Can you help me with metaphysical Isms?

[AshvinP]

Do I need to requote our resolution from the formlesness-form thread? Because I will do it... don't test me!

I always said that Beingness is non-emergent, but I never agreed that ideas are non-emergent. Non-emergent nature of ideas is Platonism, which I do not subscribe to. So that's what I said again here - the idea of Being is emergent (we may have this idea, or we may not), but Beingness is always the non-emergent reality, because Beingness always IS.

But we also agreed that Thinking-thoughts (formlessness-form) is non-emergent aspect of OP. What are ideas if not thoughts? And what is idealism without ideas?

[SanteriSatama]

In Finnish:

Being: Ollaan. (Fully grammatical sentence consisting of only a verb in asubjective person).
To exist: Olla olemassa. (To be in being). Also: Olla, ole massa. (To be, be mass.).

[Eugene I]

But we also agreed that Thinking-thoughts (formlessness-form) is non-emergent aspect of OP. What are ideas if not thoughts? And what is idealism without ideas?

Right, but the thinking ability is not equivalent to thoughts and ideas. Thinking ability (may be) a non-emergent ability - an intrinsic ability to produce thoughts, and it can also be put on hold (brought to a state of not having any thoughts). Thoughts and ideas are emergent - they may or may not exist. In the case when the thinking ability is on hold, the ability still exists, it's just not being exercised. So, thoughts and ideas are emergent aspects of the reality, while beingness, awareness and thinking ability are non-emergent ones.

[AshvinP]

But we also agreed that Thinking-thoughts (formlessness-form) is non-emergent aspect of OP. What are ideas if not thoughts? And what is idealism without ideas?

Right, but the thinking ability is not equivalent to thoughts and ideas. Thinking ability (may be) a non-emergent ability - an intrinsic ability to produce thoughts, and it can also be put on hold (brought to a state of not having any thoughts). Thoughts and ideas are emergent - they may or may not exist. In the case when the thinking ability is on hold, the ability still exists, it's just not being exercised. So, thoughts and ideas are emergent aspects of the reality, while beingness, awareness and thinking ability are non-emergent ones.

And I suspect that is why Cleric emphasized "be-ing" (like think-ing) as an ongoing activity. I suspect he was not referring to any particular thought-idea but the reflective unifying process itself. Also, I think we agreed that thinking (formlessness) cannot exist without any thoughts (form).

[Cleric K]

I always said that Beingness is non-emergent, but I never agreed that ideas are non-emergent. Non-emergent nature of ideas is Platonism, which I do not subscribe to. So that's what I said again here - the idea of Being is emergent (we may have this idea, or we may not), but Beingness is always the non-emergent reality, because Beingness always IS.

I think there are few layers of confusion here.
I suspect Idea is taken here only in the limited case of intellectual concept. But Idea in its fundamental reality is the very 'substance' of meaning. We can't separate awareness from idea. The very word 'awareness' implies 'being aware.' The experience of what we are being aware of (even if it is aware of being aware) is already some meaning - a general idea - even if it is not rigidified in concepts and mentally verbalized.

Maybe this can be clarified if we appreciate the fact that awareness is not some pure element that everyone agrees on. For example, there's a difference in the experience of pure awareness in someone like Sam Harris, who experiences it as a local phenomenon, and a mystic. Both are experiencing thoughtless state, both would claim that they experience some more general state, the container of consciousness. In both cases we have thoughtless experience of phenomena entering and leaving awareness. But still, somehow the experiences differ. What is different if there are no explicit thoughts to color them? The meaning or the background general idea of the experience is different. If we really grasp this we understand that it's pointless to speak of awareness without the implicit idea of the experience. Insisting that in awareness or be-ing - in the way we experience them - we have our hands on some fundamental and pure element of reality is not serious. Our comprehension of what we consider awareness to be is the general background idea that we experience in the thoughtless state. And we should really appreciate that this idea is not something fixed - it is evolving. For example, what would take for Sam Harris to see awareness as something fundamental and boundless? It's not about just experience - he already has the experiences but views them as happening within the brain. He needs to consider a different idea. When this idea has been worked upon in thinking such that it becomes an actual feeling, flesh of our flesh, then also the character of the thoughtless state is experienced in different light.
This is a major stumbling stone for modern mysticism. Everyone keeps insisting that in the mystical state the ground Truth is reached. But if this was the case, why after millennia there's still no agreement on the most fundamental questions? Is there a Center or not? Is there reincarnation or not? Can there be self-consciousness without a body or not? The reason is simple. Preoccupying with the mystical state simply makes us lose sight of the fact that, no matter what we do, we still live in a constellation of ideas. Ramana lived in a constellation which colored his experience in such a way that reincarnation seemed false. For Buddha, who lived in a different constellation, it was real. Assuming they both had experienced mystical states, what could be the reason for the differences if not the constellation of ideas that gives meaning of the mystical state?

Another confusion arises from the idea of emergence. We must make clear distinction between emergence and experience of ideas entering and leaving consciousness. I don't always have experience of red - it enters and leaves my consciousness - but does this mean it is emergent quality? The idea that red 'simply' emerges from awareness is simply a hard problem. It's about time to learn from past mistakes and reckon that we can't produce neither qualities, nor ideas from one another. We can only discover them and investigate their relations.

The role of Occidental spirituality is precisely to penetrate into the reality of ideas and their relations. It's of no use to succumb to the thoughtless state and simply accept the interpretation that feels most sympathetic to us. We need to go 'meta' about it and begin to investigate precisely the nature of living ideas and how they shape our spiritual activity, including the experience of thoughtless awareness.

[Eugene I]

Also, I think we agreed that thinking (formlessness) cannot exist without any thoughts (form).

No, I always said that the state of the absence of thoughts, feelings and perceptions is achievable and known from experience to advanced meditators. You can still argue that it is not a purely formless state because some functions of consciousness (such as memory) still continues.

[AshvinP]

Also, I think we agreed that thinking (formlessness) cannot exist without any thoughts (form).

No, I always said that the state of the absence of thoughts, feelings and perceptions is achievable and known from experience to advanced meditators. You can still argue that it is not a purely formless state because some functions of consciousness (such as memory) still continues.

You can form memories without ontic existence of perceptions, feelings and thoughts-ideas? All of these arguments are incredibly strained to avoid acknowledging the simple reality as Cleric stated it above. As he said, we are learning nothing from the hard problem of consciousness under materialism if we insist on emergence of all forms as you do.

[Eugene I]

I suspect Idea is taken here only in the limited case of intellectual concept. But Idea in its fundamental reality is the very 'substance' of meaning. We can't separate awareness from idea. The very word 'awareness' implies 'being aware.' The experience of what we are being aware of (even if it is aware of being aware) is already some meaning - a general idea - even if it is not rigidified in concepts and mentally verbalized.

This is a statement of Platonism, which I do not subscribe to.

Maybe this can be clarified if we appreciate the fact that awareness is not some pure element that everyone agrees on. For example, there's a difference in the experience of pure awareness in someone like Sam Harris, who experiences it as a local phenomenon, and a mystic. Both are experiencing thoughtless state, both would claim that they experience some more general state, the container of consciousness. In both cases we have thoughtless experience of phenomena entering and leaving awareness. But still, somehow the experiences differ. What is different if there are no explicit thoughts to color them? The meaning or the background general idea of the experience is different. If we really grasp this we understand that it's pointless to speak of awareness without the implicit idea of the experience. Insisting that in awareness or be-ing - in the way we experience them - we have our hands on some fundamental and pure element of reality is not serious. Our comprehension of what we consider awareness to be is the general background idea that we experience in the thoughtless state. And we should really appreciate that this idea is not something fixed - it is evolving. For example, what would take for Sam Harris to see awareness as something fundamental and boundless? It's not about just experience - he already has the experiences but views them as happening within the brain. He needs to consider a different idea. When this idea has been worked upon in thinking such that it becomes an actual feeling, flesh of our flesh, then also the character of the thoughtless state is experienced in different light.
This is a major stumbling stone for modern mysticism. Everyone keeps insisting that in the mystical state the ground Truth is reached. But if this was the case, why after millennia there's still no agreement on the most fundamental questions? Is there a Center or not? Is there reincarnation or not? Can there be self-consciousness without a body or not? The reason is simple. Preoccupying with the mystical state simply makes us lose sight of the fact that, no matter what we do, we still live in a constellation of ideas. Ramana lived in a constellation which colored his experience in such a way that reincarnation seemed false. For Buddha, who lived in a different constellation, it was real. Assuming they both had experienced mystical states, what could be the reason for the differences if not the constellation of ideas that gives meaning of the mystical state?

It is true that there is a lot of confusion around the experience and understanding of "awareness". Yet there is one very simple and clear knowing of it, the one that Chalmers, Rupert, Spira, Buddha, Adyashanti and many others refer to: it is simply the pretense of "conscious experiencing" of any phenomena. And even in a state of absence of phenomena (known to advanced meditators) the "experiencing" is still present even though there is nothing to experience. This is it, very simple. From the 1-st person perspective such experiencing/awareness is never absent (because obviously it is impossible to experience an absence of experiencing), so philosophically is can be argued that the awareness is ever-present and the state of the absence of awareness simply does not exist and not possible. That is the basic assumption of most versions of idealism.

Note that such knowing of awareness is not an idea. The presence of the conscious experiencing is an experiential fact regardless whether we know, think about it or understand it or have any idea of it. Because even if we have no clue about it (which most people actually do), we are still having conscious experience every moment of our life. But when we reflect this fact in our thinking, we label it with words (awareness, experiencing), we develop ideas about it etc, but in fact they are simply reflections and pointers to the basic experiential fact of the presence of conscious experience.

Another confusion arises from the idea of emergence. We must make clear distinction between emergence and experience of ideas entering and leaving consciousness. I don't always have experience of red - it enters and leaves my consciousness - but does this mean it is emergent quality? The idea that red 'simply' emerges from awareness is simply a hard problem. It's about time to learn from past mistakes and reckon that we can't produce neither qualities, nor ideas from one another. We can only discover them and investigate their relations.

OK, this is another statement and argument of Platonism, and do not get me wrong, Platonism is a solid philosophical position, that is why it survived over two millennia. Obviously, we can neither prove not disprove that qualia and ideas do not emerge when we experience them, but they ever-exist and we simply "connect" to them in our conscious experience. It is entirely possible, but there is also a possibility that it is not true, so, it is entirely undecidable. But from philosophical perspective the Platonic assumption is not necessary, and so it is subject to elimination by the principle of parsimony (this is why BK is not a Platonist).

The role of Occidental spirituality is precisely to penetrate into the reality of ideas and their relations. It's of no use to succumb to the thoughtless state and simply accept the interpretation that feels most sympathetic to us. We need to go 'meta' about it and begin to investigate precisely the nature of living ideas and how they shape our spiritual activity, including the experience of thoughtless awareness.

Eastern (Vedic and Buddhist) spiritualities do not share such view. There are some Eastern schools aiming for the "thoughtless state" as their spiritual goal, but by far not all of them. Most of them see no problem whatsoever with the state of unfolding forms and thoughts (as long as it does not collapse into the dualistic distortion of the perception of reality). The presence or absence of thoughts and phenomena does not affect the awareness in any way. But these traditions still do not subscribe to the belief that ideas exist apart from the emerging thoughts experienced by sentient beings, and therefore for them the ideas are emergent phenomena just like thoughts are emergent phenomena.

But if you guys wan to believe in Platonism, there is nothing wrong with that, it's a beautiful philosophy with solid spiritual component.

[Eugene I]

Let me continue in a separate post. Here is a question for you Platonist guys. As we know (from mathematics for example), the number of possible ideas is infinite, and they include all ideas, both "wrong" and "right", and even include the ideas constituting the very criteria of truthfulness. There is an idea "2x2=4" and "2x2=5", there is an idea of Euclidian geometry, as well as countless number of ideas of non-Euclidian geometries. Which ones of them belong to the realm of ever-existing Platonic ideas? All of them? Or only the "true" ones? Which ones among the countless variants of geometries are "true" and belong to the kind of Platinic ever-existing non-emergent ideas?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Just to be clear, I'm not positing that any given idea is immanent and uncaused, i.e. has always existed, but that the process of ideation is the immanent, ontological imperative, such that there is no abiding state of non-ideation, from which at some point ideation inexplicably arises ~ other than the ever-present origin ~ nor can ideation ever finally cease. So if ideation can never not be the case, and ideas are an infinitude, then some form of idea will always be present, and thus it's a moot point to suggest their absence in totality.