UnbornTao

Labeling and identifying may be part of it, but what allows for those acts? We created language as context. I suggest that the role of language is paramount in shaping our experience. It is not an extraneous activity. Without taking it for granted - as we already do - notice how much of what we consider reality to be could not exist as it does now without that invention: Self and other Communication Art, literature, culture Thinking and internal dialogue - perhaps even the mind itself Most forms of knowledge Science, philosophy, religion If we can somehow make that shift, what would we then find reality to be? Anyway, context.

Sure, thank you for that, although there's no need to speculate about what might have happened. It's simply a case that shows it's possible not to do an activity that generates suffering for yourself.

Anger is something you do. Actually, you can take this as an opportunity to understand it better.

But what are they?

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.

Actually, without the context of Value no assessment or judgment can take place. Value is perhaps divided into good or bad, beneficial or threatening, positive or negative. What's regarded as neutral isn't recognized in our awareness or cognition. Has it been "pre-evaluated" as lacking value?

How do you see language? Could you be taking it to be a particular group of symbols or some such? Still, as infants we had to create language as a context in our own experience. Now we take it for granted as an essential part of our shared reality. But it isn't something we simply stumbled upon. Without a language context, do we recognize that this hand shape cannot convey anything? Language isn't found in the gestures, shapes, drawings, sounds, or squiggles made. Yes, two individuals could perform the same action - like eating fruit - and I suspect their respective experiences (the taste of the food, etc.) would be reasonably similar. And this may well be a function of perception, of what they personally experience. However, no hearing or thinking of the term 'nectarine' could arise, nor the notion of sharing your experience with another - among the many other domains of experience that language allows. These topics are challenging enough on their own. What's context? What's language? (Perhaps better suited for a new thread.)

Context is not a thing, nor is it merely a collection or combination of content, as @Carl-Richard suggested at the start of the thread. Context, as an existential reality, is something else entirely. Mind, as context, allows for the having of thoughts. Mind is not simply the sum or domain of thoughts put together, but rather the possibility that allows for new domains of distinctions to exist or to be made. It is a creation of consciousness. Try experiencing reality prior to the creation of language, for example. Not easy to do, since we take language for granted. @Joshe Fair, AI might be useful for research or study, but answers are not the point when contemplating. And a definition can help us ballpark our efforts, at best. To use your analogy: God is constantly giving us the answers, yet we seem to suffer from an affliction of hearing - we aren't receiving the communication. It is not about picking the correct answer on a test, either. Essentially, your goal might be wanting to be told something convincing to believe in, or else making something up - usually in the form of an intellectually graspable formulation - because you may be lazy and are looking for shortcuts. But the truth of the matter has not been addressed, and the basic condition of ignorance is merely covered up with more "knowledge." And this knowledge still comes from the same world of assumptions in which the subject is being discussed. You cannot get around the necessity of personally generating insights - especially when it comes to topics as profound as this one. The truth might turn out to be that we don't really know what the subject matter is, and must stay with it until we do. Thinking that our task is easily accomplished is a common trap. Where is the context in that? I'd call that simply an idea of objects existing on another planet, but I don't see what or where the "objective" context is. Space is a context, yet space isn't an item or thing, even though it allows for the existence of objects. Context itself is not an object. That it is prior to perception and interpretation is an intriguing possibility. Maybe we could come up with more apt examples. But these are not the context itself. Context allows for them to be recognized as such in the first place. For example, without 'mind,' there is no thought, planning, theorizing, believing, internal dialogue, and so on. It seems to me that in this case, context is being held as merely more content.

If not now, now. 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. 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.

@Schizophonia

You know what you're doing.

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.

The trick is having insight, beyond the theorizing. Maybe experience is not existential. So you can experience something that exists as a product of mental activity.

I suggest that you are conflating being conscious of whatever the now is with the recognition of this layer of mental overlay - experience. Consider this: the now isn't recognized for what it is. What is commonly regarded as "happening presently" is actually an activity - a process. The impossibility of locating the now, from where we currently stand, needs to be experienced for the realization to make a difference. The now seems elusive, even though it is "true." Take a look. Where do you pay attention when considering this present moment? What is it that you're calling 'now'?

Sounds good!

I have not yet. Being is inconceivable and what’s "so", encompassing all possibilities, true under all conditions, and independent of circumstance. That's one possible definition. It's practically unavoidable to use rhetorical devices to explain 'absolute.' Imagine the universe, and everything within it, as a painting - the Absolute is the blank space on which the drawing is made. A rather simplistic analogy, but it gets the point across. What is the present? What is this moment? For example, observe how we tend to hold the present moment as a point in time. But the now isn't a point in time. Contemplate where Now is, and you'll see it is hard to put your finger on. You'll find that what you consider to be currently happening, or what's present, is always relating to a past or a future, even if it's only a millisecond from now.

Sounds good. I'd add that you don't need judgment in order to act or make decisions; perhaps evaluation - assigning value - is what's required. Not everything is a judgment. All you need is intent, along with some other considerations based on that impulse, such as planning - depending on the action or process involved. For example, washing the dishes is quite straightforward, while writing a book requires more careful planning. Yet the particular actions performed to accomplish these tasks are guided by intent. Writing a book requires a more complex course of action, appropriately directed at that goal, and demands persistent effort. I'm not entirely sure what points I'm making here. Yes, assumptions are a necessary convenience in many cases. I wouldn't call gravity an assumption - it is a principle, a "rule" of the physical world. Notice that how you relate to gravity influences every action you take. For anyone with a body, learning to better relate to this principle is essential for using the body more effectively. Athletes, for example, already refine their relationship with that principle in some fashion, even if they are unaware of it. Still, the nature of assumptions is that they are hidden - we operate from them. So, the most profound ones for us are simply "reality" and "the way things are." I think you may be refering to more easily cognizable assumptions or beliefs.

I don't want to argue, I'm just saying that Being is absolute, but that is a reality for us to directly become conscious of. When doing that, though, all ideas and beliefs have to be set aside. So really, the assertion, by itself, is not very useful for this purpose. A good first step is to realize what is conceptual, what is activity, and what is the nature of Now. What is now? We have several enlightenments to catch! We could start by recognizing that you are a conscious entity. You are, but that "you" is not your self. The self is a conceptual overlay on experience - an "illusion." It is constructed. Whenever we start to become aware of what's conceptual in our experience, we find we have a hard time finding the substrate of "experience," because it is conceptually-dominated. Experience may be a matrix of mind, ergo not existential. Being is not a concept.

It's interesting to consider that women are born of the same sex, while men are not - obviously. Men are born of "the other." This basic condition might have a profound effect on our primal psychology. Just a thought.

If truth is 'what is', it cannot not be. Is is. One distinction to bring into our attention is that, among other things, we don't know what we are. Which is to say, we confuse "being" with our selves. Who we take ourselves to be is distinct from what we are as a conscious entity. Regardless, that's something for us to become conscious of - What is Being? What is the self? Good pointer.

"What would the dish do?"

For sure, although I don't think that was an enlightenment experience, but rather an insight. And the insight need not be dramatic. It was simply a case of recognizing one's activity and stopping it - like pulling one's hand out of a pot of boiling water.

Nooo, not AI. It completely defeats the point of contemplation.

Yeah, 2028 or so.

For sure. We don't even know the next Elder Scrolls will be released this century.