The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

April 23, 2004

> P:Yes, affectively or cognitatively apperception is perception w/o

> the division of subject/object. But that is happening in a brain

and

> in time. Ram Das probably never thought much of his brain until he

> had the stroke.

'Nondivision of subject/object' got divided when Ram Das

had a stroke?

You're kidding, right?

If someone can't talk about subject and object not

being divided, then they're divided?

I dun' thin' so.

Pete -- dig this: What never can be divided, has never been divided.

Period.

How could it depend on a brain?

You think the brain got divided from everything else,

so it could have things happen in it, that show

that nothing is divided?

I've got nothing against brains, I think they're cool,

and necessary for human life.

But brains begin and end.

What doesn't begin and end, doesn't take place

in a brain.

Nor can it happen more in one brain, and less in another

brain.

Organized thinking -- yes, that can happen more in one

brain and less in another.

-- Dan

April 24, 2004

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > P:Yes, affectively or cognitatively apperception is perception

w/o

> > the division of subject/object. But that is happening in a brain

> and

> > in time. Ram Das probably never thought much of his brain until

he

> > had the stroke.

>

> 'Nondivision of subject/object' got divided when Ram Das

> had a stroke?

>

> You're kidding, right?

>

> If someone can't talk about subject and object not

> being divided, then they're divided?

>

> I dun' thin' so.

>

> Pete -- dig this: What never can be divided, has never been

divided.

>

> Period.

>

> How could it depend on a brain?

>

> You think the brain got divided from everything else,

> so it could have things happen in it, that show

> that nothing is divided?

>

> I've got nothing against brains, I think they're cool,

> and necessary for human life.

>

> But brains begin and end.

>

> What doesn't begin and end, doesn't take place

> in a brain.

>

> Nor can it happen more in one brain, and less in another

> brain.

>

> Organized thinking -- yes, that can happen more in one

> brain and less in another.

>

> -- Dan

P: The inmutable unknown doesn't depend on the brain, but that

is not aware of itself, except as a brain ( or similar brain like

devise, if those exist somewhere else) so any apperception, any

consciousness, any awareness, any intimation of that

happens in a brain. You, the brain, will never know, what it's not to

be a brain. And you, the brain, can invent all kinds of concepts to

kid yourself, that you know something other than yourself, but is

only a game.

The rain in Spain falls only on your brain,

and to me it's plain,

your brain got run over by a train. Just kidding.

Pete

April 25, 2004

> P: The inmutable unknown doesn't depend on the brain, but that

> is not aware of itself, except as a brain ( or similar brain like

> devise, if those exist somewhere else) so any apperception, any

> consciousness, any awareness, any intimation of that

> happens in a brain.

D: What cannot be aware of itself, isn't aware of itself.

No exceptions.

P: You, the brain, will never know, what it's not to

> be a brain.

D: You seem to think this brain-knowledge is something special,

a special case, but in terms of conditonality --

it's phenomena, conditions, just

like other phenomena and conditions.

P: And you, the brain, can invent all kinds of concepts to

> kid yourself, that you know something other than yourself, but is

> only a game.

D: It's just as much of a game to claim that you know yourself

by and through a brain,

just another invented concept, and to say that it's the

brain that's doing the inventing is just part of

that particular game.

There is a convergence of phenomena and conditions that

result in the brain which results in the concepts.

So, it's not the brain that knows anything or

produces anything, the brain

is just a process emerging from a convergence of

processes (including rain, air, single-celled creatures,

genetics, your parents having sex, food and shelter

being available, etc.).

P: The rain in Spain falls only on your brain,

> and to me it's plain,

> your brain got run over by a train. Just kidding.

D: All kinds of things can happen to a brain. That's why

it's conditional and subject to conditions. Just like

the plain, the rain, the trees, and the fleas.

-- Dan

April 25, 2004

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > P: The inmutable unknown doesn't depend on the brain, but that

> > is not aware of itself, except as a brain ( or similar brain like

> > devise, if those exist somewhere else) so any apperception, any

> > consciousness, any awareness, any intimation of that

> > happens in a brain.

>

> D: What cannot be aware of itself, isn't aware of itself.

> No exceptions.

Ah, ah! No sleight of hands. I didn't write 'can't,' you interjected

that. I wrote, isn't aware of itself except as a brain. Self-

consciousness comes and goes every day for every brain.

> P: You, the brain, will never know, what it's not to

> > be a brain.

>

> D: You seem to think this brain-knowledge is something special,

> a special case, but in terms of conditonality --

> it's phenomena, conditions, just

> like other phenomena and conditions.

P: Brain knowledge is not special knowledge, it's All KNOWLEDGE.

There is no knowledge without a brain.

>

> P: And you, the brain, can invent all kinds of concepts to

> > kid yourself, that you know something other than yourself, but is

> > only a game.

>

> D: It's just as much of a game to claim that you know yourself

> by and through a brain,

> just another invented concept, and to say that it's the

> brain that's doing the inventing is just part of

> that particular game.

>

> There is a convergence of phenomena and conditions that

> result in the brain which results in the concepts.

> So, it's not the brain that knows anything or

> produces anything, the brain

> is just a process emerging from a convergence of

> processes (including rain, air, single-celled creatures,

> genetics, your parents having sex, food and shelter

> being available, etc.).

P: But it only becomes knowledge in a brain.

I suggest we could continue this discussion a la Monty Pyton.

P: It's the brain!

D: No it isn't!

P: Yes it's.

D: No it isn't.

P: Sure it is.

D: What never wasn't, it's not.

P: yes it is.

At infinitum.

April 27, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> > D: What cannot be aware of itself, isn't aware of itself.

> > No exceptions.

>

> Ah, ah! No sleight of hands. I didn't write 'can't,' you

interjected

> that. I wrote, isn't aware of itself except as a brain. Self-

> consciousness comes and goes every day for every brain.

I didn't say that you wrote " can't. " Man, have you looked

into this defensiveness?

And no, self-consciousness is never consciousness of a self,

it's just a state of heightened anxiety.

Every second of every day, your brain is coming and going.

Your brain can't know this.

> > P: You, the brain, will never know, what it's not to

> > > be a brain.

> >

> > D: You seem to think this brain-knowledge is something special,

> > a special case, but in terms of conditonality --

> > it's phenomena, conditions, just

> > like other phenomena and conditions.

>

> P: Brain knowledge is not special knowledge, it's All KNOWLEDGE.

> There is no knowledge without a brain.

Sure there is.

There is the knowledge a single-celled organism has,

about how to ingest nutrients.

> > P: And you, the brain, can invent all kinds of concepts to

> > > kid yourself, that you know something other than yourself, but

is

> > > only a game.

> >

> > D: It's just as much of a game to claim that you know yourself

> > by and through a brain,

> > just another invented concept, and to say that it's the

> > brain that's doing the inventing is just part of

> > that particular game.

> >

> > There is a convergence of phenomena and conditions that

> > result in the brain which results in the concepts.

> > So, it's not the brain that knows anything or

> > produces anything, the brain

> > is just a process emerging from a convergence of

> > processes (including rain, air, single-celled creatures,

> > genetics, your parents having sex, food and shelter

> > being available, etc.).

>

> P: But it only becomes knowledge in a brain.

>

> I suggest we could continue this discussion a la Monty Pyton.

>

> P: It's the brain!

> D: No it isn't!

> P: Yes it's.

> D: No it isn't.

> P: Sure it is.

> D: What never wasn't, it's not.

> P: yes it is.

> At infinitum.

I'm looking into something moving, you're

looking at a fixed notion of the brain.

It's more like this:

P: " You can't have an apple unless your brain knows it. "

D: " Apples are fruits. "

P: " You only have fruits as knowledge in your brain. "

D: " Apples are red. "

P: " You only know about red because of your brain. "

D: " The setting sun is red. "

P: " The knowledge of the setting sun depends on your brain. "

D: " I saw a beautiful sunset yesterday. "

P: It's only because of your brain that you saw a sunset. "

D: " I walked home after seeing the sunset. "

Peace,

Dan Grunyika

April 28, 2004

>

> Peace,

> Dan Grunyika

There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this hidden

craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by any

other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts you have

convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for This' in

Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone cup.

Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into the

peace of no-concepts and no-names.

April 28, 2004

> There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

hidden

> craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by any

> other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts you

have

> convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for This'

in

> Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone cup.

>

> Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into the

> peace of no-concepts and no-names.

Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

while, Brain-Man.

Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

of Brain-Man.

And if anyone questions your compulsively

repeating " It's all

in the brain, it's all in the brain, " you can

call them a mass of quivering meat flavored

jello.

Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

to interfere!

Smiles,

Dan

April 28, 2004

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

> hidden

> > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by

any

> > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts you

> have

> > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for

This'

> in

> > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone

cup.

> >

> > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into

the

> > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

P.S. I only quiver when I walk. Well, sometimes, when I giggle

really insanely.

Please don't tell this to anyone at The Room of This.

It would really be embarrassing.

P.P.S. Your prejudice against the spinal cord and soft and

striated muscles is duly noted.

April 28, 2004

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> wrote:

> > > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

> > hidden

> > > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by

> any

> > > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts

you

> > have

> > > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for

> This'

> > in

> > > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone

> cup.

> > >

> > > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into

> the

> > > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

>

> P.S. I only quiver when I walk. Well, sometimes, when I giggle

> really insanely.

>

> Please don't tell this to anyone at The Room of This.

>

> It would really be embarrassing.

>

What happens here, stays here!

Vegas Pete

April 28, 2004

> What happens here, stays here!

>

> Vegas Pete

:-)

April 28, 2004

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

> hidden

> > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by

any

> > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts you

> have

> > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for

This'

> in

> > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone

cup.

> >

> > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into

the

> > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

>

> Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

Exactly!

>

> Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

> while, Brain-Man.

Nothing wrong with that.

>

> Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

> and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

> of Brain-Man.

Nah! He is too short. I look more like Shawn Connery.

Well a catscan of Shawn that is.

>

> Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

> to interfere!

It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

which offers comfort to the ID holders.

>

> Smiles,

> Dan

April 28, 2004

> It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

> which offers comfort to the ID holders.

Nah, it's thinking you got it all figured out,

and you know where it's at.

But you don't know where it's at, do you, Mr. Brain?

:-)

April 28, 2004

I've just read through most of this charming checker game

between two old cronies. Warms my heart, it does.

Here's my distillation:

Pete: All so-called " knowing " is the functioning of the brain.

There are no sublime, mystical realities, only the brain's

self-gratifying cogitations. [Or: if there *are* transcendent

realities, certainly the brain can't know of them.]

Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete entity. What is

functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which the brain is

a part.

Both are using the term " brain " , but are talking about two

different things.

Bill

-

cerosoul

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:23 PM

Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

> hidden

> > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by

any

> > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts you

> have

> > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for

This'

> in

> > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone

cup.

> >

> > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into

the

> > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

>

> Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

Exactly!

>

> Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

> while, Brain-Man.

Nothing wrong with that.

>

> Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

> and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

> of Brain-Man.

Nah! He is too short. I look more like Shawn Connery.

Well a catscan of Shawn that is.

>

> Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

> to interfere!

It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

which offers comfort to the ID holders.

>

> Smiles,

> Dan

**

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription,

sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

/mygroups?edit=1

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group

and click on Save Changes.

--

April 28, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

>I've just read through most of this charming checker game

> between two old cronies. Warms my heart, it does.

P: Correction: warms the emotive center of your brain.

>

> Here's my distillation:

> Pete: All so-called " knowing " is the functioning of the brain.

> There are no sublime, mystical realities, only the brain's

> self-gratifying cogitations. [Or: if there *are* transcendent

> realities, certainly the brain can't know of them.]

P: Correction: Not cogitations only ( as thoughts) but the whole array

of mental products which includes mysticals experiences emanating

from the parietal lobe. What we call realization is a realigment of

all brain centers to offer maximun clarity of the unitive view w/o

the interference of the self experience.

>

> Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete entity. What is

> functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which the brain is

> a part.

P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No thing

does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system provoke

in it, and not of the system in itself.

>

> Both are using the term " brain " , but are talking about two

> different things.

P: And you? What are you talking about? Glad you joined the frey. I

think...

Pete

>

> Bill

>

> -

> cerosoul

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:23 PM

> Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> wrote:

> > > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

> > hidden

> > > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by

> any

> > > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts

you

> > have

> > > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for

> This'

> > in

> > > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone

> cup.

> > >

> > > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into

> the

> > > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

> >

> > Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

>

> Exactly!

> >

> > Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

> > while, Brain-Man.

>

> Nothing wrong with that.

> >

> > Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

> > and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

> > of Brain-Man.

>

> Nah! He is too short. I look more like Shawn Connery.

> Well a catscan of Shawn that is.

> >

>

> > Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

> > to interfere!

>

> It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

> which offers comfort to the ID holders.

>

> >

> > Smiles,

> > Dan

>

> **

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

>

> --

------------

>

April 28, 2004

> P: And you? What are you talking about?

Just talking about the talking going on between

you and Dan.

Your comments about the brain are interesting

in connection with a book I've started reading

called *Where Mathematics Comes From*, which is

an analysis of mathematics from the standpoint

of cognitive psychology. Propositions made there

are correspondent in ways to some of yours.

And I also relate to Dan's perspective...

whatever is happening is the whole thing happening.

Nothing can divide one part from another. There is

no this vs. that, not really. Such distinctions are

always figmentive.

So while the two of you seemed to disagree with

each other, I seemed to agree with both of you.

re:

<<<

> Bill's interpretation of Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete

> entity. What is functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which

> the brain is a part.

P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No thing

does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system provoke

in it, and not of the system in itself.

>>>

When you say " it is aware only of .... " , I assume 'it' refers to the brain.

So you are saying the brain is aware?

Bill

-

cerosoul

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:12 PM

Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

>I've just read through most of this charming checker game

> between two old cronies. Warms my heart, it does.

P: Correction: warms the emotive center of your brain.

>

> Here's my distillation:

> Pete: All so-called " knowing " is the functioning of the brain.

> There are no sublime, mystical realities, only the brain's

> self-gratifying cogitations. [Or: if there *are* transcendent

> realities, certainly the brain can't know of them.]

P: Correction: Not cogitations only ( as thoughts) but the whole array

of mental products which includes mysticals experiences emanating

from the parietal lobe. What we call realization is a realigment of

all brain centers to offer maximun clarity of the unitive view w/o

the interference of the self experience.

>

> Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete entity. What is

> functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which the brain is

> a part.

P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No thing

does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system provoke

in it, and not of the system in itself.

>

> Both are using the term " brain " , but are talking about two

> different things.

P: And you? What are you talking about? Glad you joined the frey. I

think...

Pete

>

> Bill

>

> -

> cerosoul

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:23 PM

> Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> wrote:

> > > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

> > hidden

> > > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by

> any

> > > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts

you

> > have

> > > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for

> This'

> > in

> > > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone

> cup.

> > >

> > > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into

> the

> > > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

> >

> > Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

>

> Exactly!

> >

> > Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

> > while, Brain-Man.

>

> Nothing wrong with that.

> >

> > Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

> > and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

> > of Brain-Man.

>

> Nah! He is too short. I look more like Shawn Connery.

> Well a catscan of Shawn that is.

> >

>

> > Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

> > to interfere!

>

> It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

> which offers comfort to the ID holders.

>

> >

> > Smiles,

> > Dan

>

> **

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

>

> --

------------

>

April 28, 2004

Bill, To me there are two kind of reality views, or philosophical

concepts:

A) Those who support and give comfort to a sense of self in

progressive and more subtle but grandioze guise.

And

B) Those which cut the ground from under any notion of enduring

entity or identity.

The theory that what it's called self is just a motion picture

production created by different centers of the brain, falls on class

b. And is, therefore, benefitial to the realization of noself.

I consider your contribution of 'Man is dead' a good nail in the

coffin of the notion of self.

To ask as you do: is the brain aware?

Is to ask an impossible question because no one knows to this date

what awareness is, or how it is produced by the brain. Does the ear

hear? Does the brain hear? Does awareness hear? Where does sound

finally happen?

Pete

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> > P: And you? What are you talking about?

>

> Just talking about the talking going on between

> you and Dan.

>

> Your comments about the brain are interesting

> in connection with a book I've started reading

> called *Where Mathematics Comes From*, which is

> an analysis of mathematics from the standpoint

> of cognitive psychology. Propositions made there

> are correspondent in ways to some of yours.

>

> And I also relate to Dan's perspective...

> whatever is happening is the whole thing happening.

> Nothing can divide one part from another. There is

> no this vs. that, not really. Such distinctions are

> always figmentive.

>

> So while the two of you seemed to disagree with

> each other, I seemed to agree with both of you.

>

> re:

> <<<

> > Bill's interpretation of Dan: The brain does not exist as a

discrete

> > entity. What is functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which

> > the brain is a part.

>

> P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No thing

> does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system

provoke

> in it, and not of the system in itself.

> >>>

> When you say " it is aware only of .... " , I assume 'it' refers to

the brain.

> So you are saying the brain is aware?

>

> Bill

>

> -

> cerosoul

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:12 PM

> Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

> wrote:

> >I've just read through most of this charming checker game

> > between two old cronies. Warms my heart, it does.

>

> P: Correction: warms the emotive center of your brain.

>

> >

> > Here's my distillation:

> > Pete: All so-called " knowing " is the functioning of the brain.

> > There are no sublime, mystical realities, only the brain's

> > self-gratifying cogitations. [Or: if there *are* transcendent

> > realities, certainly the brain can't know of them.]

>

> P: Correction: Not cogitations only ( as thoughts) but the whole

array

> of mental products which includes mysticals experiences emanating

> from the parietal lobe. What we call realization is a realigment of

> all brain centers to offer maximun clarity of the unitive view w/o

> the interference of the self experience.

>

> >

> > Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete entity. What is

> > functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which the brain is

> > a part.

>

> P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No thing

> does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system

provoke

> in it, and not of the system in itself.

> >

> > Both are using the term " brain " , but are talking about two

> > different things.

>

> P: And you? What are you talking about? Glad you joined the frey. I

> think...

>

> Pete

>

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > -

> > cerosoul

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:23 PM

> > Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> > wrote:

> > > > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up

this

> > > hidden

> > > > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan

by

> > any

> > > > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts

> you

> > > have

> > > > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for

> > This'

> > > in

> > > > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a

bone

> > cup.

> > > >

> > > > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax

into

> > the

> > > > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

> > >

> > > Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

> >

> > Exactly!

> > >

> > > Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

> > > while, Brain-Man.

> >

> > Nothing wrong with that.

> > >

> > > Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

> > > and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

> > > of Brain-Man.

> >

> > Nah! He is too short. I look more like Shawn Connery.

> > Well a catscan of Shawn that is.

> > >

> >

> > > Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

> > > to interfere!

> >

> > It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

> > which offers comfort to the ID holders.

> >

> > >

> > > Smiles,

> > > Dan

> >

> > **

> >

> > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

> subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

> >

> > /mygroups?edit=1

> >

> > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

> Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

> >

--

> ------------

> >

April 28, 2004

-

cerosoul

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:29 PM

Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

<<

Bill, To me there are two kind of reality views, or philosophical

concepts:

A) Those who support and give comfort to a sense of self in

progressive and more subtle but grandioze guise.

And

B) Those which cut the ground from under any notion of enduring

entity or identity.

The theory that what it's called self is just a motion picture

production created by different centers of the brain, falls on class

b. And is, therefore, benefitial to the realization of noself.

>>

An interesting way of looking at theories.

Kind of like a mom deciding what kinds of treats are OK

by how much sugar they have in them.

I take a similar approach. I don't worry about what is true

or not, as far as theories go. I just try to induce people

a little further outside their comfort zones. I guess you

could say I am a deconstructionist. I'll present one point

of view to counter what someone is addicted to in their

point of view, only to change course again once they have

made a transition. The real truth is to fly without a theory.

It is an example of the thorn to remove a thorn.

BTW, I read " By the Late John Brockman " c. 1970.

It was the most influential book I have ever read,

even to this day. To really understand what he is

saying, not so much intellectually but experientially,

is a real TRIP!

> I consider your contribution of 'Man is dead' a good nail in the

> coffin of the notion of self.

> To ask as you do: is the brain aware?

I was asking if *you* were saying the brain is aware...

To me it is an absurd notion.

<snip>

Bill

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> > P: And you? What are you talking about?

>

> Just talking about the talking going on between

> you and Dan.

>

> Your comments about the brain are interesting

> in connection with a book I've started reading

> called *Where Mathematics Comes From*, which is

> an analysis of mathematics from the standpoint

> of cognitive psychology. Propositions made there

> are correspondent in ways to some of yours.

>

> And I also relate to Dan's perspective...

> whatever is happening is the whole thing happening.

> Nothing can divide one part from another. There is

> no this vs. that, not really. Such distinctions are

> always figmentive.

>

> So while the two of you seemed to disagree with

> each other, I seemed to agree with both of you.

>

> re:

> <<<

> > Bill's interpretation of Dan: The brain does not exist as a

discrete

> > entity. What is functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which

> > the brain is a part.

>

> P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No thing

> does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system

provoke

> in it, and not of the system in itself.

> >>>

> When you say " it is aware only of .... " , I assume 'it' refers to

the brain.

> So you are saying the brain is aware?

>

> Bill

>

> -

> cerosoul

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:12 PM

> Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

> wrote:

> >I've just read through most of this charming checker game

> > between two old cronies. Warms my heart, it does.

>

> P: Correction: warms the emotive center of your brain.

>

> >

> > Here's my distillation:

> > Pete: All so-called " knowing " is the functioning of the brain.

> > There are no sublime, mystical realities, only the brain's

> > self-gratifying cogitations. [Or: if there *are* transcendent

> > realities, certainly the brain can't know of them.]

>

> P: Correction: Not cogitations only ( as thoughts) but the whole

array

> of mental products which includes mysticals experiences emanating

> from the parietal lobe. What we call realization is a realigment of

> all brain centers to offer maximun clarity of the unitive view w/o

> the interference of the self experience.

>

> >

> > Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete entity. What is

> > functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which the brain is

> > a part.

>

> P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No thing

> does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system

provoke

> in it, and not of the system in itself.

> >

> > Both are using the term " brain " , but are talking about two

> > different things.

>

> P: And you? What are you talking about? Glad you joined the frey. I

> think...

>

> Pete

>

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > -

> > cerosoul

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:23 PM

> > Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> > wrote:

> > > > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up

this

> > > hidden

> > > > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan

by

> > any

> > > > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts

> you

> > > have

> > > > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for

> > This'

> > > in

> > > > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a

bone

> > cup.

> > > >

> > > > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax

into

> > the

> > > > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

> > >

> > > Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

> >

> > Exactly!

> > >

> > > Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

> > > while, Brain-Man.

> >

> > Nothing wrong with that.

> > >

> > > Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

> > > and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

> > > of Brain-Man.

> >

> > Nah! He is too short. I look more like Shawn Connery.

> > Well a catscan of Shawn that is.

> > >

> >

> > > Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

> > > to interfere!

> >

> > It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

> > which offers comfort to the ID holders.

> >

> > >

> > > Smiles,

> > > Dan

> >

> > **

> >

> > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

> subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

> >

> > /mygroups?edit=1

> >

> > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

> Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

> >

--

> ------------

> >

April 29, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

Well, I guess we are on the same page then. Have a nice day.

>

> -

> cerosoul

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:29 PM

> Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

>

> <<

> Bill, To me there are two kind of reality views, or philosophical

> concepts:

> A) Those who support and give comfort to a sense of self in

> progressive and more subtle but grandioze guise.

> And

> B) Those which cut the ground from under any notion of enduring

> entity or identity.

>

> The theory that what it's called self is just a motion picture

> production created by different centers of the brain, falls on

class

> b. And is, therefore, benefitial to the realization of noself.

> >>

> An interesting way of looking at theories.

> Kind of like a mom deciding what kinds of treats are OK

> by how much sugar they have in them.

>

> I take a similar approach. I don't worry about what is true

> or not, as far as theories go. I just try to induce people

> a little further outside their comfort zones. I guess you

> could say I am a deconstructionist. I'll present one point

> of view to counter what someone is addicted to in their

> point of view, only to change course again once they have

> made a transition. The real truth is to fly without a theory.

> It is an example of the thorn to remove a thorn.

>

> BTW, I read " By the Late John Brockman " c. 1970.

> It was the most influential book I have ever read,

> even to this day. To really understand what he is

> saying, not so much intellectually but experientially,

> is a real TRIP!

>

> > I consider your contribution of 'Man is dead' a good nail in the

> > coffin of the notion of self.

>

> > To ask as you do: is the brain aware?

> I was asking if *you* were saying the brain is aware...

> To me it is an absurd notion.

>

> <snip>

>

> Bill

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

> wrote:

> > > P: And you? What are you talking about?

> >

> > Just talking about the talking going on between

> > you and Dan.

> >

> > Your comments about the brain are interesting

> > in connection with a book I've started reading

> > called *Where Mathematics Comes From*, which is

> > an analysis of mathematics from the standpoint

> > of cognitive psychology. Propositions made there

> > are correspondent in ways to some of yours.

> >

> > And I also relate to Dan's perspective...

> > whatever is happening is the whole thing happening.

> > Nothing can divide one part from another. There is

> > no this vs. that, not really. Such distinctions are

> > always figmentive.

> >

> > So while the two of you seemed to disagree with

> > each other, I seemed to agree with both of you.

> >

> > re:

> > <<<

> > > Bill's interpretation of Dan: The brain does not exist as a

> discrete

> > > entity. What is functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which

> > > the brain is a part.

> >

> > P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No

thing

> > does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system

> provoke

> > in it, and not of the system in itself.

> > >>>

> > When you say " it is aware only of .... " , I assume 'it' refers to

> the brain.

> > So you are saying the brain is aware?

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > -

> > cerosoul

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:12 PM

> > Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

> > wrote:

> > >I've just read through most of this charming checker game

> > > between two old cronies. Warms my heart, it does.

> >

> > P: Correction: warms the emotive center of your brain.

> >

> > >

> > > Here's my distillation:

> > > Pete: All so-called " knowing " is the functioning of the brain.

> > > There are no sublime, mystical realities, only the brain's

> > > self-gratifying cogitations. [Or: if there *are* transcendent

> > > realities, certainly the brain can't know of them.]

> >

> > P: Correction: Not cogitations only ( as thoughts) but the whole

> array

> > of mental products which includes mysticals experiences emanating

> > from the parietal lobe. What we call realization is a realigment

of

> > all brain centers to offer maximun clarity of the unitive view

w/o

> > the interference of the self experience.

> >

> > >

> > > Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete entity. What is

> > > functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which the brain is

> > > a part.

> >

> > P Correction: Yes, it doesn't exist as a discrete entity. No

thing

> > does, but it is aware only of the impressions this vast system

> provoke

> > in it, and not of the system in itself.

> > >

> > > Both are using the term " brain " , but are talking about two

> > > different things.

> >

> > P: And you? What are you talking about? Glad you joined the frey.

I

> > think...

> >

> > Pete

> >

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> > > -

> > > cerosoul

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:23 PM

> > > Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

> > > wrote:

> > > > > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up

> this

> > > > hidden

> > > > > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but,

Dan

> by

> > > any

> > > > > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling

concepts

> > you

> > > > have

> > > > > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room

for

> > > This'

> > > > in

> > > > > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a

> bone

> > > cup.

> > > > >

> > > > > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax

> into

> > > the

> > > > > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

> > > >

> > > > Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

> > >

> > > Exactly!

> > > >

> > > > Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

> > > > while, Brain-Man.

> > >

> > > Nothing wrong with that.

> > > >

> > > > Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

> > > > and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

> > > > of Brain-Man.

> > >

> > > Nah! He is too short. I look more like Shawn Connery.

> > > Well a catscan of Shawn that is.

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

> > > > to interfere!

> > >

> > > It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

> > > which offers comfort to the ID holders.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Smiles,

> > > > Dan

> > >

> > > **

> > >

> > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

> > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My

Groups:

> > >

> > > /mygroups?edit=1

> > >

> > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

> > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

> > >

> > > -------------------------------

--

> --

> > ------------

> > >

April 29, 2004

> Pete:

> It's thinking you are This or That or the Absolute

> which offers comfort to the ID holders.

Dan:

Just to clear this up, Pete, in case you have a misconception

about the " this " I refer to in " The Room of This. "

This is not an absolute. An absolute is always relative

anyway. This is not something you are more than someone

else is.

This is the immediacy of " this " your direct experience

and knowing *as it is* right here, right now, in its

very relativity.

-- Dan

April 29, 2004

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

> I've just read through most of this charming checker game

> between two old cronies. Warms my heart, it does.

>

> Here's my distillation:

> Pete: All so-called " knowing " is the functioning of the brain.

> There are no sublime, mystical realities, only the brain's

> self-gratifying cogitations. [Or: if there *are* transcendent

> realities, certainly the brain can't know of them.]

>

> Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete entity. What is

> functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which the brain is

> a part.

>

> Both are using the term " brain " , but are talking about two

> different things.

>

> Bill

Hi Bill --

Thanks for you comments.

By the way, since Pete has alluded to The Room of This,

let me invite you or anyone here who feels they resonate

with these kinds of topics, to join the list,

TheRoomofThis/.

What you're saying I said seems close,

but I don't think what I'm saying is particularly ambiguous.

I'm saying that any phenomenon arises co-inter-dependently

with other phenomena.

The brain is no exception.

So, the brain can't be an ultimate receptical for something

else to be " in " , particularly not some kind of ultimate

stillness or silence.

What I'm saying fits with science as much as it fits

with psychology or philosophy.

There is nothing special about the brain in terms of its

being a phenomenon, although as with any phenomenon it

can be considered in terms of unique characteristics

attributed to it by an observer --

And, of course, there remains that question of the nature

of the " attributing observer " -- whether qualities are

being attributed to a brain or any other thing.

So, to me, if one is wanting understanding of

self and world as phenomena, no point in claiming

some kind of specialness for one brain as opposed to

another (as Pete does when he says that one brain has

the experience of " silence " in it, and another brain

doesn't).

That might be interesting for some kind of study of

brainwaves perhaps, but in terms of understanding

*what 'this' (the immediately so) is* it doesn't help.

You're just left with two phenomena, a brain that is more

still and another brain that is less still, but your

understanding of " how phenomena appear, how

self and other appear " isn't assisted

by that, and your " being aware of/as original stillness "

isn't assisted either -- as there is no way for *this stillness*

to inhabit something (such as a brain).

All " somethings " co-interdependently arise -- and being aware

" thusly " is itself, stillness (in the midst of any and all

acitivies, however they occur, whatever quality they seemingly

have, inclusive of observer and observed, whatever is being

observed -- brain, tree, rock, love, joy, anything else).

-- Dan

April 29, 2004

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> Bill, To me there are two kind of reality views, or philosophical

> concepts:

> A) Those who support and give comfort to a sense of self in

> progressive and more subtle but grandioze guise.

> And

> B) Those which cut the ground from under any notion of enduring

> entity or identity.

>

> The theory that what it's called self is just a motion picture

> production created by different centers of the brain, falls on

class

> b. And is, therefore, benefitial to the realization of noself.

>

> I consider your contribution of 'Man is dead' a good nail in the

> coffin of the notion of self.

>

> To ask as you do: is the brain aware?

> Is to ask an impossible question because no one knows to this date

> what awareness is, or how it is produced by the brain. Does the

ear

> hear? Does the brain hear? Does awareness hear? Where does sound

> finally happen?

>

> Pete

You're only succeeding in slaying something that you're

projecting, Pete.

There still remains the projector, to be addressed.

Love,

Your Slayer

April 29, 2004

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...>

wrote:

> > Bill, To me there are two kind of reality views, or philosophical

> > concepts:

> > A) Those who support and give comfort to a sense of self in

> > progressive and more subtle but grandioze guise.

> > And

> > B) Those which cut the ground from under any notion of enduring

> > entity or identity.

> >

> > The theory that what it's called self is just a motion picture

> > production created by different centers of the brain, falls on

> class

> > b. And is, therefore, benefitial to the realization of noself.

> >

> > I consider your contribution of 'Man is dead' a good nail in the

> > coffin of the notion of self.

> >

> > To ask as you do: is the brain aware?

> > Is to ask an impossible question because no one knows to this date

> > what awareness is, or how it is produced by the brain. Does the

> ear

> > hear? Does the brain hear? Does awareness hear? Where does sound

> > finally happen?

> >

> > Pete

>

> You're only succeeding in slaying something that you're

> projecting, Pete.

>

> There still remains the projector, to be addressed.

>

> Love,

> Your Slayer

Dream on, fat boy. That's what they called the first atom bomb.

One day you'll reach critical mass too. Hope I won't be around.

There is gonabe a lot of shit flying around. )

April 29, 2004

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

> wrote:

> > I've just read through most of this charming checker game

> > between two old cronies. Warms my heart, it does.

> >

> > Here's my distillation:

> > Pete: All so-called " knowing " is the functioning of the brain.

> > There are no sublime, mystical realities, only the brain's

> > self-gratifying cogitations. [Or: if there *are* transcendent

> > realities, certainly the brain can't know of them.]

> >

> > Dan: The brain does not exist as a discrete entity. What is

> > functioning is a vast ambiguous system of which the brain is

> > a part.

> >

> > Both are using the term " brain " , but are talking about two

> > different things.

> >

> > Bill

>

> Hi Bill --

>

> Thanks for you comments.

>

> By the way, since Pete has alluded to The Room of This,

> let me invite you or anyone here who feels they resonate

> with these kinds of topics, to join the list,

> TheRoomofThis/.

Thanks. Signed up.

Haven't received confirmation yet.

>

> What you're saying I said seems close,

> but I don't think what I'm saying is particularly ambiguous.

I didn't say that what you were *saying* is ambiguous.

But I used the wrong term in speaking of a " vast ambiguous system " ,

as " ambiguous " refers to a statement, not to a system.

Perhaps I should have said, " ...a vast non-discretely-specifiable system... "

Would that have been clearer?

Help me with a better qualifier Dan.

> I'm saying that any phenomenon arises co-inter-dependently

> with other phenomena.

Yes.

A thought: If the cause of anything is everything else,

does that mean that anything is the cause of everything else?

> The brain is no exception.

>

> So, the brain can't be an ultimate receptical for something

> else to be " in " , particularly not some kind of ultimate

> stillness or silence.

>

> What I'm saying fits with science as much as it fits

> with psychology or philosophy.

>

> There is nothing special about the brain in terms of its

> being a phenomenon, although as with any phenomenon it

> can be considered in terms of unique characteristics

> attributed to it by an observer --

Is the brain a phenomenon?

I don't see that.

To me it is an abstraction.

> And, of course, there remains that question of the nature

> of the " attributing observer " -- whether qualities are

> being attributed to a brain or any other thing.

I say there is no " attributing observer " .

Rather, attributions are co-arising-phenomena.

> So, to me, if one is wanting understanding of

> self and world as phenomena, no point in claiming

> some kind of specialness for one brain as opposed to

> another (as Pete does when he says that one brain has

> the experience of " silence " in it, and another brain

> doesn't).

>

> That might be interesting for some kind of study of

> brainwaves perhaps, but in terms of understanding

> *what 'this' (the immediately so) is* it doesn't help.

>

> You're just left with two phenomena, a brain that is more

> still and another brain that is less still, but your

> understanding of " how phenomena appear, how

> self and other appear " isn't assisted

> by that, and your " being aware of/as original stillness "

> isn't assisted either -- as there is no way for *this stillness*

> to inhabit something (such as a brain).

>

> All " somethings " co-interdependently arise -- and being aware

> " thusly " is itself, stillness (in the midst of any and all

> acitivies, however they occur, whatever quality they seemingly

> have, inclusive of observer and observed, whatever is being

> observed -- brain, tree, rock, love, joy, anything else).

It seems to me that you and Pete are using very different

abstractions. Pete is talking about " brain " , and you are talking

about " co-arising " . It might be possible to invent a new abstraction

that seamlessly incorporates his abstraction and yours. I don't

see an inherent inconsistency between the two abstractions. It is

like relativity and quantum mechanics... how they fit together is

not clear, but that doesn't invalidate either one.

Bill

April 29, 2004

> Dream on, fat boy. That's what they called the first atom bomb.

> One day you'll reach critical mass too. Hope I won't be around.

> There is gonabe a lot of shit flying around. )

Pete, it's not like you think.

There is no individual to be destroyed.

You don't get to be someone special who went

through a big explosion cause you're so wise.

You don't get to import any special stillness

into your brain.

You're nothing special, get it through that

self-absorbed brain!

:-)

That's all that dies -- the illusion you tried to

organize everything around -- your specialness.

-- Dan

April 29, 2004

Hi Bill -

> Thanks. Signed up.

> Haven't received confirmation yet.

You're in now.

Glad to have you aboard.

snip

> Perhaps I should have said, " ...a vast non-discretely-specifiable

system... "

> Would that have been clearer?

Yes.

> Help me with a better qualifier Dan.

Nah, don't want to strain my brain. :-)

> > I'm saying that any phenomenon arises co-inter-dependently

> > with other phenomena.

> Yes.

> A thought: If the cause of anything is everything else,

> does that mean that anything is the cause of everything else?

Yes.

> Is the brain a phenomenon?

> I don't see that.

> To me it is an abstraction.

Well, you can certainly hold a brain in your hand,

just like you can hold an apple, although the

brain doesn't taste as good unless you cook it.

Are you saying an apple is an abstraction, and

and any thing is an abstraction?

Of course, we use dualities to mutually infer

qualities, so to have something " abstract " we have

to have something " concrete. "

> > And, of course, there remains that question of the nature

> > of the " attributing observer " -- whether qualities are

> > being attributed to a brain or any other thing.

> I say there is no " attributing observer " .

> Rather, attributions are co-arising-phenomena.

I agree.

So, that would include the co-arising-phenomenon of the observer

who attributes.

Which, although an abstraction, is also a concrete everyday

part of life. (There's Dan -- he's the observant guy that thinks

coconut ice cream tastes great :-)

> It seems to me that you and Pete are using very different

> abstractions. Pete is talking about " brain " , and you are talking

> about " co-arising " . It might be possible to invent a new abstraction

> that seamlessly incorporates his abstraction and yours.

Mine already incorporates his.

I just didn't invest the time to explain it.

You'd be putting together a lot of co-arising phenomena

that go along with " brain " -- which would include

sensings, ways of organizing perceptions, society, language, history

of science, conditioned thinking).

> I don't

> see an inherent inconsistency between the two abstractions. It is

> like relativity and quantum mechanics... how they fit together is

> not clear, but that doesn't invalidate either one.

The inconsistency is in Pete believing that you need a brain

to know stillness, which occurs in the brain, and in some

brains and not in others.

I know stillness that isn't in anything, in which everything is,

but not as Dan, the one who knows this. This knows Dan,

knows Pete, knows Bill, without any self-knowing being involved.

Pete is talking about a special kind of knowing arising

in a special brain.

So, what I'm talking about isn't located in the brain, although the

brain's functioning certainly doesn't interfere with it, and it

certainly includes the experience that Pete is describing.

Of course, once we talk about stillness at all, we've

got a phenomenon in the sense that anything disscussed

is phenomenal. So, obviously, the word isn't the actuality,

nor is an experience able to give what it is.

That's what's different in what we're saying.

Pete seems to think that only if there is a brain can stillness

be understood, and only in certain brains that are able to

be very silent.

So, silent stillness, according to Pete, is an attribute of the brain,

isn't there if the brain isn't there, and is only there

for certain brains and certain locations.

He's talking about a stillness that has a location and a

container, which is perceived and perceptible, and I'm

talking about stillness that doesn't depend on having

a sensory organ as its receptor, which isn't memory

dependent, and can't be recalled as an experience.

It's very different, it seems to me.

Although, to be perfectly clear, I know the experience that

Pete is talking about can be had, I've experienced it,

I know that the brain can be effected by stillness the

way he's describing. It's just not the same thing

that I'm talking about, and I wouldn't want to equate them.

-- Dan

Sign In

The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest