The nature of non-duality, terms for it

[Sapius]

DF;

I think it has to do with seeing beauty in value. Thoughts determine beauty, but what determines value?

Egocentricity; what makes me fell good; what I think should be good values.

While listening to dissonant music, you may just accept it for what it is. You never begin to think it beautiful, though. You sit with it, but it doesn't feel like it's going anywhere, or helping you get anywhere. There is little value.

Sure, if you think so, but that is after experiencing it and placing a lesser value, as against… whatever really.

I wonder how that ties into physical form and motion, beauty and grace.

Ah! I wouldn’t really know about that, but I find existence a beautiful logical eternal dance, with all that there is, stepping in tune to each others reactions, without ever missing a beat; an eternal waltz so to speak, where there is the symphony, and the dancers.

[bert]

DF;

I think it has to do with seeing beauty in value. Thoughts determine beauty, but what determines value?

Egocentricity; what makes me fell good; what I think should be good values.

While listening to dissonant music, you may just accept it for what it is. You never begin to think it beautiful, though. You sit with it, but it doesn't feel like it's going anywhere, or helping you get anywhere. There is little value.

Sure, if you think so, but that is after experiencing it and placing a lesser value, as against… whatever really.

I wonder how that ties into physical form and motion, beauty and grace.

Ah! I wouldn’t really know about that, but I find existence a beautiful logical eternal dance, with all that there is, stepping in tune to each others reactions, without ever missing a beat; an eternal waltz so to speak, where there is the symphony, and the dancers.

I would say that beauty alone reaches simplicity because it is basically 'economy'. envy over-adorns, paints, clothes and transferes to mode. the naked figure is a more truthful beauty: hence to marry a face is often to marry a fiction. our work and behaviour is the trueer portrait, the values we live and give by.

[Jehu]

Sapius,

I did not mean to imply that you were setting some sort of trap for me, but merely that I understand why it is that you think that the nature of reality must be dualistic, as well as non-dualistic.

As you say, the nature of reality is cognizant, and thus comprise two interdependent and complementary elements: ‘awareness’ and ‘knowledge’. However, because these two primitive elements cannot exist independently, there are said to be ‘non-dualistic’ or ‘not-two’. In other words, they are neither entirely the same element, nor entirely different elements. The best graphic representation of this relationship may be found in embodied in the ‘Tai Chi Tu’; an ancient Chinese symbolic representation of the nature of reality (The Tao).

It is true that there is nothing that partakes of an independent existence, for the term, ‘thing’, has its origin in the Anglo Saxon notion of a ‘deliberative assembly’ or gathering together. In other words, every ‘thing’ is an amalgamation of other subsidiary things, and so is reducible; and given that that which has an independent existence cannot be reduced to any thing that is more fundamental, it follows that it is not itself a thing. However, as the fundamental elements of reality cannot exist independent of one another, nor are they reducible to anything else, they cannot themselves be things.

There ‘is’ only that which ‘is’, and there ‘is not’ that which ‘is not’. This is more than mere tautology, this the law of identity, and it tells us that we cannot reasonably say that anything that ‘is not’ ‘is’; that is to say, that anything does not exist. Clearly we can say that something is not red, for here we mean only that it is other than red; and not that it does not partake of being at all. Consequently, we must abandon terms such as ‘non-being’ or non-existent’, for these terms have no existential referent, and every meaningful term must signify some existent.

Having understood this, it then follows that being must constitute a singular and continuous entity (Being), for if there is everywhere only being, and no non-being that might act to partition it, we cannot rightfully claim that there are separate entities (beings). Further, it follows that any apparent partitioning of the realm of Being is a purely intellectual act, and that it is ‘thought’ that separates one thing from another. For example, we may reason that there are only two possible ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes (absolute), of it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being (relative). In so doing, we mentally partition the realm of Being into two interdependent and complementary spheres, that which is ‘real’ (absolute, independent and immutable), and that which is ‘not real’ (relative, dependent and mutable).

Does this make sense to you thus far, and would you care to pursue it further?

[Sapius]

Jehu;

I did not mean to imply that you were setting some sort of trap for me, but merely that I understand why it is that you think that the nature of reality must be dualistic, as well as non-dualistic.

And I meant no disrespect; but I personally do not entertain the idea of some one fundamental factual “reality” to hold on to, because whatever that I may think that to be, it will necessarily be within the confines of a dualistically experiential awareness, which is necessarily relative in nature. So why can’t “duality” itself be the fundamental nature of EXISTENCE, and not REALITY. Which automatically reduces ones attachments to the fundamentalism that there has to necessarily be something Absolutely non-dependant, (be that even a realization), for dependency to work. I see that absolutely nothing can exist without dependency, not even Totality itself, for that necessarily depends on dependant things that consider A TOTALITY to be, conceptually. Whereas conceptualizing itself does not seem necessary for dependency (awareness, duality) to be; but an idea of Totality, Reality, Tao, Emptiness, does seem to require it.

Existence to me simply means I AM, and that remains the fundamental necessity from which “I” or anyone operates, and draws further conclusions from then on.

Is this where you thought I was going? If you remember, I immediately dropped out of a discussion although I believe that we may have much in common than not, (your cognizant thread, I think), since you then seemed adamant and insisted that I take your word for your line of reasoning, if any further discussion was to take place. And still, you seem to imply the same at the bottom of this post of yours. If you believe you know best, then discussion is not the word, but declaration. (I think)

As you say, the nature of reality is cognizant, and thus comprise two interdependent and complementary elements: ‘awareness’ and ‘knowledge’.

Yes, awareness = “I”, knowledge = “am”, where simple awareness itself requires differentiation, without say our kind of self-reflective "knowledge" ever coming into the picture, that knows, wonders and cares more about the ‘am’ part, rather than the “I” part, apparently.

However, because these two primitive elements cannot exist independently, there are said to be ‘non-dualistic’ or ‘not-two’. In other words, they are neither entirely the same element, nor entirely different elements.

You are most welcome to say THEY are neither this nor that, about anything at all, but they will necessarily be what THEY are, unless you are willing to ignore reason.

Jehu: Reason, of which logic is the formal study, is founded upon a ‘first principle’: the Principle of Identity, and its corollaries, the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle: the “Three Laws of Thought”. It is because of these laws that we are able to ascertain the causes of an event, and develop a logic.

The best graphic representation of this relationship may be found in embodied in the ‘Tai Chi Tu’; an ancient Chinese symbolic representation of the nature of reality (The Tao).

Sure; I think you are talking about the yin/yang graphic representation, which to me points to what I would call a symbolic representation of existence, (where no-existence is logically not possible, and does not evoke any fundamental belief or necessity of renaming existence to make it sound more profound, or as if to point to some mysterious secret that 'only I posses the knowledge of, or am privy to'), and not “The Tao”.

I cannot but keep aside the rest of your fine explanation, for unless your first paragraph is not clear to me, the rest may not all necessarily follow, for me.

Does this make sense to you thus far, and would you care to pursue it further?

I do respect all beings as part of existence, and with all due respects to your being or that of any past or present sages and enlightened ones, I beg to differ for the reasons mentioned above; so you decide if it is worth pursuing or not, and further make me understand your personal stand, through reason.

[Jehu]

Sapius wrote:

I see that absolutely nothing can exist without dependency, not even Totality itself, for that necessarily depends on dependant things that consider A TOTALITY to be, conceptually.

Yes, this is most certainly true, but I must draw your attention to that distinction which may be drawn between that which is dependent only upon itself (the absolute), and that which is dependent upon others (the relative). You see, there are two different ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes; however, in either case, it is dependent upon it causes.
Then, if one attempts to rationalize these two modes of being (absolute and relative), one will discover that, rather than be related like the two sides of a coin, they are more akin to a container and its content; the container being real (absolute), and the contents, merely apparent (relative). Therefore, even though the container (subject) is dependent upon its contents (objects), these contents are intrinsic, and so the container may be said to partake of an absolute (self-inherent) existence. Conversely, the contents (objects), being merely apparent, have no intrinsic causes, and so are wholly dependent upon the container (subject) for their existence, and so partake of only a relative existence. Unfortunately, this interdependent and complementary relationship cannot be adequately embodied in any graphical representation, although the Tai Chi Tu comes the closest.

[Sapius]

Until tomorrow, Jehu. For the last couple of hours its like being in a chat room :D

[divine focus]

Sapius wrote:

I see that absolutely nothing can exist without dependency, not even Totality itself, for that necessarily depends on dependant things that consider A TOTALITY to be, conceptually.

Yes, this is most certainly true, but I must draw your attention to that distinction which may be drawn between that which is dependent only upon itself (the absolute), and that which is dependent upon others (the relative). You see, there are two different ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes; however, in either case, it is dependent upon it causes.
Then, if one attempts to rationalize these two modes of being (absolute and relative), one will discover that, rather than be related like the two sides of a coin, they are more akin to a container and its content; the container being real (absolute), and the contents, merely apparent (relative). Therefore, even though the container (subject) is dependent upon its contents (objects), these contents are intrinsic, and so the container may be said to partake of an absolute (self-inherent) existence. Conversely, the contents (objects), being merely apparent, have no intrinsic causes, and so are wholly dependent upon the container (subject) for their existence, and so partake of only a relative existence. Unfortunately, this interdependent and complementary relationship cannot be adequately embodied in any graphical representation, although the Tai Chi Tu comes the closest.

Following this analogy, it's possible for a content to be removed from its container. The container would never miss it since it would always really be there, but the content could experience itself as internally uncontained. It would experience itself as a vast, empty container with nothing to contain, but seemingly contained by something external. It would want to grow to become that external container or something like it, a useful container that actually contains something. Not knowing how to do that, it might become resentful of its own estranged container and be content to just sit by itself. Unknowingly, it would spread havoc simply by being unaware of its now few interactions within its own container.

Eventually, it decides to better its existence at all costs, even if it means giving up the idea of being able to contain something. Through a process of trial and error, or more accurately, trial and truth, it realizes that it does contain something. It contains everything. It is and always was the container it felt so estranged from. It comes full circle, and becomes much more aware of itself through the process. It becomes a master of growth, able to lend assistance in its own special, lovingly annoying way to whatever desires growth. It goes from being untouchable to being in constant demand. It goes from rags to riches, destitution to infinite net worth. The end? 'Course not. :)

[Jehu]

Following this analogy, it's possible for a content to be removed from its container.

I’m afraid you may have stretched the analogy beyond its intended scope. The container and contents that we are speaking of here are not two independent entities, but two interdependent and complementary aspects of one and the same entity. An absolute entity partakes of a necessary existence in that if its causes exist, then too must the entity exist; for if its causes were to exist antecedent to the entity itself, then the entity would have only a contingent existence, being wholly dependent upon those external circumstances which govern the coming together of its independently pre-existing causes.

Moreover, if we replace the terms ‘container’ and ‘contents’ with the terms employed by the ancient Greek essentialists: ‘form’ and ‘matter’, we can more readily perceive the interdependent and complementary relationship that holds between them.

[Sapius]

Jehu, between DF and yourself, all I can see are one too many containers floating around my skull. (Like seeing stars when knocked out :D)

S: ! see that absolutely nothing can exist without dependency, not even Totality itself, for that necessarily depends on dependant things that consider A TOTALITY to be, conceptually.)

J: Yes, this is most certainly true, but I must draw your attention to that distinction which may be drawn between that which is dependent only upon itself (the absolute), and that which is dependent upon others (the relative).

Sure, you can point out the distinction between that which is dependent only upon itself (the absolute), and that which is dependent upon others (the relative), but in and of definitions only, in my opinion. But in fact, relativity is all that we have, in and of consciousness, so in a manner of speaking, I take ‘relativity’ itself to be “absolute”, (aka, consciousness), for without that, neither the thought of the absolute nor the relative can be. And I don’t mean as an Absolute, for consciousness necessarily depends on things, making the dependency an absolute necessity, but not an Absolute in and of its self, for that requires things, so that dependency may itself be.

You see, there are two different ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes; however, in either case, it is dependent upon it causes.

Then, if one attempts to rationalize these two modes of being (absolute and relative), one will discover that, rather than be related like the two sides of a coin, they are more akin to a container and its content; the container being real (absolute), and the contents, merely apparent (relative). Therefore, even though the container (subject) is dependent upon its contents (objects), these contents are intrinsic, and so the container may be said to partake of an absolute (self-inherent) existence. Conversely, the contents (objects), being merely apparent, have no intrinsic causes, and so are wholly dependent upon the container (subject) for their existence, and so partake of only a relative existence. Unfortunately, this interdependent and complementary relationship cannot be adequately embodied in any graphical representation, although the Tai Chi Tu comes the closest.

Hummm….

Let’s say I take a cylindrical cone, place in on its base and cut it across in the middle say half way down from the pointed side, and insert a sheet of paper in there. Now, this sheet of paper is ‘consciousness’, or say me, or say the point or boundary where interactivity is felt as by me; the pointed end part representing the intrinsic area and the open ended side the extrinsic.

Now, since ‘consciousness’, (according to me), requires intrinsic as well as extrinsic causes, from the fact that it can identify a self, as an intrinsic (self) as against that which is the extrinsic, (not self), it can operate as a point of consciously sensual and analytical entity.

Coming back to the cone; the pointed side is the self (intrinsic), and the other side the not-self (extrinsic), and the thin sheet of paper is the interactivity (say cognizance); BUT, because existence is not like a cone but actually infinite in any which way, the extrinsic extends as infinitely without, as intrinsic extends within, only that a sensual intrinsic closed cone is necessary to form a self that can identify a not self, and operate coherently.

This does not only apply to us, by any inter-dimensionally felt point of interactivity, as allowed by its own created nature. Say a quark, a cell, a particle, all of which are but inter-dimensionally point of allowed interactivity, but even the tiniest particle, has infinite number on intrinsic causes or interactive layers within, and at every layer, lies a felt intrinsic cone. (We have discovered such layers far beyond an atom, that we once thought was fundamentally the smallest particle)

So, basically and essentially, there isn’t any “container” of any kind at all, simply points of awareness, and that which is not it, namely the extrinsic and intrinsic causes and their felt dimensionality, which is none other than what we have and call consciousness, because of its much complex nature due its caused dimensionality. And is quite capable of causing substantially conscious effects based on its complex nature of possessing a highly interactive intrinsic cone, the mind.

I’m not sure if that makes much sense to you, but to me that explains quite a few things about how and why “consciousness” or “awareness”, that requires some kind of reaction through recognizing a caused action is necessary at all levels, in and of dimensionally created and felt “thing-ness”.

Actually, I can speak much better than I can write, because an instant face-to-face conversation triggers my flow of thought much better. I don’t make a good speechmaker either.

[Jehu]

Sure, you can point out the distinction between that which is dependent only upon itself (the absolute), and that which is dependent upon others (the relative), but in and of definitions only, in my opinion.

How is it then that we can partake of a rational discussion without that we make use of such fundamental metaphysical concepts as ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ entities, and how precisely can we make use of them without that we define them?

But in fact, relativity is all that we have, in and of consciousness, so in a manner of speaking, I take ‘relativity’ itself to be “absolute”, (aka, consciousness), for without that, neither the thought of the absolute nor the relative can be. And I don’t mean as an Absolute, for consciousness necessarily depends on things, making the dependency an absolute necessity, but not an Absolute in and of its self, for that requires things, so that dependency may itself be.

Once again, that which is dependent only upon itself, that is to say, upon its own inherent causes, is an absolute entity, and not a relative one. Neither can that which is relative be absolute, for this is a violation of the law of contradiction; for to be ‘relative’ is to be ‘not absolute’; the two being complementary modes of being.

[Ataraxia]

You have elucidated the whole idea in most excellent fashion in the last few postsJehu.Certainly better than I could.

Moreover, if we replace the terms ‘container’ and ‘contents’ with the terms employed by the ancient Greek essentialists: ‘form’ and ‘matter’, we can more readily perceive the interdependent and complementary relationship that holds between them.

The term 'form' still worries me but I have to admit I can't think of a better word.'Tao' i suppose.

[Sapius]

Jehu;

Once again, that which is dependent only upon itself, that is to say, upon its own inherent causes, is an absolute entity, and not a relative one.

Please give me an example, and may be then it will be clear to me.

[Jehu]

Ataraxia,

Thank you for your kindly words, it is always heartening to hear that someone has connected with what I have to say. I sincerely hope that you will be so good as to join us in a ‘rational’ enquiry, for I am sure that you, like I, have little interest in participating in contentious arguments that inevitably lead nowhere.

Sapius,

If you are asking me to name some ‘thing’ that partakes of an absolute existence, then you have not understood the argument, for all things have only a relative existence. You see, everything comprise a set of subsidiary things which are essential to that thing’s being what it is, and as these subsidiary things must necessarily exist antecedent to the thing itself, it follows that all things have only a relative existence. This is further evidenced by the fact that the term ‘thing’ has its origin in the Anglo Saxon notion of a ‘deliberative assembly’ or ‘gathering together’. So you see, the term 'thing' is synonymous with the 'relative entity'.

Nevertheless, a thing can neither arise without a cause nor out of a cause that is ‘not real’ (relative), thus it follows that there must be at least one absolute entity, and that it is this entity that is the cause and origin of all relative entities.

[Ataraxia]

Ataraxia,

Thank you for your kindly words, it is always heartening to hear that someone has connected with what I have to say. I sincerely hope that you will be so good as to join us in a ‘rational’ enquiry, for I am sure that you, like I, have little interest in participating in contentious arguments that inevitably lead nowhere.

Unfortunately I don't have alot to offer on this subject.I'm still very much on the learning curve in regards to this.Your contributions in this thread would marry with what i currently understand to be non-dualism.

I'm interested to press you a bit on your substitution of the container analogy with the greek idea of 'form',it may help me to grasp it even better.Whose idea of form did you have in mind with that.Plato's ,Aristotles ?

[Jehu]

Ataraxia wrote:

I'm interested to press you a bit on your substitution of the container analogy with the greek idea of 'form',it may help me to grasp it even better.Whose idea of form did you have in mind with that.Plato's ,Aristotles ?

It is Plato’s concept of form that I have in mind, for Aristotle had an abysmal understanding of the metaphysical doctrine of the ancient essentialists. Plato understood that it was form that was the operative cause of a thing , while matter was merely its constitutive cause, for all things are one in their existential being (self), and differ only in their essential being (appearance). This is the truth that is embodied in the first principle of thought, the ‘Principle of Identity’: that everything is the same with itself, but different from another. Would you care to enquire further?

[Ataraxia]

Not at this stage.I might have another look at Plato first.Cheers.

[Sapius]

I mean no disrespect to all the time and energy that you must have invested into philosophical understandings, Jehu, but I simply beg to differ, that’s all.

If you are asking me to name some ‘thing’ that partakes of an absolute existence, then you have not understood the argument, for all things have only a relative existence.

Well, I do understand that all things have only a relative existence, and also that no other kind of existence is possible, hence there is nothing else needed for existence to exist, as it is.

You see, everything comprise a set of subsidiary things which are essential to that thing’s being what it is, and as these subsidiary things must necessarily exist antecedent to the thing itself, it follows that all things have only a relative existence. This is further evidenced by the fact that the term ‘thing’ has its origin in the Anglo Saxon notion of a ‘deliberative assembly’ or ‘gathering together’. So you see, the term 'thing' is synonymous with the 'relative entity'.

Yes, I do see, and more clearly than you might think I do.

Nevertheless, a thing can neither arise without a cause nor out of a cause that is ‘not real’ (relative), thus it follows that there must be at least one absolute entity, and that it is this entity that is the cause and origin of all relative entities.

‘Nevertheless’ is my problem… ‘that does not mean’… when employed in such contexts is my problem.

If ‘relative’ is ‘not real’, then how 'real' are your conclusions that are based on it? You cannot have it both ways. And that is my problem.

What makes relativity ‘not real’? What makes causally related things (that one defines and employs in and of logical reasoning) illusory? Things are what they are as and when they are, and they are not, as and when they are not; nothing justifies them as being illusory, (at least for me) for they have to necessarily be as and when they are in and of causal conditions, irrelevant of what "I "may claim or think their “nature” to be. Their fundamental nature is to BE (existence), and not to not-be (non-existence), and what does that ‘being’ (existence) fundamentally require?

Duality, or non-duality, or both? And what is fundamentally the common factor? If one removes ‘duality’ from all three of those options, then existence cannot be; if one removes ‘non-duality’ from the second and third option, then existence still is because its nature is to BE, and that does not require any thing other than a purely dualistic nature itself.

What I see is, that the option ‘non-duality’, or ‘both’, necessarily requires 'duality' at its core, including lone duality itself.

If ‘relativity’ is ‘not real’, then it stands to reason that absolutely everything is ‘not real’. In my opinion and understanding, relativity is all the ‘realness’ that there is, with absolutely nothing “beyond”.

[Dave Toast]

Well, I do understand that all things have only a relative existence, and also that no other kind of existence is possible, hence there is nothing else needed for existence to exist, as it is.

That doesn't really make sense Sap. As you say, all things have only a relative existence and no other kind of existence is possible. So for existence to exist, it must be relative - to not-existence. Either that or existence cannot exist.

[Sapius]

Well, I do understand that all things have only a relative existence, and also that no other kind of existence is possible, hence there is nothing else needed for existence to exist, as it is.

That doesn't really make sense Sap. As you say, all things have only a relative existence and no other kind of existence is possible. So for existence to exist, it must be relative - to not-existence. Either that or existence cannot exist.

There isn’t an alternative to Existence itself except you or me looking at it through definitions. Existence does not exist because of only one particular human mind (say you or me, or particularly any other), or ceases because one is casually undone; it (Existence) is merely the interaction point of say any two opposites itself, literally, hence there isn’t any thing that could lie beyond such a point of interactivity, not even non-existence, because EXISTENCE (the point of interactivity, which may be in and of any "thing") itself would be necessary for me or you to only talk about “existence” and “non-existence”. Literal Non-existence is the only one thing that is extremely unlikely as apposed to literal Existence. But we could talk about both until kingdom come, remaining in and of Literal Existence, which cannot and does not however disappear, or is Existent just because of my abstract conceptualization of "existence" or "non-existence".

In other words, what I mean is, Literal Existence does not rely or need conceptualization to begin with, so a question of non-existence does not even arise, TO Existence.

[Jehu]

Sapius,

It would appear that our principle sticking point is ‘what makes a relative entity not real”, so let me see if I can shed some light on why this must be so.

Imagine first that there is a black disc on a white background, and imagine that this disc is an absolute entity, and that the blackness is its intrinsic cause. Then, imagine a white disc on a black background, and that this disc is a relative entity, and the blackness is its extrinsic cause. The first disc (black) exists in-and-of itself and so is said to be real, while the second disc (white) does not exist in-and-of itself, and so is not real. In other words, a relative entity is one that exists only as a relationship between its extrinsic causes, and so like a shadow, exists only in the mind of a cognizant observer. In fact, Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” is intended to illustrate just this point: that all perceptible things partake of only a relative existence, and that it is the interaction of the light of awareness and the opaque object that is knowledge, that gives rise to them all.

[Jehu]

[quote=“Sapius”]In other words, what I mean is, Literal Existence does not rely or need conceptualization to begin with, so a question of non-existence does not even arise, TO Existence.[/quote]
On what logical grounds can you assert that the ‘concept’ of existence does not rely upon ‘conceptualization’? Surely you understand that concepts are all that we human beings have to work with, and that even the notion of an existence that is independent of our conceptualising is merely that, a ‘concept’.

[Dave Toast]

What Jehu said.

Sap: There isn’t an alternative to Existence itself except you or me looking at it through definitions.

There isn't an alternative to looking at anything but through definitions and conceptualisation. That's all existence is. Without conceptualisation, existence isn't. This is the not-existence that existence is relative to.

This definition of existence is the only one that remains consistent. Any other leads into the kind of contradictions you're elaborating above.

[Jehu]

David wrote:

There isn't an alternative to looking at anything but through definitions and conceptualisation. That's all existence is. Without conceptualisation, existence isn't. This is the not-existence that existence is relative to.

While there is no ‘rational’ alternative to conceptualization as a means of understanding the nature of things, nevertheless, there is an alternative, and one that is all to frequently taken: the alternative being to merely accept that things are as they appear; regardless of the logical inconsistencies that such a view entails.

[Sapius]

Jehu;

It would appear that our principle sticking point is ‘what makes a relative entity not real”, so let me see if I can shed some light on why this must be so.

Yes, I'm afraid so. Thanks.

Imagine first that there is a black disc on a white background, and imagine that this disc is an absolute entity, and that the blackness is its intrinsic cause.

Fine, but please keep in mind, purely “intrinsic” causes wouldn’t mean much, because if they are causes, then that implies dynamic interactivity between more than one thing, so, there has to be something other than blackness itself, for blackness to be.

Then, imagine a white disc on a black background, and that this disc is a relative entity, and the blackness is its extrinsic cause.

Fine, but again, please keep in mind; this white disk can also be an absolute entity, with its own whiteness as its intrinsic causes. And, in the above black disc; the whiteness could be the extrinsic causes.

The first disc (black) exists in-and-of itself and so is said to be real, while the second disc (white) does not exist in-and-of itself, and so is not real.

I don’t think so. You see, if you consider either the black disc or the white disc on its own as an absolute entity, then neither actually exists, for they cannot be without the extrinsic contrast. And this is exactly my point; the dividing line between the disc and the background, which is the point of awareness actually. Unless the contrast is not there to begin with, awareness cannot be, which is but a resultant effect and creation of opposing forces in and of causality, and not only the other way around. Our consciousness cannot possibly create causality, but as an emergent effect, can influence further effects as a cause by itself.

In other words, a relative entity is one that exists only as a relationship between its extrinsic causes, and so like a shadow, exists only in the mind of a cognizant observer.

The black disc cannot exist on its own intrinsic blackness, unless there is a white background that MAKES it a DISC to begin with, or even INTRINSIC to hold meaning. You are claiming those causes to be intrinsic because of the boundary that limits it as a disc, otherwise, what exactly would “intrinsic” mean?

However, this is a good example but the scenario seems to be poorly imagined; my point exactly is that absolutely no-thing can exist unless there is at least one causally connected but however a “boundary” that contrastingly separates the black and the white, otherwise, neither exit.

So, to say the least, in an ultimate sense, boundaries are necessary for existence to be, at least one, which means, a minimum of two differentiated things, and these two can never be ONE.

In fact, Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” is intended to illustrate just this point: that all perceptible things partake of only a relative existence, and that it is the interaction of the light of awareness and the opaque object that is knowledge, that gives rise to them all.

I know, and I have nothing against Plato, but what do YOU think is what matters, isn’t it? Why should it necessarily be the case if Plato said so? I don’t understand. I’m not saying that there were no brilliant minds in those times, but what makes us think that we are any less? Can’t we think for ourselves irrelevant of those tons of philosophical books? From which book must have the first philosopher got his ideas from? Life, or even consciousness, itself is the biggest book available and open to all, all that needs be done is read it. The only book on philosophy I ever read was ‘philosophy for dummies’, which I remember buying at some airport some fifteen years ago. (I think it was New York). It’s like a reference book that holds the crux of many philosophers, which I have actually read but once. If you are of the mind that I have to be a qualified and a certified philosopher with a Ph.D. to understand what you are saying, then I’m sorry to say, I’m not, but I believe I can think, so if you are up to it, then please speak your mind.

On what logical grounds can you assert that the ‘concept’ of existence does not rely upon ‘conceptualization’? Surely you understand that concepts are all that we human beings have to work with, and that even the notion of an existence that is independent of our conceptualising is merely that, a ‘concept’.

On the grounds that Existence is not entirely dependent on me, nor my capability of abstract addition or subdivision of that which is not me, against which, I am.

Is it always that one conceptualizes or defines a feeling that it may occur, or expresses what one feels, through a complex enough communicative capability such as ours?

Close your eyes and feel, there will necessarily be a you, and that which is not you, and the sensual interaction felt, is your particular awareness. On the other hand, just watch a fly operate coherently with its environment, it doesn't do that because you are conceptualizing its flight path.

[Sapius]

What Jehu said.

Sap: There isn’t an alternative to Existence itself except you or me looking at it through definitions.

There isn't an alternative to looking at anything but through definitions and conceptualisation. That's all existence is. Without conceptualisation, existence isn't. This is the not-existence that existence is relative to.

This definition of existence is the only one that remains consistent. Any other leads into the kind of contradictions you're elaborating above.

Well, Dave, tell that to a Cow who Exists irrelevant of me defining it a “Cow”. BTW, would a cow itself be any different if I called it a woc, or would different names in different languages make a difference to its nature or what it IS? A definition is actually nothing unless it points to something, be it even that what IT ---> means. Are you telling me that a Cow that horns me into a corner is because of how I conceptualize the event? I think this is where a Zen stick is desperately needed. ;)