Talking to the wall is not Genius

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:In the portion you quoted, I don't think Master Eckhart was using the word "cause" in the modern or the Buddhist sense but in the sense of necessity. His meaning seems to me identical to that of Ramkrishna when he said, "there is no Infinite without finite things".
In my view there's only one meaning here. But I'm not sure what you mean with modern or Buddhist sense. Causality is a principle, meaning that actual causes and effects are just instances of that principle, but have themselves no existence as "cause" or "effect" just because of causality existing. It's like saying weather exists but rain, wind and snow are not. And yet we can experience wind because of weather. It depends on how we measure wind, how we get exposed to it and with what we'd compare it with, all very changing circumstances. We cannot experience "weather" as a whole although language allows for it since there are many meanings to one word.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Russell wrote:You can't extract/inject existence from/into that to which existence cannot apply.
Unless it's the All.
So existence doesn't apply to the whole but it does it's constituents? How's that cake?
We aren't talking about a finite whole, so the logic of finite things doesn't apply.
An inherent aspect that is...what exactly?
In your case, you think that existence has some sort of enduring aspect that transcends your perception. You are unwittingly attempting to will your perspective of form beyond its limits. You haven't yet understood how the infinite nature of causality obliterates the existence of things into formlessness, and destroys the illusion of duality, in the grand scheme. Simply put, you are clinging to finiteness.
Why, or rather *how*, would an infinite causality create or destroy duality? Those concepts themselves assume that duality is true. As does the concept of me lacking understanding or clinging to anything. Your argument is wrong for multiple reasons.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:In the portion you quoted, I don't think Master Eckhart was using the word "cause" in the modern or the Buddhist sense but in the sense of necessity. His meaning seems to me identical to that of Ramkrishna when he said, "there is no Infinite without finite things".
In my view there's only one meaning here. But I'm not sure what you mean with modern or Buddhist sense.
I mean the sense of interdependent origination and shunyata for Buddhism, and modern scientific perception (in physical science, a constraint that needs to be satisfied for a model to be valid). I'm not sure Eckhart was using it in that way. I think he meant that things need to be things for God to be God.
Causality is a principle, meaning that actual causes and effects are just instances of that principle, but have themselves no existence as "cause" or "effect" just because of causality existing. It's like saying weather exists but rain, wind and snow are not. And yet we can experience wind because of weather. It depends on how we measure wind, how we get exposed to it and with what we'd compare it with, all very changing circumstances. We cannot experience "weather" as a whole although language allows for it since there are many meanings to one word.
Causality isn't a principle. How can all the interactions that ever occurred or will occur be a principle? A finite thing is both cause and effect to the highest degree precisely because it is a finite thing. If it were less than finite, i.e. non-existent, it would be neither. If it were more than finite, i.e. infinite, then other finite things would be neither.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:I mean the sense of interdependent origination and shunyata for Buddhism, and modern scientific perception (in physical science, a constraint that needs to be satisfied for a model to be valid). I'm not sure Eckhart was using it in that way. I think he meant that things need to be things for God to be God.
It's unclear to me how the principle differs in each of these instances. With the added remark that Eckhart was referring to "creatures" or more generally the existence of the world as requirement of the being of God, and vice versa. The question I'd ask everyone reading and who is thinking about the existence of the world (as collection of creatures or "things") -- where is thou God?
Causality isn't a principle. How can all the interactions that ever occurred or will occur be a principle? A finite thing is both cause and effect to the highest degree precisely because it is a finite thing. If it were less than finite, i.e. non-existent, it would be neither. If it were more than finite, i.e. infinite, then other finite things would be neither.
If it isn't a principle in how we are employing it here, then what nature has it? No matter what you'd answer, it would need to manifest as principle to make sense. Applying the principle would make you realize, eventually, that precisely because a finite thing turns out to be both caused by and effect of a lot of other moving targets, that there's no self-nature, no "existence as" possible. It might appear as something to you and appear as something else to another. Or not appear at all to the third. Naturally it's not being denied that something is happening, somewhere. Philosophically all we really can be certain of, with good reason, is the eternal, invariant, necessary nature of causality.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:We aren't talking about a finite whole, so the logic of finite things doesn't apply.
Oh but it must if we're playing by your rules, which says that the existence of finite things is ultimately real.
Why, or rather *how*, would an infinite causality create or destroy duality?
The destruction of duality is a metaphor for the realization of the Infinite as the Ultimate. The creation of duality is an illusion.

Earlier you mentioned Ramkrishna, who I assume to be Sri Ramakrishna. In the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, he speaks of "maya", which the glossary defines as:
  • Ignorance obscuring the vision of God; the Cosmic Illusion on the account of which the One appears as many, the Absolute as the Relative.
Those concepts themselves assume that duality is true. As does the concept of me lacking understanding or clinging to anything. Your argument is wrong for multiple reasons.
You assume duality is true, and are therefore projecting the same belief on me. I'm only trying to show you the forest for the trees.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:
jupiviv wrote:We aren't talking about a finite whole, so the logic of finite things doesn't apply.
Oh but it must if we're playing by your rules, which says that the existence of finite things is ultimately real.
No, because my rules don't say that finite things are infinite. "Ultimately real" usually means that there isn't any hidden or higher reality, which certainly applies to the existence of finite things.
Those concepts themselves assume that duality is true. As does the concept of me lacking understanding or clinging to anything. Your argument is wrong for multiple reasons.
You assume duality is true, and are therefore projecting the same belief on me. I'm only trying to show you the forest for the trees.
Here you are claiming that I'm projecting a belief on you, and that you're not doing the same to me. Right there you're creating two distinctions (you/me, projection/non-projection), ergo duality, ergo illusion according to your own reasoning. Do you see my point now? This line of reasoning is dead on arrival!
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:I mean the sense of interdependent origination and shunyata for Buddhism, and modern scientific perception (in physical science, a constraint that needs to be satisfied for a model to be valid). I'm not sure Eckhart was using it in that way. I think he meant that things need to be things for God to be God.
It's unclear to me how the principle differs in each of these instances. With the added remark that Eckhart was referring to "creatures" or more generally the existence of the world as requirement of the being of God, and vice versa. The question I'd ask everyone reading and who is thinking about the existence of the world (as collection of creatures or "things") -- where is thou God?
The reasoning of interdependent origination is focussed upon non-temporal (logical) causation, i.e., not-A causes A and the various implications of that. By "cause" Eckhart might have been referring to the Creation myth, or alternatively the inseparability of God and Man, or even both. Medieval European notions of causality were probably vague or explicitly connected to the Creation myth.
If it isn't a principle in how we are employing it here, then what nature has it? No matter what you'd answer, it would need to manifest as principle to make sense.
It's already here so can't be "employed" as a principle or anything else.
Applying the principle would make you realize, eventually, that precisely because a finite thing turns out to be both caused by and effect of a lot of other moving targets, that there's no self-nature, no "existence as" possible.
Causality cannot be said to be a reason for the non-existence of causality (self-nature) because that would imply that a) causality exists and b) the non-existence of causality exists. The unreal never is; the Real never is not.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:No, because my rules don't say that finite things are infinite. "Ultimately real" usually means that there isn't any hidden or higher reality, which certainly applies to the existence of finite things.
What I mean by "ultimately real" is that you hold that things maintain some essence beyond perception. I'm telling you, all essence is an illusion of perception.
Here you are claiming that I'm projecting a belief on you, and that you're not doing the same to me. Right there you're creating two distinctions (you/me, projection/non-projection), ergo duality, ergo illusion according to your own reasoning. Do you see my point now? This line of reasoning is dead on arrival!
Sure, I am projecting, but the key difference here is the belief in such projection. It is like watching a magician performing acts which we know to be illusions. All these things around me, this room, computer, this website, you on the other side, and all the details within are only seemingly real. We are like stage assistants in a magic show, going along with the act for the sake of practicality alone. Albeit, most prefer to believe in magic.

To maintain that Reality is ultimately made up of the observable, finite things around us is an empirical approach, and empiricism is mired in uncertainty. Uncertainty and Absolute Truth cannot comingle. Even if the evidence seems to be 99.9999+% accurate, the sliver of uncertainty is enough to disregard it as if it seemed entirely inaccurate. What is it that we can know exactly about the things around us, including ourselves? That it is all caused. Any further inferences built upon this is a guess, a hunch, and nothing more.

Furthermore, the Infinite transcends the relative, because it encompasses all instances of relativity. What we experience as existence is not what others experience, or the other countless possible experiences. Whose perspective of existence is most accurate? No one's is, because each perspective is entirely relative. The existence of things require relativity, because existence itself is relative. In the face of the Infinite, nothing exists, because existence is relativity.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell: Furthermore, the Infinite transcends the relative, because it encompasses all instances of relativity. What we experience as existence is not what others experience, or the other countless possible experiences. Whose perspective of existence is most accurate? No one's is, because each perspective is entirely relative. The existence of things require relativity, because existence itself is relative. In the face of the Infinite, nothing exists, because existence is relativity.
True. Which means when one identifies with the infinite, they have the way to transcend the relative. The path from suffering to liberation.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:
jupiviv wrote:No, because my rules don't say that finite things are infinite. "Ultimately real" usually means that there isn't any hidden or higher reality, which certainly applies to the existence of finite things.
What I mean by "ultimately real" is that you hold that things maintain some essence beyond perception. I'm telling you, all essence is an illusion of perception.
Perceived things are not identical to perception. Whether this implies an essence beyond perception or not depends entirely upon the definition of "essence". But the fact itself cannot be refuted or circumvented, as I have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread.
Here you are claiming that I'm projecting a belief on you, and that you're not doing the same to me. Right there you're creating two distinctions (you/me, projection/non-projection), ergo duality, ergo illusion according to your own reasoning. Do you see my point now? This line of reasoning is dead on arrival!
Sure, I am projecting, but the key difference here is the belief in such projection. It is like watching a magician performing acts which we know to be illusions. All these things around me, this room, computer, this website, you on the other side, and all the details within are only seemingly real. We are like stage assistants in a magic show, going along with the act for the sake of practicality alone. Albeit, most prefer to believe in magic.
If all things are illusions then that illusion itself is the reality. Beyond this point no reasoning is possible, and yet this is how the logic of the illusory nature of things concludes. Your (and Diebert's) problem is that you want the illusions to mean something *more* in relation to your own consciousness and self. You want to triumph over them; you want to grasp them not out of desire but hatred, and strangle them. But the logic that tells you they are illusions won't let you do so! So you are *inventing* a logic that relents, and in the process making yourself ridiculous by babbling about illusions of illusions (If we are assistants in a magic show then why are we assisting at all? If all things are seemingly real, then why do they seem to be seemingly real rather than not seem real at all?).

You're like an angry husband who wants a quarrel with his wife to *mean* something, to *derive* from and *lead* to *something*, when his wife never really meant anything by it. Her nature is to chatter or shout at someone she feels emotionally attached to now and again, and she can't help it. So what do you do? You start a new quarrel in order to settle the meaning of the old quarrel, your wife is delighted to have another chance to scream at the man her masculine education tells her to love but whom her innate nature has gotten bored with, you hit her, she cries, you console her, and then if you're lucky you get some because your aggression bouncing within the confines of artificial fidelity momentarily overrides the boredom. You have achieved nothing except making a fool of yourself before womankind yet again.

"The koans do not represent the private opinion of a single man, but rather the highest principle ... [that] accords with the spiritual source, tallies with the mysterious meaning, destroys birth-and-death, and transcends the passions. It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason. It is like [...] a great fire that consumes all who come near it."

- Chung-feng Ming-pen
To maintain that Reality is ultimately made up of the observable, finite things around us is an empirical approach, and empiricism is mired in uncertainty. Uncertainty and Absolute Truth cannot comingle. Even if the evidence seems to be 99.9999+% accurate, the sliver of uncertainty is enough to disregard it as if it seemed entirely inaccurate. What is it that we can know exactly about the things around us, including ourselves? That it is all caused. Any further inferences built upon this is a guess, a hunch, and nothing more.
I reject the materialist claim that the mind is a reflection of matter as strongly as I do its idealist antithesis. Not because they are wrong but because they are *nonsense*. Things are whatever they appear to be. Speculating about the *appearance* of their appearance either as the mind or as something else is futile.

Empirical things are uncertain because we don't decide what appears. The appearance of, say, a rock is absolutely certain by itself. Gaining further knowledge about it requires more appearances but we can't decide what will appear next - hence uncertainty.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:Perceived things are not identical to perception. Whether this implies an essence beyond perception or not depends entirely upon the definition of "essence". But the fact itself cannot be refuted or circumvented, as I have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread.
You misunderstand. Consciousness is definitely an interaction between a 'self' and 'other'. The point being made here is that wherever this interaction isn't being made, there are no things, because things are the result of the interaction. For forms to exist, this interaction must occur. Otherwise, and ultimately, there is nothingness, or the Infinite, or the flow of nature.
If all things are illusions then that illusion itself is the reality. Beyond this point no reasoning is possible, and yet this is how the logic of the illusory nature of things concludes. Your (and Diebert's) problem is that you want the illusions to mean something *more* in relation to your own consciousness and self. You want to triumph over them; you want to grasp them not out of desire but hatred, and strangle them. But the logic that tells you they are illusions won't let you do so! So you are *inventing* a logic that relents, and in the process making yourself ridiculous by babbling about illusions of illusions
I don't know where you are getting this "illusions of illusions" or "appearance of appearance". It is irrelevant and it seems you are only confusing my argument. Once you understand the infinite nature of reality all around you, then the perception of things is understood to be an illusion. No need to stack these concepts on top of each other.
(If we are assistants in a magic show then why are we assisting at all? If all things are seemingly real, then why do they seem to be seemingly real rather than not seem real at all?).
We are assisting in the illusion because we are caused to by are our very own being of consciousness. Illusions are seemingly real until you understand the trick. By labeling the existence of things an illusion, we are revealing that there is a trick, a slight of hand by God being performed. To paraphrase an old saying, God created consciousness in order to play hide-and-seek with himself.
You're like an angry husband who wants a quarrel with his wife to *mean* something, to *derive* from and *lead* to *something*, when his wife never really meant anything by it. Her nature is to chatter or shout at someone she feels emotionally attached to now and again, and she can't help it. So what do you do? You start a new quarrel in order to settle the meaning of the old quarrel, your wife is delighted to have another chance to scream at the man her masculine education tells her to love but whom her innate nature has gotten bored with, you hit her, she cries, you console her, and then if you're lucky you get some because your aggression bouncing within the confines of artificial fidelity momentarily overrides the boredom. You have achieved nothing except making a fool of yourself before womankind yet again.
Poppycock! Besides, you can't make yourself a fool before womankind because that implies there's something unfoolish about woman in the first place.
"The koans do not represent the private opinion of a single man, but rather the highest principle ... [that] accords with the spiritual source, tallies with the mysterious meaning, destroys birth-and-death, and transcends the passions. It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason. It is like [...] a great fire that consumes all who come near it."

- Chung-feng Ming-pen
"The existence of things is an illusion" is such a koan. One that you are apparently unable to figure out!
I reject the materialist claim that the mind is a reflection of matter[...]
It certainly doesn't seem that way! Why do you think that things attain and retain form beyond your own perception? Can't you see that it is your perception of them, the precise manner in which you sense things, that give things their form?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:The point being made here is that wherever this interaction isn't being made, there are no things, because things are the result of the interaction. For forms to exist, this interaction must occur. Otherwise, and ultimately, there is nothingness, or the Infinite, or the flow of nature.
The interaction you speak of needs to be made just once for forms to exist even in places and times where the interaction doesn't occur. The alternative is nonsensical, i.e., the interactions popping into and out of existence by magic, preceded and succeeded by nothingness.
I don't know where you are getting this "illusions of illusions" or "appearance of appearance". It is irrelevant and it seems you are only confusing my argument. Once you understand the infinite nature of reality all around you, then the perception of things is understood to be an illusion. No need to stack these concepts on top of each other.
This "perception of things is an illusion" idea is what I was referring to. It's utter nonsense.
(If we are assistants in a magic show then why are we assisting at all? If all things are seemingly real, then why do they seem to be seemingly real rather than not seem real at all?).
We are assisting in the illusion because we are caused to by are our very own being of consciousness.
This proves my speculation about your motive above. If consciousness creates the illusion of non-consciousness, and is caused by itself, then it is not an illusion itself and is in fact the totality of existence.
You're like an angry husband who wants a quarrel with his wife to *mean* something, to *derive* from and *lead* to *something*, when his wife never really meant anything by it. Her nature is to chatter or shout at someone she feels emotionally attached to now and again, and she can't help it. So what do you do? You start a new quarrel in order to settle the meaning of the old quarrel, your wife is delighted to have another chance to scream at the man her masculine education tells her to love but whom her innate nature has gotten bored with, you hit her, she cries, you console her, and then if you're lucky you get some because your aggression bouncing within the confines of artificial fidelity momentarily overrides the boredom. You have achieved nothing except making a fool of yourself before womankind yet again.
Poppycock! Besides, you can't make yourself a fool before womankind because that implies there's something unfoolish about woman in the first place.
That's certainly what all foolish husbands tell themselves. The wise ones, like David Quinn and Judge William in Either/Or, venerate the profound wisdom concealed within matrimony and live in utter bliss as victorious eremites.
I reject the materialist claim that the mind is a reflection of matter[...]
It certainly doesn't seem that way! Why do you think that things attain and retain form beyond your own perception? Can't you see that it is your perception of them, the precise manner in which you sense things, that give things their form?
Things retain form beyond the mind because the mind says so. If you don't believe that I reject that specific materialist claim (as in dialectical materialism), look here:

http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 3&start=50
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:The interaction you speak of needs to be made just once for forms to exist even in places and times where the interaction doesn't occur. The alternative is nonsensical, i.e., the interactions popping into and out of existence by magic, preceded and succeeded by nothingness.
Existence is this interaction, and cannot be otherwise. The postulation that things retain form is an empirical matter, not absolute. Careful not to mix the absolute with the relative!
This "perception of things is an illusion" idea is what I was referring to. It's utter nonsense.
Relatively speaking, the perception of things is not an illusion. In consideration of the infinite nature of reality, it is an illusion. Where is your dialectical redoubling skills?
This proves my speculation about your motive above. If consciousness creates the illusion of non-consciousness, and is caused by itself, then it is not an illusion itself and is in fact the totality of existence.
The interaction creates the illusion of consciousness and non-consciousness. The appearance of such a duality and all dualities occur nowhere else.
That's certainly what all foolish husbands tell themselves. The wise ones, like David Quinn and Judge William in Either/Or, venerate the profound wisdom concealed within matrimony and live in utter bliss as victorious eremites.
Lol! This only makes me question your motive.
Things retain form beyond the mind because the mind says so.
Yes! But what you left out is that this is so only because the mind perceives this to be so.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:
jupiviv wrote:The interaction you speak of needs to be made just once for forms to exist even in places and times where the interaction doesn't occur. The alternative is nonsensical, i.e., the interactions popping into and out of existence by magic, preceded and succeeded by nothingness.
Existence is this interaction, and cannot be otherwise. The postulation that things retain form is an empirical matter, not absolute. Careful not to mix the absolute with the relative!
Existence cannot be restricted by this interaction, because it is only one of an infinite variety.
This proves my speculation about your motive above. If consciousness creates the illusion of non-consciousness, and is caused by itself, then it is not an illusion itself and is in fact the totality of existence.
The interaction creates the illusion of consciousness and non-consciousness. The appearance of such a duality and all dualities occur nowhere else.
If the interaction creates those illusions then it is not illusory, so either way it is the same claim - consciousness is special. Round and round we go!
Things retain form beyond the mind because the mind says so.
Yes! But what you left out is that this is so only because the mind perceives this to be so.
So the mind says that it says so? Obviously not. The mind says that things retain form because things say so, and both of them say so because God says so.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sat Apr 23, 2016 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
This proves my speculation about your motive above. If consciousness creates the illusion of non-consciousness, and is caused by itself, then it is not an illusion itself and is in fact the totality of existence.
The interaction creates the illusion of consciousness and non-consciousness. The appearance of such a duality and all dualities occur nowhere else.
If the interaction creates those illusions then it is not illusory, so either way it is the same claim - consciousness is special. Round and round we go!
Consciousness is "special" only in the context of describing the process of identifying that we are identifying. What it is, if it's unique or universal, existent or non-existent, is not even the question yet. This is what it means to do existential types of philosophy: to reason there's no essence assumed but existence. This is similar to the phrase "A=A". It's not special, it's just what you are assuming when saying anything at all. It's implicit declaration. If that makes it special, it would make everything special, which is meaningless. That’s why nobody talks about it being special but more like obvious.
So the mind says that it says so? Obviously not. The mind says that things retain form because things say so, and both of them say so because God says so.
There you have it: existentialism (existence precedes), materialism (things precede) or monotheism (god precedes). However to reason about things, it makes more sense to assume existence: that you cannot say that "nothing whatsoever" exists without falling silent and eating your own words. To assume matter or objects is truncated reasoning since it steps over the whole process which created those and all the changing relations to them. To assume God turns out too elaborate since we cannot put qualities on God beyond existence. The rest would be theology and further schisms.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Consciousness is "special" only in the context of describing the process of identifying that we are identifying.
It would indeed be special in that context, but the context is illogical as I've demonstrated.
To assume matter or objects is truncated reasoning since it steps over the whole process which created those and all the changing relations to them.
Reasoning and identifying objects is itself a part of the creation process, which is why reasoning about reasoning about things is psychobabble. The only thing stopping someone from realising this is the desire to make consciousness - specifically their own - special. This desire for specialness need not necessarily be set against a nihilistic backdrop. It can also arise from a positivist perspective - as in Shelley, New Age-ism, fake Buddhism, pantheism etc. In the old days people were a bit more honest, so they said this out loud. The present age wants to paint tits on a bull and call it Gisele Buendchen.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:Reasoning and identifying objects is itself a part of the creation process, which is why reasoning about reasoning about things is psychobabble. The only thing stopping someone from realising this is the desire to make consciousness - specifically their own - special.
Is it unreasonable to identify yourself as an identifier? Clearly not.

You are taking the reasoning a step too far. Keeping in mind that causality undermines everything, one can say that the existence of things, as they exist, is contingent on the observer, since they only exist as they are perceived to. This isn't to say that there is absolutely nothing there at all without the observer, since causality is always "there".

To illustrate what I've been trying to say: When scientists discover new microscopic particles, we are discovering a new way to place boundaries on observable reality. This isn't to say we're putting something new there that wasn't there before, but that the declaration of the particles existence only proceeds observation.

Or consider the changing of calling Pluto a planet or not. Whether it is or isn't changes based on how we define the qualifications for being a planet. What we're doing is pretty similar, debating the qualifications of what it means for something to exist.

To adopt the existentialist route, if the Infinite exists, then observation places limiters on existence in order to "create" finites. The limiters are observable boundaries and abstract categories. If the Infinite is the ultimate reality, then the world of things is a "lesser reality" of sorts.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Reasoning and identifying objects is itself a part of the creation process, which is why reasoning about reasoning about things is psychobabble. The only thing stopping someone from realising this is the desire to make consciousness - specifically their own - special.
Is it unreasonable to identify yourself as an identifier? Clearly not.
That can only be done indirectly, i.e., any consciousness identifies things. You cannot identify the identification of something and simultaneously identify that thing. When it comes to experiences other than the one you're having right now (which includes your own experiences at other points of time), all you can do is identify non-experiences that appear to be induced by an experience similar to one you are having or had yourself.

And yet, to make your own consciousness special, you *have* to do these impossible things. For example, you have to - somehow - identify the act of identifying things with something that is identified in order to justify the premise that the illusory nature of things follows from their identification by consciousness. So you have to simultaneously identify both the act of identification and the thing you are calling illusory by equating it with said act.
You are taking the reasoning a step too far. Keeping in mind that causality undermines everything, one can say that the existence of things, as they exist, is contingent on the observer, since they only exist as they are perceived to. This isn't to say that there is absolutely nothing there at all without the observer, since causality is always "there".
True, but you are ignoring the other side of the coin. Which is that perception of things as they exist is contingent on the things themselves. If you disagree then you should be able to describe a scenario where your perception of a thing can change how it exists independent of anything other than your perception.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:That can only be done indirectly, i.e., any consciousness identifies things. You cannot identify the identification of something and simultaneously identify that thing. When it comes to experiences other than the one you're having right now (which includes your own experiences at other points of time), all you can do is identify non-experiences that appear to be induced by an experience similar to one you are having or had yourself.
Agreed.
And yet, to make your own consciousness special, you *have* to do these impossible things. For example, you have to - somehow - identify the act of identifying things with something that is identified in order to justify the premise that the illusory nature of things follows from their identification by consciousness. So you have to simultaneously identify both the act of identification and the thing you are calling illusory by equating it with said act.
I assure you, I propose no such thing. The issue at hand is being consistent in how we define existence, and in declaring what exists. If the existence cannot apply to the All, it's illogical to turn around and apply it to the things of the All. At best, we must say that existence is subjective in some way.
True, but you are ignoring the other side of the coin. Which is that perception of things as they exist is contingent on the things themselves. If you disagree then you should be able to describe a scenario where your perception of a thing can change how it exists independent of anything other than your perception.
Agreed here too, but I am not ignoring it. Consciousness and the objects of conscious perception are two parts of the All. What makes things "things", and what makes consciousness what it is, is contingent on each other. This we agree on.

But, again, keep in mind that we are within the realm of subjectivity/relativity here. The Absolute, in a way, is transcendent of this. Causality does not experience boundaries, only subjective sensation does. The "Infinite" isn't a reference to a number or set of things, which it seems you are suggesting, but the boundlessness that permeates the All.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Beingof1 »

Consciousness is the field of all possibilities. This has been taught by every sage that has ever lived. The secret is to transcend your mind and body. You go to a place of infinite light, love/agape and truth. Once you do this you can peer into your mind and body as if in the third person.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/you ... 0.facebook

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXho1QCZ2UM
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:Consciousness is the field of all possibilities.
There's no such field. Unless we call it "imagination". But some people have little of that.
This has been taught by every sage that has ever lived.
Still making things up. No wonder for someone born, raised and housed in the religion of lie and deception: raping truth now has become habit.
The secret is to transcend your mind and body. You go to a place of infinite light, love/agape and truth. Once you do this you can peer into your mind and body as if in the third person.
Sounds good until you realize that you're still hiding a lot of mind before your own gaze. Then it suddenly looks like self-indulgence and emo-tripping.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:Consciousness is the field of all possibilities.
There's no such field. Unless we call it "imagination". But some people have little of that.
It is absolutely stunning that you use your consciousness to dismiss your very own consciousness and are still unable to tether that to a conclusion.
This has been taught by every sage that has ever lived.
Still making things up. No wonder for someone born, raised and housed in the religion of lie and deception: raping truth now has become habit.
No, I just read without my perceptual right and wrong concept filter.

More sweeping statements; no substance to sink our collective teeth into just more general - "you are messed up but I do not know how" kind of statements. Very enlightening and I will reflect on your examples, illustrations, logic and keen insight.
The secret is to transcend your mind and body. You go to a place of infinite light, love/agape and truth. Once you do this you can peer into your mind and body as if in the third person.
Sounds good until you realize that you're still hiding a lot of mind before your own gaze. Then it suddenly looks like self-indulgence and emo-tripping.
I know
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:No, I just read without my perceptual right and wrong concept filter.
Reading is the very definition of applying perceptual filters and interpretation. The difference is that I'm not denying that but your claim does.
The secret is to transcend your mind and body. You go to a place of infinite light, love/agape and truth. Once you do this you can peer into your mind and body as if in the third person.
Sounds good until you realize that you're still hiding a lot of mind before your own gaze. Then it suddenly looks like self-indulgence and emo-tripping.
I know
That's the issue right there! Claims to a mind and body, transcending those, places of light and truth and some truthful out-of-body perspective. They are just new illusions you promote instead of the old ones. In reality they are based on the same. With the difference that you are made to feel special.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:
jupiviv wrote:And yet, to make your own consciousness special, you *have* to do these impossible things. For example, you have to - somehow - identify the act of identifying things with something that is identified in order to justify the premise that the illusory nature of things follows from their identification by consciousness. So you have to simultaneously identify both the act of identification and the thing you are calling illusory by equating it with said act.
I assure you, I propose no such thing. The issue at hand is being consistent in how we define existence, and in declaring what exists. If the existence cannot apply to the All, it's illogical to turn around and apply it to the things of the All. At best, we must say that existence is subjective in some way.
Well this "inconsistency" between calling things existent but not the All is non-existent for reasons previously stated. As you say later in the post, Causality does not experience boundaries. It *is* the sum total of boundaries, i.e. boundlessness.
Locked