Who Are You, Really?

Terry wrote:

............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?

Terry; i claim complete agreement with your comments (and i love the images conjured up by your "even if the color "green" exists only in our minds"), but in jlN's defence, we must admit that if everyone on this planet were to attain the non-dualist state together, it might become harder to go back to the hatred, war, and violence, in quite the same 'frame of mind'!

0 Replies

perception is basically a 'feedback' loop system; consciousness is the mechanism by which this myriad of information is converted from data to a picture of the universe by which we can attempt to function in a rational way.
While i embrace polarity of all perceptive phenomena, it is the reading of the range between the poles that tells the story.
If this is 'dual', so be it; i see it as a whole, and it works, which to me is of utmost importance.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

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.

Well, let's not get carried away here, JLN. I noted that non-dualism may be right, just as any other metaphysical system may be right. Conversely, I would hasten to add that non-dualism might be wrong, just as any other metaphysical system might be wrong. The point is: we cannot know which is right and which is wrong based solely on inductive or deductive reasoning. On the other hand, you and your non-dualistic troika-mates think otherwise. I think you're wrong.

As for taking up non-dualism as a sort of Pascal's Wager, I'll simply say that if I accept any kind of metaphysical system on that basis, it would have to provide me with some kind of tangible benefit. At minimum, I would demand that my chosen metaphysical system would offer free cake and/or cookies. More preferable would be those metaphysical systems that came with kitchen appliances, swimming pools, golf courses, or large-breasted women. Can non-dualism offer me that?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

It's much more then instructive if the contradiction has the potential to dramatically alter the universe and self that supposedly observes it.

No, it's just instructive. As long as the law of non-contradiction remains invalid, contradictions will remain inconsequential.

twyvel wrote:

(Though nothing is altered per say except perspective. When the dualist contradiction is resolved it dissolves into nondaul awareness, that was there all along. The ?'dissolving' is the transformation of an opaque ego into a transparent one. The ego is still there but there is the recognition that it is not you.)

Whim wham.

twyvel wrote:

Point is, I did not fashion my own definition of subject?-object dualism which I then argue against. Subject?-object dualism has a long history. Often the dualism is of mind and matter, or mental and material, though the dualism we have been discussing merges the mental and material into "observables" (as we are looking for the subject of subject--object relations) which, dualistically, is distinguished from the observation of them, which is impossible and that's part of the dilemma.

You misunderstood my challenge. I don't find the basic notion of subject-object dualism particularly objectionable, and I don't see that, in its barest outlines, you have misrepresented the concept. Rather, I find your notion of the "infinite regress" of observer-observed to be a strawman argument, and the philosophers you have cited (or, at least, the ones that I'm familiar with) say nothing that supports your position. And your mention of Berkeley and Hume, in particular, is simply absurd.

Rather than belabor this point any further, however, I will simply adopt Terry's latest response to you with an enthusiastic "ditto!"

0 Replies

Neoquixote wrote:

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.

This is merely a point-of-view problem, Neoquixote. In your example, the meal is all of those things described by the diners, since what they are describing are their own subjective perceptions. That's not the problem we're dealing with here, since the non-dualists claim that non-dualism is equally true for everyone.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

It's much more then instructive if the contradiction has the potential to dramatically alter the universe and self that supposedly observes it.

Quote:
No, it's just instructive. As long as the law of non-contradiction remains invalid, contradictions will remain inconsequential.

Right, so the dualists claim, your claim, and Terry's claim, that the subject can observe its own subjectivity as an object, which contradicts the law of non-contradiction is inconsequential. That's just a little too self-serving on your part.

According to you, as soon as the law of non-contradiction is shown to be invalid, contradictions are inconsequential including the contradiction that has shown the law of non-contradiction to be invalid. Meaning the law of non-contradiction cannot be shown to be invalid because to do so invalidates the argument your used to show its invalidity; it's retroactive.

That's clearly a falsehood joefromchicago.

Quote:

Just as I suspected. You have fashioned the definition of dualism yourself just so you could knock it down. A classic strawman argument.

Quote:

You misunderstood my challenge. I don't find the basic notion of subject-object dualism particularly objectionable, and I don't see that, in its barest outlines, you have misrepresented the concept.

Make up your mind.

Quote:

Rather, I find your notion of the "infinite regress" of observer-observed to be a strawman argument, and the philosophers you have cited (or, at least, the ones that I'm familiar with) say nothing that supports your position. And your mention of Berkeley and Hume, in particular, is simply absurd.

If you cannot see the ?'notion' of the infinite regress of the observer in Hume I guess will see it no where.

Quote:

Rather than belabor this point any further, however, I will simply adopt Terry's latest response to you with an enthusiastic "ditto!"

Whatever that means.

Terry said a hundred things, are you adopting all of them?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Right, so the dualists claim, your claim, and Terry's claim, that the subject can observe its own subjectivity as an object, which contradicts the law of non-contradiction is inconsequential. That's just a little too self-serving on your part.

It's only inconsequential for those who deny the validity of the law of non-contradiction. As I explained above, even if you claim that dualism rests on an inherent contradiction, your own position makes such contradictions inconsequential. Thus, even if dualism is false on its own terms, it can nevertheless be true on your terms.

twyvel wrote:

According to you, as soon as the law of non-contradiction is shown to be invalid, contradictions are inconsequential including the contradiction that has shown the law of non-contradiction to be invalid.

What contradiction shows that the law of non-contradiction is invalid?

twyvel wrote:

Meaning the law of non-contradiction cannot be shown to be invalid because to do so invalidates the argument your used to show its invalidity; it's retroactive.

What? I've never used any argument to show that the law of non-contradiction is invalid: that's your argument, not mine.

twyvel wrote:

That's clearly a falsehood joefromchicago.

In your dreams, twyvel.

twyvel wrote:

If you cannot see the ?'notion' of the infinite regress of the observer in Hume I guess will see it no where.

That's because it is a figment of your imagination.

twyvel wrote:

Terry said a hundred things, are you adopting all of them?

As I said, I adopt Terry's response to you. So everything that she said to you can also be considered my response to you.

0 Replies

BoGoWo, yes we are all part of the "superbeing of humanity" and the superbeing of all else, but not such that "dualism fades into the mist of differentiated 'sameness'." Remember the phrase I used earlier from Northrup, "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" as distinguished from "differentiated aesthetic continuum"? Here both phrases refer to the aesthetic continuum of experience. Non-dualism refers to the undifferentiated form and dualism to the differentiated form. But both refer to the reality of the continuum. We segment the continuum into discrete objects, things, etc. conceptually. We perceive, however, reality as a continuum. It is fundamentally seamless like the rainbow is a single phenomenon containing different colors. We do not see rips in the fabric of this continuum; we see variation. We cannot deal with the continuum of reality without differentiation. I said this before. Dualism has survival value for humans. But there is a very subtle aspect to this matter of non-dualism. When we differentiate, continunity remains. When we do not differentiate difference exists. The monism of Reality consists of variation. To see one's experience non-dualistically is not to see a monolithic block of sameness. To see through dualism is not to create a sameness. The unity of all things takes the shape of "disunity". Paradoxical and alogical, I know. Dualism requires that the categories of thought--up-down, in-out, ugly-beautiful, light-dark, true-false, etc. occur in opposition sets. I guess this is illustrated by the Chinese yin-yang symbol wherein the light half of the circle (which I think stands for the Totality) defines the light half and vice versa. The totality is a unity characterized by complimentary, not oppositional, differences. As such you and I are united by our differences and by the space between us. They do not separate us in any fundamental metaphysical way, as is suggested by dualISM.

0 Replies

Terry, your response to my position is so well written that I'm tempted not to find fault with it, like trying to efface a beautiful painting. But I must, at least to point out how it misrepresents my points. And I can, by the way, understand the misrepresentation: it reflects your misunderstanding of my position and my inability to articulate my position within a framework that permits a meeting of our minds. But let me say the following: You say that I stated to Alikimr that our world is both dualistic and non-dualistic. I doubt I was referring to "the world"; I think I was referring to our perspectives on our experience of the world. You say that non-dualistic perception must involve restricting (shutting down) our minds, a form of denial, like closing one's eyes so as not to see what "really is." I'm relieved to know that at least for one person, you, I have not been overstressing, to the point of boredom, the notion that non-dualism OPENS our eyes to what is, and that dualism builds upon the raw material of "immaculate perception" to construct "maculate" culturally constituted understandings for dealing, in social concert, with the world. We share a common dream which permits the coordination of actions-- something that has survival value for us as a species totally dependent upon social cooperation and interdependence. I have been saying that meditation and other means of experiencing our lives non-dualistically do not generate ideas. THAT is clearly not a philosophical activity; it is an attempt to go beyond the kinds of mental activity designated philosophy, ideology, theology, etc. Yet dualists feel it correct and essential to label the innocent perspective enjoyed in non-dualistic practices (like meditation) BELIEFS. I have been stressing that when I talk about the "mystical" perspective, I am only able to travel about its edges, unable to provide clear philosophical principles because to talk about it is to approach it DUALISTICALLY. Non-dualism is a raw, innocent, perspective, not a cooked, sophisticated, philosophy. I hope this will inspire you to retract your statement "I understand how a BELIEF in the oneness of all could be comforting, but I don't see how denial of the OBVIOUS [I would say apparent] separation of the self from its surroundings could be anything other than delusion." You acknowledge the material fact that we are all "part of the same universe, made up of the same star stuff" but you hold fast to the primacy of the delusion that we, each mind, is unique and separate from all others." This existential fact, the fact of our separateness from all others, our alienation from both society and nature is a delusion. To realize this has no pragmatic consequence, perhaps for feeding the hungry or bringing peace to the world. I agree. Those goals must be achieved by other means and from the perspective of dualism. But keep in mind that hunger and war are consequences, in major part, of the dualistic orientation that inspires us to conquer, compete, and control others. The value of non-dualism (you ask the question, "of what use is it?") is purely existential. It is a means of enjoying each minute of life more intensely and our consolation when the doctor informs us of our cancer, or the cancer of a loved one.

0 Replies

I am a bitter, bitter person!!

0 Replies

Stand up...thanks for sharing. Laughing

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

Abstractly: You/I cannot distinguish between X and Y if you are X or Y. The distinction is made from a third position that observes both X and Y, In as much as X and Y (subject?-object) are observed I as observer am neither.

Quote:
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.

(Remember X and Y reference subject and object.)

If observation is X, X cannot distinguish between the X it is and anything else. That was the point. The subject as ?'observer' (the subject in fact is a verb, ?'observing') cannot distinguish ?'observing' from what is observed, as "observing" has no objective existence.

(Apart form the manifest, consciousness, in a state, non-state of >consciousness-without-an-object< probably knows that which it is, but not through subject-object relations as there are none., and the word 'know' as well as any other word, is probably misleading.)

Quote:

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?

What we observe in others is behavior, and imagine the rest. To determine someone is conscious is to say they are animated in which their body behaves in such a manner as to be assigned the label conscious. In fact what is actually observed is just another object in awareness; colors, sounds, smells etc. It is your own sense perceptions that are observed, from which you/I make interpretations/evaluations etc.

What we do not and cannot observe is that which is observing in another person/animal/plant etc.

Quote:

I can observe my own consciousness directly and the consciousnesses of other people and animals indirectly.

What observes your own consciousness? When observing your own consciousness what is observed?

When you observe something indirectly you ?'do not' observe it.

Quote:

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.

Everything is observed directly, but be imagine otherwise. There's no such thing as indirect observation, that's just a euphemism for assumptions of causal relations.

Quote:

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.

Yes, its called conceptualizing. We create stories about observations.

Quote:

I can mentally "stand back" and "see" myself (my body, brain, and/or mind) as an object interacting with other objects.

Who and what ?'stands back' that sees ?'my body, brain, and/or mind'?

An aside: If mind is observed mental activity; thoughts, mental images, how can thoughts/mental images be said to ?'interact'? (There is yet to be proven any casual link between the mental and so called physical realms).

Quote:

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.

So most of what you know is hearsay?

Imagining what is not there, what is not present in observation is a way of not being present. We conceptualize things into existence, we actually think we observe things that are in fact >not< observed, i.e. my head, eyes ears, which precipitates the illusion.

Of course it has its practical aspects but in another way it kills us.

And all this creating-what-is-not-there has nothing to do with consciousness, or ?'observing' consciousness.

0 Replies

Terry

Quote:

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

Quote:
If "I" do not exist, who is it that is aware of typing these words?

No one. Non-bieng. Unobservable consciousness. Void. Neti neti. Many words, all which attempt to point to that which observes but can be observed. Unobjectifyable awareness. THAT-WHICH-WE-ARE.

Quote:

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.

Your mind IS the words and screen. That's what mind is, contents of consciousness. And by the way consciousness has never been shown to be any form of energy, and neither has thought. If fact we know very little. We don't even know what a piece of wood is,..beyond our constructions. If it is just a percept, a concept in consciousness, and we don't know what a concept actually is then we don't know much, do we?

Quote:

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.

Quote:
Nonsense. There is no "something else." How ironic that twyvel touts non-dualism but insists on this contrived dualism of subject and object.

It's not a contrived dualism. It's simply subject-object dualism, taken to its logical conclusions.

Quote:

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.

As I have or will mention to joefromchicago, ?'infinite regress' is not a strawman as I am not arguing against it, but rather ?'for it'.

Infinite regress of the subject is not refuted by science at all. But please develop this further to prove your point, if you can.

Quote:

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'm all for research of any kind. But I highly doubt we will ever find out the true nature of consciousness by using consciousness to look for itself as a material process or object. Though it will certainly be useful to eliminate that avenue through inquiry, Smile

Quote:

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

Thanks, Terry, I'll look into it, Smile

0 Replies

jorfromchicago wrote:

Quote:

It's only inconsequential for those who deny the validity of the law of non-contradiction.

Your dualist position invalidates it in its claim that the subject can observe its own subjectivity as an object. You do not deny the validity of the law yet your own position contradicts it. That's the point.

Quote:

As I explained above, even if you claim that dualism rests on an inherent contradiction, your own position makes such contradictions inconsequential. Thus, even if dualism is false on its own terms, it can nevertheless be true on your terms.

No. My position has no bearing. Dualism fails on its own terms, period. My position could be any position and dualism would still fail on its own terms.

A dualist who comes to recognize the contradictions inherent in their belief system starts reconsidering the validity of that belief system. That process is highly significant, and continues to be significant even if they change to nondualism, as ?'reflection's' on the failings of dualism reinforces nondualism on an on going basis.

But yes, I do agree that from a sage perspective, from a transcendent view, the contradictions of dualism are non-existent, but then the entire manifestation is just that, a figment of the mind, which itself, is another figment.

Quote:

According to you, as soon as the law of non-contradiction is shown to be invalid, contradictions are inconsequential including the contradiction that has shown the law of non-contradiction to be invalid.

Quote:
What contradiction shows that the law of non-contradiction is invalid?

The contradiction inherent to your own position.

Quote:

Meaning the law of non-contradiction cannot be shown to be invalid because to do so invalidates the argument your used to show its invalidity; it's retroactive.

Quote:
What? I've never used any argument to show that the law of non-contradiction is invalid: that's your argument, not mine.

I guess the meaning was somewhat lost in splitting that post of mine.

Quote:

Rather, I find your notion of the "infinite regress" of observer-observed to be a strawman argument,

The infinite regress is not a strawman argument; I do not bring it up then argue against it. I and JLN present it as that which we are in agreement with. We are promoting it as a tool for in-seeing.

Your accusations of strawman arguments are vacuous.

Quote:

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

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

So you equate "metaphysical systems" with meaningless gibberish?

Nice, very nice.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

So you equate "metaphysical systems" with meaningless gibberish?

Nice, very nice.

Obviously, some metaphysical systems are more meaningless and more gibberish than others.

0 Replies

Quote:

Who you really are,(i.e.,what your defining personality is), is who all relevant persons in your life perceive you to be, ....not who you believe yourself to be. Do you agree with this thesis?

You are trying to get at the TRUE nature of what defines you...and this cannot be obtained precisely through subjective resources such as the opinions of other people or yourself.

Your personal opinion of yourself will most likely compliment the general opinion others have of yourself.

If any one person could define yourself best, it would probably be someone who has known you the longest...like your mother/father/brother/wife.

I'm sure if you put together the combined opinions of everyone who knows you, as well as your personal opinions of yourself, you could get a pretty clear picture of yourself...although it would never be perfectly accurate.

Perhaps the best way, would be to have an intelligent non-biased person who does not know you review your own personal opinion of yourself, combined with the opinions of many others who have known you for short and long term periods of time..that way your own personal opinion (which albeit important) wouldn't overshadow the opinions of others when tryign to put it all together.

0 Replies

Who Are You, Really?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know