Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[David Quinn]

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.

What do you mean by "objective awareness"? What do you mean by "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.

I see the realm of the infinite as realizing there is nothing to transcend, in the knowledge that nothing really exists in the first place.

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

amandaxxx

It could be viewed as a freudian slip, though.

Davidxxx

[elderwoodxxx]

What do you mean by "objective awareness"? What do you mean by "wisdom"?

I mean awareness in objectivity. That being objective in relation to the subjective nature of ones mind. (I realise that this gives rise to much more discussion however it is rather late or early here in the UK.) At first I became 'aware' and then I became aware of what awareness is, thus understanding awareness in relation to the subjective mind, or un spiritual mind. I see the mind as a simple tool for logical reason. From beyond the mind one my view it like clockwork. (Upanishads)

You may be thinking how can one be objective? Just over a year ago I asked the question 'what would happen if one logicly reasoned everything until there was nothing left?'. I was told it cannot be done. I said why not. Then I had conversations with another and did. It was not until afterwards that I realised what exactly I had become aware of in the process. ( Again more interpretation probably needed, but basicly I met my Self)

By wisdom I refer to the 'eternally valid truths' ancient in origin and believe that these are creational thought forms. Wise in awareness with no subjectivity, not tainted with perceptions of 'good or bad',

I see the realm of the infinite as realizing there is nothing to transcend, in the knowledge that nothing really exists in the first place.

When I first woke up as it were and realised that fear was a construct of the mind, I saw for the first time how i had been perceiving everything through a watery haze..My self doubts were born through anothers insecurities reflected upon me.. In understanding this I began to re perceive the world, my mind re started as it were forming new thoughts and understanding. I became aware of 'levels' of awareness, and then realised that no amount of analysis could lead to anything else other than 'what IS'. I became aware of awareness, and consciousness 'growing' into the infinite.

Do you mean by that quote that once one becomes aware of the illusion one creates that by no longer creating it one thus has nothing to then transcend? I'll use here the analogy of Plato's cave, upon leaving the cave one then turns and sees it was never really there in the first place. We are 'trapped' in a dark box we realise that we have made but upon leaving it, we then understand that we were never in it.

Amandaxxx
ps that freudian slip quite suited your name x( although apparently on another thread I was told not to mention freud to you, as it happened you mentioned him first.. except in that common 'slip')

[Iolaus]

David,

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.

I think there is a hidden void, too, and I call it the ether. But it may be conscious.

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.

What really do you mean that the earth is and would be merely an appearance to your consciousness? And especially since you believe so strongly in cause and effect? What if you go to see the earth every 500,000 years, back and back?

But anyway, that isn't even the important point. The important point is that you have stated that forms cannot appear without consciousness, that forms and consciousness arise together. I think that is possible, although I doubt it -- but you MUST posit some kind of primal consciousness in order for the universe to appear, or else you must abandon the position that they arise together.

I'm really OK with either, but your view seems inconsistent.

[elderwoodxxx]

True..

If thought manifests form, then thought would be first from consciousness, which is what I believe to be. The WORD that IS creation...

So if one were to travel back in time then the One would be creating the reality manifest in physicality before them...
which then leads to the 'One' manifest as the universal mind. And as I said many threads ago, we are all One manifesting as the many and many in expression of the one.

(The universal mind is that beyond 'subjectivity' and it manifests from creational source, or divine cosmic laws of reality in accordance with what IS) think of spirit creating spirit.. then as they embody the whole they manifest more.. ultimate manifestation is FORM and our destiny is to realise that we are all Gods of our own reality....

(Again just my thoughts which I offer here..)

[Leyla Shen]

I see the realm of the infinite as realizing there is nothing to transcend, in the knowledge that nothing really exists in the first place.

Now, David. I thought we had that settled. Things necessarily exist by virtue of their thingness! Again---mountain, no mountain, mountain indeed!

Leylaxoxoxox

[brokenhead]

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.

Yes, the very act of observation affects the thing being observed.

To call it "sullying" is clearly not being impartial.

I am agreeing to this observation because it has been demonstrated on a quantum level. Like many QM effects, it is believed to hold on every scale level, including that of our own "macro" world. But the magnitude of the QM effect shrinks as the thing being observed gets larger. The quantum indeterminacy remains on a tiny scale. Therefore, it is widely agreed - and certainly by myself - that the physical "sullying" of the observed by the observer is negligible in the everyday scale of humans and things of comparable or larger sizes.

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.

This is an undemonstrated assertion. One can arrive via logic that a thing as it exists in our consciousness is not the thing-in-itself, that there is a difference between subjective and objective realities. It cannot tell us how the two realities may be related. Logic equally can tell us that two subjective realities are not the same thing, by definition. It is similarly silent on how the two are different and how they may be similar. Any assertions to the contrary are simply that - guesses. For instance, any two sighted people will say "blue" when asked what color the sky is. Yet there is no way of knowing that if you were suddenly transported into someone else's head that you would not see the sky as what you had previously called "green" and the grass under your feet the "blue" you used to see in the sky.

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.

You still side-stepped the question. Have you ever tried to remove a bent nail with a ball-peen hammer or a mallet? The limitations of what hammer, David?

The basic limitations of consciousness are patently not "always" the same. Let's get a third opinion - let's ask someone in a vegetative coma. Oh, that's right. He can't hear you.

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.

By breaking the unnatural constraints you have forced upon it, you mean.

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

Yes, but God is never built by man. On the other hand, philosophies are...

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.

You are misapprehending the nature of things.

Take the existence of disease-causing mico-organisms. Humans recognized diseases, but not the germs that caused certain ones. People did not even suspect that such things as tiny living things too small to be seen existed. You will say that they had the potential of being observed while the thing-in-itself does not. Then tell me - what now has the potential of being observed but no one even suspects exists? There is no reason to suppose that people today have uncovered every such unsuspected "subjective" reality, is there?

Suppose there is a subjective reality to the notion of a personal God? Again, what if God has created a multitude of unseen presences whose task is to observe without being observed?

Your logic cannot answer this or most questions. It can, howerver, explain why objective reality necessarily remains meaningless, without consequence, by definition.

[David Quinn]

I see the realm of the infinite as realizing there is nothing to transcend, in the knowledge that nothing really exists in the first place.

Now, David. I thought we had that settled. Things necessarily exist by virtue of their thingness! Again---mountain, no mountain, mountain indeed!

Things appear, but they don't really exist. They don't have any other kind of existence outside of the appearance.

-

[Iolaus]

Then tell me - what now has the potential of being observed but no one even suspects exists? There is no reason to suppose that people today have uncovered every such unsuspected "subjective" reality, is there?

For some reason, this obvious point is quite difficult to convey.

[Leyla Shen]

Things appear, but they don't really exist. They don't have any other kind of existence outside of the appearance.

This always does my head in.

To understand it as something meaningful, one has to assume that to "really exist" is for a thing to be something other than its literal appearance! (I can't even comprehend this beyond some dastardly act of mental calisthenics!) Thus, it may then be said that things cannot have any "other kind of" existence outside of appearance.

The only way one can know what a woman is, as with any thing, is to understand "her" appearance to mind, not by the appearance of an objective form. Thus, any appearance in objective form of a woman is the literal appearance of her to mind.

By "all things are illusory" then I understand you to mean the mind/object distinction is endlessly useful, but ultimately illusory.

[David Quinn]

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.

Yes, the very act of observation affects the thing being observed.

To call it "sullying" is clearly not being impartial.

I am agreeing to this observation because it has been demonstrated on a quantum level. Like many QM effects, it is believed to hold on every scale level, including that of our own "macro" world. But the magnitude of the QM effect shrinks as the thing being observed gets larger. The quantum indeterminacy remains on a tiny scale. Therefore, it is widely agreed - and certainly by myself - that the physical "sullying" of the observed by the observer is negligible in the everyday scale of humans and things of comparable or larger sizes.

You've taken drugs, so you must know what I am talking about. Slight changes in the brain's chemistry can affect perception dramatically. This alone shows how dependent our experiences are on the structure of our sensory apparatus, nervous system and brain.

We can only observe what the stucture of our senses and brains allows us to observe. If we had different senses, different brains, a different size, a different time-scale, then the world we perceived would be a very different one.

Since it is impossible to perceive the world without sensory apparatus, and since sensory apparatus is necessarily limited and restrictive in nature, distorted perception is unavoidable.

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.

This is an undemonstrated assertion. One can arrive via logic that a thing as it exists in our consciousness is not the thing-in-itself, that there is a difference between subjective and objective realities. It cannot tell us how the two realities may be related. Logic equally can tell us that two subjective realities are not the same thing, by definition. It is similarly silent on how the two are different and how they may be similar. Any assertions to the contrary are simply that - guesses. For instance, any two sighted people will say "blue" when asked what color the sky is. Yet there is no way of knowing that if you were suddenly transported into someone else's head that you would not see the sky as what you had previously called "green" and the grass under your feet the "blue" you used to see in the sky.

And so what does this have to do with the unknowability of the "thing-in-itself?

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

You still side-stepped the question. Have you ever tried to remove a bent nail with a ball-peen hammer or a mallet? The limitations of what hammer, David?

I thought your question was "whose hammer"? Whose consciousness?

Once we determine what a hammer is and recognize its inherent limitations, these limitations don't suddenly go out the window simply because of who happens to own it.

The basic limitations of consciousness are patently not "always" the same. Let's get a third opinion - let's ask someone in a vegetative coma. Oh, that's right. He can't hear you.

You're not understanding. You seem to have a problem with thinking about things on a fundamental level.

Yes, it is obviously the case that consciousness comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes, yet all of them, without exception, are bound by the limitations which are inherent in consciousness itself.

Just as humans come in different shapes and sizes, with a wide variety of capacities and skills, there are some things which are inherently impossible for a human to do. For example, a human can't exist in two different places at once.

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.

By breaking the unnatural constraints you have forced upon it, you mean.

Well, what is consciousness, in your view?

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

Yes, but God is never built by man.

Very true. He is always built by women.

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.

You are misapprehending the nature of things.

Take the existence of disease-causing mico-organisms. Humans recognized diseases, but not the germs that caused certain ones. People did not even suspect that such things as tiny living things too small to be seen existed. You will say that they had the potential of being observed while the thing-in-itself does not. Then tell me - what now has the potential of being observed but no one even suspects exists?

Any unpredicted event.

There is no reason to suppose that people today have uncovered every such unsuspected "subjective" reality, is there?

No one is arguing that.

In stating the obvious truth that the thing-in-itself is utterly unknowable, I am not saying that all events within consciousness are already known. We can only know and experience a small fraction of all possible forms, and being creatures who exist in time and space we have to wait until a thing is causally created into existence before we can experience it.

Suppose there is a subjective reality to the notion of a personal God? Again, what if God has created a multitude of unseen presences whose task is to observe without being observed?

Your logic cannot answer this or most questions.

What if God is a collection of small invisible turnips who love to observe humans from the vantage point of their back gardens? Without any credible evidence, your conception of God has no more validity than this.

-

[David Quinn]

Things appear, but they don't really exist. They don't have any other kind of existence outside of the appearance.

This always does my head in.

To understand it as something meaningful, one has to assume that to "really exist" is for a thing to be something other than its literal appearance! (I can't even comprehend this beyond some dastardly act of mental calisthenics!) Thus, it may then be said that things cannot have any "other kind of" existence outside of appearance.

That's right. As soon as we subconsciously assume that a thing is more than its appearance, we fall into error. For example, assuming that a perceived thing has an objective existence beyond the appearance. (An assumption that we are all taught to make from an early age).

On the other hand, those who have mastered this understanding are free to assume away. They can even assume that a perceived object does have an objective existence outside the appearance, if they want to. They are free to do this because they are always fully aware that it is never anything more than an appearance. (This is what the last part of the mountain-no mountain-mountain sequence begins to signify.)

The only way one can know what a woman is, as with any thing, is to understand "her" appearance to mind, not by the appearance of an objective form. Thus, any appearance in objective form of a woman is the literal appearance of her to mind.

Yes, indeed. On the other hand, if the picture of woman that appears in one's mind is at odds with how women appear in the physical world, a conflict will soon appear.

By "all things are illusory" then I understand you to mean the mind/object distinction is endlessly useful, but ultimately illusory.

Exactly. Everything that appears to us is absolutely real.

-

[Shahrazad]

David,

On the other hand, those who have mastered this understanding are free to assume away. They can even assume that a perceived object does have an objective existence outside the appearance, if they want to. They are free to do this because they are always fully aware that it is never anything more than an appearance.

So why would they want to?

-

[David Quinn]

David,

On the other hand, those who have mastered this understanding are free to assume away. They can even assume that a perceived object does have an objective existence outside the appearance, if they want to. They are free to do this because they are always fully aware that it is never anything more than an appearance.

So why would they want to?

For practical benefit.

Playing along with the conventional view of things has practical benefits, as long as one is never taken in by it.

-

[Iolaus]

David,

I think maybe you missed this:

But anyway, that isn't even the important point. The important point is that you have stated that forms cannot appear without consciousness, that forms and consciousness arise together. I think that is possible, although I doubt it -- but you MUST posit some kind of primal consciousness in order for the universe to appear, or else you must abandon the position that they arise together.

I'm really OK with either, but your view seems inconsistent.

Now, what do you mean by saying that things have no existence other than as an appearance, and that they are absolutely real? I suppose you mean they have no objective existence. So a forgotten box in the attic has no objective existence because no one sees it?

[Jason]

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.

You are being arbitrary in choosing to reaffirm things like external physical reality but then refusing to do the same with ego and emotion. Mountains are mountains once more, but ego is ego once more too.

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.

You miss the subtlety of the situation. Appearances necessarily can only ever have exactly the qualities that are attributed to them. Saying that an appearance doesn't really have the attribute that it does is nonsensical.

Further, "subconsciously projecting" is itself merely an appearance too, but just like with some other appearances, you're clinging to it as if it had some innate remarkable difference and significance. Talk about projecting!

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.

"Threat" and "defensiveness" are possible appearances/characteristics of reality, thus perceiving them is perceiving what reality is.

[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.

It's their self-denying self-fulfilling prophecy.

[brokenhead]

What if God is a collection of small invisible turnips who love to observe humans from the vantage point of their back gardens? Without any credible evidence, your conception of God has no more validity than this.

If the turnips were invisible, how would you know they were small? Eh? I've got you, there.

[Jason]

What if God is a collection of small invisible turnips who love to observe humans from the vantage point of their back gardens? Without any credible evidence, your conception of God has no more validity than this.

If the turnips were invisible, how would you know they were small? Eh? I've got you, there.

Obviously you'd be able to see them if they weren't so small. Duh.

[brokenhead]

What if God is a collection of small invisible turnips who love to observe humans from the vantage point of their back gardens? Without any credible evidence, your conception of God has no more validity than this.

If the turnips were invisible, how would you know they were small? Eh? I've got you, there.

Obviously you'd be able to see them if they weren't so small. Duh.

Doh!!!!

[elderwoodxxx]

You wouldnt if they were invisible!! no matter how big they were ..... Doh!!!
amandaxxx

[brokenhead]

Since it is impossible to perceive the world without sensory apparatus, and since sensory apparatus is necessarily limited and restrictive in nature, distorted perception is unavoidable.

"Distorted perception" implies that there is some other kind that is not also distorted.

And so what does this have to do with the unknowability of the "thing-in-itself?

I was just trying to point out that since the logically derived "thing-in-itself" is unknowable, it makes little sense to dwell on this gem of philosophy. For if you do, aren't you merely pondering an unknowable thing the way theists do?

brokenhead: You still side-stepped the question. Have you ever tried to remove a bent nail with a ball-peen hammer or a mallet? The limitations of what hammer, David?
DQ: I thought your question was "whose hammer"? Whose consciousness?

Once we determine what a hammer is and recognize its inherent limitations, these limitations don't suddenly go out the window simply because of who happens to own it.

Okay, the limitations of whose hammer, David? The gem cutter or the coal miner? It's the same thing. They use different hammers with different limitations. Or are you claiming one person's consciousness cannot be more limited in any way than another person's consciousness? You can't mean that. It's just not true.

Just as humans come in different shapes and sizes, with a wide variety of capacities and skills, there are some things which are inherently impossible for a human to do. For example, a human can't exist in two different places at once.

I agree with this. Are we saying the same thing? Christ, I hope not.

What if God is a collection of small invisible turnips who love to observe humans from the vantage point of their back gardens? Without any credible evidence, your conception of God has no more validity than this.

Okay. Let's be blunt. What fucking evidence would you consider "credible"? Come on, now. Just one little example of what it would take to make you consider that "my conception" (how you can know this is beyond me) just might have a teensy-weensy bit of "validity" to it?

[elderwoodxxx]

The Upanishads...
Each give a snap shot of transcendental reality... Aldous Huxley called it the 'perinnial' philosophy. the conviction marked by personal experience, that there is a spark of the divine in every creature, and that to realise this divinity is lifes highest goal.

Wake up this state the upanishads say and you will be who you truly are. Free from the conditioning of the body and mind in a world unbounded by the limitations of time, space and causality..

Sanskrit= tapas... self-trancending passion..

The powers of the mind, have no life of their own, mind is not conscious it is only an instrument of consciousness, yet when awareness is withdrawn from the mind, you remain aware. When this happens you realise that you are not the mind any more than you are the physical body.... A silent ethereal inner realm at the threshold of pure being... look with child like innocent eyes... I vanishes.. individuality disappears, dissolving in a sea of pure undifferentiated awareness.

You are so aware and see it in all others... new level.. not blinded...upanishads call that turiya- literally.. the 4th it lies beyond waking dreaming and dreamless sleep...

later hindu thought called this awakening Samadhi- complete absorption..
Moksha- liberation or release.. for it brings freedom from all conditionings and the limitations of time and space... pure being...

DQ wrote:
Since it is impossible to perceive the world without sensory apparatus, and since sensory apparatus is necessarily limited and restrictive in nature, distorted perception is unavoidable.


"Distorted perception" implies that there is some other kind that is not also distorted.

Indeed... I assert that this 'other kind' is this pure awareness... of as i always say all that is in oneness and universal consciousness .. and just to instill and provoke more thought... all ascended masters are aware of it... including Bhudda, and Jesus... jesus took it one step further and gave an example of how we all can easily see this awareness.... if we abide by his example.. with selflessness love and compassion, we learn that through giving we can help ourselves.. the 10 commandments were also given to help us realise this understanding.. with Jesus, we have a new covenant with 'God' for he embodies all that IS, he freed the 'church' and made a new one in our hearts.. as he said.. 'I am' the light.. and so 'am I' and remember 'I am you'. We are all One.

The social conditioning... the illusion...the darkness, fear greed, power, gain.. selfishness etc etc... contols minds... we see yet are blind... we hear yet cannot perceive... or.. the 'devil' has control of our minds.. we create the illusion ourselves through greed and jealousy mistrust and doubts.. we bit the apple and had knowledge of both good and evil.. yet no wisdom and understanding in linear time to transcend it... we became lost within our selves.. jealous.. always wanting to be better than the next.. fighting to prove a point.. sound familiar??

Amandaxxx

[David Quinn]

David,

I think maybe you missed this:

But anyway, that isn't even the important point. The important point is that you have stated that forms cannot appear without consciousness, that forms and consciousness arise together. I think that is possible, although I doubt it -- but you MUST posit some kind of primal consciousness in order for the universe to appear, or else you must abandon the position that they arise together.

I'm really OK with either, but your view seems inconsistent.

Now, what do you mean by saying that things have no existence other than as an appearance, and that they are absolutely real? I suppose you mean they have no objective existence. So a forgotten box in the attic has no objective existence because no one sees it?

It never has any objective existence, regardless of whether it is seen or not. Yet it is absolutely real because, like all things, it is a direct manifestation of reality.

The idea of a primal consciousness - that is, an all-pervasive, disembodied consciousness that belongs to no particular creature, sounds like wishful thinking to me. There is no evidence for it, and no need for us to posit it as a logical reality.

Consciousness is like anything else. It is a localized phenomenon that appears when the causal circumstances are ripe, and then, like a cloud disappearing in the midday sun, dissolves when it is time to do so.

Asking what existed before consciousness arose is ultimately meaningless because we have no way of resolving the matter. Even the term "before consciousness" is problematical because words such as "before" only apply meaninfully to events within consciousness. To even begin to construct some sort of picture of what lies beyond consciousness immediately plunges us into serious distortion and error. The tools of consciousness simply aren't up to the task.

-

[David Quinn]

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.

You are being arbitrary in choosing to reaffirm things like external physical reality but then refusing to do the same with ego and emotion. Mountains are mountains once more, but ego is ego once more too.

When a sick person regains his health, he eliminates the illness that was afflicting him. Despite the fact that illness is illness, and that when it appears it is a valid appearance, the healthy person no longer experiences it.

In the same way, when an enlightened person eliminates the illnesses in his mind, he no longer experiences them. If he were to start experiencing them again, he would no longer be enlightened.

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.

You miss the subtlety of the situation. Appearances necessarily can only ever have exactly the qualities that are attributed to them. Saying that an appearance doesn't really have the attribute that it does is nonsensical.

Further, "subconsciously projecting" is itself merely an appearance too, but just like with some other appearances, you're clinging to it as if it had some innate remarkable difference and significance. Talk about projecting!

I do see the subtleties you describe, but they don't affect the fact that the mind can be deluded.

I agree with you that there is fundamentally nothing to do, that delusion and truth ultimately have no meaning, but it is a matter of whether one of conscious of this or not. If one isn't conscious of it, then one immediately begins to project imaginary qualities onto each experience.

For example, one might project the impression that the sitution before one isn't quite right, that it is lacking, that it needs changing. No doubt, you would respond here by saying that such projection is part of the experience and thus, all told, it is still a perfectly valid appearance. While that is true, if such an appearance causes one to embark on a series of actions which results in a lengthy loss of consciousness of the fundamental truth of "nothing to do", then there is clearly a problem. It is a sign that one has been taken in by that appearance.

-

[David Quinn]

Since it is impossible to perceive the world without sensory apparatus, and since sensory apparatus is necessarily limited and restrictive in nature, distorted perception is unavoidable.

"Distorted perception" implies that there is some other kind that is not also distorted.

That's true. The "undistorted" bit is built into the definition of the thing-in-itself, which is defined, roughly, as "what is there when no one is looking at it". As soon as a person imagines that things can exist when no one is observing them, the idea of the senses being distorted immediately becomes a philosophic issue for him.

And so what does this have to do with the unknowability of the "thing-in-itself?

I was just trying to point out that since the logically derived "thing-in-itself" is unknowable, it makes little sense to dwell on this gem of philosophy. For if you do, aren't you merely pondering an unknowable thing the way theists do?

I agree with that. For me, it is just a minor issue that should be resolved quickly, before moving on. However, when people are attached to cherished visions of the world, minor issues can quickly become major ones. They can become permanently stuck on this one issue alone.

brokenhead: You still side-stepped the question. Have you ever tried to remove a bent nail with a ball-peen hammer or a mallet? The limitations of what hammer, David?
DQ: I thought your question was "whose hammer"? Whose consciousness?

Once we determine what a hammer is and recognize its inherent limitations, these limitations don't suddenly go out the window simply because of who happens to own it.

Okay, the limitations of whose hammer, David? The gem cutter or the coal miner? It's the same thing. They use different hammers with different limitations. Or are you claiming one person's consciousness cannot be more limited in any way than another person's consciousness? You can't mean that. It's just not true.

I've already answered this, using the following analogy:

Just as humans come in different shapes and sizes, with a wide variety of capacities and skills, there are some things which are inherently impossible for a human to do. For example, a human can't exist in two different places at once.

What if God is a collection of small invisible turnips who love to observe humans from the vantage point of their back gardens? Without any credible evidence, your conception of God has no more validity than this.

If the turnips were invisible, how would you know they were small? Eh? I've got you, there.

You may laugh, but your own religious views are just as comical. A religious person is essentially a buffoon who believes all other religious beliefs are laughably insane, apart from his own.

What if God is a collection of small invisible turnips who love to observe humans from the vantage point of their back gardens? Without any credible evidence, your conception of God has no more validity than this.

Okay. Let's be blunt. What fucking evidence would you consider "credible"?

As far as spiritual and philosophic truths are concerned, the only credible evidence is logical evidence which is intrinsically impossible to deny.

-