With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed.

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
All we have is guesswork
Eric,
inference is guesswork.
we have deductive reasoning to resolve the situation.

in order to disclose true nature,
to prove no thing exists ultimately,
we have deductive reasoning.
If guesswork is being used or deductive reasoning is being used, the spirit of I AM, the absorbed knowledge/truth of one wisdom is not being expressed. Reality is all about knowing who or what one is, subject and object in union in the moment of its expression.

Can one be deductive reasoning? No. Can one be a logician of deduction? Yes. Can one be right thinking? No. Can one be an Arahant? Yes. It is only when one owns their wisdom [even when they understand is a borrowed owning, see the Buddha's parable of the raft] that transcendence beyond its limitations, transformation, can take place.

The breadcrumbs of Light:

1. I AM That

2. Awakening to a new reality.

3. Transcendence of the old reality.

4. I AM That
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Cathy Preston »

It is not new, this message of the MYSTIC, the I AM that, ever craving, without end, this insatiable need for union. With wistful heart they worship at the alter of two, playing over and over again in their minds the blissful moment of union. They go on missing that subject and object will never be united, because they can never be separated, like two sides to the same coin they are One.

Where is the birth of a man or woman who sees himself in all things and all things in himself?
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
All we have is guesswork
Eric,
inference is guesswork.
we have deductive reasoning to resolve the situation.

in order to disclose true nature,
to prove no thing exists ultimately,
we have deductive reasoning.
The choice to assume the validity of reason itself is guesswork.
As I've said before, I choose to assume the validity of reason and mathematics- which leads me to the conclusion that phenomenal reality is a projection of perspective and that an underlying undifferentiated reality contains all being- but the validity of reason itself cannot be confirmed except self-referentially.
It would be a powerful display of the legitimacy of philosophy if someone were to unambiguously prove logic valid without presuppositions.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

if you stub your toe and it hurts,
logic shows up.
if logic didn't show up you would keep stubbing your toe ad infinitum.
logic is what's so.
logic puts you in the driver seat.

inference is concerned with what could be.
deduction is concerned with what is.

'undifferentiated reality' could be.

this river of mental/emotional impressions appearing spontaneously is.
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

The river is an inference. The only certainty is the thought-moment. We infer that our memory corresponds to a past, but we can only know with certainty that we have that memory in the present. In order to operate, logic must utilize the presupposition of time outside the present.
Without time there is no change. Without change there is no logic.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Cathy Preston »

Eric Orwoll wrote:and that an underlying undifferentiated reality contains all being- but the validity of reason itself cannot be confirmed except self-referentially.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "undifferentiated reality." because this relies on being differentiated in some way, and I am not. It appears as if I am a body/mind but I am not I am the environment, and all the things that appear to not be me, these things are all me too. There is absolutely nothing to be "undifferentiated."
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by David Quinn »

movingalways wrote:David, after thinking a bit more on our discussions to date, I came up with a logical argument for further discourse if it is your wish:

One can logically deduce that there are an infinite number of worlds in the mind of God. One can also logically deduce that some of these worlds follow the principles of logic as does this now world of time and space, but one cannot logically deduce that all of these worlds follow the principles of logic as does this now world of time and space. Here, in our now world of time and space, 2 + 2 is always 4, the World Trade Center fell in September of 2001, not in any other month or any other year; however, in an immaterial world yet to be discovered by the man living in a material world, it is logical to deduce that these references of time and space do not apply.
You're already making logical deductions about these other worlds.

Anything that exists can be reasoned about.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by David Quinn »

Eric Orwoll wrote: It would be a powerful display of the legitimacy of philosophy if someone were to unambiguously prove logic valid without presuppositions.
I can do this. I don't have time to go into it right now, but I will be addressing this issue in detail in a upcoming blog on Genius Realms in a few weeks time. I'll keep you posted.
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

Cathy Preston wrote:
Eric Orwoll wrote:and that an underlying undifferentiated reality contains all being- but the validity of reason itself cannot be confirmed except self-referentially.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "undifferentiated reality." because this relies on being differentiated in some way, and I am not. It appears as if I am a body/mind but I am not I am the environment, and all the things that appear to not be me, these things are all me too. There is absolutely nothing to be "undifferentiated."
Because all location is necessarily relative, without a specific reference point there is no location.
This means that if a reality exists outside of your consciousness then it cannot be differentiated in space.

If your consciousness is all that exists then the external world doesn't exist and all being is one mental thing.

If there is an external world then it exist undifferentiated. From this I conclude that all being is one informational thing and consciousness itself is an illusion.


Does our consciousness exist or doesn't it? This is the question of solipsism.

It's nice to know that neither implies dualism.

It seems that you believe in consciousness, and I don't believe in consciousness.

The me-ification of the universe doesn't do much in the way of explaining what reality is. Saying "all that exists is me" merely changes the definition of me to "all that exists". The question of what being is, regardless of whether you call it "me" or "undifferentiated reality" is unresolved.

Neither viewpoint can be confirmed, that is the one true epistemological limit- you can never know if your experience is all there is.

I prefer my conceptualization because it is useful in explaining reality. I don't get any use out of conceptualizing the seemingly multiplicitous mental objects I perceive as being begotten from a single mental source.

By conceiving of the multiplicity of being (the differentiation of being) as an effect of perception we can describe how the universe operates.

Being is differentiated by the inaccessibility of some element from another. The fundamental binary; 1 when being is there from reference point A and 0 when it is not there from reference point A.
This fundamental interaction of being and nothing exists only relative to points of reference. The linking together not there with there creates information. There are infinite points of reference, ergo there is infinite information.

That there are infinite points of reference can be drawn from my fundamental premise; something exists outside of yourself.

A reality external to your self could exist one of three ways:
1. As a reality without reference points.
2. As a reality with all reference points.
3. As a reality with some reference points.

1 and 2 produce the same result.

1. An external reality without reference points must exist undifferentiated. Undifferentiated reality when it interacts with reference frame/perception/nothing reacts everywhere equally because all being is equally distant to the non-observer.
In this case the existence of a perception, your own, implies that perception exists and must interact with being everywhere, creating infinite information.

2. A reality with all reference points essentially describes the state of the infinite interaction of perception with being. Again creating infinite information.

2 is a way of stating 1 without providing an explanatory mechanism for the multiplicity of reference points.

3. Is epistemologically tenable but requires an almost supernatural believe in reference points as a finite pantheon of Gods which produce reality.

I choose to use conceptualization 1 because it seems to me that 2 and 3 require a believe in a mysteriously generated multiplicity of reference points. I choose to attempt an explanation of the multiplicity.

Using conceptualization 1 (or 2) we surmise the existence of an infinity of information.

Within an infinity of information all math exists. And as Dennis pointed out, Math produces physics produces chemistry produces biology produces ecology. The phenomenological world is one syntax within an infinity of information.

Math also produces the phenomenology of mind directly. The informational constituents of every thought-moment exist outside of time. We perceive the forward arrow of time because of a syntactic combination of thought-moments.

Imagine that a thought is a circle. Reduce the radius of that circle and set it into another circle. Take the two circles, reduce them and circumscribe them, ad infinitum. This is the relationship of thought to memory. We remember our past thought because they are reduced (memory loss) and circumscribed in the present thought- moment. The reduced and circumscribed thought-moment bears a similarity to the original thought-moment which creates the illusion that they are one in the same. To mistake memory for reality is to mistake the symbol for the object.
In every moment we have the sense that we are connected to the past but the connection is not intrinsic; it can be conceived of as belonging to a logical pattern of similar thought-moments.

The concept of consciousness is a way of grouping together thought-moments. This kind of conceptualization amounts to a taxonomy of informational states. Of course, the application of a single name to multiplicitous phenomemon (thought-moments) does not itself unify them. All taxonomic classifications are useful only for convenience. There is no intrinsic distinction of type, categorization is a label applied to a class of objects that bear a similarity. Consciousness is a label and nothing more.

I constantly find that this conception of reality is consistent with my observation. Of course, so is a solipsistic conception, but I choose the one which provides me a fuller explanatory framework.
Last edited by Eric Orwoll on Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

David Quinn wrote:
Eric Orwoll wrote: It would be a powerful display of the legitimacy of philosophy if someone were to unambiguously prove logic valid without presuppositions.
I can do this. I don't have time to go into it right now, but I will be addressing this issue in detail in a upcoming blog on Genius Realms in a few weeks time. I'll keep you posted.
This would be exciting. To prove logic without the presupposition of time/change...
I look forward to the update.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Cathy Preston »

eric wrote:Does our consciousness exist or doesn't it? This is the question of solipsism.

It's nice to know that neither implies dualism.

It seems that you believe in consciousness, and I don't believe in consciousness.
I don't believe in consciousness in the way you think I do, when I say I am in all things and all things are in me, I mean even the things that exist outside my consciousness are me, I know that there is life beyond my consciousness, I am connected to the Internet right now and I could be talking to anyone around the world and their physical location is in my consciousness only as a mental thought, but if I choose to go and visit that person my consciousness moves with me and everything I see and experience on that journey is me also, subject and object are one, and then I arrive at their location they and I are still One. So at one point they existed outside my consciousness and then they existed within my consciousness. I can't escape the limited perspective I have but I can reason that no matter where or how I move through the universe subject and object are always one.
Eric wrote:The question of what being is, regardless of whether you call it "me" or "undifferentiated reality" is unresolved.
There is no "being" there is absolutely no being, no essence anywhere. Everything is a play of interdependency, no being whatsoever.
Eric wrote:I don't get any use out of conceptualizing the seemingly multiplicitous mental objects I perceive as being begotten from a single mental source.

By conceiving of the multiplicity of being (the differentiation of being) as an effect of perception we can describe how the universe operates.
There is no single source mental or otherwise, differentiation isn't an effect of perception its a condition of perception.

Eric wrote:A reality external to your self could exist one of three ways:h
1. As a reality without reference points.
2. As a reality with all reference points.bj
3. As a reality with some reference points.
Yes reality exists beyond my consciousness, consciousness is limited, yet if I look through a telescope into far space I know that the stars and planets I see are in fact me too, subject and object are one. So there can be nothing that is external to me, me and what I think of as external is always subject and object which is one.

edited to add:
subject is not limited to me of course. I become the object in the eyes of someone else, this is how I see me in all things too. And of course when I die, the subject/object relationship persists in all that remains alive and conscious. My grand-baby just arrived so off I go, can't finish you're whole post at this time.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Pam,
Mystic is a thought projection, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
yeah, an identity to fit into,
like a coat to try on for its fit,

cessation means quit assigning 'selfhood' to phenomena.

Eric, the basic building block of your picture seems to be the action of 'syntacing',
the clumping together of mental events that generates a perspective of fixed form where in reality there's no fixed form.
'undifferentiated reality' effectively means non-discrimination.

syntactic, the action of synthesising random events.
are you arguing the disintegration of perspective with a perspective.

your picture has to be doing something.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Kunga »

Dennis Mahar wrote: an identity to fit into,
And you are Mr.Geddit .... geddit ?



lol
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

Cathy,
I don't mean to seem as though I'm trying to pick apart your statements here, but in order to obtain a coherent reading of your worldview I need some clarification.
Cathy Preston wrote:I don't believe in consciousness in the way you think I do, when I say I am in all things and all things are in me, I mean even the things that exist outside my consciousness are me
In the above you've so far asserted that all things inside and outside your consciousness are "me". This seems to amount to a change of definition. Why do you feel that the definition of me out to be changed to "all things"?
Cathy Preston wrote: I know that there is life beyond my consciousness, I am connected to the Internet right now and I could be talking to anyone around the world and their physical location is in my consciousness only as a mental thought, but if I choose to go and visit that person my consciousness moves with me and everything I see and experience on that journey is me also, subject and object are one,
The scenario you're constructing describes a materialistic universe. My reading of your worldview is; Materialism where particles of matter don't exist, only the relationship of particles. Thought emerges out of the relationship of particles.
Relative materialism seems like a good label. You describe relative materialism where "me"=everything.
"Subject and object are one." Do you have a reason for believing this? So far it seems that you are concluding it based on your modified definition of "me".
Cathy Preston wrote: There is no "being" there is absolutely no being, no essence anywhere. Everything is a play of interdependency, no being whatsoever.
Relative materialism. The problem is that even the play of interdependency constitutes a being of some kind. Any relationship- regardless of the objects or non-objects being related- contains an informational makeup. There are statements to be made that describe relative position. Every description contains information.

In your relative materialism:
Information exists.
Being=that which exists
Therefore relative materialism constitutes a being.

Your definition of being may be different than mine. Please provide it if this is the case.
Cathy Preston wrote:Yes reality exists beyond my consciousness, consciousness is limited, yet if I look through a telescope into far space I know that the stars and planets I see are in fact me too, subject and object are one.
Your drawing out the scale but not adding anything new. Your assertion that subject and object are one still depends only on your definition of "me" as "all that is". I'm sure you have reasons for believing this but they aren't provided here, hence my need for greater specificity.
Cathy Preston wrote: So there can be nothing that is external to me, me and what I think of as external is always subject and object which is one.

As it's written your logic seems to be:

Me=All that is
Therefore Subject and Object are one

Subject and object are one
Therefore nothing exist external to me.

Why do you define "Me" as "All that is"?
Do you have reason for believing that subject and object are one, except that definition?
Cathy Preston wrote:subject is not limited to me of course. I become the object in the eyes of someone else, this is how I see me in all things too. And of course when I die, the subject/object relationship persists in all that remains alive and conscious.
Once again, the phenomenon you describe can be described just as well with materialism, relational or not.
Subject and object describe relationships of perspective. In materialism anything can be described as subject or object depending on the perspective. How do you believe that this grants a Me-ness to all things?
Dennis Mahar wrote:Eric, the basic building block of your picture seems to be the action of 'syntacing',
the clumping together of mental events that generates a perspective of fixed form where in reality there's no fixed form.
'undifferentiated reality' effectively means non-discrimination.

syntactic, the action of synthesising random events.
are you arguing the disintegration of perspective with a perspective.

your picture has to be doing something.
Dennis,
Events themselves exist relative to perspective. A thought-event is defined by a perspective.
Perspective exists, but it is limited to individual moments.

Anything beyond a single moment is linked together syntactically.
The act of linking events together syntactically is the construction of a symbol set which is meant to correspond to a set of real objects. When I lump together a series of moments by memory I'm not directly accessing those moments, I'm accessing a symbol set which exists as part of the present thought-moment.

Syntactic combination is a way of combining multiplicity into singularity. Bringing a representation of the past into the present.
A syntactic combination exists in a single thought-moment.

Perspective is what delineates 0 from 1 in the informational content of the moment.
A single perspective defines a single moment. There is no such thing as a perspective which travels through moments. A perspective can only define a representational symbology (syntax) which corresponds to a series of thought-moments.
So consciousness (persistent identity) does not exist but perspective (the identity of a moment) does.

My picture is doing something. It's removing time.
My picture describes how the illusion of dimensionality can proceed from an undifferentiated informational singularity.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Cathy Preston »

Eric wrote:Once again, the phenomenon you describe can be described just as well with materialism, relational or not.
Subject and object describe relationships of perspective. In materialism anything can be described as subject or object depending on the perspective. How do you believe that this grants a Me-ness to all things?
The only reason I relate it to me-ness is because for me it was an experienced moment of subject and object snapping into one, but the logic of subject relying on a object is obvious. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. So this relationship of perspective is not an effect of perspective it is necessary for consciousness itself. So this idea that the Universe actually exists undifferentiated and it is us who breaks it up because we are limited by perspective misses the finer point that it is differentiated by design.
Eric wrote:In your relative materialism:
Information exists.
Being=that which exists
Therefore relative materialism constitutes a being.
I have no problem with the idea that everything exists, as long as we remember it exists conditionally not inherently. What I have a problem with is trying to pin down this illusive Being that inherently exists.

I have no idea what relative materialism is so I can't say whether I think that way or not, and I really have no need to try and pigeon hole it, that I am compelled to attempt to make sense of this One dance of causality, where the Multiplicity of things is the greater thing, relying as much as I can on my own reason is itself part of the dance.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Russell Parr »

Eric,
My picture is doing something. It's removing time.
My picture describes how the illusion of dimensionality can proceed from an undifferentiated informational singularity.
Yet, the contrast between the undifferentiated informational singularity and that which you call consciousness can only arise from a perspective, putting you right back at square one again.

Therefore, what is existence without this cycle?

Also, an earlier comment:
This would be exciting. To prove logic without the presupposition of time/change...
A billiard ball rolls towards another, and knocks another ball into a cup. Does the ball presume time/change?

A robot built with the sole purpose of knocking one billiard ball into another, and into a cup. Does the robot presume time/change?

A human playing pool, does he really presume time/change? Perhaps when you ask him about it (activating his mind towards the subject), it would become evident that he does, but in the act of doing things, no presumption necessarily occurs. Actions happen without presumptions or hesitation.

Furthermore, time/change is a self-evident phenomena that becomes apparent when conceptualizing reality. I wouldn't fit it under the category of presumptions due to it being an absolute necessity when existence is being considered. It is only when you apply details and measurements to time/change do they become presumptions.

edit: I just noted that I've been using the word "presumption" while you have been saying "presupposition". Presupposition may have more of an objective feel to it than presumption, however both words allude to the same mental activity, so you can use either word in my argument to mean the same thing.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Eric,

My picture is doing something. It's removing time.
you wouldn't be drifting into nihilism would you old chap?

you haven't removed time,
you've deduced time is empty of itself and is of co-dependent origination.

its a part of the movie,
gives the semblance of action.
you wouldn't want to stare at a still photograph all day would you?

Mind is Buddha.
Universe is mind substance only.

Did you bring the popcorn?
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

Cathy Preston wrote:differentiated by design
Design?
Cathy Preston wrote:I have no problem with the idea that everything exists, as long as we remember it exists conditionally not inherently
If it exists conditionally then the information defining the relationships of that conditional existence exists inherently. There's no getting around Being.
bluerap wrote:Yet, the contrast between the undifferentiated informational singularity and that which you call consciousness can only arise from a perspective, putting you right back at square one again.

Therefore, what is existence without this cycle?
Undifferentiated. Eternal. Infinite.
bluerap wrote:A billiard ball rolls towards another, and knocks another ball into a cup. Does the ball presume time/change?

A robot built with the sole purpose of knocking one billiard ball into another, and into a cup. Does the robot presume time/change?

A human playing pool, does he really presume time/change? Perhaps when you ask him about it (activating his mind towards the subject), it would become evident that he does, but in the act of doing things, no presumption necessarily occurs. Actions happen without presumptions or hesitation.
The actors in your scenarios may not conceptualize time but the scenarios themselves rely on it.
bluerap wrote:Furthermore, time/change is a self-evident phenomena that becomes apparent when conceptualizing reality. I wouldn't fit it under the category of presumptions due to it being an absolute necessity when existence is being considered.
That the phenomenon of time emerges is self-evident. That it is universal is not. I claim that time is conditional to perspective, that outside of perspective time has no dimensionality.

Dennis Mahar wrote:you wouldn't be drifting into nihilism would you old chap?
Always.
Dennis Mahar wrote:you haven't removed time,
you've deduced time is empty of itself and is of co-dependent origination.
True, but it sounds more dramatic to say that I remove time.
Dennis Mahar wrote:Mind is Buddha.
Universe is mind substance only
The universe is of one substance. You can call it mind if you want, but what does the label of "mental" do for your description?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Russell Parr »

Eric Orwoll wrote:
bluerap wrote:Yet, the contrast between the undifferentiated informational singularity and that which you call consciousness can only arise from a perspective, putting you right back at square one again.

Therefore, what is existence without this cycle?
Undifferentiated. Eternal. Infinite.
It is neither eternal nor infinite if it is contrasted by anything (like consciousness).
bluerap wrote:A billiard ball rolls towards another, and knocks another ball into a cup. Does the ball presume time/change?

A robot built with the sole purpose of knocking one billiard ball into another, and into a cup. Does the robot presume time/change?

A human playing pool, does he really presume time/change? Perhaps when you ask him about it (activating his mind towards the subject), it would become evident that he does, but in the act of doing things, no presumption necessarily occurs. Actions happen without presumptions or hesitation.
The actors in your scenarios may not conceptualize time but the scenarios themselves rely on it.
And vice versa. Conceptualized time relies on scenarios. The "undifferentiated informational singularity" can only exist as a conception as it is contrasted by something (consciousness), thus negating it's own existence as a separate entity. Nothing can be said to exist outside beyond conception.
That the phenomenon of time emerges is self-evident. That it is universal is not. I claim that time is conditional to perspective, that outside of perspective time has no dimensionality.
Time is universally connected to perspective. It may have no dimensions beyond consciousness, but that is because they two are one and the same. But there is nothing separate of them.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Eric,
run your deductive method across all phenomena and 'see' that phenomena depends on mind.
run your deductive method across mind and 'see' that it too depends.

Buddhahood is a condition.
arises out of causes.
Ignorance is a condition.
arises out of causes.

Whatever is causes/conditions has no absolute existence.

we can't say I don't exist and existence doesn't exist.
we can 'see' how it exists.
and how nothing exists ultimately.

it's a total mind-fuck and yet glorious.

all is empty.
the play of causality.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cathy Preston wrote:It is not new, this message of the MYSTIC, the I AM that, ever craving, without end, this insatiable need for union. With wistful heart they worship at the alter of two, playing over and over again in their minds the blissful moment of union. They go on missing that subject and object will never be united, because they can never be separated, like two sides to the same coin they are One.

Where is the birth of a man or woman who sees himself in all things and all things in himself?

Cathy, is your defintion above something you have read, or is it something you have experienced yourself as your defintion of being a mystic?

I do not define mystic as the union of subject and object, rather, as the subjective-objective expansion of infinite worlds, of which the conditioned world of the sense-intellect is but one. How is this vision different from the man or woman who sees himself in all things and all things in himself?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

David Quinn wrote:
movingalways wrote:David, after thinking a bit more on our discussions to date, I came up with a logical argument for further discourse if it is your wish:

One can logically deduce that there are an infinite number of worlds in the mind of God. One can also logically deduce that some of these worlds follow the principles of logic as does this now world of time and space, but one cannot logically deduce that all of these worlds follow the principles of logic as does this now world of time and space. Here, in our now world of time and space, 2 + 2 is always 4, the World Trade Center fell in September of 2001, not in any other month or any other year; however, in an immaterial world yet to be discovered by the man living in a material world, it is logical to deduce that these references of time and space do not apply.
You're already making logical deductions about these other worlds.

Anything that exists can be reasoned about.
You cannot say that with absolute certainty about any realm other than the realm of the senses.
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

bluerap wrote:The "undifferentiated informational singularity" can only exist as a conception as it is contrasted by something (consciousness), thus negating it's own existence as a separate entity.
It certainly negates its existence as a conception outside of perspective,
but how do you conclude that it negates its intrinsic being?
It's almost as though you operate under the assumption of a mental character for existence.
Consciousness needn't be an emergent property, it can derive from lower order operations of being.

Consciousness exists, it has thingness,
just as I'm thingifying this sentence.

But where does the property of thingification originate? All things share this quality of havingbeenthingified/Being. All things are. I am, but where does 'am' come from?
The answer can't exist within space or time. Space and time are themselves things, they have the quality of thingness.
All differentiated being shares a quality, it all IS. There is something that exists equally everywhere, Being itself.

Being itself has no dimensionality, it is uniform and eternal.
Dennis Mahar wrote:run your deductive method across all phenomena and 'see' that phenomena depends on mind.
run your deductive method across mind and 'see' that it too depends.

Phenomenal existence is written in total in the interplay of Being and nothing/inaccessibility/perspective. The chain of binary that describes the world exists simultaneous. Differentiation is the act of reading this binary chain.
We humans are not readers, we are part of the chain. We evolve out of the previous moment not causally, but by syntactic association.

Causation has no absolute existence. It is a concept for describing syntactic association.
There is only one 'cause' and it is the thingifier itself.
When all things are thingified, things are not near or far in distance but in syntactic relationship.
Thought moments are not near or far in space or time.
They are not near in causality, for causality presupposes time.
Syntax doesn't presuppose time, only abstract relationship.
We thought-moments are related to our "selves", and to each other, only in resemblance.

Ultimately, Being is. The question is h o w Being is.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Ultimately, Being is.
what do you mean by that?
do we have a Parent?
where's the evidence?
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Ultimately, Being is.
what do you mean by that?
do we have a Parent?
where's the evidence?
Does being exist?
That question brings being into being.
Laying out the symbolic logic of the phrase creates an informational identity. Our medium of communication provides proof for existence.
Informational things exist. Therefore existence exists. All that exists is in the process of Being. The process of being exists wherever there is existence.
Being is.

The above is true but it does not convey the scope of existence. It's by discovering perspective that one can conclude the extent of being.

Being exists in all things equally, it exists with no dimensionality, no location.
Perspective- the inaccessibility of some element of being with regard to another- either exists, or solipsism is true.

Assuming perspective exists:

Perspective has no location. Wherever there is language (differentiated information) there is a perspective, perspective exists everywhere. Every 'where' is defined by its 'wherenot'. This is perspective.
The transfer of information creates perspective.
Transfers of information must be incomplete, otherwise there is no transfer- all information as an entity has no space into which to be transfered.
A thing is identical to itself. All information is identical to all information. Wherever you try to move all information, a complete transfer of it creates the thing itself. All information can't have a location because there's nothing outside of itself with which to relate.

All things exist with a perspective.

Being and perspective coexist everywhere, neither with a location. Their interaction produces location/dimensionality.
This reveals the scope of being. If two dimensionless entities interact to produce dimension, then the location of that which is produced must be everywhere equally. Being is infinite, eternal.
Being is.
Locked