Experience vs reason

[Marioxs34]

So, Leo talks about having to experience much of what he teaches trough psychedelics or meditation. But there's a problem: much of western philosophy talks about the problem of knowledege through Just pure experience. I can experience that the sun revolves around the earth but through science i can understand that this Is not true. This Is even more true when you experience through dream or hallucination: i can dream about Flying but in reality i don't fly. So now how would you say that Leo's epystemological system Is correct?

[Mason Riggle]

6 minutes ago, Marioxs34 said:

 I can experience that the sun revolves around the earth

you actually can not experience this.. you are just mistaken about what you are experiencing. 

Recognize that 'experience' itself can not be an 'illusion'.. something seems to be happening, rather than nothing, it's self evident.  It's always possible to be mistaken about the contents of experience.. but not about the fact of experience itself. 

The map (the contents of experience) is not the territory (experience itself).  

All descriptions of reality, are not reality.  The contents of your dreams is not the same as 'dreaming'.  When you fly in your dream.. they flying wasn't real, but the dream can not be denied. 

[Marioxs34]

12 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

you actually can not experience this.. you are just mistaken about what you are experiencing. 

Recognize that 'experience' itself can not be an 'illusion'.. something seems to be happening, rather than nothing, it's self evident.  It's always possible to be mistaken about the contents of experience.. but not about the fact of experience itself. 

The map (the contents of experience) is not the territory (experience itself).  

All descriptions of reality, are not reality.  The contents of your dreams is not the same as 'dreaming'.  When you fly in your dream.. they flying wasn't real, but the dream can not be denied. 

Well, what if God Is the content of that experience? You are experiencing something without a doubt, but that experience can just be an illusion

Edited December 21, 2021 by Marioxs34

[Mason Riggle]

@Marioxs34 the contents of experience can be illusion (not what they seem), but the 'seeming' itself.. that's real. It's the only thing I know for certain.. THIS IS. 

This is. <---  The territory. (experience)

This is ________(fill in the blank). <--- The map. (reason)

Edited December 21, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Marioxs34]

16 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Marioxs34 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Marioxs34

[Marioxs34]

I have two requests: how do i eliminate a post (i find cancel and i click ok but it doesn't eliminate the post); and second: are you saying that the experience can be an illusion but there can still be a God? Then who can tell exactly that a God can still be there if we can not know him trough reason?

[Mason Riggle]

@Marioxs34 this will all depend on how the word 'God' is defined.  

God knows himself through you. 

The Universe is experiencing itself as you. 

You are God, it's all you.. 

[Mason Riggle]

Here's a metaphor that may be helpful in finding God. 

If you look at a tree.. you might say, 'the tree is growing leaves', but then you may also recognize that the leaves are part of the tree, and not separate from it.  Is there really a 'tree' separate from 'the leaves it's growing'? 

Is there really a 'God' separate from 'what God is doing'?  

You might think.. the trunk is not 'the tree'.. the branches are not 'the tree'.. the leaves are not 'the tree'.. the roots are not 'the tree'.. but then what exactly is 'the tree'? 

You think God exists separate from you.. separate from reality.. something which is causing floods, and causing trees, and causing you.. and all this stuff.. but all of this stuff is not separate from God.. it is God. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Mason Riggle
edited for grammar

[Marioxs34]

16 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

 

16 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

Here's a metaphor that may be helpful in finding God. 

If you look at a tree.. you might say, 'the tree is growing leaves', but then you may also recognize that the leaves are part of the tree, and not separate from it.  Is there really a 'tree' separate from 'the leaves it's growing'? 

Is there really a 'God' separate from 'what God is doing'?  

You might think.. the trunk is not 'the tree'.. the branches are not 'the tree'.. the leaves are not 'the tree'.. the roots are not 'the tree'.. but then what exactly is 'the tree'? 

You think God exists separate from you.. separate from reality.. something which is causing floods, and causing trees, and causing you.. and all this stuff.. but all of this stuff is not separate from God.. it is God. 

Well, then we return to the same problem: how can we say that our experience is true? This is a vicious cycle. But now i have read the guidelines and i read that theoretical debating is not allowed, I think i'm going to get a warning

[Mason Riggle]

@Marioxs34 nah, you're probably fine with this line of inquiry. 

It is a bit paradoxical.  Leo will often say things like, 'The map is not the territory', and in the same breath say that the map IS the territory.  These two things seem contradictory, but this contradiction is mostly due to how we use and understand language. 

The leaves are not the same as 'the tree', and yet, the leaves ARE the tree. 

[Marioxs34]

24 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Marioxs34 nah, you're probably fine with this line of inquiry. 

It is a bit paradoxical.  Leo will often say things like, 'The map is not the territory', and in the same breath say that the map IS the territory.  These two things seem contradictory, but this contradiction is mostly due to how we use and understand language. 

The leaves are not the same as 'the tree', and yet, the leaves ARE the tree. 

So what do you mean by saying that this contradiction is due to how we use language?

[Thought Art]

@Marioxs34 because thought and reason is happening at a certain state of consciousness. There are higher and truer states. However, your ‘structure’ is crucial to understand these states. 
 

Reason and intellect  is crucial for survival 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Thought Art

[Mason Riggle]

17 minutes ago, Marioxs34 said:

So what do you mean by saying that this contradiction is due to how we use language?

Language is inherently dualistic. 

I can either experience a cup, or describe it with language.. The cup hard as opposed to soft. It has an inside, and and outside.. But you can't have a cup thats 'just the outside'.. The language 'outside' only has meaning relative to 'inside'. The discription is not the same as experiencing the cup.

Reality is non-dual, appearing (imagining itself) as duality (and multiplicity (Dualities within dualities). There is 1 everything. This language is self contradictory, but that's how it is. 

[Marioxs34]

6 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

Language is inherently dualistic. 

I can either experience a cup, or describe it with language.. The cup hard as opposed to soft. It has an inside, and and outside.. But you can't have a cup thats 'just the outside'.. The language 'outside' only has meaning relative to 'inside'. The discription is not the same as experiencing the cup.

Reality is non-dual, appearing (imagining itself) as duality (and multiplicity (Dualities within dualities). There is 1 everything. This language is self contradictory, but that's how it is. 

Well, i can easily say: the cup has an inside and an outside, or the cup is tepid

 

15 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Marioxs34 because thought and reason is happening at a certain state of consciousness. There are higher and truer states. However, your ‘structure’ is crucial to understand these states. 
 

Reason and intellect  is crucial for survival 

Reason can easily disprove any claim that comes from "higher states of consciousness" since, i think, Leo has not the absolute truth and his claims will be responded. And we must admit that reason has had the potential in all this centuries to come to sophisticated and complex systems of thought, so it is not just a mere mean to survival

[Marioxs34]

But i think i will not continue to debating with you, this environment is not suitable for a civilised and fair exchange of ideas and i fear the reaction of its creator

[Thought Art]

@Marioxs34 reason actually can’t grasp the absolute truth.  Nor can it dispose an altered state. 
 

Explain your stance please. 
 

Your reason is an experience. Manipulating reality isn’t the same as truth. I can use reason to lie and manipulate for example. 
 

your allowed to ask these questions. It is important. 
 

no one including Leo is saying reason is bad. It’s just not able to grasp metaphysical truths like consciousness.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Thought Art

[Nahm]

Reason is experience(d).

[Marioxs34]

13 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Marioxs34 reason actually can’t grasp the absolute truth.  Nor can it dispose an altered state. 
 

Explain your stance please. 
 

Your reason is an experience. Manipulating reality isn’t the same as truth. I can use reason to lie and manipulate for example. 
 

your allowed to ask these questions. It is important. 
 

no one including Leo is saying reason is bad. It’s just not able to grasp metaphysical truths like consciousness.

Interpreting reality is not the same as lying about it. It is necessary because your experience of reality can totally be an illusion

Edited December 22, 2021 by Marioxs34

[Marioxs34]

12 hours ago, Nahm said:

Reason is experience(d).

Then why Leo tells experience has to have privilege and reason can't question some its propositions?

[Mason Riggle]

12 minutes ago, Marioxs34 said:

Then why Leo tells experience has to have privilege and reason can't question some its propositions?

I think perhaps you are reading a bit into what Leo says.  As was stated earlier, no one, including Leo, is saying reason is bad.  Only that it has it's limits.  To go beyond reason, requires a different sort of perspective.   For example.. we have words like 'infinity', which you might think you know what that word means.. but it you might be surprised at how difficult it is to come up with a 'reasonable' definition.  You might say.. infinity is something that 'goes on forever'.. but then you've just substituted 'forever' for 'infinity'.  'forever' is another 'unreasonable' word. What does 'forever' mean?  All of time?  How does that make sense? Is 'All of time' a reasonable statement?  How much time, exactly, is 'all of time'? 

So to really 'grasp' what these concepts like 'infinity' and 'God' are REALLY getting at, requires a sort of 'meta-perspective'.  A kind of a 'letting go' of 'reasonable' concepts, and simply becoming conscious of what is True.