Philosophy, science, religion and art:

[jupiviv]

People have written volumes of books on the relationships between these varied fields, but I may well be exploring the relationships between these things for the first time with any degree of sincerity.

What philosophy and science have in common is a relation(specifically a conscious relation) to duality, or space(logic.) Religion and art, on the other hand, are related to time, as they both involve creation(or causality.) Philosophy attempts to realise the whole of space, whereas science attempts to realise the particulars of space. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and never absolute, because it is never spoken for by the whole of space. Philosophy, however, consults the whole of space before passing its judgement. An objection that may be posed to this is that science and philosophy always seek the causes of something, like the causes of light, or the Battle of Gettysberg, or love, so they must also involve a relationship to time. Science is necessarily related to time in that it has to believe in the truth(only time can decide what is true and what is false) of logic(and, ultimately, because consciousness must be of time and space both), but it is not concerned about whether the things that it examines will/should exist in the future, or should have existed in the past.

Religion attempts to become conscious of the entire of time, whereas art is concerned with only fragments of time. There is too much filth in what is called religion and art(as in science and philosophy) for me to deal with them in order to separate them from what I say here. Books like the Dhammapada, Thus Spake Zarathustra and the Bhagavad Gita can be rightly called works of religion. On the other hand, the works of people like Shakespeare, Beethoven and Oscar Wilde may be called works of art(or the closest thing to them.) Of course, one can consider the poems written by Nietzsche and Hakuin to be art too, although I’d say they are philosophical-religious in nature. Religion is concerned with what is true for all time, and what should be true for all time. It seeks to bring the entire of causality into the narrowness of consciousness. The problem of religion is ethics, and truth. Just as science is a subset of philosophy, so also art is a subset of religion. Art is concerned with only a stretch of time. The works of Shakespeare would hold true only as long as the human race lives, or only as long as there is love, or only as long as things like honour and courage is considered valuable. Genuine Zen koans, however, or the Gospel of Thomas, will be true for all time.

Both religion and art are basically the ego as will. They talk about what will be true, as opposed to what will be false. Morality of course brings in the “should”, but there is no difference between what will be and what ought to be. People who are concerned about what ought to be simply aren’t conscious enough of time. This is the solution to the problem of ethics.

Scientific experiments are an example of art being used with the purpose of doing science, whereas technology is an example of science being used to the purpose of art.

As time and space are simply two aspects of the consciousness of Reality, the most conscious person is at the same time the greatest artist, the greatest scientist, the greatest philosopher and the most devoted person.

[Kelly Jones]

People have written volumes of books on the relationships between these varied fields, but I may well be exploring the relationships between these things for the first time with any degree of sincerity.

It's a little difficult to know what you're talking about, because all these things interrelate.

Perhaps some simpler definitions would be useful, although you mightn't like the appearance of finitising them:
Philosophy: absolute definitive logical understanding of the Totality
Science: tentative hypotheses on the evolution of finite aspects of the Totality
Religion: science of philosophical consciousness (the evolution of the philosophical mind)
Art: vehicles of religion (temporary abodes)

What philosophy and science have in common is a relation(specifically a conscious relation) to duality, or space(logic.) Religion and art, on the other hand, are related to time, as they both involve creation(or causality.) Philosophy attempts to realise the whole of space, whereas science attempts to realise the particulars of space. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and never absolute, because it is never spoken for by the whole of space. Philosophy, however, consults the whole of space before passing its judgement.

I think by space you mean the totality of what exists, such that "space" is an abstraction meaning totality, not a physical space but a philosophical concept of "all". That's a timeless concept.

An objection that may be posed to this is that science and philosophy always seek the causes of something, like the causes of light, or the Battle of Gettysberg, or love, so they must also involve a relationship to time.

Philosophers wish to know what the meaning of something is, which is also the causes, but such an understanding is timeless. What causes love, really means, what is love, in a totally definitive sense.

As science looks at how something develops to exist, trying to find points of connection between more permanent and massive "entities", it creates an itinerary, or a history, thus time. Its concepts exist spatially in the same way philosophers' do.

Science is necessarily related to time in that it has to believe in the truth(only time can decide what is true and what is false) of logic(and, ultimately, because consciousness must be of time and space both), but it is not concerned about whether the things that it examines will/should exist in the future, or should have existed in the past.

Science requires the abstract lifecycle of what is being examined to develop through time, and it looks for evidence for those points of history, and it also waits for evidence for successful predictions. This is just another way of saying that science looks at evolution (not necessarily in a "biological" sense).

Religion attempts to become conscious of the entire of time, whereas art is concerned with only fragments of time.

I'm not sure if you're saying that religion aims for consciousness of the entirety of evolution, i.e. a position in time, or of what is timeless. If the former, it's just a broader perspective of science. If the latter, it's the same as philosophy. I think you might be taking the former position, owing to your statement about ethics below (which I agree with) but it's not clear.

There is too much filth in what is called religion and art(as in science and philosophy) for me to deal with them in order to separate them from what I say here. Books like the Dhammapada, Thus Spake Zarathustra and the Bhagavad Gita can be rightly called works of religion. On the other hand, the works of people like Shakespeare, Beethoven and Oscar Wilde may be called works of art(or the closest thing to them.) Of course, one can consider the poems written by Nietzsche and Hakuin to be art too, although I’d say they are philosophical-religious in nature. Religion is concerned with what is true for all time, and what should be true for all time. It seeks to bring the entire of causality into the narrowness of consciousness. The problem of religion is ethics, and truth. Just as science is a subset of philosophy, so also art is a subset of religion. Art is concerned with only a stretch of time. The works of Shakespeare would hold true only as long as the human race lives, or only as long as there is love, or only as long as things like honour and courage is considered valuable. Genuine Zen koans, however, or the Gospel of Thomas, will be true for all time.

I think you're just doubling philosophy and science here, but trying to shift from space (logic) to time (evolution/causality). Art isn't a subset of philosophy, like a finitising method of understanding aspects of religion. It is timeless also, in how it tries to abstract a concept and present the entity. That's why there is so much religious art, that tries to present a timeless concept by figuring it. The figures chosen may seem highly impermanent, and to have no meaning outside of their context, but that is only the appearance. The meaning behind the figures is timeless, not altering, because they are abstractions. They are not timeless in time.

Both religion and art are basically the ego as will. They talk about what will be true, as opposed to what will be false. Morality of course brings in the “should”, but there is no difference between what will be and what ought to be. People who are concerned about what ought to be simply aren’t conscious enough of time. This is the solution to the problem of ethics.

I don't really agree with this. Wise consciousness values making decisions that assist in promoting wisdom, and that is a "should" without ego, since there is no certainty that promoting wisdom will be. Ethics is part of religion (as indicated in my definitions given above), but since religion is about the process of becoming wise, then it's not ego as will, but the increasingly egoless consciousness and what values and decisions it makes.

Scientific experiments are an example of art being used with the purpose of doing science, whereas technology is an example of science being used to the purpose of art.

Not if your previous definition of art being "the ego as will" is true.

As time and space are simply two aspects of the consciousness of Reality, the most conscious person is at the same time the greatest artist, the greatest scientist, the greatest philosopher and the most devoted person.

But you said that art is a subset of religion, and that religion contains several errors.




This may interest you: the Stoic's four categories, quality, quantity, relation, modality.

Quantity. Unity — plurality — totality /universality / allness
Quality. Reality; negation; limitation
Relation. Inherence and substance; causality and dependence; interaction.
Modality. Possibility, impossibility — being, non-being; necessity, chance.

Judgments
According to quality: affirmative, negative, infinite.
According to quantity: singular, particular, general.
According to relation: categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive.
According to modality: assertive, problematic, apodictic.

Conclusions
According to quality: of individuality, of particularity, of universality
Quantity: of totality, analogy, induction.
Relation: categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive.

.

[jupiviv]

Philosophy: absolute definitive logical understanding of the Totality
Science: tentative hypotheses on the evolution of finite aspects of the Totality
Religion: science of philosophical consciousness (the evolution of the philosophical mind)
Art: vehicles of religion (temporary abodes)

I would say that philosophy and religion together form a complete understanding of the Totality. Jnana(knowledge) and bhakti(belief).

I think by space you mean the totality of what exists, such that "space" is an abstraction meaning totality, not a physical space but a philosophical concept of "all". That's a timeless concept.

Yes, I mean the totality of all that exists in space(in the present), but it also includes physical space. But because I'm excluding causality(time), it's not the infinite. It does not include the things that have existed, or will exist.

Philosophers wish to know what the meaning of something is, which is also the causes, but such an understanding is timeless. What causes love, really means, what is love, in a totally definitive sense.

Philosophers believe in logic(believe that a thing has causes), so they can't just be philosophers. Similarly with scientists.

Science requires the abstract lifecycle of what is being examined to develop through time, and it looks for evidence for those points of history, and it also waits for evidence for successful predictions. This is just another way of saying that science looks at evolution (not necessarily in a "biological" sense).

Science looks at evolution in space. It does not try to create something new, but rather examines what's already there. If evidence is lacking for something, a scientist won't try to create new evidence. Same with philosophy - if some philosophical concept appears faulty to a philosopher, he'll just ignore it.

I'm not sure if you're saying that religion aims for consciousness of the entirety of evolution, i.e. a position in time, or of what is timeless.

The entirety of evolution(causality) would be the entirety of time, and that, combined with the entirety of space, would be the "All"(the timeless, as you say.)

If the former, it's just a broader perspective of science. If the latter, it's the same as philosophy. I think you might be taking the former position, owing to your statement about ethics below (which I agree with) but it's not clear.

I mentioned that all of these things are part of consciousness, so none of them are mutually exclusive. That was precisely the delusion that I targeted - people tend to view these things as inherently different from each other.

Wise consciousness values making decisions that assist in promoting wisdom, and that is a "should" without ego, since there is no certainty that promoting wisdom will be.

If a person is wise(conscious) then he is promoting wisdom by default. By "ego" I mean the consciousness of self(and not self.)

Scientific experiments are an example of art being used with the purpose of doing science, whereas technology is an example of science being used to the purpose of art.

Not if your previous definition of art being "the ego as will" is true.

Again, you can't think of these things as being inherently distinct. The distinctions I make are only valid in the context of those distinctions.

[Anders Schlander]

science believes that there 'could' be causes, but they are never certain about the exact causes, philosophy says that a thing has causes by a finite-existence's definition of being bounded. The latter is something that is always true, it doesn't require belief to be true. So they don't belief that a thing has causes. You say they belief in logic, but you don't require belief to see that a thing appears as what it appears as. Neither do u need belief that there is the appearance of you thinking about an absolute truth.

By the certainty of thought of an absolute truth appearing, you can also be certain that it is an absolute truth, since it doesn't matter whether you are hallucinating or not, u can't change the truth of it without changing the definition of finite.

Belief isn't needed in the act of philosophy, but perhaps in the science that takes you through philosophy.

[Kelly Jones]

Philosophy: absolute definitive logical understanding of the Totality
Science: tentative hypotheses on the evolution of finite aspects of the Totality
Religion: science of philosophical consciousness (the evolution of the philosophical mind)
Art: vehicles of religion (temporary abodes)

I would say that philosophy and religion together form a complete understanding of the Totality. Jnana(knowledge) and bhakti(belief).

I don't know why you believe philosophy is equivalent to knowledge, and religion to belief/devotion. How is it possible to separate philosophy (love of wisdom) from devotion and application? I really don't know what you mean by philosophy or religion. Honestly.

Kelly: I think by space you mean the totality of what exists, such that "space" is an abstraction meaning totality, not a physical space but a philosophical concept of "all". That's a timeless concept.

Jupviv: Yes, I mean the totality of all that exists in space(in the present), but it also includes physical space. But because I'm excluding causality(time), it's not the infinite. It does not include the things that have existed, or will exist.

Are you saying philosophy is not about the Infinite? Earlier you said philosophy has a conscious relation to duality, or space, which you now define as "the present". That automatically includes the past (since the present is what the past has made), and duality creates of that summa the future. How can that space of all time concepts not be not-finite? How can the Infinite not be the same as a "space" of all time? Space just means an area of some kind. It could be the space of time, ie. that area including all changes.

And, the concept of physical space automatically includes causality, because for there to be a logical definition of physical vs. metaphysical space, there is a contraposition of two abstractions, which is causality. Causality is not a linear domino-effect, necessarily. Causality itself is timeless, although the divisions we can conceive of generate movement (time).

Jupiviv: An objection that may be posed to this is that science and philosophy always seek the causes of something, like the causes of light, or the Battle of Gettysberg, or love, so they must also involve a relationship to time.

Kelly: Philosophers wish to know what the meaning of something is, which is also the causes, but such an understanding is timeless. What causes love, really means, what is love, in a totally definitive sense.

Jupiviv: Philosophers believe in logic(believe that a thing has causes), so they can't just be philosophers. Similarly with scientists.

That doesn't appear to answer my point. Perhaps you ought to have first clarified why you thought the causes of love were a philosophical investigation.

Kelly: Science requires the abstract lifecycle of what is being examined to develop through time, and it looks for evidence for those points of history, and it also waits for evidence for successful predictions. This is just another way of saying that science looks at evolution (not necessarily in a "biological" sense).

Jupiviv: Science looks at evolution in space. It does not try to create something new, but rather examines what's already there. If evidence is lacking for something, a scientist won't try to create new evidence. Same with philosophy - if some philosophical concept appears faulty to a philosopher, he'll just ignore it.

How can there be evolution only in the present without regard to the past?

Kelly: I'm not sure if you're saying that religion aims for consciousness of the entirety of evolution, i.e. a position in time, or of what is timeless.

Jupiviv: The entirety of evolution(causality) would be the entirety of time, and that, combined with the entirety of space, would be the "All"(the timeless, as you say.)

Earlier you said philosophy is about the totality of what exists in space (now plus what exists "physically"/scientifically). But you qualified it by saying some philosophical questions examined the evolution of things in time, e.g. love. And, here you seem to say that philosophy is different from religion since religion is about what philosophy is about, plus the totality of causality. But then, if so, the only difference between them is that philosophy doesn't examine the interrelationships of all things causally, according to you. Yet, I deny that it's possible to examine things philosophically without a relationship to the Infinite.

Kelly: If the former, it's just a broader perspective of science. If the latter, it's the same as philosophy. I think you might be taking the former position, owing to your statement about ethics below (which I agree with) but it's not clear.

Jupiviv: I mentioned that all of these things are part of consciousness, so none of them are mutually exclusive. That was precisely the delusion that I targeted - people tend to view these things as inherently different from each other.

The thing is, it's not clear what you're actually saying in this thread. All your terms seem to be duplicating each other. I don't think such slipperiness is necessary or helpful. It's very easy to define things in a slippery way, duplicating or switching attributions so as to indicate that all definitions are relative. It is easy enough to indicate that with definitions. What are you really trying to achieve?

Jupiviv: Both religion and art are basically the ego as will. They talk about what will be true, as opposed to what will be false. Morality of course brings in the “should”, but there is no difference between what will be and what ought to be. People who are concerned about what ought to be simply aren’t conscious enough of time. This is the solution to the problem of ethics.

Kelly: Wise consciousness values making decisions that assist in promoting wisdom, and that is a "should" without ego, since there is no certainty that promoting wisdom will be.

Jupiviv: If a person is wise(conscious) then he is promoting wisdom by default. By "ego" I mean the consciousness of self(and not self.)

The statement "there is no difference between what will be and what ought to be" wasn't absolutely true. That's all I was trying to point out.

Scientific experiments are an example of art being used with the purpose of doing science, whereas technology is an example of science being used to the purpose of art.

Kelly: Not if your previous definition of art being "the ego as will" is true.

Jupiviv: Again, you can't think of these things as being inherently distinct. The distinctions I make are only valid in the context of those distinctions.

I'm not thinking of things as inherently distinct. I'm only trying to point out logical issues with your definitions, since if they're not logical, then they're not valid and there's no point using them.

.

[Kelly Jones]

science believes that there 'could' be causes, but they are never certain about the exact causes,

Science says something is happening that requires an explanation, and that position definitely asserts that there are causes. There's no "could" about it. And "belief" makes no sense in relation to causation, only in regard to successfully revelatory findings.

The silly scientist will assert that they're not sure whether anything is caused, but they really mean they're not sure what findings will be revealed. Or otherwise, they believe that once they find something out, then that constitutes a proof of causation, as if it is evidence for causation. That's just foolishness. As you wrote "you don't require belief to see that a thing appears as what it appears as." (And nothing can be an appearance/proof of causation).

Belief isn't needed in the act of philosophy, but perhaps in the science that takes you through philosophy.

If there's evidence of how to make progress, then, as you said before, you don't require belief to see that a thing appears as what it appears as. One might rather say that one needs to have courage to take risks, to test inferences about what might work when nothing else has.

.

[jupiviv]

I don't know why you believe philosophy is equivalent to knowledge, and religion to belief/devotion. How is it possible to separate philosophy (love of wisdom) from devotion and application? I really don't know what you mean by philosophy or religion. Honestly.

I'm separating the two aspects of consciousness - consciousness of duality and causality. You can see this distinction made between devotion and knowledge as two aspects of perfect consciousness in most wise texts. I'm just spelling it out more clearly.

Are you saying philosophy is not about the Infinite?

Not by itself.

Earlier you said philosophy has a conscious relation to duality, or space, which you now define as "the present".

Space can only exist in the present. The space of the past and future do not exist now, by definition.

Causality itself is timeless, although the divisions we can conceive of generate movement (time).

I don't understand what exactly you mean by "timeless." I would say that time itself is causality, and time is definitely not timeless.

Jupiviv: Philosophers believe in logic(believe that a thing has causes), so they can't just be philosophers. Similarly with scientists.

That doesn't appear to answer my point. Perhaps you ought to have first clarified why you thought the causes of love were a philosophical investigation.

I expanded on what I meant here later in my post, when I said that philosophy, religion etc. cannot occur separately, as they are all part of the consciousness of a person.

How can there be evolution only in the present without regard to the past?

There can't be, but that is a matter of belief, not knowing. You can never know whether there were causes for something, or whether it will have effects. To know this, you have to prove it, but you can't, since those causes aren't here now. People deny the causes of so many things all the time. At least 50% of what we call history is probably either half-true or completely false.

I deny that it's possible to examine things philosophically without a relationship to the Infinite.

I never said anything to the contrary. I specifically mentioned that all of these things are part of consciousness, so none of them can occur separately from the other.

All your terms seem to be duplicating each other.

I don't believe so. You are trying to apply them to each other in a way that I didn't intend. You have to first clearly understand what I mean by all those terms. I'll respond to one of the duplications you pointed out that I didn't respond to:

Earlier you said philosophy has a conscious relation to duality, or space, which you now define as "the present". That automatically includes the past (since the present is what the past has made), and duality creates of that summa the future. How can that space of all time concepts not be not-finite? How can the Infinite not be the same as a "space" of all time?

What space of all time? Space and time are different things. And a concept of time is not the same as time itself.

Space just means an area of some kind. It could be the space of time, ie. that area including all changes.

An area cannot "include" all changes(causes). If it included all changes(causes), then what caused it to include all causes.

The statement "there is no difference between what will be and what ought to be" wasn't absolutely true.

Why? If I predict that something will be a certain way, and it turns out to be another way, then that is how it is.

Set thy heart upon thy work, but never on its reward. Work not for a reward; but never cease to do thy work. - Gita.

[Anders Schlander]

I was trying to say that science is based on belief on causation working a certain way, it is really a belief, or a calculated guess, when i said 'could be causes', i meant 'could be specific causes'. I agree with you that science actually works on the premise that there are causes, otherwise the whole process would be meaningless.




Causation as you say, can't be grasped and is neccesarily timeless, all the searches for a theory for everything always fails in a dualistic framework, and that is what many foolish scientists hope for. Going by one part of Reality is not enough to explain causation, so you will always lack a complete picture. To explain all of causation is impossible, since the explanation would be part of causation, if you will, u can't 'be' outside of causation and still sucessfully explain it, so we all deal with limitations in science.

[jupiviv]

science believes that there 'could' be causes

No, science believes in causality, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to do science. The particular causes within causality are what science finds out.

philosophy says that a thing has causes by a finite-existence's definition of being bounded. The latter is something that is always true, it doesn't require belief to be true.

You say that the latter is always true and doesn't require belief. Can you prove that? If not, then you are only believing in it.

You say they belief in logic, but you don't require belief to see that a thing appears as what it appears as.

Of course you do. You can never be certain that a thing appears a certain way. You have to ultimately believe in logic to say that it appears that way, and not in any other way. Now if you were to try to prove that logic is true, then you would have to use logic(A=A) itself to prove the truth of logic, which can't be done. Most people don't see things as they appear. They choose instead to get lost in emotions and be nothing.

By the certainty of thought of an absolute truth appearing, you can also be certain that it is an absolute truth

Again, what's this certainty? How can you prove for certain that the thing appearing is an absolute truth? To do that, you'd have to use another appearance - is that certainly an absolute truth? You'd be stuck in an endless loop.

[Anders Schlander]

1st. I already answered in the other post-


I don't have to belief that there is an appearance of absolute truth, there simply is. Do you have to belief everything that happens, as it happens?
if it it's finite it is bounded, if it is bounded, it is finite, if it's not, its not. This appears to me, thus, it is. Sure, the appearance is absolutely that appearance.

"Anders Schlander says:
"You say they belief in logic, but you don't require belief to see that a thing appears as what it appears as"

Jupi says: "Of course you do. You can never be certain that a thing appears a certain way. You have to ultimately believe in logic to say that it appears that way, and not in any other way. Now if you were to try to prove that logic is true, then you would have to use logic(A=A) itself to prove the truth of logic, which can't be done. Most people don't see things as they appear. They choose instead to get lost in emotions and be nothing."

answer:

You want proof about logic, before stating that A=A, which u can't do, and therefore, you have to belief in logic, is what you're saying. I think you have to accept that a thing appears as what it appears at, doubt doesn't enter the picture till after the perception, I wouldn't call it belief, but causation. Even if the appearance isn't real, it still appears as what it is, and doubting it, is impossible.

Also, it doesnt matter whether an absolute truth is merely an appearance, it doesn't make it less true, but I agree that you can't prove A=A and that you have to start with that, as your basis. How do you know that absolute truth is absolute, is when it is always true no matter what.
For example, a bike must have two wheels, so a 'bike' always has two wheels, or

the infinite is is un-finite, and un-bounded, and thus, outside time, and neccesarily all things. A=A is the basis of all this, without thing, there would not be un-thing, and so on. So it is God or causation that hands us A=A, not our logic.

[jupiviv]

I don't have to belief that there is an appearance of absolute truth, there simply is.

This statement contradicts itself. On the one hand you're saying you don't believe in the appearance of absolute truth, and on the other hand you're not giving any proof of the fact that there is an appearance of absolute truth(which you never can.)

I think you have to accept that a thing appears as what it appears at, doubt doesn't enter the picture till after the perception, I wouldn't call it belief, but causation.

As I said before, belief is the consciousness of causation.

Even if the appearance isn't real, it still appears as what it is, and doubting it, is impossible.

If that were true then science wouldn't be possible. Everyone would say that everything is what it is, and nothing else. Causation(Time) changes everything, and anyone who believes in causation would doubt whether things are really the way they appear now. Doubt is really a kind of belief.

How do you know that absolute truth is absolute, is when it is always true no matter what.

Can you prove this? If not, then you do not know it, only believe in it.

[Kelly Jones]

Jupta, when I think about the system of categorical relationships you have invented, it seems to me to be an attempt to construct modes of how to relate to the Infinite. The overall gist appears to be a movement towards absoluteness either using the concept of space, or the concept of time. So there are modes that aren't absolute using the concept of space, and which relate to the Infinite only narrowly and incompletely, and then there are modes that are; similarly, for the concept of time.

But making absoluteness dependent on spatial or temporal terms reduces absoluteness to relativity. Then one is no longer related to the Infinite but to an aspect of it, such as evolution. The categories may have some usefulness, but as they currently appear, they are negatively useful. They seem to linger in conditions. Limitations and distinctions, so far as I approach them, ought to be about finding the root which is clear of all such divisions, rather than heading in the opposite direction into more distinctions.

For instance, when you wish to talk of philosophy and religion as utterly separate things, and yet then say that they combine to create wisdom (presumably), it seems to negate the importance of dividing them in the first place. I simply cannot get anything useful of what you've offered.

I can appreciate distinguishing samadhi as power of mind, for example, because it can clearly be used separately and without bodhicitta (love of wisdom). Distinguishing it from bodhicitta makes sense.

Perhaps the problem is simply that you need to clarify what your purpose is for writing. How have these distinctions actually been profitable to you? What medicine does it provide?

.

[Anders Schlander]

I don't have to belief that there is an appearance of absolute truth, there simply is.

This statement contradicts itself. On the one hand you're saying you don't believe in the appearance of absolute truth, and on the other hand you're not giving any proof of the fact that there is an appearance of absolute truth(which you never can.)

Anders: Why would i try proof to others how my consciousness is?,
why would i proof to myself that the appearance of absolute truth was an appearance of absolute truth?
why would I need to belief that what appears, appears?
its quite evident it does.

I think you have to accept that a thing appears as what it appears at, doubt doesn't enter the picture till after the perception, I wouldn't call it belief, but causation.

As I said before, belief is the consciousness of causation.

Why do you define belief as consciousness of causation then? that's definitely *exactly* what i mean with belief.
if i'd have to define belief, belief = an assumption that a fact is true, without having absolute certainty about it.

So the initial perception is certainly itself, and belief isn't required, Causation means that we have A=A and consciousness, and that is the real beginning of logic, and the reason why it doesn't need belief is because we can't doubt that it atleast appears as what it appears as.

Even if the appearance isn't real, it still appears as what it is, and doubting it, is impossible.

If that were true then science wouldn't be possible. Everyone would say that everything is what it is, and nothing else. Causation(Time) changes everything, and anyone who believes in causation would doubt whether things are really the way they appear now. Doubt is really a kind of belief.

Why does that make science impossible? they are relying on A=A everytime they examine something, whether it appears as real or not. Part of the doubt of an appearance *is* the certainty of the appearance of doubt.

The perception itself changes, and all-things change with causation, so science is perfectly viable. They are ofcourse relying on the certainty of A=A whether they know it or not, to make any kind of progress. They are using the one thing they know is certain, that the appearance is the appearance, to do work which does contain doubt. They might still wonder what is inside a rabbit, you know. The point really is, that science does use the certainty of A=A to progress, even if it isn't trying to deal with absolute truth.

How do you know that absolute truth is absolute, is when it is always true no matter what

Can you prove this? If not, then you do not know it, only believe in it.

The quote of me saying absolute truth is absolute is really an unneccesary step, it should say, "when is truth absolute?, it is when it is always true no matter what", nevermind though.

You want me to prove a truth is absolute, and thus true for all time?, well, it requires that it doesn't have to be checked emperically, for example:
Love needs Hate to exist, and Hate needs Love to exist. This is neccesarily always true, because they need eachother to exist, and love is always what hate is not, and vice versa.

belief = an assumption that a fact is true, without having absolute certainty about it, as i already mentioned. What is your normal definition Jup?

edit: I don't know how to work with these qoute boxes, any tips where to learn this?

[jupiviv]

Before I address your arguments, a word about causes and science/philosophy. Yes, science examines the causes of things, and predicts their effects, but it cannot do so absolutely. Science can say what the causes of something may be, and what their effects could be. Science can never actually examine the causes of the present(space), or say what their effects would be, because the past is gone, and the future is yet to come. The past and the future do not appear to the mind. They can only be believed in. A scientist can say that a thing has causes, but he cannot know those causes. He can only believe that they are there. Similarly, a philosopher can say that everything is caused, but he can't know that fact, but only believe in it. Knowledge presupposes belief.

But making absoluteness dependent on spatial or temporal terms reduces absoluteness to relativity.

I don't think you understand yet what I'm saying here. I'm establishing the relationship between four aspects of consciousness(as I choose to divide it). I'm not even focussing on ultimate reality here.

For instance, when you wish to talk of philosophy and religion as utterly separate things

I specifically mentioned in the OP that they are both aspects of consciousness, so I couldn't possibly have talked of them as being utterly separate. You're putting words in my mouth.

and yet then say that they combine to create wisdom (presumably), it seems to negate the importance of dividing them in the first place.

If you made a distinction between your eyes and your brain, and then said that they both combine to create sight, would that be necessarily useless? You have say why exactly you think what I'm doing is useless.

Anders: Why would i try proof to others how my consciousness is?,
why would i proof to myself that the appearance of absolute truth was an appearance of absolute truth?
why would I need to belief that what appears, appears?
its quite evident it does.

You say that it's quite evident that what appears appears, but where is that evidence?

Why do you define belief as consciousness of causation then?

Because(note the word: be - cause) it appears to me as such. If I believe in something, then I posit it in time, which makes it true. Truth can only exist in time, and time is causality. An instantaneous object cannot exist.

belief = an assumption that a fact is true, without having absolute certainty about it.

Are you absolutely certain that this is true? If yes, then is that certainty based on belief, or knowledge? If you say that it is based on knowledge, then what is that knowledge based on?

Even if the appearance isn't real, it still appears as what it is, and doubting it, is impossible.

If that were true then science wouldn't be possible.

Why does that make science impossible? they are relying on A=A everytime they examine something, whether it appears as real or not.

Actually, if you make a distinction between reality and illusion, then you must always examine reality, as illusion is necessarily defined as something which is not really how it appears. A=A wouldn't apply to an illusion. Doubt is the faith that there is a reality behind what we perceive to be illusions.

edit: I don't know how to work with these qoute boxes, any tips where to learn this?

It works like this(qt=quote):

[qt="person1"][qt="person2"][qt="person3"]person1's post[/qt]person2's post[/qt]person3's post[/qt]

[Kelly Jones]

Before I address your arguments, a word about causes and science/philosophy. Yes, science examines the causes of things, and predicts their effects, but it cannot do so absolutely. Science can say what the causes of something may be, and what their effects could be. Science can never actually examine the causes of the present(space), or say what their effects would be, because the past is gone, and the future is yet to come.

Jupta, Kevin's help is useful, but you have to think this through a little more on your own. ;-)

Science can't examine any causes. There aren't any causes. Causes are purely mental divisions of reality based on perceived relationships (spatial and temporal). That is, science breaks down what currently appears, into relationships, based on perceived changes, using memory and then inference. That is, science is trying to create abstractions from the intricateness of reality. That is why it can never say what causes are. It can never fix the flux into building blocks.

The past and the future do not appear to the mind. They can only be believed in.

Consciousness requires memory and inference, and both are what we use to construct time. Both appear to mind. So there's no need to believe in an absence of reason or evidence, presuming that's what you mean by belief.

A scientist can say that a thing has causes, but he cannot know those causes. He can only believe that they are there. Similarly, a philosopher can say that everything is caused, but he can't know that fact, but only believe in it. Knowledge presupposes belief.

He can't know, but believe, but knowing presupposes believing? That's a mess, even though you haven't defined belief. Also, since you said that philosophy is knowledge and religion bhakti, it know looks as though, in your system, there is no philosophy at all, and only bhakti. I'm not converted.

But making absoluteness dependent on spatial or temporal terms reduces absoluteness to relativity.

Jupta: I don't think you understand yet what I'm saying here. I'm establishing the relationship between four aspects of consciousness(as I choose to divide it). I'm not even focussing on ultimate reality here.

Well, that's the problem, as I see it. Everything has its true nature made apparent after being related to what is Ultimate Reality, not before.

Kelly: For instance, when you wish to talk of philosophy and religion as utterly separate things

Jupta: I specifically mentioned in the OP that they are both aspects of consciousness, so I couldn't possibly have talked of them as being utterly separate. You're putting words in my mouth.

Kelly: and yet then say that they combine to create wisdom (presumably), it seems to negate the importance of dividing them in the first place.

Jupta: If you made a distinction between your eyes and your brain, and then said that they both combine to create sight, would that be necessarily useless? You have say why exactly you think what I'm doing is useless.

Well, is that what you're trying to say? That philosophy is intellectual, and religion is experiential / applicatory? It's reasonable to distinguish them, but only to warn people from the paths of separating them, or of trying to proceed without a combination.

I sometimes make the error of being too wordy and conceptually complex, which is often an academic hangover of trying to objectify Reality. It's got no spirit.

.

[jupiviv]

Jupta, Kevin's help is useful, but you have to think this through a little more on your own. ;-)

I didn't take any help from Kevin Solway for the thoughts I express here, if that's what you mean. Besides, he's always busy debating with Deryk and co. and angry Buddhists on Youtube.

Science can't examine any causes.

Then what does it examine?

There aren't any causes. Causes are purely mental divisions of reality based on perceived relationships (spatial and temporal).

Causes are not purely mental divisions. The mind is only one of the causes that lead to the perception of causes.

Consciousness requires memory and inference, and both are what we use to construct time. Both appear to mind. So there's no need to believe in an absence of reason or evidence, presuming that's what you mean by belief.

Yes, consciousness requires memory. But you can't prove that the memory is really a memory, i.e, past causes, as those past causes will never appear to your mind. You ultimately have to believe that they are so.

A scientist can say that a thing has causes, but he cannot know those causes. He can only believe that they are there. Similarly, a philosopher can say that everything is caused, but he can't know that fact, but only believe in it. Knowledge presupposes belief.

He can't know, but believe, but knowing presupposes believing?

I'm sorry, I should have rather said - "he cannot absolutely know that those causes exist." For the scientist, it is the particular causes; for the philosopher, the whole of causality.

Everything has its true nature made apparent after being related to what is Ultimate Reality, not before.

Everything is already related to Ultimate Reality. You can never relate them to it anew, and if you do, you are not thinking of Ultimate Reality.

Well, is that what you're trying to say? That philosophy is intellectual, and religion is experiential / applicatory?

Yes, I would say that philosophy is intellectual/conceptual, as it's about space. I wouldn't call religion experiential. It's basically about saying that something is true for all of time.

[Anders Schlander]

Edit: sorted quotes, i guess :)

Why would i try proof to others how my consciousness is?,
why would i proof to myself that the appearance of absolute truth was an appearance of absolute truth?
why would I need to belief that what appears, appears? its quite evident it does.

You say that it's quite evident that what appears appears, but where is that evidence?

The evidence is no-where. Searching for the mind is searching in vain...the evidence is in the appearance, which is no-where to be found.

belief = an assumption that a fact is true, without having absolute certainty about it.

Are you absolutely certain that this is true? If yes, then is that certainty based on belief, or knowledge? If you say that it is based on knowledge, then what is that knowledge based on?

Certainty can never be based on belief according to my definition, and im certain of that, because of my definition that belief is a fact held to be true without absolute certainty. The knowledge of that, which is certain, is based on the definition, which is based in consciousness, and, trying to find the 'source' of consciousness is totally mistaken. So i don't know how to really find the source of knowledge, if you will, because as i said, the beginning law of identity as the basis of consciousness, has causation to blame, and that is where you work from, but it is not the beginning, since there are no beginnings.

I belief that my definition is good enough to work with, because it makes a dinstinction between knowing something reliably and assuming something to be true.

Even if the appearance isn't real, it still appears as what it is, and doubting it, is impossible.

If that were true then science wouldn't be possible.

Why does that make science impossible? they are relying on A=A everytime they examine something, whether it appears as real or not.

Actually, if you make a distinction between reality and illusion, then you must always examine reality, as illusion is necessarily defined as something which is not really how it appears. A=A wouldn't apply to an illusion. Doubt is the faith that there is a reality behind what we perceive to be illusions.

I think you're wrong about the bolded part, A=A would apply to the appearance that what you are seeing is an illusion.
It's true that you must have an idea of *real* before you can identify illusion though.

For example, there is the appearance that person A has won the olympics fair and square, but an appearance of person A saying that he has cheated, using drugs to win, emerges, the illusion that person A has won the olympics fair and square is now in contrast to reality, and the illusion is seen for what it problably is, a lie. the 1st perception has a very dinstinct meaning, so we can contrast it to new information (reality), as a lie, with a clear identity of its own. It doesn't remain the same, so a specific A=A doesn't apply, but that's not important, we just need to know that we are using A=A as the basis of consciousness, to navigate the world, even so far as to identify an illusion for what it is, an illusion.

[Kelly Jones]

K: Jupta, Kevin's help is useful, but you have to think this through a little more on your own. ;-)

J: I didn't take any help from Kevin Solway for the thoughts I express here, if that's what you mean. Besides, he's always busy debating with Deryk and co. and angry Buddhists on Youtube.

Well, I still check out Kevin's posts, and I noticed you repeated verbatim his reply to you from yesterday: "the past is gone, and the future is yet to come."

K: Science can't examine any causes.

J: Then what does it examine?

K: [because] There aren't any causes. Causes are purely mental divisions of reality based on perceived relationships (spatial and temporal).

J: Causes are not purely mental divisions. The mind is only one of the causes that lead to the perception of causes.

Well, the concept of "causes that lead to the perception of causes" required a mind. Without mind, there is no causation. What I'm trying to convey is that what are perceived as processes leading to certain outcomes, or interactive influencing parts, are workings of a mind determined to find distinct things. Science arbitrarily demarcates distinct things because it has certain purposes for doing so. But it's not examining intrinsic causes, rather it's examining its own overlays of identity, and abstract forms.

K: Consciousness requires memory and inference, and both are what we use to construct time. Both appear to mind. So there's no need to believe in an absence of reason or evidence, presuming that's what you mean by belief.

J: Yes, consciousness requires memory. But you can't prove that the memory is really a memory, i.e, past causes, as those past causes will never appear to your mind. You ultimately have to believe that they are so.

I'll take the opportunity to clarify that by "belief," you mean a conclusion made without evidence or reason?

The evidence of the past (the existence of memory) is two-fold: Pure reason leads one to the conclusion that, because nothingness isn't logically possible, the present exists from something other than itself; and, pure reason contains memory through identification (which is dualistic), so there is the basis of change, and time, enabling one to conclude by one single instantaneous observation that the present is not a stasis. Reason is the second thought held with the first: that's what enables one to recognise change. A=A, in other words, indicates that reason itself is evidence of memory.

J: A scientist can say that a thing has causes, but he cannot know those causes. He can only believe that they are there. Similarly, a philosopher can say that everything is caused, but he can't know that fact, but only believe in it. Knowledge presupposes belief.

K: He can't know, but believe, but knowing presupposes believing?

J: I'm sorry, I should have rather said - "he cannot absolutely know that those causes exist." For the scientist, it is the particular causes; for the philosopher, the whole of causality.

But if knowledge is based on definitions for the philosopher, and causation is a definition based on reason, and actually is tied to the working of reason (and perception), then where is the room or need for belief (which, presumably, you assert is a conclusion founded on neither evidence nor reason)?

K: But making absoluteness dependent on spatial or temporal terms reduces absoluteness to relativity.

J: I don't think you understand yet what I'm saying here. I'm establishing the relationship between four aspects of consciousness(as I choose to divide it). I'm not even focussing on ultimate reality here.

K: Everything has its true nature made apparent after being related to what is Ultimate Reality, not before.

J: Everything is already related to Ultimate Reality. You can never relate them to it anew, and if you do, you are not thinking of Ultimate Reality.

When you only quote my last reply, you often miss the unfolding of the point we're discussing. If you are trying to refute the reply without looking at the context, it's a waste of time my responding to you. My aim is to look at the concepts you offered in the opening post. You're playing a defensive game here, rather than looking at those concepts.

Your reply here is evasive. You can certainly indicate the relationships consciously and deliberately in your definitions of philosophy and religion. But you stated that you weren't focussing on that. I don't think it's worth offering concepts about philosophy or religion without a clear articulation of how they're related to the Absolute.

K: For instance, when you wish to talk of philosophy and religion as utterly separate things

J: I specifically mentioned in the OP that they are both aspects of consciousness, so I couldn't possibly have talked of them as being utterly separate. You're putting words in my mouth.

K: and yet then say that they combine to create wisdom (presumably), it seems to negate the importance of dividing them in the first place.

J: If you made a distinction between your eyes and your brain, and then said that they both combine to create sight, would that be necessarily useless? You have say why exactly you think what I'm doing is useless.

K: Well, is that what you're trying to say? That philosophy is intellectual, and religion is experiential / applicatory?

J: Yes, I would say that philosophy is intellectual/conceptual, as it's about space. I wouldn't call religion experiential. It's basically about saying that something is true for all of time.

But there are problems with this. Firstly, space can be defined as an absolute logical truth, in which case it's true for all time (and therefore your concepts of religion and philosophy are the same). Secondly, an absolute logical truth is intellectual/conceptual (and therefore ditto).

Of course, words can be defined in any way one wishes, but it just seems inefficient to duplicate definitions using different labels.

The way I tend to define philosophy for myself is the love of wisdom, and since that love is a full understanding, it's both intellectual and experiential. It is about the absolute, and therefore about what is always true for all things, and in all time. By contrast, religion focusses more on the discipline of philosophical life, and how to bring oneself into the fullest expression of wisdom. It's more about the process of developing a deeper, stronger affinity with the Infinite: it's about the will to consciousness, in a phrase. So I do tend to agree with some of your views, but I bring out a more personal nuance. It's probably just an individual thing.

.

[jupiviv]

Well, I still check out Kevin's posts, and I noticed you repeated verbatim his reply to you from yesterday: "the past is gone, and the future is yet to come."

I didn't copy his reply, and I think he said "the future is a figment of our imagination." I originally found this line in "Venom crystals":

It is sometimes said, "The past is dead, the future is yet to come, and the present is but a fleeting moment. So where is 'time'?"

I ask him those questions to address some deeper, more difficult points that he doesn't address. People know him more than me, so they are more likely to read his comments.

Well, the concept of "causes that lead to the perception of causes" required a mind.

Yes, and things other than the mind.

Without mind, there is no causation.

Actually, causation itself cannot have a cause.

Science arbitrarily demarcates distinct things because it has certain purposes for doing so. But it's not examining intrinsic causes, rather it's examining its own overlays of identity, and abstract forms.

I never said anything about intrinsic causes. I think it would be far easier to have this discussion if you didn't keep putting words in my mouth.

I'll take the opportunity to clarify that by "belief," you mean a conclusion made without evidence or reason?

No. I'll reiterate what I mean by belief - the consciousness of cause and effect: of the fact that the self had causes, and will have effects. If you still want me to clarify what I mean by belief, you'll have to pay me.

causation is a definition based on reason

The whole of causality cannot be a definition.

Everything has its true nature made apparent after being related to what is Ultimate Reality, not before.

Everything is already related to Ultimate Reality.

When you only quote my last reply, you often miss the unfolding of the point we're discussing.

Your point was that my dividing up consciousness was reducing absoluteness to relativity. I'm not making absoluteness dependent on anything. If you disagree, then you have to give reasons why. Your second point was that, because I'm not talking directly about reality, I'm not speaking truly. But I will always be speaking of reality regardless of what I'm speaking of, even if I don't specifically mention it each time. So your point isn't valid.

Firstly, space can be defined as an absolute logical truth

Consciousness of space is logic. Saying that space is logic doesn't make sense.

[Kelly Jones]

Well, I still check out Kevin's posts, and I noticed you repeated verbatim his reply to you from yesterday: "the past is gone, and the future is yet to come."

I didn't copy his reply, and I think he said "the future is a figment of our imagination." I originally found this line in "Venom crystals":

It is sometimes said, "The past is dead, the future is yet to come, and the present is but a fleeting moment. So where is 'time'?"

I ask him those questions to address some deeper, more difficult points that he doesn't address. People know him more than me, so they are more likely to read his comments.

Okay. Incidentally, that's a good line. That's what I meant about the space of time: when one sees the entire "area" of what constitutes time, then there is no time, since there is no change.

Kelly: Well, the concept of "causes that lead to the perception of causes" required a mind.

Jupta: Yes, and things other than the mind.

Mind itself perceives a distinction between itself and what it is not; there isn't ultimately a distinction. It's the mind that perceives that it is something separate from other things, and therefore brings causation into existence.

Kelly: Without mind, there is no causation.

Jupta: Actually, causation itself cannot have a cause.

What I'm trying to get you to see is that there is a higher perception than causality. It's just as David wrote: ' To the women in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely real. To the men in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely not real.'

Kelly: Science arbitrarily demarcates distinct things because it has certain purposes for doing so. But it's not examining intrinsic causes, rather it's examining its own overlays of identity, and abstract forms.

Jupta: I never said anything about intrinsic causes. I think it would be far easier to have this discussion if you didn't keep putting words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm the one saying them, to help convey what science actually does. Whatever it perceives as causes aren't real.

Kelly: Consciousness requires memory and inference, and both are what we use to construct time. Both appear to mind. So there's no need to believe in an absence of reason or evidence, presuming that's what you mean by belief.

Jupta: Yes, consciousness requires memory. But you can't prove that the memory is really a memory, i.e, past causes, as those past causes will never appear to your mind. You ultimately have to believe that they are so.

Kelly: I'll take the opportunity to clarify that by "belief," you mean a conclusion made without evidence or reason?

Jupta: No. I'll reiterate what I mean by belief - the consciousness of cause and effect: of the fact that the self had causes, and will have effects. If you still want me to clarify what I mean by belief, you'll have to pay me.

You're not being consistent, Jupta. You said belief is required because actual proof (evidence) of past causes is absent. Now you say that the belief is consciousness of the fact of past causes. But how are you ascertaining that the fact is a fact? How is it concluded to be a fact? By reason?

Kelly: causation is a definition based on reason

Jupta: The whole of causality cannot be a definition.

What I'm trying to convey is that, while everything is not one thing, causality is really not there without consciousness (specifically, reason). "The world is created by desire".

Kelly: Everything has its true nature made apparent after being related to what is Ultimate Reality, not before.

Jupta: Everything is already related to Ultimate Reality.

Kelly: When you only quote my last reply, you often miss the unfolding of the point we're discussing.

Jupta: Your point was that my dividing up consciousness was reducing absoluteness to relativity. I'm not making absoluteness dependent on anything. If you disagree, then you have to give reasons why.

I have already explained that.

Jupta: Your second point was that, because I'm not talking directly about reality, I'm not speaking truly. But I will always be speaking of reality regardless of what I'm speaking of, even if I don't specifically mention it each time. So your point isn't valid.

Well, having not succeeded in conveying that causality is a perception of consciousness, I'm aware that your understanding of reality isn't quite spot on yet. The point is to use the building blocks in order to construct means to appreciate emptiness, at which point the construction is discarded. Causality is such a construction, that helps one to see the nature of the whole; it's a very powerful tool, but it must eventually be laid aside.

Kelly: Firstly, space can be defined as an absolute logical truth

Jupta: Consciousness of space is logic. Saying that space is logic doesn't make sense.

I was responding to your statement. Taking it out of context like that, definitely wouldn't make sense. If you wish to have an intelligent discussion, why don't you include the context?

K: For instance, when you wish to talk of philosophy and religion as utterly separate things

J: I specifically mentioned in the OP that they are both aspects of consciousness, so I couldn't possibly have talked of them as being utterly separate. You're putting words in my mouth.

K: and yet then say that they combine to create wisdom (presumably), it seems to negate the importance of dividing them in the first place.

J: If you made a distinction between your eyes and your brain, and then said that they both combine to create sight, would that be necessarily useless? You have say why exactly you think what I'm doing is useless.

K: Well, is that what you're trying to say? That philosophy is intellectual, and religion is experiential / applicatory?

J: Yes, I would say that philosophy is intellectual/conceptual, as it's about space. I wouldn't call religion experiential. It's basically about saying that something is true for all of time.

K: But there are problems with this. Firstly, space can be defined as an absolute logical truth, in which case it's true for all time (and therefore your concepts of religion and philosophy are the same). Secondly, an absolute logical truth is intellectual/conceptual (and therefore ditto).

Of course, words can be defined in any way one wishes, but it just seems inefficient to duplicate definitions using different labels.

Jupta: Consciousness of space is logic. Saying that space is logic doesn't make sense.

Notice how I didn't say that space is logic, but that by defining space in a way that creates an absolute logical truth, it would be true for all time, and therefore, your definitions for philosophy and religion would be the same?

The only reason I'm engaging in this discussion is to try to make those definitions more coherent and useful. So far, I'm not seeing that they are. It's not a personal criticism.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Maybe what you've been trying to say, Jupta, is that there is no evidence for time, except through how consciousness differentiates a rate of change. Well, all I'm saying is there is no ultimately evidence for causality, except through how consciousness differentiates. Both these are aspects of the mind understanding itself to be Ultimate Reality; and perhaps you simply wished to differentiate certain aspects of how the mind does that (terming them 'philosophy' and 'religion').

.

[longsincedead]

People have written volumes of books on the relationships between these varied fields, but I may well be exploring the relationships between these things for the first time with any degree of sincerity.

It's a little difficult to know what you're talking about, because all these things interrelate.

Perhaps some simpler definitions would be useful, although you mightn't like the appearance of finitising them:
Philosophy: absolute definitive logical understanding of the Totality
Science: tentative hypotheses on the evolution of finite aspects of the Totality
Religion: science of philosophical consciousness (the evolution of the philosophical mind)
Art: vehicles of religion (temporary abodes)

Philosophy = The proper course one should take to achieve results - based on the nature of existence
Science = the action of defining existence, existents
Engineering = the use of knowledge, from above category (s), to understand existence, in order to manipulate existents for various ends
Art = creative reflection of existence and existents
All of the above are based on, and acknowledge reality - facts

Religion = separate from the above, in that is deals in anything people wish to believe.

[Kelly Jones]

What does "existents" mean? Things?

Science: the action of defining and understanding things, and the nature of things.

[jupiviv]

when one sees the entire "area" of what constitutes time, then there is no time, since there is no change.

The Totality constitutes both space and time, so in that sense this is true.

Mind itself perceives a distinction between itself and what it is not; there isn't ultimately a distinction. It's the mind that perceives that it is something separate from other things, and therefore brings causation into existence.

Whatever the mind does is dictated by the Totality. So if the mind makes distinctions, then there are ultimately distinctions. In the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna appears in many forms to Arjun(including an infinite-armed form), but finally appears in his ordinary two-armed form. This means that there is ultimately consciousness, and therefore duality and causality. How can I possibly act against reality?

You're not being consistent, Jupta. You said belief is required because actual proof (evidence) of past causes is absent. Now you say that the belief is consciousness of the fact of past causes. But how are you ascertaining that the fact is a fact? How is it concluded to be a fact? By reason?

The fact is self-evident. You either believe it to be true, or you don't. There can be no ultimate proof of it. The same can be said of anything else. A person can keep gathering evidence for the 1st law of thermodynamics all your life, and still not be able to say it is true.

I didn't actually say that proof of past causes is absent, but that there is no way of absolutely knowing that those past causes did exist.

What I'm trying to convey is that, while everything is not one thing, causality is really not there without consciousness

That is true, but then consciousness is not there without causality either.

Your point was that my dividing up consciousness was reducing absoluteness to relativity. I'm not making absoluteness dependent on anything. If you disagree, then you have to give reasons why.

I have already explained that.

Are you referring to this argument? - But making absoluteness dependent on spatial or temporal terms reduces absoluteness to relativity. Then one is no longer related to the Infinite but to an aspect of it, such as evolution. The categories may have some usefulness, but as they currently appear, they are negatively useful. They seem to linger in conditions. Limitations and distinctions, so far as I approach them, ought to be about finding the root which is clear of all such divisions, rather than heading in the opposite direction into more distinctions.

You say that my distinctions are leading me to be related to only one aspect of the Infinite. But you haven't shown where I am doing this. You say that limitations and divisions should be made to reach the undivided root, but how can you do this if the root is already undivided? The undivided root is as much a figment of your imagination as are the limitations and divisions.

Well, having not succeeded in conveying that causality is a perception of consciousness, I'm aware that your understanding of reality isn't quite spot on yet.

Have you even considered the possibility that you can't understand what I mean by causality? Is your understanding of reality spot on? If not, then on what grounds are you criticising my understanding as being not spot on?

I didn't say that space is logic, but that by defining space in a way that creates an absolute logical truth, and therefore, your definitions for philosophy and religion would be the same

What do you mean by space here? Do you mean the whole of space, or a part of space? If you mean the whole of space, then my response is the same as before. If you mean a part of space - then what you say is partly true. Defining a particular thing makes that definition absolutely true for all time(eg., a red ball at time1 and space1 will always be a red ball at time1 and space1). BUT that definition must, again, ultimately be believed to be true. You can never absolutely prove that the definition is an absolute truth.

[Kelly Jones]

Jupta, before I go on, can you clarify something?

Jupta: [opening post] What philosophy and science have in common is a relation(specifically a conscious relation) to duality, or space(logic.)

[snip]

Consciousness of space is logic.

Are you saying space is something specific prior to consciousness of it? If so, what?

If not, are you defining space as area created by consciousness? I.e. "something".

We can get onto causation and time after sorting this out.

.