The "non thinking mind"? And what is this if not a thought in your head about something you observe. — Constance

Of course it is. The intellect can only point toward meaning, never convey truth.

Did you think this was about the mysterious processes that underlie language and thought? TELL me what they are, emphasis on "telling". The point is, at best, observations show that actuality is not a language event, but such things are "empty" to the understanding if the attempt is made to conceive of them outside of language. The understanding is a "bundled" affair in which thought and sense intuition come together, as a piece, if you will. You may, as I see it, posit that there such things apart from what thought can say, speculate, analyze and so forth, and I think this right, but then you will be on the threshold of metaphysics, and would referring to affairs beyond what can be witnessed. — Constance

Have you ever been in love? Can you TELL me what that is about?

There are things which are simply beyond the reach of our intellect (pretty much everything :). To me, to be forced to live in a world defined by our critical thinking alone truly defines what my mentor used to tell me repeatedly, "Man makes his own Hell on this Earth."

The point is that your point is wrong. Facts outlast the moment. I can go back and read your post now - after all this time. I'm not going to, but I could, because the moment of its creation is not the only moment in which it exists. Reality is causal. Every effect has prior causes, which in turn have prior causes. Your argument, that we cannot access the real is clearly incorrect. — counterpunch

cp, thank you for making my case. Cause and effect. Considering the idea that even the simplest of things is caused by an infinite number of events preceding, how can you possibly understand what brought this event into being? This is one of the reasons why we can not understand anything (and especially why we cannot understand another person). And this has been understood for..ever. Wisdom from every culture includes the idea that "judging" is amoral (because you can not understand it or them).

So I am not denying that Reality/reality is causal, just that we have no access to its understanding.

I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away across the railway tracks. He struck the stake with a hammer, and a second or so later the sound reached me, by which time he was striking down again. In fact, light travels faster than sound. In reality, the light reached my eyes before sonic vibrations reached my ears. My perceptions were not out of step with reality. I perceived what actually happened.

A train comes toward you ringing its bell. The sound is high pitched. It passes by and the pitch drops to a lower register. This is because the sound waves of the train coming toward you are compressed - whereas, the sound waves of the train moving away are stretched out. This really happens, in reality. If you did not understand this, you might conclude there were two bells. Yours is a two bell explanation of reality! — counterpunch

Why are you assuming that either of those explanations are correct? How about if the wave/particle theory of light goes up in smoke and is replaced with the ding/splork theory? Science is in its infancy, always changing like everything knowable.

I see science as a tool because it gets you part of the way, just like a hammer helps you build a house, it cannot preform all the tasks necessary. You should open your mind a bit and consider all things as part of the whole. I am assuming you are not a religious person, but do you have any spiritual stirrings inside?

One has to see that the claim there is an interpretative backdrop, a "predelineation" in place that defines the world when you are in your daily affairs do not reveal themselves in the explicit conscious event. They are implicit, just as the confidence that the sidewalk beneath your feet is solid to the step in every step you take is present even though you are not explicitly attending to it: You have stepped many times on many sidewalks, the aggregate effect of this making for the current confidence. We have such "aggregate consciousness" in all of our affairs, otherwise we would be like James' "blooming and buzzing" infantile perceivers. — Constance

Says who? Sounds like psycho-babble to me.

You're driving? Is this some primordial event, or rather: is it learned, practiced and familiar that in the space of the moment only seems immediate? — Constance

What you can learn, takes place before your critical thinking mind engages. Once it kicks-in, it alters reality into your personal reality which is simply incapable of figuring out much of anything. After all, how long would it take you to figure out the forth root 35467.94324 to the tenth place in your head? Compare that to the non-thinking mind that can process an infinite amount of information each moment.

Facts only exist momentarily (as all things are changing). This means that by the time you are able to conceive of such, then process such into a fact-being, it is already gone. POOF.
— synthesis

Then there's really no point reading the rest of your post. Poof. It's already gone. — counterpunch

You are correct in a real sense, what the point?, but we don't live in the real (either reality or reality), we live in the intellectual human world, and because of that we must "adapt" to all of these personal realities.

If you are able to do this with skill, you become quite sociable. If not, then you have to be either satisfied with your own reality and watch TV, play computer games, read, or any of the other activities that characterize people who don't particularly subscribe to most people's reality (including myself).

It leads to itself, after all, when you encounter a thing in the perceptual moment it is already taken up in thought. — Constance

Let's say you are driving down the freeway with thousands of other happy motorists. On this particular morning, traffic is moving quite rapidly (say 80mph), and because it is more or less bumper to bumper at such a high speed, you are having to concentrate a great deal because the guy behind you is texting his girlfriend, the woman on the left is putting on her makeup and the guy on the other side is stuffing a massive jelly doughnut down his gullet in one bite. Another day in Paradise (LA).

There are literally an infinite number of stimuli coming at you each moment. Do you believe that your brain is taking the time to "think" about all of these stimuli and then figure out what to do or are you just "doing it."

I didn't say that truth doesn't matter. I just said there are different versions of the truth (aren't you married? :) You only see one truth. I see two. I hold myself to very high ethical and moral standards so it is not like I do not live truth, I just see its ever changing nature. The truth which is knowable changes like everything else. The Absolute Truth does not change because it is not knowable and exists in moments outside of time. Do you understand this?
— synthesis

I have argued this thesis many times, and one of the regular objections I get is based in Hume's - is/ought divide. The 'is' are facts. The 'ought' are values. It is argued, regularly, that science 'is' facts. Facts don't tell us what we 'ought' to do. I disagree - because I understand the problem very well. But you simply disregard the distinction, and instead posit a distinction between knowable truth and absolute truth. Which one of these is it that you conflate with morality? — counterpunch

Facts only exist momentarily (as all things are changing). This means that by the time you are able to conceive of such, then process such into a fact-being, it is already gone. POOF. Of course, you really can't come anywhere close to ascertaining the information necessary to come up with your fact, but for most humans, close enough seems to be close enough.

You won't find more than a handful of people who might agree with me, but that's ok. You are extreme only in that you have thought this out to a degree that few have. Most people (as you well know) don't spend a great deal of time thinking deep thoughts). And I do understand that you are attempting to show me the light, and I appreciate it; but that doesn't mean I am going to buy your version of reality. Why would I? Although you believe that you have "figured it out," soon enough both of us will resume our roles as so much dust in the wind.
— synthesis

I prefer to belong to a species with a future in the universe, for then my existence would matter as part of an intergenerational chain - stretching back into the mists of history, via the evolution of life, unto the physics of the universe from which life springs. And stretching forward, into the future - following in the course of truth, to other stars? To other dimensions? Unto God? I don't know. — counterpunch

Well, perhaps you can lower your goals/expectations a bit and just hope for cleaner water or some such thing. When you bring time into the equation, things get much less clear.

What I cannot live with is being a willing member of a species that uses science for its own unscientific ends; a species that destroys its environment to pleasure itself, and so renders itself extinct. Such an existence is meaningless. — counterpunch

So you have decided for everybody else what is meaningful?

So fission and fusion is the end of the energy conversation? Seems unlikely.
— synthesis

Fission and fusion are the beginning and end of the equivalent energy conversation. E=MC2. The equivalence of energy and matter. Fission or fusion; neither of which are the answer to our needs. The answer to our needs is the giant ball of molten rock upon which we stand. And, I think you'll like this - there's something spiritual about humankind intelligently employing the energy of the earth to maintain the balance of life upon its surface. — counterpunch

I have no problem with geothermal but you really can't believe that all forms of energy have been discovered?

Instead, it's very sad - that we decried science as heresy, shamed science to maintain religious, political and economic ideology, denied science any moral authority, even as we used science to drive industries that extract resources without regard to the balance of life. — counterpunch

From where I sit, science IS religion. What exactly doesn't science control at this point?

you mistake words (thinking) for truth. The answers are not written down. Realization is non-intellectual. You know for reasons you will never understand.
— synthesis

I don't claim to know what I don't know. I claim to know what I do. — counterpunch

Well, so does everybody else. Problem is, understanding is dependent on clarity which few possess (and even then it is quite shallow for reasons I have suggested previously).

I don't know anybody who does not take science very seriously (even the devoutly religious). Perhaps it is you who has raised science above the gods, themselves, made mere mortals appears heretical. What you misunderstand is not what I believe, but how I believe it (the nature of its truth or existence).
— synthesis

I claim simply, that truth matters. Religious, political and economic ideologies are not true. Science is true. You claim truth is not possible. You're wrong for the reasons stated. — counterpunch

I didn't say that truth doesn't matter. I just said there are different versions of the truth (aren't you married? :) You only see one truth. I see two. I hold myself to very high ethical and moral standards so it is not like I do not live truth, I just see its ever changing nature. The truth which is knowable changes like everything else. The Absolute Truth does not change because it is not knowable and exists in moments outside of time. Do you understand this?

If your belief system is considerably different than the vast majority, you are going to have to understand that you are flying solo. It's that way for all alternative thinkers. You have to figure out a way to make a difference despite the fact that you are not going to be able to convince anybody that your way is, "The Way" (even if it is!).
— synthesis

My concern is not so much that I will fail, but that I will succeed in inflicting a disenchantment that casts man into a nihilistic, anomic abyss. Your resistance to obvious logical inferences, and truth as a norm frightens me. Your attempt to cast me as some kind of extremist - when it's you who believe things that are not true, does not bode well. You see, I thought it would matter. I thought identifying the problem - which I have, and showing it's possible to secure a better future - would matter. But it doesn't, because you can't admit you're wrong. — counterpunch

You won't find more than a handful of people who might agree with me, but that's ok. You are extreme only in that you have thought this out to a degree that few have. Most people (as you well know) don't spend a great deal of time thinking deep thoughts).

And I do understand that you are attempting to show me the light, and I appreciate it; but that doesn't mean I am going to buy your version of reality. Why would I? Although you believe that you have "figured it out," soon enough both of us will resume our roles as so much dust in the wind.

If you buy what Einstein had to say, E =MCxC, then all matter is energy so this issue should be pretty low on the list of things to worry about. Technology should provide ways to extract energy (from everything) at a very low cost in the not so distant future.
— synthesis

This is incorrect. There are two ways to extract equivalent energy from matter - nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fusion cannot work in earth gravity; at least, not in a way that produces more energy than it consumes. Fission is regular nuclear energy - with all the problems that entails. These are not solutions to our problems. — counterpunch

So fission and fusion is the end of the energy conversation? Seems unlikely.

I get what you're saying but simply believe that your are doing a great deal of assuming. Prognostication is as difficult as it is because 99% of what determines future events has yet to take place. So that's why I tell you to relax. Things will work out like they will for an infinite number of reasons we are simply incapable of understanding. I know you believe that if humanity just does x, then y, then z, everybody lives happily ever after, but I don't see it that way.
— synthesis

Don't pull that "I see what you're saying" bit now - because there's been no indication whatsoever that you do. According to you, EVERYTHING I've said has been wrong. There isn't one instance above, of you acknowledging a single point I've made. Which in itself is disconcerting. Either I'm completely delusional - or your resistance is unreasonable. And if your resistance is unreasonable, here, on a philosophy forum where discussing ideas like truth is our supposed purpose - how will I ever get through to anyone else?

What you don't get is that there's a mechanism; a causal relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. Acting on invalid knowledge, extinction is an inevitability. It's cause and effect. There's no way around it. The organism MUST be correct to reality to survive, and we're wrong. You insist on it! — counterpunch

cp, you mistake words (thinking) for truth. The answers are not written down. Realization is non-intellectual. You know for reasons you will never understand.

And you have to consider that perhaps George Carlin was correct when he speculated that humanity's rason d'etre was to create plastic, that somehow Mother Earth needs plastic! :) Seems a likely as any of the other bizarre reasons people come up with (pick your poison).

The value of this is many-fold of which I am incapable of explaining but what I will tell you is that it enables the practitioner to respond to all kinds of stimuli more accurately
— synthesis

Can you experience stimuli that weren't previously even entering into consciousness after you become a proficient meditator, or is it merely controlling your focus within the same cognitive context? Does awareness "expand" somehow? Can a Zen guru for instance induce hallucinations in a new, very specific way and then control them? — Enrique

These would be questions best posed to a teacher, but...

Please understand that Zen is nothing special. The student is cultivating awareness and it is this clarity which allows for insight/wisdom. Meditation expands the students awareness (which is simply every day life and nothing more). I have heard stories of meditators who have developed usual "skills" but I can not speak to them.

As a student of Soto (Japanese) Zen going back to Dogen in the 13th century, he saw enlightenment as simply the ability to see things clearly, nothing more.

The moment after Reality is perception-altered but before our critical thinking begins would seem to be the closest we can get to actual Reality. Although it has already become our personal reality (due to processing by our senses), it's must be considerably purer than what happens once the full monte of our intellect transforms it into some convoluted dystopia.
— synthesis

I think it varies more widely between humans than most will admit, and maybe that's why we're so reluctant to get into the details. Deep, honest introspection gives a lot away, though it will probably be key for empowering disciplines such as neuroscience to truly progress rather than merely exploit.

So tell us in the most neutral, noncontroversial way possible, what is the mental content that presents itself to your mind, as a practiced meditator, before performing a cognitive act with resemblance to reasoned decision making or relatively intellectual problem solving? — Enrique

I can only relate my own meditation experience (please keep in mind that I am not a Zen teacher and there are many types of meditation). In Zen, the object is to keep a clear mind. The beginning student is often confronted by a whirlwind of thoughts that arise during meditation. As s/he becomes more "accomplished," these thoughts begin to attenuate (the ideal being a completely quiet mind), allowing thoughts to come and go, without attachment.

A small percentage of students get to the point where their minds are very, very quiet or even still. I believe this is what you refer to in your question, that is, what is happening in the quiet mind? Here's the idea...

If you are able to perceive without allowing your critical thinking to kick-in, then you are seeing the truth as close as is possible, that is, your mind has not intellectually altered what you perceive. The value of this is many-fold of which I am incapable of explaining but what I will tell you is that it enables the practitioner to respond to all kinds of stimuli more accurately. This is the enormous benefit of mindfulness.

Here is a great example used by a wonderful Zen master who still teaches. (I'll paraphrase) He likens Life (or reality) to a train we are riding while staring out of the windows watching the world go by. As long as we keep watching, everything is fine, things come and things go, things come and things go. All of a sudden, we see something that we really like (maybe a very beautiful person, a wonderful idea, or perhaps something equally horrible) and we jump off the train. We have now attached to this person/idea as the train (reality) continues heading on down the track. The fact that we have created our own reality that is different from actual reality is what causes the suffering (as eventually the real reality comes crashing down on our heads).

So let's say I am with a patient and they are telling me their history. If I can keep a clear mind andreally hear what they are telling me (instead of my mind going a million miles an hour trying to figure everything out before they are able to finish), then I can apply my knowledge/experience to best help this patient.

Most people alter all perceptual stimuli in real time. They really never perceive without immediate intellectual alteration. The little voice in their minds never stops.

Have I been able to answer your question?

I do claim to know what I'm talking about with regard to this topic. I've been concerned with the question of the continued survival of the human species for a very long time, and have identified the causes of the threat we face - and what's necessary to address it. In short, our problem is that we have not recognised science as the ability to establish valid knowledge. We have used science as a tool, but our purposes are ideological, not scientific. We rejected science as truth in defence of primitive ideologies while science gave machine guns to monkeys! That can't end well. We need to recognise science as truth and act accordingly to survive. The 'you and I' of this, are irrelevant to me. I care as much about blowing my own horn as I do about hurting your feelings. There's so much more at stake. — counterpunch

I don't know anybody who does not take science very seriously (even the devoutly religious). Perhaps it is you who has raised science above the gods, themselves, made mere mortals appears heretical. What you misunderstand is not what I believe, but how I believe it (the nature of its truth or existence).

If your belief system is considerably different than the vast majority, you are going to have to understand that you are flying solo. It's that way for all alternative thinkers. You have to figure out a way to make a difference despite the fact that you are not going to be able to convince anybody that your way is, "The Way" (even if it is!).

I realize that you feel as if this is a prescient moment in the history of mankind on this planet (and maybe it is), but chances are that things are going to keep on going on. I think it's great that you are trying to help out in your way, but what I would say to you is chat with a bunch of older folks that have been around a lot longer than you and see what they think (and why). Although things are pretty screwed-up at the moment, the sky is not falling, so relax a little bit. The world needs calm, not more hysterics.
— synthesis

The window of opportunity to address the climate and ecological crisis we face is closing fast. We seem to see progress on the issue, but sadly, Biden's approach is misconceived. It's an approach informed by left wing environmentalist - limits to growth theory, in turn informed by Malthus Essay on Population. Malthus was wrong. 200 years and 8 billion people better fed than ever before prove Malthus was wrong. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Yet Biden is about to spend $2 trillion on windmills and solar panels, that will not meet US demand for energy, less yet the rest of the world, that will barely take the edge off carbon emissions, and that will last 25 years - and then burn out, burying us in tech scrap.

Because the energy from wind and solar will be insufficient, it will be expensive, and because it won't reduce carbon emission sufficiently, it will be necessary to reduce demand in other ways - by imposing taxes on food, energy, travel and so on. It will require increasingly authoritative governments to impose unequal burdens on society, and in the world - burdens that hardly touch the rich, who spend a relatively small proportion of their incomes on food, energy, travel, but that really hurt the poor - and seriously damage poorer countries. Poor people breed more, and so there will be ever less resources spread between more and more people by ever more dictatorial government. So yes, this is a prescient moment. — counterpunch

If you buy what Einstein had to say, E =MCxC, then all matter is energy so this issue should be pretty low on the list of things to worry about. Technology should provide ways to extract energy (from everything) at a very low cost in the not so distant future.

cp, I get what you're saying but simply believe that your are doing a great deal of assuming. Prognostication is as difficult as it is because 99% of what determines future events has yet to take place. So that's why I tell you to relax. Things will work out like they will for an infinite number of reasons we are simply incapable of understanding. I know you believe that if humanity just does x, then y, then z, everybody lives happily ever after, but I don't see it that way.

You do the best you can to get your own act together after which you try to help others. What else can one do in this world (that was rhetorical :)?

Above all, when, as ↪synthesis correctly points out, the fuel for the future rise of inflation has already been spread earlier, people cannot understand the link. Then when it actually happens, the link to earlier actions is hazy as the economy is so complex, that likely isn't understood. — ssu

Despite the trillions in reserves, I believe this is going to continue to be a deflationary depression-like event (excepting asset prices) for all the reasons of which you must be familiar, i.e., bountiful cheap labor (produced by expanding labor markets and exploding industrial technology) keeping labor-induced commodity price inflation at bay (or negative in real terms) for the foreseeable future.

By becoming insufferable, dishonest, sidestepping, condescending apologists who are too "enlightened" to ever experience a genuine human moment? You're not the first practitioner of Zen I've encountered, so don't imagine this is directed solely at you - but what comes across is weird and creepy, like they have something to hide. — counterpunch

So far, you have established that you are an expert in both Zen practice and medicine. I. OTOH, who have practiced Zen over three decades and medicine over four decades claim to know very little. What does this tell you?

cp, first you might want to try and really understand where I am coming from before you assume you know anything about me. I've found that most people are actual pretty darn nice regardless of their philosophy or politics. After all, most are just trying to get by the best they can.
— synthesis

I'm pretty damn nice too, but sometimes you've got to break things before they can be whole. That was far too Zen like for my liking, but it's true! So, what about it? — counterpunch

That's not Zen at all, but that's another story (it's barely what might be referred to as popular Zen). You have a lot of anger which is expected from someone who believes they know just about everything and confronts a world where (he believes that) nobody else seems to know much of anything.

Do you really imagine the bacterial theory of disease, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, evolution etc - are going to be overturned?
— counterpunch

would [you] walk humankind into an avoidable climate and ecological crisis and say to your children - sink or swim, because you think humankind will be better for it?
— counterpunch

Let me answer your question, honestly:

Do you believe that people 200 years ago could have imagined what is thought to be true today? What do you believe it will be like 200 years from now? 500 years from now? 10,000 years from now?
— synthesis

200 years ago - people couldn't have imagined an aeroplane. It is not honest to base your argument in the actual ignorance of ages past - and use the advance of knowledge over time, to imply that we still don't know anything. The aeroplane flying overhead is not flying on faith. It's science. A quick glance around your living room, at the electric lights, the TV, the telephone, the computer, the internet connection - should be sufficient evidence to prove we do know things. — counterpunch

cp, do you think it is a possibility that you just don't get what I am talking about?

Nonetheless, 200 years from now humankind may be extinct - because we have used science as a tool, and not acknowledged science as the means to establish valid knowledge of reality. 500 years from now, still extinct. 10,000 years from now, still extinct. This is our one shot to establish humankind as a long term presence in the universe, and recognizing the truth value of science is our best bet - so why are you crapping on it? — counterpunch

I realize that you feel as if this is a prescient moment in the history of mankind on this planet (and maybe it is), but chances are that things are going to keep on going on. I think it's great that you are trying to help out in your way, but what I would say to you is chat with a bunch of older folks that have been around a lot longer than you and see what they think (and why). Although things are pretty screwed-up at the moment, the sky is not falling, so relax a little bit. The world needs calm, not more hysterics.

And after a storm, the sun shines again... — ssu

...the 11th year.

What most people fail to realize is that the crisis (the lying, cheating, and stealing that has defined the past 50 years) has already taken place. What has been on-going coincidentally for the past 20 years is the reaction to the crisis which has a ways to go (ten years?).

In science, we can say we know x within the parameters of hypothesis, experiment and observation. It's not a claim to absolute knowledge. Its logical form is akin to "if y then x" - and any decent scientist knows this. You say you're a scientist, but also a student of Zen, and you're on a philosophy forum. I think you're confusing senses of the word 'know' and arguing inappropriately. In practice, there must be a great many things you know - and rely on knowing in your work. Not in an absolute manner, but with regard to the contingent nature of the theoretical underpinnings of the facts in question. Come on, be honest - this Zen act is wearing thin. — counterpunch

Trying to explain Zen to somebody is like attempting to explain Love to somebody who has never experienced it. I apologize for doing a poor job.

I am actually a physician and I deal with very serious health issues. Although I understand the science of my specialty, the most important part of my understanding is what I cannot understand, that is, there is very little known about how the body actually works, so even what is "known," is not known well. But (again), even this knowledge is changing, changing, changing all the time.

Zen act? There are very few people who delve deeply into Zen (it is a very arduous practice), but those who do are well-compensated.

All the rest is BS. Remember, people have lived for a long time and they made due with all kinds of explanations that were just as bizarre as the ones we spout today. All knowledge changes constantly. Nothing that is thought to be true today will be thought to be true tomorrow (literally, as some part of it [no matter how minuscule] has changed).
— synthesis

Why are you doing this? You cannot believe that. Do you really imagine the bacterial theory of disease, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, evolution etc - are going to be overturned? Who's interest do you think you're serving with such nonsense? Is it a religious thing? Is it a post modernist thing? Wanna fit in with the cool kids?

Do you believe that people 200 years ago could have imagined what is thought to be true today? What do you believe it will be like 200 years from now? 500 years from now? 10,000 years from now?
— counterpunch

What is knowable to our intellect is fluid, so those who excel at life have figured out how to go with the change (and thrive because of it). Those who attach to this, that , and the other thing, suffer.
— synthesis

So you would walk humankind into an avoidable climate and ecological crisis and say to your children - sink or swim, because you think humankind will be better for it? That's convenient for you. I bet that takes a load off. And all you have to do is close your eyes and pretend its not happening because nothing is true - and everything else is BS. Seems less Zen and more - me first, and devil take the hindmost! Is that it? Are you a self serving greedy bastard, hiding your irresponsibility and savage appetites behind a thin layer of eastern mysticism? — counterpunch

cp, first you might want to try and really understand where I am coming from before you assume you know anything about me. I've found that most people are actual pretty darn nice regardless of their philosophy or politics. After all, most are just trying to get by the best they can.

What I've learned is that this situation where we find us is a very complex one: QE and other forms of money printing haven't caused hyperinflation, but on the other hand the money hasn't gone into the real economy. — ssu

When things get this ugly, the trick is to become as independent as you can by simplifying your life economically and otherwise. If possible, tune it out for about ten years and do things that create contentment in your life (while everybody else is going to be running around like their hair's on fire!).

No need to suffer more than need be for other people's avarice and stupidity.

What a mental midget. This guy should be on the Mt. Rushmore of complete and total dirt-bags.

How do you know? I thought 'we' had no access? If it's unknowable, how do you know its unchangeable? — counterpunch

Now we have arrived at the heart of the matter. "How do you know?"

I don't know. But then again, I don't have to know. What you do know (getting back to the original point of this thread), you know before your critical thinking kicks-in so that's all you need to know.

All the rest is BS. Remember, people have lived for a long time and they made due with all kinds of explanations that were just as bizarre as the ones we spout today. All knowledge changes constantly. Nothing that is thought to be true today will be thought to be true tomorrow (literally, as some part of it [no matter how minuscule] has changed).

What is knowable to our intellect is fluid, so those who excel at life have figured out how to go with the change (and thrive because of it). Those who attach to this, that , and the other thing, suffer.

It would be difficult to imagine that there is an activity more over-rated that thinking.

Why does the word "reality" need a modifier like "absolute"? — Tres Bien

There are two types, Reality and reality.

Why can't reality be simply "all that exists"?

Then you are leaving out that which does not "exist."
— Tres Bien

Why can't personal reality simply be an interpretation of reality?

It is.
— Tres Bien

Why must we muddy a stream that when left alone runs clear and clean?

I'll let you answer that.
— Tres Bien

I was curious because you expressed something about reality being perception-altered. So, I still don't have a clear story of what you were trying to communicate. No worries. — Tres Bien

If we can agree ( for this conversation), Reality is things just as they truly are. The problem is that we have no access this Reality for all kinds of reasons you might be familiar with...such as the idea that we cannot access the present (perception time-lag among other things).

So if Reality is things as they truly are, what happens when we use our sense of sight? How close to Reality Is the image created in our visual cortex? Who knows, but we must assume that the processing creates a fair degree of alteration, Reality being transformed into our personal reality because who knows how different one observer's image is from another? Is your appreciation of a 542nm light wave the same as everybody else's? Seems unlikely.

So this is often referred to as relative reality, i.e., relative to what ever is changing it (essentially everything) and it changes constantly as do all things perceptual/intellectual.

Absolute Reality is that which is unknowable and is unchanging, e.g., Truth and God. It is that which we have no access intellectually but we can be in it's presence. This is quite different than the everyday reality we use to conduct the business of our lives.

I'm a philosopher; truth matters, and if you can't handle the truth - it's you that's alienating me. The normative value is with me here. Your attack on truth in the OP is why I responded to you - you need to stop that. Reality is NOT subjectively constructed, functional truth is possible - and it's important to the continued survival of humankind. — counterpunch

Let me help you out a bit. I consider myself a philosophical anarchist (neither right nor left) and, as well, have been a dedicated Zen student for over 30 years.

Politically, I view the struggle between liberal and conservative as one where the former desires change (which is essential) whereas the latter seeks to preserve what still works (most for themselves but there's nothing wrong with that).

The truth of the political matter is in finding the proper balance between these forces. Nothing works politically in the West anymore (especially here in the U.S.) because both sides have become radicalized (particularly the left). This will work itself out in time although it might get quite ugly.

The Zen side of me is where you are having difficulties. You have to understand the relative and The Absolute from this perspective. You are an objective reality kind of guy but I ask you, what is objective reality when we can only perceive subjectively? Not only that, we can't get anywhere close to any kind of reality for all kinds of reasons paramount among them being that we have no access to the present.

What is referred to as Absolute Reality is that which is unknowable and unchangeable, e.g., Truth, God, Love, etc. These are things that can be sensed or perhaps felt inside but can never be subjected to empiricism.

As mentioned, I understand science and use it professionally every day. I will always maintain that science is simply a tool that points the way to the truth of the matter but can never be the truth itself (as truth only exists moment to moment to which we lack access).

I see two types of reality. The first is Absolute Reality, unknowable intellectually, unchangeable, existent outside of time. The other is our personal reality, knowable [although barely] and constantly changing moment after moment.

Well then, that's where we differ. I see humankind as only the second qualitative addition to the universe in 15 billion years. We start with about 10 billion years of floating rocks, before life occurred, and in the last few thousand years, human intelligence - able to look back at reality, and experience it. I think that's special - and something that needs to play out. — counterpunch

Nothing wrong with that. So many people have no idea what to believe in. You might want to balance that burden with something a bit lighter...nearly any distraction will do. :)

I think we have a duty to exist - a duty to our ability to know. If we are not intending to survive, then everything is absolutely trivial. In the absence of truth, human existence is just a nihilistic wank into the sports sock of oblivion - as opposed to a loving consummation for the purposes of reproduction. — counterpunch

Like I said above, good for you. Please keep in mind that there are many paths on which people have been able live wonderful lives. Not everybody can be the Captain of Star ship Earth! (I say this with admiration for your tenacity).

People are incredibly diverse in every way. The biggest mistake we can make is to assume that our personal truth is The Truth, the quickest way to alienate others is in implementing this assumption by attempting to impose your reality on others. Let people find their way in their own time.

In the meantime, enjoy the conversations! There are a lot of really nice people out there even if they don't quite agree with your assessment of things.

Tell me more about this.
— synthesis

Okay, but let us go back to your OP. You say:

The moment after Reality is perception-altered but before our critical thinking begins would seem to be the closest we can get to actual Reality. Although it has already become our personal reality (due to processing by our senses), it's must be considerably purer than what happens once the full monte of our intellect transforms it into some convoluted dystopia.
— synthesis

The natural implication from this is the impossibility of anything we can reasonably call truth. That's something various people want for political purposes - religious people, the politically correct/subjectivist left, the capitalist right. Truth is beset on all sides. But to my mind, science now constitutes a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we occupy - and that matters! — counterpunch

There is moral relativism (to which you refer) and just plain ole relative (to which I refer). You cannot deny that things are relative. And although all things knowable are relative (how can they be otherwise), this doesn't mean that within the context of social relationships, there is not moral correctness. The Left is what it is...so consumed with change that they must destroy everything they touch.

I agree that it is the middle where the truth of the political resides.

It doesn't matter how the universe began, or if matter is composed of tiny strings. That's racing off to the absolutes to deny the truth value of things we can reasonably know enough about to know - and that matters to our continued existence. — counterpunch

You seem to be quite worried about our existence. Why? Are you long humanity?

Your facts and your causality and all the rest are here today and gone tomorrow. Consider transcending such a mundane way of looking at things and see them as being fluid.
— synthesis

Oh, go drown yourself! What kind of fucking nonsense is that. Try that shit in traffic court - when you run a red light. Well your honour, subjectively - it was perceived as green! — counterpunch

You don't understand. In order to transcend the mundane, you must learn to go back and forth between the relative and The Absolute. You and your ideals live in The Absolute while you transact business in the relative. The red light is still red when it needs to be. Otherwise, all possibilities exist.

cp, relax. Why all the hostility?
— synthesis

Because you're the one who gets to come over as reasonable - and I'm ranting and raving, but I'm right, and you are very, very wrong on something that really matters. — counterpunch

My friend, you want to be right, you will be alone. You live "right" in the world (of knowledge), you live neither right nor wrong in your own space.

Think about it this way. There are two different ways to consider things, one knowledge-based that is constantly changing due to the idea that all things knowable are changing, the other being Absolute in nature, unchanging but unknowable (intellectually).
— synthesis

No. That's a false dichotomy. In fact; ceteris paribus, knowledge proceeds from "less and worse" toward "more and better" over time. We now know more things with more certainty than we ever have done before. We are threatened with extinction because of people like you, who would undermine truth for political advantage. It needs to stop. We need to act on the basis of what's true or our species is going to die, horribly! — counterpunch

Everything comes and goes. Again, why are you so concerned with the longevity of our species? I've always seen our species as a pesky surface nuisance that the planet will deal with in its own time.

It's a short ride, so try to enjoy your life and not be so concerned about everybody else.

Evolution doesn't explain a lot of things and the senses are very poorly understood (if at all).
— synthesis

Ah. It's all coming back to me. Haven't we done this before? Me, killing myself to explain - and you steadfastly refusing to understand, and yet responding - nonetheless. You could just not respond y'know! — counterpunch

Yeah, I think we have, but I do understand. And I am responding but it's not what you wish to hear.

cp, you're a smart guy, so I could argue with you 'til the cows come home and for what? If you understand how thinking works, then you can win any argument. That's no fun.

"Everything is wrong, so I can definitely agree with you there. Even if you possessed the skills necessary to be right (which nobody has), you would only be right one moment (and then everything changes).
— synthesis

Well, you are for sure! And subjectivists generally. You must understand that recognising science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality; recognising that facts have a causal and functional truth value is important to the continued survival of the human species. — "counterpunch

Look at all of the assuming you are doing. You are talking in relative terms, if A, then B, therefore, A+1 does not equal B, so on and so forth. We have spoken about science before and I told you that I use science every day in my profession but that doesn't mean I see it as anything but a rudimentary tool.

Your facts and your causality and all the rest are here today and gone tomorrow. Consider transcending such a mundane way of looking at things and see them as being fluid.

"Objective reality explaining this is analogous to guaranteeing the completion of a 70 yard hail Mary pass on the last play of a football game.
— synthesis

I thought you were just stupid. But turns out you're kind of a dick! Some sort of lefty, subjectivist, dumb act - that in fact is a piss take. You're mocking me. But I'm serious; humankind's relationship to science is mistaken, and that's why we're in trouble. We use science, but don't observe a scientific understanding of reality. We apply the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons - because what we believe is wrong. Well, what you believe is wrong! — "counterpunch

cp, relax. Why all the hostility? You have no clue what I am about because you refuse to listen to what I am telling you. Instead, you have already figured it out ahead of time. And what is it that you think I believe?

"Think about what life would be like if man really understood what was going on!
— synthesis

I don't claim to know what's really going on. I mean, is Australia still on fire? Or has it burst into flames again? You don't want to help develop a rationale that would allow for the application of technology on the basis of scientific merit - rather than primarily for profit, okay! Who am I to puncture your happy, clappy bubble of epistemic relativism? But you could at least have the decency not to waste my time! — "counterpunch

cp, you're one of the more interesting folks here, but you need to calm down.

Think about it this way. There are two different ways to consider things, one knowledge-based that is constantly changing due to the idea that all things knowable are changing, the other being Absolute in nature, unchanging but unknowable (intellectually).

We use science, but don't observe a scientific understanding of reality. We apply the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons - because what we believe is wrong. — "counterpunch

Tell me more about this.

There's an equal amount of good and bad in everything.

First impressions are no less biased than later impressions , in fact they are more so. With regard to understanding and getting along with others, relying on first impressions is often disastrous. — Joshs

Perhaps this is just your experience.

It makes a great deal of sense to me that what you can know happens before your critical thinking engages because what is spit out after "processing" suffers from layer after layer of faulty analysis, no fault of the person doing the computations, just a comment on our inability to access reality.

"Getting to the truth about other people takes work and is a never-ending process. — "Joshs

You could spend the next sixteen billion eons attempting to understand the simplest of things and could never come close because it is what it is because of an infinite numbers of events leading up to it.

Imagine trying to understand another person! This is perhaps the great of all human folly.

What kind of personal privileges?

It would seem to me that most "overt" prejudice is ignorance or fear.

We all suffer from ignorance to a great degree but it is fear that seems to cause people to become poor actors. Whether it is losing a job or losing one's culture, these fears are ligit and simply part of what makes us human.

I think it's pretty normal and natural to feel threatened by (whatever) as this provides motivation to do what needs to be done (to overcome and move-on). It's those who fail to do what is needed who continue to feel threatened and end up projecting their feelings of inadequacy on others (taking all kinds of forms).

Please excuse my torpor as I have not read every post but I believe you must make the distinction between pre-judging and judging.

Pre-judging would seem to be a very normal process employed in order to assess a person/situation. Nothing wrong with that as one should not assume mal-intention.

Judging, OTOH, is the process of assuming you understand enough about another person or situation so that you can render an opinion. For this error, one should burn in Hell for the rest of time (which is exactly what happens).

Absolutely. Watching your thoughts come and go is a critical learning process.

In the meditation process itself, the historical Buddha chose sitting meditation for his disciples because sitting creates pain and the studying (observing) the nature of pain is paramount to the understanding of the 'self.'

The subject of the OP doesn't seem to have anything to do with any of that. — Kenosha Kid

Sure it does. That moment between what you sense as reality (Reality altered by you senses) and when your critical thinking engages (your mind begins to alter what you have sensed) is the crux of the matter. This is where what you can know happens. It's why your first impression is so often the correct one (depending on how focused you happen to be).

It's before thinking. It's seeing things as they truly are (albeit sense-altered) which is what you want for all kinds of reasons, perhaps the most important being so you can respond appropriately. This is an aspect of meditation that is a total bonus as it is a "portal" to this level of being.

What I found most comforting about meditation practice (and I came to it from a very serious foray into philosophy that left me completely burned-out) is that there is nothing to figure-out. Once you understand that doing it is all it is, you can take that 500# weight off your shoulders and relax a bit.

Everything you can know happens in that moment just before your critical thinking kicks-in. This is why it is so important to remain completely present and not get lost in rehashing the past or fantasizing about the future.

I disagree with all that. The senses are crafted by evolution in relation to reality, and must convey an accurate picture of reality - else the organism would die out. — counterpunch

Evolution doesn't explain a lot of things and the senses are very poorly understood (if at all).

The subjective nature of perception and apperception is wildly exaggerated in order to support subjectivist philosophy; favoured over objectivism since Galileo, because an objective reality had troubling implications for the Church. The Church arrested Galileo, and tried him for heresy - while his contemporary, Descartes became pet philosopher in the court of Queen Christina of Sweden.

A Cartesian, subjectivist bias can be identified through hundreds of years of Western philosophy, to the modern day. Now, it's the left that are heavily into promoting subjectivism; in support of postmodern moral and epistemic relativism.But it's wrong. — counterpunch

Everything is wrong, so I can definitely agree with you there. Even if you possessed the skills necessary to be right (which nobody has), you would only be right one moment (and then everything changes).

The organism is evolved in relation to reality and has to be right to survive. We cross the road together, look in a shop window together, see some TV's, and laugh at the same time when someone gets hit with a custard pie. Our perceptions are the same, and our psychological understandings are fundamentally similar because they are true to an objective reality. If they weren't, we could not survive! — counterpunch

Objective reality explaining this is analogous to guaranteeing the completion of a 70 yard hail Mary pass on the last play of a football game.

Think about what life would be like if man really understood what was going on!

The great thing about Zen (meditation) is that it refuses to be anything but experiential. Since I am not a teacher, I do not really feel qualified to chat about it other than saying that it is truly life-altering for those to whom it takes.

Although Zen requires a major commitment, there are many types of meditation that are practiced by hundreds of millions worldwide. The power gained when realizing that body and mind are one and the same is alone worth the price of admission!

So the 'portal' to profound an exotic experience is going to be a doorway to richly interpreted and subjectively mediated experience. — Joshs

Very interesting. I try not to get too caught up in intellectual particulars because they come and go like everything else.

I was using portal in a generic sense as different types of meditation have differing goals (or none at all).

And what actually happens during (real) meditation is unknowable (just like everything else :).

Mediators concentrate on this moment and often find it to be a portal to another place altogether.
— synthesis

I think it's a portal to Naive Realism. — Joshs

I am not sure what you mean by that.

It is what it is. Many people have little interest or experience "non-thinking."

I've been a dedicated Zen student for the past 30+ years, so meditation is a subject with which I am quite familiar. There are several types of meditation practiced, but generally speaking, when most people think meditation, they are attempting to clear their minds (via the various teaching methods).

The interesting thing about meditation is that it is purely experiential (as is everything real).

All things knowable are in constant flux because what makes up all things knowable are in constant flux...
— synthesis

But we are able, at least sometimes, to predict change, and the effect the changes will cause. Weather is a good example. It’s constantly changing, but we are sometimes able to predict accurately whether or not it will snow, for example. — Pinprick

A long time ago people thought all kinds of crazy things and made it work. The things we believe today will be just as crazy to the folks in the future.

It's always been my impression that what we can know happens before our intellect kicks-in. We just know like a bird or wolf or termite just knows. It is our intellect that mostly distorts this knowing into all kinds of gibberish.

I would bet that we are well down on the list of animals in terms of weather predicting skills, don't you think?

I am not sure how you are imagining the discussion to proceed... — Jack Cummins

Considering the issues involved, thinking is an incredibly over-rated (albeit necessary) activity. But since this is where our 'self' hangs, it's pretty much non-stop fun and games.

I was curious as to whether there were people (other than those who meditate) out there who had given this any thought.

Jack, what other reality do you refer to?

If you mean Absolute Truth, then I would say these do exist but are not intellectually accessible.
— synthesis

How are you so sure of this? — Pinprick

How is anybody sure of anything? And why would you want to be?

Intellectually, you can have near-truths (like it is immoral to kill another) but most truths are reasonably personal and change constantly.
— synthesis

Is this itself a truth? What is personal about knowing getting kicked causes pain, or that when a ball is dropped it falls? Opinions are personal, but facts aren’t. — Pinprick

Facts are relative to a specific set of circumstances that can only occur one time, so is it really a fact?

Is it always painful when you get kicked? What does the ball do if you drop it out in deep space?