Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTyler  <insert Dave’s posts about subjective reality here> |
Knifes are good.
What on earth am I on about? Well, depending on how you interpreted that above statement, you’ll draw one of many possible conclusions that will be added to the mental model you have -- or just created -- of me. You may conclude that I have some fascination with knifes and am mentally unstable. You may conclude that I believe knifes are tools I consider to be useful (eg. for cutting food, etc). You may conclude that the statement is merely 3 words and doesn’t accurately describe my identity at all.
Either way, whatever you conclude, it’s quite likely your mental model you hold of me based on your interpretation of my 3 word statement above will be inaccurate. Now you may or may not have considered this, but judging by your above posts on subjective reality, I’d say you probably didn’t.
What I am getting to is this: Our interpretation of what we see, read, listen to, hear, and smell, etc, is not actually “what is”. It is our interpretation of “what is” based on our perceptions -- the filters that determine our particular experience of reality. For more info on that,
see this post.
Based on what I read of your above posts, I would make the assumption that you conclude Steve's psychotic (assuming you believe Steve practices what he preaches... I’m not saying you’ve called Steve psychotic, though). But nonetheless -- and there is no getting around this -- your conclusion is based on an interpretation of Steve’s writing... an interpretation that may or may not be accurate.
So anyway, I'm not saying that you're wrong, Steve's right, or anything like that. What I'm saying is that it may be worth relaxing a bit when it comes to the whole “
This is what Steve tries to learn you, how to go psychotic, ALL ON YOUR OWN” front.
And besides, whether or not Steve actually is psychotic doesn't really bother me -- if I find his writing helpful, psychotic or not, I'll still read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTyler It can't be described really, you'll still be a individual body, looking out individual eyes, but you'll be the universe. u'll feel that your the universe, no seperation, and you'll laugh at all the ego's.
It's not easy to describe, I experienced it once, but couldnt go through with it cause I knew if I let it happen I would die, ME would die. |
I think it can be described, but only if those you describe it to understand that the words you describe it with are merely pointers to the experience. Labels (ie. descriptions) point to an experience, but are never actually the experience itself.
And I believe that’s how our understanding of communication/language works. When somebody says, “I'm wet” (get your mind out of the gutter, people
), it is your experience of what it feels like to be wet that you relate to, not the label itself.
When you communicate with “labels” instead of “labels that point to a personal experience”, there is no real communication, and the beauty of life gets shrouded by a web of lifeless mental labels. It’s as foolish as thinking you are in the city of New York simply because you see a sign in front of you that says, “New York, 200 miles ahead”.
Communication of this type can lead people to believe that because they understand the label that points to an experience, they understand an experience. That’s like thinking because you’ve seen what one dark room looks like when you turn on a light, you’ll know what another dark room looks like when you turn a light on. You may have an idea of what it will look like, but the room could be completely different to the one you’ve seen. You may have a
general idea of what a dark room may look like if you turn the light on (eg. it won't be dark any more and you'll be able to see), but that's about the best you can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTyler Enlightenment is about killing the "you", cause there is no "you" "you" is images you make in the head as you go on with your day, you dont really exist though.
"I think therefor I am" or some ************ |
I believe that the "I" in that quote is merely another "you". You may be
aware of your thinking, but your identity is not your thinking -- otherwise you wouldn’t be aware of it; you’d be completely caught up in it, much like a computer is caught up in the code it executes, unaware of what it is doing and unable to give birth to the questions such as "who am I" and mysteries that are common focal points for the self-aware human species.