Notions of 'objective reality' that keep me troubled - temporal events

[visheshdewan050193]

I've come across both David and Kevin alluding to time as contingent upon the contrast offered by our perception of 'staticness' (not-time). Furthermore, it's been mentioned that memory plays a role in being able to register the notion of 'change', and as such is involved in the perception of time.

Consider temporal events that are too quick for to be 'discerned' via direct conscious perception and memory, due to human limitations. Take for example, a vibrating high pitched tuning fork. The individual vibrations could be 'inferred' as a set number of physical displacements over a period of time that take place by hooking up the tuning fork with a microphone and oscilloscope, and knowing about the physical properties of the fork, damping of the system, etc,. David's argued in WOTI that molecules in a tree do assert their existence (namely by the appearance of a tree to consciousness), but in this case, let's say there's no direct isolated appearance in consciousness that suggests the fork is vibrating (the frequency is too high to be heard, the physical displacements too small, etc.)

I have a hard time at thinking that the imagined displacements/vibrations, minus the microphone and oscilloscope setup, have no 'existence' by definition (since they don't present an appearance to consciousness). The only answer that I can think of to ease my troubled thoughts is that I can imagine the vibrations exist as a part of the 'hidden void' construct explored in the Emptiness chapter of WOTI, which have the potential to be 'unwrapped' as vibrations (by consciousness either by using the mic and oscilloscope set up, or by using a magnifying lens with a slow motion capture camera, or whatever). Then you can invoke the interdependence of the void and consciousness to assert that the Infinite neither comprises of (or is constituted of) these finite things nor is separate from them, etc. etc.

The 'void' has been mentioned by David to just be a logical construct that is used to 'stress the point that Reality is not confined to the realm beyond consciousness'. Kevin has mentioned that 'one can reason that consciousness is caused, therefore one can know that which is not-conciousness'. I'm just wondering if my reasoning used above is a way to effectively put to rest the problem that I described. The same approach can be used concerning the existence of things outside the vicinity of one's immediate conscious experience. Everyday experience suggests that things exist objectively 'out there', outside the scope of our immediate consciousness (which is suggested by the predictability of the conditions by which one has the potential to 'unwrap' the existence of the thing in some particular form in consciousness)

I understand that this might be an overly conceptualized way of thinking that must be dismantled as one nears enlightenment, but can it be treated as a useful line of reasoning to tackle the supposed gross delusion of 'objectivity' in the initial stages of the spiritual path? For me, these thoughts of objective existence are a tad troubling, and I find myself on unsteady ground when such questions are directed to me either by myself or typical empiricists or whatever.

[Pam Seeback]

For me, these thoughts of objective existence are a tad troubling, and I find myself on unsteady ground when such questions are directed to me either by myself or typical empiricists or whatever.

Feeling troubled by thoughts of objective existence is beneficial in that it is the acknowledgment of suffering (in Buddhist doctrine) which pushes one on to be liberated from 'feeling troubled.'

Doubts about dependent origination are a natural outcome of the spiritual path. Not sure how much Buddhist thought you have studied - if you are familiar with the terminology, perhaps this translation and exposition of the Upanisa Sutta will help:

Transcendental Dependent Origination

Note that the 'base' supporting condition for destruction of the mundane dependent origination (ignorance --> birth and suffering, the cankers/defilements of objective attachment) so as to 'enter' the path of transcendental dependent origination is Faith (that knowledge of how to end the suffering of objective attachment will be caused so that the end of suffering will be caused). It sounds as if you have been awakened to the supporting condition of Faith --- keep on truckin. :-)

[Maximiliano Vignaga]

Visheshdewan wrote,

I understand that this might be an overly conceptualized way of thinking that must be dismantled as one nears enlightenment

No, it needs to be dropped now. Throw all that empirical crap out of the window, it's not needed to understand the nature of things.

The tree exists when it makes an appearance, the molecular structure of the tree exists when it makes an appearance, the 'imagined displacements/vibrations, minus the microphone and oscilloscope setup' exist when they appear. They do not dwell in the hidden void or wherever.

The hidden void is also an appearance. As is the world 'out there'.

[jufa]

For me, I discovered

: Notions of 'objective reality'

were whimsical. That “All spirits, irrespective, are of the vibration of thought which an individual speaks upon,”

Spirit as vibrations of thought, of actions then must become the new phraseology. It is something that definitely need be contemplate on, in terms of whether a person’s thought processes reflect the stage of their evolution – by their deeds shall ye know them? Ones deeds manifest their inner living. It involves a painful process of partaking of “temporal mortal earth energy” and experiencing “earth’s dual thought processes” including the crucifixion.

When one objectifies reality, subjectification becomes ones linguistic expression that acquires meaning that convey the speaker's attitude or viewpoint of suffering and struggling. The solution, “One must go through the mind to get beyond the mind. Until this has come to pass, one will live and die seeking that which is not lost in the body God has prepared for them….”

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

(.....)it's not needed to understand the nature of things.

The tree exists when it makes an appearance, the molecular structure of the tree exists when it makes an appearance, the 'imagined displacements/vibrations, minus the microphone and oscilloscope setup' exist when they appear. They do not dwell in the hidden void or wherever.

The hidden void is also an appearance. As is the world 'out there'.

Replacing notions of existence with that of appearance does not address anything at all. All you do is call every form of existence "appearance".

You should really contemplate on how "the tree exists when it makes an appearance". The whole point of some notion "appearing" is that it doesn't have to exist in any more probable, connected sense -- often upon further inquiry. Which does not mean it's found to be all equally non-existent. For example: it appears like someone is hanging around your house at night. Upon investigation it's nothing. From now on you stop believing that you need to check again as the appearance is not "real" in terms of consequences or meaning. But it doesn't mean no one is ever going to hang around your house at night and you should never check again on safety. Your actions in his case define the reality of the event, not just some false belief.

[Maximiliano Vignaga]

Replacing notions of existence with that of appearance does not address anything at all. All you do is call every form of existence "appearance".

Right. This confuses me. If existing means appearing, why not drop 'existing' altogether and all things are simply appearances?

I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, my confusion lies with 3 categories: experiences, appearances, existence.

You should really contemplate on how "the tree exists when it makes an appearance". The whole point of some notion "appearing" is that it doesn't have to exist in any more probable, connected sense -- often upon further inquiry. Which does not mean it's found to be all equally non-existent.

The tree is its parts and the parts are the tree. None exist on their own.

The tree has some properties it shares with other things, like having density and being opaque.

For example: it appears like someone is hanging around your house at night. Upon investigation it's nothing. From now on you stop believing that you need to check again as the appearance is not "real" in terms of consequences or meaning. But it doesn't mean no one is ever going to hang around your house at night and you should never check again on safety. Your actions in his case define the reality of the event, not just some false belief.

My reaction makes it (or not) real? I make things real, is that right?

.

[jufa]

The subtlety ran into here is the minds interpolating itself as a disrupter. This is commonplace when the mind think, and believe it is a creative source, which it is not. The mind is only an effect of pride which does not know it is always waging war with itself.

Parallel is one thing, but two different thought accusation simultaneous operating in the same lane, in the same time, in the same space, without distance, in the same matter is impossible.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Replacing notions of existence with that of appearance does not address anything at all. All you do is call every form of existence "appearance".

Right. This confuses me. If existing means appearing, why not drop 'existing' altogether and all things are simply appearances?

I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, my confusion lies with 3 categories: experiences, appearances, existence.

Fair enough. Confusing the three, and exploring that confusion is the very basic of existential philosophy. Gaining clarity on this would be wisdom.

The tree is its parts and the parts are the tree. None exist on their own.

This means we are distinguishing already between "existing on its own" (inherent) and "aggregated existence" (which is one way to say it).

The question forms then if we actually see or experience aggregated things (objects) or is this only the abstracted analysis of the many causes.

For example: it appears like someone is hanging around your house at night. Upon investigation it's nothing. From now on you stop believing that you need to check again as the appearance is not "real" in terms of consequences or meaning. But it doesn't mean no one is ever going to hang around your house at night and you should never check again on safety. Your actions in his case define the reality of the event, not just some false belief.

My reaction makes it (or not) real? I make things real, is that right?

In this case it could help to see your connections to the event, creating meaning, even urgency or value, making it sufficiently significant to have the thought, to reflect on the signals, to react and ultimately to act. These are indeed all connected, this we can reason out. But note the difference with a lucid dream, which in most cases will be dismissed after waking as not being related to wherever you are now and quickly the significance decreases: and you don't act - the consistency is not good enough to maintain! Actually the body normally disables motion during the dream and when that not happens, accidents can happen. A sleepwalking person is experiencing its own reality and inside the dream the actions and thoughts will form some logic, some coherence, as the story and motive is always intertwined with actions, decisions and the interpretative.

Here I'm attempting to raise the idea that not every reality is equally important or coherent. And this opens the door to seeing ordinary reality as a production, a complex interactive web of signals and representations but not all born equal. And yet still relative reality, in the sense that it's changing and will need a specific perspective to become real to someone on a particular moment.

This can lead to a better understanding of the difference between absolute reality and the relative, subjective reality while keeping in mind that truth and wisdom are a function or clarity and consistency within the relative: navigating the shifting personal and group realities as to approach the infinite.

[Maximiliano Vignaga]

Fair enough. Confusing the three, and exploring that confusion is the very basic of existential philosophy. Gaining clarity on this would be wisdom.

Sorry for the late reply! I meditated for a few days on, and I came to the following conclusion:

Experiences: Experiences are what we see, hear, smell, feel(touch), taste and and all our thoughts. Everyone, sage and fool alike, has experiences. It is the particles of the mind.

Appearances: Appearances are what causality creates in every moment. It is what the mind is made of. Things do not exist outside of their appearance (inherently) because they are the "end product" of countless of causes. And the causes are also caused by countless of causes. Which means Reality (everything) causes them. That means that nothing really exists.

I believe this is called emptiness.

Existence: This is a tricky one. Existence itself (as in, everything that exists) does not actually exist itself, because there is nothing else it could be related to (things only exist in relation to each other). But things appear to me, which means they exist (for the moment). And for something to appear, a mind is necessary. My mind exists because it appears to my mind (???). I, Max, exist because I appear to myself (Max).

That means existing starts by thinking about one's existence. (???)

.

In this case it could help to see your connections to the event, creating meaning, even urgency or value, making it sufficiently significant to have the thought, to reflect on the signals, to react and ultimately to act. These are indeed all connected, this we can reason out. But note the difference with a lucid dream, which in most cases will be dismissed after waking as not being related to wherever you are now and quickly the significance decreases: and you don't act - the consistency is not good enough to maintain! Actually the body normally disables motion during the dream and when that not happens, accidents can happen. A sleepwalking person is experiencing its own reality and inside the dream the actions and thoughts will form some logic, some coherence, as the story and motive is always intertwined with actions, decisions and the interpretative.

Here I'm attempting to raise the idea that not every reality is equally important or coherent. And this opens the door to seeing ordinary reality as a production, a complex interactive web of signals and representations but not all born equal. And yet still relative reality, in the sense that it's changing and will need a specific perspective to become real to someone on a particular moment.

This can lead to a better understanding of the difference between absolute reality and the relative, subjective reality while keeping in mind that truth and wisdom are a function or clarity and consistency within the relative: navigating the shifting personal and group realities as to approach the infinite.

That means there are as many realities out there as there are people, and everyone goes from one reality to the next in each moment. But there is only one Ultimate Reality. And some realities can "spill over" from a person or a group to other people.

.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That means existing starts by thinking about one's existence. (???)

When entering the realm of meaning and starting to assign significance, everything will be related by whatever the sense of the absolute already is in that context, like some background light. And in a way things then "materialize" and gain existence by projecting absoluteness. Once that is understood, the source of this projection can become clear and will act like a sign post towards what's ultimately real and how it was already known and applied, all the time, but perhaps in a more backwards manner. It's not just the "mind" that makes it real, the reality function is much wider.

That means there are as many realities out there as there are people, and everyone goes from one reality to the next in each moment. But there is only one Ultimate Reality. And some realities can "spill over" from a person or a group to other people.

Anything at all can become real or appear as existing to person, but only by the grace of having set some standard for the absolute in the first place.

[Glostik91]

Consider temporal events that are too quick for to be 'discerned' via direct conscious perception and memory, due to human limitations. Take for example, a vibrating high pitched tuning fork.

The individual vibrations could be 'inferred' as a set number of physical displacements over a period of time that take place by hooking up the tuning fork with a microphone and oscilloscope, and knowing about the physical properties of the fork, damping of the system, etc,. David's argued in WOTI that molecules in a tree do assert their existence (namely by the appearance of a tree to consciousness), but in this case, let's say there's no direct isolated appearance in consciousness that suggests the fork is vibrating (the frequency is too high to be heard, the physical displacements too small, etc.)

I have a hard time at thinking that the imagined displacements/vibrations, minus the microphone and oscilloscope setup, have no 'existence' by definition (since they don't present an appearance to consciousness). The only answer that I can think of to ease my troubled thoughts is that I can imagine the vibrations exist as a part of the 'hidden void' construct explored in the Emptiness chapter of WOTI, which have the potential to be 'unwrapped' as vibrations (by consciousness either by using the mic and oscilloscope set up, or by using a magnifying lens with a slow motion capture camera, or whatever). Then you can invoke the interdependence of the void and consciousness to assert that the Infinite neither comprises of (or is constituted of) these finite things nor is separate from them, etc. etc.

There was once was a butterfly that flapped its wings and whipped up a nasty storm. Is to know the storm to know the butterfly?

I think there's a millennium prize for that or something.

The 'void' has been mentioned by David to just be a logical construct that is used to 'stress the point that Reality is not confined to the realm beyond consciousness'. Kevin has mentioned that 'one can reason that consciousness is caused, therefore one can know that which is not-conciousness'. I'm just wondering if my reasoning used above is a way to effectively put to rest the problem that I described. The same approach can be used concerning the existence of things outside the vicinity of one's immediate conscious experience. Everyday experience suggests that things exist objectively 'out there', outside the scope of our immediate consciousness (which is suggested by the predictability of the conditions by which one has the potential to 'unwrap' the existence of the thing in some particular form in consciousness)

I understand that this might be an overly conceptualized way of thinking that must be dismantled as one nears enlightenment, but can it be treated as a useful line of reasoning to tackle the supposed gross delusion of 'objectivity' in the initial stages of the spiritual path? For me, these thoughts of objective existence are a tad troubling, and I find myself on unsteady ground when such questions are directed to me either by myself or typical empiricists or whatever.

Everyday existence also gives credence to the idea that the sun goes round the earth. Doesn't it? Which is it again? I sometimes forget what time I'm in.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I can imagine the vibrations exist as a part of the 'hidden void' construct

a butterfly that flapped its wings and whipped up a nasty storm. Is to know the storm to know the butterfly?

In both cases, things are still being defined, hidden in a void or at the other side of a globe. It's not really addressing existence but more highlighting some granularity and scale. Stating there are "known" things and many more "unknown" things being related does not address the thing & meaning.

Everyday existence also gives credence to the idea that the sun goes round the earth. Doesn't it? Which is it again?

It's the experience in all earth-bound cases. But the constructed model of the solar system can still change by selection of vantage point, including relativity or even a new general theory on gravity and space-time. They all could change the "larger idea" on this.