1
   

Are We The Universe Looking At Itself?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2003 06:57 am
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
Frank, I want to repeat once more, and for the last time, that it seems very clear to me that Twyvel's "argument" is not a case put together on the basis of evidence that is public in nature. He cannot really lay out his evidence so that he can persuade doubters by the wieght of unambiguous facts. His insights follow IMMEDIATELY from experience. His evidence is private, not public; it is a matter of perspective--the evidence is right under his nose. But we have the same kind of "evidence" under ours as well. What we usually lack is the perspective to appreciate it, to be transformed by it--as opposed to believing IN IT.
Does that sound right, Twyvel?


JLN

Once again it is noted that you feel this way.

But I suggest you at least consider what Twyvel is doing with his supposed experience. He is making generalizations about the nature of reality based upon what he can and cannot do. That is the part that I call a belief system.

Take this from his last post to me:

"You love to call it a belief system, but the observation, "I, as awareness cannot observe myself".......... Is not a belief.

Or,......."Awareness cannot be observed"..........Is not a belief."

He logically can -- and I applaud his doing it -- say "I, as awareness cannot observe myself"

He cannot logically say: THEREFORE AWARENESS CANNOT BE OBSERVED. Nor can he logially say: THEREFORE THERE IS NOBODY TO DO THE OBSERVING -- or any of the other things that he think derives from his inability to observe his awareness.

Twyvel has an established notion of the nature of reality.

Good for him. I have no problem with that.

But it does not derive from a logical analysis of what he can and cannot observe. It is, for the most part, a gratuitous expansion of his experience into a notion of "My experience is a universal one which unveils the truth of reality."

I hope you also take into consideration, JLN, that Twyvel have been hashing this thing out for over two years now -- and certain comments contain elements of prior discussions.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2003 10:34 am
truth
Frank, I appreciate your interpretation. But you said yourself that Twyvel's utterances are not framed as logical propositions. He provides no objective evidence followed by THEREFORES...
He DOES, as you note for the last two years, present a verbal case (I'll bet he wishes he didn't have to) for his perspective, an attempt to objectify and codify a set of insights. But I'll bet my house that the vast majority of readers can't make head or tails of what he's saying. That's probably because they (we) are anticipating an argument in terms of objective evidence and logical inferences--or at least doctrinal pronouncements. None of that happens: he simply tries to DESCRIBE what he sees. And if one does not see the same thing, it's like describing RED to a congenitally blind person. I'm exaggerating, but I hope my point is made.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2003 10:47 am
truth
Frank, one more point. The kind of insights expressed by mystics in general is PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, the only kind that satisfies our existential hungers. It is what a theologian would consider meeting God rather than just hearing about Him.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2003 11:31 pm
JLNobody is correct, it's personal knowledge derived from observations of what we call the every day 'self'; it's perceptions, thoughts and the fact that it is being observed but does not itself observe. Although he says it much better then I just have, giving it a broader perspective which I appreciate.


Frank wrote:

Quote:

He cannot logically say: THEREFORE AWARENESS CANNOT BE OBSERVED. Nor can he logially say: THEREFORE THERE IS NOBODY TO DO THE OBSERVING -- or any of the other things that he think derives from his inability to observe his awareness.


A few posts back I said the three of us agree that awareness cannot be observed, and both Frank and JLNobody confirmed that statement.

And Frank wrote: Awareness, like oxygen, cannot be observed. There definitely are consequences of that -- but it is my guess that anything said about those consequences would be guesswork also.

You are saying the exact same thing as me, "Awareness cannot be observed"

Now you're saying it's illogical. Well which is it?
----------

Oxygen is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gaseous element, and as such I cannot taste it, smell it or see it, and I think it perfectly logical to say, "Neither can anyone else".

I cannot observe the awareness I am, others have said they cannot observe the awareness they are and I think it's logical to say, "Neither can anyone".

And in fact to claim that awareness can be observed or that awareness can observe other awarenesses is contradictory and illogical. ( of course all this is subject--object talk........dualism)

From a nondual perspective one awareness cannot observe another but not because a subject turns all other subjects into objects, but becasue there is only one awareness.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 12:16 am
truth
"... because there is only one awareness." And, Twyvel, is that the universe looking at itself?
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 01:19 am
Well JLNobody when the universe observes itself doesn't it disappear, cancel itself out?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 12:51 pm
truth
I have no idea
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 01:29 pm
Twyvel

I am saying that "awareness" like oxygen cannot be observed.

It is not possible to observe either.

I think oxygen can be detected.

I think awareness can be detected also.


As for the seeming inconsistency in my saying "awareness cannot be observed" -- and later saying "He cannot logically say: THEREFORE AWARENESS CANNOT BE OBSERVED" -- there is no inconsistency there either.

In the one instance I was saying that I agree, awareness, LIKE OXYGENcannot be observed. In the second instance I was talking about the logic you were using. You essentially were saying that YOU cannot observe awareness. It simply does not logically follow from that that awareness cannot be observed.

Others may be able to -- and in fact, even you may be able to. It may require a technique we have not yet mastered. We really do not know -- even thought it seems at this time that awareness cannot be observed.

I don't mean what I say next in a nasty way -- just giving an impression of what I see happening.

It has been my experience that when I discuss these kinds of things with atheists -- and they insist there are no gods -- they are blind to the fact that they are touting a belief system.

When I discuss these kinds of things with theists -- and they insist they KNOW there is a God -- they are blind to the fact that they are touting a belief system.

And Twyvel, when I discuss these kinds of things with you -- you are blind to the fact that you are touting a belief system.

You are attempting to explain what the reality of the universe and existence IS. It is my opinion that you do not KNOW that reality -- and you are simply guessing. That is what a belief system is.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 02:25 pm
JLNobody, I guess it does and it doesn't. You know the:

First there is a mountain.
Then there is no mountain.
Then there is.

I was thinking of that........and the nondual state of awareness where there is no subject or observer, one just is, things just are, subject and object are merged, welded together, ....and 'that' is aware. And in "that" there never was a subject and object to be separate.....but on this ground of being, the appearance of this small i disappears.......if only for moment.

And what does,......The universe looking at itself?....mean anyway?


If we say this cup is looking at itself doesn't it mean it carries (or comes with) its own 'self' awareness?

Then the sense there is a separate self aware of the cup is an illusion because it wouldn't be the cup (universe) looking at itself for that would be duality; the cup and not-the-cup, the universe and not-the-universe.

If things and thoughts are imbued with their own 'self' awareness there is in a sense no central authority that is aware of all, rather awareness is or is in all things.

There is no central " I " living this life. I don't bring the cup into existence, I steal the awareness from it, from all observables and construct a distinct 'self', that alone is aware.

What a thief I am, Smile... Made of pillage.

When this thief gives back the "self" awareness to all things, it vanishes, duality vanishes. (well maybe not completely, Smile)
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 04:05 pm
truth
Frank, you make a strong argument, but from the outside of your head one can see (or find) problems. First, the unobservability of oxygen arises from a very different set of facts than it does for the unobservability of observation. I cannot observe oxygen for the same reason that I cannot observe the dark side of the moon FROM HERE. The unobservability of observation is SO fundamental that once one truly understands why it is so, they enjoy a kind of "enlightenment." It is a fundamental epistemological reality, a basic condition of existence, unlike the more accidental and circumstantial reality of oxygen's unobservability. One way of putting it is to say that oxygen is unobservable (directly) but detectable (indirectly) whereas observation is both unobservable and undetectable.
Secondly, just because theists and atheists may not admit they are touting belief systems, insisting, instead, that they KNOW their "truths," does not mean that mystics are also touting belief systems. If I say that I deeply "sense" or "see" something about the nature of life, yet that I cannot explain or justify it, am I touting a belief system? It is a belief only if I proceed to justify it on the basis of deduction from axiomatic premises or doctrinal literature. But if I say that I see that the color red exists and that it appears to become more intense when juxtaposed with the color green. Is that a belief? This subject has become so dense that I may be missing your points. So just take this as an invitation for your further elaborations.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 04:22 pm
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
Secondly, just because theists and atheists may not admit they are touting belief systems, that they KNOW their "truths," does not mean that mystics are also touting belief systems. "


COMMENT:

I realize and acknowledge that "just because theists and atheists may not admit they are touting belief systems, that they KNOW their "truths," does not mean that mystics are also touting belief systems. "

In this case, they are though.

Quote:
If I say that I deeply "sense" or "see" something about the nature of life, yet that I cannot explain or justify it, am I touting a belief system?


Not enough information to give a response. It could mean exactly that -- and it might not at all. I'd have to see this hypothetical in action.

Quote:
It is a belief only if I proceed to justify it on the basis of deduction from axiomatic premises or doctrinal literature. But if I say that I see that the color red exists and that it appears to become more intense when juxtaposed with the color green. Is that a belief?


Absolutely, positively not!!!

Why would you ask that of me? How does it fit into anything I've said?


Quote:
This subject has become so dense that I may be missing your points. So just take this as an invitation for your further elaborations.


Since I first interacted with you, JL, I've considered you an open minded person -- and for certain I will take you up on your invitation.

I like to work with concrete examples.

I'm going to point out a specific comment either you or Twyvel has made that seems to me to be the result of belief -- rather than knowledge or experience. We'll discuss it.

I'm gonna post this now -- and I'll be right back with a concrete example.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 04:38 pm
Frank wrote:

Quote:
As for the seeming inconsistency in my saying "awareness cannot be observed" -- and later saying "He cannot logically say: THEREFORE AWARENESS CANNOT BE OBSERVED" -- there is no inconsistency there either.

In the one instance I was saying that I agree, awareness, LIKE OXYGENcannot be observed. In the second instance I was talking about the logic you were using. You essentially were saying that YOU cannot observe awareness. It simply does not logically follow from that that awareness cannot be observed.


You are seeing a difference where there is none.

For you to be able to say, Awareness cannot be observed you have to use logic just as I. We've come to the same conclusion, we are saying the exact same thing, using the exact same words.....and you claim your identical statement follows from a logical process and mine doesn't,.....bizarre.


If your statement, Awareness cannot be observed does not follow from personal observations, i.e. that you cannot observe the awareness that you are, then where does it follow from?



Quote:
Others may be able to -- and in fact, even you may be able to. It may require a technique we have not yet mastered. We really do not know -- even thought it seems at this time that awareness cannot be observed


Now you are using the word, 'seems', another contradiction. I guess you have not decided on this issue, and therefore the statement, "Awareness cannot be observed" is false coming from your lips.

Quote:
You are attempting to explain what the reality of the universe and existence IS. It is my opinion that you do not KNOW that reality -- and you are simply guessing. That is what a belief system is.


I know what a belief system is and your statement above is in fact a belief system on its own.

This has been put to you by Gelistgesti several times and I have raised the question several times yet you fail to respond.

That your statements about what others claim to know or not know are guesses not fact, as often you claim they are. We all live is a glass house.

Apart from that deviation, some of what I say is indeed speculation and I have never claimed otherwise.

And some is not speculation. That awareness cannot observe itself is not a guess. That eyes don't see is not a guess. (and so go all the sense organs)

And other observations can be drawn from these that are not guesses.


Quote:
I am saying that "awareness" like oxygen cannot be observed.

It is not possible to observe either.

I think oxygen can be detected.

I think awareness can be detected also.


I don't know about oxygen Frank, it may be that it can be felt and heard after all it's a compressible gas. I don't know enough about science. Can you blow a whistle in a oxygen vacuum? If not, do you hear oxygen when the whistle is blown, or when it is released from pressure? Are sound waves possible without oxygen?

Do you feel oxygen when the wind is blowing on your skin? When it's cold, etc.?

If so it means oxygen can be observed in that it can be perceived, and therefore it's not a good analogy or comparison to awareness.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 04:41 pm
Well, this is a lot more work than I really intended to put into this -- so I'm going to shorted the list of things I put together an hit on just one item for now. As new ones come up -- I will point them out.

Keep in mind that I have been quiet through the last several postings because Twyvel has been doing an excellent job of wording agnostically. I never have any problem with that -- so postings that contain a lot of if's usually don't get from me.

Here is a composite of some reasoning Twyvel has offered earlier:

"I cannot observe the awareness I am, others have said they cannot observe the awareness they are and I think it's logical to say, "Neither can anyone". "

COMMENT: Well, it may seem logical to you -- but in the strict sense of logic -- it isn't.

Think of it this way: I cannot understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity; others, many others, have said they cannot understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity -- and I think it is logical to say that nobody can understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Does it sound logical to you in that form?

Do you not easily see the logical inconsistencies?

But then Twyvel takes all this a step beyond:

"Therefore there is nobody to do the observing."

COMMENT:

Wow!

And this is something that I am supposed to accept as being knowledge and experience?

I think not.

I am skeptical.

I cannot say that Twyvel does not know what he purports to teach as though it were knowledge (that would be making the identical mistake in logic that he is) -- but I can suspect that he doesn't -- and question him to see if there is more to consider.

Let me stop for now.

Comment on this, both of you, and let's take it to wherever it goes.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 04:45 pm
Frank wrote:

I think awareness can be detected also.


Yes generally we say that in as much as these words are being observed awareness is present.

The thoughts that are being observed by the awareness are saying awareness is present.

I think it's a tautology, perhaps JL could comment.

Awareness is aware of X
Therefore Awareness is detected.

What is it detected by?.....answer, = Awareness.

But if awareness is being detected by itself, it isn't being 'detected, it just is. "detected" is the wrong word.

For something to be detected you require a "detector" (subject) and a "detected" an object. And with awareness we have an object X, but where is the subject?

Well the subject isn't observable that's why we say it is detected by the presence of X.
By whom?.........answer = the awareness.

It's circular.

And I don't think one can infer from the third person that awareness is detected.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 06:38 pm
truth
Frank, I want to clear up some points here. First, when I said that from the outside your arguments has problems, I do not mean simply that from an objective viewpoint it has flaws; I meant from a different subjective perspective it is unacceptable. I agree wlith your agnosticism. I've always held as a basic principle of my perspective the position of Charles Saunders Pierce that ultimately all is a matter of opinion: we cease our search for knowledge when we arrive at opinions that will "settle" our minds not in terms of absolutely certain conclusions. But I also feel that this applies to all knowledge EXCEPT mystical insight. We'll get into THAT questionable notion. Right now the news is on.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2003 07:02 pm
truth
I've made corrections in the above statement. Please re-read it.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2003 04:06 am
Frank wrote:

Quote:
"I cannot observe the awareness I am, others have said they cannot observe the awareness they are and I think it's logical to say, "Neither can anyone". "

COMMENT: Well, it may seem logical to you -- but in the strict sense of logic -- it isn't.

Think of it this way: I cannot understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity; others, many others, have said they cannot understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity -- and I think it is logical to say that nobody can understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity.


You are correct, my statement was rather loose and is not defendable.

Though I'll say that observation is not the same as understanding. But I agree that anyone can come up with a observed pink elephant example.

It's about the nature of awareness and if I am the only one that states I cannot observe awareness, it doesn't change the fact that I cannot observe it.

There were times and it still may be the case today in some instances where mystics with profound insights into the nature of reality would go off by themselves and remain silent. Telling others what they know, i.e. that there is no physical world or self etc. would only attract scorn and declarations of insanity.

There are truths that one learns about ones self that apply to everyone, or at least all humans.

Quote:
But then Twyvel takes all this a step beyond:

"Therefore there is nobody to do the observing."

COMMENT:

Wow!

And this is something that I am supposed to accept as being knowledge and experience?

I think not.

I am skeptical.


The statement "Therefore there is nobody to do the observing."
is derived from, "Awareness cannot be observed"

If I am the awareness and awareness cannot be found in the world of observable things (and thoughts) then there is no observable 'self' in the world of observable things.

As such perceptions such as seeing appear to have no basis, they appear to come out of nowhere or nothing. That is to say seeing does come out of nothing (observable), i.e. the awareness. (or more correctly IS the awareness)

So the world appears to arise from nothing because the awareness of it cannot be observed. There's no one (observable) behind my eyes looking out.

Yet this awareness IS me hence I appear to be nothing, or emptiness, or void, since I am nowhere (to be found), no thing and no one. The spot I occupy is empty, so to speak.

When I say there is nobody to do the observing, or when others talk about no-self this is what is meant, that there is only 'observing', meaning the 'self' is not a noun, not a thing, not an observer, nor a somebody etc.

So "nobody is observing", is an observation.

Now if you say, "That doesn't mean there isn't a self that cannot be observed but is an observer"....it misses the point because it is a transformation of the idea of 'self' that is the issue.

As such the nature of the 'self' would be far different then what most of us think, i.e not an isolated individual self, but a collective self which is everyone's 'self', i.e. you are all your percepts, I am all mine etc.

And we start heading into nondualism..........
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2003 09:41 pm
truth
Frank and Tywvel, I'm not receiving updates from A2K, so I'm behind in this dialog. Right now I'm a bit drunk, three glasses of vino tinto with a great pasta dish (I'm thinking right now of my Patroness of Italian food, Ossobuco). So I will get back with you tomorrow. I appreciate your intelligence, insights, and intellectual integrity. I have for two decades taught graduate university classes, and I have never been more challenged or stimulated than I am with you guys.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 04:32:47