diving back into one of my favorite mind-blowing articles... for anyone interested, heres an excerpt: Conceiving of experience as being Experiencer independent is not unreasonable, given the way in which physical experience presents itself to us. However, no matter how much it seems that experience is Experiencer independent, no matter how much it seems that things exist as they are experienced to exist even in the absence of their being experienced as such, no matter how much it seems that what we experience as physical reality is what is actually there, none of this is the case. In the same way, at one time it was not unreasonable to conceive of the earth as being flat, because from a limited perspective that is how the earth presented itself or appeared, and we know how that turned out. Likewise, idea of experience as being Experiencer independent is the flat earth idea of our time, because even though there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary in the form of the phenomena of wave-particle duality, quantum uncertainty, and quantum non-locality, that evidence goes both unnoticed and is misinterpreted, i.e., is both hidden and disguised, because it does not fit into the presently held conceptual framework of experience as being Experiencer independent, which framework is derived from what appears or seems to be the case with regard to gross physical experience. Because the seeming Experiencer independence of experience derives from its nature as both the product of a relation, as well as the product of a perspective within that relation, it was necessary to first explain why experience is actually Experiencer dependent in order to now be able to explain why experience seems to be Experiencer independent. Put another way, it is the actual Experiencer dependent nature of experience that is the basis of its seeming Experiencer independence. Specifically, the reason experience seems Experiencer independent is because consistent Existential relations occurring at different times for the same Individual, or at the same time for different Individuals, create consistent relative existences that are then apprehended by the Individual or Individuals from consistent perspectives as consistent and seemingly identical experiences, thereby creating the illusion that what we experience as physical reality exists as that, i.e., as a physical reality, whether we are experiencing it or not. That is, it is the consistency and seeming identicalness of experience occurring at different times for the same Individual that allows us to extrapolate between experiences and imagine there to be an existent experience where there actually is none. For example, every time you walk into a room you see what appears to be the same chair. You see, i.e., visually experience, what appears to be the same chair, not because it actually is the same experience, but because the Underlying Actualities or Relational Structures composed of Existence that are involved in the relation, i.e., the Experiencer and Experienced Realities, are in essentially the same configuration and relation to each other as they were before, and therefore the relation between them produces a nearly identical relative existence, which is then apprehended by the Individual from the same general perspective within that relation as what seems to be the same experience, when in actuality it is a new and unique experience created by the Existential relation that is happening now, in the present moment. It may seem or appear to be the same experience, but that is an illusion, as the prior experience was the result of a relation that was occurring in a prior moment. In the same way, one may jump repeatedly off the same dock into what they consider to be the same river, but the river into which they jump now is different than the river into which they jumped before, because the river, like the Existence that underlies experience, is flowing. For this reason, no two Existential relations in any two moments are, for a single Individual, ever truly identical, and so no two experiences, which are the products of those two relations, can themselves ever be truly identical. What creates the illusion of our having the same experience is our ability to imagine that the experience was there the whole time, even when we were not experiencing it, i.e., even when we were not involved in the relation that was creating it as an experience. For example, if you stand in front of a mirror and view your reflection and then step away, you do not consider the mirror to still contain your reflection once you have stepped away, because you understand that the reflection is the product of a relation between yourself and the mirror, and so you do not imagine the reflection to still be there once the relation that creates it is no longer operant. And so when you step in front of the mirror again and create another reflection, even though the reflections may seem identical, you recognize this as a new and different reflection, because you understand that in the moment before there was no reflection. On the other hand, because people do not generally recognize experience as being the product of a relation, they imagine that the experience is still there even when the relation that creates the experience is no longer operant, and so when they create, in a later or subsequent now, in a different moment, a very similar and seemingly identical experience, they are able to create the illusion for themselves that it is the same experience because they imagine a continuity of experience between the experience then and now that does not actually exist. - Kaufman
Posted on: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:53:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015