The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
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: So what are the "imagined total" and the "specific" you accuse me of confusing between?

S:
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.

J:
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.
You continuously use the word "outside" without any context and thereby imply inferences which were never implied by me, I've spoken about the words "within" and "outside" in regard to consciousness on at least five occasions during this thread.

To imply there are "other instances" (which is is suitably inexact language) of consciousness, is not the same as saying things exist "outside" consciousness(which would necessarily have to be different in nature than consciousness).

To be clarify, I also wouldn't say that things exist "inside" consciousness.

What I am saying is that there is nothing which differs in its core nature from what we refer to as consciousness- there are only various 'manifestations' of such, "yours", "mine", or 'instances' if you like that word.

It's really odd how you keep coming to these inferences, all that is being said is that this "physical realm" which supposedly exists independently from consciousness, (materialism) does not exist (Idealism). This doesn't change reality,the world, or how it all works, it only stops one from clinging to vague imaginations of this mind-independent 'stuff' (you're yet to explain what it is you're suggesting exists).
jupiviv wrote:You just did! Unbelievable...
I quoted your use of the word on both occasions in a negative manner, I specifically said "I never implied" the following and "which (would have) implied" the following.

Not only are you unbelievable in your repetition of speaking on my behalf and misquoting, as well as making your own inferences then claiming they were mine, you also write words like "LAWL" in a conversation which is apparently to be judged by logic, I'm not even sure why I reply to you, I really wouldn't normally speak to a person if they wrote words like "LAWL". Can you cease doing that? I can't justify myself really, it just feels like I'm talking to a twelve year old when you do it.
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 »

Lookit, a response!
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: So what are the "imagined total" and the "specific" you accuse me of confusing between?

S:
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.

J:
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.
You continuously use the word "outside" without any context and thereby imply inferences which were never implied by me, I've spoken about the words "within" and "outside" in regard to consciousness on at least five occasions during this thread.
What the hell is an implied inference and which part of my argument contains such a thing? If I used the word "outside" without context then explain to me how my usage of it here is different from yours.
To imply there are "other instances" (which is is suitably inexact language) of consciousness, is not the same as saying things exist "outside" consciousness(which would necessarily have to be different in nature than consciousness).
Any instance of consciousness that is not a certain instance of consciousness is outside of that same instance, which contradicts the premise that nothing exists outside of consciousness.
What I am saying is that there is nothing which differs in its core nature from what we refer to as consciousness- there are only various 'manifestations' of such, "yours", "mine", or 'instances' if you like that word.
And I've explained why this is wrong, since there are things other than what we refer to as consciousness. The real problem here is that you're trying to have your cake and eat it - you're trying to impose the qualities of a finite thing (consciousness) upon the Infinite. You are *not* merely exchanging terms, but trying to deny the existence of things that are problematic for your worldview in favour of those that (you mistakenly believe) support it.

Apart from all of that your statement is wrong even if "consciousness" does refer to the All or Reality. Reality necessarily *includes* whatever is said to be a manifestation of Reality, which for that reason cannot be a manifestation of Reality. It is an interesting idea though...alluding to recursion perhaps?
User avatar
amerika
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:14 am

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

Post by amerika »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I no longer believe there can be a point to philosophy without the context of a real and ongoing action based on purpose.
Philosophy informs us about what is real, and what we ought to do about it; our momentum carries us in some direction; philosophy may be mere corrections to that course.
Locked