Perception: Another Way Of Thinking About It

freedomOne thing that became obvious once I shifted was how the triad of seer-seeing-seen no longer made sense when thinking about experiencing. While framing experience in those terms felt totally natural before the shift, it now referenced elements that was no longer part of my experience.

But there’s another way to talk about experience, a way more in line with what was now readily apparent after the shift, and I figured that I should write a few lines about that now since this new way of describing our experience might even help somebody to shift if they’re ripe enough.

So, when thinking about experience, don’t think of it in terms of seer-seeing-seen – instead think of seeing using an adverbial modifier. That is, instead of saying (or thinking) “I see a dog”, say “I see dogly.”

In other words, you’re not describing an ‘object’that you see, but you’re instead describing the way in which seeing manifests. You’re describing the way in which awareness modulates itself – that is, dogly.

And taking it further: since seeing and being are one and the same, you’re not really seeing dogly – you’re being dogly.

Experimenting with this new way of thinking about experience might begin to break the habit of conceptualizing percepts into objects, which is the apparent mechanism by which we’re bound, and the dissolution of which equals total liberation.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+
 
Further reading:

6 Responses to Perception: Another Way Of Thinking About It

  1. don salmon says:

    This reminds me of a comment from Sri Krishna Prem in the appendix to his Gita commentary. He noted that among the many unfortunate aspects of using the word “consciousness” is that it has no active transitive form; one usually says one is conscious “of” something but can’t say “to conscious” something. He suggested the word “conscire” meaning literally, “knowing together”; what is “known” if one must speak of it would be “conscita”.

    I realize that “to conscious” something still evokes a dualistic way of knowing, but “seeing dogly” seems rather close to speaking of “dog” as “conscita”

  2. don salmon says:

    oh, another recollection – Henri Bortoft, physicist and philosopher of science, in his book’ The Wholeness of Nature”, which is based on Goethe’s qualitative science, says that “what” we know is inseparable from “how” we know. The dog as “knowing” or to put it another way – “dog” is inseparable from “knowing dog” – is equally inseparable from the ‘how” of the knowing.

  3. Jos Van Looy says:

    Another way of putting it is “I am the knowingknown”, a word I often read on facebook pages about non duality.

  4. Naresh says:

    Good one Goran, this is a radical way of thinking :-)

  5. Mohamed says:

    Needed to send you that tiny note to help say thanks over again coirednsing the exceptional methods you’ve shown on this site. It was quite incredibly open-handed with people like you to present publicly all a number of us might have made available for an e-book in making some dough for themselves, most notably since you might well have done it if you ever decided. The tricks as well acted to become a fantastic way to be certain that other people online have similar zeal like my very own to understand more with regard to this condition. I am sure there are many more enjoyable sessions ahead for individuals that scan your website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>