Aletheia

Just thinking “out loud” here—


It strikes me that blackbeetle and Freaky are using the notion of “inherent being”—and “existence”—in different senses. I think blackbeetle means an actual referent in the physical world, as opposed to a thought/concept produced by the mind.


I have a thought/concept; I give that thought/concept a linguistic sign—say, “unicorn”. That sign consists of a signifier—the letters u-n-i-c-o-r-n, and their phonetic pronunciation—and a signified—its definition: say, “an imaginary mythical horse-like creature with a horn”.


But, does that sign have an actual real-world referent? (Well, not if it’s imaginary. The sign—in this case verbal, but it could also be a representational sign such as a painting in a book—might exist, as a sign, but that does not mean that it points to an existing referent matching its signified.)


This would seem to be an example of a thought/concept that has no “inherent being”, as I understand bb to be using that phrase.


How about that tree over there (imagine for the sake of discussion that I am pointing to what we would both call “tree” ). Well, what’s really there is a process of energy that forms a certain pattern. That processual pattern is processed by my brain (visual cortex) into a picture. I call that picture in my head “tree”. Everything that I see in the world, I really see in my head. (The same for the other senses, but vision is easiest to talk about.)


That picture-in-my-head is another kind of sign. There is a referent, but the referent is not the picture; it is the patterned energy-process.


Now, the pictures formed in my head seem clearly coherent with the referential reality—if our brain functions were not coherent with the world, we would have little chance of survival as a species.


Aletheia, as what is unconcealed—or revealed—includes how it is revealed to our brain: as mental pictures, etc. Further, aletheia is a concept, a way of thinking, about how we know the world. As such, aletheia itself has no actual referent in the world: it has no “inherent being”. There is no “tree” over here, and some “aletheia” over there; there is no aletheia inside the tree; etc., etc.

Under a correspondence theory of truth, “truth” is had when our concepts and signs correspond to reality; it is still the reality that is “inherent being”, that exists as the corresponding referents. “Truth” is simply a statement about the referential reality. Under such a theory of truth, the Bible, for example, is “true” to the extent that its signs (words and their underlying concepts) accurately represent actual referents.


Under a “reality theory” of truth (e.g., in Hinduism; see my post on page 2), the word-sign “truth” is synonymous with the referential reality—inherent being—and, again has no separate existence itself.


__________________________________________


“I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.”


—Mr. Monk

Originally posted by vistesd
Just thinking “out loud” here—


It strikes me that blackbeetle and Freaky are using the notion of “inherent being”—and “existence”—in different senses. I think blackbeetle means an actual referent in the physical world, as opposed to a thought/concept produced by the mind.


I have a thought/concept; I give that thought/concept a linguistic sign[ _________________________________


“I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.”


—Mr. Monk

While I no doubt think blackbeetle is grateful for your efforts, despite your succinct manner (and graciously gentle tone, might I add), I think you have him wrong. In his world, there exists no gray area regarding those things which "might exist," as it relates to what is. 'What is' is simply 'what is,' and is used as the default definition (or representation) for the physical world.

'What observes'--- or is impacted by--- the 'what is' is the observer: man. What becomes of that interaction between 'what is' and 'what observes' is the only wild card of the equation. This interaction may lead to enlightenment, or it may lead to delusion. This, among other aspects, is where the whole thing unravels and falls hopelessly out of step with anything resembling logic.

According to what bb has numerated herein, there is neither good nor bad enlightenment, only possible enlightenment or--- for lack of a better way of describing the nonsense--- 'not enlightenment.' What bb fails to take into consideration is that the 'what observes' can only graduate to enlightenment if 'what observes' reaches a certain (and unspecified) level of fill-in-the-blank. Since there exists neither good nor bad versions of the commodity, it is impossible to know if one has reached the targeted goal, or if 'what observes' is merely wallowing in that dreaded (is it dreaded?) no-man's land of delusion.

As enlightenment is nothing more than the result of the interaction between 'what is' and 'what observes,' nirvana appears to be up for grabs for any and all with any form of sensory perception.

Amusingly, bb suggests that such knowledge as he imparts (only the male of the species would be so conspicuously specious) is truly transcendent... in a 'what is' that lacks anything transcendent.

"I am wrong. Just ask me."
-Freaky

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While I no doubt think blackbeetle is grateful for your efforts, despite your succinct manner (and graciously gentle tone, might I add), I think you have him wrong. In his world, there exists no gray area regarding those things which "might exist," as it relates to what is. 'What is' is simply 'what is,' and is used as the default definition (or represen ...[text shortened]... ks anything transcendent.

"I am wrong. Just ask me."
-Freaky

I understand “enlightenment” as the rising of the intelligence of the individual on a higher level of understanding (thanks to her/ his concentration to specific points of attention), different than the one that comes out due to empiricism alone. The agent that enables the individual to focus on specific points of attention is a given theory of reality, so the process is deductive instead of inductive as I explained earlier at this thread. So enlightenment lacks of inherent existence because it is a product of the human mind.

If the individual is unable to link this new level of consciousness with her/ his earlier empiricism and her/ his earlier theories of reality, the momentary enlightenment/ understanding will remain just a flash, because the individual will lack of the intuition that will help her/ him to focus more on her/ his new point/s of attention and thus s/he will be unable to give shape to his thoughts, thus s/he will end up without ideas.
So enlightenment stands above dualism and it is neither good nor bad. It occurs or it occurs not, and we recognize it out of its products: the solid theories of reality are a product of enlightenment whilst the false ones are a product of delusion. And we are testing our theories of reality using science, philosophy and the evaluation of the mind.

Then you wrote:
-- “As enlightenment is nothing more than the result of the interaction between 'what is' and 'what observes,' nirvana appears to be up for grabs for any and all with any form of sensory perception.”
But this is false. Enlightenment is the result of the interaction between “what is’ and “what observes” that transcends dualism, therefore enlightenment is a mental condition that enables the individual to know her/ himself and to rise above greed, rage and delusion. Nirvana is a mind-only status empty of thoughts that stands above Karma (cause-effect)
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
Just thinking “out loud” here—


It strikes me that blackbeetle and Freaky are using the notion of “inherent being”—and “existence”—in different senses. I think blackbeetle means an actual referent in the physical world, as opposed to a thought/concept produced by the mind.


I have a thought/concept; I give that thought/concept a linguistic [b]sign[ ...[text shortened]... _________________________________


“I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.”


—Mr. Monk

Oh vistesd, this miserable atheist black beetle talks about sunyata with our hardcore Protestant Freaky, oh the horror😵

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While I no doubt think blackbeetle is grateful for your efforts, despite your succinct manner (and graciously gentle tone, might I add), I think you have him wrong. In his world, there exists no gray area regarding those things which "might exist," as it relates to what is. 'What is' is simply 'what is,' and is used as the default definition (or represen ...[text shortened]... ks anything transcendent.

"I am wrong. Just ask me."
-Freaky

'What observes'--- or is impacted by--- the 'what is' is the observer: man. What becomes of that interaction between 'what is' and 'what observes' is the only wild card of the equation.


Well put. But what a wonderful wild card that is! I’ll offer some (complicating) expansions:


—There is always the self-referential problem in that “what observes” is also part of “what is”; and how I observe is informed by the “what it” itself (though I don’t think that needs to trouble us here).


—What we might call meaning comes out of that interaction, which means that it is not simply given by the “what is”.* This idea is captured both in the Buddhist notion of “mutually arising”; and in the rabbinical dictum that one must bring one’s own torah to the (written) torah, and it is from that interaction that real torah comes forth.


—Aside from the particulars of our generally shared human observational apparatus (our neuro-biology and functioning of our consciousness), and perhaps cultural conditioning, each individual observer is perspectivally limited (I don’t just mean that in a physical sense). None of us has a view from elsewhere, let alone a view from nowhere.


That is why Jewish torah study, for example—on the one hand—is conducted dialogically (where each person is confronted with the other person’s perspective), and—on the other hand—affirms the individual’s personal (imaginative and creative) interpretation. That is why Judaism generally eschews what Marc-Alain Ouaknin calls “the idolatry of the one right meaning” (Ouaknin, The Burnt Book: Studying the Talmud). [There are, of course, exceptions: there are dogmatic Jews.] The Talmud is really a compendium of different rabbinical viewpoints, as a source for further expansion.


I really dislike that word “enlightenment”, though it seems impossible to get away from it—at least in the literature that I read, and so I might as well quit trying to lobby substitutes for it. Different groups understand it differently, and it is important to try to understand how each is using it. It likely means something different to a Zen roshi than to (most) rabbis, for example. To the Zennist, it entails pre-conceptual observation (which is what most meditation aims at), and words-concepts can only point toward it, never express it. Many kabbalistic rabbis might agree, but they are nevertheless a wordier bunch (like me! 😉 ). Zennists speak in poetry and paradox; the kabbalists speak in highly stylized symbols (and poetry).


So, we have observer-interaction-observed (“what is” ) all as one inseparable ball of yarn. What is is what is but—what is it? My mind concludes to a gestaltic non-dualism (as variously expressed in Zen, Taoism and the very broad stream of Jewish kabbalah). Your mind concludes to a creator-created dualism. The wild card of the interaction! But those conclusions set the paradigm for further intellectual (and spiritual) interactions with the “what is”. (Blackbeetle, too, is a non-dualist.) Dualism versus non-dualism may be the great paradigmatic divide in religious philosophy.


My approach becomes more and more free-wheeling (and playful)—with occasional relapses, which cause me to retreat and regroup.


"I am wrong. Just ask me."
-Freaky


LOL! Good one! 🙂


_________________________________________


* How that relates to “truth” depends on which understanding of that word one is using, as I alluded to.

Originally posted by black beetle
I understand “enlightenment” as the rising of the intelligence of the individual on a higher level of understanding (thanks to her/ his concentration to specific points of attention), different than the one that comes out due to empiricism alone. The agent that enables the individual to focus on specific points of attention is a given theory of reality, ...[text shortened]... . Nirvana is a mind-only status empty of thoughts that stands above Karma (cause-effect)
😵

…the interaction between “what is’ and “what observes” that transcends dualism…


Well, you said that with a lot fewer words than I just did. I think that the nature of the interaction is what challenges simple dualism. Meaning derives neither from the “what is” or the “what observes”, but from the interaction itself—or from the tri-fold conjunction.


More and more I think that that is what midrash is about: not just midrash vis-à-vis the written torah, but vis-à-vis the torah of life. (Especially, but not limited to, kabbalah midrash.) Midrash may be a strategy for us wordier folks: wordier but still koanic, especially as one works down through PARDEs.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]…the interaction between “what is’ and “what observes” that transcends dualism…


Well, you said that with a lot fewer words than I just did. I think that the nature of the interaction is what challenges simple dualism. Meaning derives neither from the “what is” or the “what observes”, but from the interaction itself—or from the tri-fold conjunct ...[text shortened]... gy for us wordier folks: wordier but still koanic, especially as one works down through PARDEs.[/b]

I bow🙂

And the nature of the interaction (non conceptual and conceptual awareness during our surfing in Karma) is mind-only/ relative and it lacks of inherent being, therefore it 's empty



Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I bow🙂

And the nature of the interaction (non conceptual and conceptual awareness during our surfing in Karma) is mind-only/ relative and it lacks of inherent being, therefore it 's empty



Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy😵

Empty in the sense that Ein Sof is empty…? Or empty in the sense that a process is not a “thing”…? Or empty in the sense that the concept is not the thing (as the sign is not the referent)…? Or all three? (I suspect all three.)


I can only grapple with “inherent being” in terms of my gestaltic non-dualism. The implicate ground (ein sof) is “empty” because it is not another expressed form; the forms are “empty” in the sense that they are not separable from the whole (and are transient). (The gulfstream has no existence separate from the ocean.) The ground is creatively expressive, but cannot itself be said to be an expression of itself.


Ein sof is not an expression/manifestation itself (or of itself), but is expressive via the sephirot down through the four worlds.


There is no such “thing” as nothing (absolute nihil). And it makes no sense to talk about nothing as if it were a weird kind of “something”. Neither things nor thoughts have inherent being: inherent being (which is synonymous with the ground) is expressed in form, and no other way. Some kabbalists seem to speculate about ein sof prior to expression/creation, but there is really no way to meaningfully do that. Hochmah (if I remember rightly) is called “beginning” because prior to that nothing can be known, that’s all—it is the “singularity” of kabbalah (at least of the Zohar). Ein sof, as the implicate ground, cannot be explored or even really defined (which is why it is called ein sof).

____________________________________________


“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name ‘God’—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, would engender heresy. ...


“The greatest impediment to the human spirit results from the fact that the conception of God is fixed in a particular form, due to childish habit and imagination. This is a spark of the defect of idolatry, of which we must always be aware. ...


“The infinite transcends every particular content of faith.”


—Rav Abraham Isaac Kook, quoted in Daniel Matt The Essential Kabbalah (it’s from Kook’s Orot haKodesh).


I bow. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Empty in the sense that Ein Sof is empty…? Or empty in the sense that a process is not a “thing”…? Or empty in the sense that the concept is not the thing (as the sign is not the referent)…? Or all three? (I suspect all three.)


I can only grapple with “inherent being” in terms of my gestaltic non-dualism. The implicate ground (ein sof) is “empty” ...[text shortened]... niel Matt The Essential Kabbalah (it’s from Kook’s Orot haKodesh).


I bow. 🙂

Empty,
in the sense that the observer universe is manifested out of a dynamic field of potentialities that exists without being manifested in the physical world. This existent mind-only and never manifested in the physical world field is not the opposite of the manifestation of the physical world as, say, knightmeister offered it at his OP at the thread “the non beginning and the end”. On the contrary, his “Everything” and his “Nothing” lack of inherent being because they are existent solely thanks to this primal mind-only field of potentialities.
So methinks yes, we cannot argue that this field is “caused” or that it is “nothing” or that it is “created”. We cannot go beyond this Vast Emptiness;
Nothing Holy😵


Furthermore, the rabbis had in mind Jacob’s Otz Cheim as an 1:1 mind-only symbol of Kosmos and so they see I Am as the primal source of Kosmos, however they could not see where from the mind-only field out of which I Am came into being arose -and they could not understand the nature of the mind-only field out of which Ein came into being; new paths are now visible
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
Empty in the sense that Ein Sof is empty…? Or empty in the sense that a process is not a “thing”…? Or empty in the sense that the concept is not the thing (as the sign is not the referent)…? Or all three? (I suspect all three.)


I can only grapple with “inherent being” in terms of my gestaltic non-dualism. The implicate ground (ein sof) is “empty” ...[text shortened]... niel Matt The Essential Kabbalah (it’s from Kook’s Orot haKodesh).


I bow. 🙂

Sunyata, my friend; all three😵

Originally posted by black beetle

Furthermore, the rabbis had in mind Jacob’s Otz Cheim as an 1:1 mind-only symbol of Kosmos and so they see I Am as the primal source of Kosmos, however they could not see where from the mind-only field out of which I Am came into being arose -and they could not understand the nature of the mind-only field out of which Ein came into being; new paths are now visible
😵

Have those paths acquired labels?

Originally posted by vistesd
Just thinking “out loud” here—

Seek and find; the Way that finds Itself?

I would like to read any stories you think might go with this thread.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Have those paths acquired labels?

It's only Us
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
It's only Us
😵

What's the difference between Us & those rabbis?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What's the difference between Us & those rabbis?

Thanks to our science and our philosophy of our era we are able to understand Ein/ Ein Sof/ Ein Sof Haur as the mind-only field of potentialities that is "unknown" to the observer universe due to the lack of its manifestation to the physical world. Now, since this element of reality is indefinite for any observer, it can take any possible value which is coherent with the known elements of reality -and here you are: quantum superposition🙂

So methinks the difference between Us and those rabbis is that We know what "quantum superposition" is, whilst they were unable to give this specific shape to their thoughts altough their intuition stroke nine😵