Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:26 am


Does the tree cease to exist except when someone is perceiving it?

No, it does not cease to exist...simply because experience has shown it to be a known concept...the concept is known, but the actual tree has never been seen, it is the seeing...and the knowing of that seeing in the same moment.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:14 am..the toucher and the feeling of the tree are one in the same moment...the separation is pure illusion.

Granted it's a possibility; that has been understood pretty much since the beginning of philosophy. The first person to articulate it was Parmenides. Plato was sufficiently impressed that he felt compelled to accommodate the idea by appealing to his theory of 'forms'. Aristotle was dismissive of the idea, but even so had to concede this much:
"Now to investigate whether Being is one and motionless is not a contribution to the science of Nature. For just as the geometer has nothing more to say to one who denies the principles of his science-this being a question for a different science or for or common to all-so a man investigating principles cannot argue with one who denies their existence. For if Being is just one, and one in the way mentioned, there is a principle no longer, since a principle must be the principle of some thing or things.

To inquire therefore whether Being is one in this sense would be like arguing against any other position maintained for the sake of argument (such as the Heraclitean thesis, or such a thesis as that Being is one man) or like refuting a merely contentious argument-a description which applies to the arguments both of Melissus and of Parmenides: their premisses are false and their conclusions do not follow."
Physics Book 1, pt 2 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.1.i.html
The only thing wrong with that is that he cannot maintain that the initial premise (that being is 'One', or even 'non-dual') is false; we simply don't know, which fundamentally is the point made by Locke, Hume, Kant and every philosophically savvy physicist since.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:42 am
To inquire therefore whether Being is one in this sense would be like arguing against any other position maintained for the sake of argument (such as the Heraclitean thesis, or such a thesis as that Being is one man) or like refuting a merely contentious argument-a description which applies to the arguments both of Melissus and of Parmenides: their premisses are false and their conclusions do not follow."
Physics Book 1, pt 2 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.1.i.html
The only thing wrong with that is that he cannot maintain that the initial premise (that being is 'One', or even 'non-dual') is false; we simply don't know, which fundamentally is the point made by Locke, Hume, Kant and every philosophically savvy physicist since.

Oneness has no argument with itself..all knowledge is fictional story no one has with itself..it the play of duality.

.

Nothing wrong with any of it...we love the dance, but it takes two to tango.

Wanna dance?

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:22 pmWanna dance?

I thought I was.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:25 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:22 pmWanna dance?

I thought I was.

You ARE

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:18 amBut you said we are the body's awareness?

There is no awareness until there is contact with a surface aka the mind of senses, which is an integral aspect of awareness...and in that moment of contact, the un-knowing awareness knows via sensation via surface contact aka mind, the mind knows itself...and becomes conscious of itself aka experiencing itself.

Awareness is not an experience, it is the experiencing.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:18 amBut you said you can be aware you are aware so you are experiencing awareness?

Experiencing is always in the unconscious moment, to become aware of experiencing is after the event, when awareness becomes conscious of itself...but it's all one in the moment...one unitary movement... Life is one unitary flow or flux...always under construction...infinity never completes, because it's infinite, meaning no beginning, no end...

But..the sense of knowing in any given moment of what's happening is always of memory of what's already disappeared in the flow that cannot be stopped..any stopping is called a conscious snap-shot, a captured frame of the movie that's ultimately playing unconsciously, then itself becoming consciously aware of the movie ...it is when the mind infers in on itself ..namely, it re-calls, or re-members, or re-cognises what's already happened.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:18 amI can experience my hand moving and touching and all the other parts and the reason why is that I am them and they are me.

The I is the experience yes....but there has to be an awareness that is constantly present that knows the experience when it arises, there has to be a constant there, that is not an experience for any experience to happen...experiences come and and go in this constant presence... the experience is being recorded so that awareness may come to know..become aware of itself as this experiencing....

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:18 amNot confusing at all as there are no parts just the whole and that whole is the body and it is a thing I am acutely aware of.

That's is correct, that's exactly how it it. ...becoming aware of a ''thing'' is the experience, but that which is aware, is not an experience or a thing, it is that in which the things, aka experiences arise in...

.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:44 am
Doubt is good politically and morally. Values are plural and cannot therefore be eternal ; you are right about values.

Rumi:

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase each other
doesn’t make any sense.”

But then you are talking only from one side of the fence again Belinda...your missing a side...

Values are what you put there, there's two you's...there's the you that is without words, and there's the you that is the word...the word that you the silence put there /here.

What ever the non-conceptual silence is, it must also be it's polar opposite in the same moment...which is the dream, aka characters in the dream, although the characters are infinite in number..the dreamer is only ever the same one.

So values are eternal and always have been...because you put them there....you are eternal, you are infinity.

.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:05 amCertainly values can never be seen as eternal, as they are not of the universe, only ever in the minds of humans

What if.......there is no such thing as a human mind....what if....the mind is not human?

All creatures in life...all animals of every form and shape, know values, they have the capacity to feel emotion and despair....all of them, because there is only consciousness.

But I am referring to the creatures and animals that have a more sophisticated nervous system that is.

The octopus and the dolphin are two examples of an incredible intelligence that is beyond human comprehension.

And then there is the unwavering faithful unconditional love that is our pet dog, cat, rabbit or whatever...

The love is overwhelming here, it's makes me want to burst open with emotional tears of gratitude.

Creatures have feelings, innate values unique to them...but they don't have the conceptual language that is unique to humans, so they live in a pure state of innocence ...do you see? this is so beautiful.

Nature automatically knows what to do, how to look after itself, how to live and how to die...it does this so gracefully and with such strength and dignity.

Nature never suffered, pain is yes, but suffering is endured, if it wasn't no one would ever be born...we are made to endure, and with every endurance comes stronger and stronger ability to endure more and more...

We should never fear pain..no more that we should fear bliss.

.

.

I gave birth to 4 babies, naturally, without using any pain killing drugs....the pain was agony, it's was so excruciating, that at one point I thought I was going to pass out...but I didn't...and it never stopped me from having babies...pain is temporal...you are bliss, always bliss.

.

Dear Belinda and all posters advocating eternal values:

Your advocacy against prostitution is because it is contrary to an eternal value, scil. prostitution is evil, period.

Now, let us all think about whether there is an eternal value which is evil, namely, answer this question:

Does evil exist?

SoB

So "eternal" can only be seen as an archaic word, that has obviously outlived it's usefulness, as science has never shown anything to be eternal, quite the contrary. Everything that the universe is, is in constant change, thus not eternal. It was obviously coined by a hopeful, that they would never die, that their consciousness would live forever, there has never been any 'proof' that such a wishful concept is true in any way. It's just a word of the fearful, in denial of the seemingly uncomfortable truth, that the universe is in constant revision.

Before you can conclude that eternal is an “archaic word,” you have to either accept or deny the eternal unchanging or the realm of reality which is the domain of Plato’s world of forms. Since the eternal unchanging or Plotinus’ ONE makes perfect sense to me I can appreciate eternity as an expression of a lower level of reality within ONE and which every thing we see exists and is in constant change.

So 'values' deals with human subjective conceptualization, NOT a universal. And since there are ever varying differentiation between us, solely dependant upon environmental experiences, we "can" say that humans all share such a thing as values, however as to specific values, we can "only say" that we often differ in what is and is not valuable. Certainly values can never be seen as eternal, as they are not of the universe, only ever in the minds of humans, as a way to deal with the plight of the human animal's challenges. They differ because challenges differ amongst us. And no value can be seen as "necessarily" right, because they are not universal amongst us, except those things that are definitely common to all of us, air, water, food, shelter, a mate of some sort, whether one or many. See how I started listing things in variable terms, such are the values between us. Keep in mind that if I so chose, I could rip apart any value, relative to another, with seemingly valid conclusions. Ah, the variability of the human conceptual mind, it really knows no bounds, gods anyone?

I think you would agree that there are many types of chairs. However the concept of chair can have one objective attribute. What is the one thing all chairs have in common?

Would you agree that there are many possible earthly subjective conceptions of justice, but what is justice? What is the one attribute all expressions of justice must have in common? We don’t know. We cannot know because justice is an eternal value and we are limited to an awareness of subjective interpretations we argue over. You seem satisfied with debating subjective conceptions of justice but there are those who strive to acquire the quality of consciousness which brings their being closer to the source of the world of forms and objective justice.

Note the second definition. So it's not exclusive to sex. And well it shouldn't be.

Quite true. There are many ways to prostitute ourselves including politics.

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

Is the sexual function an attribute of respect for life as an eternal value? If so then society as a whole has no conception of the universal value of either sex or sex energy.

So in my mind it's very simple. The only thing we "absolutely owe one another" is to "leave one another alone to their own devices." As long as all those that are a party to such devices want to be included. All those that disagree, need do no other, than create their own devices, leaving others to their own. To actually know and practice "live and let live." To hell with gods, as they create their dogma, then force others to live their short lives, as slaves to such temporal fickleness.

I presume you are against the “Noble Lie” which would be an obstacle to the aim of “live and let live.” Am I right?

In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:29 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:26 am


Does the tree cease to exist except when someone is perceiving it?

No, it does not cease to exist...simply because experience has shown it to be a known concept...the concept is known, but the actual tree has never been seen, it is the seeing...and the knowing of that seeing in the same moment.

.

A tree is both a mental concept and a physical object.If Dontaskme is unable to perceive physical objects as physical objects she will be dead or on life support.

If the unperceived tree does not cease to exist then it's not dependent upon minds and must be physical as well as mental.

A concept is by definition a mental object and so if it's unperceived it ceases to exist.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:57 am
A tree is both a mental concept and a physical object.

A physical object is a perceived mental concept...the perceiver cannot be perceived, it is the perceiving, it is one with the perception in the same moment. The perceiver cannot see itself as the perceiver ..it can only see what it is perceiving, which is inseparable from the perceiver in the exact same moment....and that's how an object is known, the object doesn't know itself, the one looking at the object knows, the constant self evident witness...which is consciousness that is not an object...an object is a mental concept, it's phenomena within the noumenon aka consciousness.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:57 amIf Dontaskme is unable to perceive physical objects as physical objects she will be dead or on life support.

Dam does not perceive anything, Dam is the perceived, she is a perceived object...The noumenon aka perceiving consciousness uses the mind body organism known as Dam as an instrument for perception to take place.. to look through, and this same noumenon aka perceiving consciousness is the same one that looks through every other mind body mechanism as well...including animals and plants... ...when a tree is in close proximity with the mind body organism that is Dam, and contact is made between the two surfaces ..the one that is the body known as Dam and the other that is the body of a tree, when both surfaces make contact is when both the knower and the known arise in conjunction with one another... in the exact same moment....but let's remember, that the perceiver that is the body mind mechanism that is Dam is the only consciousness that can know itself, simply because of it's capacity to think conceptually and attach itself to the object it knows, believing those objects into existence...the mind of thought being dualist due to it's capacity for language and knowledge...that being unique to human consciousness...human consciousness appears to be far more sophisticated than say the consciousness that is perceiving through the lens of a cat or dog...these creaturs do not appear to have any concept that things exist separate from them....and dogs and cats do apparently know certain words because they have grown up in close proximity with the consciousness that is unique to the human so they have been conditioned to respond accordingly to the call of certain sounds in the same way babies learnt to talk and mimic their parents ability for conceptual language...

So to sum up then, .. what I'm saying here is that conscious awareness cannot experience itself as an object, because an object IS the conception of the inconceivable perceiver....and YOU ARE THAT...

An object is just a concept of awareness which is not an object..and that's all that exists, both subject and object are one and the same no thing.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:57 amIf the unperceived tree does not cease to exist then it's not dependent upon minds and must be physical as well as mental.

Once the perception of an object is known, it cannot be unknown...because it is always at one with the knower...the tree cannot cease to exist once it is known by that which is perceiving it, ie: conceiving it into existence. It's not dependant on mind, because it has no reality in and of itself, it does not know of it's existence, it is not outside of the conceiver that has conceived the object..the object is known in the direct perception of it..the perceiving of an object is inseparable from the object itself.

There is nothing existing outside of consciousness, reality is all inside consciousness...appearing to be outside it...the world is not out there separate from you in here, it's not out-there, it's in YOU....I understand why this may sound very absurd, and is why it always takes me ages to explain it, using many words to point to this realisation... but it's really quite funny, once the mind grasps what is being pointed to...funny because I'm pointing to the non-conceptual nondual presence in which everything arises inseparable from it...I do this using concepts, so it can be quite confusing......it's very difficult to grasp, it took me years to see this oneness without a sceond.

It's a bit like those magic eye pictures..in that when you look at them, they just appear to be a flat image, but then on closer inspection, when the more you stare at them,something unexpected happens.. the one dimensional image turns into a spectacular 3D image out of nowhere..it seemed not to be there, but it was there the whole time.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:57 amA concept is by definition a mental object and so if it's unperceived it ceases to exist.

Well any concept can only exist in the knowing of it by the only knowing there is which is consciousness. Consciousness cannot cease to exist, it is eternal, simply because it does not appear or disappear, it's the ground of all being, an unmoving unchanging unborn undying timeless constant.

Both subject and object give birth to each other in the exact same moment... the object gives birth to the perceiver of the object and the perceiver gives birth to the object...this is the dual aspect of unaware awareness becoming aware of itself via consciousness known by the mind which is the interface between the two on contact..., but they are all aspects of the same one reality...they cannot exist independently of each other, they are each other...one cannot appear without the other.

This is known as the eternal NOW...THE ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:57 am
If Dontaskme is unable to perceive physical objects as physical objects she will be dead or on life support.

So coming back to this statement made by Belinda.

When the two surfaces that are the body of Dam and the body that is tree make contact...the sensation is known in that instant, the toucher and the feeling felt are born together... inseparable from each other.

So any future events of two surfaces coming together in contact... will already be known, stored in memory... consciousness automatically knows to avoid the collision with an object...all knowledge of anything is only and ever from memory...there is nothing happening in the immediate moment, all happenings are unconscious...known only after the event..from memory...aka when something becomes known..the mind being the interface between the unknown and the known.

.

Does this make sense Belinda..? there's probably loads of missing bits I haven't mentioned...this is about the deconstructing of what's normally been taught to you...so it's going to take a while...

Question this as much as you like...and I will be happy to explain for further clarification....

.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Nothingness is an absence, an not a phenomena in and of itself, hence "untruth" is equivalent to a deficiency in truth.

I perceive a tree outside my house. It involves my presence at the same time and place where the tree is. I may become absent and never perceive the tree again, but that will have no effect on the tree itself. So my perceptions will not become untrue, I just will not be having more perceptions. And of course, other people will.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: I observe a car. I use all my senses to perceive it, and in doing so cause a change within the car (moving the car or parts of it).

Perceiving an object will not cause anything to the object.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: The car as phenomena, in turn reflects back to me. My senses change, I move around, my thoughts and emotions form memories which will affect me later down the timeline. In these respects, the car causes changes within qualitative dimensions of my being.

Not the car in itself, but my perception of the car. Of course the car can come straight at me and hit me, which certainly can directly affect my state of being.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:14 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:12 am Observation implies the observer and the sense organs involved in perception. They are always embodied in conscious agents, which are also contingent beings, not eternal. So, observation is not eternal and the rest of the nonsense you wrote can be dismissed.

The observer (awareness) is not an agent...but uses an agent to look through.

Nonsense. Awareness is just a property of an agent, it is not a thing in itself.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:14 pm Agent being the instrument for seeing...the real seer is actually blind.. but it can always feel it's way around, which is just another way of seeing, and another way of seeing is knowing.

Double nonsense. The level of it you can obtain from idealist philosophy never ceases to amaze me. You can go on with this ridiculous word game forever: "the feeler is not actually feeling, but just an instrument of feeling", "the knower is not actually knowing, but just an instrument of knowing", and so on.

The observer (awareness) is not an agent...but uses an agent to look through.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:14 pmNonsense. Awareness is just a property of an agent, it is not a thing in itself.

Why is that nonsense?

I see it the other way around...The agent is a property of awareness. Awareness not being a thing, needs to be first prior to a thing/agent to be known. A thing is known by no thing....things don't know things, things are the known..known by no thing aka awareness.

.

And this is not word games, it's common sense using words the only available tool for making sense and for understanding to occur.

It's the false assumption that there is a philosopher in the first place, that idea is idealism. When in truth, there is no thing here appearing as if there is something here philosophising.

.