UnbornTao

If you recognize and then set aside everything you think is true (believe), you might be left with a deep sense of uncertainty or openness, so go do that.

We could do this all day. If I'm understanding you correctly, you mean the experience of grass? "Grass" for you would be a different experience than for everyone else if you were blind, or didn't know of its existence at all. Even before language there would be some learned correlation or distinction between that thing and that other thing. I'd say this faculty of recognition is not a function of language, although it does add to the experience of objects. Sounds good. Some additions, just for fun: "Grass" isn't a fact of the universe. You had to learn it, recognize it, differentiate it. Imagine how humans lived prior to the development of the conceptual mind. It might not have been a given at all. It might have been invented. And then it became a given. I'm just using the mind as an example. It's likely that by "the thing by itself" we still mean our cognition of it, our experience of it. We may be trying to open the door to some kind of direct encounter with being, independent of perception. Tricky.

Not sure "irritation" is the most appropriate term here, but I take your point. What's underneath the desire to destroy? If I insulted you, where in your experience would you find anger? (As if.) In any case, you can see that these, by themselves, don't demand a response. I bet you've experienced this at least once: being angry, and then suddenly not. So what's up with that?

There is slop, and then there's whatever this thing is.

Countless explanations can be given, but what is your actual experience of the emotion?

😁 Why won't you let me proselytize to you already? 😡

Charles Wazowski. Bukowski. You generate the anger.

See an object, then close your eyes. Visualize it in your mind. Is your experience of that thing the same as before? In the experience that you shared, there would be no encounter with "grass" to not think about if you had your eyes closed. Just pointing out some basic mechanisms of perception, if you will. Good, no need for artificial fireworks. Thanks. Even prior to or independent of thinking and labeling, you likely still differentiated between one thing and another. The relationship with this or that particular thing would've mostly stayed the same. You might not have 'thought of' grass but in the background you knew that it wasn't a cat, or a cloud, or cancer. Trying to ground this a bit. I guess one of the goals here is recognizing that we don't know what anything is for real. Lots of "distractions" that make it seem as though we do but deep down we likely remain apprehensive that these are adopted and artificial in a deep sense.

Slopifier

It's about how they're presented, the disparity between what actually goes on and the world that's sold along with what is, in the end, commonly a set of simple conceptual-emotional and physical activities, and the tendency of people to fantasize. Do you think that playing football can enlighten you? Why not? What about stretching your body? How does your perception of the matter change when, instead of stretching the body and following a breathing routine, it's presented as an ancient Hindu system for achieving enlightenment called Yoga, for example?

Genetic mutation, duh.

A couple of examples of AI getting it wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/DelusionsOfAdequacy/comments/1tr4k70/i_guess_ive_been_fluent_in_spanish_this_whole/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJa32lCaaY

what the fuck are you talking about Jesse?