Consciousness is all there is

[Soul_of_Shu]

"Consciousness is all there is"... Yet it seems even as the primacy of consciousness is accepted, still the profound implications of this premise are missed, while the notion persists that consciousness is some fundamental substrate out of which some substance of matter is inexplicably fabricated, such that if all consciousness were to be utterly removed, then this fabricated stuff would still somehow remain. Rather, it is all idea construction, whereby absent any fundamental consciousness whatsoever, all idea constructions must utterly vanish as well, into nonexistence. However, a key inquiry still remains: what is a prior state of uncaused, irreducible consciousness with no imperative idea construction? Somehow such a state also seems an idea. Therein lies another variation of the 'hard problem' ~ i.e. ideation beginning from non-ideation. One still finds no point of origin for this, other than forever now, and thus never not being the case.

[Eugene I]

Right. Idealism has many variants, but this anthroposophy-inspired "spiritual science" (read - "spiritual rationalism") is indeed a weird version of it making no sense to me.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Is there really a difference between 'consciousness is all there is', and 'ideation is all there is'?

[Eugene I]

Is there really a difference between 'consciousness is all there is', and 'ideation is all there is'?

Yes. Consciousness is not reducible to ideations. Ideation appears from (and in) consciousness and causes the perception of the world. But consciousness does not appear from ideation. Consciousness creates ideas, but ideas do not create consciousness. Consciousness can exist without any ideas whatsoever, but ideas can not exist without consciousness (unless you are a hardcore Platonist). Ideas is not all what consciousness is, consciousness is also, and primarily, conscious experiencing of ideas. No idea can be known without conscious experiencing of it. Many idealists (as well as materialists and most other people) entirely miss the "experiencing" part of the equation. The "ideation idealists" reduce consciousness only to ideas missing the experiential part of it.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Consciousness can exist without any ideas whatsoever ...

That's a curious idea.

[Eugene I]

That's a curious idea.

It's a fact, but only for those who experienced it. The "ideational idealism" is a reduction of reality to ideas only, similar to materialism's reduction of reality to matter only. It is understandable because the developers of this version are pure philosophers - Hagel, Steiner at all. They live in the world of ideas only lacking mystical experience and insights, and based on that refute both Wester and Eastern mystical traditions.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Let's try a different tact .... If instead of going with consciousness ideating, how about going with Adyashanti's 'emptiness dancing', then is it possible to point to a 'dancer' that is not dancing, which at some untraceable point begins dancing? Or is there only ever emptiness dancing?

[Eugene I]

Let's try a different tact .... If instead of going with consciousness ideating, how about going with Adyashanti's 'emptiness dancing', then is it possible to point to a 'dancer' that is not dancing, which at some untraceable point begins dancing? Or is there only ever emptiness dancing?

There are so many "tacts" and ways to rationally reflect it, and there is nothing wrong with them. What is important is whether there is an actual experience of the direct knowing of it or not. Because if there is no such experience, all these representations would remain only fantasies of the mind. The mind can say "emptiness dancing" and rationally argue whether or not there is a "dancer without a dance" or not (which actually does not matter so much), but if it's missing the experience of emptiness and only knows dancing, then the perception of reality is reduced to only "half" of it and thereby is grossly distorted.

[Soul_of_Shu]

There are so many "tacts" and ways to rationally reflect it, and there is nothing wrong with them. What is important is whether there is an actual experience of the direct knowing of it or not. Because if there is no such experience, all these representations would remain only fantasies of the mind.

This is the actual experience ... there is only ever emptiness dancing ... a poetic metaphor for the 'activity' of consciousness ... aka 'ideation.'

[Eugene I]

This is the actual experience ... there is only ever emptiness dancing ... a poetic metaphor for the 'activity' of consciousness ... aka 'ideation.'

Yes, there is such experience, no question about that. But what do we do then with an actual experience of "emptiness at rest and not dancing"? It disproves the claim that "there is only ever emptiness dancing". Not to say that "emptiness not dancing" is any "better" then "emptiness dancing" in any way, but just as a matter of fact... Emptiness can exist without dancing, but dancing can not exist without emptiness. Emptiness loves to dance and to experience it, and this is great! Yet, if emptiness forgets its empty nature and starts thinking that it is only dancing that ever exists, then it gets into a distorted perception of itself. The actual experience of emptiness with no dancing is a way for emptiness to re-discover its emptiness and prove to itself that it is not reducible to dancing only. Then it can happily return to dancing, but now without the distorted perspective of missing it's empty aspect.