--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I'm not Share but I think it is rude to talk about someone as if they > > aren't already standing in the same room with you. > > > A nice point, although it happens a lot on FFL. My point is spirituality is > not really about a person, what we think we are, that that idea is an > illusion, a practical illusion, but unreal. What are we really? Suppose we > were born without an ability to have a thought, but could experience > nonetheless. What would life be like if we could experience without the > ability to define things by means of thoughts? We could see our body in a > mirror but not give the reflection a name. Do animals experience life like > this? When one of your horses looks at you, what does it experience? Does it > know what a person is? Does a horse think anyone is actually a someone? How > do we as human beings actually become a 'person'. What is that, how does it > work, what are the steps by which we become fashioned into what we think we > are?
Thanks for your reply. My comment was made because it was as if you and Share were discussing a kind of lab specimen, all the while the "specimen" was conscious of the conversation which included all sorts of conjecturing about their condition. I don't generally get into long dissertations about philosophical questions concerning states of consciousness or religions or the mental health of someone because I prefer more concrete ways of understanding or coming to conclusion about something other than talking about these things. So many of the big subjects are virtually unprovable or else the answer one might arrive at in a certain moment could become obsolete or simply not relevant to one's life in the next. It is one big mysterious place out there and I wonder if knowing answers is necessary in order live one's life successfully. I tend to go by feel, kind of like moving around in a dark room, blind and simply finding my way by touching carefully with fingertips or tentative toes. It is not, for me, so much about thinking, but about responding, reacting or a combination of thinking on the fly and instinctively responding. Anyway, you wrote the word "horse" and that always gets my attention. Let me see what I can add here on your musings. When my horse looks at me I think he experiences a few things. He actually recognizes me as me mostly through smell and sound. What I look like is of minimal impact on him but he for sure knows my voice and understands about 20 English words including his name. Since I have owned him since he was three and is now 15 and I have been his primary caregiver and rider during that whole time he associates me with food, comfort but also I am the head honcho and that is important for herd or pack animals to determine, who is the boss and who is the second boss and so on. Existing in hierarchies is a condition of life for them and they know exactly where they stand with each member of their herd including me as a fellow 'herd' member. A horse knows what a person is, not by name or by recognizing individual features but because it has experiences of and with these human creatures in different contexts during its life and knows the difference between a human and a dog and a horse but not in the same way we know the difference. > > If Robin were enlightened, it would not bother him. > If Robin had an invulnerable ego, it would not bother him. > If however he lacked confidence in his knowledge of what he is, having a > certain lack of self-esteem, whatever that might be, then perhaps it might > bother him. He does not however seem to show such a characteristic. >
