Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2288318 - 01/30/04 09:21 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I will try to differentiate here between an objective reality and an objective universe, to refine one of my previous answers (#2281425 ) to Ped, where I mistakenly used objective universe instead of objective reality. This is what I think distinguishes my position from Ped?s.

**

Without consciousness there may be no objects or reality as we know it, but I do not think that there can be no objective universe at all (edit: well, except maybe in the sense that consciousness is needed to take the role of the observer in certain quantum effects).

We become (subjectively) aware of what is ?out there? by slicing this weird continuity that is the universe, and this slicing is what creates our reality. There may be infinite different ways to slice it, but there are certainly ways that it can not be sliced, and this is precisely why there is something objective.

Our scientific measurements of the universe may be an accurate reflection of the objectivity (always only up to a level of precision), but the reality we create based on the said measurements is only one of the possible realities, and always dependent on a pre-existing ontology i.e. a particular slicing of the universe.

**

So, there may be no objective reality, but without necessarily implying the lack of an objective universe. The only way to go about examining what exists ?out there? is, well, by adopting the realist?s view, but that should be only just to achieve our aims.

What I consider important is that a lot of things we take for granted as existing objectively, are merely by-products of the slicing of the universe we currently follow.

Edited by raytrace (01/30/04 09:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: ]
    #2288361 - 01/30/04 09:32 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Mr_Mushrooms:

A thorough investigation of philosophical worldviews seems very important to you. In order to cater to this kind of precision, it would be helpful to address you in private. When posting publically, I try to keep mindful that others will be reading these posts too, and may not have the same background as the person I'm specifically addressing. Being considerate of this means that much of what is discussed becomes needlessly superfluous. Ideas become thinly spread when a wide demographic is being addressed. As such, we'd both be in a much more productive position if discussion was held one on one.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2288398 - 01/30/04 09:44 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: raytrace]
    #2288775 - 01/31/04 12:54 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

One of the major mistakes we might be making when approaching the notion: "Does existence depend upon conciousness?" has to do with our perceptions of the nature of conciousness.

When we turn our focus to our conciousness, the very first thing we encounter is our self-grasping mind, or ego. We encounter this sense of "I" that is quite strong. We grasp on to our sense of "I" very firmly. We look into the mirror, and the mind says "I". If we examine the self-grasping mind very carefully, we find that it thrives, like a young child, on praise and attention. There could be no greater degree of self-importance fed to the self-grasping mind than for it to ponder -- even for a moment -- that the entire universe exists in dependence upon it. As SkorpioMusterion suggested: this notion is quite an ego-trip.

It is the self-grasping mind which encounters an object and informs us that it exists apart from us, that it has been "waiting" for us to encounter it. Boundries in space are equally as necessary in time if we are to perpetuate the deliciously seductive habit of self-grasping. Space and time too are dependent upon mind -- but not the self-grasping mind that we so readily identify with. Boundries and distinctions are what depend on the self-grasping mind. Dissolve the self-grasping mind, and we dissolve boundries and distinctions.

So, when contemplating what it means to suggest that all things exist in dependence upon mind, it's important not to attribute this vast ocean of existence to the self-grasping mind. The conventional objects we apprehend as ordinary self-grasping beings, from the dirt in our vacuum cleaner to the immense clouds of stars which fill the sky, exist as an objective reality only to the mind which grasps at it's own existence as being objective.

The reason this is, of course, is because all things exist in dependence upon mind, upon view, and upon basis of imputation.

What I'm suggesting is deeply personal. I'm suggesting that our experience of reality and the way it is structured is directly connected to the experience of ourselves and the way we are structured. Buddha told us that the way we perceive ourselves is a mistake. He said that if we perceived ourselves correctly, we would not suffer, because we do not wish to suffer. Suffering is not a part of our nature. What we long for is happiness -- and it is a special yearning. It is a yearning that is not so much a desire as it is a pervasive sense of loss, of estrangement.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKeyannki
newbie
Registered: 10/15/03
Posts: 40
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: raytrace]
    #2288976 - 01/31/04 02:46 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Ped: my angle is different from yours.  I am future-minded and my awareness is cosmic. our the philosophy of the commonwealth is the same.  here is some brain food..

If someone is able to anticipate an event before it occurs, how can it be a mere appearance to mind?

well, then it is not strictly present-time awareness anymore, which is what Zen attempts to reorder.  I'm a guessing a strict Zen teacher will say its an aberration, and tell the student to keep zenning. :smile:

Now back to your assertion about the tree makes no sound when it falls.  I find it does regardless whether anyone is in the vicnity or not.  Only the student being questioned should answer "no" and "yes" and provide explanations accordingly. The student should understand there is distinction between experiencing the auditory domain and knowing it will cause an auditory vibration [physics].

next, back to "reality is subjective."  the dictionary definition states it is within the confines of the mind, illusory.  you seem to contradict yourself the moment you state the illusive nature of all things.  you're saying its a working paradox?

I have no awareness of what is subjective or not.  I allow it to be real in this game.  I've glimpse the possibilities of all possibilities.  That in theory karma is just an applied concept based on observations of very insightful, gifted people. ie: Siddartha  That being "supreme" over others is just another experience the soul wants to know what is like.  Spirit of Free-Will is what I call it.  At soul level, anything goes.  Earth is a free-for-all, for now. 

There is way to pre-arrange it depending on the soul's evolveness.  I know clearly the theoretical applied way that can bring harmony or complete imbalance before childbirth.  therefore, it can manufacture suffering and karma.

the scale of suffering is monstrous here, but compared to the universe, its an atom of sub-atoms within sub-atoms.  the real question is who started it all. Who is controlling the game..  whoever it is is the main contributor of the suffering in this world and other worlds outside this solar system. in theory, mind you. hehe

past life mechanics:  I recognize the correlativity of each fundamental's approximate truth based on buddhists, atheists and xians.  The insight came to me one day.  EACH awareness of individuality with each human lifeform discontinues after physical death but the compilation of her/his life continues, etherically, into the next life with Spirit of Chance thrown in for the human genome.  therefore, the next incarnate doesn't remember at all the previous one but certain aspects will manifest, accordingly. I would speculate that there is some law or pre-incarnate agreement not allowing anyone to remember the past lives, and to prevent an individual from transfering the previous consciousness to the next as a way to evolve.
Or that the soul is not evolved enough to know how to attempt it.

though there are exceptions.  Some beings can do the transfer and remember but are rare.  ie: Tibetan masters

weres and black mage:  like you stated, there is an operating domain independent of your beliefs or your current recognition. 
you may be speaking to one. :laugh:

tata

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2289344 - 01/31/04 09:25 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Although I appreciate that you two could have a more efficient debate through private channels, I would really hate to miss the chance to observe and participate. Please reconsider using a public forum.


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleutopianglory
Spunkmuffin
Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 965
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2289384 - 01/31/04 09:51 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

It is almost distressing to think that almost every second of our existence in this form is wasted upon a constrictive reality.  That a small adjustment of the chemical balance of the brain can yield a chillingly different reality. 

I don't know about a number of things postulated in this thread, what I do suspect is that we have more conscious control over all forms of reality than most would realise.  I cannot begin to suggest a workable theory, but it seems to me that conscious optimism has a very distinct effect on "destiny".

Have you ever wondered how depressed people seem to have an endless stream of misfortune and negativity that seems to manifest itself seemingly through pure pessimism? yet your friend who seems blindly carefree and optimistic has the most spectacular run of good luck and fortune?

I think people discount this concept all too easily.  They expect silly things like positive affirmation about winning the lottery and unsubtle things like this, things that their mind cannot possibly purely conceive expectation of a positive outcome about. 

As has already been mentioned before, we are bound by our minds and our minds will not go outside these boundaries willingly.  We can mold these boundaries unconsciously AND consciously.  It is more traditional for this to be done unconsciously, for example when the sportman/woman increases in skill playing their sport.  We further our belief (expand boundaries) for success which is then translated into our physically objective manifestation of increased dexterity, fine control (whatever) during the act of the sport.  However if we are to think sincerely negativily about our performance in the sport, our performance is correspondingly attenuated.  Watch any sport, you will see this concept in effect.  This implies that belief is the precursor of objective reality, rather that reality is the precursor of belief (which of course is how most would see it).  Our boundaries are filters, they have slew rates (limits to how fast an input/output can change).  We cannot turn ourselves from heavily negative to positive polarities.  Time has a relationship to the boundary, if the boundary did not flow, perhaps time would never change.  We are constantly changing, its hard to stop time.

I do not know much about what will happen when we exit this existence.  Will we be freed?  Who knows.  But I do suspect that acknowledgement of the very real power within would be instrumental in making it as smooth a journey to the next realm as possible.

I could talk for hours upon hours about this, but I will leave some time to think and respond, rather than dig too deep :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2293463 - 02/02/04 06:35 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Ped:

Firstly, I would like to say that I appreciate that you take the time to respond to the posts directed to you.

Then, I have a question for you. In fact I have several, but I would like to concentrate on this one for now. So, can you please give me your opinion on this:

Do you think that there is any possibility that science can approach the nature of consciousness? Or is it that since it's based on "objectivity" is unable to touch on this, thus making this a matter totally out of our reach (in the conventional way)?

I suppose that your answer is implicit in what you've said so far, but I would still value an explicit answer addressing the particulars of my question.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2293630 - 02/02/04 08:40 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: ]
    #2294222 - 02/02/04 12:54 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Firstly, thank you both for your thoughtfully worded and polite questions, and for this opportunity to discuss the points raised.  :heart:


>> Do you think that there is any possibility that science can approach the nature of consciousness?

Absolutely.  In fact, I think it's inevitable.  Science has reached realms of enormous uncertainty, and is being forced to ask questions of itself that no scientist wishes to answer.  Already, science has begun to realize that the results of any experiment are impacted by the presence of an observer.

Relativity theory introduced the idea that we cannot speak about space without simultaneously speaking about time, and vice versa.  Relativity theory tells us that space and time are only nominally distinct, and are two interdependent phenomenon which support the perpetuation of another phenomena: a four-dimensional continuum called "space-time."  Having accepted this, we discovered that there is no universal flow of time, as was asserted in the Newtonian worldview.  Different observers will have differing experiences of sequential events in time if they move through space with differing velocities relative to the observed events.  In such a case, two events which are seen as occuring simultaneously by one observer may occur in different temporal sequences for other observers.  With this discovery, all measurements involving space and time lost their significance.  In relativity theory, the Newtoninan concept of absolute space as a stage for physical bodies must be abandoned and so must the concepts of absolute time.  Both space and time are now understood by physicists as mere elements of cognition a particular observer draws upon for describing observed phenomena.

The concepts of absolute space and absolute time were the foundation upon which our explanations for the descripton of natural phenomena stood.  Their modification entailed a modification of the entire framework we use to describe our experience.  Science encountered this obstacle fifty years ago, and is encountering it again today with quantum theory.  Each of these advances have asked us to examine the relationship between ourselves and our environment and have come seperated by only fifty years.  Science is hurtling toward the nature of conciousness at an unprecidented rate, and like all major discoveries and advances -- we can't see it coming.


Quote:

If we check carefully, we'll discover that there can be no boundry between self and other, because such a boundry can exist only in dependence upon a mind that believes this is so.


How does one correlate the perception of an external chair with internal reflective states of consciousness? And particularily, could you elaborate on the last sentence I quoted above?




Analyzing our experience, we can quickly discover that it is the grasping at an inherentely existent and independent self which gives rise to the appearance of boundries between objects in the first place. No such inherently existent self exists.


Please lead us through the logic of this step by step.




These are two excellent questions.  I intend to answer them simultaneously, because they are essentially the same question.

As ordinary human beings, our experience is mistaken because we hold two mistaken views:

1. The mistaken view that objects exist discretely from eachother.
2. The mistaken view that objects exist from their own side, discretely from the self.

These two mistaken views validate eachother.  If our experience informs us that there are many unique physical entities existing upon a constant plain of space and time, then it follows that we are also a unique entity existing discretely among other unique entities.  By the same token, if our experience informs us that we are a totally independent entity existing apart from all other objects, it follows that all of these objects must exist entirely apart from eachother.

If we were to reform either of these views, the other view must reorient itself to support our new experience.  For example, if we were to reach an understanding that all phenomena are only nominally distinct and are entirely interconnected and interdependent, we would find ourselves in conflict with the view that we ourselves exist discretely, independently.  This is logically detailed, step by step, with the following five points:

1.  Presently, we conceive of ourselves as a totally independent phenomena experiencing an orchestration other discrete phenomena.
2.  Through investigation, we discover that all phenomenon are dependent upon other phenomenon.
3.  If all phenomenon are dependent upon other phenomenon, no observed phenomenon can be truly distinct.
4.  By opposing the appearance of boundries between observed phenomenon, the consequence must be the dissolution of the boundries between self and other.
5.  Therefore, if we conceive of boundries between self and other, the consequence must be the appearance of boundries between observed phenomena.



1.  Presently, we conceive of ourselves as a totally independent phenomena experiencing an orchestration other discrete phenomena.

This is self explanatory.  In the context of our current experience, we enter a room and immediately apprehend all the objects within it as being inherently existent, "waiting" for us to encounter them.  We conceive of others as being totally apart from us.  We see ourselves as an island of conciousness moving about amidst many other animate and inanimate islands of existence.  Our minds spontaneously and habitually behave in this way.


2.  Through investigation, we discover that all phenomenon are dependent upon other phenomenon.

We have reached an understanding throughout the progress of this thread that all phenomena exist in dependence upon other phenomena. A truck cannot exist inherently because it exists as a truck in dependence upon the presence of a mind -- a phenomena -- which apprehends "truck". Understanding this, we inform ourselves that a "physical object" exists in our garage, inherently. But a physical object cannot exist inherently because it's appearance exists in dependence upon parts. If we seperate the parts of a physical object, the physical object ceases to exist. Therefore, the physical object exists in dependence upon supporting phenomena. It is the transistory effect of a series of causes.


3.  If all phenomenon are dependent upon other phenomenon, no observed phenomenon can be truly distinct.

If we conduct the same investigation upon the truck's supporting phenomenon, we find that they too exist in dependence upon other phenomena. Therefore, no phenomena can exist inherently: all phenomena exist in dependence upon other phenomena.  Each phenomena has a cause, and each phenomena has an effect. The effect of one phenomena serves as the cause for another phenomena, the effects of which give rise to further phenomena. All phenomena occur due to the relationship between cause and effect.  Understanding this, the boundries between objects begin to break down. We have uncovered, at least intellectually, the essential unity of all things.


4.  By opposing the appearance of boundries between observed phenomenon, the consequence must be the dissolution of the boundries between self and other.

Having intellectually discovered this essential unity, we cannot continue to conceive of ourselves as an inherently existent and independent entity.

Imagine a cork floating atop a vast and boundriless ocean which stretches on without beginning or end. A cork cannot possibly exist this way because a cork is, like all phenomena, a phenomena that exists in dependence upon other phenomena. In a continuum where all phenomena have the same essential unity as the waves of an ocean, there is no supporting phenomena to perpetuate a discretely existing cork.

If we have dissolved the boundries between apprehended objects but continue to grasp onto an inherently existent self, we would be like this cork floating atop the ocean without beginning or end. It's been explained that all phenomenon exist in dependence upon other phenomena. If the self is a phenomena, it too must exist in dependence upon other phenomena. If we have dissolved all apprehended objects into a beginningless, endless soup of cause and effect,  the supporting phenomena for an inherently existing self has disappeared.


5. Therefore, if we conceive of boundries between self and other, the consequence must be the appearance of boundries between observed phenomena.

We have seen that dissolving the boundries between seemingly discrete objects necessarily calls for the disolution of boundries between a seemingly discrete self and it's environment.  There is no perceivable phenomena to give arise to an inherently existent self if there is no perceivable distinction between observable phenomenon that are not ourselves.

We can follow this logic in reverse. If we experience phenomena as being independent and inherently existing, then the experience of ourselves must follow. The intensity with which we experience ourselves as an inherently existing and totally discrete phenomena is directly proportionate to the apparant reality of a universe which is filled with inherently existing and totally discrete phenomena, and vice versa. Either view supports the other.

Just as we cannot hold the view that we are totally distinct amidst an array of non-distinctions, we cannot hold the view that we are non-distinct amidst an array of distinctions.  Since it is our mind which gives rise to all of our experience, a mind which conceives itself as being totally distinct will naturally apprehend the objects it encounters as totally distinct.



>> What does it mean to "profoundly understand this"?

A profound understanding is an understanding which has internalized itself beyond mere intellectualization.  An intellectual concept can carry no impact on our experience.  Presently, my understanding of these views is largely conceptual.  Through, with opportunties to repeatedly articulate and discuss these points (thanks guys!), and with repeated contemplation of these points on the meditation coushin, they gradually begin to seep in and effect change on the way I experience reality.

The first understanding I've directly experienced is that all beings experience their outer world differently.  Each person at a busy train station experiences that train station differently.  Each of us at the train station associates feelings with certain structures, certain colours, certain atmospheric conditions such as the light or sound levels, and so forth.  Each of us are experiencing very subtle feelings of attraction to certain elements of our experience, and aversion to other elements of our experience.  These subtle feelings impact the appearance of our surroundings to us in totally unique ways.  Each person is experiencing their reality differently, and all of us are assuming our experience to be absolutely objective, and real.  When this understanding begins to awaken itself on certain occasions, the view of my surroundings becomes very bizarre, like an enormous joke.  I can begin to speculate on the way others experience the train station based upon the way they appear to me -- happy, sad, tense, relaxed -- and through concentration actually enter that experience and alter the way the train station appears to my mind.

I grew up in Winnipeg, Manitoba.  When I was a child, Winnipeg was a wonderful and magical place vibrant with colour and magic.  The sun shon hot and gloriously in the summer, the air was crisp and clean in the winter, and Winnipeg was like a carnival of wonderous experiences just waiting for me to encounter them.  This is how I experienced my surroundings at that age.  Eventually, I relocated from Winnipeg to Calgary.

After I had begun to emerge into adulthood, I went back to Winnipeg to visit all of my old friends.  When I arrived back at my old house on my old street, none of that magic was there.  I was expriencing Winnipeg to be quite boring, quite drab and grey.  It appeared to be quite an undesirable place to live.  Looking back on this experience and the experience of my childhood, I can observe that during either time my mind was informing me that this was how Winnipeg "actually" was.  All the way down to the most subtle aspects of either experience, the mind continued to inform me that each observation -- whether conciously entertained or subconciously apprehended -- was absolutely real.  But this cannot be so.  If it were real at age 5, it should be real at age 15.  Nothing related to my old street has radically changed in the span of ten years: except my mind.


>> Please explain what you mean by "training and constant practice". I find logic to be a better tool than meditating or examining koans.

A mere conceptualization of points which totally oppose our current experience cannot effect change on our current experience.  Training and practice are what cause our conceptualizations to trickle down into our more subtle minds, and alter the way we experience our reality.  We cannot simply throw a bunch of ingredients into a bowl and expect a cake to appear.  By the same token, we cannot simply toss a bunch of logic into our minds and expect a realization to appear.  Training and constant practice are like the heat in an oven which causes the cake to rise out of the pan.  Training and constant practice cause realizations to arise from our conceptualizations.

Koans are very skilful logical tools.  They contain a logic which is very subtle, and which must be uncovered by the student.  When the student uncovers the profound logic behind a koan which first appears as nonsense, it is internalized very quickly.  This is the wonderful technique of Zen.


>> And how do we avoid reaching the obvious, yet extreme, conclusion that nothing exists at all?

If, through investigation, we obliterate the existence of objects through the application of various reasonings, yet continue to conceive of ourselves as inherently existent, we encounter the intellectual extreme which concludes nothing to exist at all.  Though, if in conjunction with our investigation we continously conclude thruogh the same reasoning that objects cannot exist inherently, we must understand that there is an intimate relationship between the existence of an object and the presence of apprehending conciousness, an observer.  This is the pivot upon which inherent existence and non-existence swing.


>> Are you referring to physical suffering? Perhaps a mind so imbued might not be able to recognize the suffering. However, that does not mean the body would not be affected by it. True or untrue?

The body is subject to it's end like any other impermanent phenomena.  Cultivating a mind that understands dependent relationship would not make us invincible!  Though, it would prevent our minds from becoming disturbed by the appearance of physical suffering.  When physical suffering appears, it's intensity is quite dependent upon our state of mind.  If we oppose the appearance of suffering, and naturally that is what all of us do, that pain will be intensified to the degree of our aversion.  A major aspect of physical suffering is our own aversion to it.  If we have cultivated a mind that understands dependent relationship, the emptiness of inherent existence of all phenomenon, then our aversion to physical suffering would naturally be quite low.  It would simply appear unimportant to us.

I once told a story about my teacher's teacher Gen Tharchin.  He had been bitten by a snake whilst meditating outdoors.  His object of meditation at the time was emptiness.  He did not experience any pain or fright, and infact found the sensation to be quite interesting.  He roused himself from equipoise to seek medical assistance using only the logic "If I continue to delight in this experience, I may die, and I will not be able to help others."

A mind which opposes suffering depends upon a mind which conceives phenomena to be seperate.  If we obliterate the mind which conceives of phenomena in this way, all suffering must cease.  Suffering and mistaken views are dependent upon eachother.  Buddha's intention was to alleviate our suffering by exposing our mistaken awareness.


>> Is impermanance a construct of consciousness, a mere conceptualization, and if it is such, then how can it be assigned existence? Does impermanance exist? How do we know this?

Saying "imperanance exists" is similar to saying "running exists".  Running is an action observed by apprehending the patterns of other phenomenon.  The runner's legs are moving quickly, he is breathing heavily, sweating and so forth.  Through these observations, "running" appears.  In the same way, by observing that all phenomena depend upon the relationship between cause and effect, we observe that all phenomena are impermanent.  "Impermanence" appears.

This touches on the emptiness of inherent existence of concepts.  I have not reached this part of the book!  Regardless, I will make an attempt.  If the runner were to pause for a drink of water, then the concept of running in that moment would cease to exist.  If we are to examine a man running along a track, and for the sake of exploring this question we were to deliberately impute "running" on to that man, we would be able to conceive of "running" as a phenomena existing "over there, by the man."  Though, the moment the man ceases his rapid leg movements and other indicators, our imputation of "running" evaporates.  We no longer have substantial basis to impute "running."  In this way, "running" is a phenomena existing in dependence upon basis of imputation, and therefore cannot inherently exist.

Impermanence is an observation of patterns and therefore must follow this same reasoning, but since impermanence is a concept imputed upon a series of patterns which have no beginning and no end, can it be said that impermanence can be assigned existence beyond mere conceptualization?

I suppose this question depends upon our approach.  If we are approaching the impermanence of phenomena with the conception of ourselves as totally distinct, then the answer would be "impermanence is a physical law", in the same way we currently understand gravity.  We experience gravity as though it were a phenomena that would occur regardless of the presence of an apprehending conciousness.  Approaching the question in this way, we are forced to conclude that impermanence is a phenomena that exists inherently.

Though, if we are to approach the impermanence of phenomena with the conception of ourselves as inseperable from all other phenomena, then we must understand that the observations we make of other phenomena are pervaded by conciousness.  Understanding that conciousness and existence are two mutually dependent phenomenon, we must conceive of impermanence as a merely conventional awareness, as not inherently existent.  Although it may be a conventional awareness, it must not be discarded.  It performs a valuable function which guides toward ultimate awareness.

That was a very challenging and multi-layered question.  I will have to contemplate it much further.  Thank you!  :smile2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2294576 - 02/02/04 03:46 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2294752 - 02/02/04 04:30 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

...errhh, just to let you guys know, I am going to be tracking this conversation with great interest. AWESOME!


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_Scape
Anti Genius
Male

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2316372 - 02/08/04 11:33 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

"When we say something exists, we are expressing that our mind has apprehended an object and, by basis of imputation, has assigned inherent existence to that object. "






ME: You disagree that through imputation, we assign existence to an object?

DAVID: Well, im saying that we impute relative meaning onto the perception of the object. I'm just saying it does'nt cause the opportunity to impute that object with meaning. Or put simply, it doesn't create the existence of that object as a perception....It is cold(read:indifferent) perception that does this.

ME: No no no, It is imputation that causes the inherent existence of that object!

DAVID: Sure, yah, as long as it is inherent existence. Humans at least, cannot percieve inherently an object. So the mind fills in the holes (through meaning and imputation) in ways the eyes and hands cannot. Perception merely gives the mind input from the external, that describes to a certain extent what it is, when it is and howit is...the mind gives the input pragmatic meaning.  :loveeyes:


[NOTE. I did'nt just read the first couple of posts and responded. I did read the thread.] :stoned:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_Scape
Anti Genius
Male

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: David_Scape]
    #2316554 - 02/09/04 01:15 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Our concepts do not inherently exist with 100% truth attached to them. As every person who has handled something they thought incorrectly about knows.

  The main points of this thread were talking about things that are abstract (like concepts/ideas) and how they change as the world around us does.  Abstract concepts, as we attach them to input, can be broken down considering how the enviroment or object being observed behaves. Like the braking of a cup, or the taking apart or the understanding of a truck. Or the seperation of a molecule, or the ripping of an atom. 

Okay, better yet, i just found a better way to explain this:

Everybody, look at your keyboard. You know that real-time video, full-color 3D image-stream that your eyes and brains inside the back of your skull are providing you? That is not abstract, it is perceptions. :nut:

Okay, now, as you're seeing the keyboard, more is going on. Implicit things are going on. You are not just a video camera looking thoughtless at some object, you are a self who has a mind that has concepts (ones that you learned to use so well when you were little they became subconscious) that attaches them to the world in an attempt to make it manuverable and meaningfull.

A cup seperated of it's atoms does not follow that things are not distinct. All it shows is that your concepts are not 100% right and that your ideas are not quite distinct.

Edited by David_Scape (02/09/04 02:26 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: David_Scape]
    #2317408 - 02/09/04 10:43 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Mere imputation is only the first layer of incorrect experience. There must also be a consideration of phenomenon dependent upon parts, of which there are none excluded.

If a phenomenon such as a television is occuring in our living room, how is it that it is distinguished from other phenomenon such as the fireplace? At first glance, if we are flexible, we can easily understand that "television" is merely a mental imputation upon a visually apprehended object, which is subseqently contrasted against another imputation upon a visually apprehended object, "fireplace". It is important to notice that our mind informs us of the existence of these objects spontaneously. We glance at our television and are immediately informed that "television" is existing from it's own side. The same is true for the fireplace. We can easily see how this experience is false, yet pervades every instant of our lives.

With the understanding that the experience of our television occurs largely in dependence upon the power of our imputing mind, we can investigate further to find out what is actually occuring in our living room. We must understand that this object is a phenomenon that continues to unfold in dependence upon the continuous unfolding of other phenomenon.

Let's take a trip to Japan and visit the Sony TV factory there. Looking around the large assembly room, we see TV parts everywhere. There are glass screens of all sizes over here, plastic chassis of all different shapes and colours over there, circuit boards and cathode ray tubes over there. In the factory, these all appear to be discrete objects. They are, for the sake of convention, independently unfolding phenomenon all over the shelves of this factory filled with efficient workers. When the workers guide these various phenomenon together, a new phenomenon arises, as if by magic. One of these phenomenon now sits in our living room. Clearly, we can see that the seemingly isolated phenomenon of our television is actually unfolding in dependence upon the unfolding of countless other phenomenon.

We can now take this investigation even further. Upon what do the materials which comprise our television depend? Their continuous occurance depends upon a proper assembly of chemical consituents. Is this a discretely existing pile of chemical consituents? Do these chemicals exist in dependence upon any other nearby phenomeon?

If it were to become warm enough in our living room, our television would disintegrate. The chemical consituents of our television continue unfolding in dependence upon the ambient temperature of our living room. Is the ambient temperature of our living room a discretely unfolding phenomenon? Of course it is not. It is impacted continuously by our air conditioning system, the sun hanging in the sky, even the heat of our own bodies. All objects that exist in our apprehended 'toy box' reality exist in dependence upon their surroundings, and are a part of a delicate and ongoing balance. All perceivable objects are involved in constant interchange with all other perceivable objects. Each object we apprehend, including our own self, is intimately involved in a deep relationship with all other phenomenon in the universe. It is only the mind which is able to ignore or disregard certain phenomenon and draw boundries within our experience. Only in convention can there be any plurality.

Understanding this, how can we view ourselves or the apprehended objects that surround us as distinct, except by allowing our minds to continue assuming this to be true?

The interconnectedness of our universe can be demonstrated by considering the impossibility lowering the temperature of an object or space to the degree that is considered "absolute zero", the cessation of all atomic motion. Scientists have been able to cool an object to temperatures of one billionth a degree Kelvin, yet never have they approached true asymptotic decelleration. There is a reason for this. It is because there cannot be a total isolation of the object or space which is to be cooled in this way. There is always an avenue for energy -- the effect of other phenomenon -- to approach the super cooled area and perpetuate molecular and atomic motion. The Scientific community considers reaching absolute zero to be more implausible than time travel. The thermodynamic laws which prevent us from reaching absolute zero are considered quite concrete, yet the laws of quantum mechanics which decide the plausibility of time travel remain as mere conjecture.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2317772 - 02/09/04 12:28 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: David_Scape]
    #2317787 - 02/09/04 12:31 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I decided to play around with your avatar. :grin: (dont worry, I was gentle)















:grin:



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekaiowas
lest we baguette
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2319765 - 02/09/04 10:00 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

wow skorp!!  those are really good!!  do you do nature scenes??? :wink: :grin:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_Scape
Anti Genius
Male

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2320475 - 02/10/04 02:31 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

"If a phenomenon such as a television is occuring in our living room, how is it that it is distinguished from other phenomenon such as the fireplace? At first glance, if we are flexible, we can easily understand that "television" is merely a mental imputation upon a visually apprehended object, which is subseqently contrasted against another imputation upon a visually apprehended object, "fireplace"."

Just for surety, when you say "visually apprehended" are you refering to the raw visual input that the mind apprehends,yay or nay? :thumbup: :thumbdown: ?

"It is important to notice that our mind informs us of the existence of these objects spontaneously. We glance at our television and are immediately informed that "television" is existing from it's own side. The same is true for the fireplace. We can easily see how this experience is false, yet pervades every instant of our lives."

Yes, if by spontaneous you mean fast and seemingly innert, it is. But it is also important to notice the distinction between the concept of the "existence of the television"  and the raw input percieved by your mind that is supposed to be the "television". The problem i get from these examples, is that raw perception is ignored as the foundation for our concept of "existence".


"Let's take a trip to Japan and visit the Sony TV factory there"

I love sony! yay!

"Clearly, we can see that the seemingly isolated phenomenon of our television is actually unfolding in dependence upon the unfolding of countless other phenomenon."

That's correct. I still consider it distinct however.

To not consider it distinct would be confusing abstract concepts with HOW things are and WHEN they are. Which is important...not irrelavent as might have been implicitly assumed.

I call the How and the When of an object it's informational structure (im sure philosophers or somebody has the real word for it, but blah.).When something looses it's informational structure, the object looses it's 'behavior' if you will. This is important in distinction. Cause we all know that deep down in da atoms we're all the same stuff. But the informational structure is different. I don't think me and my keyboard would like it very much if our When and How were'nt distinct. Would you?     

If you accept the premise that the mind recieves raw input/perceptions (which you are conscious of)  and then  gets processed or imputed, then you probably agree that that 'raw input' is external or at the very least, indifferent to you.

And if you accept that How, When and Where are important variables to think about when considering questions like " what makes an object distinct?" or "contrast"  then you'll begin to see that the ever descending phenomina of an object - while still very relevent, is not sufficient by itself to answer the question correctly.  :crazy2:



:eyemouth:


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: David_Scape]
    #2321008 - 02/10/04 11:56 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

When I say "visually apprehend", I am making reference to the mental experience that arises when the eye conciousness encounters an object.

When I say "spontaneously" I mean without effort, passively.

All forms have parts. Taking the television as an example, it is clear that it is composed of many parts. The television is not identical with it's parts, nor is it indepdendent of it's parts. If the television were identical with it's parts, such as the chassis and the picture tube, we would have countless televisions in our living room. On the other hand, if the television were independent of it's parts, we could remove all the parts and the television would still remain. We must conclude that the television is different from it's parts, but dependent on them. This is true of all form, and therefore all form are dependent-related phenomenon dependent upon parts.

We say that we see our television when we see the parts of our television -- the screen, control buttons, speakers and so forth. Similarly, other people develop the thought that they are seeing our television when they enter our living room and see or touch the parts of our shiny big screen. Other than the parts of the television, there is no television to be seen or touched. Clearly, the parts of our television act as the basis for designating, or imputing, our telvision. Our television is merely imputed, and the basis of imputation for our television is the assembly of our television's readily perceivable parts. By convention it is quite correct to impute "television" upon the basis of a glowing screen, control buttons, speakers, antenna, and so forth, and therefore the parts of our television are a valid basis of imputation for our television. Sometimes, we impute phenomenon upon an invalid basis, such as reacting in fright upon encountering a toy rubber snake. In this case the basis of imputation, a length of striped rubber, is not a valid basis for imputing a snake, and therefore the snake that is imputed upon this basis does not actually exist. Since a phenomenon exists only if it is imputed upon a valid basis, no phenomenon can exist without a basis of imputation. Thus, form is a dependent related phenomenon depending on basis of imputation.

As near as I can tell, everyone has reached an agreement on these points. Yes, the television exists as a distinguishable object in dependence upon it's parts. Yes, the television exists as a mere imputation upon parts. Conventionally, it is quite correct to view the television as distinct. There are no arguments from me on this point. In the following paragraphs, I am attempting to bring this discussion beyond mere convention, per the topic of this thread.

As explained above, form depends upon a valid basis of imputation. It follows that form must also depend upon imputation by consciousness. For example, our own body depends upon its parts as a basis of imputation, but it also depends upon the mind that imputes our body. These two, a valid basis of imputation and the presence of an imputing conciousness, need to come together in order to establish the existence of a phenomenon.

The mind that imputes or designates an object is a conceptual mind. The first way in which a conceptual mind imputes an object is the process of naming; it is a conceptual mind that first imputes a name to a particular basis of imputation. The second way in which a conceptual mind imputes an object is by subsequently apprehending the appearance of the basis of imputation as the designated object.

We can consider the example of John being elected the Chairperson of his committee. The conceptual minds that originally designate John as the "Chairperson" impute "Chairperson" in the first manner. Through the process of naming, a new phenomenon "Chairperson", comes into existence. Subsequently, any conceptual mind that apprehends John as the "Chairperson" imputes "Chairperson" in the second manner. In the case of the Chairperson it is not difficult to understand that the phenomenon is imputed by conception, and that there is no "Chairperson" is existing anywhere but our minds. Through careful investigation we can realize that all forms and all other phenomena are also imputed by conception in this way.

Form is dependent upon mere imputation by conception because apart from the imputation by conception there is no form to be found at all. Again, considering the example of the Chairperson can help us to understand this. Clearly, if no conceptual mind designates John as the Chairperson, there is no chairperson anywhere. If we examine John's body in search of a chairperson, or an indication of a chairperson, we shall find no such thing. Apart from the mere imputation by conception there is no chairperson at all. Although it is perhaps more difficult to realize, the same is true of forms such as our body, and of all other phenomena. Thus, form is a dependent related phenomnon depending on mere imputation by conception.

We can search for the inherent existence of objects by conducting the same investigation as we did for the "Chairperson" aspect of John. We will discover through carrying out this investigation that we cannot locate the inherent existence of any object upon which we conduct our investigation. We will discover that all phenomenon are unfolding in depedence upon causes, upon name, upon parts, or upon basis of imputation. Our investigation will continuously guide us back to our own mind.

It is not difficult to realize that form is a dependent-related phenomenon depending upon parts -- a less subtle type of dependence; where as it is very difficult to realize that form is a dependent-related phenomenon depending upon mere imputation by conception -- the most subtle type of dependence.

The fact that a phenomenon is dependent related can be used as a reason for establishing the emptiness of the phenomenon. For example, if we realize that our body is a dependent related phenomenon depending upon parts, this can lead to the inferential realization that our body is empty of inherent existence. If our body were inherently existent, it would have its own existence independent of all other phenomenon and therefore would not depend on parts for its existence. The fact that our body does depend on parts is a clear indication that our body is not inherently existent. Similarly, our body being dependent upon causes, name, and basis of imputation can also be used a reason to establish an inferential realization of our body's emptiness of inherent existence.

The last type of dependence -- dependence on mere imputation by conception -- encompasses all other types of dependence and points to the subtle nature of phenomenon and therefore must be realized directly; logical explanations serve only as gesturing. There are many logical reasons that can be used to establish the emptiness of inherent existence of phenomena, but the "king of logical reasons" is considered the "logic of dependent relationship", which has been partially outlined above (There are three other less subtle explanations of dependent relationship). It is such a powerful reason because conceiving phenomenon as being dependent-related is directly opposite to conceiving phenomenon as inherently existent. Ordinary beings conceive each phenomenon to have its own existence within itself, quite seperate from, and independent of, other phenomenon, including the self. A realization that phenomena in fact exist in dependence upon other phenomena directly undermines this false conception of inherent existence.

>> what makes an object distinct?

Only the self-grasping mind.



Tayatha Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi S?ha


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* pre-existance
( 1 2 all )
fearfect 2,227 31 07/30/04 09:03 PM
by 777
* A big reason why aliens DO exist!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
Ego Death 14,424 181 08/06/03 10:53 AM
by Azmodeus
* it seems therefore, that God does not exist. whiterastahippie 1,789 12 11/11/11 02:01 AM
by thefloodbehind
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 21,771 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* God Exists
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Zahid 11,817 113 03/18/03 03:57 PM
by falcon
* Death & Time don't exist. Where God comes from...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Shroomalicious 9,234 69 12/18/02 06:30 PM
by Strumpling
* Dose God exist? Take a look around.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Bavet 7,000 68 02/06/03 10:46 AM
by Strumpling
* Are you a slave to a God that doesn't exist?
( 1 2 3 all )
Larrythescaryrex 7,610 42 07/30/02 04:00 PM
by Larrythescaryrex

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
21,470 topic views. 1 members, 17 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 13 queries.