Does the Empirical-I Exist?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I encountered this very weird view from DAM who claimed there is no empirical-I and deflected the issue to another controversial issue, i.e. God which from my perspective is not provable and an impossibility.

There is no empirical I ..except in this imaginary concept an appearace within the mind of oneness/God, you.

• Empirical:
  -derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
  -depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or --theory, especially as in medicine.
  -provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/empirical

• Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
  -wiki

The empirical-I is the living person which can be empirically proven to exists.

Note the difference between the empirical-I and the transcendental-I or the ontological-I.
The transcendental-I is claimed to be an independent substance that is permanent and unchangeable within the person and will survives after physical death. Most theists believe this transcendental-I as the soul that can live eternally in Heaven as promised by a God.

Do you agree 'the empirical-I' exists?

[Dontaskme]

I encountered this very weird view from DAM who claimed there is no empirical-I and deflected the issue to another controversial issue, i.e. God which from my perspective is not provable and an impossibility.

On the human level, which is not really any thing..''other'' than this boundless unknowable emptiness expressing itself as believed conceptual knowledge..the word empirical means something tangible and provable or verifiable by experience.

All I'm pointing out to you Veritas..is that what you are in essence is not provable, or tangible, or can be an experience...Yet this essence is already being you..you does not have to prove you, you are you....., there are no requirements to prove you exist ...YOU ALREADY ARE BEING YOU RIGHT NOW...IN ALL ACTUALITY, ACTUAL RIGHT HERE AND NOW DIRECTLY...without doubt or error.

So this immediate boundless unknowable emptiness expressing itself as believed conceptual knowledge is verifiable in and of itself without question..awareness is the key, its without question and totally verifiable in and of itself, as this pure not-knowing knowing awareness one without a second.

.... there is no separate I having an experience of being I ... I aka nothing and everything is the experience..note the subtle difference?

I is everything and nothing experiencing itself forever. Not provable from the illusory seprate I perspective, because there is no such entity. There is no known beginning nor ending to you (I).. You (I) are this immediate not-knowing knowing...no need for 'thought'' in order to be. YOU ARE ..and ''thought'' is the temporal known story within you (conceptual knowledge)..that has no known beginning nor ending because you are infinity.

''thinking'' belongs to the illusory world of otherness, its belief, concept and imagination within what you already ARE.


.

This is how DAM understands her reality Veritas..and there is no other way I see it. Nothing will ever distract, sway of convince me of the contrary of what is my own unique inner vision.

You do not have to agree with how I see it, because you will only see it as you see it...so there is no point in trying to out-argue any one over this.

I'm not saying this is how it is for everybody, I'm just saying this is how it is for me, and that's all I need to know right now. I don't need to know anything else other than what feels right and true for me. I really don't care for having people agree with me or not, I not looking for that. I know myself, and the nature of reality as I see, as I've been working on this realisation nearly all my life.

All I'm doing is sharing that vision on this forum...some people reading and participating on the forum are doing same, saying it how they personally see it from their world view and prespective.

Note, I have no beliefs what-so-ever...except in the conceptual world of imagination the mind conjures up...I know I am and I do not have to believe that I am. I am full stop.

As far as I see it..there is only nothing and everything without any known beginning nor end infinitely for eternity.

I am aware I am not making any of this beingness happen...I am aware I am this happening...and because I am aware I am awareness itself..I am aware I am not happening and happening within the same one reality instantaneously one without a second...and this not happening happening is what God is. It's what I AM and everything else included.

And that's all there is to it for me to say on the matter. Nothing anyone can ever say to me will change the way I see this...because that will just be more concepts and knowledge and belief, which in my opinion has nothing to do with what this is anyway. God is tacit knowing and that's all I can know. Be still and know that I am God.





.

[henry quirk]

Yep.

I exist, I 'am', and not in some esoteric sense, but as flesh and bone, blood and muscle and brain. I'm tangible. We -- you and me -- can sit across from one another, sipping coffee, and have a conversation.

When I hear stuff like "there is no empirical-I" I have to wonder 'what's this person's scam, and how much am I gonna get tapped for?'.

[Walker]

I encountered this very weird view from DAM who claimed there is no empirical-I ...

- DAM’s insight is rooted in non-duality.
- Awareness does not require an object of awareness.
- An empirical-I does require an object of awareness, for the empirical-I exists only in a relationship being experienced.
- Awareness without an object of awareness, even an object of awareness such as thought, provides no relationship in which empirical-I can exist.
- Thus, from absolute perspective that DAM is referencing, there is no empiricial-I because duality renders it as transitory as form.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I encountered this very weird view from DAM who claimed there is no empirical-I and deflected the issue to another controversial issue, i.e. God which from my perspective is not provable and an impossibility.

On the human level, which is not really any thing..''other'' than this boundless unknowable emptiness expressing itself as believed conceptual knowledge..the word empirical means something tangible and provable or verifiable by experience.

All I'm pointing out to you Veritas..is that what you are in essence is not provable, or tangible, or can be an experience...Yet this essence is already being you..you does not have to prove you, you are you....., there are no requirements to prove you exist ...YOU ALREADY ARE BEING YOU RIGHT NOW...IN ALL ACTUALITY, ACTUAL RIGHT HERE AND NOW DIRECTLY...without doubt or error.

There are two perspectives to the term 'essence' in relation to the self.

• 1. There is the 'essence' of the human self that exists only as long as the person is alive. When a person is dead, this essence of "I" "you' do not exists. This is the empirical-I and the inferred empirical essence which can be easily be proven by empirical means.
  
  2. The other 'essence' is the soul that survives physical death, i.e. when the empirical person is dead, this soul is claimed to survives. In the Abrahamic religion, this soul can live eternally in Heaven with approval from God.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
  The soul, in many religious, philosophical, and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a living being.

Re perspective 1, yes I agree with this "YOU ALREADY ARE BEING YOU RIGHT NOW...IN ALL ACTUALITY, ACTUAL RIGHT HERE AND NOW DIRECTLY...without doubt or error." This is empirical. If proof is required I can prove this empirical "I" and its essence.

However if you insist "YOU ALREADY ARE BEING YOU RIGHT NOW...IN ALL ACTUALITY, ACTUAL RIGHT HERE AND NOW DIRECTLY...without doubt or error" but cannot provide any proofs for this 'essence' then it does not exist.

So this immediate boundless unknowable emptiness expressing itself as believed conceptual knowledge is verifiable in and of itself without question..awareness is the key, its without question and totally verifiable in and of itself, as this pure not-knowing knowing awareness one without a second.

.... there is no separate I having an experience of being I ... I aka nothing and everything is the experience..note the subtle difference?

I agree there is no separate non-empirical ontological "I".

However there is a provable real empirical "I" that is capable of thinking, talking and confirming the following;

• 1. there is no separate "I" [you and I agree on this]
  
  2. there is a boundless unknowable emptiness [aka Absolute, God] inferred from some encounters [experiences of altered states of consciousness] by the empirical "I".
  
  3. there is an essence of a soul that survives physical death, e.g. Abrahamic.

What is most real is the empirical-I which can be easily proven.
The three points 1-3 above are merely mental thinking, ideas and representations of the empirical-I.
The empirical-I is being deceived to conclude there is an essence of a soul [3] and the Absolute aka God, boundless unknowable emptiness.

One point to note is the above experience and confirmation of 2 & 3 are also claimed by those with mental illnesses, brain damage, taking drugs/hallucinogens, meditations, under heave stress, triggered electronically, etc.

I is everything and nothing experiencing itself forever. Not provable from the illusory seprate I perspective, because there is no such entity. There is no known beginning nor ending to you (I).. You (I) are this immediate not-knowing knowing...no need for 'thought'' in order to be. YOU ARE ..and ''thought'' is the temporal known story within you (conceptual knowledge)..that has no known beginning nor ending because you are infinity.

''thinking'' belongs to the illusory world of otherness, its belief, concept and imagination within what you already ARE.

This is how DAM understands her reality Veritas..and there is no other way I see it. Nothing will ever distract, sway of convince me of the contrary of what is my own unique inner vision.

You do not have to agree with how I see it, because you will only see it as you see it...so there is no point in trying to out-argue any one over this.

I'm not saying this is how it is for everybody, I'm just saying this is how it is for me, and that's all I need to know right now. I don't need to know anything else other than what feels right and true for me. I really don't care for having people agree with me or not, I not looking for that. I know myself, and the nature of reality as I see, as I've been working on this realisation nearly all my life.

All I'm doing is sharing that vision on this forum...some people reading and participating on the forum are doing same, saying it how they personally see it from their world view and prespective.

Note, I have no beliefs what-so-ever...except in the conceptual world of imagination the mind conjures up...I know I am and I do not have to believe that I am. I am full stop.

As far as I see it..there is only nothing and everything without any known beginning nor end infinitely for eternity.

I am aware I am not making any of this beingness happen...I am aware I am this happening...and because I am aware I am awareness itself..I am aware I am not happening and happening within the same one reality instantaneously one without a second...and this not happening happening is what God is. It's what I AM and everything else included.

And that's all there is to it for me to say on the matter. Nothing anyone can ever say to me will change the way I see this...because that will just be more concepts and knowledge and belief, which in my opinion has nothing to do with what this is anyway. God is tacit knowing and that's all I can know. Be still and know that I am God.

I noted the above is how you understands via "direct experience" of your 'reality' and that 'You are God'.

But the point is your 'reality' is also claimed by those with mental illnesses [mild to serious], brain damage, taking drugs/hallucinogens, meditations, under heave stress, triggered electronically, etc.
As such what you are claiming is open to doubts which you should take note of.

Note this person once claimed 'he is God' but was cured of his mental illness via medicine and counselling.
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
There are tons of such cases [mild to extreme] which had been documented and cured of their psychiatric problems.

I am of no doubts [99.999% certainty] what you claimed as 'God' is an impossibility.
How the idea of God arise within human consciousness is due to psychological and mental activities[as a sort of defense mechanism] within the brain/mind of the real provable empirical person and the empirical-I.

When the empirical brain and mental system is faced with heavy stress/threats, the empirical brain will spontaneously triggers its defense mechanism to do what it takes to stabilize the mental state of the empirical-I. This is how the empirical brain/mind invent [ deceives] the idea of God [unreal and fake] to soothe the person with an existential crisis.

Note how the brain/mind deceives you in the case of the face images where I have shown as an example.

In the case of a more serious threat and emergency the brain/mind will even put a person into coma without the permission of the empirical-I.

What you have is merely a-first-person's subjective encounters like those who made all sorts of dubious claims which are traceable to some mental problems, spiritual exercises, etc. In addition you lack the spiritual and philosophical foundations to present sound arguments to back your claims.

Note there are credible spiritual practitioners who experience [after many years of meditation, etc.] those altered states of consciousness related to non-dualism] but they don't cling to such views dogmatically like you but merely accept them as side effects of the empirical-I and use them to interpret various other useful principles of oneness, unity, synergy and the likes.

[Dontaskme]

I encountered this very weird view from DAM who claimed there is no empirical-I ...

- DAM’s insight is rooted in non-duality.
- Awareness does not require an object of awareness.
- An empirical-I does require an object of awareness, for the empirical-I exists only in a relationship being experienced.
- Awareness without an object of awareness, even an object of awareness such as thought, provides no relationship in which empirical-I can exist.
- Thus, from absolute perspective that DAM is referencing, there is no empiricial-I because duality renders it as transitory as form.

Succinctly put.

Thank-you Walker.

Awareness without an object = ACTUAL DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I encountered this very weird view from DAM who claimed there is no empirical-I ...

- DAM’s insight is rooted in non-duality.
- Awareness does not require an object of awareness.
- An empirical-I does require an object of awareness, for the empirical-I exists only in a relationship being experienced.
- Awareness without an object of awareness, even an object of awareness such as thought, provides no relationship in which empirical-I can exist.
- Thus, from absolute perspective that DAM is referencing, there is no empiricial-I because duality renders it as transitory as form.

The empirical-I is constituted by a hierarchy of selves within two main categories, i.e.

• 1. The conscious self and the empirical-I
  2. The subconscious self underlying the empirical-I

In terms of criticalness the subconconscious is like 90% while the conscious empirical self is 10%.
Both the above do not exist after physical death.

There is no absolute independent awareness.
Awareness is always conditioned by empirical awareness and supported critically by the subconscious self.

DAM's claim is the existence of absolute awareness that is not conditioned by the empirical conscious nor subconscious self. DAM's claim is an illusion and thus inferring an illusory thing.
As I had argued this is based on mental activities [in some cases due to mental illnesses, brain damage, drugs, etc] of the empirical-I and its subconscious element [inferred empirical elements].

[Walker]

There is no absolute independent awareness.
Awareness is always conditioned by empirical awareness and supported critically by the subconscious self.

Objectless awareness does present quite the logic-defying paradox, doesn’t it. The paradox is solved by reflection upon direct knowing. Speculation is bypassed when direct knowing is known prior to reflection.

Intellectual codification is required to communicate about the knowing of direct knowing, under intellectual conditions such as the written word. Knowing directly, crosses over a ubiquitous threshold that is formed by self-consciousness, sometime after folks get birthed. (The threshold is the conditioning that you mention).

One of the clearest pointers via codification, known to man or woman, is presented by Patanjali. It is causal, predictable, repeatable, scientific. It is a pointer to knowing non-paradoxical, ineffable, objectless awareness that applies to all.

Here’s a bit-o’-Patanjali (interpreted), with some added underlining:

Sutra 1.18

Object and objectless: The four stages of concentration described in the previous sutra were all concentration with object, which is called samprajnata samadhi. In the current sutra, concentration without any object is being described, and this is called asamprajnata samadhi. In this state not only the gross and subtle thoughts, but also the senses and thinking instruments of mind are in a latent state. It is a very high state of knowing, and is of the kind that is often described as not describable in words.

Samskaras are in latent form: Samskaras are the deep impressions that are the driving force behind karma (actions). In objectless samadhi, all of the samskaras are in their latent form, although you are fully conscious. This means they are not active in the dreaming, unconscious level of mind, nor in the active, conscious level of mind. By reflecting on the nature of the objectless samadhi, it is somewhat easy to see why the foundation of practice and non-attachment is so important in relation to uncoloring those deep impressions.

Link: http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-11718.htm#1.18

If he tickles your fancy, the bad news is, this is not the time or place (religious subforum) and I’m probably not the one to educate others about non-religious Patanjali, and education is necessary for meaningful, non-teacher/student discussion of the vertical knowledge that he presents.

The good news is, the resource is available for the interested!

Yay!

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no absolute independent awareness.
Awareness is always conditioned by empirical awareness and supported critically by the subconscious self.

Objectless awareness does present quite the logic-defying paradox, doesn’t it. The paradox is solved by reflection upon direct knowing. Speculation is bypassed when direct knowing is known prior to reflection.

Intellectual codification is required to communicate about the knowing of direct knowing, under intellectual conditions such as the written word. Knowing directly, crosses over a ubiquitous threshold that is formed by self-consciousness, sometime after folks get birthed. (The threshold is the conditioning that you mention).

One of the clearest pointers via codification, known to man or woman, is presented by Patanjali. It is causal, predictable, repeatable, scientific. It is a pointer to knowing non-paradoxical, ineffable, objectless awareness that applies to all.

Here’s a bit-o’-Patanjali (interpreted), with some added underlining:

Sutra 1.18

Object and objectless: The four stages of concentration described in the previous sutra were all concentration with object, which is called samprajnata samadhi. In the current sutra, concentration without any object is being described, and this is called asamprajnata samadhi. In this state not only the gross and subtle thoughts, but also the senses and thinking instruments of mind are in a latent state. It is a very high state of knowing, and is of the kind that is often described as not describable in words.

Samskaras are in latent form: Samskaras are the deep impressions that are the driving force behind karma (actions). In objectless samadhi, all of the samskaras are in their latent form, although you are fully conscious. This means they are not active in the dreaming, unconscious level of mind, nor in the active, conscious level of mind. By reflecting on the nature of the objectless samadhi, it is somewhat easy to see why the foundation of practice and non-attachment is so important in relation to uncoloring those deep impressions.

Link: http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-11718.htm#1.18

If he tickles your fancy, the bad news is, this is not the time or place (religious subforum) and I’m probably not the one to educate others about non-religious Patanjali, and education is necessary for meaningful, non-teacher/student discussion of the vertical knowledge that he presents.

The good news is, the resource is available for the interested!

Yay!

I was into Advaita Vedanta for quite a long time and I am familiar with Patanjali and the whole gamut of elements related to advaita vedanta and various doctrines related to Hinduism in general.
The Ultimate of all these is Brahman and the merging of the atman with Brahman.

I admit the ideas of atman and Brahman are of very high level spirituality [far above the Abrahamic] but its principles are still tied very minimally to deal with existential crisis based on theistic elements.

In contrast, Buddhism in principle totally ignore the theistic elements and deal direct with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

[Walker]

I encountered this very weird view from DAM who claimed there is no empirical-I and deflected the issue to another controversial issue, i.e. God which from my perspective is not provable and an impossibility.

“The world around us is comprised of energy, but we cannot touch it or see it, and instead we use technology to detect energy ranges on the invisible spectrum, such as electromagnetic fields, infrared rays, and ultraviolet light. We know wireless Internet exists because we connect to it with our devices, but we cannot see it permeating our environment.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/seeing-th ... 44291.html

The invisible spectrum is known to exist, because man-made instruments can enhance the senses, and then mind-sense interprets the perception.

When technology improves and senses are further enhanced, perhaps more will be discovered in this invisible spectrum of energy. This is certainly not an impossibility, seeing as how nothing is impossible if the conditions are conducive, e.g., for detection of God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I encountered this very weird view from DAM who claimed there is no empirical-I and deflected the issue to another controversial issue, i.e. God which from my perspective is not provable and an impossibility.

“The world around us is comprised of energy, but we cannot touch it or see it, and instead we use technology to detect energy ranges on the invisible spectrum, such as electromagnetic fields, infrared rays, and ultraviolet light. We know wireless Internet exists because we connect to it with our devices, but we cannot see it permeating our environment.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/seeing-th ... 44291.html

The invisible spectrum is known to exist, because man-made instruments can enhance the senses, and then mind-sense interprets the perception.

When technology improves and senses are further enhanced, perhaps more will be discovered in this invisible spectrum of energy. This is certainly not an impossibility, seeing as how nothing is impossible if the conditions are conducive, e.g., for detection of God.

I have no issue where 'energy' is defined within the Physics perspective

In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.[note 1]
Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed.
The SI unit of energy is the joule, which is the energy transferred to an object by the work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

In this sense of Physics, 'energy' is conditioned by the Scientific Framework.

On the other hand, God as generally defined is an Absolute, i.e. totally unconditioned.

In philosophy, the concept of The Absolute, also known as The (Unconditioned) Ultimate, The Wholly Other, The Supreme Being, The Absolute/Ultimate Reality, and other names, is the thing, being, entity, power, force, reality, presence, law, principle, etc. that possesses maximal ontological status, existential ranking, existential greatness, or existentiality.
In layman's terms, this is the one that is, in one way or another, the greatest, truest, or most real being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)

Therefore you cannot even try to reconcile and conflate/equivocate the conditioned 'energy' with the totally unconditioned God.

[Dontaskme]

Therefore you cannot even try to reconcile and conflate/equivocate the conditioned 'energy' with the totally unconditioned God.

Hello, and welcome to Wickers World...where wiki men are appearing here there and everywhere now here in the form of useful knowledge.

As for reconciliation, of course there is reconciliation between your conditioned and unconditioned Self.

Instead of communicating with people as if they possessed intelligence, try using abstract spiritual terms that convey no usable information.


.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Therefore you cannot even try to reconcile and conflate/equivocate the conditioned 'energy' with the totally unconditioned God.

Hello, and welcome to Wickers World...where wiki men are appearing here there and everywhere now here in the form of useful knowledge.

I had stated before the articles in Wiki are efficient reliable as starters and appertizers before we get seriously into solid arguments and evidences which are often very tedious. You had stated you are not interested in serious discussion. I believe that is because you lack the necessary foundation and depth.

As for reconciliation, of course there is reconciliation between your conditioned and unconditioned Self.

The only possible reconciliation is, the conditioned can be reconciled to the unconditioned when only mediated within one's psychology.
The idea of the unconditioned [illusory] is generated within the brain of the empirical-I to soothe an inherent existential crisis.

Instead of communicating with people as if they possessed intelligence, try using abstract spiritual terms that convey no usable information.

???
What is that?
I believe the schizo are one of those who communicate with 'word salad' [no usable information].

[Dontaskme]

Instead of communicating with people as if they possessed intelligence, try using abstract spiritual terms that convey no usable information.

???
What is that?

It's absolute magic.

It's sound arising from silence heard as words with meaning attached always a usefulness when communicating with yourself.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Instead of communicating with people as if they possessed intelligence, try using abstract spiritual terms that convey no usable information.

???
What is that?

It's absolute magic.

It's sound arising from silence heard as words with meaning attached always a usefulness when communicating with yourself.

Like what a schizo is doing?

The hearing of words with "meaning" [could be delusion in the case of the schizo] is primarily related to the conscious mind which is said to represent relatively 10% of the whole mental processes while 90% of activities are done within the 'silent' depth of subconscious mind.

Note this rough analogy;



It is the psychological desperation arising from the silent depth of your preconconscious and subconscious mind that is driving you to have certain 'abnormal' encounters which you think is 'divine.' That is illusory.

Btw, I am not denying such 'experiences' are useful and helpful but I argue these experiences has nothing to do with a God which is an illusion forced onto consciousness by the subconscious mind.

One point is; you have to accept the human mind is very fallible and more so in your case when you have NOT established a reasonable database of knowledge relevant to understand [not necessary agree with] the issues involved in this specific issue.