A Flaw in Solway's reasoning?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

A Flaw in Solway's reasoning?

Post by Cory Duchesne »

I've been following Solway's debate with Laird, and was inspired to draw attention to a theme.
Laird wrote:
Solway wrote: You are assuming that there is a reality independent of thought, and which thought corresponds to. There isn't.
So then of what substance is thought comprised?
This question by Laird is along the lines I've been thinking myself these days.

Thought is definitely coresponding to a distinction that is only co-created by the mind. If all consciousness on earth were to end, there would still be all the cities, buildings and architecture left behind, decaying. Just because there are no minds to conceive 'things', doesn't mean those things do not continue to exist in someway.


This next bit was taken from the hour of judgement:
David: Anything that exists exists because we conceive it to exist. So if we stop conceiving a thing to exist, then it ceases to exist.
But if something doesn't exist unless we concieve it to, then how do we percieve things to begin with? For instance, a baby makes distinctions. The external reality is acting on the baby's consciousness and the baby is perceiving a distinction.

--------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, Kevin himself indicated that there is an external reality that thought corresponds to:
(the following was taken from an old post)
Kevin Solway wrote: However, we could say, as a manner of speaking, that the Totality (God) determines things independently of what we perceive. So no matter whether we perceive either a snake or a stick, or whatever else, God has already determined what is really there.
^ this makes sense. But Kevin is in contradiction when he says that there is no reality independent of thought, no objective reality which thought corresponds to.

And Dave Sim said:
I believe in objective reality, but I believe that it's known only to God.
^ This makes sense.

The following is another excerpt from an old post:
Kevin Solway wrote: Since the observer is one of the necessary causes of the existence of things (for example, in constructing boundaries) it's not possible for there to be "things" independent of the observer.
This makes no sense. The observer is an effect that has causes, and these causes must have existed before the observer existed.


Kevin also said:
Often we are bitten by things we can't even see. But God knows exactly what is going on, so to speak.
ok, so there are 'happenings' independent of thought, of the mind.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Sun May 13, 2007 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Faust »

Hah, good thing you saw this. Yes it does seem like a flaw. The first quote by Solway that you put, sounds oddly solipsistic and postmodern, I would have never thought that he would say such a thing. Since that quote is in direct contradiction with the words consciousness and unconsciousness.
Amor fati
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A Flaw in Solway's reasoning?

Post by Kelly Jones »

Cory Duchesne wrote:Laird: So then of what substance is thought comprised?
And, what substance is that substance composed of?

Etc.


Cory wrote:Just because there are no minds to conceive 'things', doesn't mean those things do not continue to exist in someway.
The objective or external reality that you erroneously believe exists, and as Laird does as well, beyond consciousness is an error because you've never experienced it. Thus, it is a blind belief.

Let's compare that with Kevin's quote:
Kevin Solway wrote:However, we could say, as a manner of speaking, that the Totality (God) determines things independently of what we perceive. So no matter whether we perceive either a snake or a stick, or whatever else, God has already determined what is really there.
Did you pay attention to "as a manner of speaking", Cory?

I'd say Kevin means that no matter what boundaries are projected onto Nature, it remains unchanging.

Notice that Kevin has consistently denied to Laird that the Absolute, or Totality, or Nature, is a thing.


And Dave Sim said: "I believe in objective reality, but I believe that it's known only to God. "
As far as I know, Dave Sim is not a wise man, but has had some good insights about the psychology of woman.

Dan mentioned that he doesn't have an email, but Sim seems to have a Skype account. If getting him on the Reasoning Show is of interest, then......



Cory wrote:The observer is an effect that has causes, and these causes must have existed before the observer existed.
They exist logically in the moment that the observer arises, as everything that is "not-observer". They do not exist in time, for that would require memory, and an observer. This is called codependent origination.


Kevin: Often we are bitten by things we can't even see. But God knows exactly what is going on, so to speak.

Cory: ok, so there are 'happenings' independent of thought, of the mind.
Is "bitten" a thought?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

I addressed this point in Wisdom of the Infinite. Consciousness is not the sole cause of our experiences, but it is a necessary one - just as a mirror is not the sole cause of its reflections, but still a necessary one.

However, unlike in the mirror example, what gives rise to existences within consciousness is not an independent world of objects, but what I call the "hidden void". The hidden void cannot be thought of as an independent world of objects (for a world of objects can only occur within consciousness), nor can it be thought of as nothing (for that too can only occur within consciousness). It cannot be thought of as having any form at all - hence, the term "void".

This void, which, by definition, can never be experienced by anyone or anything, has to be factored into the equation when it comes to thinking about this issue. It is that hidden part of Nature which gives rise to consciousness and its experiences, in a manner that is impossible for any of us to fathom.

-
Last edited by David Quinn on Sun May 13, 2007 9:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Faust13 wrote:Hah, good thing you saw this. Yes it does seem like a flaw. The first quote by Solway that you put, sounds oddly solipsistic and postmodern, I would have never thought that he would say such a thing. Since that quote is in direct contradiction with the words consciousness and unconsciousness.
Rowden and Quinn have said similar things.

Here's a quote by Rowden:
Dan wrote:Like definitions, the empirical models we create are either useful or not; they either have utility for some purpose or other or they do not; if not, we can categorise them as bad models, but they are never true or false, certain or uncertain. When we grant these creations of the mind the quality of uncertainty, we imply the existence of an objective reality, one which we are attempting to accurately model or reflect, but no such objective reality exists. We are merely creatively carving up an infinitely carvable Reality according to the whims of the qualities of our consciousness.
We are merely carving up reality according to the whims of the qualities of our consciousness?

So what are these qualities with whims? that our consciousness has? Apparently, according to Dan's logic, there are distinctions beyond consciousness dictating the way our consciousness carves up the objective world. Therefore, Dan is in contradiction when he says: "We imply the existence of an objective reality, one which we are attempting to accurately model or reflect, but no such objective reality exists."

If no objective reality existed, then how did our consciousness arise to begin with? Surely consciousness had antecedent causes, and if that is true, then that implies that there was a distinct objective reality that existed before consciousness. It is implied that there is a proccess comprised of distinct things, developing into consciousness.

-------------------------------------------------------

This next bit was taken from the hour of judgement:
David Quinn wrote:
Anything that exists exists because we conceive it to exist. So if we stop conceiving a thing to exist, then it ceases to exist.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

David and Kelly, be aware that I never got a chance to read your latest posts before making my most recent post above. If I had, the post above would have turned out quite different

I will read over what you said and address it shortly.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A Flaw in Solway's reasoning?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kelly Jones wrote:As far as I know, Dave Sim is not a wise man, but has had some good insights about the psychology of woman. Dan mentioned that he doesn't have an email, but Sim seems to have a Skype account. If getting him on the Reasoning Show is of interest, then......
He does? I can't find it. What's his username? I haven't found it under variations of Dave Sim.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

David Quinn wrote:I addressed this point in Wisdom of the Infinite. Consciousness is not the sole cause of our experiences, but it is a necessary one - just as a mirror is not the sole cause of its reflections, but still a necessary one.
And of course, when you cover the mirror over, the objects that it reflected, still continue to exist outside, even though the mirror is no longer functional.
David Quinn wrote: However, unlike in the mirror example, what gives rise to existences within consciousness is not an independent world of objects, but what I call the "hidden void".

........

This void, which, by definition, can never be experienced by anyone or anything, has to be factored into the equation when it comes to thinking about this issue. It is that hidden part of Nature which gives rise to consciousness and its experiences, in a manner that is impossible for any of us to fathom.
Well, that being said, I don't understand why it is you feel entitled to say things like:
Nothing can generate its own momentum, simply because nothing can occur without causes. Even the Totality itself, the never-ending chain of causation, did not generate its own momentum, as its momentum has always been present
So the totality has a momentum. This means that it occupies space and time. There cannot be momentum without distinctions between things (however undivided they ultimately are).

Why am I not correct to picture the totality as an infinte chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

You really shouldn't be picturing the Totality as anything at all. Or at least, you shouldn't be attaching yourself to any of these pictures.

The perception of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is still just a dualistic illusion existing in the moment, as is the hidden void. The form of the Totality cannot be found in any dualistic illusion. As soon as you think it does, you have fallen into the spell of duality and lost sight of the fact that the Totality has no objective form or existence.

As for my "momentum" comment, I was speaking poetically. The Totality doesn't rely on anything else for its subsistence or energy. It is completely self-generated, if you like.

-
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Faust »

David Quinn wrote:You really shouldn't be picturing the Totality as anything at all. Or at least, you shouldn't be attaching yourself to any of these pictures.

The perception of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is still just a dualistic illusion existing in the moment, as is the hidden void. The form of the Totality cannot be found in any dualistic illusion. As soon as you think it does, you have fallen into the spell of duality and lost sight of the fact that the Totality has no objective form or existence.

As for my "momentum" comment, I was speaking poetically. The Totality doesn't rely on anything else for its subsistence or energy. It is completely self-generated, if you like.

-

Self-generated huh? So some things DO inherently exist?
Amor fati
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A Flaw in Solway's reasoning?

Post by Kelly Jones »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:As far as I know, Dave Sim is not a wise man, but has had some good insights about the psychology of woman. Dan mentioned that he doesn't have an email, but Sim seems to have a Skype account. If getting him on the Reasoning Show is of interest, then......
He does? I can't find it. What's his username? I haven't found it under variations of Dave Sim.
Seems to have one. gdavid.sims - try that.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Faust13 wrote:Self-generated huh? So some things DO inherently exist?
No, not some things, only Everything. ;)
.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: A Flaw in Solway's reasoning?

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Kelly Jones wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:Laird: So then of what substance is thought comprised?
And, what substance is that substance composed of?
Your question only helps one realize that the objective reality extends beyond consciousness.
Kelly wrote:
Cory wrote:Just because there are no minds to conceive 'things', doesn't mean those things do not continue to exist in someway.
The objective or external reality that you erroneously believe exists, and as Laird does as well, beyond consciousness is an error because you've never experienced it.
So how is it Kelly that you rationalize waking up and finding the tree that is outside of your room snaped and lying down on its side? Yesterday it was up. But today it's snapped, lying on the ground. There was no consciousness that witnessed the tree fall down, but nonetheless, today it is down, despite yesterday it was up. How do you rationalize this?
Kelly wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:However, we could say, as a manner of speaking, that the Totality (God) determines things independently of what we perceive. So no matter whether we perceive either a snake or a stick, or whatever else, God has already determined what is really there.
I'd say Kevin means that no matter what boundaries are projected onto Nature, it remains unchanging.
Kevin is not refering to nature in the passage above. He is refering to the truth of an object, whether it is a snake or a stick.

To further borrow from an old post by Solway:
Solway wrote: We can't see things from a God's-eye view. "Things", for us at least, are always what appears to us.

Through science we hope to approach what God sees, so to speak, but we will never be able to cross the barrier of the senses.

The whole weight of modern science might determine, unanimously, that something is a stick, when God knows it is a snake.

So, in a way the thing was other than it appeared to us, but only to God.
Kevin is obviously refering to an objective reality, albeit one that is eternally unknowable.


Kelly wrote: Notice that Kevin has consistently denied to Laird that the Absolute, or Totality, or Nature, is a thing.
And so do I. I too deny that the totality is a thing. However, why would I be incorrect to concieve of the totality has being comprised of an infinte chain of worlds extending infinitely? It would have no begining, no end, however, that does not mean that within it cannot be contained an infinite # of worlds with infinte # of objects.

Kelly wrote:
Cory wrote:The observer is an effect that has causes, and these causes must have existed before the observer existed.
They exist logically in the moment that the observer arises, as everything that is "not-observer". They do not exist in time, for that would require memory, and an observer. This is called codependent origination.
So how is that you rationalize the theory of natural selection and evidence such as fossils that suggests that the manifestations we see here are the result of billions and billions of years of time?

Kelly wrote:
Kevin: Often we are bitten by things we can't even see. But God knows exactly what is going on, so to speak.

Cory: ok, so there are 'happenings' independent of thought, of the mind.
Is "bitten" a thought?
Kevin is clearly refering to is the 'thing' that is doing the biting. The 'thing' which God knows, but the one being bitten only has a mere idea about.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

David Quinn wrote:You really shouldn't be picturing the Totality as anything at all.
I'm not, as I realize perfectly well that a totality that extends in all directions infinitely does nothing but render meaningless any notion of 'center'. You can only picture the totality relative to a center, and my definition of totality wipes out a center just as effectively as yours.
Or at least, you shouldn't be attaching yourself to any of these pictures.
No, I'm not imagining myself at the center of it all, if that's what you mean.
David Quinn wrote: The perception of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is still just a dualistic illusion existing in the moment, as is the hidden void.
A 'perception' of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is impossible. You know as well as I do that percieving infinity, as well as conceptualizing it, is not possible.
The form of the Totality cannot be found in any dualistic illusion.
Of course not. It's not conceivable by thought, nor can it be percieved.
As soon as you think it does, you have fallen into the spell of duality and lost sight of the fact that the Totality has no objective form or existence.
Ok, I realize that the totality has no form, as that implies that at some point there are final borders - but within the totality's infinite expanse, there is distinction, objects, worlds (an infinite #).
As for my "momentum" comment, I was speaking poetically. The Totality doesn't rely on anything else for its subsistence or energy. It is completely self-generated, if you like.
Energy? It's subsistence? Generated? Obviously you are refering to something objective, existing independently from thought.

Another thing I want to address is this:
David Quinn wrote: This void, which, by definition, can never be experienced by anyone or anything, has to be factored into the equation when it comes to thinking about this issue. It is that hidden part of Nature which gives rise to consciousness and its experiences, in a manner that is impossible for any of us to fathom.
Given what you say above, why is it not ok to say that the how's and why's of consciousness will always will be a mystery?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Cory,
DQ: You really shouldn't be picturing the Totality as anything at all.

Cory: I'm not, as I realize perfectly well that a totality that extends in all directions infinitely does nothing but render meaningless any notion of 'center'. You can only picture the totality relative to a center, and my definition of totality wipes out a center just as effectively as yours.
I meant picturing it as having any fixed form or objective existence "out there".

DQ: The perception of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is still just a dualistic illusion existing in the moment, as is the hidden void.

Cory: A 'perception' of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is impossible. You know as well as I do that percieving infinity, as well as conceptualizing it, is not possible.
The objective reality of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is also impossible. It can only ever exist as a perceptual reality, and even then only in the moment.

DQ: The form of the Totality cannot be found in any dualistic illusion.

Cory: Of course not. It's not conceivable by thought, nor can it be percieved.

Well, it can be perceived, but only when you stop looking for it within dualistic illusions.

DQ: As for my "momentum" comment, I was speaking poetically. The Totality doesn't rely on anything else for its subsistence or energy. It is completely self-generated, if you like.

Cory: Energy? It's subsistence? Generated? Obviously you are refering to something objective, existing independently from thought.

The Totality is absolute in nature, but it doesn't exist "out there" as an objective reality. It is independent in the sense that there is nothing else for it to depend on. But since it is not really an "it" to begin with, terms like "objective" or "subjective" don't meaningfully apply to it.

An objective reality can only find existence and meaning in contrast with something else - such as subjective reality. But the Totally subsumes all.

DQ: This void, which, by definition, can never be experienced by anyone or anything, has to be factored into the equation when it comes to thinking about this issue. It is that hidden part of Nature which gives rise to consciousness and its experiences, in a manner that is impossible for any of us to fathom.

Cory: Given what you say above, why is it not ok to say that the how's and why's of consciousness will always will be a mystery?
I also addressed this point in Wisdom:
The Hidden Void

Since existence is equivalent to appearance, it naturally follows that it is impossible for existence to occur outside the mind. Armed with this knowledge, we can now properly examine what it is that lies beyond consciousness and creates our constructed universe in the first place.

The first thing we can establish is that it is incapable, by its very nature, of presenting an appearance and therefore incapable of existing and possessing form. It cannot be thought of as a brain, or a mind, or a God, or a physical process, or a world resembling the one we experience, or indeed anything at all. Nor can it be thought of as "pure nothingness", for that too is ultimately an appearance. It is wholly beyond the capacity of the mind to experience or grasp. We simply have to accept that it will always be a mystery which can never be solved.

This needs some qualification, however. To use the word "mystery" in this context is ultimately incorrect. A phenomenon can only qualify as being a mystery if an explanation or answer (one that is currently unknown to us) actually exists for it. The mystery stems from our incapacity to know what that particular explanation is. For example, the arisal of some forms of cancer is currently a mystery to us. It is a mystery because we have not yet been able to map the precise causal factors which produce these forms of cancer. While there is no doubt these causal factors exist, we simply have not yet been able to isolate them yet.

By contrast, the question, "What does a married bachelor look like?", is not a mystery. Even though no one has ever seen a married bachelor, or is able to imagine what he might look like, it is not really a mystery because it is impossible for a married bachelor to exist in the first place. It is a false mystery created out of illogical thought.

The same reasoning applies to the question of "what" is responsible for the existence of the construction in which we live. The term "what" is wholly inapplicable in this context, for there can be no "what" beyond the construction. Since nothing can exist at all beyond the construction (not even nothingness itself), the question of what is really there is meaningless and unaskable.

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp. There is nothing mystical or religious about my use of the term "hidden void" here. I only use it to highlight the fact that the creative agent of the construction is both beyond consciousness and completely lacking in form. Only things within the construction are capable of possessing form and being experienced. The hidden void is capable of neither.

In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live. To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything. Not even the hidden void itself can know anything more about it. For there is literally nothing more to know. As such, our understanding of what lies beyond consciousness is now complete.
And a bit further down:
So how did consciousness initially spring into being if there was ultimately no Big Bang, no alternative cosmological process and no nothingness? The short answer is, I have no idea. Nor does anyone else have a clue. The question is utterly beyond the capacity of the human mind to solve. As mentioned previously, there are only two things that we can know for sure about the "hidden void" - namely, (a) that it does not have any form and is therefore wholly unlike anything we can ever experience, and (b) that it possesses the capacity to generate consciousness and existence. Nothing else can ever be known about it.
Consciousness is not really a mystery because we know that it is caused, just like anything else is. It's true that we can't really follow all the precise causal pathways which lead to its existence, but then we can't really do that with anything else either. So at root, it is no more mysterious than anything else.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Faust13,
Self-generated huh? So some things DO inherently exist?
The Totality isn't a thing, which means that it is incapable of either existing or not existing.

-
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Post by BMcGilly07 »

According to David Sim's blogspot, he doesn't take e-mail, but his mailing address is:

"If you wish to contact Dave Sim, you can mail a letter (he does NOT receive emails) to:

Aardvark Vanaheim, Inc
P.O. Box 1674
Station C
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2G 4R2"

This was lifted from his blog: Dave Sim's Blogspot
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

David,
DQ: You really shouldn't be picturing the Totality as anything at all.

Cory: I'm not, as I realize perfectly well that a totality that extends in all directions infinitely does nothing but render meaningless any notion of 'center'. You can only picture the
totality relative to a center, and my definition of totality wipes out a center just as effectively as yours.

DQ: I meant picturing it as having any fixed form or objective existence "out there".
Well 'it', the totality itself doesn't have a fixed form or objective existence, but there are objective unfathomably bizzare topographies of some sort which the totality is comprised of, one that consciousness can never know completely, but only incompletely. It's because of these interconnected topographies existing independently from human thought, that we make accidental discoveries about reality. We discover fossils or like Rutherford we accidently experience alpha particles get ricocheted off of what was not included in the original hypotheses. It's true that there is only subjective reality insofar as consciousness can never see things as they really are but rather, consciousnes percieves only a mere distortion of the actual objective world. The forms that we percieve and interact with have an absolute topography that exist independent of thought, but it's just not something that any sort of consciousness can totally fathom. We can only behold mere distortions being reverberted from objective, absolute, interconnected topographies that consciousness will never be able to know entirely, but only distortedly.
DQ: The perception of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is still just a dualistic illusion existing in the moment, as is the hidden void.

Cory: A 'perception' of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is impossible. You know as well as I do that percieving infinity, as well as conceptualizing it, is not possible.

DQ: The objective reality of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is also impossible. It can only ever exist as a perceptual reality
Says you. I don't see any reason why what I percieve with my senses, cannot continue to act beyond. For instance, bread that I forgot about in the cupboard now has mold on it. The last time consciousness cast itself on the bread (a week ago) there was no mold. Now there is plenty of mold. Obviously there was something happening to the bread during the time when consciousness was not cast upon it. In other words, we take what our senses tell us, we reason about that empirical data, and we use logic to extrapolate our way to the conclusion that objective reality continues beyond the senses.
DQ: The form of the Totality cannot be found in any dualistic illusion.

Cory: Of course not. It's not conceivable by thought, nor can it be percieved.

DQ: Well, it can be perceived, but only when you stop looking for it within dualistic illusions.
What do you mean infinity can be percieved? Perceiving is empirical, it's always limited in scope.
DQ: As for my "momentum" comment, I was speaking poetically. The Totality doesn't rely on anything else for its subsistence or energy. It is completely self-generated, if you like.

Cory: Energy? It's subsistence? Generated? Obviously you are refering to something objective, existing independently from thought.

DQ: The Totality is absolute in nature, but it doesn't exist "out there" as an objective reality. It is independent in the sense that there is nothing else for it to depend on.
I agree it would be meaningless to regard the totality itself as 'out there', because it by definition cannot have a location - but it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it has parts that are in themselves locations.
But since it is not really an "it" to begin with, terms like "objective" or "subjective" don't meaningfully apply to it.
I agree that the totality is not an object, it is not objective, subjective, a thing, etc. This is because it extends infinitely in all directions - INFINITELY. Thus we really can't hold it in our minds, we cant think about it, its not an object, its not experiencable. However within its infinite expanse is the objective reality that we can percieve in a way that is so highly incomplete and distorted, that we can say that we are limited only to subjective sense impression that will never be entirely real. What we percieve is so incomplete and distorted that we can't say that we are perceiving objectively or ever can, for consciousness is indeed limited only to percieving a highly distorted reverberations of a totality that can only be intimated, empirically speaking.

There are no contradictions here.
An objective reality can only find existence and meaning in contrast with something else - such as subjective reality. But the Totally subsumes all.
I agree that objective/subjective get thrown out the window when we regard the totality in it's entirey, but we can say that the totality's parts have an objective existence independent of thought.
DQ: This void, which, by definition, can never be experienced by anyone or anything, has to be factored into the equation when it comes to thinking about this issue. It is that hidden part of Nature which gives rise to consciousness and its experiences, in a manner that is impossible for any of us to fathom.

Cory: Given what you say above, why is it not ok to say that the how's and why's of consciousness will always will be a mystery?

Quinn: I also addressed this point in Wisdom of the Infinite:
The Hidden Void

Since existence is equivalent to appearance....
So why are we equating existence with appearance? Perhaps you are taking one false step at the very begining and from there fabricating on and on superfluously, creating all sorts of unnecceary confusion.
it naturally follows that it is impossible for existence to occur outside the mind.
That would only be true if you equated existence with appearance.
Armed with this knowledge We can now properly examine what it is that lies beyond consciousness and creates our constructed universe in the first place.
Well, obviously nothing if you equate existence with appearance. But I'm not convinced that doing so is wise.
The first thing we can establish is that it[the totality] is incapable, by its very nature, of presenting an appearance and therefore incapable of existing and possessing form.
I agree with this. Even if you don't equate existence with appearance, this is true.
It cannot be thought of as a brain, or a mind, or a God, or a physical process, or a world resembling the one we experience, or indeed anything at all.
I agree.
Nor can it be thought of as "pure nothingness", for that too is ultimately an appearance. It is wholly beyond the capacity of the mind to experience or grasp. We simply have to accept that it will always be a mystery which can never be solved.
So far I see no contradictions between what you are saying here with what I say about the totality.
This needs some qualification, however. To use the word "mystery" in this context is ultimately incorrect. A phenomenon can only qualify as being a mystery if an explanation or answer (one that is currently unknown to us) actually exists for it.
Again, here you are only putting a unique twist on the word mystery. There is nothing wrong with saying that there is no logical way to know how exactly consciousness arises, and therefore will always be a mystery. Whereas, the mystery of who shot Mr. Jones and stole his money - may be solved.
The mystery stems from our incapacity to know what that particular explanation is. For example, the arisal of some forms of cancer is currently a mystery to us. It is a mystery because we have not yet been able to map the precise causal factors which produce these forms of cancer. While there is no doubt these causal factors exist, we simply have not yet been able to isolate them yet.
Some mysteries can be solved - - and some mysteries can't. What is so problematic about putting it that way?
By contrast, the question, "What does a married bachelor look like?", is not a mystery. Even though no one has ever seen a married bachelor, or is able to imagine what he might look like, it is not really a mystery because it is impossible for a married bachelor to exist in the first place. It is a false mystery created out of illogical thought.
But David, a nonesense phrase like 'married bachelor' or 'black/white' is quite a bit different than apprehending a hidden part of Nature which gives rise to consciousness and its experiences in a manner that is impossible for any of us to fathom. The nonesense phrases are simply inventions of thought, they are voluntarily put together as a way of displaying nonesense. Whereas our existential predicament is something we discover. We discover we are alive/conscious and we wonder how this is possible. It is a mystery. You are trying to take that mystery and reduce to the level of a popular gimmick in academia - the old 'married bachelor' trick.
The same reasoning applies to the question of "what" is responsible for the existence of the construction in which we live. The term "what" is wholly inapplicable in this context, for there can be no "what" beyond the construction.
I see no reason why I should accept that. You haven't given me any good reasons. You merely laid a foundation (appearance=existence), and built your entire argument on that foundation. Why should I accept the foundation? If I reject it, then a significant ammount of what you say stands as unreasonable.
Since nothing can exist at all beyond the construction (not even nothingness itself), the question of what is really there is meaningless and unaskable.
It's certainly unanswerable, but it's not unaskable. It's by wondering and inquiry that we realize the unanswerable.
The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp.
Again, this conclusion really isn't in opposition to my conception of the totality.
In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live.
Although consciousness can never exactly know how things are determined - all things are in a sense pre-determined. What I mean by 'in a sense' is that predetermination itself is ultimately an illusion because this moment right now is an undivided part of all moments in the future and the past. 'All things', from their beginningless past to their endless future are part of a single instantaneousness. Things can't really be seperated out into "causes" and "effects", or moments can't truthfully be divided into past, present, and future - for that implies time(illusion). There is only a seamless continuum that is instantaneous. Really, there are no independent things, just a seamless undivided continuum that expands infinitely in all directions, that is instantaneous, and beyond fathomability.

But that doesnt mean that objective locations do not exist where consciousness might somehow emerge (due to objective configurations of matter) and become decieved into thinking that the past is gone and the future hasn't happened yet.
To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything. Not even the hidden void itself can know anything more about it. For there is literally nothing more to know. As such, our understanding of what lies beyond consciousness is now complete.
Translation: we are left stupified when it comes to empirically-knowing the totality of 'what' lies beyond consciousness. We may develop tools to probe a bit deeper into the microcosm or a bit further out into the macrocosm, but there will always be mystery.
Consciousness is not really a mystery because we know that it is caused, just like anything else is. It's true that we can't really follow all the precise causal pathways which lead to its
existence, but then we can't really do that with anything else either. So at root, it is no more mysterious than anything else.
I do agree that we can diffuse the mystery to a degree insofar as we can say that there was always somethingess. Any sort of question which asks: "Why something instead of nothing?" is a wrong question. In that regard, mundane, inert matter is not very mysterious. However, what lies beyond the limits of consciousness is mysterious, and how exactly the universe becomes conscious of itself is really quite incredible and mysterious, and according to your logic David, no sort of objective scientific explanation will suffice, because scientific explanations are based on an objective world that causes subjective experience.

(edited for grammar)
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Thu May 17, 2007 12:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Carl G »

David Quinn wrote:Faust13,
Self-generated huh? So some things DO inherently exist?
The Totality isn't a thing, which means that it is incapable of either existing or not existing.

-
And you're saying this is neither mystery nor paradox?

Seems like an example of both.

But no, according to logic the Totality is technically not a thing, therefore it escapes such scrutiny. The universe is everything and yet not a thing. That itself is another paradox, of course.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Carl G wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Faust13,
Self-generated huh? So some things DO inherently exist?
The Totality isn't a thing, which means that it is incapable of either existing or not existing.

-
And you're saying this is neither mystery nor paradox?

Seems like an example of both.

But no, according to logic the Totality is technically not a thing, therefore it escapes such scrutiny. The universe is everything and yet not a thing. That itself is another paradox, of course.
I think you are confusing the universe with the totality.

The universe is much like a berry in a field, or a fruit on a vine.

The totality on the other hand expands infinitely in all directions without border, and thus it can't be said to have a location, an appearance, a form. This is not a paradox, albeit very mind-boggling. It's really unfathomable. In attempt to imagine it, all you can do is draw a blank.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A Flaw in Solway's reasoning?

Post by Kelly Jones »

Cory Duchesne wrote:Laird: So then of what substance is thought comprised?

Kelly: And, what substance is that substance composed of?

Cory: Your question only helps one realize that the objective reality extends beyond consciousness.
Only one who isn't thinking logically.

Consciousness just means "appearances". As David's said, "to exist is to appear". Since existence applies only to finite things , at least as I define existence and things, then the only things that can exist are those known by consciousness.

Cory wrote:So how is it Kelly that you rationalize waking up and finding the tree that is outside of your room snaped and lying down on its side? Yesterday it was up. But today it's snapped, lying on the ground. There was no consciousness that witnessed the tree fall down, but nonetheless, today it is down, despite yesterday it was up. How do you rationalize this?
Today my memory tells me that the tree that is now down, was seen yesterday to be up. Perhaps also I rely on my definition of a tree, which is a thing that usually stands tall.

Kevin: However, we could say, as a manner of speaking, that the Totality (God) determines things independently of what we perceive. So no matter whether we perceive either a snake or a stick, or whatever else, God has already determined what is really there.

Kelly: I'd say Kevin means that no matter what boundaries are projected onto Nature, it remains unchanging.

Cory: Kevin is not refering to nature in the passage above. He is refering to the truth of an object, whether it is a snake or a stick.
The truth of all objects is what is really there. Namely, Nature/Reality/Truth.


Cory: To further borrow from an old post by Solway:
We can't see things from a God's-eye view. "Things", for us at least, are always what appears to us.

Through science we hope to approach what God sees, so to speak, but we will never be able to cross the barrier of the senses.

The whole weight of modern science might determine, unanimously, that something is a stick, when God knows it is a snake.

So, in a way the thing was other than it appeared to us, but only to God.
What I think Kevin is saying is "God's-eye view" means that which isn't limited by senses. Since senses finitise, and give dualistic identities, therefore God's-eye view is seeing the Infinite/Nonduality. It is quite a joke, because it is not a view at all.


Kevin is obviously refering to an objective reality, albeit one that is eternally unknowable.
If by "objective reality" you mean "Ultimate Reality", then that is eternally knowable as formlessness.

If you mean "external reality" - as Laird does - meaning, that which appears in consciousness is an internal reality, then that is eternally knowable as the Hidden Void.



Kelly wrote:I too deny that the totality is a thing. However, why would I be incorrect to concieve of the totality has being comprised of an infinte chain of worlds extending infinitely? It would have no begining, no end, however, that does not mean that within it cannot be contained an infinite # of worlds with infinte # of objects.
If the Totality has an extending nature, then where is the non-extending nature? In another Totality?

Infinite does not mean "goes on forever in space and time" but "not-finite".




Cory: The observer is an effect that has causes, and these causes must have existed before the observer existed.

Kelly: They exist logically in the moment that the observer arises, as everything that is "not-observer". They do not exist in time, for that would require memory, and an observer. This is called codependent origination.

Cory: So how is that you rationalize the theory of natural selection and evidence such as fossils that suggests that the manifestations we see here are the result of billions and billions of years of time?
It's a theory that looks fairly likely, but depends on an observer to observe the data, to reason about it, and to accept it.

To another observer, there may be a different theory that is more reasonable, perhaps from observing different data.


Kevin: Often we are bitten by things we can't even see. But God knows exactly what is going on, so to speak.

Cory: ok, so there are 'happenings' independent of thought, of the mind.

Kelly: Is "bitten" a thought?

Cory: Kevin is clearly refering to is the 'thing' that is doing the biting. The 'thing' which God knows, but the one being bitten only has a mere idea about.
The "biter" is the Hidden Void.


-
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Carl G »

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Carl G wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Faust13,


The Totality isn't a thing, which means that it is incapable of either existing or not existing.

-
And you're saying this is neither mystery nor paradox?

Seems like an example of both.

But no, according to logic the Totality is technically not a thing, therefore it escapes such scrutiny. The universe is everything and yet not a thing. That itself is another paradox, of course.
I think you are confusing the universe with the totality.
No, sir, I am not. But I think you may be:
The universe is much like a berry in a field, or a fruit on a vine.
No, it is not. Uni- means The One. It is the same as the Totality. It is the berry and the field, the fruit as well as the vine.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp...

In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live.
As far as I am concerned one can see the nature of the hidden void in all things, if one decides to recognise it, which I admit is difficult because the void, per se, has no observable direct effect. One can only see the void by what is common for all things, and the only thing common for all things is that they expand/segregate and contract/congregate through being relative to each other.

The QRS are just plain wrong when they indicate the void is not dualistic (how would they know anyway - seeing as they don't regard it as being dualistic). From a causal perspective, the void is not really hidden at all. All that is hidden is the voids dualistic self-cause. The void cannot be hidden because IT IS all things, as well as the creator and destructor of the flowing forms of all things.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Faust »

David Quinn wrote:Faust13,
Self-generated huh? So some things DO inherently exist?
The Totality isn't a thing, which means that it is incapable of either existing or not existing.

-
So then it couldn't have generated itself
Amor fati
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

The Totality isn't a thing, which means that it is incapable of either existing or not existing.
While the totality isn't a thing as such, at all times it is an event, so regardless of any observation it exists in this fashion.

What it does not exist as is a "One" or whole thing, in the same way that we can say an apple is a thing, because unlike an apple we can never be outside of it - we are always stuck inside the apple, body, universe, looking out infinitely in all directions.
Locked