SeekerOfWisdom wrote:.... all actually happening "in here" ... these forms are not impressions, the sensory experience covers the full existence of the objects/universe.
So here we are distinguishing "happenings", "impressions", "forms" and especially something named "sensory experience". The problem I had from the beginning with this word game was that some vague notion like "sensory experience" is meaningless, by definition really! There is no "meaning", "logic", "reason", "truth" or "false" when it comes to a some stimulus. But like we never really
capture a moment, there's not really any "direct" access to any supposed stimulus. What we're accessing in our awareness is already taking place in the universe of meaning, fractions of meaning, reactions, objectifications, memories, this whole cloud of "things" to describe, refer to, even to be
aware of an itch it's in relation to several complex notions being processed.
All we get here at best is the insight that "there is existence" or "there is stuff happening" (but don't ask
what) and not "nothing" whatever this nothing would taste like. It's not unimportant to understand that there is
something, which I guess could be called sensory experience even if at that level we cannot tell what a "sense" is and what other kinds of experiences there would be and why it would be then called "sensory experience".
Here we are at ground level: there is existence going on somehow, somewhere, nowhere, everywhere. The idea of this being "beginner" like is that everyone should already know this fact of existence or at least is living from that fact or cannot help but assuming it as fact at some level. The
philosophy starts when reasoning from this as
starting point and not stick with it as if it was everything what was possible to say about it. So perhaps at least try to make everything else reflect consistently this discovery of ultimate existence, to let nothing contradict it or cloud ones awareness of it. Easier said than done!