A small teaser for the upcoming new theory I'm working on

[DocWatts]

3 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@DocWatts

It's funny you should mention these kind of sources as I haven't even touched any of them. I do have trouble with reading books. The commitment to such a large  volume always deters me. I do learn a lot from podcasts and the like. (I need to be really engaged to get those receptors to perceive at least something)

Of course that means I might reinvent the wheel a couple of times, but on the plus side I get the nice feeling of eureka even though someone must have thought about it at one point. 

Most of the inspiration is from personal contemplation of direct experience. Trying to put things together to make sense of what experience is.

If that's the case, what you've managed to achieve is all the more impressive - adjacent paths to a similar destination, I suppose! 

Nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel, a lot of the insights from phenomenological texts are frankly poorly communicated. It's obvious you have a deep grasp on this material from how refreshingly straightforward you're able to convey what someone like Martin Heideggar contorted his text into a pretzel to communicate.

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@UnbornTao

For the experiencer, from his phenomenological perspective nothing exists but experience. I don't have theories, I don't need them anymore, only direct consciousness. Funny coming from someone who is working so hard to develop a theory of epistemology right? I think that there is some purpose for a theory as an instrument to keep pointing back to raw experience. That is why I want a theory of epistemology that is based in a basic phenomenological ground. Very simple, like a rock. 

"experience is not existential"
What do you mean by that?

You can't experience anything that isn't an experience.

You mention an experiencer! But is the one supposedly behind the act of experiencing ever located - or experienced?

It seems to me that experience does not exist by itself. Rather, it is a result, the product of an activity. Being, on the other hand, exists by itself. Is creates, or is the source of, existence. Being and existence might even be synonymous.

Even though it appears there is an experiencer, is not the sense of self itself a product of mental activity? You (who is that, exactly?) experience sensations, the body, feelings, objects, moods, perhaps even a sense of awareness. But is a self ever truly experienced?

Are you your self?

We return here to the fundamental distinction between being and self. On paper it sounds simple enough, but in actuality it is challenging to make, because we begin from the presumption of being a self. And we remain ignorant of the substrate of being.

You know, we should start a thread on What is experience? Wait…

The feedback from that thread boils down to this: we don't really know what it is yet. And it requires a breakthrough in consciousness.

Edited 8 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

17 hours ago, DocWatts said:

If that's the case, what you've managed to achieve is all the more impressive - adjacent paths to a similar destination, I suppose! 

Nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel, a lot of the insights from phenomenological texts are frankly poorly communicated. It's obvious you have a deep grasp on this material from how refreshingly straightforward you're able to convey what someone like Martin Heideggar contorted his text into a pretzel to communicate.

Wow thank you friend,

To even be compared to such an elite intellectual is a huge compliment. I do my best

Edited 7 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[Anton Rogachevski]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

we don't really know what it is yet.

When in "time" will you know? In the "future"?

 

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

breakthrough in consciousness.

This obsession with breakthroughs is not healthy in my opinion and misses the point. I'm not saying it's not gonna be cool. There are cool ways in which experience may dance, but everything is already in front you right now, staring you in the face, as you stare in it's face. There's nothing but You to find within an infinite You. You are it, being, experience, everything forever and ever.

[Anton Rogachevski]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

It seems to me that experience does not exist by itself.

It's inference. Try to see when you infer things and when you actually look. 

[UnbornTao]

8 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

When in "time" will you know? In the "future"?

If not now, now.

Quote

This obsession with breakthroughs is not healthy in my opinion and misses the point. I'm not saying it's not gonna be cool. There are cool ways in which experience may dance, but everything is already in front you right now, staring you in the face, as you stare in it's face. There's nothing but You to find within an infinite You. You are it, being, experience, everything forever and ever.

I'm just saying: if you want to realize the truth, you have to become conscious of what's true. Thinking about it, drawing a conclusion, believing in something, adopting hearsay, shifting your state, clinging to an idea, becoming convinced, and so on - none of that will cut it. It requires several "enlightenments." Being in the same place as the subject addressed, as if.

What is in front of you? Do you know what that is? This still rests on the assumption that your perception is an accurate reflection of what's there. Your sense of the world - of reality itself - stands on a set of unrecognized assumptions and beliefs. Unless those are discovered, little real headway can be made.

8 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

It's inference. Try to see when you infer things and when you actually look. 

How does experience manifest, except as an activity?

Do you encounter experience in the same way you "find" a rock? I'm not suggesting a rock - or objects in general - are necessarily existential here either, but they at least point toward something physical, objective. By existential, I mean what exists as itself. It exists on its own, independent of the relationship between things. Notice how everything that exists exists in relationship to something distinct from itself - thanks to not-that-thing. In other words, everything is relative. What is?

A process is about what isn't, since it always relates to time and never to Now. That's one basic explanation for it. But don't believe me.

No attempt at reaching "here" from "here" (where we stand) can brigde this gap. We try to use the mind, only to discover that the mind cannot comprehend the nature of anything. That's one reason Zen has a reputation for being baffling, nonsensical, even paradoxical. So, it is impossible, and within this impossibility is where the possibility must be personally created. 

Feeling cute, might delete later.

Edited 8 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

45 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Do you encounter experience in the same way you "find" a rock?

Yes a "rock" is Experience, everything is. You can't look anywhere without finding it. And it is you!

You don't need to keep walking around in circles around it, it's accessible to you here and now. There's no process Phenomenologically speaking. The "process" is a story. 

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Yes a "rock" is Experience, everything is. You can't look anywhere without finding it. And it is you!

You don't need to keep walking around in circles around it, it's accessible to you here and now. There's no process Phenomenologically speaking. The "process" is a story. 

Yes, that's essentially what is being put into question: whether it comes from an insight or something else, like a concept. Without a body, could you even perceive? Do you hold experience to occur after perception (as is commonly assumed), or to be prior to perception? How do you see it?

Hmm, actually, could you unconsciously be referring to the self (the experiencer) by your claim above? It seems likely. 

Edited 6 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

30 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Do you hold experience to occur after perception

There is no "perception" nor a "perceiver" besides as concepts phenomenologically speaking just pure experience. ("Out there outside somewhere", maybe, but that's also a thought)

It's hard to understand what is happening to you. It seems you don't want to get it. Do you by any chance think. "This can't be it, it must feel amazing and extraordinary, but this is just normal." 

How good are you at simply stopping thoughts? Can you reach a "no mind" state easily?