tsuki

I don't know. Yes, if I introduce the sense of time somehow. The perceptions alternate, just like what you describe. All of the mystical experiences feel equally deep in the sense of clarity, but at the same time they seem deeper and deeper. It's okay. You're asking very important questions. I'm still getting ready to answering what is sense of time. It seems to be some sort of leftover/misconception from the egoic perspective. I'm calling the traditional five senses gross to articulate that the sense of being can be special. It can either be perceived as gross or not. Gross senses are partitioned into inner and outer. Or were you joking and I'm just dense?

Since my not-punching bag is getting upset, I'll publicly admit that the limit of movement is stillness, not touch. Touch is an inner movement that is confused for stillness. The Ego's wet dream therefore is: Darkness Silence Saliva (tastelessness?) Air (smelllessness?) Stillness Nothingness (non-existence) The inner and outer spheres of the gross senses are what I call the inner and outer world. Subjective and objective. The boundary between subjective and objective is the "-lessness" : the paradox. The sense of being is, however, problematic. I can approach it in two ways: Treat it as a gross sense and claim that there are 'private' and 'public' beings. That I can agree and disagree about the existence of things with other people and treat it as the basis for experience. Observe that the very partitioning of senses into inner and outer is grounded in the sense of being. Subjective and objective worlds themselves are entities that form relationships with other senses. This way, I can see that the sense of being itself cannot be partitioned into inner and outer, because the possibility of partitioning is grounded in it. The first option creates one stable conceptual system in which there is "I" and "other". I will call this conceptual system Egoic perception. The second option creates another stable conceptual system in which there is "I=you=we". I will call this conceptual system Nondual perception.

Hahaha, isn't that a fucking coincidence? I was researching the properties of a 5-simplex and look what projection I found: Now we're talking. Ego, Satan, etc... The middle one has got to be the sense of being.

Boom, progress. I was wondering about this question right here: and it got me curious and a little bit depressed. That is because everything that is obvious is unitary. There is nothing inner and outer about it. In fact, innerness and outerness are beings themselves so they have to somehow point back into the sense of being. This got me depressed because it ruins all of the beautiful dual symmetry of the 5-simplex. (Or maybe it doesn't? I just figured something out). Anyways, here's another clue: That thing right here is the Ego's wet dream. Paradoxes in the gross senses seem like manifestations of nothingness.

All of the senses contain paradoxes. What is the 'paradoxical experience'? Darkness Silence Saliva (?) Air (?) Touch Nothingness Isn't that basically the experience of death? The total sensory deprivation?

I wonder if nondual perception is a category? All senses seem to have singularities, which are the points between inner and outer spheres: inner sight / darkness / outer sight inner hearing / silence / outer hearing inner taste / ??? / outer taste inner smell / ??? / outer smell inner movement / touch / outer movement inner being / nothingness / outer being ??? - there seems to be no obvious word for these singularities. They are like the taste of saliva and the smell of air. I'm still having difficulty talking about the sense of being. I can only describe its short-circuits with other senses. From the point of view of short-circuits, it is the ability to recognize entities out of sensations. When the phone rings, I move in such a way that I can see the phone. Sense of being is what 'glues' the sound of ringing, motion of the head and shape of the phone into what I perceive to be the entity called phone.

TODO: Use the 5-simplex to describe the framework of separate senses. Vertices are sense-spaces, connections are short-circuits. I don't like the name framework of separate senses. I'll call it nondual perception from now on.

What would the sense of being look like if I partitioned it into inner and outer sphere in the social perspective?

For now, I'm not willing to look. I have my own stuff to attend to. I'll let you know when I'm free enough to follow you.

I was wondering how could I describe all of the categories of experience and I came up with the following idea: What if a paradox is the description of a sense that is missing from my account of experience? For example, philosophy had always tried to explain why things are, as if there was no sense of being. It tried to explain things in terms of other things and created chains of reasoning with cause and effect. This had always led to arguments about whether some things are primary and others are secondary. They even argued things out of existence (postmodernism) and created them (religion?). Yes, there is a short-circuit between sense of being and inner hearing and things can go in and out of existence. But, without the ability to perceive consistency I wouldn't be what I am now. The sense of being seems to be connected to recontextualization.

Why look for fault? The situation is the result of your touching of my unresolved things. Or, it is the result of my unresolved things being touched by you. There is no difference between the two. Not in my experience.

Yes it is. You said it yourself - you're good at touching unresolved things. How about we talk about your relationship with scientific thought and arrogance?

It is just that I already have one mother. Mothers are lovely, but also dangerous. When you are a little child and have no boundaries, they take care of you and mold you into a functioning human being. Then, they forget the fact that you can take care of yourself and keep trying to mold you. Of course, they still take care of you after you can take care of yourself, but now they are just making sure that you know how to have boundaries. The boundary between you and your mother is the most difficult one to maintain. Hurting the very definition of what care is (mother) is the greatest act of compassion. And mothers can take it. I don't want to be molded. I am what I am, even if I don't know what am I. It is an open journal because you may want to know me better. If you feel like something is off in my reasoning - it simply means that we think of our experience differently. You can ask me to clarify things so that you can squeeze yourself into the lens I'm presenting, but do not try to correct me. My experience is not wrong. It simply is. That is the sharpest tool in the toolbox of motherly self-defense.

@now is forever My arrogance is your projection. I am not going to argue about what I experience. I am also not denying that senses are interconnected. Now, get out.

Well, the way I see it - if I focus solely on the kinesthetic sense, touch is when what I normally call movement of a body part changes into an inner movement (feeling). For example, if I hit a wall with my fist with my eyes closed, first, I move and then there is the inner movement that I call pain. Touch (with all the other senses excluded) is the moment where the outer movement becomes an inner movement. In this example, pain is an unpleasant inner movement, but there are also pleasant ones - like when I touch my loved one. Then, I am drawn to that person, I want to be closer and the "conversion" from the outer movement of what I call a hand into an inner movement that I call warmth is pleasant. (EDIT: I'm sorry, I just realized that I'm an asshole and you may be lonely). Movement is as giving as touch, because one is constituted in the other (and vice versa). However, I see touch as the limit of movement, similar to how darkness is the limit of vision. Isn't it when the night is dark we use our inner vision and imagine threats?

Sight Hearing Taste Smell Kinesthetic Being The last sense may seem controversial and it is related to intelligence and obviousness. I'll get into that later.

I was wondering whether I should really classify smell and taste as separate senses. They are conflated with respect to food. I cannot taste food that's not in my mouth(?), but I can smell it. I can taste food without smell, but the experience of it is different. I just ate an olive without breathing and it pinched my tongue. I was also wondering how to account for the sense of temperature and had I clever idea. The experience of something hot is pain, which is an inner movement that compels me to move away. This inner-outer interaction seems like the experience of will.

@Omni Try not to be too specific with spiral dynamics. This model has some problems that make it very difficult to peg yourself into a specific stage. Instead, I'd think of it as a modeling language that lets your inner voice yap things that are more useful in everyday situations.

Don't worry. I'm trying to make sense of what I'm experiencing and I may just be a weirdo .

There is one missing element: nothing accounts for consistency. I'll have to look into that. This is basically what I take myself to be. The possibility to recognize objects as present. There is no reason to think that it is 'my' property. Objects in the external world are consistent as well. I'm not entirely sure that it is a sense yet. I'm not going to argue taxonomies because they are basically lines drawn in the sand with a stick. There are no clear boundaries between senses and I think that it is irrelevant how we describe them. For me, movement has in 'inner' and 'outer' component. Inner movement seems to be what you call 'basic chacra combination'. For me, emotions always arise with the inner movement, so I'm suspecting that they are somehow connected.

You said that you know (my) inner movement as energy fields/emotions. I took notice of that here: That is why I put that name on the list. Sorry if I'm disturbing you.

Let's have a taxonomy of senses: Vision Touch Hearing Smell Taste Inner movement (= @now is forever's energy fields = emotions?) Voice These appear to be disjoint dimensions of my experience. In reality however, they are not separate, as they intersect in short-circuiting. It is strange that some of these seem to have inner and outer expressions. There is no inner and outer expression of touch. There seems to be a conflation between hearing and voice. Voice seems to be a special subset hearing. Maybe I should classify inner movement as inner touch? Or rather: touch as the inability to move and have motion as a sense? I like that idea. Let's redo the list: Vision Movement Hearing Smell Taste Each of those have further inner and outer expressions in the social perspective.

No problem. I just went to the workshop and a big piece of metal fell on the floor, making a huge noise. Like usual, I instantaneously tensed up on the inside 'in response' to the sudden sound. This time however, It reminded me of pain. It was as if I felt the pain of the part that fell. I purposefully put the 'in response' in quotation marks, as I now perceive it as a short-circuit between the sound-space and emotion-space. These sensations were not caused by each other, but inter-existed. They were simultaneous and intertwined.

Oh, now I get it. In the original gif the person is pressing on the blade and it seems like he is doing during the 'away' motion. He may be doing it during the 'towards' motion as well. There is a technique when you simply vary the pressure and use both motions to sharpen the blade. But enough with distractions! Do you want to continue the knife talk in your journal?

@now is forever You would be surprised. Have you ever sharpened a knife on a whetstone? I think I'm getting disturbed ❤️.