David,
DQ: You really shouldn't be picturing the Totality as anything at all.
Cory: I'm not, as I realize perfectly well that a totality that extends in all directions infinitely does nothing but render meaningless any notion of 'center'. You can only picture the
totality relative to a center, and my definition of totality wipes out a center just as effectively as yours.
DQ: I meant picturing it as having any fixed form or objective existence "out there".
Well 'it', the totality itself doesn't have a fixed form or objective existence, but there are objective unfathomably bizzare topographies of some sort which the totality is comprised of, one that consciousness can never know completely, but only incompletely. It's because of these interconnected topographies existing independently from human thought, that we make accidental discoveries about reality. We discover fossils or like Rutherford we accidently experience alpha particles get ricocheted off of what was not included in the original hypotheses. It's true that there is only subjective reality insofar as consciousness can never see
things as they really are but rather, consciousnes percieves only a mere distortion of the actual objective world. The forms that we percieve and interact with have an absolute topography that exist independent of thought, but it's just not something that any sort of consciousness can totally fathom. We can only behold mere distortions being reverberted from objective, absolute, interconnected topographies that consciousness will never be able to know entirely, but only distortedly.
DQ: The perception of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is still just a dualistic illusion existing in the moment, as is the hidden void.
Cory: A 'perception' of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is impossible. You know as well as I do that percieving infinity, as well as conceptualizing it, is not possible.
DQ: The objective reality of an infinite chain of worlds extending infinitely in all directions is also impossible. It can only ever exist as a perceptual reality
Says you. I don't see any reason why what I percieve with my senses, cannot continue to act beyond. For instance, bread that I forgot about in the cupboard now has mold on it. The last time consciousness cast itself on the bread (a week ago) there was no mold. Now there is plenty of mold. Obviously there was something happening to the bread during the time when consciousness was not cast upon it. In other words, we take what our senses tell us, we reason about that empirical data, and we use logic to extrapolate our way to the conclusion that objective reality continues beyond the senses.
DQ: The form of the Totality cannot be found in any dualistic illusion.
Cory: Of course not. It's not conceivable by thought, nor can it be percieved.
DQ: Well, it can be perceived, but only when you stop looking for it within dualistic illusions.
What do you mean infinity can be percieved? Perceiving is empirical, it's always limited in scope.
DQ: As for my "momentum" comment, I was speaking poetically. The Totality doesn't rely on anything else for its subsistence or energy. It is completely self-generated, if you like.
Cory: Energy? It's subsistence? Generated? Obviously you are refering to something objective, existing independently from thought.
DQ: The Totality is absolute in nature, but it doesn't exist "out there" as an objective reality. It is independent in the sense that there is nothing else for it to depend on.
I agree it would be meaningless to regard the totality itself as 'out there', because it by definition cannot have a location - but it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it has parts that are in themselves locations.
But since it is not really an "it" to begin with, terms like "objective" or "subjective" don't meaningfully apply to it.
I agree that the totality is not an object, it is not objective, subjective, a thing, etc. This is because it extends infinitely in all directions - INFINITELY. Thus we really can't hold it in our minds, we cant think about it, its not an object, its not experiencable. However within its infinite expanse is the objective reality that we can percieve in a way that is so highly incomplete and distorted, that we can say that we are limited only to subjective sense impression that will never be entirely real. What we percieve is so incomplete and distorted that we can't say that we are perceiving objectively or ever can, for consciousness is indeed limited only to percieving a highly distorted reverberations of a totality that can only be intimated, empirically speaking.
There are no contradictions here.
An objective reality can only find existence and meaning in contrast with something else - such as subjective reality. But the Totally subsumes all.
I agree that objective/subjective get thrown out the window when we regard the totality in it's entirey, but we can say that the totality's parts have an objective existence independent of thought.
DQ: This void, which, by definition, can never be experienced by anyone or anything, has to be factored into the equation when it comes to thinking about this issue. It is that hidden part of Nature which gives rise to consciousness and its experiences, in a manner that is impossible for any of us to fathom.
Cory: Given what you say above, why is it not ok to say that the how's and why's of consciousness will always will be a mystery?
Quinn: I also addressed this point in Wisdom of the Infinite:
The Hidden Void
Since existence is equivalent to appearance....
So why are we equating existence with appearance? Perhaps you are taking one false step at the very begining and from there fabricating on and on superfluously, creating all sorts of unnecceary confusion.
it naturally follows that it is impossible for existence to occur outside the mind.
That would only be true if you equated existence with appearance.
Armed with this knowledge We can now properly examine what it is that lies beyond consciousness and creates our constructed universe in the first place.
Well, obviously nothing if you equate existence with appearance. But I'm not convinced that doing so is wise.
The first thing we can establish is that it[the totality] is incapable, by its very nature, of presenting an appearance and therefore incapable of existing and possessing form.
I agree with this. Even if you don't equate existence with appearance, this is true.
It cannot be thought of as a brain, or a mind, or a God, or a physical process, or a world resembling the one we experience, or indeed anything at all.
I agree.
Nor can it be thought of as "pure nothingness", for that too is ultimately an appearance. It is wholly beyond the capacity of the mind to experience or grasp. We simply have to accept that it will always be a mystery which can never be solved.
So far I see no contradictions between what you are saying here with what I say about the totality.
This needs some qualification, however. To use the word "mystery" in this context is ultimately incorrect. A phenomenon can only qualify as being a mystery if an explanation or answer (one that is currently unknown to us) actually exists for it.
Again, here you are only putting a unique twist on the word mystery. There is nothing wrong with saying that there is no logical way to know how exactly consciousness arises, and therefore will always be a mystery. Whereas, the mystery of who shot Mr. Jones and stole his money - may be solved.
The mystery stems from our incapacity to know what that particular explanation is. For example, the arisal of some forms of cancer is currently a mystery to us. It is a mystery because we have not yet been able to map the precise causal factors which produce these forms of cancer. While there is no doubt these causal factors exist, we simply have not yet been able to isolate them yet.
Some mysteries can be solved - - and some mysteries can't. What is so problematic about putting it that way?
By contrast, the question, "What does a married bachelor look like?", is not a mystery. Even though no one has ever seen a married bachelor, or is able to imagine what he might look like, it is not really a mystery because it is impossible for a married bachelor to exist in the first place. It is a false mystery created out of illogical thought.
But David, a nonesense phrase like 'married bachelor' or 'black/white' is quite a bit different than apprehending
a hidden part of Nature which gives rise to consciousness and its experiences in a manner that is impossible for any of us to fathom. The nonesense phrases are simply inventions of thought, they are voluntarily put together as a way of displaying nonesense. Whereas our existential predicament is something we discover. We discover we are alive/conscious and we wonder how this is possible. It is a mystery. You are trying to take that mystery and reduce to the level of a popular gimmick in academia - the old 'married bachelor' trick.
The same reasoning applies to the question of "what" is responsible for the existence of the construction in which we live. The term "what" is wholly inapplicable in this context, for there can be no "what" beyond the construction.
I see no reason why I should accept that. You haven't given me any good reasons. You merely laid a foundation (appearance=existence), and built your entire argument on that foundation. Why should I accept the foundation? If I reject it, then a significant ammount of what you say stands as unreasonable.
Since nothing can exist at all beyond the construction (not even nothingness itself), the question of what is really there is meaningless and unaskable.
It's certainly unanswerable, but it's not unaskable. It's by wondering and inquiry that we realize the unanswerable.
The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp.
Again, this conclusion really isn't in opposition to my conception of the totality.
In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live.
Although consciousness can never exactly know how things are determined - all things are
in a sense pre-determined. What I mean by 'in a sense' is that predetermination itself is ultimately an illusion because this moment right now is an undivided part of all moments in the future and the past. 'All things', from their beginningless past to their endless future are part of a single instantaneousness. Things can't really be seperated out into "causes" and "effects", or moments can't truthfully be divided into past, present, and future - for that implies time(illusion). There is only a seamless continuum that is instantaneous. Really, there are no independent things, just a seamless undivided continuum that expands infinitely in all directions, that is instantaneous, and beyond fathomability.
But that doesnt mean that objective locations do not exist where consciousness might somehow emerge (due to objective configurations of matter) and become decieved into thinking that the past is gone and the future hasn't happened yet.
To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything. Not even the hidden void itself can know anything more about it. For there is literally nothing more to know. As such, our understanding of what lies beyond consciousness is now complete.
Translation: we are left stupified when it comes to empirically-knowing the totality of 'what' lies beyond consciousness. We may develop tools to probe a bit deeper into the microcosm or a bit further out into the macrocosm, but there will always be mystery.
Consciousness is not really a mystery because we know that it is caused, just like anything else is. It's true that we can't really follow all the precise causal pathways which lead to its
existence, but then we can't really do that with anything else either. So at root, it is no more mysterious than anything else.
I do agree that we can diffuse the mystery to a degree insofar as we can say that there was always somethingess. Any sort of question which asks: "
Why something instead of nothing?" is a wrong question. In that regard, mundane, inert matter is not very mysterious. However,
what lies beyond the limits of consciousness is mysterious, and
how exactly the universe becomes conscious of itself is really quite incredible and mysterious, and according to your logic David, no sort of objective scientific explanation will suffice, because scientific explanations are based on an objective world that causes subjective experience.
(edited for grammar)