GENIUS FORUMS

Jehu,

Omniscient, aware, and with perfect knowledge as necessary to create this universe, which I think requires intelligence, nor do I believe in an unplanned and random physical evolution of life without any mind or knowledge to direct it. Yet you say that there is no consciousness apart from sentient beings. I don't see how this all adds up.
+++
When in a dream state, is the dreaming mind conscious of the fact that it has created a dream world? When you awaken from a dream, do you have any memory of having created or manipulated the vast array of interrelated objects which appear to inhabited your dream world? Do you remember having caused your dream body to move whenever you dream-persona seemingly intended it to do so, or of making an object fall to the floor because your dream-persona let go of it? And yet, it is clear that your mind accomplished all of this and more; a feat which it could not have done were it completely unaware of the goings on in your dream; or if it did not know precisely how each thing was supposed to react in response to the other things in its environment. So you see, awareness and consciousness are not one and the same, although they are related, for awareness is that which makes consciousness possible.

I am not sure your answer relates. You see, my dream mind does make these things up, and my dream persona then thinks it is in the waking world, but that is because there is a waking world with its experiences for the mind to dream about. In the case of the Absolute, or Being, which you have said is omniscient, there should be something 'real' for it to dream about as well. You seem to imply that this universe is created out of the dreaming mind of Being, without any conscious intent. I find that unlikely, in light of the mathematical precision and complex information such as the DNA code. Of course, I consider it entirely likely that the DNA code was not created by the Absolute being, but by great intelligences of some sort. So my objection here is that if this universe is a dream, then what is the inspiration for this dream, and two, are you saying that there is no awareness of creating?

What we are aspiring to is not a window into the Absolute,

But I didn't say a window into, which implies vision, but a window 'of' by which I meant that we become empty vessels so to speak, empty of ego and baggage I suppose. It looks like I had in mind something like what you describe, a purified conduit.

The cessation of the ego-personality does not mean that one loses the will to live, or that one no longer takes care of the body,

Which is why I object to the doctrine of no self.

but only that one surrenders to the will of the Absolute,

What will? To have a will is to have consciousness.
How do we speak of surrending to the will of the absolute and then say that there is no Other?

Ioluas wrote:I am not sure your answer relates. You see, my dream mind does make these things up, and my dream persona then thinks it is in the waking world, but that is because there is a waking world with its experiences for the mind to dream about. In the case of the Absolute, or Being, which you have said is omniscient, there should be something 'real' for it to dream about as well.

Given that the absolute (subjective awareness) and the relative (objective/subjective knowledge) are complementary, and as it is the relative (apparent) that is perceptible, it follows that the absolute (real) cannot be perceptible – for complements are necessarily mutually exclusive. For this reason, it follows that anything that the Absolute is able to imagine (dream about) cannot be real, for imagining is a form of perception.

You seem to imply that this universe is created out of the dreaming mind of Being, without any conscious intent. I find that unlikely, in light of the mathematical precision and complex information such as the DNA code. Of course, I consider it entirely likely that the DNA code was not created by the Absolute being, but by great intelligences of some sort. So my objection here is that if this universe is a dream, then what is the inspiration for this dream, and two, are you saying that there is no awareness of creating?

Creation (becoming) is the very essence of Being, and so there is no need of additional inspiration – ‘inspiration’ being simply another word for reason or cause. Being requires no purpose beyond simply being; for being is ‘what it is’ (its essence), and being is ‘what it does’ (its function). However, when I say that Being is not conscious of its creation, I mean this only with respect to its absolute aspect, for we sentient beings are conscious of its creation, and since our awareness and its are not two separate awareness, but one and the same, we may rightful say that in this sense, Being is aware of its own creative activity. But it must be remembered that consciousness is a thing, and so it has only a relative existence, and is not real. In fact, if consciousness were real (immutable), then one could never be unconscious, and so would necessarily remember everything that has happened, even when in a deep sleep, or in a coma.

The cessation of the ego-personality does not mean that one loses the will to live, or that one no longer takes care of the body,

Which is why I object to the doctrine of no self.

If it is the Buddhist ‘doctrine of emptiness’ to which you refer, then I must tell you that it is not taught that there is ‘no self’, but that there is ‘no self-inhering self’, which is not the same. It truth, saying that things have ‘no self-inhering self’ is merely another way of saying that things are not possessed of their own intrinsic causes, or that they partake of only a relative existence, and so are not real.

Jehu,

Given that the absolute (subjective awareness) and the relative (objective/subjective knowledge) are complementary, and as it is the relative (apparent) that is perceptible, it follows that the absolute (real) cannot be perceptible – for complements are necessarily mutually exclusive. For this reason, it follows that anything that the Absolute is able to imagine (dream about) cannot be real, for imagining is a form of perception.

Alright, but I think we are caught again between the abstract understanding that things are not real, versus what I really meant, which is 'actual.' You used the dream analogy to show that this dream world is also not real, in the same way as my dreams are imaginary. But I have an actual waking life about which I imagine. And my question is, in this analogy, what is the 'actual' upon which the dream is based?

However, when I say that Being is not conscious of its creation, I mean this only with respect to its absolute aspect, for we sentient beings are conscious of its creation, and since our awareness and its are not two separate awareness, but one and the same, we may rightful say that in this sense, Being is aware of its own creative activity.

But this leaves me with the question of what you might mean by an omniscient mind, or a will of the absolute, or how, without very intelligent agents like us, did things evolve. I could agree that creation and becoming are the essence of being, (although it is interesting that those are things you would consider 'not real') but I do not believe in a Darwinian type of evolution. It's just not possible. So where was the intelligence and knowledge in this process? I do myself think it is embedded somehow; I do not think in terms of a separate God on high.

But it must be remembered that consciousness is a thing, and so it has only a relative existence, and is not real. In fact, if consciousness were real (immutable), then one could never be unconscious, and so would necessarily remember everything that has happened, even when in a deep sleep, or in a coma.

But we have the conscious and subconscious minds, which are a whole, for some reason divided in our awareness, but I don't think it has to be that way. It may be, therefore, that nothing is lost from consciousness, if we include the subconscious aspect of mind.

If it is the Buddhist ‘doctrine of emptiness’ to which you refer, then I must tell you that it is not taught that there is ‘no self’, but that there is ‘no self-inhering self’, which is not the same. It truth, saying that things have ‘no self-inhering self’ is merely another way of saying that things are not possessed of their own intrinsic causes, or that they partake of only a relative existence, and so are not real.

I am not sure how it relates to emptiness. I have seen this phrase, 'no-self' pretty much everywhere. All sorts of writers and claimers of enlightenment use it. It seems to refer to a new state of perception following an enlightenment breakthrough, in which the self or ego is no more. Now, I can understand this to an extent, and surely I think ego can be almost unraveled, but an ego is still just a sense of being an entity, answering to a name, and if embodied, generally experiencing things physically via the senses of that body. The main purpose of the ego, after all, is to watch out for the safety and continuation of a body. So, to say that one lacks a self has really irritated me for some time. Yet, I can certainly agree that the self is not real in the same way as the absolute is real.

Perhaps that isn't quite right either. The self in one way obviously lacks intrinsic causation, but I tend to envision the ego (emptied of the nonsense and crap) as a kind of spiritual membrane - loosely containing an "I". But this I is after all just a piece of contained awareness which is real and of the absolute. Since the awareness inside this ego membrane is the same one which you say is not divided from the one and only awareness, then we can say it is real or contains that which is real.

And, if such awarenesses can, despite the membrane, nonetheless communicate with other awarenesses in an overlapping way, then they can directly experience that they are not truly separate. By overlapping, I am referring to things like ESP, remote viewing, or even experiencing something that is happening to a different ego membrane than oneself. Or the sensation, mutual, of a merging of ego membranes.

The illness of the atheist or the doubter of anything metaphysical or mystical, is that they have not experienced such things.

J:

But it must be remembered that consciousness is a thing, and so it has only a relative existence, and is not real.

Consciousness is Creator of the cosmos (all 'things') but ItSelf is not a 'thing' but rather the omni-Present Creator of all things.

So, again, i must presume that your " it must be remembered" refers only to your own repetition of the assertion in this indoctrination thread... Truth according to Jehu.

If you will read my latest thread (big "if"... you seem insulated from all true dialogue) you may get a hint that consciousness is not a relative "thing" but the absolute Identity Who IS the "Fundamental Being" in Whom we are all One.

BTW, how is it that "things" (in the manifest, relative sense) are not "real" just because they are temporary? They are born/manifest as individual forms, sustained for the "lifetime" of the form (star, galaxy, human) and then die or disintegrate via natural law.

What is so unreal about nature/cosmos just because it (we) all have a 'life cycle.' It's very real while it lasts. (You can deny mikiel as an in-corporated entity... and this guy will die, but it's ("my") relative reality NOW (oopse... lost you there!) can not be denied.
(Well, you can deny my reality as a manifest, temporary individual... but my PRESENT life is very real, relatively speaking, notwithstanding your denial of my reality on the grounds that my form is not eternal.)
It's late.
Good night. I wish you well in your contemplation of "Reality" as it applies to both CONSCIOUSNESS (the absolute and eternal... not a 'thing') and the reality of manifest creation as an eternally changing Reality.

Ioluas wrote:Alright, but I think we are caught again between the abstract understanding that things are not real, versus what I really meant, which is 'actual.' You used the dream analogy to show that this dream world is also not real, in the same way as my dreams are imaginary. But I have an actual waking life about which I imagine. And my question is, in this analogy, what is the 'actual' upon which the dream is based?

Yes, I see what you are saying, you want to know what it is that provides a form for that which is manifested in the objective world. This is by far the most subtle and difficult part of the doctrine. We must turn now to the matter of that which, although it is ‘not a thing’ (nothingness), is nevertheless, not only existent, but real. This absolute, independent and immutable aspect of Being is that which to the sentient being has the appearance of ‘space’, and although it is believed to be completely empty, is actually filled to the brim with ‘potential’. What do I mean by ‘potential’? I mean ‘possibility’; that is to say, that things are made manifest because it is possible for them to be, but is not possible for everything to be manifested – at least not in ‘actuality’.

Consider the case of the ‘law of addition’, according to this law, any number may be added to any other number, and thereby give rise to a third number (sum) – which is different from the original two (addends). According to such a law as this, all numbers are possible, and so we say that it gives rise to infinite possibilities. Nevertheless, we cannot say that there exists an infinite number of numbers, even if the numbers are mere possibilities; we can only say that the possibilities are, theoretically at least, without end (unfinished). Another law, such as Einstein’s “ E=mC2”, limits the possible combinations of relationships between energy and mass by a single constant – the speed of light squared. Such a law as this has a finite set of manifestations.

Now, as the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity (PIC) is that inviolable law which governs the manifestation of all things, and given that the PIC limits those things (constitutive causes) which may be amalgamated so as to form new things, it follows that not all things are possible – at least not in actuality. Consequently, there is a finite number of things which it is possible for the PIC to actualize, and these things, or rather these potential things, partake of an absolute, independent and immutable existence. Why do I say that these potentialities are real? Because they inhere intrinsically within the PIC, which is itself real (absolute).

Jehu,

Well, that was interesting. Now, you seem to be saying that the actual things, i.e., the manifest universe is a dream and not real -
" For this reason, it follows that anything that the Absolute is able to imagine (dream about) cannot be real, for imagining is a form of perception."

but that the field of potential things is real:

Consequently, there is a finite number of things which it is possible for the PIC to actualize, and these things, or rather these potential things, partake of an absolute, independent and immutable existence. Why do I say that these potentialities are real? Because they inhere intrinsically within the PIC, which is itself real (absolute).

Which means that the nonmanifest is real, and the manifest is not.

But also, you know, there are those like me who do not believe in emptiness or vacuum, nor did the ancients. The ancients believed in a field of potential, called the aether. It does appear like space, yes, but it isn't empty and it took modern science to decide that it was. Yet there are those who make good, scientific arguments against this mainstream idea, and it may be on the way out.

I'm sure you had a reason for not replying to my querries about the will of the absolute.

Now Mikiel, I feel it is rude not to answer, but you have no doubt gone till next weekend. I think your consciousness is more akin to Jehu's Awareness.

Jehu wrote:Nevertheless, we cannot say that there exists an infinite number of numbers, even if the numbers are mere possibilities; we can only say that the possibilities are, theoretically at least, without end (unfinished).

Just eavesdropping, but we can say there exists an infinite number of numbers.

Ioluas wrote:But this leaves me with the question of what you might mean by an omniscient mind, or a will of the absolute, or how, without very intelligent agents like us, did things evolve. I could agree that creation and becoming are the essence of being, (although it is interesting that those are things you would consider 'not real') but I do not believe in a Darwinian type of evolution. It's just not possible. So where was the intelligence and knowledge in this process? I do myself think it is embedded somehow; I do not think in terms of a separate God on high.

It is difficult to speak of the ‘will’ of the Absolute, without that we naturally interpret it to be akin to our own will. When a sentient being speaks of will, it generally means that they have some need or want that they wish to satisfy, and so their intention turns toward the fulfilment of that goal. The Absolute, on the other hand, has no goal – for it is complete and perfect in-and-of-itself. Nevertheless, everything that it manifests has a function, and therefore, a purpose – a function being the “appropriate mode of activity whereby a thing fulfils its purpose”. Thus in this sense, we may say that the Absolute has intention, but unlike the sentient being, it does not have a preference. This is what Master Lao meant when he said “the Tao is neither humane nor inhumane, for to it the Ten Thousand Things are straw dogs.”

Ioluas wrote:Well, that was interesting. Now, you seem to be saying that the actual things, i.e., the manifest universe is a dream and not real, but that the field of potential things is real. Which means that the non-manifest is real, and the manifest is not.

Yes, the objective world is akin to a dream, and I have maintained from the very beginning that all things (actual and imaginary) partake of only a relative existence, and are not real. Their identities (forms), on the other hand, are real, but although they give rise to things, they are not themselves things, for theirs is an undifferentiated existence within the PIC; that is to say, they do not partake of an existence which is distinct from other forms – just as the various possible solutions to a mathematical formula do not have a distinct existence within the formula - but only when they are made manifest.

Ioluas wrote:But also, you know, there are those like me who do not believe in emptiness or vacuum, nor did the ancients. The ancients believed in a field of potential, called the aether. It does appear like space, yes, but it isn't empty and it took modern science to decide that it was. Yet there are those who make good, scientific arguments against this mainstream idea, and it may be on the way out.

Clearly, modern scientists (and some ancients) do not fully understand the nature of space, but we must not try to make space into some sort of ‘thing’, for it is not a thing; but neither is it non-existent. The notion of an Aether was developed principally as a means of explaining how things (e.g., light) might be able to propagate through empty space, but such a concept is not necessary once it is understood that there is nothing that really moves through space. For example, is that space wherein your dreams appear to take place also occupied by an aether? Does this explain how light is able to propagate in the dream world? Clearly not, for we know that the dream world is illusory, and so there is no need to explain how things move about – for motion itself is an illusion.

brokenhead wrote:Just eavesdropping, but we can say there exists an infinite number of numbers.

The notion that there can be an infinite number of numbers is simply not logically tenable, for to be infinite is to be ‘unfinished’, and anything which is (exists), is necessarily finished; for in order for a thing to exist, its causes must also exist, and a thing’s causes are that which is ‘necessary and sufficient’ to the thing’s being what it is. That a thing is necessarily complete (finished) is also reflected in the ‘law of excluded middle’, which state that a thing must either be or not be – there being no intermediate alternative. Therefore, while a process may be infinite, a thing, such as a number, cannot.

Jehu wrote:Therefore, while a process may be infinite, a thing, such as a number, cannot.

So if I ask "How many (natural) numbers are there?" it is logical and correct to answer: "Infinitely many."

But if I ask "What number of numbers are there?" It is not logical, although it would be equally "correct," to answer: "An infinity of them."

What is the purpose of such a distinction?

brockenhead wrote:So if I ask "How many (natural) numbers are there?" it is logical and correct to answer: "Infinitely many."

But if I ask "What number of numbers are there?" It is not logical, although it would be equally "correct," to answer: "An infinity of them."

Again, the term ‘infinite’ means that which is without end (incomplete), and so does not denote a number – no matter how great. The proper answer to either of these questions would be ‘there is no end to the possibility of imagining additional natural numbers’, or simply, ‘the possibilities are infinite’. You see, numbers, natural or otherwise, do not partake of a distinct existence until we sentient beings either perceive or imagine them to be - but exist only as undifferentiated possibilities.

Iolaus wrote:Now Mikiel, I feel it is rude not to answer, but you have no doubt gone till next weekend. I think your consciousness is more akin to Jehu's Awareness.

No doubt I started the rudeness confronting Jehu.
But he is flat wrong about the ongoing reality of NOW and so will not address my posts of clarification above.

I use the word consciousness in a way consistent with enlightened mystics of all major Traditions and the scientific field of study called Consciousness Studies.

Jehu has a personal doctrine of metaphysics all his own with no relevance to either universal mystic realization or science.

Jehu wrote:

brockenhead wrote:So if I ask "How many (natural) numbers are there?" it is logical and correct to answer: "Infinitely many."

But if I ask "What number of numbers are there?" It is not logical, although it would be equally "correct," to answer: "An infinity of them."

Again, the term ‘infinite’ means that which is without end (incomplete), and so does not denote a number – no matter how great. The proper answer to either of these questions would be ‘there is no end to the possibility of imagining additional natural numbers’, or simply, ‘the possibilities are infinite’. You see, numbers, natural or otherwise, do not partake of a distinct existence until we sentient beings either perceive or imagine them to be - but exist only as undifferentiated possibilities.

Yet it is this very line of reasoning that set theory addresses.

Take these two questions: 1) How many natural numbers are there? 2) How many real numbers are there? Assume the definitions of "natural" and "real" are the standard mathematical notions.

You are saying that the answer to both must be the same, or rather, that what is acceptable for one is automatically acceptable for the other. For example, let's answer both with the reply you suggest above: "The possibilities are infinite."

That is, in both cases, there exists an infinity of possibilities. What set theory does is assign a cardinality or size to the infinity of real numbers and to that of the natural numbers. Thus the possibilities, while infinite, are not undifferentiated, as there are more real numbers than natural numbers. Even if we have not brought these two numbers, the number of reals and the number of naturals, into reality as such, we can infer that they are not identical and that one is indeed larger than the other.

brockenhead wrote:What set theory does is assign a cardinality or size to the infinity of real numbers and to that of the natural numbers. Thus the possibilities, while infinite, are not undifferentiated, as there are more real numbers than natural numbers. Even if we have not brought these two numbers, the number of reals and the number of naturals, into reality as such, we can infer that they are not identical and that one is indeed larger than the other.

Yes, I am well aware of this, but mathematicians are not necessarily logisticians, and from a logical standpoint it simply does not hold; for if two sets of possibilities are entirely without limit, then there is no basis upon which to compare the two – quantitatively. Consequently, there is no basis upon which to assert that there are a greater number of one than of the other.

Consider the case of the potential numbers that lie between the numbers one and two on a number line. Mathematicians will tell you that this segment of the number line is infinitely divisible, but this does not mean that there actually exists an infinite number of intermediary numbers, but merely that our ability to devise ever smaller numbers is theoretically unlimited. Thus it is a process (division) that is infinite, and not a thing (number).

Jehu wrote:Yes, I am well aware of this, but mathematicians are not necessarily logisticians, and from a logical standpoint it simply does not hold; for if two sets of possibilities are entirely without limit, then there is no basis upon which to compare the two – quantitatively. Consequently, there is no basis upon which to assert that there are a greater number of one than of the other.

Mathematics is nothing but logic. Therefore, mathematicians are people whose work consists of exploring symbolic logic. They are logicians, although they obviously may not be philosophers. The logical basis for comparing the two resides in set theory. The set of all real numbers is larger than the set of all natural numbers. It is not necessary to actually carry out the counting process. The set itself becomes the "thing."

brockenhead wrote:Mathematics is nothing but logic. Therefore, mathematicians are people whose work consists of exploring symbolic logic. They are logicians, although they obviously may not be philosophers. The logical basis for comparing the two resides in set theory. The set of all real numbers is larger than the set of all natural numbers. It is not necessary to actually carry out the counting process. The set itself becomes the "thing."

Mathematics is a science, and as such, it takes certain axioms to be its founding principles; however, these principles have not necessarily been demonstrated logically. The notion of a mathematical set implies that there is a collection of 'distinct entities', either individually specified or satisfying specified conditions, forming a ‘unit’. Now, for all finite collections there is no logical inconsistency here, but when dealing with the infinite there is a clear violation of the law of contradiction. The problem is as this: an infinity cannot be treated as a unit for it is by definition unfinished or incomplete; while a unit is by definition finished or complete. Further, as I have already said, only such numbers as have already been either perceived or imagined can be said to partake of a distinct existence, while the ‘remainder’ (if I can rightfully use the term) are as yet undifferentiated.

Any infinite set is immeasurable and so equal to any other infinite set, for all intents and purposes. No comparison is possible.

Jehu,

Ioluas wrote:Well, that was interesting. Now, you seem to be saying that the actual things, i.e., the manifest universe is a dream and not real, but that the field of potential things is real. Which means that the non-manifest is real, and the manifest is not.

Yes, the objective world is akin to a dream, and I have maintained from the very beginning that all things (actual and imaginary) partake of only a relative existence, and are not real. Their identities (forms), on the other hand, are real, but although they give rise to things, they are not themselves things, for theirs is an undifferentiated existence within the PIC; that is to say, they do not partake of an existence which is distinct from other forms – just as the various possible solutions to a mathematical formula do not have a distinct existence within the formula - but only when they are made manifest.

Are you saying that the form of a thing is not manifest? My form is real but isn't actual? Is this Platonism?

Clearly, modern scientists (and some ancients) do not fully understand the nature of space, but we must not try to make space into some sort of ‘thing’, for it is not a thing; but neither is it non-existent.

Space is not a thing, but neither is it empty.

The notion of an Aether was developed principally as a means of explaining how things (e.g., light) might be able to propagate through empty space,

No, that is much more recent and tied to modern physics. The Aether idea is ancient. And, is being revived now, but not the sort of ether that the Michelson-Morley experiment supposedly put to rest.

but such a concept is not necessary once it is understood that there is nothing that really moves through space. For example, is that space wherein your dreams appear to take place also occupied by an aether? Does this explain how light is able to propagate in the dream world? Clearly not, for we know that the dream world is illusory, and so there is no need to explain how things move about – for motion itself is an illusion.

Here again, I am not sure the dream analogy works. I don't know if I can accept that nothing moves.

Mikiel,

But he is flat wrong about the ongoing reality of NOW and so will not address my posts of clarification above.

It is indeed unclear to me that he truly disagrees with it as you recently expressed it.

I use the word consciousness in a way consistent with enlightened mystics of all major Traditions and the scientific field of study called Consciousness Studies.

I am merely pointing out that definitions often get in the way, and that he uses consciousness as a description of the way a sentient being works with their brain/mind, as opposed to the awareness of the unbounded, infinite absolute.

Jehu has a personal doctrine of metaphysics all his own with no relevance to either universal mystic realization or science.

Well, I don't know about that. Jehu, how have you put together your philosophy, is it all your own?

Ioluas wrote: Are you saying that the form of a thing is not manifest? My form is real but isn't actual? Is this Platonism?

The manifestation of a thing necessarily entails two interdependent and complementary aspects, a form and an essence. If this ‘manifest form’ were real, then it would be absolute, independent and immutable, and so would be incapable of alteration or cessation. Clearly this is not the case, for as a thing ages its form changes, and especially as the thing decays. Nevertheless, there is transcendent form which is real, and does not change, but this form does not partake of a differentiated existence, but rather abides intrinsically within the PIC – as a potential. This ‘transcendent form’ (universal) is the mould for all manifestations of a given class or sort, and is the factor which governs which elements will amalgamate, and which will not. Water, for example, is such a universal, and its is because a water molecule is 'possible', that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are able to bond together, and in so doing, give rise to new apparent properties and activities.

Ioluas wrote:Space is not a thing, but neither is it empty.

Space is empty only in the sense that it is devoid of any ‘thing’, nevertheless, it is the repository of all potential things, and the ground of all manifestations.

Ioluas wrote: Here again, I am not sure the dream analogy works. I don't know if I can accept that nothing moves.

Given that all things partake of only a relative existence, and are only apparent (not real), it follows that any motion that appears to take place between things is necessary not real. Consider the case of the cursor as it moves around your computer screen, is there any actual motion, or is it only an illusion? Clearly, it is an illusion, for there is no such entity as a cursor, there is only a logical progression of static images which the mind imbues with the status of an entity, and then imagines to be moving. It is like the story of the Zen Master who having come upon two monks who were arguing as to whether it was the wind or the flag that was moving, and the Master informs them that it is neither the wind nor the flag, but their minds that were moving.

Ioluas wrote: Well, I don't know about that. Jehu, how have you put together your philosophy, is it all your own?

As I have said before, there is nothing here that is of my making; and once the doctrine is sufficiently understood, one can verify the truth of this for one’s self.

Iolaus wrote:Mikiel,

But he is flat wrong about the ongoing reality of NOW and so will not address my posts of clarification above.

It is indeed unclear to me that he truly disagrees with it as you recently expressed it.

I use the word consciousness in a way consistent with enlightened mystics of all major Traditions and the scientific field of study called Consciousness Studies.

I am merely pointing out that definitions often get in the way, and that he uses consciousness as a description of the way a sentient being works with their brain/mind, as opposed to the awareness of the unbounded, infinite absolute.

Jehu has a personal doctrine of metaphysics all his own with no relevance to either universal mystic realization or science.

Well, I don't know about that. Jehu, how have you put together your philosophy, is it all your own?

Iolaus,
Re: "It is indeed unclear to me that he truly disagrees with it as you recently expressed it."...
Let me refresh your memory:
J:

"Logically, however, the concepts of past, present and future are completely untenable, for neither the past nor the future exist now, and in the instant that separates the two, there is no time for a present to exist either."

m:

True, past is no longer real and present, and future is not yet real and present. That leaves us with the ongoing Present, not chopped up into little moments of '"time" but the perpetual NOW... always Present... whereas "time" is merely the concept of event duration, acording to whatever "period of time" an observer selects out of the ongoing NOW, for whatever reason... like to designate a nano-second or a millenium.

Iolaus: "Well, in that case, what do you make of ideas like the 'eternal now'?"
Jehu:
"I’m not certain that I can even imagine such a state. Can you?"

As to The One as "Not Two":

Jehu:

"From the perspective of the absolute there is no time, for there is no change. Being, which is the only true entity, does not abide within the fields of time or space, and so we cannot rightfully say that it has either a shape or a duration. Neither can we say that it is big or small, for this would imply that there is a greater sphere wherein Being abides. Time, belongs exclusively to the realm of the relative being (apparent entities), and as I said before, is nothing more than an illusion brought about because the relative world unfolds in accordance with an underlying law."

m:

"So, tho your signature is "not two" (non-dual) you deny the reality of manifest cosmos (which is always changing) and affirm the ideal of a frozen, static absolute reality.
I know that consciousness is eternally unchanging and transcendental. I also know that cosmos is an objectively real "creation" (if you will) of this Creator...
"Not two" is the affirmation of the reality of transcendental consciousness... the Absolute, and the manifest creation/cosmos...
both "real."
The One ('not two') is this Being with two aspects, unchanging absolute cosmic awareness (omnipresent) *and* the manifest cosmos... "It's body"...
Much the same on smaller scale with us humans. We are local manifestations of this One Consciousness. Our bodies die. Consciousness... the One Identity is eternally changeless.

So to what does your "not two" refer? One static absolute without the aspect of a real manifest creation?
Your denial of the reality of the cosmos labels you as delusional.
Is your physical body "real" even tho it is unquestionably temporary?
No? You deny the reality of physical existence altogether?
What is this absolute without a manifest body... cosmos?

Btw, I challenge you to respond intelligently to my reply to you above on time and the ongoing, unsegmented now.

Next post:
Jehu:
"I do not wish to be a stickler, but Mikel’s present lies firmly within the field of time",...
m:

"You totally misunderstand my usage of "the ongoing (perpetual, eternal) present.
Now is *not a very small span of time.* There is *no time* between past and future. Time is indeed merely the human observation/measurement/designation of "event duration", the common sense designation of segements of time, as I said, from a nano-second to a mellenium, etc. Now IS ALWAYS PRESENT... same present everywhere from cosmic perspective... the absolute omnipresent NOW transcending all relative, local perspectives and "designated events."

You jump easily to erroneous conclusions in areas about which you are ignorant... Like the Eternal NOW.

Again, you say:
(J:)
" Consequently, there is no span of time, no matter how minute, wherein such entities persist, and so when Mikiel refers to the present (NOW), the present of which he speaks has already past."

m(resuming):
I am not speaking of the present as a "span of time, no matter how minute..."
It IS an unsegmented constant undivided "flow" transcending the concept of event duration or "spans of time."

Your mind automatically creates these "spans of time" negating the True Present as an ever ongoing reality. Therefore your mind traps you in a misconception that there can be no True Now as ongong Reality.
I suggest you contemplate the above and get over it.

Jehu,

Clearly this is not the case, for as a thing ages its form changes, and especially as the thing decays. Nevertheless, there is transcendent form which is real, and does not change, but this form does not partake of a differentiated existence, but rather abides intrinsically within the PIC – as a potential. This ‘transcendent form’ (universal) is the mould for all manifestations of a given class or sort, and is the factor which governs which elements will amalgamate, and which will not.

How is it when I asked you if this was a Platonic idea you didn't answer? Do you see the implications here for evolution theory? This fits in very well with a thinker in the field such as Michael Denton, who doubts simple Darwinian mechanisms.

Space is empty only in the sense that it is devoid of any ‘thing’, nevertheless, it is the repository of all potential things, and the ground of all manifestations.

But there may not be any emptiness, no place in which there is 'no thing.'

Given that all things partake of only a relative existence, and are only apparent (not real), it follows that any motion that appears to take place between things is necessary not real.

But it is actual. So the movements of things are actual.

Consider the case of the cursor as it moves around your computer screen, is there any actual motion, or is it only an illusion? Clearly, it is an illusion, for there is no such entity as a cursor, there is only a logical progression of static images which the mind imbues with the status of an entity, and then imagines to be moving.

I can't consider this because I do not understand the technology. I don't think the movement of the cursor is an illusion, but I don't know how it works.

It is like the story of the Zen Master who having come upon two monks who were arguing as to whether it was the wind or the flag that was moving, and the Master informs them that it is neither the wind nor the flag, but their minds that were moving.

If two minds both see the movement, I have to assume that something objective has happened.

As I have said before, there is nothing here that is of my making; and once the doctrine is sufficiently understood, one can verify the truth of this for one’s self.

Yes, but how have you put all this together? You've studied several philosophies?

Ioluas wrote:How is it when I asked you if this was a Platonic idea you didn't answer? Do you see the implications here for evolution theory? This fits in very well with a thinker in the field such as Michael Denton, who doubts simple Darwinian mechanisms.

I am not terribly concerned with the theory of evolution, for as I have said, things have only a relative existence, and so are not real. For this reason, I understand that things do not have their true origin or causes in other things, that is to say, in their ‘constitutive causes’ – although this is certainly how it appears, but in that one true entity which is the operative causes of all things.

Now, as to whether or not the doctrine which I have put forward here is in accordance with Plato’s own doctrine, I cannot say for certain, however, I can say that I have read nothing in his work that would lead me to believe that he would find fault with it.

Ioluas wrote:But there may not be any emptiness, no place in which there is 'no thing.'

There must necessarily be an emptiness (nothingness), for all things being relative, there must then be that which is absolute, and that which is absolute, being the complement of the relative, cannot be a thing.

Ioluas wrote:But it is actual. So the movements of things are actual.

Some movements are actual, and some are only imaginary, but none are real.

Ioluas wrote:

Jehu wrote:Consider the case of the cursor as it moves around your computer screen, is there any actual motion, or is it only an illusion? Clearly, it is an illusion, for there is no such entity as a cursor, there is only a logical progression of static images which the mind imbues with the status of an entity, and then imagines to be moving.

I can't consider this because I do not understand the technology. I don't think the movement of the cursor is an illusion, but I don't know how it works.

Let me employ a simpler analogy. Imagine that there are a series of light bulbs, such as those that frame the marquee in front of the local movie theatre. If the light bulbs are rapidly turned on and off again, in a progressive sequence, there arises the appearance of a single bulb which is slowly making its way around the marquee. This apparent motion arises because the mind is unable to discriminate between the individual instances of bulbs, and so thinks that there is a single bulb that is persisting through both time and space. Likewise, the cursor on your screen is actually just a progression of individual instances which are first created and then immediately destroyed, with each new refresh cycle of the display.

Ioluas wrote:If two minds both see the movement, I have to assume that something objective has happened.

Yes, this is so. From a relative perspective it is the object which is moving, however, from an absolute perspective it is only the mind that moves. This is why it is said that there are ‘two truths’.

Ioluas wrote:Yes, but how have you put all this together? You've studied several philosophies?

It is not so much a matter of constructing a doctrine, but of deciphering that doctrine which is already present in all the ancient wisdom traditions. Unfortunately, no one tradition has come down to us fully intact, and so it is necessary to compare the fragments in order to discern a comprehensive and coherent metaphysical view. In fact, the doctrine may even be found at the core of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and especially in Ecclesiastics, however, in order to properly understand the text, one must understand that the term ‘vanity’, when the text was original translated into English, meant ‘empty’ or ‘without substance’; and not what it means today – although one can still see the relationship in the modern sense.