[MD] NYC

[118]

Marsha,

It is all experience, nothing second-hand about it.  We create
experience; experience is not sensed.  It cannot be second-hand if we
are responsible for its generation.  What would it be second-hand to?
Just because you involve more senses, does not make your NY any more
direct of an experience.  It is still a creation of our minds.  Both
examples of NY are second-hand constructions, if you want to use that
terminology (even though it is somewhat nonsensical).  I do not see
how you can be one step removed from reality in one case, and not in
the other.

Remember, we do not hear sounds, we create sounds with our ears and
brains.  We do not see color, we create color internally.  We do not
have experiences, we create them. We can create an experience of NY by
reading about it.  By the way, if you want to read a great book about
NY, try Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin.  It will leave you with the
smell, the sound, the sights, the touch, and the taste, all from one
little fictional book.  You will have been more in NY than if you were
there in person.  I recommend it!

I do not know how else to explain it any better.  Ask me a specific
question and I will try to use your concepts to have you understand
what I am trying to say.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 6:15 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> 'Reading about' is second-hand constructed experience of NYC, rather than the seeing, hearing, smelling, touching & tasting aspects of NYC directly.  But maybe you would like to explain "direct experience" as you are using the term.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:59 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, of course there is a difference, but neither is "direct experience" as you are using the term.  Unless you accept that reading something with your eyes is direct experience.
>>
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2011, at 12:28 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> I never used the word "real", so I assume that most of what you've written here is written to what you've conceptually projected I wrote rather than what I wrote.
>>>
>>> If you've never practiced mindfulness or meditation, your opinion about Zen or living in DQ means very little to me.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is a difference between second-hand experiencing NYC by reading about it while sitting on a beach in Santa Barbara and the direct sensual experience of seeing the sights, smelling the aromas, tasting a NYC bagel, bumping into and avoiding bumping into others travelers, and hearing the many sounds while moseying down Broadway from 42 Street to SoHo, for instance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:54 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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