More nothing

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that space is infinite in all spacial directions?
As far as I know the big bang theory implies it is finite.

Yes. Finite. Of course. That's exactly what I'm saying. That nothing exist
beyond a certain point. Is border not the right word? I think it is. It is the
point where the universe (or universes) is currently at en end.

The theory of Big Bang as I understand it, is not concerned with what was
before it, or what comes beyond the borders of the known universe.
Pretty much anything is possible before the Big Bang, as there
should be a cause for the explosion. Even a God may have set the whole
thing off, since Big Bang isn't about what is surrounding our universe or
not. I'm saying that there was nothing before it. Of course, this is
incredibly unscientific since I can't possibly demonstrate even in
mathematics how that would be possible.

Now, this is the point where I have discussed it enough to realise it's
time to step back and think some more. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by boarders and boundaries. I personally see no problem with for example time being finite and having a beginning. However although you may see the beginning as a boundary that does not imply the existence of anything beyond said boundary.

[b]The problem with that word “nothing”—although I don’t think stocken is committing ...[text shortened]... thing as before time began so to talk about where time came from is nonsensical and meaningless.

[/b]I might be incorrect, but I take the “singularity” as that point prior to which we really can’t say anything, because all the rules (the “grammar” of the universe) break down.

Anyway, I might call the beginning an absolute bound/point, beyond which it makes no sense to talk about beyond which... The only problem with phrases like “boundary” or “border” here is that their conventional usage implies two “sides.”

My concern is partly with the language—that sometimes it allows us to think we’re making sense, like asking, “Where was everything before there was ‘where’ (space)?” or “What happened before ‘when’ (time)?” Or, “There is a being that exists beyond dimensionality.” Each of those is a grammatical sentence; the last one is a fairly common metaphysical assertion. Each one contains “trick words,” that can trick us into thinking we are asking/saying something sensible.

The problem, for me, with using the word “nothing” in stocken’s sense of—what? “absolute nihil”?— is that people begin to talk about it as if nothingness were “a queer kind of something” (the philosopher G.E. Moore’s phrase, I believe) that the cosmos was created “out of” (creatio ex nihilo) by a dimensionless personal being, and so on...

When we reach the point where our desire to speculate carries us beyond the capacity for our conceptual grammar/language to make sense, we need to simply—stop. Or turn to allusive poetry, art, etc., which we then ought to be careful not to take as being actually descriptive.

In terms of your alternatives, I am arguing the second one in both cases.

Originally posted by Starrman
Logically, if god existed he would be part of the universe, yes.

Agreed, with two side-points:

(1) A monist or pantheist might define “god” as the totality as such, and simply talk in terms of Tao or tathata (suchness), where these are catch-all terms to get at the overall coherence/harmony of it, without any supernatural implications. That is pretty much what the Advaita Vedantists, Taoists, Zen Buddhists have been doing for millennia—and so it’s just important to know what they mean if they, as they sometimes do, use the “G-word.”

(2) When monists use such language, they are aware (well, at least the wise ones are) that they are using language in an allusive or elicitive sense (i.e., to elicit in the listener/reader that same sense of harmony, wonder, to get the reader to stop “thinking about,” and simply experience the tathata, etc.), and not in any conventional descriptive sense—and they often make that point by use of paradox:

“The Tao that can be described is not the real Tao.”

Such language is more akin to music than to propositional statements (except as they challenge our very ability to make sensible propositional statements). If one is thinking about, or studying, the symphony rather than simply hearing it, one has what Buddhists call “divided mind.” It is quite valid to study the music, of course, and the component forms of the universe—but that is not the ultimate reason for listening to music; at least, I do not know why one would study music if they did not feel the aesthetic richness of just experiencing the music...and perhaps dancing...

Originally posted by vistesd
Agreed, with two side-points:

(1) A monist or pantheist might define “god” as the totality as such, and simply talk in terms of Tao or tathata (suchness), where these are catch-all terms to get at the overall coherence/harmony of it, without any supernatural implications. That is pretty much what the Advaita Vedantists, Taoists, Zen Buddhists have ...[text shortened]... they did not feel the aesthetic richness of just experiencing the music...and perhaps dancing...

I find the notion of your second point greatly interesting. Whilst I am not an absolute stranger to Buddhism, I find the idea that if you are thinking about something (take music) you are distracted from it in some way, sets off alarm bells in my head.

Not to say that I don't think it is true that if you are rationalising music you will fail to hear the emotion it conveys or somesuch, this is obvious. However, I think it alludes only to the fact that music has many layers, some of which need rationalising, others which require peace of mind and acceptance of unfettered experience. The way you explain it, it seems that the experience is more valuable than the reasons why it is valuable. Does that make sense?

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if not (and clearly we are from utterly different epistemic backgrounds), perhaps you'd take the time to explain why 'the Tao that is described is not the real Tao'. For me it is by the description that the 'Tao' is truly understood.

Originally posted by Starrman
I find the notion of your second point greatly interesting. Whilst I am not an absolute stranger to Buddhism, I find the idea that if you are thinking about something (take music) you are distracted from it in some way, sets off alarm bells in my head.

Not to say that I don't think it is true that if you are rationalising music you will fail to hear the is not the real Tao'. For me it is by the description that the 'Tao' is truly understood.

Your point about the “layers” is well-taken. And study itself can be aesthetically rewarding. I was perhaps being a bit too “cut and dried.”

For me, “the experience is more valuable than the reasons why it is valuable,” which is not to say that the reasons are non-valuable—it’s how I weight things; or, perhaps more accurately, it’s a matter of what takes precedence. I don’t have to sit down and work out reasonably why I find my wife beautiful in order to know that I, in fact, do—and to appreciate that beauty.

My point about “divided mind” is this: be aware where your focus is, that’s all. When listening to the music, you are either focused on understanding/explaining it, or just hearing/experiencing it—or your focus may be iterating between the two (with the occasional mental interruption of, “Did I remember to turn the faucet off?” and the like).

I do not listen to music in order to understand it; I am not a musician. Likely my appreciation would be enhanced if I were. Studying poetry has never diminished my enjoyment of it. On the other hand, I don’t have time to study everything that moves me aesthetically.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if not (and clearly we are from utterly different epistemic backgrounds), perhaps you'd take the time to explain why 'the Tao that is described is not the real Tao'. For me it is by the description that the 'Tao' is truly understood.

That’s a tough one. I agree that what we can understand is understood by description, and that such description ought to be pursued.

But I am not convinced that we are a “privileged” species, in the sense that we have the singular consciousness that can potentially know everything about the cosmos and our existence in it (we may be, of course). For one thing, the cosmos does not disclose understanding: what is disclosed are facts, relationships, patterns. Understanding is always interpretive. Our consciousness is inseparably entangled with the reality of which we are... We have no view from “nowhere” from which to observe the totality—nor even a view from elsewhere. That is, we will always and only apply the “grammar” of our particular consciousness—its “architecture” and how it functions—to arrive at understanding.

Have I mixed enough metaphors here? 😳

But, I think what Lao Tzu is really getting at is that there are likely aspects of the cosmos that transcend our conceptual “grammar,” even as we recognize the fundamental coherence of it. Tao is not a thing: Tao is the dynamic “way”—or logos or tathata or coherence/harmony—of the cosmos; or, as the old scoundrel acknowledges, it is just a word he has chosen to refer to that (and the word is not the thing). We can describe features of it—such as the grain of wood, the coherence that allows a forester to identify the type of tree, and the uniqueness that no two trees of the same type have exactly the same grain pattern. But when we are done with our descriptions, we have to be very cautious about further attempts at explanation—such as the notion of a first-cause or prime-mover that must be “external” to the cosmos...

One of the great metaphysical and religious errors is, I think, to mistake the map (our conceptual understanding) for the territory (the thing-in-itself reality). Our maps may capture much, but they are unlikely to ever be complete or completely accurate—who can hold in their mind the “all-of-all-of-it”? The only completely true map of the territory (even only as a descriptive map) would be the territory itself.

Originally posted by vistesd
Your point about the “layers” is well-taken. And study itself can be aesthetically rewarding. I was perhaps being a bit too “cut and dried.”

For me, “the experience is more valuable than the reasons why it is valuable,” which is not to say that the reasons are non-valuable—it’s how I weight things; or, perhaps more accurately, it’s a matter of what take ...[text shortened]... ake the map (our conceptual understanding) for the territory (the thing-in-itself reality).

Been reading up on the Hindu concept of Brahman, which is akin to the Tao (I think). In their conception, everything in the universe is merely an emanation of Brahman and Brahman itself can't really be described as it lacks attributes, the possession of which is necessary for us to describe things in the physical world (which is, of course, an illusion under this philosophy). There are two types of knowledge: one is the type of rational, logical thinking needed to understand the physical world of our everday existence and the other is the nonlogical (though not illogical) way of attempting to "understand" the deeper concept of Brahman.

Or perhaps I'm totally confused about Brahman; maybe Vistesd can bail me out or discuss the conceptual differences between the Tao and Brahman.

Originally posted by vistesd
Your point about the “layers” is well-taken. And study itself can be aesthetically rewarding. I was perhaps being a bit too “cut and dried.”

For me, “the experience is more valuable than the reasons why it is valuable,” which is not to say that the reasons are non-valuable—it’s how I weight things; or, perhaps more accurately, it’s a matter of what take ...[text shortened]... y true map of the territory (even only as a descriptive map) would be the territory itself.

I will get back to you later, ironically I have to go to my philosophy of language lecture and learn more of the grammar of conception 🙂

Originally posted by no1marauder
Been reading up on the Hindu concept of Brahman, which is akin to the Tao (I think). In their conception, everything in the universe is merely an emanation of Brahman and Brahman itself can't really be described as it lacks attributes, the possession of which is necessary for us to describe things in the physical world (which is, of course, an illusion u ...[text shortened]... e Vistesd can bail me out or discuss the conceptual differences between the Tao and Brahman.

Hi, No.1!

I don’t think you need bailed out. I have reached a point where I use Brahman and Tao pretty interchangeably—but that may be due to my own synthesis. I see Advaita Vedanta and Taoism and Zen as being differing attempts to talk about the ultimate non-duality. Sometimes I use the language of one, sometimes of another.

But even Vedantists may get into arguments about how to best express some understanding of Brahman, and what it means to call the phenomenal world “maya.” I’m going to take a stab here, but I think I would say that—instead of having no attributes—Brahman is manifest in phenomenal forms, that such manifestation is dynamic, and that the forms (such as myself) are transient. Therefore, Brahman is not separate—or separable—from the forms. Perhaps that is to say that “form-manifestation” is an attribute of Brahman.

Nevertheless, I think that the way you articulated it is probably closer to mainstream Vedanta. The difference may be that I see the transient forms as real, and illusion as mistaking the forms for the source, or the phenomena for the “thing-in-itself.” That view is represented in Hinduism (notably in Kashmiri Shaivism, which is a non-dualist system that simply calls Brahman “Shiva” ). But, again, the way you put it is I think more the majority view.

Originally posted by vistesd
Your point about the “layers” is well-taken. And study itself can be aesthetically rewarding. I was perhaps being a bit too “cut and dried.”

For me, “the experience is more valuable than the reasons why it is valuable,” which is not to say that the reasons are non-valuable—it’s how I weight things; or, perhaps more accurately, it’s a matter of what take ...[text shortened]... y true map of the territory (even only as a descriptive map) would be the territory itself.

I think the interesting point of your first section is 'Likely my appreciation would be enhanced if I were.'. Whilst I agree that there is a great level of appreciation that comes from just experiencing the beauty of something as it presents to you, it has been my experience thus far in life that by disecting that experience and attempting to understand the reasons for its beauty future experiences are enhanced. You can of course choose to do this or not upon experiencing the entity and often it is wonderful to forget about reasons and just let things wash over you, submersed in their essence. However I think there is a balance between unabridged sensation and investigation which yields much more pleasure.

Your second paragraph seems to allude to a spirituality which I lack, I think we are all individuals with individual consciousnesses that (within the extent of our mental capacity) can attempt to understand everything about our universe. I'm not sure whether by disclosure you mean an active process of the universe in an attempt to impart some sort of knowledge or not; if so I agree this does not happen. But the understanding, to my mind, comes as a natural result of investigation. Interpretive; yes, I'm a relativist an inductionist all experience is subjective and I perscribe to a holism that precludes certainty of knowledge. However with an individual view of the world a subjective certainty which is objectively agreed with by degrees amongst other individuals not only sits well with me, but I believe is the very gradient from which opinion, quality and aesthetic appreciation stem from.

I agree that our consciousness is inseperably entangled with the reality of which we are, the energy/matter fluctuations which underpin everything I believe we consist of demand that this be so. I also agree about the map and the territory of a thing, and again we have a balance issue; walking directionless in a land yields much expereince, but little focus or contextual enlightenment, whilst just staring at a map yields no expereince, but you at least know where you might stand.

I'm guessing that we hold different things to be important, I think I have an idea of your way of looking at the world, though I'd find it hard to put into clear words without doing you a disservice, and I have a more logically positivist view about what is important. However, I think if I really tried to pinpoint the essence of what I see as reality, existence, beauty etc. we would not hold vastly differing views at all. There are a lot of parallels, I believe in eternal energy fluctuations which permeate and consist in and of everything, whilst I hope I'm right in saying that you believe there is some underlying essence which also does. Though we have different classifications and extensions of ideas, perhaps we talk in some way of the same thing?

Originally posted by Starrman
Logically, if god existed he would be part of the universe, yes.

Perhaps to God our universe is but the size of an atom and we simply can't see past its shell. Creation seems to be consisted of worlds, within worlds, within worlds. Thinking of matter in this fasion gives a whole new meaning to the infinite, no?

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps to God our universe is but the size of an atom and we simply can't see past its shell. Creation seems to be consisted of worlds, within worlds, within worlds. Thinking of matter in this fasion gives a whole new meaning to the infinite, no?

No, my definition of 'universe' would encompass such a concept. I have to say though that I find such a concept to be metaphysical twaddle, the sort of thing stoned 15 year olds come up with.

Originally posted by vistesd
I might be incorrect, but I take the “singularity” as that point prior to which we really can’t say anything, because all the rules (the “grammar” of the universe) break down.

Anyway, I might call the beginning an absolute bound/point, beyond which it makes no sense to talk about beyond which... The only problem with phrases like “boundary” or “borde ...[text shortened]... tually descriptive.

In terms of your alternatives, I am arguing the second one in both cases.[/b]

Well, good point uh? What is this nothing that everything came out of, how is it described? Seems that is important, because how nothing is defined without a doubt always matters no matter how you view the beginning!

Does nothing always have to have something there? If it is the 'singularity' within the nothing, that means that we are truly not speaking of a compete lack of everything. The issues only arise when we try to twist language to acknowledge nothing but put something in there to make it work.

I submit that isn’t languages fault, it is simply trying to call a circle square and act as if it is believable with a strait face. So there really isn’t a lack of language, that isn’t the trouble, it is trying to accept what possibly cannot have happened, that there was a time where nothing was all there was! There are always sides to the point of reference in time, before, during, and after, so to describe an event as the beginning of all things from nothing is nonsensical, it is completely unavoidable for language to break down when trying to justify that belief. Again not languages fault, but the logic of it is the real issue.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But since you yourself admit that the question is meaningless, the answer you are trying to illicit is similarly meaningless.
As long as it is meaningless to ask what is before time, it is meaningless to talk of the cause of time.
If I say that time is uncaused what I mean is that it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time and not that time 'just happened' without a cause.

If I say that time is uncaused what I mean is that it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time and not that time 'just happened' without a cause.WHITEY

However , using just basic logic , you would be forced to say that time is either uncaused or caused. How can it be both? You seem to want to say that asking "what caused time?" is meaningless but pull back at the last minute from saying that time is an uncaused phenomenon.

To me the reason why asking "what caused time" is meaningful is because by answering it with the answer "nothing" would bring you to the conclusion that time is uncaused. You therefore find out something. I personally think that time was caused by something else uncaused , but this is beside the point. If time is uncaused then time began in and of itself independently

So do you think time is...

1) an uncaused phenomenon that is unreliant on anything else at all and is not determined by anything and is thus independent from causality?

or 2) a caused phenomenon that is caused by some other entity or force or scientific phenomenon etc ?

It's time to make your mind up. But faced with having to make a decision I won't be surprised if you come up with an illogical thrid option.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think the interesting point of your first section is [b]'Likely my appreciation would be enhanced if I were.'. Whilst I agree that there is a great level of appreciation that comes from just experiencing the beauty of something as it presents to you, it has been my experience thus far in life that by disecting that experience and attempting to underst ...[text shortened]... t classifications and extensions of ideas, perhaps we talk in some way of the same thing?[/b]

Though we have different classifications and extensions of ideas, perhaps we talk in some way of the same thing?

This seems likely to me, across the board. 🙂

Whilst I agree that there is a great level of appreciation that comes from just experiencing the beauty of something as it presents to you, it has been my experience thus far in life that by dissecting that experience and attempting to understand the reasons for its beauty future experiences are enhanced.

I don’t think we’re disagreeing at all, here—although some people have far more analytical minds than others. An artist, for example, may listen to a scholar or an art critic explaining why a certain painting “works,” and say, “Hmmm. You know, I never thought of that....” I read that one of the ways they test a claimed Jackson Pollock painting to see if its authentic or a forgery, is that Pollock actually painted fractals! I don’t think he knew that, it’s just how is mind and his vision worked.... This is not to say that an artist does not also know technique, of course; that’s not what I’m saying. It’s just that, while I know the difference between an iamb and a trochee and a dactyl and an anapest, in terms of poetic meter, it is not knowing them that “enthuses” me—it is hearing the poem.

I’m not expressing this well. Your point about balance is well-taken—we each, according to our tastes and dispositions balance things differently as we attempt to live a eudaimonic life. It also has to do, I think, with our individual talents. Music is the single most moving art-form for me, the one to which I seem most emotionally vulnerable. I think that may be partly due to the lack of symbols for my conceptual side to hook onto (I know this is not strictly accurate, but—metaphorically—it seems to affect my “right brain,” with little input from my “left brain.” ) Nevertheless, the area where I choose to express myself “artistically” is via language in poetry. Language is the area where I spend the most time dissecting and understanding.

walking directionless in a land yields much experience, but little focus or contextual enlightenment, whilst just staring at a map yields no experience, but you at least know where you might stand.

Doubtless; and yet the first maps are composed by those who first ventured into the territory mapless. For me, the point is to experience the territory in a manner unmediated by thoughts, concepts about it, preconceptions, etc. I certainly have used the maps others have made; but then I have to put the map down.

Over the course of my life, I have realized that I have acquired such an abundance of conceptual veils, through which I tend to view the world immediately before me ( and myself in it)—like looking through various colored glasses—that the discipline is to try to remove those lenses. Later, I may choose to look through whichever ones—or new ones—as I think they are helpful. Years of habituation, however, can lead one—me—to be unaware that I am looking through certain lenses, opinions, preconceptions.

For me, the “spiritual” quest is not to find the correct lens (e.g., the one true philosophy or religion), but to be able to dispense with them as I please, and wear various ones as I please.

whilst I hope I'm right in saying that you believe there is some underlying essence which also does.

I’m not sure that I do believe that. What I might call essence would likely be simply all the energy fluctuations, their interrelationships, their nature and the nature of the whole reality they comprise. (See my above response to No.1, where I tried to say how my view might be somewhat different from mainstream Advaita Vedanta.) Within the totality, the energy fluctuation, form, pattern that represents my existence is transient and will pass away—dispersed, as it were, into the totality from which and in which it arose, and of which it is. Perhaps all I might call essence is my consciousness (not separate from its neuro-physiological underpinnings: not a ghost in the machine); part of how that consciousness functions is what I call thinking-mind, another function (or complex of functions) I might call perceiving-mind, and so on. One can no more separate the functions from the consciousness that one can separate the gulfstream from the ocean, or vice versa. That is what I mean by non-duality. That essential consciousness is what the Buddhists call Buddha-nature.

Suddenly, I think you are right, and that our different ways of looking at experience versus thinking about experience—are really on different on the surface. Thinking, studying and exploring are part of the experience of life. There is really no real separation there either. It’s just a matter of being aware...

A student once complained to Shunryu Suzuki roshi that he couldn’t seem to stop his thinking mind during meditation. Suzuki responded: “So— Do you have a problem with thinking?” Nakagawa Soen roshi once said: “There really isn’t any such thing as ‘empty-mind.’ There is just present-mind.” (Those sayings are “maps.” )

Thanks for responding, Starrman. This has been a helpful discussion—as I keep working to try to clarify my own thinking, map-making. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you back up that statement?

yes