Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am

Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
Only through working TOGETHER, with the apparent 'separate entity' of 'human being' can I be HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED for Who 'I' Truly am.
Why would "I" need acceptance? Why would "I" need to be "HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED"?
The above applies to egos, for the thought made self, not for Being. Being has no such needs (neither has it any other needs).
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
If that is it, full stop. Then why did 'you' continue on below?
Thats what thought likes to do - it likes to conceptualise and explain, doesn't mean this will go anywhere.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
What do 'you' mean by "the rest is made/thought up"? If there is only one Mind, Consciousness, Being, then WHY is this One making/thinking up the "rest"?
But It doesn't do that, Mind/Being doesn't make things up.
That "making things up" is happening is only an idea - it doesn't actually happen.
Ultimately nothing happens, ever.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
And is this "made/thought up" stuff, ABSOLUTE Truth, just another view/perspective
Yes, all "made/thought up" stuff is simply conceptual thought - thus a "view/perspective". Not reality/Mind.

You walk in a hot the desert and see an oasis a few hundred meters away - as you get closer you see that actually nothing is there - it was a Fata Morgana, a mirage, it is not real. The mirage is a perspective, but reality knows nothing of it.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
It sees through human beings experiences and understands through the human brain. It SEES ALL, though, through the Mind's EYE.
Could this statement be wrong? Or are you absolutely sure this is "Thee Truth"?
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
If it does NOT make sense to you, then that is okay. The language that makes sense to ALL is what i am LOOKING FOR
Well... good luck with that.
What if language is not meant to "make sense to ALL"?
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
If you can help me FIND THIS by writing in a way that makes sense to ALL, then that would be gratefully appreciated.
I am sorry, all I can do is write so it might make sense to you - but it will never make sense to ALL (I guess ALL refers to Mind/Being, right?)
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
If you are saying the Mind is, literally, ALL things, then are you SURE that the Mind is also all the WRONG knowledge that gets passed around here also?
I didn't say the Mind is a thing. I said Mind is ALL, but ALL is not a thing. There are no things, there are thoughts referring to such imagined entities, but this doesn't mean they truly exist. Wrong/right knowledge is a thing - it doesn't exist - there is only the idea that knowledge exists. Thus Mind doesn't know. It IS.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
You also wrote that the Mind, by definition, the Observer ... but then also wrote that it does not make sense to you to state that the Mind is an Observer, that It SEES and UNDERSTANDS?
What is the difference?
I wrote "It is, by definition, the Observer, the SEEING as well as the observed - it is ALL".
What don't you understand? Isn't it obvious that if Mind is thought to be all three of these (Observer, the SEEING as well as the observed) that ultimately there are no such entities at all? That there is simply Mind, but no separate Observer, that SEES observed objects.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
And, is a human being one observer and the Mind, Being, another Observer. One is just a small o observer while the other is the big O Observer?
There are NO observers (no matter if you write o or O) - there is only Mind/Being.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
But did you NOT just get through telling us that the Mind/Being is ALL? If yes, then ALL things do have SOME thing to do with Mind/Being, and NOT nothing to do with Mind/Being.
Does a mirage have anything to do with reality?
If something is imagined how could this imagined thing have anything to do with it?
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
TRYING TO reject 'separate entities' as though they are NOT real is NOT going to help EXPLAIN 'that', which is WANTING to be HEARD and UNDERSTOOD.
What is "'that', which is WANTING to be HEARD and UNDERSTOOD"?

Age
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
Only through working TOGETHER, with the apparent 'separate entity' of 'human being' can I be HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED for Who 'I' Truly am.
Why would "I" need acceptance? Why would "I" need to be "HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED"?
But I do NOT need these two things.

The above applies to egos, for the thought made self, not for Being. Being has no such needs (neither has it any other needs).[/quote]

Agreed.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
If that is it, full stop. Then why did 'you' continue on below?
Thats what thought likes to do - it likes to conceptualise and explain,

doesn't mean this will go anywhere.
Also does NOT mean that this will NOT go anywhere also. This might actually go somewhere.

This might actually lead to SHOWING HOW to explain EVERY thing so that ALL understand, which leads ALL back to the Being, which then leads to ALL living together in peace and harmony as One, which might be what was intended ' In the 'beginning' '.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
What do 'you' mean by "the rest is made/thought up"? If there is only one Mind, Consciousness, Being, then WHY is this One making/thinking up the "rest"?
But It doesn't do that, Mind/Being doesn't make things up.
But 'you' say Mind/Being is ALL, correct?

That "making things up" is happening is only an idea - it doesn't actually happen.
Ultimately nothing happens, ever.

Okay tell what I have wrong here. There is a Mind, which is All. But actually there is NO all, because ultimately no thing happens, ever. (I am NOT sure why the "ever" word is even needed when supposedly is nothing happening.) Anyway, if nothing happens, then that would mean there is nothing whatsoever at all, in which case there are NO ideas.

If there is NO thing, then there can NOT be an idea.

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
And is this "made/thought up" stuff, ABSOLUTE Truth, just another view/perspective
Yes, all "made/thought up" stuff is simply conceptual thought - thus a "view/perspective". Not reality/Mind.
What is 'reality/Mind'? Or, has this NOT been made/thought up yet?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
You walk in a hot the desert and see an oasis a few hundred meters away -
If a human being walking in a "hot" (whatever that relates to) desert and sees an oasis a "few hundred meters" away -
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
as you get closer you see that actually nothing is there -
as the human being gets closer it sees that actually nothing is there -
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
it was a Fata Morgana, a mirage, it is not real.
So for you to SHOW that ultimately there is 'nothing whatsoever at all' you provide an example of, and a description of, a human being walking in a desert and seeing, of ALL things, a "mirage". By definition a 'mirage' means it is NOT there. Most people, however, would say that they are SOME thing and NOT nothing, literally, like what a "mirage" is.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
The mirage is a perspective, but reality knows nothing of it.
What is the 'it', which you are referring to here?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
It sees through human beings experiences and understands through the human brain. It SEES ALL, though, through the Mind's EYE.
Could this statement be wrong? Or are you absolutely sure this is "Thee Truth"?
That statement could be wrong, BUT there is NOTHING I can SEE of how nor why it is wrong, nor partly wrong.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
If it does NOT make sense to you, then that is okay. The language that makes sense to ALL is what i am LOOKING FOR
Well... good luck with that.
Thank you. Actually the language is ALREADY here, but formulating that language in such a way so that people are prepared to become to Truly OPEN and Honest to LOOK AT it, for what it actually is saying, is another matter.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
What if language is not meant to "make sense to ALL"?
Seems rather illogical to even begin to imagine that the very thing that is used to communicate with and explain things, and which is used to comprehend, understand, and make sense of the very Universe that that species lives in would be designed in such a way to NOT "make sense to ALL".

IF language is NOT meant to "make sense to ALL", then obviously it is only meant to make sense to SOME, only. (But that language, in its own self, does NOT make sense, to me anyway. Does it make sense to ANY one that the language they use to communicate with is NOT meant to make sense to "others"?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
If you can help me FIND THIS by writing in a way that makes sense to ALL, then that would be gratefully appreciated.
I am sorry, all I can do is write so it might make sense to you - but it will never make sense to ALL (I guess ALL refers to Mind/Being, right?)
In a sense yes.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
If you are saying the Mind is, literally, ALL things, then are you SURE that the Mind is also all the WRONG knowledge that gets passed around here also?
I didn't say the Mind is a thing. I said Mind is ALL, but ALL is not a thing.
If ALL is NOT a thing, then what is 'ALL'?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
There are no things,
When you say "There are no things", what do you actually mean?

Are you saying there is NO Universe, NO earth, NO human beings, NO physical matter, or do you mean some thing else?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
there are thoughts referring to such imagined entities,
What are these so called "imagined entities' exactly which you refer to?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
but this doesn't mean they truly exist.
OF COURSE if thoughts are referring to "imagined entities", then they do NOT truly exist. The words "imagined" and "entities" together gives away the clue that they do NOT truly exist.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Wrong/right knowledge is a thing - it doesn't exist -
So in this very quick succession of two statements you say "some" thing is a thing BUT it does NOT exist.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
there is only the idea that knowledge exists.
WHERE does the 'idea' of any thing exist?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Thus Mind doesn't know. It IS.
This does NOT make sense, even though I KNOW exactly what IT IS that you are WANTING TO and TRYING TO explain.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
You also wrote that the Mind, by definition, the Observer ... but then also wrote that it does not make sense to you to state that the Mind is an Observer, that It SEES and UNDERSTANDS?
What is the difference?
I wrote "It is, by definition, the Observer, the SEEING as well as the observed - it is ALL".
What don't you understand?
In regards to WHAT EXACTLY?

If I asked you; What do you NOT understand? What would be your reply?

One thing I do NOT understand is when you say the Mind is the Being, the Observer, the SEEING, as well as the observed but state there are NO things. How can the Mind be ALL, but ultimately there is NOTHING?

If you did NOT answer before What does ALL mean, to you?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Isn't it obvious that if Mind is thought to be all three of these (Observer, the SEEING as well as the observed) that ultimately there are no such entities at all?
That might be obvious IF Mind is thought to be all three of these things. BUT who/what would think such a thing.

To me, it would NOT make sense to think such a thing. To me, it does NOT make sense to be able to observe and see that which ultimately is NOT even there. To me, it sounds like some one is TRYING there hardest to explain THAT, which REALLY they do NOT know nor understand.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
That there is simply Mind, but no separate Observer, that SEES observed objects.
How COULD there be "observed objects" IF there are NO things?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
And, is a human being one observer and the Mind, Being, another Observer. One is just a small o observer while the other is the big O Observer?
There are NO observers (no matter if you write o or O) - there is only Mind/Being.
But did you NOT just get through saying that the Mind is the Observer, the SEEING, and the observed. It is ALL?

If yes, then how come there is now NO observers. There is only Mind/Being? What is Mind/Being?
If no, then what did you just get through saying?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
But did you NOT just get through telling us that the Mind/Being is ALL? If yes, then ALL things do have SOME thing to do with Mind/Being, and NOT nothing to do with Mind/Being.
Does a mirage have anything to do with reality?
In one sense, Yes.
In another sense, No.

Does asking that question about a 'mirage', which by definition is an optical illusion, to prove a point that a mirage does NOT have anything to do with reality, do you think really going to work?
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
If something is imagined how could this imagined thing have anything to do with it?
LOL you are the one getting further and further away from reality, itself, now.

Either you got through telling us, earlier on and now in this post, which I am replying to, that the Mind/Being is ALL.

If you did, then either there are some things, which the sum of equals ALL, or there are NO things, which means there is only NOTHING.

Now, is there a Mind/Being or NOT?

If no, then so be it.
If yes, then what is ALL made up of EXACTLY?

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:34 am
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:39 am
TRYING TO reject 'separate entities' as though they are NOT real is NOT going to help EXPLAIN 'that', which is WANTING to be HEARD and UNDERSTOOD.
What is "'that', which is WANTING to be HEARD and UNDERSTOOD"?
'you', 'I', AND thee Truth.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:26 am

Age wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm
One thing I do NOT understand is when you say the Mind is the Being, the Observer, the SEEING, as well as the observed but state there are NO things. How can the Mind be ALL, but ultimately there is NOTHING?
It seems to me that if it works for you then you pick apart every single word (meaning you are very precise regarding how a sentence is phrased) then again you seem to (consciously or not) rearrange what I have said so it doesn't make sense anymore...

As I have written before: "It (Mind) is, by definition, the Observer, the SEEING as well as the observed - it is ALL".

Now what does that mean?
1) It does NOT mean that there is NOTHING or that Mind is NOTHING
2) It does NOT mean that Mind is a separate Observer, the SEEING OR the observed.
3) I wrote "It/Mind is, by definition..." which means that we define/conceptualise it as an observer which observes separate objects - but that does NOT mean that it actually is a separate Observer (or the separate objects).
4) "it is ALL" means that even we pick apart experience into an Observer (Mind), the process of observing and the observed object, this separation is only conceptual - it only exists as an idea.

Now, what does it mean if the separation is only conceptual? It means that Mind IS All and it means that there is no separate Observer, no process of observation and no external objects/things.

As there is only ONE "thing" (Mind), and no other things at all, it does not make sense to call this "thing" a thing. Right?
It is ALL that IS. Everything that seems to happen happens "inside" (there is no outside) this no-thing. It follows that Mind is NOT NOTHING but it is also NOT a thing (you can only refer to Mind as being a thing (e.g. Observer) if there is at least one other thing that is not it (e.g. objects) - but, as it stands, this is not the case).
It also means that any process (e.g. observing) is actually not happening as for a process to happen you require separation, you require a doer that acts on a separate object, but again this is not the case...
Age wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm
It sees through human beings experiences and understands through the human brain. It SEES ALL, though, through the Mind's EYE.
Age wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm
That statement could be wrong, BUT there is NOTHING I can SEE of how nor why it is wrong, nor partly wrong.
Based on what I wrote before, do you see how it could be wrong to say: "It sees through human beings experiences and understands through the human brain. It SEES ALL, though, through the Mind's EYE." ?

Age
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:48 am

AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:26 am
Age wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm
One thing I do NOT understand is when you say the Mind is the Being, the Observer, the SEEING, as well as the observed but state there are NO things. How can the Mind be ALL, but ultimately there is NOTHING?
It seems to me that if it works for you then you pick apart every single word (meaning you are very precise regarding how a sentence is phrased) then again you seem to (consciously or not) rearrange what I have said so it doesn't make sense anymore...
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:26 am
As I have written before: "It (Mind) is, by definition, the Observer, the SEEING as well as the observed - it is ALL".
I agree that that is A definition of what 'Mind' is, which was thought/made up, and then expressed under the label "alexw". But that is NOT necessarily what thee definition of 'Mind' IS. Thee definition of some thing comes around through and by agreement.

Mind, by definition, could well be some thing else.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:26 am
Now what does that mean?
1) It does NOT mean that there is NOTHING or that Mind is NOTHING
2) It does NOT mean that Mind is a separate Observer, the SEEING OR the observed.
3) I wrote "It/Mind is, by definition..." which means that we define/conceptualise it as an observer which observes separate objects - but that does NOT mean that it actually is a separate Observer (or the separate objects).
Just to clear some thing up here, when you write some thing, and then also add "by definition" this does NOT mean that 'we' define/conceptualize any thing at all, which you suggest here. When you write "by definition", that means that 'you' define/conceptualize in one way or other. But this does NOt mean 'we' are doing the same.

If thee Truth be KNOWN i define/ conceptualize the word Mind differently than you do here.


4) "it is ALL" means that even we pick apart experience into an Observer (Mind), the process of observing and the observed object, this separation is only conceptual - it only exists as an idea.

Now, what does it mean if the separation is only conceptual? It means that Mind IS All and it means that there is no separate Observer, no process of observation and no external objects/things.
This may be True but how does this actually work/happen?

If, for example, an elephant is being observed, then how is that elephant NOT separate and NOT external to the Observer. The elephant is after all being observed and SEEN, from WITHIN a human body.

All of this can be explained, but I just want to learn what you actually understand and know.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:26 am
As there is only ONE "thing" (Mind), and no other things at all, it does not make sense to call this "thing" a thing. Right?
NO this is NOT right at all, from my perspective, for two reasons.

1. IF there is only one thing, then, just because there is only one thing, then that by itself does NOT make sense at all, to me anyway, to then call this one thing, not-a-thing. IF there is one thing, then there clearly is NOT no thing. If there is one thing, then obviously that IS some thing, which clearly means there is NOT nothing.

2. You have NOT yet SHOWN that there is in fact one thing only and NO other things at all.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:26 am
It is ALL that IS. Everything that seems to happen happens "inside" (there is no outside) this no-thing.
Just because there is nothing outside of some thing, then there can still be happenings inside the one thing.

Also, just because a thing can NOT be seen, with the human eyes, nor has NOT been able to be fully understood and known, by most human beings, quite YET, this by itself does NOT mean that that one thing is no-thing at all.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:26 am
It follows that Mind is NOT NOTHING but it is also NOT a thing (you can only refer to Mind as being a thing (e.g. Observer) if there is at least one other thing that is not it (e.g. objects) - but, as it stands, this is not the case).
Please explain how there is NOT objects?

Are there human beings with eyes, which observe and think?

If no, then explain that to A human being, which makes sense to them.
If yes, then there is an object.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:26 am
Age wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm
It sees through human beings experiences and understands through the human brain. It SEES ALL, though, through the Mind's EYE.
Age wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:33 pm
That statement could be wrong, BUT there is NOTHING I can SEE of how nor why it is wrong, nor partly wrong.
Based on what I wrote before, do you see how it could be wrong to say: "It sees through human beings experiences and understands through the human brain. It SEES ALL, though, through the Mind's EYE." ?
No. But I can clearly SEE how from your interpretation/perspective what I wrote could be, or is, WRONG.

By the way it is NOT wrong, in and of itself, to just say or express some thing, as long as it is NOT being proposed as being the one and only actual and real Truth.

To express what I did as just being a VIEW, which may or may not be wrong, is NOT itself wrong, although the actual view may in fact be wrong.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am

Age wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:48 am
This may be True but how does this actually work/happen?

If, for example, an elephant is being observed, then how is that elephant NOT separate and NOT external to the Observer. The elephant is after all being observed and SEEN, from WITHIN a human body.
OK... how does it work...
Well... I guess you might agree that, conventionally speaking, we experience the world via our senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and the sense of touch AND then there is thought which interprets and conceptualises what is seen, heard, smelled... You wouldn't know anything about the world, the body, even yourself without these senses - it would be like deep sleep: spaceless, timeless, object-less being.

Anyway, lets have a look at this elephant and how it is being observed (or how about we have a look at "observing a cup on a desk", makes it easier than trying to get hold of an elephant):

When looking at this cup on the desk in front of you (or any other object that might be on your desk) what exactly do you see?
What exactly is the direct experience of "looking at cup on desk" made of?

Have a look yourself and note the most basic experience of "cup on desk".
What do you see? Try to distinguish between what you actually SEE and what you THINK you see.
Does to pure/direct experience of SEEING contain any information about "cup on desk"?
If not, what turns (part of) the basic experience of seeing into "cup on desk"? What actually tells you that you are seeing separate objects at all?

Age
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am

AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:48 am
This may be True but how does this actually work/happen?

If, for example, an elephant is being observed, then how is that elephant NOT separate and NOT external to the Observer. The elephant is after all being observed and SEEN, from WITHIN a human body.
OK... how does it work...
Well... I guess you might agree that, conventionally speaking, we experience the world via our senses -
If you are going to start guessing about what I might agree with, then you are going to have to start defining the words you use.

If you want to KNOW if I agree or not, then just ask me, through clarifying questioning, instead of just GUESSING.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and the sense of touch AND then there is thought which interprets and conceptualises what is seen, heard, smelled... You wouldn't know anything about the world, the body, even yourself without these senses - it would be like deep sleep: spaceless, timeless, object-less being.

Anyway, lets have a look at this elephant and how it is being observed (or how about we have a look at "observing a cup on a desk", makes it easier than trying to get hold of an elephant):

When looking at this cup on the desk in front of you (or any other object that might be on your desk) what exactly do you see?
Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
What exactly is the direct experience of "looking at cup on desk" made of?
Through the eyes on this human body physical things are seen, that get labeled with names from the language previously learned from past bodily experiences and from the memories from those past bodily experiences, which now have become the new thought 'that is a cup on a desk' in this body, which is actually the individual person within that body, which I am observing. The direct experience, from what I Truly am, also informs Me that that direct experience was all happening AFTER the light bouncing of that "cup on the desk", which was just the information input through the eyes and received into the brain becoming thought/s. Because ALL of this happened PREVIOUSLY the image of "cup on desk" has ALREADY CHANGED, and so, in a sense, is NOT really there in the EXACT SAME WAY, so some might say this was just an illusion.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
Have a look yourself and note the most basic experience of "cup on desk".
Already done.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
What do you see?
WHEN? Now, or before when you asked and I have already answered?
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
Try to distinguish between what you actually SEE and what you THINK you see.
Already done.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
Does to pure/direct experience of SEEING contain any information about "cup on desk"?
Yes, and MORE.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
If not, what turns (part of) the basic experience of seeing into "cup on desk"?


The actual physical "cup on desk" turned the basic experiencing of seeing into "cup on desk". From an actual physical human body, with actual physical working eyes, a "cup on desk" was seen. What MAKES it "cup on desk" is the previous thoughts within this physical human body. If this physical human body was born into and grew up in another place and/or time and experienced a different language where the words "cup", "on", and/or "desk" are NOT used to describe what is being seen, then "cup on desk" would be some thing else, but only by words, and NOT some thing else by Nature, nor the Truth, Itself.

The only thing that turns the basic experience of seeing into what "THEY, supposedly, ARE" are WORDS, themselves. With a different language or different words, then what you see, obviously, becomes "different".
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:20 am
What actually tells you that you are seeing separate objects at all?
WORDS, essentially, which have been gathered from past bodily experiences, which are then used to describe the physical particles of matter that ARE SEPARATED by distance.

Although there is NO actual separation in the one and only Universe, Itself, as It is made up matter AND space, which co-exist together as One, it is the distance, which ACTUALLY EXISTS, between pieces of physical that tells 'you', human beings, that there are "separate objects".

The actual 'DISTANCE' between physical matter is what TELLS 'you' that what is being seen is "separate".

Although this can be understood, relatively easy, on a 'deeper' reflection what IS observed and SEEN is that there really is NO separation but only an illusion of a "time" and a "space", which is what makes the "separation" appear. There is of course events happening BUT, by the time they are seen, they have already happened, and thus have already disappeared. So, what is REALLY seen IS only an IMAGE, like that of on a movie screen, which is SHOWING past events, and NOT the True REALITY of things. That the True Reality is yet to come is some thing else to understand, which until other things are better understood, is, relatively harder, to understand.

The True Reality is different from what really appears, which is different again from what is really happening, which is actually what has really happened.

But basically what is telling 'you' you are seeing separate objects is 'you', your-self, which just is the, invisible, thoughts (and emotions) within that human body.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:40 am

When looking at this cup on the desk in front of you (or any other object that might be on your desk) what exactly do you see?
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them.
That's pure thought story - not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
Through the eyes on this human body physical things are seen, that get labeled with names from the language previously learned from past bodily experiences and from the memories from those past bodily experiences, which now have become the new thought 'that is a cup on a desk' in this body, which is actually the individual person within that body, which I am observing.
That's pure thought story - not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
The direct experience, from what I Truly am, also informs Me that that direct experience was all happening AFTER the light bouncing of that "cup on the desk", which was just the information input through the eyes and received into the brain becoming thought/s.
That's pure thought story - not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
Because ALL of this happened PREVIOUSLY the image of "cup on desk" has ALREADY CHANGED, and so, in a sense, is NOT really there in the EXACT SAME WAY, so some might say this was just an illusion.
That's pure thought story - not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:20 am
Try to distinguish between what you actually SEE and what you THINK you see.

Already done.
No, you have only told stories. You haven't reported anything from direct experience.

Direct experience is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch BEFORE conceptualisation.
All you told me are conceptual stories - you said nothing about the direct experience.

A little hint: Imagine you are a newborn, you don't know "cup" or "desk" or any other concept. Still you see, don't you?
I am not interested in the story of an "actual physical cup on desk" potentially "turning the basic experiencing of seeing into cup on desk".
What I am interested in is what is actually there BEFORE this thought happens - it will be pretty much the same that is there AFTER the thought happened - thought can NOT change seeing, it can only interpret it.
For now, all that we are interested in is what Seeing is like without believing in any conceptual interpretation whatsoever.

Now: When you look at the cup, do you really see "Particles of matter"?
Or is "Particles of matter" a thought about seeing?
If you break down seeing to the most simple ingredient possible where do you end up before words fail to explain what seeing really is?
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
The actual 'DISTANCE' between physical matter is what TELLS 'you' that what is being seen is "separate".
Once you understand what seeing actually is you will find that distance is never directly experienced.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
Although this can be understood, relatively easy, on a 'deeper' reflection what IS observed and SEEN is that there really is NO separation but only an illusion of a "time" and a "space", which is what makes the "separation" appear.
Once you LOOK honestly and properly, without trusting what thought has to say about seeing, you will find that distance/separation/objects are never actually present in seeing (or in any other "part" of direct experience).

Age
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:56 am

AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:40 am
When looking at this cup on the desk in front of you (or any other object that might be on your desk) what exactly do you see?
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them.
That's pure thought story - not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
Through the eyes on this human body physical things are seen, that get labeled with names from the language previously learned from past bodily experiences and from the memories from those past bodily experiences, which now have become the new thought 'that is a cup on a desk' in this body, which is actually the individual person within that body, which I am observing.
That's pure thought story - not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
The direct experience, from what I Truly am, also informs Me that that direct experience was all happening AFTER the light bouncing of that "cup on the desk", which was just the information input through the eyes and received into the brain becoming thought/s.
That's pure thought story - not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
Because ALL of this happened PREVIOUSLY the image of "cup on desk" has ALREADY CHANGED, and so, in a sense, is NOT really there in the EXACT SAME WAY, so some might say this was just an illusion.
That's pure thought story - not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:20 am
Try to distinguish between what you actually SEE and what you THINK you see.

Already done.
No, you have only told stories. You haven't reported anything from direct experience.

Direct experience is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch BEFORE conceptualisation.
All you told me are conceptual stories - you said nothing about the direct experience.

A little hint: Imagine you are a newborn, you don't know "cup" or "desk" or any other concept. Still you see, don't you?
I am not interested in the story of an "actual physical cup on desk" potentially "turning the basic experiencing of seeing into cup on desk".
What I am interested in is what is actually there BEFORE this thought happens - it will be pretty much the same that is there AFTER the thought happened - thought can NOT change seeing, it can only interpret it.
For now, all that we are interested in is what Seeing is like without believing in any conceptual interpretation whatsoever.

Now: When you look at the cup, do you really see "Particles of matter"?
Or is "Particles of matter" a thought about seeing?
If you break down seeing to the most simple ingredient possible where do you end up before words fail to explain what seeing really is?
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
The actual 'DISTANCE' between physical matter is what TELLS 'you' that what is being seen is "separate".
Once you understand what seeing actually is you will find that distance is never directly experienced.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:21 am
Although this can be understood, relatively easy, on a 'deeper' reflection what IS observed and SEEN is that there really is NO separation but only an illusion of a "time" and a "space", which is what makes the "separation" appear.
Once you LOOK honestly and properly, without trusting what thought has to say about seeing, you will find that distance/separation/objects are never actually present in seeing (or in any other "part" of direct experience).
Considering I have got the answers WRONG, from your perspective, WHAT are the Right answers?

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:49 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:56 am
Considering I have got the answers WRONG, from your perspective, WHAT are the Right answers?
It's not at all difficult - only thought makes things difficult.
I am not asking you to solve a riddle, simply look and note what you see.
As long as what you see is conceptual (e.g. "cup on desk") go one step deeper - note again and repeat... until language doesn't take you any further.
This is the border where descriptions stop and direct experience starts.
Find the most simple concept that still describes seeing - this is what you can still communicate - the truth lies beyond even this primary concept.

Age
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm

AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:49 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:56 am
Considering I have got the answers WRONG, from your perspective, WHAT are the Right answers?
It's not at all difficult - only thought makes things difficult.
Agreed.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:49 pm
I am not asking you to solve a riddle, simply look and note what you see.
Which I did. I LOOKED and noted. But you implied that what i noted was wrong.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:49 pm
As long as what you see is conceptual (e.g. "cup on desk") go one step deeper - note again and repeat... until language doesn't take you any further.
Done that already. Now I am attempting to bring that back, with language.

It is like you are asking me to takes notes, and then using language respond to your questions, but when I do, you then tell me that that is just a story.

Are you aware that I can NOT answer your questions without using language, itself?
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:49 pm
This is the border where descriptions stop and direct experience starts.
Yes agreed.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:49 pm
Find the most simple concept that still describes seeing - this is what you can still communicate - the truth lies beyond even this primary concept.
Yes I KNOW this.

But, what is that Truth, to you, which lies beyond even the primary concept you talk about here?

You may BELIEVE that this Truth is impossible to convey. I, however, think, or KNOW, differently. While some quit and give up, some continue on learning more and anew.

By the way, just because you found some thing in some particular way, this does NOT mean "another" is going to find the same thing from that same particular way. That way you are describing here might work for "some", but NOT work for "others". As "lacewing" so rightly points out, there might just be more than one way to get somewhere.

All of this would be better if you could find the RIGHT words, and language, and put all of that together in a way so that "others" could SEE, what you are TRYING TO get them to SEE, very simply and easily.

Telling "others" to do some thing, and then asking them what is THEIR direct experience, and then when they tell you, you then say; That's pure thought story - not direct experience. does NOT help any one here.

There is a saying: If you can NOT explain some thing in simple terms, then you do NOT really understand it.

What EXACTLY is this 'direct experience', which you are TRYING TO explain?

You are more or less saying that you HAVE TO see what I see. But, to me, individual people are individuals, by nature, with their own thoughts, views, and experiences. If 'you' want "others" to SEE and EXPERIENCE what you, yourself, have SEEN and EXPERIENCED, then put it in words so that you can explain it simply so that they can SEE and EXPERIENCE, from YOUR perspective. Until then you are going to keep telling "others" some thing similar to; You are NOT doing it right.

Either explain WHAT IT IS that you want me to have direct experience of, find other steps and measures I can use to have and gain the exact same direct experience as you, or failing these, then just find other words to use to describe 'that' what it is that you are TRYING TO describe and explain.

Until then I will remain OPEN to what else you have to offer.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am

Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Done that already. Now I am attempting to bring that back, with language.

It is like you are asking me to takes notes, and then using language respond to your questions, but when I do, you then tell me that that is just a story.

Are you aware that I can NOT answer your questions without using language, itself?
Sure, you have to use language, thats why I asked you to find the conceptual border from where you cannot go any deeper (conceptually).
If your border is "Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them." then that's fine.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm
By the way, just because you found some thing in some particular way, this does NOT mean "another" is going to find the same thing from that same particular way. That way you are describing here might work for "some", but NOT work for "others". As "lacewing" so rightly points out, there might just be more than one way to get somewhere.
But I didn't find "some thing" - I realised that the idea that there is some thing to find is actually already wrong.
So.... yes, there might be many ways to "get somewhere" - but what if there is nowhere to get to?
What if you are already "there"? Then finding a way to "there" (which is actually always here/now) is an exercise of futility. Every path will lead you only in circles back to here/now.
Every path is made of concepts, but here/now simply IS (no concept required) - you do not need to attempt to get to here/now, as you are always here/now. And investigating direct experience is a great tool to see just that.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Telling "others" to do some thing, and then asking them what is THEIR direct experience, and then when they tell you, you then say; That's pure thought story - not direct experience. does NOT help any one here.

There is a saying: If you can NOT explain some thing in simple terms, then you do NOT really understand it.

What EXACTLY is this 'direct experience', which you are TRYING TO explain?
Well, to me, the border to direct experience regarding seeing is simply COLOR (not "Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them").
When you look at the environment around you then all you really see is a collection of colors. Nothing more.
Early on you learn to interpret certain combinations of color as shapes, these shapes then go on to be interpreted as objects, the color between these objects is interpreted as space, the difference in sizes of objects compared to each other adds to the sense of depth (3D vision).
The border of the direct experience of SEEING is COLOR - the basic experience does NOT contain the slightest information about shapes, objects, space, distance, depth, solidity or any other conceptual interpretation. It is simply COLOR.
If you investigate further you will find that only COLOR separates one object from other objects. You might wonder if color (which is noting but SEEING, as SEEING = COLOR) is really able to create separation... you will find that, of course, it CAN NOT. Color does not separate more Color, just like Seeing cannot separate Seeing.

If you investigate the other senses you will find that it is the same for all of them and that finally, even the separation between these different senses is only conceptual. There is only one unified experience and there is nothing dual about it - its one non-dual flow (if I may call it that) and naming parts of it is simply a conceptual overlay.
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Either explain WHAT IT IS that you want me to have direct experience of, find other steps and measures I can use to have and gain the exact same direct experience as you, or failing these, then just find other words to use to describe 'that' what it is that you are TRYING TO describe and explain.

Until then I will remain OPEN to what else you have to offer.
Does the above explain this in words you are able to understand better than before?

Age
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am

AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Done that already. Now I am attempting to bring that back, with language.

It is like you are asking me to takes notes, and then using language respond to your questions, but when I do, you then tell me that that is just a story.

Are you aware that I can NOT answer your questions without using language, itself?
Sure, you have to use language, thats why I asked you to find the conceptual border from where you cannot go any deeper (conceptually).
If your border is "Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them." then that's fine.
The last time when you asked me when I am looking at some thing you also asked What exactly do you see? I explained to you what I actually saw, I wrote: 'Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them'. To wit you replied: That's pure thought story - not direct experience. But now you say; then that's fine.

So which one is it? Is what I see, 'pure thought story - not direct experience', 'fine', or some thing else, maybe both?

Maybe it might be better if you just explain; What is the conceptual border you find from where you cannot go any deeper (conceptually)?

What exactly do you see, let us say, When looking at a cup on a desk in front of you?

Answering this might speed the process up somewhat.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm
By the way, just because you found some thing in some particular way, this does NOT mean "another" is going to find the same thing from that same particular way. That way you are describing here might work for "some", but NOT work for "others". As "lacewing" so rightly points out, there might just be more than one way to get somewhere.
But I didn't find "some thing" - I realised that the idea that there is some thing to find is actually already wrong.
Some might say that that is just pure thought story - not direct experience. But anyway, so you have cleared up that you did NOT find any thing - you realized some thing instead.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
So.... yes, there might be many ways to "get somewhere" - but what if there is nowhere to get to?
I have NEVER said that there is somewhere to go.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
What if you are already "there"?
We could go on, - What if there is NO "there"?

What if there is only a HERE?
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
Then finding a way to "there" (which is actually always here/now) is an exercise of futility. Every path will lead you only in circles back to here/now.
Agreed.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
Every path is made of concepts, but here/now simply IS (no concept required) - you do not need to attempt to get to here/now, as you are always here/now. And investigating direct experience is a great tool to see just that.
Okay, so what IS 'direct experience'?

WHY would any one even contemplate "investigating" 'that', which is ALL(-THERE-IS) already HERE/NOW?
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Telling "others" to do some thing, and then asking them what is THEIR direct experience, and then when they tell you, you then say; That's pure thought story - not direct experience. does NOT help any one here.

There is a saying: If you can NOT explain some thing in simple terms, then you do NOT really understand it.

What EXACTLY is this 'direct experience', which you are TRYING TO explain?
Well, to me, the border to direct experience regarding seeing is simply COLOR (not "Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them").
Okay, fair enough. But is that pure thought story - not direct experience?

If not, then WHY is seeing simply color NOT, but seeing simply matter is?

WHY is you seeing simply COLOR 'direct experience', but when "another" is seeing simply MATTER NOT 'direct experience'? By the way HOW would a human being who is COLOR BLIND see "simply COLOR". If they have NEVER seen COLOR visually, then could they even see COLOR, (conceptually)?

(We might leave what seeing COLOR, simply, and/or complexly for another time?)
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
When you look at the environment around you then all you really see is a collection of colors. Nothing more.
If that is all i really see, then WHY did you NOT just say that from the outset? You asked me: What exactly do you see? so, I told you what i see. If you are NOT going to accept that, or do NOT want to accept that, then just TELL me what i see, (and do, if that pleases you also).
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
Now, are you aware of the difference between seeing visually (and then THINKING conceptually) and SEEING (and understanding or KNOWING conceptually)?
Also, and by the way, now that you are saying that human beings only see COLORS, I can NOW SEE what you mean. And, by the way, I now AGREE.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
Early on you learn to interpret certain combinations of color as shapes, these shapes then go on to be interpreted as objects, the color between these objects is interpreted as space, the difference in sizes of objects compared to each other adds to the sense of depth (3D vision).
Yes agreed, that this is what happens, on a human being level. I EXPLAINED this a few posts back.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
The border of the direct experience of SEEING is COLOR - the basic experience does NOT contain the slightest information about shapes, objects, space, distance, depth, solidity or any other conceptual interpretation.
Yes agreed, and I ALREADY did EXPLAIN how this happens and works.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
It is simply COLOR.
Until a human being has had enough past experiences to LEARN how to distinguish these colors into "things", then this is what younger human beings see, with their working eyes.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
If you investigate further you will find that only COLOR separates one object from other objects.
But there are NO "separate" objects. There is only a perceived separation, which is caused by and formed from, language, which is what compartmentalizes ALL things, into their seeming "separate" compartments of "objects" or "things".
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
You might wonder if color (which is noting but SEEING, as SEEING = COLOR) is really able to create separation...
No I was NOT wondering that at all.

I ALREADY explained, a few posts back, HOW the supposed "separation" occurs. Maybe you MISSED IT?
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
you will find that, of course, it CAN NOT. Color does not separate more Color, just like Seeing cannot separate Seeing.


If you investigate the other senses you will find that it is the same for all of them and that finally, even the separation between these different senses is only conceptual.

If COLOR is only what is seen from and through working, non color blind eyes on a human body, then what is:
Smelled through a properly working nose, on a human body? (What IS the border of the direct experience of SMELLING?)
Heard through properly working ear or ears, on a human body? (What IS the border of the direct experience of HEARING?)
Tasted through a proper working tasting mouth, on human body? (What IS the border of the direct experience of TASTING?)
Felt through proper working nerve endings, on/in a human body? (What IS the border of the direct experience of FEELING?)

There really is NO use in me "investigating", and getting it WRONG, when you can just TELL me directly, (through 'direct experience', maybe?) what the actual and real True ANSWER IS.

By the way, when you say when investigating the other senses I WILL FIND that it is the same for all of them, what exactly do you mean? WILL I FIND that I see simply COLOR through and from the other four senses also? You did, after all, say that "even the separation between these different senses is only conceptual".

You have been inferring that 'what is only conceptual' is WRONG or NOT True, as there is only ONE unified experience, which is Real and True. So, if you now say that what I WILL FIND through ALL of the senses is the same thing, then that does seem somewhat contradictory, to 'me' anyway. Although it might NOT to 'you'.

Also, WHY do you say that I WILL 'FIND' some thing, when you stated earlier on in this post that 'you did NOT 'FIND' "some thing", and instead you 'REALIZED' "some thing"?

How come you 'REALIZE' but I WILL 'FIND'?

You have even admitted that that is WHY you asked me to 'FIND' "some thing", which at that time was the 'conceptual border'.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
There is only one unified experience and there is nothing dual about it - its one non-dual flow (if I may call it that) and naming parts of it is simply a conceptual overlay.
So when you say; What do 'you' see when 'you' look? Is that simply a conceptual overlay also, of the one and only unified experience?

You are, after all, naming parts of the ONE and only 'unified experience'.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:51 am
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Either explain WHAT IT IS that you want me to have direct experience of, find other steps and measures I can use to have and gain the exact same direct experience as you, or failing these, then just find other words to use to describe 'that' what it is that you are TRYING TO describe and explain.

Until then I will remain OPEN to what else you have to offer.
Does the above explain this in words you are able to understand better than before?
Yes, VERY MUCH SO.

When you said, that i only see COLOR, then that was all that was needed. All of this was so much easier and simpler to understand, and MUCH QUICKER also, almost instantly in fact. Although you NEVER explained that your "investigative measures" only works on and for those human beings who are not visually impaired nor color blind, this was easy enough to work out myself.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am

Age wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am
There really is NO use in me "investigating", and getting it WRONG, when you can just TELL me directly, (through 'direct experience', maybe?) what the actual and real True ANSWER IS.
I don't agree. I think that investigating and finding your own answer is important. It is important to investigate until all doubt has been eradicated that your answer could actually be wrong. I found that this doubt will be there until you actually reach the conceptual border and „understand“ what exists at the "other side".
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am
WHY is you seeing simply COLOR 'direct experience', but when "another" is seeing simply MATTER NOT 'direct experience'?
I didn't say that seeing color IS direct experience - I said that, for me, color is the conceptual border from where I cannot find another concept to describe what the direct experience of seeing actually is.
That's why I said, that if your conceptual border is "Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them" that this is fine too - fine and ok as long as you understand that the the conceptual label will never be the direct experience itself.
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am
Some might say that that is just pure thought story - not direct experience. But anyway, so you have cleared up that you did NOT find any thing - you realized some thing instead.
Of course. Everything we say is pure thought story, not direct experience.
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am
when you say when investigating the other senses I WILL FIND that it is the same for all of them, what exactly do you mean? WILL I FIND that I see simply COLOR through and from the other four senses also?
I find your tendency to pick apart every sentence a bit tiring - you leave no room for creative expression. For me, this is not a contest in grammatical correctness or linguistic skills - I tend to express things in a certain way, but it seems to me that you have either trouble understanding the meaning behind certain expressions or you ignore the meaning on purpose - either way... its getting a bit tedious.
I hope you know that you wont find COLOR when listening to sounds, or when smelling the flowers... do I really have to clarify this?

Anyway, lets leave it with that - I think I have explained what I mean when talking about direct experience and the conceptual border between direct experience and interpretation.

Age
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age » Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am

AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am
There really is NO use in me "investigating", and getting it WRONG, when you can just TELL me directly, (through 'direct experience', maybe?) what the actual and real True ANSWER IS.
I don't agree. I think that investigating and finding your own answer is important. It is important to investigate until all doubt has been eradicated that your answer could actually be wrong. I found that this doubt will be there until you actually reach the conceptual border and „understand“ what exists at the "other side".
So, is what actually and really exists, at what you call, the "other side", FULLY understand, by you, yet?

You do, after all, only appear to be re-repeating what has been told/taught to you by "others".

Also, do you really not agree that while investigating and if you are "stuck", then just asking "others" clarifying questions could NOT help you?

When, and IF, let us say, you give YOUR answers, then I can KEEP investigating. But if you NEVER gave me YOUR answers, then I may NEVER find them my self, while investigating with only what I have? Obviously the past experiences that I have had may NOT enlighten me to what you have had, which has SHOWN you things that "others" would NOT have and thus do NOT yet KNOW about.

I agree that OBTAINING answers that are, in a sense, YOUR OWN ANSWER is VERY important. But if one is stuck or can NOT LOOK further, then with help and support from "others" more and new answers can be given, brought to light, and/or obtained, thus speeding the process up of discovery, learning, and understanding more much faster than otherwise could be gained. Just to be clear, obviously just because "another" gives THEIR OWN ANSWERS this does NOT mean that "that answer" will be accepted and/or agreed upon by "others". That "answer" might NOT fit in with ONE'S OWN ANSWER at all, and this is WHY investigating is best NOT ever finished. But SHARING views/answers surely helps ALL to be at least able to LOOK AT MORE things MORE thoroughly, providing a much BIGGER picture, and thus then able to find their OWN ANSWERS, much simpler and easier. This may NOT be from your perspective, but this is from my perspective, anyway.

By the way it is THOSE OWN ANSWERS, which are IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTED with and by ALL, which is what I say will lead to KNOWING the actual and real Truth of things.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am
WHY is you seeing simply COLOR 'direct experience', but when "another" is seeing simply MATTER NOT 'direct experience'?
I didn't say that seeing color IS direct experience - I said that, for me, color is the conceptual border from where I cannot find another concept to describe what the direct experience of seeing actually is.
Okay, fair enough. But I like to use language to describe what the actual 'direct experience' of SEEING, actually is.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
That's why I said, that if your conceptual border is "Particles of matter positioned in a particular way, with space around them" that this is fine too - fine and ok as long as you understand that the the conceptual label will never be the direct experience itself.
You did eventually say that what I said "is fine", but only after you first said: "That's pure thought story - not direct experience." and after I pointed out that why what you said was NOT "pure thought story, and not direct experience" as well.

If you are wanting to talk about and discuss 'direct experience', then "we" can do that if "you" like. But before you did ask me what i see when I look at a cup on a desk. What is seen by and through the physical human eyes is NOT what IS SEEN by and through the Mind's, so called, EYE.

If 'direct experience' wants to be discussed, then lets not bother with the superficial and shallow perspective of what is experienced through any or all of the five senses of the human body, and lets move straight to discussing 'direct experience' instead.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am
Some might say that that is just pure thought story - not direct experience. But anyway, so you have cleared up that you did NOT find any thing - you realized some thing instead.
Of course. Everything we say is pure thought story, not direct experience.
Okay so now instead of just writing: That's pure thought story - not direct experience. to some of the things I write, from your experience, EVERY thing written or said is put thought story, not direct experience. Does this apply to absolutely EVERY thing written and said?

If yes, then the issue you will NOW have is you will NEVER be able to KNOW 'what' 'direct experience' IS with and through language.
If no, then 'what' could be said that IS, in fact, 'direct experience'?

This reason you will NEVER know what 'direct experience' is through words because you have just told your self that EVERY word is pure thought story, not direct experience. So, while this BELIEF is held, within that body, there is NO way at all, to you anyway, that 'direct experience' can be understood nor explained with and through language.

Although 'direct experience' to me can be VERY EASILY and SIMPLY explained, with simple and easy to understand language. It can NOT, to you, correct?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:05 am
when you say when investigating the other senses I WILL FIND that it is the same for all of them, what exactly do you mean? WILL I FIND that I see simply COLOR through and from the other four senses also?
I find your tendency to pick apart every sentence a bit tiring -
If you want to speak like you KNOW what you are talking about, then I find being consistent and very thorough works better.

Also, I do NOT necessarily "pick apart every sentence" I just express what pops out and what I SEE in what is written, this tends to happen almost immediately, some times. This pointing out inconsistencies, wrongs, et cetera, after all, is what I WISH would be done with my writings, and so I have a general tendency to want to do the same back.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
you leave no room for creative expression.
If so called 'creative expression' works to explain things in a simple and easy way, without things getting misconstrued, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and/or taken out of context, then please use 'creative expression', as much as you want. If, however, these things occur in so called 'creative expression', then I, obviously, find that that kind of expression is NOT really doing a good job of expressing 'that', which is actually Real and True.

Unambiguous facts, which can NOT be refuted, is what I am LOOKING FOR, because this is what I want to also express.

The reason I ask for people to POINT OUT and SHOW me the WRONG in my writings is so that I can USE their VIEWS to make my VIEWS more accurate, and thus better. When I say that I am here, in this forum, to learn HOW to communicate better. I am doing this to USE people to make thy Self LOOK BETTER. (Maybe this was NOT fully understood before.) HOW I LOOK better is through BETTER 'creative' writings. I came to a philosophy forum because I was expecting/thinking if any one is going to find FAULT in writings, then it would be those ones who call themselves, "philosophers".

Probably the biggest reason WHY human beings are still confused about things is DIRECTLY because of the actual language they use with the very many different definitions and meanings, which apply to those words. What is said can all to quickly and easily get misinterpreted and taken out of context, for example, what i just wrote above may have NOT been fully understood yet. Although I have NOT changed the actual words that I have previously written.

Another example of just how quick writings can be misinterpreted and taken out of context is, if I was to say to you: "Do you want to argue about this?" Then what did I actually mean? A hint I could have meant two very distinctly different and very OPPOSITE things.

Also, there is ONLY ONE WAY of you FULLY UNDERSTANDING, and thus KNOWING, what I actually meant.

The fact is words can so to easily and quickly get misinterpreted, misunderstood, and mistaken.

Furthermore, words used through language can be so quickly and very easily used to TRY TO justify one's own position, to cover up previously mistakes. For example the words, "you leave no room for "creative" expression", ATTEMPTS to put all of the fault onto the reader/listener for NOT understanding FULLY what the writer/speaker was previously meaning, yet was NOT written clearly itself in the beginning. If just asking clarifying questions, in order to gain a FULL understanding of what it is that is being said, causes some sort of not liked emotion, or an inability to respond with a clarifying answer, then JUST MAYBE some else is going on, within the reader/speaker, which is NOT fully understood by the writer/speaker, YET?

The power of words expressed outwards or even internally is far more powerful then human beings fully realize yet. The power of the words used in internal dialogue has so much power of one's self that this power is yet to be fully recognized.

If what is being said does NOT express an actual and real Truth, and that comes to light with and through clarifying questions, then what was said earlier does NOT all of a sudden become "creative expression" at all, although the 'creative' word might help the writer/speaker to feel a bit better about them self, the actual and real Truth can be very different.

PLEASE be as creative as you want, and can be, and please express anyway that you want to, but just like I WANT to be SHOWN the WRONG in my words I also like to point out the WRONG, which I SEE, in "other's" use of words also. If what is being expressed, creatively or not, is NOT true, then it is NOT true. If you do NOT like what I bring to light and SHOW, then that is NOT going to stop me doing so. The only thing that is going to STOP me would be obvious by now.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
For me, this is not a contest in grammatical correctness or linguistic skills -
For me, it is NOT also.

For me, this is about finding the right words, through language, which best expresses thee Truth of things.

For me, there is NO contest here at all. But what is here is a working platform where "we" can come together and FIND what the actual Truth IS. This to me is what 'philosophy' is about anyway. If people want to do that in a peaceful and harmonious way, then that is another matter.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
I tend to express things in a certain way, but it seems to me that you have either trouble understanding the meaning behind certain expressions or you ignore the meaning on purpose - either way... its getting a bit tedious.
This ASSUMING that I am NOT understanding the words written nor understanding the meaning behind the words tends to happen a fair bit on here, when people are sharing their views with me. JUST MAYBE I can SEE much more and much deeper than is realized yet. Also people find my way of POINTING things out very tedious and boring, and usually do NOT want to discuss any further.

This might be because I question them far enough or deep enough to a point where they do NOT want to go or can NOT go any further nor deeper. Maybe there are other reasons, we will have to wait and SEE?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
I hope you know that you wont find COLOR when listening to sounds, or when smelling the flowers... do I really have to clarify this?
Yes I FOUND that out when you said that I would FIND some thing else out. I investigated to make SURE. I do, after all, NOT like to ASSUME any thing at all whatsoever.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:16 am
Anyway, lets leave it with that - I think I have explained what I mean when talking about direct experience and the conceptual border between direct experience and interpretation.
I think you will find that you have NOT explained any thing at all about 'direct experience' itself, but you did teach me about 'conceptual borders' by SHOWING me a conceptual border. You have also SHOWN me things that I had NOT yet seen before, of which I am thankful. This helps me in learning how to communicate better, what it is that I want to communicate. Communicating 'direct experience', Itself, I am pretty sure you could agree is NOT the most easiest thing to explain to human beings in the age of when this is written.

But discussing 'direct experience' is far more fascinating, exciting, rewarding, and revealing, than just discussing things from the very shallow level of 'physical experiences' and 'conceptual borders' only.

There is so much more and anew to discover, learn, and is REVEALED when wanting to go past this perceived "border" and wanting to go much deeper and discuss things from the most Honest and OPEN, 'direct experience', level. That is, after all, WHERE Truth lays.

But if you want to just leave it, at this level, then that is fine with me also.

AlexW
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW » Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:42 am

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
Unambiguous facts, which can NOT be refuted, is what I am LOOKING FOR, because this is what I want to also express.
Then language might be the wrong tool - you might have to communicate without using words.
Look at the animal kingdom - there is communication but no misunderstanding. Why? Because there are no questions - there is simply natural activity.
Language is an interesting tool, but not the right tool to express facts that cannot be refuted - everything you say can and will be misunderstood - thats the curse of language.
If you believe the opposite is true then just look at all the communication you had on this forum - everything you say will be questioned, no matter how true it might sound to you.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
Furthermore, words used through language can be so quickly and very easily used to TRY TO justify one's own position, to cover up previously mistakes. For example the words, "you leave no room for "creative" expression", ATTEMPTS to put all of the fault onto the reader/listener for NOT understanding FULLY what the writer/speaker was previously meaning, yet was NOT written clearly itself in the beginning.
Sure, what is clear to one may be confusing for another.
Guess thats why specific languages have been invented for very special purposes - e.g. computer programming languages where coding errors are simply prompted with a specific error code - meaning you, the programmer will have to correct the syntax of the code.
Human language has a certain degree of freedom where error messages come across in a multitude of ways - the best might be clarifying questions, others are misinterpretation and it ends in verbal assault... to me they are pretty much all the same, but the problem is that human language is 1) not as strictly defined as a programming language and 2) the interpreter (in this case a machine) doesn't care about the meaning the programmer wants to convey, its only about syntax whereas humans care less about syntax but more about meaning.
Thus, its the meaning you will have to get across, words don't matter so much as what is meant to be understood (which can be the opposite of what is actually said).
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
PLEASE be as creative as you want, and can be, and please express anyway that you want to, but just like I WANT to be SHOWN the WRONG in my words I also like to point out the WRONG, which I SEE, in "other's" use of words also.
Fair enough.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
If what is being expressed, creatively or not, is NOT true, then it is NOT true. If you do NOT like what I bring to light and SHOW, then that is NOT going to stop me doing so. The only thing that is going to STOP me would be obvious by now.
There is nothing you can say that I will consider "Thee Truth" - simply because language can only convey relative truth, no absolute truth has ever been spoken (this sentence including).
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
For me, there is NO contest here at all. But what is here is a working platform where "we" can come together and FIND what the actual Truth IS. This to me is what 'philosophy' is about anyway.
Yes, maybe, but don't you find it interesting that so far nobody has been able to tell "Thee Truth"?
This may be a hint that it actually can not be put into language - you can explain it, interpret it, point to it, but not conceptualise it in a way that it remains absolutely true.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:55 am
There is so much more and anew to discover, learn, and is REVEALED when wanting to go past this perceived "border" and wanting to go much deeper and discuss things from the most Honest and OPEN, 'direct experience', level. That is, after all, WHERE Truth lays.
Sure, its the ONLY "place" where "Truth lays" - but discussing/interpreting it is always at a remove from it - its like watching a documentary about ice cream - it will never be able to deliver the same truth as eating ice cream for real - yes, you will know a lot about the theory of ice cream, the flavors, the ingredients, etc - but you will not know/experience the reality of its taste - thus ... I am not sure if discussing it has any real value at all... it might even do the opposite, as it builds expectations and may actually hold one back from enjoying the simplicity of the real.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests