The Emptiness of Observation

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Angelo Cannata »

That’s why solipsism is just another metaphysics. In order to make a non metaphysical philosophy you need to build something alternative to objectivity. The alternative to objectivity is subjectivity.

What you said does not prove the existence of something separate from observation: you cannot prove the existence of something just by basing it on reasoning, as to say “if this thing works as existing in my reasoning, then it exists”, or “if the non-existence of something contradicts reasoning, then it exists”.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:26 pm That’s why solipsism is just another metaphysics. In order to make a non metaphysical philosophy you need to build something alternative to objectivity. The alternative to objectivity is subjectivity.

What you said does not prove the existence of something separate from observation: you cannot prove the existence of something just by basing it on reasoning, as to say “if this thing works as existing in my reasoning, then it exists”, or “if the non-existence of something contradicts reasoning, then it exists”.
This is an interpretation thus a "reasoning".
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Angelo Cannata »

Exactly: it is reasoning, definitely. That’s why my criticism is valid: because this way I have shown that reasoning itself brings to its denial. Making use of reasoning was exactly my intention, to make evident where reasoning brings to when it is adopted. The only difference between you and me is that you don’t draw the consequences of reasoning, you stop at a certain point, while I instead develop reasoning to its ultimate consequences.
It is like riding a horse: you say “Look, this horse is wonderful, see how it runs!”. And I say: “It looks wonderful because you don’t ride the whole ride, you stopped quite early, to avoid showing where it brings”. Then I mount your horse, with the difference that I don’t stop, so that I show you that actually that horse brings to the destruction of itself.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:13 pm If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
Where did you get the idea that 'observation' is dependent upon itself?
You are using the terms 'observation' and 'emptiness' wrongly for philosophical purposes.

Observation[1] is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

From the above, observation is dependent on the senses and not upon itself.
Re the term 'observation' there is always a separation between the observer and the observed.

One's self [not the religious soul] exists and that is not observed because the awareness of one's self is not by the senses, thus not via observation [as defined above].

For the term 'emptiness' in your intended sense, it is always propose that
'reality' is emptiness, not something that is substantial in the ontological perspective.

It is the same for most of your posts in trying to raise a dilemma, but your dilemma is using terms wrongly.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Phil8659 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:13 pm If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
Wow, are you trying to be the master of mush? Or what?

Life support systems acquire what a life form needs for survival, it then processes what it has acquired for a product which is used to maintain and promote life. Now this can be stated literally something akin to Aristotle, Perception determines conception, conception determines will. Or it can be put into what simple minded people would call a mystical saying, The Father, the Son and the Holly Spirit are One.
But claiming that Observation, which is short sighted for seeing, but in the Universal, is without value, is the result of someone who has microwaved their hair dry too many times, or that they shorted in their psychopharmacology prescription.

Only a brain that is dead cannot use that which is afforded it for survival from its own environment.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Dontaskme »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:13 pm If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
Emptiness appearing full of emptiness.

Yes, the observer has no other frame of reference in which to identify itself except with it's own empty reflection. The observer and observed are one and the same no thing, appearing as difference where there is none.
Walker
Posts: 14247
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Walker »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:13 pm If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
Sure, that formless no-nothing is the end point. However, between observation and the end point is a whole lot of livin' that is made apparent with short trips, jaunts as they say, into formless no-nothingness from which one emerges back into what is not the end. What is not the end? Well, the ability to write sentences, for one thing. Or hear more of the music, for another. Can this end point that makes life beautiful be known, be realized, be woven into the fabric of living without the short jaunts? I wouldn't know, but I do know that life is all that can be known, therefore, it is all that is known.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:13 pm If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
Where did you get the idea that 'observation' is dependent upon itself?
You are using the terms 'observation' and 'emptiness' wrongly for philosophical purposes.

Observation[1] is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

From the above, observation is dependent on the senses and not upon itself.
Re the term 'observation' there is always a separation between the observer and the observed.

One's self [not the religious soul] exists and that is not observed because the awareness of one's self is not by the senses, thus not via observation [as defined above].

For the term 'emptiness' in your intended sense, it is always propose that
'reality' is emptiness, not something that is substantial in the ontological perspective.

It is the same for most of your posts in trying to raise a dilemma, but your dilemma is using terms wrongly.
1. The interpretation of the senses necessitates observation as beyond the senses therefore observation may observe observation. Nothing is separable from observation thus all phenomenon exist as extensions of observation, as such observation observes itself resulting in the no-thingness resulting from the dilemma of self-referentiality.

2. Terms are use thus wrongness is rightness from another perspective.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Walker wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:52 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:13 pm If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
Sure, that formless no-nothing is the end point. However, between observation and the end point is a whole lot of livin' that is made apparent with short trips, jaunts as they say, into formless no-nothingness from which one emerges back into what is not the end. What is not the end? Well, the ability to write sentences, for one thing. Or hear more of the music, for another. Can this end point that makes life beautiful be known, be realized, be woven into the fabric of living without the short jaunts? I wouldn't know, but I do know that life is all that can be known, therefore, it is all that is known.
All being is the void of void thus is a void.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Phil8659 wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:13 pm If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
Wow, are you trying to be the master of mush? Or what?

Life support systems acquire what a life form needs for survival, it then processes what it has acquired for a product which is used to maintain and promote life. Now this can be stated literally something akin to Aristotle, Perception determines conception, conception determines will. Or it can be put into what simple minded people would call a mystical saying, The Father, the Son and the Holly Spirit are One.
But claiming that Observation, which is short sighted for seeing, but in the Universal, is without value, is the result of someone who has microwaved their hair dry too many times, or that they shorted in their psychopharmacology prescription.

Only a brain that is dead cannot use that which is afforded it for survival from its own environment.
The continual process of survival is the repetition of life and death which effectively ties both together, as one is dependent upon the other. As tied together there is nothing as both nothing exists outside of them to which to compare and this tying together of opposites is a negation of the opposites.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:20 pm Exactly: it is reasoning, definitely. That’s why my criticism is valid: because this way I have shown that reasoning itself brings to its denial. Making use of reasoning was exactly my intention, to make evident where reasoning brings to when it is adopted. The only difference between you and me is that you don’t draw the consequences of reasoning, you stop at a certain point, while I instead develop reasoning to its ultimate consequences.
It is like riding a horse: you say “Look, this horse is wonderful, see how it runs!”. And I say: “It looks wonderful because you don’t ride the whole ride, you stopped quite early, to avoid showing where it brings”. Then I mount your horse, with the difference that I don’t stop, so that I show you that actually that horse brings to the destruction of itself.
And all metaphysics is just a form of reasoning therefore what you stated can be dually viewed as a cheap metaphysics.

To go back to my point:

Self-referentiality leads to self-negation in certain contexts. Observation is empty in itself, but the totality of reality is all that exists and as such there is nothing outside of it thus the totality is also empty.
Walker
Posts: 14247
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Walker »

All being is the void of void thus is a void.
I read that a couple of times. That’s a pretty good word arrangement and it makes sense in the closed realm of logic and language.

Some folks say that being as we know it in the totality of this realm which includes the transmitting form, is actually a bardo state between forms, kind of like a stage of metamorphosis. Well, they may not say it exactly in those words.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:13 pm If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
Where did you get the idea that 'observation' is dependent upon itself?
You are using the terms 'observation' and 'emptiness' wrongly for philosophical purposes.

Observation[1] is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

From the above, observation is dependent on the senses and not upon itself.
Re the term 'observation' there is always a separation between the observer and the observed.

One's self [not the religious soul] exists and that is not observed because the awareness of one's self is not by the senses, thus not via observation [as defined above].

For the term 'emptiness' in your intended sense, it is always propose that
'reality' is emptiness, not something that is substantial in the ontological perspective.

It is the same for most of your posts in trying to raise a dilemma, but your dilemma is using terms wrongly.
1. The interpretation of the senses necessitates observation as beyond the senses therefore observation may observe observation. Nothing is separable from observation thus all phenomenon exist as extensions of observation, as such observation observes itself resulting in the no-thingness resulting from the dilemma of self-referentiality.

2. Terms are use thus wrongness is rightness from another perspective.
Where are you going with your rhetoric?

Note again,
Observation[1] is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation
What is beyond the senses cannot be observation.
It can only be thought, reflected, conceptualized, intellectualized, inferred, etc. but NEVER observed.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Emptiness of Observation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:28 am
Where did you get the idea that 'observation' is dependent upon itself?
You are using the terms 'observation' and 'emptiness' wrongly for philosophical purposes.

Observation[1] is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

From the above, observation is dependent on the senses and not upon itself.
Re the term 'observation' there is always a separation between the observer and the observed.

One's self [not the religious soul] exists and that is not observed because the awareness of one's self is not by the senses, thus not via observation [as defined above].

For the term 'emptiness' in your intended sense, it is always propose that
'reality' is emptiness, not something that is substantial in the ontological perspective.

It is the same for most of your posts in trying to raise a dilemma, but your dilemma is using terms wrongly.
1. The interpretation of the senses necessitates observation as beyond the senses therefore observation may observe observation. Nothing is separable from observation thus all phenomenon exist as extensions of observation, as such observation observes itself resulting in the no-thingness resulting from the dilemma of self-referentiality.

2. Terms are use thus wrongness is rightness from another perspective.
Where are you going with your rhetoric?

Note again,
Observation[1] is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation
What is beyond the senses cannot be observation.
It can only be thought, reflected, conceptualized, intellectualized, inferred, etc. but NEVER observed.

1. My statement is simple, how I use words is relative and as relative is always right from one context and wrong from another. The same applies to your words.


2. One cannot "see" sight or "hear" hearing, thus in observing the senses we are left with observation being beyond the senses.
Post Reply