Back to Infinity

[Serendipper]

Anyway, I don't think this is going anywhere so let's agree to disagree.

It's not going anywhere because your faith cannot be moved. See above regarding logic.

People are robots and whatever ideology they happen to fall into, they will defend it to the death and even kill their own children on the altar of their dogmas rather than submit to reprogramming.

Our approaches are different. To me, philosophy is mainly about the search for truth and facts; to you, it's about an obsessive and emotional need to always be right, sacrificing intellectual honesty in the process, while trying to discredit others and accusing them of your own shortcomings.

I sincerely wish you could substantiate those claims.

Frankly you come across as someone who just recently escaped some kind of organized religion or cult,

There may be some truth to that.

you are still half insane

What does it mean to be insane?

but dead certain,

I've been wrong too many times for that to be true.

and you misinterpret/are unaware of like half of science.

Half of science hasn't been discovered yet.

I have better things to do

Me too, but I'm here anyway.

[Serendipper]

It has nothing to do with mind. One atom is aware of another atom and it does not have a mind.

"In your mind" is only a saying - I thought you would understand the meaning I was trying to convey...
Anyway, no, atoms are not aware of anything - just like you are not aware OF anything. There is awareness - this - full stop (to make it more understandable one could say that awareness is aware of itself, but this is ultimately not true).

There are things, but no separate things. Things are one because of the shared borders that differentiate them, for instance, into 2 atoms. One atom reacts to the presence of another atom which is evidence of their awareness of each other.

There are no things (or even subjects) being aware of anything - you can see that yourself if you would "get out of your mind" and simply look

That is why I say buddhism is the religion of death because getting out of my mind is ceasing to exist and that is why I gravitate towards the Brahman concept since the goal is to get out of satori and back to existence.

R. H. Blyth wrote to Alan Watts and said, "How are you these days? As for me, I have abandoned Satori altogether and I'm trying to become as deeply attached as I can to as many people and things as possible."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Horace_Blyth

Start at 25:00 here for a great explanation. "Being, existence itself, is relationship."

Yes, sure, being able to put things into certain relation to each other is required to state that I, the separate subject exist in relation to other objects out there etc etc. Existence is relationship is true as long as we apply our relativistic view of the world - but this view is ultimately not true. It is built on the belief in separation. In reality NO relationship exists - how could it? Even if you don't know and only believe the universe is "one" then you would have to understand that ultimately relationships cannot exist - its logical as there is only the whole... You are as such in a relationship with yourself - not sure if this really qualifies as a relationship...?
I am sure Alan knew that and he only uses the "being, existence itself, is relationship" idea as a stepping stone - not everything you hear from a teacher is the final word, this is only an interim step in the chain of teachings/realisations.

I'm on board with the concept that there are no separate things within the universe, but if that one thing, the universe, is the only thing, then how can it exist?

My replies are probably going to be sparse going forward as this forum-posting thing is more of a wintertime activity for me and it's too hard to find the time in summer.

No problem - much nicer to enjoy the outdoors than sit in front of a computer screen - have fun!

I'll try to check in when I can. There is some rain coming up in a few days and maybe I can devote some time then.

[AlexW]

There are things, but no separate things. Things are one because of the shared borders that differentiate them, for instance, into 2 atoms. One atom reacts to the presence of another atom which is evidence of their awareness of each other.

What is a shared border? Can you please give me an example.

This is how I see it:
A white cup as well as a blue pen rest on a brown desk. Take away the things-ness that thought adds to seeing and there is only white-brown-blue. Now there seem to be borders between these colours - the border is defined by a different color, but if you go one step deeper into direct experience you find that color is actually nothing else but seeing. Color = Seeing. The border that seemed to be present before you departed from the labels "white-brown-blue" is now gone as all three colours merge into seeing. As the objects, its colours, are made of seeing they are inseparable - seeing can not separate seeing. Of course thought dissects seeing into colours and further on into objects - now you have made seeing into objects, but in reality there is only seeing. You will find that borders can only be found in thought, never in your direct experience.

That is why I say buddhism is the religion of death because getting out of my mind is ceasing to exist

No. As the "separate you" exists only as an idea/belief all that happens is that the belief is seen as illusory - nothing dies because of that. You won't cease to exist just because you realise that this ego-self, that you believe is you, is actually not more than a bundle of misguided thought.

I have abandoned Satori altogether and I'm trying to become as deeply attached as I can to as many people and things as possible.

Good idea as long as you don't define yourself via these dependencies and rather see them as the enjoyment that life offers.
Agree: Chasing special states is nonsense.

I'm on board with the concept that there are no separate things within the universe, but if that one thing, the universe, is the only thing, then how can it exist?

It's not a thing. If you try to apply the concept of "existence", that you normally use to define things, to the universe (or rather the absolute, infinite etc) then you will find this to be impossible (or rather very confusing). Existence is for duality. The non-dual is beyond existence (and non-existence).

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

The subject-object dichotomy has collapsed. And yet, the hard problem of consciousness has not been solved.

I follow you so far, although will have to take your word for what those important scientists knew.

The hard problem of consciousness is part of the subject-object dichotomy surely? If not why not?

Why are you and so many others intransigent about both being true, the subject-object dichotomy (which is where we live) and also eternity (which is what of all animals we humans are privileged to imagine)? May we agree that that 'the subject-object dichotomy' is the same as 'the relative world'? And may we also agree that what I have just named 'eternity' is the same as collapse of the subject -object dichotomy.
Why must one choose one or the other? Separate ways to know reality surely? There may even be third, and fourth, or infinite ways to know reality, ways to which we cannot access.

For a start, I might guess that the way of the biological instincts is a way to access reality which we humans are to a large extent barred from.

[Atla]

The hard problem of consciousness is part of the subject-object dichotomy surely? If not why not?

I'm really not trying to be rude, but based on our discussions in the Hard problem topic and this topic, I'm wondering whether you are aware of the central question, central problem, central mistery of philosophy in the first place. What is "THE" consciousness? If not then you are constantly misunderstanding what is being talked about. Many people never really realize "THE" question in the first place, including philosophers like Dennett as it would seem.

[Belinda]

The hard problem of consciousness is part of the subject-object dichotomy surely? If not why not?

I'm really not trying to be rude, but based on our discussions in the Hard problem topic and this topic, I'm wondering whether you are aware of the central question, central problem, central mistery of philosophy in the first place. What is "THE" consciousness? If not then you are constantly misunderstanding what is being talked about. Many people never really realize "THE" question in the first place, including philosophers like Dennett as it would seem.

I understand your doubts. I like the scientific explanation of the hard problem of consciousness. The problem may be phrased as 'how is it that neural events are felt as a world out there?' The scientific explanation is that my world of experience and memories is a system of symbols. Accordingly some neural event is rendered to awareness as a quale or qualia, qualia being how we symbolise the feeling of brain-mind events. Brain-minds lack proprioception and awareness of brain function has to be indirectly via symbols which pertain to aware brain-mind functions such as in dream sleep or waking awareness.

A thought experiment: if brain-minds had the function of proprioception like muscles and joints have then there would be no hard problem of consciousness, because in that case what the neurons and synapses were doing would be directly perceived.

[Atla]

I understand your doubts. I like the scientific explanation of the hard problem of consciousness.

There is no scientific explanation of the hard problem of consciousness. There are guesses unsupported by evidence; they all amount to trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

The problem may be phrased as 'how is it that neural events are felt as a world out there?'

That's more like an easy problem of consciousness. The hard problem is more like: why do neural events feel any way at all?

The scientific explanation is that my world of experience and memories is a system of symbols. Accordingly some neural event is rendered to awareness as a quale or qualia, qualia being how we symbolise the feeling of brain-mind events. Brain-minds lack proprioception and awareness of brain function has to be indirectly via symbols which pertain to aware brain-mind functions such as in dream sleep or waking awareness.

A thought experiment: if brain-minds had the function of proprioception like muscles and joints have then there would be no hard problem of consciousness, because in that case what the neurons and synapses were doing would be directly perceived.

This sounds like a total non-explanation to me, hiding behind Magical Words.
Symbols, rendering, awareness, concrete qualia: we jump into an extra-physical world where these things are, and none of them have been shown to exist. If there is no sign of them then why is it scientific?

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

This sounds like a total non-explanation to me, hiding behind Magical Words.
Symbols, rendering, awareness, concrete qualia: we jump into an extra-physical world where these things are, and none of them have been shown to exist. If there is no sign of them then why is it scientific?

All explanations are narratives and my explanation is no exception. All words are metaphors. Nevertheless scientists do use the terms 'symbols', and 'awareness'. Moreover mind stuff such as qualia is pretty well common knowledge now. A concept in order to exist doesn't have to have physical referent immediately to hand. We can and do compare ideas that are abstracted from physical events.

Ideas that are abstracted from physical events are universals . Universals don't exist physically and thus far I agree with you. But we need universal categories so that we can test ideas.

My explanation is an explanation for me. I have tried very hard to explain my idea to you Atla. It is therefore arrogant and rude of you to dismiss my idea as a non-explanation. I'd like you to apologise.

[Atla]

Atla wrote:

This sounds like a total non-explanation to me, hiding behind Magical Words.
Symbols, rendering, awareness, concrete qualia: we jump into an extra-physical world where these things are, and none of them have been shown to exist. If there is no sign of them then why is it scientific?

All explanations are narratives and my explanation is no exception. All words are metaphors. Nevertheless scientists do use the terms 'symbols', and 'awareness'. Moreover mind stuff such as qualia is pretty well common knowledge now. A concept in order to exist doesn't have to have physical referent immediately to hand. We can and do compare ideas that are abstracted from physical events.

Ideas that are abstracted from physical events are universals . Universals don't exist physically and thus far I agree with you. But we need universal categories so that we can test ideas.

My explanation is an explanation for me. I have tried very hard to explain my idea to you Atla. It is therefore arrogant and rude of you to dismiss my idea as a non-explanation. I'd like you to apologise.

I was arrogant and rude, I apologise.

[Belinda]

Thanks Atla. I feel better now.

[Serendipper]

What is a shared border? Can you please give me an example.

The white cup, blue pen, and brown desk is a good example by having a shared border that is the air/space between them. We can't have shape without color and we can't have color without shape. Yin cannot be yin unless yang is yang and there exists a border between them. Difference is identity and identity is difference. Existence cannot happen without borders because existence is relationship.



There can't be a yolk without a border being shared with the albumen and there can't be an egg/environment relationship without the shared border that is the shell.

It would have been easier if you had listened to the Alan Watts video I posted a few days ago that already explained all this rather than making me rehash it.

This is how I see it:
A white cup as well as a blue pen rest on a brown desk. Take away the things-ness that thought adds to seeing and there is only white-brown-blue. Now there seem to be borders between these colours - the border is defined by a different color, but if you go one step deeper into direct experience you find that color is actually nothing else but seeing. Color = Seeing. The border that seemed to be present before you departed from the labels "white-brown-blue" is now gone as all three colours merge into seeing. As the objects, its colours, are made of seeing they are inseparable - seeing can not separate seeing. Of course thought dissects seeing into colours and further on into objects - now you have made seeing into objects, but in reality there is only seeing. You will find that borders can only be found in thought, never in your direct experience.

Yes, that's Buddhism: how to leave existence and venture into the world of nonexistence by merging everything together into a blob of no-thing or the void. I'd sit in a treestand while staring at the forest trying to meditate myself into union with everything else only to find that sucks and therefore the reason everything exists is to escape precisely that state of void.

Blyth had the same revelation, apparently. Alan struggled with it until it dawned on him that difference is identity and existence is relationship.

If you want to exist, there has to be a you and a not-you.

That is why I say buddhism is the religion of death because getting out of my mind is ceasing to exist

No. As the "separate you" exists only as an idea/belief all that happens is that the belief is seen as illusory - nothing dies because of that.

So the idea that we exist therefore dies because it's realized that we don't exist. I don't see a significant distinction.

You won't cease to exist just because you realise that this ego-self, that you believe is you, is actually not more than a bundle of misguided thought.

Realization of oneness with everything is the cessation of existence. Like Alan says, if you can't achieve it in this life, don't worry, it will happen automatically upon death when you are gone and there is nothing left but everything else, of which you are a part.

I have abandoned Satori altogether and I'm trying to become as deeply attached as I can to as many people and things as possible.

Good idea as long as you don't define yourself via these dependencies and rather see them as the enjoyment that life offers.
Agree: Chasing special states is nonsense.

But that's what you're asking me to do with these exercises with cups.

I'm on board with the concept that there are no separate things within the universe, but if that one thing, the universe, is the only thing, then how can it exist?

It's not a thing. If you try to apply the concept of "existence", that you normally use to define things, to the universe (or rather the absolute, infinite etc) then you will find this to be impossible (or rather very confusing). Existence is for duality. The non-dual is beyond existence (and non-existence).

Again I ask, why not Jehovah, Zeus, Easter Bunny? Everything you've said there is based on preference of belief without possible substantiation as the very means of substantiating anything is undermined by the premise.

Assertion: It's not a thing.

Proof: you will find this to be impossible (or rather very confusing). Existence is for duality. The non-dual is beyond existence (and non-existence)

Your substantiation is simply more assertions. That is religion.

So then you'll say that proof by non-real logic isn't possible and that I should simply look at a cup until I see that everything is one, which is an exercise in chasing a special state of existence that you just said is nonsense.

The paradox is this: If A observes B and B observes A, then A and B exist. If A and B are secretly the same, then how can the origin of attention also be the focal point? How can a gun shoot down its own barrel? Therefore A and B cannot be the same. But if A and B are not secretly the same, then how does one thing affect another thing? How does one universe communicate with another? Therefore A and B must be the same. How can A and B be the same and also not the same?

[AlexW]

Haha... we are talking in circles...

how to leave existence and venture into the world of nonexistence by merging everything together into a blob of no-thing or the void. I'd sit in a treestand while staring at the forest trying to meditate myself into union with everything else only to find that sucks and therefore the reason everything exists is to escape precisely that state of void.

Its not about cultivating an artificial state of void-ness and remain in it, unmoving, like a "blob of no-thing".
Its about realising that our self is not this special, ego-driven piece of work, but much rather reality itself. This opens up a new view of the world and its inhabitants that is accepting, positive, open, free and joyful (vs. the constant, fearful struggle for specialness and power that the separate self sees as its goal). It leads to an adaptation of the map we use to navigate reality - not to its destruction - that is in tune with reality - and not upside down.

It would have been easier if you had listened to the Alan Watts video

I have listened to it. Thank you anyway for rehashing, but it wasn't necessary

Blyth had the same revelation, apparently. Alan struggled with it until it dawned on him that difference is identity and existence is relationship.

Yes, I agree, (apparent!) difference is identity and (apparent!) existence is relationship. Both are just fine in dualistic thinking and in how we operate in this world, but only as long as you know that the real you, your true self, has nothing to do with any of it and that no matter the perceived (thought of) difference, the real self is one and the same in all and everything.

So the idea that we exist therefore dies because it's realized that we don't exist. I don't see a significant distinction.

Existence is for duality where is works just fine. Just like the idea of time works just fine. Doesn't mean that it has any meaning in (base-) reality.

So then you'll say that proof by non-real logic isn't possible and that I should simply look at a cup until I see that everything is one, which is an exercise in chasing a special state of existence that you just said is nonsense.

I don't want you to just stare at a cup until something special is revealed. I want you to use reason and honest deduction. Thought is the only tool you have to figure out that the tool itself (thought) is not the right tool to explain everything. Fortunately it is a tool good enough to figure out that what you have created with it is actually not in tune with what "looking at the cup" reveals. It cant grasp what you see beyond the object, but it can tell you that seeing actually doesn't deliver any information about separation at all. Hope this made things clearer..?

[Belinda]

AlexW, I did the experiment that you recommended. I contemplated two sunflower seeds then i ate them. I found that the immediate sensations of eating seemed to be free of conceptualisations.

You wrote:

I don't want you to just stare at a cup until something special is revealed. I want you to use reason and honest deduction. Thought is the only tool you have to figure out that the tool itself (thought) is not the right tool to explain everything. Fortunately it is a tool good enough to figure out that what you have created with it is actually not in tune with what "looking at the cup" reveals. It cant grasp what you see beyond the object, but it can tell you that seeing actually doesn't deliver any information about separation at all. Hope this made things clearer..?

I imagine that a cup may be more of a concept than food which one is chewing and swallowing but that it's possible to separate cup sensations from cup -related conceptualisations.

I can well understand Serendipper's image of a void blob. It has puzzled me how being could be without differentiation. I conclude that thought is sufficient for understanding that differentiation does not have to be abandoned.I propose that there is no void blob but instead there is the sum total of all possible and manifested differentiated percepts and concepts . And moreover Serendipper's percepts and concepts , or anybody's percepts and concepts, there would be nothing.

But I'm not an idealist(immaterialist). In my view the material or physical world is real from the point of view of an individual whether that individual be a man or a cat.(Insect individuals are colonies).And the joined-up necessity of all possible world views also is reality. Those are both real and are mutually consistent views although we have to think the views in an alternating manner like we perceive the duck-rabbit in an alternating manner.

[Belinda]

AlexW, I did the experiment that you recommended. I contemplated two sunflower seeds then i ate them. I found that the immediate sensations of eating seemed to be free of conceptualisations.

You wrote:

I don't want you to just stare at a cup until something special is revealed. I want you to use reason and honest deduction. Thought is the only tool you have to figure out that the tool itself (thought) is not the right tool to explain everything. Fortunately it is a tool good enough to figure out that what you have created with it is actually not in tune with what "looking at the cup" reveals. It cant grasp what you see beyond the object, but it can tell you that seeing actually doesn't deliver any information about separation at all. Hope this made things clearer..?

I imagine that a cup may be more of a concept than food which one is chewing and swallowing but that it's possible to separate cup sensations from cup -related conceptualisations.

I can well understand Serendipper's image of a void blob. It has puzzled me how being could be without differentiation. I conclude that thought is sufficient for understanding that differentiation does not have to be abandoned.I propose that there is no void blob but instead there is the sum total of all possible and manifested differentiated percepts and concepts . And moreover without Serendipper's percepts and concepts , or anybody's percepts and concepts, there would be nothing.

But I'm not an idealist(immaterialist). In my view the material or physical world is real from the point of view of an individual whether that individual be a man or a cat.(Insect individuals are colonies).And the joined-up necessity of all possible world views also is reality. Those are both real and are mutually consistent views although we have to think the views in an alternating manner like we perceive the duck-rabbit in an alternating manner.

[AlexW]

Belinda,

I did the experiment that you recommended. I contemplated two sunflower seeds then i ate them. I found that the immediate sensations of eating seemed to be free of conceptualisations.

Great that you gave it a go!
OK, they are free of conceptualisations - agree. What did you find that is there? Something has to be there, even if it is not a thing, right?

I imagine that a cup may be more of a concept than food which one is chewing and swallowing but that it's possible to separate cup sensations from cup -related conceptualisations.

Yes, sure is. Its essentially the same as with the food, remove all concepts - see what's left. If there is no cup, no object, not even color - just what we call the seen, then you can go a step further and look for how the seen, the heard, the tasted etc relate to each other... Ultimately you end up at *this*, the direct, undivided experience.

I can well understand Serendipper's image of a void blob.

When you did the taste experiment, did you drop into a void-blob? Or was the direct experience of taste actually much more alive and real than thinking about it?

I conclude that thought is sufficient for understanding that differentiation does not have to be abandoned.

Agree, dualistic thought doesn't have to be abandoned, it only has to be seen for what it is - a conceptual overlay to direct experience that is not ultimate truth.

In my view the material or physical world is real from the point of view of an individual whether that individual be a man or a cat.(Insect individuals are colonies).And the joined-up necessity of all possible world views also is reality. Those are both real and are mutually consistent views although we have to think the views in an alternating manner like we perceive the duck-rabbit in an alternating manner.

You are right, this is the view of the individual - and it wouldn't be a problem if this view were in tune with truth/reality. Unfortunately it is not... As long as we see ourselves as special, better (or worse) than others, we immediately step from heaven into hell. A hell that is individual to your personal preferences and beliefs, but still a hell never the less...
Its not a problem to see the material or physical world as real as long as you know that they are just appearances on the undivided screen of the whole - one doesn't exclude the other.
Its like being in a dream and suddenly you are aware that you are dreaming - lucidity doesn't end the dream, but it adds the knowledge that this is a dream and that you are actually the dreamer (and as such the whole dream), and not only the limited character within the dream.