Posted: Dec 07, 2016 9:08 am
GrahamH wrote:Little Idiot wrote:GrahamH wrote:This is as close as LI got to thinking outside his little box in some hundreads of posts...Little Idiot wrote:There are examples where processing is clearly different to processor. Do you say the processor stops when processing stops, in all cases? What about say a computer processor and processing for example, clearly the processor is distinct from the processing.
Alas, he failed to think it through and went back to treating the process and the processor as one and the same essential "awareness".
Sad. Very sad.
Obviously they are the same 'essential type' awareness but that is not to say they are the same.
The productive processing is dynamic and must involve change and the products are temporary transient things - while the change is in contrast to the relatively unchanging.
This is the basis of the two aspects of awareness static and dynamic which I introduced a while back.
This is the criticism I raised of your meaning of mind- you see only the dynamic active producer and miss the quiet static and fundamentally more durable aspect to the degree that you say if the dynamic stops and goes then the passive is gone too.
The static aspect is the direct line from active subjective temporal multiplicity to static non-duality. But if you don't see it, well you don't see it.
The reason why you think I treat them as one is because you can not see one of my two things.
What a croc of shit.
Translation - that idea is different to mine.
You obviously won't be giving due thought to the processor / program metaphor and you will just go on with your naïve "elan vital" style attitude to magical awareness.
Do you realise you are just making lots of baseless assertions? Try defining or identifying "static awareness" or catch "dynamic awareness" literally producing anything.
I don't think you can, because, as you and jamest have both agreed, we can't find the work being done "inside". Introspection turns up nothing like a process. But we can do much better through neuroscience. There is a process that can be studied.
And why would there be these two sorts of "awareness"? Why would there be a static awareness? Probably just so that you can image surviving after death without a brain to do the work. You don't need two things. Get Occam's Razor out and trim.
Even the slightest introspection will reveal thoughts arise, stay, fade. They arise in what can be described as a space or field. The thought is an object known by awareness, an object of awareness.
That thought is temporary having duration and it is therefore observed as dynamic. Assuming no spontaneous creation it is the product of a process.
It is known as an object of awareness, it is known by awareness and a process which produces an object of awareness must be a process of awareness (or at least capable of producing awareness which introduces a gap problem).
Since awareness can't be its own object then it is unreasonable to expect its process(es) to be its own object.
Conclusion there is a dynamic awareness.
Between one thought and the next is a gap. It may be small but it shouldn't be overlooked. The field remains without objects.
As the gap gets longer or if thoughts no longer arise then the field is empty of objects. Without objects there is no clear sense of time and no clear boundary - but unlike sleep there is awareness.
This gap between individual thoughts is there before each thought, between individual thoughts and after thoughts end, one gap indistinguishable from another. It doesn't depend on thoughts and therefore not on the process of thinking. It is more static than the thoughts and the process.
The field in which thoughts arise, remain and leave is also there when the object is present, although it is harder to notice.
The field can't be observed to start or stop, nor can its limitations be found.
Conclusion there is a distinct more static awareness.