Can you help me with metaphysical Isms?

[Eugene I]

To iterate my comment/question about God of Number Theory, AFAIK Buddhist ontology (or most of it) is neither unity nor multiplicity, it's relational. Does your comprehension of Buddhist philosophy agree that sentient being can be pre-quantified?

There is no such thing a the "Buddhist philosophy" per se, it varies from school to school quite significantly. There are schools of idealistic monism (Yogachara, Cittamatra, Dzogchen), and there are other schools that would vaguely belong to something like property dualism (Theravada etc). Buddha himself kept a pragmatic and rather agnostic position and didn't bother much with philosophy.

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

E: all just is. Period. And nothing can be said about it. The ontological primal ground (Being) is infinite and eternal and not within space and time. It can not be grasped or described from a perspective of space and time, wherein thinking and language operate. In this metaphysical position mind and matter are just different perspectives of the ontological primal ground (Being) on the ontological primal ground (Being) and emerge out of the ontological primal ground. There is no difference between mind and matter whatsoever.

Isn't the issue with this still that it imagines a hypothetical, unknowable state ontologically prior to consciousness, which doesn't really amount to more than an abstraction within consciousness? Therefore, it still seems the most parsimonious starting point is the one state that is not an abstraction within consciousness, the one state that exists beyond any doubt whatsoever, which is the fact of consciousness, as the irreducible prime. Why postulate some mysterious add-on/abstraction to which consciousness must be reduced if it isn't really needed?

And what exactly is consciousness under idealism? Isnt it a concept too, even under idealism? What is universal consciousness? Its not supposed to be a great mysteriousness if I get you right? How does a dissociative boundary actually work and can I describe it scientifically? What exactly is the relationship between an experienced image of consciousness (matter) and an experiencing consciousness (mind)?

E is quite simple in my understanding: Being is. That is the concept of Being. From there i can explain everything else. Being I can know for sure. I can know it instantaniously by simply being. The admittedly tricky part is, how come the infinity of Being relates to itself and creates the relational network of a universe? But after that its quite simple again. All there is a is relating of being with being, where relational patterns and systems evolve. How all of this goes about can be examined and explained by physics, chemistry and biology. All interactional relating creates an object for a subject and the other way round, depending on the perspective. The physical interactional relations are the perspectives of consciousness at the same time. The evolution of the cosmos is the evolution of consciousness at the same time by the same principles because there is no ontological difference what so ever...

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

E is neutral dual property monism. It's not a bad ontology actually.

I totally agree!
Finally I have a word for it. Thank you. And I investigate it in a process philosophy...

[Soul_of_Shu]

Being I can know for sure.

And so how can one know this 'being' absent the awareness of it? I can just as well say that awareness is that which I know for sure, and I'm not sure what is added by naming it 'being.'

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

E: all just is. Period. And nothing can be said about it. The ontological primal ground (Being) is infinite and eternal and not within space and time. It can not be grasped or described from a perspective of space and time, wherein thinking and language operate. In this metaphysical position mind and matter are just different perspectives of the ontological primal ground (Being) on the ontological primal ground (Being) and emerge out of the ontological primal ground. There is no difference between mind and matter whatsoever.

Isn't the issue with this still that it imagines a hypothetical, unknowable state ontologically prior to consciousness, which doesn't really amount to more than an abstraction within consciousness? Therefore, it still seems the most parsimonious starting point is the one state that is not an abstraction within consciousness, the one state that exists beyond any doubt whatsoever, which is the fact of consciousness, as the irreducible prime. Why postulate some mysterious add-on/abstraction to which consciousness must be reduced if it isn't really needed?

I would like to add that in my understanding you only cannot get to Being by thinking. To the thinking mind Being will always be a mystery, as thinking must always be relational and Being is not. But you can simply be it. By introspection you can theoretically experience a non-reflective experiencial state of Being. Here the tricky part is, how the meta-cognitive process can be synchronized with the experiencing neural processes. For that the current autobiographical meta-cognitive agent has to be swiched of. Thats what spiritual practices are aiming for...

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

Being I can know for sure.

And so how can one know this 'being' absent the awareness of it? I can just as well say that awareness is that which I know for sure, and I'm not sure what is added by naming it 'being.'

You are right. You can not know Being. You can only be it.

Awareness must always have a content. Otherwise there would be no awareness. And awareness of awareness boils down to Being in my understanding.

Being is the enabler or ontological base of a Awareness-Content relationship.

[Cleric K]

Being I can know for sure.

And so how can one know this 'being' absent the awareness of it? I can just as well say that awareness is that which I know for sure, and I'm not sure what is added by naming it 'being.'

I think confusion arises here when 'being' is considered as a synonymous of 'creature' or something like that. This invites the idea that we try to fantasize a ontological creature that is having the awareness. In that case we're really going beyond the given.

It's easier if we think of it as be-ing. We are aware but we also experience constant becoming, integrative process, constant expansion of the spiritual horizon which encompasses/implodes all previous states in a unity. That's my be-ing. Clearly, other perspectives within M@L also seem to experience such integrative experiences and their own be-ing, so for me they are also beings.

[Eugene I]

You are right. You can not know Being. You can only be it.

Awareness must always have a content. Otherwise there would be no awareness. And awareness of awareness boils down to Being in my understanding.

Being is the enabler or ontological base of a Awareness-Content relationship.

Well, it is possible to have awareness with no content and thinking, that's known to advanced meditators (n Advaia tradition specifically). So it is possible for the Being to be directly aware of itself (with no content and no thinking). And awareness of awareness indeed boils down to Being, but there is still awareness in such state.

The key question is: is it possible for the Being to BE, but not to be AWARE? The answer will determine whether the ontology of such Being is idealistic or neutral. Because if it is possible to BE but not to be AWARE, then it's a neutral monism where the awareness becomes an emergent property of the Being, while the Being itself is non-emergent (it always exist and can't not to BE, but it can be not AWARE). If not, then it is idealism in where the Being-Awareness is non-emergent (it can't not to BE and it can't not to be AWARE).

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

Being I can know for sure.

And so how can one know this 'being' absent the awareness of it? I can just as well say that awareness is that which I know for sure, and I'm not sure what is added by naming it 'being.'

What I mean is that Being is a given. Obviously Being is rather than not. Isn it?
To me Being is nothing special, nothing supernatural or anything. It just is. And that's all about it.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It's easier if we think of it as be-ing.

Is such uncaused, irreducible 'be-ing' non-aware? If so, at which point does awareness arise and how? Seems like just another iteration of the 'hard problem.'