The nature of consciousness

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 16, 2016 6:46 am

jupiviv wrote:So you are simultaneously holding two contradictory views - things are mental containers assigned properties, and things can't be accurately identified. If accurate identification is impossible, then assigning properties to mental containers is impossible.
It's' even worse: I stated those containers only appear when assigning properties ("the moment an attribute is assigned, the object appears"). In other words the object is nothing but the (act of) identification. Accurate identification of a "thing" as unknown object is impossible since the object only appears (is instantiated) during identification. Without that, it's no "thing" at all. No sure about your introduction of "accuracy". That's an issue of relative context.
Indeed, an inaccurate identification is a contradictio in adjecto.
You are reversing your own position and taking on mine here. You're ignoring two things I argued for earlier:

- The common definition of "thing" being: object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically (Freedictionary.com, first definition).

- And then:

J: Since they are unknown things, it's not possible to say what their specific bounds are or indeed how many of them there are.

D: In other words, nothing really. Or everything. Unless you have some secret bound you know of and didn't tell.

Things, in other words, are what they are identified by, by definition. That's why I suggested contemplating on unidentified flying objects (mandalas).

User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand » Mon May 16, 2016 9:53 am

Easy does it there Diebert. My participation on this forum, and my enjoyment of it, and my gain from it, is mostly a result of seeing how nutty and strange you-all have allowed yourselves to become in pursuit of what is largely unintelligible. You have no idea at all what 'truth' is, and you have no idea what 'enlightenment' is, and the fact that you use these meaningless terms - to me - indicates how far you have drifted. In your drift, you have drifted through large masses of *information* and, despite the fact that you use this term for me you are, in your unique way, a spouting encyclopedia. It might be some arcana of Indian metaphysics, or some odd detail of bee-keeping, or some philosophical sci-fi anecdote, but you are never silent and really you are a chatter-box of the first order. One *encounters* you and your personality as a sort of Force and you demand to be reckoned with. One does not step over Diebert (you can't 'out-Diebert Diebert') or out wise-crack him. Should you do this the fully Diebertian power rises in defense of himself, his position, his self-ordained status.

But what I began to notice at a certain point is that you don't really have a discourse, and you don't really have a position, and this seems to be because you are *empty* of any such thing: a core, a motive, a reason. Now, I don't know if there is a final definition of the postmodern. I rather think that there isn't because in its strange way the postmodern is the end of definition (or something). But when it comes right down to it, and if I had to choose someone I know as 'the perfect postmodern subject', I think it might be you.

If this is so, it means a certain amount for this platform (the platform of GF) given that you are the Master of Ceremonies. You stuck it out. You came, you set down a tap-root, and you won the whole space as a sort of prize.

But the thing is you are really rather empty of content, for all the 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 billion words of intricate prose. What in the heck do you represent? I have no idea.

It is true that I don't desire to let that type of thinking get inside me. I do not want to become infected by it (postmodern ideas), or rather I wish to disinfect from it since, obviously, we are in the postmodern age. But I would really like to examine 'reactionary out-dated analysis of culture'. Why not? What should I have to fear? But I would prefer to be given the right to offer my own definition of my travail. But I have already defined it so many times: I am struggling against what I perceive as disease-of-sorts, this 'enlightenment' recklessness that I find here. For me - I admit this freely though perhaps I should be embarrassed - it is a long, slow slog. I mean, one has to get clear about so much in order to 'answer' the compelling nuttery of the Absolute Enlightened.
Charming as that might be, if he wants to become all intellectual on us, he better show he has the actual balls, the actual fire power to deliver. Not because such intellectual endeavour would bring anyone closer to enlightenment, but because in his case it might help him to get rid of some silly attachments and prejudices. That's all really.
Here, I think you reveal something unintended. The 'intellectual endeavor', according to you, is an empty one since 'enlightenment' is for you something real (it is not for me and I know too it is not for you either, not really, and the use of the word I always take as a sickness-sign, a delusion, a self-deception)(and thus I reverse your preferred categories of meaning). But it is not 'all intellectual' that I wish to get but rather to become invested in real substance, the stuff of worth and meaning. (That which does not exist for you because, I have gathered, that whole bubble burst when your Christian faith went up in acrid smoke: a likely axial event for you). To be 'intellectual' is to gain some skill in expression but obviously intellectualism for its own sake is empty. But the way you phrase your undermining statements is to cause to live in another what has been caused to live in you. You stumble over your own intended insult and, I think, it backfires.

My researches have led me to a fairly sound and solid ground: genetics and the structures of civilization is where I place my focus. The power of definition. These are my 'silly attachments and prejudices' and I own them. On that base I desire to gather around me the best of 'our traditions' and to help to preserve those. Honestly, I can see no higher nor more 'sacred' or more meanigful object. One must, according to me, turn away from hallucinations to be able to see and define 'value'.

The object is to give energy to those who are capable of really carrying 'the light' but I define this is far more tangible terms. (And I thank you batty fools for really bringing this home to me). Out of that, or as a result of that, I recognize that illumination is possible, but as I say enlightenment as it is bandied around here is - and I am quite serious about this - immoral and unethical. It is philosophically untenable. I guess this is a sort of new development, a new understanding.
I talk, God speaks

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Russell Parr » Mon May 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:My researches have led me to a fairly sound and solid ground: genetics and the structures of civilization is where I place my focus.
How much do you actually study and pursue these subjects? It seems a bit odd that you spend so much time and energy here when 1)your interests greatly differs from ours and 2)you're so repulsed by our interests. You really have no avenue to express your interests here in any detail at all. I would think this place to be more of distraction for you than otherwise.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv » Mon May 16, 2016 5:45 pm

Russell Parr wrote:You are either neglecting or failing to recognize that separation lies specifically where it appears to be, as determined by relative perception. Causality is infinite, and finites and separations are appearances.

For example, if a sheet of paper with multiple colors are shown to two individuals, one who is more colorblind than the other, then one will see, say, 5 different colors and the other will see, say, 3. Who sees the correct amount? The answer is entirely relative. The Infinite, the All, includes all instances of relativity and so cannot be defined by the appearance(s) of a one or multiple instances of relative perception.
But we're not talking about colours. Whatever we perceive we call - if we are wise - aspects or parts of the whole of Causality. If the parts are unreal then so is the whole - this much is logically true for finite wholes. However, Causality is an infinite whole and the rules that apply to finite wholes don't apply to it except in an indirect, poetic sense. A part in relation to *this* whole is the whole itself, and the whole in relation to a part is that part. What makes A different from B is B itself, and the same for B. So A and B together make each other different from each other.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv » Mon May 16, 2016 6:30 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In other words the object is nothing but the (act of) identification.
Surely the act of identifying an object is different from the act identifying *that* act. According to your premise, performing the latter act on the former makes them identical, which they are not. Therefore, your premise is incorrect.
No sure about your introduction of "accuracy". That's an issue of relative context.
Why the fuck are you lying? You introduced that term. And of course it is a relative term, which is why "inaccurate identification" is a self-contradictory phrase.
Indeed, an inaccurate identification is a contradictio in adjecto.
You are reversing your own position and taking on mine here. You're ignoring two things I argued for earlier:

- The common definition of "thing" being: object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically (Freedictionary.com, first definition).

- And then:

J: Since they are unknown things, it's not possible to say what their specific bounds are or indeed how many of them there are.

D: In other words, nothing really. Or everything. Unless you have some secret bound you know of and didn't tell.

Things, in other words, are what they are identified by, by definition. That's why I suggested contemplating on unidentified flying objects (mandalas).
Different kinds of definitions:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/

Definition of "thing" from Wiktionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 16, 2016 7:04 pm

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: My participation on this forum, and my enjoyment of it, and my gain from it, is mostly a result of seeing how nutty and strange you-all have allowed yourselves to become in pursuit of what is largely unintelligible.
That's a bizarre and quite frankly rather sickly and unhealthy reason to put any time in here. Your participation is then wholly defined by the disagreement with and revulsion of "us-all". The reason I keep bringing that up is more important than you want to consider. It completely undermines your case for health, embodiment, sanity, maturity and god knows what you bring to the table. And it also contradicts other statements you made on your reasons to be here. It's way more simple: you have no idea why you stick around. But you, old nut, are the very definition ot "nutty" and "strange". Which is also why you have been tolerated from the very start, since it's still better than being ordinary and plain. But those never show up here.
You have no idea at all what 'truth' is, and you have no idea what 'enlightenment' is,
The terms have been defined many times very clearly by people. You can disagree but it takes a claim on truth and enlightenment to do so, or at least a firm grasp on what it's not. This is your first glaring error. Make your own case, please do, but don't get stuck in the negative while even denying the consequences of your denial. Because that's just, pure and simple: dishonesty.
you are never silent and really you are a chatter-box of the first order. One *encounters* you and your personality as a sort of Force and you demand to be reckoned with. One does not step over Diebert (you can't 'out-Diebert Diebert') or out wise-crack him.
Why does that bother you? My position has been staked our clearly enough: I counter whatever is raised and have the ability to do so intellectually, logically, ironically, humorously or whatever is called for. My aim is to turn it back on itself and allow for some awareness of what one is doing, simply following the very thing I'm doing myself. And when someone comes along, like you, who thinks he can bulldoze his way over reason itself with pseudo-intellectual wavering, pages after pages, I point out the emperor without clothes. The clothes make the "man", define the self and yet the self has no clothes.
But what I began to notice at a certain point is that you don't really have a discourse, and you don't really have a position, and this seems to be because you are *empty* of any such thing: a core, a motive, a reason. Now, I don't know if there is a final definition of the postmodern. I rather think that there isn't because in its strange way the postmodern is the end of definition (or something). But when it comes right down to it, and if I had to choose someone I know as 'the perfect postmodern subject', I think it might be you.
It's actually called "beginner's mind", the source of consciousness, where ones needs to return to. You are describing not any actual "postmodern" idea here. If you really need a term for some of what I bring to the table in terms of cultural analysis perhaps meta-modernism would be better.
You stuck it out. You came, you set down a tap-root, and you won the whole space as a sort of prize.
But you just wrote that I don't really have a discourse. But you do I suppose? Wouldn't it then be more fair and honest to say that you came, set down a tap-root and are over all the place with 3400+ posts full of discourse, position and motive in regards to al the nutty and strange?
I am struggling against what I perceive as disease-of-sorts, this 'enlightenment' recklessness that I find here.
Struggling by taking a daily bath it it? Your own words are like a noose around your neck. Hoist by your own petard! Jesus on a stick!
My researches have led me to a fairly sound and solid ground: genetics and the structures of civilization is where I place my focus.
Good old Nazi fascism still does it for you then? You are mentioning two "grounds" which are least of all solid or simply "sound" from a more educated point of view. You only declare them to be something because you need it. And it's just nonsense to use this here as some argument against emptiness, existentialism, enlightenment or forum disposition. It's just mud raking, it's swimming with red herrings.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 16, 2016 7:22 pm

jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In other words the object is nothing but the (act of) identification.
Surely the act of identifying an object is different from the act identifying *that* act. According to your premise, performing the latter act on the former makes them identical, which they are not. Therefore, your premise is incorrect.
You forget that you start first objectifying the act of identification. That act does not equal "act-as-object" like reality does not equal "reality-as object".
No sure about your introduction of "accuracy". That's an issue of relative context.
Why the fuck are you lying? You introduced that term. And of course it is a relative term, which is why "inaccurate identification" is a self-contradictory phrase.
I don't think so, the term here seems really your introduction. Like "unknown things". Although I did introduce "precise" (somewhat) and "specific" through a dictionary. And I did address your "unknown things" and introduced the dictionary at that moment to demonstrate even the word "thing" was used to express something not named specifically. In other words something "vague" or poorly defined. But still defined, which is why it's a thing and not unknown.

Come on Jup, be sharp, pay attention! Just simple keep track who said what, instead of relying on a feeling. Or prove me wrong since I can make errors.

User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand » Mon May 16, 2016 10:12 pm

I can't say I believe you, Diebert, as your tendency to self-obscure your own motives is so entrenched. Yet as Ideal your intention to locate yourself in 'Beginner's Mind' as you call it, is a good one. I'd like to see more of this as things progress.
I talk, God speaks

User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand » Mon May 16, 2016 10:42 pm

Diebert wrote:Good old Nazi fascism still does it for you then? You are mentioning two "grounds" which are least of all solid or simply "sound" from a more educated point of view. You only declare them to be something because you need it. And it's just nonsense to use this here as some argument against emptiness, existentialism, enlightenment or forum disposition. It's just mud raking, it's swimming with red herrings.
My understanding of 'our age' and our modernity, and self-in-modernity, at least in regard to certain important things, is based in my understanding of 'recoiling' away from certain facts and truths. Clearly, it is insufficiently understood (by me) and needs much more work, yet I think that the 20th Century and its two madly destructive European Wars represent events of such magnitude that the meaning of them has been recoiled away from. And I tend to see our Americanized present as a mediated neurotic reaction.

What mediates it, and what directs it, is hard to label but it requires at least general statements to help one 'orient' oneself. It is as if a disassociation occurred or a fragmentation of self. I see the 'spiritual modalities' of the postwar era as being reactions to this, or compensations, but I also see them as running away from and avoiding, shall I say, 'truth'. And, naturally, I see the QRS manoeuvre as being a causal result, as it were. What I mean is that the propositions are, in different ways, veerings away from self and also 'truth' even as they declare themselves pursuits of, or findings of, truth or truth-grounds.

Still, one advantage of the the Solway-Quinn focus is (as I say constantly) very valuable, but perhaps for different reasons than it itself declares about itself. It takes a stand in the game of reclaiming 'Absolute Truth' and, even though it itself is not capable of the work of turning back toward what is recoiled away from, it is a useful declaration that impels one to turn back to the very core(s) of the most important and demanding questions.

When I say 'genetics' and 'structures of civilization' I am, of course, using glossary references, and yet to rediscover 'locality', in the impossibly strange complex of material-energetic existence as well as in biology, is part of recovery from 'recoiling away from'. But I have already spoken of this, or mentioned it, quite a bit when I use the term 'incarnated self' or 'incarnation' generally: coming into the structure of a biological body and having to carry out existence here within this peculiar 'frame'. Yet certainly, and with no ambiguity, I take a solid stand against *your* use of the term 'enlightenment'. It has no meaning whatever. It is ur-recoiling.

What you, Li'l Diebert (Ashtang-Bert!), think of any of this, or what discourse you will organize about it or around or toward it, has become for me largely irrelevant. You will chatter away as you always have. The reason is as I have said: you don't really have much of a solid idea not so much of what you talk about (you can blather away on so many different subjects!) but you have no real core of concern, no real topic. Your function, according to you, is like some sort of Dieber-bot, to oppose and challenge any particular declaration just, I suppose, to see where it goes. If that is so, you must be understood as a very valuable component of this or any forum. But as far as being able to interact responsibly and maturely with *value* and *solidity of idea* I have come to place you on a lower rung, certainly a lower one than I used to.

Horrible though it is to say it, your natural ally is Russell and those like him who destroy the mind, philosophy, intellectual life, pursuit of truth and realistic and productive connection to the material-energetic matrix that is our life here, all in the name of some grandiose 'value', which begins to reveal itself as pure evasion. Get your 'beginner's mind' to work on that, chump!
I talk, God speaks

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon May 16, 2016 11:26 pm

Pam: Alex, deviancy is impossible for God, therefore impossible for me. Which makes your position of relativism meaningless to me.
Alex: Marvellous, irrefutable argument Pam! Not even an angel could unseal that seal!
Precisely. Too bad your angel is so busy popping boomerang poisonous seal darts such as 'deviancy'.
Alex:For contrast see Sittlichkeit.
Sittlichkeit: Sittlichkeit is the concept of "ethical life" or "ethical order" furthered by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right (PR). It is the third sphere of right (Recht) that he establishes, and is marked by family life, civil society, and the State. It attempts to bridge individual subjective feelings and the concept of general rights.
Any bridge that is being built between subjective feelings and the concept is built of more subjective feelings and concepts. Family is formed of subjective feelings, civil society is formed of subjective feelings, the State is formed of subjective feelings, the concept of general rights is formed of subjective feelings. This bridge of which you speak is made of nothing but shifting sand. This is precisely what the ultimate truth of emptiness reveals.

Are you proposing that mankind continue building constructs of shifting sand ad infinitum?
More from Sittlichkeit: To properly comprehend the third sphere, that is Sittlichkeit, one must first review its counterparts which are the two former spheres. The first of the two, the sphere of right, constitutes what Isaiah Berlin would call negative freedom, which is to say, freedom ascertained through the denial of outside impetus. The eventual problem, or limitation, of this kind of freedom is made evident when one considers volition without duty — without any real impetus, pulse, drive. The second sphere constitutes Kantian morality, and is therefore called the sphere of morality (Moralität). Given that the purpose of Hegel's philosophy is to provide a critique of his modern-day Spirit (Geist, "Mind'), he criticizes the deployment of Kantian morality in society for being insufficient. He explains this deficiency through pathologies of loneliness, depression and agony — which he considers to be the empirical grounding behind his writing. To properly understand the movement from these two first spheres to the last, one must also understand the solipsist approach the aforementioned two spheres present, treating the phenomena as if it were atomic. This particularity is what pushes Hegel to assess that he is synthesizing these two spheres and surpassing them in his third sphere of ethical life.
Either spirit can absolutely rest on a sphere of thought or it can not, (hint: it cannot). Hitler (the most infamous example of a long line of continuing ignorants of 'spheres') discovered the truthful answer to that query the hard way.

The irony of your struggle (and of those such as Hegel) to find grounding in thought is that wisdom of emptiness based on subjectivity of self is Mind Ground. From Mind Ground, wisdom is lived.

User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand » Tue May 17, 2016 1:08 am

Pam wrote:Any bridge that is being built between subjective feelings and the concept is built of more subjective feelings and concepts. Family is formed of subjective feelings, civil society is formed of subjective feelings, the State is formed of subjective feelings, the concept of general rights is formed of subjective feelings. This bridge of which you speak is made of nothing but shifting sand. This is precisely what the ultimate truth of emptiness reveals.
Oneself, one's 'subjective feelings' (if you wish), the family, the State and of course civilization are the basic fields for expression and materialization of ideals, our notions of the divine, our values, etc. Any proposition in respect to perfection, or high awareness, or 'enlightenment', or illumination, have as their field of expression the domain of material(ized) life.

This I think describes the main difference that I note netween our points of view (and I note that your point of view is often the same as Russell's, more or less. I cannot say much about Jupi since it is not ever clarified, and who knows what Ashtang-Bert and any of his eight legs of approach is on about). You hold to some idealized, perhaps abstract, path which does not connect back to our life here. You seem to value disincarnation, dis-existence, dis-becoming: death and cessation as I have said. Your propositions attenuate into nothingness and 'emptiness' as you say.

I suggest that this is a mistaken approach, and with that 'sittlichkeit' is a reference 1) to the field of activity of ideals, and 2) a reference to ethics and morality which, as I understand things, must operate from bottom to top and from top to bottom. I discern that your tactics and strategies are unethical and immoral because they are not unitary and they do not speak to 'subjective feeling' (your term), to the family and to relationships generally, nor to the State, which means all levels of organization in this plane of existence. This does not mean that I do not respect your seriousness as a person nor do I devalue you.

Nor is it that I think you are unethical necessarily, but I do think that the ideas that have got hold of you link to the unethical. Ideas have consequences and I question strongly where yours lead. It is not difficult to grasp what I am talking about.
I talk, God speaks

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Russell Parr » Tue May 17, 2016 2:27 am

jupiviv wrote:But we're not talking about colours. Whatever we perceive we call - if we are wise - aspects or parts of the whole of Causality. If the parts are unreal then so is the whole - this much is logically true for finite wholes. However, Causality is an infinite whole and the rules that apply to finite wholes don't apply to it except in an indirect, poetic sense. A part in relation to *this* whole is the whole itself, and the whole in relation to a part is that part. What makes A different from B is B itself, and the same for B. So A and B together make each other different from each other.
A color is a thing, inasmuch that is it a entity separate from all else within the whole, so it works just fine as an example. It is true that the rules that apply to finites do not apply to the Infinite, so - if we are wise - we call things unreal, in relation to the Infinite. Things are only real insofar they are recognized to be what they appear to be.

Let's take that sheet of paper with colors again, and this time, with a bit of imagination, let's say it portrays the entire electromagnetic spectrum, of which the human eye can only see a sliver of. How many colors does it have, then? Only what our eyes can see, of course. In fact, the word "colors" only have meaning insofar that we are able to perceive and categorize them. The same is true with "things". What we see with our eyes, the things before us, in a sense, blind us from the Infinite. All that we hear deafen us to the Infinite. All that we feel numb us to the Infinite. So things exist only by way of awareness. Take away all thought and sensory apparatus and "thingness" disappears, and what's left is what was already there the whole time: boundless, eternal Reality.
  • King Milind: What is Nirvana?
    Nagasena: The question is wrongly put. How can a man describe all the interactions that ever have been and ever will?

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue May 17, 2016 4:23 am

Alex: I discern that your tactics and strategies are unethical and immoral because they are not unitary and they do not speak to 'subjective feeling' (your term), to the family and to relationships generally, nor to the State, which means all levels of organization in this plane of existence.
Your discernment is based on ignorance of wisdom of emptiness. This is a critical point since you are so heavily invested in its critique. Do you not see how dishonest it is to critique something that by your own admission is not understood/experienced/realized by you? This has been brought to your attention multiple times and I have yet to see a response from you regarding this glaring error. I may have missed it, and if so, please indulge me with a rerun.

User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand » Tue May 17, 2016 6:53 am

Each attempt by you, Pam, is a minor lesson in sophistry!

Here's why: An invisible, incommunicable *something*, for all that you understand it as beneficent, or even real, is an unintelligible thing until you have, with some clarifying erudition, made it intelligible. You wish to posit *a world* which, in your mind at least, is existent and intelligible. But this *world* of yours is not linked with the world I know. You repeat, again, from the three-pronged list of devastating Quinnean assault, and in this case it is 'ignorance' (tomorrow 'delusion', and so on and so forth).

It is actually fundamentally dishonest, and thus 'unethical' and 'immoral', that you attempt to attack the form of my critiques with these underhanded tactics. They cannot function in philosophical discourse (though they do often function in closed-loop religious conversations).

All that has been brought to my attention multiple times is sophistic argumentation which, through its own defects and inconsistencies, falls on its head.

More significant 'glaring errors' have been better exposed in some of my recent posts.

Well, according to me of course. ;-)
I talk, God speaks

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 17, 2016 8:00 am

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Horrible though it is to say it, your natural ally is Russell and those like him who destroy the mind, philosophy, intellectual life, pursuit of truth and realistic and productive connection to the material-energetic matrix that is our life here, all in the name of some grandiose 'value', which begins to reveal itself as pure evasion. Get your 'beginner's mind' to work on that, chump!
It's quite simple Alex. If you still really believe this forum, the discussions, the material of the hosts and so on, all are "mind destroying", and so much beneath you, or uninteresting in terms of the intent, then there's no reason for you to be here at all, especially after repeating this view hundreds of times, allowed to happen over the years, to allow such critique to at least be heard and discussed freely. For that reason I'm asking you now kindly to leave. And with that I'm exactly in line with my predecessors who requested the same here and here, so no bullshit now about "power moves". If I was after power or banning critique on ideas or people I'd never have invited you to post here, in your last incarnation, in the first place. And I also don't believe anyone else participating here is interested in your extended stay and never-ending uninspiring repeats. This forum is just way too small for you and the main topic is not something you are even remotely interested in or can conceive of since there's only a perpetual you in your world, just fueled by these "outrageous" discussions which are simply not about anything related to you or your concerns. And all the discussions where you do show up must look quite bizarre to anyone visiting here just wanting to talk about simple, quite universal, well established spiritual topics. That's also a big consideration in line with concerns of past moderators. Nothing new or "Diebertesque". So please draw your conclusions and do the honourable thing: move on.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv » Tue May 17, 2016 6:35 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In other words the object is nothing but the (act of) identification.
Surely the act of identifying an object is different from the act identifying *that* act. According to your premise, performing the latter act on the former makes them identical, which they are not. Therefore, your premise is incorrect.
You forget that you start first objectifying the act of identification. That act does not equal "act-as-object" like reality does not equal "reality-as object".
I'm not objectifying identification, because it is a meaningless phrase that you have made up. I'm differentiating between two acts of identification.
No sure about your introduction of "accuracy". That's an issue of relative context.
Why the fuck are you lying? You introduced that term. And of course it is a relative term, which is why "inaccurate identification" is a self-contradictory phrase.
I don't think so, the term here seems really your introduction. Like "unknown things". Although I did introduce "precise" (somewhat) and "specific" through a dictionary.
Accuracy and inaccuracy don't apply to unknown things. And yes, you were the one who introduced the concept of accuracy/inaccuracy into the issue of known and unknown things, where it doesn't belong.
And I did address your "unknown things" and introduced the dictionary at that moment to demonstrate even the word "thing" was used to express something not named specifically. In other words something "vague" or poorly defined. But still defined, which is why it's a thing and not unknown.
In the purely logical sense, "thing" is unspecific in itself. But unspecific is not necessarily the same as vague or inaccurate. It's like saying that the definition of water as a tasteless and odourless fluid is inaccurate because seawater is salty. A definition itself can be unspecific but nevertheless open to clarification if *needed*. A vague/inaccurate definition is one that *cannot* be clarified, for example, all water is seawater or all water shines in moonlight.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed May 18, 2016 12:01 am

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Each attempt by you, Pam, is a minor lesson in sophistry!

Here's why: An invisible, incommunicable *something*, for all that you understand it as beneficent, or even real, is an unintelligible thing until you have, with some clarifying erudition, made it intelligible. You wish to posit *a world* which, in your mind at least, is existent and intelligible. But this *world* of yours is not linked with the world I know. You repeat, again, from the three-pronged list of devastating Quinnean assault, and in this case it is 'ignorance' (tomorrow 'delusion', and so on and so forth).

It is actually fundamentally dishonest, and thus 'unethical' and 'immoral', that you attempt to attack the form of my critiques with these underhanded tactics. They cannot function in philosophical discourse (though they do often function in closed-loop religious conversations).

All that has been brought to my attention multiple times is sophistic argumentation which, through its own defects and inconsistencies, falls on its head.

More significant 'glaring errors' have been better exposed in some of my recent posts.

Well, according to me of course. ;-)
Wisdom of emptiness is where logic takes one who applies logic faithfully to its purposed end which is to the truth that because of dependent origination there is no inherent self. Yes, I am using Buddhist language, not because I am Buddhist but because it is a language of clarity and truth. Why call an apple a 'round red fruit' when 'apple' suffices?

What is undeniable is that logic, by definition of non-contradiction, is absent of the subjectivity of ethics, morals and the duality of 'attack' and 'assault.' Ethics can be contradicted, morals can be contradicted, as can specific definitions of ethics and morality such as 'attack' and 'assault.' Whether you or I like or don't like (our reactions to) the non-contradictory nature of logic has no effect on the truth of its function of non-contradiction.

Do you agree with the logic that 'reaction' is counter productive to philosophical discourse? And that 'reaction' is caused by holding the illogical view of self-as-centre of the universe? If so, I welcome a logical philosophical discourse with you.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed May 18, 2016 6:09 am

jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In other words the object is nothing but the (act of) identification.
Surely the act of identifying an object is different from the act identifying *that* act. According to your premise, performing the latter act on the former makes them identical, which they are not. Therefore, your premise is incorrect.
You forget that you start first objectifying the act of identification. That act does not equal "act-as-object" like reality does not equal "reality-as object".
I'm not objectifying identification, because it is a meaningless phrase that you have made up. I'm differentiating between two acts of identification.
You're differentiating both identifications in as far as you are differentiating both objects. That's because "object" is a convenient word for that process.
Accuracy and inaccuracy don't apply to unknown things.
That's because the idea of completely "unknown things" ends up being logical nonsense when reasoned out. At best they're everything and nothing.
And yes, you were the one who introduced the concept of accuracy/inaccuracy into the issue of known and unknown things, where it doesn't belong.
You were the one using that specific word "accuracy" first but you meant my use of the word precise like in "You have no precise idea of anything at all, least of all of your self". The reason this is true relies on the logical truth of the limitation of knowledge, which means it will always lack something just as much as it will be defined to some degree, no matter how "unknown" it's regarded as. In many cases, it just qualifies as sufficient based on some specification drawn up beforehand (context).
In the purely logical sense, "thing" is unspecific in itself. But unspecific is not necessarily the same as vague or inaccurate. It's like saying that the definition of water as a tasteless and odourless fluid is inaccurate because seawater is salty. A definition itself can be unspecific but nevertheless open to clarification if *needed*. A vague/inaccurate definition is one that *cannot* be clarified, for example, all water is seawater or all water shines in moonlight.
Everything is "open to clarification if needed". Because it can only be specific to a degree, most likely some requirement, some expectation. Therefore there's no significant difference, as far as this discussion goes, between specific and unspecific things since there will be always some attribute specified and some others not. Speciation is a process, it's an activity, part of identifying, part of object instantiating.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv » Wed May 18, 2016 4:22 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:I'm not objectifying identification, because it is a meaningless phrase that you have made up. I'm differentiating between two acts of identification.
You're differentiating both identifications in as far as you are differentiating both objects. That's because "object" is a convenient word for that process.
According to you, the act of identification and the object of identification are identical. Are you now saying that they are *not* identical? Because that's what I have been saying all this time! Which is precisely the contradiction in your earlier (?) premise - if the identification of an object that is not an act of identification is identical with the object, then the identification of this identification is also identical with its object (the previous act of identification). So basically neither acts nor objects of identification exist, which means that premises don't exist either.
Accuracy and inaccuracy don't apply to unknown things.
That's because the idea of completely "unknown things" ends up being logical nonsense when reasoned out. At best they're everything and nothing.
Nothing can be *completely* unknown, since any finite thing is knowable as a finite thing and subjected to logical deductions based on that fact.
Everything is "open to clarification if needed". Because it can only be specific to a degree, most likely some requirement, some expectation. Therefore there's no significant difference between specific and unspecific things since there will be always some attribute specified and some others not. Speciation is a process, it's an activity, part of identifying, part of object instantiating.
A known unknown thing or a specific unspecific thing is not logically conceivable, hence not a part of everything.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv » Wed May 18, 2016 4:40 pm

Russell Parr wrote:It is true that the rules that apply to finites do not apply to the Infinite, so - if we are wise - we call things unreal, in relation to the Infinite. Things are only real insofar they are recognized to be what they appear to be.
Things cannot help but be related to the Infinite, even in relation to other things.
What we see with our eyes, the things before us, in a sense, blind us from the Infinite. All that we hear deafen us to the Infinite. All that we feel numb us to the Infinite.
Using the same logic I can say that the things we don't see, hear etc. also blind us to the Infinite. Which means that if you take away all thoughts and senses you will be as blind as you were before.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Russell Parr » Sat May 21, 2016 5:29 am

jupiviv wrote:According to you, the act of identification and the object of identification are identical.
I do not speak for Diebert, but this is not what is being conveyed. But it seems you are starkly determined to project this false belief onto him (and myself, I assume), and are thus interpreting our responses to be in support of it.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun May 22, 2016 5:29 pm

jupiviv wrote:According to you, the act of identification and the object of identification are identical. Are you now saying that they are *not* identical? Because that's what I have been saying all this time! Which is precisely the contradiction in your earlier (?) premise - if the identification of an object that is not an act of identification is identical with the object, then the identification of this identification is also identical with its object (the previous act of identification). So basically neither acts nor objects of identification exist, which means that premises don't exist either.
You are introducing here the idea of identification of identification. That's like talking about becoming aware of being aware of whatever. It's still the same awareness and indeed still the same identification, no matter how many Russian dolls you want to encapsulate it in. The existential premise. Unless we talk about some kind of memory of having some identification. A memory of doing something does not equal the supposed doing (objectified doing). In reality you cannot really know what you're doing but can generate many reflections on it nevertheless.

When I talk about this or that not "existing" I mean that the act is instantiation, by loading it with quality. That act is real but in the most abstract sense: causality in motion. Millions of processes giving rise to your act, an act which cannot be completely followed or mapped. So one imagines, objectifies something, to reason about, to speak of. But it's still completely imaginary: there's no way to speak of it as existing any more than fantasy, dreams, impossibilities and delusions "exist". But we still are caused to differentiate between truth and ignorance. That's why we speak. That's all what reason is.
A known unknown thing or a specific unspecific thing is not logically conceivable, hence not a part of everything.
Since things always will be defined and yet remain unknown, specified and yet unspecific, they are not fully conceivable and therefore do no exist a such.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv » Mon May 23, 2016 12:26 am

Russell Parr wrote:
jupiviv wrote:According to you, the act of identification and the object of identification are identical.
I do not speak for Diebert, but this is not what is being conveyed. But it seems you are starkly determined to project this false belief onto him (and myself, I assume), and are thus interpreting our responses to be in support of it.
Yes it is. Diebert is merely using terminology that is marginally less ridiculous and therefore less honest.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You are introducing here the idea of identification of identification. That's like talking about becoming aware of being aware of whatever.
Well not quite. I'm introducing the idea of the inevitable confusion that arises when equating an identification with its object. You seem to want to gloss over the fact that this confusion necessarily exists, but no sane person will take you seriously unless you address it.
A memory of doing something does not equal the supposed doing (objectified doing).
No, but it is still a memory of doing, and if it is that then by definition there has do be doing in the past.
In reality you cannot really know what you're doing but can generate many reflections on it nevertheless.
How do you know that you are really thinking this thought then? This is merely one of the many generated reflections upon that thought, so you do not know whether the truth and coherence of this reflection is equivalent to that of the thought of which it is a reflection. Thus, you have no reason to express this thought as if true.
When I talk about this or that not "existing" I mean that the act is instantiation, by loading it with quality. That act is real but in the most abstract sense: causality in motion. Millions of processes giving rise to your act, an act which cannot be completely followed or mapped.
If the act of identification is identified as instantiation then that identification is itself instantiated, which is the contradiction being pointed out.
A known unknown thing or a specific unspecific thing is not logically conceivable, hence not a part of everything.
Since things always will be defined and yet remain unknown, specified and yet unspecific, they are not fully conceivable and therefore do no exist a such.
A thing is not undefined/unknown/unspecified to the extent it is defined/known/specified.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 23, 2016 7:01 am

jupiviv wrote: I'm introducing the idea of the inevitable confusion that arises when equating an identification with its object.
The confusion is here, and always has been, the idea that there's some "object" at the other end to be identified or revealed by your probing. In the end the things you'll know about it are part of the identification. To identify is an act, one that you cannot know fully either unless taken as object in memory, which does not equal that act of earlier identification.

Nagarjuna might clear it up in better wording. From Analysis of Arising and Disintegration:
  • If the existence of things is claimed,
    Views of permanence and annihilation follow
    Because these things must then
    Be permanent or annihilated.

    Although the existence of things is claimed,
    Permanence and annihilation do not follow
    Because existence is the continuum of effects and causes
    That arise and disintegrate.
A memory of doing something does not equal the supposed doing (objectified doing).
No, but it is still a memory of doing, and if it is that then by definition there has do be doing in the past.
That's all speculation or best effort guess work. A memory is a memory but even there you cannot step in the same river twice.
In reality you cannot really know what you're doing but can generate many reflections on it nevertheless.
How do you know that you are really thinking this thought then?
I don't!
This is merely one of the many generated reflections upon that thought, so you do not know whether the truth and coherence of this reflection is equivalent to that of the thought of which it is a reflection. Thus, you have no reason to express this thought as if true.
But I was expressing a doubt. And even if I'd doubt that doubt, I'd still be doubting! And if I'd reflect upon a reflection, it would still be reflecting. While reflection proves itself, the object does not. Unless the object is nothing but another reflection.
If the act of identification is identified as instantiation then that identification is itself instantiated, which is the contradiction being pointed out.
That's like saying, what about (A=A)=A?

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The nature of consciousness

Post by jupiviv » Fri May 27, 2016 10:29 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The confusion is here, and always has been, the idea that there's some "object" at the other end to be identified or revealed by your probing.
Since according to you there is no object at the other end of identification, you are confusing my probing with *your* probing. You have contradicted your assertion in the same sentence! Why, then, should anyone give credence to that assertion?
To identify is an act, one that you cannot know fully either unless taken as object in memory, which does not equal that act of earlier identification.
Memory doesn't create "objects of memory" out of nothing. And to think that you are now picking on poor little Seeker for doing essentially the same thing!
  • If the existence of things is claimed,
    Views of permanence and annihilation follow
    Because these things must then
    Be permanent or annihilated.

    Although the existence of things is claimed,
    Permanence and annihilation do not follow
    Because existence is the continuum of effects and causes
    That arise and disintegrate.
Nothing to disagree with there.
A memory of doing something does not equal the supposed doing (objectified doing).
No, but it is still a memory of doing, and if it is that then by definition there has do be doing in the past.
That's all speculation or best effort guess work. A memory is a memory but even there you cannot step in the same river twice.
And an object is an object. Your point?
In reality you cannot really know what you're doing but can generate many reflections on it nevertheless.
How do you know that you are really thinking this thought then?
I don't!
How do you know that you don't?
This is merely one of the many generated reflections upon that thought, so you do not know whether the truth and coherence of this reflection is equivalent to that of the thought of which it is a reflection. Thus, you have no reason to express this thought as if true.
But I was expressing a doubt. And even if I'd doubt that doubt, I'd still be doubting! And if I'd reflect upon a reflection, it would still be reflecting. While reflection proves itself, the object does not. Unless the object is nothing but another reflection.
Reflection about reflection cannot exist precisely because of the reason you stated - it is still just reflection and not reflection *about* reflection. But that wasn't the point at issue. I was demonstrating how your idea of vagueness contradicts itself by clarifying that that nothing can be clear.
If the act of identification is identified as instantiation then that identification is itself instantiated, which is the contradiction being pointed out.
That's like saying, what about (A=A)=A?
I was pointing out that that is what *you* are saying.

Post Reply