Notion of Center (was:Fearlessness 2)/Anders et. al.

[Guest guest]

> Or, to make it a bit more scientific: consciousness is zero seconds

> away from my center; everything else is more than zero seconds away

> from my center - always - all-ways.

>

> /AL

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Center...

> what center?

> fogedaboudit

>

> as long as you know where you are

> you are lost

>

> Bill

>

 

When you watch the Olympics on TV, where are the images taking place?

Where are the images appearing? In your consciousness! That is your

center. You don't see your brain, the brain cells and blood vessels

inside you skull, you see images. That which is the seeing, the pure

awareness, is your center.

 

When you see a star in the night sky, it is an old image you see.

When you see the TV screen, it is an old image you see. Everything

you are aware of has already happened. All you are aware of is the

past. Everyone lives in a world that has already happened! When new

things happen they are projected from your center, because your

center is where the future is 'born'.

 

/AL

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You say the images are appearing in my consciousness....

Now, first of all my visual experience does not consist of

distinct images. I don't see an " image of " a tree, I see

a tree. And the tree is in space, etc. You could say that

the image of the tree exists (after a fashion) on my retina

when I am seeing the tree, or that it exists in circuitry in

my brain (after a fashion). But there really is no such thing

as *the image* of the tree I am looking at now. It is

interspersed with the roof behind it, the sky, etc.

 

So to me there is visual information, fluidly moving, and

all mixed together. There is no real natural separation in

any of it. Even visual phenomena are not really separate

from other modalities, such as sound, kinesthetic sense,

etc. It is really all-at-once.

 

So where does the all-at-once occur? Evidently you would

assert that it occurs in consciousness. Does it? If we

define consciousness by saying that everything occurs

in consciousness, then I guess your assertion would be right.

But what would that gain us? It is then a tautology that

really says nothing. And what about the visual information

we receive but are *not* conscious of? Is that " in consciousness "

too? If so, that seems an odd use of terms.

 

Regarding your notion of the past and that what we see is

already in the past by the time we see it, yes that is

(technically) correct... in a sense.

 

So wending through all the above... I get to what appears

to be your real point, namely that what I/you " experience "

is a *construction* fabricated by the brain on-the-fly...

and you are stipulating that the source of such construction

is a " center " .

 

In so saying you maintain your position merely by definition.

Why call the source of construction a " center " ? What is the

sense in that? That is utterly unrelated to the notion of

center as we normally use it, as for example the origin point

as at the center of a cartesian grid. As an analogy, consider

a computer animation that is generated by a supercomputer.

Does it make sense to say that the supercomputer is the

" center " of the animation? The notion of " center " is a spatial

one that pertains to a relationship in the context of some kind

of space (a minimal requirement for a space is a topology,

I reckon). The source of phenomenal construction (such

as, say, the brain) stands in a *logical* relation to that

which is constructed, not a spatial one.

 

If, on the other hand, you are experiencing a sense of

" subjective center " in your experience, then I would say to

you that there is no inherent reality to such a sense of center.

It is only your assumption of a center to subjective space that

makes it so. I speak from experience in that at one time I did

experience a sense of subjective center, until it struck me that

there was no inherent reality to it, that it was just my assumption.

Now for me there is no " sense of " center.

 

So I am merely suggesting to you that *if* you consider a

sense of subjective center as natural and real, then you

might question that assumption. It is just extra baggage,

IMO. Indeed, reflecting just now on this, perhaps it is in

essence what is equated with the " I " .

 

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> > Or, to make it a bit more scientific: consciousness is zero

seconds

> > away from my center; everything else is more than zero seconds

away

> > from my center - always - all-ways.

> >

> > /AL

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Center...

> > what center?

> > fogedaboudit

> >

> > as long as you know where you are

> > you are lost

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

> When you watch the Olympics on TV, where are the images taking

place?

> Where are the images appearing? In your consciousness! That is your

> center. You don't see your brain, the brain cells and blood vessels

> inside you skull, you see images. That which is the seeing, the

pure

> awareness, is your center.

>

> When you see a star in the night sky, it is an old image you see.

> When you see the TV screen, it is an old image you see. Everything

> you are aware of has already happened. All you are aware of is the

> past. Everyone lives in a world that has already happened! When new

> things happen they are projected from your center, because your

> center is where the future is 'born'.

>

> /AL

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> You say the images are appearing in my consciousness....

> Now, first of all my visual experience does not consist of

> distinct images. I don't see an " image of " a tree, I see

> a tree. And the tree is in space, etc. You could say that

> the image of the tree exists (after a fashion) on my retina

> when I am seeing the tree, or that it exists in circuitry in

> my brain (after a fashion). But there really is no such thing

> as *the image* of the tree I am looking at now. It is

> interspersed with the roof behind it, the sky, etc.

>

> So to me there is visual information, fluidly moving, and

> all mixed together. There is no real natural separation in

> any of it. Even visual phenomena are not really separate

> from other modalities, such as sound, kinesthetic sense,

> etc. It is really all-at-once.

>

> So where does the all-at-once occur? Evidently you would

> assert that it occurs in consciousness. Does it? If we

> define consciousness by saying that everything occurs

> in consciousness, then I guess your assertion would be right.

> But what would that gain us? It is then a tautology that

> really says nothing. And what about the visual information

> we receive but are *not* conscious of? Is that " in consciousness "

> too? If so, that seems an odd use of terms.

>

> Regarding your notion of the past and that what we see is

> already in the past by the time we see it, yes that is

> (technically) correct... in a sense.

>

> So wending through all the above... I get to what appears

> to be your real point, namely that what I/you " experience "

> is a *construction* fabricated by the brain on-the-fly...

> and you are stipulating that the source of such construction

> is a " center " .

>

> In so saying you maintain your position merely by definition.

> Why call the source of construction a " center " ? What is the

> sense in that? That is utterly unrelated to the notion of

> center as we normally use it, as for example the origin point

> as at the center of a cartesian grid. As an analogy, consider

> a computer animation that is generated by a supercomputer.

> Does it make sense to say that the supercomputer is the

> " center " of the animation? The notion of " center " is a spatial

> one that pertains to a relationship in the context of some kind

> of space (a minimal requirement for a space is a topology,

> I reckon). The source of phenomenal construction (such

> as, say, the brain) stands in a *logical* relation to that

> which is constructed, not a spatial one.

>

> If, on the other hand, you are experiencing a sense of

> " subjective center " in your experience, then I would say to

> you that there is no inherent reality to such a sense of center.

> It is only your assumption of a center to subjective space that

> makes it so. I speak from experience in that at one time I did

> experience a sense of subjective center, until it struck me that

> there was no inherent reality to it, that it was just my assumption.

> Now for me there is no " sense of " center.

>

> So I am merely suggesting to you that *if* you consider a

> sense of subjective center as natural and real, then you

> might question that assumption. It is just extra baggage,

> IMO. Indeed, reflecting just now on this, perhaps it is in

> essence what is equated with the " I " .

>

>

> Bill

 

The future first touches awareness since, as you say, what we become

aware of has already happened technically speaking. I see a tree, and

that sensation of the tree is older than my awareness of the tree. I

see a star, and that star is way older than my awareness. So, in the

sense that the future is closest to my awareness, that makes

awareness my center.

 

/AL

[Guest guest]

The future first touches awareness since, as you say, what we become

aware of has already happened technically speaking. I see a tree, and

that sensation of the tree is older than my awareness of the tree. I

see a star, and that star is way older than my awareness. So, in the

sense that the future is closest to my awareness, that makes

awareness my center.

 

/AL

>>>

So is the " center " you speak of a theoretical one or a *sensed* one?

I.e. do you know the center you speak of directly, or do you infer it?

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> The future first touches awareness since, as you say, what we

become

> aware of has already happened technically speaking. I see a tree,

and

> that sensation of the tree is older than my awareness of the tree.

I

> see a star, and that star is way older than my awareness. So, in

the

> sense that the future is closest to my awareness, that makes

> awareness my center.

>

> /AL

> >>>

> So is the " center " you speak of a theoretical one or a *sensed* one?

> I.e. do you know the center you speak of directly, or do you infer

it?

>

> Bill

 

Check out the movies at:

 

http://www.headless.org/English/main.html

 

I believe that explains it better than me trying to define this

center.

 

/AL