jupiviv wrote: Let me repeat it in a more logically stringent form: how can a constantly changing experience of constant change be meaningful?
Meaning is part of the 'experience', not some external effort of any being observing that 'experience'.
if truthful thoughts recur or endure then they must do so as themselves, not "similar" versions of themselves. And if they recur/endure as themselves then they aren't constantly changing. And if they aren't constantly changing, there must be such a thing as permanence.
Your reasoning here seems to be based on two conclusions, firstly that a truthful thought is actually recurring or enduring, (and I assume you simply mean that if there is a truthful thought, and then one thinks the same truth, that it is actually the same truthful thought which has recurred) and that when such a truth 're-appears' as a thought, it 'must do so as itself'. No clue what that means! Like I said, it's not an enduring entity, there is simply a 'new experience' every moment, and if there is 'consistency' within that experience, or even if there is the exact same experience every day, (such as of thinking about a truth), that doesn't negate the fact that each time the experience itself, including the thoughts, are entirely transient/ephemeral/fleeting.
jupiviv wrote: you are, in fact, contradicting your own premise whenever you assume or believe that something hasn't changed into something else.
The wording you used "changed
into something else" implies some subtle things, too much implication for me to agree.
So now you have dropped "complete transience" and moved on to "transience with consistency", "consistency" being presumptuously clad in the robes of your tripe premise.
Now you're just making false claims, it is still complete transience because the entirety of the thoughts/feelings/sensations to which I am referring are in a state of complete transience. Whatever qualities of this transience are consistent do not alter the fact. For example, lets say you were experiencing a wavering screen of the color 'blue', the entire time the experience is changing and is transient, yet the quality "blue" is consistent. This is sound reasoning, and doesn't negate the fact of the transience.
There's no shame in admitting you're wrong; a basic lesson,
It is one of the greatest of the basic lessons, but more importantly, one must be able to distinguish when one is wrong before he can admit it, and for that one requires sound and strong logic. In this case, it is a matter of truth.
It just means that the existence of a thing, even though changing or permanent within time, is eternal in the context of the All.
Is this an abstract "eternal"? Like saying that the arising of a thing always occurred, and it will always be, that it occurred?
Finite things can be distinguished from other finite things, and eternity is the relationship of finite things to the Infinite.
One must keep in mind that at the same time, there is ultimately no difference except in perspective of specific or totality, you're essentially referring to the same reality.
If there was only consciousness, then consciousness would be the same as the All.
See the above sentence.
If that's how you define it then that's fine, but in that case nothing can appear to, sensed or be felt by this "consciousness", because it is nothing more or less than Reality.
In that sense, nothing is appearing to it, or sensed by it, but instead appearances and senses are aspects of it. Which is something you have to keep in mind when you asked the first question about meaning.
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, 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.
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.
If you object that only other consciousnesses appear to a consciousness,
I never said that, and again, you're implying much.
If you object that only the numerous *parts* of a consciousness appears to itself,
See the above, again.
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.
I think that your real motivation is to redefine "wisdom" in such a way that it - simultaneously - nullifies the need to adhere to a standard of honesty and integrity (thoughts, values and purposes are transient),
You're assuming too much, I never said that they are nullified, just that they must be used in the correct context. The way I see it, there is a kind of 'order' of knowledge, absolute truths are at the foundation, (such as that of impermanence), and when they are overlooked, dismissed, ignored, and people make truth-claims out of context, that is delusional. In fact, I've spent almost the entirety of my time focused on this 'absolute' aspect of wisdom, whereas I would say that the larger 'portion' of wisdom is actually in regard to the worldly, the transient. Values, purposes, and so on.
doesn't deny the value or reality of the things you enjoy or desire (transient appearances are still real)
Yes, transient appearances are real.
and prevents you from feeling depressed, scared or worried (everything is just an appearance within consciousness).
Worldly wisdom would do that for me on its own, though "prevents" implies that I'd be holding them back or something. Whereas they are simply not present.
As an added bonus, it makes you feel superior and unique to other people.
I would say that the philosopher is in one sense superior to other people. But one could say the same about a rich person, really. (In the sense that a rich person is placed 'above' other people. For example, if he offered someone who is not rich plenty of money to bow and scrape before him, they'd probably do it.)
But you are behaving exactly like them! Reason is abandoned whenever suffering is encountered, and the abandonment itself is christened Reason.
Now you're just being dramatic, focus on the reasoning and not ad hominem based on the claim that I'm wrong, the question isn't how you think I'm behaving, the question is about what is true. If what I'm saying is true, then it is wise.