GENIUS FORUMS

David wrote:

I don't know about anyone else, but I am having trouble understanding your arguments because they don't seem to really connect to anything. Your presentation of them is highly abstract and formal, which makes it hard for us to relate them to our experiences of the real world.

I understand completely, the concepts that we are dealing with here are subtle and difficult to understand; nevertheless, we are involved in a rational enquiry, and so we must proceed cautiously, lest we fall into error. This is why I have opted for a question and answer approach, and why I have sought your approval at each stage of the enquiry; for I want there to be no doubt whatsoever on a given point, before proceeding to the next; for then there will be no need to recover the same ground later.

Why "must" there be two interdependent and complimentary modes of being?

There must be two modes of being because there are (exists) two things of which we agreed that we were certain (awareness and its object); and because these two things cannot be exactly the same thing, for then there would be no basis for differentiating between the two, it follows that they must partake of different kinds of existence. Now, as there are only two ways in which an existent may be constituted (absolutely or relatively), it follows that awareness must partake of one of these modes of existence, and its objects, of the other mode. Now, given that there are only the two modes of existence, it follows that the two must complete one another in that higher universe of discourse that we call Being (Existence), and since there can be no awareness without that there is an object to be aware of, it follows that the two are also interdependent.

In what way do you think Whorl Whelk is wrong in stating that the Totality is absolute, while the parts within the Totality - such as awareness and appearances - are relative?

If the Totality is absolute in nature (which it must be, since by definition there can be nothing else for it to relate to), then the relative is necessarily part of the absolute. The absolute is literally composed of relative existences.

That absolute, independent and immutable entity which Whorl Whelk called the ‘Universe’, or which we have previously called ‘Being’ or ‘Reality’ is none other than ‘cognizant awareness’, while the objects of that awareness (things) are merely relative entities, and therefore, have no existence independent of that awareness. However, it is an error to think that these relative entities are parts or components (i.e., causes) of that absolute entity, for a relative entity is not real, and so cannot give rise to any sort of effect; let alone a real one.

In other words, the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, and is akin to mind, while all things partake of only a relative existence, and are akin to thoughts or ideas.

Jehu wrote:That absolute, independent and immutable entity which Whorl Whelk called the ‘Universe’, or which we have previously called ‘Being’ or ‘Reality’ is none other than ‘cognizant awareness’, while the objects of that awareness (things) are merely relative entities, and therefore, have no existence independent of that awareness.

The problem for me is that relations require at least two things. You need an observer and something to observe. You can't have a shadow if you just have sunlight and no opaque object in the way. Nor can you have a shadow if you just have a tree sitting in the ground somewhere without light. Awareness needs something to be aware of. Now I agree that the appearances in your head are contingent upon your awareness. However, there has to be something other than your awareness _out_there_ that causes those appearances.

Jehu wrote:However, it is an error to think that these relative entities are parts or components (i.e., causes) of that absolute entity, for a relative entity is not real, and so cannot give rise to any sort of effect; let alone a real one.

What makes you think that awareness is real and is actually giving rise to any sort of effect free of external factors?

The problem for me is that relations require at least two things. You need an observer and something to observe. You can't have a shadow if you just have sunlight and no opaque object in the way. Nor can you have a shadow if you just have a tree sitting in the ground somewhere without light. Awareness needs something to be aware of. Now I agree that the appearances in your head are contingent upon your awareness. However, there has to be something other than your awareness _out_there_ that causes those appearances.

A very important question, but one that I would prefer not to speculate upon. I would much prefer that we come upon the answer together, as the enquiry progresses, than to simply have you take my word.

What makes you think that awareness is real and is actually giving rise to any sort of effect free of external factors?

I have already laid out my arguments as to why the nature of reality is essential cognizant. If you require clarification on any particular point I will happily respond, but I do not wish to repeat myself.

Jehu,

DQ: Why "must" there be two interdependent and complimentary modes of being?

J: There must be two modes of being because there are (exists) two things of which we agreed that we were certain (awareness and its object); and because these two things cannot be exactly the same thing, for then there would be no basis for differentiating between the two, it follows that they must partake of different kinds of existence. Now, as there are only two ways in which an existent may be constituted (absolutely or relatively), it follows that awareness must partake of one of these modes of existence, and its objects, of the other mode.

A tree can be differentiated from a cloud, but that doesn't mean one of them is absolute and the other relative. They are simply two relative entities.

DQ: In what way do you think Whorl Whelk is wrong in stating that the Totality is absolute, while the parts within the Totality - such as awareness and appearances - are relative?

If the Totality is absolute in nature (which it must be, since by definition there can be nothing else for it to relate to), then the relative is necessarily part of the absolute. The absolute is literally composed of relative existences.

J: That absolute, independent and immutable entity which Whorl Whelk called the ‘Universe’, or which we have previously called ‘Being’ or ‘Reality’ is none other than ‘cognizant awareness’, while the objects of that awareness (things) are merely relative entities, and therefore, have no existence independent of that awareness. However, it is an error to think that these relative entities are parts or components (i.e., causes) of that absolute entity, for a relative entity is not real, and so cannot give rise to any sort of effect; let alone a real one.

A cloud is a relative entity and yet is able to generate rain, which helps cause trees to grow.

In other words, the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, and is akin to mind, while all things partake of only a relative existence, and are akin to thoughts or ideas.

You still haven't provided any reasons for your belief that reality is essentially cognizant. All you're doing is asserting it over and over as a bald fact. We can't proceed any further until you give a justification for this belief.

For example, what is wrong with the view that reality isn't cognizant?

-

David wrote:

A tree can be differentiated from a cloud, but that doesn't mean one of them is absolute and the other relative. They are simply two relative entities.
A cloud is a relative entity and yet is able to generate rain, which helps cause trees to grow.
You still haven't provided any reasons for your belief that reality is essentially cognizant. All you're doing is asserting it over and over as a bald fact. We can't proceed any further until you give a justification for this belief.

All of the things you have cited above: a tree, a cloud, the rain, along with all other things, belong to that class of existent which we have called the ‘objects of awareness’; and of which we have said that we can be certain that there is at least the appearance of. Awareness, on the other hand, of which we have said that we can be certain, does not belong to this ‘object class’, but to another existential class: the “subject class”. Now, given that there are only two possible existential modes of being, the relative and the absolute, and given that the object class clearly partakes only a relative existence, it follows that the subject class, which is the complement of the object class, must necessarily be absolute.

My awareness seems to be entirely controlled by external causes rather than the "thing-in-itself." Why can't awareness be the contingent entity here?

The cognizant subject (awareness) does not display any of the essential characteristics of a relative entity; such as the tendency to change over time. For example, while everything that we associate with ourselves may change over time, the cognizant subject remains the same. By this I mean that my body may change, my preferences and prejudices might change, even my understanding of the nature of reality might change; but through all of these changes, there is some aspect of me that remains the same, and it is this aspect which gives our lives a sense of continuity; and we call this aspect the ‘self’. For example, are you not the same person whom your parents gave birth to? And if so, what is it about you that is the same? What exactly does the existential referent ‘I” refer to, if not the self? My body is not my self, for if it were, I would not call it “my” body, as though it were a possession belonging to the self, and my mind is not the self, for the same reason.

Jehu,

The cognizant subject (awareness) does not display any of the essential characteristics of a relative entity; such as the tendency to change over time. For example, while everything that we associate with ourselves may change over time, the cognizant subject remains the same. By this I mean that my body may change, my preferences and prejudices might change, even my understanding of the nature of reality might change; but through all of these changes, there is some aspect of me that remains the same, and it is this aspect which gives our lives a sense of continuity; and we call this aspect the ‘self’.

You can't prove that your awareness doesn't change over time. In fact, presumably it changes while my body develops from a baby to a child and finally an adult. Presumably it disappears when my body dies in a similar way as it disappears at some points while I am sleeping.

For example, are you not the same person whom your parents gave birth to? And if so, what is it about you that is the same?

My genetic code. Are my parents not the same people who gave birth to me? Yes, but if we accept that my consciousness is the absolute entity then they cannot truly have a consciousness, as they are merely part of the contingent appearances, so that cannot be the answer to this question. However if we accept that our consciousness is the contingent entity here, we can grant them a similar type of consciousness based on our own experience and their resemblance to ourselves. We have to get over the thing-in-itself, "free will", etc to do this.

What exactly does the existential referent ‘I” refer to, if not the self?

It refers to the self as a "conscious" contingent entity within the objects of awareness.

My body is not my self, for if it were, I would not call it “my” body, as though it were a possession belonging to the self, and my mind is not the self, for the same reason.

This "self" need not exist. It is a convenience for us to use in the real world whether we believe that we inherently exist or not.

I have never said that 'consciousness' is absolute, this is purely a supposition on your part, I have spoken only of the cognizant subject (awareness). Consciousness is a function of the sentient mind, and as I have already said, the mind is not the self, for then I would not say that it is ‘my’ mind, or ‘your’ mind. That which is the true self, is neither mine nor yours, but is the ground of all beings. This is what is meant by the Law of Identity, when it states that “everything is the same in itself, but different from another”.

Jehu,

DQ: A tree can be differentiated from a cloud, but that doesn't mean one of them is absolute and the other relative. They are simply two relative entities.
A cloud is a relative entity and yet is able to generate rain, which helps cause trees to grow.
You still haven't provided any reasons for your belief that reality is essentially cognizant. All you're doing is asserting it over and over as a bald fact. We can't proceed any further until you give a justification for this belief.

J: All of the things you have cited above: a tree, a cloud, the rain, along with all other things, belong to that class of existent which we have called the ‘objects of awareness’; and of which we have said that we can be certain that there is at least the appearance of. Awareness, on the other hand, of which we have said that we can be certain, does not belong to this ‘object class’, but to another existential class: the “subject class”. Now, given that there are only two possible existential modes of being, the relative and the absolute, and given that the object class clearly partakes only a relative existence, it follows that the subject class, which is the complement of the object class, must necessarily be absolute.

No, this doesn't follow at all. You reasoning is poorly executed here. Even if we assume that awareness is in a different class to appearances, which is itself debatable, it doesn't follow that because appearances are relative, awareness must be absolute.

It is like arguing that since mountains and humans are in a different class, and since humans are relative entities, mountains must be absolute. There is no logical connection there.

In the end, the differences between awareness and appearances aren't acute enough to render one of them absolute and the other relative. The difference between them is merely one of form. Awareness merely has a different form to appearances and that is all.

The cognizant subject (awareness) does not display any of the essential characteristics of a relative entity; such as the tendency to change over time. For example, while everything that we associate with ourselves may change over time, the cognizant subject remains the same.

If we are going to use change as the measure of what is relative and what is absolute, then what about the process of change itself? After all, there is never a time when the process of change changes. If it ever did, the Universe would immediately come to a standstill. Change is a constant which is fused into every appearance we experience. So by your reasoning, change would have to be considered absolute.

And what about the fact that appearances are always finite and limited in extent? That too never changes. Or the fact that all things are always illusory? That never changes either. So suddenly, we have all these absolutes springing up everywhere, all of them part of the realm of appearances.

The neat division you are trying to make between awareness and appearances is too simplistic and doesn't take into account the relative aspects of awareness and the absolute aspects of appearance.

By this I mean that my body may change, my preferences and prejudices might change, even my understanding of the nature of reality might change; but through all of these changes, there is some aspect of me that remains the same, and it is this aspect which gives our lives a sense of continuity; and we call this aspect the ‘self’. For example, are you not the same person whom your parents gave birth to? And if so, what is it about you that is the same? What exactly does the existential referent ‘I” refer to, if not the self? My body is not my self, for if it were, I would not call it “my” body, as though it were a possession belonging to the self, and my mind is not the self, for the same reason.

Like that fellow, "average", on that other thread, you are falling for an illusion of your own abstract making. It is like arguing that the number "2" is absolute because even though the mind and brain are constantly changing, the concept of "2" always remains the same.

Your "unchanging awareness" is essentially an abstraction and maintained in the exactly the same way as the number "2" is maintained.

I have never said that 'consciousness' is absolute, this is purely a supposition on your part, I have spoken only of the cognizant subject (awareness). Consciousness is a function of the sentient mind, and as I have already said, the mind is not the self, for then I would not say that it is ‘my’ mind, or ‘your’ mind. That which is the true self, is neither mine nor yours, but is the ground of all beings. This is what is meant by the Law of Identity, when it states that “everything is the same in itself, but different from another”.

People normally use word "consciousness" to mean awareness. To be conscious is to be aware. So it is difficult to know what you mean by "awareness" if you are differentiating it from consciousness.

I understand that you are trying to draw our attention to the underlying nature of all things, which is fine, but what it does it mean to call this underlying nature "awareness" when, at the same time, you are differentiating it from "consciousness"?

To my ears, it is like you are saying: "The underlying nature of all things is banana, even though this banana has nothing to do with what we normally think of as bananas."

In short, you're not making any sense.

-

Jehu wrote:I have never said that 'consciousness' is absolute, this is purely a supposition on your part, I have spoken only of the cognizant subject (awareness). Consciousness is a function of the sentient mind...

David is correct, I did mean consciousness as awareness. As far as I know they are completely synonymous. Perhaps it was my bad for introducing this term, I am just much more accustomed to using it than "awareness".

Jehu wrote:... as I have already said, the mind is not the self, for then I would not say that it is ‘my’ mind, or ‘your’ mind. That which is the true self, is neither mine nor yours, but is the ground of all beings.

Appealing to grammatical conventions isn't really a strong argument. Nietzsche actually criticizes grammar for creating this problem. Anyways, here is some food for thought: "myself", "yourself".

Unfortunately for you other human beings cannot share absolute existence as they are merely appearances, and contingent entities within your mind. Absolute entities must be entirely unrelated to each other.

David,

You are treating me quite unfairly, when you accuse me of not making sense, for it is you who must make sense of what I say, and I’m afraid you are not trying as hard as I am, to make you understand. I have said that the concepts that I am trying to convey to you are subtle, but you respond as though these concepts must either be immediately obvious to you, or else I am speaking nonsense. Concepts such as the two modes of existence (absolute and relative) are, and always have been, central to any metaphysical enquiry, and therefore, must be thoroughly understood. Now, I take from your response that you do not understand these concepts, nor the relationship which binds them together, for you do not recognize that change an essential characteristic of a relative entity, and that an absolute entity is necessarily immutable (changeless). Now, I would be more that happy to examine these concepts with you, but I will not bother to do so if you think they are nonsensical; or if you think me insincere.

Jehu,

We agreed on two things: awareness and objects of awareness. I believe we are taking objects of awareness to mean the appearances that I am seeing/experiencing.

You claimed that these two must partake of opposite modes of existence; one a contingent entity and one an absolute.

I believe it is more likely, however, that they are BOTH contingent. I believe that objects of awareness are contingent upon my awareness itself, but at the same time that my awareness is contingent upon external factors. Perhaps we could call the objects of awareness, or appearances, doubly contingent. As David pointed out, you assert that objects of awareness and awareness itself must partake of opposite modes of existence but do not prove that. I think your proof wants to be something like "I think, therefore I am", but you have to consider the possibility (and probability) that you are not, as scary as it is.

The original example you gave was of a shadow. The shadow has no absolute existence as it is entirely the product of external factors, namely the tree, sunlight, and ground. Now we can extend that example and say that the tree, for instance, is ALSO a contingent entity. It has no existence outside of external factors such as the parent tree, seed, ground, light, water, nutrients, etc. In the same way the ground and sunlight are contingent. The shadow is doubly contingent compared to the tree, sunlight, and ground, which are all contingent themselves and the whole scenario lacks any absolute existence.

The reality of it is that everything we know of must logically be a contingent entity except for the highest level which has no external factors: the totality, the universe, existence, etc. This is because absolute entities cannot be related to one another.

Thus, as I understand your argument, you are claiming that your awareness exists and that none of the human beings, who are all amongst your objects of awareness, share the same awareness that you do, because they are merely contingent entities themselves inside your awareness which is the absolute entity. You failed to prove this.

Furthermore, I can provide very good evidence to suggest that you are in fact wrong. The subject does not exist apart from the action in reality. It is only this way in grammar! This is because the majority of people inherently believe that they exist and because it is practical to speak of "I" and "you" in everyday life. This grammatical convention has created much confusion -- aren't you rehashing Kant's stuff? What is left of "me" when you take away thinking, walking, smelling, appearing, etc, etc? I am my mind; I am my body; I am my actions -- in a very real way!

And there is good evidence to believe that I am simply a product of external forces, as hurting as the truth is. Take "I think" for example. How do you think? Do you have control over your thoughts? Do you choose what you are thinking about and what the next thought to pop into your head will be? No. On the contrary, at least for myself, thoughts pop into my mind from the external. It seems that I have influence over what the next thought will be depending on what the current one is and how I deal with it and what I am doing, but am in no way in charge over it.

In conclusion, Kant's immediate certainty is more of an unlikely possibility. The only way to solve this problem conclusively is to commit suicide -- if you are still aware then perhaps you were right the whole time. :-) Otherwise, rationally one should accept that they are contingent entities that do play part of the causal chain with the decisions they make, even though Laplace's Demon could predict their every move....

Whorly,

With regard to the relationship which holds between the cognizant subject and its objects, you must try understand that although the two are interdependent, it does not necessarily follow that they are both contingent; and I shall explain why. An absolute entity, such as I claim that the cognizant subject is, is necessarily unrelated to anything extrinsic, and so can relate only to the which is intrinsic. Conversely, a relative entity, such as I claim that all of the objects of perception are, is necessarily unrelated to anything intrinsic, and so can relate only to that which is extrinsic. Now, it is clear that the subject and its objects are related, for there can be no cognitive experience without that both elements are present; so it remains only to demonstrate the one and only possible manner in which such a relationship is possible.

While the cognizant subject (absolute entity) is clearly dependent upon its objects (relative entities), this does not violate the independent characteristic of the absolute entity, for that upon which it is dependent abides intrinsically; that is to say, within the cognizant subject’s sphere of awareness. In other words, the only possible way to rationalize the defining characteristics of the two modes of existence, is a model wherein the one absolute entity encompasses the multitude of relative entities, and the only model that will permit this, is the one in which the nature of the absolute entity is cognizant, and the relative entities are mere appearances.

Now, as there is but one absolute entity, it follows that all relative beings (myself included) must partake of the cognizant nature of that one true Being, and have no cognizant nature that is truly our own. Consequently, it is clear that there are not many cognizant subjects, although it certainly appears as though there are.

Jehu,

With regard to the relationship which holds between the cognizant subject and its objects, you must try understand that although the two are interdependent, it does not necessarily follow that they are both contingent; and I shall explain why. An absolute entity, such as I claim that the cognizant subject is, is necessarily unrelated to anything extrinsic, and so can relate only to the which is intrinsic. Conversely, a relative entity, such as I claim that all of the objects of perception are, is necessarily unrelated to anything intrinsic, and so can relate only to that which is extrinsic.

I understand this.

In other words, the only possible way to rationalize the defining characteristics of the two modes of existence, is a model wherein the one absolute entity encompasses the multitude of relative entities, and the only model that will permit this, is the one in which the nature of the absolute entity is cognizant, and the relative entities are mere appearances.

I have given you an alternate model however where both are contingent. In my model awareness is contingent upon whatever is -out there-, and the objects of awareness are like shadows in that they are then contingent upon my contingent awareness. Since you claim your model is the only one that works you should be able to point out the error with mine. You might want to claim that there is nothing -out there-, but I would support that there is by the way my awareness/consciousness appears to be affected by external causes.

Now, as there is but one absolute entity, it follows that all relative beings (myself included) must partake of the cognizant nature of that one true Being, and have no cognizant nature that is truly our own. Consequently, it is clear that there are not many cognizant subjects, although it certainly appears as though there are.

I don't follow this part. What I see following is that you are the absolute entity yourself. Why do you presume that there are any other cognizant beings other than yourself? Are all other "people" (that you know of...) not simply objects of your awareness and thus contingent entities?

Jehu,

Wonderful discussion. Just the sort of thing I like to think about. I didn't quite get this:

However, the only possible way that these two modes of being may be rationalized, is if we accept that the relative mode must reside, in some sense at least, within the precincts of the absolute mode; and that the two modes of existence are sustained by the self-same set of causes. But if this is the case, and deduction tells us that it is, then the relative mode of existence must be an imaginary mode, and the absolute mode, of a cognizant nature; for there cannot be one without the other.

Never mind that the absolute must be of a cognizant nature (did you prove that yet?) - how does it follow that the relative mode is imaginary? Apparently it is to avoid the necessity of having awareness and object as equals:

however, your conclusion does not follow that awareness has a contingent existence, if that of which it is aware resides inherently within itself, that is to say, is not real, but merely apparent.

Next,

Conversely, an absolute entity consists in and of itself, that is to say, it comprises its own intrinsic causes, and so is said to partake of a necessary and not merely contingent existence. Such an entity is said to have a necessary existence, for if its causes exist, then the entity itself must exist, its causes being that which is necessary and sufficient to its own being. The absolute entity then, can have no causes that exist independently of or antecedent to itself, and so is said to be self-caused. Further, such an entity must either be or not be, and cannot make the transition from one state to the other. Thus any absolute entity that is, must have always been, and must continue to be without end.

I agree the absolute entity is self-causal, but the phrasing here is a bit awkward for me in the underlined part since it seems to show a kind of temporal cause and effect, leading to the absolute entity, even though the next sentence negates that. Also it seems to divide the entity into parts, the causes and the entity, which I doubt is the case. Maybe this is just a linguistic problem.

I have already laid out my arguments as to why the nature of reality is essential cognizant. If you require clarification on any particular point I will happily respond, but I do not wish to repeat myself.

I've looked back over the thread and I don't see where you did. I'm not disagreeing but why shouldn't the nature of reality be matter, for example?

We have an odd situation. The only real entity is dependent upon unreal entities for the maintenance of its own awareness, and yet those unreal entities are not components of the absolute, despite that the realm of being is a single continuous realm and there is only being. So, despite being interdependent and complementary, the relative aspect does not constitute a part of the absolute, for the one is real and the other is not.

It would be good to explain this a little:

a relative entity is not real, and so cannot give rise to any sort of effect; let alone a real one.

Whorly wrote:

I have given you an alternate model however where both are contingent. In my model awareness is contingent upon whatever is -out there-, and the objects of awareness are like shadows in that they are then contingent upon my contingent awareness. Since you claim your model is the only one that works you should be able to point out the error with mine. You might want to claim that there is nothing -out there-, but I would support that there is by the way my awareness/consciousness appears to be affected by external causes.

Let us set aside, for the moment, the question as to which of the two modes of existence (absolute and relative) the cognizant subject (awareness) belongs, and concentrate first upon the relationship which unites the two modes into a single realm of existence – which we have called ‘Being’ or ‘Reality’. The reason that I am stressing this relationship, let us call it the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’, is that a thorough understanding of this principle or law is essential to our understanding of the nature of that one Reality.

As I have said before, there is only one possible model whereby we can rationally unify the two modes of existence, and this model requires that there be no contradiction between the defining characteristics of either mode; the two principle characteristics being ‘independence and immutability’ for the absolute mode, and ‘dependence and mutability’ for the relative mode. Let us first deal with the complementary characteristics ‘independence’ and ‘dependence’. We know that an absolute entity cannot be related to any extrinsic causes, and so must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes; and that for this reason, it follows that whatever relationships an absolute entity might have, they must necessarily be with itself; that is to say, with its own intrinsic nature, and therefore, is dependent upon nothing else for its existence. Conversely, the relative entity, given that it possesses no intrinsic nature of it own, cannot relate to itself, but only to extrinsically; and therefore, is wholly dependent upon other things for its existence. It follows then the relative entities must necessarily exist within the intrinsic nature of the one absolute entity.

The implication of this model are fairly clear, but rather than jump to any conclusions, let us look at the complementary characteristics ‘immutability’ and ‘mutability’. An absolute entity, having a necessary and not merely contingent existence, can neither arise nor cease, nor alter its nature in any way whatsoever. Conversely, a relative entity, having a merely contingent existence, has both a beginning and an end, and undergoes continuous alteration in between; depending upon the state of its extrinsic causes. Now, the question that we must ask ourselves is this: “How can the nature of that which is singular, independent and immutable, comprise a multiplicity of interdependent and mutable elements?”; and the answer is clear: that which is absolute (real) must be akin to mind (cognizant subject), and that which is relative (not real) must be akin to ideas or thoughts (objects). In other words, the nature of reality is not substantive, as is generally believed, but cognizant.

I don't follow this part. What I see following is that you are the absolute entity yourself. Why do you presume that there are any other cognizant beings other than yourself? Are all other "people" (that you know of...) not simply objects of your awareness and thus contingent entities?

Everything has two selves or natures, the first being that which is our ‘true nature’, the cognizant nature of reality itself, which is our real origin and cause’ and the second is merely our ‘apparent nature’, that set characteristics with which we identify ourselves: our bodies, our minds, our feelings, our preferences, our functions, etc.; but these our not our true (real) selves, for these things have only a relative existence. So you see, when I say that I am that absolute entity, I mean this only so far as I mean that all relative entities are, in their true nature, that same absolute, independent and immutable entity, and that all else is nothing more than appearances.

Would you care to delve into the nature of this cognizant entity?

Jehu,

Now, the question that we must ask ourselves is this: “How can the nature of that which is singular, independent and immutable, comprise a multiplicity of interdependent and mutable elements?”;

Multiplicity is the wrong word to use. The contingent entities are simply embodied within the absolute entity. The absolute entity requires intrinsic causes.

and the answer is clear: that which is absolute (real) must be akin to mind (cognizant subject), and that which is relative (not real) must be akin to ideas or thoughts (objects).

Your answer is no better than my alternative. Either way, the absolute entity has to have contingent entities. You claim that awareness is real while I claim that it is contingent. You claim that objects of awareness are contingent, and I claim that they are doubly contingent upon awareness, which itself is contingent. Can you falsify my theory?

An interesting thing is that I believe awareness does change, and has external causes. In other words, that it is not independent and immutable. For example, if you take drugs your awareness can be decreased or increased. For example, thoughts come from outside your awareness. Can you account for these phenomena?

WW: I don't follow this part. What I see following is that you are the absolute entity yourself. Why do you presume that there are any other cognizant beings other than yourself? Are all other "people" (that you know of...) not simply objects of your awareness and thus contingent entities?

Jehu: Everything has two selves or natures, the first being that which is our ‘true nature’, the cognizant nature of reality itself, which is our real origin and cause’ and the second is merely our ‘apparent nature’, that set characteristics with which we identify ourselves: our bodies, our minds, our feelings, our preferences, our functions, etc.; but these our not our true (real) selves, for these things have only a relative existence. So you see, when I say that I am that absolute entity, I mean this only so far as I mean that all relative entities are, in their true nature, that same absolute, independent and immutable entity, and that all else is nothing more than appearances.

So you are saying the sum of all cognizant subjects' cognizance is the absolute entity, and that every relative entity is cognizant? I am curious where the boundaries between my cognizance and someone else's are and how these boundaries get created and in such a way that I am entirely oblivious to what my mother, for example, is aware of. Also why you think that there is cognizance outside your own.

You claim that awareness is real while I claim that it is contingent.

The obvious question in this case is, what noncontingency is prior to these two mutually arising, contingent modes? (awareness and objects)

Iolaus wrote:

Never mind that the absolute must be of a cognizant nature (did you prove that yet?) - how does it follow that the relative mode is imaginary? Apparently it is to avoid the necessity of having awareness and object as equals:

Given that the two modes of being are complementary, and given that the absolute mode is real, it follows that the relative mode is not real; that is to say, is merely apparent; imaginary; an illusion.

however, your conclusion does not follow that awareness has a contingent existence, if that of which it is aware resides inherently within itself, that is to say, is not real, but merely apparent.

I have never said that awareness has a contingent existence.

I agree the absolute entity is self-causal, but the phrasing here is a bit awkward for me in the underlined part since it seems to show a kind of temporal cause and effect, leading to the absolute entity, even though the next sentence negates that. Also it seems to divide the entity into parts, the causes and the entity, which I doubt is the case. Maybe this is just a linguistic problem.

No, it is not simply a linguistic problem, it is that the nature of the absolute entity is dyadic (two-fold); the two elements of which are neither wholly the same, nor wholly different; for they are both interdependent and complementary. It is akin to a Möbius Strip which globally has only one side, but locally exhibits two sides.

I've looked back over the thread and I don't see where you did. I'm not disagreeing but why shouldn't the nature of reality be matter, for example?

An essentially substantive reality would require that this substance (matter) be intrinsically real; that is to say, be ultimately comprised of a multiplicity of absolute entities; but as there is no logical way that two or more absolute entities might be capable of influencing one another, nor can such entities arise, cease or be altered in any way, it follows that the essential nature of reality cannot be substantive.

Whorly wrote:

Your answer is no better than my alternative. Either way, the absolute entity has to have contingent entities. You claim that awareness is real while I claim that it is contingent. You claim that objects of awareness are contingent, and I claim that they are doubly contingent upon awareness, which itself is contingent. Can you falsify my theory?

An interesting thing is that I believe awareness does change, and has external causes. In other words, that it is not independent and immutable. For example, if you take drugs your awareness can be decreased or increased. For example, thoughts come from outside your awareness. Can you account for these phenomena?

Alright, let us examine your model and see if it is logically tenable. By the phrase, “doubly contingent”, I take you to mean that the extrinsic causes of the objects of awareness are themselves contingent entities; and that their causes are also extrinsic. This however, would be tantamount to claiming that a shadow might itself cast another shadow, but this is not possible. A relative entity, given that it is not possessed of its own intrinsic causes, cannot be the cause of anything; for it is nothing more than a relationship between its extrinsic causes, and so is not real, but merely apparent. It is just as when we place our cursor on a menu button and it pops down; it is not the cursor that causes the menu to appear, for there is no such entity; there is only the appearance of a cursor; and so the cursor is merely the apparent cause of the menu's poping down; the true cause being conceled within the workings of the computer program.

So you are saying the sum of all cognizant subjects' cognizance is the absolute entity, and that every relative entity is cognizant? I am curious where the boundaries between my cognizance and someone else's are and how these boundaries get created and in such a way that I am entirely oblivious to what my mother, for example, is aware of. Also why you think that there is cognizance outside your own.

The cognizant nature of reality partitions itself into two interdependent and complementary elements; awareness and knowledge, the former being real (absolute) and the latter, imaginary (relative); and given that knowledge is not real, awareness is free to accumulate and manipulate that knowledge, without violating its own immutable status. Now, all relative entities, partake of that same cognizance (awareness and knowledge); albeit to varying degrees; but their cognizance is fragmented and imperfect; while the absolute entity has access to complete and perfect cognizanze.

Jehu,

Alright, let us examine your model and see if it is logically tenable. By the phrase, “doubly contingent”, I take you to mean that the extrinsic causes of the objects of awareness are themselves contingent entities; and that their causes are also extrinsic. This however, would be tantamount to claiming that a shadow might itself cast another shadow, but this is not possible. A relative entity, given that it is not possessed of its own intrinsic causes, cannot be the cause of anything; for it is nothing more than a relationship between its extrinsic causes, and so is not real, but merely apparent. It is just as when we place our cursor on a menu button and it pops down; it is not the cursor that causes the menu to appear, for there is no such entity; there is only the appearance of a cursor; and so the cursor is merely the apparent cause of the menu's poping down; the true cause being conceled within the workings of the computer program.

I want to go back to the shadow example for a second. Is the tree that casts the shadow supposed to be taken as an absolute entity or a contingent one? I wanted to call it contingent because it's existence is due to the seed, soil, light, water, nutrients, etc. Does our (my) confusion lie here?

I agree that a relative entity can only appear to cause another relative entity.

Whorly wrote:

I want to go back to the shadow example for a second. Is the tree that casts the shadow supposed to be taken as an absolute entity or a contingent one? I wanted to call it contingent because it's existence is due to the seed, soil, light, water, nutrients, etc. Does our (my) confusion lie here?

I agree that a relative entity can only appear to cause another relative entity.

As you say, the tree that cast the shadow has only a contingent existence; for it has the characteristics of a relative entity; therefore, it cannot be the true cause of the shadow.

Would you like to go into the matter of relative causality?

Jehu,

Given that the two modes of being are complementary, and given that the absolute mode is real, it follows that the relative mode is not real; that is to say, is merely apparent; imaginary; an illusion.

I find myself wondering what real means, or what illusion means. I have followed and agree with most of your layout. The logic of the necessary versus contingent being is clear. If everything that arises out of the real, self-caused being is not real, then is anything real?

Strawberry fields
nothing is real
nothing to get hung about

however, your conclusion does not follow that awareness has a contingent existence, if that of which it is aware resides inherently within itself, that is to say, is not real, but merely apparent.

I have never said that awareness has a contingent existence.

Yes, I'm aware of that. It is Whorly and David who say that. Rather, I was asking about how you conclude that the relative mode is imaginary. And I think I did also mean to ask you, if awareness is primary, what about existence itself? Does existence = awareness?

For David and Whorly I have asked the question: If awareness is contingent, then from what absolute, acausal principle does it arise?

An essentially substantive reality would require that this substance (matter) be intrinsically real; that is to say, be ultimately comprised of a multiplicity of absolute entities; but as there is no logical way that two or more absolute entities might be capable of influencing one another, nor can such entities arise, cease or be altered in any way, it follows that the essential nature of reality cannot be substantive.

Very good. No particle or subparticle, however small, can be the root cause of itself. But when you say it isn't substantive, I am guessing you mean it isn't material at all. This I cannot understand. There can't be a gap between this cognitive entity and enegey/matter or they couldn't interact.

Iolaus wrote:

I find myself wondering what real means, or what illusion means. I have followed and agree with most of your layout. The logic of the necessary versus contingent being is clear. If everything that arises out of the real, self-caused being is not real, then is anything real?

That which is real, has an absolute (independent and immutable) and not merely contingent existence, and may be characterized as indivisible. There is no ‘thing’ that is real, for all things are relative, and therefore, composites; which is evidenced by the fact that the term “thing’ has its origin in the Anglo Saxon notion of a ‘deliberative assembly’ or ‘gathering together’. Nevertheless, there is a reality, and it is that which we generally hold to be ‘nothing’; that is to say, that which we perceive as ‘empty space’, but which is actually the sphere of cognizant awareness.

Rather, I was asking about how you conclude that the relative mode is imaginary. And I think I did also mean to ask you, if awareness is primary, what about existence itself? Does existence = awareness?

Relative entities are not true entities, but merely relations, and as with all relations, are dependent upon there being a cognizant agent. The term relation, here signifies a pattern of distribution that is embodied within something else; which we call its 'essence' or 'substance'. A word, for example, comprises a unique pattern of distribution that is embodied the appropriate letters, the letters being the ‘substance’ of the word. For instance, consider the letters; ‘a’, ‘r’, ‘s’ and ‘t’. These same four letters may be used to create different words, depending upon the pattern of their distribution, for example; ‘star’, ‘tars’ or ‘rats’. Each of these words possesses exactly the same substance, but each has a distinctly different meaning. However, without that there were a cognizant agent that was aware of these letters, there would exist no entity called a word.

Awareness and existence are neither exactly the same, nor are they completely different. That is to say, that awareness and knowledge together comprise existence; but ultimately there is only awareness, for knowledge is merely an illusion.

Very good. No particle or subparticle, however small, can be the root cause of itself. But when you say it isn't substantive, I am guessing you mean it isn't material at all. This I cannot understand. There can't be a gap between this cognitive entity and enegey/matter or they couldn't interact.

There is no substance at all. Awareness and knowledge, through a non-regressive cyclic interaction which is governed by a single inviolable law, gives rise to the notion of entities (matter); but these entities are not real, they are only imaginary. Then, having observed the interaction of these imaginary entities, and having mistaken them for real (absolute) entities, there arises the further notion of an functional capacity (energy); that is to say, an ability to perform the appropriate mode of activity whereby the entities fulfil their purpose. This functional capacity or energy, is though to reside inherently within the entities themselves, as their properties, and to be the origin and cause of the entities. However, in reality, these ‘material entities’, along with their properties and activities, are nothing but illusions; their being nothing more than the play of cognizant awareness and knowledge.