Guest guest Posted June 10, 1999 Report Share Posted June 10, 1999 On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:13:13 Greg Goode wrote: >>I don't know what Harding does, but I certainly >>see the image of the hand in my optic >>tectum in the brain projected there via the retina and >>the photons hitting them in the eyes. > >Do you really? Aren't all these things, such as the optic tectum and the >brain and the retina and the eye and the photons -- aren't they all >THEMSELVES just objects of perception or thought? Yes, they are linguistic constructions, indicating a separate part of "reality", i.e. of the whole. >If they are seen, then how can they see? Hmmm.... they are not seen as much as thought, except during dissection of an optic tectum of course, or when looking at a photographic image of the same. >The seeing isn't experienced as coming from them or >from within them, is it? No, it's not. >BTW, Harding is a non-dualism teacher who teaches through perceptual >exercises. You might have seen his best known book, ON HAVING NO HEAD. Thank you. I haven't seen any books about him as I am new to the formal teaching of non dualism by a few months (but not to the idea or the experience). I have barely had time to read the Tao Te Ching and Jerry's FAQ on the net. >What about YOU is inside the body? And even the hand -- is even the hand >inside the body? If you are a just a body part, such as the eye, etc., >then you might say that you are inside the body. Yes, it is perceived in the body/mind, more specifically in the homunculus of the cerebral cortex, or rather, most clearly there. And a few other places. >But let's say you are >something non-physical... Then there's no way you can be inside anything. No, then all my perceptions become an energy field, which in themselves are not outside or inside any place. My thought modes have been wobbled now. Thank you for the shake. Best regards, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 1999 Report Share Posted June 10, 1999 At 01:24 PM 6/10/99 -0700, Amanda Erhart wrote: > Thank you. I haven't seen any books about him >as I am new to the formal teaching > of non dualism by a few months >(but not to the idea or the experience). >I have barely had time to read the Tao Te Ching >and Jerry's FAQ on the net. Nice! An exciting journey ahead of you! Here's a good web site for a pretty wide variety of non-dualistic teachers. I think Jerry has a link to it as well: http://www.sentient.org/amber/story.htm See the column on the left. ....about the hand... >Yes, it is perceived in the body/mind, more specifically >in the homunculus of the cerebral cortex, or rather, >most clearly there. Would you really say that perception happens inside the body? That is a different thing from saying that perception wouldn't happen if certain physical objects were not attached. If perception is physical, then maybe it happens inside. If perception is not physical, then it can't have a location. Just because some perceptions seem to be accompanied by a sense of "here-ness" doesn't mean that the perception itself is here. That sense of here-ness itself is just another appearance. >>But let's say you are >>something non-physical... Then there's no way you can be inside anything. > >No, then all my perceptions become an energy field, >which in themselves are not outside or inside >any place. > >My thought modes have been wobbled now. > >Thank you for the shake. If you are interested in this kind of enquiry, about the relationship bewteen the body and perception/sensation, then may I recommend a book? It's very special to me: THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS, by George Berkeley. Short, well written dialogues, arguing in exemplary style against the notion that there are really physical objects which are somehow perceived by our sensory apparatus. Who is Berkeley? You know that old philosophical question about the tree in the forest, would it make a sound if no one were there to hear it? He's the guy in the 18th century who answered "No." When I was in grad school going for a philosophy doctorate, my teacher Colin Murray Turbayne was acknowledged as one of the world's great Berkeley scholars. But to get a good grade in his class, you could never write anything against Berkeley. So we had to study Berkeley really carefully, because his ideas sounded so utterly unintuitive, crazy really. After several months, they began to make sense. Studying with Turbayne, I'd never encountered a philosopher in the Western tradition who ever adequately answered Berkeley. And Turbayne was like a bulldog, always sniffing, always on the lookout for anti-Berkeley arguments. And since that time, over 16 years ago, I must say that any belief in any physical object, even my own body, has never again occurred to me. Nevertheless, I learned to rollerblade just 5 years ago and have never been hit by a car. (I did have a very nasty accident crashing into a pothole a few evenings ago -- no more skating at night for me!) Physical-type perceptions and ideas are a language, where each concept refers to other concepts in a growing and internally consistent way. But there's nothing Out There which any of these ideas refer to. In my case, it was an excellent shake-up, like a mental Vege-matic blender, preparing me for non-dualist teachings. 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.