Firstly, before I embark on this reply, I want to point out what I perceive as some issues in this debate. Your are failing to recognise something extremely important - these issues and the way I address them fall across multiple metaphysical, ontological epistemological viewpoints and levels of understanding. The process of getting to my paradigm is like stepping on stones to cross a river. If you have your feet on two stones that are really different paradigms, your thinking will be confused by this. Most of the time, thus far, you've been filtering my paradigm through your own, which creates a whole bunch of perceptions which are false, but which you think exist in my paradigm, per se. I'm going to point out in my reply some instances of where you're doing this and why many of your points boil down to unhelpful pedantry.
guest_of_logic wrote:Dan Rowden wrote:Do you think the reality beyond the mind I just mentioned appeared to me?
In other words, you believe that it's possible for reality to be non-existent.
Yes, of course. Do you think it is sensible to say that the Infinite exists, for example? That the Infinite has "actual being". What the hell does that even mean? One of the reasons we have the definition of "exist" that we have is to avoid dual meanings for "exist", or contradictory meanings, where one says that a finite, contingent thing exists, but then so does the infinite and non-contingent, even though they are essentially opposites. Try and understand that even the conventional definition of "exist" connotes a
dualistic state of affairs. Can you understand why that is? But Reality is not constituted of just duality, therefore "exist" is not a sufficiently useful term to speak of Reality as such. To suggest that "non-duality" exists, for example, would be entirely incoherent. If you don't see why, then there really is no hope for this discussion.
And you seem to be incapable of seeing how appalling this abuse of language is.
There are no hard and fast rules for language. You're like some fanatic who thinks "common usage" is the only thing that has meaning, even when it's so useless you can't do anything with it.
Let me put it to you bluntly: reality exists by definition.
Reality
is, by definition. Things
exist, by definition. Reality is not a thing. This is the pivotal point you need to understand - stating that Reality "exists" is actually incoherent to me. When you say "Reality", what,
precisely, do you intend by the term?
Not by your definition? Then when you use the word "exist", you're talking about something completely different to what everybody else is when they use the word:
How many people could tell you what they mean by "Reality" if you asked them? I mean, really tell you such that they could say whether "exist" is applicable to it, or whether "is" might be more appropriate? Stop this flagrant bullshit of pretending that people have a meaningful lexicon for these things! They don't. Even the dictionary doesn't, as I have emphatically demonstrated.
it is a new word, and for you to go around blithely using it as though it could be used in the same places that people ordinarily use the old word is equivocation of the worst sort.
It's not equivocation to have an actually meaningful use for a word where none appeared beforehand. Get over it. Go read the Wiki entry on "existence". The way the term "exist" is conventionally used carries almost no meaning. Certainly the dictionary version doesn't. Please find me a single dictionary where the provided meaning says anything like "to have being within or beyond mind or consciousness" - which is more or less the meaning you are employing. Whose equivocating here?
To say that "nothing exists beyond the mind" (in your terms) is to say nothing at all in conventional terms (because you admit to the possibility of reality beyond the mind, so in conventional terms, you nevertheless believe that things can exist beyond the mind) - and yet you parade it as some sort of profound truth.
Since I argue that "mind" is made up of all appearances, it's pretty hard for something to be an appearance beyond mind. "reality beyond mind" is a meaningful notion for me (because mind cannot constitute the Totality of all that is). "existent things" beyond mind", isn't.
(1) Please describe this reality beyond the mind.
It's real.
(2) How do we refer to the ontological state of this reality under your paradigm? We can't say that it "exists" - must we then say that it "is"?
Oh, no, it exists. Since I have identified it as distinct from the realm of differentiated appearances, it is itself a thing that exists. Anything that is less than the Infinite totality of all that is can appear and therefore be said to exist. So, yes, this reality exists. That's all I can say about it. Think of it, say (and yes, very crudely), as a huge empty space that lies between a tapestry of complex galaxies. It exists, because it's a differentiated appearance, but that's all that can be said about it. Or, to put it in another rather crude way - the hidden void exists, but doesn't contain existence. Is that a nose-bleed?
By "don't believe in" do you mean "don't believe in the existence" of? If not, then what do you mean?
I don't believe in
my consciousness as a discreet entity.
You didn't answer my question. I was specifically asking you about your belief in the
existence of your consciousness. So that's my first question: (3) do you believe that your consciousness exists?
My consciousness exists if it appears - surely by now you knew you'd get that answer? In the greater tapestry of what appears, "my consciousness" might also appear, in which case it exists. But, it will be a non-inherent appearance like all other things. To be able to see the world this way, you'll have to learn to stop looking out from behind what you believe to be "your" eyes.
Since you make a point of emphasising that you don't believe in your consciousness, then kindly answer my second question: (4) do you believe that consciousness exists at all?
Hmm, do you mean consciousness or consciousness? There's two ways of thinking about this: 1) consciousness as the totality of all appearances (the equivalent of existence), wherein when I think about all that appears I can't help but include all things, even the appearance of "me" and my own mind in the greater tapestry of appearances, which includes any appearances of a source for consciousness (you must think outside the subjective/objective dichotomy to grasp this view); 2) and consciousness as
specifically identified forms relating to certain other forms (i.e. the conventional notion of consciousness arising from a person or sentient being). Obviously in the latter sense these forms exist, under either of our paradigms. In the former sense, your question would be the equivalent of asking, "Does existence, exist?" Do you think that's a coherent question? I ask because even in your worldview the question arises.
I don't believe in myself as a discreet entity. You have to keep this part of my view in mind in these dealings.
Is the "as a discreet entity" part relevant? What if we remove it - (5) would you still agree with the statement "I don't believe in myself"? (6) How about "I don't believe in my own existence"?
You have to include it as I used it to indicate the usual "inherent" idea. I don't think we need go over this sort of ground that much. You obviously know I don't believe that I exist in the conventional sense, having any inherent reality or there being some "source" from which my identity (or consciousness) arises. The "appearance" of a me, and of a consciousness associated with that me, certainly exists. As has been said, if it appears, it exists. It's secondary nature in the sense of its attributes and qualities etc, is a secondary consideration.
There is no me, or them, or anything else as objectively real entities.
(7) Does "objectively real" mean "beyond the mind"?
Yes, it means that
in the conventional sense; a thing has "being" even where no mind is involved. Or, if you like, it is not just a product of one's mind.
In your own thinking you instinctively begin from the position that consciousness arises out of an objectively real "you" and has some relationship to an external reality.
I wouldn't put it quite like that, but you're close. I wouldn't say that consciousness "arises" out of "me" (which implies that I and my consciousness are separate identities), but rather that my consciousness
is (at least a significant part of) my primary identity. In a sense I am my consciousness. That statement's not totally accurate, but pretty close to what I understand.
Ok, then we need to get this sorted. Would it be closer to say your consciousness is an emergent property of the bag of blood, bones and shit that is your physical self?
I don't come from that paradigm. There is no subjective/objective duality for me.
And yet you believe that there is a reality (objective) beyond the conscious mind (subjective): hence a duality and you're contradicting yourself.
Wow, talk about the most perfect example of you projecting your concepts and paradigm onto my words. This is it. Let's break it down, yo:
And yet you believe that there is a reality (objective) beyond
That's your paradigm speaking there, not mine. I didn't call the reality beyond the mind "objective". That would be stupid. In fact, it's stupid in and of itself. "Objective" is a judgement, label, distinction that arises within the mind.
the conscious mind (subjective): hence a duality and you're contradicting yourself.
Given what I just explained, this would make things subjective and objective at the same time. Can you see how that doesn't work? I'm pretty sure I suggested you think that the subjective/objective dichotomy. I'm pretty sure you didn't.
There are only appearances. Appearances are consciousness. Appearances are existence. Existence is consciousness. Consciousness does not arise and create or co-create existence. It is existence. How's your head so far? Still there? Blow your nose, see if blood comes out :)
Dan, I appreciate you trying to share with me something that you seem to think is sublime, but it doesn't make sense even under your redefinitions. You write above that "Appearances are consciousness" (a statement of shared identity) and yet at the same time you guys use phrases like "appearances within consciousness" (a statement of incompatible identity), which is contradictory.
No, there's no contradiction there. "appearances are consciousness" means that the set of all appearances is consciousness (or existence, or, if you like, existence and consciousness are made up of appearances). Appearances within consciousness refers to specific things that appear within the set. But, there's a step between the objective/subjective duality, where most people reside, and the one beyond it where the use of this phrase can get blurred. It depends where they are at as to what you tell them it refers to. It isn't necessary to invent a whole new language, as you keep arguing, it just requires intelligence. Nothing more.
Also, when you write that "It [consciousness] is existence", this is not saying much, because you have already admitted that you believe in a reality beyond the mind which in your terms is not part of "existence" (but which in conventional terms exists), so whilst it might seem like you're saying "Consciousness is all that there is" (which would be a pretty sublime thing to say), you're really not, and your statement reduces instead to something completely banal like: "Consciousness is a part of reality", which we all know already anyway.
Are you serious? Are you saying that the observation that consciousness is equivalent to existence is a banal one saying nothing that everyone doesn't already know? Man, are taking the piss?
See, there's the equivocation in action again: it seems on the surface that you're saying one thing, and I gather that you are saying it to generate that effect (based on your final sentence, you seem to think that what you're saying is profound), and yet you're really saying something completely different and far less significant. Are you starting to understand now how you guys equivocate?
Now I'm the one with a nose bleed.
