<MathPoet> cool. I'm still reading it....
<MathPoet> why do you fight so hard to say that your idea of "ego" is the only way? Or have i misunderstood? We have to meet each other from wherever we are.
<MathPoet> We don't necessarily all believe in the "ego" the way you do.
<DGNeree> i never talked about ego. you did
<MathPoet> The "I" the perceiver.
<MathPoet> that was how I understood ego.
<DGNeree> no. it is different
<DGNeree> The perceiver doesn't have any qualities
<MathPoet> what specifically do you mean?
<DGNeree> you mistake the thing perceived with the perceiver
<MathPoet> how can it lack qualities if it has the quality that it has no qualities?
<MathPoet> you see the paradox.
<DGNeree> it is a paradox in logical terms
<MathPoet> I do not mistsake them, I equate them..
<DGNeree> there is no paradox
<DGNeree> but we have to define everything in terms of things that are perceived
<DGNeree> you cannot perceive the perceiver
<MathPoet> do you understand that that is a predominately Western philosophy?
<DGNeree> no it is not
<DGNeree> it is eastern
<MathPoet> I'm under the impression that self-awareness is the goal of basically all the Eastern Religions.
<DGNeree> much older than greek philosophy
<DGNeree> and it is not a "philosophy"
<DGNeree> it ids observance
<DGNeree> and elimination of logical paradoxes
<MathPoet> "perceiving the perceiver" is what self-awareness and self-realization is all about!!!
<MathPoet> in my opinion.
<DGNeree> self awareness is not possible
<DGNeree> it is the self that is aware
<MathPoet> And yet you can learn about yourself.
<DGNeree> it is not a physical object
<MathPoet> it doesn't have to be in order to be real.
<DGNeree> "yourself" is not the "I" the "eye"
<DGNeree> it is a conception
<DGNeree> you are the eye
<DGNeree> the eye "I" cannot perceive itself
<MathPoet> okay. I understand that I have the ability to become more aware of myself and the world.
<DGNeree> I would like to make a map of awareness
<MathPoet> why cannot the perceiver perceive itself? Unless you are assuming what you would claim to prove.....
<MathPoet> whic I think you are
<DGNeree> I WILL ANSWER
<MathPoet> I still think you are introducing the division and then concluding it.
<MathPoet> these ideas are YOUR ideas.
<MathPoet> they are axiomatic to you.
<DGNeree> will you let me answer the question goddammit?
<MathPoet> sure, jump in.
<DGNeree> sorry, curse-lock :P
<DGNeree> There is no division
<DGNeree> there is the field and the perceiver of the field
<DGNeree> the field does not perceive the perceiver
<DGNeree> the perceiver can be aware that perception takes place
<DGNeree> but everything perceived is not the perceiver
<DGNeree> when the seer tries to see itsef, it only sees a perception
<DGNeree> not itself
<DGNeree> because he is actually looking at an idea
<DGNeree> of itself
<DGNeree> you, deep inside you, are perceiving
<DGNeree> Now there is the IDEA of the self.
<DGNeree> but it is a dream, a conception of things seen, close by in the field
<DGNeree> and when you try to look at yourself, your inner core, the perceiver,
<DGNeree> you see only something like a sun, or a mirror
<DGNeree> but it is all part of the field, not the perceiver of the field
<DGNeree> the perceiver has no qualities, because qualities are in the domain of the field
<DGNeree> not of the perceiver
<MathPoet> do I get to have a go now?
<DGNeree> no :P
<DGNeree> sure man
<DGNeree> shoot me
<MathPoet> rememeber that i am a slow typist
<MathPoet> have patience.
<DGNeree> may i say 1 thing before that?
<MathPoet> if it's brief.
<DGNeree> i forgot. go ahead
<DGNeree> I'll have a smoke
<MathPoet> I would offer the following, but will not fight.
<MathPoet> first, you say that there is no division and then define "perceiver and perceived" as mutually exclusive concepts.
<DGNeree> may i answer that?
<MathPoet> not yet.
<MathPoet> I'll forget
<DGNeree> take your time
<DGNeree> ill read it
<MathPoet> you introduce the idea that in trying to see oneself, one can only see the IDEA of oneself. I simply disagree. It would seem that you feel we are only aware of
<MathPoet> ideas of the perceived whereas I believe in immediate experience.
<MathPoet> It is a fundamental difference in philosophy we have. There's no way to resolve it, only a way to try to understand and appreciate each other from our different sides.
<MathPoet> You can say all you want that there is no division, but everything you say afterward indicates a marked distinciton between "the perceiver and the field."
<MathPoet> I do not believe that awareness is filtered through ANYTHING. It is the recognition of the evidence of the sense and not only the outward senses
<MathPoet> but also the inner senses like "intuition" and "courage" and "faith" and the like.
<MathPoet> I believe that one can impose a philosophy upon reality such as that which you would have me accept from you, but it doesn't have to be that way.
<MathPoet> It doesn't mean we cannot talk civilly about what we believe, but we must understand the basic distinction.
<MathPoet> If there is no distinction between the perceiver and the perceived, then there is no reason the perceived cannot perceive itself, which I believe it does, and in fact count on it.
<MathPoet> And btw, there is no reason to conclude that the field does NOT perceive me.
<MathPoet> so the distinction is imposing a set of definitions and rules for manipulating those definitions to conclude what you want. I do not believe I can EVER do that again.
<MathPoet> I lived that way for too long. My way does not have to be consistent or complete, only satisfying.
<MathPoet> I respect your choices. But I do not share them. I hope there is a way for us to remain friends. You seem to get very angry about these things. I make a choice. So do you.
<DGsmokebreak> wait wait
<DGsmokebreak> we're talking rational here
<MathPoet> It's alright, I was finished.
<MathPoet> no. we are talking experiential.
<DGsmokebreak> i dont want to make you believe anything
<DGsmokebreak> i'm trying to figure it out myself
<MathPoet> I'm speaking from what I live through as much as possible. Shall I "scream at my eyes?"
<DGsmokebreak> I am just trying to put into words what i have experienced too
<MathPoet> I believe you.
<DGsmokebreak> the experience comes before the explanation
<MathPoet> that's what I believe.
<DGsmokebreak> and words are deceptive
<MathPoet> the experience comes first, then the words. this is why it's so important what things mean.
<DGsmokebreak> yes. we agree with that. I'm glad we do
<MathPoet> you have put a de facto division between your perceiver and the perceived and field. or so it seems.
<MathPoet> I don't agree with that
<DGsmokebreak> i will explain
<DGsmokebreak> i'll try
<MathPoet> okay, you can try.
<DGsmokebreak> there is no division, actually
<DGsmokebreak> because everything that exists is. and it is one. no paradox in existence. everything is
<DGsmokebreak> the division is made by our minds
<MathPoet> then we don't need to talk in terms of it, if it is made by our minds. We don't have to accept that illusion!
<MathPoet> surely you would agree!
<DGsmokebreak> for the sake of the argument:
<DGsmokebreak> there is no division, because either the field doesnt exist or the perceiver doesn't exist
<DGsmokebreak> or they both do and then there is no problem
<DGsmokebreak> but to answer the second:
<MathPoet> this is an idea you have about experience being filtered through idea
<DGsmokebreak> the field is there because it is made out of different awarenesses
<DGsmokebreak> it is an illusion
<DGsmokebreak> created by the self
<MathPoet> if they both exist, I'd call that a pretty distinct assumption of the difference.
<MathPoet> I think you have an idea and are trying to make the logic fit your assumptions.
<DGsmokebreak> It is a controversy, because you see the perceiver as part of the field. but it is not
<MathPoet> "different awarenesses"?
<DGsmokebreak> yes. words....
<MathPoet> I want to know what YOU experience as real. Not your logical fabrications.
<DGsmokebreak> they are like
<MathPoet> what do you actually LIVE through?
<MathPoet> You're a writer, a poet,
<DGsmokebreak> I live my daily life
<DGsmokebreak> i am
<DGsmokebreak> i am a thinker
<MathPoet> what does your heart tell you about what exists? Not some logical interface between you and the world.
<MathPoet> Logic is a way to be "right". Not necessarily to tell the truth.
<MathPoet> You are a feeler, too!
<DGsmokebreak> i have a different idea of logic
<MathPoet> I know you are. I've felt it!
<MathPoet> well then, there we are.
<DGsmokebreak> i am a very sensitive person
<DGsmokebreak> and intelligent
<MathPoet> so am I. and I understand.
<MathPoet> I'm trying to come to a meeting of the minds.
<DGsmokebreak> and im a fool
<DGsmokebreak> yes. well, i think the first thing we should do
<MathPoet> I've been an idiot once or twice in my day. :)
<DGsmokebreak> make a map
<MathPoet> This is like the ninth time you've mentioned that.
<DGsmokebreak> yes but you've never answered
<DGsmokebreak> so <MathPoet> i don't know what you're talking about.
<DGsmokebreak> on our site:
<DGsmokebreak> OURSITE :)
<DGsmokebreak> doesnt that sound nice?
<DGsmokebreak> We will start a series of articles
<MathPoet> what does it mean? a map? treating the psychic experience as if it were a physical one?
<DGsmokebreak> by which we'll define what you and i and/or others
<DGsmokebreak> understand by ters like
<DGsmokebreak> terms like "I", "ego"
<MathPoet> I think it should be in the forum. How historically ironic.
<DGsmokebreak> awareness, truth
<DGsmokebreak> or else there will be misunderstandings always
<MathPoet> I don't know as I can give definitions, except as very hesitant ones. "The spiritual life is no idea. Wd have to live it."
<MathPoet> We don't have to misunderstand in order to disagree.
<DGsmokebreak> What we should do is examine every word someone uses
<DGsmokebreak> and put it in context
<DGsmokebreak> so it won't explode intto all kinds of misconceptions
<MathPoet> No. what we should do is have people articulate as best they can, what they actually live through.
<MathPoet> Maybe that's where to start.
<DGsmokebreak> I would like this cadres:
<MathPoet> What's a cadre?
<DGsmokebreak> a frame
<DGsmokebreak> sorry. i'm called away. brb
<MathPoet> we can have a side for experiential exploration and one for the logician theorist.
<MathPoet> It will be an interesting dichotomy, I think, as long as we can avoid flamewars.
<MathPoet> but go ahead.
<MathPoet> sorry about the interrupt. Please go on.
<DGN> me too
<MathPoet> okay, so I'll go ahead. Cadre tends to mean "school of thought" usually led by someone.
<MathPoet> i wouldn't set myself up in any position like that.
<MathPoet> but as simply paths. that's different
<MathPoet> again. If you set is up as a forum site with two subforums, that might be good!
<MathPoet> Is that the kind of thing you intended?
<DGN> i'll think about the format
<DGN> i have different idea of it
<DGN> but ok. i will
<DGN> put it upthere first
<MathPoet> don't go away without telling me your idea/
<DGNeree> i have another 1 1/2 hour online
<MathPoet> I don't have as long. We need to wrap this up.
<MathPoet> what is your idea?
<DGNeree> my idea is:
<DGNeree> I log this conversation on the forum and in the next weeks you and i have some serious editing to do
<DGNeree> wddya say?
<MathPoet> I was going to suggest the recording of the log, but to set it up on the forum...???
<MathPoet> I could do the editting. That's easy enough.
<DGNeree> ok. please be my guest and log it for us
<MathPoet> I need a forum thing and don't remember how to set a new one up.
<MathPoet> can you do that?
<MathPoet> It's the nature of my disability.
<DGNeree> I have to find out about the forum bit too
<DGNeree> you know what?
<DGNeree> i'll bug someone on wikia about it right now
<DGNeree> will you log his conversation then?
<MathPoet> do you still want to set up a kind of "Graham's corner" and "Ayo's place"?
<DGNeree> of course not
<MathPoet> You want this log as an article in the mean time?
<DGNeree> I want to define concepts before we talk about them
<DGNeree> i have an idea
<MathPoet> uh oh. :)
<DGNeree> sorry, i was distracted by rorozarzar
<MathPoet> pick up the pace, i have to go soon.
<DGNeree> I want to put up an unsolvable question, that is divided between two opposites
<DGNeree> in between there is a rugbyball
<MathPoet> I'd call it "the Gordian Knot"
<DGNeree> the shape i mean
<DGNeree> something like that yes, or a labyrinth
<MathPoet> you need to develop this - to be clear.
<MathPoet> do you want this conversation logged as an article on our site?
<DGNeree> log it as the last ones. I've made an article: The Rock. you could paste it under there
<MathPoet> We could have a forum post as to what is the best unsolvable question.
<DGNeree> hm.. yes
<DGNeree> the riddle of the month
<DGNeree> this differences between disciplines: we'll have to know what the hell we're talking about
<DGNeree> define concepts
<MathPoet> what have you done?
<MathPoet> I thought you wanted me to copy the log!
<MathPoet> how far did you copy? <DGNeree> i've done nothing
<DGNeree> only talk on irc
<MathPoet> The Rock is full
<MathPoet> do you often do things without remembering them? check it out. I didn't make the article or know anything about it before you mentioned it. what's up?
<DGNeree> its good now i think
<DGNeree> reload F5
<DGNeree> I created The Rock 3 hours ago
<DGNeree> or two
<MathPoet> well, where does what you copied end so we can complete the transfer?
<DGNeree> it ends at the bottom of the page
<DGNeree> the title of the project i thought of is called: "I see a rock"
<DGNeree> "I" "see" "a" "rock"
<DGNeree> --define "I"
<DGNeree> --define "see""
<DGNeree> --define Rock"