Re: Mad ravings on the implications of cause and effect
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:48 am
I see!Eric Schiedler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:56 am Avolith,
David offers many written points about undertaking the spiritial path. I do not want to contradict any at this time, per se, except to emphasize one point that is often overlooked.
In no way is the path to enlightenment and Truth an exercise in academic philosophy or mere intellectual inquiry. In principle these are fundamentally different although they utilize similar forms.
It is not entirely incorrect to speak of the All as comprising the non-dual in order to emphasize that no finite thing, by definition, contains everything. Yet a unity (as a substitution for the term "non-dual") is still a characteristic of a finite thing. For example, the unity of the United States of America is an explanation that the governments of the individual states are not sovereign. But contained within this idea - for the idea of unity to make sense - is the implication that the states within this legal unity could, in theory, be sovereign and separate from each other. It will not do at all to apply this line of reasoning to the All, for no "part" of the all could be separate and still remain the All. The All can not be a unity because in no way could it in "whole" or "part" ever have an observer identify it as a non-unity.
That makes sense... Very interesting. I didn't realize Weininger would be going this deep in a book called 'sex and character'. Are there more metaphysics in it?Eric Schiedler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:56 amIf you were without memory, you would have no conception of time nor be able to invent the idea of time. As an example, your parents would appear before you, and not only would you not be able to conceive that they were your parents, not to mention the inability to remember their names, you would not conceive of them aging "before your eyes." You would not remember them if they left or died. In other respects, you would merey have an instinct to welcome their presence or want to run away.Avolith wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:08 am How is time/memory the key by which A=A? Does A=A it require the comparison of an object with a memory to recognize a contrast? A bit below here you say that A and not A appear in consciousness in equal measure simultaneously, so according to your logic, this is not the case...
For further study I refer you to the following:
Otto Weininger
Sex and Character
1906 Translation from the Sixth German Edition
Chapter VI: Memory, Logic & Ethics
...A being whose memory is never sufficiently good as to make it psychologically possible to perceive identity through the lapse of time, so as to enable [the absolute Woman], for instance, to pursue a quantity through a long mathematical reckoning; such a creature in the extreme case would be unable to control her memory for even the moment of time required to say that A will still be A in the next moment, to pronounce judgment on the identity A = A, or on the opposite proposition that A is not equal to A, for that proposition also requires a continuous memory of A to make the comparison possible.
I have been making no mere joke, no facetious sophism or paradoxical proposition. I assert that the judgment of identity depends on conceptions, never on mere perceptions and complexes of perceptions, and the conceptions, as logical conceptions, are independent of time, retaining their constancy, whether I, as a psychological entity, think them constant or not. But man never has a conception in the purely logical form, for he is a psychological being, affected by the condition of sensations; he is able only to form a general idea (a typical, connotative, representative conception) out of his individual experiences by a reciprocal effacing of the differences and strengthening of the similarities, thus, however, very closely approximating to an abstract conception, and in a most wonderful fashion using it as such. He must also be able to preserve this idea which he thinks clear, although in reality it is confused, and it is memory alone that brings about the possibility of that. Were he deprived of memory he would lose the possibility of that. Were he deprived of memory he would lose the possibility of thinking logically, for this possibility is incarnated, so to speak, only in a psychological medium.
Memory, then, is a necessary part of the logical faculty. The propositions of logic are not conditioned by the existence of memory, but only the power to use them. The proposition A = A must have a psychological relation to time, otherwise it would be At1 = At2 . Of course this is not the case in pure logic, but man has no special faculty of pure logic, and must act as a psychological being. I have already shown that the continuous memory is the vanquisher of time, and, indeed, is necessary even for the idea of time to be formed. And so the continuous memory is the psychological expression of the logical proposition of identity. The absolute woman, in whom memory is absent, cannot take the proposition of identity, or its contradictory, or the exclusion of the alternative, as axiomatic.
It's a very interesting point about the conceptualization process and what it means (versus empirical observations). You explain the logical reasoning that not-A is implied with the experience of A. I keep trying to directly conceptualize this not-A, experiencing it, trying to understand it, but I can't. Does the implied not-A have any experiential quality that I'm not seeing, or is this logical truth simply describing the experience I am already having. I suppose it's the latterEric Schiedler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:56 amWhen an identity appears in consciousness, it's appearance can not be denied. Why is this so? Because it is a Logical truth that relies on A=A. For example, if you were to look up at the moon, the moon is a "that" - A=A. By extension, the rest of the universe that is not the moon is a "not-that" - not-A=not-A. These are inseparable outcomes of the conceptualizing process as in, they are never absent in an identity. Even the light that comes off of the moon in order that you can perceive it is part of the "not-that" because the moon is defined as the moon and not the moon and the light coming off the moon. If this were not the case, you would not be able to indentify the moon going through phases. These are not empirical observations. They are the conceptualizing process used to talk about seeing the moon. Because "that" implies "not that", the moon and what is not the moon are not inherently existent, as their dualistic quality depends upon each other.Avolith wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:08 am How is it that 'not that' appear in consciousness together with 'that'. If this is true, then the entirity of reality would be constantly in my consciousness. Another question. Is my experience, really, the entirity of reality, since nothing has an inherent existence outside of consciousness?
Then technically, I could say I desired the conceptualized state of not anticipating a terrible outcome, and now come into contact with a reality where I am anticipating a terrible outcome, and I'll suffer until i realize that my desire is fulfilled once it becomes clear it does not come to passEric Schiedler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:56 amIf you expect a terrible outcome and fear it and it does not come to pass, you might not suffer very much.
Yes, of course the point is to do it alive!Eric Schiedler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:56 amIn that case, physical death can also bring about the lack of desire to avoid suffering. But this outcome is not the cessation of suffering arising while alive.Avolith wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:11 am I'm wondering if 'actual experience' is really also a conceptualized experience of a different kind. This definition would imply that the desire not to suffer would create a positive feedback loop of more suffering, and the lack of desire to avoid suffering would ironically cease suffering.