On Meanings

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

On Meanings

Post by Sapius »

Below is where we left off....
Quote:Quote:<hr>Diebert: Meaning means signifying foremost, implying some form of representation. Appearances to our brain are nothing else than signifiers, so without meaning, there's no form! The moment you are observing a form, you're already entering the world of meaning, on the imaginative and also the emotional level. So one cannot say there's no meaning to things. But what I think you're trying to say is that when you see 'existence' as one big form, it doesn't seem to signify anything, no intent or meaning to it. You can see no form here, but a 'formlessness'. Over ALL there's only emptiness, and so far I think we agree on this.<hr>
Yes, over all we do agree, from a certain perspective; please pardon my poor explanations earlier, but can we discuss this a bit further?

Is a Tree an idea that appears to our brains?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hey Sapius, welcome back. You're the second one in a short while that uses my name in a thread title. ;) I do hope others will join in even while their name is not being listed...

Could you perhaps expand on your question before I reply? Not sure what direction you want to go.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Sapius »

Hello Diebert,

Of course, as always, everyone is welcome to discuss. I just wrote your name to draw your attention since this is a continuation of our last discussion.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Could you perhaps expand on your question before I reply? Not sure what direction you want to go.<hr>

I could, but the direction depends on what you make of the question. However, do you believe that no-thing literally exists except as appearances to the mind?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Is a Tree an idea that appears to our brains?

... do you believe that no-thing literally exists except as appearances to the mind?<hr>
Sapius, since the caused mind is crucial in giving significance to any perception or thought, I believe the question is not so important. Unless one would introduce a level of detached awareness that exists outside the body and mind from your question.

One cannot really know about existence and appearances until one knows the knower and starts to grasp the process of knowing itself. These truths will remain solid and real even when senses would be trapped in a dream, simulation or hallucinations, shared or not.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Sapius »

Diebert

Quote:Quote:<hr>since the caused mind is crucial in giving significance to any perception or thought,<hr> True, agreed, so would there be 'meaning' to anything without the mind being around?

Quote:Quote:<hr>Unless one would introduce a level of detached awareness that exists outside the body and mind from your question.<hr> You mean like God? Are you saying that if there is no Human mind, then there is no Awareness, hence nothing literally exists?

Quote:Quote:<hr>One cannot really know about existence and appearances until one knows the knower and starts to grasp the process of knowing itself.<hr>
Whose talking about 'knowing'!? this comes much later. I'm talking about physical existence of things. I am talking about mind being aware of things, rather than things existing only as concepts once the mind is aware of it. Does the physical world exist without a mind being around to be aware of it? and would there be anything meaningful around in that world?

Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: On Meanings

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: Does the physical world exist without a mind being around to be aware of it? and would there be anything meaningful around in that world?<hr>

Oh no, not the if-a-tree-falls-in-a-forest-and-there's-noone-there-to-hear-it-did-it-make-a-sound-?-!-! question again...
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Quote:Quote:<hr>so would there be 'meaning' to anything without the mind being around?<hr>
Not existence, but that question itself looks meaningless. Any answer to your question (yes, no, other) implies already a rational mind to make it relevant. You can't even conclude there is or isn't a need for a specific mind to make anything 'literary exist'. Pure logic bars the way here, but please do try to get around it by all means.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Are you saying that if there is no Human mind, then there is no Awareness, hence nothing literally exists?<hr>
The notion 'a (no)thing that literally exists' is already a conflicting idea in itself. With your mind and body intact, exploring your own awareness.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Whose talking about 'knowing'!? this comes much later.<hr>
Before you start identifying, a prime identification needs to be there. Before you can interpret your senses, or words, or meanings, there's an interpreter in place. Or better said: a base interpretation. This is part of what I called 'knowing', not the usual higher rational functions, and really comes first.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Sapius »

Diebert,

Quote:Quote:<hr>Not existence, but that question itself looks meaningless. Any answer to your question (yes, no, other) implies already a rational mind to make it relevant. You can't even conclude there is or isn't a need for a specific mind to make anything 'literary exist'. Pure logic bars the way here, but please do try to get around it by all means.<hr> I do understand but I cannot help the mind asking 'what if?'. I will try to get around it, but for now, if for some reason no mind remains, will cause and effect itself suddenly become non-existent, which has been confirmed by the minds temporal existence. I do understand that it becomes irrelevant as far as pure logic is concerned, but that does not mean we can't talk about it. We are just discussing after all.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Before you start identifying, a prime identification needs to be there. Before you can interpret your senses, or words, or meanings, there's an interpreter in place.<hr>
Sure, hence, no interpreter - no "meaning" to things in itself. I understand that there is an interpreter saying this too right now. What you seem to be saying is, no-interpreter - no things itself, no cause and effect, no Reality, and so on. Is it the mind that confirms the Truth, or creates the Truth?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sapius,Quote:Quote:<hr>if for some reason no mind remains, will cause and effect itself suddenly become non-existent, which has been confirmed by the minds temporal existence<hr>
The problem lies in where you position the mind to begin with. If you'd state that the mind is some self-observed part of the causal web, and why not, then there's no reason to conclude the causal web is a product of your mind. If you'd state that the mind creates all reality including cause and effect, which would create a new 'un-caused reality', then of course the cause and effect in your quote becomes non-existent.

Through reason you can see the answers are already defined by your questions and assumptions.

Quote:Quote:<hr>What you seem to be saying is, no-interpreter - no things itself, no cause and effect, no Reality, and so on. Is it the mind that confirms the Truth, or creates the Truth?<hr>

What I tried to say was that you first have to understand the essential, the knower and the knowing, before getting to the knowledge of the reality you're inquiring into.

To answer your question: a mind in a state of complete Reason or goodness (sattvam), will reflect Truth and its every movement will only confirm it. Edited by: Diebert van Rhijn at: 6/20/05 1:32
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Sapius »

Diebert;
Quote:Quote:<hr>The problem lies in where you position the mind to begin with. If you'd state that the mind is some self-observed part of the causal web, and why not, then there's no reason to conclude the causal web is a product of your mind.<hr>
This seems more logical given all other sensual and mental experiences.
Quote:Quote:<hr>If you'd state that the mind creates all reality including cause and effect, which would create a new 'un-caused reality', then of course the cause and effect in your quote becomes non-existent.<hr> There cannot be an un-caused cause for Reality never dies, hence could not have been born.
Quote:Quote:<hr>What I tried to say was that you first have to understand the essential, the knower and the knowing, before getting to the knowledge of the reality you're inquiring into.<hr> I understand, and that is exactly what philosophy has been doing till date, but I was simply asking as to what essentially exists all the time, the Knower? or Reality?
Quote:Quote:<hr>To answer your question: a mind in a state of complete Reason or goodness (sattvam), will reflect Truth and its every movement will only confirm it.<hr>
The root word for 'sattvam' is 'satya' which itself means truth. So what is essentially said here is that a mind in a state of Truth will reflect and confirm only Truth. Well, I will not go into the "meaning" of Reason and Goodness since it is the mind that interprets or calls it so for the sake of communication, but the point is that it reflects something and confirms something that exists, and Reality would continue to exist irrelevant of the minds existence, and a mind is what gives names and "meanings" to things, including Reality and Truth.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sapius.Quote:Quote:<hr>but I was simply asking as to what essentially exists all the time, the Knower? or Reality?<hr>The Absolute?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Reality would continue to exist irrelevant of the minds existence,<hr>
That's indeed what defines the Absolute, since it cannot have a beginning or ending.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Sapius »



Of course. So where lies the "meaning" to any thing from the perspective of the Absolute!?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sapius,Quote:Quote:<hr>So where lies the "meaning" to any thing from the perspective of the Absolute!?<hr>
The Absolute can't have some perspective, can it? From the point of view of the mind in a state of Reason, assigning meaning is a function of mind only. A situation where there is no meaning because there's no mind to assign or withold it, does not bother me in particular. In such situation one might say there's meaning and 'no meaning' at the same time. Only a potential for meaning to be assigned?

Are you asking if eternal truth implies some eternal meaning?

Spinoza wrote: "The mind is eternal, in so far as it conceives things under the form of eternity".

Eternal truths are absolute but meaning is a subjective affair, a representation. Perhaps more like a tool, a means to, from the mind's perspective.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Sapius »

Diebert,
Quote:Quote:<hr>The Absolute can't have some perspective, can it? From the point of view of the mind in a state of Reason, assigning meaning is a function of mind only. A situation where there is no meaning because there's no mind to assign or withold it, does not bother me in particular. In such situation one might say there's meaning and 'no meaning' at the same time. Only a potential for meaning to be assigned?<hr> True, hence, no mind, no perspective, no meaning, although I agree that a potential may exist, a potential of meaning as well as a mind. But if you are not interested or think about such a situation, then it does not really matter.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Eternal truths are absolute but meaning is a subjective affair, a representation. Perhaps more like a tool, a means to, from the mind's perspective.<hr> Firstly, what do you <span style="text-decoration:underline">mean</span> by 'Eternal truths'? And, could you give me an example of "Eternal truth” without using a mind's perspective?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On Meanings

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sapius,Quote:Quote:<hr>Firstly, what do you mean by 'Eternal truths'? And, could you give me an example of "Eternal truth” without using a mind's perspective?<hr>
Are you asking me to say some mindless nonsense now? ;)

What is eternaly true for any mind is that the supreme reality gives rise to everything every moment, including the mind that ponders it, including the mind that does not.

How does one know this truth is eternal? Because it knows no beginning or ending and by definition does not only depend on the mind since the only valid definition of eternity is that what is ultimately interdepend arising.

How can one be sure this is not a deception, hence a truth? By being unable to falsify it by clear reasoning. How can one be sure we use clear reasoning? By willing to sacrifice everything in questioning and penetrating the core of reasoning itself.
Locked