The Thickness of Boundaries

[David Quinn]

Just because you don't see what another sees, doesn't mean that that which is seen doesn't exist, even though it doesn't exist in your reality. Right? Someone may have once mentioned this: a homeless man siting on the street talking to the voices in his head. Any reasonable person would assume (or know) that this guy is mentally ill, but according to you, David, this man may actually be going through a real experience, though, there is no evidence for this in the real world (or one's perspective of the real world, or the group-agreement that this is the way things are, etc). Now take that example, and make it a little more clearer, a homeless man taking an imaginary shower out on the street. He's got an imaginary sponge, soap, running water, etc... Everything except for the actual setup. He strips down, etc...

Question: could it be that this man, in his head, is actually washing himself? Of course, but is that something that is really happening? No, but this is according to your perspective. Perhaps, that whole "scene" is in your head, and perhaps, you're the man that's taking the shower out on the side of the street? Go, ultimate reality!

That's right. From our perspective the homeless man is a victim of an hallucination, but who knows, we could be the schizophrenic ones who are hallucinating him! There is no way for us to tell, not in any absolute sense.

One of the great things about enlightenment, however, is that such concerns cease to be important. It becomes irrelevant whether one is hallucinating or not, for one is in touch with a deeper reality that permeates everything.

-

[Ignius]

So, is having thoughts like that a problem? Does it necessarily mean that I'm unenlightened? I don't think so.

[marcothay]

David wrote" It becomes irrelevant whether one is hallucinating or not, for one is in touch with a deeper reality that permeates everything.

Ok, are you permeating my universe and my view point as well?
I don't think so!
I bet that you can't even differentiate between hallucinations and deeper reality!
If someone look this world in a different way, are you saying that what he sees
is just a "delusion"?
What is the definition of 'delusionl' compared with "actual" reality?
By the way can you differentiate between 'actual' and 'real'?

A man observe a table where everyone else are observing a chair.
Who is right?
The majority?
If so, where that "table" is comming from?

A mental picture is not part of reality?
In others words, mental pictures like dreams, are not taking parts of EXISTENCE?????
We know they exsist, actually sometimes, dreams, make your body moving or shaking isn'it?

DELUSIONS, like DREAMS, ... exist! That alone, makes them real.

[Ignius]

Yes, and you would not be able to understand reality without them.

[Sapius]

David If you want to encourage people to comprehend the true nature of existence, then it can help to introduce terms such as "ultimate reality".

For example, we can define "ultimate reality" to mean existence as it really is, as opposed to what deluded people imagine existence to be.

Well, if…

David: That's right. From our perspective the homeless man is a victim of an hallucination, but who knows, we could be the schizophrenic ones who are hallucinating him! There is no way for us to tell, not in any absolute sense.

…then in what sense can one talk/think about existence as it really is?

One of the great things about enlightenment, however, is that such concerns cease to be important. It becomes irrelevant whether one is hallucinating or not, for one is in touch with a deeper reality that permeates everything.

But that may sound like brushing the dirt under the carpet…

[brokenhead]

But that may sound like brushing the dirt under the carpet…

David's carpet has been looking a bit lumpy.

[David Quinn]

David If you want to encourage people to comprehend the true nature of existence, then it can help to introduce terms such as "ultimate reality".

For example, we can define "ultimate reality" to mean existence as it really is, as opposed to what deluded people imagine existence to be.

Well, if…

David: That's right. From our perspective the homeless man is a victim of an hallucination, but who knows, we could be the schizophrenic ones who are hallucinating him! There is no way for us to tell, not in any absolute sense.

…then in what sense can one talk/think about existence as it really is?

One can think and talk about it when one has uncovered the creative principle behind all things, whether they be hallucinations or non-hallucinations.

One of the great things about enlightenment, however, is that such concerns cease to be important. It becomes irrelevant whether one is hallucinating or not, for one is in touch with a deeper reality that permeates everything.

But that may sound like brushing the dirt under the carpet…

You've lost me.

-

[Sapius]

David: One can think and talk about it when one has uncovered the creative principle behind all things, whether they be hallucinations or non-hallucinations.

Of course one can think and talk, but can one tell or confirm the validity of logic and reasoning on which thinking itself is based on, in an absolute sense? We simply accept it since there is no way out.

You've lost me.

Concerns do not cease to be important, but an individual chooses (be it through reason) to consider them NOT important, through ACCEPTING certain counter reasoning/conclusions to be of a much higher value, on a very personal level that is. Hence I said, that may sound like brushing the dirt under the carpet.

[David Quinn]

David: One can think and talk about it when one has uncovered the creative principle behind all things, whether they be hallucinations or non-hallucinations.

Of course one can think and talk, but can one tell or confirm the validity of logic and reasoning on which thinking itself is based on, in an absolute sense? We simply accept it since there is no way out.

Given that logic is an expression of identity (A=A), and that identity is an expression of existence, there is indeed no way out - for anyone or anything. For those who see this, the question of logic's validity is a non-issue.

You've lost me.

Concerns do not cease to be important, but an individual chooses (be it through reason) to consider them NOT important, through ACCEPTING certain counter reasoning/conclusions to be of a much higher value, on a very personal level that is. Hence I said, that may sound like brushing the dirt under the carpet.

Well, perhaps to unthinking individuals who don't value truth.

-

[Sapius]

S: Of course one can think and talk, but can one tell or confirm the validity of logic and reasoning on which thinking itself is based on, in an absolute sense? We simply accept it since there is no way out.

D: Given that logic is an expression of identity (A=A), and that identity is an expression of existence, there is indeed no way out - for anyone or anything. For those who see this, the question of logic's validity is a non-issue.

Well said, but in other words, one simply accepts it, so I don’t’ think that actually says anything drastically different. So, after all, acceptance on a personal level seems to be the key ultimately, although it might be vide open for anyone to “see”.

S: Concerns do not cease to be important, but an individual chooses (be it through reason) to consider them NOT important, through ACCEPTING certain counter reasoning/conclusions to be of a much higher value, on a very personal level that is. Hence I said, that may sound like brushing the dirt under the carpet.

D: Well, perhaps to unthinking individuals who don't value truth.

Yeah, sure, why not… but ‘unthinking individuals who don’t value truth’, still remains a conclusion and value held by an individual according to his particular reasoning… so whatever, really.

However, IMHO, the fact still remains that either thin or thick, either illusory or real, either arbitrary or not, boundaries (which are a fundamental necessity for A=A itself) are here to say, otherwise existence can’t be. One can imagine or reason until logic is torn to bits and pieces, but there will always remain a boundary between a self and that that is not it, irrelevant of anyone claiming any particular conclusion to be logical or otherwise, true or otherwise…or, wise or otherwise.

And as David says above… “Given that logic is an expression of identity (A=A), and that identity is an expression of existence…” I would say that it is not only the “expression” OF existence, but existence itself, for one could not even imagine what “expression” means if it were not for boundaries that facilitate A=A to begin with. Consciousness, A=A, or boundaries, are just different names of what we call existence itself, and that could not be apart from anything imaginable at all.

So I think it might be wise to respect ‘boundaries’ that allow one to be what one is, and try not to sever (or insult) the hand that fundamentally feeds, or is necessarily existence itself.

[Blair]

Sapius wrote:

So I think it might be wise to respect ‘boundaries’ that allow one to be what one is, and try not to sever (or insult) the hand that fundamentally feeds, or is necessarily existence itself.

That would all be good and well if each human life was autonomous, but they aren't.

[Sapius]

Sapius wrote:

So I think it might be wise to respect ‘boundaries’ that allow one to be what one is, and try not to sever (or insult) the hand that fundamentally feeds, or is necessarily existence itself.

That would all be good and well if each human life was autonomous, but they aren't.

Hummm... so? Sorry, I can't see what that might have to do with what was said.

[Blair]

No, of course you can't.

That's the whole point. It might become apparent if you think about it for a good while.

[Sapius]

No, of course you can't.

That's the whole point. It might become apparent if you think about it for a good while.

Aha! I get it! I need to think... hummm... and also that it might take quite a good and long while considering my sloppy reasoning I take it.

It must be that ultimate logical reason season in bloom - 'you don't understand', which of course, only I can overcome or resolve. Thanks! :D

My mistake :)

[Rhett]

Is it logically possible for a thing to have zero thickness? Or is it impossible?
If it's impossible, then yes, reality must be infinite.

Things with zero thickness can only exist in the realm of the imagination.

I don't want to disturb the flow of the discussion, but this is an interesting point.

In reality, things with zero thickness can't even exist as imagination. If a thing is imagined then it will have thickness. And if nothing is imagined, there will not be a thing.

A thing with zero thickness can only 'exist' in so much as it is written in words.

[Loki]

Loki: If I can see only one side of a wall, does this mean that by logical necessity there must be an opposing side?
DHodges: In your scenario, talking about the edge of the universe, no.

This issue can never resolved because it is firmly enmeshed in the realm of empirical uncertainty.

Even if a person were to travel to what seemed like the edge of the universe and observed nothing beyond, he would have no way of knowing whether he really was looking at the universe's edge. Perhaps the universe does extend beyond the edge, but on a much larger scale, quite invisible to a human's smaller scale of seeing things? Perhaps the nothingness he observes is an hallucination or a delusion of some kind? It isn't possible to resolve such a question in any absolute sense.

You really surprised me with this response, Dave. You seem to basically be saying that I cannot realize the infinite by contemplating matter in relationship to space.

Then how the hell do I realize the infinite?

I still haven't realized it.

[Robert]

You seem to basically be saying that I cannot realize the infinite by contemplating matter in relationship to space.

But in your example, you're talking about taking yourself, your physical body, to the edge of the universe to try and find this wall. That's not the same thing as just sitting where you are right now and conceptualizing about it. I suppose you could do both, but that would be a wasted trip, literally a road to nowhere.

[Loki]

You seem to basically be saying that I cannot realize the infinite by contemplating matter in relationship to space.

But in your example, you're talking about taking yourself, your physical body, to the edge of the universe to try and find this wall.

My hypothetical assumes that I found the wall. I'm asking, if I came across this wall, could I know with absolute certainty that the wall had an opposing side? David seems to be saying that you couldn't know. He seems to say that it may or may not be the edge of the universe.

The way I've come to see it is:

If you came across this wall, you could know with absolute certainty that it had another side, and this is because a wall must have thickness, and the existence of thickness demands that there be two opposing sides, and two opposing sides, by logical necessity, always creates space, and space must always be infinite.

The reason space must be infinite is because "finite space" would imply a container wrapping around a finite space, but a container must always have an infinite exterior.

[David Quinn]

Even if a person were to travel to what seemed like the edge of the universe and observed nothing beyond, he would have no way of knowing whether he really was looking at the universe's edge. Perhaps the universe does extend beyond the edge, but on a much larger scale, quite invisible to a human's smaller scale of seeing things? Perhaps the nothingness he observes is an hallucination or a delusion of some kind? It isn't possible to resolve such a question in any absolute sense.

You really surprised me with this response, Dave. You seem to basically be saying that I cannot realize the infinite by contemplating matter in relationship to space.

Then how the hell do I realize the infinite?

Stopping the habit of looking in the wrong place would be a start.

You won't find the infinite in a particular experience or perception, no matter what it is or how big it seems. Instead, you need to uncover what it is that is constant in all experiences and perceptions.

This means detaching yourself from all experiences and seeing underneath them, as it were. One does this by understanding the way in which each experience is fundamentally an illusion, which is achieved by understanding the formlessness of Nature/God.

This, in turn, involves understanding the nature of causality, the nature of relativity, the illusory nature of objective reality, and so on.

In some of the Vedantic schools of Hinduism, the primary teaching is "neti, neti" - not this, not this - which is their way of reminding themselves that everything experienced is an illusion and that they shouldn't allow their minds to get caught up in any of it.

This is not the highest wisdom, but it is an important step along the way. Once you understand the highest wisdom, you can then fall back into the world and re-embrace everything in the knowledge that everything is the play of God. The philosophic path is thus a process of disengaging for a while and then re-engaging.

In your most recent post, you wrote:

The way I've come to see it is:

If you came across this wall, you could know with absolute certainty that it had another side, and this is because a wall must have thickness, and the existence of thickness demands that there be two opposing sides, and two opposing sides, by logical necessity, always creates space, and space must always be infinite.

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end?

-

[marcothay]

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end?

-

Well, what you have to do is to extend (beyond the "sudden end") a NEW point to look at,
thus creating new space, expanding his boundaries.

Again, we seems to be stuck on the wrong consideration that space could exist without
"observation".
The basic unit of space is its dimension, and a dimension can only exist if the source
of observation create a point to look at.
I call this source of observation a VIEW POINT.

The trick part is to understand that a view point can't be seen, because it doesn't possess
any mass or wavelength or even position; a position has a meaning only if related to something else. A Point of view can't be localized because IT/HE is the source/origin of space!

[DHodges]

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end?

That is certainly how I interpreted the original question.

The idea that it must have two sides because it is a wall, and walls have two sides, is just semantics and does not apply.

A wall is something that exists is space, and this boundary may not be such an object.

[BMcGilly07]

Is it logically possible for a thing to have zero thickness? Or is it impossible?
If it's impossible, then yes, reality must be infinite.

Things with zero thickness can only exist in the realm of the imagination.

I don't want to disturb the flow of the discussion, but this is an interesting point.

In reality, things with zero thickness can't even exist as imagination. If a thing is imagined then it will have thickness. And if nothing is imagined, there will not be a thing.

A thing with zero thickness can only 'exist' in so much as it is written in words.

All things have zero thickness, any thickness is projected by the mind. Because all things arise interdependently, their being interpenetrates and does not obstruct any other thing.

[Loki]

All things have zero thickness, any thickness is projected by the mind. Because all things arise interdependently, their being interpenetrates and does not obstruct any other thing.

All things have zero thingness, any thingness is projected by the mind.

[marcothay]

Just remember that the MIND is a sub-product of "consciousness", which is a function of AWARENESS.
Ohh... or maybe there are only very few people able to differentiate between them ?

[BMcGilly07]

Just remember that the MIND is a sub-product of "consciousness", which is a function of AWARENESS.
Ohh... or maybe there are only very few people able to differentiate between them ?

Consciousness is a product of awareness, and awareness is synonymous with the Mind.