Can you help me with metaphysical Isms?

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

The awareness is not a concept, it's the very experiential and existential fact of you having conscious experience right here and now. The problem with your approach is the same as Dennet's: you are ignoring the fundamental fact of the reality of the direct conscious experience. How relations and interactions can give rise to conscious experience if the ability of having such experience is not fundamental (i.e. if it is an epiphenomenon emerging from interactions)? If you deny a non-relational and non-emergent nature of the ability to have conscious experience (not the content of it, but the very ability and existence of it), you immediately run into the "hard problem of consciousness". If you accept a non-relational and non-emergent nature of such ability, then this is idealism which is to pose that the monistic prime is conscious by nature. In the latter case of course the content of conscious experience is always relational, but not the very "existence" of such experience.

Ok, awareness is not a concept. But how we think of it, what it is and how it works is a lot of concept. Trying to understand awareness form the human experience of awareness is like trying to understand fundamental particles from the apperance of a human being. And there is no combination problem of awareness as there is no difference between mind and and matter but merely two different perspectives. It is obvious that it can combine into all sorts of micro, meso and makro systems like atoms, human beings, ecosystems and galaxies.

I do realize of course the fundamental fact of conscious experience in existence. Its all there is, seen from within existence. But i belive existence is merely an aspect of an unrelational "awareness of awareness" that is not aware of anything and thus it just is itself. If you loop awareness on awareness it is no-thing. It is not finite, its not of this world, it is infinity and gives rise to the world.
As soon as being loops in on itself awareness becomes an awareness of something and thats the experience of beeing human. Being forgets a part of itself, only to know another part of itself. We only know what we experience but not what is experiencing. If one manages to loop the experience to experiencing one just is. At that moment there is total selfknowlage, noticing that there is nothing to know...

Relations and interactions do not give rise to conscious experience. Interaction is experiencing. Relations are experiencial states. There is no epiphenomenon emerging. There are relations evolving and thus creating all kinds of experiencial states and states of consciousness. So there is no hard problem.

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

The dual property monism does not run into the "hard problem", but BK would argue that it is not parsimonious and the addition of the property of "matter" is unnecessary.

The OP of Idealism includes beingness and awareness. So if it was possible to reasonably deduce awareness from beingness, would BK have to change his mind? I could imagine to deduce the experience of awareness and contents as a "dream" of infinite Being, a dissociation of Being, creating the illusion of a relationship to itself, the illusion of subject and objects. While the OP would still remain Being alone. The illusions of awareness and contents would be the dream of a separation. The worldly experience of awareness and contents would be a dream of neutral Being.

[Eugene I]

The OP of Idealism includes beingness and awareness. So if it was possible to reasonably deduce awareness from beingness, would BK have to change his mind? I could imagine to deduce the experience of awareness and contents as a "dream" of infinite Being, a dissociation of Being, creating the illusion of a relationship to itself, the illusion of subject and objects. While the OP would still remain Being alone. The illusions of awareness and contents would be the dream of a separation. The worldly experience of awareness and contents would be a dream of neutral Being.

Yes, but the major problem is not to explain how the specific content of such "dream" emerges from the Being (even though it also requires an explanation), but how the conscious experiencing of this dream is possible and how it emerges from non-conscious Being or whatever. This is where the "hard problem" arises. How a non-conscious "material" or neutral "something" can in principle have any conscious experience of qualia? How the very ability to experience qualia can arise from a non-conscious OP?

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

The dual property monism does not run into the "hard problem", but BK would argue that it is not parsimonious and the addition of the property of "matter" is unnecessary.

The OP of Idealism includes beingness and awareness. So if it was possible to reasonably deduce awareness from beingness, would BK have to change his mind? I could imagine to deduce the experience of awareness and contents as a "dream" of infinite Being, a dissociation of Being, creating the illusion of a relationship to itself, the illusion of subject and objects. While the OP would still remain Being alone. The illusions of awareness and contents would be the dream of a separation. The worldly experience of awareness and contents would be a dream of neutral Being.

I mean experiencing wourld simply be the illusory separation of Being. The state of the illusory separation from the perspective of the separation was a relating to the rest of Being. Experiencing it the draw back to unity, which are the driving forces of the universe. Experience would just be an illusion created withing Being.

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

The OP of Idealism includes beingness and awareness. So if it was possible to reasonably deduce awareness from beingness, would BK have to change his mind? I could imagine to deduce the experience of awareness and contents as a "dream" of infinite Being, a dissociation of Being, creating the illusion of a relationship to itself, the illusion of subject and objects. While the OP would still remain Being alone. The illusions of awareness and contents would be the dream of a separation. The worldly experience of awareness and contents would be a dream of neutral Being.

Yes, but the major problem is not to explain how the specific content of such "dream" emerges from the Being (even though it also requires an explanation), but how the conscious experiencing of this dream is possible and how it emerges from non-conscious Being or whatever. This is where the "hard problem" arises. How a non-conscious "material" or neutral "something" can in principle have any conscious experience of qualia? How the very ability to experience qualia can arise from a non-conscious OP?

Being is Infinity itself. So it necessarily gives rise to anything.
Of course I realize the fundamental fact of experience from the perspective of experience.

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

The OP of Idealism includes beingness and awareness. So if it was possible to reasonably deduce awareness from beingness, would BK have to change his mind? I could imagine to deduce the experience of awareness and contents as a "dream" of infinite Being, a dissociation of Being, creating the illusion of a relationship to itself, the illusion of subject and objects. While the OP would still remain Being alone. The illusions of awareness and contents would be the dream of a separation. The worldly experience of awareness and contents would be a dream of neutral Being.

Yes, but the major problem is not to explain how the specific content of such "dream" emerges from the Being (even though it also requires an explanation), but how the conscious experiencing of this dream is possible and how it emerges from non-conscious Being or whatever. This is where the "hard problem" arises. How a non-conscious "material" or neutral "something" can in principle have any conscious experience of qualia? How the very ability to experience qualia can arise from a non-conscious OP?

How is Beingness derived from Consciousness in Idealism? Seems to me Idealism is not any better in this regard. Same same the other way around.

It even seems to me that consciousness is a kind of being. Consciousness without being makes no sense. While being without consciousness does.

[Eugene I]

How is Beingness derived from Consciousness in Idealism? Seems to me Idealism is not any better in this regard. Same same the other way around.
It even seems to me that consciousness is a kind of being. Consciousness without being makes no sense. While being without consciousness does.

you are right, Being can not be derived from Cosnciousness. But neither Consciousness can be derived from Being because of the "hard problem". In idealism Beingness and Consciousness are inseparable primordial aspects of the same Ontic Prime, none of them is derived from the other. In the Vedic tradition Brahman is Sat (Being) - Chit (Consciousness) inseparably.

[Soul_of_Shu]

How is Beingness derived from Consciousness in Idealism? Seems to me Idealism is not any better in this regard. Same same the other way around.

It even seems to me that consciousness is a kind of being. Consciousness without being makes no sense. While being without consciousness does.

Again, under the premise of idealism this is just tautology, since the fundamental, uncaused ontic state of being is immanently aware, in which case 'being' and 'consciousness' are just ways of referring to the sole fundamental uncaused ontic state of being ~ aka, as Eugene mentions, Satchitananda. Every ontology must start with the premise of an irreducible, fundamental, uncaused state of being. BK's point is that to be most parsimonious, there is no need for the premise of some other state of being absent and prior to consciousness, which inexplicably gives rise to consciousness ~ which is precisely the premise of materialism, and its attendant 'hard problem.' Positing some mysterious state of being that is neither material, nor aware, doesn't get around that problem. However, as BK concedes, idealism still has the problem of how a singular state of Consciousness individuates into many apparent loci of consciousness. In any case, insofar as any model may always remain incomplete, I suppose it may come down to whichever offers the most explanatory power in any given individual's experience.

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

How is Beingness derived from Consciousness in Idealism? Seems to me Idealism is not any better in this regard. Same same the other way around.
It even seems to me that consciousness is a kind of being. Consciousness without being makes no sense. While being without consciousness does.

you are right, Being can not be derived from Cosnciousness. But neither Consciousness can be derived from Being because of the "hard problem". In idealism Beingness and Consciousness are inseparable primordial aspects of the same Ontic Prime, none of them is derived from the other. In the Vedic tradition Brahman is Sat (Being) - Chit (Consciousness) inseparably.

Again, under the premise of idealism this is just tautology, since the fundamental, uncaused ontic state of being is immanently aware, in which case 'being' and 'consciousness' are just ways of referring to the sole fundamental uncaused ontic state of being ~ aka, as Eugene mentions, Satchitananda. Every ontology must start with the premise of an irreducible, fundamental, uncaused state of being. BK's point is that to be most parsimonious, there is no need for the premise of some other state of being absent and prior to consciousness, which inexplicably gives rise to consciousness ~ which is precisely the premise of materialism, and its attendant 'hard problem.' Positing some mysterious state of being that is neither material, nor aware, doesn't get around that problem. However, as BK concedes, idealism still has the problem of how a singular state of Consciousness individuates into many apparent loci of consciousness. In any case, insofar as any model may always remain incomplete, I suppose it may come down to whichever offers the most explanatory power in any given individual's experience.

Thank you guys for elucidating the bottom of the problem very clearly for me! I appreciate that a lot!!

I understand that it does not seem to resonate with you or to be convincing to you that there could be a resting state of Being that just is itself and a self-refering state of being that is a self-relating, respectively an illusory separation between subject and object. You seem to be convinced that the experiencing must be the bottom of it all? I can understand that because within the illusion of the separation that would be all you could know of. On the other hand it seems unsatisfying to me to have a OP that takes beingness and awareness of beingness as one ontological base.

If the OP of Idealism takes Consciousness as something that includes Being. I could just as well start with a definition of Being that includes Consciousness. And say Consciousness is a state of Being? Or do I still miss the point here?

[Eugene I]

If the OP of Idealism takes Consciousness as something that includes Being. I could just as well start with a definition of Being that includes Consciousness. And say Consciousness is a state of Being? Or do I still miss the point here?

You can pose either of these:
- Ontic Prime that fundamentally/irreducibly both Being and Consciousness
- Being that fundamentally/irreducibly includes Consciousness
- Consciousness that fundamentally/irreducibly Being

But to me these sound like just word games. What's the difference really? And even if there would be a difference, how would you know which one is "true"? There is no way you can prove experientially that a state of Being with no Consciousness can ever exist, so the hypothesis that there can be unconscious Being is totally non-verifiable, and plus such hypothesis runs into the "hard problem". But now, if we say that unconscious Being is impossible and Being is always conscious, than how do you know if Consciousness is a "state" of Being, or if it is just an "aspect" of it, or something else? Or if the Being is a "state" of the OP, or just and "aspect" or else? Our words and concepts seem to be inadequate at that fundamental level of reality. The word "state" implies the existence of an alternative: the Being can be in a "state" of consciousness, or it can be in a "state" of unconsciousness. But if unconsciousness is impossible and there is only one possibility - Conscious Being, then what is the meaning of the word "state"?