awakeningtothedream.com Forum Index awakeningtothedream.com
Non Duality: The one question to all our answers.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Tony Parsons' leg amputation
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    awakeningtothedream.com Forum Index -> Awakening to the Dream
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DaveK



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He needed a bit of assistance right after the amputation. But now he's standing on his own two feet.

Very Happy

Dave
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
toombaru



Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 5189
Location: There are no locations

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Tony Parsons' leg amputation Reply with quote

DaveK wrote:
Hi Gang,

This is my first post to your BB. And it's a bit of a flabbergasted and frustrated one

I'd love to get some feedback and perhaps an explanation that I seem to be missing.

So I'm listening to Tony Parsons', The Pefect Lover, on my ipod. Towards the end of the recording they get onto the subject of Tony's leg being cut off.

I believe the questioner was trying to nail down what the difference is between an awakened person's experience of a painful, traumatic event and a non-awakened person's experience.

They joked around a bit. Tony admitted that cutting would happen to no one. Pain would exist for no one, and screaming would happen. Tony never really answered the question as fully as I would have liked. So let me phrase this question in my own fashion.

Scenario:

From the unawakened person's perspective, we have a room full of people listening to Tony Parsons speak. Tony says things like, "There's no one speaking. There's no one sitting in a chair. Sitting is happening. Speaking is happening. etc.

Then two men come in with saws.
One man begins sawing off Tony Parson's leg whilst the other man begins sawing the leg off of a volunteer from the audience. Both individuals who are being cut are screaming and writhing in pain.

From the unawakened volunteer's perspective, she is in pain, she is bleeding, she is screaming, she is suffering. From the perspective of the unawakened folks in the audience. Tony Parsons is responding in exactly the same way as the woman, bleeding screaming, suffering. But what is Tony's experience of the event???

Cutting is happening to no one. Suffering is being experienced by no one. Screaming is spontaneously happening, but no one is doing the screaming. Awakened Oneness, as manifested in the apparent Tony, is aware of the pain and suffering being experienced. But Awakened Oneness in the apparent Tony is not suffering??? What does that mean??? From my perspective, there are two people suffering a horrible experience. Tony is bleeding. Tony is screaming. What sense does it make to say that no one is suffering???

It's walking like a duck. It's quacking like a duck. It is a duck, right?

When I Awaken and an apparent someone apparently starts cutting my apparent leg off, will the Awakened Oneness, which is all that's really left of me, just be mildly amused by the story of it all? Somewhere in some apparent reality, I am suffering for real, aren't I? What is the experience for the non-me that "I AM"? Shocked

Dave



Dear Dave,

I can guaranty.........100%.........that you will never become enlightened.

(I hope that takes the pressure off.......a little)

Very Happy



toombaru
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
michael



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 3816
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaveK, having put a leg on the line, perhaps it is time for the full thing... a whole body amputation. Very Happy

Will it be painful?

Not necessarily Very Happy

Is having a leg cut off, 'necessarily’ painful? Of course not. You know of people who are in accidents, or whose limbs are torn off in an explosion, yet they feel no pain. You know too that once anaesthetic is administered, the amputee feels no pain. And, despite the leg never returning, the missing limb is not a source of pain 'once the wound has healed'.

Conversely, you know of people who suffer 'phantom limb' syndrome. In this case, the person feels pain in their hand or foot, although the hand or foot is no longer apparent!

Of course this is all theory. Is there any memory of having a limb 'go to sleep', so there is no feeling? Though the limb still appears, it cannot be felt. If it is not 'felt' how could 'it' (the limb) feel pain?

There is absolutely no ‘necessary’ causal connection between the 'body' and the feeling of pain. Any connection is apparent only.

No 'body' feels anything.

Consciousness alone 'feels'.

So let's forget the body and start to examine consciousness.

As a start, do not move your eyes but now observe all that can be seen. In particular, see the periphery of the visual field. What is 'beyond' it? Not what you imagine is beyond, but what is actually observed?

Now (without moving your eyes) extend your arm and hand so your hand is out in front, fingers up and palm facing away. Look at it. Now slowly turn your hand. Watching closely, observe how the shape changes. Has your hand really changed shape? You ‘know’ it has not. This ‘knowing’, can you ‘see it’, or do you just ‘know it’? This ‘knowing’ is not a ‘thing’. You are this knowing, that knows. This is no theory… you know it!

Any thing that changes, while the object is known to be unchanged cannot be real. What changes is merely an image. It is formed of colours in the visual field.

Now with the hand extended, point a finger back at where the seeing is. Can you see the seeing?

Where is this visual field?

Can you locate it some place? Again, not imagining, not based on belief, or what you have been told… where is this seeing?

It cannot be in ‘the body’… right now you cannot see any body… just some arms and hands in the visual field.

Now (with your finger still pointing back at 'the seeing') 'turn your head’ and observe all of your body (that you can see). Do it slowly, keeping the pointing finger in the centre of the visual field, all the while remaining aware of the whole of the visual field, including the periphery. See that all the parts of the body (and everything else) that you can see are ‘in the visual field'.

See that the image in the visual field changes, though the 'nature' and 'location' of the seeing (where your finger is pointing back to) does not change in any way.

Perhaps you may look in a mirror and see an image that seems to mirror the feelings of your body moving. Yet 'what is seen' (the image) is still in the visual field.

Any object seen (whether your limbs and torso or a mirror image), cannot be the cause of seeing… can it?

A thought may come, but he asked me to ‘turn my head’. If I don’t have a head, how could I turn it.

True, but I only used words that are meaningful from the perspective of DaveK. There is no belief here in ‘heads’… other than as an image/idea.

As for the feeling of ‘turning your head’… that is just a feeling which is ‘thought of’ as ‘the feeling of turning my head'. This feeling, together with the idea of a turning head and changing images in the visual field create a powerful illusion don’t they. Very Happy

As for feelings in general, it is clear from the discussion above, and direct experience, that ‘bodies’ do not feel.

So with certainty, consciousness is this visual field, combined with the power to create feelings. Consciousness is aware.

Of what else is consciousness aware?

Odours? Flavours? Sounds?

Meaning?

Though each of these ‘aspects’ of consciousness is quite independent, they arise in concord moment to moment creating this apparent life… what power!

Metaphorically (and actually), the whole world may be erased ‘in the blinking of an eye’. (I say 'metaphorically' only because there is no 'eye' to 'blink' Very Happy ) You doubt it?

Stop seeing the world right now… do it! Where is the world? A thought may come “its still out there even though I have my eyes closed”… but that is just a thought.

There is no 'physical eye nor eyelid to close'. Can you find it... whatever is seen, is in the seeing, and cannot stop the seeing seeing!

And the 'feeling' of 'closing my eyes', is just that... a 'feeling', combined with the idea that this feeling is 'caused by closing my eyes'.

There is no ‘world out there’. The world is a world of appearance only. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just an image in the visual field and sounds in the hearing.. what would they know. Very Happy

Now, seeing this apparent world from the perspective of DaveK, what is experienced…

'DaveK' thoughts and feelings and images and sounds and odours and flavours that make up ‘DaveK’s life experience’. Of course DaveK knows nothing of this. DaveK is the thoughts and other sensations and meaning experienced by through and for consciousness alone.

As consciousness experiences life from the perspective of DaveK. There are no other conscious experiences happening ‘at the same time’. Consciousness is one and ‘where’ it is, there is it wholly present.

Consciousness is not broken up into bits, some for 'me' and some for 'you'. It is not looking out of anyone’s eyes. The only vision seeing now, is seeing these words… this is it.

Yet the same consciousness now experiences (as these words are seemingly typed) life from the perspective of michael. As such, there is presently no awareness of 'DaveK thoughts and experiences'. Only 'michael thoughts and experiences'.

I say 'michael thoughts and experiences' and 'DaveK thoughts and experiences' not to imply that 'michael' or 'DaveK' have thoughts and experiences, but only as pointers to the perspective from which the thoughts and experiences appear.

It is consciousness alone that is aware of 'having the thoughts and experiences from a specific perspective'... whether the perspective is from the viewpoint of 'michael' or 'DaveK' or any other viewpoint.

It is like playing a computer game seen on the one screen from the viewpoint of different characters at different times... the one player playing from each of the different perspectives. The difference is that in this game, one is able to forget that one is the only player who plays every part. (We'll talk about forgetting again in a moment) Cool

The ‘now’ of the 'michael perspective' and the now of the 'DaveK perspective' (or any other perspective) are neither simultaneous nor consecutive, but are ‘outside time’.

At this moment of typing, DaveK exists only as ‘potential’ (ideas/meaning) in memory.

This memory of DaveK, if it is not presently in awareness, ‘where’ is it? No idea. Crying or Very sad Very Happy But it is clear that it is in the same ‘place’ as the name of my wife, until the moment it is recollected. Or the same place the word ‘elephant’ is until this moment that you now read/recall it.

Knowing that the meaning of anything is defined by reference to everything else… all things known as one… it is clear that memory is infinitely great. So why don’t I remember everything ‘at once’?

In one respect nothing is ever forgotten, yet only that meaning necessary to tell ‘this’ story at this moment (in conjunction with these sensations) arises in awareness now. And so for all stories now and now and now.

This memory includes the colour, sound, odour, flavour and feeling of every possible 'thing'. Immediately, now, the sound of a bell is recalled, and the aroma of coffee, the feel of sandpaper, the taste of toothpaste and the look of my children. A whole world is instantly imagined with all the people coloured green, and with a red sky... all in the absence of any direct 'sensory' experience. What wonder of wonders!

Were it not possible to both remember and forget, there would be no illusion.

It may seem impossible to ‘remember and forget’ 'at the same time', yet it is a common experience from the human perspective. “What’s his name? I can’t remember”. And yet I know the name, for if I did not, I could not recognise it as the ‘forgotten name’ when I remember it. Shocked

Now for the other senses. Can you smell the source of odour? Not the rotting fruit. That is not the source. The fruit seen is simply colours in the visual field. How could colour be the source of odour? So if what is seen is not the source, what and where is it? Can you locate it?

Can you locate the source of sound or flavour or feeling?

That which reads these words is not DaveK, or any other person. That which reads, is:

Unseen seeing
Unfelt feeling
Unsmelled smelling
Untasted tasting
Unheard hearing
Unknown knowing.

In a word: consciousness Very Happy

Let the play begin

Love dear One
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring


Last edited by michael on Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:31 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 3816
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could not resist tinkering... some slight changes since the above was first posted Cool

Love
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaveK



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Michael,

Thank you taking the time for such a thoughtful response. The only reason I have not replied yet is because I want to reply when I've got enough time to really fully respond to what you've written. Things have been a bit busy. But I hope to sit down for a proper response soon.

Thanks!

Dave
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maple3



Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 1065
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Tony Parsons' leg amputation Reply with quote

toombaru wrote:
Dear Dave,

I can guaranty.........100%.........that you will never become enlightened.

(I hope that takes the pressure off.......a little)

Very Happy


In one manner of speaking...
Some might say that "enlightenment" is realizing that there is no such thing as a "guarantee"...

...and also no one who could possibly offer it...

and also not anyone to receive it.

Give up all hope of "guarantees"...

...and for the same reason, (i.e. no one to receive it), give up all hope of "enlightenment."



Self-investigation...

i.e.... Look for yourself...

...and look for your "self"...

... "you" and "other" (i.e. "you" and "guarantees") ... travel in pairs...

...inevitably appearing (and DIS-appearing) together...


Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
toombaru



Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 5189
Location: There are no locations

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:58 am    Post subject: Re: Tony Parsons' leg amputation Reply with quote

maple3 wrote:
toombaru wrote:
Dear Dave,

I can guaranty.........100%.........that you will never become enlightened.

(I hope that takes the pressure off.......a little)

:D


In one manner of speaking...
Some might say that "enlightenment" is realizing that there is no such thing as a "guarantee"...

...and also no one who could possibly offer it...

and also not anyone to receive it.

Give up all hope of "guarantees"...

...and for the same reason, (i.e. no one to receive it), give up all hope of "enlightenment."



Self-investigation...

i.e.... Look for yourself...

...and look for your "self"...

... "you" and "other" (i.e. "you" and "guarantees") ... travel in pairs...

...inevitably appearing (and DIS-appearing) together...


Love




Maple,


Tonight .............I rest in the coolness of your shadow.




Do you want to go dancing?



toombau


Last edited by toombaru on Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DaveK



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael wrote:
DaveK, having put a leg on the line, perhaps it is time for the full thing... a whole body amputation. Very Happy


Absolutely. I'm ready.

michael wrote:
Will it be painful?

Not necessarily Very Happy


That's okay. I've been sort of moving into a mode of radical acceptance of whatever arises inside or outside. Although I do think that at this point I would have a bit of difficulty accepting "what is", if that happened to be a sawing off of my leg. But I am allowing space around whatever arises and responding rather than reacting whenever possible.

michael wrote:
There is absolutely no ‘necessary’ causal connection between the 'body' and the feeling of pain. Any connection is apparent only.

No 'body' feels anything.

Consciousness alone 'feels'.

So let's forget the body and start to examine consciousness.


okie dokie

michael wrote:
As a start, do not move your eyes but now observe all that can be seen. In particular, see the periphery of the visual field. What is 'beyond' it? Not what you imagine is beyond, but what is actually observed?


Objects on the visible side of the periphery are out of focus. Beyond that is difficult to describe. A dark shadow with no objects visible.

michael wrote:
Now (without moving your eyes) extend your arm and hand so your hand is out in front, fingers up and palm facing away. Look at it. Now slowly turn your hand. Watching closely, observe how the shape changes. Has your hand really changed shape? You ‘know’ it has not. This ‘knowing’, can you ‘see it’, or do you just ‘know it’? This ‘knowing’ is not a ‘thing’. You are this knowing, that knows. This is no theory… you know it!

Any thing that changes, while the object is known to be unchanged cannot be real. What changes is merely an image. It is formed of colours in the visual field.


Yes, this is a big issue for beginning art students. To accurately draw things in a forshortened perspective we need to draw exactly what we see, no matter how unusual the shape may seem, rather than be influenced by what we "know" about the form. eg. drawing fingers that are hidden from view.

michael wrote:
Now with the hand extended, point a finger back at where the seeing is...

...See that the image in the visual field changes, though the 'nature' and 'location' of the seeing (where your finger is pointing back to) does not change in any way.


Okay. In this experiment it is difficult to put aside what I know about my eyes on my head etc. But when I try to do as you instruct, my field of vision is like a sideways oval, wider than it is tall. I'm aware of three dimensional space in front of me which terminates at my location. It's sort of like I am watching TV on a big oval screen and I'm sitting too close with my nose against the screen. My nose is not really visible. But I know it's there because of the feel. I do actually see a bit of my mustache in the lower periphery of the field. when I move my head it is difficult to experience the field as static because I feel my head and neck moving. When I slowly spin around in my chair, rather than move my head, I can aproximate the feeling that the field is static and that objects are sliding across the field.

michael wrote:
Perhaps you may look in a mirror and see an image that seems to mirror the feelings of your body moving. Yet 'what is seen' (the image) is still in the visual field...

...This feeling, together with the idea of a turning head and changing images in the visual field create a powerful illusion don’t they. Very Happy


Yes they do. I just went into the bathroom. Looking into the mirror feels like looking into an extension of the three dimensional space beyond the surface of the mirror. Naturally my vision does not seem to be coming from the eyes of the fellow in the mirror. My field of vision is located here with me. While I was in there, I took the oportunity to brush my teeth. Curiously, that appeared as my hand jamming my toothbrush in and out of the bottom section of my field of vision, through the two dimensional oval field, disappearing and reappearing as I brushed back and forth.

If I try to put aside all that seems obvious because of what I know. Then it seems like I am walking around with a sort of oval shaped, flat screen tv, above my body. Trying to experience the oval field as static, with objects appearing and disappearing from the sides does not work well because my sense of balance tells me the position of the oval field. If I look at my feet and try to imagine that the oval field is in the same position as when I am looking out from my body in the usual fashion, it make me dizzy and slightly nauseous because it brings confusion in as to whitch direction is really up.


michael wrote:
As for feelings in general, it is clear from the discussion above, and direct experience, that ‘bodies’ do not feel.

So with certainty, consciousness is this visual field, combined with the power to create feelings. Consciousness is aware.

Of what else is consciousness aware?

Odours? Flavours? Sounds?

Meaning?

Though each of these ‘aspects’ of consciousness is quite independent, they arise in concord moment to moment creating this apparent life… what power!

And they appear to be located at their expected position in three dimensional space. As my wrist leans against my computer table, I feel the pressure there not up with my field of vision.

michael wrote:
Metaphorically (and actually), the whole world may be erased ‘in the blinking of an eye’. (I say 'metaphorically' only because there is no 'eye' to 'blink' Very Happy ) You doubt it?

Stop seeing the world right now… do it! Where is the world? A thought may come “its still out there even though I have my eyes closed”… but that is just a thought.

There is no 'physical eye nor eyelid to close'. Can you find it... whatever is seen, is in the seeing, and cannot stop the seeing seeing!

Question Question Question Question Question
Okay. I close my eyes. But I immediately become aware of sounds near and far that tell me the world is still out there and approximately where in space things are located.

michael wrote:
'DaveK' thoughts and feelings and images and sounds and odours and flavours that make up ‘DaveK’s life experience’. Of course DaveK knows nothing of this. DaveK is the thoughts and other sensations and meaning experienced by through and for consciousness alone.

As consciousness experiences life from the perspective of DaveK. There are no other conscious experiences happening ‘at the same time’. Consciousness is one and ‘where’ it is, there is it wholly present.

I can accept that.

michael wrote:
Consciousness is not broken up into bits, some for 'me' and some for 'you'. It is not looking out of anyone’s eyes. The only vision seeing now, is seeing these words… this is it.

Yet the same consciousness now experiences (as these words are seemingly typed) life from the perspective of michael. As such, there is presently no awareness of 'DaveK thoughts and experiences'. Only 'michael thoughts and experiences'.

I say 'michael thoughts and experiences' and 'DaveK thoughts and experiences' not to imply that 'michael' or 'DaveK' have thoughts and experiences, but only as pointers to the perspective from which the thoughts and experiences appear.

It is consciousness alone that is aware of 'having the thoughts and experiences from a specific perspective'... whether the perspective is from the viewpoint of 'michael' or 'DaveK' or any other viewpoint.

It is like playing a computer game seen on the one screen from the viewpoint of different characters at different times... the one player playing from each of the different perspectives. The difference is that in this game, one is able to forget that one is the only player who plays every part. (We'll talk about forgetting again in a moment) Cool

Being an avid player of video games, I can follow this without difficulty. Very Happy


michael wrote:
At this moment of typing, DaveK exists only as ‘potential’ (ideas/meaning) in memory...


In one respect nothing is ever forgotten, yet only that meaning necessary to tell ‘this’ story at this moment (in conjunction with these sensations) arises in awareness now. And so for all stories now and now and now.

This memory includes the colour, sound, odour, flavour and feeling of every possible 'thing'. Immediately, now, the sound of a bell is recalled, and the aroma of coffee, the feel of sandpaper, the taste of toothpaste and the look of my children. A whole world is instantly imagined with all the people coloured green, and with a red sky... all in the absence of any direct 'sensory' experience. What wonder of wonders!

Were it not possible to both remember and forget, there would be no illusion.

Now for the other senses. Can you smell the source of odour? Not the rotting fruit. That is not the source. The fruit seen is simply colours in the visual field. How could colour be the source of odour? So if what is seen is not the source, what and where is it? Can you locate it?

Can you locate the source of sound or flavour or feeling?

That which reads these words is not DaveK, or any other person. That which reads, is:

Unseen seeing
Unfelt feeling
Unsmelled smelling
Untasted tasting
Unheard hearing
Unknown knowing.

In a word: consciousness Very Happy

Let the play begin


Alright. I follow all of this in theory. Although it does not feel like it is the case. But I am comfortable suspending disbelief and accepting that my world is created as much as it is perceived. It happens every night in my dreams. Very Happy

Dave
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maple3



Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 1065
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:58 am    Post subject: Re: Tony Parsons' leg amputation Reply with quote

toombaru wrote:
Maple,


Tonight .............I rest in your coolness of your shadow.




Do you want to go dancing?



toombau


Ah, a kind offer, toombaru... and tempting. Wink
Thanks, but michael's word... "tinkering" ... probably best describes the odd mood on this end.

Besides hon, you and I have such different styles of "dancing"... we'd likely just bruise each other's toes... again. Wink

Smile

Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 3816
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaveK, your responses are as 'thoughtful' as my own Very Happy

I have put 'thoughtful' in adverted commas because both my original comments and your responses are in the realm of 'thought'. As such they bear no relation whatever to reality... except as 'pointers' to that which is observed/observing. It is only in direct observation that consciouness is 'self evident'... this despite consciousness being unknowable and unobservable. Confused Cool Very Happy

But before returning to your responses and to direct observation, let's have some fun. (Occam, go and find something else to do for a while Very Happy )

Let's imagine that you really are the person you think you are... with a body and brain. And lets take this person on a visit to the holodek.

First, sit in this chair and put on this helmet. It's an early model... still requires external connection to the principal sensory receptors in the brain for vision (at the back of the head... inside the skull, where it's dark and no light ever gets in Surprised ) and hearing, and so on. Very Happy

So you will not hurt yourself as the action plays out, the holodek will immobilise your 'real body' by blocking the nerve signals to your 'real muscles'(Very Happy )

You will be playing captain kirk.

OK. It's in place. Let's turn it on.

Zssst. Wow here's the command centre of starship Enterprise in full '3D' colour. This image appears real, as it is being generated in the same place in your 'real brain', as the images created in response to 'external stimuli from the material world', which is the same 'visual cortex' in which your dreams appear (in the absence of 'external stimuli' Surprised )

(Remember, we are just playing... pretending that there is a 'real you' in a 'real world' in which 'external stimuli' enter the 'brain' via 'nerve pathways' to generate images and feelings, and other sensory experiences Cool

In this 'real world' (in which you now seem to believe) there is no little man looking out along the optic nerves in the brain to see the supposed 'real world' directly. In the 'material model', all signals are supposed to come into the brain from outside, and it is not until the brain is stimulated that the image appears. It is all image Surprised

How ironic, whether you seem to believe in 'material brains' or 'consciousness' as the ground of awareness, the world that is seen and felt and smelled and tasted and heard is a world of appearance only. Surprised Cool

Of course, you may 'choose' to believe it is the mirror image of an 'external world' (outside the supposed brain). I say 'supposed', because you haven't actually seen your brain have you? Oh, no matter if you did... for the image you see of it, is also 'in' this supposed brain of yours, and could not be your actual supposed brain Confused Mad Just how do you get outside this image to prove that there is a 'world beyond... wherever you look, wherever you seemingly go... it is image. Confused )

OK back to the holodek.

Over there is Spock. Can you see him? He is walking towards you.

For the moment, you can't see 'your' (captain kirk's) body because in this holodek world your head is up and you are looking at Spock. As he approaches, you extend your hand to greet him. Of course, the arm and hand you see is just a '3D' image. Your 'real hand' is resting at your side... as you sit immobile in the 'holodek armchair'.

This image of Spock and your arm is generated directly in your visual cortex by the holodek (like a dream image). As well, the holodek is stimulating the 'feeling' centres in your 'real brain'... so it 'feels' like this arm that you see being extended is 'your arm', and you feel the hand shake and hear his welcome. (I know Spock didn't shake hands but this is just imagining isn't it Very Happy )

Now you hear the request, "Look around. What do you see?"

Now 'you' have just been asked to do something in the 'holodek world'. But of course, in this imagined play, the 'real you' cannot do anything, the 'real you' is immobile in the holodek chair.

But in response to this request, the holodek now generates images as if you (as captain kirk) are scanning the command centre and also the feelings of 'your head' turning. Wow it sure seems real doesn't it Shocked

Now look down at your body (captain kirks body). Again the holodek is generating the image and the feeling. Can you see the top of 'your' chest? And looking either side, 'your' shoulders, and further down, torso, arms, legs and feet?

But of course you cannot see 'your own head', can you? Neither DaveK's head in the helmet, nor captain kirks head.

The holdodek also generates the feelings of 'your feet' as you stand.

Now again, it generates the experience of 'you looking up'... the feeling of your head moving and the image of Spock standing in front of you. As this appears, the holodek continues to generate in 'your real brain' the feeling of 'your feet on the deck'... now 'below' the image... as if you are still standing and looking out.

Now what do you observe?

Can you see the field of view... a bit like an oval, with everything visible but your 'head'?

Do you see that the apparent body (from chest down) is just an image... like everything else in this field of view?

Of course you know this, because it is generated by the holodek and your real body is sitting in the holodek chair.

But wait a minute, how do you know this? Confused

The holodek has blocked all sensory signals to your brain... apart from those generated by the holodek itself. You cannot see or feel or sense your 'real body' or the 'holodek chair' or 'helmet' or the 'holodek device' that is generating the images and feelings and other sensations in your 'real brain'.

From 'inside' this holographic world, is there anyway you can locate who or what is generating these images and feelings?

Can you locate 'where' this holodek image and these holodek feelings exist? They cannot exist 'in' the holodek world, for the holodek world is simply an illusion... which you claim is now being generated in your 'real brain'.

Be honest, in this imagined play, the only thing that tells you that you have a 'real body and brain' is 'your' memory. Isn't that so?

Now sitting here, imagine that the holodek now blocks access to all 'your own (DaveK's) memories and thoughts' and instead generates memories and thoughts of captain kirk's life? Shocked

Who would you now seem to be? Question Question

Assuming the holodek device is sufficiently powerful to mimic all aspects of the (supposed) 'real world', would this experience appear as 'real' as the experience of being DaveK?

And what if the holodek now blocks all memories of being both DaveK and captain kirk and instead replays the whole scene from the perspective of Spock, with Spock thoughts and feelings and memories?

Who would you now seem to be?

In this imagined play, 'you' supply the awareness to both characters. And though the two experiences are separated in time, as they are replayed exactly from both perspectives (captain kirk and Spock), it is as if both people really are alive... with one rather major difference, what each does to the other is really done to yourself Surprised

Hmmm (apologies to maple3 Very Happy ), I seem to recall another famous fellow saying something like: "what you do to another you really do to yourself". Very Happy

He came out of the same tradition that reckons Everything is created by, through and for God, and that God alone is real. He went on to say that 'you', 'I' and 'God' are One... sort of sounds familiar doesn't it. Very Happy

OK, back to the story.

Now lets assume medical science can keep your body and brain alive forever... hooked up to the holodek. How would you ever be able to know that all the time (whichever person you seemed to be, in whaterver illusory place and time the holodek generates)... you really are this (now immortal) 'body and brain' called DaveK strapped to the holodek chair?

And since the real you is now immortal and unchanging, and given that every experience that could ever be, is now programmed into the holodek... so that any experience can be repeated at any 'time', in any order, from any perspective... what is the meaning of time?

OK, enough of imagining, back to your responses.

DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
As a start, do not move your eyes but now observe all that can be seen. In particular, see the periphery of the visual field. What is 'beyond' it? Not what you imagine is beyond, but what is actually observed?


Objects on the visible side of the periphery are out of focus. Beyond that is difficult to describe. A dark shadow with no objects visible.


Sounds a bit like the 'holodek' to me Very Happy As for the 'shadow', is it really 'dark', or 'white', or 'nothing'?

DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
Now with the hand extended, point a finger back at where the seeing is...

...See that the image in the visual field changes, though the 'nature' and 'location' of the seeing (where your finger is pointing back to) does not change in any way.


Okay. In this experiment it is difficult to put aside what I know about my eyes on my head etc.


Yes it does seem that way doesn't it.

But how do you know you have eyes, when you can't even locate your head? Cool

DaveK wrote:
But when I try to do as you instruct, my field of vision is like a sideways oval, wider than it is tall. I'm aware of three dimensional space in front of me which terminates at my location. It's sort of like I am watching TV on a big oval screen and I'm sitting too close with my nose against the screen. My nose is not really visible. But I know it's there because of the feel. I do actually see a bit of my mustache in the lower periphery of the field.


Hmmm (with apologies to maple3 again Very Happy )... sounds even more 'holodekian', don't you think?

DaveK wrote:
...when I move my head it is difficult to experience the field as static because I feel my head and neck moving.


That feeling is the 'clincher', it sure seems hard to see through, doesn't it.

DaveK wrote:
When I slowly spin around in my chair, rather than move my head, I can aproximate the feeling that the field is static and that objects are sliding across the field.


Now you're getting the hang of it Very Happy

DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
...This feeling, together with the idea of a turning head and changing images in the visual field create a powerful illusion don’t they. Very Happy


Yes they do. I just went into the bathroom. Looking into the mirror feels like looking into an extension of the three dimensional space beyond the surface of the mirror. Naturally my vision does not seem to be coming from the eyes of the fellow in the mirror. My field of vision is located here with me.


Hey, where did this 'me' come from... claiming to be here with vision?

Can this 'me' be located now? What the heck is it? Can it be described?

DaveK wrote:
While I was in there, I took the oportunity to brush my teeth. Curiously, that appeared as my hand jamming my toothbrush in and out of the bottom section of my field of vision, through the two dimensional oval field, disappearing and reappearing as I brushed back and forth.


Sounds a pretty accurate description of the experience... not at all curious, if I say so 'myself' Very Happy

DaveK wrote:
If I try to put aside all that seems obvious because of what I know.


Seems a good premise from which to start observing... making clear the difference between belief (knowing the known) and direct awareness that knowing is. Very Happy

DaveK wrote:
Then it seems like I am walking around with a sort of oval shaped, flat screen tv, above my body.


This seems to be the crux of the illusion: "above my body". This 'body' that is 'beneath the screen', how do you know it is there?

DaveK wrote:
Trying to experience the oval field as static, with objects appearing and disappearing from the sides does not work well because my sense of balance tells me the position of the oval field. If I look at my feet and try to imagine that the oval field is in the same position as when I am looking out from my body in the usual fashion, it make me dizzy and slightly nauseous because it brings confusion in as to whitch direction is really up.


Wonderful Very Happy

DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
As for feelings in general, it is clear from the discussion above, and direct experience, that ‘bodies’ do not feel.

So with certainty, consciousness is this visual field, combined with the power to create feelings. Consciousness is aware.

Of what else is consciousness aware?

Odours? Flavours? Sounds?

Meaning?

Though each of these ‘aspects’ of consciousness is quite independent, they arise in concord moment to moment creating this apparent life… what power!


And they appear to be located at their expected position in three dimensional space. As my wrist leans against my computer table, I feel the pressure there not up with my field of vision.


Yes, and the key word here is 'appear'... just like on the holodek, eh? Cool

DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
Metaphorically (and actually), the whole world may be erased ‘in the blinking of an eye’. (I say 'metaphorically' only because there is no 'eye' to 'blink' Very Happy ) You doubt it?

Stop seeing the world right now… do it! Where is the world? A thought may come “its still out there even though I have my eyes closed”… but that is just a thought.

There is no 'physical eye nor eyelid to close'. Can you find it... whatever is seen, is in the seeing, and cannot stop the seeing seeing!

Question Question Question Question Question
Okay. I close my eyes. But I immediately become aware of sounds near and far that tell me the world is still out there and approximately where in space things are located.


Yes there are sounds... and you 'know' they represent sounds 'out there in the world'... just like on the holodek.

Observing: there are sounds and there is meaning in awareness. Perhaps it may be better expressed: "I believe they are sounds in the outside world". Even in human terms, I could just be dreaming, or suffering a delusion... or even on the holodek.

How can you/I tell?

DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
'DaveK' thoughts and feelings and images and sounds and odours and flavours that make up ‘DaveK’s life experience’. Of course DaveK knows nothing of this. DaveK is the thoughts and other sensations and meaning experienced by through and for consciousness alone.

As consciousness experiences life from the perspective of DaveK. There are no other conscious experiences happening ‘at the same time’. Consciousness is one and ‘where’ it is, there is it wholly present.


I can accept that.


Saying it is just saying. Observing, how many 'consciousnesses', is consciousness now aware of?

DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
Consciousness is not broken up into bits, some for 'me' and some for 'you'. It is not looking out of anyone’s eyes. The only vision seeing now, is seeing these words… this is it.

Yet the same consciousness now experiences (as these words are seemingly typed) life from the perspective of michael. As such, there is presently no awareness of 'DaveK thoughts and experiences'. Only 'michael thoughts and experiences'.

I say 'michael thoughts and experiences' and 'DaveK thoughts and experiences' not to imply that 'michael' or 'DaveK' have thoughts and experiences, but only as pointers to the perspective from which the thoughts and experiences appear.

It is consciousness alone that is aware of 'having the thoughts and experiences from a specific perspective'... whether the perspective is from the viewpoint of 'michael' or 'DaveK' or any other viewpoint.

It is like playing a computer game seen on the one screen from the viewpoint of different characters at different times... the one player playing from each of the different perspectives. The difference is that in this game, one is able to forget that one is the only player who plays every part. (We'll talk about forgetting again in a moment) Cool


Being an avid player of video games, I can follow this without difficulty. Very Happy


Following it 'intellectually' and being it... are these the same? (trick question Very Happy )

DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
At this moment of typing, DaveK exists only as ‘potential’ (ideas/meaning) in memory...

In one respect nothing is ever forgotten, yet only that meaning necessary to tell ‘this’ story at this moment (in conjunction with these sensations) arises in awareness now. And so for all stories now and now and now.

This memory includes the colour, sound, odour, flavour and feeling of every possible 'thing'. Immediately, now, the sound of a bell is recalled, and the aroma of coffee, the feel of sandpaper, the taste of toothpaste and the look of my children. A whole world is instantly imagined with all the people coloured green, and with a red sky... all in the absence of any direct 'sensory' experience. What wonder of wonders!

Were it not possible to both remember and forget, there would be no illusion.

Now for the other senses. Can you smell the source of odour? Not the rotting fruit. That is not the source. The fruit seen is simply colours in the visual field. How could colour be the source of odour? So if what is seen is not the source, what and where is it? Can you locate it?

Can you locate the source of sound or flavour or feeling?

That which reads these words is not DaveK, or any other person. That which reads, is:

Unseen seeing
Unfelt feeling
Unsmelled smelling
Untasted tasting
Unheard hearing
Unknown knowing.

In a word: consciousness Very Happy

Let the play begin


Alright. I follow all of this in theory. Although it does not feel like it is the case. But I am comfortable suspending disbelief and accepting that my world is created as much as it is perceived. It happens every night in my dreams. Very Happy

Dave


Only they are not Dave's dreams... Dave is the dream. Very Happy

The same that sees life from the perspective of michael as 'One', sees life from the perspective of Dave as 'many'.

From self to self

Love
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring


Last edited by michael on Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:48 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sara



Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Location: below sea level

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Occam's just popping in for a 'moment', 'cause it's mighty cold and 'isolating' outside.Wink
and it just loves the following quote (bold's mine):

michael wrote:
DaveK is the thoughts and other sensations and meaning experienced by through and for consciousness alone.


Yes! Wonderful! Feels all toasty warm now! Very Happy

love,
saramazed
_________________
There is only Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maple3



Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 1065
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael wrote:
It is like playing a computer game seen on the one screen from the viewpoint of different characters at different times... the one player playing from each of the different perspectives. The difference is that in this game, one is able to forget that one is the only player who plays every part.


Many of us are old enough to remember when there were no such things as video games. Does anybody remember how it was to try to play a game of checkers with yourself as your own opponent? When I tried it I used to change seats for each round, trying to forget what the other player, (the other "me") was thinking or strategizing for the next move. Funny now looking back at those comical attempts to "forget that one is the only player who plays every part." And yet, these "appearances" are exactly that, forgetfulness effectively manifested. Clever, eh?

And if we could ever "remember" all the parts, (like some of us imagine we want to "remember"), we might soon get bored with that too. And then we might contemplate how to play the "game" (or dance the dance), so we could "forget" again.

It seems the fun, (and the horror) of being "two" is the forgetfulness... that's the whole point.

And the most intriguing "mystery" is always for what is NOT.



michael wrote:
Were it not possible to both remember and forget, there would be no illusion.

Yep, that too... (and "two"... or as you say, "both" Wink ).

michael wrote:
It may seem impossible to ‘remember and forget’ 'at the same time', yet it is a common experience from the human perspective. “What’s his name? I can’t remember”. And yet I know the name, for if I did not, I could not recognise it as the ‘forgotten name’ when I remember it.

Haven't we all had that perplexing experience of a name being "just on the tip of my tongue" and yet still be unable to recall it? So, what is it that knows that the name is forgotten? And what is it that knows when the name is only a hair's breath away from recall? And what is that knows when the name recedes again out of reach? And if a name is truly forgotten, how can we even know when we are on the verge of reclaiming it from its forgotten place?

So, the question is what is it that knows the forgetting, and also the recalling? And what "point of reference" remains STILL while all the apparent comings and goings (i.e. forgetting and remembering), seem to move around, towards, away, in, as, by, for, and through... IT?

michael wrote:
Hmmm (apologies to maple3 Very Happy ) ), I seem to recall another famous fellow saying something like: "what you do to another you really do to yourself". Very Happy

Huh? Apologies? Confused Well, it's obvious that I'm doing some of that dreaded "forgetfulness" right now because I truly cannot fathom what this (and the other) comment is about. Rolling Eyes
(Or maybe it was just meant to get my "attention"? In that case, it seems to have worked! Wink Very Happy )

In any case, maple3 giggled all the way through the holodek metaphor... really good stuff, michael. Wink Very Happy

Also thanks to DaveK for such good questions. It seems maple3 seldom has any good questions of her own, but does get such a big kick (and insight) from the questions of other thoughtful seekers.... (and also the "answers" that are inspired by them. Very Happy )


michael wrote:
DaveK wrote:
michael wrote:
...This feeling, together with the idea of a turning head and changing images in the visual field create a powerful illusion don’t they. Very Happy


Yes they do. I just went into the bathroom. Looking into the mirror feels like looking into an extension of the three dimensional space beyond the surface of the mirror. Naturally my vision does not seem to be coming from the eyes of the fellow in the mirror. My field of vision is located here with me.


Hey, where did this 'me' come from... claiming to be here with vision?

Can this 'me' be located now? What the heck is it? Can it be described?

Uh, DaveK, you're obviously a smart guy... but really... you walked right into that one. Wink Very Happy

michael wrote:
DaveK wrote:

Trying to experience the oval field as static, with objects appearing and disappearing from the sides does not work well because my sense of balance tells me the position of the oval field. If I look at my feet and try to imagine that the oval field is in the same position as when I am looking out from my body in the usual fashion, it make me dizzy and slightly nauseous because it brings confusion in as to whitch direction is really up.


Wonderful Very Happy

And michael displays the celebratory big grin. But oh, don't dare trust that... Umm... From DaveK's description, we could say that in one sense, "awakening" (aka "awareness") is the realization of "not knowing which way is up"... (also "dizziness"... and "nauseousness" ). It's too bad... we never know what we're signing up for until our (apparent) head's already in the tiger's mouth. Rolling Eyes... maybe it's really better to opt for the million dollars? Rolling Eyes


Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sara



Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Location: below sea level

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maple3...

Laughing

I'm off to bed with a HUGE Cheshire cat grin Very Happy

......and sure to have happy 'dreams'.

love,
sara
_________________
There is only Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 3816
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually sara, it is ALL 'yours' dear One Very Happy

And as for your forgetfullness dear maple3 (so nice to see you back):

maple3 wrote:
michael wrote:
Hi maple3.

Lies you say. Hmmm

Agreed... if one thinks about the words and what they mean.

But as pointers to the fact of seeing feeling hearing smelling tasting and knowing?

Love


Sorry michael,

This mood... hmm, doesn't seem like the type for a good conversation. Smile


Well now you're both here (where else), perhaps you'd like to join 'me' on the holodek again. Perhaps we can explore this holographic world together, and in the process, who knows what may appear. Very Happy

Sit here and put these helmets on. This time you get to play kirk (sorry Dave, you'll have to wait your turn Crying or Very sad Very Happy )

Zssst. OK. Now sara/maple3 (I mean kirk) you see Spock over there?

You do. Good.

Well now close your eyes and tell me what you see?

Just 'patchy blackness with a sort of faint irridescence' you say. Sounds normal. But of course, this image is just being generated in 'your brain' by the holodek. Just as the image of Spock was a moment ago.

While sitting in the holodek, there is no eye seeing, no lid to close... just seeing a holodekian world from the perspective of kirk... created directly in 'your brain'.

But, to generate the illusion that you do have holodekian eyes, at the request 'close your eyes', the holodek alters the image to this 'slightly irridescent blackness'. And, to reinforce the sense that you do have holodekian eyes that are now closed, there is now the feeling of your hand touching your eyelids...

Of course there is no actual holodekian hand any more than there are holodekian eyes... just the feeling and the belief that this feeling is 'my hand touching my eyelids'.

In reality, it is all just images/feelings in 'your brain'... isn't it. Cool

Hmmm. (this hmmm's not for maple3 Very Happy ... it is just 'me' cogitating Very Happy )

This brain thing can get really tricky, because it certainly seems like brains are necessary for 'awareness' to 'materialize' (what a contradiction in terms Cool ). Undeniably, every scientist will atest that without brains there is no (self) awareness.

So while we're on this holodek, lets have a look at brains.

"Spock, sit here in this chair", you (as kirk) say. You (as kirk) then have the experience of walking behind Spock and ask scotty to remove the top of his (Spock's) head. (Yes, I know scotty's an engineer , but he is very adaptable)

Again these images and the sound of you speaking (as kirk) are all generated by the holodek... without any control on your part. At this point, 'your brain' is simply the passive generator/perceiver of images and other sensations and meaning in response to stimulus from the holodek. It is the holodek that is running the show... not you. So sit back and enjoy. Though of course, being immobilised, there is not much else you can do, is there Crying or Very sad

And now it generates the experience of you (kirk) putting your finger on Spocks exposed brain and giving it a little push.

The holodek creates the appearance (according to this story, in sara/maple3's brain) of kirk's hand and finger reaching out and pushing on Spock's brain... it feels 'squishy'. This feeling too is generated by the holodek (in 'sara/maple3's brain').

All the while it seems that you really are kirk doing these things... though 'you' (sara/maple3) are doing nothing but observing and hearing and feeling. Shocked

As this happens, Spock cannot feel the touch (scientists say that brains don't feel - even though they are supposed to be the source of 'feeling' Shocked Confused ).

However, he (Spock) does have the experience of suddenly seeing 'flashes of light' and getting 'distant memories', including familiar odours from his youth.

Of course, at this moment, 'he' really experiences nothing. 'He' is just an image in 'your brain' generated by the holodek. Nevertheless, this image (of Spock) reports to you (as kirk) the experience in his usual detached manner.

And when you (as kirk) ask him, he swears he is conscious and is really having the experience.

Though we know better, don't we. Cool We know that the only one conscious is 'you'... seeing the holodekian world from the perspective of kirk. Well 'you' would know, except at this moment the holodek is blocking your own thoughts and memories and giving you thoughts and memories of 'kirk', making you think and feel that you really are kirk and that you (kirk) and Spock and all the rest of the holodekian crew are real... so why wouldn't you believe Spock when he tells you what he experiences?

Phew. I sure am glad to get through that maze of ideas with my sanity intact... I think

Hold tight though, it's about to get a whole lot more convoluted. We're about to go down the rabbit hole with Alice.

I flip the switch again, so you not only forget that you really are sara, or maple3, or anyone else, in the 'real world' (hmmm), I also have the holodek block all memory of 'your' recent experience as kirk, and instead create the illusion that 'you' are now Spock, with Spock thoughts and feelings and memories, so that 'you' now appear to be sitting in the chair with kirk and scotty standing behind you.

You (now as Spock) cannot see them, nor can you feel as they prod your (Spock's holodek) brain, but you (as Spock) know they are there because you can hear them.

And, as they prod, you (as Spock) now see 'flashes of light' and experience 'distant memories', including old familiar smells from your youth. And now the holodek generates the feeling and sound of you (as Spock) speaking and reporting in your usual detached manner what is observed... just as you previously heard Spock say when you experienced exactly the same scene from the perspective of kirk!!!

So, there it is. For all holodekians indisputable proof : 'there is a direct link between brains and awareness'... no possible argument... kirk, Spock and scotty swear to it... 'they have seen it with their own eyes and felt it with their own hands, and experienced first hand the images and sensations elicited when the brain is prodded. They have experimented and tested their hypothesis beyond doubt. Very Happy

Indeed, the holodekians (whom you presently see as 'real'... because the real holodek to which you are now connected is still creating the impression that you are Spock) have developed such an advanced understanding of the workings of the brain that they are able to create 'holographic worlds' that are so real they are indistinguishable from the 'actual' world of kirk, Spock and scotty. What we are talking about is a holodekien holodek!

Of course, 'we' know this 'actual world' of Spock is just an illusion in 'your brain' (sara.maple3)... but while the real holodek is running you now seem to be Spock and 'his' world now seems to be the 'real world'... sure can be confusing, eh)

"OK, Spock, sit in this chair and put on this helmet", kirk (who is now just an image... though he seems real) says to you.

The holodek generates in 'your real brain' (sara/maple3) both the apparent request from kirk and the images and feelings of 'you' (as Spock) sitting in the (holodekian) holodek chair and putting on the (holodekian) holodek helmet. Very Happy

Zsst. Wow here is the ancient world that Spock new as a child. It appears that the holodekian holodek is blocking all memory of Spock as an adult, and that it is now seemingly generating the illusion in Spock's brain that "I am Spock as a child living on my old planet".

Of course, you as 'Spock' do not know this. All 'you' know is that 'I am now the young Spock'... for that is all 'you' experience: the thoughts, feelings and images of a "young body in a world with people of my own kind".

Of course, this illusion is not generated in Spocks holodekian brain by the holodekian holodek on the Enterprise, but by the real holodek to which you sara/maple3 are attached... clear I'm sure Very Happy

But let's turn the dial again and now give you (as Spock) back the memory of your 'real self' (as adult Spock sitting in the (from Spock's perspective) the 'real' holodek chair on the Enterprise) From Spock's perspective, it is not known that this Enterprise holodek is itself a holodek image. From Spocks perspective, it is a 'real holodek on the real starship Enterprise'.

The effect is that you (sara/maple3) now seem to be experiencing the world of 'young Spock', all the while remembering that "I am really the old Spock sitting comfortably in the holodek of the real Enterprise". Confused Very Happy

It is as if 'you' (as Spock) now remember that the images you are seeing of your childhood are just an illusion generated in my (Spock's) 'real brain' by the Enterprises real holdek.

Suddenly, it seems that you (as Spock) realise that this 'childs world' is just an illusion...it is as though you (as Spock) awaken to this 'truth'... as in a lucid dream (hmmm sounds familiar).

The illusion of this 'childs world' is no less strong, but 'you' (as Spock) now recall that it really is just an illusion created in my (Spock's) real brain by the real (from Spocks perspective) holodek on the Enterprise. Rolling Eyes

(sara, I hope this meal is not too rich, it is starting to get a bit thick and creamy... but we are nearly at the end, so hang in there) Very Happy

But where is this brain of Spock's, in which the 'childs world' is being created by the Enterprise holodek? The brain seen from the perspective of kirk and scotty is just an image... in 'your brain' (sara/maple3), generated by the real holodek to which I first connected you. And the experiences reported by Spock 'really' happened in 'your brain' (sara/maple3)... not Spock's. It was all just an illusion in an illusion... a dream within a dream.

Why do you sara/maple3 think that you are Spock having this illusion and not sara/maple3 having the illusion?

'Cos the real holodek is now generating thoughts in your 'real brain' that make you think you're the adult Spock sitting in the Enterprise holodek having the illusion of living in the childs world, yet knowing you are really the adult Spock!! Wow.

Hang on. 'Your real brain'? Aren't you (sara/maple3/DaveK/michael... and everyone else) just like the holodek Spock sitting in his holodekian holodek on the holodek Enterprise?

You cannot even see your own head directly, let alone your supposed brain.

Looks like we're back where we started... as always.

Seems no matter how you look at it, you really cannot sense or know the source of sensing and knowing, yet here it is... undeniable.

And sara/maple3, now you're reading this, I hope you both had a good sleep.

Sleep? What a creation! By making characters sleep, I can have all sorts of adventures... experience a thousand thousand lifetimes and unaccountably more: one character sleeps as another wakes... And never sleeping, I alone experience all.

Yet when I next experience life as sara or maple3 waking from her sleep, it is just like yesterday since I (as sara or maple3) last read this forum. And so for all perspectives: every waking morning... yesterday seems, well, just like yesterday.

Perhaps 'between' sara making her goodnight post and sara or maple3 now reading this post', perhaps 'I' have had the experience of seeming to be michael typing this post... or perhaps not. Perhaps I will not actually experience 'michael writing this post' for another uncountable number of other 'lifetime experiences'... 'after' I as 'sara' or 'maple3' read it!!!! Who can say 'when' or in 'what order' each experience appears.

It matters not 'when' each experience happens, for there really is no 'when'. Regardless, michael writes and sara and maple3 read, and all are conscious of the experience, though not they.

The same one seems to write as seems to read.

So live life as if every one you meet is real... indeed, they are as real as you.

Of course, this cry to action cannot be acted on by anyone... it is all just a play and each story will tell its own tale.

Which story will I 'perceive' now?

It seems it is this one.

Love
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring


Last edited by michael on Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:11 am; edited 9 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nemo



Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 213
Location: NorCal

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

very nicely put michael.
fits very nicely with the sense I have had that "it" all emerges completely formed every moment. and there is only one moment, this moment.

yes, no when, no where, no one

also, please see:
Matrix 1
Vanilla Sky (one of my favourits "Tech Support - I want to wake up...")
Total Recall

for similar themes

now, "spock" cannot know "he" is actually a projected holographic image, cannot act, has not choice volition or even "solidity" to him, therefore "is not real"
and the projection cannot "know" it is a projection
and
the projector cannot "know" it is a projector,
but,
cannot the projection be aware it is a projection though direct insight into itself?
is this not where the anlaogy breaks down?
Yes, the projection being aware of itself, the symbols (holographic images?) that would appear to itself would be pointers to that direct insight, no? the projection could never perceive itself as a projection, but could by apperception, direct knowing not thought mind sumbols.

just more symbols about symbols,


gaggagh
_________________
Expanding Heart & Melting Mind
http://nemos-notes.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    awakeningtothedream.com Forum Index -> Awakening to the Dream All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group