Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 10:53am PT
|
Jgill: None of which has anything to do with physical reality, . . . .
This is the gravamen for you in all of this here on this thread, isn’t it? Largo, and others, have introduced a notion about what things are (empty), and you understand it to mean that things don’t exist. What you see is what you get, right? What is obvious to you (trees, atoms, people, etc.) is what there is. The names / labels and definitions may change, but there ARE substantive concrete things: that is, mainly what’s material . . . things, hard stuff, real objects that stick around (exist) no matter if you or another person is observing them or not. How can anyone deny the existence of things when we obviously live among, within, and on the outside of them?
The position seems to imply a number of assumptions, beliefs, and values.
1. The most important things in the universe are material. This is to say that material things are the gold standard of referent points.
2. Material things can be “known” without significant doubt.
3. Material things can be relied upon. They provide the ground underneath our feet, philosophically, physically, conceptually, psychologically, and sociologically.
4. We are little bitty things / objects / beings in a great expansive universe. This is not to say that we are nothing, but “infinitesimally insignificant” could well be argued.
5. Consciousness is an attribute of beings, one among many other attributes, and perhaps not supremely critical to what most of us would otherwise refer to as “life.” Although perhaps a crowning glory of the human species, consciousness is only one attribute of life and living; life and living does not necessarily imply consciousness.
6. We could talk all day long about subjective this or that, but whatever subjectivity is, it seems to be highly varied, difficult to conceptualize, difficult to measure, and hence not a thing that one can get their hands around. This means that whatever we might say about consciousness, states of mind (or the absence thereof), awareness, meditation, etc. are largely “just talking” (speculation). “Yeah, it’s fun and all, but I mean, what are we *really* talking about?”
Whadayathink? Am I close?
One problem with these assumptions and values might be that various fields of study have been poking holes into all of these ideas. Sure, no one has brought forward a full-blown, replicable, empirical demonstration that a “naive realist’s” view of reality is wrong, but there are a number of important findings that suggest that things are just not quite what we would (naively) believe without careful investigation or instruction.
The findings from different fields of study are “troublesome.” On the one hand, a realist’s view of reality is so pervasive, comprehensive, and shared among folks that Not To Believe would imply that one is a bit crazy or foolish. On the other hand, being somewhat knowledgable in the areas of perception, cognition, neuro-everything, information processing, decision making, etc. would suggest to a prudent man / woman that one might be a bit careful about saying what things there are and what things there aren’t.
One could go so far as to say that, “yes, there are appearances . . . there are ‘things’ (at least of sorts), but one cannot say just what they are.” (Or some such notion.)
“Everyone knows that . . . .”
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 11:42am PT
|
there are a number of important findings that suggest that things are just not quite what we would (naively) believe without careful investigation or instruction.
No doubt. In some sense, things are never what they seem to be. But we make do.
Most of us go according to simple rules we have learned, like looking both ways before crossing a busy street. I don't care what you think a car IS. I know I don't what to get hit by one.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 12:58pm PT
|
Consciousness is a description of particular human behavior.
Everything living in the whole cosmic manifestation has consciousness.
It's never limited to only human behavior.
Even a simple blade of grass has consciousness and individuality .......
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 01:34pm PT
|
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 02:07pm PT
|
Were it not for Ed’s efforts here, I’m sure I’d not be understood.
"Here, let me fix that for you."
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 05:02pm PT
|
What is "Understanding?"
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 05:09pm PT
|
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. : )
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 05:39pm PT
|
Since "gravamen" refers to a complaint or grievance - and I have none - you imbue my simple expression of disbelief or non-agreement with an emotional component that does not exist, Mike.
One problem with these assumptions and values might be that various fields of study have been poking holes into all of these ideas
And opening new, interesting avenues of investigation and argument. However, among those avenues are metaphysical and philosophical lanes that were appropriate two centuries ago, but appear to offer very little or no enlightenment today. What is the record? Dennett's Folly? Research done in the Noetic Science Institute?
Is it just that humankind hasn't developed the right investigative tools, or are spiritual approaches simply void of significant content? When JL talks about empty awareness I think of a playgoer who arrives five hours late so he can sit and contemplate the empty stage. Which is fine if that's what gives him pleasure, but his actions would seem a tad peculiar for many of us. But if someone wants to be so engaged I would hope he would report back to us and explain how his experiential adventure led to a deeper understanding of drama and the theater. Or led anywhere, for that matter.
As you have opined frequently these are just words and speculation. That being said, when I first engaged in the Art of Dreaming it was very tempting to accept the position held by many practitioners that the experience allowed one to visit Astral Planes and witness the astounding truth underlying reality.
The djinn in the bottle once again trying to grant my wishes. The mind is a wonderful thing, but it has an imagination of its own.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 06:28pm PT
|
I like your wisdom, Sir go-B.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 09:25pm PT
|
Jgill: Since "gravamen" refers to a complaint or grievance - and I have none . . . .
This stretches the credibility that I have in you. I think you have a stand, and I think it matters to you.
. . . among those avenues are metaphysical and philosophical lanes that were appropriate two centuries ago, but appear to offer very little or no enlightenment today.
No. The research I’m aware of is empirical. Some things don’t come together. Reality could well be constructed.
You refer to djinns, astral planes, dreaming, imagination, and watching empty stages. I think the tone of your writing indicates you are sure of what you believe—viz, it is certainly not “any of that.” Any form of spiritualism is (apparently) pretty silly to you.
(BTW, I don’t believe that having a gravamen needs emotional import. It refers to a technical complaint, as is usually found in law.)
None of this really matters.
Happy New Year! Cheers.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 09:58pm PT
|
Reality could well be constructed
Like The Matrix? Could be, and if so JL might be ahead of all of us recognizing empty awareness is the stage upon which the scaffolding is hung.
Any form of spiritualism is (apparently) pretty silly to you
Actually, I have respect for I-b-Gob and others who have found peace in religion. I don't subscribe to it but I don't consider it silly. However, I'm highly skeptical of seances and ectoplasm or inferring that the vision in a meditative state has profound connections to particle physics.
But I have no complaints, hence no gravamens.
Happy New Year!
;>)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2016 - 07:25am PT
|
Jgill: The Matrix . . . seances and ectoplasm
This is what you’ve taken from the discussions here on mind.
. . . vision in a meditative state has profound connections to particle physics.
I don’t know what this means.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Model Home
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2016 - 10:38am PT
|
^^ Centuries ago Zen practitioners came up with their concept of voidness in the context of desire and suffering and all that. Then, much more recently, physicists came up with their observations of the teeny-tiny aspects of the universe, in a completely impersonal context. Then, just yesterday as it were, JL among others decided to claim that these two conclusions about different things were mutually reinforcing. And maybe they are, or maybe not. Circles back to what you want to believe.
Hope 2017 is better to everyone than this past one has been.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 1, 2017 - 04:27am PT
|
^^ Centuries ago Zen practitioners came up with their concept of voidness in the context of desire and suffering and all that. Then, much more recently, physicists came up with their observations of the teeny-tiny aspects of the universe, in a completely impersonal context. Then, just yesterday as it were, JL among others decided to claim that these two conclusions about different things were mutually reinforcing.
-
You can see the problems here in the same way you can see the problems with John positing awareness as neural output, wholly contingent upon material underpinnings. Again, separating out content (neural product) from awareness is not a task that can be dicked from a third person perspective. And when Ed says that metaphysical and philosophical issues are no longer relevant, you can bet you're bottom dollar that he is referring to content, not the fact that we are aware of that content.
For starters, per the paragraph on top, "voidness" aka emptiness is not a concept or mental image or idea or whatever. It is the featureless field in which all content arises. It is not a thing or object with qualities or features you can be right or wrong about, save when you believe that it is. Won't make much sense from a 3rd person perspective since from that POV we can only get jiggy with content, things, objects, etc. Awareness is entirely unobservable.
Per the wonky idea that I decided that the "two conclusions" from physics and the subjective adventures are the same "things," this whopper is about fifty light years away from anything intelligible, IMO and only in my opinion.
Emptiness or raw awareness had no aspect or edges or qualities of a "thing" or an object whatsoever, though we can't expect anyone from a 3rd person POV to position awareness in a way that is impossible from that perspective (which seeks to formulate awareness-independent physical phenomenon). The only relevance any of the physics talk has on this is in hearing another take on reality, and showing some curiosity about some of the phenomenon and the language used to describe it.
For example, anyone who has ever done mind training will be intrigued by the phrase, "excitation in the quantum field," in reference to stuff, energy, particles etc. flashing in and out of existence in said field. Why, because we all eventually experience awareness as a kind of borderless field in which all content (thought, feelings, sensations, memories, etc.) flashes in and out of existence, arising and falling away. Clearly the field and the impermanent stuff arising and falling away are not selfsame, but they are inextricably bound together. Nothing is standalone with an inherent objective nature. It's all flux.
Nobody is saying or has said that mind activity and the quantum field are two examples of the same phenomenon, only that it is an interesting thought experiment to contrast the two. Nothing more. However using a quantum field as a metaphor for mind is itself a stretch, though not for the reasons posited by the physicalists.
Sentience is not "like" any thing else. That's the rub. That's why our normal evaluations of external objects gets us nowhere with awareness or sentience. To see how this sentience is totally different than machine registration takes some work. That's the rub.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Confused thinking goes hand in hand with confused expression.
Emptiness or raw awareness had no aspect or edges or qualities of a "thing" or an object whatsoever, though we can't expect anyone from a 3rd person POV to position awareness in a way that is impossible from that perspective (which seeks to formulate awareness-independent physical phenomenon).
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
MH2:
Some author’s writing, but not others, eh?
It seems to me that anyone gets to take anyone’s language straight off the page, reproduce it, interpret it, and offer commentary. Once a person has written something, put it down on paper or a record, it’s no longer in their possession. Once one has made an utterance, it’s out in the open for everyone to play with.
I don’t need any homework assignments, not from you or anyone else. This is like Ed’s re-writing of my writing. He didn’t like my interpretation that I was communicating to Jgill about Jgill’s writing, so he intervened and corrected my thinking and my writing to jgill.
You’re doing the same thing. Why?
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
To make it possible to understand?
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
The Celebrated French novelist Gustave Flaubert, whose 1857 classic Madame Bovary established him as a literary force, had strong opinions about the craft of writing. Flaubert believed that writers (especially writers of fiction) should serve their work rather than merely using a story to promote themselves or push their own agenda. In one of many letters to his friend Madame Louise Colet, Flaubert made the point plainly: “An author in his book must be like God in the universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere.”
Flaubert was reacting to an artistic culture that encouraged inflated egos. He insisted that despite the fact that an author was the “creator” of the world on the page, good writers would recede out of sight and allow the story to have its own voice and integrity. In other words, they would limit self-displays and instead give the narrative higher priority. For Flaubert, the example that best illustrated such self-surrendered modesty was God, the ultimate Creator who regularly demonstrates precisely this kind of humility...
to read the rest of this.
https://www.intouch.org/read/magazine/margin-notes/relinquished-rights
...God hides in plain sight!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
...God hides in plain sight!
Never ever does God hide ever.
He's always in plain sight to those eyes anointed with the salve of pure love .....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!