An alternative for what purpose? If you mean “something that does what thinking does”, only better, you haven’t begun to make a case. If you mean “something entirely separate that we should do some of the time” then sure, there are plenty of things we should do other than thinking, and I can’t imagine why anyone would think we need to be told that.
The purpose is a map, friend, there’s more than maps. Personally I think it brings us closer to the truth of us, our existance, our nature. Regarding doing other things than thinking, I agree with that, one thing doesn’t have to go at the cost of something else.
No shit. Do you think people here imagine that the world disappears when we go to sleep or watch a movie or have sex or anything else that doesn’t involve much thinking?
That’s a strawman argument. I was talking about silencing all thoughts or becoming aware of thoughts instead of thinking of thoughts. You might think X activity goes under that umbrella, but I don’t necessarily, so that’s a strawman.
I do think that a lot of you believe that the map is the territory, even though you will deny it. That’s the point I am trying to make as well. But you’re not arguing against those points, just where you can get in an easy strawman? I’m just speculating though.
I never said it was. I said that you do it with your brain. Those are not at all the same thing. But if you imagine that when you are in the state you call being “aware” you are somehow perceiving the world directly and map-less: Nope. You’ve just got yourself into a state where you are oblivious to the maps involved.
So we are talking about different things, I specifically stated my definition yet you bring up your own as if it’s possible to argue when we mean different things for different words.
I’m talking about thinking, awareness and similar. You are talking of maps which you are thinking about? It’s another layer. For example, in your direct experience, you have all these different things you attribute maps to. Take this as your reference point in this conversation, not maps from neuroscience or anything else if possible.
If you were becoming aware of things, you aren’t in the moment of awareness thinking about how your brain created this that is my definition of awareness. It’s less so of a map. In that direct experience, you can see the map for what it is.
Would it be proper to say that the territory is oblivious to the maps involved, in that case?
I’m telling you that you are god and the universe, but I have to feed it to you as a “subjective experience” because you are asleep. You are in a matrix of maps. :D
But I don’t know.
Take it, however, you want.
That is not my my opinion, nor is it something I have said. Perhaps you might try the experiment of reading what I write with the hypothesis that I understand more rather than less than you do, and see whether it makes better sense.
That was an assumption.
Not so much a strawman as word salad. But for sure it isn’t what I’m saying.
What I mean was that you create a map, which all other maps span out from, the first map is the brain and within that map,there is thinking, awareness, feeling and so forth. Maybe even before that it’s the universe, physics of the neurons and so forth, or however many layers it might be.
“What you are saying YOU (the actual you) are is: Maps and the map which is the brain, have created your awareness”
“If you aren’t aware of the maps, it’s because you are oblivious to them, not because they don’t exist”
Is that what you say?
If so sit down and meditate and ask yourself that again?
It may please you to believe that you know what I believe better than I do, but I see no reason to agree.
Mr. gjm, relax. Ok?
I never claimed to be “not creating maps”. I don’t know which of multiple things you mean by “you don’t exist” but if what you mean is, say, that my notion of myself is a mental construct that may diverge from how the world really is then yes, I’m aware of that.
According to you, 1) Everything is apparently a map. Even though the territory isn’t.
2) But if you are oblivious to the maps, that’s not because they don’t exist. It’s because you’re oblivious to them.
So the baseline is that everything is a map. because of 1 and 2, but isn’t the territory the actual baseline?
The territory is oblivious to the maps, right? Which is you.
I know I am proposing something different by saying the territory is oblivious to the maps, using a little bit of your wording, but that’s my point. You are the territory and within the territory is the maps, the universe, all perceptions of which you label things and project upon. When you silence thoughts (and become oblivious to maps according to you, or think I am) you are it.
You consider that e.g. whether I am on the earth or the moon is “just a layer”, a matter of “our projections”? Because that is a thing the human race has discovered how to change, by careful use of well-calibrated maps. If your attempts at “awareness” have detached you so far from reality that you really do think that: well, I’m sorry, and it’s too bad you didn’t come here earlier when there was still a prospect of a cure.
It is a human projection. You have said it yourself, that it is a map. A map is a projection in my definition. It’s a strawman, you saw that I mentioned that science and selecting some maps over others is fine, that’s not the argument. It’s that we believe the map to be the territory, even though you say you don’t.
You keep trying to tell me what I believe (and feel). You keep getting it wrong. Perhaps your “awareness” doesn’t confer quite as much insight as you suppose?
I was just assuming, I had no clue what you believe. Even if this is a Tu quoque fallacy: You did kind of the same with the video.
I let go of it ages ago. It’s no fault of mine that you keep harping on it.
About the video? Okay, sorry.
No, non-dualism where the territory is what you are and all maps are simply human projections. But by direct experience, not by writing of it, you, actually investigating yourself.
I don’t know, but still is the neurons a map within the territory? With my claim that you are the territory, by direct experience of it yourself, (not objective, subjective).
True in relation to the arational. One small truth over the other is irrelvant to the larger picture, but within the picture they are. But it’s only subjective experience, by the nature of this investigation.
That’s a clarification, but regardless it is quite irrelevant to what we’re discussing I think (or what I want to discuss).