Formlessness (inside & outside)

[Leyla Shen]

Jason of the Golden Fleece::

Formlessness is no more than a thought(form) in your head. All this talk about formlessness reminds me of the story of Diogenes being confronted by a man who claimed that motion did not exist. Diogenes responded by walking away. I'm responding with forms.

Well, that was a stroke of genius; responding to a “thought (form)” with another thought form. (Where's the fucken bike????) Suddenly I feel so enlightened!

Where does the "thus impermanent" come from? It doesn't follow that impermanence is a necessary characteristic of things based on what you've said up to that point.

It doesn’t follow that if a thing causes itself it is necessarily permanent? If I was the cause of my own existence, what could possibly cause me to cease causing myself?

As soon as any finite form appears the infinite is bounded by it… [snip]

Bullshit! Prove it—I’ll even settle for a thought-form proof!

[Nick]

Generally, because “formless” has a very specific meaning—absence of/no form—it’s necessarily contrasted with form and any understanding of the Totality as formless in this manner is an understanding less than the Totality.

I think our ability to understand formlessness is aided by our understanding of form, but in reality the two are not dependent on each other. If anything, when we interpret reality through forms we are interpreting something that is less than the Totality, because forms can only exist in the mind, and the mind is not the Totality. But when we logically conclude that the Totality by definition must be formless due to there being nothing to contrast it with, it means we must be talking about the Totality in it's entirety because nothing could possibly be left over.

Formlessness simply points to the fact that, unlike an object, the Totality is not a bounded or finite thing. It’s the tidy, logical way of accounting for “God”—the creative/causative force of existence and the interrelationship between things themselves.

Right, so how can you possibly be talking about something that is less than the Totality by saying this? What else could you possibly be talking about?

[divine focus]

Formlessness simply points to the fact that, unlike an object, the Totality is not a bounded or finite thing. It’s the tidy, logical way of accounting for “God”—the creative/causative force of existence and the interrelationship between things themselves.

Right, so how can you possibly be talking about something that is less than the Totality by saying this? What else could you possibly be talking about?

From mikiel's link on Wolff:

Now, if we ignore the fact that objects are carved out of consciousness by conception and are ultimately identical with consciousness, then we are in effect positing or projecting upon objects a reality that they do not actually have. This ignorance thus gives rise to a secondary universe of apparently real things to which our experience and understanding become bound. Perplexity and suffering result. As Wolff puts it,

It is not the field of subject-object consciousness, as such, that is an Illusion or Maya in the invidious sense, but the secondary universe. (Experience and Philosophy, p. 179)

To dispel the illusion of the secondary universe of real things, it is necessary to recognize how conception gives rise to the primary universe of seeming objects. When we recognize the process by which the world of objects is literally conceived into existence, appearances are no longer misperceived as a collection of independently existing things. Instead, with the arising of every object there is a simultaneous recognition of its objectless complement in consciousness. With the creation of the Universe there is the concomitant recognition of Nirvana.

...To illustrate in more detail how we might awaken cognition of the Nirvanic dimension beyond concepts, consider a simple circle: O. This circle acts as an instruction to imagine a distinction in the space of consciousness between the circle and the rest of awareness. Furthermore, it also acts as an instruction to direct attention to the circle and ignore everything else, thereby making the circle stand out as an object. Now notice that, as a mark in the space of this page, the circle is itself a distinction between the space inside the circle and the space outside the circle. Thus, the circle is a symbol for the distinction in consciousness between any object and its non-objective complement, where the space inside the circle represents the object and the space outside the circle represents its Nirvanic complement.

Now direct your attention to the inside of the circle and recognize that the outside space does not literally disappear from awareness, even though it is ignored when you focus on the inside space. Thus, the outside of the circle can still be recognized as present even though it is being ignored and is not cognized as an object. Thus, from the point of view of objective consciousness, the inside space exists and the outside space does not exist. Yet, the outside space is still recognized as being there. This illustrates how an objective consciousness can coexist with a recognition of its non-objective complement. As Wolff writes,

I realized that pure subjective consciousness without an object must appear to the relative consciousness to have objects. Hence Recognition did not, of itself, imply a new experiential content of consciousness. (Experience, p. 263)

Thus, Recognition of the non-objective space outside the circle is not a shift in attention or a new content in consciousness. It is simply recognizing the space that is already present as the complement of the circle. Just as the inside of the circle cannot exist without the outside, every object that appears in consciousness implies its own non-objective complement in consciousness. And just as the circle not only divides the inside space from the outside space but also joins them together, the power of conception not only draws a distinction in consciousness between an object and the rest of awareness, but also unites them. When conception operates with a recognition of both these aspects, it involves both the objective meaning and the non-objective Meaning.

[skipair]

It is now *known* to science and proven by deep infrared examination of multitudes of galaxies that, at the center of each galaxy (old enough to have a bulge at the center) is a black hole altering the trajectories of all nearby bodies.

If skipair can not personally experience these observations, then these objects do not exist?

I first heard about "reality" from my dad who told me more or less that there were things going on before I came around, there are things going on right now I'm not aware of, and there will be things in the future after I die.

However much of a reality this seems to be, I cannot be 100% certain that this is the case.

It is useful because I probably wouldn't be able to function too well in the world if I didn't recognize this idea at all, just like if I didn't recognize the appearance of my past I couldn't learn anything at all.

So, skip... do you believe what you "see" indirectly from space photos that Earth is a globe, or is it still flat ... as you experience it?

I see everything as a picture, like looking at a work of art. Whatever the picture is of, that is what I see, and this appearance is reality. Sometimes the picture will be of a physical universe existing before and after my own physical existance, sometimes not. Either way things are happening all the time, and I want to be sure that I know what I can know, and know what I can't.

How much do you trust observations beyond your own personal limits to be accurate descriptions of what is, beyond what you personally can see?

So far as I can tell, they are "accurate" to the degree that I'm not attached to the appearance.

[Jason]

There's no getting past the fact that what you said is crazy - that when you recognize a bicycle as a whole it ceases to have pedals, wheels, seat and a frame for you. That's where your so-called "logic" has led you - into craziness.

Your illogic has led you to believe you are actually saying something meaningful when you say a bike is a bike.

I don't know what point you're trying to make with that sentence, I can't see that it even has any relevance to anything I've said.

I have never made the claim that something can contrast with itself.

When you say that Existence can be given form by contrasting it with finite phenomena that is exactly what you are claiming.

Ahhhhhh! We don't seem to be getting anywhere in this discussion! I have never said that existence as a whole is contrasted against finite phenomena! I said existence as a whole is the collection of all finite phenomena, and thus if you were to know all finite phenomena you would therefore know all of existence - and you could know each individual finite phenomena by contrasting it against other finite phenomena.

Pay attention! Never did I say that a pedal, or any other part, would be contrasted against the bike as a whole. Likewise with Existence.

Then you must agree with me when I say that we can't give Existence form by contrasting it with finite phenomena, which is exactly what you have been claiming the whole time.

See above.

You wouldn't be talking about less than Existence if you were talking about absolutely all forms, just as you wouldn't be talking about less than a bicycle if you were to talk about absolutely all the parts that make up a bicycle.

All forms? What is that even supposed to mean? Do you think there are forms floating independently through out Existence? Like a bunch of legos making up a gigantic lego castle called the Totality? This is pure fantasy. The only forms that exist are the ones we imagine in our head, beyond that there are no forms, and Existence doesn't stop at our minds.

As far as my arguments go it doesn't matter what forms are exactly, whether they be matter or mind-stuff or whatever. That is irrelevant, all that matters is that forms exist.

Even if I assume you know what you're talking about, when we contrast the Totality with everything it's comprised of, we aren't contrasting anything to begin with, which means form never arises.

Oh come on, my bicycle analogy, of knowing all the parts of the bicycle and thus knowing the bicycle as a whole, was very simple and straightforward, why aren't you understanding my arguments?

[Jason]

What if someone were to claim "There is no object, in the whole Universe, that is coloured purple."?

You would only have to be in one tiny corner of the Universe and see just a small purple object to disprove this claim about the whole Universe right? So in a sense, by reasoning that "The whole Universe is not empty of purple objects, because I've seen a purple object." you would be reasoning about the whole Universe, even if you were only aware of a tiny fraction of the whole. Although perhaps that's not exactly relevant to what you meant...

The "whole Universe" to me means whatever I'm currently experiencing, whether through my senses or with my mind. If I experience purple I can say it exists, and naturally if I don't I can't.

But if I do, I can't really add that it exists "in the whole Universe", because this just means it exists in existence, which is redundant. It's like saying something is purple in its purpleness.

Ok. My argument was based on a more conventional wordview, one where a person doesn't considering themselves to be aware of the whole Universe by default.

Given, however, that you consider yourself to be experiencing the whole Universe, it seems quite odd to me that you previously wrote:

Reasoning about reality as a whole doesn't make much sense to me. It is so abstract that it seems not to refer to anything in my experience, making it more or less meaningless.

I think all this is definitely relevant to thinking about the inside/outside of a thing, because I'm not sure if we can really know what a "thing" is without also knowing what the "whole Universe" is. And neither of these things are particularly clear to me.

So, you aware of the whole Universe, but you don't know what it is?

But the claim that all parts of an object or reality could be known is not the only part of my argument. Just like the Universe is not completely devoid of purple objects, my other point is that since I have seen parts and forms, then the entire Universe is not devoid of parts or forms.

I think you're defining "Universe" as a collection or multiplicity of all forms,

Yes I am.

and I don't think this is the same concept that Nick and others are thinking about.

Probably not, but I'm trying to show why my view of the Universe as a collection of all forms makes sense.

Your concept is itself among all the other forms that exist,

Yep.

it does not exist within all.

Doesn't every form exist within the All by default?

[mikiel]

Skipair,
Your reply to me, stamped Sun, 10/12 was completely evasive.
I asked:

If skipair can not personally experience these observations, then these objects do not exist?

(Your reply didn't touch upon an answer.)

Likewise the next exchange:
Quote:(m)
So, skip... do you believe what you "see" indirectly from space photos that Earth is a globe, or is it still flat ... as you experience it?
(S):
"I see everything as a picture, like looking at a work of art. Whatever the picture is of, that is what I see, and this appearance is reality. Sometimes the picture will be of a physical universe existing before and after my own physical existance, sometimes not. Either way things are happening all the time, and I want to be sure that I know what I can know, and know what I can't."

Do you actually think this answered my question? Can you know that black holes exist at the center of all fully formed galaxies even tho you don't have extremely sensitive and powerful telescopic infrared vision. Do you trust state of the art astrononmy at all to give an accurate "picture" beyond the limits of your personal vision?

How about actually answering the question!
Ps: Your "final answer":
"So far as I can tell, they are "accurate" to the degree that I'm not attached to the appearance"... does not answer the questions at all. I am not asking how "attached" you are to the "appearance.

See all questions above, both original and reiterated for reference to what I am actually asking you.
Or you can just say, "Fuck you, I'm not interested in answering what you are actually asking"... and continue on your own tangent as if it were a reply to my questions.

(Ok... I'm on a peeve here about how little real conversation goes on here on these boards. The above is just one small example... but we have to start somewhere if real Q&A has any potential at all to happen here.

[Jason]

Jason of the Golden Fleece::

No that's not me, I'm Jason of the kick your arse for being cheeky.

Formlessness is no more than a thought(form) in your head. All this talk about formlessness reminds me of the story of Diogenes being confronted by a man who claimed that motion did not exist. Diogenes responded by walking away. I'm responding with forms.

Well, that was a stroke of genius; responding to a “thought (form)” with another thought form. (Where's the fucken bike????) Suddenly I feel so enlightened!

Common response. What can I say? I like to help out the little people when I have a spare moment.

Where does the "thus impermanent" come from? It doesn't follow that impermanence is a necessary characteristic of things based on what you've said up to that point.

It doesn’t follow that if a thing causes itself it is necessarily permanent? If I was the cause of my own existence, what could possibly cause me to cease causing myself?

How 'bout yourself!? Duh. Nah, that's not my real answer, your stupid question required a stupid answer though, so that's what I supplied.

You're not addressing the issue. A self-caused thing has no bearing on the matter, but it wouldn't surprise me if, through some twisted logic, you think it does. To jog your memory: we're talking about things that are not self-caused, go back and look at the start of your Assumption #2 in your post that I was replying to.

As soon as any finite form appears the infinite is bounded by it… [snip]

Bullshit! Prove it—I’ll even settle for a thought-form proof!

You should already be settled then, 'cos I've already proven it with thought-forms, you just weren't paying attention, probably distracted by my golden fleece.

[Leyla Shen]

Nick:

Generally, because “formless” has a very specific meaning—absence of/no form—it’s necessarily contrasted with form and any understanding of the Totality as formless in this manner is an understanding less than the Totality.

I think our ability to understand formlessness is aided by our understanding of form, but in reality the two are not dependent on each other. If anything, when we interpret reality through forms we are interpreting something that is less than the Totality, [...]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this. If I am drawing logical conclusions about the Totality, is that the same as “interpreting reality through forms”?

[…] because forms can only exist in the mind, and the mind is not the Totality.

I dunno about that. Form exists in consciousness, with mind as a vessel; where does consciousness exist? None of these things can exist independently of the other, nor can they exist “independently” of the Totality. Instead, are not all these things forms of the Totality itself? Given this, I’m not sure what you are pointing to when you say the Totality is formless and “not dependent” on form. Clearly, the Totality comprises form and cannot be “outside” or “independent” of it – or else you would certainly have the Totality and something else that is not dependent on the Totality.

But when we logically conclude that the Totality by definition must be formless due to there being nothing to contrast it with, it means we must be talking about the Totality in it's entirety because nothing could possibly be left over.

No, the Totality by definition is the All. The point here is when you make the statement that the Totality must be formless without saying anything further about it, you are necessarily, and by definition, contrasting it with form since form exists.

Earlier, you wrote:

The Totality is not forms, it is formless by logical necessity when we define it as The Whole of all things imagined and unimagined. When we define it this way it means there is nothing aside form it, and as I've repeatedly shown you, in order for a form to exist it needs to be contrasted with something it is not, and since the Totality has nothing aside from it, it can not posses form.

How is it that the Totality can be logically defined as “the whole of all things imagined and unimagined” yet not logically be said to “possess” (?) form?

[Leyla Shen]

Jason:

No that's not me, I'm Jason of the kick your arse for being cheeky.

[laughs] You wish.

How 'bout yourself!? Duh. Nah, that's not my real answer, your stupid question required a stupid answer though, so that's what I supplied.

You're not addressing the issue. A self-caused thing has no bearing on the matter, but it wouldn't surprise me if, through some twisted logic, you think it does. To jog your memory: we're talking about things that are not self-caused, go back and look at the start of your Assumption #2 in your post that I was replying to.

If you care to look back, Mr I'm-so-efficient-when-it-comes-to-everybody-else, you might notice a very specific qualifier that should clear your misunderstanding up, if you have enough brain cells to spark a sufficient capacity for self-reliant thinking rudimentary to meaningful exchange; and I quote:

I make a few assumptions here, namely that we all agree:

1. A thing is defined by its boundaries, which constitute its form and thus differentiate it from other things.
2. Things exist (appear as form), but are not self-caused (emptiness/interdependence) and are thus impermanent.
3. The only existence the Totality can be said to have is as absolute truth (pure logic).
4. Given 2 and 3, if the Totality existed in the same manner as things then it too would have a beginning and be a finite form rather than infinite (as with causality).
5. Thus, formlessness infinitely gives rise to finite forms (things) and the Totality (all that there is) by logical necessity constitutes both form and formlessness therefore.

Do you really need to have the Emptiness/non-inherent existence discussion again, since you couldn't work out that 2 is about exactly that and run with it?

You should already be settled then, 'cos I've already proven it with thought-forms, you just weren't paying attention, probably distracted by my golden fleece.

You've proven nothing but your capacity to confuse finding the Golden Fleece with urolagnia!

[Jason]

No that's not me, I'm Jason of the kick your arse for being cheeky.

[laughs] You wish.

Wish? Nah, it's more like a summoning. "I'm gonna kick Leyla's arse." then it just happens.

How 'bout yourself!? Duh. Nah, that's not my real answer, your stupid question required a stupid answer though, so that's what I supplied.

You're not addressing the issue. A self-caused thing has no bearing on the matter, but it wouldn't surprise me if, through some twisted logic, you think it does. To jog your memory: we're talking about things that are not self-caused, go back and look at the start of your Assumption #2 in your post that I was replying to.

Mr I'm-so-efficient-when-it-comes-to-everybody-else,

What's that meant to mean? Sounds interesting, explain it to me, give me some psychological self-insight.

you might notice a very specific qualifier that should clear your misunderstanding up, if you have enough brain cells to spark a sufficient capacity for self-reliant thinking rudimentary to meaningful exchange

Fucking ouch. I need a hug now.

I make a few assumptions here, namely that we all agree:

1. A thing is defined by its boundaries, which constitute its form and thus differentiate it from other things.
2. Things exist (appear as form), but are not self-caused (emptiness/interdependence) and are thus impermanent.
3. The only existence the Totality can be said to have is as absolute truth (pure logic).
4. Given 2 and 3, if the Totality existed in the same manner as things then it too would have a beginning and be a finite form rather than infinite (as with causality).
5. Thus, formlessness infinitely gives rise to finite forms (things) and the Totality (all that there is) by logical necessity constitutes both form and formlessness therefore.

It doesn't matter one bit if others agree or not, your qualifier is irrelevant, what is relevant is the error contained in #2. You clearly wrote "thus impermanent" as if it were a logical conclusion from what you had earlier said - but it isn't.

As it stands your focus on the qualifier essentially makes it look like you're simply happy to be a part of a group that is in agreement, error or not.

Do you really need to have the Emptiness/non-inherent existence discussion again, since you couldn't work out that 2 is about exactly that and run with it?

Maybe you could just kindly point me to this supposed earlier discussion that you think is relevant.

You should already be settled then, 'cos I've already proven it with thought-forms, you just weren't paying attention, probably distracted by my golden fleece.

You've proven nothing but your capacity to confuse finding the Golden Fleece with urolagnia!

So you're saying you were actually distracted by my golden showers not my golden fleece? Sorry for the confusion. :P

[guest_of_logic]

As with many philosophical debates, much in this one hinges on definitions. Here are my notes on the various definitions of "form" that I've seen in this thread and in another.

Nick: What is your definition of a form?

Jason: Think of "thing" and "appearance" as QSR define those terms. Essentially that.

The problem is that QRS also assert that the Totality is not a thing, and I doubt very much that they'd classify it as an "appearance" either, so you're not doing your case that the Totality has form much good with that definition.

You also wrote of what you mean by form that: 'Yes I do believe I mean "finite phenomena."'

Again, this doesn't help your case given that QRS describe the Totality as infinite.

Some else of what you wrote, though, indicates that there is more to your definition of "form" than the above would suggest:

[to Sue] Here's the issue: that there exists even a single part negates any possibility of a formless whole.

That quote, then, implies that your definition of "form" includes parts as well as external shape.

If that particular definition of "form" is accepted, then your arguments are strong - Nick's and Sue's protestations notwithstanding. Here's my own take on your arguments, with embellishments:
1. Forms indubitably exist somewhere (or we wouldn't have a need and application for the word "form")
2. "Somewhere" is a part of "everywhere"
3. "Everywhere" is implied by "everything"
4. Forms exist as a part of "everything" (from 1, 2, 3)
5. The Totality is everything (by definition)
6. Forms exist as a part of the Totality (from 4, 5)
7. The Totality comprises forms - in other words, structured parts (from 6)
8. The Totality has form (from 7, given our definition of form as including parts)
9. The Totality is not formless (from 8).

Two questions remain. The first question is whether parts should be part of the definition of form. As usual, I turn to the dictionary (dictionary.com) and find this supporting definition:

Philosophy.
a. the structure, pattern, organization, or essential nature of anything.
b. structure or pattern as distinguished from matter.

"Organisation" and "pattern" strongly suggest parts as well as the external.

Then there's this one (same url) which is somewhat ambiguous ("structure" could be one or both of internal or external, although as an unqualified term it seems reasonable to assume that both are intended):

The shape and structure of an object.

Playing my own devil's advocate somewhat, I'll point this definition (same url again) which suggests that parts are irrelevant to form, and that the exterior is all that matters:

external appearance of a clearly defined area, as distinguished from color or material; configuration: a triangular form.

We are, however, debating on GF, and - knowing the proclivity that its founders have for inventing new definitions for words - it's incumbent upon us to discover their definition. Here's something from the keyboard of one of the fellas a few months ago: when it was put to David, in the thread Beyond God and Evil, that "To me, form is the entire structure - both internal and external, of a thing, whereas to you it seems to be only the external shape", he replied that "It can be either."

Is it reasonable to extrapolate from this that David considers that "form" consists of the "parts" of a thing? I think that it is, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's turn to the second question, then, which is whether the notion of "internal" can even be applied to the Totality. Here's what Dan has to say on the matter (writing in that same thread):

I see your problem: you keep thinking of the infinite as a "set" with content, therefore having an internal content but with no "external" - because that would make it finite. This is the wrong way to think about it. Dualistic notions like internal/external cannot be ascribed to the infinite at all. As soon as this happens, error occurs. Only things that possess the attribute of "external" can have an "internal" attribute. One cannot begin to conceive of an internal without an accompanying external - because it's the contrast that creates the possibility of the designation of either.

It's hard to see what problem Dan has with conceiving of the Totality as a set with content. According to his definition of the Totality, it is "everything". When we break down that word we get: "every" "thing". In other words, the Totality is the set of all ("every") "thing"s. Dan labels as a "problem" the view of the Totality as a set with content, but fails to provide a coherent alternative phrasing which takes into the account that the Totality is inclusive of all things.

The objection that the Totality cannot have an "internal" because it does not have an "external" seems to me to be semantic sophistry, but we can avoid it simply by using instead words such as "comprises" or "is constituted of" or "has parts". In other words, rather than saying that the Totality has "internal" form, we can say that the Totality "comprises forms", or "is constituted of forms" or "is formed of parts". I studiously avoided using the word "internal" in my informal logic above, so I'm confident that we can use other words such as these to do the same job without raising the "has no internal" objection. Stated thusly, how can anyone argue seriously that the Totality is formless?

[skipair]

Given, however, that you consider yourself to be experiencing the whole Universe, it seems quite odd to me that you previously wrote:

Reasoning about reality as a whole doesn't make much sense to me. It is so abstract that it seems not to refer to anything in my experience, making it more or less meaningless.

I think all this is definitely relevant to thinking about the inside/outside of a thing, because I'm not sure if we can really know what a "thing" is without also knowing what the "whole Universe" is. And neither of these things are particularly clear to me.

So, you aware of the whole Universe, but you don't know what it is?

Whoa, someone knows how to think!

Yeah, on one hand I was saying reasoning about the Universe doesn't make any sense, and then I went ahead and stated how I saw the Universe.

My thinking was that, when I see people talk about the "Universe", as if from an ultimate perspective, and seem to know what they are talking about, they appear logically consitent to me, but I don't understand their meaning. And it is in this sense that "reasoning about the universe" doesn't make sense to me. I'm aware of my own experiences, yes, but they seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with their observations. I haven't found their source.

This wouldn't be a problem if, like most people, they were all religious and filled to the brim with ignorance. But that is not what I see, so I'm forced to find out.

S: I think you're defining "Universe" as a collection or multiplicity of all forms

J: Yes I am.

S: and I don't think this is the same concept that Nick and others are thinking about.

J: Probably not, but I'm trying to show why my view of the Universe as a collection of all forms makes sense.

The concept itself makes sense, I just don't think its very deep or useful. It is basically a static mental construct that doesn't do anything to change other existing structures or affect our behavior in the world. It may be true, but I think a lot more personal context needs to be wrapped around it to make it meaningful.

S: Your concept is itself among all the other forms that exist,

J: Yep.

S: it does not exist within all.

J: Doesn't every form exist within the All by default?

Maybe, but I don't think your concept is the "All". I think it is just one concept among many, automatically making it not-All.

[mikiel]

First, a challenge to skipair to reply to my post above:

Skipair,
Your reply to me, stamped Sun, 10/12 was completely evasive.
I asked:

Quote:
If skipair can not personally experience these observations, then these objects do not exist?

(Your reply didn't touch upon an answer.)

Likewise the next exchange:
Quote:(m)
So, skip... do you believe what you "see" indirectly from space photos that Earth is a globe, or is it still flat ... as you experience it?
(S):
"I see everything as a picture, like looking at a work of art. Whatever the picture is of, that is what I see, and this appearance is reality. Sometimes the picture will be of a physical universe existing before and after my own physical existance, sometimes not. Either way things are happening all the time, and I want to be sure that I know what I can know, and know what I can't."

Do you actually think this answered my question? Can you know that black holes exist at the center of all fully formed galaxies even tho you don't have extremely sensitive and powerful telescopic infrared vision. Do you trust state of the art astrononmy at all to give an accurate "picture" beyond the limits of your personal vision?

How about actually answering the question!
Ps: Your "final answer":
"So far as I can tell, they are "accurate" to the degree that I'm not attached to the appearance"... does not answer the questions at all. I am not asking how "attached" you are to the "appearance.

See all questions above, both original and reiterated for reference to what I am actually asking you.
Or you can just say, "Fuck you, I'm not interested in answering what you are actually asking"... and continue on your own tangent as if it were a reply to my questions.

(Ok... I'm on a peeve here about how little real conversation goes on here on these boards. The above is just one small example... but we have to start somewhere if real Q&A has any potential at all to happen here.

Next, kudos to guest-of-logic for a fine piece of work above.

Finally another statement of my take on the subject:

The uni-verse ("totality" in the jargon of this forum) means all there is, both known and unknown.

What *is* in this sense is cosmos (or all possible cosmi)... all manifest forms.... all of what is manifest, therefore finite.

The *space* in which all-there-is takes "place" (manifests) is infinite.
(It is impossible to describe an "end of space" because there is not and can not be one.)

There is no inside or outside to space. This duality is only relevant to finite forms, on whatever scale. All finite 'spheres' or manifest forms have boundaries which define them as "things"... their "designation" as atom/molecule/compound/entity... planet/solar system/galaxy... "cosmos" as far as we can see... and "the universe" including the unknown which we can not see.

[Nick]

I said existence as a whole is the collection of all finite phenomena, and thus if you were to know all finite phenomena you would therefore know all of existence - and you could know each individual finite phenomena by contrasting it against other finite phenomena.

Ignoring the fact that knowing all finite phenomena is absolutely impossible, by knowing all finite phenomena, you would only be knowing finite phenomena (one aspect of reality). Your understanding of Existence as a whole would not benefit from that kind of understanding. Only pure logic can help in accomplishing that goal.

As far as my arguments go it doesn't matter what forms are exactly, whether they be matter or mind-stuff or whatever. That is irrelevant, all that matters is that forms exist.

That's a pretty large leap of faith you are taking between this statement and the above, saying it doesn't matter what form is to your argument, to saying we can reach certainty about Existence by understanding it. Surely you see the lack of wisdom in what you have said here, don't you?

Even if I assume you know what you're talking about, when we contrast the Totality with everything it's comprised of, we aren't contrasting anything to begin with, which means form never arises.

Oh come on, my bicycle analogy, of knowing all the parts of the bicycle and thus knowing the bicycle as a whole, was very simple and straightforward, why aren't you understanding my arguments?

I am, but you don't realize what you are actually implying, which is that form can arise by contrasting something with itself. Just because you go about naming the bike in a more complicated way, as opposed to just calling it a bike, doesn't mean you aren't saying the bike contrasts with the bike, which is absolutely false.

Also, just to let you know, there comes a point where your bike analogy breaks down when comparing it to the Totality, something I don't think you've realized yet because as you said above, you don't really know what form is.

[Nick]

I think our ability to understand formlessness is aided by our understanding of form, but in reality the two are not dependent on each other. If anything, when we interpret reality through forms we are interpreting something that is less than the Totality, [...]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this.

I'm saying that the forms we experience are just forms, not the actual Totality.

If I am drawing logical conclusions about the Totality, is that the same as “interpreting reality through forms”?

Logic is still at work, but in the former scenario we are actually talking about the whole, as opposed to the latter in which we are only talking about a form, or set of forms.

because forms can only exist in the mind, and the mind is not the Totality.

I dunno about that. Form exists in consciousness, with mind as a vessel; where does consciousness exist? None of these things can exist independently of the other, nor can they exist “independently” of the Totality. Instead, are not all these things forms of the Totality itself? Given this, I’m not sure what you are pointing to when you say the Totality is formless and “not dependent” on form.

I'm just pointing out that when we are talking about forms we are only telling part of the story.

Clearly, the Totality comprises form and cannot be “outside” or “independent” of it – or else you would certainly have the Totality and something else that is not dependent on the Totality.

Yes I agree, which is why I said form and formlessness are not dependent on each other, but just two different ways of experiencing Existence.

I think another point I haven't made clear enough is that although we can experience reality directly through forms, as soon as we go to talk about form we are actually talking about something that is less than the Totality. So when we do want to talk about the Totality as a whole, form should never actually enter the discussion.

No, the Totality by definition is the All. The point here is when you make the statement that the Totality must be formless without saying anything further about it, you are necessarily, and by definition, contrasting it with form since form exists.

And when we define the Totality as the All, form can not logically arise because form needs boundaries and the All is boundless. I don't see this as contrasting it with form in a literal sense, it's just about contrasting the two concepts in a way that points our mind to emptiness where all finite phenomena fades away.

How is it that the Totality can be logically defined as “the whole of all things imagined and unimagined” yet not logically be said to “possess” (?) form?

Because nothing is left over, and form needs something other than itself to arise.

For me, talking about the Totality as a whole is kind of like stepping out of my mind and disappearing for a moment, along with everything else. Is it kind of like this for you?

[Leyla Shen]

It doesn't matter one bit if others agree or not, your qualifier is irrelevant, what is relevant is the error contained in #2. You clearly wrote "thus impermanent" as if it were a logical conclusion from what you had earlier said - but it isn't.

As it stands your focus on the qualifier essentially makes it look like you're simply happy to be a part of a group that is in agreement, error or not.

Allah aşkına, mavi gözlüm – ah!

[I thought I’d try another language... ? :) ]

[Jason]

I must admit, a little sadistic part of me was hoping that would piss you off.

[Jason]

The problem is that QRS also assert that the Totality is not a thing, and I doubt very much that they'd classify it as an "appearance" either, so you're not doing your case that the Totality has form much good with that definition.

You also wrote of what you mean by form that: 'Yes I do believe I mean "finite phenomena."'

Again, this doesn't help your case given that QRS describe the Totality as infinite.

I think we all agree that "Totality" refers to literally everything, to the entirety of reality, and that's the basic part of the definition that I'm working up from. They further say that it is formless, I say it is not. I'd rather try to reform their definition of Totality than use another term, because I believe that my definition is actually consistent with reality and their version is an imaginary fantasy that doesn't reflect reality.

It'd be like if we both pointed at a horse and said "that's a horse" but then they went on to say that horses have six legs by their definition. I'm not going to take on another term to appease their errors. And I don't think the differing definition has been a major hurdle to discussion or to my arguments.

Some else of what you wrote, though, indicates that there is more to your definition of "form" than the above would suggest:

[to Sue] Here's the issue: that there exists even a single part negates any possibility of a formless whole.

That quote, then, implies that your definition of "form" includes parts as well as external shape.

I'm not sure if this helps, but I have been using "form", "part", "thing" and "finite phenomena" pretty much interchangeably.

If that particular definition of "form" is accepted, then your arguments are strong - Nick's and Sue's protestations notwithstanding. Here's my own take on your arguments, with embellishments:
1. Forms indubitably exist somewhere (or we wouldn't have a need and application for the word "form")
2. "Somewhere" is a part of "everywhere"
3. "Everywhere" is implied by "everything"
4. Forms exist as a part of "everything" (from 1, 2, 3)
5. The Totality is everything (by definition)
6. Forms exist as a part of the Totality (from 4, 5)
7. The Totality comprises forms - in other words, structured parts (from 6)
8. The Totality has form (from 7, given our definition of form as including parts)
9. The Totality is not formless (from 8).

That's an accurate breakdown of my argument.

Two questions remain. The first question is whether parts should be part of the definition of form. As usual, I turn to the dictionary (dictionary.com) and find this supporting definition

I'm a fan of trying to make communicating easy, and there are good practical reasons for using mainstream definitions of words, and dictionaries can help with that, but I'm basically interested in accurately communicating about and accurately understanding reality here. So as long as I can sync up sufficiently with the person I'm having discussions with, a disagreeing dictionary definition isn't going to disrupt or undermine my arguments and discussion. Miscommunication between participants due to definitions would be a real problem though obviously:

We are, however, debating on GF, and - knowing the proclivity that its founders have for inventing new definitions for words - it's incumbent upon us to discover their definition. Here's something from the keyboard of one of the fellas a few months ago: when it was put to David, in the thread Beyond God and Evil, that "To me, form is the entire structure - both internal and external, of a thing, whereas to you it seems to be only the external shape", he replied that "It can be either."

Is it reasonable to extrapolate from this that David considers that "form" consists of the "parts" of a thing? I think that it is, but he can correct me if I'm wrong

Let's turn to the second question, then, which is whether the notion of "internal" can even be applied to the Totality. Here's what Dan has to say on the matter (writing in that same thread):

I see your problem: you keep thinking of the infinite as a "set" with content, therefore having an internal content but with no "external" - because that would make it finite. This is the wrong way to think about it. Dualistic notions like internal/external cannot be ascribed to the infinite at all. As soon as this happens, error occurs. Only things that possess the attribute of "external" can have an "internal" attribute. One cannot begin to conceive of an internal without an accompanying external - because it's the contrast that creates the possibility of the designation of either.

It's hard to see what problem Dan has with conceiving of the Totality as a set with content. According to his definition of the Totality, it is "everything". When we break down that word we get: "every" "thing". In other words, the Totality is the set of all ("every") "thing"s. Dan labels as a "problem" the view of the Totality as a set with content, but fails to provide a coherent alternative phrasing which takes into the account that the Totality is inclusive of all things.

My impression is that they think that by imagining the Totality as a singular whole that somehow this magically eliminates the fact that it is composed of parts/things/forms. For example, Nick, amazingly, argued that when he recognized a bike as a whole that it then suddenly ceased to be composed of pedals, wheels etc.

The objection that the Totality cannot have an "internal" because it does not have an "external" seems to me to be semantic sophistry, but we can avoid it simply by using instead words such as "comprises" or "is constituted of" or "has parts". In other words, rather than saying that the Totality has "internal" form, we can say that the Totality "comprises forms", or "is constituted of forms" or "is formed of parts". I studiously avoided using the word "internal" in my informal logic above, so I'm confident that we can use other words such as these to do the same job without raising the "has no internal" objection. Stated thusly, how can anyone argue seriously that the Totality is formless?

Absolutely agree with all that and I presented essentially the same argument to Nick when he tried to raise the idea of there being no internal because there is no external.

[Jason]

S: and I don't think this is the same concept that Nick and others are thinking about.

J: Probably not, but I'm trying to show why my view of the Universe as a collection of all forms makes sense.

S: The concept itself makes sense, I just don't think its very deep or useful. It is basically a static mental construct that doesn't do anything to change other existing structures or affect our behavior in the world. It may be true, but I think a lot more personal context needs to be wrapped around it to make it meaningful.

Ok. Well, I'm ultimating aiming for truth and understanding. If what I find doesn't seem very meaningful, doesn't lead to change or to affecting our behavior in the world - then so be it, those aren't my primary goals. (Not that I wouldn't like great things to occur.)

S: Your concept is itself among all the other forms that exist,

J: Yep.

S: it does not exist within all.

J: Doesn't every form exist within the All by default?

S: Maybe, but I don't think your concept is the "All". I think it is just one concept among many, automatically making it not-All.

Yeah I agree, I didn't mean that my concept is the All, I meant it existed within(as part of) the All.

[guest_of_logic]

My impression is that they think that by imagining the Totality as a singular whole that somehow this magically eliminates the fact that it is composed of parts/things/forms. For example, Nick, amazingly, argued that when he recognized a bike as a whole that it then suddenly ceased to be composed of pedals, wheels etc.

Attributing this to "magical" thinking is very kind of you; in fact I'd go so far as to call it euphemistic. Actually this thinking is blatantly irrational, which is much less forgivable than magical thought, even though the two sometimes go hand in hand.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

[brokenhead]

My impression is that they think that by imagining the Totality as a singular whole that somehow this magically eliminates the fact that it is composed of parts/things/forms. For example, Nick, amazingly, argued that when he recognized a bike as a whole that it then suddenly ceased to be composed of pedals, wheels etc.

Attributing this to "magical" thinking is very kind of you; in fact I'd go so far as to call it euphemistic. Actually this thinking is blatantly irrational, which is much less forgivable than magical thought, even though the two sometimes go hand in hand.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

The GF Trinity's (I'm trying not to use the term QRS) philosophy hinges a great deal on what is meant by the Totality. It is described as "utterly everything." Anything that comprises it is a "thing," but it, itself cannot be a "thing."

Let's stop right there for a moment. According to the notion of A=A, a thing only exists if what is not the thing also exists.

But does the Totality consist of anything that is not also a thing? By our definition of "utterly everything" we know that if it exists, it is part of the Totality. If it can be perceived, it must be a thing, even if the perception is necessarily not identical to the thing-in-itself. Likewise, all concepts must be things, even if they lack a corresponding thing-in-itself.

But in order for the Totality itself to exist, something must give, as there is nothing other than it by definition. Therefore, we put it in a singular class and say it is not a thing.

So do we say we cannot perceive it? Clearly we cannot perceive it as it is at any instant because we cannot perceive anything as it is at any instant, but merely form corresponding very limited mental images or concepts.

It appears that we then have to admit that we cannot conceive of it, either. If we cannot conceive of it and yet grant it existence, must we not also grant that it may include other things of which we cannot conceive?

The moment you draw any inference from the definition of the Totality, you are in logical contradiction. You must transcend logic if you are to discuss something that by definition has no distinguishing characteristic or feature because it is defined to have all of them. Transcending logic does not necessarily imply abandoning it. The Totality is a one without a zero, or a zero without a one, and therefore can have no meaning or be informative in any possible context.

Yet QRS (sorry, Dan) logic gravitates to this singularity like a black hole and sucks rationality into it and tears it apart.

But all is not lost, for Reality is multi-leveled, and each layer is connected to the others by such seemingly irrational singularities or vortexes.

Which MOTI clip addresses this question, namely, does the Totality not have to include itself? Nothing else can include it. Since we can neither perceive nor conceive of utterly everything either individually or together, may (must?) we not conclude that there have to be some entities which are not "things" yet which also partially comprise the Totality? That which is "utterly unknown" or "utterly unknowable" must also be a part of the Totality.

Since we have A=A, we have decided once and for all what we mean by "knowing" something. We mean we can say it is itself and not something else. If we can say let A be the infinite collection of all such "things," then we either have to say such a collection cannot exist, or we have to concede that the Totality also includes entities for which A=A cannot be said in principal.

Which MOTI was that again?

[skipair]

Ok. Well, I'm ultimating aiming for truth and understanding. If what I find doesn't seem very meaningful, doesn't lead to change or to affecting our behavior in the world - then so be it, those aren't my primary goals. (Not that I wouldn't like great things to occur.)

Right, and I think the way you define the All, as a collection of things, is fine in and of itself. But then we have to ask what these "things" are.

I think much of the time we humans look out into the world, see finite phenomena, and then try to figure out what to do with them conceptually, if anything. But if we turn the process around and see that it is our concepts that create the finite phenomena in the first place - for instance defining specifically how a seat, pedal, wheels and frame make a bike - then the brute fact of separation is loosened in a sense - at the very least it is a different kind of separation. Dividers may well exist, but only because we've willed them to exist - consciously or not.

I think this has all to do with controlling our categories. Knowing always what we are doing when sorting and filing things into contextual definition and understanding. Knowing deeply at every turn that they belong where we put them because they happen to be useful there, not because they must be there.

For me there are many things that are exempt from this understanding though. And I intend to find out what they are.

Yeah I agree, I didn't mean that my concept is the All, I meant it existed within(as part of) the All.

It seems to me your concept of the All is the only form of its existence. What else could it be?

[Leyla Shen]

Nick:

N: I think our ability to understand formlessness is aided by our understanding of form, but in reality the two are not dependent on each other. If anything, when we interpret reality through forms we are interpreting something that is less than the Totality, [...]

L: I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this.

N: I'm saying that the forms we experience are just forms, not the actual Totality.

OK, and I am saying that those forms cannot exist independently of the Totality. In that context, there is a connection between form and the Totality and, in the local Buddhist vernacular, it is called Emptiness. This notion gives us a complete understanding of the nature of reality and the Totality as both form and formlessness, does it not? All things (forms) exist interdependently. What more could there be to the Totality, form and formlessness?

You cannot logically get a more actual, infinite Totality than that. No thing is a thing-in-itself, thus all things arise as form due to their essentially formless ("empty") nature. Simply saying the Totality is formless and the forms we experience are “just” forms, isn’t really saying anything significant about the Totality, is it?

L: If I am drawing logical conclusions about the Totality, is that the same as “interpreting reality through forms”?

N: Logic is still at work, but in the former scenario we are actually talking about the whole, as opposed to the latter in which we are only talking about a form, or set of forms.

I’m still not clear on the distinction you’re making here, and why. Does my above reply fall into the former or the latter category?

I'm just pointing out that when we are talking about forms we are only telling part of the story.

And I am pointing out that excluding form from the Totality is only part of the story—this, of course, is not the same as saying Totality=form—just as saying Totality=formlessness is only telling half the story. It leaves out emptiness and, thus, the very nature of existence itself. Space is formless, is it not? Is it the same formlessness as the Totality?

L: Clearly, the Totality comprises form and cannot be “outside” or “independent” of it – or else you would certainly have the Totality and something else that is not dependent on the Totality.

N: Yes I agree, which is why I said form and formlessness are not dependent on each other, but just two different ways of experiencing Existence.

I don’t know about you, but I imagine it would be very difficult to experience formlessness as anything other than some kind of form. If one is consciously experiencing formlessness, and consciousness is distinction of/between form/s, how is formlessness not then a thing just like any other thing?

I think another point I haven't made clear enough is that although we can experience reality directly through forms, as soon as we go to talk about form we are actually talking about something that is less than the Totality. So when we do want to talk about the Totality as a whole, form should never actually enter the discussion.

So, what you are saying is that you want to leave the question of existence itself out of a discussion about the Totality?

Wow. That seems like an illogical and arbitrary doctrine, to me. Frankly, I reckon you’re in the “no mountain” phase, myself. What do you think?

And when we define the Totality as the All, form can not logically arise because form needs boundaries and the All is boundless.

Sure, if you want to make it a particular thing which excludes form/things from the Totality rather than understand the essence of the statement. There’s no point in doing event that, though, except in order to arrive at an understanding of the impermanent nature of—form.

The All is boundless, since it is not a thing; yet it is infinite because it is in the nature of all things. It is the all in any and every moment, regardless of what might happen to and with particular forms. I have defined it here without limiting it to any boundary at all and without having to say forms don’t/form doesn't exist (note: therefore, it must follow, only formlessness does) as part of the Totality, which they most certainly and by logical necessity do. Are you really prepared to say that the conception of any form whatsoever is deluded by default?

And, again, what about Emptiness? Are you saying it is the teaching that there is no form? Do you see any logical connection between the doctrine of Emptiness and the Totality?

I don't see this as contrasting it with form in a literal sense, it's just about contrasting the two concepts in a way that points our mind to emptiness where all finite phenomena fades away.

Finite phenomena does not fade away with an understanding of Emptiness. If I am to assume this is the case and that you have understood Emptiness, then I must also now assume you no longer experience things—or, you will experience things infinitely. In order to establish which, I am then compelled to ask: do you not still see day turn to night, feel warm turn to cold, hear different sounds, discern the scent of a rose from flatulence?

L: How is it that the Totality can be logically defined as “the whole of all things imagined and unimagined” yet not logically be said to “possess” (?) form?

N: Because nothing is left over, and form needs something other than itself to arise.

See above.

For me, talking about the Totality as a whole is kind of like stepping out of my mind and disappearing for a moment, along with everything else. Is it kind of like this for you?

No. :) Are you conscious of anything when that happens?

Sounds like experiencing an altered state of mind rather than arriving at truth, to me. You mustn’t get very much done (including thinking) when you talk about the Totality, then, eh?

Talking about the Totality, for me, is a matter of pure logic—no matter what might happen along the way. The question now becomes; can pure logic cause altered states of mind...

:)

[guest_of_logic]

Brokester,

I'm sorry to report that I didn't get a lot of value out of that post of yours. Here are some of the things that didn't make sense to me:

According to the notion of A=A, a thing only exists if what is not the thing also exists.

I don't see how A=A implies that: all that A=A implies is that things are uniquely identifiable (by consciousness) - it doesn't say anything about why those things exist.

By our definition of "utterly everything" we know that if it exists, it is part of the Totality. If it can be perceived, it must be a thing, even if the perception is necessarily not identical to the thing-in-itself.

Well, you and I may put it like that, but I think that you'll find that QRS deny that there is any "thing-in-itself" aside from the perception in consciousness.

But in order for the Totality itself to exist, something must give, as there is nothing other than it by definition. Therefore, we put it in a singular class and say it is not a thing.

QRS, however, deny that the Totality exists (to me, this is as ridiculous as referring to it as formless, but that's another story).

I imagine that you already know that QRS deny this, so I'm confused about exactly what you're trying to achieve in this post - at the beginning it seemed that you were trying to work with QRS philosophy and come to some new conclusions (you wrote that "[QRS] philosophy hinges a great deal on what is meant by the Totality"), but you have to this point on two occasions written things that are incompatible with QRS philosophy.

So do we say we cannot perceive it? Clearly we cannot perceive it as it is at any instant because we cannot perceive anything as it is at any instant, but merely form corresponding very limited mental images or concepts.

We cannot perceive it in its entirety, particularly considering that it includes all of (infinite) time, however in each moment we are perceiving a portion of it.

It appears that we then have to admit that we cannot conceive of it, either.

No, it doesn't follow that an inability to perceive something implies that we cannot conceive of it either. We cannot perceive subatomic particles (at least not directly through our gross senses) yet we can conceive of them.

You're - disturbingly - writing like Kevin, who has on past occasions denied that it is possible to conceive of the Totality. The very attribution of such qualities as "infinite" and "beginningless", and the definition of it as "everything", are acts of conceiving.

If we cannot conceive of it and yet grant it existence, must we not also grant that it may include other things of which we cannot conceive?

This argument is unsound given that its premise - that we cannot conceive of the Totality - is false.

The moment you draw any inference from the definition of the Totality, you are in logical contradiction. You must transcend logic if you are to discuss something that by definition has no distinguishing characteristic or feature because it is defined to have all of them.

This is patently false. The Totality does not have "all" characteristics and features. It does not, for example, have the characteristic of finitude. "Infinite" is a distinguishing characteristic of the Totality.

Transcending logic does not necessarily imply abandoning it. The Totality is a one without a zero, or a zero without a one, and therefore can have no meaning or be informative in any possible context.

Yet QRS (sorry, Dan) logic gravitates to this singularity like a black hole and sucks rationality into it and tears it apart.

But all is not lost, for Reality is multi-leveled, and each layer is connected to the others by such seemingly irrational singularities or vortexes.

To me all of that falls into the category of "magical" thinking. The Totality is defined logically and can be talked about logically. There's no need to mystify it.

Since we can neither perceive nor conceive of utterly everything either individually or together, may (must?) we not conclude that there have to be some entities which are not "things" yet which also partially comprise the Totality?

According to the QRS definition of a "thing", the answer to your question is "no, we cannot conclude that", because that which is less than the Totality itself is finite and therefore a thing.

That which is "utterly unknown" or "utterly unknowable" must also be a part of the Totality.

But is nevertheless a "thing" (by the QRS definition).

Since we have A=A, we have decided once and for all what we mean by "knowing" something. We mean we can say it is itself and not something else. If we can say let A be the infinite collection of all such "things," then we either have to say such a collection cannot exist, or we have to concede that the Totality also includes entities for which A=A cannot be said in principal.

As far as I understand, you're basing that conclusion on the premise that we cannot conceive of the Totality, however that premise is false so your conclusion is unsound.

To be fair, I could go through Leyla's and Nick's posts and point out plenty of thinking that I find weak or illogical there too, but I don't have the patience, and besides, I judge you as being more receptive to critical thought. Here's a small example though: Leyla writes of the Totality as "both form and formlessness" - apparently she's quite happy to throw the law of non-contradiction out the window as and when it suits her. The only major contributor to this thread whose thinking has consistently impressed me is Jason.