What do you mean by "reality"?

[Daniel M]

So, the new video topic was "actuality", looking at what is "real", so one can "ground"oneself. Neat. But I don't really get it.

Starting off, we have the idea of "actual" versus "conceptual",  the former being "the hand" (the meaning of which should be interpreted as Leo has explained in the video) and the latter - everything not in the direct experience. "Concept" is also explained to encompass the content of thought, while "actuality" - the existence of the thought.

Now, my problem arises exactly with thoughts. While it is a lot easier to explain how an object I am not seeing may not be actual but is only conceptual - how do I explain the thoughts?

Thoughts are there, regardless of whether I am looking at my hand, being grounded in actuality, or not. I understand them and they try to explain things. Is this not actual? A thought is there, it gives me some sort of knowledge. This is just as true to me as the hand that I am looking at.

So, a thought is telling me that I have watched a video of Leo explaining these concepts of actuality and conceptuality and that I should ground myself in actuality, which the thought now has an idea of. 

I believe that from here I diverge into two main questions:

- A thought has given me these ideas of actuality and conceptuality, it is the dictator of why I would ever choose this hand over any daydream. Does it not precede the hand, then? Is it not more fundamental than even the hand, which is supposedly true? Is it not the thought, which gives it that conceptual quality of truth?

-  What is this feeling of differentiation between thoughts?  I can say that one thought is a "memory", thereby calling it true, and another is "imagination" - false. And it is a very obvious feeling. "Why am I looking at this hand? - Because I was told it's actual". "Why am I looking at this hand? - Because if I stop looking at it, I will die." One feels true, another does not. Why?

 

I am very open to discussion - point out my problem points, I have come here with an honest question. Let's make this very civilised and, hopefully, structured and accurate. It may be a lot to ask but please read carefully, ask if you are uncertain what is meant and answer only when you have reached the best of your analysis. I will attempt to do the same. Thank you  

 

[Flammable]

There stands a distinction between content and actuality of thoughts - for instance, the thought of you winning the lottery is not YOU winning the lottery, but rather a feeling of excitement in your stomach area and a mental image of you buying a new Ferrari. 
 

Part of it is actual - the stomach feeling and the mental picture, but the other part is not - you actually have not won anything, albeit your mind tries to convince you that you did.

Distinguishing between these two parts of a thought is relatively essential for understanding the nature of thoughts.

 

As for your question, the reality of the hand will be there even without your thoughts about it - they simply try to categorize what ALREADY IS. The thought gives a conceptual understanding, not TRUTH.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Flammable

[Daniel M]

Thank you. To clear up all of my potential misunderstandings and finding acceptable grounds would take many questions, so I'll keep asking. 

 Assuming that one always thinks, isn't it a concept that the hand is there without thoughts? In my direct experience, it is there and thoughts are there. Seperation would be a concept, a "possibility for a person who can silence their thoughts". 

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Daniel M