Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOh it sems we are very close now!
I think I might be getting closer to understanding what you're saying. I'll take a stab at expressing it in my own words.
Truths are packets of information that are known to a given individual. Reality is a construct of those packets of information. Under such a conceptual model it seems that both truths and reality are dependent on the individual and thus relative.
Is that the gist of it?
The information is identified with an element of reality, thus the Human becomes an observer just like the universe is an observer itself -he becomes a system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality, and then he proceeds formulting his own elements of reality within his world.
"Truth" as KellyJay poses it, it is just a package of observers known previously to the Human😵
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleHere and elsewhere you seem to be referring to a reality outside of a given observer's reality. What is this external reality?
Oh it sems we are very close now!
The information is identified with an element of reality, thus the Human becomes an observer just like the universe is an observer itself -he becomes a system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality, and then he proceeds formulting his own elements of reality within his world.
"Truth" as KellyJay poses it, it is just a package of observers known previously to the Human😵
Here's another place where you seem to be doing this:
"Of course, our reality consists solely of the elements of the reality that we are aware of, thus everything that is not a known element of reality is undefined."
Originally posted by black beetle[/b]"Truth" as KellyJay poses it, it is just a package of observers known previously to the Human😵[/b]
Oh it sems we are very close now!
The information is identified with an element of reality, thus the Human becomes an observer just like the universe is an observer itself -he becomes a system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality, and then he proceeds formulting his own elements of reality within his world.
"Truth" as KellyJay poses it, it is just a package of observers known previously to the Human😵
Not so, truth is there regardless of how human's package it, it does
not depend upon humans, and many times not even when humans
are involved they still miss the mark.
Kelly
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI do not, even when I am talking elsewhere about sunyata/ emptiness/ Void;
Here and elsewhere you seem to be referring to a reality outside of a given observer's reality. What is this external reality?
Here's another place where you seem to be doing this:
"Of course, our reality consists solely of the elements of the reality that we are aware of, thus everything that is not a known element of reality is undefined."
I conceive the process of reality as a sensitive and responsive experiential field, at which we are immersed and we have our being. "Truth" has nothing to do with that process of reality -we use this produt of ours as an interface in order to evaluate our personal Knowledge/ Ignorance process😵
Originally posted by black beetleThen you attribute to the definition "reality" the essense of the meaning of the definition "truth".
I do not, even when I am talking elsewhere about sunyata/ emptiness/ Void;
I conceive the process of reality as a sensitive and responsive experiential field, at which we are immersed and we have our being. "Truth" has nothing to do with that process of reality -we use this produt of ours as an interface in order to evaluate our personal Knowledge/ Ignorance process😵
Also, in order to get through with this extremely interesting conversation, let me know KellyJay about a certain "truth" which is not a result of your cognitive-awareness or a result of your non-conceptual awareness🙂
4 edits
Originally posted by black beetleOkay. Some of your phrasing would seem to indicate otherwise, so I'll have to conclude that my understanding of your conceptual model is incomplete.
I do not, even when I am talking elsewhere about sunyata/ emptiness/ Void;
I conceive the process of reality as a sensitive and responsive experiential field, at which we are immersed and we have our being. "Truth" has nothing to do with that process of reality -we use this produt of ours as an interface in order to evaluate our personal Knowledge/ Ignorance process😵
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.
Can you explain how it fits in your conceptual model? One thing that I'm having difficulty is the following: Is there even such a thing as a "shared" environment? Or can this scenario only be seen from a single observer's viewpoint with the other "observer" merely being an object?
Edit: Also you spoke of evaluating "our personal Knowledge/ Ignorance process". If "truth" is relative to a single observer, of what is there to be knowledge of? It seems that everything in a single observer's reality would be true.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhatever you stated is accurate, however it remains a result of your (and of mine too) thinking process -a process at the level of body/ speech/ mind. But this exact state of being, which is also determind by the mind, is similar to the value of the "bit" (for example, I could say that "zero" is our conceptual awareness within our dualistic world and "one" the level of our non-conceptual awareness beyond the status of our thinking process within our dualistic world). In the fiel of the Mind-Only philosophy this "bit" is discribed as "the mind that exists and that does not exist".
Okay. Some of your phrasing would seem to indicate otherwise, so I'll have to conclude that my understanding of your conceptual model is incomplete.
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 ...[text shortened]... eems that everything in a single observer's reality would be true.
The situation "zero" is potentially real, and the situation "one" is potentially real too. But the situation "zero" is understood by means of our 6 senses and it is in relation with our dualistic world, whilst the situation "one" stands beyond the experienced existence within the previous fundamental field of reality and is related to the dynamic field that triggers the appearances of our dualistic world. (By the way, this is the reason why the dualistic world is mentioned as "The Floating World" by the Mind-Only philosophers). In the latter case, the value of the "bit" is not "0 and 1" or "0 or 1" but "0/1", thus it remains at an indefinite state. This exact kind of existence, today known as "quantum superposition", is discribed by Buddhist philosophy as "Middle Way".
Of course the Bhuddhas were not talking about quantum superpositions like I just did, however they were clear enough to bring up statements like the following, which was quoted by Bhoddhidharma (my translation):
-- "If you use your mind to study the reality, you will understand neither the reality nor the nature of your mind. If you study the reality without using your mind, you will understand both. The ones who they do not understand, they do not understand understanding. And the ones that they do understand, they understand no-understanding. The ones who are capable for the Clear Vision, they know that the nature of the mind is the Void. The absense of both conditions (understanding and no-understanding) is pure understanding."
Therefore, in my opinion the reality within our dualistic world is a chain of psychophysical events, and, in that plexus, our dualistic "truth" is merely a product of a certain psychological aspect in association with a certain physiological aspect. However these events are linked by means of a field of non manifested potentialities, just like as I explained here earlier when I offered my example about chess. Therefore, in my opinion there is no such a thing as the essense of a specific standing alone "truth" as is😵
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFurthermore, I was talking about "observers" (physical systems capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality) and I had in mind creatures like a galaxy, a packet of photons, the whole universe, and also a photographic plate, a horse, a tree, an ant, a cloud etc. And I said that, under specific conditions, a human being could act actually just like the "observer universe" ;
Okay. Some of your phrasing would seem to indicate otherwise, so I'll have to conclude that my understanding of your conceptual model is incomplete.
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 ...[text shortened]... eems that everything in a single observer's reality would be true.
Each observer has a different way to memorize and process information, and this specific way is related to the nature of the observer. At a given time we humans we could come up with a seemingly upper-bound limit to the computational power and memory of an observer, and I understand this evaluated by ourselves sum as "our Knowledge regarding the nature of the observer". This is my idea regarding our personal Knowledge/ Ignorance process.
Until today we have not come up with the actual upper-bound limit of our packets of Knowledge; all we do is to try to decipher and to conceive the proper reality of each observer that we observe, which is constucted by the elements of the reality that the observer "knows". Therefore, the unknown to us elements of reality of every given observer undefined they remain.
It seems to me that the elements of reality are the sole entities upon which our sciences can be based due to the fact that they are the only constituve elements of reality. Thus, I claim that the being of any existence is impossible without "knowledge" either we are aware of it or not by means of our Knowledge; and this "knowledge" (Mind-Only!) is exactly the "stuff" (sunyata/ emptiness/ Void) from which all beings are made off, the human beings included😵
Originally posted by KellyJayOnce more you discribe an epiontic process of experiential reality😵
I like C.S. Lewis when he speaks about people arguing, the fact that
they both debate the 'truth' of anything show us we are all not only
aware there is a 'truth' but that we also know the other guys is aware
of it too. We do not debate dogs when they want to bite us, we do not
debate weeds to tell them to get out of our yards, we do debate
people, bec ...[text shortened]... ade to what we all believe are common ground
beliefs about truth, justice and mercy.
Kelly
Originally posted by karoly aczelEnjoy your trip within the Floating World along with your Lady whilst entertaining her to the hilt -if this very minute of hers is superb and every next second of her life is unique, each one of her Past will succumb to the power of her each very Now. Then each Present will be a present to her😵
"He" made the devil too. Potentially disturbing line of inquiry this is.(How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?)
btw good stuff blackbeetle😵😵