There is no such thing as NOTHING, so...........

alikimr




I think Sartre gets it partly correct. He says Consciousness knows itself by not being the object. (paraphrase)

Consciousness recognizes itself, when confronted with objects or observables as a negation, as not being that, as not-this-not-that. Consciousness is non-being in relation to being. Being has a capacity to be observed, non-being does not. It cannot be smelt, tasted, heard, felt, seen or thought of, as it is always the observer never the observed.

Emptiness as the ground of being provides for the possibility of being. It is the unmanifest of the manifest, or the noumenon which allows for phenomenon. The observing self, no-self ( consciousness) has to be completely free of all objectification to allow for objectification to take place. So seeing has no seer other wise the seer would be an obstacle to seeing. And hearing has no hearer etc.

But the similarities between eastern philosophies; nondualism, and Sartre end well before this, for Sartre retains a thing-in-itself.

A quote quoting Sartre:

"Consciousness, as the nihilation of a particular being, has only "a borrowed existence."59 "For consciousness there is no being except for this precise obligation to be a revealing intuition of something."60 Without the in-itself to be revealed, consciousness cannot be self-conscious and thereby ceases to exist as "pure appearance. " From this it follows that the in-itself is ontologically prior to consciousness and establishes the ground for it. Consciousness without the in-itself is a kind of abstraction; it could not exist any more than a color could exist without forrn.?'61 This does not imply that consciousness and the in-itself are mutually dependent. The in-itself has no need of consciousness in order to be. "The phenomenon of the in-itself is an abstraction without consciousness but its being is not an abstraction."62"

So from my understanding Sartre's retaining a in-itself is similar to Kant's and JLNobody's noumena, though I might be wrong.

What I think Sartre fails to see is that if consciousness is nothing as "non being", as >not being the object<, there is established, in the act of perception, the absurd relation of nothing and something. Meaning, when consciousness recognizes (apperceives) itself as nothing, as ?'not being the object' it would be apparent immediately that consciousness is one with its objects. The appearance that consciousness is separate from its objects would be recognized for the illusion it is, even while continuing to hold the illusory appearance of separation.

We can come to understand though observation and reason (aided by intuition) that consciousness as nothing, as ?'not being the object', is one with all observations, while retaining our dualism in which every day dualist observations appear to contradict our nondual understanding. We live, we are the paradox.

And of course this leads us to the recognition that observations are direct and unmediated, which brings the ego to the edge of its our annihilation,…….seemingly that is,

JLN:
What I meant to express in that position which you referred to , and obviously failed to do so, was to discover if twyvel was using the dualism
perspective in this instance, since I remember you telling me that you come back to the use of a
dualism approach as the occasion allowed. It is a choice made by a non-dualism thinker at various times in which this dualism position is appropriate , and useful......if I understood you correctly.
At the same time, Iagree that it indeed does appear that I have begged the question, and probably , in the last analysis, it is a
Freudian Slip on my part.

A Freudian slip is what I suspected, but I thought it might be constructive to mention it as a begging of the question anyway.

twyvel:
Your interesting post, as always , is most informative re your belief system. .........but how you can say that Sartre perceives consciousness
as "nothing" is beyond my grasp.
And your insistance that 'consciousness is seperate from the objects it perceives is an
illusion' , begs the question that you surely are not
saying that the Star that my consciousness perceives in the sky are one and the same thing ...
that the Star in the sky and the Star which is perceived located in my consciousnes are one and the same thing?
Or do you mean that it is seemingly so?

If a freudian slip is accidentally telling the truth it's not quite the same as begging the question.

Twyvel, that was a gem. Very thoughtful, or if you like thoughtless.
Sartre's observation that "The observing self, no-self ( consciousness) has to be completely free of all objectification to allow for objectification to take place" is clearly borne out by our inability to do things adequately while self-conscious. The observing self is like a gun that by its nature cannot shoot itself.

I would make a small modification of your powerful statement that when we recognize that observations are direct and unmediated, we bring our ego "to the edge of its annihilation." It seems to me that at the moment of intense realization of this immediacy the ego IS anihilated.

One more point. To me the noumena, the thing-in-itself, is not, so to speak, the soul of the world of objects. That which stands against the so-called subject. I'm sure you realize that. The noumena refers to the ontological status of the ENTIRE process, the cosmic process, which operates to create (among the countless other processes) the experience "I" have of "phenomena." In reality there is ONLY noumena. Or as they put it metaphorically, "There is only God." Nietzsche argues that there is only phenomena, not noumena. I suggest, at least at this moment, the reverse. There is only noumena; as Sartre says "the in-itself is an abstraction without consciousness but its being is not an abstraction." Well, it is insofar as we are thinking it. Phenomena, which is what we say we experience, is no more than manifestation of what happens noumenally. I don't think I contradict myself to add that noumena is not BEHIND appearance; it is the reality of appearance; it is the on-going creation of appearance. We think we see phenomena as the appearnce of some underlying process, but it IS that process, and it includes us. There is "nothing but" the process which is unitary (noumena=phenomena=us).
I'm sure there is much that needs adjustment here.

Alikimr, my vision, called star, is me; I AM my experience, not something it happens to. Remember the dictum, "That art thou"? It has nothing to do with the "objective" event called a distant star; it is about my nature, which is, among many other things, "star image." Even when I think analytically (astronomically) ABOUT a distant star, that thinking experience IS me, not just something going on in MY head.

Twyvel, I thought Alikimr was begging the question; he said it was a Freudian slip. I accept that, but I'm glad I corrected the presumed question-begging action, even if it is now only a hypothetical matter.

I'm off to bed guys. Thanks for the stimulation. Now let's see if I can sleep.

Yes, I mean it actually. The star in the sky and the sky are one with consciousness. That's what nondualism means, not-two.

Great post JLN. I think I am starting to grasp your noumena…….

Form a first reading it appears you are saying that noumena = consciousness, or unmanifest, neti neti, that which observes, which is….....Well as you I am off to bed………..

for every universal 'event' there has to be a 'frame of reference' within which that 'event' can occur.

the event can be a thought, or the implosion of nothingness into everythingness; no matter, without the 'frame of reference' there is no event, no actor, no reaction, no phenomenon.

Nothingness is the 'frame of reference' within which (wow, "within nothingness"!!) consciousness can function, applying itself to (creating? and) making 'sense' of 'reality'!

BoGoWo

A little modification would be consciousness IS that nothing. (consciousness is not something that can be said to be in something else).

alikimr




I don't think it's beyond your grasp alikimr.

Sartre wasn't only talking from the intellect (in my view), he was speaking from, being informed by his own observations. He's simple saying what is obvious to everyone, Consciousness recognizes itself as >not being the object<; consciousness is recognized as not being this screen.

-as not being thoughts.
-as not being body sensations.
-as not being sensual perceptions.
-as not being anything observable.

Consciousness is awareness of itself as non-being, as not being an in it-self. When confront with objects consciousness is a negation, and Sartre calls that negation or absence of objecthood, non-being, as opposed to the beingness, the objectness of objects.

So consciousness is always absent. Now I don't know how much further Sartre got, as he does retain an in it-self; that which exists independent of observations.

Note: that it is obvious that consciousness is not the object, that it appears to stand back form objects, that consciousness appears to not be in the world, is an illusion. And that is precisely the dualism that we are addressing.

JLNobody




As I mentioned to alikimr, I am not sure how far Sartre got with his insights, so we/I might be making developments that he did not, though your/my above doesn't appear as a stretch to me.



Quite right, "that at the moment of intense realization of this immediacy the ego IS anihilated."

I was thinking down stream from that, prior to "intense realization', E.g. An intellectual understanding that observations are unmediated and direct does not, unfortunately, obliterate the ego. The ego is still very much intact and that's what is seen as paradoxical.

I guess it's a little more then an intellectual understanding that all observations are direct, that there is nothing apart from the immediacy of the moment, even reflections on percepts are immediate, but whatever it is the ego is still (apparently) intact; there still exists a held belief, in some form, of identifying with the idea that the ego is a real being, or more to the point that the ego is you, is ?'who' you are.

Contrary to what many think beliefs are not so easily disposed of. Often dissolving beliefs takes considerable patients and time.




For clarity I guess we have to be careful with word use. Many people such as Wei Wei Wei, Balsekar and others use the word noumena as being synonymous with the unobserved observer or unmanifest, or the Void which all manifestations are derived and dependent; no Void-Consciousness-Unmanifest no observable universe. The phenomenal universe, in this sense, is the objectification of noumena; the objects (not really objects) merge from it and are one with it. So noumena is at the subjective end of the stick, so to speak. Prior to looking there is nothing there, not even a 'there', not even space, not even noumena-----moumena is the looking. Looking/observing is creative but that 'creativity' is all its own. It doesn't create something out of a Kantain moumena. There is, as you say "only noumena'.

(So there is two ?'nothings'. There is moumena or Void or unmanifested Consciousness, or as Belsekar says, Consciousness at rest, and then there is the nothing that is 'absence of looking, where there is no looking/observing, the outside of a dream).

What I had as an understand of your use of the word moumena, and Kant's use, is that noumena is the objective end of the "stick of opposites'. And in this sense, even though it is not observable it has an existence that is independent of that which observes. It is a two worlds theory. Both Sartre and Kant maintain a two worlds theory in which there is a ?'cause' of all perceptions that is behind the object; the thing-in-itself distinct and separate from consciousness,… and from which Consciousness is an emergent property or dependent in some form. That is, the universe is prior to Consciousness.

Twyvel, you say:

"Yes, I mean it actually. The star in the sky and the sky are one with consciousness. That's what nondualism means, not-two."

I agree, ultimately. Since all is One, I am that star I see, and all the stars I do not see. What I was talking about was a single momentary aspect of my being, the experience of light given off billions of years ago by one particular star. I am such particular experiences as well as everything else. I like to think, for better or for worse, of my experience as Atman and everthing else (including my experience) as Brahma. Of course, the distinction is purely analytical since Atman=Brahma.

Twyvel, I posted the above before reading your last post. Let me just address one point for the moment:
You say that "What I had as an understand of your use of the word moumena, and Kant's use, is that noumena is the objective end of the "stick of opposites'. And in this sense, even though it is not observable it has an existence that is independent of that which observes. It is a two worlds theory. Both Sartre and Kant maintain a two worlds theory in which there is a ?'cause' of all perceptions that is behind the object; the thing-in-itself distinct and separate from consciousness,… and from which Consciousness is an emergent property or dependent in some form. That is, the universe is prior to Consciousness."

Yes, if that is the proper understanding of Kant and Sartre, they do advocate a "two worlds theory." You and I do not. Our non-dualism sees that phenomena, noumena and perception are analytical distinctions but actually facets of a single process. That's the model I suggesed earlier in which everything is noumena. Either that or nothing is. I keep coming back to the vedanta dictum, Tat Tvam Asi. We are neither separate from our experience and idea of the world nor the so-called world of objects "itself." We are the world and every experience we have of it.
I like your stick metaphor. Object and subject are two aspects of a single reality. The same thing applies to cause and effect.

JLN and twyvel:
It was interesting reading JLN's approach to
noumena and phenomena,particularly when JLN
deviated from the Kantian and Sartre view of the"thing-in-itself' approach when he said there is ONLY noumena. JLN's synthesis is very puzzling,
since he literally equates noumena to phenomena,
(i.e., noumena=phenomena=us).
As twyvel rightly noted, we have to be careful with word use. I couldn't agree more, although in JLN's case this situation is by far the exception rather than the rule.
I am beginning to realize that the Buddhist approach, by necessity, (since intuitive knowledge is so basic ), takes liberties with ordinary word usage....but in some cases like this one, how is it
possible to present a coherent argument if the word 'noumena' is equated to the word 'phenomena
when the meaning of the word noumena is exactly
OPPOSITE to the meaning of the word phenomena?
Any good dictionary of the English language will so attest. As a matter of fact Webster's actually defines noumena as "opposite to phenomena', and
defines phenomena as an "object known through the senses rather than thought or intuition"
We have a problem of communication here that makes it difficult to fully understand your position.
In twyvel's post he states that the Kantian 'thing-in-itself'is distinct and seperate from consciousness, (no argument there), and that "'the Universe is prior to consciousness", (no argument there). To me that means that 'the-thing-in-itself'
exists without the need of a noumena interpretation/involvement with which I totally agree but it appears to me that it contradicts an earlier stated position when he asserts that it is the
noumena that allows for phenomena.

Alikimr, I really appreciate your thoughtful reservations. When your understanding falls short of our intentions you force us to review and refine both our thinking and our presentation. That's the great benefit to come from A2K dialogs.
Although the linguistic meaning of phenomena is "exactly opposite to that of the word noumena" I do not feel bound to take this linguistic opposition as an aspect of reality itself. Phenomena and noumena, like subject and object and cause and effect are linguistic or analyltical distinctions which obviously serve us in many ways. But such dichotomies are artificial; they are good to think with, depending on the problem at hand. But they are not adequate as descriptions, given the level of our discussion. As you say, the intuitive approach of Buddhist discourse is essentially what Twyvel and I are about here. This requires linguistic liberties, no doubt. When I say phenomena and noumena are the same, I mean they are an artificial (yet sometimes useful) distinction, a bifurcation of unitary reality into two parts. Up and down do not exist in absolute terms, only within certain frames of reference. As BoGoWo put it, "for every universal 'event' there has to be a 'frame of reference' within which that 'event' can occur.... without the 'frame of reference' there is no event, no actor, no reaction, no phenomenon."
As I understand him, all MEANINGFULNESS, whether that of an event, actor, reaction, phenomenon, anything and everything that is meaningful, takes its meaning in large part from the frame of reference of the thinker who is ascribing the meaning. To me that means that the world is not meaningful without human ascriptions against a background of human frames of reference. And this applies to the grand concepts of phenomena and noumena (and everything else). To me there is only the unitary and ultimately mysterious universe (and not just the observable universe). This unitary reality is my ultimate frame of reference in this discussion (and in meditative practice). As such, I say there is no REAL difference between noumena and phenomena. We can treat them as conceptually distinct and ontologically different, but that does not make them so, ultimately.
So, Alikimr, in order to pick up on what I'm trying (correctly or incorrectly) to express, you must at least temporarily suspend the faith of dualism required by ordinary logic and remember that I am here trying to provide a unified non-dualistic "description", and thus forgive the illogicality of its structure. I know I should be careful with my words, and I am. Heaven knows I am trying to be very careful, especially because logic and language are not on my side. My perspective is not difficult to understand because it is deep or complex, only because we are not used to its non-dualism, its insistence that every evaluation, comparison, opposition we make is artificial and relative, and irrelevant to any attempt to touch what is absolute.

alikimr


I don't' agree with or believe in Kant's noumena, or thing-in-itself, I merely pointed it out as being a position that I thought JLN held at one point. It was a kind of question.

Anyway I think JLNobody and I are farely close in our insistence that that which sees is that which is seen etc., which of course contradicts dualism. That's not a surprise, I hope,

Tywvel, you say that "that which sees is that which is seen." How similar in spirit is that to Meister Eckhart's "We see god with the same eye that God sees us"?

Yes that's a famous sayiing of Eckhart's and quite beautiful....I imagine it turns some theists heads around.