The Fundamental Unity of Being

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by brokenhead »

Jehu wrote:Even a sub-atomic particle exhibits some measure of cognizance, for it is seemingly aware when there are another particles in its vicinity, and it acts appropriately – within the scope of its functional capacity. Sentience, on the other hand, implies a measure of self-awareness; that is to say, a sentient being is aware of its own existence, and possesses some sort of memory faculty – however rudimentary.
I have been following this thread with some discomfort, because I knew sooner or later this point would be brought up.

Why is it necessary to attribute any measure of "cognizance" to a subatomic particle? Then you have to say "seemingly" aware and use the phrase "acts appropriately" instead of "reacts." This is the objection I often have with maestro's thinking. If even a subatomic particle exhibits cognizance, then everything does, and the term loses its meaning. And the meaning is an important one. You are glossing over this by saying a subatomic particle is "seemingly aware." I am saying it is not aware in any way.

Cognizance presupposes consciousness, as does sentience. And cognizance presupposes sentience. Sentience is undifferentiated awareness, an elementary state of readiness to receive perceptions. Cognizance implies knowledge, which in turn implies memory.

I wanted to clarify these terms so we know what we are talking about.

Again, I do not think even quantum coupling implies consciousness of any sort, certainly nothing approaching sentience or the more formal cognizance.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

brokenhead wrote:
Jehu wrote:Even a sub-atomic particle exhibits some measure of cognizance, for it is seemingly aware when there are another particles in its vicinity, and it acts appropriately – within the scope of its functional capacity. Sentience, on the other hand, implies a measure of self-awareness; that is to say, a sentient being is aware of its own existence, and possesses some sort of memory faculty – however rudimentary.
I have been following this thread with some discomfort, because I knew sooner or later this point would be brought up.

Why is it necessary to attribute any measure of "cognizance" to a subatomic particle? Then you have to say "seemingly" aware and use the phrase "acts appropriately" instead of "reacts." This is the objection I often have with maestro's thinking. If even a subatomic particle exhibits cognizance, then everything does, and the term loses its meaning. And the meaning is an important one. You are glossing over this by saying a subatomic particle is "seemingly aware." I am saying it is not aware in any way.

Cognizance presupposes consciousness, as does sentience. And cognizance presupposes sentience. Sentience is undifferentiated awareness, an elementary state of readiness to receive perceptions. Cognizance implies knowledge, which in turn implies memory.

I wanted to clarify these terms so we know what we are talking about.

Again, I do not think even quantum coupling implies consciousness of any sort, certainly nothing approaching sentience or the more formal cognizance.
You are right, it is important that we understand precisely what is meant by any given term. When I employ the term ‘cognizant’ I mean it only in the sense of, “having knowledge or being aware of”, and nothing more.

Cognizance only presupposes consciousness if one assumes an essentially substantive view of reality, however, from an objective idealist point of view, the nature of reality is itself essentially cognizant.
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Ataraxia »

Jehu wrote: The mind system is associated with the body (brain), and so is dependent for its existence upon a wide range of extrinsic causes. Cognizance, on the other hand, is not dependent upon anything extrinsic for its existence, but upon its own intrinsic causes – knowledge. It is for this reason that I say that cognizance is “akin” to mind, and not that it ‘is’ mind itself; for mind is a thing (construct), and cognizance is not a thing; though it is cognizance that make mind possible.
This is just another way of saying knowledge is a thing-itself--and if I'm reading you aright, the cause of all things.But how can that be?

In your view,would there still be this thing you call knowledge if there was no thinker to thunk it?
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Dave Toast »

This has gone on for far too long now. Any hope of deriving the syllogisms fundamental to what's being said of them has long been lost to over-elaboration. And now it seems, perhaps, that the conclusions and their corollories are getting too greedy for any syllogisms previously put forward. If we are to understand and verify whether what is being said is what can truly be reasonably said, I would suggest the need for the premises, conclusions and corollaries to be laid out, in full, from start to finish, that they might be scrutinised.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Ataraxia wrote:
Jehu wrote: The mind system is associated with the body (brain), and so is dependent for its existence upon a wide range of extrinsic causes. Cognizance, on the other hand, is not dependent upon anything extrinsic for its existence, but upon its own intrinsic causes – knowledge. It is for this reason that I say that cognizance is “akin” to mind, and not that it ‘is’ mind itself; for mind is a thing (construct), and cognizance is not a thing; though it is cognizance that make mind possible.
This is just another way of saying knowledge is a thing-itself--and if I'm reading you aright, the cause of all things.But how can that be?

In your view,would there still be this thing you call knowledge if there was no thinker to thunk it?
I am saying that things are merely a form of knowledge, but I am not say that there any “thing-itself”, for all thing are merely apparent. Let me explain: the nature of reality is cognizant and so comprises two interdependent and complementary aspects, (1) a thinker (awareness) and its thoughts (knowledge). The thinker (the one existential being), given that it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (its own thoughts), partakes of a absolute (necessary) existence, while its thoughts (the multitude of essential beings), being dependent upon extrinsic causes (at least two other thoughts), partakes of only a relative (contingent) existence. Now the thinker is the ‘operative cause’ of the arising of any new thought (knowledge), while its ‘constitutive causes’ are other existent thoughts; and so a new thought is nothing more that the amalgamation of other already existing thoughts. Therefore, that which to we sentient beings has the appearance of an objective world, is really just a virtual experiential continuum that is generated by a greater awareness, and given that our apparent bodies belong to that same continuum, our interaction with the continuum are governed by the same inviolable law; and so there is the illusion of our being substantive entities living in a substantive world.

So to answer your question, no, there can be no thinker without that there is also a thought; and no awareness without that there is an object of awareness – knowledge.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Dave Toast wrote:This has gone on for far too long now. Any hope of deriving the syllogisms fundamental to what's being said of them has long been lost to over-elaboration. And now it seems, perhaps, that the conclusions and their corollories are getting too greedy for any syllogisms previously put forward. If we are to understand and verify whether what is being said is what can truly be reasonably said, I would suggest the need for the premises, conclusions and corollaries to be laid out, in full, from start to finish, that they might be scrutinised.
I too am not entirely pleased with the way our enquiry is unfolding, for I had hoped that there would be more direct participation. I had also hoped that we could all proceed together, step by step, for the concepts that I am introducing are subtle and difficult to understand, and so it is necessary that each step be completely understood, before proceeding to the next. What’s more, I am hindered by the fact that I am forced to employ language that is pregnant with tacit metaphysical assumptions and which run counter to the view I am trying to put forth here. Further, concepts such as the “Principle of Interdependent Complementarity” completely defy the use of formal logic, for there is no way to symbolize such a relationship.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,

What do you mean about hoping for more direct participation?
As to going together step-by-step, that is a good question. As we started over and went through the first few concepts, are the other readers in agreement with them?
What’s more, I am hindered by the fact that I am forced to employ language that is pregnant with tacit metaphysical assumptions and which run counter to the view I am trying to put forth here.
Because there aren't better words in common usage?

Further, concepts such as the “Principle of Interdependent Complementarity” completely defy the use of formal logic, for there is no way to symbolize such a relationship.[/quote]

Not sure I understand what you're saying.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iolaus wrote:This seems to make sense. Certainly, it cannot undergo a fundamental alteration, such that its properties have changed. I guess the only alteration it could undergo would be one of experiences. But is that a true alteration?

If by ‘true’ you mean ‘real’, then no, it is not a true alteration, it is only an apparent alteration – an illusion.
Alright, you refer to the contents of awareness as being knowledge. Presumably this knowledge comes from experiences. I would agree that there is no alteration of the essential nature of the absolute. But somehow I balk at calling this an illusion.

It's like saying that the events of the day are an illusion because they have not essentially changed me.
Even a sub-atomic particle exhibits some measure of cognizance, for it is seemingly aware when there are another particles in its vicinity, and it acts appropriately – within the scope of its functional capacity. Sentience, on the other hand, implies a measure of self-awareness; that is to say, a sentient being is aware of its own existence, and possesses some sort of memory faculty – however rudimentary.
But this makes it sound as if sentience if much to be preferred over cognizance, and that you believe in an unconscious universe much like QRS do.
While the absolute is the origin and cause of all things, the absolute does not inhere within the things themselves, for all things are illusory. Just as we understand that the dreaming mind does not inhere within the objects that it creates, but they within it. Neither do we assert that the dream object is fabricated out of any sort of substance, or that they are assembled from the bottom up; for we understand that dreams are merely the play of cognizant awareness and knowledge.
But what this means is that there is no substance anywhere.
For example, if you were not aware that it was a computer that was generating the images on your browser screen, you might be tempted to think that your cursor was actually interacting with the menu bar from which you wish to select a function.
You may have picked the wrong analogy. Are you saying that it is not?
Energy is a concept that was created in order to explain how it is possible that one thing should be capable of influencing another thing; however, in an essentially cognizant reality, there is no need to posit the existence of such a thing, for we know that things do not really influence one another, given that things are not real.
Well, then, what is it that is happening in the many interactions that we do, and can predict so well?
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:What do you mean about hoping for more direct participation?
As to going together step-by-step, that is a good question. As we started over and went through the first few concepts, are the other readers in agreement with them?
I have no idea, for apart from yourself, they have neither assented to the points nor offered any counter argument in opposition.
What’s more, I am hindered by the fact that I am forced to employ language that is pregnant with tacit metaphysical assumptions and which run counter to the view I am trying to put forth here.
Because there aren't better words in common usage?
Because our language embodies a tacit belief in a substantive reality, and so contains innumerable terms which reflect that belief.
Further, concepts such as the “Principle of Interdependent Complementarity” completely defy the use of formal logic, for there is no way to symbolize such a relationship.
Not sure I understand what you're saying.
I am saying that there is no way to describe the principle of interdependent complementarity in purely mathematical terms; for there is no logical operator for such a relationship.
If by ‘true’ you mean ‘real’, then no, it is not a true alteration, it is only an apparent alteration – an illusion.
Alright, you refer to the contents of awareness as being knowledge. Presumably this knowledge comes from experiences. I would agree that there is no alteration of the essential nature of the absolute. But somehow I balk at calling this an illusion.

It's like saying that the events of the day are an illusion because they have not essentially changed me.
Yes, but if there is no essential alteration in the absolute, and still there is the appearance of change, then must this apparent change not be illusory?
Even a sub-atomic particle exhibits some measure of cognizance, for it is seemingly aware when there are another particles in its vicinity, and it acts appropriately – within the scope of its functional capacity. Sentience, on the other hand, implies a measure of self-awareness; that is to say, a sentient being is aware of its own existence, and possesses some sort of memory faculty – however rudimentary.
But this makes it sound as if sentience if much to be preferred over cognizance, and that you believe in an unconscious universe much like QRS do.
Yes, within the realm of relative beings, it is clearly preferable to be a sentient being, for a sentient being has a far greater range of functional capabilities; including the capacity to understand its own true nature.
While the absolute is the origin and cause of all things, the absolute does not inhere within the things themselves, for all things are illusory. Just as we understand that the dreaming mind does not inhere within the objects that it creates, but they within it. Neither do we assert that the dream object is fabricated out of any sort of substance, or that they are assembled from the bottom up; for we understand that dreams are merely the play of cognizant awareness and knowledge.
But what this means is that there is no substance anywhere.
Yes, this is precisely what it means.
For example, if you were not aware that it was a computer that was generating the images on your browser screen, you might be tempted to think that your cursor was actually interacting with the menu bar from which you wish to select a function.
You may have picked the wrong analogy. Are you saying that it is not?
Of course it is not. There is no actual entity ‘cursor’, and so it cannot be possessed of any inherent property which would enable it to influence another thing, and especially another thing which is not an entity either – such as a menu button. Cursor and menu buttons are virtual entities, and like all illusions, they exist as entities only in the mind of a sentient observer. It is like when we watch a motion picture, and a particular actor or actress appears to walk across the screen; we do not take this image to be the actual person, not do we think that there is any actual entity that moves across the screen; we understand that these are mere shadows.
Energy is a concept that was created in order to explain how it is possible that one thing should be capable of influencing another thing; however, in an essentially cognizant reality, there is no need to posit the existence of such a thing, for we know that things do not really influence one another, given that things are not real.
Well, then, what is it that is happening in the many interactions that we do, and can predict so well?
I would prefer to defer this question for the time being, as we are becoming to speculative in our enquiry; but I assure you that we will return to it when the time is appropriate.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
I am saying that there is no way to describe the principle of interdependent complementarity in purely mathematical terms; for there is no logical operator for such a relationship.
It would no doubt have been lost on me anyway, since I'm a dropout from the 8th grade, although I later did take a course in algebra.
Yes, but if there is no essential alteration in the absolute, and still there is the appearance of change, then must this apparent change not be illusory?
Take water. You can hardly change its essential nature, but you can put if through a fountain, make it steam and condense, or pour it in a vase. Were those experiences illusory simply because they did not change its essential nature? And more, if water were sentient, those memories would be important to it.

It seems to me in the case of a human being, our experiences slowly alter and mold our character.
Yes, within the realm of relative beings, it is clearly preferable to be a sentient being, for a sentient being has a far greater range of functional capabilities; including the capacity to understand its own true nature.
But if there is no substance to this universe and all is within the mind of the dreamer, then it seems we have a conscious universe, not an unconscious one.

Do you realize what a powerful mind it would take to dream up a universe like this one?
There is no actual entity ‘cursor’, and so it cannot be possessed of any inherent property which would enable it to influence another thing, and especially another thing which is not an entity either – such as a menu button. Cursor and menu buttons are virtual entities, and like all illusions, they exist as entities only in the mind of a sentient observer.
Of course the cursor isn't an entity, and is controlled by me, but I choose where to point it, and get one reaction or another. In this way it interacts and generates images.

for we know that things do not really influence one another, given that things are not real.
Well now, there's a solution to the problem of evil.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:It would no doubt have been lost on me anyway, since I'm a dropout from the 8th grade, although I later did take a course in algebra.
It matters not, for it does not require a higher education to see the truth, it requires only the ability to reason.
Take water. You can hardly change its essential nature, but you can put if through a fountain, make it steam and condense, or pour it in a vase. Were those experiences illusory simply because they did not change its essential nature? And more, if water were sentient, those memories would be important to it.

It seems to me in the case of a human being, our experiences slowly alter and mold our character.
Yes, this is true, and it is because we human beings (and water) partake of only a relative existence and so are subject to continuous change. Still, there is that which does not change, and it is for this reason that there is the illusion of continuity, even though there is nothing that continues through time.
But if there is no substance to this universe and all is within the mind of the dreamer, then it seems we have a conscious universe, not an unconscious one.

Do you realize what a powerful mind it would take to dream up a universe like this one?
Yes, it would need be omnipotent. But consider the power of the sentient mind, which it is able to create an entire dream world, and then inhabit it.
Of course the cursor isn't an entity, and is controlled by me, but I choose where to point it, and get one reaction or another. In this way it interacts and generates images.
If the cursor is not an entity, then it possesses no inherent properties, and so it is not capable of influencing anything, and therefore, when we say that it does, we do not mean this in a literal sense, but only that it appears so. Is this not so?
Well now, there's a solution to the problem of evil.
I’m sorry’ I do not understand what you are implying?
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
Yes, this is true, and it is because we human beings (and water) partake of only a relative existence and so are subject to continuous change. Still, there is that which does not change, and it is for this reason that there is the illusion of continuity, even though there is nothing that continues through time.
Well, perhaps I have understood that...
I think you meant that, because of our awareness that is unchanging, we have the illusion of the continuous stream of events. But really there is not such a stream. Are you saying that there is no time?
But if there is no substance to this universe and all is within the mind of the dreamer, then it seems we have a conscious universe, not an unconscious one.

Do you realize what a powerful mind it would take to dream up a universe like this one?

Yes, it would need be omnipotent. But consider the power of the sentient mind, which it is able to create an entire dream world, and then inhabit it.
Alright, I am confused. You have not been quite clear about what sort of cognizance or awareness the absolute has. Perhaps we have not got to it. But if, as you say, there cannot be physical manifestation without a mind to make sense of it, this would indicate an awareness capable of thought, of having thought related to the objects of its perception. And this would precede evolved, sentient beings like us by a long way.

It would appear from what you said yesterday, that this universe is the product of this cognizant mind. And we the dream objects. But now you accuse me of creating this world myself!

Now, one reason I said it would take a powerful mind to dream up the universe, is that it is quite a bit more solid and persistent than, say, my own nightly dreams. In my dreams, things morph around and are quite unstable. In this one, the same thing actually does happen, but to a much, much lesser extent. And we have solid, predictable systems that continue for eons and eons. Over which we peons seem to have little control.

If I am dreaming up the world, I am not the ONLY one, there is a more powerful dreamer(s) setting the stage.
If the cursor is not an entity, then it possesses no inherent properties, and so it is not capable of influencing anything, and therefore, when we say that it does, we do not mean this in a literal sense, but only that it appears so. Is this not so?
I suppose so...in this case of course I am not separate from the cursor, because I direct it, but the cursor is endowed with certain electronic powers to cause reactions in the computer.
I’m sorry’ I do not understand what you are implying?
Oh, I just spent a long time arguing with someone about the problem of evil. But if nothing is real, and nothing is happening, you see?
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote: I think you meant that, because of our awareness that is unchanging, we have the illusion of the continuous stream of events. But really there is not such a stream. Are you saying that there is no time?
I am not saying that time does not exist at all, I am merely saying that time, like all things, has only a relative existence, and so is not real.
Alright, I am confused. You have not been quite clear about what sort of cognizance or awareness the absolute has. Perhaps we have not got to it. But if, as you say, there cannot be physical manifestation without a mind to make sense of it, this would indicate an awareness capable of thought, of having thought related to the objects of its perception. And this would precede evolved, sentient beings like us by a long way.
There is but one sort of awareness, and there is nothing that may be predicated of it, other than to say that it is. All predication pertains to knowledge, and is not awareness. Nevertheless, awareness and knowledge are co-dependent and complete one another in that which we call ‘Being’. But let us not address the matter of ‘thinking’ just yet, for it is better if one comes upon the truth for oneself.
It would appear from what you said yesterday, that this universe is the product of this cognizant mind. And we the dream objects. But now you accuse me of creating this world myself!
It should be clear by now that there is no ‘real’ you or I, though there is clearly the appearance of two independent beings, and so it is sometimes necessary to speak of you and I, as though we were really two.
Now, one reason I said it would take a powerful mind to dream up the universe, is that it is quite a bit more solid and persistent than, say, my own nightly dreams. In my dreams, things morph around and are quite unstable. In this one, the same thing actually does happen, but to a much, much lesser extent. And we have solid, predictable systems that continue for eons and eons. Over which we peons seem to have little control.
This is because the absolute mind operates upon perfect knowledge, and in accordance with a perfect law, while the relative mind operates upon imperfect knowledge, and in accordance with an imperfect law.
If I am dreaming up the world, I am not the ONLY one, there is a more powerful dreamer(s) setting the stage.
It is not you and I who are dreaming the world, for you and I are but a part of the dream.
I suppose so...in this case of course I am not separate from the cursor, because I direct it, but the cursor is endowed with certain electronic powers to cause reactions in the computer.
The whole point of the analogy was to demonstrate that not everything which appears to have a independent existent is real. The cursor, for example, is not an entity that moves across the screen, for the cursor that we see with each refresh cycle of the screen is an entirely new cursor, and the previous cursor is no more. It is like when a series of light bulbs are turned on and then off in rapid succession around the perimeter of a theatre marquee, and there is the appearance of a single bulb moving around the perimeter.
Oh, I just spent a long time arguing with someone about the problem of evil. But if nothing is real, and nothing is happening, you see?
Yes, I see; and you wish to know which is real and which is not: good or evil?
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
It should be clear by now that there is no ‘real’ you or I, though there is clearly the appearance of two independent beings, and so it is sometimes necessary to speak of you and I, as though we were really two.
In what way do I partake of the real?
It is not you and I who are dreaming the world, for you and I are but a part of the dream.
Then I misunderstood. In this exchange:
Do you realize what a powerful mind it would take to dream up a universe like this one?

Yes, it would need be omnipotent. But consider the power of the sentient mind, which it is able to create an entire dream world, and then inhabit it.
I was referring to the absolute, and I assumed you were referring to sentient beings such as ourselves. Also, I do not see a difference between dreaming up a universe or creating a dream world. Were you contrasting them?

Looking back, I see that Brokenhead tried to clarify some terms, and he seems to have cognizance and sentience switched from your meaning. He said:
Sentience is undifferentiated awareness, an elementary state of readiness to receive perceptions. Cognizance implies knowledge, which in turn implies memory.
Whereas I think you consider cognizance the undifferentiated awareness.
Yes, I see; and you wish to know which is real and which is not: good or evil?
No, actually it was just a wry comment. I've already given the matter some thought, and come to the conclusion that evil is not real. It is quite tricky when dealing with the duality and the unity, both of which are tantalizingly close to being fundamental. Good and evil appear to be a duality, and some might say you can't have one without the other. Perhaps that is what you say.

However, (in my view) the ultimate good is existence itself, which is life and consciousness. For this reason, no one can name the truest purpose of life - because life/existence is the ultimate and fundamental good, all other purposes being, however meaningful and poignant, derivative.

But existence has no opposite.
Evil is a distortion or detraction within the state of existence, a lessening of freedom or perfection, the introduction of fear which requires ignorance, and thus evil depends upon the good. Without the good, there can be no evil, for it has nothing to work on and has no real existence of its own.

In fact, if I may digress just briefly, this is why many an atheist says that they find life quite meaningful, despite their atheism. Of course they do. They have the same fundamental gift of the ultimate good that I do.
++++++
I'm not sure where we're at in our inquiry into the cognizant nature of reality, and I'm not quite sure how we come to the conclusion that there is no substance. In fact, that is more or less the opposite of what I believe! Because nonsubstance = nonexistence.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:In what way do I partake of the real?
Like all things, you and I participate in the one reality, which is our origin and cause. If it (the absolute) is the dreamer, then we (the relative) are the dream; but in the end, the dreamer and the dream are merely two aspects of one and the same entity – Being.
Looking back, I see that Brokenhead tried to clarify some terms, and he seems to have cognizance and sentience switched from your meaning. He said:
Sentience is undifferentiated awareness, an elementary state of readiness to receive perceptions. Cognizance implies knowledge, which in turn implies memory.
Whereas I think you consider cognizance the undifferentiated awareness.
I cannot speak for Brokenhead, but when I say that the nature of reality is essentially ‘cognizant’ I mean that it is pure undifferentiated awareness; and that it has the appearance of space to we sentient beings.
Yes, I see; and you wish to know which is real and which is not: good or evil?
No, actually it was just a wry comment. I've already given the matter some thought, and come to the conclusion that evil is not real. It is quite tricky when dealing with the duality and the unity, both of which are tantalizingly close to being fundamental. Good and evil appear to be a duality, and some might say you can't have one without the other. Perhaps that is what you say.

However, (in my view) the ultimate good is existence itself, which is life and consciousness. For this reason, no one can name the truest purpose of life - because life/existence is the ultimate and fundamental good, all other purposes being, however meaningful and poignant, derivative.

But existence has no opposite.
Evil is a distortion or detraction within the state of existence, a lessening of freedom or perfection, the introduction of fear which requires ignorance, and thus evil depends upon the good. Without the good, there can be no evil, for it has nothing to work on and has no real existence of its own.

In fact, if I may digress just briefly, this is why many an atheist says that they find life quite meaningful, despite their atheism. Of course they do. They have the same fundamental gift of the ultimate good that I do.
I would argue that you cannot have the good without that there is also evil (not good), but this does not prevent me from agreeing with everything that you have said here, for good is real (absolute), while evil is only an illusion (relative). Thus, from the point of view of the Ultimate Being, there is neither good nor evil, there is only ‘what is’.
I'm not sure where we're at in our inquiry into the cognizant nature of reality, and I'm not quite sure how we come to the conclusion that there is no substance. In fact, that is more or less the opposite of what I believe! Because nonsubstance = nonexistence.
The term ‘substance’ has its origin in late Latin term ‘substantivum’ meaning ‘self-existing’. In other words, it was held that at least some things (i.e., material things) were possessed of there own intrinsic causes, but reason tells us that all things arise as a result of the coming together of extrinsic causes, and so there is no substance to be found in any thing. In the Buddhist tradition, it is said that the there is no ‘self-inhering self’.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
I cannot speak for Brokenhead, but when I say that the nature of reality is essentially ‘cognizant’ I mean that it is pure undifferentiated awareness; and that it has the appearance of space to we sentient beings.
Not that you should speak for him, but he may be following this thread and so we should clarify our terms. Therefore, cognizance is pure undifferentiated awareness.

Now, how do you define sentience?
The term ‘substance’ has its origin in late Latin term ‘substantivum’ meaning ‘self-existing’. In other words, it was held that at least some things (i.e., material things) were possessed of there own intrinsic causes, but reason tells us that all things arise as a result of the coming together of extrinsic causes, and so there is no substance to be found in any thing. In the Buddhist tradition, it is said that the there is no ‘self-inhering self’.
This is a problem I have spent some time on. Because I am so puzzled by existence itself, and how it is possible for there to be this item called 'self-existing entity.'

In my wanderings, I have come to the conclusion that what people refer to as material versus spiritual reality, is a false division. It seems so to us merely because we are locked in, with our bodily senses and now with our slightly expanded instruments of sense, to a narrow band of reality. My understanding of what I have read in science and biology, leads me to believe, not only that our reality is built up upon the extremely tiny, but that there is a superfine substance known as the aether (of the ancients) which may very well contain the cognizance that you say looks like space to us. This ether is all pervading, extremely subtle, and has certain qualities.

Whatever the physical realm may or may not be, there has to be an unbroken connection between ultimate source and the physical world, else it could not produce and influence it. For this reason, I have come to the conclusion that expressions such as 'nonmaterial' make no sense. If something were truly nonmaterial, how would it touch the material?

I quite agree that the Latin term substance, that matter is inherently existing, is false. But -- what is matter? Whence does it arise? Does it arise straight out of cognizance, the self-existing?

It seems to me that Buddhist terms such as emptiness or insubstantiality are problematic, because they give rise in my mind, perhaps any western mind, to not quite correct ideas. For while I agree with your last two sentences above, at the same time I think we can say that reality is not nothing.

I am pretty sure I have not disagreed with anything that you've said, rather I am simply laying out in detail how my mind sees it.

So where are we at now, with our inquiry?
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:Now, how do you define sentience?
Again, we have not yet reached the stage where we can define such concepts, without resorting to supposition.
This is a problem I have spent some time on. Because I am so puzzled by existence itself, and how it is possible for there to be this item called 'self-existing entity.'

In my wanderings, I have come to the conclusion that what people refer to as material versus spiritual reality, is a false division. It seems so to us merely because we are locked in, with our bodily senses and now with our slightly expanded instruments of sense, to a narrow band of reality. My understanding of what I have read in science and biology, leads me to believe, not only that our reality is built up upon the extremely tiny, but that there is a superfine substance known as the aether (of the ancients) which may very well contain the cognizance that you say looks like space to us. This ether is all pervading, extremely subtle, and has certain qualities.
We have already agreed that there is no non-being, and that as a consequence, there is but a single and continuous existential being. How then can we assert the notion that the universe is constituted in of some multiplicity of individually existent particles, regardless of how tiny or subtle they may be?
Whatever the physical realm may or may not be, there has to be an unbroken connection between ultimate source and the physical world, else it could not produce and influence it. For this reason, I have come to the conclusion that expressions such as 'nonmaterial' make no sense. If something were truly nonmaterial, how would it touch the material?
The answer is quite simple: that which we perceive to be material, is merely an illusion, just as the things that we perceive in our dreams to be material, are illusory.
I quite agree that the Latin term substance, that matter is inherently existing, is false. But -- what is matter? Whence does it arise? Does it arise straight out of cognizance, the self-existing?
Matter (substance) is simply a form of knowledge, and it arises out of the interaction of cognizant awareness, and that previously existing knowledge which is embodied in the ‘objective universe’.
It seems to me that Buddhist terms such as emptiness or insubstantiality are problematic, because they give rise in my mind, perhaps any western mind, to not quite correct ideas. For while I agree with your last two sentences above, at the same time I think we can say that reality is not nothing.
The Buddhist term ‘dharma’ means thing or phenomenon, while the term ‘Dharma’ means that which is real, and which underlies the appearance of all phenomena. But for the Buddha, that which is real (Dharma) is not a thing, but a single universal and inviolable law. So for the Buddhist there is but one reality (Dharma), which is absolute, independent and immutable (never changing), while there are innumerable phenomena (dharma) which are relative, dependent and mutable (ever changing).
So where are we at now, with our inquiry
Where we are is entirely dependent upon whether or not you recognize that at least one of the two possible modes of existence is necessarily aware, and that the other mode is necessarily unaware.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
Now, how do you define sentience?

Again, we have not yet reached the stage where we can define such concepts, without resorting to supposition.
That is fine. I do not always know when my obvious questions cross the step-by-step process you are planning.
We have already agreed that there is no non-being, and that as a consequence, there is but a single and continuous existential being. How then can we assert the notion that the universe is constituted in of some multiplicity of individually existent particles, regardless of how tiny or subtle they may be?
I suppose that there are discontinuities within the unity of being. That is, not a discontinuity in being itself, but rather those essential qualities that cause any particular thing to be recognizable to the mind. After all, at the beginning of this thread we discussed the two ways in which a thing may be constituted - the quality and the relation.

Also, my thoughts there were regarding what it means to exist, and why the division between material and spiritual is a false one. You had said that the nature of reality is cognizant, pure awareness, and that it looks like space to us. It is this cognizant space the I am calling the ether.

It is a puzzle to me to speak of 'substance' as implying inherent existence, which I understand a thing does not have because its relational qualities are ephemeral and impermanent, as though its lack of substance means it does not exist at all.

This was my complaint about terminology, because I don't think that is quite what you mean. Since all things also partake of the absolute.

My understanding is that at bottom, not only is there only one being, but also only one substance. Therefore, we can say of a horse or a chair that it is illusory, because it is a coming together of shadows that makes the one substance take on the relational characteristics we call horse. My question then, is not so much "why is a horse an illusion?" but "in what way is the horse also real?"

I hope I am not being tiresome, as this conversation interests me like no other.
Whatever the physical realm may or may not be, there has to be an unbroken connection between ultimate source and the physical world, else it could not produce and influence it. For this reason, I have come to the conclusion that expressions such as 'nonmaterial' make no sense. If something were truly nonmaterial, how would it touch the material?

The answer is quite simple: that which we perceive to be material, is merely an illusion, just as the things that we perceive in our dreams to be material, are illusory.
Please note that above I am agreeing that being is single and continuous! As to whether material things are every bit as illusory as my dreams, I am not sure. There is this tremendous consistency of method by which the Source produces materiality. It follows laws, and there seem to be consistent ways in which particles are configured or move so as to create the elements.

Or perhaps that is not relevant to the concepts we are discussing.
Matter (substance) is simply a form of knowledge, and it arises out of the interaction of cognizant awareness, and that previously existing knowledge which is embodied in the ‘objective universe’.
That may very well be. But what sort of previously existing knowledge? Previous to what?
The Buddhist term ‘dharma’ means thing or phenomenon, while the term ‘Dharma’ means that which is real, and which underlies the appearance of all phenomena.
That is quite interesting, that they use the very same word to denote the two modes of being. There is a clue in this.
But for the Buddha, that which is real (Dharma) is not a thing, but a single universal and inviolable law.
What is the law?
Where we are is entirely dependent upon whether or not you recognize that at least one of the two possible modes of existence is necessarily aware, and that the other mode is necessarily unaware.
I think it would be correct that if one mode were aware, the other should be unaware, else it would be in the same mode of being as the aware one. But how we can know that one mode must be aware, I have not yet grasped.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:I suppose that there are discontinuities within the unity of being. That is, not a discontinuity in being itself, but rather those essential qualities that cause any particular thing to be recognizable to the mind. After all, at the beginning of this thread we discussed the two ways in which a thing may be constituted - the quality and the relation.
Yes, this is precisely what we have said; and now one needs only to see the logical implications of what has been said.

We have said that being (that which is) is existentially one and indivisible, and so it follows that all ‘beings’ (existents) must participate equally in this one Being, for a thing either exists or it does not - there being no intermediate alternative.

Still, there is at least the appearance of separate (independent) existents, for things appear to hold together and move about as though they were true entities (separate existents).

Nevertheless, we know that it cannot be in their ‘existential being’ that things differ one from another, and so it follows that there must be a second mode being – which we have called ‘essential being’.

We then proceeded to analyze the two possible modes of being (absolute and relative), with the intent of discerning the relationship which held between them, for given that all things (beings) are existentially one, it follows that the two modes must be related.

It was then determined that given that the absolute mode could relate only to it own intrinsic causes (internally), and the relative mode, only to its extrinsic causes (externally), that the relationship between the two modes was analogous of a ‘container’ (absolute) and its ‘content’ (relative).

This relationship (principle or law) is the “Law of Identity”, the first principle of Thought; that a things is the same with its self (existentially), but different from another (essentially).
I, however, prefer to call it the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’, for neither mode can partake of an independent existence, and the two modes complete one another in that universe of discourse we call ‘Being’.

A thorough examination of this peculiar principle will unlock all of the doors that are necessary to our understanding the cognizant nature of reality. For example, because the two modes are ‘complementary’, whatever may be predicated of one mode, cannot be predicated of the other; and so if we claim that one of the modes is ‘real’, for instance, then the other is necessarily ‘not real’; or if we claim that one is ‘aware’, then the other is ‘not aware’; and the same is true of all such complementary dichotomies including good an evil (not good).

So, it is now only a matter of determining which of the two modes of being is the principle or superior mode, and which the inferior; that is to say, which is real and which is not.

That which is dependent upon other things for its existence (relative) cannot be the superior mode, for the things on which is it is dependent must precede it, and the things upon which those things exist must precede them, etc., etc., ad infinitum. However, this is not possible, for to be infinite is to be unfinished, but if a thing is existent, then regardless of whether it causes exist intrinsically or extrinsically, they must all exist, and so we cannot say that any existent thing is unfinished – so far as it is what it is.

Therefore, all things, given that they have only a relative existence, are not real, but only appear to be so; but if they appear to be so, then there must be that to which they appear, and this ‘subject awareness’ must of the absolute mode of being.
My understanding is that at bottom, not only is there only one being, but also only one substance. Therefore, we can say of a horse or a chair that it is illusory, because it is a coming together of shadows that makes the one substance take on the relational characteristics we call horse. My question then, is not so much "why is a horse an illusion?" but "in what way is the horse also real?"
You must understand, I hesitate to use the term ‘substance’ because it tacitly implies that somewhere within (sub) a thing there is that which is real, and this is simply not the case. Therefore, I use the term ‘essence’ in its place, but it must be understood that this ‘essence’ is neither real nor fixed; but exists in a state of constant flux. You might say that it is a ‘becoming’, rather than a ‘being’.
Please note that above I am agreeing that being is single and continuous! As to whether material things are every bit as illusory as my dreams, I am not sure. There is this tremendous consistency of method by which the Source produces materiality. It follows laws, and there seem to be consistent ways in which particles are configured or move so as to create the elements.
Indeed, it is with perfect consistency that world unfolds, for it is in accordance with a single inviolable law, the Law of Identity – the universal law of causality. However, things are not built up from simpler things, as the appear to be, for if things (relative entities) are not real, then it follows that they cannot be the real causes of anything.
That may very well be. But what sort of previously existing knowledge? Previous to what?
Since knowledge and awareness are interdependent, and neither can exist without the other, it is clear that there must have always been knowledge, but this knowledge is not fixed, but is constantly evolving. To the sentient being, who partakes of only a relative existence, this evolving store of knowledge has the appearance of an objective universe; but the objects that inhabit this universe are not real – just as the objects in our dreams are not real.
That is quite interesting, that they use the very same word to denote the two modes of being. There is a clue in this.
Indeed!
What is the law?
The Law of Identity or Principle of Interdependent Complementarity.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,

Ah yes. Now I remember where we left off:
Therefore, all things, given that they have only a relative existence, are not real, but only appear to be so; but if they appear to be so, then there must be that to which they appear, and this ‘subject awareness’ must of the absolute mode of being.
I read the first ten of your paragraphs, and follow entirely. But what I am not quite convinced of is that there must be an appearance to anyone. You mentioned that there would be no meaning to the different things without that there is a mind to see it. I agree, but why must there be a mind to appreciate the different shapes and so on? Why couldn't we have a swirling mass of matter, stars and planets and so forth, and no consciousness anywhere.

The strongest argument in your favor, is the idea that with the two complementary modes, they will have opposing predicates. But that should not necessarily mean that any particular characteristic MUST exist in one or the other.
You must understand, I hesitate to use the term ‘substance’ because it tacitly implies that somewhere within (sub) a thing there is that which is real, and this is simply not the case.
But how is it that all things are one unified being? Somehow this does not make sense. You seem to have the two modes completely isolated.
Therefore, I use the term ‘essence’ in its place, but it must be understood that this ‘essence’ is neither real nor fixed; but exists in a state of constant flux. You might say that it is a ‘becoming’, rather than a ‘being’.
Yes, I agree.
Indeed, it is with perfect consistency that the world unfolds, for it is in accordance with a single inviolable law, the Law of Identity – the universal law of causality. However, things are not built up from simpler things, as the appear to be, for if things (relative entities) are not real, then it follows that they cannot be the real causes of anything.
But can't they be the contingent cause? You hit a ball with a cue, and it hits the side, careens off in a new direction, hits another ball, and this one hits that one, and that one goes in the pocket. The true cause was your hit with the stick, but all those other events, while not being the true cause, could be similar to the building blocks that appear to make up things.

In waht sense do you believe in cause and effect, if things do not lead to the next thing?

It seems to me that you are calling things 'not real' because they are in flux. In one way it makes sense, but in another way it doesn't. In my mind if something isn't real, it is a fantasy, nonexistent.

And while I have been fascinated with the dream analogy of reality, and in fact I think it is more than an analogy but that patterns repeat themselves in different layers, at the same time I think this universe is not the same as my own dreams.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:I read the first ten of your paragraphs, and follow entirely. But what I am not quite convinced of is that there must be an appearance to anyone. You mentioned that there would be no meaning to the different things without that there is a mind to see it. I agree, but why must there be a mind to appreciate the different shapes and so on? Why couldn't we have a swirling mass of matter, stars and planets and so forth, and no consciousness anywhere.

The strongest argument in your favor, is the idea that with the two complementary modes, they will have opposing predicates. But that should not necessarily mean that any particular characteristic MUST exist in one or the other.
Remember, the realm of being is fundamentally indivisible, and so when we divide this realm into its two interdependent an complementary modes (absolute and relative), this division is a purely intellectual one; that is to say, it is ‘thought’ that divides the realm of Being into different things based upon their differentiable characteristics. Further, these differentiable characteristics do not abide within the thing itself, but are posited to the thing by the cognizant agent; and in the absence of any cognizant agent, there can be no differentiable characteristics (e.g., shape, colour, texture, smell, sound, etc.); and therefore, no ‘things’.
But how is it that all things are one unified being? Somehow this does not make sense. You seem to have the two modes completely isolated.
Consider the dream scenario: we differentiate between the ‘dreamer’ and the ‘dream’, so they cannot be exactly the same thing, but neither are the entirely different things, for then they would not be related. It is like when a carnival magician twist a balloon so as to give the appearance of two balloons. In actuality there is only the one balloon, but there is the illusion of two balloons. Further, whatever air was contained within the original balloon, must now be distributed between the two apparent balloons, and if a particular volume of that original air resides now within one of the apparent balloons, then it cannot also reside within the other apparent balloon.
But can't they be the contingent cause? You hit a ball with a cue, and it hits the side, careens off in a new direction, hits another ball, and this one hits that one, and that one goes in the pocket. The true cause was your hit with the stick, but all those other events, while not being the true cause, could be similar to the building blocks that appear to make up things.

In waht sense do you believe in cause and effect, if things do not lead to the next thing?
Please do not misconstrue my meaning, I am not saying that things (knowledge) do not play a role in causality, I am saying only that they are not the ‘real’ (absolute) cause, but only the ‘apparent’ (relative) causes. As I said, a relative entity arises out of the coming together of other pre-existent things, and these other things are its ‘constitutive causes’; water, for example, arises out of the amalgamation of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and these are its constitutive causes.
It seems to me that you are calling things 'not real' because they are in flux. In one way it makes sense, but in another way it doesn't. In my mind if something isn't real, it is a fantasy, nonexistent.
I see, this then is our problem: for we cannot reasonable say that there anything that does not exist. To exist, is to ‘stand out’ (from the Latin ex (out) + sistere (to stand)) before the mind as its object, and so whatever may be either perceived or imagined may be said to exist; and that which does not exist, can be neither perceived nor imagined, and so we cannot speak of such things.
And while I have been fascinated with the dream analogy of reality, and in fact I think it is more than an analogy but that patterns repeat themselves in different layers, at the same time I think this universe is not the same as my own dreams.
Indeed, they are not the same, for dreams or imaginings are even less real than are the things that inhabit the physical world. You see, the relative realm may again be divided into two interdependent and complementary aspects: the ‘actual’ (objective) – of which there is only the one, and the ‘imaginary’ (subjective) – of which there is a continuously fluctuating multiplicity. The former (objective) is generated by perfect (absolute) awareness operating upon perfect knowledge (embodied in material objects) and perfect reasoning (deduction); while the latter (subjective) is generated by imperfect awareness (embodied in the sentient being) operating upon imperfect knowledge (ideas embodied in the neural structures in our brain) and an imperfect law (induction).
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
Further, these differentiable characteristics do not abide within the thing itself, but are posited to the thing by the cognizant agent; and in the absence of any cognizant agent, there can be no differentiable characteristics (e.g., shape, colour, texture, smell, sound, etc.); and therefore, no ‘things’.
How does this relate to putting a few items in a shoe box and putting it in an attic for 100 years, forgotten?
I see, this then is our problem: for we cannot reasonable say that there anything that does not exist. To exist, is to ‘stand out’ (from the Latin ex (out) + sistere (to stand)) before the mind as its object, and so whatever may be either perceived or imagined may be said to exist; and that which does not exist, can be neither perceived nor imagined, and so we cannot speak of such things.
Yes, this I had figured out already. But--
You must understand, I hesitate to use the term ‘substance’ because it tacitly implies that somewhere within (sub) a thing there is that which is real, and this is simply not the case.
I am trying to understand in what way things are not real, or lack substance, while also --
Remember, the realm of being is fundamentally indivisible, and so when we divide this realm into its two interdependent an complementary modes (absolute and relative), this division is a purely intellectual one; that is to say, it is ‘thought’ that divides the realm of Being into different things based upon their differentiable characteristics.
Which means to me that everything is real. Or, if not real because mutable and in flux, at least that everything has substance.

When you say all things lack substance, to me that means the material world, the cosmos, does not exist.
Please do not misconstrue my meaning, I am not saying that things (knowledge) do not play a role in causality, I am saying only that they are not the ‘real’ (absolute) cause, but only the ‘apparent’ (relative) causes. As I said, a relative entity arises out of the coming together of other pre-existent things, and these other things are its ‘constitutive causes’; water, for example, arises out of the amalgamation of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and these are its constitutive causes.
Well, I agree with this but I do not see it as incompatible with the idea that bigger things are composed of smaller things. It does not mean that the smaller things are the ultimate cause.
Last edited by Iolaus on Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Truth is a pathless land.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

The former (objective) is generated by perfect (absolute) awareness operating upon perfect knowledge (embodied in material objects) and perfect reasoning (deduction);
So you are saying that matter is information made manifest?
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:How does this relate to putting a few items in a shoe box and putting it in an attic for 100 years, forgotten?
I’m sorry, I do not understand the question?
I am trying to understand in what way things are not real, or lack substance,
It is really quite straight forward, that which is dependent upon its own intrinsic causes is ‘real’, while that which dependent upon extrinsic causes for its existence is ‘not real’; nevertheless, both sorts of things ‘exist’.
while also --
Remember, the realm of being is fundamentally indivisible, and so when we divide this realm into its two interdependent an complementary modes (absolute and relative), this division is a purely intellectual one; that is to say, it is ‘thought’ that divides the realm of Being into different things based upon their differentiable characteristics.
Which means to me that everything is real. Or, if not real because mutable and in flux, at least that everything has substance.

When you say all things lack substance, to me that means the material world, the cosmos, does not exist.
Again, we cannot reasonably say that there is anything that ‘does not exist’; and so you must abandoned the notion. Further, I do not say that they lack substance, I say that they have no ‘inherent reality’; that is to say, there are not possessed of their own intrinsic causes.
Well, I agree with this but I do not see it as incompatible with the idea that bigger things are composed of smaller things. It does not mean that the smaller things are the ultimate cause.
If things have only a relative existence, then their constitutive causes (components) do not abide within the relative thing itself, for things are merely a relationships that abide within their constitutive causes - as a mode of distribution. For example, there is no entity ‘bicycle’ wherein there abides two wheels, a frame, a set of handle bars, peddles, a seat and a chain and gear train. Rather a bicycle abides within these components, when they are appropriately assembled. It is for this reason, that even though all of its components are present, we cannot say that there is a ‘bicycle’ present, until those components are assembled in such a way as that the resulting entity will possess the functional capacity of a bicycle.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:
The former (objective) is generated by perfect (absolute) awareness operating upon perfect knowledge (embodied in material objects) and perfect reasoning (deduction);
So you are saying that matter is information made manifest?
Yes, that is one way of stating it. As in the case of letters being the substance (matter) of words, awareness merely ‘in-forms’ simpler knowledge (letters), and in so doing, gives rise to more complex knowledge (words). Then, awareness operates upon the words, which become the substance of even more complex knowledge – sentences. In fact, there are five fundamental forms of substance: mentation, sensations, objects, properties and activities; which the ancient Greek essentialists symbolized respectively as: aether, water, earth, fire and air.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
How does this relate to putting a few items in a shoe box and putting it in an attic for 100 years, forgotten?

I’m sorry, I do not understand the question?
I meant, would you say that since no minds see or are aware of the items in the shoe box, that they do not have shape, color, and so forth? Or does the mind of God maintain their characteristics?

Other than that, I am ready to go on, having accepted all your points.
Truth is a pathless land.
Locked