Can Idealism be without thought?

[SanteriSatama]

There're more things to be discovered if we investigate even more closely the thinking process but I'll stop here. So far the goal was to elucidate the intimate thinking process and to show that we are in position at any point to determine if our thinking deals with concepts and ideas that have been found within the given or we are juggling abstractly with thoughts that we have ourselves constructed and are now being overlaid over the given.

I like empirical approach very much. Very scientific! Starting investigation from sight, the visual sense of the "external" is already a (sub?)conscious choice. There is no guarantees that conclusions would be the same if we don't start from sight (which reading invites to do) but instead and also from closing our eyes (or if possible, doing the exercise in a sense-deprivation tank). Or, that the closed-eyed exercise would be same awake, sleep or in-between.

When I stop writing and attending visual sense and language production, I can attend bodily awareness more fully. Body sense and visual image of body don't match 100% or even close. I can't see how I feel - maybe others can. Touch, like joining hands together, feels and seems like a joint of visual and body sense.

[Eugene I]

Cleric, thanks for your elaborated post

The facts of experience is that both self and no-self states are possible.

I entirely agree, since both states are possible, the experience of both states makes the idea of the existence of self inconclusive as well as the idea of its non-existence.

So far the goal was to elucidate the intimate thinking process and to show that we are in position at any point to determine if our thinking deals with concepts and ideas that have been found within the given or we are juggling abstractly with thoughts that we have ourselves constructed and are now being overlaid over the given.

I'm very much on the same page with you, IMO in order to stay sober the thinking process should always be grounded in the given of the direct conscious experience. I also agree with the "awareness dreams existence", such statement might be a good "what if" antidote to a naive realism, but I agree that it is an unsupported extrapolation overlaid on our direct and given experience of awareness.

[AshvinP]

We have established that awareness is something that we can form a concrete idea about - we have the steps to experience it directly from the given. But if we construct a thought like "awareness dreams existence", we need to very vigilant. Quite impalpably, the concept of "awareness" becomes something different. It is one thing to say that the contents of experience have similarities with dream life and quite another that awareness dreams life. While the first establishes facts of experience, the seconds lays a much stronger claim, which to be sure, is not readily supported within the given. We are not claiming that it's impossible to have correct ideas even before having the corresponding perceptions. But we have to very careful with the implications of such ideas. "Awareness dreams existence" is not simply a beautiful expression but it has quite dramatic repercussions on what we'll consider possible and impossible, what can be considered knowledge and what chasing shadows. If we take that idea at heart, the totality of our experience immediately assumes the character of a thin film supported solely by the mysterious dreaming activity of awareness. Any further pursuit into the structure of the thin dream image becomes laughable. We either sit back and enjoy the dream or make the effort to wake up, as this is the only thing that makes sense if we are interested into unveiling the mystery of the dream. That's why we have to be so careful when we overlay our own ideas over the given. We all know how one such innocent idea, of subjective and unknowable by definition, objective world, has been overlaid on the given and is still causing generations of philosophers to break their heads against the implications. There's nothing wrong, it's even necessary, to explore such ideas but we really need to always look for ways to support the ideas within the given. If the ideas can live their existence only in the abstract we need to be extra cautious.

Your postings never cease to amaze me with their insights, Cleric. Thank you! I have a question for you (and Scott) but will start a separate thread about it.

[Cleric K]

I like empirical approach very much. Very scientific! Starting investigation from sight, the visual sense of the "external" is already a (sub?)conscious choice. There is no guarantees that conclusions would be the same if we don't start from sight (which reading invites to do) but instead and also from closing our eyes (or if possible, doing the exercise in a sense-deprivation tank). Or, that the closed-eyed exercise would be same awake, sleep or in-between.

When I stop writing and attending visual sense and language production, I can attend bodily awareness more fully. Body sense and visual image of body don't match 100% or even close. I can't see how I feel - maybe others can. Touch, like joining hands together, feels and seems like a joint of visual and body sense.

I agree. That's why I said that every time we repeat the exercise we get a unique totality of experience - even if we start from sight every time. But other than that, sight was a quite random choice. The goal was to start from something palpable and expand to include all that can be perceived. In that sense we can also start from bodily sensations and expand further. At some point we'll have to include also sight, hearing, etc. - even if our eyes are closed, we'll still have to include the perception of darkness. The goal is to expand attention to include all that it can possibly can. From that experience repeated in different context, starting from different senses, we can generalize the concept of "totality of experience". Now anytime we think "totality of experience" the idea flashes and points our attention towards all that can become object of awareness - even if we don't walk the gradual path of the exercise.

It should be noted that this totality is normally not experienced as something crisp, as if we have perfect awareness of everything. An analog could the if we focus our gaze, such that our gaze encompasses the whole screen, this doesn't mean that we experience the meaning of every written word at the same time. Instead, we experience different meaning, corresponding to "the screen and its contents". Similarly, the totality of experience feels as one thing but normally as something "blurry", we know that it envelops the totality of all perceptions but this doesn't mean that we experience at the same time in some simultaneous manner the concepts of every individual perception that we have thus encompassed.

I entirely agree, since both states are possible, the experience of both states makes the idea of the existence of self inconclusive as well as the idea of its non-existence.

Eugene, I've touched upon this a little more here.

[David_Sundaram]

Cleric, thanks for your elaborated post

The facts of experience is that both self and no-self states are possible.

I entirely agree, since both states are possible, the experience of both states makes the idea of the existence of self inconclusive as well as the idea of its non-existence.

Round and round revolving rabbit-holes we go. One can even experience the 'state' of being a chicken!




What does this video-displayed fact 'tell' the existing 'you' - or, as the case may be if 'you' are presently in this 'hole', the non-existent 'you'?

Hint: It ain't that 'consciousness' or 'awareness' is the 'creator' of what you ex-peer-ienced!

"Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;
Not that which the ear can hear, but that whereby the ear can hear: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;
Not that which speech can illuminate, but that by which speech can be illuminated: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore;
Not that which the mind can think, but that whereby the mind can think: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what people here adore."


The next Q is: "What the heck is 'Brahman'?"

My answer to that (excerpted from my book) is:

"The potentially liberating and amendatory truth (which ... many don’t appre­ciate) is that every body (or thought-form) in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by cus­tom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by mis­usage, I generally refer to it alter­natively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am, That which Is at root within each and everyone."

[AshvinP]

It should be noted that this totality is normally not experienced as something crisp, as if we have perfect awareness of everything. An analog could the if we focus our gaze, such that our gaze encompasses the whole screen, this doesn't mean that we experience the meaning of every written word at the same time. Instead, we experience different meaning, corresponding to "the screen and its contents". Similarly, the totality of experience feels as one thing but normally as something "blurry", we know that it envelops the totality of all perceptions but this doesn't mean that we experience at the same time in some simultaneous manner the concepts of every individual perception that we have thus encompassed.

Could this be the direction in which consciousness is evolving? An ability to 'loosen' our gaze and retain multiple crisp perceptions or concepts in our attention at the same time?

[Cleric K]

"The potentially liberating and amendatory truth (which ... many don’t appre­ciate) is that every body (or thought-form) in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by cus­tom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by mis­usage, I generally refer to it alter­natively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am, That which Is at root within each and everyone."

I agree, David. In certain sense all this is correct to say. The question (the post at the other thread has few things on this) is that as man progresses on his spiritual journey through the ages, the landscape changes. If few thousand years ago man experienced the Brahman as mighty presence, a profound feeling penetrating through and through his soul, now we are in a process where this presence must find its concrete expression. We can compare this as approaching a forest from a distance. From afar the concept of "forest" is fully appropriate but once we enter it, we must recognize also the trees - otherwise we bump into them and don't realize what's happening. This is not to say we have to reduce and fragment reality but only that we must recognize what is there to be recognized.

When we say "the core I-Am-That-I-Am, That which Is at root within each and everyone" this intuitively rings true for many souls. But we must also realize that thoughts like this are produced from the thinking process. Any assertion about reality proceeds from the thinking process. We might be convinced that we are expressing an obvious fact but is it really? What exactly do we mean when we say "the root" within each and everyone? Which one is the root?

Could this be the direction in which consciousness is evolving? An ability to 'loosen' our gaze and retain multiple crisp perceptions or concepts in our attention at the same time?

Well.... maybe from a very specific perspective it can be expressed in such a way. But this question must be looked at from many different directions in order to avoid falling into one-sidedness. That's why I'll avoid saying anything now. But I'll think about it. Maybe some other essay.

[SanteriSatama]

It should be noted that this totality is normally not experienced as something crisp, as if we have perfect awareness of everything. An analog could the if we focus our gaze, such that our gaze encompasses the whole screen, this doesn't mean that we experience the meaning of every written word at the same time. Instead, we experience different meaning, corresponding to "the screen and its contents". Similarly, the totality of experience feels as one thing but normally as something "blurry", we know that it envelops the totality of all perceptions but this doesn't mean that we experience at the same time in some simultaneous manner the concepts of every individual perception that we have thus encompassed.

The focused-unfocused gaze is fun to explore. The process and stages in-between, moving attention in the blurry unfocused field, etc.

Oh, attention and attending attention... can attention catch attention?!

[Cleric K]

Oh, attention and attending attention... can attention catch attention?!

Can a hand draw a picture of "itself drawing itself"?

[SanteriSatama]

Oh, attention and attending attention... can attention catch attention?!

Can a hand draw a picture of "itself drawing itself"?

Question is purely empirical