The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

[Pam Seeback]

I can no longer, of integrity of conscience, declare impermanence to be true in all possible worlds because all possible worlds are not yet revealed to me.

Revelation (and consciousness in general) requires impermanence. Since the existence of 'possible worlds' is dependent on conscious perception, any sort of 'world of permanence' is illusory at best, and moreover logically impossible.

I am being pruned with with each post, "revealed" was a poor choice of concept. As I am limited to using concepts, do you intuit my meaning when I speak of "something" that is utterly transcendent to everything of our current conceptual experience? "Something" that remains inaccessible to us as long as we identify with consciousness (of form)? The concept of causality works well here as one could say that what is transcendent to consciousness of form is causally connected to consciousness of form, however, what this casual connection "is" remains unknown to consciousness of form.

[Leyla Shen]

That made sense, I think, right up until you contradicted yourself and said this:

however, what this casual connection "is" remains unknown to consciousness of form.

[Leyla Shen]

You are quite obviously stating something about the causal connection known to you. What else can "it" be but what it is—something else?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It's not really the same though, because a sound refutation of God's existence debunks *specific* assertions about the existence of God, not existence per se and not any other assertions about the existence of God or anything else. For example, it's possible that some alien being created life on earth or even the solar system, but even that being wouldn't be the Allfather.

You assert that the transience of things refutes "permanent". In a purely semantic sense I suppose it does (the words have opposite meanings). In the same sense, "The letter duet"-ness of things refutes their non-"The letter duet"-ness, which incidentally promises absolutely nothing but rather makes grossly unreasonable demands of complete strangers! But saying things in that sense doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

Firstly, we don't have a whole mass of delusional metaphysical claims about whatever the "letter duet"-ness of things is to deal with, so refuting it is of course pointless. Secondly, your implied premise or assumption that you can't have meaningful descriptions of reality simply because such descriptions are referring to an all-encompassing 'quality' is unreasonable and illogical, it just doesn't hold up. Lastly, you seem to simply be nitpicking with how you view the rules of language, whereas the truth which is being conveyed in relation to the reality of the nature of consciousness reveals much and gets us very far.

[Pam Seeback]

That made sense, I think, right up until you contradicted yourself and said this:

however, what this casual connection "is" remains unknown to consciousness of form.

The reference to a causal connection is not important. What is important to me is that you thought what I said about identification with consciousness of form preventing one from obtaining access to that which is utterly conceptually transcendent made sense. Since I am speaking of mystical union with the nonconceptual, I'm curious, do you identity yourself as seeking the same?

[Leyla Shen]

Are you asking me if, for example, I'd like to deliberately drive head on into an oncoming truck, or if I'm trying to unify the concept Consciousness of Form with the concept Non-conceptual?

[Pam Seeback]

Are you asking me if, for example, I'd like to deliberately drive head on into an oncoming truck, or if I'm trying to unify the concept Consciousness of Form with the concept Non-conceptual?

The veil of sarcasm, unless not? If so, our exchange on mystical union ends here.

[Leyla Shen]

No, no sarcasm. I'm essentially asking you to explain why your use of causality is appropriate as an analogy. Do me a favour though; keep your answer as succinct as possible.

[Pam Seeback]

For the sake of being succinct as to why I used the analogy of causality in relation to mystical union or “being”, I refer to the Buddhist six planes of existence (conditioned phenomena).

Causality allows for the understanding that being does not cease when one no longer identifies with human being (or any other of the six planes of existence/views of form fabrication). Note “being” does not have the same connotation as “to be” or “not to be.” In this context, it is that which has wisdom of conditioned phenomena and is in union with this truth. There is much more that can be said of the nature of a wisdom being, but in context of our exchange, this shall suffice.

[Leyla Shen]

Causality allows for the understanding that being does not cease when one no longer identifies with human being (or any other of the six planes of existence/views of form fabrication).

Ok, so how is that an argument for the possibility of a permanent world/a world where "we no longer identify with consciousness (of form)", i.e. a world that never changes:

I can no longer, of integrity of conscience, declare impermanence to be true in all possible worlds because all possible worlds are not yet revealed to me.

I see the realms as psychological states. Certainly, as such, they can be transcended and your notion of being becomes just thereby possible, or indeed: accessible.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Pam, about impermanence being true in all possible worlds, wouldn't it only need knowing the impermanence of mind, perspectives and beliefs? Leyla calls them psychological states although if those were all effects and reflections of the world at large, the choice of words wouldn't matter that much I think.

because all possible worlds are not yet revealed to me.

But is it revealed how they show up, that they show up, that there's a revealing? It's like saying somewhere, sometime something permanent might be happening and how would I know? It would still happen like all happenings so that much can we know. It would be like thinking that some construct like a form of unchanging changing, some solid liquid, some fixed movement, could exist. Naturally there's much which we cannot even begin to conceive of. But permanence and impermanence is what we can conceive of. It's even possible to say that we only conceive at all using these two contrasting concepts of constant and change; like a sun reliably moving over the wide unmoving sky. It doesn't get more real and it doesn't get more illusionary than that.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: Causality allows for the understanding that being does not cease when one no longer identifies with human being (or any other of the six planes of existence/views of form fabrication).

Leyla: Ok, so how is that an argument for the possibility of a permanent world/a world where "we no longer identify with consciousness (of form)", i.e. a world that never changes:

I am not arguing for a permanent world. I dropped that concept quite a while ago. Upon the extinquishment of consciousness/form on bodily death (assuming liberation from consciousness/form is attained), obviously nothing can be said as one is not conscious.

[Pam Seeback]

Quote:
movingalways: "because all possible worlds are not yet revealed to me."

Diebert: It would be like thinking that some construct like a form of unchanging changing, some solid liquid, some fixed movement, could exist.

Not sure why you and Leyla used that quote from my reply to Russell since I acknowledged to him that in relation to "all possible worlds", "revealed" was a poor choice of concept (as is, in retrospect, the concept of "all possible worlds.") Both you and Russell are correct of course, consciousness requires impermanence. My error in language was a reaction to what I perceive is Seeker's belief that consciousness/forming/impermanence (rooted in desire) is an eternal condition.

Diebert: Naturally there's much which we cannot even begin to conceive of.
But permanence and impermanence is what we can conceive of. It's even possible to say that we only conceive at all using these two contrasting concepts of constant and change; like a sun reliably moving over the wide unmoving sky. It doesn't get more real and it doesn't get more illusionary than that.

Contrast required by consciousness, maker of fabrications: our ignorance revealed. :-)

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, come on, Pam. Don't, to put it kindly, play coy now. You are trying (badly) to argue for the possibility of a permanent world after body death.

I didn't refer to your use of the term "revealed". I didn't need to to understand what you were saying.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My error in language was a reaction to what I perceive is Seeker's belief that consciousness/forming/impermanence (rooted in desire) is an eternal condition.

This is what you wrote in fuller form:

• Where once I declared emphatically that I had no beliefs and that I had to find "the absolute", I had to know what is true in all possible worlds, now I believe that no such certainty is possible. Our discussion on impermanence brought me to this insight. I can no longer, of integrity of conscience, declare impermanence to be true in all possible worlds because all possible worlds are not yet revealed to me.

Perhaps the taking issue has to do with you appearing to assume your mind could function without certainties or that it would make sense to speak of anything, or imply the possibility to be present, without a present, contrasted, contrasting mind. The "mind at rest" is not a mind. One is free to create a rather fake observational position to study ones own mind but it's not a "true" position at all. But once gone beyond good and evil, one can also go beyond true and false in the same manner. It's not about any rejection of all morality or truth, it's about allowing a new orientation to form. Unless human existence itself would be opposed completely. Not uncommon to wrestle with: self-opposition is what makes our mind go around.

Contrast required by consciousness, maker of fabrications: our ignorance revealed. :-)

There's a difference between revelation and ignorance. A fine line but that's why they say it's so hard to follow through.

[jupiviv]

Firstly, we don't have a whole mass of delusional metaphysical claims about whatever the "letter duet"-ness of things is to deal with, so refuting it is of course pointless.

That wasn't my point though. I was trying to demonstrate the limitation of the premise that oppositely defined concepts "refute" each other. In the context of change and permanence, pointing out impermanence does not refute permanence nor prove the assertion "impermanence is eternal" (which ultimately means the same as "permanence is eternal").

Both change and permanence are qualities that belong to finite things. Change is multiplicity in time whereas permanence is simplicity - permanence is the appearance of a single thing, like a mountain that won't move as Diebert said or a purpose striven for by the same mould of character; change is the appearance of different things, like an apple sapling and an apple. Whether permanent or changing, all things are eternal because ultimately they don't have anywhere to go.

Secondly, your implied premise or assumption that you can't have meaningful descriptions of reality simply because such descriptions are referring to an all-encompassing 'quality' is unreasonable and illogical, it just doesn't hold up.

You can have meaningful descriptions of it but you don't seem to have provided one here. The "blatant reality before you" is infinitely more sublime than the slideshow of "impermanent appearances" evidently running in your brain. Your brain itself is operated by processes which are permanent enough to *keep* doing so, unless you've accidentally dipped your head in a bucket of piranha fish lately.

The unconscious world to which nothing appears causes the conscious world of appearances, just like the latter causes the former - this fact is both empirically observable and logically deducible. One is as impermanent or permanent as the other. Even if you say that there is only appearance - which is true in a sense - the fact remains that whatever is said to be "all there is" isn't a quality of whatever "is there".

Lastly, you seem to simply be nitpicking with how you view the rules of language, whereas the truth which is being conveyed in relation to the reality of the nature of consciousness reveals much and gets us very far.

To me it reveals that you are a lame tortoise in a glass jug chasing a bird.

movingalways: Causality allows for the understanding that being does not cease when one no longer identifies with human being (or any other of the six planes of existence/views of form fabrication).

Leyla: Ok, so how is that an argument for the possibility of a permanent world/a world where "we no longer identify with consciousness (of form)", i.e. a world that never changes:

I am not arguing for a permanent world. I dropped that concept quite a while ago. Upon the extinquishment of consciousness/form on bodily death (assuming liberation from consciousness/form is attained), obviously nothing can be said as one is not conscious.

This is false because consciousness itself - among other things - will have causes with countless effects. We may not be able to predict the *specific* effects with certainty but "something" can indeed be said about the posthumous time.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: I am not arguing for a permanent world. I dropped that concept quite a while ago. Upon the extinquishment of consciousness/form on bodily death (assuming liberation from consciousness/form is attained), obviously nothing can be said as one is not conscious.

jupiviv: This is false because consciousness itself - among other things - will have causes with countless effects. We may not be able to predict the *specific* effects with certainty but "something" can indeed be said about the posthumous time.

Unless I'm mis-reading you, it appears as if your perception of consciousness is that it is independent of things/form. As I see it, consciousness and things are inseparable, they arise together, i.e., mental fabrications and the body are consciousness, consciousness is the body and mental fabrications. Therefore, the only thing that can be said about the posthumous time is that consciousness of body and mental fabrications is still active (samsara), aka rebirth of the causal continuum of appearance (effects).

[jupiviv]

movingalways: I am not arguing for a permanent world. I dropped that concept quite a while ago. Upon the extinquishment of consciousness/form on bodily death (assuming liberation from consciousness/form is attained), obviously nothing can be said as one is not conscious.

jupiviv: This is false because consciousness itself - among other things - will have causes with countless effects. We may not be able to predict the *specific* effects with certainty but "something" can indeed be said about the posthumous time.

Unless I'm mis-reading you, it appears as if your perception of consciousness is that it is independent of things/form.

In case my meaning is unclear, I actually meant to say "consciousness itself - among other things - has countless causes and effects" in the previous post. So how do you figure that something with countless causes and effects is independent from them?

As I see it, consciousness and things are inseparable, they arise together, i.e., mental fabrications and the body are consciousness, consciousness is the body and mental fabrications.

That isn't correct. Consciousness and "things" together form the All, so it is irrelevant whether they are distinct or united, arising together or at different times - they are wedded in eternity. As it happens, mental fabrications are not the body, nor indeed consciousness in most cases. Nor do consciousness and the body arise together.

Therefore, the only thing that can be said about the posthumous time is that consciousness of body and mental fabrications is still active (samsara), aka rebirth of the causal continuum of appearance (effects).

In posthumous time there is no consciousness by definition. You have no way of certainly knowing whether your consciousness will be active after a second, let alone after death.

[Leyla Shen]

Truly, it’s magical!

How the heck do you get a “therefore” from:

P1: Consciousness and things are inseparable and arise together; or
P1(a): Mental fabrications and the body are consciousness; and
P1(b): Consciousness is the body and mental fabrications; therefore
C: Consciousness of body and mental fabrications is still active in posthumous time.

~

Both change and permanence are qualities that belong to finite things. Change is multiplicity in time whereas permanence is simplicity - permanence is the appearance of a single thing, like a mountain that won't move as Diebert said or a purpose striven for by the same mould of character; change is the appearance of different things, like an apple sapling and an apple. Whether permanent or changing, all things are eternal because ultimately they don't have anywhere to go.

Nice. Very nice, indeed. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.

[Pam Seeback]

So whose story of consciousness is the truth of consciousness? Mine? Leyla's? Russell's? Seeker's? Dieberts? Jupiviv's? Perhaps God's loneliness is here: self-contrast for communication, for meaning, for life, for love. Who can say it ain't so?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

That wasn't my point though. I was trying to demonstrate the limitation of the premise that oppositely defined concepts "refute" each other. In the context of change and permanence, pointing out impermanence does not refute permanence nor prove the assertion "impermanence is eternal" (which ultimately means the same as "permanence is eternal").

An endless change does not equal permanence, it is only a reference to the quality of the change which we say is ongoing without end. Truth, for example, is not a permanent thing that we can point to and say: there is permanence. Yet truth can be everlasting, it is an abstract. In case I didn't make it clear, I'm not referring to how you conceptualize abstracts, nor do I care much for the imagination based logic that people who cling too strongly to language are entangled within, I'm referring to the reality of existence. Literally every thing in existence any person has ever experienced, thought, spoken, felt, seen, sensed, conceptualized, imagined, or dreamed of. Every time, all the time, a constant state of change. That is the nature of 'consciousness', and it's irrefutable. When I say that I'm refuting 'permanence', I'm just calling people who say that there is literally any thing which is permanent, wrong or delusional. But as an abstract, feel free to use the word permanent, such as in regards to truth, just be sure to clearly point out that even your thinking about truth is fleeting.

Both change and permanence are qualities that belong to finite things.

Wrong. Permanence is a quality which belongs to no finite thing whatsoever. It exists as a word referring to an abstract concept, there is nothing literally which is permanent. If there is, please point it out.

permanence is the appearance of a single thing, like a mountain that won't move as Diebert said or a purpose striven for by the same mould of character; change is the appearance of different things, like an apple sapling and an apple. Whether permanent or changing, all things are eternal because ultimately they don't have anywhere to go.

You're only referring to a relative perspective here when you talk about the mountain. Again, your feelings about things and how you think they are relatively more 'permanent' (despite the fact that the mountain is not in any sense permanent) doesn't matter at all.

Also, your sentence about how "all things are eternal because ultimately they don't have anywhere to go" makes less than zero sense and seems to be nothing more than some conjecture or some idea based on hearsay. Perhaps to do with the scientific law of the conversation of energy or something?

The "blatant reality before you" is infinitely more sublime than the slideshow of "impermanent appearances" evidently running in your brain. Your brain itself is operated by processes which are permanent enough to *keep* doing so, unless you've accidentally dipped your head in a bucket of piranha fish lately.

What we refer to as consciousness continues completely independent of the appearance of any brain, when the brain/body is not to be seen, 'consciousness' will continue.

The unconscious world to which nothing appears causes the conscious world of appearances,

This unconscious world 'out there' which you refer to is summed up as the position of "materialism", one of the greatest delusions. There is no unconscious world of infinite un-seeable unknowable indescribable and unimaginable causes 'out there', there is only what we refer to as thought, sensation, perception, feeling, awareness, etc. This is the only reality any person has ever known, seen, felt, or even thought about. The common materialist believes that consciousness is a product of the body/brain and that what we see is merely a reflection or interpretation of the 'world out there', some external realm which would exist independent from consciousness. Despite the fact that when you refer to the body/brain you are referring to manifestations of 'consciousness'.

Materialists believe in a world that they cannot see, cannot draw, cannot think about, and cannot even describe, as I assume Diebert and Leyla do, Russell has already stated so. Even the concept of that which is 'other than consciousness' is nothing more than a manifestation of 'consciousness'. You guys believe in this world based on hearsay and prejudice, not reason. Logic of reality dictates that there is nothing other than what we refer to as consciousness (which includes every perception of the world, and every concept regarding its nature).

I'm aware that communication with other people, the consistent places we visit, and the consistent reality we see, have been mistakenly regarded as evidence for materialism. I assume that you regard the immovable mountain as such.

[Leyla Shen]

Omfg

[Leyla Shen]

You and Pam are definitely related.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An endless change does not equal permanence, it is only a reference to the quality of the change which we say is ongoing without end.

That's a tricky choice of words as permanence actually also and generally means a perpetual, everlasting quality (or appearing as). It can become more like a weasel word in this context. But I do understand you're presenting it as basically the quality of "not changing" or "constancy". There was one poet who tried to fuck the mind up with "changing tao does not equal constant tao" (or " the way you do ain't the way" or "reasoning is not reason"). And he really fucked up good considering what people have been trying to read into it. Any poet's wet dream!

Yet truth can be everlasting, it is an abstract.

Abstract or reason is the only way to conceive of anything "under the form of eternity". No revelation without it, certainly no wisdom.

Both change and permanence are qualities that belong to finite things.

Wrong. Permanence is a quality which belongs to no finite thing whatsoever. It exists as a word referring to an abstract concept, there is nothing literally which is permanent. If there is, please point it out.

Change and permanence are ultimately ways to conceive of anything at all, even eternity. To take "permanence" as some quality of something beyond things looks like a conflict. Objects and things have qualities. Some would say they are nothing but the sum of any given set of qualities. Bottom line is that change and permanence say something about conception and such reality and the world we are conceiving. Whatever goes beyond, it would defy a term like permanence for sure!

Materialists believe in a world that they cannot see, cannot draw, cannot think about, and cannot even describe, as I assume Diebert and Leyla do, Russell has already stated so. Even the concept of that which is 'other than consciousness' is nothing more than a manifestation of 'consciousness'. You guys believe in this world based on hearsay and prejudice, not reason. Logic of reality dictates that there is nothing other than what we refer to as consciousness (which includes every perception of the world, and every concept regarding its nature).

Hey leave me out of it and her! [materialism I mean] There’s not much to believe in - if it cannot be imagined or thought about even, is there? All thought, drawing, writing and talking would be "faith based" and "assumption based" for the simple reason that this is how you're able to conceive, formulate, consider and as such communicate at all. You're trying to distance your self from the very thing you are doing by somehow loading it all unto others and then push it back. Maybe it helps you to define position, to clarity something for your self? It won't stand though, it will not survive scrutiny. Enjoy your artificial certainty while it lasts!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The above is essentially about materialism vs idealism. "Omfg" is not an argument.

To add some context, I am strongly under the impression that the huge majority of people will find it difficult to undertake any kind of independent metaphysical inquiry because they are completely unable to think without the prejudice of what they have heard is true, what is commonly believed, or what is popular.

The prejudiced mind, the believer, is utterly incapable of comprehending the degree to which it is prejudiced. There are layers upon layers of conjecture, hearsay, and beliefs which people share and entangle together, ending up with some illusory network or world view which appears to be solid but is founded on nothing more than imagination.