on the notion of beginless past and endless future

[visheshdewan050193]

Just a piece of my mind, feel free to respond in any way.

(Taken from 'Naturalistic philosophy denies life')
DQ: "Again, the problem lies in your likening the present moment to the very last moment of an infinite future (or the very earliest point in an infinite past). The core reason why the very last moment in the infinite future cannot be reached is not because it would take an infinite amount of time to get there, but because no such point exists. The present, however, does exist. Because of this, the attempt to use the argument that the very last moment in the infinite future cannot be reached to prove that the present cannot be reached from an infinite past has no basis to it. "

Comment:
Temporal notions of causality involve an establishing of 'sequence' of events, which involves making demarcations between that which ‘precedes’ or ‘succeeds’ a thing. This demarcation can be said to be brought about by conscious factors such as memory, perception of change, perception of staticness, and the void that conditions consciousness at the very least. From our understanding of causality that any finite thing must be caused by what it is not, an event A that precedes event B can be said to be determined by B just as it can be said that B is determined by A. But in the case when A hasn't yet 'begotten' B, it must still be caused by something other than itself. If causality is limited to a temporal context, then it can be said to be logically true that any event( or moment) in time must have a ‘preceding’ event as a cause (and thus you have the notion of an infinite or beginless past). One can notice however, that there is no logical compulsion for an infinite succession of future events (effects), since the present moment already can be said to be defined by a preceding cause.

Of course, if one considers A to be 'caused' by something that lends the perception of being eternally static (and thus not meriting the terms as 'preceding' or 'succeeding' anything), then I don't see the logical compulsion to say that it must have a preceding cause in a temporal sense. This 'something' that is eternally static doesn't need to be abstract, the present moment conception of A can be said to be static and logically it must be defined by something other than itself (the perception of the observer at the very least)

In conclusion, although the points David makes about a beginless past in WOTI and in discussions on GF seem intuitively compelling and stimulating, they seem to lie more in the realm of empirical investigation rather than philosophical logic. I'm thinking like this because I'm still coming to terms with reconciling temporal notions of causality with logical causality.

Could the usage of these concepts just be a tool to stimulate the notion of continuity, similar to the manner that David does here -

(Taken from 'Naturalistic Philosophy Denies Life')
DQ: "This is a sophistic argument, akin to Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno, with tongue in cheek, tried to prove that a thrown ball could never reach the wall, and did it by mentally dividing up the distance between the ball and the wall into increasingly smaller segments - e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc - and emphasizing that such a sequence could never reach an end.
The disparity between the physical act of successfully throwing a ball against the wall and Zeno's "proof" that such an act is impossible is generated by Zeno's initial contrivance of dividing what is essentially continuous into segments. The very act of mentally dividing up the continuous into artificial segments is what sustains Zeno's false proof. Zeno is merely exploiting the distorted consequences of this artificial behavior."

It is my understanding that the very idea of continuity can only be explored by the contrast provided by discretization (i.e. segmentation), or more specifically, infinitesimal discretization. At least from an unenlightened perspective.

[Manner]

Is this necessarily a paradox or can it be explained in a way that's not paradoxical?

[visheshdewan050193]

David Quinn wrote (via email correspondence)

DQ: "Again, the problem lies in your likening the present moment to the very last moment of an infinite future (or the very earliest point in an infinite past). The core reason why the very last moment in the infinite future cannot be reached is not because it would take an infinite amount of time to get there, but because no such point exists. The present, however, does exist. Because of this, the attempt to use the argument that the very last moment in the infinite future cannot be reached to prove that the present cannot be reached from an infinite past has no basis to it. "
Comment:

VD: Temporal notions of causality involve an establishing of 'sequence' of events, which involves making demarcations between that which ‘precedes’ or ‘succeeds’ a thing. This demarcation can be said to be brought about by conscious factors such as memory, perception of change, perception of staticness, and the void that conditions consciousness at the very least. From our understanding of causality that any finite thing must be caused by what it is not, an event A that precedes event B can be said to be determined by B just as it can be said that B is determined by A. But in the case when A hasn't yet 'begotten' B, it must still be caused by something other than itself. If causality is limited to a temporal context, then it can be said to be logically true that any event( or moment) in time must have a ‘preceding’ event as a cause (and thus you have the notion of an infinite or beginless past). One can notice however, that there is no logical compulsion for an infinite succession of future events (effects), since the present moment already can be said to be defined by a preceding cause.

An event, by its very nature, is both an effect and a cause. It comes into being from the interplay of other events and its mere presence helps to generate other events into being. Thus, logically, the future will continue forever.

Or more deeply: Reality is unborn and thus incapable of being destroyed, thus the future will continue forever.

This conclusion doesn’t depend on “limiting causality to a temporal context”. For example, if we approach it in a purely logical manner: Reality is not a thing, therefore it can neither be created nor destroyed.

VD: Of course, if one considers A to be 'caused' by something that lends the perception of being eternally static (and thus not meriting the terms as 'preceding' or 'succeeding' anything), then I don't see the logical compulsion to say that it must have a preceding cause in a temporal sense. This 'something' that is eternally static doesn't need to be abstract, the present moment conception of A can be said to be static and logically it must be defined by something other than itself (the perception of the observer at the very least)

It’s up to you whether want to conceive of the past as “eternally static" or not . Either way, it still implies an infinite past.

VD: In conclusion, although the points you make about a beginless past in WOTI and in discussions on GF seem intuitively compelling and stimulating, they seem to lie more in the realm of empirical investigation rather than philosophical logic. I'm thinking like this because I'm still coming to terms with reconciling temporal notions of causality with logical causality.

This reconciling that you’re doing is very important because it brings the logical understanding of causality out of the purely abstract realm and drives it into the fundamental processes that constitute your very existence as a human being, which is key to understanding your buddha nature.

However, make no mistake. Philosophically exploring causality in the empirical world is always a purely philosophic affair. It is never an empirical matter. Empirical investigation is only useful for stimulating the mind into thinking about the world more philosophically and logically. It cannot resolve anything in an absolute sense. Always, the ultimate arbiter for philosophic matters is logic.

VD: Could your usage of these concepts just be a tool to stimulate the notion of continuity, similar to the manner that you do here -

DQ: "This is a sophistic argument, akin to Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno, with tongue in cheek, tried to prove that a thrown ball could never reach the wall, and did it by mentally dividing up the distance between the ball and the wall into increasingly smaller segments - e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc - and emphasizing that such a sequence could never reach an end.

The disparity between the physical act of successfully throwing a ball against the wall and Zeno's "proof" that such an act is impossible is generated by Zeno's initial contrivance of dividing what is essentially continuous into segments. The very act of mentally dividing up the continuous into artificial segments is what sustains Zeno's false proof. Zeno is merely exploiting the distorted consequences of this artificial behavior."
It is my understanding that the very idea of continuity can only be explored by the contrast provided by discretization (i.e. segmentation).

That’s true to a degree. However, there are two different aspects to consider. While the idea of continuity can only arise in contrast to the idea of segmentation, the understanding of continuity (or more specifically, the continuous nature of Reality) only comes from understanding that all segmentation is mentally created.

Something else to consider:

VD: Temporal notions of causality involve an establishing of 'sequence' of events, which involves making demarcations between that which ‘precedes’ or ‘succeeds’ a thing. This demarcation can be said to be brought about by conscious factors such as memory, perception of change, perception of staticness, and the void that conditions consciousness at the very least. From our understanding of causality that any finite thing must be caused by what it is not, an event A that precedes event B can be said to be determined by B just as it can be said that B is determined by A. But in the case when A hasn't yet 'begotten' B, it must still be caused by something other than itself. If causality is limited to a temporal context, then it can be said to be logically true that any event( or moment) in time must have a ‘preceding’ event as a cause (and thus you have the notion of an infinite or beginless past). One can notice however, that there is no logical compulsion for an infinite succession of future events (effects), since the present moment already can be said to be defined by a preceding cause.

Of course, if one considers A to be 'caused' by something that lends the perception of being eternally static (and thus not meriting the terms as 'preceding' or 'succeeding' anything), then I don't see the logical compulsion to say that it must have a preceding cause in a temporal sense. This 'something' that is eternally static doesn't need to be abstract, the present moment conception of A can be said to be static and logically it must be defined by something other than itself (the perception of the observer at the very least)

The idea that the “present moment conception of A” is somehow above time, or does not manifest over a period of time, is false. Indeed, the “present moment” itself is a fiction, a conceptual construct that we project onto our experiences, and thus falls into the same category as the geometric line or the mathematical point.

The act of perceiving an object is an act that occurs over a period of time, which means that the past is automatically involved. Glancing at, say, a cup on a table necessarily involves a duration of time that can be divided into micro-seconds or nano-seconds or whatever, within which trillions of microscopic events are occurring. In the very instant that we engage in the perception, the cup it is already enduring numerous changes due to cause and effect taking place over time, even though from our perspective it can seem that no time is elapsing at all.

In the words, temporal causation is necessary to anything that exists. This is true by definition.

[visheshdewan050193]

DQ: An event, by its very nature, is both an effect and a cause. It comes into being from the interplay of other events and its mere presence helps to generate other events into being. Thus, logically, the future will continue forever. Or more deeply: Reality is unborn and thus incapable of being destroyed, thus the future will continue forever

OK, need to knuckle down on the meaning of the words you're employing here.
Let's assume a hypothetical independent observer that is capable of perceiving appearances through eternity.

If you consider an event as a momentary appearance of some form(s), then in a sequence of events (in which events can be determined to be preceding or succeeding other events), all of the events can be said to be causes and effects of each other (invoking philosophical causality). When you say that Reality is unborn (and thus the future will continue forever), if by future you specifically mean 'a succession of changes in appearances of forms', it isn't logically necessary for this to be true. Although the idea of 'staticness' is difficult to conceive or perceive (much like the idea of continuity), one could imagine say a state of affairs (such as the heat death of the observable universe) in which there is no appearance of any 'change' (to the purely hypothetical independent observer).

DQ: It’s up to you whether want to conceive of the past as “eternally static" or not . Either way, it still implies an infinite past.

Similarly, if by 'infinite past' if you mean infinite 'changes in appearances of forms' that precede the present, there are similar issues presented by the possibility of a 'static state of affairs'. I'd read an argument (on the Thread 'Slick Argument') that there can't have ever been a period of no-time in the past because it would imply no change to be possible (I conflate time with change which the original poster didn't seem to), and thus the evolution of events from the Big Bang upto the present would not be possible. It's something along this line of thought that I don't conceive of an 'eternally' static past that 'preceded' the Big Bang (It seems self contradictory in the sense how could the state that preceded the Big Bang be 'eternally static' if it was indeed succeeded by a differing state i.e. the Big Bang?). However, there seem to be threads of thought in the scientific community that isn't 'meaningful' to ask what preceded the Big Bang (just as time scales smaller than Planck time or distances smaller than the Planck length). I may be misinformed, but as far as I can tell this view is related to the notion of treating space-time as emergent phenomena, although I strongly suspect that any fundamental underlying reality that's is posited (whether its of higher dimensional topologies or whatever) is indicative of 'static' arrangements.

(besides the cute notion of treating an observer outside the universe as not part of their definition implied by the term 'universe' - have a read)
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... d3dc850933.
Here's an excerpt - "It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict."

To reiterate my point, if by endless past or endless future if you mean an endless succession or precedence of 'changes in appearances', then such a notion is not philosophically certain. However, if you define Reality as that which is not nothing whatsoever and the totality of all that is, and conclude that it is not a thing (which is understood to be a bounded portion of reality), and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed, and therefore eternal (i.e. having an infinite past and future), this raises a couple of points.

a. Does it even make sense to talk about the All as having a past, present, or future (since tense requires a demarcation of changing events as preceding or succeeding each other)

b. It would seem that the 'eternal' nature of the All is similar to the notion of 'eternity' projected by the appearance of a 'static' thing ('eternity' has a temporal connotation). But by reasoning the appearance of staticness is dependent upon the appearance of change makes me think otherwise. It seems similar to the superficial similarity that you've pointed out between the formlessness of the hidden void and the Formlessness of the All.
This is really the conclusion that leads me to conclude that the epithets you use for the All, identified by the use of a capital letter in the beginning, such as the Void, the Formless, the Unchanging, the Unborn, the One Mind, and I'd thrown in the likes of the Eternal, the Continuous, etc. are really just stimulants or correctives that eventually have to discarded as one's thought brings one closer to enlightenment.

DQ: While the idea of continuity can only arise in contrast to the idea of segmentation, the understanding of continuity (or more specifically, the continuous nature of Reality) only comes from understanding that all segmentation is mentally created.

This seems intuitively profound, something to Socrates's understanding of the 'don't know' or 'nothing'. I don't know why, but I seem to relate this in a henid like way to a snippet of discussion that I read in a thread called 'is belief in an inherently existing self common?'

Sapius: Try however one may, one can in no way remove the separateness that consciousnesses demands.
Kevin: This is true, but what we can abandon is the idea of inherent separateness. It means that they would not believe in inherent separateness, or inherent existence. They would only experience separation as a logical tool.

On a side note,

It's funny how people talk about the impossibility of traversing an 'infinite amount of time' into the present moment when one can mull over the impossibility of traversing ANY interval of time, which can be infinitesimally segmented (just as with Zeno's paradox)

DQ: The idea that the “present moment conception of A” is somehow above time, or does not manifest over a period of time, is false. Indeed, the “present moment” itself is a fiction, a conceptual construct that we project onto our experiences, and thus falls into the same category as the geometric line or the mathematical point.

Yes, it is like the logical construct of 'staticness', or 'continuity' or even like 'formlessness of the hidden void'.

Just thought about it, the term eternally static might be a false contrivance.
Typically when we assume something to be static, we use memory to compare its states in time (let's disregard the existence of micro events or whatever happening within the thing in question) and then conclude its unchanging. In a truly static environment, the notion that an observer can demarcate states, juxtapose them via memory and conclude that what it observes to be unchanging is dubious. If the demarcation of now, before and after don't apply, neither does the notion of eternal. Unless you define eternal to mean precisely that. The implication is that the seeming contradiction offered by imagining an 'eternally' static past 'prior' to the emergence of time (change) at the point of the Big Bang is false. Perhaps it's similar to false contradiction offered by Zenos paradox, which is basically set up by artificial segmentation.

[visheshdewan050193]

David Quinn wrote (via email correspondence)

VD: When you say that Reality is unborn (and thus the future will continue forever), if by future you specifically mean 'a succession of changes in appearances of forms', it isn't logically necessary for this to be true. Although the idea of 'staticness' is difficult to conceive or perceive (much like the idea of continuity), one could imagine say a state of affairs (such as the heat death of the observable universe) in which there is no appearance of any 'change' (to the purely hypothetical independent observer).

Similarly, if by 'infinite past' if you mean infinite 'changes in appearances of forms' that precede the present, there are similar issues presented by the possibility of a 'static state of affairs'.

There are two main problems with this:

- The idea that a “static state of affairs” can give rise to changing phenomena is akin to asserting that something can come from nothing.

- The scenario you paint contains a self-contradiction. If a static state is indeed able to give way to changing phenomena, then it means that the static state is itself capable of change and thus is part of the realm of changing phenomena. I see that you hint at this in your next passage:

I'd read an argument (on the Thread 'Slick Argument') that there can't have ever been a period of no-time in the past because it would imply no change to be possible (I conflate time with change which the original poster didn't seem to), and thus the evolution of events from the Big Bang upto the present would not be possible. It's something along this line of thought that I don't conceive of an 'eternally' static past that 'preceded' the Big Bang (It seems self contradictory in the sense how could the state that preceded the Big Bang be 'eternally static' if it was indeed succeeded by a differing state i.e. the Big Bang?). However, there seem to be threads of thought in the scientific community that isn't 'meaningful' to ask what preceded the Big Bang (just as time scales smaller than Planck time or distances smaller than the Planck length).

That used to be the conventional view back in the 80s, 90s and 2000s. Most physicists back then subscribed to the view that space-time emerged from a singularity (and avoided the question of what came before).. But such a view is increasingly being challenged, particularly by those who propose theories about a “multiverse” - that is, countless universes which collectively comprise a reality that stretches away in all directions and stretches back forever - which, according to my own intuitive insight, is far more plausible.

VD: I may be misinformed, but as far as I can tell this view is related to the notion of treating space-time as emergent phenomena, although I strongly suspect that any fundamental underlying reality that's is posited (whether its of higher dimensional topologies or whatever) is indicative of 'static' arrangements.

Yes, the underlying process of cause and effect itself is static, in that it never changes.

VD: (besides the cute notion of treating an observer outside the universe as not part of their definition implied by the term 'universe' - have a read)
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... d3dc850933.
Here's an excerpt - "It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict."

They do love to complicate things.

VD: to reiterate my point, if by endless past or endless future if you mean an endless succession or precedence of 'changes in appearances', then such a notion is not philosophically certain. However, if you define Reality as that which is not nothing whatsoever and the totality of all that is, and conclude that it is not a thing (which is understood to be a bounded portion of reality), and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed, and therefore eternal (i.e. having an infinite past and future), this raises a couple of points.

a. Does it even make sense to talk about the All as having a past, present, or future (since tense requires a demarcation of changing events as preceding or succeeding each other)

Not as a whole, no. I sometimes like to think of the All as a single instantaneous event (with no before or after), and within this event is the past, present and future, along with all changing phenomena.

VD:
b. It would seem that the 'eternal' nature of the All is similar to the notion of 'eternity' projected by the appearance of a 'static' thing ('eternity' has a temporal connotation). But by reasoning the appearance of staticness is dependent upon the appearance of change makes me think otherwise. It seems similar to the superficial similarity that you've pointed out between the formlessness of the hidden void and the Formlessness of the All.
This is really the conclusion that leads me to conclude that the epithets you use for the All, identified by the use of a capital letter in the beginning, such as the Void, the Formless, the Unchanging, the Unborn, the One Mind, and I'd thrown in the likes of the Eternal, the Continuous, etc. are really just stimulants or correctives that eventually have to discarded as one's thought brings one closer to enlightenment.

That’s right. The notion of “eternity” has no meaning from the absolute perspective, just as the idea of an infinitely large universe has no meaning.

VD: It's funny how people talk about the impossibility of traversing an 'infinite amount of time' into the present moment when one can mull over the impossibility of traversing ANY interval of time, which can be infinitesimally segmented (just as with Zeno's paradox)

Spot on. Nature pays no attention to our boundaries and contrived paradoxes.

DQ: In the words, temporal causation is necessary to anything that exists. This is true by definition.

VD: I dunno about this, it seems to detract from treating existence in a logical sense which allows us to reason our way to interdependent origination. i.e. Reality is not nothing whatsoever (since forms are appearing), therefore A=A, therefore lack of inherent existence.

There are many ways to treat existence in a logical sense. What you describe above is just one way.

Try not to confine yourself to one single approach. There are many different kinds of logical truth, just as there are many different kinds of mathematical truth.

VD: Reasoning about A=A requires us to conceive of a thing A logically or statically.

Are you sure? I find it easy enough to reason about changing processes. The flowing Ganges is the flowing Ganges and not, say, the flowing Brisbane river or an apple.

If considered true, it would imply that for that which cannot assume existence (i.e. the hidden void), is timeless. Which would seem to concur with you mentioning that it is non-sensible to think of 'time elapsing', or 'waiting' outside of consciousness.

I’m not exactly sure what you are alluding to here. Temporal causation necessarily comprises anything that exists because all boundaries in Nature are illusory. The static snapshots that we imagine "things" to be are an illusion. These are logical truths.

[visheshdewan050193]

When I observe a static thing, the conclusion that it is static can only be made by the contrast of change. In real life, when one 'observes', there always seems to be a backdrop of change (either the environment, or mental activity). But on the other hand, the conclusion of 'change' can be arrived at by a difference in forms.

Here's an interesting thought experiment - one can conceive of 'change' even for purely static things, depending on how we place boundaries on the contrasts used to define the thing. If you have an image that serves as an optical illusion, one instant you're looking at one thing and the next it's something else! Aha! I just created time by observation!

Of course, there seems to be a difference between the 'subjectivity' of perceiving alternate boundaries on whim and the 'objectivity' of things appearing to change on their own accord, but fundamentally it's the same.

[Rhett]

The present is a remanifestation of the past, and the future will be a remanifestation of the present. The past no longer exists, and the future is yet to exist. Time travel is impossible because only the present exists. In the present, there can be imaginings and thoughts, along the lines of, 'this imagining, is a representation of a past event', and 'this imagining, is a prediction of a future event'.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Even our "present" is a construct created with the sense of passing time. It's more like a special case of the past, one that is in such a recent memory that we cannot tell exactly how far back it is or which element of the experience is formed how long ago exactly. Think of losing perspective on some object when it's suddenly very close to the eyes, as the visual distortions and lack of reference frame makes it impossible to estimate. Sometimes it's simply assumed it's colliding with our head -- so we duck!

In that sense, the present, like the I residing in that moment, would seem like a trick of time. But if we'd see the past and future as the sum of all possible causes and effects connected, the present would be the completion of both, meaning the present is the totality, causality itself, which encapsulates both past and future. This is something different from experiencing a sense of the present as a momentary, fleeting impression, somehow separated from the static past or unknown future.

Another perspective would be to call the past the totality of causes giving expression to what is and the past is nothing else but God the creator. Since there's no way of knowing if the future exists or will happen and when it does, it would become more of the past, we could say, dramatically, that God births himself into the future. Since the infinite cannot be said to grow or shrink, this can only be described as movement.

[Rhett]

Even our "present" is a construct created with the sense of passing time. It's more like a special case of the past, one that is in such a recent memory that we cannot tell exactly how far back it is or which element of the experience is formed how long ago exactly. Think of losing perspective on some object when it's suddenly very close to the eyes, as the visual distortions and lack of reference frame makes it impossible to estimate. Sometimes it's simply assumed it's colliding with our head -- so we duck!

In that sense, the present, like the I residing in that moment, would seem like a trick of time. But if we'd see the past and future as the sum of all possible causes and effects connected, the present would be the completion of both, meaning the present is the totality, causality itself, which encapsulates both past and future. This is something different from experiencing a sense of the present as a momentary, fleeting impression, somehow separated from the static past or unknown future.

Another perspective would be to call the past the totality of causes giving expression to what is and the past is nothing else but God the creator. Since there's no way of knowing if the future exists or will happen and when it does, it would become more of the past, we could say, dramatically, that God births himself into the future. Since the infinite cannot be said to grow or shrink, this can only be described as movement.

The Totality is happenning, its a brute fact. Concepts such as 'present' can be added to that, and 'time', if desired, or if necessary to aid thinking or communication or whatever.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The Totality is happening, its a brute fact. Concepts .... can be added...

We're not there to know. Whatever one senses "happening" is not naked. Any happening is depending on a sense of time, some short memory and association, a lot right there. We can of course surrender to any experience but this was about looking carefully at what's happening.

What Totality is or does can only be understood through the conceptual. Not even all experiences combined or a single one isolated could address it.

[Rhett]

Rhett: The Totality is happening, its a brute fact. Concepts .... can be added...

Diebert: We're not there to know.

Who is not where? The Totality is all encompassing. To claim a thing or location to be outside of the Totality would be to contradict the definition of the Totality.

Diebert: Whatever one senses "happening" is not naked. Any happening is depending on a sense of time, some short memory and association, a lot right there. We can of course surrender to any experience but this was about looking carefully at what's happening.

A "sense of time", memories (refer earlier definition), and associations, are images and concepts that occur as articles of consciousness, consciousness is not dependent on them.

What Totality is or does can only be understood through the conceptual. Not even all experiences combined or a single one isolated could address it.

The Totality is what it is, and we conceptually refer to it with the words "The Totality".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Rhett: The Totality is happening, its a brute fact. Concepts .... can be added...

Diebert: We're not there to know.

Who is not where? The Totality is all encompassing. To claim a thing or location to be outside of the Totality would be to contradict the definition of the Totality.

Your definition of Totality is a concept right? And if it's experience, there's still the experiencer by logical necessity unless you cleverly hide.

Perhaps best said by Weiniger:

Only death can teach me the meaning of life. I stand in time and not above it; I still posit time, still long for non-being, still desire material life; and because I remain in this sin, I am not able to comprehend it. What I know, I already stand outside of. I cannot comprehend my sinfulness, because I am still sinful.

--From "On last things".

Diebert: Whatever one senses "happening" is not naked. Any happening is depending on a sense of time, some short memory and association, a lot right there. We can of course surrender to any experience but this was about looking carefully at what's happening.

A "sense of time", memories (refer earlier definition), and associations, are images and concepts that occur as articles of consciousness, consciousness is not dependent on them.

Causality being the highest principle that we can know, even consciousness cannot be independently functioning somewhere in some magical space.

What Totality is or does can only be understood through the conceptual. Not even all experiences combined or a single one isolated could address it.

The Totality is what it is, and we conceptually refer to it with the words "The Totality".

Right, that's all you know.

[Rhett]

Rhett: The Totality is happening, its a brute fact. Concepts .... can be added...

Diebert: We're not there to know.

Rhett: Who is not where? The Totality is all encompassing. To claim a thing or location to be outside of the Totality would be to contradict the definition of the Totality.

Diebert: Your definition of Totality is a concept right? And if it's experience, there's still the experiencer by logical necessity unless you cleverly hide.

Well, if you think the experience and the experiencer are separate from each other, how do you experience both?

Diebert: Whatever one senses "happening" is not naked. Any happening is depending on a sense of time, some short memory and association, a lot right there. We can of course surrender to any experience but this was about looking carefully at what's happening.

Rhett: A "sense of time", memories (refer earlier definition), and associations, are images and concepts that occur as articles of consciousness, consciousness is not dependent on them.

Diebert: Causality being the highest principle that we can know, even consciousness cannot be independently functioning somewhere in some magical space.

Causality is all well and good for as long as you imagine boundaries.

Diebert: What Totality is or does can only be understood through the conceptual. Not even all experiences combined or a single one isolated could address it.

Rhett: The Totality is what it is, and we conceptually refer to it with the words "The Totality".

Diebert: Right, that's all you know.

Where there is consciousness, there is consciousness of The Totality, but that consciousness seems limited, even though there ultimately isnt a boundary to that consciousness.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: Your definition of Totality is a concept right? And if it's experience, there's still the experiencer by logical necessity unless you cleverly hide.

Well, if you think the experience and the experiencer are separate from each other, how do you experience both?

When I wrote "if ... then there's the experiencer by logical necessity" it didn't imply any experiencing of the experiencer. It would only become clear by logical implication that totality is more than any given experience. This way we might know totality indirectly, by logic, not by feelings.

Causality is all well and good for as long as you imagine boundaries.

Without definition or imagination there's no meaningful sense of any existence, world or things. In which case indeed causality has little meaning.

Where there is consciousness, there is consciousness of The Totality, but that consciousness seems limited, even though there ultimately isnt a boundary to that consciousness.

Is that particular consciousness limited or not? When you say "consciousness of" one would assume it's not the same as "not consciousness of"?

[Rhett]

Diebert: Your definition of Totality is a concept right? And if it's experience, there's still the experiencer by logical necessity unless you cleverly hide.

Rhett: Well, if you think the experience and the experiencer are separate from each other, how do you experience both?

Diebert: When I wrote "if ... then there's the experiencer by logical necessity" it didn't imply any experiencing of the experiencer. It would only become clear by logical implication that totality is more than any given experience. This way we might know totality indirectly, by logic, not by feelings.

......

Rhett: Where there is consciousness, there is consciousness of The Totality, but that consciousness seems limited, even though there ultimately isnt a boundary to that consciousness.

Diebert: Is that particular consciousness limited or not? When you say "consciousness of" one would assume it's not the same as "not consciousness of"?

The only boundary between an "experience" and an "experiencer" is conceptual. The labels "experience" and "experiencer" occur, and conceptually create a division, but that division ultimately does not exist.

For example, there can be an experience primarily of a table, and an experience primarily of a person experiencing that table, the "experiencer", who could be regarded as onself, or as another, but whichever way, all of these are conceptually divided, not ultimately separate.

If you create or use the term "experience", then you have conceptually divided the totality into two parts, being 'experience' and that which is 'not experience'. You may conceptually draw a boundary like this based on practicality, but only from that practical perspective is the totality "more than any given experience".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The only boundary between an "experience" and an "experiencer" is conceptual. The labels "experience" and "experiencer" occur, and conceptually create a division, but that division ultimately does not exist.

For example, there can be an experience primarily of a table, and an experience primarily of a person experiencing that table, the "experiencer", who could be regarded as onself, or as another, but whichever way, all of these are conceptually divided, not ultimately separate.

If you create or use the term "experience", then you have conceptually divided the totality into two parts, being 'experience' and that which is 'not experience'. You may conceptually draw a boundary like this based on practicality, but only from that practical perspective is the totality "more than any given experience".

Yes and this explains why that's "all you know" as it simply states the truth that nobody in particular is there to know or experience this "undivided". Because of how we define the have someone, the observer, the identity or the experience in relation to what's being observed and experienced.