The Philosophy of the Self.

truth
Joe, you and Rufio are being perfectly reasonable. One cannot think about one's self and the external without assuming at least an analytical distinction between them. Dualism is necessary to all thought processes, including science (although I suspect David Bohm, the physicist might qualify that statement). The only basis for my occasional disagreements with Tywvel is that I cannot deal with the total picture intellectually in a nondual manner. I therefore "assume" the existence of an external reality with which my self interacts to create experience. I believe, intellectually, that there must be "external" stimuli with which my brain or mind interacts to produce the sensations of life. Yet there is a mode of perception in which all that is suspended. It does not generate "knowledge" ABOUT the world in the sense I've been talking about; it is an intuitive consciousness of the nature of experience--what the mystics refer to as true mind, original mind, Buddha mind, essential mind, Atman, universal mind, etc. etc.). It is a state of consciousness in which it is immediately perceived/intuited that there is NO PROBLEM of alienation between a self and a non-self. This orientation cannot be defended as it is of an entirely different sphere of experience. It is not knowledge as you understand it. Indeed, it cannot be grasped so long as one tries to do so in terms of existent knowledge. I tried to give my version above, hoping to avoid such a fruitless encounter in the future, but it either was not read or made no rational sense--which I understand. In a way the fault lies with the advocates of nondualism here. It cannot be talked about rationally. Yet Twyvel and I have not be able to resist the effort. It would be SO frustrating to keep silent on so important a matter. I should add that I make no claim to mystical enlightenment. I wish I could. I have worked on this matter for four decades and have only a glimpse of its promise. I think Tywvel is more of a "natural" in this than I.

0 Replies

Well, I suppose you could acheive the idea of being "at one" or whatever with the universe if you went the one (or two) steps higher to consider others in social groups to be an extension of yourself. That takes a bit of conditioning though. As for knowing the world without actually being part of it - of course we can't know it as we know ourselves (or our culture, if you want to look at the social self) but we can do our best to infer about it. Whether our perceptions of the world are correct or not, or how correct they are, doesn't matter - they are all reactions to things that are real, so they to some (perhaps small) extent reflect something that is objectively real. When knowing ourselves, we have much more information, because not only do we know what the effects are, but also the causes.

An interesting thought that just popped into my head - on a purely theoretical point, if someone knew all of the causes of the universe, they might be "at one" with it and become (literally) selfless.

0 Replies

Ossobuco

Your "hybrid" position is not problematic. All you need to think about are "levels of analysis" for different purposes. E.g. a reductionist description of the human body in terms of physics and chemistry is not sufficient to "explain"(=predict/control) the functioning of the body. So too for reductionist descriptions of the brain and "cognition" etc.

Joe

To describe twyvels position as "solipsistic" is merely to interepret twyvels position in terms of your own (traditional) paradigm. Without laboring the point, if you read Wittgenstein, or commentaries on his views of "self" (via Google) you will find that the concept of "solipsism" evaporates. A similar point follows about the distinction between "physical" and "mental" irrespecctive of twyvels usage of the term "mental" for want of something better. (This is where the metalanguage of mathematics can at times be useful)

Flat Earthers warn us of the dangers of falling off the edge, but there is no "edge", no "falling", and "we" are not "them"! Laughing

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

If "all is one," then how do you know that?

I think nondualism posits a different kind of knowing; it is not knowing as a subject knows an object, it is knowing as in "being"; as JLNobody has mentioned and said much better then I. If one has had a glimpse of nondualism where consciousness transcends the ego/body to become (yet is always already all things) all observables, then I guess one knows through reflection. If one maintains the nondual state then one knows as being all their observations, as a fact.

Quote:

Certainly, if you're serious in suggesting that everything is a unity, then presumably you can't distinguish yourself from anything else.

Correct, you are everything else, you are everything.

Quote:

If the "I" is not contrasted with the "not-I," then you can have no self-awareness (as Fichte pointed out), but, more importantly, you can have no awareness at all.

There is no ?'self' awareness in subject?-object dualism if the ?'self is the observer; i.e. if the observer is the subject the subject is never observed. So we already have "no self awareness". There are only observed objects. The "I" and "not-I" are both objects. The appearance of ?'self' awareness comes about in imagining that some objects are an "I", (thoughts, body sensations etc.) but that is not the case, if you are something other then an object, if you are the observer.

I think one can have awareness without an object, an awareness that obviously transcends the observable universe, and yet is immanent in it, as it.

Quote:

In particular, your notion that there is no "observable self" cannot rest on mental experience, since "observation" and "experience" are either direct sensory knowledge, and thus manifestations of a mind that recognizes the "not-I," or else they're the idle musings of a solipsistic potted brain.

Sartre maintained that consciousness recognized its ?'self' as non being, e.g. as not being the chair, I think that would be your "not-I". But an negation cannot be observed. That consciousness is not its objects is a mirage of dualism.

In dualism "experience' is distinct from objects (ego, or whatever you take your ?'self' to be) that appear to have experience. In nondualism the ego/body self IS the experience.

0 Replies

Twyvel, where did the insane idea that the physical world is NOT primary and real come from? Very Happy

What are we aware of, if not a physical world? Did I invent all of my perceptions of the universe out of nothing? Do other people exist? What about beings on planets millions of light years away who are too far away to communicate with in a lifetime?

If I am not at one with every other person, how can they be at one with me?

0 Replies

JL, I still don't understand exactly what is meant by non-dualism.

Twyvel seems to be saying that there is no material world and nothing exists outside of the mind. This theory fails to explain why we perceive a material world, who or what creates the illusion and for what purpose.

I have no idea how a non-material mind could function, or why it would choose to create the illusion of a physical mind that had been injured and was no longer capable of thinking or feeling. And why would it create the illusion of billions of separate entities who would hurt and kill each other?

You talk about an external world, presumably a physical/material one, but imply that our experience of it as separate from our "self" is a delusion. While I have no doubt that people who have experienced non-duality believe as strongly in it as those who think they've experienced God's presence, I cannot help wondering if the experience of non-duality is itself an illusion brought about by suppressing a part of the brain so that perceptions are longer processed.

I agree that we generate a mental image of the world that includes things such as color that do not really exist, but do not think that we could do so if there were not a physical universe to map in the first place.

I suppose that the real problem I have with this discussion (and some others) is that non-dualism seems more like a secret society than a valid description of reality. It is talked about in cryptic language, you have to experience it to understand, it cannot be explained to outsiders.

I'm not sure what fresco is saying, but while quantum mechanics describes the operation of the universe on a fine scale, extrapolating those principles to a higher level is not really justifiable. QM works quite well in its own domain and is quite useful. What does mysticism do for us?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

The ego-self IS an illusion, but it is a necessary one. I do not think that human evolution would not have advanced as far as it has without language and ego consciousness. It IS functional for physical survival, BUT it is a major block to spiritual fulfillment.

If an ego-self is functional, why couldn't we have evolved a real one? What makes you think that losing the ego-self is the only way to obtain "spiritual fulfillment"? If that were so, most of the people in the world would never be fulfilled. But I guess that doesn't matter since we are all one, so only one of us has to. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

I think nondualism posits a different kind of knowing; it is not knowing as a subject knows an object, it is knowing as in "being";

That's fine, twyvel; I have no objection to nondualism as positing a "different kind of knowing." On the other hand, I have a big problem with explaining nondualism by traditional logic. After all, if traditional logic (e.g. the kind of modus ponens syllogisms that you used in your previous post) is based upon "traditional" kinds of knowing, then why should I be convinced that my logic applies to your universe (or that your logic applies to my universe)?

To illustrate my point, you had said:

twyvel wrote:

I have never experienced a world separate from my mind; my(?) mind, or ?'mind' is a personal absolute. Ergo all experiences are mental.

That's an acceptable argument according to traditional logic, but if traditional logic rests upon "traditional epistemology," then your use of that logic is unwarranted. You're right, then, to put a question mark after "my," showing that such a concept is problematic according to your argument. But why stop there? You need question marks after every word in that sentence.

twyvel wrote:

Correct, you are everything else, you are everything.

Then I am, perforce, also nothing.

twyvel wrote:

There is no ?'self' awareness in subject?-object dualism if the ?'self is the observer; i.e. if the observer is the subject the subject is never observed. So we already have "no self awareness". There are only observed objects. The "I" and "not-I" are both objects.

I don't object to your use of undefined, and indefinable, terms such as "transcendent" or "immanent" or "ego" -- I regard such terminology as so much metaphysico-existentialist flummery, and leave it at that. What I strongly object to, however, is your use of undefined terms that look like defined terms, such as "object," "observe," "experience," "awareness," and "knowledge." I have a fairly good idea of what those terms mean in a universe with both subjects and objects, but those terms are certainly not unproblematic in a universe where "all is one." Indeed, in such a universe, the terms "all" and "one" are undefined.

twyvel wrote:

Sartre maintained that consciousness recognized its ?'self' as non being, e.g. as not being the chair, I think that would be your "not-I". But an negation cannot be observed. That consciousness is not its objects is a mirage of dualism.

If Sartre could recognize himself as "not-the-chair," then he implicitly recognized the "I" that is not the chair. To recognize oneself as "not-the-chair" in a universe where "all is one," however, is to experience a phantasm, an illusion of separateness where there is only unity. As such, anyone who bases a notion of "selfhood" on such an illusion is either mistaken or demented -- but then, of course, there would be no one around who could make that judgment, so the person would be correct as well.

twyvel wrote:

In dualism "experience' is distinct from objects (ego, or whatever you take your ?'self' to be) that appear to have experience. In nondualism the ego/body self IS the experience.

"Experience" without "objects" is an undefinable term. "Ego/body self" without "selfhood" is an undefinable term. You build an edifice of obscurity with the materials of confusion: I thus demonstrate my regard for your results with the sound of one hand clapping.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

To describe twyvels position as "solipsistic" is merely to interepret twyvels position in terms of your own (traditional) paradigm.

Nope, sorry, can't buy that. I am interpreting twyvel's position according to the logic that even twyvel accepts. Neither twyvel nor you, fresco, have shown any ability to go beyond (or "transcend") the limits of traditional logic -- a logic that, I maintain, leads twyvel's position either to a world where self-awareness is impossible or to a sort of solipsism.

Now, fresco, show me a logic that applies to a world where there are no subjects and no objects and I'll be prepared to agree with you.

0 Replies

I cannot speak for twyvel but my own inclination is towards Piagets assimilation-accommodation model of "reality" which implies that "subjects" and "objects" are mutual states of being. To see how this transcends "logic", I might start with a common perceptual phenomenon like the Muller Lyer Illusion (reversed arrow heads give false impression of length). If line A "appears" to be longer than line B then this can be shown to be a property of the arrow heads provided that the observer has had the particular cultural experience of living with perpendicular buildings. In other words whether the lines in some sense belong to the "same set" depends on the perceptual state of the observer. Now "realists" will jump on this and argue that the "reality" is "same length" but all this does is contrast "set membership" by one perceptual activity(seeing) with "set membership" by another activity (measuring) and assume that the latter is "the truth". But what is "truth" other than social consensus about subsequent events.., e.g. the prediction that we would all announce "both lines 2 inches" . Suppose a pedantic guy with a microscope comes along and attempts to measure the lines to 3 decimal places. The chances are that he would announce the lines to be "unequal" according to his measurement criteria. So "sameness" depends on who, why, and how the measuring is carried out.

Thus similarity and difference are not "properties of the object" , they are aspects of the functional relationship between subject and object. And "fixed set membership" from which all "logical argument proceeds" ignores the dynamics of perceptual states. In as much as observers have common functional relationships with the world there is consensual "truth" but at many levels other than the mundane, "functional equivalence" is not agreed, measurement methods are problematic (Heisenberg) and the "measurement event" is observer dependent.

Now, where does "self awareness" come into all this ? Perhaps self2 in world2 observes self1 in world1 (this is used in second order cybernetics) or perhaps SELF/UNIVERSE observes self1/world1.....selfN/worldN (transcendence)

In summary I have rejected "objective truth" and "set membership" which are the basis of ordinary logic. (n.b. mathematically, "fuzzy logic" has had considerable success recently), and I have suggested that the default mode for such rejection is a transcendent or "higher order" view of self/world.

0 Replies

Twyvel, I'm not sure what you're saying. First you say that, being non-dual, you know the world as a part of you, not as an observation. If that's true, than how come you don't know everything there is to know, since you are one with everything? How come you don't know what I am about to say, since I'm a part of that world?

Next, though, you say that "self" is defined by a series of objects that are designated as such. If you are not separate from the world, how can you veiw these things as "objects," as things separate from yourself, when you are separate from nothing?

Fresco, you are talking about two different things entirely. You are talking about the way that things are, and the way that they are perceived - that is, the way they are in reality, and the way they are in our minds. No matter how much you look at two sets of lines, they will not change in reality. They might change in your mind, but measuring what is in your mind is psychology or social science, not philosophy, and certainly not natural science. Gravity could be all wrong, up could be down, we could all be living in the matrix, for all we know - learning these things or not learning them don't make them any less true. It just makes us more knowledgeable about our world (or not, as the case may be).

As for similarity and difference, I agree that these exist only in human minds and are more or less arbitrary categories. We'd probably say that a line (with or without arrows) that was 2.001 inches long was "the same" as a line that was 2.000 inches long, though clearly they are different. How we describe things in terms of each other does not change the objective reality that we are observing and that caused us to make that proclamation, even if we misinterpreted it.

0 Replies

truth
Taking what Focus has reported about "fuzzy logic", perception research, and the insights of Wittgenstein, and Kuvazs' discussion of findings in quantum theory, those traditionalists among us may want to become a bit less attached to their notions of the hegemony of traditional logic and the absolutism of "facts", unless, Joe, all that is inadmissable evidence.
I for one havepretty much run out of motivation, even to clarify for Terry (?) the meaning of non-dualism. I know that my efforts will be rejected because of a general inclination of people to exercise "bad faith" when encountering other paradigms, and/or because of a persistent insistence that non-dualism make sense in dualistic terms. It does seem that most of the objections raised in the last half dozen posts HAVE been previously answered by myself, Twyvel or Focus, but that they have been IGNORED. It is very difficult even for those who want to grasp the reality of nondualism. That is why you never see Buddhist proselytism. If it's difficult to bring "believers" to understanding, imagine how futile it would be to "convert" the skeptical. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

JLN - a moments meditation seems appropriate....

Days are like grass the wind moves over:
first the wind & then the silence-
what cannot be said we must pass over
in silence, or play some music over
in our heads. Silently, a wind goes over
(we know from the motion of the grass).
Days are like grass; the wind goes over:
first the wind & then the silence.

For Wittgenstein By Joseph Duemer

0 Replies

If you're refering to my post, JL, I haven't been keeping up with the dual/nondual part of the argument, so I'm sorry if I repeated things. If you've answered it before, just show me where that was and I'll be happy to read it.

0 Replies

truth
Rufio, please read it all; it's better that you with your youth expend the energy than me with my years.

Focus, thanks, I needed that. Let me reciprocate (regarding the importance of silence and the difficulty of putting things into words).

Whenever something is said,
The lips are cold.
The Autumn wind.

Basho

Notice the silence (the "whisper of nothingness") between the second and third lines.

0 Replies

I'm already busy doing homework that's probably more logical than twyvel's blitherings. I don't have my whole life to sit here and read posts that don't make sense.

0 Replies

Nice
meditations
fresco
and
JLNobody
.
.
.
.

0 Replies

Terry

Quote:

What are we aware of, if not a physical world?

You agreed that color is a mental construct, so your visual consciousness, as it is called, is all mental, all we ever ?'see', all visual experiences exist entirely in the mind as something we call "color". Agreed?

Quote:

Did I invent all of my perceptions of the universe out of nothing?

"Out of nothing". Experientially, where does a thought arise from? I guess if perceptions of the universe, (the universe) come from any ?'where', they come from nothing, or from (the) void.

Quote:

Do other people exist? What about beings on planets millions of light years away who are too far away to communicate with in a lifetime?

If whatever is observed is an aspect of the observer, whatever is observed or ?'seen' , such as beings considered to be from another planet would be content to your mind as color and would be as real to you as you are, which doesn't say much in terms of ?'being real'.

Quote:

If I am not at one with every other person, how can they be at one with me?

Just because you see a mirage it doesn't mean others do.

Quote:

Twyvel seems to be saying that there is no material world and nothing exists outside of the mind. This theory fails to explain why we perceive a material world, who or what creates the illusion and for what purpose.

Can you honestly say, based on experience, on analysis of perception, that you have ever perceived a material world?

The latter part of your comment is god questions. Who knows?

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

On the other hand, I have a big problem with explaining nondualism by traditional logic.

I guess you mean, "trying" to explain.

Are you saying no effort should be made?

Quote:

I have never experienced a world separate from my mind; my(?) mind, or ?'mind' is a personal absolute. Ergo all experiences are mental.

Quote:
That's an acceptable argument according to traditional logic, but if traditional logic rests upon "traditional epistemology," then your use of that logic is unwarranted. You're right, then, to put a question mark after "my," showing that such a concept is problematic according to your argument. But why stop there? You need question marks after every word in that sentence.

As JLNobody has said several times and "made quite clear", attempting to explain nondualism dualistically is difficult enough, and perhaps folly but the attempt is made regardless and rightly so, for believe it or not some people actually "get it", Smile

..eventually.

Why you would want to exaggerate and exacerbate the problem as in your above is beyond me.

Quote:

Then I am, perforce, also nothing.

Correct.

Quote:

What I strongly object to, however, is your use of undefined terms that look like defined terms, such as "object," "observe," "experience," "awareness," and "knowledge." I have a fairly good idea of what those terms mean in a universe with both subjects and objects, but those terms are certainly not unproblematic in a universe where "all is one." Indeed, in such a universe, the terms "all" and "one" are undefined.

No one has said they were unproblematic, in fact the opposite has been said.

What does "object" mean? As I think fresco and JLNobody have said an observed "object" is a process not a thing; light, sound, smell etc. perception, and (apparent) observer are in constant change. One cannot have the same experience twice. Repetition is a myth.

Quote:

If Sartre could recognize himself as "not-the-chair," then he implicitly recognized the "I" that is not the chair. To recognize oneself as "not-the-chair" in a universe where "all is one," however, is to experience a phantasm, an illusion of separateness where there is only unity.

Yes, quite right, Smile

it happens all the time, and it is happening right now. But I don't think Sartre knew that, he was a dualist trying to reconcile with the recognition that consciousness cannot be observed; that one end of the subject---object relation was an ?'unknown'. His explanations are unconvincing.

Quote:

I thus demonstrate my regard for your results with the sound of one hand clapping.

"One hand clapping"..that's a start, Very Happy

0 Replies

Nihilism is not philosophy.

0 Replies

The Philosophy of the Self.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know