What Are My Eyes For?

[LastThursday]

If I'm a good subjective idealist, then all I can know is what I perceive, so that is primary. I can say with certainty that I'm having a subjective experience of seeing right now. If I close my eyes, then that subjective experience immediately changes (I see the back of my eyelids). 

The idea that I physically have eyes, must be secondary though. In other words having "eyes" is a thought story. This is obvious by asking: are my eyelids part of my eyes? Or, are my eyes just projections of my brain? It's not obvious where eyes begin and end. 

So how is it that a thought story (my eyes) is affecting my subjective experience of seeing? Is it just pure coincidence that every time my subjective vision goes dark, my subjective feeling of my eyelids are that they are closed? 

What role does the idea of "my eyes" have on my subjective experience? What are they for? Why are they correlated with vision?

[Spaceofawareness]

@LastThursday the eyes are the windows to the soul as they say.

 

and yes, they are there.

[Nahm]

The I’s which c.

[seeking_brilliance]

because they're beautiful. 

Edited November 3, 2020 by seeking_brilliance

[tsuki]

Your idea of perception, subjectivity and experience seem to be conflated which is causing your problems.
Experience is what is. When you start adding concepts on top of it, you get perception which is entangled with "I".
When you get lost in perception and lose sight of experience, you get the "subjective world".
Then, you have to invent the "objective world" as a social consensus and indirect investigation.

When you are seeing, you are making distinctions, but these distinctions are not arbitrary.
They are grounded in form, which is easily demonstrable by investigating their shape with touch and "seeing" that these two dimensions of experience match. 

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

So how is it that a thought story (my eyes) is affecting my subjective experience of seeing? Is it just pure coincidence that every time my subjective vision goes dark, my subjective feeling of my eyelids are that they are closed? 

The thought story is affecting your sight only conceptually, as having expectations of what eyes are capable of and potentially skimming over things that defy your expectations. The eyes themselves, prior to labeling, are a prerequisite to exploring the dimension of consciousness we call sight.

 

[Member]

I have always wondered how a blind person perceives the world. But the visual is not the only expression of life.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, LastThursday said:

What role does the idea of "my eyes" have on my subjective experience? What are they for? Why are they correlated with vision?

To ground "reality".

You need the ideas of eyes to explain that you are not God.

[Nahm]

I before E except after c. 

[seeking_brilliance]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

I before E except after c. 

ah the english language is so full of surprises  

[aurum]

5 hours ago, LastThursday said:

What role does the idea of "my eyes" have on my subjective experience? What are they for? Why are they correlated with vision?

Think of your eyes, and really your whole body, as a metaphor. A manifestation of a story. You most definitely do not actually "see" with your eyes.

[Corpus]

This is a real headfuck of an enquiry, IMO.

Could it be that reality is perspectival, and that from the perspective of "behind the eyes" the eyes and any mechanism of vision are not seen, eg seeing becomes direct? Hence, the mechanism of vision is only observed from a perspective outside of the "personal", and conceptualised as explaining vision through a range of what remain visual experiences (in the observer thus placed) eg light hitting cones etc, allowing a workable appearance of vision (as neural correlates) to be gleaned?  

[LastThursday]

@Nahm weird, but received.

@Leo Gura meta meta always go(o)d thanks.

@tsuki Ok ok. Let me sit in a darkened room and contemplate further before responding. Excellent response BTW.

@aurum agreed, but I cannot see without them either - saying that I haven't actually tried. Although dreams...

3 hours ago, seeking_brilliance said:

because they're beautiful. 

Compliments most welcome, thanks.

[Nahm]

8 hours ago, LastThursday said:

If I'm a good subjective idealist, then all I can know is what I perceive, so that is primary. I can say with certainty that I'm having a subjective experience of seeing right now. If I close my eyes, then that subjective experience immediately changes (I see the back of my eyelids). 

The idea that I physically have eyes, must be secondary though. In other words having "eyes" is a thought story. This is obvious by asking: are my eyelids part of my eyes? Or, are my eyes just projections of my brain? It's not obvious where eyes begin and end. 

So how is it that a thought story (my eyes) is affecting my subjective experience of seeing? Is it just pure coincidence that every time my subjective vision goes dark, my subjective feeling of my eyelids are that they are closed? 

What role does the idea of "my eyes" have on my subjective experience? What are they for? Why are they correlated with vision?

Maths are incredibly weird imo. One big loopless ‘loop’. This just came to mind.....What if you’re not a good subjective idealist? Then you can not know what you perceive, and yet that is primary (the not knowing via not identifying as a subjective idealist). Then it could no longer be said with certainty that you are having a subjective experience of seeing right now. When you close your eyes, the change is the subjective experience, but recalling there is no certainty of a subjective experience...implies there is no, ‘change’. But if there’s no change, wtf is seeing & experiencing? 

Like a tree that falls in the woods, I would say it is obvious where it falls. If I hear it, I would say that it is obvious that it was heard. But if I am hearing and no tree falls, there is no experience of the sound of a tree falling. That seems obvious too. If the tree were to fall but I was not there to hear it, then I would not experience the alleged sound of the tree falling. That also seems obvious. What is not as obvious, is that the tree, the ear, and the sound, are vibration. What is even less obvious, is that sight is a vibration. But neither hearing nor seeing need light, as there is no correlation with vision. If I want a correlation, I vibrate as it. Then I will see it, and have a “subjective experience” of a “correlation”. Then, it is seen that to see in certainty, I must be blind. To ‘keep’ two I’s, we say there is a third, but it seems we don’t go so far as to start a second heart movement, because that would just be nonsense. 

 

 

[Mvrs]

8 hours ago, LastThursday said:

If I'm a good subjective idealist, then all I can know is what I perceive, so that is primary. I can say with certainty that I'm having a subjective experience of seeing right now. If I close my eyes, then that subjective experience immediately changes (I see the back of my eyelids). 

The idea that I physically have eyes, must be secondary though. In other words having "eyes" is a thought story. This is obvious by asking: are my eyelids part of my eyes? Or, are my eyes just projections of my brain? It's not obvious where eyes begin and end. 

So how is it that a thought story (my eyes) is affecting my subjective experience of seeing? Is it just pure coincidence that every time my subjective vision goes dark, my subjective feeling of my eyelids are that they are closed? 

What role does the idea of "my eyes" have on my subjective experience? What are they for? Why are they correlated with vision?

Your imagining you have eyes so duh your gonna dream you have eye lids that close. It’s a dream the harder you think about it the farther you get away from how simple it is. Eyes and eyelids are perceptions . Even you perceiving things is just a perception and an illusion. No one is actually watching it’s just happening . 

[LastThursday]

On 03/11/2020 at 0:59 PM, tsuki said:

When you are seeing, you are making distinctions, but these distinctions are not arbitrary.
They are grounded in form, which is easily demonstrable by investigating their shape with touch and "seeing" that these two dimensions of experience match. 

So form is more fundamental than distinctions? It kind of makes me uneasy, is there then something more fundamental than form then? Turtles all the way down?

I suppose with this line of reasoning, there is then a form for "sight" which manifests itself as the experience of seeing and the physicality of my eyes - the two being facets of the one form? Interesting.

On 03/11/2020 at 0:59 PM, tsuki said:

The eyes themselves, prior to labeling, are a prerequisite to exploring the dimension of consciousness we call sight.

 

On 03/11/2020 at 3:08 PM, aurum said:

You most definitely do not actually "see" with your eyes.

Which of the above two are right?

I presume that "prior to labeling" really means "prior to making distinctions"? But surely there must be some distinction in order that I can separate out "my eyes" from "my sight"? (let me use the word "my" without questioning "my" existence please).

 

23 hours ago, Nahm said:

What if you’re not a good subjective idealist? Then you can not know what you perceive, and yet that is primary (the not knowing via not identifying as a subjective idealist). Then it could no longer be said with certainty that you are having a subjective experience of seeing right now. When you close your eyes, the change is the subjective experience, but recalling there is no certainty of a subjective experience...implies there is no, ‘change’. But if there’s no change, wtf is seeing & experiencing? 

You're right, the label of "subjective idealist" is just a concept - and "subjective experience" is actually not well defined, except in opposition to "objective experience". However, that doesn't discount that I'm actually having some form of "experience", that is one thing I'm absolutely certain about - even if I don't fundamentally know what it is. But I concede that "change" is conceptual and in fact could be/is illusory. The unchanging thing however is the experience itself.

And the experience itself is made up of distinctions, one of which is my eyes and the other my sight and they are mysteriously linked.

On 03/11/2020 at 0:59 PM, tsuki said:

Your idea of perception, subjectivity and experience seem to be conflated which is causing your problems.
Experience is what is. When you start adding concepts on top of it, you get perception which is entangled with "I".
When you get lost in perception and lose sight of experience, you get the "subjective world".
Then, you have to invent the "objective world" as a social consensus and indirect investigation.

I suppose I get there are levels to this. Then, "experience" is non-duality? Or is that going too far? Or is "experience" the world of forms? I grok that "perception" requires an observer, and observerless is the way to go (on here). And so "subjective experience" is tainted with implying an observer and a shared experience (everyone has it), i.e. it's still a consensus construct and not to be trusted.

 

For the record. After much thinking about it. I was confused about seeing. Seeing and eyes are not inseparable, they are both manifestations of the same thing.  It's like pointing to the tyres and the engine and being surprised that they're linked in some way. 

Further, is it actually possible to "see" with other parts of the body, such as the fingers or ears? Is a bat actually seeing with its ears?

Edited November 4, 2020 by LastThursday

[tsuki]

46 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

So form is more fundamental than distinctions? It kind of makes me uneasy, is there then something more fundamental than form then? Turtles all the way down?

It's even weirder than that. Let's say that you are making the distinction in your visual field and label it as a table.
This distinction is not arbitrary, you are not having a groundless fantasy, the table is there. It is true.
And yet - prior to making that leap, prior to having the experience of a table, the table did not exist. Physically.
By making that leap, the table became manifest from, or through, or within nothingness.
Nothingness is more fundamental than form.

What I was referring to as "form" was, perhaps, the coherence of the experience of the table.
As in: the table is a table, regardless of whether you are seeing it or feeling it with your hands.
The shape as you touch it is not distinct from its visual appearance. Have you ever wondered why is that?

46 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

Which of the above two are right?

Why don't you pluck your eyes out and "see"?

ATM I'm going through covid and lost my sense of smell which is an interesting experience. I do have my nose but air is without quality. The movement of air I'd say comes via the sense of touch, but food is "flat". I can imagine and remember how chicken smells, but I can't actually feel one in front of me. 

46 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

I presume that "prior to labeling" really means "prior to making distinctions"? But surely there must be some distinction in order that I can separate out "my eyes" from "my sight"? (let me use the word "my" without questioning "my" existence please).

When I'm using the phrase "prior to labeling", I mean without thinking with words, the actual thing. Distinctions are more fundamental than language. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the difference between the stool and the floor without chatting to myself.

When it comes to sight itself, it's more tricky, because in order to understand that you are seeing from a particular place (eyes), you need to see in the first place. Yet, that "seeing from a particular place" is a distinction. We make distinctions in various dimensions of consciousness (sight, sound, taste, etc). 

It's helpful to learn the aggregates as they are described in Buddhism.

The order in which they are described is important, but I'm having difficulty expressing why.
IME they are progressively closer to nothingness/source.

46 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

I suppose I get there are levels to this. Then, "experience" is non-duality? Or is that going too far? Or is "experience" the world of forms? I grok that "perception" requires an observer, and observerless is the way to go (on here). And so "subjective experience" is tainted with implying an observer and a shared experience (everyone has it), i.e. it's still a consensus construct and not to be trusted.

Experience is what really is. It is the truth. You have access to it when you stop fabricating reality with expectations, beliefs and fantasies and look what's really there. It is apparent when you stop thinking about it and actually do it, or be there. I highly suggest reading Peter Ralston's Book of not knowing and experiencing for yourself what is being communicated there.  

Edited November 4, 2020 by tsuki

[seeking_brilliance]

On 03/11/2020 at 11:40 AM, LastThursday said:

Compliments most welcome, thanks.

Well I meant eyes in general, and I can't see yours very well, but your definitely welcome! 

[Corpus]

29 minutes ago, tsuki said:

It's even weirder than that. Let's say that you are making the distinction in your visual field and label it as a table.
This distinction is not arbitrary, you are not having a groundless fantasy, the table is there. It is true.
And yet - prior to making that leap, prior to having the experience of a table, the table did not exist. Physically.
By making that leap, the table became manifest from, or through, or within nothingness.
Nothingness is more fundamental than form.

What I was referring to as "form" was, perhaps, the coherence of the experience of the table.
As in: the table is a table, regardless of whether you are seeing it or feeling it with your hands.
The shape as you touch it is not distinct from its visual appearance. Have you ever wondered why is that?

 

@tsuki -could I ask you to clarify this?

Could you elaborate on what is meant by physically?(3rd line). How does that relate to "manifest form"? (4th line). Is the table a table if it is not seen (ie before the distinction is made?).

 

[tsuki]

4 minutes ago, Corpus said:

Could you elaborate on what is meant by physically?(3rd line).

By something being physical, I mean, having form. I defined form as the coherence between various dimensions of experience.

4 minutes ago, Corpus said:

How does that relate to "manifest form"? (4th line)

I said: "manifest from", not "manifest form". It "comes out" of nothingness. I can't find the right word for what is happening.
The table is there only in your experience which gives it its "physicality", or form.

5 minutes ago, Corpus said:

Is the table a table if it is not seen (ie before the distinction is made?).

The table does not exist before the distinction is made.

[Corpus]

@tsuki Thanks.