The Central Topic

[Soul_of_Shu]

Guys, this is drifting well off-topic again. I really don't want to have someone start a topic on idealism vs dual-aspect/dialetical monism, and have to move a bunch of comments again. From now on I'll just be deleting them.

It is somewhat off-topic but this is how we got there.

In the discussion of Central Topic arose the idea of consciousness changing or evolving over time.If there is some specific thrust to this history that is leading us to some place in the future, it would be reflected in science as much as it would be in art, politics, religion, and other cultural endeavors. Science and technology would be changing and at the same time changing us. Once science is seen as an ally rather than an opponent, DAM would make the most sense as a pragmatic ontology.

Incidentally, I wrote some more extended along this line in the context of writing about Julian Huxley.

Here is a more extended quote that ends with the quote by Huxley.

Sure, I can allow that it is tangentially related, but if there is then a further urge to diverge from there to spin off into an in-depth discussion about how idealism may be distinguished from dual-aspect monism, at that point, best start another topic for that purpose, and save the trouble of moving and then deleting comments. Thanks.

[Eugene I.]

Eugene, I've already accepted your position and won't try to talk you out of it. I only would like to point out that it is based on a belief without trying to make you abandon that belief.

Great. I also said before that your position is valid and everyone is free to pursue these goals. And of course we are both talking about beliefs here.

To summarize even more:
1/ We accept our temperament, character, desires, etc., as intrinsic part of our atomic soul and assume this is what we've come to experience. We don't think even for a moment that any of this may be a crude stone that needs to be polished into diamond. We accept the sorry state of humanity as a matter of course. All of this we can support only through belief because we can never, by definition, lift the veil and verify if any of this is true.
2/ We walk a real path of self development which leads us to consciousness of the implicit order where we find the convergence of all mysteries of humanity - evolutionary development, the question of evil, the question of perfection, etc. The drape is not there as a hard boundary to test the faithful if they'll be tempted to peek before their last breath but is simply our current (individual and average collective) horizon of consciousness. It's in the course of evolution to grow in consciousness within the implicit order, so that we can realize our spiritual freedom and lift humanity from the half-human half-animal instinctive state. None of this is a matter of belief but only of clear thinking then courage and determination. Every tiny step we make in that direction is a confirmation of the reality of the path we're treading.

I repeat that this is not to convince anyone. It's just a statement of plain facts. The point of the Central Topic is to show that the possibility for gaining consciousness of the implicit order - our soul and spiritual guts - is always at hand. Everyone is free to reject this possiblity but let at least be honest and say that it's their decision not to investigate the time-depth behind the "I"/eye, instead of accusing those who speak of that time-depth of being liars, deceivers, supremacists, etc. It's enough to look at 1/ and 2/ and really see where each route leads and what interests it serves.

There are more alternatives beyond those two. The one I was talking about has nothing to do with #1. It's about pursuing spiritual paths that can be facilitated by the (temporary) presence of the veil. There is something very unique that can be only accomplished in this "veiled" environment, and for which the veil is not a hindrance, but a catalyzer, and for which investigating these "spiritual guts" is rather irrelevant.

[Cleric K]

It is somewhat off-topic but this is how we got there.

In the discussion of Central Topic arose the idea of consciousness changing or evolving over time.If there is some specific thrust to this history that is leading us to some place in the future, it would be reflected in science as much as it would be in art, politics, religion, and other cultural endeavors. Science and technology would be changing and at the same time changing us. Once science is seen as an ally rather than an opponent, DAM would make the most sense as a pragmatic ontology.

Dual aspect monism doesn't really solve anything. The Kantian divide is still there because we still have to blindly accept the existence of the 'matter' aspect of the monism. We know perceptions, not matter. So we still invent the imaginary world of matter (world stuff) but say "We're experiencing only our (mind) side of the coin, while the other side we can never know." So what exactly do we gain by postulating the matter side of the coin? Would there be any difference at all if it's a one sided coin? Why postulate another side which we can by definition never know if it really exists?

But anyway. As I wrote to Shajan, all this is related to the Central Topic but are things that are cleared out from the very beginning of PoF. I assume that when speaking here we already realize that before we can speak of monism, dualism, and whatever -ism, there's thinking. So our starting point is the given and our thinking about it.

[Cleric K]

There are more alternatives beyond those two. The one I was talking about has nothing to do with #1. It's about pursuing spiritual paths that can be facilitated by the (temporary) presence of the veil. There is something very unique that can be only accomplished in this "veiled" environment, and for which the veil is not a hindrance, but a catalyzer, and for which investigating these "spiritual guts" is rather irrelevant.

Yes Eugene, I understand that. I only pointed out the paradoxical situation of these spiritual paths which depend on the impermeability of the veil but at the same time justify themselves through what's beyond the veil, which however is impossible to know. It's really simple thought loop which hangs itself as Baron Münchhausen by his ponytail.

[Eugene I.]

But anyway. As I wrote to Shajan, all this is related to the Central Topic but are things that are cleared out from the very beginning of PoF. I assume that when speaking here we already realize that before we can speak of monism, dualism, and whatever -ism, there's thinking. So our starting point is the given and our thinking about it.

This is indeed the key point. It is often understood that "the given" is the "world stuff out there" so a presupposition is implicitly accepted form the start that there is by default a "world stuff". The Central Topic is to realize that "the given" is only the content of our 1-st person conscious experience inseparable from our thinking about it. It is in fact only "the mind stuff" the way we actually experience it.

The wind was flapping the temple flag. Two monks were arguing about it. One said the flag was moving; the other said the wind was moving. Arguing back and forth they could not agree on the truth. The Sixth Patriarch said, ‘It is neither the wind that is moving nor the flag that is moving. It is your mind that is moving’. The two monks were struck with awe

[Jim Cross]

It is somewhat off-topic but this is how we got there.

In the discussion of Central Topic arose the idea of consciousness changing or evolving over time.If there is some specific thrust to this history that is leading us to some place in the future, it would be reflected in science as much as it would be in art, politics, religion, and other cultural endeavors. Science and technology would be changing and at the same time changing us. Once science is seen as an ally rather than an opponent, DAM would make the most sense as a pragmatic ontology.

Dual aspect monism doesn't really solve anything. The Kantian divide is still there because we still have to blindly accept the existence of the 'matter' aspect of the monism. We know perceptions, not matter. So we still invent the imaginary world of matter (world stuff) but say "We're experiencing only our (mind) side of the coin, while the other side we can never know." So what exactly do we gain by postulating the matter side of the coin? Would there be any difference at all if it's a one sided coin? Why postulate another side which we can by definition never know if it really exists?

But anyway. As I wrote to Shajan, all this is related to the Central Topic but are things that are cleared out from the very beginning of PoF. I assume that when speaking here we already realize that before we can speak of monism, dualism, and whatever -ism, there's thinking. So our starting point is the given and our thinking about it.

I think probably somebody should open another thread if we comment any more about it here. However, since you Cleric started this and you've brought it up then I will comment.

Officially I'm content with no ontology. They are all false.

However, the matter aspect of DAM solves the problem of why the train that runs over the idealist on the tracks is mangled and dead. Why if you hit your hand with a hammer, you may feel pain with your consciousness, but there will also be real consequences for the hand and you may not be to able to use it as you did before you hit it.

If the observer/measurer is what brings reality into existence, then measurements must be real; otherwise, we would have a real observer only ever able to make unreal measurements, which means there would be no reality. Both the observer and the measurement are required. If measurement is real, then quantities are real (which is exactly what our consciousness suggests) and then the matter aspect is real.

[AshvinP]

It is somewhat off-topic but this is how we got there.

In the discussion of Central Topic arose the idea of consciousness changing or evolving over time.If there is some specific thrust to this history that is leading us to some place in the future, it would be reflected in science as much as it would be in art, politics, religion, and other cultural endeavors. Science and technology would be changing and at the same time changing us. Once science is seen as an ally rather than an opponent, DAM would make the most sense as a pragmatic ontology.

Dual aspect monism doesn't really solve anything. The Kantian divide is still there because we still have to blindly accept the existence of the 'matter' aspect of the monism. We know perceptions, not matter. So we still invent the imaginary world of matter (world stuff) but say "We're experiencing only our (mind) side of the coin, while the other side we can never know." So what exactly do we gain by postulating the matter side of the coin? Would there be any difference at all if it's a one sided coin? Why postulate another side which we can by definition never know if it really exists?

But anyway. As I wrote to Shajan, all this is related to the Central Topic but are things that are cleared out from the very beginning of PoF. I assume that when speaking here we already realize that before we can speak of monism, dualism, and whatever -ism, there's thinking. So our starting point is the given and our thinking about it.

I think probably somebody should open another thread if we comment any more about it here. However, since you Cleric started this and you've brought it up then I will comment.

Officially I'm content with no ontology. They are all false.

However, the matter aspect of DAM solves the problem of why the train that runs over the idealist on the tracks is mangled and dead. Why if you hit your hand with a hammer, you may feel pain with your consciousness, but there will also be real consequences for the hand and you may not be to able to use it as you did before you hit it.

If the observer/measurer is what brings reality into existence, then measurements must be real; otherwise, we would have a real observer only ever able to make unreal measurements, which means there would be no reality. Both the observer and the measurement are required. If measurement is real, then quantities are real (which is exactly what our consciousness suggests) and then the matter aspect is real.

Do you at least see how many assumptions are packed into the above without any explanation for why they are being used?

1. There is a problem of why an idealist on tracks will physically die when getting hit by train...

2. Pain for "your consciousness" is something entirely separated from "real consequences" for your hand.

3. Observer/measurer is something entirely separated from "reality" and "existence".

4. That quantities cannot be ideal and real.


There are probably a few more embedded within those. And I am not even expecting a response, just pointing out why abstract metaphysics inevitably falls into a tangled mess of assumptions which cannot be untangled, because the one activity which would untangle them - concrete Thinking - has been denied any significant role in the World Content from the outset. That is why TCT needs to be first understood, and next evaluated via experience and reason, if any progress whatsoever is to be made here.

[Shajan624]

Please try to step back and see what is really given in the riddle of existence. You might say that the given is the objective world but that would be incorrect. The given is the world of direct experience - colors, sounds, feelings, thoughts, etc.

I am not saying the given is the objective world. I consider subjective conscious experience an essential part of reality.

So practically, for some reason you have drawn a chalk line within consciousness and you have said "color, sound, smell, touch, etc. tell me about the objective world out there. On the other side of the chalk line are feelings, will, thoughts. These I'll strike out as unreliable and potential source of 'enormous confusion'.

The line separating meta-conscious ‘knower’ from the ground of being is a natural consequence of human evolution. We are confused because science of life is still a work in progress. I don’t consider the other side as unreal. IMHO, the error is to insist ‘Real must be Knowable’. Why should it be?

Imagine a volcanic island rising from the seabed. A reflection forms on the water surface as the dust is settled. The island could ‘see’ itself as a distinct entity separated from the submerged land mass. Truth will become obvious only when it manages to figure out its origin story - mechanism of volcanic eruption and light reflection from water surface. The island need not submerge back to escape the illusory division, it only need to understand reflection as a natural consequence of its rise above water.

[Cleric K]

Officially I'm content with no ontology. They are all false.

However, the matter aspect of DAM solves the problem of why the train that runs over the idealist on the tracks is mangled and dead. Why if you hit your hand with a hammer, you may feel pain with your consciousness, but there will also be real consequences for the hand and you may not be to able to use it as you did before you hit it.

If the observer/measurer is what brings reality into existence, then measurements must be real; otherwise, we would have a real observer only ever able to make unreal measurements, which means there would be no reality. Both the observer and the measurement are required. If measurement is real, then quantities are real (which is exactly what our consciousness suggests) and then the matter aspect is real.

Jim, are you conscious of the fact that after the first sentence you're doing precisely what you have condemned as false? You try to keep it close to the facts but suddenly you jump into full-blown metaphysics. Even though you recognize the abstractness and deny all metaphysics, you're blinding yourself for the fact that you're doing the exact same thing you scorn.

Both Eugene and me explained to you not long ago (which you obviously completely ignored) that all modern science is completely independent of any metaphysics. It's entirely weaved of correlative thinking which maps mathematical thoughts to perceptions. The assumption that there should be 'other' side of reality which by its very definition can never be known to exist, is pure superstition. All the mathematical predictions of science will work exactly the same even if you drop the belief in the 'other side'. Even if it turns out that you're dreaming or it's all a simulation, science will remain the same because it mimics appearances and it doesn't care if there are really atoms 'out there'. The mathematical models in scientific theories don't mimic 'atoms-in-themselves' but our perceptions (extended by instruments). The idea that the theory maps the 'real' atoms-in-themselves is something that is added on top of the mathematical model by metaphysical thinking. Similarly, if you're drawing a painting, it doesn't matter if you're doing it in your waking life or while dreaming - in both cases you're replicating appearances. The painting in itself couldn't care less if what it depicts proceeds from atoms, dreams, psychedelics, etc. It's the same with science - it is a mathematical painting of quantified perceptual appearances. What we fantasize as the metaphysical nature behind what is being mathematically painted, is completely irrelevant to the painting mechanism.

Do you recognize this fact? Do you realize that you're trying to justify the stability of perceptions by inventing metaphysics about the 'other side of the coin' which in its very definition guarantees that can never be anything more than blind belief? It's like you are psychologically tormented by the fact that the Earth seems stable and you feel forced to postulate elephants and a turtle which give it support, even though on some level you're aware that you're only telling yourself a fairytale to put your mind at ease.

See, it's not the goal to replace one kind of fantasized source of stability (matter) with another fantasized source (MAL). It's the simple realization that both of these remain in the sphere of forever unverifiable metaphysical ideas. It is indeed right that science must be our ally and not enemy but you must be true to your first sentence above and stop unconsciously sneaking in metaphysics into science.

Of course I realize how difficult this must be for you. Even though intellectually you (hopefully) realize that your matter is a metaphysical claim, you still can't help but embrace it. It's like saying "I just can't help it. I know that I'm going against my own logic but I simply need that superstition. I'll go mad without it. I feel the need to superstitiously invent matter or turtle and elephants that I can blame for the stability of perceptions, even though I realize that this will forever remain just a myth in my imagination." And please note - it's not the goal to deny that there's something which accounts for the stability of perceptions. The superstition is that we postulate purely metaphysical explanation of that stability, which will forever remain in the sphere of by definition unverifiable assumptions, supported by blind belief.

Unless you can step back and recognize the mental reflex (in your own words) that you unconsciously utilize and which continuously sneaks in metaphysical superstition in your thinking, there's simply no way to speak of the Central Topic in any meaningful way. Unless you put the effort to attain consciousness of the fact that you're adding metaphysical superstition to the given through reflexive (subconscious) thinking, we can't make even the tiniest step forward. The only way to make that step is by beginning to pay attention to what you are innerly doing when you spit out reflexive thoughts. You need to consciously intercept that automatic reflex and awaken on a level before you have passed your metaphysical assumptions on the perceptions.

[Cleric K]

Please try to step back and see what is really given in the riddle of existence. You might say that the given is the objective world but that would be incorrect. The given is the world of direct experience - colors, sounds, feelings, thoughts, etc.

I am not saying the given is the objective world. I consider subjective conscious experience an essential part of reality.

So practically, for some reason you have drawn a chalk line within consciousness and you have said "color, sound, smell, touch, etc. tell me about the objective world out there. On the other side of the chalk line are feelings, will, thoughts. These I'll strike out as unreliable and potential source of 'enormous confusion'.

The line separating meta-conscious ‘knower’ from the ground of being is a natural consequence of human evolution. We are confused because science of life is still a work in progress. I don’t consider the other side as unreal. IMHO, the error is to insist ‘Real must be Knowable’. Why should it be?

Imagine a volcanic island rising from the seabed. A reflection forms on the water surface as the dust is settled. The island could ‘see’ itself as a distinct entity separated from the submerged land mass. Truth will become obvious only when it manages to figure out its origin story - mechanism of volcanic eruption and light reflection from water surface. The island need not submerge back to escape the illusory division, it only need to understand reflection as a natural consequence of its rise above water.

I understand very well what you're saying. I even recently used similar metaphor with an archipelago here. You might want to check that out. The whole thing about the Central Topic is that this 'line separating meta-conscious ‘knower’ from the ground of being' is something that we produce with thinking. It's a chalk line that we arbitrarily draw for ourselves. You assume that knowing consciousness can exist only above the surface and imagine through rocks, dust and reflections the true archipelago of which the island is part. What the Central Topic speaks about is that what is below the surface (behind the eye of thinking) can also be known consciously and not only through arrangements of abstract fragments above the surface (in front of the eye of thinking). The idea is that this separating chalk line is there only because the modern intellect refuses to know itself in depth. It refuses to trace fully consciously how its own thoughts originate in the mantle and erupt above the surface. Instead, by not allowing for this possibility, it postulates that knowledge can exist only above the surface where we speculate about the depths by arrangement of rocks, which are supposed to make a mental model of what lives beneath the surface. To relate that to a metaphor I mention to Dana - it's like the arrangements of rocks above the surface are the language in which we think. The depths below the surface is another language but we refuse that it is possible to live with our spirit within that language and Think in its own higher order sentences and words. Instead we insist to forever think in our rock-language and only mechanically make translations (correlations, mappings), while rejecting that it is possible to live congnitively within the deeper language (which you call the ground being).