Reality-By-Itself?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a discussion on Reality-By-Itself aka Reality-in-itself towards the perspective of God-in-itself.

Lets expand this system and add another node: You <---> REALITY <----> Me

This is a system. A three-node system. Which is isomorphic to the Distributed consensus problem in computer science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

And we have various strategies for solving it:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_(computer_science)

You have to add another meta level to the above, i.e.

[(Reality-Me-You [You <---> REALITY-X <----> Me] )

It is so obvious reality [reality-x] is independent of me and you which is essential for basic
survival to some degree.
nb: I assume " <-----> " meant separate and independent.

But what is not so obvious is meta-reality, i.e. reality-is-all-there-is which has to include me, you and others.
There is no way you can separate yourself from meta-reality which you and me are imperatively a part of. Thus you have to account for this meta-reality.
This meta-perspective of reality is essential for a higher meta-perspective of survival.

Point is this meta-reality is all encompassing which include the-me, you and others, as such this metal-reality cannot be a reality-by-itself or reality-in-itself that is independent of the-me, the-you and the-others.

The philosophical issue of the above is related to Kant's Thing-in-itself [German: Ding an sich]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
In another perspective the same thing-in-itself is the noumenon,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

The thing-in-itself is claimed to be God by theists.
Kant argued the thing-in-itself is an illusion, thus God is an illusion.
In this sense Reality-in-itself is also an illusion.

Views?

[Dontaskme]

Reality a.k.a A.I (Absolute Infinity) a.k.a uncreated Nothing and Everything a.k.a God

Cannot be Analysed.

It can only be imagined...as a mentally conceptualized idea, a.k.a an illusion.

Therefore, the illusion is real, for without the illusion, there would be no self-awareness, self-reference or any mentally constructed cognizance or belief that reality ever existed whatsoever, but, it clearly does in the minds of millions.


There is NO THING in a thing.

There is no person in a body.

A body is not conscious.

Consciousness is the body.

Reality is non-physcial.





.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality a.k.a A.I (Absolute Infinity) a.k.a uncreated Nothing and Everything a.k.a God

Cannot be Analysed.

It can only be imagined...as a mentally conceptualized idea, a.k.a an illusion.

Therefore, the illusion is real, for without the illusion, there would be no self-awareness, self-reference or any mentally constructed cognizance or belief that reality ever existed whatsoever, but, it clearly does in the minds of millions.


There is NO THING in a thing.

There is no person in a body.

A body is not conscious.

Consciousness is the body.

Reality is non-physcial.

The process of the production of an illusion in the brain is real in terms of neural activities and perceptions & cognition. This real process of illusion produces an object-of-illusion in the mind.

But to insist the 'object' of an illusion is real is insisting lies/falsehoods are true.
This is due to an inability to differentiate the process of an illusion from the output of an illusion.

Example in the bent-stick-in-water illusion as a process of illusion in the brain, the resulting 'object of the illusion' is a bent-stick.
The reality is there is no bent-stick but a straight stick which appear to be bent due to the different refraction properties in air and water.
To insist the object of illusion is real is thus insisting a lie/falsehood is true.

God is an 'object of an illusion' i.e. which is not real thus a lie/falsehood.

Reality-by-itself and God are objects of an illusion, i.e. a complex transcendental illusion.

[Atla]

The thing-in-itself is claimed to be God by theists.
Kant argued the thing-in-itself is an illusion, thus God is an illusion.
In this sense Reality-in-itself is also an illusion.

Views?

False dichotomy. If that's really what Kant argued then he was an idiot.

There is only reality-in-itself; we are reality-in-itself, we are it. It can't be any other way.

Reality-in-itself is neither God nor an illusion.

Many Hindus will claim reality-in-itself is God/Oneness, they reify it. That's an illusion they cling to.

Many Buddhists deny reality-in-itself, they misunderstand and get lost in emptiness, which is also an illusion they cling to.

"Proper" Advaita and Buddhism meet in the middle, their approaches are just different.

Ultimately the Advaita half-full approach is better compared to the Buddhist half-empty approach imo. Buddhists are too damn driven by their existential crisis.

[Dontaskme]

But to insist the 'object' of an illusion is real is insisting lies/falsehoods are true.

But I have never insisted the 'object' of an illusion is real...ever.

So as per usual, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you make all these wild assumptions about what you believe other people are thinking by constantly applying your very bad interpretation of what you think other people are thinking.. this is such an annoying habit you have adopted and is why hardly anyone on this forum agrees with anything you say.

.

There are no objects.

A brain is an object, objects do not exist, they are illusory concepts within awareness. Only awareness is aware, the brain has no awareness of itself, therefore does not do any of the things you say it does. Reality is not happening inside an object.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The thing-in-itself is claimed to be God by theists.
Kant argued the thing-in-itself is an illusion, thus God is an illusion.
In this sense Reality-in-itself is also an illusion.

Views?

False dichotomy. If that's really what Kant argued then he was an idiot.

Don't be so arrogant.
Have you read Kant's argument and understood [not necessary agree with] it thoroughly?

There is only reality-in-itself; we are reality-in-itself, we are it. It can't be any other way.

Reality-in-itself is an reality that exists independently by itself independent of all human conditions.
The Philosophical Realists claim there is such a reality-in-itself.
I disagree as there is no such reality-in-itself.

Since there is no reality-in-itself, I do not agree with 'we are reality-in-itself'.

To an extent I agree 'we' are involved with reality, i.e. as part and parcel of reality.
As such there is reality-by-myself or reality-with-ourselves but no reality-in-itself.

Reality-in-itself is neither God nor an illusion.

Kant had proved that it is.

Many Hindus will claim reality-in-itself is God/Oneness, they reify it. That's an illusion they cling to.

Agree.

Many Buddhists deny reality-in-itself, they misunderstand and get lost in emptiness, which is also an illusion they cling to.

Only SOME but not all Buddhists believe that.
Buddhism-proper proposes reality-by-ourselves and deny reality-in-itself. This meant Buddhism proper which engages with 'nothingness' it also deny nothingness-in-itself as well.

"Proper" Advaita and Buddhism meet in the middle, their approaches are just different.

Ultimately the Advaita half-full approach is better compared to the Buddhist half-empty approach imo. Buddhists are too damn driven by their existential crisis.

Advaita Vedanta is involved with the supraliminal [extreme of subliminal] in chasing Brahman-in-itself [aka thing-in-itself] but they are not aware of that.

Buddhism proper is very realistic in dealing with the real impulses of the existential crisis which is exuding suprasubliminal from the very inner depths of one's psyche. The Buddhism-proper methodology [the Middle-Way] is very empirical and objective in comparison to the use of illusions by advaita vedanta and other theistic methodologies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But to insist the 'object' of an illusion is real is insisting lies/falsehoods are true.

But I have never insisted the 'object' of an illusion is real...ever.

So as per usual, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you make all these wild assumptions about what you believe other people are thinking by constantly applying your very bad interpretation of what you think other people are thinking.. this is such an annoying habit you have adopted and is why hardly anyone on this forum agrees with anything you say.

There are no objects.

A brain is an object, objects do not exist, they are illusory concepts within awareness. Only awareness is aware, the brain has no awareness of itself, therefore does not do any of the things you say it does. Reality is not happening inside an object.

If you do not agree the object of illusion is real, then it can only be that you accept the neural process of illusion in the brain is real.
In that case you need to understand the idea of God is illusory and is an object-on-an_illusion.

It is thus critical that one understand the fact that the idea of God is an object-of-illusion arising from a process of illusion. [not an easy task]
Thereafter if you want to believe in that illusion you can do so for whatever the purpose but don't insist the object of illusion is real as other justified reality.
Note for example, some parents know Santa is an illusion, but they do have to pretend to tell their children Santa is 'real' in line with the child's psychological status at least till they have the capacity to know the truth.

The problem with God as object-of-an_illusion [a complicated and supraliminal transcendental illusion] is theists insist such an illusory product of the deceptive mind is really REAL due to the very strong supraliminal psychological impulses. Some theists [as evident] will even kill, lashes, suppress the freedom of speech of those who disagree with them.

[Atla]

Reality-in-itself is an reality that exists independently by itself independent of all human conditions.

That makes no sense, such an interpretation doesn't exist in Eastern philosophy.

The Philosophical Realists claim there is such a reality-in-itself.
I disagree as there is no such reality-in-itself.

Since there is no reality-in-itself, I do not agree with 'we are reality-in-itself'.

To an extent I agree 'we' are involved with reality, i.e. as part and parcel of reality.
As such there is reality-by-myself or reality-with-ourselves but no reality-in-itself.

Strawman; you seem to be attacking a misinterpretation, some kind of Western idea of "reality-in-itself".

Kant had proved that it is.

Strawman; what Kant has proven or disproven here has f. all to do with the Eastern views.

Only SOME but not all Buddhists believe that.
Buddhism-proper proposes reality-by-ourselves and deny reality-in-itself. This meant Buddhism proper which engages with 'nothingness' it also deny nothingness-in-itself as well.

You seem to misunderstand Buddhism in general, through this Western misinterpretation.

Advaita Vedanta is involved with the supraliminal [extreme of subliminal] in chasing Brahman-in-itself [aka thing-in-itself] but they are not aware of that.

Well many interpretations of Advaita seem to be doing that indeed. Proper Advaita acknowledges that Brahman is jus a word for reality; there is nothing to chase, it already is.

Buddhism proper is very realistic in dealing with the real impulses of the existential crisis which is exuding suprasubliminal from the very inner depths of one's psyche. The Buddhism-proper methodology [the Middle-Way] is very empirical and objective in comparison to the use of illusions by advaita vedanta and other theistic methodologies.

Buddhism focuses on an existential crisis, making it the most obsessed with that existential crisis. It's basically saying no to life and running away.

[Dontaskme]

But to insist the 'object' of an illusion is real is insisting lies/falsehoods are true.

But I have never insisted the 'object' of an illusion is real...ever.

So as per usual, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you make all these wild assumptions about what you believe other people are thinking by constantly applying your very bad interpretation of what you think other people are thinking.. this is such an annoying habit you have adopted and is why hardly anyone on this forum agrees with anything you say.

There are no objects.

A brain is an object, objects do not exist, they are illusory concepts within awareness. Only awareness is aware, the brain has no awareness of itself, therefore does not do any of the things you say it does. Reality is not happening inside an object.

If you do not agree the object of illusion is real, then it can only be that you accept the neural process of illusion in the brain is real.
In that case you need to understand the idea of God is illusory and is an object-on-an_illusion.

It is thus critical that one understand the fact that the idea of God is an object-of-illusion arising from a process of illusion. [not an easy task]
Thereafter if you want to believe in that illusion you can do so for whatever the purpose but don't insist the object of illusion is real as other justified reality.
Note for example, some parents know Santa is an illusion, but they do have to pretend to tell their children Santa is 'real' in line with the child's psychological status at least till they have the capacity to know the truth.

The problem with God as object-of-an_illusion [a complicated and supraliminal transcendental illusion] is theists insist such an illusory product of the deceptive mind is really REAL due to the very strong supraliminal psychological impulses. Some theists [as evident] will even kill, lashes, suppress the freedom of speech of those who disagree with them.

You are making what is so very simple very complicated as ususal.


This is all knowledge, its a fiction arising herenow nowhere to no one and no thing.

There is no YOU to agree or disagree, EXCEPT in the dream of separation... the world of illusory concepts.. the world of concepts is the illusion of maya appearing now...a real illusion. No one to validate it, no one to negate it, it just THIS one without a second. You are THIS.

As long as you are stuck in the belief that beliefs are real, you will not make sense to anyone reading your posts. Clarity will evade you as long as you identify with beliefs as being real.

That which is real is not a belief, for there is no one here to have such a belief. The belief is what makes the illusion of knowledge possible, but the knowledge is not what is real, it's only an interpretation of what is believed to be real.

Not what is actually real.

.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality-in-itself is an reality that exists independently by itself independent of all human conditions.

That makes no sense, such an interpretation doesn't exist in Eastern philosophy.

The Philosophical Realists claim there is such a reality-in-itself.
I disagree as there is no such reality-in-itself.

Since there is no reality-in-itself, I do not agree with 'we are reality-in-itself'.

To an extent I agree 'we' are involved with reality, i.e. as part and parcel of reality.
As such there is reality-by-myself or reality-with-ourselves but no reality-in-itself.

Strawman; you seem to be attacking a misinterpretation, some kind of Western idea of "reality-in-itself".

Nope.
There is a wide range of Eastern spiritual principles from kindergarten to PhD.
At the highest is Buddhism proper which propounds no reality-in-itself.
I have read and understood this concept and I tried to find it from google but it not an easy search.

Kant had proved that it is.

Strawman; what Kant has proven or disproven here has f. all to do with the Eastern views.

What Kant has proven is parallel and in alignment with the proper Eastern views. However Kant's approach is more systematically in the philosophical perspective but lack the practices and practicals.

Only SOME but not all Buddhists believe that.
Buddhism-proper proposes reality-by-ourselves and deny reality-in-itself. This meant Buddhism proper which engages with 'nothingness' it also deny nothingness-in-itself as well.

You seem to misunderstand Buddhism in general, through this Western misinterpretation.

Nope.
It is an Eastern view, btw, I am from the East.

Advaita Vedanta is involved with the supraliminal [extreme of subliminal] in chasing Brahman-in-itself [aka thing-in-itself] but they are not aware of that.

Well many interpretations of Advaita seem to be doing that indeed. Proper Advaita acknowledges that Brahman is just a word for reality; there is nothing to chase, it already is.

There is neti-neti.
But at the supraliminal level there is an element of chasing the Brahman-in-itself.
Advaita do not promote the nothingness of nothingness, if so, advaita vedanta would exactly be the same as Buddhism proper.

Buddhism proper is very realistic in dealing with the real impulses of the existential crisis which is exuding suprasubliminal from the very inner depths of one's psyche. The Buddhism-proper methodology [the Middle-Way] is very empirical and objective in comparison to the use of illusions by advaita vedanta and other theistic methodologies.

Buddhism focuses on an existential crisis, making it the most obsessed with that existential crisis. It's basically saying no to life and running away.

Existential crisis, yes.
But you got that wrong on running away.
The Buddha denounced asceticism and escapism after having done that himself and found such methods to be futile.

[Atla]

Nope.
There is a wide range of Eastern spiritual principles from kindergarten to PhD.
At the highest is Buddhism proper which propounds no reality-in-itself.
I have read and understood this concept and I tried to find it from google but it not an easy search.

How can you deny reality without reality?

What Kant has proven is parallel and in alignment with the proper Eastern views. However Kant's approach is more systematically in the philosophical perspective but lack the practices and practicals.

Western philosophy is always based on the illusion of the ego so I don't see how it can really be parallel.

There is neti-neti.
But at the supraliminal level there is an element of chasing the Brahman-in-itself.
Advaita do not promote the nothingness of nothingness, if so, advaita vedanta would exactly be the same as Buddhism proper.

But Vedanta proper is "exactly" the same as Buddhism proper, just coming from the opposite approach. It's more like the emptiness of fullness.
But most interpretations of Vedanta are indeed chasing the Brahman, are delusional.

Existential crisis, yes.
But you got that wrong on running away.
The Buddha denounced asceticism and escapism after having done that himself and found such methods to be futile.

So he switched to psychologically running away.

[Dontaskme]

Buddhism proper which propounds no reality-in-itself.

Buddhism is an idea, it is an object of awareness, a fiction.

How can that which is a fiction MAKE any truth claims about the nature of reality-in-itself?

Reality just IS ..it doesn't make distictions ..that is the work of the mind, a relative appearance within the absolute.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope.
There is a wide range of Eastern spiritual principles from kindergarten to PhD.
At the highest is Buddhism proper which propounds no reality-in-itself.
I have read and understood this concept and I tried to find it from google but it not an easy search.

How can you deny reality without reality?

Reality is what we are in and is part and parcel of reality.

The Philosophical Realist [and also theists] claims there is an ultimate reality, i.e. God in which there are not a part of.
This is the reality that should be denied, i.e. a reality that is independent of the human self.

What Kant has proven is parallel and in alignment with the proper Eastern views. However Kant's approach is more systematically in the philosophical perspective but lack the practices and practicals.

Western philosophy is always based on the illusion of the ego so I don't see how it can really be parallel.

You are relying on your narrow view.
Note I spent 3 years studying Kant full time [average 6-7 hours a day], so I know what Kant is talking about, most likely and at least more than you.
Kant's view is parallel to Buddhism not not exactly, but his systematic architectonic is worth knowing.

There is neti-neti.
But at the supraliminal level there is an element of chasing the Brahman-in-itself.
Advaita do not promote the nothingness of nothingness, if so, advaita vedanta would exactly be the same as Buddhism proper.

But Vedanta proper is "exactly" the same as Buddhism proper, just coming from the opposite approach. It's more like the emptiness of fullness.
But most interpretations of Vedanta are indeed chasing the Brahman, are delusional.

Chasing 'Brahman' is the basis default of Advaita Vedanta if you study it closely and note the views of Advaita Vedantists in align with their spiritual proclivities.

Existential crisis, yes.
But you got that wrong on running away.
The Buddha denounced asceticism and escapism after having done that himself and found such methods to be futile.

So he switched to psychologically running away.

Note, Buddhism proper is about full engagement and interaction with reality.
You are likely to be misled by the existence of Buddhist monks but they are not in full alignment with Buddhism proper.

It is very common to see Buddhists praying to idols and making offerings at home and in Buddhist temples. Some even believe the Buddha as a God, etc. These practices are not the principles of Buddhism-proper but it is flexible enough to compromise and go along the existing states of Buddhists with the hope they will graduate gradually to Buddhism proper in time.

Note this principle of Buddhism-proper;

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

[Atla]

Reality is what we are in and is part and parcel of reality.

The Philosophical Realist [and also theists] claims there is an ultimate reality, i.e. God in which there are not a part of.
This is the reality that should be denied, i.e. a reality that is independent of the human self.

The reality "we are in and are parts and parcels of" IS ultimate reality.

The claim that "there is no ultimate reality" is part of ultimate reality too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is what we are in and is part and parcel of reality.

The Philosophical Realist [and also theists] claims there is an ultimate reality, i.e. God in which there are not a part of.
This is the reality that should be denied, i.e. a reality that is independent of the human self.

The reality "we are in and are parts and parcels of" IS ultimate reality.

The claim that "there is no ultimate reality" is part of ultimate reality too.

That is at most penultimate because we fallible humans with humility cannot claim 100% certainty and completeness.