What is state according to Leo Gura?

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, AION said:

People don't even understand women and they think they can understand the fabric of reality lol.

Understanding women is harder than understanding the fabric of reality

Edited May 9 by Leo Gura

[AION]

@Yimpa don’t post that here 

[UnbornTao]

On 5/8/2025 at 11:00 PM, Osaid said:

That would be overlooking existence. In order for there to be needs and hardware, there has to be a concession that they exist (and thus are perceived). Otherwise, you're going off of what is never experienced (Santa Claus).

Consider that, at the moment of the Big Bang, the Big Bang did not create the universe. Rather, the universe was the Big Bang. Only when the universe stops being the Big Bang do you say "the Big Bang created the universe" because now you can make a causal chain of events out of it. It is not absolutely true that the Big Bang created the universe, it is only true via a relative chain of events created by the separative faculty of your mind. You can only make that claim via memory, or by referring to what doesn't exist anymore, or non-existence, or "other-than-perception", aka "Santa Claus".

On 5/8/2025 at 3:09 AM, Osaid said:

Nothing, really. What you described is not perception. Just like not seeing, not hearing, etc. Those are distinctions, which would be other than perception.

No one knows what they aren't perceiving, because it's not perceived. Just like no one knows about Santa.

If someone said they knew about Santa, it would be belief (not experienced), not something actually known.

It seems to me that not everything that exists is, or can be, perceived. For example, you are aware, and this isn't a perception. What is that about? The act of perceiving is hard to deny; in that sense, it could be said to exist. Even though I view it as a process mediated by the body (and thus relative), what it is is up for grabs.

It's not that the hardware is perceived, but rather that it is responsible for the perceiving in the first place. You can close your eyes and experience this personally. If you didn’t have eyes, you obviously wouldn’t enjoy the sense of sight--that’s what the claim refers to. I’d like to get clear on what you consider perception to be, so we can contemplate this better. As for me, I’m not conscious of what perception is--its nature--just making observations on the fly.

For what it's worth, I’ll say that perception is a meaningless phenomenon. Encountering something through the senses, which is done indirectly, is useless sensory input until we relate what's encountered to ourselves by interpreting it, assigning meaning, etc.

Edited May 14 by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

On 5/12/2025 at 1:02 PM, UnbornTao said:

I’d like to get clear on what you consider perception to be

It's "unlimited", in that it isn't anything other than itself. Therefore it is being itself (as a tautology).

When you make distinctions, like awareness != perception, you only make it by referring to what perception isn't or what is other than it, which isn't actually perceived as a real perception and thus it does not actually define perception at any point. Perception has no way to define itself, all it can do is point to what isn't itself, via what we call "distinctions". 

On 5/12/2025 at 1:02 PM, UnbornTao said:

perception is a meaningless phenomenon

Yes, meaning would be the implication of something other than perception which could define perception.

Edited May 15 by Osaid

[UnbornTao]

On 5/15/2025 at 8:04 AM, Osaid said:

It's "unlimited", in that it isn't anything other than itself. Therefore it is being itself (as a tautology).

When you make distinctions, like awareness != perception, you only make it by referring to what perception isn't or what is other than it, which isn't actually perceived as a real perception and thus it does not actually define perception at any point. Perception has no way to define itself, all it can do is point to what isn't itself, via what we call "distinctions". 

Yes, meaning would be the implication of something other than perception which could define perception.

The first sentence could be said of everything. Yet we can imagine, for example, that when the body dies, perception for that entity ends--so in that sense, it could be said to be limited. We “know” this as fact.

We already make these distinctions; otherwise, we’d find no use for different terms. This means that each thing exists as that thing--not as everything else. A word represents a distinct experience. You don’t call your feet your hands, and yet this act doesn’t imply that they are separate. You seem to think that something being distinct implies that it’s separate (i.e., awareness isn’t perception). Hence my point above.

I think you might be wrong here: what is not perception defines it just as much as what it is. That's what creates the distinctiveness in the first place. You can say what it is--or define it--even though that assertion isn’t itself coming from perception nor is it something perceived. Therefore, you establish the distinction “perception" while being outside of it, so to speak.

Okay, we’re bringing a lot to the table now: perception, difference, awareness, language, experience. I’m overwhelmed.  

Edited May 23 by UnbornTao