GENIUS FORUMS

I was watching a movie called the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Johnny Depp, playing the part of Ichabod Crane, made a statement to Christina Ricci, playing the part of Katrina Van Tassel, explaining a childhood toy he had which was a round card on a string. On the one side was a cage and on the other a cardinal. When you twirled the string, the card spun and gave the appearance of a bird in a cage. He told her:

It is truth, but truth is not always appearance.

It got me to thinking about something David Quinn said:

The bottom line is, as soon as you posit that a thing exists, it will necessarily have a form of some kind and be nothing more than an appearance. We can summarize these thoughts with the one simple assertion that existence is appearance. To exist is to appear. In the moment that a thing is not presenting an appearance, it does not exist.

If what we perceive as Reality is an appearance for which we claim its existence because it appears in some form, what of Reality that appears but is actually an illusion of what truly exists? Like the two-sided card, we see the optical illusion not the true Reality. So, can we say that the form we “see” as an appearance truly exists? Could Reality not be disguised to the wise of mind but revealed to the eye of the heart?

The entire last chapter in David's book The Wisdom of the Infinite answers your question. The whole chapter answers it best, and is a great read, but here's a brief and pertinent quote that may get you started:

Another Look at the Totality

It should be clear from the analysis I have presented that the concept of the Totality does not really refer to the three-dimensional physical universe imagined by most people to objectively exist. Rather, it refers to the totality of all appearances experienced by consciousness. Included in this larger totality is indeed the three-dimensional physical universe, but it is only one of countless other appearances. There is not a single appearance which can lay claim to being ultimate or objective reality. Whether it be an appearance of the physical universe itself, or an appearance of an inner mystical realm, each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else. As soon as it ceases being perceived, it ceases to exist. Each appearance is but a charade of the moment and none of them ever reflect the true nature of Reality.

The Totality, then, is entirely formless. Or if you like, its form embraces the infinity of appearances. Or even more accurately, its form is whatever happens to be perceived in any given moment. In the moment that I conclude that the Totality is formless, or the infinity of appearances, it too is nothing more than a momentary perception on my part. To project anything more onto this perception, or to cling to it as though it were the final truth, would be to fall into delusion. In the end, the Totality is simply what it is in any given moment - end of story.

Kelly Jones

So, can we say that the form we “see” as an appearance truly exists?

Absolutely, in a subjective sense, hence what David says is correct. It always exists in its causal form in a non-subjective manner. We pay to much attention to its fleeting formshape, which does not objectively exist.

Could Reality not be disguised to the wise of mind but revealed to the eye of the heart?

Deeper realities are revealed only by the eye of imagination. Deeper realities are just rational generalisations. Merging one/many thing(s) into others. In a way an understanding of reality is just an acceptance of the causal interconnected of all things.

We are trained to disconnect such connectedness for the purposes of utility. Being truly human is actually to segregate as much as possible - this brain power to segregate reality is what that makes us different to animals.

To rise above humanness, to be the perfect buddha, is to be able to live in the world using both arbitrary segregations and the knowledges of reality in a conceptual tandem. This is a skill I do not have. For the toy you describe this means that the post-human being can see the bird in the cage without having to spin the card.

Jamesh wrote:
To rise above humanness, to be the perfect buddha, is to be able to live in the world using both arbitrary segregations and the knowledges of reality in a conceptual tandem. This is a skill I do not have. For the toy you describe this means that the post-human being can see the bird in the cage without having to spin the card.

Do you know anyone who can? What is a post-human being? Is it in a form or spirit?

If there is such a person, can they create something as God created the world? I know that Jesus Christ said that if we had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains...or something like that...he even gave power to the Apostles to heal the sick and perform miracles, but does such a person exist now? I surely do not know one. If you say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, explain what you think he did mean.

I read about Plato's cave. Here you have someone whose experiences are of his own world in the cave. You take him out of that experience to see what he truly saw was a shadow of the real world. Then you take him out into the "real" world and he is even more amazed...but after one has been stripped of their delusions several times in one moment, why should that person even believe what he was seeing in the "real" world was all there was?

Even if you accepted what David says, you are still not perfect. And perhaps I'm missing something here, but perfection does not seem to be a state of mind but one of being. Our spirit understands that which our mind cannot. Here I am not talking about just being in a physical form...do you believe that the Spirit transcends this realm and reaches perfection, while in human form? Do you believe that a person's spirit, while still living, can be of such a state of perfection to be all that we imagine God to be?

If you go down the road of...well medical doctors can heal. True but not 100% all day, every day. They make mistakes. I've heard of accidents on the operating table by those who were there that saw these things, resulting in the death of someone. Many doctors think they are gods, which makes be wonder about them sometimes too.

I know I may be dense on trying to comprehend something that I may just not be ready for, but like Kelly said elsewhere, unless you make strides to walk to the sea to taste the salt of the ocean, you will never know whether it tastes of salt or not.

Jamesh wrote:

Jamesh wrote:Deeper realities are just rational generalisations. Merging one/many thing(s) into others.

Is that what really happens? Or is "merging" and "generalising" only imaginary?

In a way an understanding of reality is just an acceptance of the causal interconnected of all things.

That's a springboard.

We are trained to disconnect such connectedness for the purposes of utility. Being truly human is actually to segregate as much as possible - this brain power to segregate reality is what that makes us different to animals.

Animals are engaged in power struggles no more or less than "true humans" (whatever they are). Dogs snapping at each others' back legs, children's squabbles in the playground, or political debates, are exactly the same power struggles about "knowledge" (causes).

Abstracting is animalism. Thinking deeply is a form of competing for awareness of "causes".

To rise above humanness, to be the perfect buddha, is to be able to live in the world using both arbitrary segregations and the knowledges of reality in a conceptual tandem.

I think a human is born when competitive intellectualism gets to be aware of the emptiness of all causes.

This is a skill I do not have. For the toy you describe this means that the post-human being can see the bird in the cage without having to spin the card.

Sounds like you think awareness of the illusory nature of all appearances doesn't rely on verification.