Subject/Object-comments welcome

[jimmytantric]

The Lunatic apologizes before beginning. You the Subject are defined by objects which create or give definition to Yourself. By objects, I AM not just talking about physical objects such as trees, other people, chairs, etc. I also include thoughts as objects such as loneliness, fear, acceptance,compassion etc. Yet these Objects that You see, become Subjects unto themselves and You become their Objects, creating a reversal, if you will, of Your situation. I therefore deduce that Subject-(noumenon) and Object(phenoumenon) are Both the same Thing. Both, a reflection of Absolute Reality, ungraspable by thought, (Subject turned Object). Also in order for this Subject/Object to manifest itself Objectively as the Phenoumenal Universe , space-time comes into operation, because objects in order to be cognizable,have to be extended in space by giving them volume and must be stretched in duration or time because otherwise they could not be perceived. Phenomena are not something separately created,or even projected, but are indeed noumenon conceptualized or objectivized . In other words, the difference is purely notional. Without the notion, they are ever inseparable, and there is no real duality between noumenon and phenomena. Comments, lectures, mad ramblings, are gladly accepted and embraced. PS- On a side note- ground flaxseed works wonders with anyone that has poor bowel movements!

[lightmystic]

Hey jimmy,

sure, I'll give it a poke, why not?

Aren't all of these ideas and experiences taking place within your own subjectivity? The idea that there can be objective is always experienced as subjective (i.e. the thoughts themselves are), and experiences of everything are totally subjective. The key, that perhaps you are driving at here, is that subjective does not mean "jimmy". Subjective means whatever is perceiving...so the question, if there is Awareness outside of "jimmy" is, who is the real subject? What is really perceiving? (and I'm actually asking you)

[question]

Feb 3, 2010 23:51:39 GMT -5 jimmytantric said:

The Lunatic apologizes before beginning. You the Subject are defined by objects which create or give definition to Yourself. By objects, I AM not just talking about physical objects such as trees, other people, chairs, etc. I also include thoughts as objects such as loneliness, fear, acceptance,compassion etc. Yet these Objects that You see, become Subjects unto themselves and You become their Objects, creating a reversal, if you will, of Your situation. I therefore deduce that Subject-(noumenon) and Object(phenoumenon) are Both the same Thing. Both, a reflection of Absolute Reality, ungraspable by thought, (Subject turned Object)

How can a subject ("I") become the object of whatever is the object to my subjectivity? That is, how can I become an object to a chair? A chair doesn't know anything, doesn't see me. My subjectivity ("I") can only become the object to another subjectivity ("Thou"). However even that is tricky, because what a Thou objectifies of myself, is hardly the subjectivity as I experience it, he objectifies my appearance (my body, sound, smell) and his ideas of me. A Thou suspects that there is another subjectivity other than himself, but he can't be 100% certain. I can't follow you from the point on, where you introduce the reversal of subject/object.

I agree that subject/object are the same thing (the kosmos, absolute reality, blubbadibanga, ________, ) but not for the reasons you stated. Because when subject/object are one, there is neither subject nor object (those are just ideas) and hence no actual reversal that is not taking place in one's concept of whatever is taking place. And the strange thing is, even though I agree with you on ______, I can't really find a logical argument for it that doesn't involve some kind of an antinomy.

[karen]

Question, how do you know a chair doesn't know anything or that it can't see you? It clearly doesn't seem to have a nervous system that we are familiar with, and it doesn't have eyes like us. But maybe it does "know" something, and maybe it can see in its own way. I'm not saying it can do either, but "knowing" it cannot do either seems to be based on some assumption of yours that I'd think might be a burden for you.

[someNOTHING!]

Hi Jimmy,

Since you brought up the topic(s), perhaps you could give a little treatise on Subject/Object using food and the bowel movement you mentioned (i.e., where/when one becomes the other), and then tell us how that might be used as a springboard to another treatise of what you think our individual existences are with respect to the Whole/One Existence (i.e., where one becomes the other).

Just food for thought!

[question]

Feb 4, 2010 20:59:41 GMT -5 karen said:

Question, how do you know a chair doesn't know anything or that it can't see you? It clearly doesn't seem to have a nervous system that we are familiar with, and it doesn't have eyes like us. But maybe it does "know" something, and maybe it can see in its own way. I'm not saying it can do either, but "knowing" it cannot do either seems to be based on some assumption of yours that I'd think might be a burden for you.

In the mainstream science definition of consciousness, which is dependent on body/brain, a chair isn't conscious, it doesnt have a nervous system, nothing. It could only be called to have consciousness if you have another definition of consciousness. I think on this forum, the definition of consciousness in which a chair also participates, is _________. And I'm cool with that, but it's not the kind of consciousness that is talked about in science, and in _________ subject/object are only illusions, mind-consructs.

Obviously I can't know 100% that a chair isn't conscious even by the standard definition. But this not-knowing is of the same kind that you don't know for sure that an invisible pink monkey isn't sitting on your desk right now.

I think there really is a conflict in definitions, especially how advaitists use the words knowing, awareness and consciousness. In most languages the word for consciousness is rooted in the words thinking and knowing, which in turn are mostly rooted in the words for division and measurement (I'd love to see examples where it isn't), but what we're discussing here doesn't think and know in the same way as it's defined in common language. Is it really enough to just add "absolute" and then it's fine? I think simply writing _________ should become the new standard in the advaita literature. This might save some idiot seekers like me from wasting precious time.

[karen]

If you want to follow the main stream, you are in the wrong forum. The millions of others will serve you best for all the standard stuff.

It seems as though you need an exhaustive definition of consciousness that jibes with your current beliefs. Why? Isn't it good enough to accept: "whatever consciousness is, is what consciousness is"? And then try to experience it directly?

And about the pink monkey, why must I know there isn't one on my desk? What good is that information? Does it help my life? How?

I understand why the argument is used - but why walk around "knowing" there's no teapot out there?

You're certainly free to pack as much information in your head as you can, but it's not so obvious to me that I should do it. In fact, I'm trying to give up that habit.

And I hope this _____ thing doesn't catch on because it gets tedious hearing "underscore" "underscore" "underscore" "underscore", etc. from my text to speech engine!

[question]

Feb 5, 2010 17:24:35 GMT -5 karen said:

It seems as though you need an exhaustive definition of consciousness that jibes with your current beliefs. Why? Isn't it good enough to accept: "whatever consciousness is, is what consciousness is"? And then try to experience it directly?

Actually I don't even care about what it is. I want the truth, that's it.

Feb 5, 2010 17:24:35 GMT -5 karen said:

And about the pink monkey, why must I know there isn't one on my desk? What good is that information? Does it help my life? How?

I understand why the argument is used - but why walk around "knowing" there's no teapot out there?

You don't know that there's no teapot out there. And you have no way of knowing. That's the point. It's a mindf*ck. You could make up a weird definition of consciousness and then you could tell me to look for consciousness in a chair, and I could try to look for it for a long time and not find anything and still not be sure that it isn't there. But it's not about me, you or the chair, it's about that impossible definition. Scientific definition of consciousness is defined well enough to figure out that it's not present in a chair (consciousness as science defines it, isn't present in a chair). Advaita definition of consciousness is that it can't be known. Therefore I have no clue what to look for, when I try to find it in a chair.

Feb 5, 2010 17:24:35 GMT -5 karen said:

You're certainly free to pack as much information in your head as you can, but it's not so obvious to me that I should do it. In fact, I'm trying to give up that habit.

I'm not ashamed of my desire to understand things. And I'm not going to switch off my reasoning and hand myself over to a teaching that tells me to, especially if one considers the fact that this teaching has an extremely marginal success rate in its followers. Science actually works and has proven its competency to me. Advaita has yet to do so.




Anyways, I think we're getting off topic here. I find Jimmy's question too interesting, to have us spoil this thread.

[klaus]

jimmy,

I would say not a reflection of Absolute Reality, but Absolute Reality Itself.

[klaus]

Question,

Noumenon or phenomenon: we can never know as it is in itself, whether subject or object. In other words we do not know what anything actually Is.

You are right, it's a mindf**k.

Welcome to the world of Absolute Reality. Isn't it wonderful!

Question, you say you want the Truth, but only by the rules you play with. The Truth has no rules.

[karen]

Hi Question. I'm a huge fan of reason. In fact, every single relative truth I've learned in meditation and contemplation has been highly reasonable!

And I'm the biggest fan of science I know. I think governments should be run by scientific principles and methods, not religious or traditional ethics as they all are now.

And so far, from what I've seen, the cosmos seems to be far far closer to how Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan describe it rather than the bible.

And all that I just said above is not one whit contrary to anything I've written in this forum including this thread. However, it might seem contrary due to my poor teaching/writing skills. After all, I'm not such a great student; why would I be better at teaching?

And so I will go back to my existential contemplation... (very much not at cross purposes to science or reason )

[jimmytantric]

Very well put Klaus! I might be off base but I thought I heard you were a scientist? If so I have been delving into astrophysics lately. This is not my field as I have studied mostly Physics- Quantom theory, western and eastern philosophies, religions and basic chemistry. Yet I just read Bob Bermans book "Cosmic Universe"and was hit with another bubble burst if you know what I mean. I really enjoy your comments. Goodluck fellow traveler!

[klaus]

jimmy,

Thanks. I appreciate your comments as well.

I'm an artist, that's an illusion creating illusions.

zendancer, is the scientist.

But tell us about your insight from reading the book.