Causality and Consciousness

[Jason]

As I showed in this thread, it's possible in principle for all appearances to constitute the Totality. Appearances can be be mutually dependent and mutually supporting with no need for recourse to a cause beyond them. X contrasts with Y, and Y contrasts with X, they thus mutually cause each other's existence. The "hidden void" is unnecessary.

So what do you call that aspect of reality which is beyond consciousness?

Unnecessary. See above.

[David Quinn]

As I showed in this thread, it's possible in principle for all appearances to constitute the Totality. Appearances can be be mutually dependent and mutually supporting with no need for recourse to a cause beyond them. X contrasts with Y, and Y contrasts with X, they thus mutually cause each other's existence. The "hidden void" is unnecessary.

So what do you call that aspect of reality which is beyond consciousness?

Unnecessary.

To you, personally? Or to thinkers generally?

What do you believe was there before consciousness arose? Or don't you want to think about it?

Incidentally, that thread you link to above shows you in a very poor light. The incisive Jason that I used to know seems to have gone missing.

-

[David Quinn]

There is far too much focus on the minute details of other people's words (where the shadows are), and far too little focus on understanding the underlying issues. It isn't very edifying.

Agreed. I've made it clear (see, e.g. the final paragraph of this post, and the first paragraph plus the first sentence of the third paragraph of this post) that the equivocal use of words like "exist" is the least significant of the problems that I've identified, and I've tried to divert the discussion away from that and into the more serious problems, but ultimately those serious problems that I tried to raise got pretty much ignored. The most obvious demonstration that they have been (and continue to be) ignored is that my original post in which I identified plenty of serious problems remains unresponded to by any of you, apart from - if I recall correctly - Dan quoting a small fraction of it to initiate the discussion on equivocation.

That was a very large post, you have to admit. It would be better if you simply highlighted what you see as "the" most serious problem and we can take it from there, one step at a time.

-

[Jason]

So what do you call that aspect of reality which is beyond consciousness?

Unnecessary.

To you, personally? Or to thinkers generally?

You misunderstand. It is logically unnecessary.

What do you believe was there before consciousness arose? Or don't you want to think about it?

You're a bit slow on the uptake aren't you? The point I'm making is that in principle it is not necessary for there to be something other than the totality of appearances. It has nothing to do with me not wanting to think about it - it actually has to do with me thinking about it deeply; more deeply than you have apparently.

Incidentally, that thread you link to above shows you in a very poor light. The incisive Jason that I used to know seems to have gone missing.

You obviously didn't even properly read or understand my posts in that linked thread given the manner of question and basic misunderstanding you exhibit above. And you think I'm the one lacking incisiveness and being shown in a poor light here?!

[Leyla Shen]

This is how I essentially understand David's argument:

1. Things exist.
2. Every thing that exists has a form.
3. Thus, there cannot exist any thing without form.
4. Form exists in consciousness as the observation by an observer of a thing.
5. Thus, all things are objects.
6. Thus, the object cannot exist without the observer nor the observer without the object.
7. The observer’s observation of the thing and the object’s form are mutually inclusive—i.e., the quality of the thing’s form and the quality of the observer’s observation are identical.
8.Thus, an object of the imagination has the quality of being “an imaginary thing” to an observer in consciousness.
9. Thus, a physical object has the quality of being “a physical thing” to an observer in consciousness.
10. Thus, an abstract object has the quality of being “an abstract thing” to an observer in consciousness.
11. Thus, all things necessarily exist in consciousness.

That is pretty close. A thing can only exist by way of having form (1), and form can only arise within the framework of an observer's perspective (2). Everything written in that part of WOTI is a logical conclusion from this.

If these twin premises are accepted as true, then everything deduced from them should also be accepted as true, however unpalatable or counter-intuitive they might seem.

The "hidden void" is one such example, referring to that aspect of reality which is forever beyond consciousness and can never be experienced.

OK. So, “pretty close” isn’t really good enough for me! Therefore, in the attempt to pin it down, what you’re saying is that accepting 1 and 2 above, one can deduce the existence of “the hidden void” as the hidden void precisely because:

a) it is an abstract object (being one of logic/reason) of consciousness as contrasted by physical and imaginary objects of consciousness, and
b) the existence of physical objects in consciousness contrasted with other physical objects of consciousness necessarily explain nothing abstract, by definition (only a contrast of physical objects with abstract ones delivers meaning to physical objects—even the meaning delivered in comparing physical objects with physical objects).

Ultimately, of course, the hidden void doesn't really exist, any more than consciousness does. So it is important to always keep the larger goal in mind (i.e. tuning into the highest wisdom), if only to prevent one from becoming bogged down in the meaningless exercise of chasing metaphysical shadows.

Assuming that I am, in fact, at least warmer now—if follows by virtue of the fact that objects of consciousness, despite their qualities in contrast with eachother, remain objects of consciousness and though they do actually comprise reality are nevertheless—ultimately—just that: objects of consciousness and consciousness of objects and have meaning to us therefore.

So, for example, “the hidden void” (the cause “prior to” and/or beyond consciousness) is both as real and as empty in its quality as anything else, but no more ultimately meaningful in itself.

Now, I’m not sure if I’m still on the same page as you, but this (to me) is such a fine, full-bodied—so very complete!—paradox, really.

[guest_of_logic]

That was a very large post, you have to admit. It would be better if you simply highlighted what you see as "the" most serious problem and we can take it from there, one step at a time.

And what of the rest of the problems that I identified? Anyhow, I'll probably get onto it after my upcoming response to Dan.

[Nick]

The way I see it, the Hidden Void can simply be said to mean that which is unimagined, inexperience-able, or beyond conscious recognition, except when being referred to as the Hidden Void of course. It's not really a mystery or ultimate, it's no more significant than any other finite phenomena, or cause, we do imagine/experience.

[mansman]

then the way you see it Nick, significantly sucks.

because you make Logic cry,
better to gouge out your eye,
than remain in your body to die.

[David Quinn]

DQ: So what do you call that aspect of reality which is beyond consciousness?

Jason: Unnecessary.

DQ: To you, personally? Or to thinkers generally?

You misunderstand. It is logically unnecessary.

How do you account for the existence of consciousness then? What gave rise to it?

What do you believe was there before consciousness arose? Or don't you want to think about it?

You're a bit slow on the uptake aren't you?

Is this sort of comment really necessary?

The point I'm making is that in principle it is not necessary for there to be something other than the totality of appearances.

I can't quite fathom what you are trying to say here. Do you have some sort of urge to believe that there is only the totality of appearances and nothing else?

-

[David Quinn]

That was a very large post, you have to admit. It would be better if you simply highlighted what you see as "the" most serious problem and we can take it from there, one step at a time.

And what of the rest of the problems that I identified? Anyhow, I'll probably get onto it after my upcoming response to Dan.

How about you identify the biggest problem I have, so that we can thrash it out between us. I'm not really in the mood to discuss ten different issues at once.

-

[David Quinn]

This is how I essentially understand David's argument:

1. Things exist.
2. Every thing that exists has a form.
3. Thus, there cannot exist any thing without form.
4. Form exists in consciousness as the observation by an observer of a thing.
5. Thus, all things are objects.
6. Thus, the object cannot exist without the observer nor the observer without the object.
7. The observer’s observation of the thing and the object’s form are mutually inclusive—i.e., the quality of the thing’s form and the quality of the observer’s observation are identical.
8.Thus, an object of the imagination has the quality of being “an imaginary thing” to an observer in consciousness.
9. Thus, a physical object has the quality of being “a physical thing” to an observer in consciousness.
10. Thus, an abstract object has the quality of being “an abstract thing” to an observer in consciousness.
11. Thus, all things necessarily exist in consciousness.

That is pretty close. A thing can only exist by way of having form (1), and form can only arise within the framework of an observer's perspective (2). Everything written in that part of WOTI is a logical conclusion from this.

If these twin premises are accepted as true, then everything deduced from them should also be accepted as true, however unpalatable or counter-intuitive they might seem.

The "hidden void" is one such example, referring to that aspect of reality which is forever beyond consciousness and can never be experienced.

OK. So, “pretty close” isn’t really good enough for me! Therefore, in the attempt to pin it down, what you’re saying is that accepting 1 and 2 above, one can deduce the existence of “the hidden void” as the hidden void precisely because:

a) it is an abstract object (being one of logic/reason) of consciousness as contrasted by physical and imaginary objects of consciousness,

Yes, it is logically necessary, given that consciousness requires a cause.

and
b) the existence of physical objects in consciousness contrasted with other physical objects of consciousness necessarily explain nothing abstract, by definition (only a contrast of physical objects with abstract ones delivers meaning to physical objects—even the meaning delivered in comparing physical objects with physical objects).

I didn't really consider those things when I reasoned about the hidden void. For me, it was simply a matter of realizing that the cause of consciousness cannot be perceived or imagined, because any attempt to perceive or imagine it inadvertantly brings it into the realm of consciousness and form.

Ultimately, of course, the hidden void doesn't really exist, any more than consciousness does. So it is important to always keep the larger goal in mind (i.e. tuning into the highest wisdom), if only to prevent one from becoming bogged down in the meaningless exercise of chasing metaphysical shadows.

Assuming that I am, in fact, at least warmer now—if follows by virtue of the fact that objects of consciousness, despite their qualities in contrast with eachother, remain objects of consciousness and though they do actually comprise reality are nevertheless—ultimately—just that: objects of consciousness and consciousness of objects and have meaning to us therefore.

So, for example, “the hidden void” (the cause “prior to” and/or beyond consciousness) is both as real and as empty in its quality as anything else, but no more ultimately meaningful in itself.

Now, I’m not sure if I’m still on the same page as you, but this (to me) is such a fine, full-bodied—so very complete!—paradox, really.

It's not really a paradox, though. There is nothing contradictory in acknowledging that the hidden void is just as illusory and empty as everything else. The "paradox" only arises when you imagine that the hidden void should exclusively represent ultimate reality. It doesn't.

-

[Jason]

Jason: Unnecessary.

DQ: To you, personally? Or to thinkers generally?

You misunderstand. It is logically unnecessary.

How do you account for the existence of consciousness then? What gave rise to it?

Consciousness(all appearances) can, in principle, be identical with the Totality, ie be literally all that there is. So there is nothing in principle that needs to give rise to it.

What do you believe was there before consciousness arose? Or don't you want to think about it?

You're a bit slow on the uptake aren't you?

Is this sort of comment really necessary?

Yes it is necessary. You claimed to have read the thread that I linked to, and then proceeded to pronounce that the thread showed me in a "very poor light", yet your continuing posts to me in this thread show that you are entirely unaware of the actual arguments I made in that other thread! So you must be a bit slow(or, heaven forbid, a liar!)

The point I'm making is that in principle it is not necessary for there to be something other than the totality of appearances.

I can't quite fathom what you are trying to say here.

But how could that be? You read the other thread I linked to, right? It explained everything in excruciating repetitive detail over six pages. And it showed me in a "very poor light", right? Oh? You didn't? My mistake!

Do you have some sort of urge to believe that there is only the totality of appearances and nothing else?

Urge smurge! You keep trying to paint this as if it's my personal desires that are the standout characteristic in this, but my argument is based on logical consistency.

[David Quinn]

How do you account for the existence of consciousness then? What gave rise to it?

Consciousness(all appearances) can, in principle, be identical with the Totality, ie be literally all that there is. So there is nothing in principle that needs to give rise to it.

"In principle" is a very weak platform to stand on. Any scenario could exist "in principle".

All it takes is the existence of something which doesn't constitute an appearance and your entire philosophy goes down the gurgler.

You're a bit slow on the uptake aren't you?

Is this sort of comment really necessary?

Yes it is necessary. You claimed to have read the thread that I linked to, and then proceeded to pronounce that the thread showed me in a "very poor light", yet your continuing posts to me in this thread show that you are entirely unaware of the actual arguments I made in that other thread! So you must be a bit slow(or, heaven forbid, a liar!)

That thread was rubbish. It was hard enough wading through your clumsy misunderstandings of formlessness, let alone facing the the rest of it.

All that masturbation has evidently gone to your head. It's turned your brain to mush.

You used to have an edge and now it is gone.

-

[Leyla Shen]

It's not really a paradox, though. There is nothing contradictory in acknowledging that the hidden void is just as illusory and empty as everything else. The "paradox" only arises when you imagine that the hidden void should exclusively represent ultimate reality. It doesn't.’’

No, the paradox arises in the conclusion that things can have form (exist) and be illusory (do not ‘really’ exist) at the same time. It has nothing to do with imagining the hidden void being representative of “ultimate” reality. In fact and otherwise, what does “does not really exist” itself imply if not some other hidden (unknown) ultimate reality?

[guest_of_logic]

Incidentally, that thread you link to above shows you in a very poor light. The incisive Jason that I used to know seems to have gone missing.

That thread was rubbish. It was hard enough wading through your clumsy misunderstandings of formlessness, let alone facing the the rest of it.

All that masturbation has evidently gone to your head. It's turned your brain to mush.

You used to have an edge and now it is gone.

I disagree entirely. As I wrote in the thread itself:

The only major contributor to this thread whose thinking has consistently impressed me is Jason.

Jason hasn't lost his edge at all. He's still as sharp as a tack, as his posts to this thread demonstrate.

[Ataraxia]

Very interesting post this one ,Dan.It gave me alot to think about and helped me to get a better undersyanding of the QSR paradigm.

Anyway,:

Oh, no, it exists. Since I have identified it as distinct from the realm of differentiated appearances, it is itself a thing that exists. Anything that is less than the Infinite totality of all that is can appear and therefore be said to exist. So, yes, this reality exists. That's all I can say about it. Think of it, say (and yes, very crudely), as a huge empty space that lies between a tapestry of complex galaxies. It exists, because it's a differentiated appearance, but that's all that can be said about it. Or, to put it in another rather crude way - the hidden void exists, but doesn't contain existence. Is that a nose-bleed?

So if I've understanding you aright,Reality could be said to consist of the sum total of all appearances(or to put it another way the entire content of consciousness) plus the 'hidden void'.Is that fair to say?

If so,that seems to me to still be 'two'.An apparent reality,of things that we perceive to exist,and 'other'. A duality.

It would also seem to follow that in a possible world(that I posited to Kevin earlier in this thread) whereby all conscious beings had been extinguished, all that would be left would be the 'hidden void';there would no longer be appearances, or 'things'.

Fair?

If so,how would 'hidden void' be any different to ,say, a deistic version of God?

[guest_of_logic]

Dan,

I very much appreciate that your post has all the hallmarks of a genuine attempt at meaningful exchange, and that it is almost entirely free of personal attacks or crude exclamations of disbelief or indignation, and I appreciate that you addressed every single one of my numbered requests for response.

As for "snipper Solway", I stated in my last post to him: "unless your next post is radically different in approach then I'll likely pull out of this conversation". It wasn't, and I have. Kevin makes no attempt to address all of the points that I raise, snipping far too many of them out of existence for the exchange to be meaningful; to take just one example: I've twice asked him for comment on the issue that I raised re processes of consciousness, and he's totally ignored me both times. In his excessive snipping he often also strips out very relevant meaning. He contradicts himself all over the place and then twists or denies meanings in an attempt to weasle out of his contradictions, rather than owning them and trying to find new ideas that resolve those contradictions. His posts are dogmatic and repetitive. In short, I have zero respect for his intellectual integrity in this thread. I could take his last post apart as I've done with of all his others, but as I wrote in my last post to him, it's like beating my head against a brick wall, and I'm done with it.

I actually think that I know why he behaves in this way. The final sentence of his last post corroborates my understanding: "You've had enough clues. Either you can work it out for yourself, or you can't." There is a certain arrogance in this statement: the subtext of it is "I'm the enlightened master and I know absolute truth: you are but a lowly seeker, and I've been generously doling out clues to help you to work out the absolute truth that I already know, but I grow impatient with your inability to think it through for yourself." In other words, he doesn't even recognise the possibility that there is anything wrong with his philosophy at all, or that I - or any other person - can have anything to contribute to his understanding of reality. It's really so ironic when you see it for what it is. In all significant respects, he's exactly like a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible: point out a contradiction in the Bible to the Christian and s/he fumbles about desperately, blurting out "Yes, but the Bible is perfect, so all that we have to do is to find the correct way to explain what appears to be but can't possibly be a contradiction". The only - insignificant - differences are that Kevin's Bible is an amalgamation of both written works and notions in his head, and that he doesn't do the blurting, but just gets straight into the contorted attempt to justify the contradiction, which attempt he doesn't even view as such, but rather views as "generously doling out wisdom to inferiors". In a way it's amusing, but it's also pathetic at the same time.

Anyway, enough personal analysis of Mr S from QRS. On to your very engaging post.

Firstly, before I embark on this reply, I want to point out what I perceive as some issues in this debate. Your are failing to recognise something extremely important - these issues and the way I address them fall across multiple metaphysical, ontological epistemological viewpoints and levels of understanding. The process of getting to my paradigm is like stepping on stones to cross a river. If you have your feet on two stones that are really different paradigms, your thinking will be confused by this.

Yeah, I've heard you (and the other two) express sentiments similar to this before: David even writes of this in WOTI itself. Kevin's last post contains something very similar: "You have to remember that WOTI is written in a step-wise fashion. It is written in a manner to dismantle different delusions at different stages. This context changes the way different ideas are expressed. David doesn't reveal the whole story all at once."

After reading through WOTI, and after following this forum for a significant period of time, I don't accept that this accurately characterises your paradigm, or, to the extent that it does, that it poses any significant barrier to understanding your paradigm. If you think that it does, then please outline what you see as the stepping stones (stages), and the way that the "metaphysical, ontological epistemological viewpoints and levels of understanding" vary between them.

Most of the time, thus far, you've been filtering my paradigm through your own, which creates a whole bunch of perceptions which are false, but which you think exist in my paradigm, per se. I'm going to point out in my reply some instances of where you're doing this and why many of your points boil down to unhelpful pedantry.

I don't accept that I have "a whole bunch of perceptions [about your paradigm] which are false", but if you want to try to demonstrate to me that I have, then OK.

Do you think the reality beyond the mind I just mentioned appeared to me?

In other words, you believe that it's possible for reality to be non-existent.

Yes, of course. Do you think it is sensible to say that the Infinite exists, for example?

To me that's a tricky question, but not for the reason that you might think it is. As I understand it, your arguments that the Infinite does not exist are both (a) that the Infinite is not a thing and that only things exist, and, (b) that existence is relative, whereas the Infinite is absolute. I accept that the relativity of existence follows from your definitions of "exist" and "thing", but I don't accept either of those definitions. My definition of existence allows for the possibility of absolute existence.

No, the reason that to me it's a tricky question is that "exists" is a present-tense verb, whereas the Infinite spans all three tenses, being an entity that contains time, rather than existing within it. If I were to be pedantic, I would argue that technically, the Infinite doesn't "exist", it "existed-exists-will-exist". Since that would be a rather awkward phrase to use, I think that it's reasonable to shorten it to "exists" alone, and therefore I ultimately do think that it's sensible to say that the Infinite exists. I'll just note in passing here that I'm using the term "the Infinite" solely as a synonym for "everything", and not because I accept that "everything" definitely actually is infinite in the sense that you guys claim to have proved it is.

That the Infinite has "actual being". What the hell does that even mean?

That's a little unfair of you. We've established that by the dictionary, and by my agreement with the dictionary, "actual being" is equivalent to "existence", and I've twice provided you with what that means to me (you've ignored me both times). Here, for the third time, is my (provisional) definition of what it means to exist (or to have "actual being"): "to exist is to possess properties or attributes".

One qualification: "actual being" could be interpreted as simply one mode of existence, out of multiple. The "actual" part implies physical existence - which to me is existence beyond the mind - whereas, for example, things that exist within the mind, like abstract concepts (it's debatable where/whether such concepts exist when no one's thinking about them, but let's not get into that debate), have ... I don't know, "subjective being" or "intangible being" or "abstract being" (off the top of my head) or something like that. In that light, the definition that I provided for "exist" in the previous paragraph doesn't strictly define "actual being", but rather "being" in general - "actual being" is in fact only a subset of the modes of existence possible by my generic definition: the mode of physical existence. I say all of this, of course, in terms of my - conventional - paradigm.

A second clarification: I've changed my mind that this should be referred to as a "definition" of "exist", due to the problem with it that I outlined when I first introduced it:

The reason that I don't think it's perfect [as a definition] is because we can ask the question "What is the state of something such that it is capable of possessing properties or attributes?" to which the answer is "That it exists", so really the existence of the thing is more fundamental than its possession of properties and attributes, but they are at least concomitant with its existence.

I've only now realised a consequence of this observation: that my "definition" should rightly be described as a test for existence, rather than as a definition of what it means to exist.

One of the reasons we have the definition of "exist" that we have is to avoid dual meanings for "exist", or contradictory meanings, where one says that a finite, contingent thing exists, but then so does the infinite and non-contingent, even though they are essentially opposites.

It doesn't seem like a very good reason to me. Why shouldn't opposites both exist? By that reasoning, the colours black and white, being opposites, shouldn't both be defined to exist.

Try and understand that even the conventional definition of "exist" connotes a dualistic state of affairs. Can you understand why that is?

I disagree that the assertion even is true though, because I believe that existence can be absolute, and hence need not connote a duality. I want to acknowledge for fairness, though, that since I first started raising this objection with you guys, I have encountered an intelligent person who, like you, maintains that the proposition that "existence (what you would call 'the Totality') exists" doesn't make sense, so I accept that opinions vary and that yours is valid too. I also accept that the sense in which the word is usually used is relative, and does, as you point out, connote duality: I just maintain that it can also be used in an absolute sense.

But Reality is not constituted of just duality, therefore "exist" is not a sufficiently useful term to speak of Reality as such. To suggest that "non-duality" exists, for example, would be entirely incoherent. If you don't see why, then there really is no hope for this discussion.

Before I take a position on the existence of "non-duality", please explain what you mean by it, or even just what you mean by "duality". I generally understand duality to mean the self-other distinction. Is that what you mean too? If not, then what are the two components of the duality?

And you seem to be incapable of seeing how appalling this abuse of language is.

There are no hard and fast rules for language.

Language is flexible, it's true - but only to a point. You guys have gone too far beyond that point.

You're like some fanatic who thinks "common usage" is the only thing that has meaning, even when it's so useless you can't do anything with it.

The common usage meaning of "exist" seems to have been sufficient for philosophers for centuries now - strong evidence that it's not actually "so useless you can't do anything with it": in fact it's a very, very powerful and flexible word when used conventionally.

Let me put it to you bluntly: reality exists by definition.

Reality is, by definition. Things exist, by definition.

It's good to get a clear confirmation that such actually are your definitions - and that they accord with what I already understood them to be.

Reality is not a thing. This is the pivotal point you need to understand - stating that Reality "exists" is actually incoherent to me. When you say "Reality", what, precisely, do you intend by the term?

Reality can mean multiple things, but two are most relevant. Firstly, it can mean "everything (that exists - by the conventional definition of "exists")", i.e. what you would refer to as "the Totality", and what I would alternatively refer to as "existence": in other words, in my lexicon, "existence", "the Totality" and "reality" can be used synonymously... but that's not the sense in which I used it above. Secondly, and in the sense in which I used it above, it can mean - in terms that have precise meaning for you - "a part of the Totality".

Not by your definition? Then when you use the word "exist", you're talking about something completely different to what everybody else is when they use the word:

How many people could tell you what they mean by "Reality" if you asked them?

Most if not all people, although the quality of their replies would no doubt vary somewhat. I also think that most (all?) non-severely-retarded people intuitively understand the meaning of the word, regardless of whether they can explicitly define it.

I mean, really tell you such that they could say whether "exist" is applicable to it, or whether "is" might be more appropriate?

I think that the vast majority of people would almost certainly tell you that "exist" and "is" are semantically equivalent.

Stop this flagrant bullshit of pretending that people have a meaningful lexicon for these things! They don't.

Most (all?) non-retarded people manage to communicate using the words just fine.

Even the dictionary doesn't, as I have emphatically demonstrated.

All you've demonstrated is that the dictionary definitions of "exist" and "be" are circular: this doesn't prove that common usage is incoherent or vague or whatever it is that you want to describe it as.

It's not equivocation to have an actually meaningful use for a word where none appeared beforehand.

It's categorically false that the word "exist" didn't have "an actually meaningful use" prior to your redefinition of it. I find it hard to believe that you make that implication and expect to be taken seriously.

The way the term "exist" is conventionally used carries almost no meaning.

That's patently false. If you'd said something about its conventional dictionary definition, then you might have had a point, but it quite obviously has a meaningful conventional use regardless of how meaningful its dictionary definition is.

Please find me a single dictionary where the provided meaning says anything like "to have being within or beyond mind or consciousness" - which is more or less the meaning you are employing.

I doubt that I could do that, because the latter part of the definition is redundant, and I can't imagine any dictionary therefore bothering to include it: "within or beyond mind or consciousness" adds no new meaning that wasn't there already, because it covers all possibilities - it would add something if it were one or the other (e.g. "to have being beyond mind or consciousness"), but not both.

Whose equivocating here?

Certainly not me: I specify in parentheses which definition I'm using when I think that it's unclear.

To say that "nothing exists beyond the mind" (in your terms) is to say nothing at all in conventional terms (because you admit to the possibility of reality beyond the mind, so in conventional terms, you nevertheless believe that things can exist beyond the mind) - and yet you parade it as some sort of profound truth.

Since I argue that "mind" is made up of all appearances, it's pretty hard for something to be an appearance beyond mind. "reality beyond mind" is a meaningful notion for me (because mind cannot constitute the Totality of all that is). "existent things" beyond mind", isn't.

That's all well and good, but it's unresponsive to the point that I was making: that you say something that sounds profound by the conventional meaning of exist but whose meaning given your definition of "exist" is not profound: you reap the benefits of sounding profound, without actually saying anything profound, through a subtle equivocation. But maybe I'm being a little unfair, because so far you haven't given me a description of this "reality beyond the mind" beyond that "It's real", so presumably there isn't really all that much to it, and therefore essentially, even in conventional terms, you are actually saying that "nothing exists beyond the mind", and it is reasonably profound (even though part of an incoherent platform) after all.

(1) Please describe this reality beyond the mind.

It's real.

Please describe its properties/attributes/characteristics.

(2) How do we refer to the ontological state of this reality under your paradigm? We can't say that it "exists" - must we then say that it "is"?

Oh, no, it exists.

Right there at the start there is where you screw yourself. If it exists, then, by your definition/assertion - as I've pointed out by quoting David in WOTI innumerable times already in this thread, so please don't force me to do it again - it is within the mind, because things can only exist within the mind. But at the same time it is beyond the mind (because that's what we are talking about: "reality beyond the mind"). It can't be both at once. The only ways that I can see to resolve this contradiction are to (a) return to a conventional paradigm in which it actually is beyond the mind, but presents a corresponding appearance within the mind, or (b) to return to a conventional definition of "exists" whereby things can exist outside of the mind.

Since I have identified it as distinct from the realm of differentiated appearances, it is itself a thing that exists.

That sentence is false, given your definitions. An appearance occurs necessarily and only within the mind, and likewise for things, yet here we are talking about reality beyond the mind (as you confirmed by: "distinct from the realm of differentiated appearances") so it by definition (yours) cannot be a thing, and cannot exist, yet you somehow draw the opposite conclusion: that "it is itself a thing that exists".

Anything that is less than the Infinite totality of all that is can appear and therefore be said to exist. So, yes, this reality exists.

If anything can appear, then everything exists - that is to say, is within the mind - in which case there is no such thing as this "reality beyond the mind". You want to have your cake and eat it too.

That's all I can say about it.

I hope that there's actually more, because what you've said doesn't make any sense.

Or, to put it in another rather crude way - the hidden void exists, but doesn't contain existence. Is that a nose-bleed?

No, it's just further demonstration that you guys as a whole don't have a consistent terminology. Witness, in one of David's earlier posts in this thread, that he contradicts your position on the existence of the hidden void:

Ultimately, of course, the hidden void doesn't really exist

You say "the hidden void exists"; David says "the hidden void doesn't really exist". Who's right?

And what does David mean by the qualifiers "ultimately" and "really"? Are there other, qualified, definitions of "exist" aside from the unqualified one that you've made explicit - "appears in the mind"? Where are they in WOTI?

I was specifically asking you about your belief in the existence of your consciousness. So that's my first question: (3) do you believe that your consciousness exists?

My consciousness exists if it appears - surely by now you knew you'd get that answer? In the greater tapestry of what appears, "my consciousness" might also appear, in which case it exists.

But what "appears" is within consciousness, so you're saying that consciousness is within itself, which is an incoherent notion. Is it possible that instead you mean that consciousness is in the 'reality beyond the mind' that you referred to earlier?

Since you make a point of emphasising that you don't believe in your consciousness, then kindly answer my second question: (4) do you believe that consciousness exists at all?

Hmm, do you mean consciousness or consciousness? There's two ways of thinking about this: 1) consciousness as the totality of all appearances (the equivalent of existence), wherein when I think about all that appears I can't help but include all things, even the appearance of "me" and my own mind in the greater tapestry of appearances, which includes any appearances of a source for consciousness (you must think outside the subjective/objective dichotomy to grasp this view);

The same point as above applies: this reduces to the incoherent notion that "consciousness is within itself".

2) and consciousness as specifically identified forms relating to certain other forms (i.e. the conventional notion of consciousness arising from a person or sentient being). Obviously in the latter sense these forms exist, under either of our paradigms.

You're still not saying anything that suggests a model other than the incoherent one that I noted above: "consciousness is within itself".

In the former sense, your question would be the equivalent of asking, "Does existence, exist?" Do you think that's a coherent question?

Yes, I do think that it's coherent. My answer is "yes". I understand that some people (including, I think, you) would argue that existence (in the sense of a quality) is a property of existence (in the sense of "all of reality"), and therefore cannot be applied to existence itself (in the second sense of the word), but I see no reason why the quality of existence cannot be absolute, in which case it need not be a property of a larger whole.

You obviously know I don't believe that I exist in the conventional sense, having any inherent reality or there being some "source" from which my identity (or consciousness) arises. The "appearance" of a me, and of a consciousness associated with that me, certainly exists.

This again implies the same incoherence: "consciousness is within itself".

Would it be closer to say your consciousness is an emergent property of the bag of blood, bones and shit that is your physical self?

Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not: I have no particularly strong belief on whether consciousness is emergent or inhabiting, or something else, but I do tend to distrust the emergent explanation.

I don't come from that paradigm. There is no subjective/objective duality for me.

And yet you believe that there is a reality (objective) beyond the conscious mind (subjective): hence a duality and you're contradicting yourself.

Wow, talk about the most perfect example of you projecting your concepts and paradigm onto my words. This is it.

We'll see.

Let's break it down, yo:

And yet you believe that there is a reality (objective) beyond

That's your paradigm speaking there, not mine. I didn't call the reality beyond the mind "objective".

Yes you did:

(7) Does "objectively real" mean "beyond the mind"?

Yes, it means that in the conventional sense; a thing has "being" even where no mind is involved. Or, if you like, it is not just a product of one's mind.

Moving on:

the conscious mind (subjective): hence a duality and you're contradicting yourself.

Given what I just explained, this would make things subjective and objective at the same time.

Your explanation didn't make sense to me, given that, as I pointed out, it implies the incoherence of "consciousness is within itself", so I can't take it as given.

I'm pretty sure I suggested you think that the subjective/objective dichotomy. I'm pretty sure you didn't.

I've previously thought about it from my perspective, and I saw no need to go over old ground, so yes, your suspicion that I didn't is correct - I can't think about it from your perspective because right now your perspective is incoherent to me and therefore I don't even know what it is.

"appearances are consciousness" means that the set of all appearances is consciousness (or existence, or, if you like, existence and consciousness are made up of appearances).

But at the same time you maintain that "consciousness appears (within consciousness)", so again you're implying the incoherence of "consciousness is within itself".

Appearances within consciousness refers to specific things that appear within the set. But, there's a step between the objective/subjective duality, where most people reside, and the one beyond it where the use of this phrase can get blurred. It depends where they are at as to what you tell them it refers to. It isn't necessary to invent a whole new language, as you keep arguing, it just requires intelligence. Nothing more.

OK, here are my key questions. If you respond to nothing else in this post, then please respond to these.

I understand that your contention is that existence consists of the complete set of all appearances within consciousness. But whose consciousness? Yours? Mine? Or is there a universal consciousness that they all appear within? And if so, then how do our individual consciousnesses relate to that universal consciousness? And if not, then how do our individual consciousness relate to one another - i.e. what are they in (in conventional terms, I would have phrased that as "what do they exist in") given that it's nonsensical to posit that they exist within each other or within themselves?

[guest_of_logic]

David,

You suggested that I present the most important problem that I identified in my original post. Before doing that (actually I'll combine two) I'm going to summarise all of the problems that I identified, so that they don't get forgotten. Feel free to also respond to them here. You can refer back to my original post to see where I explain each of them in full:

1. You fail to prove that things only exist in the mind - or even to demonstrate that this is a more plausible position than the conventional position: in the end it simply amounts to you asserting/defining it to be true (your supposed proof relies on a premise that you merely assert to be true when intuitively it is false: that form does not exist outside of the mind).
2. You contradict yourself on the origins of consciousness, saying in one place that consciousness evolved, and in another that you have "no idea" how it "initially [sprang] into being".
3. If consciousness did evolve, as is one of your claims, then there could have been nothing for it to have evolved in, given that existence is dependent on consciousness.
4. You argue that the Big Bang would exist if we time-travelled back to it, but since there is no evidence for backwards time travel, and good evidence against it, the likelihood is that the Big Bang actually does not exist in your terms.
5. You describe the universe as a group of "isolated constructions of consciousness", which (I initially thought, but see my later acknowledgement) implies that beyond each individual consciousness lie all of the other individual consciousnesses, which entails that outside of an individual consciousness at least all of those other consciousnesses must exist, which contradicts your assertion that nothing exists beyond the mind. I want to acknowledge that since identifying this problem, I have found another way to interpret the phrase that I primarily based it on, "each bubble [is] an isolated construction of consciousness": it is possible to interpret it as meaning that there is only one consciousness, which creates a whole lot of separate constructions within itself. If that's the case, though, then you haven't explained how it is that we each experience a separate consciousness if there is in fact only one universal consciousness within which each of our "constructions" exists.
6. If these "constructions of consciousness" are "isolated" as you describe them, then how is it that people can communicate and experience a mutually consistent reality?
7. If nothing exists outside of consciousness, then nothing could cause the death/destruction of consciousness (except for self-willed suicide), and yet you do not deny that non-suicidal death occurs, and indeed you even discuss the possibility that all consciousness could be extinguished from reality, and I don't imagine that by that you mean mass self-willed suicide.
8. You provide no explanation as to how/why - if the "constructions of consciousness" are created by the hidden void, as you later claim they are - it is arranged that the creation of a new construction of consciousness always corresponds with the gestation of a foetus, and gets associated with a body.
9. The hidden void suffers from the same logical problems as a creative deity, and for the same reasons, is unnecessary and lacks explanatory power.

The most important problems to me - or at least the ones that I want to focus on first - are (5) and (6), so please respond to them.

[David Quinn]

It's not really a paradox, though. There is nothing contradictory in acknowledging that the hidden void is just as illusory and empty as everything else. The "paradox" only arises when you imagine that the hidden void should exclusively represent ultimate reality. It doesn't.’’

No, the paradox arises in the conclusion that things can have form (exist) and be illusory (do not ‘really’ exist) at the same time. It has nothing to do with imagining the hidden void being representative of “ultimate” reality.

It's the same thing, really. We have no problem acknowledging the existence of a mirage, which has form and yet is an illusion. Impressions of a "paradox" only begin to arise the moment we imagine the mirage is more than an illusion.

Once it is realized that reality has no form, the very source of paradox evaporates.

In fact and otherwise, what does “does not really exist” itself imply if not some other hidden (unknown) ultimate reality?

Whatever "hidden reality" we care to point to will also fall into the category of an illusion. That's the hidden reality.

-

[David Quinn]

The only major contributor to this thread whose thinking has consistently impressed me is Jason.

Jason hasn't lost his edge at all. He's still as sharp as a tack, as his posts to this thread demonstrate.

This is no surprise. His mushy thinking echoes your own naivity in these matters.

David,

You suggested that I present the most important problem that I identified in my original post. Before doing that (actually I'll combine two) I'm going to summarise all of the problems that I identified, so that they don't get forgotten. Feel free to also respond to them here. You can refer back to my original post to see where I explain each of them in full:

1. You fail to prove that things only exist in the mind - or even to demonstrate that this is a more plausible position than the conventional position: in the end it simply amounts to you asserting/defining it to be true (your supposed proof relies on a premise that you merely assert to be true when intuitively it is false: that form does not exist outside of the mind).
2. You contradict yourself on the origins of consciousness, saying in one place that consciousness evolved, and in another that you have "no idea" how it "initially [sprang] into being".
3. If consciousness did evolve, as is one of your claims, then there could have been nothing for it to have evolved in, given that existence is dependent on consciousness.
4. You argue that the Big Bang would exist if we time-travelled back to it, but since there is no evidence for backwards time travel, and good evidence against it, the likelihood is that the Big Bang actually does not exist in your terms.
5. You describe the universe as a group of "isolated constructions of consciousness", which (I initially thought, but see my later acknowledgement) implies that beyond each individual consciousness lie all of the other individual consciousnesses, which entails that outside of an individual consciousness at least all of those other consciousnesses must exist, which contradicts your assertion that nothing exists beyond the mind. I want to acknowledge that since identifying this problem, I have found another way to interpret the phrase that I primarily based it on, "each bubble [is] an isolated construction of consciousness": it is possible to interpret it as meaning that there is only one consciousness, which creates a whole lot of separate constructions within itself. If that's the case, though, then you haven't explained how it is that we each experience a separate consciousness if there is in fact only one universal consciousness within which each of our "constructions" exists.
6. If these "constructions of consciousness" are "isolated" as you describe them, then how is it that people can communicate and experience a mutually consistent reality?
7. If nothing exists outside of consciousness, then nothing could cause the death/destruction of consciousness (except for self-willed suicide), and yet you do not deny that non-suicidal death occurs, and indeed you even discuss the possibility that all consciousness could be extinguished from reality, and I don't imagine that by that you mean mass self-willed suicide.
8. You provide no explanation as to how/why - if the "constructions of consciousness" are created by the hidden void, as you later claim they are - it is arranged that the creation of a new construction of consciousness always corresponds with the gestation of a foetus, and gets associated with a body.
9. The hidden void suffers from the same logical problems as a creative deity, and for the same reasons, is unnecessary and lacks explanatory power.

The most important problems to me - or at least the ones that I want to focus on first - are (5) and (6), so please respond to them.

Okay, we'll start with (5) and (6):

5. You describe the universe as a group of "isolated constructions of consciousness", which (I initially thought, but see my later acknowledgement) implies that beyond each individual consciousness lie all of the other individual consciousnesses, which entails that outside of an individual consciousness at least all of those other consciousnesses must exist, which contradicts your assertion that nothing exists beyond the mind. I want to acknowledge that since identifying this problem, I have found another way to interpret the phrase that I primarily based it on, "each bubble [is] an isolated construction of consciousness": it is possible to interpret it as meaning that there is only one consciousness, which creates a whole lot of separate constructions within itself. If that's the case, though, then you haven't explained how it is that we each experience a separate consciousness if there is in fact only one universal consciousness within which each of our "constructions" exists.
6. If these "constructions of consciousness" are "isolated" as you describe them, then how is it that people can communicate and experience a mutually consistent reality?

I meant it in the sense that it is impossible for anyone to jump outside of their consciousness and peek at lies what beyond - including other people's fields of consciousness. Each of us is confined to our respective bubbles of consciousness in that respect.

How do these bubbles communicate? Well, each person in his bubble perceives the actions and words of other people within the bubble, interprets their meaning as best he can and responds accordingly. If he is insightful enough, he will realize that he doesn't really know if these other people and their bubbles really exist (outside his bubble). At the same time, he has no choice but to respond to these people's actions within his bubble because they are there and seemingly impacting on his person.

When I think of consciousness in regards to this matter, I'm not really thinking of my own consciousness as such, but rather the sum total of all consciousnesses. I don't really know whether these other consciousnesses exist, but if they do, they necessarily fit into the general concept of consciousness. Hence, your charge that I am a solipsist is incorrect.

-

[Jason]

How do you account for the existence of consciousness then? What gave rise to it?

Consciousness(all appearances) can, in principle, be identical with the Totality, ie be literally all that there is. So there is nothing in principle that needs to give rise to it.

"In principle" is a very weak platform to stand on. Any scenario could exist "in principle".

Yet again your reply is irrelevant and driven by basic misunderstanding and ignorance of my argument. "In principle", as I have been using the term, does not mean that any scenario could exist. It means the exact opposite, in fact.

All it takes is the existence of something which doesn't constitute an appearance and your entire philosophy goes down the gurgler.

More confusion from you. It's not my philosophy, David. What it actually is is the result of my critical exploration of your philosophy.

Yes it is necessary. You claimed to have read the thread that I linked to, and then proceeded to pronounce that the thread showed me in a "very poor light", yet your continuing posts to me in this thread show that you are entirely unaware of the actual arguments I made in that other thread! So you must be a bit slow(or, heaven forbid, a liar!)

That thread was rubbish. It was hard enough wading through your clumsy misunderstandings of formlessness, let alone facing the the rest of it.

All that masturbation has evidently gone to your head. It's turned your brain to mush.

You used to have an edge and now it is gone.

These crass insults and ad hominem are not valid counterarguments David, and they reflect very poorly upon you indeed.

[Leyla Shen]

Yet, a mirage appearing as an illusion in illusion (accepting the idea "all things are illusory" rather than "all things lack inherent existence") is still a mirage, by definition and in reality. There IS a distinction.

Whatever "hidden reality" we care to point to will also fall into the category of an illusion. That's the hidden reality.

[laughs] Did you type that with a straight finger?

I suppose you're going to tell me that's not a paradox, either. If it is true that whatever hidden reality we care to point to is "also" in the category of an illusion then the reality you just cared to point to as hidden is the illusion. I don't have a problem with that. Do you? However, I thought we were speaking about the hidden void; at no time in my mind were the two (hidden void and hidden reality) exactly the same thing! Even assuming a hidden void, there is still an unhidden aspect to, if you like, "ultimate" reality.

So, what's your definition of paradox?

[Leyla Shen]

PS: It's the "no mountain" phase, David.

[Leyla Shen]

PPS: What, in particular, might you look for in recognising the need to go back to the mountain?

[skipair]

Guestoflogic, I like your posts. I think you have a sharp mind and I like your confidence in a fight. I think maybe you've focused too much on the "fight" aspect though, as if first order of business is to disagree, second order to have an open mind. Not that I think your mind is closed. Far from it. But in regard to your interactions, there is a strong undercurrent of debate that ruins the chance for totally honest contemplation on the issues.

I think you've proved your point that when you drill someone on what exactly they mean by words they end up in equivocation, contradiciton, or some other senselessness. This is always what happens since definitions are basically circular. Words are mere describers of perspectives, just like a grunt or a glance of the eye, and they do not contain meaning in themselves. So it's ok when they fall short of revealing what we really mean, because we know they can only do so much, and indeed that they will always fall short. Language is a communication tool and that is all.

Experiment with easing up on your semantic refining of other people's words. Understanding isn't reached like this. You have to refine what you mean by your own words.