Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, it's kinda like this. You keep asking me to say something "meaningful". So far as I'm concerned I AM saying something "meaningful", but evidently not to you. I asked you to help me understand what you'd find "meaningful", but you just keep asking me to say something "meaningful". I asked you to provide your conceptual model hoping that I'd be able to glean what you find "meaningful" from that. Now you're pleading with me to tell you where I'm "coming from". Would it really kill you to get more specific?
I'm asking you, with tears in my eyes, to tell me where you're coming from.
You can even take what I said to BB and ask specific questions about that which you need answered to have something "meaningful":
"Maybe it'll help to make things a bit more concrete. Let's look at a simple scenario. I'll explain how it fits in my conceptual model and then you can explain how it fits in yours.
Let's say we have two observers in an environment. I see "reality" as a completely accurate conception of that environment if not the environment itself. What is "true" is that which coheres with this completely accurate conception. A "truth" is simply that which is "true." Each observer builds a conception of this reality. The elements of a given observer's conception that are not accurate are not "true" and therefore not "truth". Where a given observer's conception is not accurate, it is illusion / delusion."
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneEvaluating whether these observers' perceptions are true or not requires a third observer outside this framework. This observer's evaluation will need to evaluated in turn, and so on, ad infinitum. Basically, there has to be a guarantor of the 'completely accurate conception' of the environment.
Let's say we have two observers in an environment. I see "reality" as a completely accurate conception of that environment if not the environment itself. What is "true" is that which coheres with this completely accurate conception. A "truth" is simply that which is "true." Each observer builds a conception of this reality. The elements of a given observe Where a given observer's conception is not accurate, it is illusion / delusion."
How does this relate to the 'ultimate truth' you were talking about?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not sure why you believe that "there has to be a guarantor of the 'completely accurate conception' of the environment." I take "guarantor" here to mean some sort of infallible evaluator available to the observer. The "environment" is whatever it IS. "Reality" is whatever it IS. Where a given observer's conception is not accurate, it is illusion / delusion.
Evaluating whether these observers' perceptions are true or not requires a third observer outside this framework. This observer's evaluation will need to evaluated in turn, and so on, ad infinitum. Basically, there has to be a guarantor of the 'completely accurate conception' of the environment.
How does this relate to the 'ultimate truth' you were talking about?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhen I told you that "you are accurate" my intention was to show you that I accept that your keyboard is real, your house and your car are real etc. But they are not real in a status separated from everything else, they do not stand as independent objective “truth/ reality” by means of intrinsic, independent existence. All things and events occuring within the Worlds 1, 2 and 3 are devoid of objective/ independent existence.
I was hoping to get a better understanding of your conceptual model by giving a simple scenario: "Let's say we have two observers in an environment." I tried to explain how the scenario fit in my conceptual model and asked that you do the same. I defined "reality" in relationship to the "environment", "truth" in relationship to that
"reality", the "obse ...[text shortened]... o asked several questions that you seem to have completely ignored.
Furthermore, since you are able to define "truth" solely in relation with something else, as you just admitted once more, then it is clear that truth itself has to be "empty" as I claimed earlier and thus there is not such a thing as “absolute truth”; and I explained this approach of mine in detail. How could I be more specific?
In my opinion "meaningful" is every kind of element of reality of any kind of observers as I defined both, for this stuff is then able to trigger our process within the Worlds 1, 2 and 3 -and this is the basis of our miscellaneous philosophic systems, and of course the basis of the mundane reality which in your opinion is the basis for the “truth” as you pose it (but again, this means that “truth” is “empty”!). Then we move on based on the falsification/ evaluation of our "soon to become" Knowledge based on our interpretation of the "knowledge" od the observers tht we keep under observation, thus we proceed with the process of our comprehension at a specific field of observation by means of scientific facts and evidence (by evaluating elements of reality).
Well, I explained previously why this comprehension of ours is falsely equated with “absolute truth”. All in all, there is nothing which it exists as it appears to our mundane perception -in other words, there is nothing that has inherent existence, “truth” included😵
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOn the other hand ToO, every conception of ours regarding any observer is related to our ability to trace all the information he has labeled as "past", which is a reprocessing of the information available in the present (here and now). But, since we are not able to retrieve all the elements of reality that they belong to the past, all the unknown elements of the past are indefinite. And this means that, since there is no such a thing as a "solely one past", there is solely a set of equivalent pasts which they are compatible with the current elements of reality.
Well, it's kinda like this. You keep asking me to say something "meaningful". So far as I'm concerned I AM saying something "meaningful", but evidently not to you. I asked you to help me understand what you'd find "meaningful", but you just keep asking me to say something "meaningful". I asked you to provide your conceptual model hoping that I'd be able t ...[text shortened]... conception is not accurate, it is illusion / delusion."
Therefore, according to Young's experiment (quantum eraser), the past is indefinite and shifting and it exists solely depending on the Knowledge we have currently about it. And, since our Knowledge is partial and due to this fact our "truth" is solely relative, then our "truth" cannot be "absolute" -and therefore "truth" is "empty" 😵
1 edit
There is nothing within the totality that is immutable and non-transient. There is no perspective from within the totality that is not—well, perspectival (since this is a thread that invokes the ghost of Nietzsche); there is not, within the totality, a privileged single perspective. The attempt to assert such a perspective that is privileged and immutable is dogmatism.*
None of us has a view from “outside” the totality. There is no “outside” the totality. The totality (by definition) has no “edge”, no boundary.
The totality includes us and our diverse perspectives.
As the Sufi Junayd said: The shape and color of the water reflect the nature of the receptacle, not the water itself. The Sufi master Ibn Arabi expands on this when he says that any revelatory vision “occurs only in a form conforming to the essential predisposition of the recipient of such a revelation. Thus, the recipient sees nothing other than his own form in the mirror of the Reality. He does not see the Reality Itself, which is not possible…”. (Quoted in Reza Shah-Kazemi, Paths to Transcendance: According to Shankara, Ibn Arabi, and Meister Eckhart.)
When we say Allah or God or Brahman or Ein Sof or Tao, we are referring to the “implicate expressive ground” from which, in which and of which the various figures/forms are generated (well, at least that’s what us non-dualists are referring to). We never “see” the ground: it is implicate.
I dismiss none of the religio-aesthetic expressions of that—as expressions. What I dismiss is the presumption that any of them are immutable and privileged perspectives (as above).
________________________________________________________
* Of course, one might level that same charge at me here: If one says that perspectival dogmatism is an error, is that itself a “dogmatic” statement? Semantically, perhaps. Semantics is important; but I think that, in this case, an argument from semantics might miss the point.
Originally posted by vistesdRegarding your asterisk, it's enough to realise that a notion is just a notion; methinks one is free to choose the modification of one's mind😵
There is nothing within the totality that is immutable and non-transient. There is no perspective from within the totality that is not—well, perspectival (since this is a thread that invokes the ghost of Nietzsche); there is not, within the totality, a privileged single perspective. The attempt to assert such a perspective that is pri ...[text shortened]... is important; but I think that, in this case, an argument from semantics might miss the point.
I should perhaps modify my post a bit: realization of the “implicate expressive ground”—and the figure/ground totality—whilst it does not give one a “view from nowhere”, does free one from the tyranny of dogmatic perspectivism.
We are not only in that ground—as transient, mutable manifestations, inseparable from the ground itself—we are from and of that ground, however we conceive of it.
That is what the Advaita Vedantists mean when they say: Tat tvam asi! That is the realization from which the Sufi Al-Hallaj was coming from when he cried: “Ana al-Haqq!” (“I am the Truth” )—for which he was, like another well-known personage, killed.
As my dear friend black beetle just reminded me: “It is just Us!”
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWithout some authority to refer to or defer to, how can you determine that your view of what-there-is is correct? (The yin-yang symbol is a charm that can neutralise this sort of question).
I'm not sure why you believe that "there has to be a guarantor of the 'completely accurate conception' of the environment." I take "guarantor" here to mean some sort of infallible evaluator available to the observer. The "environment" is whatever it IS. "Reality" is whatever it IS. Where a given observer's conception is not accurate, it is illusion / delusion.
As it happens, I'm quite happy to admit that 'reality' is 'everything-at-once'. Why speak of an 'ultimate' reality, though? If reality is simply what-there-is, why not leave it at that? The 'ultimate' evokes a sense of a Platonic something 'beyond the veil' inaccessible to the senses. Unfortunately we can't speak meaningfully (by 'meaningful' I simply mean 'not nonsense'😉 about what is not available to our senses.
Moses got a good answer from out of the fiery shrub.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAgreed.
Without some authority to refer to defer to, how can you determine that your view of what-there-is is correct?
As it happens, I'm quite happy to admit that 'reality' is 'everything-at-once'. Why speak of an 'ultimate' reality, though? If reality is simply what-there-is, why not leave it at that? The 'ultimate' evokes a sense of a Platonic something ...[text shortened]... available to our senses.
Moses got a good answer from out of the fiery shrub.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, not YinYang; the charm you refer to, my obnoxious brother, is Gankyil😵
Without some authority to refer to or defer to, how can you determine that your view of what-there-is is correct? (The yin-yang symbol is a charm that can neutralise this sort of question).
As it happens, I'm quite happy to admit that 'reality' is 'everything-at-once'. Why speak of an 'ultimate' reality, though? If reality is simply what-there-is, w ...[text shortened]... available to our senses.
Moses got a good answer from out of the fiery shrub.
Originally posted by black beetleHmmm. I missed his yin/yang edit.
No, not YinYang; the charm you refer to, my obnoxious brother, is Gankyil😵
But yin/yang is just the first formal (in the Aristotelian sense) expression of apparent dualism within the totality. Underneath that is just the—here comes my long-winded attempt at not using any standard terms from any extant system!—the inexpressible implicate expressive ground.
The Gankyil, to my mind, can express no more, really, than the triad of ground-power-manifestation. In a sense, it might capture better the “gestaltic” view that the totality includes both figure (manifestation) and ground, as well as generative power (energy), than does, perhaps, the tai chi (yin/yang symbol), in which it is the power (shakti) that is implicate.
But—unless I am missing something—it is really the ground that is implicate, so that the totality includes both explicit and implicate aspects: explicit are the forms (and their logos) and the force (power); implicate is the ground. The force and the logos seem to me to be clearly captured in the tai chi, as is the totality (the circle)—with the ground, as I say, implicate. What is the third swirl, then, in the gankyil? (I am not very familiar with Tibetan Buddhism.)
I had not seen the Gankyil till I just looked it up (well, I had seen it before somehwere, but not recognized it). So thanks for that.
This participant is tired and must go to bed. See ya’all tomorrow!
Originally posted by vistesdHa ha.
Okay, okay— I didn’t mean that as presumptuously as it may have sounded. (When was the last time you and I disagreed on this stuff? What year might that have been?)
I should have just said: “Really well-put.” 🙂
The last disagreement I recall was when I was trying to fit 'deconstruction' in a box marked 'aum'.