Guest guest Posted September 27, 2002 Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 " Experiencing " and the Brain The brain does a " refresh " with a cyclic regularity. This is similar to a computer screen repainting itself. The brain doesn't literally project the myriad incoming signals, but performs a " gestalt " process to integrate those signals. The gestalt as generated by the brain is what is " experienced " . The brain generates a refresh of the gestalt rather often (one could say every " moment " ). With very clear attention and a quiet mind the interval between refreshes is detectable (notice I didn't say " percievable " ). Typically, however, the interval is not detected, and the successive gestalts are " blurred together " to form the impression of a " continuum of experience " . This " blurring together " is exactly what occurs when one watches a movie and experiences the *illusion* of continuity. As with a movie, in subjective experience the impression of a continuum of experience is an illusion. What is not illusion (at least relatively speaking), is when each refresh by the brain (each new gestalt) is effectively an " interrupt " that takes utter precedence over the previous gestalt. Each refresh by the brain is capable of standing completely on its own. An *experienced sense of continuity* is not only unnecessary for the effective functioning of the brain, it is actually (quite) detrimental. A transition from an experienced sense of subjective continuity to an austere experiential independence of each refresh as presented by the brain can metaphorically be described as a " popping of the bubble " . The transition is subtle but profound. The Aha! is when it is fully realized that " each refresh by the brain is capable of standing completely on its own. " Upon such realization a deep relaxation and carefreeness sets in. The brain is handling it. Each moment can be experienced independently " without regard " . -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2002 Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 Hi Bill -- This is nicely written and clearly articulated. I agree with what you say, in essence, and feel you expressed something difficult to say. The only difference I have with how you say this, is that the brain is a pattern that is perceived as well. " Brain " is as much a perceptual gestalt as any other, so it is conventional, but not actually true, to say that perceptual gestalts are happening in the brain, or to the brain. That is, whenever we locate gestalt-making in the brain, we are missing that the brain in which we are locating them, is also an aspect of a gestalt that is made. Yet, I totally agree that there is the integration process you describe, and there is the blip which you call the refresh -- and which is a discrete nonmovement in which there is a timeless jump from gestalt/moment to gestalt moment. I find your pointing to this to be direct and profound. It's just that it's not happening in anything or to anything. Once clarity is concerning this, there is nowhere to get to, to have, or not to have, not to get. There simply is what is, this gestalt as self-presented and self-dissolved. Not happening to someone, nor in something or to something. What this implies to me is that there is a process of integration of gestalts, until the point where there is the integration of " gestalt " and the dropping of " gestalt " -- which is the refresh you well-articulated. At this " point " there is no more to integrate -- there merely is " integration happening as is " ... and each image arising is itself integration, and the refresh happens by itself, as all is, timelessly. Thanks and namaste, Dan Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > " Experiencing " and the Brain > > The brain does a " refresh " with a cyclic > regularity. This is similar to a computer > screen repainting itself. The brain doesn't > literally project the myriad incoming > signals, but performs a " gestalt " process > to integrate those signals. The gestalt as > generated by the brain is what is > " experienced " . The brain generates a > refresh of the gestalt rather often (one > could say every " moment " ). With very clear > attention and a quiet mind the interval > between refreshes is detectable (notice I > didn't say " percievable " ). > > Typically, however, the interval is not > detected, and the successive gestalts are > " blurred together " to form the impression > of a " continuum of experience " . This > " blurring together " is exactly what occurs > when one watches a movie and experiences > the *illusion* of continuity. > > As with a movie, in subjective experience > the impression of a continuum of experience > is an illusion. > > What is not illusion (at least relatively > speaking), is when each refresh by the > brain (each new gestalt) is effectively an > " interrupt " that takes utter precedence > over the previous gestalt. Each refresh by > the brain is capable of standing completely > on its own. An *experienced sense of > continuity* is not only unnecessary for the > effective functioning of the brain, it is > actually (quite) detrimental. > > A transition from an experienced sense of > subjective continuity to an austere > experiential independence of each refresh > as presented by the brain can > metaphorically be described as a " popping > of the bubble " . The transition is subtle > but profound. > > The Aha! is when it is fully realized that > " each refresh by the brain is capable of > standing completely on its own. " Upon such > realization a deep relaxation and > carefreeness sets in. The brain is handling > it. Each moment can be experienced > independently " without regard " . > > > > > -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2002 Report Share Posted September 28, 2002 > The only difference I have with how you say this, > is that the brain is a pattern that is perceived > as well. " Brain " is as much a perceptual gestalt > as any other, so it is conventional, but > not actually true, to say that perceptual gestalts > are happening in the brain, or to the brain. Actually I agree with your point here. The " brain " is not an essential construct. The same essential piece could have been written just speaking of " moments " and moments arising. But the metaphor of " the brain " allowed a natural analogy to computer screens and notion of a " refresh " . The metaphor is intended to convey an " ineffable " . If by some miracle the ineffable is conveyed, then the concepts utilized for such conduction are disposable (like a food wrapper). They have no inherent value. > At this " point " there is no more to integrate -- > there merely is " integration happening as is " ... > and each image arising is itself integration, > and the refresh happens by itself, as all is, > timelessly. Exactly. Thank you for your comments, -Bill > dan330033 [dan330033] > Friday, September 27, 2002 2:22 PM > Nisargadatta > Re: " Experiencing " and the Brain > > > Hi Bill -- > > This is nicely written and clearly articulated. > > I agree with what you say, in essence, and > feel you expressed something difficult to say. > > The only difference I have with how you say this, > is that the brain is a pattern that is perceived > as well. " Brain " is as much a perceptual gestalt > as any other, so it is conventional, but > not actually true, to say that perceptual gestalts > are happening in the brain, or to the brain. > > That is, whenever we locate gestalt-making in the > brain, we are missing that the brain in which > we are locating them, is also an aspect of > a gestalt that is made. > > Yet, I totally agree that there is the integration > process you describe, and there is the blip which > you call the refresh -- and which is a discrete > nonmovement in which there is a timeless jump > from gestalt/moment to gestalt moment. > > I find your pointing to this to be direct and profound. > > It's just that it's not happening in anything or to > anything. > > Once clarity is concerning this, there is nowhere to > get to, to have, or not to have, not to get. > > There simply is what is, this gestalt as self-presented > and self-dissolved. Not happening to someone, > nor in something or to something. > > What this implies to me is that there is a process > of integration of gestalts, until the point where > there is the integration of " gestalt " and the > dropping of " gestalt " -- which is the refresh > you well-articulated. > > At this " point " there is no more to integrate -- > there merely is " integration happening as is " ... > and each image arising is itself integration, > and the refresh happens by itself, as all is, > timelessly. > > Thanks and namaste, > Dan > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > " Experiencing " and the Brain > > > > The brain does a " refresh " with a cyclic > > regularity. This is similar to a computer > > screen repainting itself. The brain doesn't > > literally project the myriad incoming > > signals, but performs a " gestalt " process > > to integrate those signals. The gestalt as > > generated by the brain is what is > > " experienced " . The brain generates a > > refresh of the gestalt rather often (one > > could say every " moment " ). With very clear > > attention and a quiet mind the interval > > between refreshes is detectable (notice I > > didn't say " percievable " ). > > > > Typically, however, the interval is not > > detected, and the successive gestalts are > > " blurred together " to form the impression > > of a " continuum of experience " . This > > " blurring together " is exactly what occurs > > when one watches a movie and experiences > > the *illusion* of continuity. > > > > As with a movie, in subjective experience > > the impression of a continuum of experience > > is an illusion. > > > > What is not illusion (at least relatively > > speaking), is when each refresh by the > > brain (each new gestalt) is effectively an > > " interrupt " that takes utter precedence > > over the previous gestalt. Each refresh by > > the brain is capable of standing completely > > on its own. An *experienced sense of > > continuity* is not only unnecessary for the > > effective functioning of the brain, it is > > actually (quite) detrimental. > > > > A transition from an experienced sense of > > subjective continuity to an austere > > experiential independence of each refresh > > as presented by the brain can > > metaphorically be described as a " popping > > of the bubble " . The transition is subtle > > but profound. > > > > The Aha! is when it is fully realized that > > " each refresh by the brain is capable of > > standing completely on its own. " Upon such > > realization a deep relaxation and > > carefreeness sets in. The brain is handling > > it. Each moment can be experienced > > independently " without regard " . > > > > > > > > > > -Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.