Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental

[Eugene I]

Being-awareness is not static either.

The difference in our approaches is that you approach them intellectually and philosophically (and there is nothing wrong with that), and I approach them experientially-existentially. From philosophical perspective you can assume almost anything, things like changing being-awareness or else But based on my direct experience of Being-Awareness it never changes, while forms, thoughts and meanings always change. It's just an experiential fact for me, and I can throw in a bunch of philosophical theories in an attempt to explain it, or I can just accept this direct fact as an ineffable mystery, which I prefer to do, although I don't mind philosophizing about it once in a while

[AshvinP]

Being-awareness is not static either.

The difference in our approaches is that you approach them intellectually and philosophically (and there is nothing wrong with that), and I approach them experientially-existentially. From philosophical perspective you can assume almost anything, things like changing being-awareness or else But based on my direct experience of Being-Awareness it never changes, while forms, thoughts and meanings always change. It's just an experiential fact for me, and I can throw in a bunch of philosophical theories in an attempt to explain it, or I can just accept this direct fact as an ineffable mystery, which I prefer to do, although I don't mind philosophizing about it once in a while

Are you telling me your awareness has not changed since you were in your mother's womb? Sorry but that offends both my experience and my Reason.

The whole "what I know cannot be approached intellectually/philosophically" routine is fine, but it begs the question of why you started down the path of intellectual explanation to begin with

[Eugene I]

Are you telling me your awareness has not changed since you were in your mother's womb? Sorry but that offends both my experience and my Reason.

The problem is that we are talking about different kinds of awareness, so we are just talking over each other heads.

The whole "what I know cannot be approached intellectually/philosophically" routine is fine, but it begs the question of why you started down the path of intellectual explanation to begin with

No, it can be approached intellectually, but cannot be fully and adequately described intellectually, because the reality is not an idea, they are of different natures. It is like a picture can reflect the real landscape and can capture some of its features, but can never reflect it fully and can never be equivalent to the landscape, because they are of different natures - a picture is an image, a landscape is a reality. There is nothing wrong with making pictures, it's a beautiful art. But the artists should not fool themselves into believing that their pictures can fully embrace and describe the landscapes.

[AshvinP]

Are you telling me your awareness has not changed since you were in your mother's womb? Sorry but that offends both my experience and my Reason.

The problem is that we are talking about different kinds of awareness, so we are just talking over each other heads.

The whole "what I know cannot be approached intellectually/philosophically" routine is fine, but it begs the question of why you started down the path of intellectual explanation to begin with

No, it can be approached intellectually, but cannot be fully and adequately described intellectually, because the reality is not an idea, they are of different natures. It is like a picture can reflect the real landscape and can capture some of its features, but can never reflect it fully and can never be equivalent to the landscape, because they are of different natures - a picture is an image, a landscape is a reality. There is nothing wrong with making pictures, it's a beautiful art. But the artists should not fool themselves into believing that their pictures can fully embrace and describe the landscapes.

What is the kind of awareness you are talking about?

Summary:
You started this off saying forms come out of formlessess but not vice versa. That being-awareness is prior to feeling-thinking, and therefore meanings are added on to awareness. Then you slowly moved towards mumorphism where all OP aspects are necessary and none are prior to the others. Your argument then became that awareness stays the same while thinking always changes, so that's why meanings are never shared between people. The "you can never step in the same river twice" argument. I responded that awareness is always in process like thinking and we can enter into sharred streams of thought just like shared streams of awareness. You replied that now, for some reason, our words can take us no further in the argument.

Dana - I move to admit the above evidence and arguments into the official record if there are no objections so we don't have to start from scratch the next time Eugene denies the primacy of forms.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Dana - I move to admit the above evidence and arguments into the official record if there are no objections so we don't have to start from scratch the next time Eugene denies the primacy of forms.

Duly noted ... So please now move on to making the case that mumorphism also subsumes the unchanging><changing fusion.

[AshvinP]

Dana - I move to admit the above evidence and arguments into the official record if there are no objections so we don't have to start from scratch the next time Eugene denies the primacy of forms.

Duly noted ... So please now move on to making the case that mumorphism also subsumes the unchanging><changing fusion.

https://sites.google.com/site/nondualis ... authuser=0

As a philosophy of mind, mumorphism is the claim that all mental activity is mumorphic. Take thinking. Thinking is not just thoughts (each of which has form), that is, the set of thoughts is just another thought. Rather it is what moves from one thought to another, unifying one concept with the next, which (if the thinking is original) changes the concepts. On the other hand, without the confining force of concepts, one would just have meaningless drivel. Thinking, then, in Coleridge's words, is a case of two forces of one power, which act against each other as they constitute the other.

All things have form, but are only actual through the force of formlessness. On the other hand, form is also a force, which restrains the force of formlessness. Thinking exemplifies this best in our experience.

Or consider hearing the sound of a bell. This is a change in my consciousness, but if my consciousness didn't continue (remain unchanged) through the hearing of the sound, I wouldn't have heard it. Now one can't say that most of my consciousness did not change, just the part that heard the sound changed, because if so, then the "most" part would not have heard the sound. Rather it is my entire consciousness that heard it, so my entire consciousness both changed and did not change.

In sum, if we restrict ourselves to conventional logic, one cannot only not say anything about the Absolute, we also cannot say anything about the working of our normal everyday minds. There is the additional point to make that we can, with mumorphic logic, infer the immanence of the Absolute in our everyday minds.

If one also holds (as I do) that there is nothing outside of experience, then all acts are mental (that is, experiential), which makes mumorphism an ontology as well.

I rest my case.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes, as I've made this point often enough, unless one can point to a point of origin for the changing state, as the ontological imperative, then it's pointless to refer to any exclusive abidance as either unchanging or changing, for there is only an inextricable, forever-now, not-two duet, inviting paradox-embracing neologisms as useful pointers.

[Eugene I]

Are you telling me your awareness has not changed since you were in your mother's womb? Sorry but that offends both my experience and my Reason.

The problem is that we are talking about different kinds of awareness, so we are just talking over each other heads.

The whole "what I know cannot be approached intellectually/philosophically" routine is fine, but it begs the question of why you started down the path of intellectual explanation to begin with

No, it can be approached intellectually, but cannot be fully and adequately described intellectually, because the reality is not an idea, they are of different natures. It is like a picture can reflect the real landscape and can capture some of its features, but can never reflect it fully and can never be equivalent to the landscape, because they are of different natures - a picture is an image, a landscape is a reality. There is nothing wrong with making pictures, it's a beautiful art. But the artists should not fool themselves into believing that their pictures can fully embrace and describe the landscapes.

What is the kind of awareness you are talking about?

Summary:
You started this off saying forms come out of formlessess but not vice versa. That being-awareness is prior to feeling-thinking, and therefore meanings are added on to awareness. Then you slowly moved towards mumorphism where all OP aspects are necessary and none are prior to the others. Your argument then became that awareness stays the same while thinking always changes, so that's why meanings are never shared between people. The "you can never step in the same river twice" argument. I responded that awareness is always in process like thinking and we can enter into sharred streams of thought just like shared streams of awareness. You replied that now, for some reason, our words can take us no further in the argument.

Dana - I move to admit the above evidence and arguments into the official record if there are no objections so we don't have to start from scratch the next time Eugene denies the primacy of forms.

It's not easy to recognize the fundamental awareness, many Buddhist and Advaita practitioners spend years on meditation cushions trying to figure it out.

I explained it all here (including pointers to the fundamental awareness which is different from our self-awareness), where I said that the fundamental and invariant aspects of the OP are causally and ontologically prior to the forms, but not temporally. Forms could not exist at all without the being-awareness, while being-awareness does not need forms to exist, even though it may never exist in time without forms. Forms are emergent by nature, while being-awareness is not emergent, it is a fundamental aspect of the OP, because the OP can't not exist and can't not be aware (there is no such thing as non-existing OP or an OP without conscious experience, in idealism at least). Beingness does not change because the OP can not exist more or less today than it existed yesterday, it always just exists in exactly the same unchanging way. Similarly, it's ability to have conscious experience also never changes, it is the same today or tomorrow. Beingness is what allows forms to BE, awareness is what allows forms to be consciously experienced, without being-awareness forms could not exist and could not be consciously experienced. ("'Being' is not something like a being but is rather "what determines beings as beings." Heidegger).

This is also what differentiates idealism from materialism: materialism claims that the ability to have conscious experience is emergent from non-conscious matter-OP, so it's just one of the forms of the OP. So the claim that the awareness is ontically fundamental and not emergent is exactly what differentiates all variants of idealism (and dualism too) from materialism.

[AshvinP]

The problem is that we are talking about different kinds of awareness, so we are just talking over each other heads.


No, it can be approached intellectually, but cannot be fully and adequately described intellectually, because the reality is not an idea, they are of different natures. It is like a picture can reflect the real landscape and can capture some of its features, but can never reflect it fully and can never be equivalent to the landscape, because they are of different natures - a picture is an image, a landscape is a reality. There is nothing wrong with making pictures, it's a beautiful art. But the artists should not fool themselves into believing that their pictures can fully embrace and describe the landscapes.

What is the kind of awareness you are talking about?

Summary:
You started this off saying forms come out of formlessess but not vice versa. That being-awareness is prior to feeling-thinking, and therefore meanings are added on to awareness. Then you slowly moved towards mumorphism where all OP aspects are necessary and none are prior to the others. Your argument then became that awareness stays the same while thinking always changes, so that's why meanings are never shared between people. The "you can never step in the same river twice" argument. I responded that awareness is always in process like thinking and we can enter into sharred streams of thought just like shared streams of awareness. You replied that now, for some reason, our words can take us no further in the argument.

Dana - I move to admit the above evidence and arguments into the official record if there are no objections so we don't have to start from scratch the next time Eugene denies the primacy of forms.

It's not easy to recognize the fundamental awareness, many Buddhist and Advaita practitioners spend years on meditation cushions trying to figure it out.

I explained it all here (including pointers to the fundamental awareness which is different from our self-awareness), where I said that the fundamental and invariant aspects of the OP are causally and ontologically prior to the forms, but not temporally. Forms could not exist at all without the being-awareness, while being-awareness does not need forms to exist, even though it may never exist in time without forms. Forms are emergent by nature, while being-awareness is not emergent, it is a fundamental aspect of the OP, because the OP can't not exist and can't not be aware (there is no such thing as non-existing OP or an OP without conscious experience, in idealism at least). Beingness does not change because the OP can not exist more or less today than it existed yesterday, it always just exists in exactly the same unchanging way. Similarly, it's ability to have conscious experience also never changes, it is the same today or tomorrow. Beingness is what allows forms to BE, awareness is what allows forms to be consciously experienced, without being-awareness forms could not exist and could not be consciously experienced. ("'Being' is not something like a being but is rather "what determines beings as beings." Heidegger).

This is also what differentiates idealism from materialism: materialism claims that the ability to have conscious experience is emergent from non-conscious matter-OP, so it's just one of the forms of the OP. So the claim that the awareness is ontically fundamental and not emergent is exactly what differentiates all variants of idealism (and dualism too) from materialism.

OK, so to be clear, you are once again rejecting mumorphism. Because the latter does not posit formlessness (being-awareness-thinking) is causally or ontologically prior to form (thoughts) or vice versa.

What differentiates idealism from materialism is that ideas are ontically fundamental, and ideas indivisibly include awareness-thinking-thoughts. I still don't get the bolded statement. An infant evolving into adult or a person who falls into a coma surely undergo a change in ability of awareness, right? Or if we say the ability of awareness always remains the same but the degree of awareness changes, then surely the same applies to thinking as well.

And I would also point out Heidegger posited Thinking as an inseparable aspect of Being as well. That is made very clear in his lectures, "What is Called Thinking?"

[Eugene I]

OK, so to be clear, you are once again rejecting mumorphism. Because the latter does not posit formlessness (being-awareness-thinking) is causally or ontologically prior to form (thoughts) or vice versa.

Yes, if that is what muomorphism poses, I am rejecting it. I do agree that the ability of the OP to express forms (including meanings) is ontically fundamental and ontologically prior to forms, but do not agree that specific forms that emerge and disappear as an expression of such ability (including the ideas that the though-forms carry as their qualia) are ontologically fundaments. The specific forms (including specific ideas) are causally emergent from the fundamental aspects of the OP.

What differentiates idealism from materialism is that ideas are ontically fundamental, and ideas indivisibly include awareness-thinking-thoughts.

No, that's not what all variants of idealism pose. You formulation of idealism in where ideas are ontically fundamental is exactly Platonist version of idealism. There are non-Platonist versions of idealism (with which I tend to adhere) which do not pose that ideas are ontically fundamental. My understanding is that BK's idealism is also non-Platonic, but if you do not agree, we can ask him this question to clarify in the BK's Q&A thread.

I still don't get the bolded statement. An infant evolving into adult or a person who falls into a coma surely undergo a change in ability of awareness, right? Or if we say the ability of awareness always remains the same but the degree of awareness changes, then surely the same applies to thinking as well.

Again, we are talking about different kinds of awareness. You are referring to a self-awareness (which definitely changes over time, and that is exactly why in Buddhism the "self" is considered to be an emergent form but it is not ontically fundamental), I'm referring to awareness as conscious experiencing (of anything). We had multiple threads of discussions with materialists regarding whether the conscious experiencing disappears in coma, anesthesia etc or not. The primal position of idealism (at least non-Platonic one) is that the conscious experiencing is continuous and unchangeable. If it would appear or disappear, that would make it and emergent property, but idealism poses that conscious experiencing is non-emergent but fundamental (see Chalmers arguments against strong emergence of conscious experiencing: "Chalmers argues that consciousness is a fundamental property ontologically autonomous of any known (or even possible) physical properties,[14]" ).

Strong and Weak Emergence