The nature of consciousness

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What I mean is that "thing" is not a category simply because there's no other category of non-things. Because then this new category would still be a thing, falling under the other category again: regression! A category is simple a thing-as-container. Which all identifications are. The object as container for assigned properties.
Where have I implied that there is a category of *all* things? This is something you've made up for no reason other than to find errors where none exist.
Assigning properties to anything implies creating a container for it. In that sense a thing is nothing but a categorization.
How does one "assign" properties to something that one is identifying as a thing? For that matter, how does one create a container for properties *after* assigning them to that container? Tell you what, create the container commonly known as a "Swiss bank account" in my name, and assign the properties of a balance of 1000000000 USD and a non-negative interest rate to it. Then I will concede the point....I promise!
You still seem to believe "things" exist and are busy justifying "physical things" as some absolute reality, as if the finite would in any way represent the infinite or equal it.
You've made this up. I call consciousness physical because that's what it appears to be. It appears to exist as electronic signals in the brain, and it appears to arise, change and perish concomitantly with the brain and the body. If that's not "philosophical" enough for you then that is *your* problem, and you need to sort it out if you want to progress.
Russell Parr wrote:But is the latter argument (we cannot escape the relative) being used to defend the former (relative=absolute)?
Yes it is. But...you have a problem with that. Well, I can only reiterate my last sentence in reply to Diebert. The desire not to equate the relative with the absolute can only come from the desire to escape the relative, which you admit is impossible. But perhaps the problem lies precisely in this "admission". You seem to treat like a term of surrender. You won't progress unless you start treating it like a nuptial vow.

And no, I am not claiming that I myself treat it like that. The thought is painful to me, but I can't un-think it.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:But is the latter argument (we cannot escape the relative) being used to defend the former (relative=absolute)?
Yes it is.
Yes, of course they are the same in the end but what is important is the differences. For instance, in order to practice non-attachment, one needs to meditate on the absolute. Some of the things you say indicate a preference to the relative (like your views on marriage). You also ignore my suggestion that, at bottom, we're all in agreement despite all of our arguing (admittedly, Diebert doesn't seem to think so). A love of arguing is indicative of an adherence to the relative as well.

Understanding Ultimate Reality is one thing but truly implementing this understanding is a whole different animal.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Beingof1 »

movingalways wrote:
Beingof1: Consciousness is not a concept - call it life force - call it Spirit - call it universal awareness - call it the Tao - call it God or call it what and who you are.
You're just proved that consciousness is a concept by interchanging it with six other concepts. Alfred Korzybski: "The map is not the territory."
Are you sure you have a clear understanding of what you just said?

Congratulations, you have just collapsed all language, logic and communication whatsoever.

Do not get caught saying things like "subject/object and the unconditioned mind" etc.

Moving said in another thread:
I agree that the final illusion as life itself is moves by the care it holds, what it values and what not, and yes, this care is wisdom of the eternal and infinite/ultimate reality
RED ALERT - concept infraction made by movingalways - she said "infinite/ultimate reality."

I see - its OK for you but not for me - this is addlepated but not uncommon with almost every conversation I have.
All hung up on the 'words' and who taught who.

It was you who said you taught me. Clear as a bell.
It really was regardless your blindness cause by 'personality'.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Pam Seeback »

Beingof1 wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Beingof1: Consciousness is not a concept - call it life force - call it Spirit - call it universal awareness - call it the Tao - call it God or call it what and who you are.
You're just proved that consciousness is a concept by interchanging it with six other concepts. Alfred Korzybski: "The map is not the territory."
Are you sure you have a clear understanding of what you just said?

Congratulations, you have just collapsed all language, logic and communication whatsoever.

Do not get caught saying things like "subject/object and the unconditioned mind" etc.

Moving said in another thread:
I agree that the final illusion as life itself is moves by the care it holds, what it values and what not, and yes, this care is wisdom of the eternal and infinite/ultimate reality
RED ALERT - concept infraction made by movingalways - she said "infinite/ultimate reality."

I see - its OK for you but not for me - this is addlepated but not uncommon with almost every conversation I have.
Being, you assert consciousness is not a concept. When I refer to the infinite or the causality or consciousness, I am using concepts and I know I am using concepts. They are different concepts than the concepts that point to finite things such as 'shoe' or 'tree', different in that they do not cause an image to form in the mind. Concepts such as 'infinite', 'causality', 'consciousness', 'absolute' and 'spirit' are metaphysical concepts - 'meta' (beyond) + physics (the physical).

So knowing that the map (concepts) is not the territory (reality) is not at all a collapse of logic, language and communication, just the opposite. The map is logic, language and communication and it is all we have to navigate the territory. So I have collapsed nothing, the map continues to be caused, I am making a map here and now.

Without the map, wisdom would not be possible. What I am trying to collapse is the map of ignorance.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Beingof1 »

movingalways wrote: Being, you assert consciousness is not a concept. When I refer to the infinite or the causality or consciousness, I am using concepts and I know I am using concepts. They are different concepts than the concepts that point to finite things such as 'shoe' or 'tree', different in that they do not cause an image to form in the mind. Concepts such as 'infinite', 'causality', 'consciousness', 'absolute' and 'spirit' are metaphysical concepts - 'meta' (beyond) + physics (the physical).

So knowing that the map (concepts) is not the territory (reality) is not at all a collapse of logic, language and communication, just the opposite. The map is logic, language and communication and it is all we have to navigate the territory. So I have collapsed nothing, the map continues to be caused, I am making a map here and now.

Without the map, wisdom would not be possible. What I am trying to collapse is the map of ignorance.
I still feel like I am on another planet - for reals.

Yes I assert the reality is not a concept - the model/concept is not the reality. I have only said this - oh I don't know - for the billionth time.

It is like saying 'infinity'. Is the word/model/concept of infinity the reality?

I have only told you this for years and have had discussion trying to get you to see this. You finally 'get it' and you believe I need to be told this.

Beingof1:
Consciousness is not a concept - call it life force - call it Spirit - call it universal awareness - call it the Tao - call it God or call it what and who you are.

movingalways:
You're just proved that consciousness is a concept by interchanging it with six other concepts. Alfred Korzybski: "The map is not the territory."
Uh huh - do you realize?

Nope - still believe I am the one that doesn't get it - unbelievable.

This is just about every conversation I have on this board - I have to filter and glean to hopefully shed a small amount of light but the mountain, and I do mean mountain of babble I have to wade through is disconcerting.


You started this with this statement:
Beingof1, in trying to define consciousness you are breaking the cardinal rule of wisdom of the infinite which is that there is no objective or absolute reality. The moment you cherry-pick a concept such as consciousness, turn it into an object for your subjective interpretation, the truth of emptiness and impermanence is forgotten and worlds of subjective attachment arise, ergo the 'battle' for right view of consciousness.
And you think it is me not getting it - that is the depth of delusion that just keeps going on and on and on.

Its not just you, its most of the people on this planet.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:and I do mean mountain of babble I have to wade through is disconcerting.
Those are good moments to reflect on the question if the issue is the mountain or with the mountaineer.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What I mean is that "thing" is not a category simply because there's no other category of non-things. Because then this new category would still be a thing, falling under the other category again: regression! A category is simple a thing-as-container. Which all identifications are. The object as container for assigned properties.
Where have I implied that there is a category of *all* things? This is something you've made up for no reason other than to find errors where none exist
D: But things mean also way more like: "object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically".

J: Hence the general category of those things.

Aren't you saying here that there's a general category of things that are not or cannot be named specifically? Even worse: the definition I gave is the most common definition of thing: unspecific objects of entities. Which you claim to have a special category in hell for. Well, not in hell perhaps.

'
How does one "assign" properties to something that one is identifying as a thing? For that matter, how does one create a container for properties *after* assigning them to that container?
The moment I wire the money and a beneficiary, the bank will open an account to hold it. Empty accounts without even a name attached are nonsense. They are no accounts. Do you now concede?
You still seem to believe "things" exist and are busy justifying "physical things" as some absolute reality, as if the finite would in any way represent the infinite or equal it.
You've made this up. I call consciousness physical because that's what it appears to be. It appears to exist as electronic signals in the brain, and it appears to arise, change and perish concomitantly with the brain and the body. If that's not "philosophical" enough for you then that is *your* problem, and you need to sort it out if you want to progress.
You had a problem with calling the appearance of physicality an illusion though. The only truth you have in this example is some form of causality wrapped in scientific labels. That's all you really got. Any specific "signal" is just assumption and part of some perspective that is being entered. Relatively true for that limited, make-believe context you need to embody to make sense of it but illusion in any other higher sense.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Russell Parr wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:But is the latter argument (we cannot escape the relative) being used to defend the former (relative=absolute)?
Yes it is.
Yes, of course they are the same in the end but what is important is the differences.
If they are different in any way, then the absolute and the relative are only *relatively* the same.
For instance, in order to practice non-attachment, one needs to meditate on the absolute.
Meditation is useless without first *attaining* non-attachment. You see, you want to be *attached*, but you want to get rid of the actual *attachments* because you know they will perish in time. But if you do that (or rather, falsely imagine you have done that and call that "meditation"), the desire to *be* attached remains and is more powerful than ever. It is no longer constrained by the actual reality of the attachments. It can see eternity in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower, all the while happily ignoring the dog turd lying a few yards away. Attachments become "much more" instead of finite things that are desired, because the desire itself has become the only reality.

You hear that enlightenment is non-attachment and, instead of facing your fear of losing your attachments on its *own* turf, set out to fabricate a reality where this fear has no reason to exist. The logical conclusion of Epicureanism!

Ananda, the devas in these four heavens beyond form have wiped out all traces of body and mind. As their still (dhyana) nature has appeared, they are free from all retribution involving (material) forms. Hence this is the region beyond form.

All this comes from their being not clear about the profound mind of Bodhi and because of their preservation of accumulated thoughts, they create the three illusory realms of existence through the seven states; hence they are living beings (pudgala) in the worlds they have deserved.


Real non-attachment is precisely the reverse - holding fast to attachments while rejecting the attachment *to* them.

When God asks for Isaac, Abraham must if possible love him even more, and only then can he sacrifice him; for it is indeed this love of Isaac that in its paradoxical opposition to his love of God makes his act a sacrifice. But the distress and anguish in the paradox is that, humanly speaking, he is quite incapable of making himself understood. Only in the moment when his act is in absolute contradiction with his feeling, only then does he sacrifice Isaac, but the reality of his act is that in virtue of which he belongs to the universal, and there he is and remains a murderer. - Kierkegaard.

Abraham does not try to become non-attached by thinking that after all he has another son or that he can sire more sons if he wishes. He loves Isaac precisely because he is going to kill him, and vice versa.
Some of the things you say indicate a preference to the relative (like your views on marriage). You also ignore my suggestion that, at bottom, we're all in agreement despite all of our arguing (admittedly, Diebert doesn't seem to think so). A love of arguing is indicative of an adherence to the relative as well.
Firstly, how do you know what my views on marriage are? Secondly, I won't gloss over what I perceive to errors in reasoning because...what, "we should all get along"?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:D: But things mean also way more like: "object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically".

J: Hence the general category of those things.

Aren't you saying here that there's a general category of things that are not or cannot be named specifically? Even worse: the definition I gave is the most common definition of thing: unspecific objects of entities. Which you claim to have a special category in hell for. Well, not in hell perhaps.
OK, so you got me on a technicality! I thought you were referring to unknown things rather than the most basic definition of a thing. But the most basic definition of a thing would be "that which is bounded". Whether it can be named specifically is less basic, and therefore cannot be part of that definition.
The moment I wire the money and a beneficiary, the bank will open an account to hold it. Empty accounts without even a name attached are nonsense. They are no accounts. Do you now concede?
Look, either I get an EOD sms on my cell (which you can create as a container and then assign properties to like a number, Whatsapp and the *paid* version of Candy Crush) tomorrow, or no deal. And if you throw in Doutzen Kroes and a lifetime supply of pickled red herrings, I will agree with everything you say all the time.
You had a problem with calling the appearance of physicality an illusion though.
Because it doesn't appear to be an illusion. And I don't *need* to be an expert in neuroscience to say that consciousness is physical. Merely spending some time *being* conscious tells me that. You're Dutch, so take some drugs and see whether you can avoid their effects. Or try consciously holding your breath for more than a minute. If you can't do these things, then the physical world - at the very *least* - demonstrably affects your consciousness and hence is not illusory.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:But the most basic definition of a thing would be "that which is bounded". Whether it can be named specifically is less basic, and therefore cannot be part of that definition.
Bounds are always relative to some context, to requirements, to other specifications. There is no absolute bound and therefore no absolute thing.
Look, either I get an EOD sms on my cell (which you can create as a container and then assign properties to like a number, Whatsapp and the *paid* version of Candy Crush) tomorrow, or no deal. And if you throw in Doutzen Kroes and a lifetime supply of pickled red herrings, I will agree with everything you say all the time.
What's an EOD? End of discussion? It seems relatively easy to buy your soul though. It's probably not worth much if that's all you ask. Anyway, a cell is only a cell (and capable of receiving that SMS) if it connects to the "radio cell" and network using the assigned IMEI. Without this it's a brick. Or any other use you want to assign a dead weight. Contemplate on the idea of "unidentified object" (flying or not) to get the idea I'm going for here.
You had a problem with calling the appearance of physicality an illusion though.
Because it doesn't appear to be an illusion.
Look, the whole point of the word "illusion" would be to signify something would appear as "real" but isn't.
And I don't *need* to be an expert in neuroscience to say that consciousness is physical. Merely spending some time *being* conscious tells me that. You're Dutch, so take some drugs and see whether you can avoid their effects. Or try consciously holding your breath for more than a minute. If you can't do these things, then the physical world - at the very *least* - demonstrably affects your consciousness and hence is not illusory.
You're just arguing for causality and that predictability and repeatability informs you about what reality is and what's not. However it's a reality relative to you, you experience it, sense it, as real, or real enough to you. If you'd play a computer game, Candy Crush whatever, the rules are quite clear. The game is physical, in the sense it runs on your phone and energy source, you cannot avoid the effects of the candy flips. Try shooting a zombie or get a score of 5 trillion. If you can't do those things, then the Candy Crush world demonstrably affects your consciousness and hence is your world and all real.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:Meditation is useless without first *attaining* non-attachment.
No, rather, meditation becomes useless and unnecessary upon the attainment of non-attachment.
You see, you want to be *attached*, but you want to get rid of the actual *attachments* because you know they will perish in time. But if you do that (or rather, falsely imagine you have done that and call that "meditation"), the desire to *be* attached remains and is more powerful than ever. It is no longer constrained by the actual reality of the attachments. It can see eternity in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower, all the while happily ignoring the dog turd lying a few yards away. Attachments become "much more" instead of finite things that are desired, because the desire itself has become the only reality.
What you are describing here is the backlash of the ego upon an attempted renunciation of the world in favor of consciousness of God. These are accurate symptoms of spiritual trial. However, one must persevere through these in order to get through to the other side, where the desires wane, and one will see eternity in both the grain of sand and the dog turd. Sounds like someone gave up too early....
You hear that enlightenment is non-attachment and, instead of facing your fear of losing your attachments on its *own* turf, set out to fabricate a reality where this fear has no reason to exist.
You have shunned true "Fear and Trembling" in order to settle for normal human fears.
Real non-attachment is precisely the reverse - holding fast to attachments while rejecting the attachment *to* them.
Non-attachment is to hold fast to attachments? What distortion of wisdom! What backwardness! You sound like an Alex more well read in the concepts. You've gone deeper into the waters than he but ultimately ended up standing outside of the pool next to him. No wonder you showed him praise.
When God asks for Isaac, Abraham must if possible love him even more, and only then can he sacrifice him; for it is indeed this love of Isaac that in its paradoxical opposition to his love of God makes his act a sacrifice. But the distress and anguish in the paradox is that, humanly speaking, he is quite incapable of making himself understood. Only in the moment when his act is in absolute contradiction with his feeling, only then does he sacrifice Isaac, but the reality of his act is that in virtue of which he belongs to the universal, and there he is and remains a murderer. - Kierkegaard.

Abraham does not try to become non-attached by thinking that after all he has another son or that he can sire more sons if he wishes. He loves Isaac precisely because he is going to kill him, and vice versa.
Abraham indeed did not think about those things. He instead focused on his love of God. It is for this divine love that he showed willingness to murder his beloved son. He was expressing his willingness to sacrifice the relative in favor of the absolute.
Firstly, how do you know what my views on marriage are? Secondly, I won't gloss over what I perceive to errors in reasoning because...what, "we should all get along"?
Firstly, am I to assume you meant little to nothing by this line?:
jupiviv wrote: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.
A couple of quotes for this:
What the judge in the second part of "Either/ Or" says in his way about women is to be expected from a married man who, ethically inspired, champions marriage.

Woman could be called "the lust for life." There is undoubtedly lust for life in man, but essentially he is structured to be spirit, and if he were alone, left all alone to himself, he would not know (here the judge is right) how to begin, and he would never really get around to beginning.

But then "the lust for life," which is within him indefinitely, becomes manifest to him externally in another form, in the form of woman, who is the lust for life: and now the lust for life awakens.
-Kierkegaard
Man without a woman suffers for this life, but is rewarded in eternity. - K.Solway
Man with woman is rewarded with life, but sacrifices eternity.

Secondly, I admit, I can be naive at times. Too often I assume that anyone who shows a good deal of knowledge of the correct concepts cannot still be ignorant.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:But the most basic definition of a thing would be "that which is bounded". Whether it can be named specifically is less basic, and therefore cannot be part of that definition.
Bounds are always relative to some context, to requirements, to other specifications. There is no absolute bound and therefore no absolute thing.
The bound of the category of unknown things is the category of known things. Since they are unknown things, it's not possible to say what their specific bounds are or indeed how many of them there are.
Look, either I get an EOD sms on my cell (which you can create as a container and then assign properties to like a number, Whatsapp and the *paid* version of Candy Crush) tomorrow, or no deal. And if you throw in Doutzen Kroes and a lifetime supply of pickled red herrings, I will agree with everything you say all the time.
What's an EOD? End of discussion? It seems relatively easy to buy your soul though. It's probably not worth much if that's all you ask. Anyway, a cell is only a cell (and capable of receiving that SMS) if it connects to the "radio cell" and network using the assigned IMEI. Without this it's a brick. Or any other use you want to assign a dead weight. Contemplate on the idea of "unidentified object" (flying or not) to get the idea I'm going for here.
EOD = end of the day. It's the interest against your account balance at the end of a trading day. Most banks nowadays send an sms about that to the account holders cell every five or so business days. But I guess you European folks don't need to worry about interest rates anymore. :)

Anyways, the claim you made about things being containers filled up with or assigned properties would be demonstrated amply if you did the things I asked you to do as payment for my soul.
You had a problem with calling the appearance of physicality an illusion though.
Because it doesn't appear to be an illusion.
Look, the whole point of the word "illusion" would be to signify something would appear as "real" but isn't.
This is true only if the word "real" is synonymous with the word "thing", but in that case the "appearance of an illusion" is a nonsense phrase.
You're just arguing for causality and that predictability and repeatability informs you about what reality is and what's not.
I'm not denying causality or distinguishing it from the physical world. How about that lifetime supply of pickled red herrings?
However it's a reality relative to you, you experience it, sense it, as real, or real enough to you.
That's a contradictory statement. If reality is subjective, then it is impossible for anyone to assert that it is so for anyone except themselves (which makes it an objective claim, since as far as they know theirs is the *only* reality).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Jup wrote:Attachments become "much more" instead of finite things that are desired, because the desire itself has become the only reality.
Attachment always was much more than perishing things being desired. The only reality you've known so far is desire. (fixed it for ya).
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Russell Parr wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Meditation is useless without first *attaining* non-attachment.
No, rather, meditation becomes useless and unnecessary upon the attainment of non-attachment.
In a sense, any act of thinking is meditation. But if meditation refers to special techniques for calming or stimulating the mind then it is useless (for sustaining a rational state of mind) until one becomes enlightened.
You see, you want to be *attached*, but you want to get rid of the actual *attachments* because you know they will perish in time. But if you do that (or rather, falsely imagine you have done that and call that "meditation"), the desire to *be* attached remains and is more powerful than ever. It is no longer constrained by the actual reality of the attachments. It can see eternity in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower, all the while happily ignoring the dog turd lying a few yards away. Attachments become "much more" instead of finite things that are desired, because the desire itself has become the only reality.
What you are describing here is the backlash of the ego upon an attempted renunciation of the world in favor of consciousness of God.
No, I am describing a misguided attempt at renunciation that can *never* succeed because it isn't meant to. If somebody prepares for an examination by staring at the textbooks for hours while daydreaming, they are never going to pass. It's not a "trial" of their memory or learning skills because they never really wanted to study in the first place.
You hear that enlightenment is non-attachment and, instead of facing your fear of losing your attachments on its *own* turf, set out to fabricate a reality where this fear has no reason to exist.
You have shunned true "Fear and Trembling" in order to settle for normal human fears.
How can you face the fear of oblivion when you can't even face the reality of your human fears?
Real non-attachment is precisely the reverse - holding fast to attachments while rejecting the attachment *to* them.
Non-attachment is to hold fast to attachments? What distortion of wisdom! What backwardness! You sound like an Alex more well read in the concepts. You've gone deeper into the waters than he but ultimately ended up standing outside of the pool next to him. No wonder you showed him praise.
The attachments are not illusions, but your attachment *to* them is. Love is not an illusion, but lovableness is. If you can love the unlovable then you are enlightened.
Firstly, how do you know what my views on marriage are? Secondly, I won't gloss over what I perceive to errors in reasoning because...what, "we should all get along"?
Firstly, am I to assume you meant little to nothing by this line?:
jupiviv wrote: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.
That line means something, but evidently you don't know what it is.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:In a sense, any act of thinking is meditation. But if meditation refers to special techniques for calming or stimulating the mind then it is useless (for sustaining a rational state of mind) until one becomes enlightened.
It seems you are describing enlightenment to mean a proper understanding without/before application.

Meditation of any kind is indeed useless without a proper understanding of the nature of reality. To me, enlightenment is the result of the application of this understanding, combined with and reinforced by renunciation.
The attachments are not illusions, but your attachment *to* them is. Love is not an illusion, but lovableness is. If you can love the unlovable then you are enlightened.
Attachments aren't an illusion, but they are delusional. "Non-attachment to attachment" is just some distortion designed to allow you to hang on to attachments. The last line was good though.
jupiviv wrote:That line means something, but evidently you don't know what it is.
Whatever you say.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:The bound of the category of unknown things is the category of known things. Since they are unknown things, it's not possible to say what their specific bounds are or indeed how many of them there are.
In other words, nothing really. Or everything. Unless you have some secret bound you know of and didn't tell.
But I guess you European folks don't need to worry about interest rates anymore. :)
Money is al about the transactability of desire and social passion. It's everywhere these days.
Anyways, the claim you made about things being containers filled up with or assigned properties would be demonstrated amply if you did the things I asked you to do as payment for my soul.
There are no inherent containers, logically, that was my point. And neither a soul, inherent existence or the possibility you ever agreeing with me!
Look, the whole point of the word "illusion" would be to signify something would appear as "real" but isn't.
This is true only if the word "real" is synonymous with the word "thing", but in that case the "appearance of an illusion" is a nonsense phrase.
Real could be here synonymous with existing, actual or being. All appearances are illusions in as far they constitute some definite form of existence to you.
I'm not denying causality or distinguishing it from the physical world.
Causality goes way above and beyond physicality. Unless you are still using the word physical world to mean totality. Which would be very deceptive.
That's a contradictory statement. If reality is subjective, then it is impossible for anyone to assert that it is so for anyone except themselves (which makes it an objective claim, since as far as they know theirs is the *only* reality).
Indeed, that's when it becomes clear the reality we are actually looking for is something different entirely. You deserve a fresh herring, close your eyes and lower it into your mouth holding it by the tail. Before you start to think too much: it's the way it's eaten in this region.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Russell Parr wrote:
jupiviv wrote:In a sense, any act of thinking is meditation. But if meditation refers to special techniques for calming or stimulating the mind then it is useless (for sustaining a rational state of mind) until one becomes enlightened.
It seems you are describing enlightenment to mean a proper understanding without/before application.
No my point is that meditation in the conventional sense is a very insignificant (if that) part of enlightenment.
Attachments aren't an illusion, but they are delusional. "Non-attachment to attachment" is just some distortion designed to allow you to hang on to attachments. The last line was good though.
Well the problem with your intellect is evident when you say things like "not an illusion, but delusional". It's just a clever(ish) comeback, which is ironic because you were waving your finger at me for my love of polemics in another post.
jupiviv wrote:That line means something, but evidently you don't know what it is.
Whatever you say.
Quite right. Of course, if you took your own advice and argued for the sake of truth rather than gratification you wouldn't dig up that quote and use it to disqualify me. My views on marriage (as you understand them) might make me a hypocrite, but they have nothing to do with the issue under discussion (the enlightened attitude towards attachments and the fear of losing them).
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:The bound of the category of unknown things is the category of known things. Since they are unknown things, it's not possible to say what their specific bounds are or indeed how many of them there are.
In other words, nothing really. Or everything. Unless you have some secret bound you know of and didn't tell.
*Utter* bullshit. If not knowing what a specific bound is makes it everything then knowledge itself - ergo this very fact - is impossible.
Anyways, the claim you made about things being containers filled up with or assigned properties would be demonstrated amply if you did the things I asked you to do as payment for my soul.
There are no inherent containers, logically, that was my point. And neither a soul, inherent existence or the possibility you ever agreeing with me!
I never mentioned inherent anything. That's just a word you bring into the discussion when you don't know how to respond. Is this the level of discussion you wish to engender here? Mutual masturbation over enlightenment fantasies under the banner of a red herring!
This is true only if the word "real" is synonymous with the word "thing", but in that case the "appearance of an illusion" is a nonsense phrase.
Real could be here synonymous with existing, actual or being. All appearances are illusions in as far they constitute some definite form of existence to you.
See above. I never mentioned anything about appearances and/or things being "definite". You are avoiding a direct and honest response. Shameful hypocrisy, seeing that you are simultaneously criticising others for doing more or less the same thing.
Causality goes way above and beyond physicality. Unless you are still using the word physical world to mean totality. Which would be very deceptive.
See above.
That's a contradictory statement. If reality is subjective, then it is impossible for anyone to assert that it is so for anyone except themselves (which makes it an objective claim, since as far as they know theirs is the *only* reality).
Indeed, that's when it becomes clear the reality we are actually looking for is something different entirely.
It can't be different in any way whatsoever.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:The bound of the category of unknown things is the category of known things. Since they are unknown things, it's not possible to say what their specific bounds are or indeed how many of them there are.
In other words, nothing really. Or everything. Unless you have some secret bound you know of and didn't tell.
*Utter* bullshit. If not knowing what a specific bound is makes it everything then knowledge itself - ergo this very fact - is impossible.
Go on then, explain to me what the unknown thing is when you cannot say anything about its bounds or amounts. It seems fantasy, a contradiction!

At the very least you could call it "unknown void" and say the defined quality is the lack of knowledge. But the void like any other thing would still be an appearance. Which we labeled with "what we know that we don't know". In reality of course all things remain fundamentally ambiguous after sufficient analysis. Existence as we ordinarily think to know it occurs as conceptual assumption, as linguistic expression.
Anyways, the claim you made about things being containers filled up with or assigned properties would be demonstrated amply if you did the things I asked you to do as payment for my soul.
There are no inherent containers, logically, that was my point. And neither a soul, inherent existence or the possibility you ever agreeing with me!
I never mentioned inherent anything. That's just a word you bring into the discussion when you don't know how to respond. Is this the level of discussion you wish to engender here? Mutual masturbation over enlightenment fantasies under the banner of a red herring!
But I mentioned it several times with added reasoning on why I think you are arguing for inherent existence and what such inherency means. The problem is that even if I try to follow your own private definitions, it just doesn't add up. For example when you introduced "physicality". Now that qualifies as red herring. But as long as you're shifting meanings to your desire, I can only repeat my earlier statement: it sounds like you're defending inherent existence after renaming it. This is exactly what people tend to do , kick the things out of the front door and invite them back in through the backdoor. The reason is that there's still a strong desire to own them, to have them, to hold on to that reality as it's also the self.
I never mentioned anything about appearances and/or things being "definite".
Of course you didn't. But it's how I interpreted your reasoning to be arguing for. Definite here being "clearly true or real", "unambiguous", "certain" or "absolute". Some offer the synonym "manifest".

It's the opposite of what I'm trying to argue for: that all things are fundamentally ambiguous and uncertain. The nature of appearances.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Go on then, explain to me what the unknown thing is when you cannot say anything about its bounds or amounts. It seems fantasy, a contradiction!
Why should I explain it when it is, in fact, what I am calling a contradiction? The unknown is only known through the known - the things we know are necessarily bounded, so the unknown must also be bounded. If the latter were unbounded, then it would engulf the former and there would only be unknown things (which we couldn't know anything about, including the fact they are unknown).
At the very least you could call it "unknown void" and say the defined quality is the lack of knowledge. But the void like any other thing would still be an appearance.
The category of the unknown - a mental construct - is what appears, not the void itself. One might call it "indirect" appearance but that is all it is.
But I mentioned it several time with reasoning why I think you are arguing for inherent existence and what such inherency means.
I've done no such thing. In the most recent case, I've only asked that you should demonstrate the claim that all things are containers that can be filled up by assigning properties. The whole bank account thing was clearly a joke, which you seem to have "interpreted" to be some kind of burning passion for money and women. So to clarify - *any* demonstration will do.
The problem is that even if I try to follow your own private definitions, it just doesn't add up. For example when you introduced "physicality". Now that qualifies as red herring.
Clearly false. It was Russell who brought up physicality and you followed suit.
all things are fundamentally ambiguous and uncertain.
Therefore, by definition, you cannot be certain about their fundamental clarity or certainty.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Why should I explain it when it is, in fact, what I am calling a contradiction? The unknown is only known through the known - the things we know are necessarily bounded, so the unknown must also be bounded. If the latter were unbounded, then it would engulf the former and there would only be unknown things (which we couldn't know anything about, including the fact they are unknown).
Yes. Obviously. The contradiction however seems yours although you try to put it on me now you arrived at that position. Check this:
  • D: Bounds are always relative to some context, to requirements, to other specifications.
  • J: The bound of the category of unknown things is the category of known things. Since they are unknown things, it's not possible to say what their specific bounds are or indeed how many of them there are.
There are not really any "unknown things" and that's the reason you cannot name bounds or amounts. It "materializes" as thing only when you do so, for whatever reason, driven by whatever cause and in some context. That's all you can know for certain as it's the nature of things.
The category of the unknown - a mental construct - is what appears, not the void itself. One might call it "indirect" appearance but that is all it is.
Void as apperance. Why calling it "the categoy of the unknown appearing but not the void itself"? That's just hiding in verbosity. The void has no existence unless as appearance ("seemingly existing"). And why "indirect"? When would it ever be direct? Why even introducing indirect appearances as concept?
The whole bank account thing was clearly a joke, which you seem to have "interpreted" to be some kind of burning passion for money and women.
It was a joke but you're now projecting something onto it what wasn't there before, for me at least. Perhaps your weird material interpretation of Kevin Solway could be explained by a passion for money and a woman? It's not my interest to delve into that but certainly it's part of what I was explaining before: desire is what creates and maintains illusions, but that's a Buddhist use of the word desire. It goes a bit beyond cars and credit.
It was Russell who brought up physicality and you followed suit.
My initial reaction started after you wrote "sensations can be shown to be caused by physical things" to Seeker. Later on you extended it to "I cannot think of anything that isn't physical. Even abstract things, like thoughts, can be reduced to physical things". Those links lead to where this more or less started for me.
All things are fundamentally ambiguous and uncertain.
Therefore, by definition, you cannot be certain about their fundamental clarity or certainty.
Because the fundamental nature of things, of reality, is not a thing and therefore not ambiguous and uncertain. Verbalization however is but our real world, experience and insights are not just verbalizations. If that was true there would be no point discussing this topic. There would be no topic.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:There are not really any "unknown things" and that's the reason you cannot name bounds or amounts.
There must be unknown things, because it is not possible to know everything.
It "materializes" as thing only when you do so, for whatever reason, driven by whatever cause and in some context. That's all you can know for certain as it's the nature of things.
Things don't come into and out of existence because someone thinks about them. If you think they do then demonstrate it to me in any way you see fit.
Void as apperance. Why calling it "the categoy of the unknown appearing but not the void itself"?
Because that is what appears - a logical distinction in the mind between known and unknown things. It is not possible for unknown things to directly appear, or they wouldn't be unknown.
And why "indirect"? When would it ever be direct? Why even introducing indirect appearances as concept?
It is indirect because we're not experiencing specific things but a necessary property of things. It is direct when we experience specific things. I introduced it because you can't seem to distinguish between the All and a finite group of things which cannot be distinguished *further*.
It was a joke but you're now projecting something onto it what wasn't there before, for me at least. Perhaps your weird material interpretation of Kevin Solway could be explained by a burning passion for money and a woman? It's not my interest to delve into that but certainly it's part of what I was explaining before: desire is what creates and maintains illusions, but that's a Buddhist use of the word desire. It goes a bit beyond cars and credit.
I assumed that was the justification behind your claim that I thought things were inherent containers. I don't see how else you came to that conclusion, since it is you who are on record claiming that all things are containers that are assigned properties.
My initial reaction started after you wrote "sensations can be shown to be caused by physical things" to Seeker. Later on you extended it to "I cannot think of anything that isn't physical. Even abstract things, like thoughts, can be reduced to physical things". Please do not start making things up! Those links lead to where this more or less started for me.
Those statements are quite true, but neither of them imply that physicality is an inherent characteristic of things. Merely calling something X does not make X-ness an inherent property of it. I specifically noted many times that I am not claiming physicality as some universal property, and also that I think the term is very vague. But it is useful as a way of referring to the actual reality of things against fantasy.

I used religious terminology in a similar way with Leyla Shen, who seems to harbour the same kind of irrational *dislike* for those terms that you and Russell do for terms like "materialism" and "physicality". This type of dislike indicates deeper delusions and I will ruthlessly expose them in anyone who claims to be rational.
the fundamental nature of things, of reality, is not a thing and therefore not ambiguous and uncertain.
Yes, and this non-dual nature of things is identical with the superficial/dual/apparent nature of things. For once, just acknowledge the reality of whatever you are afraid of, and then place that reality against the fear itself. Do you see unity or division? I see unity *through* division.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:No my point is that meditation in the conventional sense is a very insignificant (if that) part of enlightenment.
This much is obvious. My original phrase was "meditate on the absolute," which is another way of saying "single minded focus on the absolute." The discussion regarding "meditation in the conventional sense" started with you.
Well the problem with your intellect is evident when you say things like "not an illusion, but delusional". It's just a clever(ish) comeback, which is ironic because you were waving your finger at me for my love of polemics in another post.
It's something you needed to hear as well, since you think we should "hold fast to our attachments". And yes, apparently you do have a love of polemics, evidenced by your constantly losing track of who said what and in what context, and inability to listen to reason.
Quite right. Of course, if you took your own advice and argued for the sake of truth rather than gratification you wouldn't dig up that quote and use it to disqualify me. My views on marriage (as you understand them) might make me a hypocrite, but they have nothing to do with the issue under discussion (the enlightened attitude towards attachments and the fear of losing them).
If someone says something as ridiculous as "profound wisdom concealed within matrimony," something needs to be said, if not sooner then later. I'm sure we're all a bit hypocritical in our regards to the feminine but let's not be hypocritical about that.
There must be unknown things, because it is not possible to know everything.
An "unknown thing" is itself a known thing, by virtue of the demarcation created between it and "known things". It is this demarcation that does not inherently exist, and this is the reason why the word "inherent" is properly brought up time and again.
Things don't come into and out of existence because someone thinks about them. If you think they do then demonstrate it to me in any way you see fit.
Yes they do. Specifically, things come into and leave existence according to whether they are being perceived or conceived. This of course can't be demonstrated empirically. It is a logical truth. You're going to have to think it through yourself in order to discover this.

But in case you're ready to argue against these points, before you do, please do yourself and favor and read this. You've got a lot of momentum going in arguing against us, so I doubt you'll listen to us here. Tell me where Quinn is disagreeing with us.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv »

Russell Parr wrote:My original phrase was "meditate on the absolute," which is another way of saying "single minded focus on the absolute." The discussion regarding "meditation in the conventional sense" started with you.
Any consciousness is single-minded by nature. Since you want to separate the absolute from the relative, the meditation upon the absolute you propose is of the conventional, *Epicurean* type. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but you shouldn't consider it to be anything more.
It's something you needed to hear as well, since you think we should "hold fast to our attachments". And yes, apparently you do have a love of polemics, evidenced by your constantly losing track of who said what and in what context, and inability to listen to reason.
You went through the trouble of finding the post where I said that, but couldn't quote the entire *sentence*? And then you accuse me of egotism and an inability to reason?
If someone says something as ridiculous as "profound wisdom concealed within matrimony," something needs to be said, if not sooner then later. I'm sure we're all a bit hypocritical in our regards to the feminine but let's not be hypocritical about that.
It doesn't need to be said in a discussion where it is not relevant. You're trying to discredit my character, i.e., a supporter of marriage like myself cannot have wisdom. You have demonstrated that you are prepared to abandon reason if your ego is at stake.

By the way, the sentence was quite *obviously* not meant to defend or support literal matrimony. It was a cheeky comparison between David Quinn's "thing" with Sue Hindmarsh (they have a son I believe) and Kierkegaard's exploration of ideal matrimony (spiritual love and partnership between man and woman) in some of his books, as well as a comment on the "marriage" between consciousness (husband) and unconsciousness (wife). Either you are too stupid even to understand the humour, or being deliberately obtuse.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:There are not really any "unknown things" and that's the reason you cannot name bounds or amounts.
There must be unknown things, because it is not possible to know everything.
Then there's the famous question about the sound of a tree falling without anyone around to hear it. The answer here is not about "there is no sound" or "there's a sound" since both notions can be challenged when the inquiry goes far enough. You'd perhaps say "an unknown thing happened" but that really boils down to no-thing. And the koan behind the koan is the question if you could be ever there to begin with. It's study material, no answer material. My personal preference is to call it the fundamental ambiguity of existence.
It is indirect because we're not experiencing specific things but a necessary property of things. It is direct when we experience specific things.
There's only experiencing "necessary properties of things". That's because there are no really things as such. No "thingness", no inherent existence.
since it is you who are on record claiming that all things are containers that are assigned properties.
Something went wrong in the communication but I cannot be bothered to yet again dreg up all the stuff. I argued against containers since you were referencing them. Containers arise only when a property is assigned. In other words: the moment an attribute is assigned, the object appears. But there's no "object" without attributes. Only in your wildest dreams.
I used religious terminology in a similar way with Leyla Shen, who seems to harbour the same kind of irrational *dislike* for those terms that you and Russell do for terms like "materialism" and "physicality". This type of dislike indicates deeper delusions and I will ruthlessly expose them in anyone who claims to be rational.
Dislike of nonsense can also just indicate a dedication to truth. Leyla essentially had often the same problems with this topic as you appear to be having. It's a mystery why you two even disagreed so often. Maybe just because you were male. Meaning you actually are aware of internal subjectivity. If only you could see the external object as your own projection here, the extension of self, all what you desire and demand to be. All caused of course.
the fundamental nature of things, of reality, is not a thing and therefore not ambiguous and uncertain.
Yes, and this non-dual nature of things is identical with the superficial/dual/apparent nature of things. For once, just acknowledge the reality of whatever you are afraid of, and then place that reality against the fear itself. Do you see unity or division? I see unity *through* division.
If the superficial/dual/apparent nature of things would be identical with the fundamental nature of things, we wouldn't have to talk about the fundamental nature of things. It would be enough to just talk about superficial and apparent nature. Done! What you seem to confuse here is the truth that because everything is a manifestation of absolute reality, since there's nowhere where it's not, we don't need to seek for it in special places or states. However that cannot mean that ignorance is identical with insight, while they both manifest.

The only way to see unity through division is to know the illusion of the division inside out. It has to be second nature otherwise the mind becomes the thief instead of the guardian. In my view your writing demonstrates a mind which tries to rob you blind. It's unlikely that question can be settled through debating the issue though. In the end intellectual understandings are not end points, just like things are not reality: one doesn't have to remain with them.
Locked