Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2011 10:56:09 GMT -5
verifiable has two definitions:
1. Adj. 1. verifiable - capable of being verified; "a verifiable account of the incident" nonsubjective, objective - undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
2. verifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
TRF seems to be using #1 and saying that awareness won't show up on a guage of some sort?
Enigma is using #2 in the sense that one can ask "are you aware?" [putting aside the 'you'] and then the askee can answer yes or no.?
to the question Is there awareness? TRF says maybe, maybe not. It's agnostic.
isn't this just tao te ching again? oldie but goodie!
|
|
|
Post by question on Jan 13, 2011 12:21:08 GMT -5
I believe, that awareness and the objective universe are one in the same and without either, there would be no consciousness. Our question is "what is?". "Outer world exists" and "outer world doesn't exist" are in light of the cartesian inquiry (cogito ergo sum) really equally unverifiable statements. This means that the doubt about whether awareness is the ultimate subject in relation to an outer world is redundant. It's not that awareness is seen as the source of the outer world or as an epiphenomenon of the outer world, it's that the question of the outer world isn't compatible to our inquiry, because by asking the question we have again assumed the existence of something that in our initial cartesian inquiry we have eliminated as certainly knowable. I'm not saying that everything is an illusion and that the world isn't 14bio years old etc. I'm saying that the method we used in determining awareness as the only thing one can be sure to exist, this method doesn't permit the question of whether this awareness emerged from a 14bio y/o universe. (It's a thought that's been brewing in me for a while now, I'm not sure if it's entirely consistent. Feedback appreciated.)
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 13, 2011 13:13:57 GMT -5
I believe, that awareness and the objective universe are one in the same and without either, there would be no consciousness. Our question is "what is?". "Outer world exists" and "outer world doesn't exist" are in light of the cartesian inquiry (cogito ergo sum) really equally unverifiable statements. This means that the doubt about whether awareness is the ultimate subject in relation to an outer world is redundant. It's not that awareness is seen as the source of the outer world or as an epiphenomenon of the outer world, it's that the question of the outer world isn't compatible to our inquiry, because by asking the question we have again assumed the existence of something that in our initial cartesian inquiry we have eliminated as certainly knowable. I'm not saying that everything is an illusion and that the world isn't 14bio years old etc. I'm saying that the method we used in determining awareness as the only thing one can be sure to exist, this method doesn't permit the question of whether this awareness emerged from a 14bio y/o universe. (It's a thought that's been brewing in me for a while now, I'm not sure if it's entirely consistent. Feedback appreciated.) Good point, I'll try to elucidate my take on it. I think the answer to the subject of awareness, as being verifiable, lies with the questioner? There really is no questioner. That which asks the question doesn't really exist, the way we think it does. There isn't Enigma's awareness, or TRF's awareness or even your awareness. Awareness just is. So really, to ask someone if they are aware and using the obvious answer to that question, as proof of awareness, is kind of like asking the Easter Bunny if he/she is aware....lol 14 billion years ago before the big bang, awareness was there, like it is today and like it will be for eternity. It is the now, it was now then and it's still now today. There is no other time then now. The past was a now moment that has happened, the future doesn't exist and when it happens it happens in the now. For whatever reason, the material universe was created and joined with awareness to form consciousness. What we are, I believe, is consciousness, but humans have the unique ability to recognize ourselves as consciousness, we are self-aware. What we see is what we are, if I hear a bird singing outside, I am that bird. I am whatever is happening and being experienced in this now moment. The beauty of this exploration were having, is that it's not predicated on your believing anything I say. It's open for direct discovery on ones own. Now, I don't want to get into how self-awareness turned into a selfish awareness and separation, as that's a topic for another day.... TRF
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 13, 2011 20:44:47 GMT -5
(It's a thought that's been brewing in me for a while now, I'm not sure if it's entirely consistent. Feedback appreciated.) This seems to be the same realization I had a few months ago when I asked "Brain? What brain? How do we know anything of brain?" concerning the question of is awareness a product of the brain or not. Interestingly, I also suspect it's what folk like Niz talk about when they say "there is no one else" - that is no one else "out there" in some empirical world.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2011 20:56:28 GMT -5
Who knows? Does it matter? Is it known or not? Who cares? Does it matter? I spose. Does that change something? You can be certain you will experience that. You can't be certain about the validity of anything outside of that experience itself. You might be in bed dreaming. You might be crazy. You don't know. So how do you know you didn't organize your experience so that it's not chaotic? How do you know anything is happening 'out there'? How do you know there is an 'out there'? I believe in the Easter bunny. Lol of course you do.... Awareness and the Easter bunny are both non verifiable. When asked to defend your statement about awareness being verifiable I get, "Who knows", "Who cares", "I spose" and I believe in the Easter bunny..... Then you say the only real experience is that of knowing I'm aware, but all the other experiences are just bad dreams... All kidding aside, lol, the reason why awareness is not verifiable, is because it, is not a thing. It is nothing, it is quality less, it just is. You can't verify nothing. (You can borrow this if someone ever asks you the same question) Furthermore to use the object of awareness, the mind, to verify awareness, is purely mental gymnastics. TRF You didn't ask for verification of awareness, you asked who is aware, which seemed a bit of a distraction. The verification issue was addressed earlier so I'm, not inclined to repeat it right now. i didn't say the only real experience is that of knowing you are aware. That you are, is obvious, isn't it? Is this an experience of some kind? Do you have to think about this? Is the fact that you exist some kind of a mental conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2011 21:01:54 GMT -5
verifiable has two definitions: 1. Adj. 1. verifiable - capable of being verified; "a verifiable account of the incident" nonsubjective, objective - undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" 2. verifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation TRF seems to be using #1 and saying that awareness won't show up on a guage of some sort? Enigma is using #2 in the sense that one can ask "are you aware?" [putting aside the 'you'] and then the askee can answer yes or no.? to the question Is there awareness? TRF says maybe, maybe not. It's agnostic. isn't this just tao te ching again? oldie but goodie! It seems to me he's concluded that awareness is not a thing, as he was teaching me, and yet insists on objectifying it anyway (turning it into a thing) and then declares that it can't be objectively verified. All this obviously founded on his being aware.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2011 21:14:51 GMT -5
I believe, that awareness and the objective universe are one in the same and without either, there would be no consciousness. Our question is "what is?". "Outer world exists" and "outer world doesn't exist" are in light of the cartesian inquiry (cogito ergo sum) really equally unverifiable statements. This means that the doubt about whether awareness is the ultimate subject in relation to an outer world is redundant. It's not that awareness is seen as the source of the outer world or as an epiphenomenon of the outer world, it's that the question of the outer world isn't compatible to our inquiry, because by asking the question we have again assumed the existence of something that in our initial cartesian inquiry we have eliminated as certainly knowable. I'm not saying that everything is an illusion and that the world isn't 14bio years old etc. I'm saying that the method we used in determining awareness as the only thing one can be sure to exist, this method doesn't permit the question of whether this awareness emerged from a 14bio y/o universe. (It's a thought that's been brewing in me for a while now, I'm not sure if it's entirely consistent. Feedback appreciated.) Sounds pretty good to me. Yes, the assumptions are problematic, including the assumption that leads to the question 'Who is aware?' The assumption is that there is an objective 'somebody', which as you imply is not relevant to the question of awareness, which is subjectivity itself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2011 21:30:06 GMT -5
Our question is "what is?". "Outer world exists" and "outer world doesn't exist" are in light of the cartesian inquiry (cogito ergo sum) really equally unverifiable statements. This means that the doubt about whether awareness is the ultimate subject in relation to an outer world is redundant. It's not that awareness is seen as the source of the outer world or as an epiphenomenon of the outer world, it's that the question of the outer world isn't compatible to our inquiry, because by asking the question we have again assumed the existence of something that in our initial cartesian inquiry we have eliminated as certainly knowable. I'm not saying that everything is an illusion and that the world isn't 14bio years old etc. I'm saying that the method we used in determining awareness as the only thing one can be sure to exist, this method doesn't permit the question of whether this awareness emerged from a 14bio y/o universe. (It's a thought that's been brewing in me for a while now, I'm not sure if it's entirely consistent. Feedback appreciated.) Good point, I'll try to elucidate my take on it. I think the answer to the subject of awareness, as being verifiable, lies with the questioner? There really is no questioner. That which asks the question doesn't really exist, the way we think it does. There isn't Enigma's awareness, or TRF's awareness or even your awareness. Awareness just is. But nobody has suggested otherwise. You seem to have assumed. If the Easter bunny answers, it would seem that there is awareness there. You say "That which asks the question doesn't really exist, the way we think it does" I assume you're referring to your assumption about what others are thinking. Nobody said anything about awareness being a person. Your question about who is aware apparently also came from that assumption, so mostly you're carrying on a debate with your assumptions, and you believe you're winning. It doesn't matter who you ask if they are aware. The asking is already proof of awareness, as is the answering. Or not. Were you there to witness this?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 13, 2011 23:54:55 GMT -5
Lol of course you do.... Awareness and the Easter bunny are both non verifiable. When asked to defend your statement about awareness being verifiable I get, "Who knows", "Who cares", "I spose" and I believe in the Easter bunny..... Then you say the only real experience is that of knowing I'm aware, but all the other experiences are just bad dreams... All kidding aside, lol, the reason why awareness is not verifiable, is because it, is not a thing. It is nothing, it is quality less, it just is. You can't verify nothing. (You can borrow this if someone ever asks you the same question) Furthermore to use the object of awareness, the mind, to verify awareness, is purely mental gymnastics. TRF You didn't ask for verification of awareness, you asked who is aware, which seemed a bit of a distraction. The verification issue was addressed earlier so I'm, not inclined to repeat it right now. i didn't say the only real experience is that of knowing you are aware. That you are, is obvious, isn't it? Is this an experience of some kind? Do you have to think about this? Is the fact that you exist some kind of a mental conclusion? That's true of course, except that you are assuming that I "know" that I am. I actually believe the opposite. That I am not this biological formulation that thinks it exists separately from everything else. What seems obvious to you is nothing more than a thought from the mind, to me. Your self assured knowledge has no birth place and no basis, for me. I understand where your coming from about the apparent or seemingly apparent, sense of a reality. There's simply no resonance for me. I think that there's some confusion here, probably of my own making, as to what I believe the I to be and your interpretation of it. It's not wrong it's just different. Let me be very clear on one thing, awareness cannot be objectified, please don't assume because I can point in it's direction and talk about it, that I am objectifying it. Words are the only tools we have to figure things out with, infallible as they are. Some teachers say that what we are, is not the little human that looks around and says, I exist. They say that "what" we are "is" the "awareness". They say that the very "first" thought, to arise in the awareness is the "I AM" feeling and that's the one the consciousness clings onto first. Then comes I am John, I am a male, I am Jewish, I am a dentist, etc, etc, The thought that "I exist", is witnessed by the awareness, so "that" thought or seeming "knowledge" is only relative to what we truly are. The entire universe arises in the awareness and we are all "that", one awareness. If you want to discuss the illusory I, that thinks it exists or that which we are and how consciousness interacts with them both, I'd be happy to oblige you.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 14, 2011 0:21:25 GMT -5
Good point, I'll try to elucidate my take on it. I think the answer to the subject of awareness, as being verifiable, lies with the questioner? There really is no questioner. That which asks the question doesn't really exist, the way we think it does. There isn't Enigma's awareness, or TRF's awareness or even your awareness. Awareness just is. But nobody has suggested otherwise. You seem to have assumed. If the Easter bunny answers, it would seem that there is awareness there. You say "That which asks the question doesn't really exist, the way we think it does" I assume you're referring to your assumption about what others are thinking. Nobody said anything about awareness being a person. Your question about who is aware apparently also came from that assumption, so mostly you're carrying on a debate with your assumptions, and you believe you're winning. It doesn't matter who you ask if they are aware. The asking is already proof of awareness, as is the answering. Or not. Were you there to witness this? The difference between an Easter Bunny and us, is that he knows he isn't real. ;D Of course I was there 14 billion years ago, so were we all, you must have forgotten about it... ...14 billion years is a long time, they say long term memory is the first to go.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2011 2:48:14 GMT -5
You didn't ask for verification of awareness, you asked who is aware, which seemed a bit of a distraction. The verification issue was addressed earlier so I'm, not inclined to repeat it right now. i didn't say the only real experience is that of knowing you are aware. That you are, is obvious, isn't it? Is this an experience of some kind? Do you have to think about this? Is the fact that you exist some kind of a mental conclusion? That's true of course, except that you are assuming that I "know" that I am. The only way you could not know that there is existence there is if your mind obscures it by assuming an object to this subject. IOW, when you hear "Do you exist", you focus on the 'you' instead of 'exist'. That's not the opposite of knowing that I am. Slow down a little. Less assuming and concluding. It's very simple and obvious and requires no thought. Where did I interpret the 'I'? I'm simply saying whatever is at the root of the writing of this post.......exists. How can it not? Does non-existence do stuff? I'm not saying anything about what it is. That's where the trouble starts, and it looks like you can't stop short of imagining what it is and assuming I'm also imagining. I never assumed that. I'm desperately trying to avoid that discussion, which is why I keep saying it doesn't matter. See?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 14, 2011 9:58:57 GMT -5
Where did I interpret the 'I'? I'm simply saying whatever is at the root of the writing of this post.......exists. How can it not? Does non-existence do stuff? I'm not saying anything about what it is. That's where the trouble starts, and it looks like you can't stop short of imagining what it is and assuming I'm also imagining. Hi Enigma, I've understood what you've been saying since the beginning of this discussion. So repeating it in various configurations is redundant and doesn't change your premise. I simply don't agree with it and have communicated that in the form of assumptions and concepts, of which I mistakenly thought you were familiar with. No problem, let's agree to disagree and move on...
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 14, 2011 10:46:20 GMT -5
Where did I interpret the 'I'? I'm simply saying whatever is at the root of the writing of this post.......exists. How can it not? Does non-existence do stuff? I'm not saying anything about what it is. That's where the trouble starts, and it looks like you can't stop short of imagining what it is and assuming I'm also imagining. Hi Enigma, I've understood what you've been saying since the beginning of this discussion. So repeating it in various configurations is redundant and doesn't change your premise. I simply don't agree with it and have communicated that in the form of assumptions and concepts, of which I mistakenly thought you were familiar with. What you are referring to at the root, which is unknowable is the same non-thing, non-existence, unknowable, reality called "awareness". You're perspective approaching that unknowable is from the wrong direction. Your like the salmon trying to get back to the spawning grounds. If you change your perspective, which you have done unknowingly, by saying that it's obvious I exist, to the one that is aware of that thought, you have my perspective. No imagining, simple clear, in the moment, observation, of that whatever arises, including the sense of me, is observed in the unknowable awareness. Existence, arises, or is observed in the awareness, but it is not the awareness. It is so simple this perspective and yet, it's frightening to know, that we don't exist, the way we think we do. Your reluctance not to engage in this discussion is appreciated and I won't trouble you any further with it...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2011 12:12:26 GMT -5
Where did I interpret the 'I'? I'm simply saying whatever is at the root of the writing of this post.......exists. How can it not? Does non-existence do stuff? I'm not saying anything about what it is. That's where the trouble starts, and it looks like you can't stop short of imagining what it is and assuming I'm also imagining. Hi Enigma, I've understood what you've been saying since the beginning of this discussion. So repeating it in various configurations is redundant and doesn't change your premise. I simply don't agree with it and have communicated that in the form of assumptions and concepts, of which I mistakenly thought you were familiar with. What you are referring to at the root, which is unknowable is the same non-thing, non-existence, unknowable, reality called "awareness". You're perspective approaching that unknowable is from the wrong direction. Your like the salmon trying to get back to the spawning grounds. If you change your perspective, which you have done unknowingly, by saying that it's obvious I exist, to the one that is aware of that thought, you have my perspective. No imagining, simple clear, in the moment, observation, of that whatever arises, including the sense of me, is observed in the unknowable awareness. Existence, arises, or is observed in the awareness, but it is not the awareness. It is so simple this perspective and yet, it's frightening to know, that we don't exist, the way we think we do. Your reluctance not to engage in this discussion is appreciated and I won't trouble you any further with it... What you've been trying to get me to understand this entire discussion is what I talk about here endlessly. You imagine me to be saying something else, and then you correct it for me over and over (hencely my repetition of what I actually am saying). What this tells me is that what you have been saying is conceptual only. You imagine yourself to be awareness and project it 'out there' somewhere. What I'm saying is that awareness is right here, not as a person but, as you say, the awareness of the person. By 'existence' I don't mean form. Form comes and goes and changes and does not have a fundamental existence. It is just appearance within existence. When subject and object that you've identified as the person and awareness collapses, existence is right here and now, aware of all of it. You are not something else that is somewhere else that is called Awareness. It collapses into this, and it becomes obvious that you are aware subjectivity that has been imagining itself, first to be a person object, and then to be an Awareness object. You are awareness that is aware you are aware. I'm saying the same thing you are, I just haven't projected it anywhere, and so I don't have to project this misunderstanding onto others so that I can look at it more closely. The "reluctance to engage" is also a projection as you try to exit the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 14, 2011 12:20:54 GMT -5
Enigma, you're very good at picking apart non-sequiturs. If you ever see that with me, please poke away!
|
|