Who Are You, Really?

I'm not fixated on logic, twyvel is. After all, what are "contradictions" or "infinite regresses" if not logical constructions?


So few people recognize twyvel's point because it is, in the end, just so much nonsense. Twyvel attempts to prove something by logic while, at the same time, denying the fundamental bases of logic. That's not an argument, that's meaningless gibberish.

joefromchicago wrote:




Yes indeed.



But that's why it does matter.

Dualism has/is a fatal contradiction in the claim that the subject can observe its own subjectivity as an object, and that is why it fails.



That's ridiculous.

During on going interactions/threads discussing dualism/nondualism there have been dozens of sages and philosophers (as well as Advaita, Buddhism etc) that have been quoted that essentially say what I (and JLNobody, fresco) am saying, which is based on subject-object dualism; the contention that there is an autonomous subject separate from and independent of its objects.

That said, there are many dualisms, but we are discussing subject-object dualism.

joefromchicago wrote:





My meaningless gibberish might be right? Thanks,………..I think?

The subject-object dualism is the fundamental one. Resolving that is at least the first step toward what virtually all Eastern Philosophies call liberation, enlightenment, or Self-realization. The other major finding for non-dualism, I guess, is the realization that at some levels of observation (i.e., particle physics/sub-atomic level), the observer-observed relation cannot be pursued dualistically.

JLNobody, thanks for the summary. I commend your steadfast meditational practice and the insights/intuitions and relief it provides.

...though there is no "one" to awaken. Because all is one, "everything" is awakened. That, IMHO, is the meaning of the Mahayana vow to save (awaken) all sentient beings.

Since you recognize only "instructive contradictions" rather than "fatal contradictions," any contradiction that is inherent in dualism is of no consequence. At most, it serves a heuristic purpose.


Dozens of sages and philosophers? Apart from Advaita, Buddha, and other non-dualist mystics, name one.


Certainly it might be right, just as any other metaphysical system might be right.

i think i am quite 'realistic'

i am god;

unfortunately, i don't believe in god, which posses a somewhat insurmountable problem.............

Joe, I might suggest to you, since you acknowledge the possibility that mystical perspectives might be right, that you consider--in the spirit of Pascal's Wager--the practice of one, not as a belief system but as a praxis (i.e., meditation). You have SO much to gain and nothing (unlike Pascal's Wager) to lose. You will always be both a dualistic and non-dualist at the same time. It's just the ratio that changes.

jlN;

just have to disagree with that (ratio);

'dualism' differs from monism as two differs from one, and it is an either/or phenomena, not one 'approaching' two.

the dualist is always dealing with binary perspectives, while the monist sees only one. the viewpoint is not ......negotiable!

[mind you, i can see both sides! ]

I'm so glad you can see both sides, BoGoWo, because you and I must live, like amphibians, in both. We are non-dualists for the split second upon wakening (and during the day when we stop our mind's prattle), but dualists as soon as we think and talk. By "ratio" I'm merely suggesting that one can spend more time non-dualistically (but not all of his time) and less time dualistically, if he fulfills certain requirements. I love those moments when I'm staring in fascination at a painting or, as I did this morning, at three birds having what appeared to be a menage a troise outside my window. It's in fascination that we forget to consider ourselves separate from the world, when our usual dualism melts into an "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum". How's that for wordsmanship? It's F.S.C. Northrup.

well. pals, i have a similar question, if i am a chef, i 've prepared a set of meal, Michael says it's delicious, Marry feels it's kinda salty, and Peter regard it insipid, and i by myself would say: oh it's not so good as what i did yesterday. each person would give out a different remark to this meal, so what is really the meal like.
is this scenario similar to your question, gentleman.

Neoquixote, I can't see at this moment the connection between your hypothetical situation and our problem. It does sound like the Roshomon Effect, the principle that all is perspective. My thesis would be that the reality of the meal (as food for humans) is that it is, or was, delicious, salty, insipid and not as good as the one you made yesterday. And it is/was nothing for a man in Mongollia. I'm sure this has violated a logical axiom, but that's how I see it...for the moment.

I am the walrus.
>>Who are you, really?

Okay, you got me: I am the Eggman. I am the walrus.

And I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

I am the walrus.
>>Who are you, really?

Okay, you got me: I am the Eggman. I am the walrus.

And I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

i see what you were trying to get at jlN; and suppose that who are we really? we are all part of the superbeing of humanity where dualism fades into the mist of differentiated 'sameness'.

[and then we drop out of that 'consciousness', and hoot at the jerk in front who has just cut us off!]

JLN, you said to alikimr that the nature of our world is both dualistic and non-dualistic. Apparently the only way for human beings to perceive the world "non-dualistically" is to shut down part of their minds, either through drugs or training. That is like closing your eyes and asserting that the world is really black, and that people who perceive things with their eyes open are not seeing the world as it "really is" but deluding themselves into believing that those pretty patterns of light exist.

Of course we overlay our perceptions with cultural memes. The belief that magical spirits inhabit trees is cultural. The belief that the tree and I are "one" is philosophical. The belief that cutting down rainforests will have no significant effect on the environment is a very dangerous meme. But trees and the sensory data that are the basis of our perceptions are "real" (even if the color "green" exists only in our minds) since the conglomeration of molecules that make up the tree and the photons reflected off it exist regardless of how we actually perceive it.

You said that you do not obtain any information in the form of knowledge or ideas from non-dualistic meditation, but only a "less delusional orientation toward experience."

I understand how a belief in the oneness of all could be comforting, but I don't see how denial of the obvious separation of the self from its surroundings could be anything other than delusion. Yes, we are all part of the same universe, made up of the same star stuff, and connected on a quantum level, but each mind is unique and separate from all others. You cannot share thoughts with anyone non-dualistically, can you? You cannot will world peace, calm angry souls, feed the hungry, comfort those in pain, or change the world in any way while in the non-dualistic state. So of what use is it?

Nonsense. I can distinguish between men and women even though I am a woman and not some third sex. I do not have to be in some other state of existence to distinguish between conscious and unconscious.


Twyvel's basic assertions are:

1) Consciousness is not observable.

Not true. If consciousness is not observable, how is it that we can determine whether someone is conscious or unconscious, and even what level of consciousness they have? I can observe my own consciousness directly and the consciousnesses of other people and animals indirectly. Actually, most of our observations of the world are indirect: patterns of reflected light, acoustic waves, identification of chemical molecules, or interactions with surface molecules. The only things we observe directly are our own body states.

Most human beings have the capability to form mental images of things that we do not perceive with our own senses, either from descriptions by others, from memories, or by manipulating patterns to create new images. I can mentally "stand back" and "see" myself (my body, brain, and/or mind) as an object interacting with other objects. We can form mental images of our own brains, hearts, and consciousness even though we cannot "see" them directly because we know what other people's look like and that ours are virtually the same. While I have not seen traces of my brain waves, I have watched my own EKG in real time.

2) The ego/self does not exist but is a character in a dream/delusion.

This merely adds another level of complexity without providing any solution to the real problem. Twyvel has never answered the question of "who" created the dream/delusion, nor why, nor who it is that is deluded. If "I" do not exist, who is it that is aware of typing these words? My guess is that "I" am a pattern of energy produced by my brain, just as my typed words are a pattern of photons produced by the underlying computer programming acting on data received. My mind is as real - and as transient - as the words on this screen.

3) The observer can only observe itself as an object, but if it is an object something else must be observing it. This leads to an infinite regression of who observes the observer.

Nonsense. There is no "something else." How ironic that twyvel touts non-dualism but insists on this contrived dualism of subject and object. There is no infinite regression. That is a straw man invented by non-dualists and is refuted by the findings of science that show us the iterative process of body/brain states modified by sensory data and memories that produce consciousness.


If we take the stance that consciousness is an indefinable mystical experience that magically appears in our heads that human beings are incapable of understanding, we never will. But if we investigate it scientifically we find that specific structures in the brain produce the various forms of consciousness. With further investigation we will eventually find out exactly how these biochemical processes do indeed produce the experience of consciousness.

I highly recommend that you read "The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the making of Consciousness" By Antonio Damasio.

joefromchicago wrote:




William James, with his essay Does Consciousness Exist? (and other works) raises the question as there is the recognition the consciousness cannot be observed; it is non objectifyable. He pointed out (demonstrated, showed experientially) in a discussion with Bertrand Russell that there is no boundary between an observed object (in the example, a mountain) and the awareness of it. E.g. See the mountain. Where is your mind? Where is the mountain? Mountain-mind, mind-mountain.

Ken Wilber in his earlier books, The spectrum of Consciousness and The Atman Project and later ones, A Theory of EverythingLooking into mind.


Georg Feuerstein, Wholeness or Transcendence?