Hi Erick, why do you think it is consensus that `it has to be felt`? Do you think everyone else lacked imagination?
Good questions. But you need to unpack your premises.
1) You presume I disagree; 2) You assume that we read "IHTBF" the same way; 3) You presume that there is only one way to understand the "it" being felt -- i.e. -- the 'consensus' view; and 4) You presume the consensus has a broadly coherent form. Each of those is premises is false or questionable
They don't lack imagination, far from it. Consensus is simply not knowledge -- it is authority by dint of nothing but numbers -- a collective feeling about
that knowledge (lit. - "consensus" = "feeling together"), which is no more liable to be right than any individual feeling about that knowledge. Consensus once was that man could not fly, and that it was not possible to have a computer smaller than a largish bedroom, either...
A counter-assertion to me that, "You're wrong" without a demonstration of asserted error is not very persuasive to me when I work with and through the ideas I express here for real practical benefit for myself and others. Are they the best? Probably not -- but are they correct as far as they go? -- Yes. Demonstrably. Are they objectively based -- absolutely. The fact that I can accurately describe action and thus correct bad action routinely is better reason than anyone's opinion - or any number of them. I could be wrong, but you have to show me where.
People are far too committed to their subjective expressions of their subjective impressions. That's why things break down over description -- moreso even than ego -- of which there is certainly no lack. There is more than one set of people to feel as far as IHTBF. There are also people who have elements and degrees which can be felt regardless of the level of consistent application. IF -- one has an objective reference to recognize what is the same and what is not.
And finally there is one's own body and that of one's partners to study -- directly. I am constantly amazed at the disconnect between the admonishment of the need do solo work -- all the while denying that anyone who just carefully observes their own movement can learn much of anything on one's own. It makes no sense -- even though I grant that what we speak of, as practical mechanics goes, seems counter-intuitive.
The possibility that one can learn to apply the perspective gained from learning other
counter-intuitive mechanics and apply that turn of mind to this, is disregarded. There is more than one way to come to knowledge of something -- and more than one way to express that knowledge.
Point being, if the "feeling" in IHTBF were objectively described it would be more accessible -- to everyone -- than any subjective consensus, however broad, will ever
allow. It would depend on agreement about "the thing" felt -- and not agreement on our personal impressions of how we feel and express that feeling. Don't get me wrong, one can glean a lot from people's expression of subjective impressions, (Morihei's Doka are a rich vein in this regard, actually) but they remain subjective and there is no substitute for actual objective description
Analytical thought -- which is being expressly advocated here -- cannot operate on anything else