Truly Desperately Lost

[Zeno]

However, is an apple actually known?

Not if „an apple actually known“ is anything beyond sensations and thought. But I do not see any problem, maybe I am missing smth?

Having a thought-word-image for the appleing stuff-appearance-activity is helpful, but giving up on separate existence of a thing called apple is also no problem. Neither intellectually nor in direct experience. To loose the apple as separate existing entity is a bit perplexing, but more on the funny side. It is different though, if it is my daughter i am looking st (just sitting together and reading). Then guilt is cramping the gut area a bit, but after relaxing, the love flush takes over and happiness rises up to throat and face and it is ok that she is also in a sense just her daughtering thing. It does not take anything away emotionally or in the feeling, it is more like that other usually mundane things like appleing rises to get to the same level of emotion as daughtering (dont tell her that).

Is that what this exercise was aiming for?

Thanks!

[Zeno]

Afterthought. „Actually known“ to whom? As soon as thinking that and search for the whom part, perpspective locks back to eye-head position. Yes there it is, the familiar perspective that comes with a perceiver or knower that is assumed habitually. Going back to appleing view the question And the body tensions and stress , .... oh yes I see now that it is a stressful thing ... it falls away. Thought triggers it. I can switch those different views, not smoothly but it works. Imagination seems different, it is more immersive, will investigate that. Gn8

[Zeno]

Looked at the difference between imagined vs thought again to see if the apple is actually known. There is a very strong habitual activity with word-labeling a visual impression of the apple as described above. Still an „apple known“ is just a helpful construct.

The image of an apple needs no word-thought. It is sufficient as apple, but clearly it is just an image. But it also comes with an observer (like in a movie) so it assumes there is an „apple known“ and an experiencer. It is difficult to do a similar shift as in visual-impression and word thought, mostly becausr the image is so instable or I get lost in the imagined story. Barely any space to relax and drop/integrate the imagination or imagined object and investigate further. What is interesting though is that visual sensation seems to be sufficient to just assume the existence, while with other senses that need for an observer and of an „apple known“ is far less strong. I notice that by the easiness to just sense what is there e.g. touching the apple. Touching it there is no apple just a round semihard sensation and coldness at constructed position of hand (which is also not known).

[Seamist]

This is great exploring, Matthias, well done.

Let’s do some observing now to further explore the difference between mental construction (or thoughts)and direct experience.
Try this:
Choose an ordinary object in the room. Maybe a vase of flowers or something that has interesting and varied visual qualities
1. Close your eyes and picture it in your mind for a minute or two.
2. Open your eyes and observe it directly for a while.
Describe both experiences. The first one of what was happening directly in the mind sense and then the second one of what you experienced in the visual sense.
Also tell me the difference between these two experiences.

xx

[Zeno]

[

Describe both experiences. The first one of what was happening directly in the mind sense and then the second one of what you experienced in the visual sense.

Ok. The imagined cushion was scetchy. Patched together. It was not possible to get a really clear image, a whole. If seeing the whole thing from distance it lacked a lot of detail. It was not very satisfying, had this nervousness.
The real one was stable, the visuals were rich in detail and perspective could shift to see whole or some detail. It was much more 3d like. There was mostly just so much detail to it. It felt really more connected and quiet.

Also tell me the difference between these two experiences.

Difference was trmendous as if both experiences have barely any connection except for some color concepts. Absolute difference. Only the concept of cushion is a connect otherwise, no simlarity. That hold seven if it would be as realistic as the flower I imagained once that was cristal clear visuals.

[Seamist]

That's great, Matthias.

Let’s go through the other senses in the same way.
Hearing.
a) Imagine first the sound of a meditation gong (or something similar). Describe exactly how you imagined that. What were the qualities?
b) Then sound the gong and listen with your whole being. Describe that also as fully as you can.
c) Tell me the difference.

x Sioned

[Seamist]

Hi Matthias
How are you doing? Try and post at least once a day if at all possible xx

[Zeno]

). Describe exactly how you imagined that. What were the qualities?

Took several examples over the day. Mundane ones most of the time. Sound is quite interesting, it is much easier to slip out of the usual observer-observed dichotomy. Imagined sound is usually flat, unstable. Funnily I do a throat movement many times, that would simulate a likewise sound with my voice during imagination. Imagined sound is also boring, hard to concentrate on. Music or melody though is different. Here playing with music or melody is fun and interesting. Although still it is clearly imagination.
Another imagined sound is my tinnitus (several). I early on decided to ignore it, thats why it is only there if I put my attention on it and "go inside". There is no outside source to it, it somehow comes from the inner ear organs or from the brain (doctors do not know), but it has this clear characteristic, other than totally imagined sound. It is sharper and more real.
Another imagined sound is what is the "background" for me.I discovered the background about 2 years ago. It is not tinnitus and not imagined. It is a high pitched background sound like metal scratching, but in a beautiful way. Not annyoing like tinnitus. When I concentrate on this it can get quite loud, but it is not there if no awareness is on it. I regard it as somewhow, partially real? It shares some charachteristic as real sounds. Don't know really how to explain the experience of it.
Result, regardless of tinnitus and "background", imagined sound is really very different than real sound.

Then sound the gong and listen with your whole being. Describe that also as fully as you can.

Real sound has all this details to it, the small vibrations and sidesound characteristics. It has a richness of texture. It is sometimes like one can fall into it and just experience it. Distance and Position can fall away and sound is close or without distcance, just there. (that is like in "background" sound). But most of the times there comes a strong situational awareness with the sound, a search for the source of it. If I start the sound there is this loop of my hands clapping and hearing, like a source and a receiver, but in direct experience there is not really a perceiver-extra-part but only perceiving.

Tell me the difference.

The difference is that imagined sound has this "made up" characteristic. While even when my hands make a sound or I start a sound, the sound is there, it is just real. The "background" sound is a bit tricky, it is like in between, it lacks the physical-situatedness in space (no direction to it, no assymetry), but it is much more real than imagined sound.
Ok thats that.

[Zeno]

Seems we both wrote at the same time. Will post once a day either morning or evening, depends on my schedule.

[Seamist]

That's great, lovely exploring.

Taste, smell and touch.
Imagine an orange or a similarly strong tasting fruit. Go through the same 3 steps and describe these 3 senses fully also.

xx

[Zeno]

The object was a cup of fresh warm coffee in the morning.

Describe exactly how you imagined that. What were the qualities?

I imagined the cup on the table with steam. I took the cup in the right hand and felt the hard ceramics. I first smelled the coffee, hot vapor with coffee flavor and took a sip and imagined the bitter taste of a perfect italian expresso. It was smoother than expected from imagination exercises before, but still stuttery. Smell was just a very poor memory. Touch imagination was much better. Taste was also not that hard, I started salivating a bit in expectation, of course dissatisfied.

Drink coffee.. Describe that also as fully as you can.

I took the cup with my left hand, not right. The cup was warm (forgot about temperature in imagination). I sensed the cup at my lips (also not there in imagination) and felt the liquid on my tongue and throat as well as the warm sensation. The smell was not nearly as good as I thought it should be. Actually it smelled not good. Taste was really bad (the coffee was not different though than 100s of times before). All the bitter notes of coffee and a slight charcoaled tasted was much more dominant than usually. Maybe I reconsider drinking coffee, it does not taste that well. Why do I drink it? Afterwards there was a slimy texture in my mouth, probably the milk. Also not that pleasant.

Tell me the difference.

Forgot about many details in imagination, but also forgot to add some major things like temperature, and about touch in my mouth and with lips. Like before reality was much more direct and vivid. A lot to discover. Clear difference between imagination and direct experience. Interesting was also to note how the body reacts habitually to imagination with bodily things (of course that is known, but watching it closely gave a different quality).

[Seamist]

Hi Matthias
A great example, there. And lovely noticing.

Would you agree that the difference between the imagined and the real in these exercises seems to be that the imagined is based on previous memories of the “thing”, whereas the real is this individual, particular “thing”? Also the real sense experience is more vivid and immediate.

Touch next:
Imagine lying down on the floor and tell me what sensations come up in your mind and report back. Remember not to mention body parts like ‘heel’ for instance just the sensations in themselves.
Then lie down, feel the pressure/weight/sensations of contact with the floor and report back as fully as possible

x

[Zeno]

Would you agree that the difference between the imagined and the real in these exercises seems to be that the imagined is based on previous memories of the “thing”,

In general yes especially if asked if it "seems" to be. I would only add that the basis is memory, but there is a constructive element to it as well, especially in the visual and word. I could not find touch, smell, taste imagined sensations, which were not memory (whereas in visual it is easy to imagine a unicorn-rabbit-eagle or something completely new / although it was in a sense not really completetly new, but the composition).

whereas the real is this individual, particular “thing”?

Yes definitely. Although there seem to be thought-categories that are imputed on those real individual particular "sensation-complexes?/things" by thought. This comes briefly after being aware of e.g. a colour-shape or a sound, making it comparable again and taking away individuality (like cupness for a cup or so). It is extremely quick and not necessarily vocalized thought, I am aware of it like one is in seeing or noting something peripherically, without being able to focus on it or if focused it is not noticed anymore.

Also the real sense experience is more vivid and immediate.

Yes totally. But in a sense imagination is also very immediate as imagination. It only is not immediate if the content of imagination is compared to real sense experience. But as imagination-experience (somehow seen from outside or maybe inside? not sure) it has its own immediacy or realness. I mean it is real that I am imagining. That is not a thought, it really happens. Does that make sense?

Imagine lying down on the floor and tell me what sensations come up in your mind and report back.

Ok. A bit strange it was. I only had images of me lying on the floor. I could not feel imagined-touch or it was extremely fuzzy to do so. When going to that sense it was like numbness? You know, when you are anestized (dental doctor e.g.) and touch yourself and you do feel only one side and somehow you imagine the other side? Maybe there was really no imagined feel at all. It was always acompanied by strong visual images to fill in.

Then lie down, feel the pressure/weight/sensations of contact with the floor and report back as fully as possible

There was definitely first a strong feeling of pressure and weight. A lot of information, very quick and much. I had a very strong sense of spacial information first. Like far away, close and had visuals of my body shape on the ground seen from an angle from above. Closer looking and concentrating on the sense, it was a very fast but sequential thing. The different spatial positions that were felt changed quickly, but the parallale sensation went away. Since I concentrated I forgot about the visual body image. Then sensation changed and the spatialness was lost for brief moments. The sensation of pressure/weight/touch beacme narrower and more similar, but still there were slight differences, there was still a certain individuality to each sensation in the sequence (it did not become a big sensation mush), but it was less spatial, more indivdual. It was disorienting (eyes closed) a bit, but I would say there was still a sense of direction (up-down).

Thanks Sioned!

[Seamist]

Nice thorough looking, well done, Matthias. Just watch out for getting caught up in thinking - it won't help.

Next... continuing on this theme...
Imagine crossing your legs. Now cross them. Tell me the imagined sensations and then the actual ones and the difference
xx

[Zeno]

Imagined

It was not hard to get a picture of me sitting cross legged. But as before the details were missing. Right leg over left or left over right? I prefer right over left, but was not sure. I could not imagine that satisfied feeling that comes if they are crossed the right way.

Real

There was quite a lot to take in and it was very fast also because of movement and sitting. The pressure sensation was not very individual. It had some spacious characteristic but it became a big mush after a short while. Icould not discern the individual legs at contact poin, there was no contact point but a big pressure sensation bubble. Different from it was the pressure and coldness from chair contact. The bubble thouh had a spacioussness in terms of spatial situatedness.

Difference

Most stonishing was that when I did the exercise several times i noticed that satisfied gut feeling and relaxation in the eyebrows when the right leg was over left. If vice versa there was some nervousness and tingle in the same area. It was not relaxed that way, slihtly wrong. I did not even think about that during imagination nor missed it, and also could no replicate i in imagination. Could also not replicate pressure bubble, not the least. Actually I could not imagine touch at all, always the visual was so dominant, that I miht conclude here is no imagined ouch, it is only an image of touch.