Deibert,
I have included a quote from your earlier post, one that I meant to include in my previous response:
Diebert: The idea has been posed that "in the beginning was the Word" or Logos. Which would work with the realization that within words self-consciousness as well as object-consciousness arises. The fundamental dialog "Ich und Du" like Martin Buber posited.
Yes, and as I see it, self consciousness is the stopping to consider how other people will judge one's words and deeds whereas object-consciousness is absent of this shadow consideration. One could call self-consciousness "impure" or inauthentic thinking and object-consciousness "pure" or authentic thinking. Also, lack of integrity and integrity come to mind.
movingalways wrote:
but these things of the nature of reality don't really arise, do they? The sense of arising is a trick of the mind is it not, perhaps as a result of belief in a fixed/objective foundation of conscious intent emanating its conscious intent as things?
That question would make more sense if you could give an example or "really arising". Any arising would still be a sense or some effect ("trick") of mind. No matter if it's the sense of table and spoon or higher self, inner guide, permeating forces, absolutes and so on.
I wasn't suggesting that things "really arise", just the opposite. I was questioning your use of the word "arising" in your previous post, making the same point you are making, that any sense of arising (as if moving upward) from the subconscious (your dreaming state?) to the conscious (your waking state?) is a trick of the mind. I sometimes refer to these two aspects of nondual mind or awareness as the concealed (the supernatural referred to in another thread) and the revealed, aspects that don't, as you suggest, exclude any object as being absolute to the thinker.
Since everything can be said to be "trick of mind" in the broadest sense, the question still remains then what is true and what is lie. Saying everything is ultimately "real" is just as simultaneously true and false as the idea that everything is ultimately illusion. In practical terms we keep on distinguishing, applying some gradation of reality or truthfulness. Even the body with all its reflexes and instincts reacts differently to perceived "actual" threats and what just "seems" -- they are ingrained patterns and not precise at all. But our daily life is filled with such determinations: what is real, what is more meaningful to us: what is being prioritized, what is important?
At some point, at least for me, there was a dropping of dividing my consciousness into real and illusory, spirit and matter, Atman and Brahman, Father and Son, etc.,, although I acknowledge that the dividing into two seems to be a step taken by most, if not all who begin the quest to find the truth of their existence. A dropping of dividing which leaves one "simply" with the appearance and disappearance of questions, answers, realizations, insights, etc., the Logos of "the moment."
To address this in philosophical terms, the notion of meaning could be seen as state of interconnection. The more connected, the more as "real" it appears. And philosophically, the most real must be the most connected, seeing how the "real" would mean basically totality. Which means a philosophical truth which can be applied universally to all experiences could be called "the most real" as far as words or ideas could be said to be real. But since reality could be said to be a function of connection and words and ideas arise out of the connections with the larger world, they would have definitely the ability to be more or less real or truthful. Like everything else. And really, all we do is making these determinations which guide our actions. The states of connection and alienation, of truth and falsehood, reality and simulation.
Like attracts like, each after it own kind, etc., a truth that applies to relationship with "other", especially "other" thinking beings, which for the most part (at least this is my experience) is a connection that must be weighted heavily with the solitary experience. Too much "other" and one's integrity of Word becomes lost. This is the point I was trying to make with Alex in his thread entitled "Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence": I don't see how the authentic, integral solitary experience can be (or should be) "harnessed or encapsulated" for the sake of guiding/managing the masses that value self consciousness over object consciousness, which is what he seemed to be suggesting was not only possible, but desirable. So much wisdom in old sayings, in this case the one that comes to mind is "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
I found this Martin Buber quote which seems to fit nicely here: “When two people relate to each other authentically and humanly, God is the electricity that surges between them.”
― Martin Buber