The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

I have opened this thread in response to a request by David Quinn, that I might express the deductive reasoning whereby I came to the conclusion that the nature of reality was essentially cognitive; and felt that I could not do so within the thread that we were on, due the need to return to the fundamental concepts of metaphysics. Before I begin, let me offer the following summary of the doctrine that I will attempt to support by purely deductive arguments.

I shall try to demonstrate the nature of reality is not substantial, as is widely believed (especially in the West), but cognizant, and that it comprises two interdependent and complementary elements: awareness and knowledge. Further, I will show that the element of ‘awareness’ partakes of a necessary (absolute/real) existence, and that the element of ‘knowledge’ has only a contingent (relative/imaginary) existence; and that it is through the perpetual interaction of these two primitive elements, that a virtual experiential continuum is sustained. And finally, I will reveal how a single unifying principle or law which governs the interaction of the two primitives, is clearly present in the evolution of all things, whether they be mentation, sensations, objects, properties or activities.

While I invite all to participate in the enquiry to follow, I ask only that we are not deterred from the path of reason by the introduction of extraneous questions that do not pertain to the point that is being argued, for many an enquiry is sidetracked by trying to cut too wide a swath.

Let me begin by saying that there are two things that I know for certain, and I am speaking strictly for myself here; (1) that there is at least one cognizant agent (I) who is the subject of my phenomenal experiences; and (2) there is at least the appearance of an external and objective world, which is the object of my phenomenal experiences. The remainder of my argument will follow logically from these two premises which “I” hold to be the only self-evident knowledge possible. However, now that I have said that there “are” these two truths, it is essential that we turn to that question which is the beginning of all metaphysical enquiries: “What is there, and what is there not?”

That which is (exists) “is”, and that which is not “is not”. [law of identity]
That which is not, cannot at the same time be (exist). [law of contradiction]
Everything must either be or not be [law of excluded middle]
Therefore, it may be asserted that there is only that which is, and naught else; that is to say, there is no non-being (non-existences).

Comments?
keenobserver
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:01 pm

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by keenobserver »

Hi dude.
Jehu wrote:I have opened this thread in response to a request by David Quinn, that I might express the deductive reasoning whereby I came to the conclusion that the nature of reality was essentially cognitive; and felt that I could not do so within the thread that we were on, due the need to return to the fundamental concepts of metaphysics. Before I begin, let me offer the following summary of the doctrine that I will attempt to support by purely deductive arguments.

I shall try to demonstrate the nature of reality is not substantial, as is widely believed (especially in the West), but cognizant, and that it comprises two interdependent and complementary elements: awareness and knowledge. Further, I will show that the element of ‘awareness’ partakes of a necessary (absolute/real) existence, and that the element of ‘knowledge’ has only a contingent (relative/imaginary) existence; and that it is through the perpetual interaction of these two primitive elements, that a virtual experiential continuum is sustained. And finally, I will reveal how a single unifying principle or law which governs the interaction of the two primitives, is clearly present in the evolution of all things, whether they be mentation, sensations, objects, properties or activities.

While I invite all to participate in the enquiry to follow, I ask only that we are not deterred from the path of reason by the introduction of extraneous questions that do not pertain to the point that is being argued, for many an enquiry is sidetracked by trying to cut too wide a swath.

Let me begin by saying that there are two things that I know for certain, and I am speaking strictly for myself here; (1) that there is at least one cognizant agent (I) who is the subject of my phenomenal experiences; and (2) there is at least the appearance of an external and objective world, which is the object of my phenomenal experiences. The remainder of my argument will follow logically from these two premises which “I” hold to be the only self-evident knowledge possible. However, now that I have said that there “are” these two truths, it is essential that we turn to that question which is the beginning of all metaphysical enquiries: “What is there, and what is there not?”

That which is (exists) “is”, and that which is not “is not”. [law of identity]
That which is not, cannot at the same time be (exist). [law of contradiction]
Everything must either be or not be [law of excluded middle]
Therefore, it may be asserted that there is only that which is, and naught else; that is to say, there is no non-being (non-existences).

Comments?
Speaking for myself, Im just as aware of ordinary facts of knowledge as I am aware of the fact that I am aware.
Whether it be consciousness, outer space or awareness itself, whatever you name each is first and foremost a conception and all are ultimately empty.

You will find that the Absolute will not be pinned down.
You may recall the early Jews forbad the enunciation of the Name of G_D.
As so often happens, a warped comprehension of Truth led to this superstition.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Jehu wrote:
Let me begin by saying that there are two things that I know for certain, and I am speaking strictly for myself here; (1) that there is at least one cognizant agent (I) who is the subject of my phenomenal experiences; and (2) there is at least the appearance of an external and objective world, which is the object of my phenomenal experiences. The remainder of my argument will follow logically from these two premises which “I” hold to be the only self-evident knowledge possible. However, now that I have said that there “are” these two truths, it is essential that we turn to that question which is the beginning of all metaphysical enquiries: “What is there, and what is there not?”
Regarding these two "truths":

What if a person sees through the illusion of personal existence and no longer believes that he is an "agent" as such?

What if a person experiences the appearance that there isn't an external and objective world, which leads him to cease believing in such a world?

That which is (exists) “is”, and that which is not “is not”. [law of identity]
That which is not, cannot at the same time be (exist). [law of contradiction]
Everything must either be or not be [law of excluded middle]
Therefore, it may be asserted that there is only that which is, and naught else; that is to say, there is no non-being
Seems clear enough. Where do you fit the imagined non-existent thing into this scheme?

-
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

Keenobserver wrote:
Speaking for myself, Im just as aware of ordinary facts of knowledge as I am aware of the fact that I am aware.
Whether it be consciousness, outer space or awareness itself, whatever you name each is first and foremost a conception and all are ultimately empty.

You will find that the Absolute will not be pinned down.
You may recall the early Jews forbad the enunciation of the Name of G_D.
As so often happens, a warped comprehension of Truth led to this superstition.
Why are you so certain that we cannot know the ultimate reality; do we not participate in that reality? While I agree with the Jews that the true reality is beyond verbal expression, and I shall demonstrate why that is so in due course; I would remind you that this is meant to be a rational enquiry, and so I would ask that you restrict your comments to the argument itself, and not why you think it may be doomed from the start.

David wrote:
Regarding these two "truths":
What if a person sees through the illusion of personal existence and no longer believes that he is an "agent" as such?
What if a person experiences the appearance that there isn't an external and objective world, which leads him to cease believing in such a world?
While all these question are extremely important, and I will address them when the time is right, they do not pertain to the question at hand. Besides, we should no be speaking of what a person believes or does not believe, but of what can be known for certain.
Seems clear enough. Where do you fit the imagined non-existent thing into this scheme?
We must move very carefully here, and not infer anything into what is being said. I have not said that there is any “imagined non-existent”, in fact, I have said that there are no non-existents at all. There is only what is, and there is naught else.

We must be very clear on this point, for if we go astray here, we are completely lost, and will never find our way back to the path of reason. We cannot rightfully say that there is anything that is non-existent; for it is a logical contradiction to say that there exists (is) a non-existent (that which is not).

Do you agree ?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Jehu,
DQ: Regarding these two "truths":

What if a person sees through the illusion of personal existence and no longer believes that he is an "agent" as such?

What if a person experiences the appearance that there isn't an external and objective world, which leads him to cease believing in such a world?

J: While all these question are extremely important, and I will address them when the time is right, they do not pertain to the question at hand. Besides, we should no be speaking of what a person believes or does not believe, but of what can be known for certain.
But how are you sure in your belief that these two truths are certain and go to the very core of things? The way you frame them is problematical.

To my mind, the following two truths are unambiguous in their certainty and make for a better starting point:

(1) That experiences are happening, that reality is not nothing whatsoever.

(2) A=A

DQ: Seems clear enough. Where do you fit the imagined non-existent thing into this scheme?

J: We must move very carefully here, and not infer anything into what is being said. I have not said that there is any “imagined non-existent”, in fact, I have said that there are no non-existents at all. There is only what is, and there is naught else.

We must be very clear on this point, for if we go astray here, we are completely lost, and will never find our way back to the path of reason. We cannot rightfully say that there is anything that is non-existent; for it is a logical contradiction to say that there exists (is) a non-existent (that which is not).

Do you agree ?
It is true by definition that non-existent things do not exist, I agree. However, we can imagine things not existing. For example, we can imagine a pink cat not existing in a room. So what is the status of this pink cat?

-
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

David wrote:
But how are you sure in your belief that these two truths are certain and go to the very core of things? The way you frame them is problematical.

To my mind, the following two truths are unambiguous in their certainty and make for a better starting point:

(1) That experiences are happening, that reality is not nothing whatsoever.

(2) A=A
It is not a matter of belief, it is a self-evident fact; there is something that is aware, and there is something that is the object of that awareness. As you have said, “experiences are happening”, and awareness and sensations are the natural elements of the phenomenal experience.
It is true by definition that non-existent things do not exist, I agree. However, we can imagine things not existing. For example, we can imagine a pink cat not existing in a room. So what is the status of this pink cat?
It is not a matter of definition, it is a matter of logical consistency; and you must see this clearly before we can proceed.

We are so accustomed to thinking in terms of interdependent and complementary terms such as; right and wrong, up and down, real and imaginary; that we habitually want to apply this to the term ‘being’; but we cannot rightfully do so. The reason why we cannot do so is this: within the realm of being (existence) lies everything that is (exists), and there is (exists) nothing that lies beyond that realm. Now, if being were to have a complementary aspect: non-being, then the two aspects would have to complete one another in some higher universe of discourse; but there is no higher universe than being (existence).

When you say that you can imagine a pink cat not existing in a room, you mean that you can imagine a room in which there is no pink cat present; but since you have imagined the pink cat, then the cat exists, if only in your imagination. We cannot imagine anything that does not exist, for that which does not exist can have no essential predicates; it cannot be big or small, red or blue, fast or slow; in fact, it cannot be anything at all.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Jehu,
It is not a matter of belief, it is a self-evident fact; there is something that is aware, and there is something that is the object of that awareness. As you have said, “experiences are happening”, and awareness and sensations are the natural elements of the phenomenal experience.
Okay, the way you frame it here is better. But there are still a couple of problems.

Firstly, the idea of "something" being aware - isn't that a presupposition? We can say for certain that awareness exists, I would be fine with that. But to go that extra step and say there is "something" which is aware - that's not so certain. On what basis do you come such a conclusion?

Secondly, you mentioned originally that there is the appearance of an external and objective world. Above, this has changed to "something that is the object of awareness". These two conceptions have different meanings, at least to my mind. I wonder if you could clarify this for me.

DQ: It is true by definition that non-existent things do not exist, I agree. However, we can imagine things not existing. For example, we can imagine a pink cat not existing in a room. So what is the status of this pink cat?

J: It is not a matter of definition, it is a matter of logical consistency; and you must see this clearly before we can proceed.

We are so accustomed to thinking in terms of interdependent and complementary terms such as; right and wrong, up and down, real and imaginary; that we habitually want to apply this to the term ‘being’; but we cannot rightfully do so. The reason why we cannot do so is this: within the realm of being (existence) lies everything that is (exists), and there is (exists) nothing that lies beyond that realm. Now, if being were to have a complementary aspect: non-being, then the two aspects would have to complete one another in some higher universe of discourse; but there is no higher universe than being (existence).

When you say that you can imagine a pink cat not existing in a room, you mean that you can imagine a room in which there is no pink cat present; but since you have imagined the pink cat, then the cat exists, if only in your imagination. We cannot imagine anything that does not exist, for that which does not exist can have no essential predicates; it cannot be big or small, red or blue, fast or slow; in fact, it cannot be anything at all.
That's fine. I can go along with this.

-
keenobserver
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:01 pm

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by keenobserver »

Jehu wrote:Keenobserver wrote:
Speaking for myself, Im just as aware of ordinary facts of knowledge as I am aware of the fact that I am aware.
Whether it be consciousness, outer space or awareness itself, whatever you name each is first and foremost a conception and all are ultimately empty.

You will find that the Absolute will not be pinned down.
You may recall the early Jews forbad the enunciation of the Name of G_D.
As so often happens, a warped comprehension of Truth led to this superstition.
Why are you so certain that we cannot know the ultimate reality; do we not participate in that reality? While I agree with the Jews that the true reality is beyond verbal expression, and I shall demonstrate why that is so in due course; I would remind you that this is meant to be a rational enquiry, and so I would ask that you restrict your comments to the argument itself, and not why you think it may be doomed from the start.
Jehu, my wrong for not explaining more clearly, sailed right over your head.
Firmly suggest you give it some time then check back once more acclimated.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

David wrote:
Okay, the way you frame it here is better. But there are still a couple of problems.

Firstly, the idea of "something" being aware - isn't that a presupposition? We can say for certain that awareness exists, I would be fine with that. But to go that extra step and say there is "something" which is aware - that's not so certain. On what basis do you come such a conclusion?

Secondly, you mentioned originally that there is the appearance of an external and objective world. Above, this has changed to "something that is the object of awareness". These two conceptions have different meanings, at least to my mind. I wonder if you could clarify this for me.
Yes, you are absolutely right. For now then, let us say that there is “awareness” and “that which it is aware of”; but we shall say nothing as to the nature of either.
That's fine. I can go along with this.
Wonderful, now we may proceed with our enquiry.
Given that there is only being (that which is), and not else, it follows that the realm of being (existence) is a singular and continuous realm; for there is everywhere only being, and naught that might separate or partition that being. Therefore, we may conclude that all beings (existents) are existentially one; in that they are (exist) within the realm of the one Being.
Would you concur with this statement?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Jehu,
Yes, you are absolutely right. For now then, let us say that there is “awareness” and “that which it is aware of”; but we shall say nothing as to the nature of either.
Good.

Given that there is only being (that which is), and not else, it follows that the realm of being (existence) is a singular and continuous realm; for there is everywhere only being, and naught that might separate or partition that being. Therefore, we may conclude that all beings (existents) are existentially one; in that they are (exist) within the realm of the one Being.
Would you concur with this statement?
I think so, although it would depend on exactly how you conceive of "being". But I agree with the view that anything that exists is necessarily a part of existence, that all things are manifestations of the same fundamental reality.

-
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

David wrote:
I think so, although it would depend on exactly how you conceive of "being". But I agree with the view that anything that exists is necessarily a part of existence, that all things are manifestations of the same fundamental reality.
Very well, then lets us see what can be deduced regarding the nature of being.

We have agreed that there are two things of which we may be certain: that there is awareness, and that there is an object of that awareness. Now, these two cannot be one and the same thing, for then there would be no basis upon which to differentiate between them; neither can they be completely separate things, for then they would be need be completely unrelated. Nevertheless, they each partake of some mode of existence (being), for as we have said, there is only being.

An entity, as apposed to a quality or relation, must be constituted in one of two ways: (1) it must be possessed of its own intrinsic constitutive and operative principles (causes), or (2) its existence must be dependent for upon extrinsic causes; there being no alternative apart from these two. That entity which is sustained by its own intrinsic causes is said to partake of a necessary (absolute) existence; while that entity which is dependent upon extrinsic causes is said to have only a contingent (relative) existence. Now, given that awareness and it objects partake of different modes of existence, and given that there are only the two possible modes: the absolute and the contingent; it follows that awareness must partake of one mode, and its objects of the other.

Would you agree?
Carico
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:39 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Carico »

Jehu wrote:I have opened this thread in response to a request by David Quinn, that I might express the deductive reasoning whereby I came to the conclusion that the nature of reality was essentially cognitive; and felt that I could not do so within the thread that we were on, due the need to return to the fundamental concepts of metaphysics. Before I begin, let me offer the following summary of the doctrine that I will attempt to support by purely deductive arguments.

I shall try to demonstrate the nature of reality is not substantial, as is widely believed (especially in the West), but cognizant, and that it comprises two interdependent and complementary elements: awareness and knowledge. Further, I will show that the element of ‘awareness’ partakes of a necessary (absolute/real) existence, and that the element of ‘knowledge’ has only a contingent (relative/imaginary) existence; and that it is through the perpetual interaction of these two primitive elements, that a virtual experiential continuum is sustained. And finally, I will reveal how a single unifying principle or law which governs the interaction of the two primitives, is clearly present in the evolution of all things, whether they be mentation, sensations, objects, properties or activities.

While I invite all to participate in the enquiry to follow, I ask only that we are not deterred from the path of reason by the introduction of extraneous questions that do not pertain to the point that is being argued, for many an enquiry is sidetracked by trying to cut too wide a swath.

Let me begin by saying that there are two things that I know for certain, and I am speaking strictly for myself here; (1) that there is at least one cognizant agent (I) who is the subject of my phenomenal experiences; and (2) there is at least the appearance of an external and objective world, which is the object of my phenomenal experiences. The remainder of my argument will follow logically from these two premises which “I” hold to be the only self-evident knowledge possible. However, now that I have said that there “are” these two truths, it is essential that we turn to that question which is the beginning of all metaphysical enquiries: “What is there, and what is there not?”

That which is (exists) “is”, and that which is not “is not”. [law of identity]
That which is not, cannot at the same time be (exist). [law of contradiction]
Everything must either be or not be [law of excluded middle]
Therefore, it may be asserted that there is only that which is, and naught else; that is to say, there is no non-being (non-existences).

Comments?


Frankly, if one has to try to prove what exists, then he doesn't have a very firm grasp of reality. But those of us who know what exists around us can move on, which I will do.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Carico,
Frankly, if one has to try to prove what exists, then he doesn't have a very firm grasp of reality. But those of us who know what exists around us can move on, which I will do.
Alternatively, someone who tries to prove what exists knows precisely how little he knows. Trying to prove what is real is the first task of any philosopher: believing that you already know before even beginning the task is (frankly) insulting to the entire philosophic tradition.

Thales tried to prove that the entire universe was water, and in the process invented science.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Jehu,
We have agreed that there are two things of which we may be certain: that there is awareness, and that there is an object of that awareness. Now, these two cannot be one and the same thing, for then there would be no basis upon which to differentiate between them; neither can they be completely separate things, for then they would be need be completely unrelated. Nevertheless, they each partake of some mode of existence (being), for as we have said, there is only being.

An entity, as apposed to a quality or relation, must be constituted in one of two ways: (1) it must be possessed of its own intrinsic constitutive and operative principles (causes), or (2) its existence must be dependent for upon extrinsic causes; there being no alternative apart from these two. That entity which is sustained by its own intrinsic causes is said to partake of a necessary (absolute) existence; while that entity which is dependent upon extrinsic causes is said to have only a contingent (relative) existence. Now, given that awareness and it objects partake of different modes of existence, and given that there are only the two possible modes: the absolute and the contingent; it follows that awareness must partake of one mode, and its objects of the other.

Would you agree?
No, I don't. There is no logical necessity in concluding that because awareness and appearances (i.e. objects of awareness) are different, that one must be absolute and the other contingent. I don't see the logic in that at all.

In order for your argument to work, you would have to show how awareness is entirely self-sustaining and not reliant on external factors. That would be the only criteria for success here. Simply saying that awareness is different to appearances isn't enough.

Given the fact that the existence of awareness is dependent upon the existence of appearances, and vice versa, it would follow that both are contingent. Each depends on what is external to it for its own existence.

-
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

David wrote:
No, I don't. There is no logical necessity in concluding that because awareness and appearances (i.e. objects of awareness) are different, that one must be absolute and the other contingent. I don't see the logic in that at all.

In order for your argument to work, you would have to show how awareness is entirely self-sustaining and not reliant on external factors. That would be the only criteria for success here. Simply saying that awareness is different to appearances isn't enough.

Given the fact that the existence of awareness is dependent upon the existence of appearances, and vice versa, it would follow that both are contingent. Each depends on what is external to it for its own existence.
Let me deal with your final contention first, and then I shall address the remainder, if necessary. You say that because awareness and its objects are interdependent, that it follows that they must both partake of a contingent existence; but this is not necessarily so. An absolute (necessary) entity, being possessed of its own operative and constitutive principles (causes), is unrelated to any extrinsic cause, and so can only relate inwardly; with it intrinsic causes. Conversely, a relative (contingent) entity, being completely dependent upon extrinsic causes for it existence, cannot be related to any intrinsic causes, and so can only relate outwardly.

Now, these two modes of existence must necessarily be related, for both types of entities participate in the one continuous realm of Existence (Being); wherein they comprise its two interdependent and complementary modes. However, the only possible way that these two modes of being may be rationalized, is if we accept that the relative mode must reside, in some sense at least, within the precincts of the absolute mode; and that the two modes of existence are sustained by the self-same set of causes. But if this is the case, and deduction tells us that it is, then the relative mode of existence must be an imaginary mode, and the absolute mode, of a cognizant nature; for there can be one without the other.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Jehu,
Let me deal with your final contention first, and then I shall address the remainder, if necessary. You say that because awareness and its objects are interdependent, that it follows that they must both partake of a contingent existence; but this is not necessarily so. An absolute (necessary) entity, being possessed of its own operative and constitutive principles (causes), is unrelated to any extrinsic cause, and so can only relate inwardly; with it intrinsic causes. Conversely, a relative (contingent) entity, being completely dependent upon extrinsic causes for it existence, cannot be related to any intrinsic causes, and so can only relate outwardly.

You seem to be saying that a contingent object has no internal causes, only external ones. Is that right?

It is easy to see that contingent objects rely on both internal and external causes. A car, for example, is just as dependent upon the existence of its own constituent parts - its wheels, doors, windows, engine, etc - as it is on external factors, such as the people who designed the car, the factory which assembled it, the metals which were dug out of the ground, etc. Without either set of causes, the car wouldn't be able to exist.

So I don't agree with the way you are divvying things up here, if in fact that is what you are doing (your wording, I have to say, isn't entirely clear). To my mind, an absolute object is one that is not dependent upon any causes at all, either internal or external, while a contingent object does depend on causes.

Now, these two modes of existence must necessarily be related, for both types of entities participate in the one continuous realm of Existence (Being); wherein they comprise its two interdependent and complementary modes. However, the only possible way that these two modes of being may be rationalized, is if we accept that the relative mode must reside, in some sense at least, within the precincts of the absolute mode; and that the two modes of existence are sustained by the self-same set of causes. But if this is the case, and deduction tells us that it is, then the relative mode of existence must be an imaginary mode, and the absolute mode, of a cognizant nature; for there can be one without the other.
I can barely understand this passage.

Let me ask you this: Do you think it is possible for awareness to exist in the complete absence of all appearances? Or do you think awareness necessarily needs appearances for its existence?

If you say the latter, then it means that the existence of awareness is contingent upon the existence of appearances.

-
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

David wrote:
You seem to be saying that a contingent object has no internal causes, only external ones. Is that right?

It is easy to see that contingent objects rely on both internal and external causes. A car, for example, is just as dependent upon the existence of its own constituent parts - its wheels, doors, windows, engine, etc - as it is on external factors, such as the people who designed the car, the factory which assembled it, the metals which were dug out of the ground, etc. Without either set of causes, the car wouldn't be able to exist.

So I don't agree with the way you are divvying things up here, if in fact that is what you are doing (your wording, I have to say, isn't entirely clear). To my mind, an absolute object is one that is not dependent upon any causes at all, either internal or external, while a contingent object does depend on causes.
A relative entity, as its name implies, consists in a relationship between its constituent elements (its causes), and has no existence apart from those causes which must exist independent of and antecedent to the relative entity itself. Consequently, the relative entity is said partake of a contingent existence, for it may or may not exist depending upon whether or not its causes come together in the appropriate way. Now, given that such an entity consists in the relationship ‘between’ its elements, it is said to be dependent upon extrinsic causes, there being no actual entity in which its causes might inhere. In other words, there is only the ‘appearance of an entity’, and this appearance persists only as long as its causes endure in the appropriate relationship. Take the case of a shadow, for example, a shadow arises and persists as an entity, because of the coming together of a light source and an opaque object, both of which must exist independently of and antecedent to the shadow itself, and neither of which resides inherently in the shadow itself; for in truth, there is no ‘shadow itself’ (entity), there is only the appearance of one. Now, if one were completely ignorant of the true nature of a shadow, one might be fooled into thinking that the shadow was a true existent, and that it was possessed of its own inherent causes (properties) by which it was rendered perceptible and operable; but this is not the case; in fact, it was this very point that Plato was trying to convey in his “Allegory of the Cave”.

Conversely, an absolute entity consists in and of itself, that is to say, it comprises its own intrinsic causes, and so is said to partake of a necessary and not merely contingent existence. Such an entity is said to have a necessary existence, for if its causes exist, then the entity itself must exist, its causes being that which is necessary and sufficient to its own being. The absolute entity then, can have no causes that exist independently of or antecedent to itself, and so is said to be self-cause. Further, such an entity must either be or not be, and cannot make the transition from one state to the other. Thus any absolute entity that is, must have always been, and must continue to be without end.
Let me ask you this: Do you think it is possible for awareness to exist in the complete absence of all appearances? Or do you think awareness necessarily needs appearances for its existence?
If you say the latter, then it means that the existence of awareness is contingent upon the existence of appearances.
It is clear in my mine, that to be aware of nothing, is to be unaware; however, your conclusion does not follow that awareness has a contingent existence, if that of which it is aware resides inherently within itself, that is to say, is not real, but merely apparent.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Jehu,
It is clear in my mine, that to be aware of nothing, is to be unaware; however, your conclusion does not follow that awareness has a contingent existence, if that of which it is aware resides inherently within itself, that is to say, is not real, but merely apparent.
Okay, given your description of what an absolute entity consists of, it follows that you must believe awareness to be eternal. This means that you would have to reject the scientific idea that awareness is causally generated by workings inside the brain and so on.

Do you believe that you were aware when you were just a conceptus - i.e. when you were just a collection of cells inside your mother's body before developing into a foetus?

-
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

David wrote:
Okay, given your description of what an absolute entity consists of, it follows that you must believe awareness to be eternal. This means that you would have to reject the scientific idea that awareness is causally generated by workings inside the brain and so on.

Do you believe that you were aware when you were just a conceptus - i.e. when you were just a collection of cells inside your mother's body before developing into a foetus?
Of course, but you must understand that all things partake of the cognizant nature of reality; and its two primitive elements: awareness and knowledge; albeit to varying degrees, depending upon their level of complexity. Further, since man is, as far as we are aware, the most complex thing in the universe; it follows that man will exhibit the highest level of awareness and knowledge. But even the simple electron is aware of the other sub-atomic particles in its vicinity, and knows how to react appropriately.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

Jehu,
Of course, but you must understand that all things partake of the cognizant nature of reality;
Well, that is what you are trying to prove in this thread. I still haven't seen any reasons why you would think that awareness is eternal, or that everything is aware. At the moment, it just sounds like wishful thinking.

So what was being conscious as a conceptus like? Do you have any memories of it?

Further, since man is, as far as we are aware, the most complex thing in the universe; it follows that man will exhibit the highest level of awareness and knowledge. But even the simple electron is aware of the other sub-atomic particles in its vicinity, and knows how to react appropriately.

The electron doesn't react through simple cause and effect? It reacts by being consciously aware of its surroundings and making intelligent decisions about what to do next?

-
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Jehu:
Of course, but you must understand that all things partake of the cognizant nature of reality;
To add another take on this, for this to be absolutely true, you must prove the statement "at least one thing does not partake of the cognizant nature of reality" to be absolutely false in all cases. Such a proof could not be based on observation: you would need to prove this to be false by definition.

So, define as many of those words as necessary to prove that the contrary statement must be false.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

David and Trevor,

I can see now that it was a mistake on my part to have responded to David’s speculative question: “Do you believe that you were aware when you were just a conceptus … ?”, for to introduce any sort of belief into a rational enquiry, is likely to derail that enquiry in favour of a contentious debate on the merit of those beliefs. Very well, I will withdraw my previous statement regarding the awareness of all things, at least for the time being; and shall try not to make the same mistake again.

Returning to our original enquiry, let me summarize what we have agreed upon thus far.

(1) We have agreed that there are two things of which we can be certain: awareness and its object.
(2) We have agreed that all things are existentially one.

Also, I have argued that there are only two ways in which a entity can be constituted; that is to say, that it must either be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or be dependent upon extrinsic causes; there being no third alternative. Further, I explained what were the essential characteristics of an absolute entity, and also of a relative entity, and showed how these two modes of being can only be related if the one which is real (absolute) is cognizant and the other (relative) is merely imaginary.

Further, I have argued that the two things that we know for certain cannot be completely different things, nor can they be exactly the same thing; and since it is in their existing that they are both the same; it follows that whatever difference there may be between the two of them must be in their mode of existing; and as there are only the two modes of existence, it follows that awareness must partake of one mode, and its object of the other mode.

Now, if you disagree with any of the things I have said thus far, I would appreciate your stating which specific points you disagree with, and on what logical grounds. Then, I will be able to respond to those points that are problematic, and not to points on which we have already agreed.
User avatar
Imadrongo
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Imadrongo »

My original understanding of this was that the Universe ("being") was the absolute existence and that each individual part of it necessarily had only contingent existence.

Is this wrong?
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by Jehu »

WhorlyWhelk wrote:My original understanding of this was that the Universe ("being") was the absolute existence and that each individual part of it necessarily had only contingent existence.

Is this wrong?
You are not entirely wrong, for I have said that there must be two interdependent and complementary modes of being, one of which is absolute, and the other relative; however, the relative aspect does not constitute a part of the absolute, for the one is real and the other is not.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Cognizant Nature of Reality

Post by David Quinn »

I don't know about anyone else, but I am having trouble understanding your arguments because they don't seem to really connect to anything. Your presentation of them is highly abstract and formal, which makes it hard for us to relate them to our experiences of the real world.

Let's try again:
WW: My original understanding of this was that the Universe ("being") was the absolute existence and that each individual part of it necessarily had only contingent existence.

Is this wrong?

J: You are not entirely wrong, for I have said that there must be two interdependent and complementary modes of being, one of which is absolute, and the other relative; however, the relative aspect does not constitute a part of the absolute, for the one is real and the other is not.
Why "must" there be two interdependent and complimentary modes of being?

In what way do you think WhorlyWhelk is wrong in stating that the Totality is absolute, while the parts within the Totality - such as awareness and appearances - are relative?

If the Totality is absolute in nature (which it must be, since by definition there can be nothing else for it to relate to), then the relative is necessarily part of the absolute. The absolute is literally composed of relative existences.

-
Locked