David Reid: The only part he's got "wrong" is he thinks he "did" it
Robert Saltzman: You and I see these matters similarly, David, but I have no trouble with conventional speech such as Dylan used here. I don't think he got anything "wrong."
I make a point of this to call out a silly misconception in so-called "non-duality"--the idea that "I" don't "really" exist. No, I say. You exist as much as anything else does.
Bob Dylan is NOT Bob Jones or Bob Marley. Two of those men were artists who made songs, and the third was a religious scammer.
If there were no "I," there might be nothing at all, for we all know.
I never met Dylan, but I assume that, like most artists, he knows that the muses love us only as long as it suits their purposes, and when they are done with us, we find out how uninspired we are without them.
David Reid: Yes, Robert, I agree. We did both put quotes around our "wrongs" for the same reason.
The silly misconception you mention really can't be overstated, so I appreciate its inclusion. I write about that often, as you do, directly or indirectly. After all, the experience of "being here" is the *entirety* of "what is" for this individual.
Yesterday, in another format, I described this misconception in terms of the distinction between the illusory nature of being here and calling it an illusion. The former allows it to be what it is, real insofar as there are no boundaries between being here and not (aside from what our mind conceives of). At the same time, the latter expresses an utter absurdity proven wrong by nothing less than everything.
Being awake reveals the illusory nature of the experience. It isn't really an event happening to an individual. That doesn't make it any less experienced, which means it matters completely. If it's an illusion, on the other hand, nothing matters, and we metaphorically "sleep" (unawakened) our way through this marvel of an experience.
I agree completely with Dylan. He is a devotee of the muse in a way. He knows he's just a normal dude plowing his trade until the muse steps in. Being awake to the reality of the muse, though, is different from being awake. That was what engendered my initial comment.
Robert Saltzman: In that usage of the word "illusory," David, there is nothing that is not illusory because all one can ever know is perceptions, feelings, and thoughts. Do you mean it that way?
David Reid: Great question. Yes, I very much do mean it that way, though more specifically, I was thinking of the relative nature of all phenomenological objects and experiences. They are not what they seem to be, and for that matter, neither are we.
I would love to explore the word "all" in your statement, as there is an exception that I think could be very valuable for finding a common language.
This is the logic that makes sense to me regarding why phenomenological experience both is and is not "all" there is.
There is no way to tell what anything is other than relative to everything else. Therefore, the nature of anything is illusory because it is not what it appears to be. It is the whole, appearing as something discrete to an apparent someone. If you get punched in the face, it hurts, and your lip bleeds. If it was an illusion, not only would it be a movie but a somehow non-experienced movie. One can say they didn't get punched in the face, but they are lying to themselves and anyone else who witnessed the event.
Any discrete thing (the dog I am petting) appears, proving otherwise or denying it is pure imagination. If it is an illusion, then everything is, and the point is immediately moot. That perspective is as true as any other, though, if it floats one's boat. To me, it implies that nothing matters, which is the most disingenuous of all statements made by anyone still breathing. Total BS, a lie, whether the person knows it or not. Yet my opinion on that viewpoint is as irrelevant as the viewpoint.
There is a factor that is not the discrete thing, nor the experience of it, nor the imagination of it not being there, that is nonetheless known. That is the aliveness of it, the unmistakable if not undeniable fact that appearance by definition "is" and "is known." That is not illusory. The appearance proves itself when recognized to be and to be known. If it's "is-ness" and "known-ness" are not accounted for, then appearance is "all" there is. Otherwise, there is another factor that does not participate phenomenologically in the appearance.
You call that "this aliveness," and you call recognizing it just exactly as it is, being "awake." To notice "aliveness" and mean by it what I take you to mean while at the same time being "awake," which I could describe as recognizing that everything (all appearance) is illusory in nature, is to recognize the non-difference between what aliveness is and what appearance is.
In the end, which is also the beginning and the middle, there isn't a difference between those "two" things. Appearance and aliveness are not different. Being awake could also be nicely described now as not only knowing that but knowing that ordinary me is "what(ever)" that is, too. It is not a separate thing, and there isn't anything else. How could there be? Where would it be? I am whole and complete, just fine as I am, before, during, and after anything, is the conclusion. Me and "what is" are two terms for what does not have a knowable limit or boundary.
Robert Saltzman: Bingo! Excellently stated. That is what I mean by awake. Thank you.
Robert, I'd glossed over this gem in our initial exchange: "If there were no "I," there might be nothing at all, for we all know."
It encapsulates something I appreciate so much about the way you communicate, and that is - no assumptions anywhere. It's one thing to clearly communicate something, and it is another to do so without any platform other than "me, just as I am."
Excellent exchange guys. Nails it. Merci!