Anton Rogachevski

@UnbornTao Colors, sounds, sensations and feelings?

@UnbornTao I jump between the conceptual and actual seamlessly because I figure we already established what is what. What do you mean by "mere encounter" and by "what's there"?

While the idea of "mere" experience seems simple experience itself is an infinitely complex and fascinating structure. There is always A LOT going on, but our brain is designed to focus and filter out all the other stimuli, like a search light. There's actually no such object as a "hand", and it's not "yours".

@UnbornTao It seems that you have a philosophical mind and that's very cool. You like ideas, differentiation and complexity and to some point you might expect this complexity so much that you feel unease with simplicity like Leo's famous "just look at your hand and shut up." And my simplistic collapsing of ideas into one notion. I think that those words are useful still and can describe different aspects as different procceses and that can help with linear thought explanations. So I'm still not throwing them all out. "What's the difference between awareness and experience?" seems like a very juicy question so lets keep contemplating. Cheers

Experience is usually from direct sensation, and Awareness may be of a more complex and abstarct aspects of experience, inculding thought.

Don't know what "Knowing" is other than direct experience knowing in the now. Any other form's probably a fancy sort of belief. We do have direct access to experience. What else do you want to access? Also a layered idea on top of experience. Entails a "perceiver" of an outside world. Memory is memory, it's a recording of pure senses, but a concept is words, a story, so In a sense a concept is also a type of memory of a noise playing in the Now. A memory is yet another part of experience, which is very rich as we can see - it's much more than dumb animal senses, but a great intelligence and a thing of true beauty. But it is re-experience, or else how would you talk about it? You have an experience of it right now. You can only imagine it's in the "past" if you have a conception of "time" present. You may ask yourself: "Aware of what?" anything you may be aware of would be an experience. I do respect the wish to keep this an open discussion and keep investigating together, this is great! Thank you for the great talk. My personal approach is to keep simplifying and to keep as less synonyms of definition as possible. You can see now how calling different aspects of the same unified phenomenon: Awareness has caused us to think that all the other aspects of it are separate from it, and are different in nature. We are pure Experience that is self examining right now, quite cool I would say.

A memory is occuring in direct experience right now, but you attach a story to it and say: "it happened in the past". Awareness is another word for experience for me, because if I try to think of an Awareness that has nothing to be aware of, it doesn't makes sense. This "awareness" will not be able to know that it's aware in this case. Therefore awareness and experience are one for me. Two sides of the same coin. I ask myself: "Where is awareness? Who is aware?" And I can see that these questions can't point anywhere actually. Experience is self aware from the purely solipsistic-phenomenological perspective (from the inside of the simulation) What isn't occurring Now? Can there be such a thing?

As the old Zen quote says: "You can't peg a nail into the sky." If you truly understand the nature of experience, at least conceptually, you can understand that this question doesn't make sense. There's an infinite field that's unified in it's nature, so there's no one to point and no thing to point to.

How can you know anything? What does it mean for you to "know"? Knowing what? And following that: What is real? What do you mean by "reality"? Does it exist? What does it mean for something to "exist"? How can you know that logic can depict or describe or predict the fundamental nature of reality?

Thank you for the discussion dear sir! Yummy food for thought for sure! You can't call the basic first experience anything, it's prior to language. On the other hand all the labels we have ever had we stuck on this pure wonder, but it just doesn't do it justice. Like: "reality" "existence" "the universe" and so forth. Consciousness and experience are two sides of the same coin. Consciousness is the backdrop and Experience is the light, but they are the same stuff essentially. About the presumption of the impossibility of a direct access (access to what actually?) it goes both ways. You can either assume you can or that you can't : ) In this equation knowing = experiencing Experience is prior to "perception", since in order to conceive of this idea you have to already have some basic experience. The fact that we are discussing this seems to suggest that we can in fact investigate it from the inside whilst being a part of it. The power of conception and abstraction are forces to be reckoned with. When you try to talk about an "awareness" that's prior to experience you are back to duality and creating an imaginary thing that "perceives".

The moment you think about something that isn't an experience your are experiencing it. How else would you think about it? Tell me something any thing that isn't experience.

Yep "At its basic level you can't make something true by stating it as fact (using language)." Of course not.

@LastThursday What are some non-survival purposes?

@LastThursday Thank you, this is profound! God is love is not two things but one isn't it? God=love=reality I think that logic is the grammer of the way the brain is figuring things out.

Is God hidden?

What is "truth"? Do you know it?

@Someone here The problem is that I do think I know, but it's quite complicated to explain. You can read in my blog in the signature.

@Someone here Why do you think that I ignored? You have great insight and I appreciate that you shared it. I like absurdism, but I don't think that it goes deep enough.

What does I AM mean?

@Yimpa Finding true things that offend?

Still it's interesting to hear other opinions : )

Interesting thought, but it's a paradox. If you had truth why would you need to construct it again?

@Someone here That's great! Thanks! @ExploringReality ❤️ same

Mu! All we can know is Experience, it is everything we had ever known and could possibly know. We actually know nothing but it. We are like the fish in the water of experience, except that in our case it's even worse - we are a Sea within an infinite Sea with no land anywhere, no fish! That may be quite scary to hear, but it is essential to understand as it is the most basic epistemic foundation on top of which we will eventually build the idea of "reality". Yes we can only have an idea of reality, and never the actual reality itself, since we don't actually have access to it, but through the senses and through thoughts. One would have to be "outside and separate from experience" to examine it as an object, which isn't technically possible, since we can only access what is experienced by us directly right now, and will never by definiton know what is supposedly "outside of experience" except as a story, because we can't ever experience a "non-experience", as you can already see it's an oxymoron. There can't be an experience of "nothing", it wouldn't register and wouldn't exist for us phenomenologically. Yes, you can become aware that everything is Nothing at it's foundation, experience is completely empty - and that's precisely what makes us able to experience in the first place. To understand this you need see it directly and very clearly with an incredible level of awareness, but that's a little more advanced. That Emptiness is quite full and amazing, and not the "nothingness" you are imagining right now. From a purely phenomenological perspective, without supposing a physical plane outside of perception, there's no such thing as an "experience" as a separate object which you can discuss, it's an idea that can only occur if you have another idea of "non-experience". If you realize there's no such thing, experience as separate phenomenon which you can talk about can't make sense anymore without a background. You can see a black circle on a white background, but if both the background and and the circle were black, you couldn't see it, and it would stop existing for you phenomenologically. Interestingly enough one could also say: You are experience! It's your fundamental nature - experience that is seemingly self generative and self aware, or as Leo would put it: "An infinite hallucination". Perception on the other hand is a bit problematic because the ideas of a "perceived thing", and a "perceiver" are already contained within it, it assumes a mereological materialistic perspective. In this imaginary scenario "experience" is the signal that is being generated by the "brain". You could in this supposed materialistic perspective say that: "Experience is the simulation of the brain", but it's another imaginary story within the infinite hallucination that is you.

There cannot be such a thing, from the perspective of an experiencer at least.