UnbornTao

Should be on the Intellectual subforum.

Survival happens and will continue until death. Survival is life. These are two different pursuits, as you implied. But consider: individuals throughout history have had much worse conditions than yours, and they didn't wait for the right circumstances before they started their search. Some of them even gave up luxurious lives in order to seek out what's true. Circumstances are secondary. It's true that either way, most people do not care at all. Why impose artificial requisites on the act of questioning? Nothing is preventing you from looking into your own experience as it is now.

Process is itself indirect. Perception is done via the senses, as you say. It is composed of steps and is carried out over a period of time, whether lightning-fast or slow. Perhaps it'd be better to call what you're alluding to "personal experience." As a perception, it would be completely meaningless in itself (sensory input) without the activities of interpretation and cognition, which determine how one will relate to the "thing" perceived and what it means to oneself -- whether one finds it appealing or threatening, resists it or embraces it, and so on. What you said regarding language and assumptions, maybe. We'd also have to look into those. "What is it?" In this case, it would lead to comprehending what meaning is, whatever that turns out to be. To be clear, none of this suggests that you stop doing functional and healthy stuff! That is a different matter. That was just a rhetorical device. "Figuring out" this absolute/relative subject isn't going to cut it; it is a matter of "enlightenment." So, that's the goal. What do you mean by "Deconstructing every notion as an uninherent assumption"? Again, the work needs to be done, not just safely thought about from a distance. Extrapolating and repeating what one has heard or believes in is not the same as personally investigating things. You still consider meaninglessness to be depressive and negative, and so seem to react defensively when that is brought up. Yet this is a function of what you presume it has to imply, not of (comprehending) what it is. Regarding this direct experience/absolute consciousness business: Mu. You can actually get it yourself, just remember to come back and tell us once you do.

@Letho @AION zen sticks for you two.

In reality what's being defended is one's ignorance, not because of the content itself but because it is something believed! Whatever it is. Better to acknowledge that, and move on.

Sorry if it came out as a personal attack. In any case, it's true -- our culturally-shared obsession with ourselves doesn't help.

Then, perhaps, we'd be mainly talking about sensation rather than feeling, although of course the latter would likely also occur. Presumably, other animal species would sense it, yet the various feelings that we, as humans, might associate with the sensation -- such as irritation, worry, despair, or being startled -- might not be produced by the animal. That might give us a hint as to the origin of feeling. How can we clearly differentiate between sense, sensation, feeling, reaction, emotion, and state? Something to look into.

Now, could feeling itself be based on a thought, just of a different kind than what's usually meant by "thought"?

I liked the original trilogy, but not so much the recent ones. What made the original one so well-received, apart from that? The rest aren't considered as good. The element of terror was likely an important factor.

@z3rolight Thank you for the input. Consider, though, that contemplation as an intellectual activity is only a starting point. There are things that aid this work; arrogance and opinions aren't among them. From what I can tell, you are standing on a bunch of presumptions and conjecture, and that's fine. Yet, what helps here is being open and straightforward with oneself about one's experience as it is actually lived. This pushes us to experience the work and to make observations for ourselves, not just intellectualize about stuff.

@z3rolight My bad. I think I understand your question now, and so edited my response above. The question is just about the human condition as a whole -- experience, emotion, perception, relationship, performance, principles, and so on.

As they say, there's no freedom of thought without doubt.

Hey, dinosaurs. Hopefully it's good.

@z3rolight Sounds good. Still, the question of what the human condition really is remains.

Perhaps, but what is one's nature? It might not be what we think it is. From that recognition, we can begin investigating the matter freshly.

@z3rolight It's fine, thank you. I would add that if one's commitment is to understanding, then the attitude implied in your post is not a mindset we can afford, as it is essentially a justification for ignorance based on a desire for comfort and convenience. You are right, though, that there are times when tools other than the intellect and logic should be used, such as sitting in stillness, feeling, and so on. And it can all be part of the investigation as a whole.

@Someone here But what are perception and meaning? This is about insight rather than conjecture, preference, consensus, and so forth. Intellect, feeling and intuition aren't the only tools available, despite our cultural presumption that they are; direct apprehension is possible, which is why I brought up the historical antecedent. Oversimplified, the absolute is like a sheet of paper, while the content of the sheet is the relative. Everything is absolute, including the relative, and what allows for the existence and recognition of the relative as distinct, is that it has a particular form -- whatever’s painted on the sheet is some form, that is, it exists relative to what it is not. Don't take this too seriously, though -- it's an analogy. As a meditation, take a small object in your vicinity and ask yourself: What is it, independent of me? What is there as a presence? We operate on the assumption that what we perceive is an accurate reflection of what’s there and generally don’t move past that. However, this might not be the case. In fact, to tackle the question of meaning, where is it found? In your relationship with and experience of things, hence, in your mind. A tree exists. Asking what the tree means does not make sense in itself. What exactly are we asking by that? The question of what something means applies whenever value and use are attributed to the object, in relation to one’s self and agenda. As itself, an object just is. A tree doesn't seem to despair over the meaning of its life. It is "tree-ing", and that is it. Without the act of generating meaning, it isn’t found anywhere! Relative to itself, the question of what the object means is nonsensical, superficial. It could be said that it exists, hence its meaning is that it is. I suspect you'll hear that as a negative, yet that would still be operating from within the meaning framework. It doesn't mean anything that it doesn't mean anything. You are free from meaning, and can also create it. Now, fuck my assertions and anyone else’s. What is the case here?

Nice.

Start consciously creating and cultivating something now. It could be anything, really: an observation, question, plan, goal, sketch, poem, song, dish, workout, meditation, book, hobby, curiosity, mood, skill, business, relationship, project, understanding, disposition, or attitude.

What if "bad" and "good" exist exclusively because of, and for, yourself?

@Aaron p Clean up your posts a bit (formatting, uppercase use, weird signs) and do not spam the forum with links, thank you.

It’s really about being honest with oneself. When we understand that we don’t directly apprehend the nature of anything, that’s a solid observation -- and no "answer" will change that condition. What does change it is becoming personally conscious, beyond experience and perception, of self, existence, space, and so on. What is true must be tackled on its own terms. Since we’re discussing absolute matters, this, once again, cannot be achieved through relative means. There’s no possible thought, notion, or system, however complex and elaborate, that could convey the true nature of existence -- whatever that may be. At best, it could provide direction, and open doors. You seem to be seeking validation or social consensus but that approach won’t work. Again, you can operate on principles and on accurate axioms. Regarding meaning, it is a complementary process to the existence of something. Get the nature of something first. Hey, you could start with what meaning is, and how it itself is meaningless. Consider that the "answer" already exists; you just need to apprehend it. Individuals throughout history have presumably already done this, so it is possible.

Heresy! Burn him!