UnbornTao

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.

For example, is "gravity is a principle" an objective claim? That sounds like an assertion of factual reality. In this sense, gravity is objective, or at least related to objects. A claim like "anger is historically based" may be factual, yet it doesn't seem to be objective, given it is about an emotion (although neither of these claims is necessarily a judgment, is it?). Now, what if we claim "anger is an unwanted emotion"? That may be factual, non-objective (subjective), and judgment-based - not necessarily the claim itself, but the act of regarding anger as unwanted. Leaving aside your own concerns and those of others, and observing a situation from an unbiased "third-person" perspective, as if you were detached, can go a long way toward being impartial - at least in moments where such quality is required. Learning to do this is, of course, the challenging part. Just some raw considerations.

Sure. It does demand greater authenticity from you, in any case. Maybe experience is actually born of mind and isn't existential. You are you. But what is that? Being is not only correct - nothing else is. Being is an absolute. And yet, this is ultimately speculation, as fascinating as it may be.

Anyway, what objective aspect? Also, prior to perception or interpretation? Sounds interesting. What would be an example of variables and constants? That definition sounds way too abstract, though. Was it perhaps inspired by a conversation with 🤖?

We do need or require language if we want to be able to enjoy what it allows for - communication included. Language is a particular context. And context itself doesn't seem to necessarily require language - unless it does, for example with arithmetic (math being the language-context.) Could you help me clarify what you're attempting to unpack with those examples? Without language there's no symbol in the first place. You can obviously act and distinguish stuff without the need for language. And its invention also allows for realms of new distinctions. Language, as I view it now, is the contextual possibility for a particular thing - like a sound - to represent something that is not that thing - anger, for example (a shout representing anger.) We can see these aren't simplistic subjects at all! Jesus.

Agree. I wouldn't count on Bethesda for that, though.

Aren't we working to become conscious of what's existentially true, in this context? What is being, reality, Now, etc.

It seems to me you could ask what one is without having to necessarily bring up the other, at least in this case.

The distinction already includes how something differs from - and is similar to - other things. This and/or that. That is different from this. This is similar to that. Sometimes it's about refining the distinctions, becoming clearer as to what they are, so that we can better relate to them. For example, as you suggest, thinking isn't the same as contemplating. Failing to make fine distinctions usually leads to conflating - or "con-fusing" (fusing with) - things. The act of distinguishing isn't limited to the intellect. I think you might be holding that notion. Every time you learn, you make a new distinction, or refine one you already had. So this process is directly related to learning new things. Sure. On the other hand, what's true doesn't care about our obsession with - or requirement for - value or utility. It simply requires that something be true, at any level. Yet again, moving in this direction tends to empower learning and skill development. I suppose that's part of the organic nature of groups of people coming together to investigate a subject. People contribute what they can, and the process is likely to be chaotic and messy - especially if the subject is inherently complex. Moreover, it's not always theorizing that's happening. The thread is more like a tool than a resolution to the problem. And of course, jokes, drama, and other extraneous things may also occur.

Right, I didn't think about that. But assessment, evaluation, and judgment are based on interpretation, so the idea of them being truly neutral and objective is hard to see. What would that even mean? Isn't interpretation inherently subjective? I may be dense here, but it seems worth looking into. Maybe "fair," "impartial," or "just" would be more accurate qualifiers, at least from my perspective. But I get your point. Group contemplation!

An assumption is an unrecognized belief you operate from - like the water a fish swims in. Your sense of reality is based on a set of unexamined assumptions. What do we assume assumption is? A judgment is a positive or negative value assessment of something. The point of contemplation is to start from scratch, though. Thinking existentially. Wrestling with that process in order to personally find out what's true.

Hard to tell. The work done beforehand probably did help - the act of openly dwelling on something - yet the realization itself is always immediate. In a sense, we are always starting anew with this ontological work.