| Well, I thought I might be pushing things with saying enactivism is non-dual, but it's not particularly dual either - more synthetic in the Hegelian sense (thesis vs. antithesis --> synthesis), or "triadic" in the sense Gudjieff spoke of, but at any rate, the point that subjective and objective modes of knowing reality are artificial stands.
Alan, it keeps seeming like the meaning you intend when referring to the "myth of the given" is different from my understanding of it. What do you mean it isn't applicable? If you accept that there are certain things as given, then you are under the spell of the myth of the given, as it were, without being aware of it. If you accept that nothing can be accepted naively, without questioning ("nothing is given"), then you have an awareness of the "myth of the given" and are no longer under it's sway.
I guess, to me, conceptualization implies symbolic ideas, but is a subset of cognitions. I do think that pre-conceptual awareness awareness exists, but not pre-cognitive. Emotions and moods are pre-conceptual cognitions in a sense - they affect what environmental cues we attend to, and direct our behavior. Certainly conceptualization emerges downstream, but I'd argue, as my examples show, some attempt to impose meaning on perceptions is present at the most fundamental level. So no, I don't think there is a level we can accept the World "as it is" or as it appears to be, if that is what you are asking - there is always some interpretive function below our levels of awareness. Stare at the snow on your TV and it will begin to display patterns and forms - are they there?
On another note, the mahamudra tradition looks absolutely fascinating. There are many different lineages - are the one's you are referring to Shingon, Hokai? |