Mad ravings on the implications of cause and effect

[Avolith]

Avolith,

Yet David Quinn argued in one of his recent posts that heavily and continuously contemplating these concepts would eventually bring about real understanding. Do you disagree there?

David offers many written points about undertaking the spiritial path. I do not want to contradict any at this time, per se, except to emphasize one point that is often overlooked.

In no way is the path to enlightenment and Truth an exercise in academic philosophy or mere intellectual inquiry. In principle these are fundamentally different although they utilize similar forms.

How does a unity imply dualistic qualities?

It is not entirely incorrect to speak of the All as comprising the non-dual in order to emphasize that no finite thing, by definition, contains everything. Yet a unity (as a substitution for the term "non-dual") is still a characteristic of a finite thing. For example, the unity of the United States of America is an explanation that the governments of the individual states are not sovereign. But contained within this idea - for the idea of unity to make sense - is the implication that the states within this legal unity could, in theory, be sovereign and separate from each other. It will not do at all to apply this line of reasoning to the All, for no "part" of the all could be separate and still remain the All. The All can not be a unity because in no way could it in "whole" or "part" ever have an observer identify it as a non-unity.

I see!

How is time/memory the key by which A=A? Does A=A it require the comparison of an object with a memory to recognize a contrast? A bit below here you say that A and not A appear in consciousness in equal measure simultaneously, so according to your logic, this is not the case...

If you were without memory, you would have no conception of time nor be able to invent the idea of time. As an example, your parents would appear before you, and not only would you not be able to conceive that they were your parents, not to mention the inability to remember their names, you would not conceive of them aging "before your eyes." You would not remember them if they left or died. In other respects, you would merey have an instinct to welcome their presence or want to run away.

For further study I refer you to the following:

Otto Weininger
Sex and Character
1906 Translation from the Sixth German Edition
Chapter VI: Memory, Logic & Ethics

...A being whose memory is never sufficiently good as to make it psychologically possible to perceive identity through the lapse of time, so as to enable [the absolute Woman], for instance, to pursue a quantity through a long mathematical reckoning; such a creature in the extreme case would be unable to control her memory for even the moment of time required to say that A will still be A in the next moment, to pronounce judgment on the identity A = A, or on the opposite proposition that A is not equal to A, for that proposition also requires a continuous memory of A to make the comparison possible.

I have been making no mere joke, no facetious sophism or paradoxical proposition. I assert that the judgment of identity depends on conceptions, never on mere perceptions and complexes of perceptions, and the conceptions, as logical conceptions, are independent of time, retaining their constancy, whether I, as a psychological entity, think them constant or not. But man never has a conception in the purely logical form, for he is a psychological being, affected by the condition of sensations; he is able only to form a general idea (a typical, connotative, representative conception) out of his individual experiences by a reciprocal effacing of the differences and strengthening of the similarities, thus, however, very closely approximating to an abstract conception, and in a most wonderful fashion using it as such. He must also be able to preserve this idea which he thinks clear, although in reality it is confused, and it is memory alone that brings about the possibility of that. Were he deprived of memory he would lose the possibility of that. Were he deprived of memory he would lose the possibility of thinking logically, for this possibility is incarnated, so to speak, only in a psychological medium.

Memory, then, is a necessary part of the logical faculty. The propositions of logic are not conditioned by the existence of memory, but only the power to use them. The proposition A = A must have a psychological relation to time, otherwise it would be At1 = At2 . Of course this is not the case in pure logic, but man has no special faculty of pure logic, and must act as a psychological being. I have already shown that the continuous memory is the vanquisher of time, and, indeed, is necessary even for the idea of time to be formed. And so the continuous memory is the psychological expression of the logical proposition of identity. The absolute woman, in whom memory is absent, cannot take the proposition of identity, or its contradictory, or the exclusion of the alternative, as axiomatic.

That makes sense... Very interesting. I didn't realize Weininger would be going this deep in a book called 'sex and character'. Are there more metaphysics in it?

How is it that 'not that' appear in consciousness together with 'that'. If this is true, then the entirity of reality would be constantly in my consciousness. Another question. Is my experience, really, the entirity of reality, since nothing has an inherent existence outside of consciousness?

When an identity appears in consciousness, it's appearance can not be denied. Why is this so? Because it is a Logical truth that relies on A=A. For example, if you were to look up at the moon, the moon is a "that" - A=A. By extension, the rest of the universe that is not the moon is a "not-that" - not-A=not-A. These are inseparable outcomes of the conceptualizing process as in, they are never absent in an identity. Even the light that comes off of the moon in order that you can perceive it is part of the "not-that" because the moon is defined as the moon and not the moon and the light coming off the moon. If this were not the case, you would not be able to indentify the moon going through phases. These are not empirical observations. They are the conceptualizing process used to talk about seeing the moon. Because "that" implies "not that", the moon and what is not the moon are not inherently existent, as their dualistic quality depends upon each other.

It's a very interesting point about the conceptualization process and what it means (versus empirical observations). You explain the logical reasoning that not-A is implied with the experience of A. I keep trying to directly conceptualize this not-A, experiencing it, trying to understand it, but I can't. Does the implied not-A have any experiential quality that I'm not seeing, or is this logical truth simply describing the experience I am already having. I suppose it's the latter

My attempt to define [suffering]: the experience of, a realization of, an inconsistency between a desired conceptualized experience and actual experience.

If you expect a terrible outcome and fear it and it does not come to pass, you might not suffer very much.

Then technically, I could say I desired the conceptualized state of not anticipating a terrible outcome, and now come into contact with a reality where I am anticipating a terrible outcome, and I'll suffer until i realize that my desire is fulfilled once it becomes clear it does not come to pass

I'm wondering if 'actual experience' is really also a conceptualized experience of a different kind. This definition would imply that the desire not to suffer would create a positive feedback loop of more suffering, and the lack of desire to avoid suffering would ironically cease suffering.

In that case, physical death can also bring about the lack of desire to avoid suffering. But this outcome is not the cessation of suffering arising while alive.

Yes, of course the point is to do it alive!

[David Quinn]

Well, let’s try and clarify the issue together. What is suffering?

My attempt to define it: the experience of, a realization of, an inconsistency between a desired conceptualized experience and actual experience.

We can simplify that further and say that suffering is the desire to escape one’s present experience. The absence of suffering, then, would entail no longer experiencing the desire to escape. Enter the spiritual solution of embracing the All.

I'm wondering if 'actual experience' is really also a conceptualized experience of a different kind.

Well, conceptualization is integral to actual experience. Without the mind’s conceptualizations we wouldn’t be conscious of anything at all, since the forms that are perceived in each moment are always finite in extent and require a conceptual dividing from the rest of the universe. On the other hand, the physical reality around us can clearly be distinguished from the thoughts in our head. But then, that's just another conceptual dividing.

This definition would imply that the desire not to suffer would create a positive feedback loop of more suffering, and the lack of desire to avoid suffering would ironically cease suffering.

It depends. If the desire to not suffer involves desperately seeking any kind of momentarily relief or pleasure or comfort, then yes, you will only end up creating the seeds of further suffering. If it involves a long-term, systematic approach using philosophic logic, than that is a different matter.

Whatever we care to posit - a brain, a god, a computer, a dreamer, aliens, etc - can never be anything other than part of the construct. All finite solutions, all forms, are merely appearances within the construct. Thus, the root cause of the construct is the infinite, the totality of all there is, which is beyond all form. What we experience in each moment is a construct of the infinite.

We perceive the conscious and unconscious mind existing as separate things because ego generates genuine boundaries. If we were to somehow drop the ego, we could see that these two aspects of Nature as a whole, are illusory because of co-dependency. So if you want to know what it beyond them, you find a way to drop ego.

This is still puzzling me.

You say the infinite is the 'root cause', but it must be outside of causality, right? (Which if true would also still be puzzling to me.) Did you use the word 'cause' on purpose or loosely? If it's subject to causality, then something must have also caused the infinite and so on.

As Diebert mentions, the infinite is causality itself. Or rather, it is a unity that splits up into causal events by our conceptualizing minds. An example of one of these splits is the construct that we experience.

Going on a different train of thought about my experience: If I call the forms that constitute my experience F. Then, !F (not F) is equal to the hidden void, is equal to the unconscious mind as I think Vishesh called it, which by definition cannot be experienced. Therefore, it is also not possible to experience the boundary of my experience, since it would require the experience of the un-experienceable to experience the contrast between the two. Still I tried to look for the boundary of my experience as an experiment. But my experience is always just a bunch of form (F)!

We can abstractly conceive of the totality of all of our experiences as a form of some kind, and in doing so, we can create a boundary between this totality and the rest of Nature, This enables us to engage in some logical analysis of the issue. But yes, you’re right, we can never directly experience the boundaries of our consciousness, any more than we can experience the moment immediately following our death.

When looking at a cloud as a thing, it seems obvious how to empirically verify that it has no inherent existence, eg by going close and observing the absence of a definite boundary of the cloud. Also, it is ONLY possible to observe the cloud as a cloud, because I CAN observe NOT cloud. It is this CONTRAST that makes me able to experience the cloud. If there were no clear sky as backdrop for the cloud, there could be no cloud!
YET, going back to experience, I DO experience my experience, WITHOUT experiencing its backdrop, the hidden void. How is it possible that I experience my experience given all this.

Most of the time as we go about our lives, we never pay any attention to this issue, which means that most of the time we are experiencing our consciousness in an unconscious manner, as it were. It is only when we direct our attention to questions like “What is consciousness?” and “Am I really conscious?” that the comparison to non-consciousness kicks in. We establish that we are conscious by imagining what unconsciousness is like.

Maybe my mistake is in considering my experience to be another 'thing'. Does causality not apply to my experience as a whole? Does it only apply to forms within my experience?

It applies to utterly everything without exception, including your experience. It is perfectly legitimate to treat the totality of your experience as a finite thing, given that it is clearly limited in space and time. Like all other things, it is a portion of the Totality.

[David Quinn]

Eric quoted Weininger:

I assert that the judgment of identity depends on conceptions, never on mere perceptions and complexes of perceptions, and the conceptions, as logical conceptions, are independent of time, retaining their constancy, whether I, as a psychological entity, think them constant or not. But man never has a conception in the purely logical form, for he is a psychological being, affected by the condition of sensations; he is able only to form a general idea (a typical, connotative, representative conception) out of his individual experiences by a reciprocal effacing of the differences and strengthening of the similarities, thus, however, very closely approximating to an abstract conception, and in a most wonderful fashion using it as such. He must also be able to preserve this idea which he thinks clear, although in reality it is confused, and it is memory alone that brings about the possibility of that. Were he deprived of memory he would lose the possibility of that. Were he deprived of memory he would lose the possibility of thinking logically, for this possibility is incarnated, so to speak, only in a psychological medium.

Memory, then, is a necessary part of the logical faculty. The propositions of logic are not conditioned by the existence of memory, but only the power to use them. The proposition A = A must have a psychological relation to time, otherwise it would be At1 = At2 . Of course this is not the case in pure logic, but man has no special faculty of pure logic, and must act as a psychological being. I have already shown that the continuous memory is the vanquisher of time, and, indeed, is necessary even for the idea of time to be formed. And so the continuous memory is the psychological expression of the logical proposition of identity. The absolute woman, in whom memory is absent, cannot take the proposition of identity, or its contradictory, or the exclusion of the alternative, as axiomatic.

I found the bolded parts of this Weininger quote interesting because it reveals the limitations of Weininger’s understanding and shows why he failed to break through into the Infinite before he died. He didn’t develop his abilities in abstract reasoning enough to totally break away from the empirical world and engage in the kind of pure logic that is needed to undermine the conceptual barriers that prevent us from seeing the Infinite.

He looks to have been heavily influenced by Nietzsche here, which is unfortunate given that Nietzsche also suffered from the same limitations.

[Avolith]

Going on a different train of thought about my experience: If I call the forms that constitute my experience F. Then, !F (not F) is equal to the hidden void, is equal to the unconscious mind as I think Vishesh called it, which by definition cannot be experienced. Therefore, it is also not possible to experience the boundary of my experience, since it would require the experience of the un-experienceable to experience the contrast between the two. Still I tried to look for the boundary of my experience as an experiment. But my experience is always just a bunch of form (F)!

We can abstractly conceive of the totality of all of our experiences as a form of some kind, and in doing so, we can create a boundary between this totality and the rest of Nature, This enables us to engage in some logical analysis of the issue. But yes, you’re right, we can never directly experience the boundaries of our consciousness, any more than we can experience the moment immediately following our death.

I wonder, what is the difference between consciousness and experience? Is it the same thing?

When looking at a cloud as a thing, it seems obvious how to empirically verify that it has no inherent existence, eg by going close and observing the absence of a definite boundary of the cloud. Also, it is ONLY possible to observe the cloud as a cloud, because I CAN observe NOT cloud. It is this CONTRAST that makes me able to experience the cloud. If there were no clear sky as backdrop for the cloud, there could be no cloud!
YET, going back to experience, I DO experience my experience, WITHOUT experiencing its backdrop, the hidden void. How is it possible that I experience my experience given all this.

Most of the time as we go about our lives, we never pay any attention to this issue, which means that most of the time we are experiencing our consciousness in an unconscious manner, as it were. It is only when we direct our attention to questions like “What is consciousness?” and “Am I really conscious?” that the comparison to non-consciousness kicks in. We establish that we are conscious by imagining what unconsciousness is like.

This is interesting, it seems important because I think it might be relating the logic of causality to direct experience in a way that's more easily understood from my particular perspective.

Trying again to imagine unconsciousness: I am here in this moment, and there are some memories in my brain that I can observe, so it's practical to assume that, in a practical sense, I, my body, my brain, has existed for a number of years. However, that doesn't tell me anything about the degree of consciousness that was present in each moment. My memories are not detailed enough to know whether there was consciousness in each moment.

Dreams are an extreme example. Is it so that, the degree to which I can remember the dream, depends on the degree of consciousness during the dream? Or, was there always full consciousness, that only gets attributed to 'I' through increased memory?

Consciousness seems entirely tangled up with the brain's function of memory, is this correct? It's probably not the whole story, but, does a higher degree of consciousness imply the creation of more detailed (short-term) memories? And could attachments thereby be interpreted as processes in the brain that block the creation of memories?

I'm thinking this might be a reason why people doing (insight) meditation are reporting becoming enlightened through this process - insight meditation (paying extremely close attention to sense perceptions) could train the brain into creating more detailed short term memories, thereby 'brute forcing' the brain into understanding

[Eric Schiedler]

I found the bolded parts of this Weininger quote interesting because it reveals the limitations of Weininger’s understanding and shows why he failed to break through into the Infinite before he died. He didn’t develop his abilities in abstract reasoning enough to totally break away from the empirical world and engage in the kind of pure logic that is needed to undermine the conceptual barriers that prevent us from seeing the Infinite.

He looks to have been heavily influenced by Nietzsche here, which is unfortunate given that Nietzsche also suffered from the same limitations.

I also noticed that Weininger's investigations, at times, aimed a bit too low. Yet his ability to depart from an empirical beginning using logical reasoning is so stimulating that his entire output is well worth careful readings between reflections. If only more thinkers would bravely explore new lines of thought with the same conviction yet there is always the danger of finding a point beyond which their attachment to their ideas will become the obstacle that renders them unable to pass into the pure Logic of the All.

Eric Schiedler

[Santiago Odo]

If only more thinkers would bravely explore new lines of thought with the same conviction yet there is always the danger of finding a point beyond which their attachment to their ideas will become the obstacle that renders them unable to pass into the pure Logic of the All.

Good Lord. Will no one call you on this? This is an absurd slogan that has no meaning nor value: "the pure Logic of the All".

This is the most stupid and vapid term that I can imagine. And you put it out there as if it is something potent and rich?

The better term isThe Logic of Pure Mind Fuck.

[David Quinn]

I wonder, what is the difference between consciousness and experience? Is it the same thing?

It depends on how we conceive and define these things. In my last post to you, I did use consciousness to mean the same as experience. The totality of your experiences and the totality of your consciousness is the same thing. At other times, it is more useful to define them differently - e.g. treat the world as though it were physical and objective and treat consciousness as though it were something that is confined inside a person’s head.

Most of the time as we go about our lives, we never pay any attention to this issue, which means that most of the time we are experiencing our consciousness in an unconscious manner, as it were. It is only when we direct our attention to questions like “What is consciousness?” and “Am I really conscious?” that the comparison to non-consciousness kicks in. We establish that we are conscious by imagining what unconsciousness is like.

This is interesting, it seems important because I think it might be relating the logic of causality to direct experience in a way that's more easily understood from my particular perspective.

A good approach.

Trying again to imagine unconsciousness: I am here in this moment, and there are some memories in my brain that I can observe, so it's practical to assume that, in a practical sense, I, my body, my brain, has existed for a number of years. However, that doesn't tell me anything about the degree of consciousness that was present in each moment. My memories are not detailed enough to know whether there was consciousness in each moment.

Everything about the past is uncertain. Even if our memories were crystal clear and photographic in nature, we still couldn’t be sure that what we were remembering is 100% accurate, or even remotely accurate. Once a particular experience is experienced and disappears into the past, it is gone and can never be retrieved. The past cannot be grasped in any manner. The only way to assess the nature and quality of our consciousness in each moment is through the very experience of that moment. After that, it is gone.

Dreams are an extreme example. Is it so that, the degree to which I can remember the dream, depends on the degree of consciousness during the dream?

There is a strong correlation, yes. We tend to remember only the last few minutes of our nightly dreams, as that is the time when the brain is starting to wake up and already activating its short-term memory functions. Nightmares in the middle of the night can also be recalled vividly, due to the intensity of the fear invoked which causes the brain to activate the waking process.

Consciousness seems entirely tangled up with the brain's function of memory, is this correct?

Memory is integral to consciousness, yes. When a person goes on a drinking binge and passes out, he wakes up the next morning without being able to remember what he did the night before. His memory is a blank and it seems to him that he spent the night in total unconsciousness.

As a general rule, the more attention and intensity of consciousness that you apply to a given situation, the more intense and detailed the memory of it will be. If you are genuinely interested in a particular area of life, your memories associated with it are likely to be more vivid and recallable than normal.

It's probably not the whole story, but, does a higher degree of consciousness imply the creation of more detailed (short-term) memories?

To some extent, but it will not magically splice the missing genes for a photographic memory into your DNA.

And could attachments thereby be interpreted as processes in the brain that block the creation of memories?

Attachments distort one’s perspective in all matters, including the direct experience of each moment and the formation of memories of it.

I'm thinking this might be a reason why people doing (insight) meditation are reporting becoming enlightened through this process - insight meditation (paying extremely close attention to sense perceptions) could train the brain into creating more detailed short term memories, thereby 'brute forcing' the brain into understanding

Enlightenment has no direct correlation with the details of one’s short-term memory. Those with great memories are not necessarily any wiser than those with lesser memories. The key issue, rather, is the ability to grasp the fundamental principle of Nature, which is what the buddhas of old used to call “insight”.

[David Quinn]

I also noticed that Weininger's investigations, at times, aimed a bit too low. Yet his ability to depart from an empirical beginning using logical reasoning is so stimulating that his entire output is well worth careful readings between reflections. If only more thinkers would bravely explore new lines of thought with the same conviction yet there is always the danger of finding a point beyond which their attachment to their ideas will become the obstacle that renders them unable to pass into the pure Logic of the All.

Agreed. He was certainly a very unique thinker, with lots of interesting material to offer. It would have been great to have had a conversation with him.

[Avolith]

I wonder, what is the difference between consciousness and experience? Is it the same thing?

It depends on how we conceive and define these things. In my last post to you, I did use consciousness to mean the same as experience. The totality of your experiences and the totality of your consciousness is the same thing. At other times, it is more useful to define them differently - e.g. treat the world as though it were physical and objective and treat consciousness as though it were something that is confined inside a person’s head.

Most of the time as we go about our lives, we never pay any attention to this issue, which means that most of the time we are experiencing our consciousness in an unconscious manner, as it were. It is only when we direct our attention to questions like “What is consciousness?” and “Am I really conscious?” that the comparison to non-consciousness kicks in. We establish that we are conscious by imagining what unconsciousness is like.

This is interesting, it seems important because I think it might be relating the logic of causality to direct experience in a way that's more easily understood from my particular perspective.

A good approach.

Trying again to imagine unconsciousness: I am here in this moment, and there are some memories in my brain that I can observe, so it's practical to assume that, in a practical sense, I, my body, my brain, has existed for a number of years. However, that doesn't tell me anything about the degree of consciousness that was present in each moment. My memories are not detailed enough to know whether there was consciousness in each moment.

Everything about the past is uncertain. Even if our memories were crystal clear and photographic in nature, we still couldn’t be sure that what we were remembering is 100% accurate, or even remotely accurate. Once a particular experience is experienced and disappears into the past, it is gone and can never be retrieved. The past cannot be grasped in any manner. The only way to assess the nature and quality of our consciousness in each moment is through the very experience of that moment. After that, it is gone.

Are you saying that 'insight' or 'wisdom' is not an insight that can be pulled from memory (which makes sense) In that sense it's fleeting from the ego perspective, even though also always present?
What if one loses touch with the infinite - it means only a hollow recollection remains? Or is it so that the skill to reach the infinite is stored in memory, which is used in the moment to actually reach it?

Dreams are an extreme example. Is it so that, the degree to which I can remember the dream, depends on the degree of consciousness during the dream?

There is a strong correlation, yes. We tend to remember only the last few minutes of our nightly dreams, as that is the time when the brain is starting to wake up and already activating its short-term memory functions. Nightmares in the middle of the night can also be recalled vividly, due to the intensity of the fear invoked which causes the brain to activate the waking process.

Consciousness seems entirely tangled up with the brain's function of memory, is this correct?

Memory is integral to consciousness, yes. When a person goes on a drinking binge and passes out, he wakes up the next morning without being able to remember what he did the night before. His memory is a blank and it seems to him that he spent the night in total unconsciousness.

As a general rule, the more attention and intensity of consciousness that you apply to a given situation, the more intense and detailed the memory of it will be. If you are genuinely interested in a particular area of life, your memories associated with it are likely to be more vivid and recallable than normal.

It's probably not the whole story, but, does a higher degree of consciousness imply the creation of more detailed (short-term) memories?

To some extent, but it will not magically splice the missing genes for a photographic memory into your DNA.

And could attachments thereby be interpreted as processes in the brain that block the creation of memories?

Attachments distort one’s perspective in all matters, including the direct experience of each moment and the formation of memories of it.

have you observed these processes in your own mind? If so, was there anything specific you were thinking about?

I'm thinking this might be a reason why people doing (insight) meditation are reporting becoming enlightened through this process - insight meditation (paying extremely close attention to sense perceptions) could train the brain into creating more detailed short term memories, thereby 'brute forcing' the brain into understanding

Enlightenment has no direct correlation with the details of one’s short-term memory. Those with great memories are not necessarily any wiser than those with lesser memories. The key issue, rather, is the ability to grasp the fundamental principle of Nature, which is what the buddhas of old used to call “insight”.

I've received some feedback that it may be more useful to try and think more deeply instead of widely. Thanks for the answers, for now It's probably best for me to read and think some more until I've gotten further