David, like Marcia, finds the specifics of embodiment to be a good gateway into “the point where reality is conducted into being.” I have been teaching a meditation class lately in which something similar has come up. Embodiment has a kind of innocence or purity that thoughts, etc. do not. It is based on a conceptual understanding, true, but the body does not itself insist that it is mine, or that sense experience needs to be understood the way ‘I’ want to understand it.<\/p>\n
The mind does make sense of things so quickly that we not have sense experience at all. For instance, if I hear a car going by, is that really a sense experience, or is it just a registering that a sense impression happened without my being aware of it? But I like what David does with this: turning the discriminating and categorizing into another experience. That is what I suggested in my previous post: that we can ’embody’ (in a very different way) a disembodied experience like ‘making sense of’ (what David calls ‘filling in’).<\/p>\n
By the way, there seem to be two ways to look into all this: in the moment, and in immediate retrospect. Do you think the give the same<\/em> knowledge?<\/p>\n Jack<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" David, like Marcia, finds the specifics of embodiment to be a good gateway into “the point where reality is conducted into being.” I have been teaching a meditation class lately in which something similar has come up. Embodiment has a … Continue reading