Re: The Central Topic
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:31 pm
Yea right. "My intuition is true intuition, your intuition is false intuition". The end of philosophy.
I didn't say ours was "true", but that you are failing to understand what Cleric even means by "intuition" or higher cognition. All of your responses to him are born of this same simple error, where you assume his claims to be something other than what they are and then object to your own fictitous claims. This has been pointed out to you more times than any of us can remember at this point. I figure I can drop a reminder every once in awhile for those following along. My parting suggestion here is to substitute a genuine question for clarity the next time you are about to type "I agree", or anything similar, before launching into a canned criticism.
This has probably also been elaborated on already, so apologies, but it's a slippery subject, so: How does one tell the difference?AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:13 amI didn't say ours was "true", but that you are failing to understand what Cleric even means by "intuition" or higher cognition. All of your responses to him are born of this same simple error, where you assume his claims to be something other than what they are and then object to your own fictitous claims. This has been pointed out to you more times than any of us can remember at this point. I figure I can drop a reminder every once in awhile for those following along. My parting suggestion here is to substitute a genuine question for clarity the next time you are about to type "I agree", or anything similar, before launching into a canned criticism.
Martin_ wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 2:03 amThis has probably also been elaborated on already, so apologies, but it's a slippery subject, so: How does one tell the difference?AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:13 amI didn't say ours was "true", but that you are failing to understand what Cleric even means by "intuition" or higher cognition. All of your responses to him are born of this same simple error, where you assume his claims to be something other than what they are and then object to your own fictitous claims. This has been pointed out to you more times than any of us can remember at this point. I figure I can drop a reminder every once in awhile for those following along. My parting suggestion here is to substitute a genuine question for clarity the next time you are about to type "I agree", or anything similar, before launching into a canned criticism.
1. phenomenologically: How do I know what type of intuition I am experiencing? Is it a "If you're unsure, then it's not the real thing"/"you'll know it when you see it" thing?
2. in communication: How do I know what others are experiencing, based on their report?
IMO this as a confusion arising out of multiple meanings assigned to the word ‘know’.Cleric K wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 11:32 am You assume that knowing consciousness can exist only above the surface and imagine through rocks, dust and reflections the true archipelago of which the island is part. What the Central Topic speaks about is that what is below the surface (behind the eye of thinking) can also be known consciously ...
This is once again the question that has been gone through so many times. It's connected with with I drew above, it's what has been discussed with Jeffrey at no avail. Experiencing and knowing have the same essential nature. At our stage of evolution they differ in their state of aggregation, so to speak. When we accept the boundary of phase transition as some absolute division line, we arrive at mysticism. We say "knowing can exist only in the solid, mineral intellectual state (thinking concepts are the mineral shards). When the solid melts and even evaporates we have only (aesthetic) feeling and experiencing but from the standpoint of the mineral intellect these remain a nebulous mystery". This is certainly so from the standpoint of the rigid intellect but the goal of the Central Topic is to show that our "I"-experience can evolve also towards the fluid aggregation phase and live there fully consciously and knowingly (even knowingly to a much higher degree that this is possible in the mineral knowing). As an analogy we cay say that if in the mineral state our knowing thinking lives in the mineral shards, then in the fluid state we think with eddy currents within which the ordinary mineral thoughts flow. In other words, the ground being, even though of very different state of aggregation, is still a form of first-person knowing/meaningful activity the reflection of which we call the world. The question is whether we're willing to gradually evolve our consciousness towards this deeper level of thinking-knowing or we'll postulate that the phase boundary between the solid and the fluid shall forever keep our knowing on the mineral side, while we 'know' about the other side only through mystical feeling.Shajan624 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:38 am IMO this as a confusion arising out of multiple meanings assigned to the word ‘know’.
What exactly do we mean by a statement such as ‘consciousness is all there is?’
Is this assertion based on us ‘knowing’ or ‘experiencing’ consciousness?
Is experiencing consciousness same as knowing it?
These questions keep repeating because no one is able to answer with clarity.Cleric K wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 8:30 amThis is once again the question that has been gone through so many times.Shajan624 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:38 am IMO this as a confusion arising out of multiple meanings assigned to the word ‘know’.
What exactly do we mean by a statement such as ‘consciousness is all there is?’
Is this assertion based on us ‘knowing’ or ‘experiencing’ consciousness?
Is experiencing consciousness same as knowing it?
Those are different aspects of consciousness. Experiencing can be known, or it may not be known by thinking. The fact that experiencing, thinking, feeling, perceiving and willing are inseparable does not mean that they are equally existential or fundamental so to speak. These are different aspects of consciousness, but these aspects have certain priority relations. As a thought experiment, we can imagine if there would be consciousness with no perceptions - in principle it is quite possible. Then, remove feeling - possible too. Then remove thinking and willing - still possible, even though there would be no "knowing" that there is only experiencing present, but the state would still be experienced. Also, even when all those aspects exist, we can temporarily put on hold perceiving, willing, thinking, feeling (in a lucid deep sleep or "nothingness" meditation), but it is impossible to put the experiencing on hold, because we can never know or experience the state of the absence of experiencing. But, if we remove the experiencing, then no other aspects may be known to exist in principle, it would not be "consciousness" anymore, because even if thinking, feeling, perceiving and willing would still exist, they would not be consciously experienced, just like in an AI computer that could think, feel, perceive and will but cannot consciously experience anything. This points to the fact that experiencing (awareness) is somehow the most fundamental aspect of consciousness. It also the aspect that brings all aspects of consciousness and all conscious phenomena into a unity, it is an invariant "common denominator" of all conscious experience and every conscious phenomenon. Everything else can change, but experiencing never changes, there may be more or less thinking, feeling, perceiving, willing, but there is never more or less of the experiencing. There is a deep mystery here for anyone who cares. All of it is based on the facts of our direct 1-st person experience. Of course we can only understand and speculate about it by exercising thinking, but it is pretty obvious that even if we would not expose it to thinking, this fact would still be true.Shajan624 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:38 amIMO this as a confusion arising out of multiple meanings assigned to the word ‘know’.Cleric K wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 11:32 am You assume that knowing consciousness can exist only above the surface and imagine through rocks, dust and reflections the true archipelago of which the island is part. What the Central Topic speaks about is that what is below the surface (behind the eye of thinking) can also be known consciously ...
What exactly do we mean by a statement such as ‘consciousness is all there is?’
Is this assertion based on us ‘knowing’ or ‘experiencing’ consciousness?
Is experiencing consciousness same as knowing it?
Eugene I. wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 1:36 pmThose are different aspects of consciousness. Experiencing can be known, or it may not be known by thinking. The fact that experiencing, thinking, feeling, perceiving and willing are inseparable does not mean that they are equally existential or fundamental so to speak. These are different aspects of consciousness, but these aspects have certain priority relations. As a thought experiment, we can imagine if there would be consciousness with no perceptions - in principle it is quite possible. Then, remove feeling - possible too. Then remove thinking and willing - still possible, even though there would be no "knowing" that there is only experiencing present, but the state would still be experienced. Also, even when all those aspects exist, we can temporarily put on hold perceiving, willing, thinking, feeling (in a lucid deep sleep or "nothingness" meditation), but it is impossible to put the experiencing on hold, because we can never know or experience the state of the absence of experiencing. But, if we remove the experiencing, then no other aspects may be known to exist in principle, it would not be "consciousness" anymore, because even if thinking, feeling, perceiving and willing would still exist, they would not be consciously experienced, just like in an AI computer that could think, feel, perceive and will but cannot consciously experience anything. This points to the fact that experiencing (awareness) is somehow the most fundamental aspect of consciousness. It also the aspect that brings all aspects of consciousness and all conscious phenomena into a unity, it is an invariant "common denominator" of all conscious experience and every conscious phenomenon. Everything else can change, but experiencing never changes, there may be more or less thinking, feeling, perceiving, willing, but there is never more or less of the experiencing. There is a deep mystery here for anyone who cares.Shajan624 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:38 amIMO this as a confusion arising out of multiple meanings assigned to the word ‘know’.Cleric K wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 11:32 am You assume that knowing consciousness can exist only above the surface and imagine through rocks, dust and reflections the true archipelago of which the island is part. What the Central Topic speaks about is that what is below the surface (behind the eye of thinking) can also be known consciously ...
What exactly do we mean by a statement such as ‘consciousness is all there is?’
Is this assertion based on us ‘knowing’ or ‘experiencing’ consciousness?
Is experiencing consciousness same as knowing it?