Consciousness and the Cosmos

It depends on your definition of consciousness.

Science is all about practicality, not about real understanding, IMHO. And it is not redefining consciousness from a more universal definition be cause it never had that definition.

I don’t think the definitions are that different.

I certainly agree with that, but how do you suppose science should study the root of existence to find those characteristics?

And I don’t think we do. Notice that a table is a differentiated object whose characteristics can be objectively studied so it is easy to come up with a definition for it.

Ok

What theory is not an abstract formal system?

What does that mean?

I don’t see how that applies to my model and I don’t even see the paradox..

“If the modeller (of the universe) includes themself in the model, then who'se doing the modelling?”

Obviously it is a part of the universe that is modeling itself from its own internal limited perspective. We call this portion of the universe the self. What is paradoxical about that?

EDIT: The universe is self-modeling, to an extent, just like the brain is self-modelling to an extent. The paradox is the assumption that a model can be absolutely complete, and this is what I am talking about as the limits of any modelling system such as the human brain/mind. The resolution and scope of any model is necessarily limited.

Wasn’t it you who suggests that the root of existence is consciousness, or “what it is like”? To me that is the essence of subjectivity. I am not saying that substance is sitting around thinking and observing the world omnilocally. I am simply saying that there is an interior perspective from which to view the universe from every omnilocal point which is always a circle that can be divided infinitely. I don’t believe I used the word subjectivity in this case. If I did I didn’t mean subjectivity in the typically human sense.

Look how you say that with so much confidence without knowing Spinoza’s system.

That is a strange view. What happens if you are dreaming?

I can map my system to Buddhism as I know it, and I also know that Buddhism has been a renowned syncretic philosophy and mappable to almost all religions etc. even dual monotheistic western ones. But since I don’t know your non-dual view and you don’t think they are compatable, there seems no point.

That’s not true. I do it all the time, but I map the dual ones to my non-dual one.

It does though. It has a history of syncretism with varying worldviews.

EDIT: You are again looking for an all-or-nothing answer. I am not talking about absolute cross-identicality, but since these worldviews are all views of the same world then there should be and usually is some RELATIVE amount of mapping possible even if this mapping shows the irrelevance of some concepts while exposing the deep intuitions of others.

That is really what I mean. It becomes a way of understanding the symbolism in a more coherent manner.

Well I must be hallucinating, because I see similarities all over the place. Be careful of this all-or-nothing attitude.

and this absolutist stance…

Which means that at the root there is an undifferentiated eternal and infinite “consciousness” unifying all disparity, ignorance and confusion. It is a way of getting people to see past their noses and not get caught up in all the local turbulence.

Well, it maps perfectly for me, canute, and I completely agree with it. I find enlightenment and resonance through it.

Buddhism is all about unification through the comprehension of the root of undifferentiated existence. It is not about maintaining incompatable differentiations.

You may “feel” that, but that is because you have a different emphasis and are quite used to your own “formal system of definitions”. EDIT: You are in fact so used to it that you don't even see it as such.

I am saying that the root is the undifferentiated essence of everything and furthermore since it is consciousness that is the root of the comprehension of everything and since there is no real line to be drawn between human consciousness and the root essence then consciousness can easily map to the the root essence. I can see it through your “formal system of definitions” and I can see it through mine. Is that equivocation? Not at all because I am not concealing the fact that I am switching semantic operating systems depending on the functionality I need.

They both have their advantages, but you can't know that until you can map to it.

Inject the word “physical” and you will find “physicalism”. Notice that I didn’t use that word because it conjures up incorrect images.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sir Mojo

I'd rather move on really. I don't think we're going to resolve our differences head on. Still I don't want to be accused of copping out so here goes.

You said that the finite cannot know the infinite. Sorce says that human beings are not separate to anything else. They are part of the infinite. If human consciousness is part of everything else then it IS infinite. Why can't it know what it is? Define it how you like.

Yes, I'll rephrase it then . Scientists should not keep redefining it to suit themselves. They do it every week. There are existing definitions that nobody disagrees with, but science can't use them so they redefine it in terms of function or mental computation or 'self' or whatever their particular theory demands. (As has been well argued by David Chalmers)

I realise that.

They don't have to. It may not be the root of all existence, it's just an opinion. I'm talking about my and your consciousness right now.

Doesn't it ever strike you as odd that science can't define something that they can observe quite easily without any special equipment at all? Francis Crick has even written at length on why we shouldn't even try to define it. They will not admit the obvious, that it isn't scientific. Many (most?) philosophers of mind feel the same way, I'm not expressing some weird personal opinion.

Exactly, and likewise consiousness.

They all are. Thus if we want to understand reality we have to overcome this hurdle.

I meant that it is fine to define terms in any way at all as long as the system is consistent. But it is not fine to then assume that these systems are talking about reality. Thus, for instance, mathematicians do not reify points.

It's dangerous to define a term in a theory-laden way and then imagine that the term is a real thing.

How does the self model the self? Self-reference becomes ultimately paradoxical for any dual theory based on self and non-self.

I agree. Thus understanding requires total self-reference, and not (ultimately) the application of systems based on proofs of truth and falsity. Such systems cannot refer to the reality outside of themselves.

It was yes.

You said that subjectivity is a property of the continuum. If so then panpsychism (or objective phenomenalism or whatever) follows. I don't have a problem with that, but I thought you did.

It doesn't really matter whether I've even heard of Spinoza. All I assumed about him was that by 'thought' he meant 'thought'. In Buddhism a thought is an external phenomenon.

It's the Buddhist view.

Personally I would say that dreams are experienced just like thoughts.

This is not true. What you can map is the part you understand. Buddhist metaphysics is non-dual. Of course when it comes to the stuff about compassion and right action and so on it agrees with many other philosophies. But these things are the trappings, not the metaphysics.

You don't have a non-dual one. You have said yours was neutral monism. (or was that just Sorce?) Of course for everyday purpose these have a lot in common. But ultimately they are completely different. 'Non-dual' does not mean 'one', it means 'not two', a subtle but important distinction.

It has a history of getting along with religions like Christianity, which doesn't have a rational metaphysic. It even gets along with science, which also doesn't have one. However when it comes to the crunch Buddhist metaphysics is completely different.

Yes I do agree with that. But I'm trying to point out that the mapping is only at a superficial level. That doesn't mean it isn't useful or relevant to cross-map, but the issue on which they don't cross-map is fundamental.

It becomes a way of understanding the terms in a very much less coherent manner. Buddhism is a system of terms and theorems only because it has to be to be communicated. However it is common knowledge that when it gets down to basics Buddhists stop using terms and theorems, in fact they usually stop speaking entirely. The reason they do this is the nature of Buddhist metaphysics, which is ultimately nothing to do with terms and theorems. The 'public' terms and theorems of Buddhism are incoherent ex hypothesis. That's why they write in such a strange way.

Your theory of existence, or rather the philosophical/epistemelogical system you use to describe it, may be quite correct, even though I think it isn't. However that's not what we're talking about, which is rather whether dual and non-dual philosophies are similar. They aren't, honest. It's not just my opinion.

Well, if you call a horse a tree I shall take an absolutist stance. All I'm trying to say throughout is that you do not have a non-dual philosophy and, from your posts, you misunderstand what it is. It's no big deal and I'm quite happy to move on to other things.

Each to their own interpretation, but that seems close. However what you call the 'local turbulence' includes Sorce theory, this discussion and the author's own words. He is talking about what we can verify for ourselves at any time, but only by ourselves, and not with words and theories.

I happily accept that you have some intellectual understanding of the words, perhaps better than mine. However he would be horrified to learn that this kind of understanding was all you made of the words. He is talking about conscious experience, and he does not expect or even want anyone to simply believe him. Buddhism is not about beliefs. If you want to know it's true you have to have the experience of it. This is why Buddhism is a practice, not a set of adopted beliefs or teachings.

Yes. as long as 'comprehension' has come from personal experience and not out of a book, or from some system of reasoning, or in the form of a theory.

My point of view is the point of view of every philosopher I've ever read on this subject. I never seen anyone disagree.

Definitions are not real things, they are placeholders. If you rely on definitions for knowledge of the world then you will inevitably be stuck in the system in which the definitions were given, cut off from reality. This is why dictionaries and mathematics use undefined terms.

Real things have to be known directly. That doesn't mean definitions aren't useful, all systems of reasoning rely on them. But it is dangerous to forget this and start treating them as if they were the real thing. This is how we cut ourselves off from what is actually there. This is why science is a system of hypotheses and not a collection of truths.

But again you are talking theories, closed systems. I am talking about experience. Words are unavoidable, (which is a pity), but the words aren't the truth, they're just words.

Think of a dog. When you point at something it just looks at your finger instead of the thing you're pointing at.

Yes ok.


I'm happy to agree to differ for the time being. I'm not writing all this to knock you down, but because I agree with most of what you say on every other issue, and it's frustrating not to able to sort this one.

Regards
Canute

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I meant was that the part is not the whole, by definition. This doesn't mean the distinction is absolute, but that it is a distinction nonetheless.

Of course you are right, the human mind in its absolute aspect is infinite, but I am talking about its relative aspect as a modification or differentiation of the absolute.

non sequiter. This only shows that the human mind is part of the infinite not that it is the whole. The fact that in its differentiated aspect it is a part, shows that this aspect has limits. Since the definition of “infinite” that I am using means “limited” then this obviously means that the mind is finite because its size (for one thing) is not as big as the universe. There are so many obvious limitations that come from this ONE-to-MANY fact of all modifications and differentiations.

This differentiation can know that it is a part of the infinite and that it is not the whole infinite, but it can also know that there is no absolute difference between the absolute infinite and the differentiations therein.

Since human consciousness is a VERY complex emergent result of very complex processes the goal of cognitive science is to functionally define consciousness. This is what they are striving to do.

Science observes the effects of consciousness, not the VAST complexity of the causes, just like they observe the effects of quantum processes but cannot see their vastly complex causes. This is why they must invent THEORIES to understand (functionally define) what these causes are, or in the case of the quantum, to codify a "justification" in theoretical ossification by forgetting that the deeper causes (metaphysics) necessarily exist.

Is it because a simple definition just can’t do it justice? Still definitions are never written in stone and they only serve the function of communication.

Oh I know, believe me.

Well, yes, now that you have switched to the local observable variety.

Surely you don’t think we can ever have a theory that isn’t ultimately an abstraction, whether or not it is true?

Unless of course the theory is observably true and the term references an observable fact of nature.

The paradox only exists if you assume that a model can ever be a complete representation of the thing modeled, which I don’t. ALL models are abstractions. Certainly it is obvious that we make models of the world and ourselves? And certainly it is obvious that our models are never absolutely complete? Where is the paradox? I don’t see it.

I don’t get it. The senses get information from the outside world why can’t they include this information in their limited models?

Well, no I didn’t quite say that. I already told you that I was talking about a non-anthropomorphic type of subjectivity and basically what I meant by it was that there is an inside perspective from which to conceive of all modifications.

I don’t, and never said I did.

Then, why make such a solid assumption with zero knowledge? His attribute of “thought” is not at all obvious to the uninformed. But neither is the definition of “non-dual” what would at first be assumed by the uninitiated as well.

I don’t know of anyone who would challenge you there, but you are not assuming that dreams are something external to the mind are you?

That word “non-dual” is strategically misplaced IMHO. It forces all other non-dual theories into some other category by definition. It is a didactic trick of the concretizing tendencies of all religions to assume and teach that they are the ONLY correct one

My view is non-dual and quite map-able to the Buddhism which I have studied and which you have further clarified

So you have mapped it already to the point that you can already see “a lot in common”, yet you were previously saying (and will say again in this post) that they have “nothing in common”.

Again… be careful of these all-or-nothing statements.

I already know your distinction and can see past the subtle distinction. “ONE” connotes differentiation, which is not the point of the “non-dual” neutral monism philosophy of Spinoza. If you knew my “not-at-all dualistic” view, you would see past this subtle and syncretically limiting (i.e. concretizing) “distinction”.

Christianity does have a rational metaphysic. It is just unknown to the Christians.

It is not COMPLETELY different. Is the world really so black-and-white for you? I don’t think you really see it so simply. You just have these limiting all-or-nothing habits of thinking, which cause you to flip back and forth.

The point of syncretism is not to abandon the obvious differences, but to find ways to see the relative unifying truths hidden in the origins of all thought systems that have been corrupted into religions.

I understand your “non-dual” fundamental and can see that it is just another way of defining the absolute and it is quite equivalent to Spinoza’s monism beneath the trappings of the words themselves that conjure different meanings in every single different mind.

Since you don’t know what Spinoza’s neutral monism REALLY is then you can’t see the core similarity. Also if your psyche needs this absolute, concretized differentiation between YOUR “non-dual” view and ALL other views, then I will say nothing more even though to me it is the words themselves that are the trappings that cause you to see absolute distinctions where none really exist.

Since I have studied both systems, I can see both systems and can see the core unity beneath the words, so my point was simply to show you how to see it. If that is not something that you need or want then so be it.

This is what I am talking about. You are taking those words as absolute, while at the same time Buddhism says to abandon them in favor of the understanding which they convey. So get beyond the words to see the same unity expressed in both non-dual systems…

Thus they cannot express the depth reached by Spinoza about the causal necessity of that which they rightly take on intuited faith. Spinoza reached the same conclusion only he used a different path. It is not the path that is important here, canute. It is the destination. You, of all people, should know this.

Go on and say it. I don’t have a “non-dual” system, yet you don’t even know my system and it is only your labels that are getting in the way here.

Of course. This is nothing new and nothing different. It is only the Pythagoreans who openly admit that nature is really made out of language, though modern physics recently has forced itself into this position.

Spinoza’s neutral monism, however, does not suppose the obvious absurdity that words are operative at the core level. Language is clearly simply a tool for conveying an understanding which can only be truly reached beyond them.

Yet again, another distinction that only exists only in the concretization of Buddhism by absolutizing distinctions that are not intrinsically absolute.

They write in such a strange way because they gave up on coherence for good reasons. There are other ways of expressing the same thing though these are less poetic and consequently less mysterious and thus less apt for concretizing into a mystic religion. It is this mysterious paradoxical nature that makes you feel that is so profound. It is also the fact that it cannot be absolutely pinned down that makes it ring true. I am not saying that its intended meaning is not true, but that there are ways of rendering it non-paradoxical, i.e coherent and unified rather than paradoxical and dualistic. I know that you think this is the core difference between “monistic” views and your “non-dual” view, but it is only the trappings of words after-all. I agree with and understand both “trappings” and use all of the understandings therein to deepen my understanding of the others.

Oh, of course not because it has not been officially labeled “non-dual” even though it isn’t dualistic at all and is actually quite equivalent. ;-)

Can you abandon your limiting b/w mindset? Whether you know it or not there are relative similarities between ALL metaphysical systems.

I think I do understand it, actually. Can you point to any flaws in my understanding of it?

Non-dual means that it both “is” and it “isn’t”. One can understand this easily in terms of non-contradictory statements. “Non-dualism” tries to get to the undifferentiated root of existence. It assumes on the one hand that “is” equals differentiation, yet the root is undifferentiated consciousness thus it “isn’t”. The whole point is to get you to see the conflict between differentiated objective awareness and undifferentiated consciousness. They are functionally incompatible. (Thus the limits on the finite aspect of the mind I was suggesting).

This understanding is reachable by other paths and Buddhism (as only one path to enlightenment, not enlightenment itself) would be the first entity to tell you so.

EXACTLY my point! EVERYTHING we can know objectively and subjectively is differentiation. The point is to get beyond that and ultimately you can’t do that with differentiations such as words, theories, thoughts, visions, etc.. That is why the Buddhists ended with a paradox. They felt that was the perfect illustration/demonstration of this realization of the eternal conflict between differentiated thought and undifferentiated reality.

Right.

Certainly that is not my point. My point is simply to show you the unity between these multiple non-dual paths. They all ultimately reach the same destination.

What kind of understanding are you assuming is all I made of his words?

Of course not. That would be vulgar indeed.

right.

ALL personal experience with reality is relevant to understanding even if it is vicariously transmitted through books of distilled experience and wisdom. The point is simply not to accept anything on faith but to let it take you beyond themselves.

Quite obviously we agree here, canute, but if you agree then you should see the potential value in another unknown system which you have already instinctually dismissed offhand.

This is the point I have been trying to make.

Such as the word-system of Buddhism. True theories point beyond themselves and can be abandoned once the understanding has been reached. Sorce Theory is the same. Once you understand it, it becomes ingrained in your visualizations of reality. The words are mere scaffoldings to transmit the unified causal visualizations.

I am talking about experience too and I am not suggesting that even though Sorce Theory is based on experience and is ultimately independent of words, it is a replacement for Buddhism. I am simply saying that Spinoza’s neutral monism (which is separate though compatible with Sorce Theory) is saying virtually the same ultimate thing (in a non-contradictory way) as Buddhism, if only you understand it. Right now you simply have someone else’s concretized differentiation. I have seen first-hand how many false understandings Spinoza has been subjected to. The one that you have read is clearly false as well and only serves to cut Buddhism away from ALL other views to concretize it and set it on a pedestal as an untouchable, unreachable “non-dual” idol.

exactly. “Non-dual” is just a word for making an absolute idolizing distinction where none should exist. It is a vulgarizing of the whole unifying syncretic purpose of Buddhism.

“non-dual” is that finger, canute…

Ultimately I don’t differ. That is truly where we disagree. ;-)

I really think it is the words that are getting in the way here. You have admitted that you don’t understand the neutral monism that we are trying to map vis-à-vis Buddhism, yet you continue to assert that they have “nothing in common” even though quite superficially neither of them are dualistic.

Since I do understand fairly well where you are coming from as I have studied Buddhism in the past (though I had never encountered the “non-dual” concretism before) and I have seen no argument from you to suggest any serious problems with my understanding of your well-expressed and coherent “non-dual” views, and also since I have an understanding (far better than most I have come to see) of the neutral monism of Spinoza, then I am in a position to compare the two views in the open and side by side on an almost equal basis. From this vantage point they are quite harmonious, one with the other, and they each help to deepen my understanding of the other in a synergistic and resonant fashion.

This is my claim which I have demonstrated with my interpretations of the “scripture” you quoted.

You can deny my claim, if you wish, but since you admittedly do not know both views such a claim is hardly substantiated. In fact, your posts have so far failed to demonstrate a single fundamental and absolute difference apart from the obviously differentiated idiosyncratic systems used to express these respective views.

Buddhism, ends its search at a superficial paradox while neutral monism digs deeper with words to find a way of verbally expressing and making apparent the unity beneath this apparent paradox. They both express the same dichotomous and paradoxical ONE-to-MANY unity but one expresses this dichotomy as a paradox, poetically and mystically while the other explicitly and coherently. It is a matter of taste which one you prefer.

Note: My understanding of Spinoza is quite unique indeed so don’t expect to see this unifying perspective in any interpretation of Spinoza that you might read on the net (except by subtillioN, which is me) or even in a book though it is possible to see if you know how to look at it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This seems inconsistent. By both our views conscousness is BOTH the whole and the parts. It can adopt either state. The fact that it can be an a finite state does not mean it cannot be in an infinite one. I'm with Spinoza on this. There is a part of us that survives death and this part is part of something that has no intellect, no will, no purpose and no emotions which is infinite and eternal. How each part of this is the whole Spinoza doesn't get into, he didn;t have the tools. However these days we have fractal scaling and ideal condensates as useful analogies.

Did you mean to say that you define 'infinite' as 'limited'? If you did then I don't understand this bit. Also I distinguish between mind and consciousness.

That's seems to be what I was saying.

I'm talking about consciousness, of which 'human' consiousness, (by which I take it you mean yours) , is a particular example of a state. That state might be largely caused by human brain/mind, but if you can prove that consciousness itself is complex, or a result of complex emergent processes, you'll be on for a Nobel prize. No one else has done it. Cognitive science simply assumes it, for it is more scientific .

In science consciousness has no effects. This is an axiom of science.

What complexity of causes? Do you mean the causes of anger, pleasure, conceptions of phenomena and so on? These are not consciousness, they are what we are conscious of.

Yes, that is one of his arguments. He argues that we must define it as more than it seems to be in order that it can be addressed scientifically. He's right of course. If we define it as what it seems to be it cannot even be observed by science.

You don't agree with me and Spinoza then.

I didn't intend to do a switch. The local obsertvable variety is an instance. Defining an instance is not defining the thing itself.

No, I agree that theories must fail to refer to real things. This is why in Buddhism one is not expected to believe in theories.

But all observations are theory-laden.

I agree. Thus a model cannot be the truth.

That is the paradox. Our models canoot represent the thing they model.

They can. But at some point, if it is to become true, the model has to model the model.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'conceive of all modifications'. But subjectivity entail consciousness, whether or not it is anthropomorpicised.

Sorry, I thought it was implied by your idea of intelligence. Perhaps it isn't.

Having read up on Spinoza I don't feel that I misinterpreted him. For him thoughtsa are products of minds, and what lies beyond mind does not have thoughts.

No. But they not pure consciousness, since they are what consciousness is conscious of.

Religion? I have no religion and wouldn't argue for one. All theories that are not non-dual are not non-dual by definition. I don't see how one can argue differently. All non-dual philosophers believe that all other philosophies are dual, that's why they have a different term for theirs. 'Non-dual' denotes a specific category.

I disagree. Have you studied Buddhism or practiced it?

“Actual knowledge is identical with its object” Aristotle

"Once there was a well known philosopher and scholar who
devoted himself to the study of Zen for many years. On the
day that he finally attained enlightenment, he took all of his
books out into the yard, and burned them all." Buddhist tale.

Elephants have things in common with pianos, but it would misleading to suggest that they map onto each other.

Non-dual neutral monism is an oxymoron.

Your view is not non-dual, it is monist. This is not some subtle judgement of you views, it is clear from what you write.

That seems self-contradictory.

'Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion.' Alfred North Whitehead.

Got to go now. Will return to do the rest later.

Canute

 

PART II

I don't know what you mean here. Can you give an example?

Completely agree.

Imho this is not the case. I believe Spinoza was basically quite correct as far as he goes. (And am grateful to you for prompting me to find out more about him). I also agree that his philosophy implies a non-dual view of ontology. But there are no signs that he adopted a non-dual epistemology or understood the world in such a way.

I think I understand it and I can certainly see the similarity in its theory of cosmogeny.

How would you differentiate between them. They must be different, for they have different names. I'd be interested to know why you think they have different names if they're the same thing.

It is not MY non-dual view, it is THE non-dual view. I am not even arguing that it's the corect view. just that it is not a dual view. No view of the world based on hythpotheses and theories is non-dual. Try any Google search for Advaita or non-dual and you'll find people saying the same thing.

That's how YOU see it. If that's your conviction then so be it. You won't get a Buddhist to agree.

Non-dual means non-dual, it does not mean dual. This is an absolute truth for which I cannot be blamed.

Buddhist do not take anything on intuited faith for goodness sake. They believe in the evidence. You make assumptions all over the place.

I know that your system is dual. That's not some terrible insult, all non-non-dual systems are dual.

Reality is made out of language? I don't get that. What's language made out of?

I'm not sure that it's quite right to call Spinoza a neutral monist. His writings seem to suggest this, but I suspect he knew better.

Still what you say is right. Language has to go the way of theories if you want to develop a non-dual experience of reality.

I didn't invent the distinction, Buddhists did.

Complete nonsense. Now I'm getting annoyed. You are not being intellectually honest. It is perfectly obvious that you know absolutely nothing about Buddhism of any consequence. Take the trouble to find out something about it before making ad hoc assertions.

Pardon? What is mysterious or paradoxical about it?

Oh. You really do know nothing about it. I'd been assuming you just misunderstood what you knew.

Balderdash and rot. After this post I shall change the subject. I thought you'd done some research.

It is quite clear that you have no idea at all of what 'non-dual' means. You don't have to believe me, just do some research.

MY limited mindset. Good grief.

Of course.

I'm afraid I can't point to anything else. You are a very well educated and intelligent person, but on this topic you are talking rubbish.

That's sort of right, but it trivialises it. It's like saying that 'Science' means that different masses accelerate equally under gravity.

And there is nothing functionally incompatible about dual views. If there were the world wouldn't work, and neither is there any in principle limit on conscious understanding of its nature, as far as we know.

Of course. I am not a Buddhist by the way.

What paradox is that?

That's not quite untrue, but it's garbled.

Only if ultimately they become non-dual.

An intellectual one.

Of course all, or most anyway, systems have value. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Hell, we couldn't think about anything at all without such dual systems. I am saying that non-dual systems are not the same as dual ones.

Understanding of what? The theory that isn't what it points to?

Nonsense. Once you understand Sorce theory you understand Sorce theory.

Sorce theory is based on experience of observations of phenomena as far as I can tell, a rather limited subset of experience. To suggest that it could 'replace' Buddhism is bordering on insanity. It's not even a practice.

I agree that is pretty much equivalent to the Buddhist view of ontology, or at least compatible with it. However to imagine it's saying the same thing is profoundly ridiculous. I wish some Buddhists would come and help me out here.

Please find something out about Buddhism and 'non-dual' ism.

If you talked this nonsense about phsyics you'd be banished to alt.science.

The word is, but the thing isn't.

When did I do that?

Netral monism is a dualistic philosophy. This is a fact of the cosmos because this is how these things are defined. Don't confuse 'non-dual' with the opposite of academic dualism. It's not.

You have no idea at all where I'm coming from, and I can't seem to overcome your certainty in your own rightness. You have not practiced Buddhism at all as far as I can tell. You've just read about it, which is profoundly pointless in the absence of practice.

You mean you've never seen a definition of it?

Yes, we've become bogged down in details.

That is your opinion, not mine.

You're entitled to believe that. However if you do you will never be tempted to learn what 'non-dual' really means.

Scripture? Would you call a primary mathematics text book scripture?

I have dealt with each point as it has arisen. Non-dual philosophy is inexplicable ex its own hypothesis, as I have said before. You have to figure it out for yourself. Of course words can help, but they hinder equally.

NO IT DOES NOT. Only your understanding of Buddhism ends on a superficial paradox. You don't imagine that skilled Buddhists are living with a central paradox do you?

No it doesn't.

No it isn't.

I believe Spinoza was right, if that's any help. But he fails to pursue his own logic to its inevitably non-dual conclusion. (in his writings anyway - based on a summarised analysis of his views. He may have done so in private).

I don't imagine you'd mind if I stopped having this argument, so I will. I don't mind continuing if we can narrow it down to one point.

Regards

Canute

 

Canute, I apologize for annoying you. That was not my intent and you need not answer if you don’t want to. It is quite obvious that a large portion of my points were not understood the way I had intended them to be, in fact sometimes they were taken in the opposite direction. This is likely due to a non-optimal wording on my part. Some main misunderstandings are as follows.

First of all, I was saying that Sorce Theory is NOT a replacement for Buddhism, nor is it intended as such. There are many differences such as, Sorce Theory is not an ethical or meditative system built of a set of practices and it does not explicitly point constantly beyond itself to the unknowable or unimaginable, but only to the knowable and imaginable. My point is not to compare these two systems because they do not overlap. I am simply comparing my interpretation of Spinoza, which is quite different from the standard interpretation, with Buddhism. Perhaps it is the confusion between Spinoza and Sorce Theory which is causing some of the problems here. Also I am not suggesting that Spinoza is a replacement for Buddhism either.

Secondly the "paradox" of Buddhism that I was referring to, which is not an insult because they and you admit that it is paradoxical, is expressed by you as “self-contradictory” in the following:

“A state of experience that is non-being, or 'what it is like' to be nothing.”

“Non-dual-ism is sometimes taken to be the opposite of Cartesian dualism or to be some form of neutral monism. It is neither of these. In a non-dual ontology what underlies existence is 'not-two' but neither is it one. In a sense it is one, and in a sense it is many.”

“This is why Buddhist writing, despite the obvious sanity and skill of its writers, is so completely self-contradictory and playful. By a non-dual view the something/nothing that underlies existence cannot be discussed ex hypothesis. The obvious irony of being forced to talk nonsense all the time while trying to explain the truth gives rise to much of the humour in the writings. It's like a Cosmic joke.”





And from The Secret Doctrine we find:
"The true philosopher, the student of the Esoteric Wisdom, entirely loses sight of personalities, dogmatic beliefs and special religions. Moreover, Esoteric philosophy reconciles all religions, strips every one of its outward, human garments, and shows the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion. It proves the necessity of an absolute Divine Principle in nature. It denies Deity no more than it does the Sun. Esoteric philosophy has never rejected God in Nature, nor Deity as the absolute and abstract Ens. It only refuses to accept any of the gods of the so-called monotheistic religions, gods created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the Ever Unknowable.”



More later…

 

Thanks, but I suppose the annoyance is my problem not yours.

It arose not because I disagree with everything you say about Buddhist metaphysics, but because I can't persuade you that by looking at it as a theory you're missing the point. It isn't a theory at all. Theories are dual in nature because they are a product of reasoning based on the truths and falsity of sets of theorems. Because of this no expressible theory of existence is equivalent to Buddhism, even though they might be compatible with it to some degree.

According to Buddhism (and Popper, Quine, Spinoza, Goedel etc) no such system of truths and falsities can be completely true. However Buddhism can be completely true, (whether it is or not is another matter) because it does not suffer from the inevitable epistemelogical limits of theories. This is a very important issue that I felt you were being unreasonable unwilling to consider that you might be wrong about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I want to move to how Sorce relates to it, but can't because you think that Sorce is equivalent to Buddhism. But it's not that simple. Matching Sorce theory to Buddhism is not just a question of matching one theory with another. It's a much, much harder job than that.

Buddhism is a personal practice designed to reveal what is true directly and from personal experience. That doesn't mean it can't be talked about. But it cannot be understood simply by reading or talking about it. Talking about it makes it seem complicated and mystical, in fact it's about as unmystical and unparadoxical as it could be. It's dual systems of reasoning that give rise to mataphysical paradoxes. In Buddhism these paradoxes are resolved.

It may be that it is impossible to understand this without having had the appropriate experiences (as Buddhists assert). However you're very close already to agreeing with it (as was Spinoza) but imo are one small paradigm shift short.

Just for illustration -

But Buddhism does not point to the unknowable, that is exactly the opposite of the case. Buddhist practice is designed to enable one to know what is real and true. Theories never do this, they cannot do it for well known logical-epistemelogical reasons.

When I said that Buddism is 'self-contradictory' I was refering to the problems of explaining it, not to the Buddhist view itself. The nature of the core 'truth' or 'knowledge' of Buddhism is not in any way paradoxical. However explanations of it are. This is not a paradox, it is a problem, and there are good logical reasons for it. (In fact I would argue that the fact that it cannot be explained is the best available evidence for its truth). I haven't got too far with the practice but have spent a lot of time on the logic of it, and that logic is unassailable as far as I can tell, and logically I can't see how it cannot be true.

What I'm trying to do is explore how Buddhism (or a non-dual world view) matches with science and Western philosophies. Not a very Buddhist thing to do, since there's absolutely no point in doing it, but it's interesting. It doesn't match very well with notions of quantised spacetime, but Sorce is based on a continuum, which opens up different possibilities.

Chalmers writes " …I would not like to rule out the possibility of an eventual "objective phenomenology", to use Nagel's term, but it is difficult to see what it would look like. At the least, new constructs would be needed, and our ontology would need to be expanded. To get from the physical and the functional to the subjective, we would need metaphysical bridging principles."

It's those bridging principles that interest me. And the key thing that Chalmer's sees is that our ontology needs to be expanded. It needs to include one more thing that we can publicly prove by means of any theory.

This is not a mystical claim. It follows inevitably from Goedel's proof that we can always know one more thing that we can prove, whatever our chosen system of proof.

I'm not trying to convert you to Buddhism, but I think you misunderstand it. I have to admit that until two or three years ago I thought it was completely self-contradictory nonsense, but by some good luck I suddenly realised that it's a much more rational system of knowledge than science or Western philosophy. Unfortunately I've become obsessed with trying to find a way of proving that, despite the fact that it's probably impossible.

Peace and love

Canute

 

I am not looking at it as a theory, but a metaphysics. I don't care for the religion aspect, really.

Exactly.

It can be true because it is not attempting to be a complete description of nature. It is not a theory, as you say.

I don't really remember discussing this point, actually.

No I don't. Sorce Theory is a physical theory with an actual metaphysical basis. Buddhism is not a theory at all, but a religion based in metaphysics.

I was comparing Spinoza to buddhism, but not saying they were equivalent, just that they reached a similar ultimate conclusion from different paths.

I apologize if you thought I was doing that, becaue I wasn't.

I understand that. My point is that the words used to describe buddhism reached a paradoxical conclusion, but if understood properly the paradox is removed. This is what I was saying if you read my posts correctly. It is only the words that are self-contradictory, not the truth properly understood through them or beyond them.

I already agree with it.

I am talking about the unknowable in a scientific sense. Science simply cannot approach the truths of buddhism, nor can it approach those of Spinoza.

My point exactly.

Which is what I was saying if you read my posts correctly as I intended them to mean. I completely agree with you here canute.

It is a problem of description which is somewhat circumvented in Spinoza, actually. Note that I am not saying that Spinoza is a replacement or an exact equivalent, but just a different metaphysical descriptive system for the same BASIC (not specific) truth.

That is not evidence at all really, but it points to the different truth by demonstration that words are inadequate.

I agree with you, but the logic is merely a vehicle for arriving at a truth.

I disagree with your assertion that it is not a very Buddhist thing to do. Buddhism, is at heart a syncretic system. It may be only the religious, concretic aspect of Buddhism, that would say there is no point to syncretism.

exactly, buddhism matches with reality not false theory.

excellent

It needs a metaphysics which unifies all of physics and gets rid of the paradoxes.

I agree.

Fai enough and I was not assuming that you were a missionary in any sense.

I don't think it is anymore self-contradictory than do you and I also don't think it is nonsense. That is why it resonates with my worldview.

It's not impossible. it resonates with Sorce Theory and Spinoza, both of which are largely unknown western systems of truth.

and to you as well.

Regards,
subtillioN

 

Ok. Perhaps I've misunderstood your views. If so my apologies. I'm not convinced that I have, but I might well have done. The problem is that I keep finding myself disagreeing with you on details.

For instance in your last post I would disagree that Buddhism is a religion, or a metaphysical descriptive system, or a system of logic for arriving at the truth, or a syncretic system (if by that you mean its metaphysics agrees with lots of other belief systems). But perhaps we use the words differently.

On Sorce

The book makes a lot of sense imo. However I'm no physicist. It would be interesting to hear what one or two of the physicists here think about it. Have you thought to posting a thread on it?

I had a problem with the concept of energy, which seems to derive ultimately from the 'basic positive pressure' of the ether. Where does that come from? I tend to think of the uncertainty principle (or what gives rise to it) as the creator of vaccum energy but there doesn't seem to be a equivalent in Sorce.

Why can't the universe return to a pressureless/energyless state?

I didn't get what inertia was either. That's my fault, the explanation was a bit beyond me.

Any problems I had were where the author wandered away from science into philosophy, on which usually I disagreed with him. In particular I disagreed with his approach to intelligence, and I found the closing couple of paragraphs very weak, Robert Heinlen at his worst. But that's just my reaction,

The only other specific point where I disagree is bottom of p11, where I don't think the author properly understood what Bell was saying, but that may be just my misunderstanding.

These are all little quibbles. I thought it was great and made complete sense where I understood it. I just can't assess the validity of the science.

Do you consider that the substance at the heart of Sorce is the same one Spinoza described as having no attributes?

 

I think so we do use hese terms differently. There is certainly a religion called Buddhism and there is a metaphysical system burried deep within this religion. You may not want to use these words to define Buddhism, but by most accounts they are applicable.

Yes I have thought about doing so, but anyone classifiable as a "physicist" will generally have a tough time digesting the material which is totally alternate to his programmed belief system. This is an alternate paradigm which is not so easy to switch to because its core is completely different and this difference ripples all the way through the system.

Energy is motion and pressure.

Where does pressure come from? I am working on this explanation and it is quite difficult to explain. In Sorce Theory it is an axiom that basic matter has a property of pressure. This property is called sorce. This is directly in line with all observations and clearly basic matter must be pressurized in order to give rise to many observable phenomena.

The uncertainty principal explains absolutely nothing about the physical reality of quantum mechanisms and vacuum energy is the basic pressure and motion existing on all levels.

What makes you think there ever was such a state?

EDIT: The undifferentiated state mentioned in Buddhism and many monist metaphysical systems such as Spinoza's, is not a state in time, but a logically prior state of being as continuity. The continuity (substance or consciousness, take your pick) must logically exist prior to its modifications or differentiations. Again this has nothing to do with temporality, but only with logic. Ultimately there is no state of universal homogeneity possible because there would then be no differentiation to enable any other differentiation to ever come about because th universe is in a constant state of equilibrating its inhomogeneities, but since it must do so at finite speeds it can never come to any ultimate equilibrium in its infinitly extended substance. Understanding this conclusion requires an understanding of basic causal/metaphysical mechanisms.

You read it in what... 3 days? You can't expect to understand it if you don't take the time to truely visualize every aspect and get used to the concepts. You simply didn't give yourself a chance to understand it. Since the basic level is fluid-dynamic there is a minimum complexity involved in all basic mechanisms. Inertia is no exception. I would be glad to help you to understand it, but it will take some time to develop the visualizations in your own mind which constitute an understanding.

What was his approach to intelligence?

Heinlen? That is a strange reaction from a strange land.

Did you realize he was talking about Eric Bell not John Bell of Bell's Inequality Theorem? You probably did realize this, even so in what way did you think the author misunderstood what Eric Bell was saying?

First you need to understand the mechanisms before you can make any comparisons to the standard theory.

First of all, Spinoza's Substance does possess attributes. The two known attributes are "thought" and "extension", but it is quite a difficult task to properly understand them and there is no consistent explanation of them available save my own yet to be properly written which is entirely consistent with Spinozas own words. Secondly Spinoza's substance does share many similarities with that of Sorce, but there are some crucial differences. Spinoza's substance is the deeper undifferentiated aspect--the root of existence. In Sorce Theory this amorphous concept is somewhat encapsulated in the concept of ether, but the amorphousness of ether is always a matter of perspective because substance is always differentiated. Thus Spinoza's substance is more akin to the pure undifferentiated consciousness of Buddhism (pardon the comparison) than to the tangible aspect of continuity of matter in Sorce Theory with its forces, properties and fields, etc..

So Spinoza' substance is the root of undifferentiated existence whose infinitely recurring (self-similar) differentiations or modulations give rise to the properties (including those applicable to seemingly amorphous fields--the continuity aspect) of matter (called "ether") in Sorce Theory.

 

Canute,

Please do not take offense at these remaining responses from our previous discussion wrt syncretism between Spinoza and Buddhism, but there are some points I would like to have cleared up. These basically revolve around the difference between our respective inter-relating views of “neutral monism”, “non-dual”, etc.. The easiest way for me to address them is to simply respond to your points so here goes...

p.s. don't forget to read the post above this one as my reply to your latest post.

His system is non-dualistic in its words and its implications. Note that in the words of Buddhism there is a seeming dualism, i.e. self-contradiction (“what it is like to be nothing”, etc.), yet if understood properly this dualism vanishes. Spinoza takes an alternate root which is not equivalent to the narrow Buddhist usage of the descriptive term "non-dual", yet it is ultimately non-dualistic because it's core level is a single unifying reality (I won't call it "substance" because this trapping seems to throw you off). In Spinoza there is no seeming contradiction with the verbalisms which must be overcome through understanding beyond verbalisms. This process of overcoming the dualisms is explicitly spelled out through logic so one need not move beyond any contradiction except for a possible error in understanding Spinoza's actual system of thought.

The difference is that in one system of thought the coherence (non-self-contradiction) is implicit and in the other it is explicit. The question is how does this relate to your definition of "non-dual", and further how does this definition of "non-dual"relate to metaphysical or ontological duality or monism (i.e. non-duality)?

Spinoza has no cosmogony. His universe and his substance is infinite and eternal.

Here is an example of absolutistic reactionary thinking. I never said they were the same thing. That would be an obvious absurdity. I simply said that they were similar in many definable (map-able) ways.

…and it does not mean “not dual” either as it would at first seem and it thus doesn’t really mean “non-dual” in any common understanding of the term. This is why the term is misleading in that it implies that any system which is not classified as “non-dual” by its rigorous standards (which are not really based on dualism as commonly understood), is thus dualistic by default. This is an inherent (though perhaps unintended) falsehood generated by the misuse (IMHO) of descriptive terminology. There are many systems not classifiable in the narrow usage of “non-dual” which are actually non-dual in the general sense of the descriptive terminology.

There you go. Case in point of your misapplication of the narrow usage of “non-dual”. Be careful of such absolute “knowledge” in the face of your unavoidable ignorance of any foreign “system”.
Can you show me the duality in Spinoza’s monistic system? It is a monism not a dualism and is simply not dualistic in any common sense of the term.

This is a key distinction here, canute. What is the difference between the common and the Buddhist definition of duality and how is a monism really a dualism from the perspective of Buddhism?

You read and judge too quickly. I did not say that reality was made out of language. I said that the Pythagoreans say so because mathematics is a language.

What is your definition of “neutral monism”?

Why make the assumption that all so-called “non-dual” monisms (especially Spinoza) cannot be a vehicle for reaching beyond language?

Certainly Buddhism does not go beyond this point explicitly so one could also easily make the assumption that it too fails to go beyond its seeming verbal contradictions which you so clearly demonstrated. You have to know the system intimately by living within it (practicing it) for a long period of time to know the full extent of the vision and perspective it offers. You can’t just assume that you can grasp it upon a quick read. Note that certainly this applies to my limited and superficial understanding of Buddhism which I am not criticizing except for the misleading “trappings” employed as seen from a superficial outside perspective.

By this statement you are insinuating that all functional and explicitly coherent metaphysical systems are dualistic whether they are monistic or not. This is quite untrue, IMHO. Monistic systems are NOT dualistic systems otherwise they would be called dualisms. It is these perhaps unconscious misuses of language that cause the frustrating incompatibilities of the trappings of definitions and terminology here.

I think Buddhism has misappropriated the term “non-dual” for its own unintentionally misleading and concretizing purposes, but perhaps with adequate explanatory detail you will set me straight.

An understanding of REALITY, canute. Reality is what lies beyond all theory, and the correct ones (which are few and far between) actually point beyond themselves to absolute experienced REALITY.

You have yet to understand Sorce Theory so you don't know what happens once you do understand it. My point was that the words (theory) can be abandoned because Sorce Theory is completely visualizable and causal and does not rest with verbal abstractions, but with the experience of causality through the senses, mainly vision, but also the visualization of aural phenomena, sound etc.. The words are simply the vehicle to transmit the visualizations based entirely upon experience with reality. This transmission takes quite a great deal of time, however, and cannot be accomplished with a single quick reading. This is explained in the preface to The Orb that once you read the book for the first time you will then be ready to actually understand it the next time you read it.

Yes an insane conclusion that was never reached by me, but only in your assumptions of what I was saying…but you already know this.

That is all I was ever talking about, canute, a relative equivalence not an absolute identicality (another instance where an absolutist stance caused an automatic misreading). This is what I mean with “syncretism”. It is not the reducing of all intrinsically different systems to one homogenous absolute system. Such a project is not only impossible, but it would destroy the diversity which is absolutely necessary to the comprehensivity of human culture. My point is to develop a unifying mapping scheme to see the interfunctional similarities to enable the WHOLE thing to be appreciated as one incredibly diverse functional system of metaphysical truths (or whatever you want to call it...makes no difference) rather than many incompatible isolated “truths” whose zealous adherents cannot see past their own local “truth” to ever see eye to eye and actually communicate effectively.

Please explain to me how it is a “fact of the cosmos” that a monism is really somehow a dualism.

Can you explain in more detail where Spinoza’s monism left off and the Buddhist “non-duality” continues? Do you simply intend to mean that any system that explicitly unifies the undifferentiated root of existence with the differentiated realities of experience through logic is necessarily non-unified and dualistic? If so, this is not a satisfactory conclusion at all IMHO and it would simply amount to an empty assertion.

Spinoza’s logic is entirely non-dualistic and quite coherent indeed, but you can’t know this without some seriously intense study of Spinoza’s actual work. I have studied it and it leads to virtually the same BASIC conclusion that you are expressing wrt Buddhism. Spinoza’s system is simply NOT dualistic by any stretch of the word, but I am awaiting further explanations from you which may allow me to see what you mean.

Kind Regards,
sur Tillion

 

I just double checked my dictionary for the definition of religion. Buddhism does not qualify. The metaphysics of Buddhism is Buddhism. All the rest is either teaching material or a lifestyle response to a core metaphysical knowledge. I agree that from the outside this is not always apparent, but that's because usually the teaching must come before the knowledge, and the lifestyle helps one do the practice. However all that counts is the knowledge.

I can see that. But surely the book was written to make waves.

OK. I thought that it might be axiomatic.

Agree. But I take the UP to imply that the vacuum cannot be energyless since virtual particles must appear. (This point doesn't matter at all).

The book suggests that the universe cannot run down to nothing, (eg heat death) but doesn't seem to explain why not.
But if 'pressure' is axiomatic then I can see that it follows.

Surely not prior but co-existent. As I understand it to Spinoza we are all part of 'God' (universal principle) right now. In fact there is nothing else but God, which is the only substance that exists.

I'm not so happy with 'prior' here, and your next comment also suggests that continuity could not be prior to differentiation.

The substance must always exist, it is all that exists according to Spinoza. This suggests that it exists in both an differentiated state and a non-differentiated state at all times. (eg ocean and waves).

Ok. Hence the near equivalence (of description) with Buddhism.

I can't do all that clever mathematics and stuff. (Nor do I want to). I'm not disagreeing with it. I just couldn't follow the complicated bits.

I just wondered. I'm not suggesting that inertia wasn't explained.

He talks about intelligence as if it were more important and more fundamental than consciousness, and talks about intelligence conquering the universe. I don't think intelligence, which he seems to define as human cleverness, is all that important. (cf closing paragraphs).

Hmm. Trite was the word I nearly used.

I had no idea who he was talking about. But the view he expresses as being contrary to Bell's is not at all contradictory as far as I can see. He seems to agree with Bell.

You're right. I missed that. I was reading more Buddhism into his ideas than there actually is. In Buddhism there is a consistent explanation of them and I thought he'd spotted the same explanation. (Perhaps he did, but could not express it in those dangerously Christian times).

That's exactly what I thought.

Yep.

I was interested to read this:

"This theory (Spinoza's) would explain why the mind would die with the body...It surprises many readers of the Ethics, then, to find that in Part V Spinoza claims that there is a part of the mind which is not detsroyed with the body but survives... Spinoza scholars have puzzled about this without reaching any satisfactory explanation."

I won't go through your second post. I'll try to come back with a more clear definition of 'non-dual', which is the heart of the problem.

This is not a puzzle in Buddhism, since consciousness is not mind.

Cheers

 

Obviously and to explain them.

It is axiomatic in Sorce Theory as it now exists in the extant books, but it is not fundamentally axiomatic because causal explanations do exist which I am currently developing. Ultimately the only axioms should be substance and flux at infinite levels of size. This substance in infinite motion should explain all the other properties of basic matter which now go by the title "basic items". This changes nothing in the books but simply deepens the causal explanations.

Energy is currently defined as "the ability to do work". This is clearly a functionalist definition which would rule out the vacuum fluctuations unless they are harnessable. Since in Sorce Theory there is motion at all levels there is also pressure and thus energy. This fits with your understanding via the codification of ignorance called the Uncertainty Principal.

It does actually explain how, and pressure is a key factor as you intuited. It also shows how the second law of thermo-dynamics is part of a cycle leading back into energy and organization into an and gives an experiment which anyone can do to prove it.

Logically prior has nothing to do with a temporal sequence. It does not contract your correct assertion that it is not prior but coexistent. Logically prior simply means that you can't imagine modifications before a substance to be modified.

You are thinking of "prior" as a temporal sequence, but if the Universe is eternal there can be no beginning and no temporal sequence.

Ecactly correct.

ok. you said it not me... ;-)

The complicated bits are not mathematics, but causal logic of fluid-dynamics and wave harmonics. There is actually very little mathematics involved.

It was explained non-mathematically and you CAN understand it if you take it slow...guaranteed.

Actually he thinks of awareness as being fundamental to both intelligence and consciousness, but this is merely the differences in definitions of words and if you knew his system of definitions you could see that it is no different than yours or mine as it would at first seem. The difference is purely within the trappings of his system of definitions.

That is fine and of no consequence to the theory. Pointless really unless you would like to discuss the future of mankind.

That is because you don't see his vision of the future and the role of intelligence. Thanks for your negativity for negativity's sake.

Can you explain how? I guarantee it is because you misunderstood him, and I could explain it to you so you could see what he means.

He could explain anything he wanted to and did. The problem is that you are assuming a one to one mapping of the TRAPPINGS of the words. You have to know what Spinoza actually means by the words to see beyond them, hoever and find the mapping between the concepts that the words point to.

The definitions are different between the two. You have to know Spinozism intimately in order to understand the correct mapping.

Regards,
mojo

 

Quite right.

Note that I said 'description'.

I'll take your word for it.

Hmm. I feel its confusing to call consciousness intelligence but no matter.

Just my reaction. It seemed a let down after what had come before.

Bell says the equations describing natural phenomena must be invariant under all transformations of the space-time coordinates.

The author argues that instead that objective reality should be the final court of appeal for mathematical conclusions.

These two statements don't seem to disagree.

I'm not sure that's really true. I understoof he was trying not to get into too much trouble with Christian authorities.

I think I can do that. His metaphysical concepts aren't complicated.

I don't know what you mean here.

Canute

 

Of course.

Human consciousness serves an intelligent function.

Have you studied Relativity Theory? Common sense based in causality says that the equations should differ wrt motion through an absolute coordinate system. Einstein's theory is pure mathematics with no regard to causality. The point here is that it is objective reality not pure mathematics that is the final court of appeals whereas Bell is saying that the ad hoc assumption of invariance under transformations is the final court of appeals. To me the contradiction is obvious and this is an importandt point indeed because it is the assumption of the primacy of mathematics over causation that has led to the stagnation of the unification of physics and the consequent assumption that the understanding of physical reality is a human impossibility.

He could and did write anything he wished, but he was careful not to publish certain writings until after his death.

Right. Complexity is but the many faces of simplicity.

Simply that familiarity with the systems is a prerequisite for understanding the true mappings between them.

regards,
me

 

Are you sure? It seems to be the wrong way around.

Yes, but to little avail. I must have misunderstood what Bell was saying.

OK. In that case he not only didn't say he didn't think it.

Yes, that goes without saying. I just don't think they map like you do. It's nothing to do with the 'trappings' of the words.

 

Both ways work just fine. The difference is in the definitions of the words themselves.

You get used to your own way of thinking and can not see others because you judge them based in your preconceptions. You have to step outside of those preconceptions to see any other semantic system. This is merely a juggling of the words to different places on the semantic continuum, really. In most cases the semantics is the same, but simply acheives a different kind of visibility from a different syntactic vantage point.

Relativity is complete nonsense. Your intuition is too strong to let some prescribed faith in authority dictate that you abandon your causal reason.

You don't know what he thought and what he didn't. He did explain it if you know how to understand it. It is just different from what you are expecting. The words do not map linearly one-to-one.

I really don't think you know what I mean by "syncretic mapping". It has to do with understanding the system well enough to see the correlations which are NOT along the lines of the words (trappings) and their definitions. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the words. They simply do not map straight across. You have to learn the new vocabulary in order to speak the language and make any translations effectively.

BTW I think we could make some progress at undestanding each other if you would respond to the points made in the post that you said you were going to skip. There are some important details in there that continue to cloud up the mutual understanding. If you want me to repost the important ones I can do that.

 

No offense (honest) but I'm not going to do that. You don't know what non-dual really means in my opinion, and I can't convince you otherwise. I am convinced you're wrong and you're convinced that I am, so we're just going to argue forever, probably to little purpose.

Like I say, if I manage to put together a decent exposition of it I'll post it and then we've got something more clear to discuss. There's too many side issues here.

I would just steal some stuff from another site if I could but I haven't been able to find a good one yet. There may not be one. It's not just me who finds it impossible to explain. I'll try anyway, it's something I want to have a go at.

Cheers for now
Canute

 

You can "convince" me by putting it in context with the other requested definitions in your system. I will believe you when you tell me your definitions because what would be the point in lying about definitions?

I am NOT convinced you are wrong. i am convinced that you are right. I am convinced that your system is a correct system, a "truth", but i am also convinced that you can't seem to see past this local truth to see its correlations with another true system. I am convinced that you are misunderstanding what i am saying and my whole purpose and that is why you are convinced that i am wrong.

ok, but the simplest way is just to answer the questions and comments that I already posted. That way it would cover all the bases.

Oh well. Thanks for providing resistance for my struggle to define my meaning more clearly.

Regards,
sub....

 

This is going to sound odd, but what is happening here is that quite often I'm trying to stop you agreeing with me. I say something about non-dual thinking, you agree, and I don't agree that you've understood what I really meant. It's very confusing. It means that when you say 'I'm convinced that you're right' I don't agree with you'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't know what you mean about definitions and meanings. Did you ask me for some that I didn't provide?

Here is something I just found which is quite brilliant. It doesn't quite get to the epistemelogical issues that we've been arguing about, but it discusses what causes them.

If you KNOW that what this writer says is true then you you have a non-dual view of existence.

The Two Truths

Denmo Lochö Rinpoche

Denmo Lochö Rinpoche, the ex-abbot of Namgyal, His Holiness the Dalai Lama's monastery in Dharamsala, India, taught for two weeks at Root Institute in Bodhgaya, India December 1995. Here is an extract. Translated by Ven Gareth Sparham


I have been asked to give a talk on the Two Truths: the conventional or surface level of truth and the ultimate truth. Looking at it one way it seems as if I've already finished my teaching because there are just these two words: conventional and ultimate, and that's finished! But in fact these two truths subsume within them all of Buddhism, so there is more to talk about than you'd find in a huge beak.

I ask all of you in this special place of Bodhgaya to bring up within you a special motivation. Every living creature, no matter who they are, are living creatures seeking happiness. At the same time they seek happiness, they are unaware of the cause of happiness, so call up this motivation: that to relieve them from their unhappiness, I must myself achieve all the wonderful qualities, all the excellence of an enlightened state, in order to teach them how to free themselves.

Living creatures, just like ourselves, are defined by seeking to avoid unpleasant, suffering situations, and seeking to place themselves in happy situations. Animals, from insects on up, have knowledge of methods to immediately remove suffering, they have this intelligence. The human being differs from the animal as they have the intelligence to take into account a much greater time span. They can begin to do things to alleviate states that they will otherwise experience a long time in the future—for example, getting a good education so we can find a job, make money, and live well in the future. At this point we are talking generally; spirituality hasn't entered into the discussion at all.

If one performs wholesome deeds, one's future will be in a happy state. If one has performed unwholesome deeds, one has set down the causes to find oneself in a state of woe. Spirituality then enters the thought process of a human being contemplating a future that goes beyond simple death.

Everything that the enlightened one spoke of leads back to the understanding of the two levels of truth. (This doesn't mean there is no third truth, for example the Four Noble Truths and so on, so you can have sub-divisions.) Since you have two levels of reality, you have to have something being sub-divided, or categorized in two categories.

So you can ask yourself, "What is being sub-divided?" and the answer is knowables or objects of knowledge (Tibetan, she-ja). Here, a knowable is simply something that is existing. To exist means to be knowable, and to be knowable means to exist.

For example, I could have the idea of antlers on a rabbit—it could come up in my mind. I could fabricate this awareness, and in that sense rabbit's antlers are something known but they certainly don't exist. [The problem] here is that when you equate things that exist and things that are known, they are known by [a valid] awareness but not by [just any] awareness. In other words I could get out of this difficulty by saying that, true, rabbit's antlers are known by [a particular person's] awareness, but this doesn't necessarily mean that they are known by awareness!

Ultimate truth, paramarthasatya, if you take the [Sanskrit] word apart is this: artha refers to that which is known; parama refers to that which knows its object, that is, the mind of a high spiritual being; satya means truth. It is truth because that which is known is true for that which knows its object, the mind of the high spiritual being, therefore, ultimate truth, an ultimate thing that is true.

So what about this other truth, the conventional, surface level of truth: how does one come to understand this second of the two truths if the ultimate reality is understood in this way? This is samvrtisatya. Samvrti is total covering up, and covering here means ordinary awareness covering that which is real. Here again satya is truth, but truth for an ordinary awareness. In other words, all the things that are true for ordinary minds like our own that are taken as real by them—are conventional truths, therefore, truth for an ordinary covering mind.

In the scholastic tradition we say that anything that is known will always be included in one of these two levels of reality. Anything not covered by these two levels is beyond the sphere of what is knowable. There is a deep logic here—that these two categories, the two truths, are an exhaustive description of all that there is.

Here is how it works. Truth and lie go together, don't they? If a person makes a statement that mirrors reality, then that statement is true. However, a statement not mirroring reality is a lie.

The ultimate level of reality is mirrored in the mind of awareness that knows it, in a way that is not lying. This necessarily brings out the situation that all conventional truths are lying to the awareness that knows them, about the way they appear. Similarly, ordinary things appearing to ordinary awareness must be said to be lying to that ordinary awareness. You are, by removing that truth, positively showing the truth of the awareness of the ultimate. That ultimate, appearing to an awareness that knows it is not lying to that awareness, is the suchness of things—the ultimate reality of things.

So you have one being necessitated by another in a see-saw-like fashion, and from that account you can extrapolate out to show that it is a statement that is exhaustive of all knowables, of all that exists.

In Buddhist systems of ideas, there are many interpretations of what exactly these two levels of truth are. They are set forth as the four Buddhist schools of philosophy.

In the most profound school, the Middle Way Consequentialist school, just what is emptiness or the ultimate? It is this: that in fact nobody or nothing, anywhere, has anything that inherently makes it what it is. Nothing has its own personal mark. Everything exists simply through language, through ideas.
The absence of something, the total absence, the total not-being, non-existence of anything that is not there through the power of language and thought is shunyata, emptiness, the ultimate truth.

When one talks of an ultimate truth, of emptiness, one has a focus; one is looking at objects and finding them to be totally empty. What one is looking at and finding to be empty is very important. The identification of things first becomes an important thing to do because the ultimate truth isn't something immediately apprehensible by our senses—we can't see it. We have to arrive at it through our thought processes, and in order to do this we have to use reasoning. This reasoning takes as its point of departure certain things or bases, so we must identify these in the first instance.

Let's start by trying to identify what are classically the most important of these bases, the five aggregates or skandas. In The Heart Sutra it says, "He looked and saw that the five aggregates are empty of inherent existence." So if you don't know what these five are, how can you look into the ultimate truth of them?
The five aggregates are: a great heap of physical things, a great heap of feelings, a great heap of discriminations, a great heap of created things (Sanskrit, samskara) and a great heap of awareness.

So then, one has heaps, aggregates, and these locate living creatures. Let's take the aggregate of physical things, which can be further broken down into the external objective physical things and the internal subjective physical things. Sights, sounds, smells, tastes and sensations are the external or objective physical things in this great heap of physical things, while the five senses are the subjective or internal physical things.

The second heap is that of feelings. What are feelings? They are the experiences one gets out of things: pleasant experiences, neutral experiences and unpleasant ones.

The next heap is discrimination, which is defined as that part of the mind that functions to identify particular things as what they are.

The fourth aggregate of created things has most of the non-associated created things. It's a catch-bag for everything not included in the other four heaps.

And what is the fifth heap? This is all our awarenesses or consciousness or thoughts. This is generally looked at as sense-based awareness coming from a thinking mind.

One can only focus on the reality of emptiness when one has seen the size, the dimensions, of what one is refuting or denying.

The Tibetan saint Tsong Khapa said, "Anything that is produced from conditions is never produced." You can unpack this apparent paradox in this way. What you are saying is that nothing is produced as something that is independent; nothing is produced as something that is there under its own power. That's what you are trying to demonstrate.

For example, a seedling isn't produced as something there under its own power, as something that is inherently what it is. Why? Because it is produced from causes and conditions. That's how you break down the meaning of the statement to formulate it as a reason for the hidden meaning, which is emptiness, to come clear to the mind.

Lama Tsong Khapa writes in his famous Praise to Dependent Arising, "What is more amazing, what better way of expressing a reality has ever been found? Namely that anything that depends on conditions is empty."

There are many different reasons a person can use to come to understand emptiness. But here we meet with the king of all reasonings—dependent arising—because being produced or arising dependently is the reason for everything's emptiness. Using this reason, one avoids the extreme of nihilism, because dependent arising shows something is there; nevertheless, because it is a reason that shows emptiness it also removes eternalism.

As the great Aryadeva said, "Anyone who gets a view into one reality gets a view into all realities." What he is saying is that if one plumbs the depths of reality of anything, one doesn't need to go through the whole process again with another object. Just bringing to the mind the reality you've seen in one object or person, and turning the mind to another, you will look at its reality as well.

That's why every one of our sadhanas without exception starts with the mantra that means "Om, this is purity, all Dharmas are pure, I am that purity." Before doing any sadhana one brings to mind this fact of the ultimate reality—of emptiness.