's EXACTLY like ignorance, INCLUDING the fullness. > The fullness is present in ignorance as well. And > neither state has anything whatsoever to do with > "Reality" IMO. Just one more reality. Chop wood, > carry water, ad infinitum. > > If you bristle at this idea, doncha think it might > have something to do with being attached to not > only thinking that you "know Reality" but convincing > others that you know it? >
