Is time real?

[ayar415]

QUOTE 500 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Halloween Jack

No it’s not. But it's true to say that without concepts there are no separate, inherently existing things.

Our reality - the objective world in which we live - is not conceptual? I understand why you say that. The word "conceptual" has one meaning in your consensus worldview and it excludes things that are physical in nature. Right? Therefore, that hamburger cannot be conceptual.

Do you understand the nature of physical matter? This is still being debated in the scientific community as well as in academic philosophy. And you tell me "No, it's not?" What is the basis of your conclusion?

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

I love it. Wise words!

Thank you, best wishes. :)

*************************************************

[Halloween Jack]

Originally Posted by ayar415

And you tell me "No, it's not?" What is the basis of your conclusion?

The smell of freshly cut grass is not conceptual - unless I think about it. The taste of honey is not conceptual - unless I think about it. Tiny humans and other animals have functioning sense perceptions without the need for conceptualising.

But I would agree that concepts keep the consensual trance in place. There can be a seeing through of conceptual maps of reality to their underlying ground or source.

[ayar415]

QUOTE 503 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Halloween Jack

The smell of freshly cut grass is not conceptual - unless I think about it. The taste of honey is not conceptual - unless I think about it.

I really appreciate your response because it was a "straight off the bat" honest reply. This allows me to examine it carefully for review together.

Smell is defined as a faculty to detect scent or odor. This is a consensus worldview that guides our perception. Knowledge enables cognition. Without knowledge, there would be no awareness that the smell is the scent of cut grass.

Thinking is not an action similar to eating which is an act of will. Thinking is an ongoing process that empowers perception (i.e. state of awareness) until it cuts out at the onset of sleep. Thinking restarts when you wake from sleep to enable you to reach for the alarm clock, go to the bathroom, etc..

Conceptualization is the imagination of forms. The naming of forms gives rise to things which are stored as knowledge in the memory bank. Awareness is the consciousness of things, the cognition of which is enabled by knowledge.

Thus, the smell of freshly (not stale) cut (lawnmower?) grass (as opposed to fresh bread) is the conceptual process of perception.

Touch is also a faculty of detection. It is the sensation of touch telling you that the smell of cut grass is not conceptual. Touch enables the feel of "solidity" in things.

I had better stop here because no one has come this far in tracking out with me the nature of reality. I need to know that you are still with me on this inquiry and that I am not "casting pearls to swine". No offense meant. This is just a figure of speech.

Doing this, to me, is real meditation. It takes tremendous energy, not effort, to maintain attention. If you don't have the calling, then it is not doable.

[Halloween Jack]

Originally Posted by ayar415

I need to know that you are still with me on this inquiry...

I can only maintain that these things are not conceptual unless we make them so by thought and analysis. As I say, babies and animals have functioning sense perceptions without the capacity for conceptualisation.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by ayar415

Smell is defined as a faculty to detect scent or odor. This is a consensus worldview that guides our perception. Knowledge enables cognition. Without knowledge, there would be no awareness that the smell is the scent of cut grass.

And yet two people can smell the scent of freshly cut grass and both will identify it as the smell the scent of freshly cut grass, but who can say that they both experience the same scent?

Rather like two people gazing at a scene but one has a certain form of colour blindness. They are both seeing the same scene but they may see very different colours in that scene.

How we experience sense perceptions is surely conceptual, because it comes down to the mental interpretations of sense impressions within the brain, which may vary from person to person.

Peace

[God-Like]

The thing about concepts is that everything that is perceived derives through mind .

That is not however to infer that what is present of this reality isn't present . We are not making it up lol but what we make of it is each to their own ..

If we were all to lay in the sun for a day we would all get burnt but what we make of that becomes conceptual in a way where what has happened is made sense of .


x daz x

[ayar415]

QUOTE 506 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by iamthat

And yet two people can smell the scent of freshly cut grass and both will identify it as the smell the scent of freshly cut grass, but who can say that they both experience the same scent?

Does that matter? At any rate, there is only the smell of freshly cut grass, no "smeller". This is to say, there is only the experience, no "experiencer". In that situation, there could be the perception of two different scents: one of ryegrass, and the other of bermudagrass. And both arise from the same indivisible consciousness, that magical state of awareness. And you, me, whoever, are that.

And thanks for your interest. It adds momentum to our inquiry.

[ayar415]

QUOTE 507 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by God-Like

The thing about concepts is that everything that is perceived derives through mind .

Correct! (i.e. I concur). However, the definition of mind determines our perception of it. The consensus worldview of mind is that it is psychological (as opposed to physical) in nature and that it comes from the physical brain. Can you break free of that mindset? If you can, then the intellect is unshackled from the logic architecture (i.e program) of consensus worldview. The intellect must be free of conditioning for perception to be accurate (i.e. see without distortion).

I stay away from the use of the word "mind" because it is in the vocabulary of the consensus worldview shared by the physical sciences and religion-derived spirituality.

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

It was a deep question to begin with from Mary Isaacs. "Is Time Real ?"

But what makes time real or not? And regardless of the Spiritual technobabble and being honest, don't we all have a perception of something we call time?