I Exist

[Leyla Shen]

Dave Hodges wrote:

Yes. The ego is just an object of thought, like any other thought, and has no special status. It does not have inherent existence.

How can a thing be an object of itself?

The thought-object would be the characteristics assigned to a particular thing, not thought itself.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt: Is it [I/awareness] the process of our perceptions being transferred to our memory?

Leyla: I don't think so. That is nothing more than an inflow. Where is "our memory"?

Matt: In our bodies, I guess.

Leyla:
In the form of genes/DNA?

I would think there would be some relationship between memory, DNA and genes. But the memories of a single lifespan?

Neuroscientists currently believe the brain holds our memories in the form of electrochemical states. I don't know anything about it, I just know I can remember things.

[Sapius]

To exist is to present an appearance. That an appearance is presented is self-evident, given that there is awareness. If an appearance were not presented, there would be nothing to be aware of. Therefore, there is existence.

If I am aware, I exist. The real question is, what am "I?"

A thing that is logically aware of existence, including its own.

Other than us, there are many things that are aware of existence; the difference is that we have the capability of questioning and reasoning. Hence, we are logically aware of that which appears, and that which experiences, namely, a thing called "I".

[unknown]

I do not exists. :)

[Leyla Shen]

Matt wrote:

Neuroscientists currently believe the brain holds our memories in the form of electrochemical states. I don't know anything about it, I just know I can remember things.

Hm. Good food for thought. I find this rather interesting. It ties in nicely with the idea of illusion, I reckon.

If our memories -- and therefore perceptions -- are a matter of "electrochemical states 'stored' (?) by the brain," then that simply further establishes the idea of illusion in that what the senses are able to perceive is determined by an electrochemical reaction to other things within the environment on an electrochemical level. But what's "out there," really?

Further, then, the emotions could easily be defined and understood as electrochemical reactions. But what of consciousness? What happens to that? Is it possible to distinguish it from emotion/s even by definition and remain consistent?

(I will give this more thought.)

[BMcG]

Then clearly, the existence of your message proves your existence.

-

What defines the message? What upwards surge keeps the intellect from drowning in the depths?

It's so easy to get carried away with metaphor, and to sound like one whining to boot. I could just switch metaphors again, keeping me free of categories. Or just forget the whole matter all together. Genius is indeed madness inverted.

Unhinge your love for woman, your idealism purified in the flame of reality, and redirected: love everyone the same. Brave the sea-spray of the thronging crowd, net your herring and eat it. Just watch where you throw them bones. Or they'll weigh you to the depths.

[DHodges]

Dave Hodges wrote:

Yes. The ego is just an object of thought, like any other thought, and has no special status. It does not have inherent existence.

How can a thing be an object of itself?

The thought-object would be the characteristics assigned to a particular thing, not thought itself.

Yes, there is thought - a verb, a process - and there is a thought, an object of thought, a thing being thought about.

The ego is a thought. It is an object. The ego is an avatar, an icon; a mental representation of what is 'self'. It is not thought itself.

The term ego is sometimes also used to mean "as that which does the thinking", but that is not the same thing. There is no particular reason why the mental representation - the self, the ego - need be anything like the actual underlying process that generates thought (for example, consider a "brain in a vat" scenario).

[Matt Gregory]

Then clearly, the existence of your message proves your existence.

What defines the message? What upwards surge keeps the intellect from drowning in the depths?

I think he probably just looked at the message like I did after I typed it. I don't know about David, but there wasn't much of a surge on my end.

Then again, I'm sure everyone gets a surge when they're blessed with the presence of my messages.

[LooF]

We have six types of sense objects that appear to the self: sights, sounds, feelings, smells, tastes, and thoughts. The question is: how can a receiver of these appearances be established? If we see a body from the perspective of looking out from it, isn't that just an object of vision and therefore isn't the actual perceiver? If the thought of "I am the receiver of these appearances" appears, does that make it true? Couldn't the "I" just be a linguistic convenience?

good question !

but those six senses does not come unless there is "self"

for "self" is the only thing that is aware of something a sense percieves

"We have six types of sense objects that appear to the self"

see you have already stated so !

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla: Isn't that a bit like asking if the thought that A=A appears, does that make it true?

Matt: It's not the same because A=A only refers to the appearance, whereas the "I" has no relation. It just came out of nowhere as far as I can tell.

You mean, the same "nowhere" that "A" comes from?

I don't get it. What sort of an appearance do you think the "I" should make?

What do you think of Sapius's defintion?

Leyla: Since you appear to have different thoughts to me, can I not accurately assume that you are experiencing your experiences and not mine?

Matt: How did you come to that conclusion? If a thought appears to you, doesn't that make it your thought? If it didn't appear to you, then how did you become aware of it to say that it's different?

Yes, it appeared to me -- and then it became my thought. But you had to put words on this forum first. If I am you, Matt, I think I'm missing something! Hey, I get it: this is the part of unknown's philosophy that declares we are only talking to ourselves!

If someone hands me an apple, have I already eaten it?

Matt: What do you mean by "arise" and how do all things do this at the same time?

Past, present and future arise (appear) at the same time based on what was known/experienced, what is known/experienced and what will be known/experienced. That's all.

[Matt Gregory]

Loof,

MG: We have six types of sense objects that appear to the self: sights, sounds, feelings, smells, tastes, and thoughts. The question is: how can a receiver of these appearances be established? If we see a body from the perspective of looking out from it, isn't that just an object of vision and therefore isn't the actual perceiver? If the thought of "I am the receiver of these appearances" appears, does that make it true? Couldn't the "I" just be a linguistic convenience?

L: good question !

but those six senses does not come unless there is "self"

for "self" is the only thing that is aware of something a sense percieves

What is awareness, though? Why is it necessary?

There's a book sitting on my desk. Does it need to have a self and be aware of the desk to do this? After all, the desk is affecting it.

"We have six types of sense objects that appear to the self"

see you have already stated so !

I did, but that doesn't make it existent, does it? I could have omitted the "to the self" part. Maybe the "self" and "awareness" are just habits of mental projection and merely imaginary. Many people look at the complexity of living organisms and see "intelligent design" at work. It could be like that.

[Matt Gregory]

Leyla,

You mean, the same "nowhere" that "A" comes from?

I don't get it. What sort of an appearance do you think the "I" should make?

Alright, nevermind all that. Let's start over.

We know that are six categories of appearances, right? Sights, sounds, etc.

Where would you place the "I" in terms of that?

Or would you start from another vantage point? If that's the case then you'll have to describe it for me and establish its certainty.

[Sapius]

Matt, if I may; thought is not a sensory perception, it is rather a result of a much evolved mental process, helped by our capability of forming words, naming things rather than pointing at it with a grunt, ability to speak the words and communicate through a defined language, recall words through memory, have mental verbal battles through logic and reasoning.

One of the thing that this process questions is who is this thing that is thinking, and due to all the mental capabilities, and using a defined language, calls it a 'Self', an 'I', or 'me' the magnificent. Simply because it can identify a self from all that is not-self and language compels it to call it so. Basically a complex enough biological machine capable of defining and thinking, including that which is thinking, a Self?

We have only five senses just like animals, and animals do not think in terms of "I", but do act in their own personal interests to a certain extant, which means that they are self-aware too but simply do not question their awareness or any thing at all due to obvious incapability’s.

From the above one can see that the certainty of a human self is simple and obvious. Since there is a thing that thinks, and is aware of its own capabilities, it knows for certain that it is not nothing whatsoever. Let someone try proving it otherwise, it will only prove the point that the words are coming from a not nothing whatsoever.

Things may not inherently exist, but that does not mean that things do not literally exist, otherwise, who or what am 'I' experiencing? Existence is not nothing whatsoever.

[Matt Gregory]

Sapius,

But how do we know that we are thinking? How do we know it's not just a causal process of change that creates our thoughts and they just appear to us?

We can go for a drive and see a continual inflow of different things, turning down this street and that one. But we really don't have much control over the things we see. I don't see how thinking could be any different.

If freewill doesn't exist, then we really don't have any control at all, which is what the word "thinking" implies. I'm causing you to think of these things from outside of you. You caused me to think of these from outside of me. All of our thoughts ultimately originate from outside of us.

So this is why I consider thought to be the same as a sense category. When I think of my "I", I think of the thing that's controlling my thoughts, but such a thing is impossible in light of the principle of cause and effect. Or maybe it could be the thing that receives all of these impressions, but I have no direct experiences of receiving anything. All I have is these six categories of changing appearances before me.

Why aren't the appearances sufficient unto themselves?

Of course, acting in the world requires the concept of an "I", I'm not trying to refute that. It's easier to talk in terms of an "I", for example. But why do we have to take that extra step and think of it as anything more than a convenience? Why does our every thought have to revolve around it? I don't see why they have to.

From the above one can see that the certainty of a human self is simple and obvious. Since there is a thing that thinks, and is aware of its own capabilities, it knows for certain that it is not nothing whatsoever. Let someone try proving it otherwise, it will only prove the point that the words are coming from a not nothing whatsoever.

They're not coming from nothing whatsoever, but I don't think there's any way to be certain of where they come from, other than reality itself.

I can't directly see the source of my thoughts. We can suppose they come from a biological machine, but we can't be certain that they really do. "Biological machine" is just another thought. All of science is just thoughts. It's only through probability that we can know if our thoughts about science are correct. But probability just isn't the same as certainty. They are fundamentally different.

[Leyla Shen]

So this is why I consider thought to be the same as a sense category. When I think of my "I", I think of the thing that's controlling my thoughts, but such a thing is impossible in light of the principle of cause and effect. Or maybe it could be the thing that receives all of these impressions, but I have no direct experiences of receiving anything. All I have is these six categories of changing appearances before me.

Why aren't the appearances sufficient unto themselves?

Of course, acting in the world requires the concept of an "I", I'm not trying to refute that. It's easier to talk in terms of an "I", for example. But why do we have to take that extra step and think of it as anything more than a convenience? Why does our every thought have to revolve around it? I don't see why they have to.

Some really good questions, Matt.

This is, in fact, the entire basis of the masculine/feminine discussion, I reckon. Masculine being defined as that form of existence which is manifests as consciousness and feminine being defined as that form of existence which manifests as being dependent upon things (and, therefore, being unconscious).

[Matt Gregory]

I think it's pretty close (which of course means infinitely far :-). My conception of self up there still depends on those six categories/objects.

I think pure enlightenment is about being emotionally free of all objects so they can be seen purely at all times.

[Leyla Shen]

I think it's pretty close (which of course means infinitely far :-). My conception of self up there still depends on those six categories/objects.

Yeah, yeah -- I'm still working on it...

I think pure enlightenment is about being emotionally free of all objects so they can be seen purely at all times.

Well, when you can tell me who you are with certainty, I might consider it! But somewhat more seriously, if you haven't figured out whether there actually is an "I" or not with certainty -- how can you make any credible claims about pure (or any other sort of) enlightenment even if only to yourself (!)?

[Leyla Shen]

Alright, Matt, I'm going to post three quotes from Wisdom of the Infinite, which I think apply here.

Let us return now to the construction in which we live. It is important to avoid the trap of thinking that the construction, and everything within it, is merely an appearance, while the "hidden void" constitutes ultimate reality. Such a duality is unnecessary and lacks any fundamental basis. The hidden void and the construction are simply two manifestations of the one Reality. Everything within the construction is as real as the hidden void. The only difference between the two is that the hidden void is an aspect of Reality which is incapable of being experienced.

When I speak of "the construction", then, I am referring to the totality of all constructions and not just my own. Things can certainly exist beyond my own consciousness, but only if there are other consciousnesses to support their existence. When I die and my own construction vanishes, the observable universe will live on in the minds of others. And should the human race and all conscious life on earth become extinct, well then, existence will have to wait until new sentient beings evolve - keeping in mind, of course, that concepts such as "waiting" and "time elapsing" and "existence" and "nothingness" have no meaning outside of consciousness.

Perhaps the most common pitfall is falling into the trap of mistaking a momentary appearance for the Ultimate Truth. For example, a person might reason his way to the point where he intellectually understands the formlessness of the Totality and the emptiness of all things, but nevertheless fails to realize that his understanding and mental picture of these truths is also nothing more than a momentary appearance and ultimately empty as well.

A sure sign this is occurring is when a person experiences doubts or conflicts in his understanding of emptiness. The mental picture of emptiness that he has mistakenly affirmed as constituting the ultimate truth in one moment suddenly seems to conflict with the sheer reality of the physical world that he experiences in the next. In his mind, two competing ultimate realities have been created and he cannot reconcile them. And since, understandably, he finds it difficult to doubt the reality of the physical world, he ends up doubting the reality of emptiness.

What has happened here is that he has lost sight of the fact that neither appearance is ultimately real. He has forgotten that Reality is entirely formless and cannot be captured by mental pictures at all. In other words, he has been taken in by an illusion.

What do you think?

[Sapius]

Matt,

But how do we know that we are thinking? How do we know it's not just a causal process of change that creates our thoughts and they just appear to us?

We can go for a drive and see a continual inflow of different things, turning down this street and that one. But we really don't have much control over the things we see. I don't see how thinking could be any different.

If freewill doesn't exist, then we really don't have any control at all, which is what the word "thinking" implies. I'm causing you to think of these things from outside of you. You caused me to think of these from outside of me. All of our thoughts ultimately originate from outside of us.

I see the real problem here. It basically revolves around how free will could exist without violating the basic law of cause and effect. Of course it has been discussed before, but in short, Logic and reason facilitates “free will”. Higher the complexity of consciousness, the more freedom of internal thought processes, and yet, these thoughts are also bound by internal cause and effect, not just external. Words don’t just pop up in our brains. Try making up a new word and see how much of thinking is involved.

Have you seen the movie Space Odyssey:2001? In the beginning the ape is simply holding a large bone and sloppily drops it on another bone, then again, and again, until he realizes that the heavier bone is actually shattering the other bones. Until now, all experiences are external, but when he realizes that it can be used on another ape to scare him away and capture the water hole, this decision is an internal logical realization, and is definitely bound by cause and effect but an internal mental one. Say birth of limited free will, and cause and effect still rules.

As far as mind and mentality goes, cause and effect surely remains the basic rule, but it is not a God commanding you to act in a particularly definitive way. Human mind is capable of refusing or accepting a given concept, if that were not true, no one would ever be in disagreement with another, nor would we be discussing this issue sitting on the opposite sides of the table.

Why do some people prefer to eat non-fatty foods while others don’t?
Why are there so many different religions and political systems? Etc., etc., etc.

When I think of my "I", I think of the thing that's controlling my thoughts

Read your sentence carefully again. All you are doing is creating an extra “I” where there really isn’t. The totality of you is an “I”, not an extra hidden “I” somewhere within receiving info. There is no-thing controlling your thoughts, your thoughts are you.

I can't directly see the source of my thoughts.

Again, your thoughts are you, and thoughts require thinking.

[Matt Gregory]

Alright, Matt, I'm going to post three quotes from Wisdom of the Infinite, which I think apply here.

...

What do you think?

Forget all that for a minute and put your understanding in your own words. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Matt Gregory]

Leyla,

I think pure enlightenment is about being emotionally free of all objects so they can be seen purely at all times.

Well, when you can tell me who you are with certainty, I might consider it! But somewhat more seriously, if you haven't figured out whether there actually is an "I" or not with certainty -- how can you make any credible claims about pure (or any other sort of) enlightenment even if only to yourself (!)?

Just ignore it then.

Humans like to puke. - Unknown :-)

[Leyla Shen]

Alright, Matt, I'm going to post three quotes from Wisdom of the Infinite, which I think apply here.

...

What do you think?

Forget all that for a minute and put your understanding in your own words. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

OK (^&%gfE^#%$!)

:)

I'll see what I can do...

[Leyla Shen]

I cannot offer you at this time a whole new lexicon (nor do I think one is particularly necessary). I will endeavour, instead, to detail my understanding of what David and/or QSR have already spent considerable time defining.

What I’m getting at is that I think confusion may arise from attempting to identify the notion of the “hidden void” with the I. Particularly in light of references to free-will and other comments/questions such as:

They're not coming from nothing whatsoever, but I don't think there's any way to be certain of where they come from, other than reality itself.

I can't directly see the source of my thoughts. We can suppose they come from a biological machine, but we can't be certain that they really do. "Biological machine" is just another thought. All of science is just thoughts. It's only through probability that we can know if our thoughts about science are correct. But probability just isn't the same as certainty. They are fundamentally different.

Yes, all of science is just thoughts.

This is why I said to you earlier in this discussion that it is important to consider the hidden void when considering the Totality. Otherwise, as David outlines in the above quotes, you are merely constructing another construction in the moment that involves an “I” (viewpoint) with things to view and think about (sense). This is the make-up of the construction, itself. Hence, I said earlier:

Past, present and future arise (appear) at the same time based on what was known/experienced, what is known/experienced and what will be known/experienced. That's all.

The construction is entirely about form. Science is entirely about form. Knowledge and experience are entirely about form -- none of which can appear or exist (remembering the crucial point that David makes about concepts such as “waiting, time etc” have no meaning outside of consciousness and, thus, the construction) -- without a viewpoint (I) to appear or exist to.

In each moment, the physical world and any other personal imaginings the “I” may have through it and as part of it, ARE the construction. The “I” exists as part of it just as any other part of it. Without awareness, or the senses, or the I (point of view) -- there is no appearance: there is no individual (I). These things lack inherent existence.

As David points out, this does not mean that the physical universe -- or any other potential, individual constructs cease to exist when you do. It just means that if there is no thing which can perceive, things can not be perceived.

To be trapped in illusion would be to mistake any part of the construction AS Ultimate Reality, which -- again -- includes the hidden void. Or, to take any single, momentary appearance of Ultimate Reality and, again, hold on to it as something concrete -- hold on to it AS form (in thought and/or mental images).

[Matt Gregory]

Ok, I think I understand you better now. I'll try to explain myself in terms of "the construction."

The construction, as I see it, is a momentary thing. We ignoranimouses have our firmly held beliefs underneath it all, but there is at least a little bit changing all the time as we go through life and experience different things.

In my understanding, the whole point of philosophy is to uproot these firmly held beliefs, because they alter our construction below our awareness. So, going by that, a fully enlightened person creates the construction from scratch in response to the environment and the whole thing is created consciously and it's all kept pure with no distortion of beliefs. He can have one construction in one moment, and totally annihilate it and create a completely new one on a moment's notice. That's the ideal situation, anyway.

So the deal with the individual, the "I", is the attempt to figure out when and how we construct it, because we do it unconsciously most of the time. I do agree that we construct it on top of the hidden void, but we also construct it on the body, on the mind, on particular thoughts, we construct it everywhere. That's fine, actually, I don't think that's a problem. It's that we do it unconsciously, and when we construct something unconsciously we think it's real and mistake it for ultimate reality.

So I think from this point of view it can be seen that we don't necessarily have to construct an "I" if we don't want to. It's only when we want to construct something in dependence on it that we really need it to make sense of things. The same goes for past, present or future. We don't have to construct any of them if we don't want to or we can construct only one of them if we want. The choice is ours. Things only need constructing in response to logical necessity, which includes, you know, things like survival.

[unknown]

The problem with you all monkeys are , you are trying to solve word problem with words. fools.

You all are conditioned with words so much , you keep coming back to definitions.

Thought does n't exisst when words cease to exist.

Fools!.