Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, good stuff. I 100% agree that it's the attitudes/feelings that matter.
So, are those things that Gaylen mentioned some of the things that have been and are being cultivated in you, Rbbi?
Clearly all this symbolism edifies you and your idea of God. It is not my intent to interfere with that since it seems to give you comfort and is very important to your understanding of God. As long as it does not cause you to be unloving, hurtful or harmful to others, I have no desire to change it. If you DO try or want to be unloving, hurtful or harmful to others because your idea of God seems to demand it, then we will conflict.
Would that be anything like calling my ancestors "ignorant, barbaric savages" and then denying any responsibility for it? If so, no I don't plan on doing that to you. Peace
I think we are circling around a difference in our core intuitions. The main asymmetry is that I think your position is logically possible, whereas you seem to think that my position is not a real possibility due to some deep logical incoherence. Perhaps you are right about that, but I have this feeling that I have simply failed to make my position clear. I don't have much more to say on it except, perhaps, to restate this analogy: Reality is like a river in the sense of being an overall dynamic process. I will concede that the River, as a whole, is "substantial" in the sense of being a "thing" that depends on no other thing for its existence. It's existence is a brute fact, and its "river-like properties" (e.g., "fluid dynamics" wherein things like "whirlpools are Possible", etc.) are brute fact attributes or aspects of the River. I suspect that the River (the Whole, as such) is fundamentally non-temporal (although I'm not totally committed to that idea) and, thus, "linear time" is an emergent property rather than a brute fundamental property. If that's true, then the River is not something that endures "through time" like a substance but, rather, is the logically prior "source" or "ground" of time. In any case, I will grant you the somewhat substance-like quality of the River as a whole.
The main difference I see between us: You think the River as a Whole is conscious as a whole and perhaps has a "God-like" perspective, whereas I think that "consciousness" (any sort of "self-awareness" or center of perspective focused on an "other") is found, as such, only in certain sub-processes, such as "whirlpools". At the core of each whirlpool is not a Cartesian substantial "self" - no individual "soul" in any traditional sense of the term - but simply "local river dynamics" that fade in an out as the River flows. The "I" or "feeling of being me" that characterizes each whirlpool is "real" in the sense that each whirlpool is distinct and has its own center of perspective, but "illusory" in the sense that the "I" at the center of the perspective feels isolated and substantial but is, in fact, nothing other than or beyond just the River Itself taking that momentary perspective. This is one way to characterize the "self-as-universal" that I have been talking about.
I agree our core intuitions are at variance, Gaylen, but it IS based on a deep logical incoherence. Nothing that we know about the "River" itself and its constituent parts contains anything or even hints at anything remotely like a sense of "what it is like to be." Your quest for some "proto" sense of what it is like to be is based on NO EVIDENCE, just a desire NOT to accept as the very basis of our entire Reality the existence of a universal and ubiquitous sense of what it is like to be. You accept Reality itself as the ultimate source and locus of it but deny Reality itself HAS it. That is logically incoherent, compositional fallacies based on discrete entities notwithstanding.
My view is based on evidence of the existence of this sense of what it is like to be as manifest within each of us. It takes quite a logically incoherent leap to pretend that a "River" that does not have evidence of even the constituents of it could produce it. I know you are wed to the "emergence" mindset that propels this incoherence using the rhetorical and semantic Terpsichore that is so popular among atheists. But things like "wetness" are products of the very sense of what it is like to be that enables the semantic nonsense in the first place.
Quote:
This seems to fit with my theory. There should never be a loss of any sense of self-identity according my theory because the "I" is always (in every conscious moment no matter where or when throughout of all Reality) just Reality-Itself. The River "whirlpools" and whenever and wherever it does this, it feels the "I-ness". If your experience and mine were to merge, neither of us would feel a "loss" of anything. Instead, "I" (a composite) would feel something more like "waking from a dream" in which "I" (a composite perspective) discover that the "individual feelings of isolation were "just a dream". It's just The River Itself discovering that "I" was really there in each distinct whirlpool the entire time because the ontological core of the "I" is just a generic "feeling of being me" - a universal shared by every particular conscious moment.
In order for there to be a universal "feeling of being me," Reality as the actual locus would perforce BE me. The whirlpools are not discrete from the "River," they ARE the "River." That is the essence of Oneness, eliminating any discrete compositional fallacy nonsense.
Quote:
Maybe one way to think of your experience: Perhaps you sensed (in a "short-circuit" direct way) the "generic nature" of the "I" - perhaps you felt the universality of the I in a way that can't really be formulated in analytic terms, thus your difficulty with describing the experience. And, BTW, your stadium wave analogy might make more sense than you give it credit for. A cognitive short-circuit style feeling of the universality of the "I" could include the feeling of the presence of "many whirlpools" - many "I"-perspectives that, in some deeper sense, is a single universal phenomenon - the "wave"/River-Itself.
I did indeed sense and feel the universality exactly as you describe it. The "wave" analogy is my paltry attempt to convey that I retained my identity but it was simultaneously part of an uncountable multitude of identities that were completely unified in our Oneness. We all experienced everything as a single "entity." We are not very far apart except for your adamant refusal to credit the very universality and coherence of Reality itself that you propose,IMO.
Would that be anything like calling my ancestors "ignorant, barbaric savages" and then denying any responsibility for it? If so, no I don't plan on doing that to you. Peace
Lacking accurate knowledge of the world is ignorance by definition. By ANY standard, throwing babies into fires to appease some God is barbaric and savage, as are bashing babies' heads in, gutting pregnant women, killing innocent animals to appease God, etc.. Are you denying those are accurate descriptions of OUR ancestors?
Lacking accurate knowledge of the world is ignorance by definition. By ANY standard, throwing babies into fires to appease some God is barbaric and savage, as are bashing babies' heads in, gutting pregnant women, killing innocent animals to appease God, etc.. Are you denying those are accurate descriptions of OUR ancestors?
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware you were of Jewish descent. Peace
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware you were of Jewish descent. Peace
So, you're offended when someone rightly describes your anscestors as ignorant and some of their actions as barbaric. And you're offended that someone also understands that his anscestors were no less ignorant and also committed barbaric acts.
There's no winning with you and Tzap. You are bound and determined to be offended...
You'll say anything to avoid the point that the people who wrote the bible were ignorant, and that some of the actions described in it as being directed by God are barbaric.
Reality as the actual locus would perforce BE me. The whirlpools are not discrete from the "River," they ARE the "River." That is the essence of Oneness, eliminating any discrete compositional fallacy nonsense...
I'm well out of my depth here, but isn't this the same thing Gaylen said?
Instinctively, I agree with your point that for awareness to emerge from our Reality without it being a characteristic OF it, doesn't seem to make sense. But attempting to follow the conversation you two are having is wonderfully challenging to me.
Nothing that we know about the "River" itself and its constituent parts contains anything or even hints at anything remotely like a sense of "what it is like to be."
I take my own subjective experience as not only evidence for but (for me, at least, as the experiencer) undeniable proof that Reality/"the River" consists of at least some "what-it-is-like-to-be-ness" (WIILTB) and, given that WIILTB actually exists, it also seems to follow that the potential-for WIILTB is also intrinsic to Reality. Of course the big puzzle is what "potential" is, as such, and what it means to talk of the "potential" for X. Prior to the existence of cell phones there was, presumably, a potential for them. It's harder to get a good grip on exactly what the potential for consciousness consists in prior to the actual existence of any particular conscious experiences, but I don't see why the idea should be called logically inconsistent.
Quote:
Your quest for some "proto" sense of what it is like to be is based on NO EVIDENCE, just a desire NOT to accept as the very basis of our entire Reality the existence of a universal and ubiquitous sense of what it is like to be.
Whenever I awaken from a dreamless sleep, I count this as strong evidence (almost worthy of being called proof) that consciousness can emerge from unconsciousness. I was not conscious, and then I was. Something about my sleeping brain served as "potential for" consciousness, and then the potential was actualized upon my awakening. Again I fail to see where there is any logical incoherence in these ideas. BTW, I said that awakening is almost worthy of being called "proof." The reason for the "almost" is this: It is logically possible that I was, in fact, fully conscious during my dreamless sleep and immediately forgot upon awakening due to some sort of powerful amnesia triggered by the process of awakening. For all I know, this fully conscious state during dreamless sleep was me experiencing "God-Consciousness". Maybe your mystical experience of God was simply a temporary breakdown of the standard wall of amnesia that generally separates the two. I see that as a logical possibility, thus I cannot simply discount your testimonial on this. I can, however, be skeptical about it because I see very little reason to believe that something like "God-Consciousness" exists. Maybe someday I will see good reason, but at the moment I do not.
Quote:
You accept Reality itself as the ultimate source and locus of it but deny Reality itself HAS it. That is logically incoherent, compositional fallacies based on discrete entities notwithstanding.
As I've been explaining, I am still failing to see the logical incoherence of my notion that the logical ground of consciousness is unconsciousness (characterized as "proto-consciousness"). To me, these ideas seem logical, and even probable. I am aware of many, many, many examples of intermittent, perspective-limited conscious experiences arising from unconscious conditions, but I can't think of any examples of eternal, God-eye-view types of consciousness aside from the claims of religious scriptures (which seem highly unreliable to me) and the testimonials of a few mystics (which I find more compelling, but not compelling enough to say I actually believe them).
Quote:
My view is based on evidence of the existence of this sense of what it is like to be as manifest within each of us.
Although I respect your mystical insight, I still question your interpretation of it. As I said, my own experiences of limited, intermittent conscious experiences over a lifetime count (for me, at least) as:
(1) Proof that conscious experience exists.
(2) Strong evidence that consciousness is, as a matter of fact, generally limited to certain perspectives.
(3) Strong evidence that consciousness is, as a matter of fact, generally intermittent (emerging out of, and fading back into, unconsciousness.
And, based on (3) I would add:
(4) Strong evidence that "potential for" consciousness (aka "proto-conscious" conditions) exist.
Quote:
It takes quite a logically incoherent leap to pretend that a "River" that does not have evidence of even the constituents of it could produce it.
Hopefully I have now addressed this. But if I have not, then perhaps you can find another way to explain where you see logical incoherence.
Quote:
I know you are wed to the "emergence" mindset that propels this incoherence...
I am "wed" to it because I see emergence everywhere I look, AND I see lots of very good mathematical models and cellular automata that help me understand how emergence works. To me, emergence seems like a hallmark principle of the natural world. Things come into existence that previously did not exist. Quantum mechanics and chemistry help explain most of this (at least in a rough general-principles sort of way). As you know, I think some new fundamental physics is needed to really explain the emergence of qualitative subjective experience, but (based on my statements above) I don't see any reason to think that efforts to develop this physics are doomed to failure because of logical incoherence (although I admit that the subjective nature of qualia will probably force a radical change in the general standards for objective, measurable evidence).
Quote:
In order for there to be a universal "feeling of being me," Reality as the actual locus would perforce BE me.
This is correct. My "ego-I" is limited, but nevertheless every moment of my limited conscious awareness is a moment in which Reality-Itself (Holistically speaking) is experiencing "being me". So, yes, Reality as the actual locus IS me. For the religious folks, one might say that each of us is a literal instantiation of "God in the flesh" and, through this flesh that I call "my body" God experiences a limited perspective that God experiences as "being me". All I am skeptical about is the idea that, in addition to all of these particular limited, fleeting instantiations of "being me" throughout the Cosmic reaches of time and space, there is also a "God's-Eye view" perspective in which God "see's all and knows all and perhaps somehow intelligently and purposefully "designed all".
Quote:
The whirlpools are not discrete from the "River," they ARE the "River."
Yes. Exactly. And that is exactly why I use this analogy. It's the best way I can think of to get at this idea.
Quote:
That is the essence of Oneness, eliminating any discrete compositional fallacy nonsense.
Yes, except that the "discrete compositional fallacy nonsense" I'm talking about is referring to the complexity and dynamics of experience. The Oneness of Reality is ontological, but the "many-ness" of experience is "aspectival" - i.e., One Thing with many aspects or properties. One River composed of many aspects providing the ground for many whirlpools. Again, to me, the proof is in my own experiential pudding. Every moment of experience is a complex, flowing blend of many elements - colors, tastes, smells, shapes, feeling, etc. This is what I characterize as the "primordial qualitative chaos" - the qualitative epistemological many-ness characterizing the ontological Oneness.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 07-25-2017 at 08:14 AM..
I take my own subjective experience as not only evidence for but (for me, at least, as the experiencer) undeniable proof that Reality/"the River" consists of at least some "what-it-is-like-to-be-ness" (WIILTB) and, given that WIILTB actually exists, it also seems to follow that the potential-for WIILTB is also intrinsic to Reality. Of course the big puzzle is what "potential" is, as such, and what it means to talk of the "potential" for X. Prior to the existence of cell phones there was, presumably, a potential for them. It's harder to get a good grip on exactly what the potential for consciousness consists in prior to the actual existence of any particular conscious experiences, but I don't see why the idea should be called logically inconsistent.
Whenever I awaken from a dreamless sleep, I count this as strong evidence (almost worthy of being called proof) that consciousness can emerge from unconsciousness. I was not conscious, and then I was. Something about my sleeping brain served as "potential for" consciousness, and then the potential was actualized upon my awakening. Again I fail to see where there is any logical incoherence in these ideas. BTW, I said that awakening is almost worthy of being called "proof." The reason for the "almost" is this: It is logically possible that I was, in fact, fully conscious during my dreamless sleep and immediately forgot upon awakening due to some sort of powerful amnesia triggered by the process of awakening. For all I know, this fully conscious state during dreamless sleep was me experiencing "God-Consciousness". Maybe your mystical experience of God was simply a temporary breakdown of the standard wall of amnesia that generally separates the two. I see that as a logical possibility, thus I cannot simply discount your testimonial on this. I can, however, be skeptical about it because I see very little reason to believe that something like "God-Consciousness" exists. Maybe someday I will see good reason, but at the moment I do not.
As I've been explaining, I am still failing to see the logical incoherence of my notion that the logical ground of consciousness is unconsciousness (characterized as "proto-consciousness"). To me, these ideas seem logical, and even probable. I am aware of many, many, many examples of intermittent, perspective-limited conscious experiences arising from unconscious conditions, but I can't think of any examples of eternal, God-eye-view types of consciousness aside from the claims of religious scriptures (which seem highly unreliable to me) and the testimonials of a few mystics (which I find more compelling, but not compelling enough to say I actually believe them).
Although I respect your mystical insight, I still question your interpretation of it. As I said, my own experiences of limited, intermittent conscious experiences over a lifetime count (for me, at least) as:
(1) Proof that conscious experience exists.
(2) Strong evidence that consciousness is, as a matter of fact, generally limited to certain perspectives.
(3) Strong evidence that consciousness is, as a matter of fact, generally intermittent (emerging out of, and fading back into, unconsciousness.
And, based on (3) I would add:
(4) Strong evidence that "potential for" consciousness (aka "proto-conscious" conditions) exist.
Hopefully I have now addressed this. But if I have not, then perhaps you can find another way to explain where you see logical incoherence.
I am "wed" to it because I see emergence everywhere I look, AND I see lots of very good mathematical models and cellular automata that help me understand how emergence works. To me, emergence seems like a hallmark principle of the natural world. Things come into existence that previously did not exist. Quantum mechanics and chemistry help explain most of this (at least in a rough general-principles sort of way). As you know, I think some new fundamental physics is needed to really explain the emergence of qualitative subjective experience, but (based on my statements above) I don't see any reason to think that efforts to develop this physics are doomed to failure because of logical incoherence (although I admit that the subjective nature of qualia will probably force a radical change in the general standards for objective, measurable evidence).
This is correct. My "ego-I" is limited, but nevertheless every moment of my limited conscious awareness is a moment in which Reality-Itself (Holistically speaking) is experiencing "being me". So, yes, Reality as the actual locus IS me. For the religious folks, one might say that each of us is a literal instantiation of "God in the flesh" and, through this flesh that I call "my body" God experiences a limited perspective that God experiences as "being me". All I am skeptical about is the idea that, in addition to all of these particular limited, fleeting instantiations of "being me" throughout the Cosmic reaches of time and space, there is also a "God's-Eye view" perspective in which God "see's all and knows all and perhaps somehow intelligently and purposefully "designed all".
Yes. Exactly. And that is exactly why I use this analogy. It's the best way I can think of to get at this idea. Yes, except that the "discrete compositional fallacy nonsense" I'm talking about is referring to the complexity and dynamics of experience. The Oneness of Reality is ontological, but the "many-ness" of experience is "aspectival" - i.e., One Thing with many aspects or properties. One River composed of many aspects providing the ground for many whirlpools. Again, to me, the proof is in my own experiential pudding. Every moment of experience is a complex, flowing blend of many elements - colors, tastes, smells, shapes, feeling, etc. This is what I characterize as the "primordial qualitative chaos" - the qualitative epistemological many-ness characterizing the ontological Oneness.
Yes. That is correct.
You know this already. You just don't accept it.
In this way the world you experience "sleeping" is more real, because you are fully conscious of the full truth of who you are.
And the world you experience while "awake" is illusion, as so many wisdom traditions describe it, because you are asleep to the truth of who you are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peace