[MD] NYC

[118]

Yes, I agree with Carl.  Marsha seems to be distinguishing between seeing with the eyes and reading about in books.  On analysis, I do not perceive much difference.  In both cases concepts are formed, and neither can be considered "directly perceiving".  We form concepts because that is our human perception.  If we say that such perception is not real then we must say that what we do is not real.  Where does that leave us?  We must then disown our selves as imaginary.  Going down this path leads to nonsense.

The act of forming a concept is DQ, pure and simple.  The act of understanding a concept is living in DQ.  This is standard Zen in my opinion.  To somehow distance ourselves from DQ is where the problem lies.  It is this distancing that is imaginary.  It can not happen.  So long as we live in the illusion that what we do with our minds is somehow secondary to the real thing, we keep searching for something more, something hidden.  This conscious separation from reality is what Zen seeks to correct.

If this right here is not enough, then we are "suffering" to use a Buddhist term.  Once it is perceived that we live directly in Quality everything else falls in place.

Seeing NY is just as real as hearing about it.  The former is obviously more full; it has higher Quality.  Unless you get mugged of course.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Dec 29, 2011, at 7:15 PM, "Carl Thames" <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:

> Marsha:
>> Perhaps we have never been to NYC. We can study all about NYC, look at photographs, read the history, and learn a tremendous amount about NYC from books. Far more than the people who live and/or work in NYC know. We can be experts. But, when we board an airplane and fly to NYC, there is a great difference when we experience NYC with our eyes, our ears and other senses. Then we understand so much more, don't we? Because we have the direct experience of our senses and not just the mental image of NYC, even though the latter is correct.  Direct perception is to see things as they are, without changing them through our concepts.
> 
> Carl:
> I think that seeing them through our concepts is the only way they're meaningful to us, so that whatever we perceive is through our own filter. This is why two artists can paint the same scene and come away with two totally different paintings.  The basic data is identical, but the perception is not.
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html