I wouldn't say truth was a different nature. Distinguishing between the truth of mind and appearance, and mind and appearance, then using that to propose a different nature altogether, seems far fetched to me.movingalways wrote: Mind and appearance changes, mind and appearance is temporal and finite. Truth does not change, truth is eternal. I assume you consider that your view of "mind and appearance is all" is absolute truth, which implies does it not that its truth exists regardless if mind and appearance acknowledges its existence? Therefore, I have shown to you that truth (the absolute) is different in nature than is mind and appearance (relativism).
Why does it matter if there are things of consciousness I don't know or you don't know? They are still things of consciousness, nowhere does that imply a realm different in nature.jupiviv wrote: In response, if you actually try to explain it to me, then you necessarily acknowledge that a>> there are some things *I* don't know & b>> there are things outside of *your* consciousness (my consciousness) and about which *you* do not fully know (why I disagree with you, how to convince me otherwise).
Good question, the answer is because your language is yet to be explained. For example, if you had instead proposed the existence of a bearded man on a sled carried by flying reindeer, this is at least something which has been described, and I would consider it possible. Yet the only proposition you've given so far is meaningless gibberish. Let me explain by example: when someone proposes "the end" of existence itself, such a person cannot describe what "the end" or non-existence is actually like, or what it is, so they haven't really said anything. If instead they do attempt to explain it, they will only be able to refer to some aspect of consciousness, such as the conceptualization of a darkness or void. So it is either not explained or properly defined (as you have failed to do so in regard to that which is different in nature from consciousness), or it is explained only by referring to sensations, concepts, feelings, and so on, all of which are aspects of what we refer to as consciousness.jupiviv wrote: how do you know that?
You'll notice that you are yet to describe to me what it is that you are proposing exists which is apparently not consciousness, but instead differs in nature entirely. Give it a try, you'll only be able to describe it by referring to aspects of consciousness, or by simply asserting it is "unknown" or "hidden" as moving has done, though she did attempt again with her reference to absolute truth.
As I see it, the fundamentally flawed worldview of materialism is passed on and accepted unconditionally despite its illogic. There are many reasons this might occur, one of which may be the attempt to explain the consistency of sense-objects which apparently continues despite their appearance/observation.
I would say that you simply haven't had the insights which are necessary for you to understand this truth. Though they would probably occur in a matter of hours if you were to contemplate upon it. Perhaps due to prejudice and predisposition, like most others, you may have never spent time in honest truth-seeking contemplation of the 'core questions' of metaphysics. Again I should make clear that very few people engage in honest truth-seeking contemplation without the blinding dust of clinging in regards to prejudice, predisposition, hearsay, conjecture, popular opinion, and what they've been taught. So I am not saying that you have failed in your logical investigation into the nature of reality, but just that you have probably never attempted it, that you have, like all those with the mindset of a teenager, written LAWL in reply to anything which goes against what you've heard and clung too. Honesty is something very hard won.
My advice: sit alone in silence without any books or screens. I'm not sure if you're the 'type' to ridicule such activity, but if so it would only be because you don't yet understand that you personally have the greatest possible capability for insight into the nature of reality. No one that has ever existed has had a closer tie to reality, or a better "viewing-seat", so to speak. I say that explanation is less efficient than personal exploration of provided advice and methods, sometimes explanation is entirely futile, but I believe you could 'solve' this discussion in a short time.
I agree, and I proposed the possibility to gauge the situation, but as far as I can reasonably assume, if I were to communicate in such a way, it may lead to me being banned, which is the least effective method of communication. So I'd like to hear Diebert elaborate on this. What are the 'rules' of posting? Can one stick to short comments, as long as they are varied? (Rather than endlessly repeated as we've seen in the past)movingalways wrote:Seeker, you are not following your own rules of efficient communication.