|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 0:31:35 GMT -5
I'm clear about how he uses the term 'thought' and why it is problematic. What I am not clear about is his realization that he calls SR and the Bernadette Roberts connection. We'll see. Tenka is using 'thought' in the Cartesian sense. Renee saw the essence of the mind as thought, and divided this into will and intellect. Will speaks for itself, the thought 'I will', basically, but more subtly, I suppose, will is the precursor to thought formation. He framed 'intellect' in the way we'd frame 'intelligence' - the ability to perceive. He sub-categorised 'intellect' into 3 parts: pure intellect, imagination and sense perception. Thus Descartes, like Tenka, use 'thought' as the essence of mind, and that includes all nature of perception, conception and imagination. Side note: Descartes divided will into desire/aversion, assertion/denial and doubt, which isn't a 'free will' paradigm. As Descartes meditations were in effect the same as neti neti meditations, doubt was key to his denial of all knowledge and perception as proof of his own existence. Eventually, Descartes concluded he does exist... basically because if he doubts - or makes the inquiry - the he is 'pure intellect', so to speak - cogito ergo sum.
Being a spiritual man, hell bent on proving the existence of God, actually (whom I recently assassinated) (haha! I said assass), Descartes said that 'pure intellect' (as he called it) operates independently of brain and body - which is kinda like Enigma's use of 'consciousness' (there was no such word in Descartes' time of publication). Fun fact: 'consciousness' is often attributed to John Loche (1690), who defined it as 'the perception which passes in a man's own mind' (sorry ladies).
The similarities between Descartes and Tenka do not stop there. Descartes also saw things as substances, and in the most simple terms, there is a matter substance (matter has extension in space) and a mind substance. The difference is, when Descartes was famously questioned by princess Elisabeth of Bohemia about the causation of immaterial mind substance on material matter (mind substance causing the body substance to act), he couldn't resolve the 'mind/body duality' as it is now famously known... Tenka resolved the 'mind/body duality (or the mind/matter duality) by claiming it's all the same substance: Self. In this case I am far more Cartesian than Tenkesian, because to me, be there matter or no matter, body or none, perception or none, substance or none, I am, regardless.
Prayer and meditation both share the characteristic of a practice and a state of consciousness ultimately unsupported by any intellectual foundation, precisely because of how any such foundation would dead-end on the "hard" "mind/body problem". Anyone who resolves this problem in one way or another, and goes on to theorize from the point of that resolution, is building a Jimmy Hendrix castle. The secular realists just assume consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of matter, while idealists of all stripes turn this idea inside out, which often leads them to conclude that a person can magically manifest physical forms at will if they have enough disciplined, creative talent. Any and all of the positions in between and/or some combination of these extremes -- some of which are ultimately, actually, quite reasonable -- are each a compromise, and thereby, an ineffectual cop-out. This is why there is a call for a quiescent mind. It's possible to see the "hard problem of consciousness" as a simple, intellectual misconception. That's fine, but it only scratches the surface, and it can serve as a deceptive facade -- both self-deceptive and otherwise -- that masks a roiling cauldron of confusion just underneath the surface. That "hard problem" does have an answer, it does have a solution, but this is ineffable, and, ultimately, subjective. The way to that solution is a quiescent mind. How long one has to maintain this quiescence, or how deep one has to go into it, is, also, completely subjective, but it is this passage, one way or another, that divides the entranced, from the clear.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 0:34:08 GMT -5
I don't know what it takes to experience to the fullest, or even what that means. I'm guessing it's subjective and different for everybody. But, and I think we're coming full circle now, you said experience wouldn't happen at all. That's where I disagree. Yeah, let's agree to disagree here. who are you and what have you done with Raj?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 0:43:37 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that E' sometimes gets to a point in the conversation when he recognizes that he can't directly convey what it is that his correspondent is interested in, but rather than drawing the dialog to a close, he'll offer to continue by writing about their interest in a different way. The reason this sometimes leads to frustration should be obvious.But, trying to help others understand what he means often ends in disaster. Is it because Enigma's not sure what the correspondent is? I know you're joking but my experience with this is that he's got a perspective, and he's unwilling to compromise that perspective, but he's very willing to continue any dialog with anyone, and all completely absent any demand for compromise from his correspondent. For me, this led to some interesting paths to understanding where he was coming from that often led through points in the discussion where any linear meaning of language completely broke down. What I see happening, again and again, is an unwillingness to go through those types of transitions on the part of his correspondents without making some demand that he make some sort of compromise. Like I just wrote to him yesterday, a little disinterest in what other peeps rezz with, can go an awful long way.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 1:02:16 GMT -5
Tenka is using 'thought' in the Cartesian sense. Renee saw the essence of the mind as thought, and divided this into will and intellect. Will speaks for itself, the thought 'I will', basically, but more subtly, I suppose, will is the precursor to thought formation. He framed 'intellect' in the way we'd frame 'intelligence' - the ability to perceive. He sub-categorised 'intellect' into 3 parts: pure intellect, imagination and sense perception. Thus Descartes, like Tenka, use 'thought' as the essence of mind, and that includes all nature of perception, conception and imagination. Side note: Descartes divided will into desire/aversion, assertion/denial and doubt, which isn't a 'free will' paradigm. As Descartes meditations were in effect the same as neti neti meditations, doubt was key to his denial of all knowledge and perception as proof of his own existence. Eventually, Descartes concluded he does exist... basically because if he doubts - or makes the inquiry - the he is 'pure intellect', so to speak - cogito ergo sum.
Being a spiritual man, hell bent on proving the existence of God, actually (whom I recently assassinated) (haha! I said assass), Descartes said that 'pure intellect' (as he called it) operates independently of brain and body - which is kinda like Enigma's use of 'consciousness' (there was no such word in Descartes' time of publication). Fun fact: 'consciousness' is often attributed to John Loche (1690), who defined it as 'the perception which passes in a man's own mind' (sorry ladies).
The similarities between Descartes and Tenka do not stop there. Descartes also saw things as substances, and in the most simple terms, there is a matter substance (matter has extension in space) and a mind substance. The difference is, when Descartes was famously questioned by princess Elisabeth of Bohemia about the causation of immaterial mind substance on material matter (mind substance causing the body substance to act), he couldn't resolve the 'mind/body duality' as it is now famously known... Tenka resolved the 'mind/body duality (or the mind/matter duality) by claiming it's all the same substance: Self. In this case I am far more Cartesian than Tenkesian, because to me, be there matter or no matter, body or none, perception or none, substance or none, I am, regardless.
Well, yes. The absolute certainty of one's own existence is what everyone shares, sage and seeker alike. But the way we use intellect here on the forum, it means objectification. Which is an after the fact kind of perception. And Descartes always seemed to me the poster child of the SVP perspective. I think what people don't realize is that one can theoretically dismantle the SVP without actually going beyond the perspective of the SVP. That's what philosophers tend to do and what they are usually really good at. In spirituality and especially in non-duality circles, however, this mental exercise is very often mistaken for SR when in fact it is just a case of what some call 'mind enlightenment'. The way you spot a mind enlightened peep is when someone constantly argues for oneness and separation at the same time, very often in one and the same sentence, and without even noticing it. Some here regularly do that. But Tenka isn't one of them. At least based on what I am aware of. On one hand, "I think therefore I am" is out of fashion because thinking is out of fashion, and on the other, his conclusion that his world and the people in it were real because God wouldn't deceive him, seems to me quite timely given the current popularity of the "simulation theory". He used reason to prove God to fit in with the social constructs of his day, and I agree that subsequent generations of philosopher's went completely neck-up from what he wrote. I've only ever sped-read his work, so I can't really tell what in it would lead you to use him for the poster child of the SVP. Jed wrote about devotion in his first book, and true spiritual devotion is a sublimation of the SVP in the Godhead. We can all smugly proclaim the death of God, but even if we do it in unison, we'll never get rid of the dischord of it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 1:12:20 GMT -5
It's matters a lot because that's where everything starts. We three don't believe that there is an outer world exist. We three believe that everything appears in consciousness. By the virtue of appearance, appearance can't be conscious. But the question whether other individual is real or not arises because the appearing individual might be representing the another view point of me. What's that got to do with the questions I asked? This is the way I understand why he keeps bringing that up. The idea of an objective reality conflicts with the perspective (that is more than just an idea), that the only thing you can know for certain is that, you are. The question of whether or not other people are as real as you implies an objective reality because it implies some sort of knowing beyond the one and only thing you can know, for certain, which is, once again, that, you are. Your point that this is a personal perspective is one I agree with, but one that I can understand how they would deny it, and find as pejorative. In impersonal terms: how is it that we share this commonality, if there is no objective, physical reality in which to share it, and how is it that "Consciousness" can be undivided, if you are not me, and I am not you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 1:17:12 GMT -5
Actually, in the beginning, before the great debate, I would have agreed with you. So I think I'd rather stick with what he has said back then. Because that was very clear. Yes, that's what I am also saying let's give up this argument about other individual is real or not. This argument is initiated by me in this forum but I no longer has any interest to continue this argument. You are correct let's argue something important. The interest predates your arrival. There was a guy here when I first got here, his name was "Question", and he had an involved intellectual theory of qualia that was pretty interesting, and that he fully realized, was solipsistic.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 1:23:11 GMT -5
What's that got to do with the questions I asked? This is the way I understand why he keeps bringing that up. The idea of an objective reality conflicts with the perspective (that is more than just an idea), that the only thing you can know for certain is that, you are. The question of whether or not other people are as real as you implies an objective reality because it implies some sort of knowing beyond the one and only thing you can know, for certain, which is, once again, that, you are. Your point that this is a personal perspective is one I agree with, but one that I can understand how they would deny it, and find as pejorative. In impersonal terms: how is it that we share this commonality, if there is no objective, physical reality in which to share it, and how is it that "Consciousness" can be undivided, if you are not me, and I am not you? Yes. When there is no objective reality, then everything else is just appearing, everything exist only in perception, but the person who comes in my perception may represent another view point of me which I can never know. So everything starts with whether you believe objective reality or not. The appearing person Laffy may represent another view point of me which I can never certain of. This is what we three have been talking about. And I can understand you understood clearly. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 1:27:23 GMT -5
I'm not challenging your perspective, I'm simply asking if you can tell me why it is impossible to me. Given that we have been talking for 2/3 years about it, I am curious as to what extent you have been listening to my understandings. Dude, English much?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 1:30:30 GMT -5
Hey dude, long time no see! Welcome back! I have been waiting for you! How are you doing by the way? let's start our argument our witnessing argument eh? Gopal says : The one who realized himself to be a witness has to create the story in which he needs to witness, he should not be creating the story in which he has to act, If he were to act in the story then he hasn't realized. SomeNothing: ____ Just curious, when you translate these into Tamil, what is the sense you get from them? Is there a sense of purpose, as in something must get accomplished? Because, from here, it sure sounds like story. The initial instinct is to question the conditioning which is giving rise to such thoughts, which are part of and about the story, as are the questions about it. It's been a very strange year in this dreamland, to say the least. Keeping the Peace in the midst of intense familial drama. Talk about witnessing and acting, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 1:30:35 GMT -5
Yeah, let's agree to disagree here. who are you and what have you done with Raj? hmm? Gopal never agree to disagree ? I find argument with Enigma related to 'God has fallen into his own dream' survives only for argument. Infact what I see here is, the one which I very much try to prove attracts the argument and person with opposite theory. When I try to prove Predetermination,I attract Enigma with God has fallen into the dream. When I try to prove outer world doesn't exist in itself, I attract pilgrims and few others, when I try to prove other people existence can't be known, I attract Andrew,Tenka,Reefs. When I try to prove story decides everything,I attract Enigma,someNothing,Figgles just to ARGUE against me. Trying to prove something attracts the people and brings the argument for me. Same thing happens in religious argument as well, when I try to prove Jesus did not preexist and Jesus is not God, I attract trinitarians to argue against me. I CAN SEE THE ILLUSION NOW!
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 4, 2018 1:32:08 GMT -5
Well, yes. The absolute certainty of one's own existence is what everyone shares, sage and seeker alike. But the way we use intellect here on the forum, it means objectification. Which is an after the fact kind of perception. And Descartes always seemed to me the poster child of the SVP perspective. I think what people don't realize is that one can theoretically dismantle the SVP without actually going beyond the perspective of the SVP. That's what philosophers tend to do and what they are usually really good at. In spirituality and especially in non-duality circles, however, this mental exercise is very often mistaken for SR when in fact it is just a case of what some call 'mind enlightenment'. The way you spot a mind enlightened peep is when someone constantly argues for oneness and separation at the same time, very often in one and the same sentence, and without even noticing it. Some here regularly do that. But Tenka isn't one of them. At least based on what I am aware of. On one hand, "I think therefore I am" is out of fashion because thinking is out of fashion, and on the other, his conclusion that his world and the people in it were real because God wouldn't deceive him, seems to me quite timely given the current popularity of the "simulation theory". He used reason to prove God to fit in with the social constructs of his day, and I agree that subsequent generations of philosopher's went completely neck-up from what he wrote. I've only ever sped-read his work, so I can't really tell what in it would lead you to use him for the poster child of the SVP. Jed wrote about devotion in his first book, and true spiritual devotion is a sublimation of the SVP in the Godhead. We can all smugly proclaim the death of God, but even if we do it in unison, we'll never get rid of the dischord of it. I think the statement "I think therefore I am" is generally interpreted on the most superficial level, but Descartes meant it in a nuanced way. For example, he said something like, That I exist is certainly true each time I conceive of it or express myself... and there are other reasons in the way Descartes defined thought/mind to suggest that there is no I apart from thought (which is Tenkesian as well).
You need to discern knowledge from qualia, the former being objectively graspable and the latter being entirely subjective.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 4, 2018 1:33:48 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I am also saying let's give up this argument about other individual is real or not. This argument is initiated by me in this forum but I no longer has any interest to continue this argument. You are correct let's argue something important. The interest predates your arrival. There was a guy here when I first got here, his name was "Question", and he had an involved intellectual theory of qualia that was pretty interesting, and that he fully realized, was solipsistic. I guess making assumption from qualia is inherently flawed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 1:41:10 GMT -5
The interest predates your arrival. There was a guy here when I first got here, his name was "Question", and he had an involved intellectual theory of qualia that was pretty interesting, and that he fully realized, was solipsistic. I guess making assumption from qualia is inherently flawed. You can draw relative conclusions about qualia as qualia appear relative to one another, but to draw any conclusion about what qualia appear to based on those relative appearances is to entangle the ineffable with the relative.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 1:46:08 GMT -5
On one hand, "I think therefore I am" is out of fashion because thinking is out of fashion, and on the other, his conclusion that his world and the people in it were real because God wouldn't deceive him, seems to me quite timely given the current popularity of the "simulation theory". He used reason to prove God to fit in with the social constructs of his day, and I agree that subsequent generations of philosopher's went completely neck-up from what he wrote. I've only ever sped-read his work, so I can't really tell what in it would lead you to use him for the poster child of the SVP. Jed wrote about devotion in his first book, and true spiritual devotion is a sublimation of the SVP in the Godhead. We can all smugly proclaim the death of God, but even if we do it in unison, we'll never get rid of the dischord of it. I think the statement "I think therefore I am" is generally interpreted on the most superficial level, but Descartes meant it in a nuanced way. For example, he said something like, That I exist is certainly true each time I conceive of it or express myself... and there are other reasons in the way Descartes defined thought/mind to suggest that there is no I apart from thought (which is Tenkesian as well). You need to discern knowledge from qualia, the former being objectively graspable and the latter being entirely subjective.
It takes a quiescent body/mind to transcend the appearance of inner (subjective) and outer (objective), but this is not impermanent, in that it's not a state of body/mind that comes and goes, similar to how you'd never expect Santa to deliver gifts via the chimney once you've been disabused of his existence. This isn't to say that it doesn't end with death, or a hard enough whack to the head with a 2x4, but rather, that there really is no new information or experience that could ever contradict it.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 4, 2018 2:16:07 GMT -5
I guess making assumption from qualia is inherently flawed. You can draw relative conclusions about qualia as qualia appear relative to one another, but to draw any conclusion about what qualia appear to based on those relative appearances is to entangle the ineffable with the relative. Qualia means "what it's like" so there is certainty in knowing (verb) but uncertainty in knowledge (noun).
|
|