Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[brokenhead]

To the degree that we posit an objective reality outside consciousness which forms our experiences, to that same degree we are positing an unknowable realm that cannot coalesce into a form. It is unknowable because it is inherently impossible to know - by anyone or anything. It is unknowable because it lacks any form to know.

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this point.

The first sentence in the above quote is purely an assertion, without one shred of evidence or even logic to back it up. If we posit that such a realm exists, it is by definition unknown, but nothing in our experience would lead us to conclude it is also unknowable. Quite the opposite! You are saying it is impossible to learn anything.

David, you simply cannot be serious about this point, can you? Are you aware that you do not know everything? If you can learn something new tomorrow, that thing today is outside the consciousness which forms your experiences. In what sense is that thing unknowable? Why would people ever attend college? People posit an objective reality, a state of superior knowledge and understanding of the way the world is to the state that they currently possess, their consciousness which forms their experiences. If they concluded that what lay beyond their ken was unknowable, why would they apply to college?

What is the point of positing anything that is inherently impossible to know?

You're talking nonsense.

[Iolaus]

Brokenhead,

I think he is saying that if it is inherently outside the reach of our consciousness, it will be unknowable.

[Jason]

But maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say originally, above. I was suggesting that appearances might constitute the entirety of the Totality. If that were the case, the Totality could be experienced in its entirety, as a collection of finite things/appearances. All these things/appearances could exist in a web of mutually dependent existence. A supports B, and B supports A. Because they are mutually supporting, mutually contrasting, there is no need for a C( something outside and contrasting against A and B.)

So the appearances support each other's existence in a mutually dependent way, and thus there is no need for anything beyond appearances to be the cause of appearances. They are self-sufficient, in a sense.

Maybe this agrees with your conception of consciousness/appearances and the Totality, I'm not sure. You always seemed to want to posit something external to appearances, as the cause of appearances. I suppose that was what the hidden void was about, and you've now said that it is not necessary, but I'm still not sure I completely understand your ideas in this area.

The key thing is not to get attached to any appearance - not even to the appearance of what you describe above. Things appear to exist beyond consciousness when they appear to. And when they don't appear to exist beyond consciousness, then that appears to be the reality for that moment.

As far as this profoundly important matter is concerned, we have no choice but to accept everything at face-value.

I agree with the gist of that. The problem however, I suspect, is that you're still clinging to the appearances known as "non-attachment." You don't seem to have yet made it to the point where emotions, ego and attachments can be valid appearances of the moment too. I think you probably started out with a very strong desire to reach an endpoint to your philosophy that consisted of non-attachment, no emotions and no ego, and now ironically you can't let go of that.

[Max]

Reply from The Gifted Individuals Resea ... htenment'.

[Shahrazad]

Jason,

I think you probably started out with a very strong desire to reach an endpoint to your philosophy that consisted of non-attachment, no emotions and no ego, and now ironically you can't let go of that.

Naturyl, who only posts here occasionally, has said this same thing to Dan.

-

[Iolaus]

Max,

Glad to have you here.

[elderwoodxxx]

it can even lead you through the 'Valley of the Shadow of Death', into higher levels of 'correct' reasoning. Correct reasoning is governed by the 'Laws of Enlightenment'

Max, can you explain what you understand by 'Valley of the shadow of Death', also what are the 'laws of enlightenment' have they thus been set down and defined? I have not yet come across them if so.

Thanks

Amandaxxx

[David Quinn]

As far as this profoundly important matter is concerned, we have no choice but to accept everything at face-value.

I agree with the gist of that. The problem however, I suspect, is that you're still clinging to the appearances known as "non-attachment." You don't seem to have yet made it to the point where emotions, ego and attachments can be valid appearances of the moment too. I think you probably started out with a very strong desire to reach an endpoint to your philosophy that consisted of non-attachment, no emotions and no ego, and now ironically you can't let go of that.

I don't have a problem with being attached to the ideal of non-attachment. If a person isn't attached to such an ideal to the exclusion of all else, then it means that he is either a fully-enlightened Buddha with no attachments at all, or he is simply attached to other things - i.e. to less spiritually helpful things.

Moreover, attachment to the ideal of non-attachment is dynamic in nature. Not only does it consume everything before it, but it also consumes itself. It isn't the kind of attachment that people normally use to fortify their egos and give them a sense of security. It is the very opposite of that.

You're right in saying that the emotions, etc, are perfectly valid appearances. When they appear, their apperance is perfectly valid. It's just that they don't arise in the enlightened mind, just as fire doesn't arise when there is no fuel or flammable material to generate it.

-

[David Quinn]

To the degree that we posit an objective reality outside consciousness which forms our experiences, to that same degree we are positing an unknowable realm that cannot coalesce into a form. It is unknowable because it is inherently impossible to know - by anyone or anything. It is unknowable because it lacks any form to know.

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this point.

The first sentence in the above quote is purely an assertion, without one shred of evidence or even logic to back it up. If we posit that such a realm exists, it is by definition unknown, but nothing in our experience would lead us to conclude it is also unknowable. Quite the opposite! You are saying it is impossible to learn anything.

David, you simply cannot be serious about this point, can you? Are you aware that you do not know everything? If you can learn something new tomorrow, that thing today is outside the consciousness which forms your experiences. In what sense is that thing unknowable?

If you can learn something tomorrow that you didn't know today, then clearly the thing isn't unknowable. It is not unknowable by virtue of the fact that consciousness has the potential to apprehend it at some point. But if a thing possesses no potential whatsoever of ever being apprehended by consciousness, then it qualifies as being unknowable.

Objective reality, defined as that which is beyond cosnciousness, falls into this category.

If, for argument's sake, objective reality was somehow able to be brought into consciousness, such that it could be apprehended by consciousness, then it would automatically cease to be objective reality. It would just be another form within consciousness.

What is the point of positing anything that is inherently impossible to know?

It is part of comprehending the truth about reality. If something is inherently impossible to know, then we, as truthful people, should acknowledge it.

-

[David Quinn]

David,

It seems I remember somewhere on this thread you stated that consciousness and matter (forms) arise together. That there cannot be formations without consciousness to perceive.

Yet you also stated that there wasn't consciousness until brains evolved on earth.

Would you clarify?

I was simply introducing the standard scientific view regarding the ancient earth for Jason to play with.

As for me: The ancient earth can never be more than an appearance in our minds. Today, its appearance is that of a theoretical possibility constructed out of circumstantial evidence. If, in future, we could somehow build a time machine and travel back 4 billion years, it is highly likely that we would physically observe an ancient, youthful earth. Nonetheless, each earth is nothing more than an appearance in our minds and can never be anything more than that.

-

[brokenhead]

What is the point of positing anything that is inherently impossible to know?

It is part of comprehending the truth about reality. If something is inherently impossible to know, then we, as truthful people, should acknowledge it.

Agreed. In what manner do we identify that thing that is inherently impossible to know, assuming it can possibly exist?

[Iolaus]

David,

Objective reality, defined as that which is beyond cosnciousness, falls into this category.

Are you saying that consciousness can only ever apprehend subjective reality?

As for me: The ancient earth can never be more than an appearance in our minds. Today, its appearance is that of a theoretical possibility constructed out of circumstantial evidence. If, in future, we could somehow build a time machine and travel back 4 billion years, it is highly likely that we would physically observe an ancient, youthful earth. Nonetheless, each earth is nothing more than an appearance in our minds and can never be anything more than that.

Well, that is a little vague, although acceptable. But what I'm asking is, how do you think consciousness makes a necessary contribution to the existence and formation of the universe, of matter, if you think that consciousness arises only from evolved brains?

[elderwoodxxx]

Objective reality, defined as that which is beyond cosnciousness, falls into this category.

If, for argument's sake, objective reality was somehow able to be brought into consciousness, such that it could be apprehended by consciousness, then it would automatically cease to be objective reality. It would just be another form within consciousness

How can Objective reality be defined as that which is beyond consciousness?

If objective reality were as you wrote brought into consciousness then the objective nature of it would be known to the knower in comparison to the one within subjectivity.. Is this not the 'light' as it were? The light of all that is..(Bear with me on this statement) encompasses all including the darkness or subjectivity which belongs to it.

Suppose 'enlightened' beings in awareness of the ultimate objective nature of All realitys, were then open to the infinite of the cosmos, they would themselves know the laws which determine 'what is' and understand that 'creational' energy from source manifests in All possibilities, in occordance with those divine laws.

What then is beyond consciousness? which is itself beyond time and space.

Quantum physics has many answers.. Energy, vibrating at different frequencies..Consciousness IS Love and light energy, we manifest here within density to 'evolve' spiritually into awareness of who we are.

We are creators, that of our own reality with thought. Within subjectivity we are 'controlled' by fear and doubts, enlightened beings are in control of their thoughts and learn the pure art of creating.

(These of course are my thoughts. Each entitled to their own)

Amandaxxx

[David Quinn]

What is the point of positing anything that is inherently impossible to know?

It is part of comprehending the truth about reality. If something is inherently impossible to know, then we, as truthful people, should acknowledge it.

Agreed. In what manner do we identify that thing that is inherently impossible to know, assuming it can possibly exist?

By discerning the inherent limitations of consciousness.

-

[Shahrazad]

Iolaus asks David,

Are you saying that consciousness can only ever apprehend subjective reality?

How can it be otherwise?

[David Quinn]

David,

Objective reality, defined as that which is beyond cosnciousness, falls into this category.

Are you saying that consciousness can only ever apprehend subjective reality?

Given that everything we experience is shaped by the way our senses are structured, the way our brains are wired, our physical size, our memories and expectations, and the existence of whatever mental blocks and other distorting mental forces are there in our minds, it is fair to say that that what we experience in each moment is very subjective. We are certainly not experiencing a pure objective reality that is impervious to all those distorting forces.

However, on a deeper level, such categories as "subjective" and "objective" fall away. The enlightened mind is able to experience reality in its purest form in every aspect of its subjective experiences.

As for me: The ancient earth can never be more than an appearance in our minds. Today, its appearance is that of a theoretical possibility constructed out of circumstantial evidence. If, in future, we could somehow build a time machine and travel back 4 billion years, it is highly likely that we would physically observe an ancient, youthful earth. Nonetheless, each earth is nothing more than an appearance in our minds and can never be anything more than that.

Well, that is a little vague, although acceptable.

If it is still vague to you, then you shouldn't accept it. So many delusions and irrational beliefs in this world are propagated because people are lazy and don't have high enough standards in their judgments.

But what I'm asking is, how do you think consciousness makes a necessary contribution to the existence and formation of the universe, of matter, if you think that consciousness arises only from evolved brains?

Since I affirm that what lies beyond consciousness is a "hidden void" - that is, an unknowable realm that lacks all form - I don't have any basis for asserting that brains used to exist before consciousness arose.

All I can affirm is that if I was to travel back in time, with my consciousness in tow, it is likely, given the circumstantial evidence currently at my disposal, that I would observe an ancient earth that was totally devoid of consciousness, apart from my own. But given that what I would be observing in this scenario is merely an appearance in my own consciousness, it wouldn't really mean very much in the greater scheme of things. I wouldn't be any closer to experiencing what it was truly like before consciousness evolved.

-

[elderwoodxxx]

Iolaus asks David,


Quote:
Are you saying that consciousness can only ever apprehend subjective reality?


How can it be otherwise?

where do you 'think' 'I am' comes from..Manifest in form we use subjectivity to then discern truth. Consciousness's objective is to become aware of itself. It can only do this if it has a mirror to reflect it. Within this density the subjectivity reflects an illusion unless of course you see beyond it.

Since I affirm that what lies beyond consciousness is a "hidden void" - that is, an unknowable realm that lacks all form

May I assert that we have consciousness with out awareness. We manifest to gain more awareness and thus expand consciousness.

Amandaxxx

[David Quinn]

Objective reality, defined as that which is beyond cosnciousness, falls into this category.

If, for argument's sake, objective reality was somehow able to be brought into consciousness, such that it could be apprehended by consciousness, then it would automatically cease to be objective reality. It would just be another form within consciousness

How can Objective reality be defined as that which is beyond consciousness?

It is a standard definition. It is commonly known as the "thing-in-itself".

If objective reality were as you wrote brought into consciousness then the objective nature of it would be known to the knower in comparison to the one within subjectivity.

Unless this observer can somehow escape the distorting influences of his senses, neural wiring, memories, expectations, etc, that can never happen. At best, he will always be experiencing a filtered version of what is "out there".

Is this not the 'light' as it were? The light of all that is..(Bear with me on this statement) encompasses all including the darkness or subjectivity which belongs to it.

Suppose 'enlightened' beings in awareness of the ultimate objective nature of All realitys, were then open to the infinite of the cosmos, they would themselves know the laws which determine 'what is' and understand that 'creational' energy from source manifests in All possibilities, in occordance with those divine laws.

Yes, as far as becoming enlightened is concerned, nothing of what I have written in this discussion is directly relevant. The fundamental nature of Reality shines just as brightly within consciousness as it does beyond it. As Lao Tzu said, "We can know the ways of heaven without even looking outside our window."

Quantum physics has many answers.. Energy, vibrating at different frequencies..

We don't even have to look at quantum physics to know the nature of Reality. It is there in everything we experiernce. The Buddha and Lao Tzu didn't know anything about the quantum realm and they got by perfectly well without such knowledge.

-

[David Quinn]

Since I affirm that what lies beyond consciousness is a "hidden void" - that is, an unknowable realm that lacks all form

May I assert that we have consciousness with out awareness. We manifest to gain more awareness and thus expand consciousness.

Amandaxxx

I appreciate the kisses, but you've lost me here. What is the difference between consciousness and awareness?

-

[Max]

From Max to Amandaxxx: My answers to your queries on the Valley of the shadow of death and the Laws of enlightenment will be expanded on under:

Ultimate Reality and "Illuminati".

[Jason]

The problem however, I suspect, is that you're still clinging to the appearances known as "non-attachment." You don't seem to have yet made it to the point where emotions, ego and attachments can be valid appearances of the moment too. I think you probably started out with a very strong desire to reach an endpoint to your philosophy that consisted of non-attachment, no emotions and no ego, and now ironically you can't let go of that.

I don't have a problem with being attached to the ideal of non-attachment. If a person isn't attached to such an ideal to the exclusion of all else, then it means that he is either a fully-enlightened Buddha with no attachments at all, or he is simply attached to other things - i.e. to less spiritually helpful things.

I'm surprised that you don't see what I'm trying to point to, because you get so very close to it. For example, you said in your second last post to me that "Things appear to exist beyond consciousness when they appear to. And when they don't appear to exist beyond consciousness, then that appears to be the reality for that moment." But despite this insight, you still cling to the idea that emotion and ego cannot appear in the moment in the exact same fashion.

Mountains are mountains again. The everyday world can be affirmed once again; the external material world and the ego and emotions.

Moreover, attachment to the ideal of non-attachment is dynamic in nature. Not only does it consume everything before it, but it also consumes itself. It isn't the kind of attachment that people normally use to fortify their egos and give them a sense of security. It is the very opposite of that. You're right in saying that the emotions, etc, are perfectly valid appearances. When they appear, their apperance is perfectly valid. It's just that they don't arise in the enlightened mind, just as fire doesn't arise when there is no fuel or flammable material to generate it.

Hang on, are you saying that the self and emotions don't appear merely because of the continuation of mental habits which were formed on the way to enlightenment?

[brokenhead]

brokenhead: What is the point of positing anything that is inherently impossible to know?
David Quinn: It is part of comprehending the truth about reality. If something is inherently impossible to know, then we, as truthful people, should acknowledge it.
brokenhead: Agreed. In what manner do we identify that thing that is inherently impossible to know, assuming it can possibly exist?
DQ: By discerning the inherent limitations of consciousness.

I can agree that there are inherent limitatons on my consciousness. I am therefore quite agreeable to the notion that there are corresponding inherent limitations on the consciousnesses of other people. For one thing, I know that it has been demonstrated that it is in principle impossible to know a material thing's position and momentum concurrently. That a thing in fact possesses both an absolute position and an absolute momentum at any given time, however, cannot be demonstrated for this very reason.

Therefore that an objective reality, a thing-in-itself, exists has never and can never be demonstrated.

Until the 1960's, the far side of the moon had never been seen by human beings. Yet its existence was inferred and subsequently verified. To say that a thing-in-itself exists and that cannot be known seems to me to be an article of faith. A person can "see" one side of an object at a time. Yet with the aid of a closed-circuit video, all sides of the object can be "seen" simultaneously. Moerover, a microscopic view can be had with the proper equipment. Finally, a quantum picture can be constructed that takes into account the object's atomic reality, it's conductivity, for instance, or its hardness or its chemical reactivity potential.

As we probe deeper into Nature and develop theories to account for the large and small, the threshold for the unknowable appears to keep getting pushed back.

My point here is a simple one. You cannot state there are inherent limitations of consciousness without specifying whose consciousness. Each time I bring this point up, you fail to address it, David. Why is that? Is it something that is supposed to be tacitly understood?

If consciousness is primal, as I believe it is, then there is no "objective" reality that is independent of all consciousness, as all reality has been brought into being by the primal consciousness. That humans are not able to know a thing-in-itself does not imply it is not known; it does not even imply that such a thing exists and rather seems to disprove it. That humans ceaselessy strive to know more is, to me, proof that a Consciousness outside of and superior to our own exists, and that we are simply - and obviously - constructed to yearn for it, to join it, to know what we do not know now. This is as natural as a child not wanting to drink what is put into his cup, but wanting to have a taste of what the grownups are drinking. There is no difference. As above, so below,

[David Quinn]

I don't have a problem with being attached to the ideal of non-attachment. If a person isn't attached to such an ideal to the exclusion of all else, then it means that he is either a fully-enlightened Buddha with no attachments at all, or he is simply attached to other things - i.e. to less spiritually helpful things.

I'm surprised that you don't see what I'm trying to point to, because you get so very close to it. For example, you said in your second last post to me that "Things appear to exist beyond consciousness when they appear to. And when they don't appear to exist beyond consciousness, then that appears to be the reality for that moment." But despite this insight, you still cling to the idea that emotion and ego cannot appear in the moment in the exact same fashion.

Mountains are mountains again. The everyday world can be affirmed once again; the external material world and the ego and emotions.

That is certainly what the ego wants to believe, for sure. It will do anything to convince the mind to abandon the philosophic campaign against it.

The trouble is, you can't have the clarity of consciousness that is associated with perceiving the nature of Reality and be egotistical/emotional at the same time. The latter involves a loss of perspective, of unwittingly being fooled by appearances, of subconsciously projecting onto them qualities and attribute they don't really have. From this, a sense of threat and defensiveness arises, and with it emotion and ego.

This sense of threat and defensiveness never arises in those who remain clear about what reality is.

Moreover, attachment to the ideal of non-attachment is dynamic in nature. Not only does it consume everything before it, but it also consumes itself. It isn't the kind of attachment that people normally use to fortify their egos and give them a sense of security. It is the very opposite of that. You're right in saying that the emotions, etc, are perfectly valid appearances. When they appear, their apperance is perfectly valid. It's just that they don't arise in the enlightened mind, just as fire doesn't arise when there is no fuel or flammable material to generate it.

Hang on, are you saying that the self and emotions don't appear merely because of the continuation of mental habits which were formed on the way to enlightenment?

The underlying mental habits which lead to emotion and egotism are gone. Their fading away is part and parcel of the process of becoming (perfectly) enlightened.

-

[elderwoodxxx]

Quote:
If objective reality were as you wrote brought into consciousness then the objective nature of it would be known to the knower in comparison to the one within subjectivity.

Unless this observer can somehow escape the distorting influences of his senses, neural wiring, memories, expectations, etc, that can never happen. At best, he will always be experiencing a filtered version of what is "out there".

I understand what you are saying here, however I believe it is possible for us to understand 'how' to perceive what is out there by 'filtering' it with understanding in objective awareness and with wisdom. The realm of the infinite is knowing that there is always more to transcend, but once we know how to perceive that understanding, we can 'spiritually' grow as much as we can understand.. filling our consciousness with more awareness of what Is out there.. which is my reply to your last quote from myself. So then the question is asked, does consciousness in awareness arise from Earth? above so below.. however some new thought is now, so below as above..

We don't even have to look at quantum physics to know the nature of Reality. It is there in everything we experiernce. The Buddha and Lao Tzu didn't know anything about the quantum realm and they got by perfectly well without such knowledge.

Indeed we do not. I was just using this as an example of how science is beginning to delve into the realms beyond time and space..This was just a point in my mind at that time, and so many here on this forum seem to think that I need to back my assertions up with evidential proof, however like you rightly pointed out Buddha and Lao Tzu had no such knowledge.

The three xs are just my username, amanda is always pre taken.. that is all. x

amandaxxx

[David Quinn]

Until the 1960's, the far side of the moon had never been seen by human beings. Yet its existence was inferred and subsequently verified. To say that a thing-in-itself exists and that cannot be known seems to me to be an article of faith.

The far side of the moon had always possessed the potential to be seen by consciousness, and thus was always potentially knowable. The thing-in-itself doesn't have this potential, by definition.

A person can "see" one side of an object at a time. Yet with the aid of a closed-circuit video, all sides of the object can be "seen" simultaneously. Moerover, a microscopic view can be had with the proper equipment. Finally, a quantum picture can be constructed that takes into account the object's atomic reality, it's conductivity, for instance, or its hardness or its chemical reactivity potential.

All of these observations still suffer from distortions caused by the filters and limitations of the observing instruments - the senses, the technological apparatus, the brain's neuronal processes, etc. It doesn't matter how many angles we care to view an object from, or how closely we observe its details, the object in itself, free from the distorting influences imposed by our sensory apparatus, can never be seen. The very act of seeing is sullying by nature.

As we probe deeper into Nature and develop theories to account for the large and small, the threshold for the unknowable appears to keep getting pushed back.

Not as far as the thing-in-itself is concerned.

My point here is a simple one. You cannot state there are inherent limitations of consciousness without specifying whose consciousness. Each time I bring this point up, you fail to address it, David. Why is that? Is it something that is supposed to be tacitly understood?

This is like being asked, after having articulated the inherent limitations of a hammer, why I have shied away from specifying whose hammer it is that I am talking about.

It doesn't matter whose consciousness it is, the basic limitations of consciousness are always the same.

For example, in order for consciousness to be aware of a particular collection of appearances it necessarily has to block out everything which is not that collection of appearances. That is how consciousness operates.

I know you want to introduce your personal god into the picture and say that he is conscious too, but in a way that is fundamentally different from ours. But the only way you can do that is by mangling the very definition of consciousness.

If consciousness is primal, as I believe it is, then there is no "objective" reality that is independent of all consciousness, as all reality has been brought into being by the primal consciousness. That humans are not able to know a thing-in-itself does not imply it is not known; it does not even imply that such a thing exists and rather seems to disprove it. That humans ceaselessy strive to know more is, to me, proof that a Consciousness outside of and superior to our own exists, and that we are simply - and obviously - constructed to yearn for it, to join it, to know what we do not know now.

A materialist would use the same evidence as proof of the power of genetics, molded by evolution. We have been genetically programmed to desire more knowledge because of its importance in our evolutionary need to survive as a species.

Wishful thinking based on weak, ambiguous evidence is not a good foundation to build a God on.

-