Can you help me with metaphysical Isms?

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

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"?

How can you say the difference between Being and the Awareness of Being is a word game?
When you were in your mother´s womb you were. Today you have an awareness of your being. Seems to me there is quite a difference. It is even conceivable that your being could be a precondition of your awareness of it.

[Eugene I]

How can you say the difference between Being and the Awareness of Being is a word game?
When you were in your mother´s womb you were. Today you have an awareness of your being. Seems to me there is quite a difference. It is even conceivable that your being could be a precondition of your awareness of it.

Can you prove experimentally that you were not aware when you were "in your mother womb"?

If you make an assumption that you were a piece of unconscious meat in your mother womb at some point of your life, you are already out of idealism, it's either materialism or neutral monism with emergent consciousness. But there is no way you can ever prove that you were unconscious in your mother's womb, so no way you can refute idealism or at least prove that the state of unconsciousness does not exist. Idealism is non-falsifiable.

It is even conceivable that your being could be a precondition of your awareness of it.

It is definitely conceivable, but it is unprovable and subject to the "hard problem of consciousness".

We are in metaphysics where almost everything is conceivable but almost nothing is provable or disprovable. Even solipsism is conceivable and non-disprovable, as we all know. But some metaphysics are more problematic and some are less based on logical, philosophical, epistemological, moral, spiritual etc. grounds.

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

How can you say the difference between Being and the Awareness of Being is a word game?
When you were in your mother´s womb you were. Today you have an awareness of your being. Seems to me there is quite a difference. It is even conceivable that your being could be a precondition of your awareness of it.

Can you prove experimentally that you were not aware when you were "in your mother womb"?

If you make an assumption that you were a piece of unconscious meat in your mother womb at some point of your life, you are already out of idealism, it's either materialism or neutral monism with emergent consciousness. But there is no way you can ever prove that you were unconscious in your mother's womb, so no way you can refute idealism or at least prove that the state of unconsciousness does not exist. Idealism is non-falsifiable.

It is even conceivable that your being could be a precondition of your awareness of it.

It is definitely conceivable, but it is unprovable and subject to the "hard problem of consciousness".

We are in metaphysics where almost everything is conceivable but almost nothing is provable or refutable. But some metaphysics are more problematic and some are less based on logical, philosophical, epistemological, moral, spiritual etc. grounds.

I was neither saying nor meaning that you were unconscious in your mothers womb. And of course neither me nor anybody could proof it. That is not my point. Im just saying that there is a huge difference in the states of being and the states of consciousness from a fertilized egg to a child to an adult to a demented old man. You don´t understand the place where im coming from. I totally, utterly and completely agree with almost everything BK is saying. I do not want to refute Idealism neither. I just think that the way we think of consciousness, what it is and how it is, is biased in unthinkable extents by the kind of consciousness we experience as human beings. Where I disagree with most idealists is the way i think of universal consciousness. I think its nothing even slightly something we could intuit from our kind of conscious experience. But the word universal consciousness induces an interpretation starting from human consciousness and that seems to me the biggest obstacle on the way of gaining a better understanding...

[Eugene I]

I was neither saying nor meaning that you were unconscious in your mothers womb. And of course neither me nor anybody could proof it. That is not my point. Im just saying that there is a huge difference in the states of being and the states of consciousness from a fertilized egg to a child to an adult to a demented old man. You don´t understand the place where im coming from. I totally, utterly and completely agree with almost everything BK is saying. I do not want to refute Idealism neither. I just think that the way we think of consciousness, what it is and how it is, is biased in unthinkable extents by the kind of consciousness we experience as human beings. Where I disagree with most idealists is the way i think of universal consciousness. I think its nothing even slightly something we could intuit from our kind of conscious experience. But the word universal consciousness induces an interpretation starting from human consciousness and that seems to me the biggest obstacle on the way of gaining a better understanding...

It depends on what we mean by "consciousness", and different people interpret it differently. In metaphysics when we say the OP or MAL is "conscious" we do not mean that it has the human-type of consciousness with its characteristic cognitive and behavioral faculties. We mean the ability of having conscious experience in general - the ability that would differentiate a "conscious being" form a zombie no matter how "intelligent" such zombie would be (imagine a highly developed artificial intelligence). Based on such meaning of the word "conscious" humans are conscious in the same way the universal consciousness is conscious or any other living creature able to experience qualia is conscious.

[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.'

Isnt that rather an epistemological question and not an ontological one?
You can not doubt that you experience. You can not doubt that you have contents of experience (mind, matter, or whatever it might be or you might call it). But it does not follow from that, that the experience is necessarily the precondition for the content? It only follows from that, that content is a necessary precondition for experience. The statement that follows from that is an epistemological on, that you can only know contents of experience. It is quite reasonable that the most fundamental level of reality might be something hard to know. At least that would be a good explication for millenia of intellectual, cultural and scientific evolution...

[Soul_of_Shu]

Isnt that rather an epistemological question and not an ontological one?
You can not doubt that you experience. You can not doubt that you have contents of experience (mind, matter, or whatever it might be or you might call it). But it does not follow from that, that the experience is necessarily the precondition for the content? It only follows from that, that content is a necessary precondition for experience. The statement that follows from that is an epistemological on, that you can only know contents of experience. It is quite reasonable that the most fundamental level of reality might be something hard to know.

I'd suggest that the precondition for experiencing a subject><object spatiotemporal dynamic is apparent dissociation into an individuated locus of awareness in relation to phenomenal objects 'out there.' I would concur that whatever it is like to be the fundamental noumenal awareness absent dissociation into a subject><object state is hard to know, indeed impossible while in a dissociated state. Still, it doesn't preclude knowing non-relational, transpersonal awareness without any objectified content. For reference, you might want to check out the following, by Franklin Merrell-Wolff ...The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object ~ A Discussion of the Nature of Transcendental Consciousness.

[AshvinP]

Isnt that rather an epistemological question and not an ontological one?
You can not doubt that you experience. You can not doubt that you have contents of experience (mind, matter, or whatever it might be or you might call it). But it does not follow from that, that the experience is necessarily the precondition for the content? It only follows from that, that content is a necessary precondition for experience. The statement that follows from that is an epistemological on, that you can only know contents of experience. It is quite reasonable that the most fundamental level of reality might be something hard to know.

I'd suggest that the precondition for experiencing a subject><object spatiotemporal dynamic is apparent dissociation into an individuated locus of awareness in relation to phenomenal objects 'out there.' I would concur that whatever it is like to be the fundamental noumenal awareness absent dissociation into a subject><object state is hard to know, indeed impossible while in a dissociated state. Still, it doesn't preclude knowing non-relational, transpersonal awareness without any objectified content. For reference, you might want to check out the following, by Franklin Merrell-Wolff ...The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object ~ A Discussion of the Nature of Transcendental Consciousness.

Great find, Dana!

To be sure , this skepticism may be variously disguised, as revealed in statements such as " all knowledge is only probable knowledge ", or "knowledge is only warranted assertibility which is tested by how far it serves adaptation of an organism to its environment ", or it may lead to the out-right denial that there is any such thing as Reality or Truth . But in any case certainty is lost with even the hope that certainty may ever be found . There are men of strange taste who seem to like the resultant gambler's world of complete uncertainty wherein nothing may be trusted and only illusions are left to feed the yearning for belief . But for all those of deeper religious need the death of hope for certainty is the ultimate tragedy of absolute pessimism--not the relative pessimism of a Buddha, a Christ , or a Schopenhauer , who each saw the hopeless darkness of this dark world as well as a Door leading to the undying Light, but rather a pessimism so deep that there is no hope for Light anywhere . Somewhere there must be certainty if the end of life is to be more than eternal despair . And to find this certainty something other than criticism is required .

Indeed, under idealism, there is no separating ontology from epistemology. We can leave the radically absolute skepticism-pessimism for the materialists and dualists (including panpsychists), and the idealists who refuse under any circumstances to disclaim Kant regarding his phenomenon-noumenon divide via "a priori judgments". The rest of us need to get on with the business of true knowledge through rigorous spiritual experience, testing and thinking. As Scott writes, "to be is to be known". And to be human is to be that who is entrusted with authentic spiritual knowledge.