Guest guest Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 09/05/2008 5:08:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > yohansky writes: > > > " The primary point of delving into the self is to realize that > very > > thing; " > > > > - That to is nothing more than food for the ego to feed on, just > > adding more poison to the confusion of our 'sleeping state', for > > there's nothing to realize...IMHO. > > J > > > > > > > > ***All it requires is the willingness to have a look see. > > Phil > > Question remains, who is it then that sees? > > > > ***That's right. That's the question. It's an excellent question. > The answer is very simple: The see-er is the seen. But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is separating itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er. Werner P.S. A serious word to Phil: We all have insights and feel and sense and see the non-expressible but when communicating it we have to use words. One has to comnpress that rich spectrum of ones insights into words. Now, to denote one's rather helpless endeavour to express one's insights as good as possible with words, as a sign of beeing " intellectual " is the real arrogance which is behind your latest posts, Phil. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 09/05/2008 5:08:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > yohansky@ writes: > > > > > " The primary point of delving into the self is to realize that > > very > > > thing; " > > > > > > - That to is nothing more than food for the ego to feed on, > just > > > adding more poison to the confusion of our 'sleeping state', > for > > > there's nothing to realize...IMHO. > > > J > > > > > > > > > > > > ***All it requires is the willingness to have a look see. > > > Phil > > > > Question remains, who is it then that sees? > > > > > > > > ***That's right. That's the question. It's an excellent question. > > > > > The answer is very simple: > > The see-er is the seen. > > But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is separating > itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er. > Question remains; what remains after the see-er is the seen? > Werner > > P.S. > > A serious word to Phil: > > We all have insights and feel and sense and see the non- expressible > but when communicating it we have to use words. One has to comnpress > that rich spectrum of ones insights into words. > > Now, to denote one's rather helpless endeavour to express one's > insights as good as possible with words, as a sign of > beeing " intellectual " is the real arrogance which is behind your > latest posts, Phil. > > Werner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 09/05/2008 5:08:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > yohansky@ writes: > > > > > > > " The primary point of delving into the self is to realize > that > > > very > > > > thing; " > > > > > > > > - That to is nothing more than food for the ego to feed on, > > just > > > > adding more poison to the confusion of our 'sleeping state', > > for > > > > there's nothing to realize...IMHO. > > > > J > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***All it requires is the willingness to have a look see. > > > > Phil > > > > > > Question remains, who is it then that sees? > > > > > > > > > > > > ***That's right. That's the question. It's an excellent > question. > > > > > > > > > The answer is very simple: > > > > The see-er is the seen. > > > > But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is > separating > > itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er. > > > > Question remains; what remains after the see-er is the seen? > Smile, Allow me a counter question, Joan: What would have remained if your question wouldn't have been put ? Werner > > > Werner > > > > P.S. > > > > A serious word to Phil: > > > > We all have insights and feel and sense and see the non- > expressible > > but when communicating it we have to use words. One has to > comnpress > > that rich spectrum of ones insights into words. > > > > Now, to denote one's rather helpless endeavour to express one's > > insights as good as possible with words, as a sign of > > beeing " intellectual " is the real arrogance which is behind your > > latest posts, Phil. > > > > Werner > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 In a message dated 09/05/2008 11:25:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: The answer is very simple:The see-er is the seen.But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is separating itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er.WernerP.S.A serious word to Phil:We all have insights and feel and sense and see the non-expressible but when communicating it we have to use words. One has to comnpress that rich spectrum of ones insights into words.Now, to denote one's rather helpless endeavour to express one's insights as good as possible with words, as a sign of beeing "intellectual" is the real arrogance which is behind your latest posts, Phil.Werner And that only tells me you see yourself as arrogant and intellectual, since I see 'intellectual' as problematic and don't value it, and I've repeatedly said I know nothing. Drop your self judgment, and the inevitable projections, and Phil will start to look like a completely different animal. It still may be an animal you don't like, but at least it will look different. Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 In a message dated 10/05/2008 12:14:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, yohansky writes: > > Question remains, who is it then that sees?> > > > > > > > ***That's right. That's the question. It's an excellent question.> > > > > The answer is very simple:> > The see-er is the seen.> > But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is separating > itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er.> Question remains; what remains after the see-er is the seen? ***The seer is the only Subject. The world is your object. The significance is not in the seeing of some'thing', but in the removal of identification with your object, and the placing of it in the Subject. Everything reamains as before. Nothing is added or subtracted.Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 09/05/2008 5:08:58 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > yohansky@ writes: > > > > > > > > > " The primary point of delving into the self is to realize > > that > > > > very > > > > > thing; " > > > > > > > > > > - That to is nothing more than food for the ego to feed on, > > > just > > > > > adding more poison to the confusion of our 'sleeping > state', > > > for > > > > > there's nothing to realize...IMHO. > > > > > J > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***All it requires is the willingness to have a look see. > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Question remains, who is it then that sees? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***That's right. That's the question. It's an excellent > > question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is very simple: > > > > > > The see-er is the seen. > > > > > > But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is > > separating > > > itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er. > > > > > > > Question remains; what remains after the see-er is the seen? > > > > > Smile, > > Allow me a counter question, Joan: > > What would have remained if your question wouldn't have been put ? > > Werner > Than one could ask; what was the origin of putting such a question, what instigated such action? -An endless and useless wordgame, that doesn't get us anywhere...if you ask me. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > P.S. > > > > > > A serious word to Phil: > > > > > > We all have insights and feel and sense and see the non- > > expressible > > > but when communicating it we have to use words. One has to > > comnpress > > > that rich spectrum of ones insights into words. > > > > > > Now, to denote one's rather helpless endeavour to express one's > > > insights as good as possible with words, as a sign of > > > beeing " intellectual " is the real arrogance which is behind your > > > latest posts, Phil. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 09/05/2008 5:08:58 PM Pacific Daylight > > Time, > > > > > yohansky@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > " The primary point of delving into the self is to > realize > > > that > > > > > very > > > > > > thing; " > > > > > > > > > > > > - That to is nothing more than food for the ego to feed > on, > > > > just > > > > > > adding more poison to the confusion of our 'sleeping > > state', > > > > for > > > > > > there's nothing to realize...IMHO. > > > > > > J > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***All it requires is the willingness to have a look see. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > Question remains, who is it then that sees? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***That's right. That's the question. It's an excellent > > > question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is very simple: > > > > > > > > The see-er is the seen. > > > > > > > > But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is > > > separating > > > > itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er. > > > > > > > > > > Question remains; what remains after the see-er is the seen? > > > > > > > > > Smile, > > > > Allow me a counter question, Joan: > > > > What would have remained if your question wouldn't have been put ? > > > > Werner > > > > Than one could ask; what was the origin of putting such a question, > what instigated such action? > > -An endless and useless wordgame, that doesn't get us anywhere...if > you ask me. > Yes, Johan, Therefore, right from the beginning, one better shouldn't start such word games. But, besides all that hairsplitting subtleness, the expression that the see-er is the seen is just another way of saying that there is no separate see-er at all, there is just seeing. Just that is expressing following enumeration: The observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought, the see-er is the seen, the intepreter is the intpreted, etc ... Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 In a message dated 5/11/2008 12:55:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > > > > The answer is very simple:> > > > > > > > The see-er is the seen.> > > > > > > > But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is > > > separating > > > > itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er.> > > > > > > > > > Question remains; what remains after the see-er is the seen?> > >> > > > > > Smile,> > > > Allow me a counter question, Joan:> > > > What would have remained if your question wouldn't have been put ?> > > > Werner> > > > Than one could ask; what was the origin of putting such a question, > what instigated such action?> > -An endless and useless wordgame, that doesn't get us anywhere...if > you ask me.> Yes, Johan,Therefore, right from the beginning, one better shouldn't start such word games.But, besides all that hairsplitting subtleness, the expression that the see-er is the seen is just another way of saying that there is no separate see-er at all, there is just seeing.Just that is expressing following enumeration:The observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought, the see-er is the seen, the intepreter is the intpreted, etc ...Werner ***Yes, there is no seer, and there is nothing seen, just the seeing itself. No experiencer and no experienced, just experiencing. No subject and no object. The point of it is simply that there is no person. This is what the "nonsense" of self inquiry reveals.Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 In a message dated 11/05/2008 12:04:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > > ***Yes, there is no seer, and there is nothing seen, just the seeing itself. > No experiencer and no experienced, just experiencing. No subject and no > object. The point of it is simply that there is no person. This is what the > "nonsense" of self inquiry reveals.> > > No no, Phil,Self-inquiry reveals nothing, simply because it doesn't work. Self-inquiry is impossible, and therefore the idea of self-inquiry is nonsense.As I already wrote one can only be conscious of what gets revealed by consciousness in at this moment. That what is not revealed cannot get inquired.And that is a point you don't understand and you also don't want to accept.Maybe the reason why you can't accept it is that you already have told enough people to exercise self-inquiry and now you have to realize what crap that was.In short, maybe you are fearing the loos of reputation ?Werner ***Werner, can I ask a favor of you? Can we agree to not say things like, 'this is what you don't understand and maybe it's because you think this or need that or feel this or fear that'? If you'll make the attempt, so will I. I think it's very distracting to any possible conversation. As I see it, the heart of the disagreement is in here: "one can only be conscious of what gets revealed by consciousness at this moment". Yes, that's true, and so to clarify your point, all that can be seen is what is presented for the seeing at this moment. There is no person standing apart from the content that shows up in consciousness, that can direct that content in any way. Are we in agreement so far? Phil Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 In a message dated 11/05/2008 2:15:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > > ***Werner, can I ask a favor of you? Can we agree to not say things like, > 'this is what you don't understand and maybe it's because you think this or need > that or feel this or fear that'? If you'll make the attempt, so will I. I > think it's very distracting to any possible conversation.> > As I see it, the heart of the disagreement is in here: "one can only be > conscious of what gets revealed by consciousness at this moment". Yes, that's > true, and so to clarify your point, all that can be seen is what is presented for > the seeing at this moment. There is no person standing apart from the > content that shows up in consciousness, that can direct that content in any way. > Are we in agreement so far?> Phil> Yes, Phil,Here we are in agreement. There is no separate person which can influence the content of consciousness.Werner ***Good, it's a good place to begin some semblance of discussion perhaps. Possibly, this implies to you that any further discussion would be pointless since it would just be more meaningless content showing up and getting expressed for no particular reason, in which case there's no point in continuing, but if there's the possibility that it's not so, then maybe we can look at this content that 'gets revealed' a little more closely. I'm sure you'll agree there's nobody 'out there' deciding what content to reveal when, and so unless you're convinced that the content is purely a 'mechanical' function of perceiving an objective experience, then we could ask how this content actually shows up and why this content as opposed that content. What I'm trying to imply here is that, while there is no thought-person present, there is indeed 'something' present that in some way 'reveals' this content, and that it may not be an entirely random process of 'revelation'. If so, it may be something more significant than random content showing up to a nonexistent person. How we doin so far? Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/11/2008 12:55:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > > > > The answer is very simple: > > > > > > > > > > The see-er is the seen. > > > > > > > > > > But one never sees that fact because constantly thought is > > > > separating > > > > > itself from the seen and maintains to be the see-er. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Question remains; what remains after the see-er is the seen? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Smile, > > > > > > Allow me a counter question, Joan: > > > > > > What would have remained if your question wouldn't have been put ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > Than one could ask; what was the origin of putting such a question, > > what instigated such action? > > > > -An endless and useless wordgame, that doesn't get us anywhere...if > > you ask me. > > > > > Yes, Johan, > > Therefore, right from the beginning, one better shouldn't start such > word games. > > But, besides all that hairsplitting subtleness, the expression that > the see-er is the seen is just another way of saying that there is no > separate see-er at all, there is just seeing. > > Just that is expressing following enumeration: > > The observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought, the see- er > is the seen, the intepreter is the intpreted, etc ... > > Werner > > > > ***Yes, there is no seer, and there is nothing seen, just the seeing itself. > No experiencer and no experienced, just experiencing. No subject and no > object. The point of it is simply that there is no person. This is what the > " nonsense " of self inquiry reveals. > > > No no, Phil, Self-inquiry reveals nothing, simply because it doesn't work. Self- inquiry is impossible, and therefore the idea of self-inquiry is nonsense. As I already wrote one can only be conscious of what gets revealed by consciousness in at this moment. That what is not revealed cannot get inquired. And that is a point you don't understand and you also don't want to accept. Maybe the reason why you can't accept it is that you already have told enough people to exercise self-inquiry and now you have to realize what crap that was. In short, maybe you are fearing the loos of reputation ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/05/2008 12:04:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > > > ***Yes, there is no seer, and there is nothing seen, just the > seeing itself. > > No experiencer and no experienced, just experiencing. No subject > and no > > object. The point of it is simply that there is no person. This is > what the > > " nonsense " of self inquiry reveals. > > > > > > > > > No no, Phil, > > Self-inquiry reveals nothing, simply because it doesn't work. Self- > inquiry is impossible, and therefore the idea of self-inquiry is > nonsense. > > As I already wrote one can only be conscious of what gets revealed by > consciousness in at this moment. That what is not revealed cannot get > inquired. > > And that is a point you don't understand and you also don't want to > accept. > > Maybe the reason why you can't accept it is that you already have > told enough people to exercise self-inquiry and now you have to > realize what crap that was. > > In short, maybe you are fearing the loos of reputation ? > > Werner > > > > ***Werner, can I ask a favor of you? Can we agree to not say things like, > 'this is what you don't understand and maybe it's because you think this or need > that or feel this or fear that'? If you'll make the attempt, so will I. I > think it's very distracting to any possible conversation. > > As I see it, the heart of the disagreement is in here: " one can only be > conscious of what gets revealed by consciousness at this moment " . Yes, that's > true, and so to clarify your point, all that can be seen is what is presented for > the seeing at this moment. There is no person standing apart from the > content that shows up in consciousness, that can direct that content in any way. > Are we in agreement so far? > Phil > Yes, Phil, Here we are in agreement. There is no separate person which can influence the content of consciousness. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/05/2008 2:15:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > > > ***Werner, can I ask a favor of you? Can we agree to not say things > like, > > 'this is what you don't understand and maybe it's because you think > this or need > > that or feel this or fear that'? If you'll make the attempt, so > will I. I > > think it's very distracting to any possible conversation. > > > > As I see it, the heart of the disagreement is in here: " one can > only be > > conscious of what gets revealed by consciousness at this moment " . > Yes, that's > > true, and so to clarify your point, all that can be seen is what > is presented for > > the seeing at this moment. There is no person standing apart from > the > > content that shows up in consciousness, that can direct that > content in any way. > > Are we in agreement so far? > > Phil > > > > > Yes, Phil, > > Here we are in agreement. There is no separate person which can > influence the content of consciousness. > > Werner > > > > ***Good, it's a good place to begin some semblance of discussion perhaps. > Possibly, this implies to you that any further discussion would be pointless > since it would just be more meaningless content showing up and getting expressed > for no particular reason, in which case there's no point in continuing, but > if there's the possibility that it's not so, then maybe we can look at this > content that 'gets revealed' a little more closely. > > I'm sure you'll agree there's nobody 'out there' deciding what content to > reveal when, and so unless you're convinced that the content is purely a > 'mechanical' function of perceiving an objective experience, then we could ask how > this content actually shows up and why this content as opposed that content. > > What I'm trying to imply here is that, while there is no thought- person > present, there is indeed 'something' present that in some way 'reveals' this > content, and that it may not be an entirely random process of 'revelation'. If > so, it may be something more significant than random content showing up to a > nonexistent person. > > How we doin so far? > " further discussion would be pointless " -That's the point, any discussion on/about one's own experience is pointless. Its gone, pase, over and never to be re-experienced again, ready for burying. New perfect choreographed challenges waiting ahead, few have very little control over. (I'm still working on it. ) > > > > **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 In a message dated 5/12/2008 1:34:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > Yes, Phil,> > Here we are in agreement. There is no separate person which can > influence the content of consciousness.> > Werner> > > > ***Good, it's a good place to begin some semblance of discussion perhaps. > Possibly, this implies to you that any further discussion would be pointless > since it would just be more meaningless content showing up and getting expressed > for no particular reason, in which case there's no point in continuing, but > if there's the possibility that it's not so, then maybe we can look at this > content that 'gets revealed' a little more closely.> > I'm sure you'll agree there's nobody 'out there' deciding what content to > reveal when, and so unless you're convinced that the content is purely a > 'mechanical' function of perceiving an objective experience, then we could ask how > this content actually shows up and why this content as opposed that content. >Hm, Phil,I don't understand that "this content as opposed that content".No content of consciousness is oppposing another content. It is the categorizing mind which sees contradictions. ****Well, I don't mean "as opposed to" in the sense of conflict or contradiction, I just mean why does the thought of your dead aunt Zelda arise instead of the idea of brushing your teeth? Based on the tone of what you say below, with which I have no major disagreement, I'm guessing you would say the thought that happens is determined by conditioning and environmental stimulus only. Again, if you insist that the world is strictly an objective thing, and that the brain is somehow a self functioning meat mechanism, then we can't go anywhere with it. If you will allow for the possibility of an underlying intelligence in some form that drives the process of perception, then we can discuss further. > What I'm trying to imply here is that, while there is no thought-person > present, there is indeed 'something' present that in some way 'reveals' this > content, and that it may not be an entirely random process of 'revelation'.What do you mean with "thought-person" ? ****What I mean is an individual identity that consists entirely of thoughts about being an individual person. The ego. It's not a "thing", just a set of thoughts. Lets recapitulate - please join that:1) There is no such thing as "pure consciousness" because consciousness is its content - no content, no consciousness. 2) The brain is comparing new sensual data with old already stored data and presents the result as a content which is made conscious.3) Therefore consciousness which IS its content is subjective. This subjectivity is a reflection of your summed up biography residuing in memory.4) When you meet another person then your consciousness which is your subjectivity meets another consciousness which is theat person's subjectivity: Or in different words, one biography meets another biography.5) These two biographies are communicating with each other via body language and via verbal language. The body lanuguage is genetically inhereited but the verbal language is condiotioned by your upbringing and your environment.6) This constant internal silent talking is called thinking. When it is with voice then it is called speaking. And thought only is created by the brain in order to eventually get communciated. We are socaial beings in such an extereme extent that we no longer realize it.All these processes are functions of complex social interactions and there is nowhere such a thing as a "thought-person".Werner Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/05/2008 2:15:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > > > ***Werner, can I ask a favor of you? Can we agree to not say things > like, > > 'this is what you don't understand and maybe it's because you think > this or need > > that or feel this or fear that'? If you'll make the attempt, so > will I. I > > think it's very distracting to any possible conversation. > > > > As I see it, the heart of the disagreement is in here: " one can > only be > > conscious of what gets revealed by consciousness at this moment " . > Yes, that's > > true, and so to clarify your point, all that can be seen is what > is presented for > > the seeing at this moment. There is no person standing apart from > the > > content that shows up in consciousness, that can direct that > content in any way. > > Are we in agreement so far? > > Phil > > > > > Yes, Phil, > > Here we are in agreement. There is no separate person which can > influence the content of consciousness. > > Werner > > > > ***Good, it's a good place to begin some semblance of discussion perhaps. > Possibly, this implies to you that any further discussion would be pointless > since it would just be more meaningless content showing up and getting expressed > for no particular reason, in which case there's no point in continuing, but > if there's the possibility that it's not so, then maybe we can look at this > content that 'gets revealed' a little more closely. > > I'm sure you'll agree there's nobody 'out there' deciding what content to > reveal when, and so unless you're convinced that the content is purely a > 'mechanical' function of perceiving an objective experience, then we could ask how > this content actually shows up and why this content as opposed that content. > Hm, Phil, I don't understand that " this content as opposed that content " . No content of consciousness is oppposing another content. It is the categorizing mind which sees contradictions. > What I'm trying to imply here is that, while there is no thought- person > present, there is indeed 'something' present that in some way 'reveals' this > content, and that it may not be an entirely random process of 'revelation'. What do you mean with " thought-person " ? Lets recapitulate - please join that: 1) There is no such thing as " pure consciousness " because consciousness is its content - no content, no consciousness. 2) The brain is comparing new sensual data with old already stored data and presents the result as a content which is made conscious. 3) Therefore consciousness which IS its content is subjective. This subjectivity is a reflection of your summed up biography residuing in memory. 4) When you meet another person then your consciousness which is your subjectivity meets another consciousness which is theat person's subjectivity: Or in different words, one biography meets another biography. 5) These two biographies are communicating with each other via body language and via verbal language. The body lanuguage is genetically inhereited but the verbal language is condiotioned by your upbringing and your environment. 6) This constant internal silent talking is called thinking. When it is with voice then it is called speaking. And thought only is created by the brain in order to eventually get communciated. We are socaial beings in such an extereme extent that we no longer realize it. All these processes are functions of complex social interactions and there is nowhere such a thing as a " thought-person " . Werner > If > so, it may be something more significant than random content showing up to a > nonexistent person. > > How we doin so far? > > > > > **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/12/2008 1:34:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > Yes, Phil, > > > > Here we are in agreement. There is no separate person which can > > influence the content of consciousness. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > ***Good, it's a good place to begin some semblance of discussion > perhaps. > > Possibly, this implies to you that any further discussion would be > pointless > > since it would just be more meaningless content showing up and > getting expressed > > for no particular reason, in which case there's no point in > continuing, but > > if there's the possibility that it's not so, then maybe we can > look at this > > content that 'gets revealed' a little more closely. > > > > I'm sure you'll agree there's nobody 'out there' deciding what > content to > > reveal when, and so unless you're convinced that the content is > purely a > > 'mechanical' function of perceiving an objective experience, then > we could ask how > > this content actually shows up and why this content as opposed > that content. > > > > > Hm, Phil, > > I don't understand that " this content as opposed that content " . > > No content of consciousness is oppposing another content. It is the > categorizing mind which sees contradictions. > > > > > ****Well, I don't mean " as opposed to " in the sense of conflict or > contradiction, I just mean why does the thought of your dead aunt Zelda arise instead > of the idea of brushing your teeth? Based on the tone of what you say below, > with which I have no major disagreement, I'm guessing you would say the > thought that happens is determined by conditioning and environmental stimulus > only. Again, if you insist that the world is strictly an objective thing, and > that the brain is somehow a self functioning meat mechanism, then we can't go > anywhere with it. If you will allow for the possibility of an underlying > intelligence in some form that drives the process of perception, then we can > discuss further. > > > > > > What I'm trying to imply here is that, while there is no thought- > person > > present, there is indeed 'something' present that in some > way 'reveals' this > > content, and that it may not be an entirely random process > of 'revelation'. > > > What do you mean with " thought-person " ? > > > > > > ****What I mean is an individual identity that consists entirely of thoughts > about being an individual person. The ego. It's not a " thing " , just a set of > thoughts. > Ok, Phil, " When thought is silent, you remain alone " , Ramana. Therefore this so called " thought-person " you are mentioning must be a repeating pattern caused by the fear to be alone and which shows the well known symptom of constantly thinking. " As long as I am thinking, I am not alone " , said the child. This thought-person is the child in you or me. Werner > > > > Lets recapitulate - please join that: > > 1) There is no such thing as " pure consciousness " because > consciousness is its content - no content, no consciousness. > > 2) The brain is comparing new sensual data with old already stored > data and presents the result as a content which is made conscious. > > 3) Therefore consciousness which IS its content is subjective. This > subjectivity is a reflection of your summed up biography residuing in > memory. > > 4) When you meet another person then your consciousness which is your > subjectivity meets another consciousness which is theat person's > subjectivity: Or in different words, one biography meets another > biography. > > 5) These two biographies are communicating with each other via body > language and via verbal language. The body lanuguage is genetically > inhereited but the verbal language is condiotioned by your upbringing > and your environment. > > 6) This constant internal silent talking is called thinking. When it > is with voice then it is called speaking. And thought only is created > by the brain in order to eventually get communciated. We are socaial > beings in such an extereme extent that we no longer realize it. > > All these processes are functions of complex social interactions and > there is nowhere such a thing as a " thought-person " . > > Werner > **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 In a message dated 12/05/2008 9:29:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes: > ****Well, I don't mean "as opposed to" in the sense of conflict or > contradiction, I just mean why does the thought of your dead aunt Zelda arise instead > of the idea of brushing your teeth? Based on the tone of what you say below, > with which I have no major disagreement, I'm guessing you would say the > thought that happens is determined by conditioning and environmental stimulus > only. Again, if you insist that the world is strictly an objective thing, and > that the brain is somehow a self functioning meat mechanism, then we can't go > anywhere with it. If you will allow for the possibility of an underlying > intelligence in some form that drives the process of perception, then we can > discuss further.> > > > > > What I'm trying to imply here is that, while there is no thought-> person > > present, there is indeed 'something' present that in some > way 'reveals' this > > content, and that it may not be an entirely random process > of 'revelation'.> > > What do you mean with "thought-person" ?> > > > > > ****What I mean is an individual identity that consists entirely of thoughts > about being an individual person. The ego. It's not a "thing", just a set of > thoughts.>Ok, Phil,"When thought is silent, you remain alone", Ramana.Therefore this so called "thought-person" you are mentioning must be a repeating pattern caused by the fear to be alone and which shows the well known symptom of constantly thinking."As long as I am thinking, I am not alone", said the child.This thought-person is the child in you or me.Werner ****Right, though irrelevant as far as I can see...............You seem to have a lot of trouble focussing on the topic. Maybe you're too busy looking around for sticks to hit me with. Never mind.................. Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 12/05/2008 9:29:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > wwoehr writes: > > > ****Well, I don't mean " as opposed to " in the sense of conflict or > > contradiction, I just mean why does the thought of your dead aunt > Zelda arise instead > > of the idea of brushing your teeth? Based on the tone of what you > say below, > > with which I have no major disagreement, I'm guessing you would > say the > > thought that happens is determined by conditioning and > environmental stimulus > > only. Again, if you insist that the world is strictly an objective > thing, and > > that the brain is somehow a self functioning meat mechanism, then > we can't go > > anywhere with it. If you will allow for the possibility of an > underlying > > intelligence in some form that drives the process of perception, > then we can > > discuss further. > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm trying to imply here is that, while there is no thought- > > person > > > present, there is indeed 'something' present that in some > > way 'reveals' this > > > content, and that it may not be an entirely random process > > of 'revelation'. > > > > > > What do you mean with " thought-person " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > ****What I mean is an individual identity that consists entirely > of thoughts > > about being an individual person. The ego. It's not a " thing " , > just a set of > > thoughts. > > > > > Ok, Phil, > > " When thought is silent, you remain alone " , Ramana. > > Therefore this so called " thought-person " you are mentioning must be > a repeating pattern caused by the fear to be alone and which shows > the well known symptom of constantly thinking. > > " As long as I am thinking, I am not alone " , said the child. > > This thought-person is the child in you or me. > > Werner > > > ****Right, though irrelevant as far as I can see...............You seem to > have a lot of trouble focussing on the topic. Maybe you're too busy looking > around for sticks to hit me with. > Never mind.................. > > Forgive me, Phil, But I feel and have no intention to hit you, at least no conscious one. What I wrote to you was just the way my brain ticks. Maybe it was felt by you as hits with a stick, unpleasant and in no way gratifying. And I think just easy going is also what you are waiting for. I wish you a good time. Werner > > > > > > **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > 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.