GENIUS FORUMS

Then why did you go on to say this:

"This thought you've latched onto is indeed long-embedded in a lot of eastern approaches. It takes its cue from the universe itself that appears entirely disinterested in the projects of humans. The wise man then feels if he/she aligns themselves with this 'true' nature of universe - that does not appear to value; does not appear to mean anything; that does not appear to have fundamental support for the projects of humans or conform itself to their shape in any way - well then, aligning oneself to this must surely be a greater alignment to a greater truth."

Which implies not-doing means not-doing anything. (Such as letting your country fall into chaos apparently, as if it were Buddhism that caused this)

John,

I have allowed myself to become embroiled in a discussion with you which, I believe, has no hope of resolution or even productivity, and it is time to withdraw from it, at least for the moment - I might be tempted back to it later (probably against my better judgement). Thanks for the time and effort you've put in.

Dennis,

This is particularly dishonest.
If I combed thru' your posts and those of Alex, I could fill 100 foolscap pages of examples of that perpetrated by you and Alex.

I take responsibility for my past indiscretions - did I not offer freely to John a few posts ago an admission of past blemishes on my conduct here at GF, blemishes that even cause me to cringe when reading them back? That doesn't excuse you from your own current indiscretions.

Pye,

To Laird, this is a fine example of exactly what I've written above. I think, Laird, (and feel free to correct me) that you believe there are certain things that deserve "respect" just by virtue of being what they are: humans; women as a category; even respect itself for the sake of respectfulness ("Bambis," so to speak - "precious" things worth protecting). That's not what I'm interested in arguing here

And I get the impression that you would not argue (against) this, anyway. Or would you?

but rather pointing out that Dennis is asking after the "violated entity" that raises the ire in you. I think he's asking after the ground upon which you support certain things as value-able, worthy of "respect," piety, whatever, and then how these things are being "violated" to earn your ire.

But I don't think that Dennis is "asking after" in the sense of genuine curiosity about the views of another; I think Dennis's asking-after is a thinly veiled cover for a demand for unconditional concession to his own (endlessly repeated) views (that dependent-arising implies emptiness and meaninglessness; that nothing has value).

I wonder whether you've considered why Dennis might have chosen his particular "Bambi" metaphor. Two characteristics stand out in my mind:

• Bambi is a movie for children
• Bambi is a sentimental movie

Do you think that Dennis chose a metaphor with these characteristics accidentally? I don't. To me, it's obvious that Dennis is suggesting not-so-subtly that I value what I value out of childish sentimentality, and not out of any considered ethic - hence my retort that I oppose the violation of the rights of the powerful as much as I oppose the violation of the rights of those who might be sentimentalised i.e. that I oppose violation on principle rather than sentimentality. The indirectness with which Dennis made this suggestion allows him plausible deniability, but if he is willing now to own it, then let him speak up.

It's odd that you don't acknowledge power dynamics like this in so much of Dennis's contribution to this forum, particularly against those who do not share his views. Perhaps you recognise them and you just don't care - perhaps you think that they are irrelevant and should be ignored. Perhaps you think that my own response to them lacks awareness. Perhaps you think that they stem from insecurity, and that the insecurity is what should be responded to rather than the resulting (seemingly aggressive but, in this light, really defensive) power play. Perhaps you think I only expose my own insecurities by responding in any way other than that. "Oh, you men, so aggressive in your insecurity". But I know that you don't like it when I suggest what your views might be, so I need to clarify that all of these "perhaps"es are solely a reflection of the musings you have inspired in me, rather than of any views I actually know of in you.

In a view that takes in the indiscriminate and indifferent nature of the universe as whole, humans must be extraordinarily alert at explaining their grounds of value, being as there's no other place to make an appeal to any other 'authority.'

As you know, we disagree on the existence of authority, but, happily, value needn't be derived from authority as it is self-evident. The objective derives from the subjective: the value of a life is exactly the value in which its subject holds it (derivative and reflective of the value and dignity instilled in it by authority). And how can this subjective valuing of one's own life be denied? Even in suicide, one values one's life to the extent that one believes it deserves better than to be maintained in a state of suffering.

Incidentally, I wonder the extent to which your rejection of authority is based on the apparently ("biblically ugly") patriarchal nature of that authority? Your very choice of words - "authority" - suggests this. Would you be receptive to a more anarchic view of that authority, or is your rejection based on other philosophical objections? Feel free to ignore this of course if you prefer not to go there.

Remember, I still think all this speech is useless and we would make better use of our time finding things we did agree on doing and then taking action on those things in the real world.


Pye I'll just clear it up so you no longer assert that this understanding includes "lying to yourself".

"Not-knowing"/"not-doing" is a product of enlightenment.

It means acting in accordance with the nature of ultimate reality that cannot be understood without awakening.

Or, "be like the Tao".

"Not-knowing is true knowledge", means, knowing you don't know all those things you previously pretended to know about, removing delusion.

"Practice not-doing", means, meditation(literally not-doing) plus letting your actions arise on their own without thinking of past/future.

A better description, as Pam put it:

"The wise man knows that all is a "dream" and it is this knowledge that is his permanent foundation upon which his spirit or being is moved."


Recognizing transience also means recognizing the transient nature of thought.

Afterward, not-knowing is taken up, aka, one no longer assigns truth to conceptualizations which exist as nothing more than abstract imaginations.

Again, in other words, the Buddha tried to describe it to Alex:

"Objects in themselves are neither in existence nor in non-existence and are quite devoid of the alternative of being and non-being, and should only be thought of as one thinks of the horns of a hare, a horse, or a camel, which never existed. Objects are discriminated by the ignorant who are addicted to assertion and negation, because their intelligence has not been acute enough to penetrate into the truth that there is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself."

What I am concerned with is: I am getting a lot of responses that are at first disagreeing with these claims, then going on to point out why they think they are unproductive or acidic, while on an enlightenment forum. The question to you Pye is, do you agree that "the world" exists only so far as what is seen of the mind itself? ( Not independent from consciousness)


Laird

I'm not sure why you are on and off like this, I believe there is hope for you still (that this is something that may still need further realization), you give a long response which I did reply to in full, then ignore the reply, if you did see, then why are you avoiding the philosophical questions?

Merry Christmas to everyone for yesterday, what did everyone get? By the way I enjoy every one of your comments on this forum.

Laird writes: Do you think that Dennis chose a metaphor with these characteristics accidentally? I don't. To me, it's obvious that Dennis is suggesting not-so-subtly that I value what I value out of childish sentimentality, and not out of any considered ethic [and] It's odd that you don't acknowledge power dynamics like this in so much of Dennis's contribution to this forum, particularly against those who do not share his views.

Laird, I'm thinking that Dennis does not have the most comfortable bedside manner, but that doesn't mean he's dealing poor drugs. I'm thinking that's pretty much why I inserted myself into these two of his points to you, so that maybe a different bedside manner wouldn't repel you from the their rich, chocolatey middles.

Laird writes: Incidentally, I wonder the extent to which your rejection of authority is based on the apparently ("biblically ugly") patriarchal nature of that authority? Your very choice of words - "authority" - suggests this.

Maybe once a woman brings this up, it's assumed to be her only aria :)
But no . . . . I've written many things here of an existential nature that ground this authority, or lack thereof, in the lived experience.

Seeker asks: Then why did you go on to say this:

"This thought you've latched onto is indeed long-embedded in a lot of eastern approaches. It takes its cue from the universe itself that appears entirely disinterested in the projects of humans. The wise man then feels if he/she aligns themselves with this 'true' nature of universe - that does not appear to value; does not appear to mean anything; that does not appear to have fundamental support for the projects of humans or conform itself to their shape in any way - well then, aligning oneself to this must surely be a greater alignment to a greater truth."

Which implies not-doing means not-doing anything. (Such as letting your country fall into chaos apparently, as if it were Buddhism that caused this)

Actually, this is not the right paragraph I wrote that implies this, but I know what you're asking. It would be naive to think that this 'principle' of non-action has been understood, interpreted, and employed in the same way by sundry and all throughout history. Look how much trouble you're having just trying to get it across here. :)

Pye wrote:Actually, this is not the right paragraph I wrote that implies this, but I know what you're asking. It would be naive to think that this 'principle' of non-action has been understood, interpreted, and employed in the same way by sundry and all throughout history. Look how much trouble you're having just trying to get it across here. :)

You are presuming to know something you don't know here. That's the big problem isn't it? "Judge not, less ye be judged"

In other words, have you considered you don't share my perception of this conversation? You act as if there are rules to living without doing :) I personally think I'm doing a dandy job doing whatever it is it's doing, at least I'm enjoying the absurdity of it's existence, absurdity being another always applicable word for mystery.

2 questions

In other words, there is one correct way, and it doesn't have boundaries.

Although you might say I'm being naive, I can do what others can do and be foolish in doing without me myself being foolish while doing the same, maybe you can too. Why? There is no risk of suffering and no painfully running after delusions or a hurryin' and a hastenin' while always aware and not only seeing but perceiving.

Q1

Seeker writes: In other words, have you considered you don't share my perception of this conversation?

There would be no conversation if we did share such a thing. (Aren't you the fellow who believes in some kind of universal consciousness?)

Okay, well, in your two replies you've suggested 1. I might be saying you're naive, and I didn't; 2. that I am "acting as if there are rules to living," and I'm not; 3. that perhaps you ("at least") understand the absurdity of existence, implying others don't; and that 4. "absurdity" is synonymous with "mystery," with which I would not agree. Nevertheless, you've managed to hear and contribute back more than usual, so thanks for that.

For a fellow who denies knowledge and/or knowing at the most fundamental level of human existence, you sure have plenty of other things you insist upon being true, as well as yourself in (sole?) possession of those things. But then, Socrates was like that, too: knew what he didn't know; thought himself unique in that; but still went crapping on and on . . . . :)

When Dennis puts his slithery tongue up your butt crack and starts his tender licking, does it make you feel uncomfortable? And what is the correct etiquette in that situation? What about you, Pye? Do you enjoy that tongue on some level? Or, does it really creep you out but being polite and all you keep quiet and don't say anything?

If a base line for understanding is the possibility,
that's not it,
that's 'below the belt'.
.

In the love of writing context,
your strongest suit is predominately concerned with asses.

A call for pottytraining?

"believes in some kind of universal consciousness?"

Purposefully vague, and what I believe is that what you know to be called the universe exists as nothing more than experiences of consciousness, and you avoided my question completely before

" The question to you Pye is, do you agree that "the world" exists only so far as what is seen of the mind itself? ( Not independent from consciousness)".


Again you imply that it is letting go of all knowledge and conversation, out of nowhere, which it isn't and wasn't said, you should know exactly what it means.

Laird,

Do you think that Dennis chose a metaphor with these characteristics accidentally? I don't. To me, it's obvious that Dennis is suggesting not-so-subtly that I value what I value out of childish sentimentality, and not out of any considered ethic - hence my retort that I oppose the violation of the rights of the powerful as much as I oppose the violation of the rights of those who might be sentimentalised i.e. that I oppose violation on principle rather than sentimentality. The indirectness with which Dennis made this suggestion allows him plausible deniability, but if he is willing now to own it, then let him speak up.

Bambi is a name I've got for 'that which is protected at all costs'.
When peace and cordial relations are lost.
For xians, Jesus is bambi.
for muslims, mohammed is bambi.
for buddhists, buddha is bambi.

there's a bambi operating in each and every personhood that when touched upon to one degree or another , war is generated, hatred spills out.

The shape and colour of bambi isn't the issue for me.

Conversations seem to be designed as a tiptoeing around trying to avoid 'shooting bambi'.
The subtle art of diplomacy arose out of 'bambi consciousness'.

It's 'walking on eggshells' when bambi is around.

Bambi is front and centre,
you'd have to agree?

Btw pact, everyone stop contending?

Pye,

Dennis writes: I see your presence to the nuance of conversation Diebert where every syllable counts.

Pye writes: I've always liked that about Diebert, too. Any linguistic consciousness that seeks to align itself with some light also must suspect some of its own dark corners.

If someone is doing their thing,
and I admire it,
I'll acknowledge it.
of course there are attendant risks in doing that,
and yet I don't want to 'harbour the secret' of my admiration.

I don't want to go to the grave with that stuff unspoken.

John,
emptiness=dependant arising
dependent arising =emptiness

is a philosophy for trying out.
in itself it's not absolute truth.
it's concerned with phenomenal existence.

It's actually the theory of no-theory or what you get when inference drops out.

it's based in deductive reasoning.
the acceptance of the play of causality.

followed through with it opens up the inescapable conclusion,
that,
(my and your)
true nature is:

infinite, not a thing, not phenomenal,

'I am' an empty space in which the World shows up as an experience.

which is your groove right?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I'm not sure why you are on and off like this, I believe there is hope for you still (that this is something that may still need further realization), you give a long response which I did reply to in full, then ignore the reply, if you did see, then why are you avoiding the philosophical questions?

Because you don't seem to recognise that the view from my side is exactly the same as the view from your side: some other guy not "getting it", some other guy whose view is in need of correction. The only point (from my side) to further conversation is to offer you that corrective (just as the same is, it seems, true from your side), yet, unlike you of me, I have little hope that you will accept a corrective. Conversation then becomes futile in the absence of some other reason.

Another answer to your question: I've also been asked to make some (modestly) paid changes to software that until now I've been developing for free, so I'm wary that in a way I'm "wasting productive time" here on GF... which doesn't stop me!

I had written a lot more, but I've decided that if I'll write that much about why I'm not responding, I might as well actually respond after all. Be aware in deciding how much time to devote to your own response, if you even decide to respond, that this might really be my last, and that I am responding making no bones about my vantage point: to provide you (as tersely as I can) with a corrective. Anyhow, here goes:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote: You write that 'not-knowing [...] doesn't say all knowledge is "false" or "wrong"'. That's good: now, does it say that knowledge is not "useful"? That's part of what I asked you in my last post. Without the use of knowledge, you would not be able to live the life you live now; knowledge is in this sense not only useful but indispensable. Do you accept this?

To answer I first need to know if you consider that the following beings are knowledgeable?
An animal, or infant suckling on teats and acting out of instinct without having to think about their actions.

You're still dodging the question. You really don't need to know what you say you do, because I've already made plain what I'm talking about - it's littered through my previous posts. I've given you plenty of examples, such as the knowledge of the flight engineers that you rely on indirectly for the aeroplane trip you'll take when (if) you move.

Why can't you admit the glaringly obvious - that without a whole panoply of knowledge, you would not have... food to eat, universities to attend, cars, buses, trains, ferries and planes to transport yourself in, a home to live in, a global computer and telephony network to communicate via, broadcast technology right into your home, appliances, furniture and clothing, etc etc etc. I mean... John? Is this too hard for you to admit? Seriously, if you're going to respond again and not admit this, then please don't bother.

But to answer your question: yes, I consider that to be knowledge - "innate" knowledge, if you like.

(Re ferries in Sydney: have you ever taken the Circular Quay to Manly ferry at night? If not, take your girlfriend, sit outside on the benches at the front with the ocean wind blowing on your faces as the harbour lights surround and move past you like you were gliding through some fairy bower)

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote: You continue: "just that all thoughts are illusory [...] thoughts exist only as imaginative experiences (like thoughts in a dream), and they refer only to what exists as imaginative experiences". And so? For a start, you have not proved that we live in a dream, merely asserted it over and over again, despite the two reasons I offered you in another thread to disbelieve it (or at least to disbelieve that there exists no external reality, which you seem to think amounts to the same thing), one of which I notice Alex independently offered you some time later. In any case, these "imaginative experiences", this "dream", if "dream" it truly is, are shared between billions of lives, and they are (mostly) consistent (unlike your claims, a point which Diebert has made independently). The knowledge we have of the consistent workings of the "dream" of reality is no less useful or relevant because it applies to a (supposed) "dream" than if it applied to the "really real": it is as useful in managing our lives within the "dream" as the "really real". Do you accept this?

When was the claim made that there isn't consistency?

The lack of consistency referred to in my parenthetical comment was of your claims in general, which change under duress. I wasn't referring to any particular claim you might have made as to the lack of consistency of reality aka the dream (consistent with your implied objection, I haven't actually seen you make such a claim).

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Is an illusion of consciousness, ( an imaginative experience or a dream, aka "world" being made up of experiences and not existing independent of consciousness) still an illusion (still an imaginative experience) if the imaginative experience/ illusion appears consistent?

Is an illusion still an illusion if it is consistent?

Your questions are predicated on an assumption that I don't share: that there is no world independent of consciousness; that the apparent world is merely an illusion.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Do you agree that when you speak of objects or things experienced such as light/matter/cup, you are simply referring to different manifestations (or particular aspects) of sensation and feeling?

No.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Do you recognize that you are talking of these objects (things experienced), as if they exist independent of experience?

Yes.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:What are your reasons for assuming that your experiences of consciousness correlate to a "material" world that exists independent of or external to consciousness?

I've offered them to you already, in one of my very first posts to you: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7044&p=136505#p136461.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:"On the contrary my teaching is based upon the recognition that the objective world, like a vision, is a manifestation of the mind itself."

And, do you refute or disagree with this apparently extreme claim?

That depends on its meaning in context, of which I am ignorant.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:What is your interpretation of it?

To interpret it most consistently with my view, I would interpret it to mean that there is something, some mysterious, unknown and unknowable reality, "out there" that somehow in some equally mysterious way impinges on our senses and is shaped into a meaningful "vision" by our minds ("is manifested by the mind"). I would concede this as an incorrect interpretation if it could be shown that in context, the quoted author did not even believe in any reality "out there".

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Final question, do you meditate?

Rarely. I have tried several times to develop the habit, without success.

(Re ferries in Sydney: have you ever taken the Circular Quay to Manly ferry at night? If not, take your girlfriend, sit outside on the benches at the front with the ocean wind blowing on your faces as the harbour lights surround and move past you like you were gliding through some fairy bower)

Yeah! take the Sacred Tour.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Bambi is a name I've got for 'that which is protected at all costs'.

Well, if you don't think that human rights, and those of other life, should be protected at all costs, then perhaps you might try moving to a country where they're not, or at least not nearly to the same extent as in "the lucky country". Somalia or North Korea seem like the best choices. How do you think you'd appreciate life in those particular countries, where this particular "Bambi" is not held in the same regard as in ours?

I take it in that the United Nations concept and activity is trying to figure out a common Bambi and where there's a conflict of Bambi's they send in a peace-keeping force.

Bambi is a multiple personality entity.
Your Bambi is your meaning.

I agree with your Bambi preference Laird.

Rather than going to war I'd prefer the Inquiry.
how does this assumed 'violated entity' exist.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquiry.

No, really, I didn't expect you to pull that one on me this time.

I'm glad that at least we agree on the value (see how I slipped that one in there?) of a world where everyone's rights are respected. And where we can enjoy (one of?) the world's best harbour(s?).

You've run the personal Inquiry.
Made the set of assessments.
looked at the options available in the world,
and come up with the winning formula that to a great extent alleviates suffering.

It takes a thinker with a thought, thinking that thought, and enrolled in that thought.

So it depends,

Worlwide enrollment in that thought depends on a worldwide Inquiry.
and a curriculum of education.

There's no two ways about it Laird.
You have to lead that investigation,
design the curriculum,
and speak powerfully for it.

What I expect is nothing less.
You have it in you.

Ok, what I'm going to attempt to show you is the fundamental realization of ultimate reality that one progresses toward through meditation and wakefulness of his experiences, my claim is that the reasoning you have used to decide that your experiences of consciousness correlate to a world independent consciousness is completely flawed and exists as nothing but an abstract imagination, your reply was this:


"My own position is that ultimately we can't know which is most accurate, but that phenomenalism is the most plausible hypothesis, whereas yours is the least plausible. Why do I think yours is least plausible? For two reasons:

It accepts the existence of individuated human consciousnesses. This, then, seems to require that an external reality of some sort exists: that within which these individuated consciousnesses are located or "reside". If you disagree, then perhaps you could provide a reason why it's plausible that consciousnesses could exist individually without existing in anything, and why in fact this is more plausible than consciousnesses existing in some type of external reality as hypothesised in the two alternatives I listed (and whose Wikipedia articles I linked to) above: realism (naive, critical or any other type) and phenomenalism.
It requires, in the absence of a shared external reality, that the task of coordinating everybody's experiences as though there were a shared external reality is distributed across everybody's consciousnesses, but not in a way that they're actually aware of or in which they have access to the processes involved, such that these processes are subconscious or pre-conscious processes. This is a much more complicated solution than that of the alternatives I listed and linked to. I know based on my experience as a computer programmer how much harder it is to write distributed systems in which each process has access to (and update rights on) only its own individual data than for all individual processes to simply access (and update) shared data. So, my second specific suggestion to you is to explain why we should choose a hypothesis that is more complicated than necessary."


"This, then, seems to require that an external reality of some sort exists: that within which these individuated consciousnesses are located or "reside"."

You'll have to elaborate on this, it seems to me you jumped from the fact that your experiences of consciousness are different and that we "share" relatively consistent experiences of the world, all the way to saying this implies some kind of external "world" independent from your experiences of consciousness.

So far it has been agreed that we experience sensation,feeling,mental formations or "consciousness", but you did not provide any evidence or support for why this sensation/feeling indicates a "place" external from sensation/feeling, or why the objects of consciousness/experience exist independent from consciousness or have "more reality" and exist in themselves despite experience (which is the source of all knowledge/knowing of these objects).

In fact the extent of your evidence/support/reasoning was that "Since there is individuated consciousness, this implies some external reality that these experiences of consciousness are "in", or are "located", which has also presupposed that consciousness must have a "location" or place of residence, where did you come up with this or why?

You also mentioned something about how in computer programming it is common knowledge that it is "harder" to distribute consciousness or something a rather. :b

Linking to some wiki's isn't really an answer, what I am trying to get you to realize is the extent of your own ignorance.. to realize that your idea of this "more than" or "external to" consciousness, is just an experience of consciousness and it contains hugely flawed reasoning. (contains the false imagination of things external to consciousness)

So that this conversation can go smoothly we need to subject ourselves to simple questions and provide answers:

The question is, what is your own reasoning for thinking that sensations experienced in your waking state have "more reality" (Correlate to a material plane external to consciousness) than sensations experienced as nothing more than imaginations of the mind?

(Imaginations of the mind = dreams and mental formations, which don't correlate to material external planes, but exist as nothing more than sensations, while apparently waking state sensations do correlate to this material plane which is external to consciousness.)

Have you properly grasped my meaning in this question? What is your reasoning/evidence for the "more"?

Seeker writes: " The question to you Pye is, do you agree that "the world" exists only so far as what is seen of the mind itself? ( Not independent from consciousness)".

I've made my thoughts on this clear various times in this thread, but since you're listening now, I'm happy to restate.

Consciousness is always consciousness-of. It does not rise until there is something to be conscious-of. If there's an "of," then consciousness has taken something in as an "object," made an object of it in order to contemplate it. Objects are making the shape of consciousness just as consciousness is shaping the objects in return. So yes, we have something of a closed loop here (but keep reading).

We cannot exceed the instrumentation of our own consciousnesses when confronting whatever "of" it has taken notice-of. It's only in this sentence that we would meet in the area you are recruiting for - I could use the phrase here, "World only exists in [my] mind," but I cannot (explanation forthcoming) say there is no world outside of mind, since it took an "of" for me to become conscious at all.

This same consciousness tells me other things; this same mind - the one that realizes it cannot exceed its own instrumentation to measure the world - is telling me that there is a world, or I would have nothing to become conscious-of. I'm conscious-of people who die and a world that goes on. The world has died for them, but not for every other consciousness that still and always takes the world for its object. Yes, we're still in the closed loop, but the loop itself does not exist if consciousness has nothing to be conscious-of.

Yes, there is a world, or there would be no reason for consciousness to rise to become conscious-of anything. No, we cannot exceed our own instrumentation (consciousness) when confronting this world. But if we refuse the ambiguity of the situation - that mind and world make each other or there would be nothing 'made' - then indeed, we're left stewing in the solipsistic soup. We will then have discovered the closed-loop nature of consciousness, but with half of what makes it what it is, sawn off; thrown away. It's disingenuous; a jesuitical trick; human hubris; and one of many ways people will negate the world (and hence themselves) in trying to address their suffering in it.

So, no, Little General (and I mean this affectionately), you will not be able to recruit me into your army of dreamers, or posit to me a thing called "consciousness-itself," or deny there is a world outside of consciousness (in any other way than intellectual parlour games), for it could not rise without things to become conscious-of. Others may resolve their suffering, negate the world, into the softness of a dream; for if ignorance is suffering, it can also be bliss. This self-same consciousness of mine tells me the bliss (my bliss) lies in thoughts other than disingenuous ones like these.

Subjectivity (the whole world does not, cannot, exist outside my mind) is meaningless when it refuses the objects it takes for itself that make it what it is.

Thank you, Dennis. I expect it of myself too. It's the best use I can make of the rest of my life - overcoming, growing (so much still to do) and learning; developing, documenting and promoting a platform of progressive ideas. In any case, I appreciate your encouragement, you're at your best when you're working to inspire others.

John, thank you. This is the first post you've addressed to me in which I feel like you're actually responding to me rather than just talking at me. It's a breath of fresh air. I think you'll do even better with practice (I know that might sound patronising - I'm sorry about that, but I also think it's true).

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:In fact the extent of your evidence/support/reasoning was that "Since there is individuated consciousness, this implies some external reality that these experiences of consciousness are "in", or are "located", which has also presupposed that consciousness must have a "location" or place of residence, where did you come up with this or why?

(This, by the way, is the same reason which I saw Alex suggest to you independently).

Where I came up with this idea is obvious - it's part of our everyday experience: our intuitive, natural experience is of a three-dimensional physical world in which individual consciousnesses are located separately within those three dimensions. Why I suggest it as a reason to prefer my view of reality over yours is because it is hard to imagine what would be the case if this were not true in some way, not necessarily in the intuitive way we experience consciousness-within-a-three-dimensional-physical-world, but in some sense of dimensionality, some way in which consciousness is "within" or "located in" something. I mean, what is the alternative? I seem to recall you writing something to the effect in that thread of "It's just magic, it can't be described". OK, fine, I can't logically refute that, but in what way is "magic" a better or more plausible explanation than the concrete one that I've offered, which just happens to match our intuitions too?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You also mentioned something about how in computer programming it is common knowledge that it is "harder" to distribute consciousness or something a rather.

I'll explain that because it's probably hard to understand when you're not familiar with programming. First, a definition: a "process" is "an instance of a computer program that is being executed. It contains the program code and its current activity". In our analogy, processes correspond to consciousnesses. Processes can, as we require consciousnesses to, communicate amongst one another. So, now let's say that we want to program a shared (virtual) reality, in which each process in a set of processes simulates an observer's perspective, using two different models, the first corresponding to my "external reality" model, the second corresponding to your "no external reality" model. My "external reality" model permits a set of data "external" to all processes, so let's stipulate that that external data exists, in whatever way it might be implemented - practically, it would probably be as shared memory within the host operating system. Your "no external reality" does not permit any such shared data, all that is possible is for each process to maintain its own data and to communicate with the others to let them know about how it is changing its data, and to be informed of how they are changing theirs.

OK, so far so good, but now: how could we implement a shared (virtual) reality using each of these two models, and which model makes it easier to do that? Let's take a very, very simple virtual reality to start with: an empty world extending in all directions in which only one object exists: a sphere. There are three processes simulating consciousnesses "immersed" (floating) in this world, each "located" separately with respect to the sphere and to one another. At a certain time, the sphere moves three metres to one side in a regular motion.

Now, in my model ("external reality"/"shared data"), the *absolute* locations (you might ask about Einstein's Theory of Relativity: for simplicity I'm not taking it into consideration) of the sphere and the three observers are stored in the shared data ("external reality"). Each process knows where its observer is with respect to all of the others because it can look this up in the shared data. (To maintain the best correspondence with the way our reality actually works, each process would only have access to that segment of the shared data which is in its observer's "physical" view i.e. if there were a mountain range in the way, it would not have access to otherwise shared data about what lies beyond the mountain range). So, as the sphere moves those three metres, the shared data is updated (by what? Some "master process", presumably), and each individual process simply keeps an eye on the shared data to discover the new position of the sphere with respect to the virtual observer it represents, performing a simple transliteration from the absolute perspective to its observer's own perspective. Pretty straightforward.

How about in your model though, where there is no shared data, only communication amongst processes? OK, so, each process stores its own data about the virtual reality, and notice this: each set of data depends on the process's individual perspective on the virtual reality, and so each set of data in each process is different than in each of the others. The first problem we encounter then is, "How are/were these several different, but required-to-be-consistent, sets of data (perspectives) initialised?" It's not like the processes can refer to and derive their own data from shared data which can be or was initialised independently, because we are not allowed shared data in your model.

The next problem we have is, "Which of the three processes initiates the changes in the data to propagate to the other processes?" The sphere is to move three metres, but we have no master process or master data by which to coordinate that move, so, how is the move effected; from where does the move "initiate"?

Finally, we have this problem: "Assuming that *one* of the processes initiates the sphere's motion, how does it communicate with the other processes so that they see the same change *from their perspectives*?" This is mostly what I had in mind regarding complexity: in your model, each process knows only the location of all of the other processes and the sphere *with respect to itself, from its own perspective*. Rather than, as in the shared-data model, everybody referring to a shared *absolute* perspective, from which individual perspectives can be calculated in an uncomplicated way, now each process (say, process1) has to work out the perspective of every other process (let's take one in particular, process2) in its view with respect to its own perspective, and communicate *relative* changes based on the relative perspective that it calculates its neighbour to have, and what its neighbour can see, with respect to itself. So, process1 has to calculate that based on where the sphere appears to be with respect to itself, and on where process2 is with respect to itself, process2 will see the sphere move in a certain (different, but relatively correct) direction to the one that process1 sees it move in, and then communicate this to process2.

Are these calculations, and this communication, theoretically possible? Maybe, but they're much more complex. I say maybe because there's another problem that I haven't touched on: in any meaningfully complex shared reality, there are going to be data unique to individual processes that other processes won't have access to that will sometimes prevent them from being able to accurately calculate changes from the other's perspective. For example, there might be an object between process2 and the sphere that process1 can't see itself (because all four of them are in a straight line, with process1 on the opposite side of the sphere to the object and then process2), so process1 would attempt to send process2 the change "the sphere moves in this direction relative to your perspective", and process2 would reply (bearing in mind that this is not *conscious* communication), "Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. I can't see any sphere". In fact, it might be even worse than this: it's possible that process1 wouldn't even know that process2 is located there (because it is out of sight), and would fail to communicate about other shared changes that process2 *should* be able to see.

There's also the problem of how to deal with failures of communication. If one process fails to get an update from (one or more of) the others, then its data (and view/perspective) becomes out of kilter, and there's no easy way to fix this, because there's no shared, absolute data with which to "reset" it.

There is one solution to the former problem (the blocking-object problem) that I can think of, but it doesn't solve the latter problem (the out-of-kilter-due-to-failure-of-communication problem) and that is for each process to have its own full copy of the data that in the first model was shared. Aside from the fact that it doesn't solve the second problem, it's still anyway much more complex, because rather than each process communicating one-to-one with a single centralised set of shared data, now all processes have to communicate many-to-many amongst themselves to synchronise changes (you'll just have to trust me that, relatively speaking, this is a coding nightmare). Also, it doesn't solve the problem of how each process's data was initialised, nor where "independent" changes (i.e. changes not willed by an agent) to the data initiate. In any case, this doesn't intuitively match our experience of reality, does it? Do you have access within your consciousness to the state of objects on the other side of the universe? Sure, it's possible that you do subconsciously, but it's far less plausible than the first model, which doesn't require this.

There *is* another solution to all of these problems though, and that is for there to be a master process after all, one which stores all of the absolute data and handles all of the inter-process communication that has been troubling us, so that we again have the easier one-to-one communication rather than many-to-many - *however*, this is a sort of "external reality through the back door" - in a way, this master process would be external reality in a different guise; there's no essential difference between shared absolute data and a shared absolute (master) process.

So, again, this is not a knock-down argument against your view, but it does make it far less plausible.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The question is, what is your own reasoning for thinking that sensations experienced in your waking state have "more reality" (Correlate to a material plane external to consciousness) than sensations experienced as nothing more than imaginations of the mind?

Other than the reasoning I've just shared with you, it simply makes more intuitive sense to me, and this, probably more than that reasoning, is why I take the view that I do. I experience my physical body in a way that makes it extremely difficult for me to view it as a mere apparition of the mind; it is alive with tangible energy, both "ordinary" and spiritual energy.

If all of that talk about virtual realities is just too much waffle, here's a short and simple way to make the point: no doubt you're aware of multi-player first-person shooter games? You're aware, no doubt, that in those games, there is a central server (representing, for our purposes, external reality) that each player's client computer (representing, for our purposes, an individual consciousness) communicates with, which stores and updates the shared data of the virtual reality. Now, remove that central server (external reality), and try to work out a way for all of the separate client computers (individual consciousnesses) to coordinate a consistent virtual reality. Good luck with that!

Pye wrote: To Laird, this is a fine example of exactly what I've written above. I think, Laird, (and feel free to correct me) that you believe there are certain things that deserve "respect" just by virtue of being what they are: humans; women as a category; even respect itself for the sake of respectfulness ("Bambis," so to speak - "precious" things worth protecting). That's not what I'm interested in arguing here

and Laird asked: And I get the impression that you would not argue (against) this, anyway. Or would you?

I had to go sleep on this, Laird, because I think it's worth replying to and I want to do it as carefully as possible. It becomes another matter of the essence of something preceding its appearance (its actual existence) in the world, and I will always be wary of such metaphysical fancies.

Let's take "niceness" for an example. I know you value niceness, kindness in people for its own sake, yes? Let's take the assumed value of niceness itself (wherein we have to assume there is such a thing as niceness itself before it manifests in some way). If we value always-being nice, always-being kind, then that will have to take precedence over whatever situation/circumstances that rise in demand of this response. And here is where it can go 'wrong.' I've seen the tray of niceness bearing forth all kinds of forked-dishes. The dishes are forked (i.e. meaning I'm not really feeling this niceness and kindness toward [rhetorical] you), but since I am valuing it ahead of the situation I'm in, I'll put the tray ahead of what's on it. That way, I can be both (mean, irritated, underhanded, fork-tongued, what-have-you) whilst still protecting the value of niceness. But this is not protecting the value of niceness at all. It is rather perverting it.

Insisting that niceness (kindness, respect, etc.) take precedence over any and all circumstances is to cloak the appearance of other things; restrict the being of other things. There are un-nice things in the world, un-nice people, un-nice circumstances, un-nice agendas, but if we assume the overarching response should always be niceness, then we lose our discriminating tastes and gobble-down dishes just because they make us feel good for the niceness in which they are delivered; we end up ingesting the poison (so to speak) willingly and unthinkingly, because the flavor of niceness takes precedence over all. It's a horse/cart thing. Niceness can only come about in response to something, and it's only niceness if it's actually niceness. But when people place the essence of niceness ahead of what's manifesting right there in front of them, the opportunity to cloak things under the agenda of niceness becomes a fertile field of disingenuousness and manipulation.

It is hard work, serving our chosen values. But we have to be very very alert that we are actually doing that - serving our values, as opposed to cloaking agendas, ignoring the living circumstances, and flat-out lying about how we feel by putting niceness ahead of everything. Always-being anything restricts the disclosure of others things coming-to-be.

I hope this makes some kind of sense and that you see the foregoing as explanation of dynamic, and not an assessment of you or what you value. If we really value something, we value its unsullied appearance in the world, hence refusing to make it appear when really, something louder is speaking in us at the given time.

As for "respect for women as a category," the same danger lies herein. I would rather make those judgments upon what is actually manifesting before me, rather than demanding of myself that I do not discriminate among those manifestations. To respect anything ahead of what it does in the world is to put something that might-not-be ahead of what is. Additionally, women-as-a-category is a synonym for sexism, as though category we all be. This, again, places "category" above alertness to what is actually in front of us.

I have things I value, too, Laird, but I cannot value/serve them ahead of themselves. They only come-to-be in a world of response, and not prior-to. And they only are those things if they actually are those things.