No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

twyvel: Considering the length of your triple-posting, I am forced to respond to selected passages. My failure to address any points that you raised, however, should not be taken for a tacit sign of agreement.

twyvel wrote:

"blatantly obvious" comes (initially) from rather rigorous analysis of the nature of perception and awareness, experientially speaking, and a somewhat "impatience" with someone whom I think would have grasped and understood more then they actually did or do. My apologies.

No apologies necessary. Your position rests on an ipse dixit and is elaborated by a series of increasingly bewildering contradictions. Why would you feel the need to apologize?

Ken Wilber wrote:

All those objects in your awareness are precisely not the observing Self. All those things that you know about yourself are precisely not the real Self. Those are not the Seer; those are simply things that can be seen. All of those objects that you describe when you "describe yourself" are actually not your real Self at all! They are just more objects, whether internal or external, they are not the real Seer of those objects, they are not the real Self. So when you describe your- self by listing all of those objects, you are ultimately giving a list of mistaken identities, a list of lies, a list of precisely what you ultimately are not.

Oh, I see: this is just another iteration of the "mind-body dualism" problem. Why didn't you say so in the first place, twyvel?

Ken Wilber wrote:

So who is this real Seer? Who or what is this observing Self?

Ramana Maharshi called this Witness the I-I, because it is aware of the individual I or self, but cannot itself be seen. So what is this I-I, this causal Witness, this pure observing Self?

This deeply inward Self is witnessing the world out there, and it is witnessing all your interior thoughts as well. This Seer sees the ego, and sees the body, and sees the natural world. All of those parade by "in front" of this Seer. But the Seer itself cannot be seen. If you see anything, those are just more objects. Those objects are precisely what the Seer is not, what the Witness is not.

And how does Wilber know this?

Ken Wilber wrote:

As you push back into this pure Subjectivity, this pure Seer, you won't see it as an object--you can't see it as an object, because it's not an object! It is nothing you can see.

And how does he know this?

Ken Wilber wrote:

This pure Witness is a pure Emptiness in which all these individual subjects and objects arise, stay a bit, and pass.

Well, I must admit, if I had to describe this philosophy in a single phrase, I couldn't do much better than "pure Emptiness."

Ken Wilber wrote:

So when we rest in this pure Witness, we don't see this Witness as an object. Anything you can see is not it. Rather, it is the absence of any subjects or objects altogether, it is the release from all of that.

I won't even bother to ask how Wilber knows this, or anything else he asserts, since he goes on from here to even more metaphysico-mystico-mumbo-jumbo. Indeed, I have an idea of how Wilbur and the resident non-dualist troika "know" what they purport to know, and it is something more than twyvel's "it's blatantly obvious" and fresco's "it's self-evident," although it's hard to imagine why a purported epistemology would need much more than these bare assertions as its fundamental premises. But I'll hold off revealing my suspicions for another time.

twyvel wrote:

I'm not prepared to admit that we're dealing with an infinite regress, but then perhaps it's not necessary. After all, why would a non-dualist find an infinite regress to be a concern? An infinte regress, remember, is only a logical problem: if non-dualists, however, reject the basic fundamentals of logic (such as the law of non-contradiction), why not simply jettison infinite regresses as well? In other words, even if dualism ultimately involves an infinite regress, so what?

twyvel wrote:

If you, I or anyone claims that within themselves they can observe >that-which-is-observing<, the next questions would be,

1. What observes >that-which-is-observing<?

2. And when observing >that-which-is-observing< what is observed?

And so continues the infinite regress.But please fell free to answer questions 1 and 2

Answer 1. Me
Answer 2. That's me too.

If you're saying that I can't see myself, you're wrong. And if you say that I can't see my self seeing myself, I simply reply: who else is seeing me? And if you, along with Wilber, answer "the pure Emptiness" or some such nonsense, I suppose I would have to respond: "sez who?"

twyvel wrote:

Wait a minute. Are you saying that non-dualists recognize the existence of the observer who is "right here of course observing these words?"

twyvel wrote:

What kind of scrutiny?

I am prepared to respond the William James piece, but before I launch into a commentary on that rather daunting work, twyvel, I need to know if you agree with James or not. I ask because I've commented previously on arguments that you and others have brought up, only to learn afterwards that you don't actually endorse those arguments. Rather than spend an inordinate amount of time on James, then, I need to know if you cited him because you actually agree with him or just because Wilber mentioned him.

0 Replies

What does it matter whether twyvel agrees or disagrees ? You cited him and like all authors venturing into this difficult area he can be accused of occasional contradictions within the progression of his works.

I have refreshed my acquaintance with him which was originally in the arena of "psychology". Here he represents a position against which the Behaviorists reacted. However looking at him from a later philosophical point of view he does seem to have embraced elements of a nondualist position, and he certainly advocated a rethink of "knowledge". So when the word "know" is bandied about as though we are all aware of Joe's take on "knowledge" it implies either indolence or ignorance on his part.

Unfortunately instead of going to the primary source Joe is now likely to take exception to my last sentence and tediously requote block by block
with personal criticisms in between.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

What does it matter whether twyvel agrees or disagrees ? You cited him and like all authors venturing into this difficult area he can be accused of occasional contradictions within the progression of his works.

That's a fair comment. I'll freely admit that I had not read James's "Does Consciousness Exist" prior to reading twyvel's link. As such, I did not consider this work when I mentioned James in my list of people who have influenced my ideas about the nature of reality (I was thinking more of his Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth when I mentioned him). Indeed, I'm not sure I would have considered it even if I had read it: James's work, after all, deals with consciousness, not reality. Granted, the two subjects are closely related, but they aren't the same.

But my previous query to twyvel stands: I won't get deeply involved in James's theories of consciousness if twyvel doesn't endorse them. There is, after all, no need to get mired in complicated subjects if they ultimately prove to be side issues for everyone involved.

fresco wrote:

I have refreshed my acquaintance with him which was originally in the arena of "psychology". Here he represents a position against which the Behaviorists reacted. However looking at him from a later philosophical point of view he does seem to have embraced elements of a nondualist position, and he certainly advocated a rethink of "knowledge". So when the word "know" is bandied about as though we are all aware of Joe's take on "knowledge" it implies either indolence or ignorance on his part.

Are we now speaking of one another in the third person?

Very well.

I can understand why fresco believes that James has "embraced of a nondualist position." Wilber, in twyvel's link, says pretty much the same thing. But then one needs to ask: what elements of non-dualism has James embraced, and are those essential elements of non-dualism?

fresco wrote:

Unfortunately instead of going to the primary source Joe is now likely to take exception to my last sentence and tediously requote block by block with personal criticisms in between.

After suggesting that I am either indolent or ignorant, I suppose that the burden of irony here is on fresco, not me.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

kitchenpete,

No U-turn implied ! I also agree with Heliotrope. I was merely trying to draw him out, and save myself the job of possible repetition from other threads.
I apologise if you find some of this obscure. Perhaps try this commentary on Maturana (one of the contributors to structural dynamics) which highlights some of the difficulties in exposition.

http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm
I'd be interested to know what you think. (JLN too)

Fresco, thanks for offering links and an apology. I was becoming frustrated that my eagerness to understand this (I'm not being ironic) was being thwarted by a discussion based in a language I do not understand. It is one thing to understand another language and have to look up some words to get their precise meaning, quite another to understand without the building blocks.

I will have to read more before I can contribute to the substance of this debate, which, as I understand it relates to the merits of "dualism" vs. "non-dualism".

When I first posted on this thread, I had no idea that this was the debate - I thought Rolling Eyes

that it was a discussion of whether "Reality" can "be" outside our own "Existence". I initially answered in terms to which I have not received a contradiction: that there is a physical/energetic reality which existed quite independently of my own being.

Without a signpost to the actual subject matter of the debate, I found myself very confused. I look forward to reading from the links offered in this thread and contributing, when I have an understanding capable of entering the actual debate. As indicated earlier, I have a sense that I will understand the "non-dualist" perspective, as a result of previous scientific studies.

JLNobody wrote:

Craven, I'm surprised and not a little disappointed by your attack on Twyvel (and Fresco and me?). As far as I'm concerned, Twyvel's ideas are difficult (because they are exotic), but his words are free of jargon. I never have to look up a term. I just have to re-read his phrases to extract his meaning. Again, it's rarely because of his writing; it's because of the ideas. Eventually I do understand them and then realize the essential clarity of his expression. Fresco does present his ideas and information in rather sketchy form. It would involve a tremendous amount of time and effort for him to talk down to us--to educate us from scratch--so that we may conveniently grasp all his points. But he does give us many links so that we may catch up with the materials he presents. If we choose not to read all those links it's our problem not his. If anyone is vague it tends to be me. I try to write and edit my expressions so that they are clear to me. I do use "technical" language from the mystical literature, i.e., Atman and Brahman. I would not present such writings to a publisher for review. Nevertheless, it's the best I can do under the circumstances of the forum.
Kitchenpete has degrees in the social sciences yet considers my use of the term. paradigm and/or inter-paradigmatic, to be (I forget his phrase) obscure and jargonistic. If anyone should understand the terms it would be a student of the social sciences.
My God, if you were to try to explain to me how you do programming you would have to start from scratch. I am totally ignorant in the technical language--notice I did not say jargon. There would be no way, I suspect, for you to "translate" the technical language into convenient everyday speech. I just hope that Joe and Pete will someday cease to act like the ignorant yahoos that I know they are not.

JLN, I do hope that you believe my (genuine) claims of lack of understanding are appropriate to certain terms. Paradigm I understand, thankyou.

I was trying to understand the paradigm, which you appear to share with fresco and twyfel (I have not had time to read twyfel's long posts, yet).

I am entirely in agreement with Craven that the attitude of certain postings seems to be highly patronising. I am beginning to understand that, in the case of fresco, I was being unfair. Your attitude toward me in the last two paragraphs, quoted above, has the effect of belittling my attempts to understand. I should be grateful of your source of the impression that I have behaved like a yahoo, so that I can take it as constructive criticism for future reference. Please supply (pm me if you wish).

Anecdote

One of my very good friends from university received the highest degree in philosophy. I do not share his experience but, in his opinion, most arguments in philosophy arise from a disagreement over the definition of the terms in which the question/statement for scrutiny is phrased.

I fear that I fell into this trap, taking an everyday view of a subject on which the other participants have a particular perspective and, therefore, definitions of terms which are entirely normal within the paradigm but uncommon/unknown outside it.

I'm pleased to be involved in this thread - unlike many threads, I think I may learn from this one. My disappointment has been that I was unable to participate without reading, independenty, from a variety of sources.

It is like wanting to take part in a game of football, only to find that a comprehensive knowledge of rules and plays is required before I can set foot on the pitch, and having no coach/captain to explain that the objective is to get the ball in the end zone.

I still hold that the (now much discussed) "believing is seeing" attitude is similar to a fundamentalist "faith" approach, which is in keeping neither with much of the post-enlightenment thought nor the tradition of putting hypotheses through empirical testing (however flawed or dependent on analogous behaviour), with which I am more familiar.

I like to learn. I mentioned my degree with some reluctance, as I try not to be arrogant, in an attempt to demonstrate that I can be taught, if the teaching is in any way comprehensible, and I have some of the building blocks. I do not accept doctrine, however exalted the origin, nor do I like being treated as a child.

If this post prompts a re-definition of the original debate, I should be ecstatic. I will settle for an end to hostile posts. Maybe that's too much to ask!

If we want to get into more meta-debate, here's a place we can do it: Talking past each other! Laughing

KP

Edited to make my appreciation of the thread clearer.

0 Replies

KP, Well stated; I'm also at a loss, because I don't understand the baseline definitions used. This is where Asherman can be of enormous help; only if he would show his expertise in this forum. Wink

0 Replies

kitchenpete,

Your "anecdote friend" seems to have read Wittgenstein. The latter does indeed warn against the limits of language. This is why there is a good argument to explore nondualist philosophies, some of the more esoteric of which start from the ascendence of the "experiential" over the "ineffable". The more pragmatic versions of nondualim try to avert the Wittgenstein warning by setting up a radically different semantic field to everyday usage by a altering observational frameworks away from the "anthropocentric".

0 Replies

No wonder I'm having problems understanding; "esoteric, experiential, ineffable, and anthropocentric," all folded into one paragraph.

0 Replies

esoteric.....involving hidden knowledge
ineffable.....beyond or resistant to description
experiential...learning through doing
anthropocentric....from the point of view of humans

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

I'm not prepared to admit that we're dealing with an infinite regress, but then perhaps it's not necessary. After all, why would a non-dualist find an infinite regress to be a concern? An infinte regress, remember, is only a logical problem: if non-dualists, however, reject the basic fundamentals of logic (such as the law of non-contradiction), why not simply jettison infinite regresses as well? In other words, even if dualism ultimately involves an infinite regress, so what?

Quote:

If you, I or anyone claims that within themselves they can observe >that-which-is-observing<, the next questions would be,

1. What observes >that-which-is-observing<?

2. And when observing >that-which-is-observing< what is observed?

And so continues the infinite regress.But please fell free to answer questions 1 and 2

Quote:
Answer 1. Me
Answer 2. That's me too.

Quote:

If you're saying that I can't see myself, you're wrong.

Quote:

And if you say that I can't see my self seeing myself, I simply reply: who else is seeing me?

Consciousness..which IS you..cannot see itself.

Quote:

And if you, along with Wilber, answer "the pure Emptiness" or some such nonsense, I suppose I would have to respond: "sez who?"

It's been called many things, has many names, but what it is not is anything objectifiable.

Quote:

Quote:
Wait a minute. Are you saying that non-dualists recognize the existence of the observer who is "right here of course observing these words?"

Quote:

Quote:
What kind of scrutiny?

Quote:

I am prepared to respond the William James piece, but before I launch into a commentary on that rather daunting work, twyvel, I need to know if you agree with James or not. I ask because I've commented previously on arguments that you and others have brought up, only to learn afterwards that you don't actually endorse those arguments. Rather than spend an inordinate amount of time on James, then, I need to know if you cited him because you actually agree with him or just because Wilber mentioned him.

I mentioned William James because you said you were reading some of his work.

William James has said many things and I'm sure there are something I would disagree with. And I am sure there are aspects of what Wilber says that I disagree with. But what I can say is that I agree with both of them and of course with fresco and JLNobody on the point that awareness, consciousness or >that-which-observes< cannot be observed. And I do think that it is a historical fact that James was the first (or one of the first) western philosophers to recognize that consciousness cannot be observed, hence his question, Does consciousness exist?

If we get into it I'll certainly have to fresh up on James or at least reread the whole of, Does Consciousness Exist.

0 Replies

Re James and dualism.

This looks like a reasonable synopsis.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/TaylorWoz.htm

0 Replies

I've got a lot to catch up on, and my PC keeps konking out on me. But I do want to tell KitchenPete that I was completely out of line, in using the term, Yahoo. It was both rude and inaccurate. It was an emotional response (my bruised ego) to have someone who was not involved in the debates between the non-dualists and Joe, jump into the fray on Joe's side. I should have edited that phrase out. I learn about the nature of ego by watching myself commit such idiocies.
Sorry, KP.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Well, either an infinite regress is a tool, in which case it presumably has nothing but heuristic value, or it is a logical paradox which casts doubt on an argument, in which case it is something more than merely instructive. Which is it?

twyvel wrote:

That is of some consequence only if one accepts the law of non-contradiction. If, on the other hand, the law of non-contradiction is invalid, then contradictions are little more than trivial word games.

twyvel wrote:

Everything that is not "not-Me."

twyvel wrote:

Why can't the observer simply be self-observing? If I pinch myself, I feel both the pinching action of my fingers and the pain that comes as a consequence of the pinching. Does that mean that I am two persons when I do that -- the pincher and the pinchee?

twyvel wrote:

Quote:
If you're saying that I can't see myself, you're wrong.

Only because of the rather inconvenient structure of the human eye. Surely if our eyes were on stalks, like a crab, we wouldn't have these kinds of debates (perhaps crustaceans are all confirmed dualists as a result). But though we can't see ourselves seeing, we can certainly feel ourselves pinching.

twyvel wrote:

Quote:
And if you say that I can't see my self seeing myself, I simply reply: who else is seeing me?

Consciousness..which IS you..cannot see itself.

Why not?

twyvel wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
What kind of scrutiny?

Analysis. Self inquiry/observation.

Why is "self inquiry/observation" the standard?

twyvel wrote:

But surely what you are saying here amounts to a series of logical deductions. Are you suggesting that non-dualists accept traditional logic?

twyvel wrote:

If we get into it I'll certainly have to fresh up on James or at least reread the whole of, Does Consciousness Exist.

If neither of us is going to insist on it, I'm quite happy to bypass James's theory of consciousness.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I've got a lot to catch up on, and my PC keeps konking out on me. But I do want to tell KitchenPete that I was completely out of line, in using the term, Yahoo. It was both rude and inaccurate. It was an emotional response (my bruised ego) to have someone who was not involved in the debates between the non-dualists and Joe, jump into the fray on Joe's side. I should have edited that phrase out. I learn about the nature of ego by watching myself commit such idiocies.
Sorry, KP.

First JLN calls me a "yahoo," then he says he doesn't want me to have any friends. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

truth
Not at all, Joe. I'd like to be your friend. By the way, I have some very close friends who consider me a bit of a philosophical nut. I feel for them. BTW, when I used the term, yahoo, I did so in the context of saying that I know you and KP are not yahoos. I apologized because the use of the term at all was rude.
P.s. when you asked Tywvel how Ken Wilbur knows what he is talking about. Your use of the term "know" refers to a kind of immediate "knowledge/perception" having virtually nothing to do with public evidence, proof, or even logic. But that's something we've gone through already. And please, it is totally unlike the "faith" of theism. It's a kind of perspective that MAY come to some people after considerable work, self-preparation that, in when successful, enables them to penetrate the nature of experience in ways having nothing to do with either religion (in the usual sense of the term) or science.

0 Replies

JLN

Well put.

The emphasis on "MAY" is significant because the attachments to the little "selves" are strong and and loosing them is antithetical to what Gurdjieff called the normal state "of waking sleep".

0 Replies

Actually I see very many parallels with religious faith. Not the least of which is denigration of those who do not accept the religion. There is an element of faith in that the position involved can't be proven and this is coupled with the ole emperor's new clothes that is a circular argument in which one claims that the very impediment to joining this cult is the very disbelief itself.

The comparisons to religion are spot on. As there are similar liberties taken in regard to logic and burden of proof.

Similar to religion people here are claiming that this trancends logic and scientific method, ignoring the facillity with which such contructs can be created.

And the result of not being able to prove the validity of the position? Just call them "blind" "closed-minded" "sleeping" "naive".....

When philosophy becomes closer to poetry than to a thinking science it does, indeed, take on elements also found in religions.

0 Replies

Craven,

The rejoinder to your argument is that "religion" implies "a specific set of beliefs". That description could also be assumed to be a property of "science" in which "progress" and "control" are the evaluation dimensions. ( Note also that "observation" and "time" on which these evaluations are based have themselves become problematic within "science") The metaphor "sleep"in esoteric systems is not on article of "faith" but draws our attention to the "belief" for example that "progress" and "control" are the ONLY criteria "of value" and may be even constitute "illusions". As for the claim that transcendental systems rely on "logic" for their coherence, a reading of say Piagets views on the evolution of logical thinking may be sufficient to cast doubt on this.

0 Replies

I did not suggest that "transcendental systems rely on "logic" for their coherence".

I did suggest that it's very easy to make such a construct and that it's similar to a religion to do so and then try to place it beyond the realm of logic and scientific method.

Ultimately you are asserting that which can't be proven, asserting a truth whose veracity can't be verified.

And I gave value-laden inference about such constructs.

0 Replies

Not quite.

I am saying that "truth" is negotiable. It is about consensus not "fact". It has no independence from its functionality within "explanation" or for the purposes of "decision making", and these two types of functionality may not always coincide. Problems arise with "truth" when the limits of a particular functionality are exceded. The claim of "alternative systems" is to point these issues out and in their religious format to aim for an "Ultimate Truth". This format however is optional relative to the lesser secular claim by such systems for "a more general truth."

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Not quite.

Yes quite.

Quote:

I am saying that "truth" is negotiable.

In that case the truism of whether or not truth is negotiable is also negotiable.

Quote:

It is about consensus not "fact".

By this reasoning the veracity of the theory of spontaneous generation ceased to exist only when it became an unpopular theory.

Quote:

It has no independence from its functionality within "explanation" or for the purposes of "decision making", and these two types of functionality may not always coincide.

Reinventing granular solutions, essentially enabling, by the same token, palpably different paradigims transient to incubating magnetic chanels.

Quote:

Problems arise with "truth" when the limits of a particular functionality are exceded.

Indeed, like spewing BS and claiming it is truth. that tends to exceed the functionality.

Quote:

The claim of "alternative systems" is to point these issues out and in their religious format to aim for an "Ultimate Truth".

Then they would be well served to be truthful.

Quote:

This format however is optional relative to the lesser secular claim by such systems for "a more general truth."

Amen! Empowerment of enhancing vertical mindshare, essentially seizing functionalities and transitioning to enabling customized "greater-meta-metas" while deploying virtual portals and delienating and streamlining out-of-box deliverables.

0 Replies

No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know