GrantHenderson wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:37 pm
AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:01 pm
GrantHenderson wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 12:37 pm
Clerics post is interesting and well articulated.
How I would put it in my own words (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that we can experience sense perceptions and observe “what they are to us”, but we can never conceive of the means by which those thoughts “arrive” to us as sense perceptions, because our experience is limited to the observer frame in which it perceives. We can try to conceptualize a means for how observed experiences “arrive”, but since the means for that conceptualization cannot be observed, said conceptualization has no, or limited empirical value.
As such, the mind doesn’t know the meaning of objects, and it doesn’t know the objects of meaning, it just knows that it perceives content as qualitatively meaningful. Perhaps, we can reasonably claim, without abstracting, that it “bridges meaning and content”.
Note that what I have proposed in my post only makes one abstraction beyond this direct observation — the answer to “What is a reality”. Can we make this abstraction with complete epistemic certainty? Clearly, Cleric has demonstrated that we can conceptualize direct observations without diminishing return on empirical value. I would argue that reality being “all that is not nothing” is validated by the empirical fact that we experience reality.
You mentioned in your first comment that my axioms assume consciousness - namely, that defining reality implicates the role of consciousness. It does. So It’s a good thing that consciousness is all that we can assume.
I think my analysis mirrors observations of sense perception. This is why I think it might have the potential to work.
We can certainly conceptualize the means by which thoughts arrive - that is presupposed in these posts of mine and Cleric's TCT essays. It is of utmost important to build a conceptual foundation for higher understanding. The meaningful context which exists 'behind' our current perceptual perspective and shapes our inner experience, including our concepts, could be conceived as the "nothingness" you mention - it
appears as formless forces which influence the world of our experience but are not directly perceived by the intellect. The problem is when we
conflate conceptualization with genuine understanding of these currently invisible forces, which are all lumped into one force by the intellect and go by the abstract label of "God", "Consciousness", "Energy", "Idea","Will/MAL", "Nothingness", etc.
With idealism, there is something it is like to experience MAL from the perspectives within its rich, archetypal depth structure. We are not on the 'other side' of this experiential perspective - there is no hard wall separating us into "alters" with personal bubbles of consciousness that must model 'reality-in-itself' (this latter concept is a product of Kantian/Schop dualism). Our conceptualization can only be a symbol pointing to this higher experience of MAL's inner perspectives, like the words I am writing can only be symbols to you of the rich meaning that I am experiencing from my inner perspective and trying to convey with the words. The word-concepts themselves cannot be configured in any way for you to completely grasp that meaningful perspective. They cannot "prove" that meaning to you, only point in its general direction. In fact, with modern technology, we are even coming to the point where my words may not "prove" there is
any inner perspective behind the words you are perceiving, only a programmed algorithm.
With that in mind, I want to try a slightly different approach as well. Here are a few questions:
1) You conclude, "
Reality must be that which gives qualitative meaning to its properties/non-properties." Why do you say "Reality" instead of "Thinking"? For context of what I am asking, consider the following:
Observation and thinking are the two points of departure for all the spiritual striving of man, in so far as he is conscious of such striving. The workings of common sense, as well as the most complicated scientific researches, rest on these two fundamental pillars of our spirit. Philosophers have started from various primary antitheses: idea and reality, subject and object, appearance and thing-in-itself, “I” and “Not-I”, idea and will, concept and matter, force and substance, the conscious and the unconscious, [being and nothingness]. It is easy to show, however, that all these antitheses must be preceded by that of observation and thinking, this being for man the most important one.
Whatever principle we choose to lay down, we must either prove that somewhere we have observed it, or we must enunciate it in the form of a clear thought which can be re-thought by any other thinker. Every philosopher who sets out to discuss his fundamental principles must express them in conceptual form and thus use thinking. He therefore indirectly admits that his activity presupposes thinking. Whether thinking or something else is the chief factor in the evolution of the world will not be decided at this point. But that without thinking, the philosopher can gain no knowledge of such evolution, is clear from the start. In the occurrence of the world phenomena, thinking may play a minor part; but in the forming of a view about them, there can be no doubt that, its part is a leading one.
2) Is the purpose of your essay to 'prove' to others that consciousness is fundamental and there is only consciousness? If so, what practical effect do you hope this will have?
3) You write: "
With only some of these axioms amounting to an explanation of reality, reality runs a contradiction by implicating to be real and unreal.
With all 5 axioms, reality is just real. Therefore, consciousness is fundamental to reality."
What is meant here by "explanation"? Are these axioms by themselves explanations for Reality as we experience it?
We can certainly conceptualize the means by which thoughts arrive - that is presupposed in these posts of mine and Cleric's TCT essays. It is of utmost important to build a conceptual foundation for higher understanding. The meaningful context which exists 'behind' our current perceptual perspective and shapes our inner experience, including our concepts, could be conceived as the "nothingness" you mention - it appears as formless forces which influence the world of our experience but are not directly perceived by the intellect. The problem is when we conflate conceptualization with genuine understanding of these currently invisible forces, which are all lumped into one force by the intellect and go by the abstract label of "God", "Consciousness", "Energy", "Idea","Will/MAL", "Nothingness", etc.
How would you explain the difference between “conceptualizing” the invisible forces, and “genuinely understanding” the invisible forces?
(Btw, In my post I’m referring to absolute nothingness, not ontic nothingness.)
I still don’t see how a demonstration of how our inner experiences are shaped is going to help me demonstrate how consciousness is fundamental to reality, because such demonstrations are applicably limited to the workings of mind. Even a demonstration of how our inner experiences are shaped by MAL doesn’t extend its reasoning past mind.
In order for me to say that mind = reality, I have to extend my reasoning from mind to reality, and show how they are equivalent. I don’t think the lack of spiritual exploration in my writing here is due to a false conception of its lack of importance in general. I have essays on the nature of language, and the nature of inference, etc. A comprehensive theory of mind/reality as a whole would most certainly require these things. I just don’t see how it directly pertains to what I’m demonstrating here.
I’ve been under the impression that your trying to tell me that I’m approaching the problem in the wrong way. But now I suspect that you are intending to claim that it is a problem that literally cannot be solved — This may be true. But I’m hoping you can clarify that this is indeed what you are intending to claim.
Maybe it’s impossible to do what I’m trying to do. Maybe the fact that my reasoning of inner experience extends onto reality contradicts that which can be reasoned from inner experience. But how, precisely?
That is not my argument. If we define the problem as "how to prove God, Consciousness, etc. with our intellectual conceptual arguments", then yes that is unsolvable because it
presupposes a flawed understanding of our conscious spiritual activity, i.e. Thinking and its relation to sense-perceptions and inner concepts. If the problem is "how can we attain to greater understanding of that which we are labeling God, Consciousness, etc.", then I say this can be worked on by every individual, and real progress can be made, to an extent 99.9%+ of people surely think is impossible right now.
The bold is the issue - why has this become the goal? From the dawn of materialism, it seems to me the goal of those in opposition has been to resist the mindset which increasingly says there is no meaningful sentient activity in the Cosmos or Nature, other than human and some animal activity. It has been to couteract this 'deadening' of the Cosmos to a reductionistic and mechanistic entity, and to recover the living experience of meaning weaving throughout the forms of Nature. What does an intellectual 'proof' that mind=reality accomplish in service of that goal?
We need look no further than this forum to see how people are no more likely to take seriously that sentient activity works through the animal, plant, and mineral kingdoms, if they say "mind=reality", "consciousness=reality", "god=reality", or anything similar, even when backed up with clever intellectual arguments (and the clever materialist can also make such arguments for 'particles' = reality, in some form or another). This is what I call "conceptualizing" the invisible forces rather than seeking genuine understanding of them. It is fine, and enormously helpful, if people use these methods to strengthen their own logical thinking faculty, but if they then rest comfortable with these intellectual arguments about the invisible forces, no genuine understanding will be reached. For the latter, our sphere of cognition-perception must be expanded to make what was formerly an invisible domain of meaningful forces, more
transparent.
Grant wrote:
1) You conclude, "Reality must be that which gives qualitative meaning to its properties/non-properties." Why do you say "Reality" instead of "Thinking"? For context of what I am asking, consider the following:
Because the theory pertains to reality. In order to demonstrate that reality is conscious I have to give reality conscious attributes, but not the other way around.
2) Is the purpose of your essay to 'prove' to others that consciousness is fundamental and there is only consciousness? If so, what practical effect do you hope this will have?
Yes. The practical effect could be to show that everyone is connected by consciousness, which would hopefully act as an incentive for everyone to care for one another as they would care for themselves. But this post isn’t, in itself, something that people could use to make theirs or others lives better. It doesn’t have utility as a tool for self improvement.
3) You write: "With only some of these axioms amounting to an explanation of reality, reality runs a contradiction by implicating to be real and unreal.
What is meant here by "explanation"? Are these axioms by themselves explanations for Reality as we experience it?
I need to reword this — my bad. They are facts about reality. The theory as a whole is an explanation which uses these axioms.
On that note, I think I need to rewrite the whole thing so it better reflects what we have discussed here.
We at least agree on the last part of #2. If intellectual theories could ever substitute for experiential knowledge of the interconnected conscious dynamics at issue, thereby motivating people to freely do unto others, then we wouldn't be in the state we are in. You must admit, philosophical idealism has come up with many rigorous theories for the "consciousness is fundamental" position in the last 300 or so years. Why is the one you are working on suddenly going to win over the hearts and minds of the masses?
A theory simply cannot be an "explanation" in any meaningful sense of that word. Let's take a more clear topic - would you say the theory of general relativity
explains the essence of reality, i.e. what the equations of GR are reflecting in their full meaningful, qualitative dimensions?
Reworking the paper is fine, and reflects a very healthy humility, but my interest is only in pointing to a concrete path of thinking and experience which can foster genuine understanding of that which we only speak of abstractly in our theories.