Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 In a message dated 4/18/2006 5:24:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, adamson writes: > I'd like to see some points of view about the following statements by > Werner Erhard, founder of *est* back in the '70s and '80s, and '90s. He > used to say that " Reality is hard, solid, and will knock you on your ass > everytime. " He also said that " Reality is a multi-sensory record of > successive moments of now! " Notice that he's referring to > " reality " ...not *truth*. > > Michael Hi Michael, L.E: Your quote says he said, " reality is a multi-sensory record of successiv moments of now. " This statement implies that reality is not a constant and that the Now is related to time. I disagree. For me, reality IS a constant and Now has no time related to it, or in it. Of course it is not clear if he means an individual's personal sense of his world, or the world or the universe. Personal reality may be like a picture frame that stands still with images moving through it. Then the reality, the frame stands still, but the picture or experiences move and change. The statement is far from clear to me, and sounds like hoodoo. Just talk. That's my first kick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 I'd like to see some points of view about the following statements by Werner Erhard, founder of *est* back in the '70s and '80s, and '90s. He used to say that " Reality is hard, solid, and will knock you on your ass everytime. " He also said that " Reality is a multi-sensory record of successive moments of now! " Notice that he's referring to " reality " ...not *truth*. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > I'd like to see some points of view about the following statements by > Werner Erhard, founder of *est* back in the '70s and '80s, and '90s. He > used to say that " Reality is hard, solid, and will knock you on your ass > everytime. " He also said that " Reality is a multi-sensory record of > successive moments of now! " Notice that he's referring to > " reality " ...not *truth*. > > Michael > To start with, I would substitute " display " for " record " ... i.e.: " Reality is a multi-sensory display of successive moments of now! " Now, there are not distinct slices of Now... as there are distinct frames in a movie film. Rather, the display is constantly being updated. It is not being updated all-at-once. So there is not really a *succession* of distinct multi-sensory " displays " . Yet there is not continuity either, for the " updates " to the display are not continuous. However, I expect that what he was trying to get at is independent of those qualifications. With those qualifications I could entertain such a definition of " Reality " . Such a " reality " is not a *something*... the notion of existence does not apply. Further though, is the question of what recognizes such as Reality? To use his definition, do we have to postulate something *else* apart from Reality as he defines it? His definition of Reality (with my qualifications) is close to what my definition of Now is. I define Now as simply the entire phenomenal field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). Note that includes what is " presented " both as subjective material and as objective (external) material. In Now as so defined there is no time; even memory is presented now. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:29:48 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: A view of " reality " to kick around! Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > I'd like to see some points of view about the following statements by > Werner Erhard, founder of *est* back in the '70s and '80s, and '90s. He > used to say that " Reality is hard, solid, and will knock you on your ass > everytime. " He also said that " Reality is a multi-sensory record of > successive moments of now! " Notice that he's referring to > " reality " ...not *truth*. > > Michael > To start with, I would substitute " display " for " record " ... i.e.: " Reality is a multi-sensory display of successive moments of now! " Now, there are not distinct slices of Now... as there are distinct frames in a movie film. Rather, the display is constantly being updated. It is not being updated all-at-once. So there is not really a *succession* of distinct multi-sensory " displays " . Yet there is not continuity either, for the " updates " to the display are not continuous. However, I expect that what he was trying to get at is independent of those qualifications. With those qualifications I could entertain such a definition of " Reality " . Such a " reality " is not a *something*... the notion of existence does not apply. Further though, is the question of what recognizes such as Reality? To use his definition, do we have to postulate something *else* apart from Reality as he defines it? His definition of Reality (with my qualifications) is close to what my definition of Now is. I define Now as simply the entire phenomenal field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). Note that includes what is " presented " both as subjective material and as objective (external) material. In Now as so defined there is no time; even memory is presented now. Bill Is it believed that there is an objective, material world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/18/2006 5:24:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > adamson writes: > > > I'd like to see some points of view about the following statements by > > Werner Erhard, founder of *est* back in the '70s and '80s, and '90s. He > > used to say that " Reality is hard, solid, and will knock you on your ass > > everytime. " He also said that " Reality is a multi-sensory record of > > successive moments of now! " Notice that he's referring to > > " reality " ...not *truth*. > > > > Michael > > Hi Michael, > > L.E: Your quote says he said, " reality is a multi-sensory record of successiv > moments of now. " This statement implies that reality is not a constant and > that the Now is related to time. I disagree. For me, reality IS a constant and > Now has no time related to it, or in it. Of course it is not clear if he > means an individual's personal sense of his world, or the world or the universe. > Personal reality may be like a picture frame that stands still with images > moving through it. Then the reality, the frame stands still, but the picture or > experiences move and change. > The statement is far from clear to me, and sounds like hoodoo. Just talk. > That's my first kick. ************ I'm warning you, Larry. Do not underestimate the power of hoodoo. Silver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:29:48 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: A view of " reality " to kick around! > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some points of view about the following statements by > > Werner Erhard, founder of *est* back in the '70s and '80s, and '90s. He > > used to say that " Reality is hard, solid, and will knock you on your > ass > > everytime. " He also said that " Reality is a multi-sensory record of > > successive moments of now! " Notice that he's referring to > > " reality " ...not *truth*. > > > > Michael > > > > To start with, I would substitute " display " for " record " ... i.e.: > " Reality is a multi-sensory display of successive moments of now! " > > Now, there are not distinct slices of Now... as there are distinct > frames in a movie film. Rather, the display is constantly being > updated. It is not being updated all-at-once. > > So there is not really a *succession* of distinct multi-sensory > " displays " . > > Yet there is not continuity either, for the " updates " to the > display are not continuous. > > However, I expect that what he was trying to get at is independent > of those qualifications. > > With those qualifications I could entertain such a definition of > " Reality " . Such a " reality " is not a *something*... the notion of > existence does not apply. > > Further though, is the question of what recognizes such as Reality? > > To use his definition, do we have to postulate something *else* > apart from Reality as he defines it? > > His definition of Reality (with my qualifications) is close > to what my definition of Now is. I define Now as simply the > entire phenomenal field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). > Note that includes what is " presented " both as subjective material > and as objective (external) material. In Now as so defined there > is no time; even memory is presented now. > > Bill > > > > Is it believed that there is an objective, material world? Is a notion of an objective material world meaningful from the standpoint of Now as defined above? What is meant by " objective material world " ? To many OMW is a fact, obviously. However OMW is not an observable. It must be inferred. Such inference requires time. From a point of view that asserts that there is only Now, that what is in time is illusion, objective material world is illusion. And what does " belief " mean in this context? If someone sends in their tax return does that mean there is belief in objective material world? To some the answer is an obvious yes. To others the former are absurd and naive. Since this is a Nisargadatta list, it would be interesting to see what he says about " the world " : To take the world as real and one's self as unreal is ignorance. The cause of sorrow. To know the self as the only reality and all else as temporal and transient is freedom, peace and joy. It is all very simple. Instead of seeing things as imagined, learn to see them as they are. It is like cleansing a mirror. The same mirror that shows you the world as it is, will also show you your own face. The thought 'I am' is the polishing cloth. Use it. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 5:42:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:50:15 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: A view of " reality " to kick around! Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:29:48 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: A view of " reality " to kick around! > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some points of view about the following statements by > > Werner Erhard, founder of *est* back in the '70s and '80s, and '90s. He > > used to say that " Reality is hard, solid, and will knock you on your > ass > > everytime. " He also said that " Reality is a multi-sensory record of > > successive moments of now! " Notice that he's referring to > > " reality " ...not *truth*. > > > > Michael > > > > To start with, I would substitute " display " for " record " ... i.e.: > " Reality is a multi-sensory display of successive moments of now! " > > Now, there are not distinct slices of Now... as there are distinct > frames in a movie film. Rather, the display is constantly being > updated. It is not being updated all-at-once. > > So there is not really a *succession* of distinct multi-sensory > " displays " . > > Yet there is not continuity either, for the " updates " to the > display are not continuous. > > However, I expect that what he was trying to get at is independent > of those qualifications. > > With those qualifications I could entertain such a definition of > " Reality " . Such a " reality " is not a *something*... the notion of > existence does not apply. > > Further though, is the question of what recognizes such as Reality? > > To use his definition, do we have to postulate something *else* > apart from Reality as he defines it? > > His definition of Reality (with my qualifications) is close > to what my definition of Now is. I define Now as simply the > entire phenomenal field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). > Note that includes what is " presented " both as subjective material > and as objective (external) material. In Now as so defined there > is no time; even memory is presented now. > > Bill > > > > Is it believed that there is an objective, material world? Is a notion of an objective material world meaningful from the standpoint of Now as defined above? What is meant by " objective material world " ? To many OMW is a fact, obviously. However OMW is not an observable. It must be inferred. Such inference requires time. From a point of view that asserts that there is only Now, that what is in time is illusion, objective material world is illusion. And what does " belief " mean in this context? If someone sends in their tax return does that mean there is belief in objective material world? To some the answer is an obvious yes. To others the former are absurd and naive. Since this is a Nisargadatta list, it would be interesting to see what he says about " the world " : To take the world as real and one's self as unreal is ignorance. The cause of sorrow. To know the self as the only reality and all else as temporal and transient is freedom, peace and joy. It is all very simple. Instead of seeing things as imagined, learn to see them as they are. It is like cleansing a mirror. The same mirror that shows you the world as it is, will also show you your own face. The thought 'I am' is the polishing cloth. Use it. Bill Agreed, there is no objective material world. 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.