The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote: The burden of proof falls upon whoever makes proofless or unreasonable claims.
The burden of proof falls upon you because I have simply stated the obvious, that there is consciousness, you have gone on to claim "that things exist outside of consciousness". The fact is that the burden of proof is yours, stop twisting obvious and clear logic.
jupiviv wrote: Simple logic tells us that without causes nothing (including consciousness) can exist, and that causes are distinct from their effects. It also tells us that consciousness is not a container.
The word consciousness, from this viewpoint, is a description of the nature of reality, not some particular part of reality. So unless you are implying that the totality of reality must also have a distinct cause, then that reasoning only works from your view based on your claim.
I didn't say the causes of consciousness exist independently of it.
From your perspective, you implied that the things which "exist outside of consciousness" would continue to exist entirely independently from consciousness, if lets say, all life were to come to an end.
Also, that's not the only reason I gave as proof of my assertion, because there are plenty of very obvious ways in which one can prove it.
Really, what are those?
jupiviv wrote:I'm not sure what any of your words actually mean anymore, because you evidently feel no qualms about changing both your own and others' words to win an argument.
You've got to be kidding, that's exactly what you've done with things like "constantly changing experience of constant change", in fact, check out the following:
jupiviv wrote:Seeker, what puffest thou?
jupiviv wrote:In fact as I've said before it is just your way of avoiding suffering,
jupiviv wrote:nd out of the charred pupa that used to be SeekerOfWisdom shall emerge
Switching to ad hominem and sarcasm again, you're not right because you believe so strongly that you're right, so stop arguing from the assumption that it's all been done for you, that this popular view must be the correct one, and that I must be high for disagreeing, you actually have to use some reasoning of your own, then you'll find that you have no valid reason whatsoever to assert that there are "things existing outside of consciousness". Consciousness is all any being, any writer, and any philosopher, has ever known, only the deluded - just like any christian - believe in this "more out there".

Again I'd like the point out that I have made the claim: "Consciousness exists."
You have made the claims: "Consciousness exists."
"Things exist outside of consciousness".

"Burden of proof" is yours. By the way, I'm about 90+% sure you only believe this because like most people, you have continued to believe whatever you were taught when you were young, whatever the popular world view is unquestioned and unquestionable. I'm saying that you don't yet understand this: "Reality defines and determines what is logical. Logic does not define or determine what is real".
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

Master J S Wisdom

You can’t expect to speak an absolute truth in vain and not have the wrath of God bear down upon you in full force.

The context in which this absolute truth was couched by you in the discussion was as a direct opposition to the proposition that the ultimate origin of consciousness is that great primordial soup of physicality existing outside of consciousness whence everything we know came; essentially, in opposition to evolutionary theory as the truth of consciousness. What Dan did not do with this same absolute which you did , however, was to suggest that our dual conception (subject/object) of the world is false . Truth and falsity no more exist “out there” than do certainty or uncertainty but rather true and false are aspects of the consciousness with which we (well, some of us—the wise?) navigate reality.

That is, what is false is the notion that an objective reality exists without the subject.

He encapsulates this well in the following conclusion:
How much more utility would our scientific endeavours have if we adopted a more creative rather than interpretive approach? If we started to look forward instead of constantly looking back? If we resolved to build a future for ourselves instead of constantly attempting to invent a history for ourselves? Globally, we spend billions of dollars on cosmology, archeology, the various fields of evolution and so forth and yet we spend a veritable pittance on disease research, sustainable forms of power and resource production, not to mention trivial incidentals like the pursuit of wisdom - all because we are obsessed with the false belief that we can model the world accurately, on the basis of the delusion of an objective reality and that if a model "works" it must reflect that reality faithfully. We vainly attempt to "find" ourselves in Nature all the while oblivious to the irony that our "selves" are actually there in everything we find - creating it!
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

(Incidentally, that's why Ghostav von Bjornstrapon of the New Jerusalem is, as he is so acutely aware, fated to shooting blanks.)
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote: The context in which this absolute truth was couched by you in the discussion was as a direct opposition to the proposition that the ultimate origin of consciousness is that great primordial soup of physicality existing outside of consciousness whence everything we know came; essentially, in opposition to evolutionary theory as the truth of consciousness.
I wouldn't oppose "evolutionary theory" itself, I would only oppose the current metaphysical context of materialism, which isn't necessary for scientific explanation, and of course, that it is the "truth of consciousness". It's exactly this "great primordial soup of physicality existing outside of consciousness" which I am saying is nothing but a fantasy, and I truly believe that if you were to contemplate upon what you know of it, you'd realize that you have no clue what it is that you're asserting exists. And if you don't know what this 'unknown void' is, why must it be "physicality existing outside of consciousness"?
Leyla Shen wrote: What Dan did not do with this same absolute which you did , however, was to suggest that our dual conception (subject/object) of the world is false . Truth and falsity no more exist “out there” than do certainty or uncertainty but rather true and false are aspects of the consciousness with which we (well, some of us—the wise?) navigate reality.
I wouldn't say that our dual conception (subject/object) was false. Just not ultimately true. As I see it, there are many worldly perspectives, or conventional truths, which remain true even if they are seemingly "contradicted" by the ultimate nature of things. Though they are really are one and the same. An example might be free will, seemingly obvious and real, yet ultimately it doesn't "hold up". As I see it there is a correct inclusive 'balance' to be had.
Leyla Shen wrote: That is, what is false is the notion that an objective reality exists without the subject.
And that view is actually entirely different from the common 'scientific view' or materialist view, which is that objective reality does exist without -as well as prior to - any subject.

The points made in the quote are good ones. Who cares about wisdom when you can continuously attempt to deal with the never ending consequences of ignorance? It's more simple that way.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

I wouldn't oppose "evolutionary theory" itself, [snip]
Why not?
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote:Why not?
The same reason that I wouldn't oppose whatever theories are had regarding galaxies or black holes or whatever else, these things exist or may exist, and I don't know much about them at all. In what manner they exist is where the disagreement is. For one who promotes "evolutionary theory" as the way in which the 'human form' came about, I can't really argue for or against, but for one who argues that this is how 'consciousness' came about, then I would oppose it. I see scientific theory as descriptions of causality, reasoning which is based on observation/repetition, (such as that fire is going to burn paper). It is usually irrelevant to 'ultimate' philosophy/metaphysics. The error arises when one takes a scientific observation and attempts to use it to "prove" some metaphysical or philosophical position. This is usually done out of ignorance or from the context of an already assumed world view. Jup does this constantly, and can't seem to understand that he's not a scientist and is referencing things he knows nothing about, and in the wrong context, in some naive attempt to place the burden of explanation on the shoulders of 'all those others who have studied this'. I'd bet one hundred bucks he's never even seen a human brain.

Two things I wanted to add. Firstly, I dislike using the word 'consciousness' at all, as the naive assume this is referencing some spatial entity or 'container' in which thoughts and sensations reside. Secondly, it is not that I simply regard people like Jupiviv as being 'wrong', but as being utterly incapable of discerning "ultimate" truth or the nature of reality, or of properly understanding this sentence: Reality determines what is sound logic, logic does not determine what is real.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: Simple logic tells us that without causes nothing (including consciousness) can exist, and that causes are distinct from their effects. It also tells us that consciousness is not a container.
The word consciousness, from this viewpoint, is a description of the nature of reality, not some particular part of reality. So unless you are implying that the totality of reality must also have a distinct cause, then that reasoning only works from your view based on your claim.
I've addressed all of this before. If consciousness is defined as the All then it won't be limited to the mind (thoughts, feelings etc.), nor refute the definition of ordinary mind and/or consciousness which logically requires that there be things other than itself.
I didn't say the causes of consciousness exist independently of it.
From your perspective, you implied that the things which "exist outside of consciousness" would continue to exist entirely independently from consciousness, if lets say, all life were to come to an end.
You're lying. Nowhere did I imply that the things outside consciousness are independent of it, not even in the event of its extinction.
Also, that's not the only reason I gave as proof of my assertion, because there are plenty of very obvious ways in which one can prove it.
Really, what are those?
I'll get to those *after* you address the reason you have mentioned.
jupiviv wrote:I'm not sure what any of your words actually mean anymore, because you evidently feel no qualms about changing both your own and others' words to win an argument.
You've got to be kidding, that's exactly what you've done with things like "constantly changing experience of constant change", in fact, check out the following:
jupiviv wrote:Seeker, what puffest thou?
jupiviv wrote:In fact as I've said before it is just your way of avoiding suffering,
jupiviv wrote:nd out of the charred pupa that used to be SeekerOfWisdom shall emerge
How does an inapt phrase from an argument compared with inapt phrases from what are clearly obiter dicta demonstrate my intellectual dishonesty? Yours is documented and known to anyone who has been following this discussion. Still, I'll cite some examples. Let's start with your latest post:

1-->
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: Simple logic tells us that without causes nothing (including consciousness) can exist, and that causes are distinct from their effects. It also tells us that consciousness is not a container.
The word consciousness, from this viewpoint, is a description of the nature of reality, not some particular part of reality. So unless you are implying that the totality of reality must also have a distinct cause, then that reasoning only works from your view based on your claim.
2-->
Again I'd like the point out that I have made the claim: "Consciousness exists."
If you think consciousness is the same as reality in >1, then how can it exist in >2? You mentioned different viewpoints, but what are they? It is unclear which viewpoint you are defending and which you are ascribing to me.

Moving on to your previous post at Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:54 am:

1-->
given that you've said that things are merely appearances, thoughts and sensations within consciousness and that there is nothing beyond what is thought or felt. Yes, *if* "consciousness" were defined as "Reality", then those things would be within it or manifestations of it.

"Within" is of course a tricky word, since consciousness is an abstract reference to these things (appearances, thoughts and sensations), rather than some location or plane within which they arise.
2-->
But then this consciousness-as-Reality would not be limited by them, nor would they be or occur "within it" in the same way a thought, feeling or memory is/occurs within a conventionally defined consciousness. The consciousness-as-Reality would be the sum total of these things and everything else, and that's it. It could not think thoughts or feel feelings, or survive or perish with bodily death. But you want consciousness to simultaneously think, feel, perceive, etc. *and* be the Allfather.

Your explanations are implying too much, though the implications are subtle. "Consciousness" is not thinking, feeling, perceiving, these words are instead references to aspects of consciousness, not activities of some separate entity.
3-->
Whatever appears to consciousness, either as thoughts or feelings, is not the same as the consciousness it appears to. Consciousness cannot be conscious of itself for the same reason a fingertip cannot feel itself and a mirror cannot reflect itself.

You did it again. See above. It is not "conscious of itself", and 'whatever appears' is indeed the same as the consciousness itself, it is not appearing to consciousness. You continuously imply that consciousness is an observer of appearances rather than a reference to thoughts/sensations/feelings/emotions and so on.
4-->
What else can I add, apart from pointing out more of the obvious? We are surrounded by unconscious things, like the earth itself and 99.99% of things in it including the screen you're reading this on. Our consciousness is affected by our bodies (which are unconscious), e.g. death, head injury, heart attack, blood loss, starvation, etc. The brain itself - the seat of consciousness - is mostly unconscious.
Your reasoning here is out of place and seemingly nonsensical. The things to which you refer- earth, the screen, the body- are all references to appearances. I never said that appearances are 'conscious', whatever that means.

I agree that our consciousness is affected by our bodies, though may disagree with what you think happens at death. I also disagree that the brain is the seat of consciousness. You don't seem to get it, when you say the words "the brain", you're literally referring to an appearance of consciousness, you're referring to sensations, imaginations, etc. You aren't referring to some mind-independent physical object which exists despite consciousness. The whole materialist viewpoint is fundamentally flawed.
In >1, you say that consciousness is an abstract reference to thoughts, but you say that thoughts are aspects of it in >2. That is a contradictory usage right there. On the points themselves: if consciousness is an abstract reference to thoughts then it is not reality but some sort of category for things of the mind. If thoughts are aspects of consciousness, and consciousness is reality, then it clearly has aspects other than thoughts. Both meanings are incompatible with your premise that everything is merely an appearance in the mind.

In >3, you say that consciousness and appearances are the same, thereby contradicting your definition of it as an "abstract reference" to appearances both in >1 and later in the same sentence. An reference to X is itself not X. On the points themselves: if an appearance is the same as consciousness then it is, in fact, conscious of itself.

In >4, you say that things like the earth are references to appearances, which you've also said about consciousness. You then say that consciousness is affected by our bodies - is this consciousness-as-reality, consciousness-as-thoughts or consciousness-as-reference? It certainly cannot be the first, and if it is any of the other two then you have refuted your own premise that nothing apart from consciousness exists.

Finally, you use the words "appearances", "thoughts", "emotions" and "sensations" interchangeably in those quotes, but they each refer to different things. An appearance - that which appears - is not the same as a thought or an emotion and a thought is not the same as a sensation or emotion. If this is your philosophy then quite frankly it is a clusterfuck that makes Hillary Clinton's vaginal area look marmoreal.

Of course, several other blatant inconsistencies in usage and logic exist both in the quoted text and the rest of your posts, but that's all I have to say about your intentional or unintentional dishonesty for the moment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

Alright, let’s look at something specific.
jupiviv wrote:for variations to be identified there needs to be at least some continuation; even the variations need to have some continuation. E.g., the sight of a wall requires a wall that retains certain properties of a wall, not to mention a faculty of sight that retains its nature and function.
Here, jupiviv elaborates on empirical observation made by you—empirical because essentially, as you said, it certainly is something anyone can go and do (contrasted with, for example, comparing the function and effects on the motor skills of an individual with a damaged brain with the motor skills in someone without brain damage in the same area): look at a wall for hours and notice a shift in perceptions. He is using logical constructs (the words and definitions “variations”, “continuation”, “sight”) to describe the subject/object experience; to elaborate on it. The observation here about the experience of the wall, so far as I can tell, is, however, actually no different to yours.

To him you reply (jupiviv addressing only the underlined text afterwards):
You're avoiding the core of the point entirely, it doesn't matter if there is a continuation of what we refer to as a wall in that sense alone, the entirety of the experience is still constantly changing. Form being transient doesn't mean there is no form. "Properties", like qualities, are not actually things, but are abstracts. Qualities may indeed be permanent, such as the quality of impermanence, but we cannot point to the idea "impermanence" or even the idea of what a "wall" is and say that it's an unchanging aspect of form. All appearances in consciousness are constantly wavering, and the relative consistency of worldly things doesn't change the fact. Even thinking and speaking of truth, even if it were an eternal truth, is a completely transient occurrence.
Why did he (rightly or wrongly) only quote the underlined part above and then reply to it as follows?
In order to assert that experiences are constantly changing, you have to experience that fact about experiences, and even that experience would be constantly changing. How exactly does one have a constantly changing experience of the constant change in experiences?
To me, I thought he was simply making the point that experience is necessarily empirical but that when you say “the entirety of the experience is still constantly changing”, you’re really saying the experience of experience is constantly changing, and that doesn’t really make sense because whilst we might think about our experiences as an entirety, we can’t actually experience an experience as an entirety and therefore the entirety of an experience cannot be constantly changing. The strange thing is, the rest of what you say is not inconsistent with what jupiviv is saying.

So, to be honest, I still don’t understand how you can conclude the following from at least the above example:
The error arises when one takes a scientific observation and attempts to use it to "prove" some metaphysical or philosophical position. This is usually done out of ignorance or from the context of an already assumed world view. Jup does this constantly, and can't seem to understand that he's not a scientist and is referencing things he knows nothing about, and in the wrong context, in some naive attempt to place the burden of explanation on the shoulders of 'all those others who have studied this'. I'd bet one hundred bucks he's never even seen a human brain.
Have I missed something?
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I wouldn't say that our dual conception (subject/object) was false. Just not ultimately true. As I see it, there are many worldly perspectives, or conventional truths, which remain true even if they are seemingly "contradicted" by the ultimate nature of things. Though they are really are one and the same. An example might be free will, seemingly obvious and real, yet ultimately it doesn't "hold up". As I see it there is a correct inclusive 'balance' to be had.
There is no difference between ultimate and conventional, for the simple reason that if there were then the ultimate would itself be conventional.
Two things I wanted to add. Firstly, I dislike using the word 'consciousness' at all, as the naive assume this is referencing some spatial entity or 'container' in which thoughts and sensations reside.
And that's why you've been using it more than anyone in your posts?
Divinity determines what is sound logic, logic does not determine what is divine.
Indeed. Does the phrase "buy local" mean anything to you?

Akroshi mamh avadhi mamh
Ajini mamh ahaashi me
Ye taani upanahyanti
Veramh tesamh na saamyati

Meanwhile, Leia has weighed in:
jupiviv wrote:for variations to be identified there needs to be at least some continuation; even the variations need to have some continuation. E.g., the sight of a wall requires a wall that retains certain properties of a wall, not to mention a faculty of sight that retains its nature and function.

Here, jupiviv elaborates on empirical observation made by you—empirical because essentially, as you said, it certainly is something anyone can go and do (contrasted with, for example, comparing the function and effects on the motor skills of an individual with a damaged brain with the motor skills in someone without brain damage in the same area): look at a wall for hours and notice a shift in perceptions. He is using logical constructs (the words and definitions “variations”, “continuation”, “sight”) to describe the subject/object experience; to elaborate on it. The observation here about the experience of the wall, so far as I can tell, is, however, actually no different to yours.
The difference in our respective observations is that he ignores continuation and dramatises the aspect of transience because his premise is supposedly that things are constantly changing. It could be that he originally just wanted to say something along the lines of "change cannot be denied", introduced "constant change" for emphasis, and then felt compelled to defend that phrase because concession is "defeat". It's all rather lulzy.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote: In >1, you say that consciousness is an abstract reference to thoughts, but you say that thoughts are aspects of it in >2. That is a contradictory usage right there.
That's because you just misquoted, I said consciousness is a reference to thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, and so on. So thoughts are of course aspects of consciousness, I never said consciousness is only thoughts. False claim of contradiction.
jupiviv wrote: On the points themselves: if consciousness is an abstract reference to thoughts then it is not reality but some sort of category for things of the mind. If thoughts are aspects of consciousness, and consciousness is reality, then it clearly has aspects other than thoughts.
I've said about a hundred times that consciousness is a reference to more than just thoughts, you're acting like I said consciousness is only "thought", that never happened, it was never implied. Of course it has aspects other than thoughts. False claim of contradiction.
jupiviv wrote: Both meanings are incompatible with your premise that everything is merely an appearance in the mind.
Blatant confusion of terms here. Creating a subject/object split between when you imply everything is appearing to the mind, as if they were separate.
jupiviv wrote: In >3, you say that consciousness and appearances are the same, thereby contradicting your definition of it as an "abstract reference" to appearances.
What? You just repeated the same thing and then said it was a contradiction. You're really bad at this. Consciousness is a word, it is indeed an abstract reference to appearances-what we refer to as appearances (forms, thoughts, sensations, and so on).
jupiviv wrote: In >4, you say that things like the earth are references to appearances, which you've also said about consciousness. You then say that consciousness is affected by our bodies - is this consciousness-as-reality, consciousness-as-thoughts or consciousness-as-reference? It certainly cannot be the first, and if it is any of the other two then you have refuted your own premise that nothing apart from consciousness exists.
"The earth" is indeed a reference to appearances. "Consciousness" is a word also referring to that 'stream' of appearances in a more inclusive way, (thoughts, sensations, feelings) you know it well, stop f'ing around as if what I mean isn't clear, you're just trying to confuse between total/specific.

Consciousness is indeed affected by the body. See how I didn't write "consciousness is the totality and it is affected by the body which is apart from consciousness". Again, you're just trying to confuse between how you imagine the total and the specific in definition. The body is a reference to certain appearances(despite that you believe it refers to some external physical thing, you're actually only referring to certain sights, feelings, etc), and it is directly related to and affects other "appearances". The body is an aspect of consciousness, it is 'made up' of appearances, consciousness is a word referring to appearances, so it obviously follows that appearances are not apart from consciousness, and indeed affect consciousness by way of their very arising, not as a separate entity affecting another.

jupiviv wrote: Finally, you use the words "appearances", "thoughts", "emotions" and "sensations" interchangeably in those quotes, but they each refer to different things. An appearance - that which appears - is not the same as a thought or an emotion and a thought is not the same as a sensation or emotion.
I use the word "appearances" to refer to "thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc", I have never once interchanged "thoughts" for "emotions" or "sensations" for "thoughts".

The fact that you have such a problem recognizing that when I use the word 'appearances' I'm literally only referring to thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, dreams, imaginations, and so on, is really only a testament to your obvious intention to create confusion and twist definitions, not to reason based on reality. I'm not creating the existence of some new thing "appearances", I'm just referring to the above. The same holds for the word "consciousness", which is simply a more inclusive term, as when one uses the word "mind", they don't mean some specific aspect such as a thought.
jupiviv wrote: Of course, several other blatant inconsistencies in usage and logic exist both in the quoted text and the rest of your posts, but that's all I have to say about your intentional or unintentional dishonesty for the moment.
Not one of the things you mentioned was even remotely an inconsistency, you said some pretty nonsensical shit, for example:

"In >3, you say that consciousness and appearances are the same, thereby contradicting your definition of it as an "abstract reference" to appearances."

Consciousness and appearances are the same, so that somehow contradicts that the word consciousness is a reference to appearances....? You've literally just repeated the exact same thing and then you say it's a contradiction.

Again, I need to make clear, it is not that I simply regard people like you as being 'wrong', but as being utterly incapable of sound reasoning in regards to philosophy and metaphysics. It's as if you exist as a manifestation of ignorance who is hell-bent on creating confusion and imagination where there is only simplicity and reality.

I made the claim that there is consciousness. "Thoughts", "sensations", "feelings", etc. It is an undeniable claim that you agree with.

You went on to claim that there is consciousness and also "things which exist outside of consciousness" which are different from consciousness- though you can't even describe what those things are or what they are like, please tell me! -and provided no reasoning whatsoever to demonstrate this (because there is no sound reasoning that can do so).
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote: To me, I thought he was simply making the point that experience is necessarily empirical but that when you say “the entirety of the experience is still constantly changing”, you’re really saying the experience of experience is constantly changing,
There is no 'experience of experience', so I don't know how I'm really saying that. Though I can see how one might look at the word "entirety" differently and how that would create confusion if one latched on to the possibility of the subtle implication that the word "entirety" was referring to some ' total experience of constant change' and that was constantly changing. I was not referring to a totality. I think they let on different meanings, at least as I see it and meant it.
Leyla Shen wrote: So, to be honest, I still don’t understand how you can conclude the following from at least the above example:
I wouldn't conclude it from that example, but from many others, and not just from Jup.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:The difference in our respective observations is that he ignores continuation and dramatises the aspect of transience because his premise is supposedly that things are constantly changing.
"Continuation" is a very general term, but if a stream for example "continues" that does not contradict the transience of the stream, does it?

From the view that what we refer to as thoughts, sensations, feelings, etc, (everything that you know) make up reality, it is not a dramatization, but an all-encompassing truth. Seriously, just try having an experience that isn't changing for 2 secs Jup. The fact that you can't admit that this is true about consciousness is ridiculous.
jupiviv wrote:And that's why you've been using it more than anyone in your posts?
I'd love to just refer to reality- the only reality anyone has ever known or ever will know- and move on, but you are so inured with this idea that the experience you know is only a reflection/product, via the brain, of some imagined realm existing 'outside' of consciousness, that you would disagree that experience/consciousness/mind is in fact reality.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

It seems to me as if Seeker and Jupiviv are arguing the age-old question of the truth or falseness of an unperceived existence/reality ("If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present, does it make a sound?")

As I see it, the only truth that can be asserted that is contradiction free is that all conscious beings are conscious of distinctions with human beings having the added distinction of naming them (thing-identification).
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I wouldn't say that our dual conception (subject/object) was false. Just not ultimately true. As I see it, there are many worldly perspectives, or conventional truths, which remain true even if they are seemingly "contradicted" by the ultimate nature of things. Though they are really are one and the same. An example might be free will, seemingly obvious and real, yet ultimately it doesn't "hold up". As I see it there is a correct inclusive 'balance' to be had.
j. There is no difference between ultimate and conventional, for the simple reason that if there were then the ultimate would itself be conventional.
Oh! now you’re just showing off. I like it.

~

I think Master JSW is arguing that all things are objects of consciousness and have no existence apart from consciousness:
You went on to claim that there is consciousness and also "things which exist outside of consciousness" which are different from consciousness- though you can't even describe what those things are or what they are like, please tell me! -and provided no reasoning whatsoever to demonstrate this (because there is no sound reasoning that can do so).
The problem with it seems to be that he then argues that the objects of consciousness exclude physical objects (and the whole empirical world, as a result) and are limited to:
The fact that you have such a problem recognizing that when I use the word 'appearances' I'm literally only referring to thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, dreams, imaginations,
So, one can only assume it must follow from this that logic, truth and falsity, like dreams and imaginations, become objects of and define thought and inorganic materials become objects of and define sensations, feelings, emotions and we can then dispense with the subject/object split, John?
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

As I see it, the only truth that can be asserted that is contradiction free is that all conscious beings are conscious of distinctions with human beings having the added distinction of naming them (thing-identification).
A naming/thing-identification distinction, like calling your kid "Bob"?

When was the last time you saw a dolphin flying a plane?
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I wouldn't say that our dual conception (subject/object) was false. Just not ultimately true. As I see it, there are many worldly perspectives, or conventional truths, which remain true even if they are seemingly "contradicted" by the ultimate nature of things. Though they are really are one and the same. An example might be free will, seemingly obvious and real, yet ultimately it doesn't "hold up". As I see it there is a correct inclusive 'balance' to be had.
j. There is no difference between ultimate and conventional, for the simple reason that if there were then the ultimate would itself be conventional.
Oh! now you’re just showing off. I like it.
~
Leyla Shen wrote: I think Master JSW is arguing that all things are objects of consciousness and have no existence apart from consciousness:

The problem with it seems to be that he then argues that the objects of consciousness exclude physical objects (and the whole empirical world, as a result) and are limited to:
The fact that you have such a problem recognizing that when I use the word 'appearances' I'm literally only referring to thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, dreams, imaginations,
So, one can only assume it must follow from this that logic, truth and falsity, like dreams and imaginations, become objects of and define thought and inorganic materials become objects of and define sensations, feelings, emotions and we can then dispense with the subject/object split, John?
Not sure what you mean by "define" exactly. I am not excluding objects or the empirical world, but yes, I am saying that everything of the empirical world is only ever made up of sensations, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and so on. The world remains as real and tangible as it ever was, as we've ever known it to be.

In the ultimate sense there is no subject/object split because thoughts, awareness, 'sense objects', are all "appearances", there is no awareness of appearances, or consciousness observing reality.

This very conversation is a 'manifestation' of reality. This is highly relevant, and the sort of simple insight that Jup has probably never understood.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Leyla Shen wrote:
As I see it, the only truth that can be asserted that is contradiction free is that all conscious beings are conscious of distinctions with human beings having the added distinction of naming them (thing-identification).
A naming/thing-identification distinction, like calling your kid "Bob"?
I'm giving the bones of it, the heart fans the flame of the rest.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

Not sure what you mean by "define" exactly.
Determine the boundaries.
Not sure what you mean by "define" exactly. I am not excluding objects or the empirical world, but yes, I am saying that everything of the empirical world is only ever made up of sensations, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and so on. The world remains as real and tangible as it ever was, as we've ever known it to be.

In the ultimate sense there is no subject/object split because thoughts, awareness, 'sense objects', are all "appearances", there is no awareness of appearances, or consciousness observing reality.
Is that statement a truth in the ultimate or conventional sense--and if they're both the same anyway, what's the difference?
This very conversation is a 'manifestation' of reality.
But you're not really saying anything. Everything is a manifestation of reality, including delusion.

How can you be certain you're not deluding yourself?
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote: But you're not really saying anything. Everything is a manifestation of reality, including delusion.
I'm aware, and it does say a lot, but I wasn't using it as an argument.
Leyla Shen wrote:Is that statement a truth in the ultimate or conventional sense--and if they're both the same anyway, what's the difference?
The word ultimate is defined with words such as "total" and "fundamental", though there are various definitions. Most conventional or worldly truths are about specifics, certain conditions, temporary situations, etc. These do not differ from 'ultimate' reality, they are of the same reality. We are essentially distinguishing between different perceptions or perspectives, such as the totality and the specific. Temporary perspectives and situational truths as opposed to absolute or total truth. Though again, one cannot pretend there is some exact defined boundary between these, and the same is true for the language. When one acts as if language, or logic, is some separate entity which works independently from reality to describe/determine it, then one is Jup'ing. All that's ever occurring is a communication via reference to one's 'experience'. Which is exactly what I mean when I say that when Jup speaks of "the body", he is in fact only able to reference his sense experiences, feelings, etc. The same goes for when he attempts to describe "the end" of consciousness/being.

As I see it, conventional and worldly wisdom may appear valid, but may not necessarily hold up as ultimate truths, in that "light", if one attempts to claim that such a truth is an ultimate truth, they could be making a completely delusional claim.
Leyla Shen wrote:How can you be certain you're not deluding yourself?
About what? Or do you mean generally?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: Both meanings are incompatible with your premise that everything is merely an appearance in the mind.
Blatant confusion of terms here. Creating a subject/object split between when you imply everything is appearing to the mind, as if they were separate.
"Everything" is not appearing to the mind, except in the sense that knowing one is knowing all. Rather, *things* are appearing, and they are separate from it precisely because they are appearing.
jupiviv wrote: In >3, you say that consciousness and appearances are the same, thereby contradicting your definition of it as an "abstract reference" to appearances.
What? You just repeated the same thing and then said it was a contradiction. You're really bad at this. Consciousness is a word, it is indeed an abstract reference to appearances-what we refer to as appearances (forms, thoughts, sensations, and so on).
An abstract reference to one or more things isn't the same as them, and neither are they aspects of it. A word is a direct reference, and two words can directly refer to the same thing. An abstract reference refers to a category of things, which may differ individually and be directly referred to by words. You use consciousness both as a direct reference to a thing, and as an abstract reference to an ill-defined category of things.
jupiviv wrote: In >4, you say that things like the earth are references to appearances, which you've also said about consciousness. You then say that consciousness is affected by our bodies - is this consciousness-as-reality, consciousness-as-thoughts or consciousness-as-reference? It certainly cannot be the first, and if it is any of the other two then you have refuted your own premise that nothing apart from consciousness exists.
"The earth" is indeed a reference to appearances. "Consciousness" is a word also referring to that 'stream' of appearances in a more inclusive way, (thoughts, sensations, feelings) you know it well, stop f'ing around as if what I mean isn't clear, you're just trying to confuse between total/specific.
To prevent confusion - you are saying that the earth is an appearance within consciousness, which is the totality of appearances, correct? If yes, do you believe that *all* things - "(forms, thoughts, sensations, and so on)" - *necessarily* appear?
Consciousness is indeed affected by the body. See how I didn't write "consciousness is the totality and it is affected by the body which is apart from consciousness".
The All isn't caused by its parts, since it is not a literal, finite whole. Only finite wholes are caused/affected by their parts, and are distinct from other finite wholes which may or not be their parts. Nothing except the All can be absolutely whole.
The body is a reference to certain appearances(despite that you believe it refers to some external physical thing, you're actually only referring to certain sights, feelings, etc), and it is directly related to and affects other "appearances".
Endless repetition of the same bogus argument won't make it correct, you know. Your "argument" if such it is called can be summarised thus: because X cannot form any relationship with Y without Y or its aspects, X must be Y or its aspects. In other words, A is not-A.

Asserting that "since the body only appears as sensations, thoughts and so on, it is the same as those things" indicates intellectual incompetence at a *basic* level because a) the appearance of a body is not the same as the appearance of a single sensation or thought of the body b) the sensations or thoughts of a body are meaningful only in relation to that body and c) the mind itself is nothing more than the awareness of things other than it, so it relates to other things by being aware of them; that relation does not negate the existence of other things.

But let us assume the above assertion to be true. How, then, does one identify or differentiate thoughts from feelings etc., or between different types of thoughts etc.? Getting back to the body - the only way one can identify or differentiate between two different sensations of the same body, or the same type of sensation of different bodies, or a sensation and a thought of a living and a dead body respectively, is by means of other sensations or thoughts which themselves need to be identified or differentiated from still other sensations, thoughts, dreams etc. Only an insane person can make sense of the unicorn fart he calls "reality" wherein such an assertion would be true.
jupiviv wrote: Finally, you use the words "appearances", "thoughts", "emotions" and "sensations" interchangeably in those quotes, but they each refer to different things. An appearance - that which appears - is not the same as a thought or an emotion and a thought is not the same as a sensation or emotion.
I use the word "appearances" to refer to "thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc", I have never once interchanged "thoughts" for "emotions" or "sensations" for "thoughts".
Your usage assumes interchangeability. See above.
your obvious intention to create confusion and twist definitions, not to reason based on reality.
Wait, how is it possible to confuse or twist definitions that are just references to appearances? The twisted definition is another reference to the same appearance. DON'T JUDGE BRO!
You went on to claim that there is consciousness and also "things which exist outside of consciousness" which are different from consciousness- though you can't even describe what those things are or what they are like, please tell me! -and provided no reasoning whatsoever to demonstrate this (because there is no sound reasoning that can do so).
If there is something, then there is something it is not. If there is everything, then nothing can be apart from it.

It is nonsensical to accuse me of not demonstrating the things that appear to consciousness, because the concept of a demonstration, like any concept, logically requires that there be things other than your consciousness which (therefore) appear to it. In the case of that accusation, I am appearing to you as someone who has not demonstrated something which I claim appears to me, to you. Therefore, in accusing me you have already assumed that it is possible for three things - me, any claim I might make, and the demonstration of such a claim - to appear to you.

Basically, you're asking me to prove to you that the proofs and reasons which are already available are, in fact, valid. I can't think for you.
Most conventional or worldly truths are about specifics, certain conditions, temporary situations, etc. These do not differ from 'ultimate' reality, they are of the same reality. We are essentially distinguishing between different perceptions or perspectives, such as the totality and the specific.
Just out of interest, how does one have a different perspective of a specific that does not differ from the totality? See, this is how I know you are regurgitating buddhist material you have read and deemed reasonable because it was compatible with your core assumptions. Predictably, you accuse anyone you disagree with or dislike of doing just that.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote: Wait, how is it possible to confuse or twist definitions that are just references to appearances? The twisted definition is another reference to the same appearance. DON'T JUDGE BRO!
It's mind blowing that you can't realize that this sort of quote is proving your ignorance and lack of ability to reason as you continuously use such logical fallacies.
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: Both meanings are incompatible with your premise that everything is merely an appearance in the mind.
Blatant confusion of terms here. Creating a subject/object split between when you imply everything is appearing to the mind, as if they were separate.
"Everything" is not appearing to the mind, except in the sense that knowing one is knowing all. Rather, *things* are appearing, and they are separate from it precisely because they are appearing.
An abstract reference to one or more things isn't the same as them, and neither are they aspects of it.
Nothing you say makes sense since you almost never provide context or even definition, for example:
An abstract reference refers to a category of things, which may differ individually and be directly referred to by words.
I really have to stress how incredibly illogical and nonsensical what you write is. Where on earth did you get this definition from? (It is not a definition, so the only answer is that you're just making shit up again.)
To prevent confusion - you are saying that the earth is an appearance within consciousness, which is the totality of appearances, correct? If yes, do you believe that *all* things - "(forms, thoughts, sensations, and so on)" - *necessarily* appear?
I have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated caution around the literal use of words like "within". Already what you've written has implied and created what has not been said. Moving on. You'll have to elaborate on your second question, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask if they "necessarily appear"?
Endless repetition of the same bogus argument won't make it correct, you know.
I would say the exact same thing to you.
Your "argument" if such it is called can be summarised thus: because X cannot form any relationship with Y without Y or its aspects, X must be Y or its aspects. In other words, A is not-A.
If you say so Miss Ellis (High school math teacher).
Asserting that "since the body only appears as sensations, thoughts and so on, it is the same as those things" indicates intellectual incompetence at a *basic* level because a) the appearance of a body is not the same as the appearance of a single sensation or thought of the body.
Nor is the body the same as a single foot or a hand, yet all of these fall under the definition of a body. Your reasoning is not sound in a), I never said "'the body' is the same as the appearance of a single sensation or thought of the body", nor did I say "the body only appears as sensations, thoughts, and so on", since that also has the subtle implication that the body is a separately existing entity which "appears as". Such a statement would require elaboration on which context your using the words "the body" in,(yours or mine?) and it would require me to ask why you used the word "single".
b) the sensations or thoughts of a body are meaningful only in relation to that body
Again, this is such a short unexplained sentence that implies so much. You continue to show that you're only deluding yourself with careless claims and thoughtless conjecture based on nothing more than your personal fantasies which arise from the twisting and confusion of language.
and c) the mind itself is nothing more than the awareness of things other than it,
That's your claim, not reasoning against what I have said.
How, then, does one identify or differentiate thoughts from feelings etc., or between different types of thoughts etc.?
Did you just ask *how* one identifies and differentiates thoughts from feelings? Is it even possible to answer such a question, the "how" of the existence of "identification" and "differentiation"? Do you mind re-phrasing?
Getting back to the body - the only way one can identify or differentiate


So you want to answer "How does one identity or differentiate?" Because you'd have to answer that question before going on to speak about it.
Getting back to the body - the only way one can identify or differentiate between two different sensations of the same body, or the same type of sensation of different bodies, or a sensation and a thought of a living and a dead body respectively, is by means of other sensations or thoughts which themselves need to be identified or differentiated from still other sensations, thoughts, dreams etc. Only an insane person can make sense of the unicorn fart he calls "reality" wherein such an assertion would be true.


Do you by chance have a mental disability? You just made that assertion, and then claimed it was insane.. *Slaps forehead*
jupiviv wrote: It is nonsensical to accuse me of not demonstrating the things that appear to consciousness, because the concept of a demonstration, like any concept, logically requires that there be things other than your consciousness which (therefore) appear to it.


Another confusion between imagined total and specific discrimination, when did I ever say that there is only "my" consciousness? Are you ever going to stop making things up, making your own assertions and claiming that they were mine, and even putting the shit you wrote in quotation marks as if I wrote it? You're abusing the most basic rules of a philosophical conversation.
Just out of interest, how does one have a different perspective of a specific that does not differ from the totality?


Try reading over that question a few times, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You really need to elaborate more on all these nonsensical questions you've been asking, at least they have been nonsensical so far, since you do not provide near enough context or explanation.
See, this is how I know you are regurgitating buddhist material you have read


I'm not regurgitating anything.
Predictably, you accuse anyone you disagree with or dislike of doing just that.
I don't think your regurgitating *most* of the reasoning you've used above, it seems to be just a confusing collage of thoughtless conjecture and hyper complexity created via unclear language, you really say nothing about the nature of reality, or even reference any of your insights. Despite the fact that all of the knowledge of which- and I'm sure even you would agree- is derived from your experience. So please start referring to that experience, and stop trying to argue about the nature of reality based purely on convoluted definition assassination.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Nothing you say makes sense since you almost never provide context or even definition, for example:
An abstract reference refers to a category of things, which may differ individually and be directly referred to by words.
I really have to stress how incredibly illogical and nonsensical what you write is. Where on earth did you get this definition from? (It is not a definition, so the only answer is that you're just making shit up again.)
To recap, these are your quotes which I claimed contain contradictions:
given that you've said that things are merely appearances, thoughts and sensations within consciousness and that there is nothing beyond what is thought or felt. Yes, *if* "consciousness" were defined as "Reality", then those things would be within it or manifestations of it.



"Within" is of course a tricky word, since consciousness is an abstract reference to these things (appearances, thoughts and sensations), rather than some location or plane within which they arise.
But then this consciousness-as-Reality would not be limited by them, nor would they be or occur "within it" in the same way a thought, feeling or memory is/occurs within a conventionally defined consciousness. The consciousness-as-Reality would be the sum total of these things and everything else, and that's it. It could not think thoughts or feel feelings, or survive or perish with bodily death. But you want consciousness to simultaneously think, feel, perceive, etc. *and* be the Allfather.



Your explanations are implying too much, though the implications are subtle. "Consciousness" is not thinking, feeling, perceiving, these words are instead references to aspects of consciousness, not activities of some separate entity.
In light of the above, is an abstract reference to one or more things the same as them or comprised of them?
To prevent confusion - you are saying that the earth is an appearance within consciousness, which is the totality of appearances, correct? If yes, do you believe that *all* things - "(forms, thoughts, sensations, and so on)" - *necessarily* appear?
I have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated caution around the literal use of words like "within". Already what you've written has implied and created what has not been said. Moving on. You'll have to elaborate on your second question, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask if they "necessarily appear"?
Since you introduced the idea of things existing within consciousness, it's up to you to clarify it. As for my question, it was clear enough. If you think some terms were vague then state your definitions of them where necessary. This ain't rocket science.
Asserting that "since the body only appears as sensations, thoughts and so on, it is the same as those things" indicates intellectual incompetence at a *basic* level because a) the appearance of a body is not the same as the appearance of a single sensation or thought of the body.
Nor is the body the same as a single foot or a hand, yet all of these fall under the definition of a body. Your reasoning is not sound in a), I never said "'the body' is the same as the appearance of a single sensation or thought of the body",
My reasoning is perfectly sound. Just because I didn't use the exact same words that you did doesn't mean I haven't addressed your point - this is an actual example of a straw man, and it's one of many to be found in your posts. This is what you actually said:

The body is a reference to certain appearances(despite that you believe it refers to some external physical thing, you're actually only referring to certain sights, feelings, etc), and it is directly related to and affects other "appearances".

Whether the body refers to one mental event or several, the appearance of the body is distinct from the appearance of mental event(s) pertaining to the physical body.
nor did I say "the body only appears as sensations, thoughts, and so on", since that also has the subtle implication that the body is a separately existing entity which "appears as".
I have not stated, nor does my argument assume, that you think the body is a separate entity. So where is *your* argument? You seem to think that pointing out what you imagine to be misrepresentations of your views suffices as a response to the actual argument.
Such a statement would require elaboration on which context your using the words "the body" in,(yours or mine?) and it would require me to ask why you used the word "single".
How can your premise allow for separate bodies when it doesn't even allow for an entity separate from the mind appearing as a body? How would you differentiate between your body and mine?
b) the sensations or thoughts of a body are meaningful only in relation to that body
Again, this is such a short unexplained sentence that implies so much. You continue to show that you're only deluding yourself with careless claims and thoughtless conjecture based on nothing more than your personal fantasies which arise from the twisting and confusion of language.
I get it now. "Implies so much" means "I can't think of a good way to respond to this", which is superfluous anyway coming from you.
and c) the mind itself is nothing more than the awareness of things other than it,
That's your claim, not reasoning against what I have said.
Of course it is my claim, and it refutes your claim things can only exist as appearances in the mind that are limited to mental events and phenomena.
How, then, does one identify or differentiate thoughts from feelings etc., or between different types of thoughts etc.?
Did you just ask *how* one identifies and differentiates thoughts from feelings? Is it even possible to answer such a question, the "how" of the existence of "identification" and "differentiation"? Do you mind re-phrasing?
Answer the question or admit you don't actually have an argument.
Getting back to the body - the only way one can identify or differentiate


So you want to answer "How does one identity or differentiate?" Because you'd have to answer that question before going on to speak about it.
You're not fooling anybody.
Getting back to the body - the only way one can identify or differentiate between two different sensations of the same body, or the same type of sensation of different bodies, or a sensation and a thought of a living and a dead body respectively, is by means of other sensations or thoughts which themselves need to be identified or differentiated from still other sensations, thoughts, dreams etc. Only an insane person can make sense of the unicorn fart he calls "reality" wherein such an assertion would be true.


Do you by chance have a mental disability? You just made that assertion, and then claimed it was insane.. *Slaps forehead*
I repeated your assertion and carried it to its logical conclusions. If things that aren't mental phenomena are considered to be such, there would be no way to discern them or differentiate between them, since they are not, in fact, mental phenomena.

By the way, is a mental disability different from a physical disability?
jupiviv wrote: It is nonsensical to accuse me of not demonstrating the things that appear to consciousness, because the concept of a demonstration, like any concept, logically requires that there be things other than your consciousness which (therefore) appear to it.


Another confusion between imagined total and specific discrimination, when did I ever say that there is only "my" consciousness?
So what are the "imagined total" and the "specific" you accuse me of confusing between? And if there isn't only your consciousness, what else is there and why should it be considered different from your consciousness?
Just out of interest, how does one have a different perspective of a specific that does not differ from the totality?


Try reading over that question a few times, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You really need to elaborate more on all these nonsensical questions you've been asking, at least they have been nonsensical so far, since you do not provide near enough context or explanation.
OK, let me ask it more clearly, even though the original was clear enough - if specific things do not differ from the totality, how can the former be viewed from a different perspective than the latter is viewed from?
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Thank you Jup, your questions were actually much more clear this time.
jupiviv wrote:In light of the above, is an abstract reference to one or more things the same as them or comprised of them?
Neither, an abstract reference is not the same as the thing nor is it comprised of them, it is just a reference. But to be fair I'll assume you meant to ask: Is an abstract reference, such as the word "consciousness", referring to that which is the same as one or more things (I assume here you mean thoughts, sensations, feelings, etc) or is it comprised of these?

Consciousness as I use it is a word referring to reality -Without the opposition-view that there exists things 'outside' of consciousness, then the word consciousness would be entirely meaningless and could be replaced with "reality", but of course, there is this opposition-view) that which we refer to as awareness, thoughts, feelings, and so on (reality and appearances, to me are the same, but do not take that to imply a statement of totality or particular). Your question I find fault in, if it is comprised of these or "made up" of these, then it is by necessity the same as them.
jupiviv wrote:As for my question, it was clear enough. If you think some terms were vague then state your definitions of them where necessary.
I would perhaps use the word "of" rather than "within" consciousness, so as to avoid the implication that "consciousness" is some literal container of thoughts, sensations, etc, rather than a reference to these (and we all know very well what they are).
jupiviv wrote: How, then, does one identify or differentiate thoughts from feelings etc., or between different types of thoughts etc.?

...
Answer the question or admit you don't actually have an argument.
I already answered:
"Is it even possible to answer such a question, the "how" of the existence of "identification" and "differentiation"?"

I would say that only in a relative or conventional context can one answer such a question, there is ultimately no "how". It would be like asking "How does reality include the process of identification and differentiation?" The fact is that identification and differentiation occur. Again, they are not the activities of some separate entity looking down upon reality judging it and discriminating. Discrimination and identification are manifestations of reality, not actions of any ultimate being or awareness who decides "how" they arise.
jupiviv wrote:If things that aren't mental phenomena are considered to be such, there would be no way to discern them or differentiate between them, since they are not, in fact, mental phenomena.
Unless they are mental phenomena, and reality does not require you to be able to explain the (non-existent) "how" of discernment and differentiation.
jupiviv wrote: So what are the "imagined total" and the "specific" you accuse me of confusing between?
I never implied that there weren't "things" other than "my" consciousness, which implied that I was saying that the specific ("my" consciousness) was the totality. Which would be solipsism rather than idealism.
jupiviv wrote:And if there isn't only your consciousness, what else is there and why should it be considered different from your consciousness?
First of all I wouldn't say that consciousness was "mine" (who's? as if a separate entity owns it ), since I have equated what we refer to as thoughts/sensations/etc as the nature of reality(it equates itself really). But it is logical to assume there are other conscious experiences than the one which is occurring now. As we have all similarly deduced, it is only when the reality of consciousness is described as a mere reflection or production of that which exists 'outside' of consciousness (and is different to consciousness in nature), that I am in opposition. The world remains as real as it ever was, just not this fantasy external realm of yours.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Consciousness as I use it is a word referring to reality
OK, so that's established.
Without the opposition-view that there exists things 'outside' of consciousness, then the word consciousness would be entirely meaningless and could be replaced with "reality", but of course, there is this opposition-view
I define "reality" to be the sum of all things that can possibly exist.
(reality is) that which we refer to as awareness, thoughts, feelings, and so on (reality and appearances, to me are the same, but do not take that to imply a statement of totality or particular).
That's where our views diverge dramatically, because I don't think that all things (i.e. reality) are appearances.
jupiviv wrote:As for my question, it was clear enough. If you think some terms were vague then state your definitions of them where necessary.
I would perhaps use the word "of" rather than "within" consciousness, so as to avoid the implication that "consciousness" is some literal container of thoughts, sensations, etc, rather than a reference to these (and we all know very well what they are).
Are you saying that reality itself is a reference? Or are you saying that reality is the summation of "thoughts, sensations, etc", which are the only things that exist? If it is the former, then you have to tell me what the reference referenced by the word "consciousness" itself refers to. If the latter then, well, you are wrong for very obvious reasons that I've stated multiple times in multiple ways throughout this discussion.
jupiviv wrote: How, then, does one identify or differentiate thoughts from feelings etc., or between different types of thoughts etc.?

...
Answer the question or admit you don't actually have an argument.
I already answered:
"Is it even possible to answer such a question, the "how" of the existence of "identification" and "differentiation"?"

I would say that only in a relative or conventional context can one answer such a question, there is ultimately no "how". It would be like asking "How does reality include the process of identification and differentiation?" The fact is that identification and differentiation occur. Again, they are not the activities of some separate entity looking down upon reality judging it and discriminating. Discrimination and identification are manifestations of reality, not actions of any ultimate being or awareness who decides "how" they arise.
Come on dude, who're you BS'ing here besides yourself? Like I've said before, this isn't a competition. I clearly did not ask you "how" those things can *exist*, but how they can *function* given your premise.

Although when I think about it, *that* is also a valid question, given your premise. In fact a *more* valid question than the one I asked, so thanks for bringing it up! How, indeed, can identification *itself* occur if that which is to be identified is not related to a subject? After all, the whole point of identification is to identify something that was not identified before, which is impossible if as you say a thing and its appearance are the same.

Your subsequent "answer" is a non sequitur and straw man combo - it does not follow that a separation between identifying subject and identified object is only possible if there is an ultimate being, and the question of whether such a being exists is irrelevant to begin with.
jupiviv wrote: So what are the "imagined total" and the "specific" you accuse me of confusing between?
I never implied that there weren't "things" other than "my" consciousness, which implied that I was saying that the specific ("my" consciousness) was the totality. Which would be solipsism rather than idealism.
LAWL...How can there *be* other consciousnesses when you deny that anything exists *outside* of consciousness?! If you think that there is a consciousness identifiable as mine or yours then it is an instance of consciousness and therefore nothing can exist outside it, including other consciousnesses.
jupiviv wrote:And if there isn't only your consciousness, what else is there and why should it be considered different from your consciousness?
First of all I wouldn't say that consciousness was "mine" (who's? as if a separate entity owns it )
You just did! Unbelievable...
But it is logical to assume there are other conscious experiences than the one which is occurring now.
No it isn't, if you believe that things are appearances that don't appear "to" or "as" anything! The difference between two conscious experiences is also the difference between the things that are experienced. According to your premise there is nothing that is *experienced* and nobody who *experiences*. An experience is exactly what every other experience is, which is...an experience. Your premise precludes any logical movement beyond itself.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

Leyla Shen wrote:
How can you be certain you're not deluding yourself?


SeekerOfWisdom: About what? Or do you mean generally?

I mean in the context of the blindingly obvious absolute truth and what logically follows from it ("all things are appearances existing in consciousness/no thing exists outside of consciousness/therefore, no things appear in consciousness") you are referring to.

I mean, what follows from your premises insofar as they speak a truth about the nature of delusion?
Between Suicides
Locked