|
Post by emptymirror on Aug 6, 2012 3:00:45 GMT -5
"This" IS, and when "this" is somethingness then awareness and mind appear. When "this" is nothingness then nothing appears. 'This' is consciousness. And it is what you see, feel, taste, smell, hear, think, imagine. It is a movement and is always changing. Yes, but only when "this" is somethingness. Sometimes it's nothingness, and then "this" is nothingness. Awareness does not change, it is changeless, it 'IS' There is nothing in consciousness that you can be 100% sure of. But what you can be 100% sure of is that you exist, because you are aware that you exist. Only when "this" is somethingness. When "this" is nothingness, it doesn't know that it exists. In dreamless sleep (when "this" is nothingness) I have no idea that I exist. When you look at your hand you say this thing appears. I am aware of it. It is not the thing that says I AM. It is the awareness that says you are. You as the awareness are the seer, the seen is consciousness and it reports to you. You don't report to it because it changes, while the awareness never changes. Are you that which constantly changes or are you the never changing Is-ness of awareness? I can make no claim of being anything when "this" is nothingness. I can only claim to be the unchanging awareness of the changing content while "this" is somethingness. When "this" is nothingness I can report nothing because I am nothingness. In dreamless sleep I am unable to report anything. I am "this" whether it is somethingness or nothingness. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Yes, while there is somethingness (which is the only time relevant to us right now, because it's only when there is somethingness that we can possibly converse), then "this" includes awareness, but it is not 'subordinate' to awareness. When there is somethingness there is awareness and stuff that awareness is aware of. Knower, knowing, and known arise simultaneously as "this" when "this" is somethingness. When this is nothingness then nothing arises - there is no knower, knowing or known. "This" is pure nothingness. YOU are not awareness. You are 'this', and for all practical purposes you can call yourself awareness whenever you are conversing. But you are actually awareness and that which awareness is aware of because they are completely inseparable so neither can possibly be 'subordinate' to the other. When "this" is somethingness you are somethingness and when "this" is nothingness you are nothingness, but there is only "this". Absolutely nothing but "this" exists. Again, the difference that I'm pointing out is very subtle, and for all practical purposes, what you say (while there is awareness and conversation) is correct. "This" seems to be able to be nothing and everything, and appears as both. While it appears as everything (which includes this conversation) I'm quite happy to agree that I am awareness - including all of what appears in/as awareness. "This" seems to effortlessly switch between somethingness and nothingness, and I can be nothing but "this".
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 6, 2012 4:33:52 GMT -5
When this is nothingness then nothing arises - there is no knower, knowing or known. "This" is pure nothingness. Nothingness doesn't exist. 'This' (sum of all qualia) is never nothing. 'This' never exists as nothing.
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 6, 2012 4:35:27 GMT -5
Awareness doesn't need consciousness to know itself? Awareness 'IS', always has been, always will be. It is endless, unbound, and timeless. In deep sleep there is no consciousness, yet awareness 'Is' Whether there is consciousness of awareness or not, it 'Is'. Can you remember a time when you weren't aware? Did you need consciousness to tell you that you were aware? Or was it always there? Neither consciousness nor awareness exist.
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Aug 6, 2012 5:07:08 GMT -5
When this is nothingness then nothing arises - there is no knower, knowing or known. "This" is pure nothingness. Nothingness doesn't exist. 'This' (sum of all qualia) is never nothing. 'This' never exists as nothing. I've said as much when I said that for all practical purposes nothingness doesn't exist for awareness. Nothingess is only an idea right NOW. And FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES of discussion, knower, knowing, and known are all that there is, and nothingness is just an idea that is known.
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Aug 6, 2012 6:44:16 GMT -5
Neither consciousness nor awareness exist. You're getting into semantics again Q. There is no qualia without awareness/consciousness. Qualia has absolutely no meaning without awareness/consciousness. If awareness and consciousness don't exist, qualia don't exist?
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 6, 2012 7:27:34 GMT -5
Nothingness doesn't exist. 'This' (sum of all qualia) is never nothing. 'This' never exists as nothing. I've said as much when I said that for all practical purposes nothingness doesn't exist for awareness. Nothingess is only an idea right NOW. And FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES of discussion, knower, knowing, and known are all that there is, and nothingness is just an idea that is known. I'm not seeing any practical purpose in saying that "'THIS' is pure nothingness".
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 6, 2012 7:29:49 GMT -5
Neither consciousness nor awareness exist. You're getting into semantics again Q. There is no qualia without awareness/consciousness. Qualia has absolutely no meaning without awareness/consciousness. If awareness and consciousness don't exist, qualia don't exist? It's not semantics because I and TRF are not pointing to the same thing. It is extremely important to understand that awareness/consciousness is completely redundant when we're dealing with qualia. Qualia is qualia by virtue of simply being there, it requires no awareness. Compare 'presence' and 'awareness' and you will find that awareness is of higher ontological complexity because it automatically models context (awareness) and content (qualia), but when you investigate direct experience then you will never find such linkage. The link between awareness and its contents is imagined. There are three traditional ontological models: - Idealistic monism: all is awareness/consciousness/subjective - Materialistic monism: all is physical matter/objectivity - Dualism: subjectivity (mind/spirit/consciousness) and objectivity (matter) coexist QM is completely outside these traditional distinctions because it discards both subjectivity and objectivity, and all the problems they provoke. They are discarded in favour of a reality that is neither subjective nor objective but rather vroom vroom, ouch ouch, clickety click.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 17:18:56 GMT -5
Awareness 'IS', always has been, always will be. It is endless, unbound, and timeless. In deep sleep there is no consciousness, yet awareness 'Is' Whether there is consciousness of awareness or not, it 'Is'. Can you remember a time when you weren't aware? Did you need consciousness to tell you that you were aware? Or was it always there? Neither consciousness nor awareness exist. Since Quale is suppose to account for everything, instead of saying that neither consciousness nor awareness exist, and nothingness doesn't exist... You could since you've said that there are different kinds of Quale, say that there is a consciousness quale, an awareness quale and a nothingness quale. That way we would all be right...hehe
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Aug 6, 2012 17:36:23 GMT -5
I've said as much when I said that for all practical purposes nothingness doesn't exist for awareness. Nothingess is only an idea right NOW. And FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES of discussion, knower, knowing, and known are all that there is, and nothingness is just an idea that is known. I'm not seeing any practical purpose in saying that "'THIS' is pure nothingness". Exactly. That's why I say that for all PRACTICAL purposes we can only ever speak about awareness/knowing, knower and known/stuff when attempting to describe "this". However during deep, dreamless sleep there would be no knowing, known, or knower. Of course deep, dreamless sleep is only an idea appearing in "this" right now, so the above sentence is just story telling and imagination. I actually have no direct evidence of "this" ever being nothingness. There is only the idea that "this" is sometimes nothingness. So in actual fact, for all practical purposes I can say that awareness always IS, and nothingness is just an idea. I only raised the idea of nothingness in order to try to point to the complete inseparability of knower and known.
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Aug 6, 2012 17:43:57 GMT -5
You're getting into semantics again Q. There is no qualia without awareness/consciousness. Qualia has absolutely no meaning without awareness/consciousness. If awareness and consciousness don't exist, qualia don't exist? It's not semantics because I and TRF are not pointing to the same thing. It is extremely important to understand that awareness/consciousness is completely redundant when we're dealing with qualia. Qualia is qualia by virtue of simply being there, it requires no awareness. Compare 'presence' and 'awareness' and you will find that awareness is of higher ontological complexity because it automatically models context (awareness) and content (qualia), but when you investigate direct experience then you will never find such linkage. The link between awareness and its contents is imagined. There are three traditional ontological models: - Idealistic monism: all is awareness/consciousness/subjective - Materialistic monism: all is physical matter/objectivity - Dualism: subjectivity (mind/spirit/consciousness) and objectivity (matter) coexist QM is completely outside these traditional distinctions because it discards both subjectivity and objectivity, and all the problems they provoke. They are discarded in favour of a reality that is neither subjective nor objective but rather vroom vroom, ouch ouch, clickety click. In other words knower, known and knowing are inseparably one, and appear as vroom vroom, ouch ouch, clickety click. Or, quite simply, there is just "this".
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 6, 2012 17:56:11 GMT -5
Neither consciousness nor awareness exist. Since Quale is suppose to account for everything, instead of saying that neither consciousness nor awareness exist, and nothingness doesn't exist... You could since you've said that there are different kinds of Quale, say that there is a consciousness quale, an awareness quale and a nothingness quale. That way we would all be right...hehe Then your awareness wouldn't be the biggest thing around, i.e. that which contains everything else. If awareness and consciousness are both qualia and there are other qualia which are not consciousness or awareness, then it is the sum total of qualia which contains everything, including consciousness, including awareness, etc etc. Does it really matter what the sum-total of everything and every no-thing is called? Awareness, Consciousness, Qualia, God, Universe, Sally, Self, Other, My Play Thing, Greasy Spot, Tao? I'm becoming sympathetic to Q's assertions that Awareness doesn't exist. People want to say "I am Aware" meaning "I am having this experience". But there is nothing separate from the experience having the experience. The feeling of being hollow, the sense of open space, these are still limited sensations. When the mind is silent, there is just the experience happening. No one, no thing, to be aware of it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 6, 2012 19:17:29 GMT -5
Since Quale is suppose to account for everything, instead of saying that neither consciousness nor awareness exist, and nothingness doesn't exist... You could since you've said that there are different kinds of Quale, say that there is a consciousness quale, an awareness quale and a nothingness quale. That way we would all be right...hehe Then your awareness wouldn't be the biggest thing around, i.e. that which contains everything else. If awareness and consciousness are both qualia and there are other qualia which are not consciousness or awareness, then it is the sum total of qualia which contains everything, including consciousness, including awareness, etc etc. Does it really matter what the sum-total of everything and every no-thing is called? Awareness, Consciousness, Qualia, God, Universe, Sally, Self, Other, My Play Thing, Greasy Spot, Tao? I'm becoming sympathetic to Q's assertions that Awareness doesn't exist. People want to say "I am Aware" meaning "I am having this experience". But there is nothing separate from the experience having the experience. The feeling of being hollow, the sense of open space, these are still limited sensations. When the mind is silent, there is just the experience happening. No one, no thing, to be aware of it. Yeah, seems like the forum discussions have moved toward the greasy spot (or whateva) and away from any distinctions at all. In one way it's a good thingy, though it may also not be helpful to many.
|
|
|
Post by emptymirror on Aug 6, 2012 20:21:00 GMT -5
Then your awareness wouldn't be the biggest thing around, i.e. that which contains everything else. If awareness and consciousness are both qualia and there are other qualia which are not consciousness or awareness, then it is the sum total of qualia which contains everything, including consciousness, including awareness, etc etc. Does it really matter what the sum-total of everything and every no-thing is called? Awareness, Consciousness, Qualia, God, Universe, Sally, Self, Other, My Play Thing, Greasy Spot, Tao? I'm becoming sympathetic to Q's assertions that Awareness doesn't exist. People want to say "I am Aware" meaning "I am having this experience". But there is nothing separate from the experience having the experience. The feeling of being hollow, the sense of open space, these are still limited sensations. When the mind is silent, there is just the experience happening. No one, no thing, to be aware of it. Yeah, seems like the forum discussions have moved toward the greasy spot (or whateva) and away from any distinctions at all. In one way it's a good thingy, though it may also not be helpful to many. Yup, I agree. There's a point at which the conversation becomes pure intellectual fluff, and becomes useless to anybody who doesn't 'see' what's being discussed. The only reason why this forum exists is to share truth with those for whom its unclear. Saying that there is no such thing as awareness doesn't gel with the seeker's experience. What we commonly refer to as awareness does exist, but is not separate from the greasy spot/"this"/universal quale/etc.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 6, 2012 20:37:45 GMT -5
Yeah, seems like the forum discussions have moved toward the greasy spot (or whateva) and away from any distinctions at all. In one way it's a good thingy, though it may also not be helpful to many. Yup, I agree. There's a point at which the conversation becomes pure intellectual fluff, and becomes useless to anybody who doesn't 'see' what's being discussed. The only reason why this forum exists is to share truth with those for whom its unclear. Saying that there is no such thing as awareness doesn't gel with the seeker's experience. What we commonly refer to as awareness does exist, but is not separate from the greasy spot/"this"/universal quale/etc. Yup, yup. I'm guessing most peeps come to that realization in stages, with ideas about consciousness, awareness, nonvolition and oneness. They're just conceptual bifurcations used to point, but still they can be useful, and not as dangerous as some seem to make them sound.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 20:53:04 GMT -5
Since Quale is suppose to account for everything, instead of saying that neither consciousness nor awareness exist, and nothingness doesn't exist... You could since you've said that there are different kinds of Quale, say that there is a consciousness quale, an awareness quale and a nothingness quale. That way we would all be right...hehe Then your awareness wouldn't be the biggest thing around, i.e. that which contains everything else. If awareness and consciousness are both qualia and there are other qualia which are not consciousness or awareness, then it is the sum total of qualia which contains everything, including consciousness, including awareness, etc etc. Does it really matter what the sum-total of everything and every no-thing is called? Awareness, Consciousness, Qualia, God, Universe, Sally, Self, Other, My Play Thing, Greasy Spot, Tao? I'm becoming sympathetic to Q's assertions that Awareness doesn't exist. People want to say "I am Aware" meaning "I am having this experience". But there is nothing separate from the experience having the experience. The feeling of being hollow, the sense of open space, these are still limited sensations. When the mind is silent, there is just the experience happening. No one, no thing, to be aware of it. I said that because no matter what is said, Question isn't going to change his mind. I actually don't believe in the Quale model, because it stipulates that quale is an objective experience. But in reality 100 different peeps will have a different experience from the very same quale. The sum totality of everything is awareness and consciousness, you can call it whatever you like, as long as you know that you are aware of whatever you want to call it. You are awareness. When peeps say they are having an experience, they believe that 'I AM' having an experience. But it is actually awareness that is experiencing. That 'I AM' that says it is having an experience, is the separation from the experience. Something is aware of the feeling of being hollow, the sense of open space, and all limited sensations. Even when the mind is silent, there is the awareness of just the experience happening. And there is the awareness of the thought that says that, "No one, no thing, to be aware of it." Be clear about the difference between awareness and thought(consciousness) and then see them as Oneness.
|
|