The Oneness Experience

[Nick]

Reality can't be presented without "the things themselves" that make it up.

To be completely accurate, reality is never actually presented, it's always there. What reality does do is create an observer who in turn projects boundaries on to it which creates a subjective, uninherent form of some sort. Take away the observer, and you also take away the form.

Some of those things we can "choose" to change, like our definitions and beliefs - the meanings of names we give things. But there is what I personally would call a "substrate" of perceptual contrast that exists, boundaries and all, before we project extra boundaries onto it.

Even this "substrate" is another projection of your mind on to reality, and there is no way you can prove this to be true without immediately contradicting yourself, i.e. projecting more boundaries on to reality.

For example, let's say that a person was blindfolded their whole life, until one day they were put in a position to see just the sky and the sun. Just blue, and a glowing yellow disk. Let's also assume they recieved no scientific, religious, or any kind of education about the existence of this picture.

When this person opens their eyes, aside from being blinded by the sun, he would see the boundary in its purity. It wouldn't be a Sun God, it wouldn't be the center of the universe, it would be a yellow circle surrounded by blue, and that is all. This boundary is not "projected" by him being an "observer". It is a picture that appears, not necessarily to a "self", not compared to what "other selves" might experience from different perspectives. It is an appearance and that is all.

I agree it would be a pure and simple manifestation of reality, just like any other form we can imagine is, but that doesn't make it an objective, inherent, or absolute form. It's just another case of an observer being caused to project those particular boundaries on to reality, which in turn creates what the observer terms a yellow circle surrounded by blue.

And along a different note, asserting that the appearance of an observer is an oberserver experiencing that appearance, is something that I see no proof for.

My conception of myself as an observer is something I am experiencing, i.e. it affects my thoughts and actions which causes everything else I experience to change.

In the end, "projection" to me means delusion of some sort. Seeing boundaries that aren't really there.

That's close to the truth, because the boundaries we project are rather illusory, as are the perceptions they create. Still, they do actually exist, and as conscious beings we will always have to work with forms of some sort or another. So it's not delusional to project boundaries on to things, but it is delusional when we start believing these things exist inherently and independently of an observer.

[Loki]

How do you know there aren't boundaries out there somewhere? Like, for instance, how do you know physicists won't discover the boundaries of a building block?

Because even if we said there were boundaries "out there somewhere", this is still a form of projecting boundaries on to reality. It's inescapable really.

Look, I said physicists might discover the boundaries of a building block. There's a difference between discovering boundaries and projecting.

Yeah, and I'm talking about an objectively real boundary surrounding the most fundamental building block of matter. Such a building block may exist.

I think scientists are chasing ghosts when it comes to finding a "god particle" as some have referred to it, but regardless of how godly, or fundamental this particle may be, it's existence is still dependent on an observer to project such boundaries around it

Ok, so how do you know this for certain? There's tons of geological evidence that, before life (and consciousness), the earth was very slowly shaped through time by geological processes. Are you saying that millions of years of geological processes didn't occur independently of mind?

[the particle] is wholly dependent on that which it is not, which in my opinion makes calling it a "god particle" meaningless. It all sounds very religious to me.

Still, despite the particle being dependent on space (which logically it must be), doesn't mean that the particle can't have an objectively real boundary.

How can you be certain of this? What you are saying implies that a thing has infinite space. It could very well be the case that a thing is finite, which means you can only divide it up so much. Eventually you're left with two particles - particles which can't be divided.

What's stopping me from using my mind to divide these particles again?

There's a difference between projecting boundaries with your mind, and actually discovering them. Do you actually believe otherwise?

Maybe it wont be of any practical or scientific use to divide these particles, but that doesn't mean they can't in fact be divided by the mind of the observer.

Dude, dividing it up in your imagination is a far cry from actually physically doing it.

[Jason]

How about: the boundaries project the observer?

That doesn't make any sense, unless you mean as observers, we also project a boundary around our self which defines the observer.

I was partly joking, just seeing how many odd variations and permutations of this scenario I could crank out, for comedic effect.

But don't you believe that the observer and observed are co-dependent? They both depend upon each other for existence right? Saying the observer "projects" the boundaries makes it sound like the observer is free of this mutual dependence, as if the observer is a creator - but not a creation itself too. That's partly why I initially suggested replacing "projection" with "perception."

Because boundaries are meaningless without an observer, i.e. they don't exist.

How much of that conclusion is derived from empirical observations? Do you know for sure that it will continue to be the case in the future?

It's a purely logical truth built upon A=A, and yes I am absolutely certain this will always be the case.

You have to have basic axioms from which to build this logical truth, right? What are they? Simply positing "An observer must exist for there to be boundaries." as an initial bedrock from which to work? Or do you break it down further?

[Nick]

Look, I said physicists might discover the boundaries of a building block. There's a difference between discovering boundaries and projecting.

One can discover all the boundaries they want, but they are still projections of the observer.

I think scientists are chasing ghosts when it comes to finding a "god particle" as some have referred to it, but regardless of how godly, or fundamental this particle may be, it's existence is still dependent on an observer to project such boundaries around it

Ok, so how do you know this for certain? There's tons of geological evidence that, before life (and consciousness), the earth was very slowly shaped through time by geological processes. Are you saying that millions of years of geological processes didn't occur independently of mind?

I'm almost 100% certain, based on the empirical evidence, that if we could travel back in time 4 billion years ago we would witness a young Earth being formed with no trace of life or consciousness to be found on it. Still that doesn't mean the evidence and our perception of the Earth at any point in time isn't caused by an observer projecting a boundary or division which seperates these phenomena from everything else they are not.

Still, despite the particle being dependent on space (which logically it must be), doesn't mean that the particle can't have an objectively real boundary.

Depending upon what senses the observer is equiped with, how keen they are, and how they were caused to define certain things, the boundary will never be anything more than relative, and if we take away the observer all together, no boundary will exist at all.

Maybe it wont be of any practical or scientific use to divide these particles, but that doesn't mean they can't in fact be divided by the mind of the observer.

Dude, dividing it up in your imagination is a far cry from actually physically doing it.

It depends on how you look at it, but just because we don't have the technology to "physically divide" something doesn't mean it exists inherently or independently of an observer.

[Nick]

But don't you believe that the observer and observed are co-dependent? They both depend upon each other for existence right?

Absolutely.

Saying the observer "projects" the boundaries makes it sound like the observer is free of this mutual dependence, as if the observer is a creator - but not a creation itself too. That's partly why I initially suggested replacing "projection" with "perception."

I don't see how an observer projecting a boundary on to something implies that they are independent of anything, let alone independent of the thing that arises due to the boundaries the observer projects. If anything I see it as implying just the opposite, because as soon as the observer sets a boundary which defines a thing, they are simultaneously defining their self as "not that thing".

You have to have basic axioms from which to build this logical truth, right? What are they? Simply positing "An observer must exist for there to be boundaries." as an initial bedrock from which to work? Or do you break it down further?

I don't use axioms to build truth with, I use truth to build my "axioms", if you want to call them that.

[mikiel]

Nick: (composit of posts above)

You don't see any importance in knowing that things lose all meaning, and ultimately their continued existence if there wasn't an observer there to support it?...

...and ultimately all things cease to exist without an observer there to support them....

...Take away the observer, and you also take away the form.

One can discover all the boundaries they want, but they are still projections of the observer.

[(Loci):
"Ok, so how do you know this for certain? There's tons of geological evidence that, before life (and consciousness), the earth was very slowly shaped through time by geological processes. Are you saying that millions of years of geological processes didn't occur independently of mind? "]

I'm almost 100% certain, based on the empirical evidence, that if we could travel back in time 4 billion years ago we would witness a young Earth being formed with no trace of life or consciousness to be found on it. Still that doesn't mean the evidence and our perception of the Earth at any point in time isn't caused by an observer projecting a boundary or division which seperates these phenomena from everything else they are not.

So, Nick... aside from the question of projected boundaries, (and I agree that boundaries are often subjective projections tho distinctions are often very relevent as in the atomic chart of elements)...

Do you believe that the sun ceases to exist when you are not observing it or aware of sunlight? Or does it continue existing just because there are always human observers of it, even when it doesn't "exist" for you?

Your first statement in the last paragraph seems to indicate that you are not a solipsist. Yet your previous statements quoted above nail you as a solipsist.

Which is it for you:
The young Earth existed before intelligent life was there to observe it...
or your three first qouted statements?

[Nick]

So, Nick... aside from the question of projected boundaries, (and I agree that boundaries are often subjective projections tho distinctions are often very relevent as in the atomic chart of elements)...

Just because we as humans have been caused to percieve things in a similar light doesn't imply our common perceptions are objective.

Do you believe that the sun ceases to exist when you are not observing it or aware of sunlight? Or does it continue existing just because there are always human observers of it, even when it doesn't "exist" for you?

As a conscious being capable of casting boundaries on to reality, I am able to form thoughts in my head (including boundaries) and imagine that the Sun would continue to shine upon my death, but as soon as I do die, so will the Sun.

Your first statement in the last paragraph seems to indicate that you are not a solipsist. Yet your previous statements quoted above nail you as a solipsist.

I'm not a solipsist because I am absolutely certain that things do exist apart from my mind, althought not independently.

Which is it for you:
The young Earth existed before intelligent life was there to observe it...
or your three first qouted statements?

Currently the former, eventually the latter.

[mikiel]

Nick,
I can't help but notice that your answers are identical in style and similar in content to your gurus', the founders of this forum, i.e., cryptic absurdities with no attemt to make sense, explain, or clarify.
(I guess it's the established standard for "cool" here, and you are downright cold... successfully obscure as obviously intended.

In case you care to actually communicate, here are my prompts:

Just because we as humans have been caused to percieve things in a similar light doesn't imply our common perceptions are objective.

Ergo, the Sun does not exist without human perception of it?

Projecting specific boundaries aside (again... still)

I am able to....

[ form thoughts in my head (including boundaries) and]

... imagine that the Sun would continue to shine upon my death, but as soon as I do die, so will the Sun.

So you are not a solipsist but the Sun depends on being an object in your mind/perception to exist?

I'm not a solipsist because I am absolutely certain that things do exist apart from my mind, althought not independently.

So why then must the Sun die when you do. (The epitome of absurdity, BTW, in case you are too deluded by solopsism (even as you are in denial of it... to realize it!)

Maybe just a hint of how you distinguish "things exist(ing) apart from (your) mind" from things being independent of your mind ...
would actually make some sense...
but, of course, that would blow your cryptic "cool."

mikiel wrote:
Which is it for you:
The young Earth existed before intelligent life was there to observe it...
or your three first qouted statements?


Currently the former, eventually the latter.

How so, if you don't mind my asking for clarification of a completely (and I presume intentionally) opaque reply?

[Nick]

Just because we as humans have been caused to perceive things in a similar light doesn't imply our common perceptions are objective.

Ergo, the Sun does not exist without human perception of it?

Projecting specific boundaries aside (again... still)

Nothing can exist without an observer dividing things up (i.e. casting boundaries on to reality) in a way that distinguishes one thing from another. I can't be any more clear on this point.

I am able to....

[ form thoughts in my head (including boundaries) and]

... imagine that the Sun would continue to shine upon my death, but as soon as I do die, so will the Sun.

So you are not a solipsist but the Sun depends on being an object in your mind/perception to exist?

I'm not a solipsist because I make a distinction between my mind and other things, including the Sun, and I am certain the two exist. Solipsism, the way I understand it, is a philosophy where one believes only the mind can be known to exist, and I do not subscribe to this view.

I'm not a solipsist because I am absolutely certain that things do exist apart from my mind, although not independently.

So why then must the Sun die when you do. (The epitome of absurdity, BTW, in case you are too deluded by solopsism (even as you are in denial of it... to realize it!)

How does making a distinction between two things imply that they don't cause each other's existence?

Maybe just a hint of how you distinguish "things exist(ing) apart from (your) mind" from things being independent of your mind ...
would actually make some sense...
but, of course, that would blow your cryptic "cool."

So you believe it's possible for one thing to exist independently from another?

mikiel wrote:
Which is it for you:
The young Earth existed before intelligent life was there to observe it...
or your three first qouted statements?

Currently the former, eventually the latter.

How so, if you don't mind my asking for clarification of a completely (and I presume intentionally) opaque reply?

It only seems opaque to you because you haven't understood anything else I've said on this subject so far. But basically I'm just stating that presently it seems perfectly reasonable for me to assume the Sun, and everything else, will continue to exist after I die, but once I do die, all these terms we've coined for our perceptions become meaningless because the boundaries which support them will be taken away.

[mikiel]

Nick:

Nothing can exist without an observer dividing things up (i.e. casting boundaries on to reality) in a way that distinguishes one thing from another. I can't be any more clear on this point.

First, why is it that the whole can not exist without "an observer" dividing it up into parts?
This is why I was setting aside the question of human perception projecting boundaries. I grant that distinctions between "things" are a relative matter, i.e., that all things are inter-connected as parts of the Whole. Yet an atom pf hydrogen is way different in form than an atom of uranium... tho they are ultimately "made of the same stuff."

Next, do you posit an Ultimate Observer/ Creator of the whole cosmos (as I do) or do you deny the existence of all beyond human perception?

I'm not a solipsist because I make a distinction between my mind and other things, including the Sun, and I am certain the two exist.

But when you personally die, the sun will cease to exist. (Yet you are not a solipsist!)

How does making a distinction between two things imply that they don't cause each other's existence?

Like this: This human body is, relatively speaking, one individual form, and the sun is another. It exists whether my body does or not. You know... common sense... or do you benefit from any of that?

So you believe it's possible for one thing to exist independently from another?

This body certainly doesn't cause the sun to exist, tho it is obviously dependent upon the sun for its existence. All but solipsist will agree, and the latter are deluded fools.

It only seems opaque to you because you haven't understood anything else I've said on this subject so far. But basically I'm just stating that presently it seems perfectly reasonable for me to assume the Sun, and everything else, will continue to exist after I die, but once I do die, all these terms we've coined for our perceptions become meaningless because the boundaries which support them will be taken away.

So you are fixated on "boundaries" as the defining factor in what does and does not exist. (See my opening statement above.)

The "terms we've coined" designate human concepts *about reality.* They do not create reality but for "our personal subjective realities"... which, of course cease to exist when we personally die.

Beyond human distinctions and concepts is objective reality itself. It has always existed... before Earth was formed and humans evolved... and will continue forever after Earth and humans are long gone. It is pure idiocy to believe otherwise. Seems you qualify.

I know this both gnostically and scientifically.
How do you support your absurdity that sun will cease to exist when you die? (I get that your subjective experience of it will cease to exist. That's a no-brainer.)

[Nick]

First, why is it that the whole can not exist without "an observer" dividing it up into parts?

I never meant to imply that "the whole" can not exist without an observer, because "the whole" obviously doesn't have boundaries.

This is why I was setting aside the question of human perception projecting boundaries. I grant that distinctions between "things" are a relative matter, i.e., that all things are inter-connected as parts of the Whole. Yet an atom pf hydrogen is way different in form than an atom of uranium... tho they are ultimately "made of the same stuff."

That's one way of looking at things which I do not have a problem with.

Next, do you posit an Ultimate Observer/ Creator of the whole cosmos (as I do) or do you deny the existence of all beyond human perception?

If I am understanding you correctly, an ultimate observer/creator is a logical impossibility, and I don't see what that has to do with denying or accepting the existence of what is "beyond human perception", whatever that means.

But when you personally die, the sun will cease to exist. (Yet you are not a solipsist!)

Maybe out ought to give me your definition of solipsism before we walk this path any further.

How does making a distinction between two things imply that they don't cause each other's existence?

Like this: This human body is, relatively speaking, one individual form, and the sun is another. It exists whether my body does or not. You know... common sense... or do you benefit from any of that?

I agree with that, but it doesn't really answer my question. Let me ask you this instead; would you agree with the idea that the sun causes you to exist because the sun is not you, and that you cause the sun to exist because you are not the sun? Ultimately meaning that once a distinction is made between one thing and another, they automatically enter a causal relationship.

So you believe it's possible for one thing to exist independently from another?

This body certainly doesn't cause the sun to exist, tho it is obviously dependent upon the sun for its existence. All but solipsist will agree, and the latter are deluded fools.

See response above.

So you are fixated on "boundaries" as the defining factor in what does and does not exist. (See my opening statement above.)

I don't know if I'd call it a fixation. It's simply a recognition of truth. I mean, how can something exist if it doesn't have boundaries, i.e. something to distinguish itself from? The answer is simply that it can't. And guess who sets those boundaries?

The "terms we've coined" designate human concepts *about reality.* They do not create reality but for "our personal subjective realities"... which, of course cease to exist when we personally die.

They don't designate anything about reality, they designate concepts about finite phenomena. Ultimate reality is boundless and does not depend on anything because there is nothing aside from it.

Beyond human distinctions and concepts is objective reality itself. It has always existed... before Earth was formed and humans evolved... and will continue forever after Earth and humans are long gone. It is pure idiocy to believe otherwise. Seems you qualify.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with the fact that all finite phenomena, i.e. anything that falls short of actually being the Totality, is dependent upon an observer for it's continued existence.

How do you support your absurdity that sun will cease to exist when you die? (I get that your subjective experience of it will cease to exist. That's a no-brainer.)

And my conception of the sun is part of my subjective experience, so it logically follows that it would cease to exist along with it.

[mikiel]

(I'll just go with my replies in bold in context below)

First, why is it that the whole can not exist without "an observer" dividing it up into parts?

I never meant to imply that "the whole" can not exist without an observer, because "the whole" obviously doesn't have boundaries.

You said, "NOTHING can exist without an observer dividing things up (i.e. casting boundaries on to reality) in a way that distinguishes one thing from another. I can't be any more clear on this point."
(caps my emphasis.)
Cosmos *as a whole* exists. Its existence is not dependent on any local observers' myopic and selective observation of it. This is what "objective existence" means independent of subjective perception of its parts. This is what distinguishes the absurdity of solipsism from the reasonable integration of subjective perception and objective cosmos, which is independent of the latter.

This is why I was setting aside the question of human perception projecting boundaries. I grant that distinctions between "things" are a relative matter, i.e., that all things are inter-connected as parts of the Whole. Yet an atom of hydrogen is way different in form than an atom of uranium... tho they are ultimately "made of the same stuff."

That's one way of looking at things which I do not have a problem with.

Next, do you posit an Ultimate Observer/ Creator of the whole cosmos (as I do) or do you deny the existence of all beyond human perception?

If I am understanding you correctly, an ultimate observer/creator is a logical impossibility, and I don't see what that has to do with denying or accepting the existence of what is "beyond human perception", whatever that means.
Well, you are obviously not understanding me correctly as you say, "an ultimate observer/creator is a logical impossibility." "Kosmos" as the Intelligent Being Whose body is cosmos does not depend on the limits of homosapien *logic* for its existence. And if your reality is only subjective , it does indeed depend on (and is limited to your
... or pehaps more broadly, human perception.

But when you personally die, the sun will cease to exist. (Yet you are not a solipsist!)

Maybe out ought to give me your definition of solipsism before we walk this path any further.

I have already. Subjective experience (variations "mine alone" or human in general) defining Reality... i.e., there is no objective reality besides the above anthropomorphic projection of "what 'I' (or we) percieve/experience.

How does making a distinction between two things imply that they don't cause each other's existence?

Like this: This human body is, relatively speaking, one individual form, and the sun is another. It exists whether my body does or not. You know... common sense... or do you benefit from any of that?

I agree with that, but it doesn't really answer my question. Let me ask you this instead; would you agree with the idea that the sun causes you to exist because the sun is not you, NO! (my computer is over-writing again... pain in the ass...

...that you cause the sun to exist because you are not the sun?

I, individidually do not cause the sun to exist. It was here (there) WAY before i was born and will be for a few billion Earth-years after I (individually) am gone. GET A GRIP. THIS IS SO OBVIOUS!


Ultimately meaning that once a distinction is made between one thing and another, they automatically enter a causal relationship.

]Not so. You are so deluded. "I" have no effect on the sun but for the infinitessimal gravitational mutual attraction. I depend on it but it has no dependence whatsoever on me. (Am I repeating? Oh well!)

So you believe it's possible for one thing to exist independently from another?

This body certainly doesn't cause the sun to exist, tho it is obviously dependent upon the sun for its existence. All but solipsist will agree, and the latter are deluded fools.

See response above.

So you are fixated on "boundaries" as the defining factor in what does and does not exist. (See my opening statement above.)

I don't know if I'd call it a fixation. It's simply a recognition of truth. I mean, how can something exist if it doesn't have boundaries, i.e. something to distinguish itself from? The answer is simply that it can't. And guess who sets those boundaries?
Again "boundaries" are simply the relative distinction between "things", as we have already belabored to death. But *It all* exists, as a whole and as all forms... as parts of the whole.

The "terms we've coined" designate human concepts *about reality.* They do not create reality but for "our personal subjective realities"... which, of course cease to exist when we personally die.

They don't designate anything about reality, they designate concepts about finite phenomena. Ultimate reality is boundless and does not depend on anything because there is nothing aside from it.

"Finite phenomena" are objectively real forms comprizing parts of th3e whole, which itself, as a whole is also objecively real. The "atoms" of my body are "objectively real" ('OJ'.) My cells are 'OJ.' My body, as an Earth creature is 'OJ.' Earth as a part of the solar system... etc... etc.. our galaxie as part of the cosmos we know of is 'OJ'. The whole cosmos is 'OJ."

Consciousness itSelf is Real in a way that unifies subjective and objective... non-dual Reality.

Beyond human distinctions and concepts is objective reality itself. It has always existed... before Earth was formed and humans evolved... and will continue forever after Earth and humans are long gone. It is pure idiocy to believe otherwise. Seems you qualify.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with the fact that all finite phenomena, i.e. anything that falls short of actually being the Totality, is dependent upon an observer for it's continued existence.

Absolutely false, as this whole post has tried (in vain i suspect) to explain. Say Earth never formed... or humans. Sun would still exist!

How do you support your absurdity that sun will cease to exist when you die? (I get that your subjective experience of it will cease to exist. That's a no-brainer.)

And my conception of the sun is part of my subjective experience, so it logically follows that it would cease to exist along with it.

As per my "no brainer" comment. Obviously your subjective expetrience of the sun will cease to exist when you die! "It logically follows" does not automatically sanction what "follows" as True!

No kidding. The sun and the cosmos as a Whole will continue a *very long time* after you and I individually are long dead and returned to the dust of the Earth.

So-long. I've again lost patience dealing with stupidity on these boards.
m

[Nick]

Well, you are obviously not understanding me correctly as you say, "an ultimate observer/creator is a logical impossibility." "Kosmos" as the Intelligent Being Whose body is cosmos does not depend on the limits of homosapien *logic* for its existence. And if your reality is only subjective , it does indeed depend on (and is limited to your
... or pehaps more broadly, human perception.

This one caught my eye.

There is no such thing as homosapien logic. Logic is universal and never varies if it is in fact logic, regardless of whether homosapiens or something else is using it. Also, your implication that the Totality can be intelligent or conscious is completely illogical based on the fact that in order for something to be conscious, there must be something for it to be conscious of. With that said, there is nothing aside from the Totality so it is logically impossible for it to be conscious. Finally, there is no such thing as "my reality" or "your reality", there is only Reality. Yes we have subjective perceptions of forms and finite phenomena, but that in no way undermines our ability to logically discern what is ultimately true.

Anyways, cya.

[Carl G]

Also, your implication that the Totality can be intelligent or conscious is completely illogical based on the fact that in order for something to be conscious, there must be something for it to be conscious of. With that said, there is nothing aside from the Totality so it is logically impossible for it to be conscious.

Just curious, why cannot the Totality not be conscious of itself? I have posed this to Kevin on a couple of occasions and have never gotten an answer.

[Ryan Sepulvado]

If you're attempting to become whatever vague conception of wise or wisdom you possess, asking questions will not progess you towards that end.
Unless you're asking yourself, and answering too, you are inadequate.

TOO INADEQUATE TO BE INTELLIGENT.

Intelligence isn't even fun; ignorance is what you seek.
"So meaningless would existence be without it."

[Jason]

Intelligence isn't even fun; ignorance is what you seek.

Oh yeah! Shake it up! :)

[Ryan Sepulvado]

This reminds me of Violent Femmes...

Add it up!

Thanks, sir. You're my hero of incidental suggestion!

[Nick]

Just curious, why cannot the Totality not be conscious of itself? I have posed this to Kevin on a couple of occasions and have never gotten an answer.

Because for something to be conscious in any meaningful sense, it must in fact be conscious of something. Which means it must be able to make distinctions between itself, and something else. So, when it's the Totality we're talking about, and there is nothing aside from it, it is impossible for it to be conscious being that there's actually nothing to be conscious of. Even if we can imagine the Totality did all of a sudden become conscious, that means it would immediately begin making distinctions, simultaneously making itself less than the Totality. It's just the nature of consciousness that it must be finite in order for it to have any kind of useful meaning.

[Carl G]

Just curious, why cannot the Totality not be conscious of itself? I have posed this to Kevin on a couple of occasions and have never gotten an answer.

Because for something to be conscious in any meaningful sense, it must in fact be conscious of something. Which means it must be able to make distinctions between itself, and something else. So, when it's the Totality we're talking about, and there is nothing aside from it, it is impossible for it to be conscious being that there's actually nothing to be conscious of. Even if we can imagine the Totality did all of a sudden become conscious, that means it would immediately begin making distinctions, simultaneously making itself less than the Totality. It's just the nature of consciousness that it must be finite in order for it to have any kind of useful meaning.

Hmm. Okay, I understand that. I just don't necessarily buy it. I don't see why a being can't be conscious of it's parts, without there needing to be something outside itself.

[Nick]

We could say that the Totality already does that through us then. But it's misleading to view this as a case of the Totality being conscious, because we are not the Totality.

[skipair]

You mean, essentially, a substrate existing on top of a Kantian noumena, implying some absolute form of perceptual integrity? I'd like to see your proof for that.

Probably not a noumena because what I'm talking about is plain old sensory perception. The only proof I have is my experience in the past, that when I make intellectual leaps of understanding, all the boundaries of the outside world stay the same. It is their meaning and context that changes.

I'm acknowledging the surface.

Would you say that the substance, the meaning of this paragraph, required boundaries and an observer in order to be meaningful?

Boundaries, of course. An observer, it all depends on what is meant by the word.

All things are falling into the Totality for me recently, but I'm only slightly aware of what I'm doing to have this happen. Still sorting these things out for myself.

And would you say the same is true for the person blinfolded their whole life; that is, would his reality be any less real due to his blindness---due to the fact that the sun itself, for example, appeared differently to you than to him on a sensory level?

Not in exactly, but to make my point, the sun on the sensory level would appear the same. The meaning might be different depending on what beliefs we have about the appearance.

I'm going to have to take a pass on this "observer" discussion for now. Anytime I try to say something there are too many leaves I have left unturned. So I can't really say anything yet. This might be the case for a while...

[Leyla Shen]

s: But there is what I personally would call a "substrate" of perceptual contrast that exists, boundaries and all, before we project extra boundaries onto it.

L: You mean, essentially, a substrate existing on top of a Kantian noumena, implying some absolute form of perceptual integrity? I'd like to see your proof for that.

s: Probably not a noumena because what I'm talking about is plain old sensory perception. The only proof I have is my experience in the past, that when I make intellectual leaps of understanding, all the boundaries of the outside world stay the same. It is their meaning and context that changes.

I'm acknowledging the surface.

I think, in my words, what you are saying is that perception doesn't cause form in the sense that it occurs before form and objective form itself is, thereby, the effect of perception. Yet, you cannot get away from the fact that without perception, there literally couldn't be form---that's what I assume the general idea of death is---even in the case of the blind man.

So, could it be truthfully said that perception and solid form are interdependently, infinitely causal, then? Discerning cause and effect between the two then becomes time, change, finitude.

What say you?

[Burn0neDown]

I'm sorry if I don't have the comprehensive understanding of formal philosophy that the posters of this topic have expressed, but I've read all 47 posts specifically waiting for the idea expressed in the 47th post. I may come off as ignorant. I simply request your patience.

Reading through this topic I can't stop thinking that mutual dependence could solve many of these problems. However, I must be missing something. Much of the formal philosophical discussion is too esoteric for me to understand. Yet I am intrigued, and I must start somewhere.

It appears as though there is so much paradox being argued over - specifically the observer/boundaries problem. Besides context - What makes this different than the chicken or the egg paradox?

I think the observer can't exist without the substrate(?) and the substrate can't exist without the observer. They can only exist in codependence. Without the distinction, they exist as one. The act of observing and the substrate's act of being observed - it is that relationship that creates what I believe to be the infinite boundaries - time, the micro and macro scales, cause and effect. The infinite boundaries are the perfectly harmonized relationship between two mutually dependent things.

That is why in reality you see everything exists in a polarity. I would love to go on a tangent about that, but I don't want to steer discussion off topic.

[divine focus]

We could say that the Totality already does that through us then. But it's misleading to view this as a case of the Totality being conscious, because we are not the Totality.

Then who is?

Who cares if the Totality is conscious? You're conscious, so what else matters? Why decide and conclude on what is infinite and unending? The Totality is like a point; it has no dimensions and is unlocatable. How wide is a point? What can you say about it accurately? You can't see it, but trust that it's there. It makes life easier.

[Nick]

We could say that the Totality already does that through us then. But it's misleading to view this as a case of the Totality being conscious, because we are not the Totality.

Then who is?

Who is the Totality? Nobody is. The Totality is the Totality.

Who cares if the Totality is conscious?

Carl G and Mikiel.

You're conscious, so what else matters?

Truth.

Why decide and conclude on what is infinite and unending?

I don't, I only take in the truth of the matter.

The Totality is like a point; it has no dimensions and is unlocatable. How wide is a point? What can you say about it accurately? You can't see it, but trust that it's there. It makes life easier.

Why would you question me in a discouraging tone about deciding/concluding about what is infinite/unending and then go on to do just that?