|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2017 16:51:15 GMT -5
He seems to be saying that the perception of the person is inseparable from the movement of the universe as a whole. Hencely, it is the universe collapsing it's own probabilities or observing it's own falling. ( I could easily be misunderstanding what he's saying) To me, it doesn't sound like a context minx, just the relaying of a larger truth in a larger context. Yes, that's what he's saying and yes, you're right. I guess a mix in this case would entail an assumption that it takes an animate being (human or otherwise) to have been conscious of be the Big Bang in order to make the Universe happen. I can see how it might lead to the conclusion that a non-person person is the ruler of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2017 17:33:39 GMT -5
I haven't studied solipsism, but it seems it's the belief that my mind is all that exists. The perennial issue is that it can't be known. This is based on the realization that experience doesn't reveal how the experience is formed, and this remains a mystery even after oneness is realized. That realization collapses the illusion of separateness. It doesn't reveal the mystery of the unfolding of creation. There's too much knowing going on here. We don't really know anything. What i have read is that the self is the only thing than can be known to exist. Everything else may or may not exist, it is not known. So I, as the self, am fundamental, and you appear to me. Realizing oneness destroys this. You understand how or do you want me to clarify? I was sorta hoping I wouldn't have to he he, because although I can explain, it will be flawed because this is one of those times where concepts have a boundary. With that said. Realizing oneness doesn't just collapse the belief in separateness, distinctions too are seen to be illusionary. So it is no longer the case that I am 'actually' perceiving you, this relationship, and any relationship between two things, is an illusion. At best, we could say there is an illusion of 'I' perceiving 'you'. The closest I can say to expressing the actuality, is that I AM you (and vice versa). There is no 'actual' relationship between I and you. Now in the solipsism that I spoke of, the boundary and relationship between I and you is never collapsed. It is locked in place. So you cannot be a non dualie and a solipsist, the realization opposes the philosophical position. Solipsism is separatism.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2017 18:54:27 GMT -5
'Everything is conscious' is in the context of things, like shoe laces. I'm not the one anthropomorphizing by calling inert objects conscious. I'm the one questioning why that's being done. Andy has since explained that 'everything is conscious' doesn't apply to any thing, which apart from the apparent contradiction, means that it doesn't even apply to the question of conscious peeps, so I don't know why it's being used as an argument for them. I appreciate the reverse-doooofusness of Mr. Shoelace, I really do. But there was a specific point about the basis of the underlying existential question presented by solipsism. It was to illuminate the perspective of the confusion of existential questioning. From outside of that perspective. I'm sure that once you finally get around to explaining existential context then this confusion will just clear right up. For everyone. And for all time. Reefs made it pretty clear here ("it's not a shoelace anymore"), and it's just another way of saying what Heisenberg said here. When it seems that the sky is staring back at you in an altered and heightened state of perception the clouds or the Sun or whatever aren't the clouds the Sun or the Moon anymore. That's just the way it's described after the fact. As it's happening it's like looking in a mirror. I have very specific reasons for suspecting that this type of perception is likely not common after SR if it hasn't happened before. But this pointer of "the Universe is alive" is as much 2nd mountain as not-knowing whether the appearance of other people are the appearance of other points of perception. On 1st and 3rd mountain a rock is a rock. The difference between 1st and 2nd mountain is that the illusion of the existence of the rock as it is commonly understood has cracked and is starting to crumble. The toll at the entrance to the paths of the foothills on the approach to 2nd mountain is the comforting surety of an objective material reality. On the peak of 2nd mountain, a rock isn't a rock. It's an empty appearance with no inherent existence separate from us. The rock has no being in and of it's own right, only the being reflected from ours. Heisenberg reasoned his way to this based on generations of experiment, while Reefs, myself an others describe a heightened direct perception of it. But on 2nd mountain, we can still explain how the rock comes to be: the existence of the rock flows from our creative perception of the rock as an object. The difference between 1st and 3rd mountain is that the fallacy of inertness was left back on the path up to the peak of Mt. 2nd. The top of 2nd mountain is where death is left to die, and on 3rd mountain reality has no explanation. At the end of the existential road is a fire sale. Everything must go, and that includes any notion of subjectivity, as reality is neither objective, nor subjective. I know the question is contextually limited and misconceived. I don't really see myself asking the question here. I've been asking how the question can be answered in the affirmative because that's what I heard for a long time, though maybe that echo has faded away. I haven't really been interested in discussing 'the aliveness of everything' though I agree as long as it's not meant to give an affirmative nod to the other perceivers question.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2017 19:23:18 GMT -5
What i have read is that the self is the only thing than can be known to exist. Everything else may or may not exist, it is not known. So I, as the self, am fundamental, and you appear to me. Realizing oneness destroys this. You understand how or do you want me to clarify? I was sorta hoping I wouldn't have to he he, because although I can explain, it will be flawed because this is one of those times where concepts have a boundary. With that said. Realizing oneness doesn't just collapse the belief in separateness, distinctions too are seen to be illusionary. So it is no longer the case that I am 'actually' perceiving you, this relationship, and any relationship between two things, is an illusion. At best, we could say there is an illusion of 'I' perceiving 'you'. The closest I can say to expressing the actuality, is that I AM you (and vice versa). There is no 'actual' relationship between I and you. Now in the solipsism that I spoke of, the boundary and relationship between I and you is never collapsed. It is locked in place. So you cannot be a non dualie and a solipsist, the realization opposes the philosophical position. Solipsism is separatism. The philosophical position doesn't seem to contradict oneness to me. There is no other, and so the apparent other is either I experiencing or I simply appearing to I. (I don't know if a self proclaimed solipsist thinks that way or not, as I've never spoken with one.)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2017 2:11:08 GMT -5
There was a time when a good memory was actually a liability around here, and now it just doesn't matter. I find that I remember what I care to remember quite well, but there's less and less that I care to remember. oh. the winker is it?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2017 2:13:55 GMT -5
Yes, that's what he's saying and yes, you're right. I guess a mix in this case would entail an assumption that it takes an animate being (human or otherwise) to have been conscious of be the Big Bang in order to make the Universe happen. I can see how it might lead to the conclusion that a non-person person is the ruler of the universe. "you can never defeat me in this place!" ... ( .. .. )
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2017 2:16:06 GMT -5
I was sorta hoping I wouldn't have to he he, because although I can explain, it will be flawed because this is one of those times where concepts have a boundary. With that said. Realizing oneness doesn't just collapse the belief in separateness, distinctions too are seen to be illusionary. So it is no longer the case that I am 'actually' perceiving you, this relationship, and any relationship between two things, is an illusion. At best, we could say there is an illusion of 'I' perceiving 'you'. The closest I can say to expressing the actuality, is that I AM you (and vice versa). There is no 'actual' relationship between I and you. Now in the solipsism that I spoke of, the boundary and relationship between I and you is never collapsed. It is locked in place. So you cannot be a non dualie and a solipsist, the realization opposes the philosophical position. Solipsism is separatism. The philosophical position doesn't seem to contradict oneness to me. There is no other, and so the apparent other is either I experiencing or I simply appearing to I. (I don't know if a self proclaimed solipsist thinks that way or not, as I've never spoken with one.) oh, is that the case??
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2017 2:40:41 GMT -5
I was sorta hoping I wouldn't have to he he, because although I can explain, it will be flawed because this is one of those times where concepts have a boundary. With that said. Realizing oneness doesn't just collapse the belief in separateness, distinctions too are seen to be illusionary. So it is no longer the case that I am 'actually' perceiving you, this relationship, and any relationship between two things, is an illusion. At best, we could say there is an illusion of 'I' perceiving 'you'. The closest I can say to expressing the actuality, is that I AM you (and vice versa). There is no 'actual' relationship between I and you. Now in the solipsism that I spoke of, the boundary and relationship between I and you is never collapsed. It is locked in place. So you cannot be a non dualie and a solipsist, the realization opposes the philosophical position. Solipsism is separatism. The philosophical position doesn't seem to contradict oneness to me. There is no other, and so the apparent other is either I experiencing or I simply appearing to I. (I don't know if a self proclaimed solipsist thinks that way or not, as I've never spoken with one.) Solipsism is 'I perceive an appearing something' right? It is understood to be an actual relationship between a fundamental I, and an appearing other. In the realization of oneness, the actual relationship is gone, because the 'two' is now illusion. So the fundamental self in solipsism is now no longer fundamental, it is appearing, just as 'the other' is appearing. A relationship cannot be both actual and illusion. I see the bit that's difficult for you here. Consider whether Awareness/Conscious is individualized or not. Is it I, as Awareness, perceiving 'you', as an appearance? Or is it Impersonal Awareness giving rise to an individual I and individual you? There's no problem with saying 'I am Awareness', but then saying...'I am aware of you' and equating that with, or making it into, 'Awareness is aware of you' is deeply problematic. Would you ever say, 'I am Awareness and am aware of you, an appearance'? (Which by the way is Gopal's position).
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 15, 2017 4:08:38 GMT -5
That's right, you can't realize oneness and argue for solipsism. It really is that simple. I think Enigma said that no-one is arguing for solipsism, I don't know if he is arguing for solipsism or not (i can't follow his train of thought), but to argue that 'I am prior to appearances, and you might be, or are, an appearance' definitely has been stated here and on the other forum, and this is the crux of solipsism. I haven't studied solipsism, but it seems it's the belief that my mind is all that exists. The perennial issue is that it can't be known. This is based on the realization that experience doesn't reveal how the experience is formed, and this remains a mystery even after oneness is realized. That realization collapses the illusion of separateness. It doesn't reveal the mystery of the unfolding of creation. There's too much knowing going on here. We don't really know anything. Basically. All it means is, if you say you're a slopist, I know you're wrong. If I said I was slopist, you'd know I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 15, 2017 4:10:36 GMT -5
I'll buy that. Though I don't even remember the 15/16 holidaze, much less what was talked about here during them. There was a time when a good memory was actually a liability around here, and now it just doesn't matter. Yea, that back quoting was fun.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2017 4:52:15 GMT -5
Well, as you imply in the next sentence, we're talking about whether there is a point of perception, not whether an appearance is dead or alive. I don't see 'points of perception' being appearances. That's the reason we say we don't know: those points don't appear. If an point of perception doesn't appear, is it fundamental and unchanging (which is also Gopal's belief)? I've mentioned this several times, but talking about 'points of perception' doesnt really work in the context of Consciousness and appearances, or Awareness and objects. These are impersonal statements about the nature of 'reality'. If we are talking about 'points of perception' we are talking about persons and physicality, but from what you said on the other forum, you don't think points of perceptions require some kind of physical or even non-physical 'vehicle'. Quite honestly, I struggle to make sense of your thoughts on the subject of 'points of perception'. I see you guys using Consciousness and Awareness with a capital C and a capital A. Is there a special reason for that? Enigma doesn't distinguish between consciousness and Consciousness or awareness and Awareness. Just take a look into his post dumpster.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2017 4:53:23 GMT -5
Well, you can't have realized oneness and then argue for solipsism. So either Realization 1 or Realization 2 would work. But it seems to me that Enigma is challenging Realization 2 from a mental position (the camouflage view). Which would explain the notorious context mix. I noticed that he did something similar in the Seth thread when we were talking about science vs metaphysics and certain root assumptions. That's right, you can't realize oneness and argue for solipsism. It really is that simple. I think Enigma said that no-one is arguing for solipsism, I don't know if he is arguing for solipsism or not (i can't follow his train of thought), but to argue that 'I am prior to appearances, and you might be, or are, an appearance' definitely has been stated here and on the other forum, and this is the crux of solipsism. "I AM AWARENSS! roared the mouse.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2017 5:00:06 GMT -5
What i have read is that the self is the only thing than can be known to exist. Everything else may or may not exist, it is not known. So I, as the self, am fundamental, and you appear to me. Realizing oneness destroys this. You understand how or do you want me to clarify? I was sorta hoping I wouldn't have to he he, because although I can explain, it will be flawed because this is one of those times where concepts have a boundary. With that said. Realizing oneness doesn't just collapse the belief in separateness, distinctions too are seen to be illusionary. So it is no longer the case that I am 'actually' perceiving you, this relationship, and any relationship between two things, is an illusion. At best, we could say there is an illusion of 'I' perceiving 'you'. The closest I can say to expressing the actuality, is that I AM you (and vice versa). There is no 'actual' relationship between I and you. Now in the solipsism that I spoke of, the boundary and relationship between I and you is never collapsed. It is locked in place. So you cannot be a non dualie and a solipsist, the realization opposes the philosophical position. Solipsism is separatism. He said that he hasn't had that realization. The realization he is relying on is Realization 1. Which he also seems to consider as the final truth. So there's naturally some resistance to what we are saying here because it seems to contradict and challenge what he has realized. In reality, that's not the case. It doesn't contradict or challege the realization he had, it completes it. Realization 1 is only half circle. And so he has been drawing some wrong conclusions. Realization 2 will rectify that in an instant.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2017 5:07:42 GMT -5
I was sorta hoping I wouldn't have to he he, because although I can explain, it will be flawed because this is one of those times where concepts have a boundary. With that said. Realizing oneness doesn't just collapse the belief in separateness, distinctions too are seen to be illusionary. So it is no longer the case that I am 'actually' perceiving you, this relationship, and any relationship between two things, is an illusion. At best, we could say there is an illusion of 'I' perceiving 'you'. The closest I can say to expressing the actuality, is that I AM you (and vice versa). There is no 'actual' relationship between I and you. Now in the solipsism that I spoke of, the boundary and relationship between I and you is never collapsed. It is locked in place. So you cannot be a non dualie and a solipsist, the realization opposes the philosophical position. Solipsism is separatism. The philosophical position doesn't seem to contradict oneness to me. There is no other, and so the apparent other is either I experiencing or I simply appearing to I. (I don't know if a self proclaimed solipsist thinks that way or not, as I've never spoken with one.) The philosophical position contains speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2017 5:09:24 GMT -5
The philosophical position doesn't seem to contradict oneness to me. There is no other, and so the apparent other is either I experiencing or I simply appearing to I. (I don't know if a self proclaimed solipsist thinks that way or not, as I've never spoken with one.) Solipsism is 'I perceive an appearing something' right? It is understood to be an actual relationship between a fundamental I, and an appearing other. In the realization of oneness, the actual relationship is gone, because the 'two' is now illusion. So the fundamental self in solipsism is now no longer fundamental, it is appearing, just as 'the other' is appearing. A relationship cannot be both actual and illusion. I see the bit that's difficult for you here. Consider whether Awareness/Conscious is individualized or not. Is it I, as Awareness, perceiving 'you', as an appearance? Or is it Impersonal Awareness giving rise to an individual I and individual you? There's no problem with saying 'I am Awareness', but then saying...'I am aware of you' and equating that with, or making it into, 'Awareness is aware of you' is deeply problematic. Would you ever say, 'I am Awareness and am aware of you, an appearance'? (Which by the way is Gopal's position). Now who is right, the one who says I am awareness or the one who says I am the body? Or are they both right or both wrong? Or both right and wrong?
|
|