Todd

Ok. We mostly agree. Anything that can be talked about, thought of, or experienced is a division of that which is. As such, that which is, reality as it were, is not any of those divisions. It cannot be experienced as such, though nothing that is experienced is actually separate from it. Any name that we give it, including awareness, is a division of it. It is not just the name that is the division, but the experience that gives rise to the name. Our disagreement is your identification of awareness as the best tool, "a tool par excellence". I agree that it is a very good tool, but if we are to limit ourselves to only one tool, then we will be limiting ourselves severely. I don't care if our tool is a super-duper swiss army knife with 50 extensions. There are things that a swiss army knife just isn't the best tool for. You know the saying, "If your only tool is a hammer, everything will start to look like a nail"? One can see everything as "I". One can everything as "emptiness". One can see everything as "God". One can see everything as "Light". One can see everything as "Dark". One can see everything as "everything". One can see everything as "nothing". One can see everything as "awareness". One can see everything as "non-awareness" (gasp!). One can everything as "potential". One can see everything as "mystery". Every one of these ways of seeing everything has something to offer. What I like about your particular way of seeing things, what I gained from exploring your point of view, is the way that intent is seen as a natural part of awareness. It is necessary for manifestation, and inseparable from the capacity for anything to be experienced. I like this, because part of the teachings that I have been engaging speak of the falling away of personal will. Those teachings utilize intent, but due to their focus, the intent is engaged in ways that are a bit subterranean, getting at a deeper movement, or a more inclusive intent, such that one can start to feel a bit alienated from one's day to day intent. There is both a power and downfall to this approach, and so I appreciate the perspective on intent that your view brings. It makes intent's use and function and nature clearer to me. I also like that it starts from the everyday experience of awareness. This is powerful as well, though there is also a trap in it. This is not a trap that might not be escaped, but it is there nonetheless. There is a temptation to return to the child ego of "I am all! My will reigns supreme over all creation!" It is kinda true, but that creation is not separate from the I that is declaring supremacy (though it sure appears separate from any ego "I") so there isn't much point in making such a bold declaration. It doesn't have the same juice in that light, but any part of ego that still sees itself as separate will thrive and generate juice from that declaration, and start trying to control things everywhere as if that was what it was meant for. It isn't meant to control, since that happens beyond (but including) "separate" ego. It is meant to allow appreciation and enjoyment. At least thats my view at the moment. I find it fascinating that you see it this way when I present it to you using your point of view and language, but you saw it the opposite when I presented the same thing to you from a different point of view. This conversation has brought up a couple quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, which is not something that I really refer to much at all, but my teacher mentions from time to time. The first quote was brought to mind by your statement, "These experiences at first elicit great fear..." The quote is: "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all." The random website that I got this from includes this at the end of the quote: "[And after they have reigned they will rest.]" I'm not sure where that is coming from, given that it is in brackets, but just thought I'd mention it, since it was there. The second quote, which my teacher does not refer to, but came up the one time that I read a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, has to do with our broader discussion, and has provided some the inspiration for my exploration of the body as source of awareness point of view as potentially valid. The idea being that perhaps there might be more wonder to be found through the exploration of even this possibility, instead of just blithely attempting to sweep the appearance of matter under the rug: "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels." We have been trying to avoid matter for a long time. The acceptance of the appearance of matter has been hard won, especially in the face of numerous religious points of view. I do not choose to think of this as having just been a giant aberration. It may have swung too far in the direction of giving matter supremacy, but isn't it interesting that even through an intense investigation of matter as all, that scientists have begun to discover matter's "non-matter" properties? I think that tied into this are considerations of our human nature. The common way that spiritual and religious traditions have approached this is to ignore it. But this hasn't for the most part been successful, except in a very limited way. I think that we are now being called to include the body, and perhaps to include matter, in our explorations of spirit, and to call off this war, trying to get all of ourselves into one or the other, so that we might reign supreme. Thank you. I am glad you think so. Perhaps we can talk without you accusing me of arch idiocy and incapability of understanding you so often.

I've been trying to finish an Interlibrary Loan book, before I have to return it. Not looking likely, and I'm gonna be away from the forum for several days, starting tomorrow evening, so I thought I would make some replies before then. It does complicate things, doesn't it? It is much more elegant to go with the awareness is all approach, but this elegance does not equal proof. It is a preference, with basis in reason, but not a proof. If you want to call it intelligence, that is fine. We're talking about something that is provisionally unknown, so I'm not sure that you can ascribe intelligence nature to it just yet. For example, atoms are things that are non-uniform, but can be described in a non-random, non-uniform way by probabilities. Some might ascribe intelligence to them, but this is not the only way of looking at it. We may be able to tease out influences, especially if we don't assume that nothing accessible to awareness can be a source of awareness. It may be more elegant to do so, and it may have some practical benefits, but it is not proven. This is not my first try, nor is it for most people. I think the common assumption of many children is that their intent should be able to control all, and that their experience is the sum and total of the universe. This is the first manifestation of the ego, "I am all". If they learn that their name is "Baby", then they will point to things that they see and say, "Baby!" Experience disabuses them of this notion. Then they tend to develop neurotic ego, "I am, and there is a world separate from me." The next stage is not a return to "I am all", though including that view again can be quite helpful. It is a dropping of ego and an opening to the wonder of existence beyond all notions of what is or what can be, which is then able to partake of all notions of what is and what can be. We already discussed this. The brain that generates awareness in the brain generating awareness model is not an object of awareness, except through rather roundabout means, and awareness of this brain will always be incomplete, at least to the awareness that it generates (though perhaps, through a group or machine assisted effort most things about it can potentially be known or observed, subject to the limitations of the uncertainty principle), and so it is a potential source of awareness, no matter how non-modest such a possibility may be. You cannot absolutely know that this is not so based upon what you have presented, though it can be your preference based upon reason. All arguments aside, I really like this sentence. It seems to jump out of both the views that we are presenting. There are more options. It may be influencable by intent, but not completely so. One might be able to come to understand the ways that it is not currently influencable and make adjustments in how one lives one's life in accordance with that understanding. The greater the understanding of it, the more likely that more of it might be influencable. It may all eventually be influencable, but to come to realize this influence, we may have to pass through a deep acceptance and understanding of the seeming matter qualities of existence. This is based on the idea that meaning is derived from an infinite field of possibilities as opposed to a finite field of possibilities within a finite awareness. Objects as we experience them (the meaning of objects) need not be the sole reality of objects in such a case, since awareness is not defined as all. In your view, I understand that this is exactly how things are, that the meaning of objects is their sole reality. Your view is elegant, but it is not proven. It is a preference based upon reason. Once again, you are speaking only from your paradigm of awareness as all. If one considers a finite awareness, within a larger reality, then it is easy to infer things that are outside of awareness. For example, I can infer that there is a person who is typing these messages to me. The only thing that I am aware of is that these messages have been appearing, and they seem to respond to my messages, so you are not in my awareness, but something that you do is in my awareness, so I can infer that you exist and have been typing messages to me. I do not know this for certain, but I can reason with a high degree of probability that this is the case. I feel kind've like I am talking to someone with a great faith in God, who keeps bringing God into the discussion, even though he cannot provide proof for God. He can only provide strong reasons for believing in God and his preference for those reasons and his belief in God, but despite not being able to provide proof for God, he uses God in his arguments as a way of providing proof for all sorts of things, including God! This is a very slippery way of reasoning and leads to a very insular view. Its funny that you should say this here and the opposite in your next post. You have not conclusively established meaning and reality as being equal, so this argument is not valid, except on the basis of that assumption. It is true that I can only infer the generation or creation of awareness, as you define it. Though as a concept or experience, I can and have experienced its creation. Also, I can see children being born. I can infer that they are aware, based upon how they react, though I cannot be sure. I have good reason for thinking that they are aware, and I would have to assume that they are not aware, so in terms of probability, I tend to go with them being aware. This is a good reason to consider the possibility that awareness is created or generated, since before they were conceived and born, I had no basis for inferring that their awareness existed. I only had the experience of my own awareness and the ability to infer that others also were aware. When they are born, I have a basis to infer that a new awareness has come into being.

Ok, now for the exploration of Gold's view as if it were my own. This is no way meant to be construed as representing Gold's actual and complete view. Such a thing likely could not be expressed. It is an exploration to help me to understand another way of looking at the world, and I welcome comments and suggestions, especially from Gold, on how it can more accurately reflect his view, and how it can be further extended. I also may include some of my own extensions of this view as they become apparent to me. --- We can safely start with awareness. The only thing that we can safely state positively is that awareness is. Some might say that "I am aware" is a safe start, but this "I" is an assumption, since it does not arise in all moments of awareness. No object of awareness is constantly present. Even the "I" appears to come and go, especially in mystical states of awareness, but this awareness can never be seen to disappear. Thus awareness is the only necessary existence for experience. It exists before, during, and after any object apparently arises in and passes away from awareness. As such, no given object of awareness can be said, on the basis of what we directly know, to be the source of awareness. If we are to ascribe a source to anything, then it should be awareness, since it exists before any particular other thing arises. It will be useful in our exploration to consider what these "objects" that we have been discussing actually are. No particular configuration of objects is inherent to awareness, but awareness is necessary for objects to be, so objects must depend upon a modification of awareness for their existence. If no such modification were taking place, then awareness would exist on its own, without objects. In such a case, awareness would be in a state of potential for objects arising, without any particular objects actually arising. It would lose the qualities that we associate with awareness, as being aware of some thing, but since it exists before any particular object, we cannot say that it disappears when objects disappear. It merely returns to its state of potential for generating objects. One way of looking at how objects are generated by awareness is to think of awareness as a field. This field, as the potential for objects, exists as a field of possibilities. Objects are generated by dividing this field of possibilities in various ways. We can notice this by a taking an example object and considering how we know it to be an object, how we end up experiencing it as an object. We can take the example object "lamp". We recognize it as an object because it is different from other potential objects. It has particular values in contradistinction with the seemingly infinite array of possible values. Thus it has internal integrity, as opposed to no internal integrity; it has an energy source, as opposed to no energy source; a potential light source, as opposed to a motor, or a feather, or an immaterial spirit, is connected to that energy source, etc... It has a particular color, as opposed to all possible colors. It has a particular shape, as opposed to all possible shapes, etc... And even more fundamental than any of that, there is space (as opposed to no space) in which it can exist, and there is time (as opposed to no time) during which it can exist and be experienced. If awareness does not divide itself in this way, then no object be experienced within it. Thus, all objects are dependent upon awareness for their manifestation and cannot be considered anything but a subset, most often an infinitesimally small subset, of that greater awareness. However, implied by any given object is all the other objects and potential object that give it its meaning and context, and hence no object can actually be separated from the greater whole except by way of seeming. All objects are an expression and fulfillment of the potential of awareness. The impetus for this modification or division of awareness, such that objects appear, is intent, since even the most deluded people experience themselves as having at least some degree of control over their experience. They can open or close their eyes, or they can get up, or they can think of something that they choose. Even if a lot appears to be outside of their control, they experience themselves as being able to influence at least some things, and this capacity for intent never leaves, no matter how weak it seems to grow. Thus the modifications of awareness are not random, but are acts of will, or intent. The appearance of things being outside of the influence of conscious intent is another manifestation of the potential of awareness. It can divide itself into controllable and uncontrollable. However, such a division is merely a deeper manifestation of intent, and hence all things are a manifestation of intent. As such, every experience of awareness can be seen as a manifestation of intent, and one is hard pressed to make any distinction whatsoever between awareness and intent. Some say, "Hey now! Not so fast! How do you know that there is not something outside of awareness that you just don't know about, that gives rise to awareness?" My response to that is that maybe there is and maybe there isn't. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter. If there is, then by virtue of the fact that it is outside of awareness, I cannot know anything about it, and so I can safely leave it out of my considerations. Since it is by definition, not a form of awareness itself, then it is also unaware of me dismissing it, so it will not care either, so everyone's feelings are spared and we don't have to consider such irrelevant matters. If you say, "Wait a minute! We said that this non-awareness might have effects on awareness! Shouldn't we consider it then?", then I would say that either these effects are uniform, and hence can be left out of the equation, since they exist at all times, and hence on all sides of all equations, or else these effects are non-uniform, in which case awareness would be being controlled by a source outside of itself and not treatable by reason. In such a case, then none of this discussion has any point, and we might as well be speaking gibberish, since it is all determined by forces outside of our control, and no amount of reason can either ennoble us, reflect any truth, except by accident, or provide any practical benefit whatsoever. Besides, we agreed that the only thing that we can positively state without falling back on faith is that awareness is. We can easily deal with the whole of existence without assuming that anything other than awareness exists, and so it is the most elegant explanation for what we can see and know. An unknowable non-awareness can only be postulated, since it is by definition outside of our direct experience, and so it is an unnecessary complication of any explanation of what we know. As such, in the absence of convincing evidence for an unknowable non-awareness that affects awareness, then the best available way of approaching the world is as if that awareness is all that exists. The burden of proof falls to those who maintain otherwise. One thing that I have thought of throws a bit of a monkey wrench in the works, though, is that awareness itself can be thought of as a manifestation of awareness. Awareness is referred to by word, and hence it has meaning. It is divided from the potential of non-awareness. What if we don't make that division? Is there still awareness? Then I guess we really can't say. Anything that we say is another division from the potential (which I guess we can't really call awareness anymore). Hmmmmm.... I guess we can keep using the word "awareness", but only with the understanding that it is nothing like what we might assume "awareness" means. I wonder how allowing this to permeate our experience might change how things seem.

First, I'll respond to your most recent post. Then, in another post, I will explore your view as if it were my own. I'm sorry that the way I expressed myself made you feel that I had saddled you with an assumption that you did not make. It was not my intention to do so, and I hope that my recent clarifications help you to no longer feel that I am saddling you with such an assumption. I appreciate that you have brought this to my attention, and I hope that you will continue to do so, if I misrepresent what you say in the future. I probably will, since I am human and both my understanding and expression are hence imperfect. I prefer to be informed of my misunderstanding, rather than to have it continue, and I am happy to correct my mistakes, especially with regard to the way that I characterize what you are saying, as I have shown on more than one occasion (even though you have not always afforded me the same courtesy in the past). If it happens again, please just speak up, and I will do my best to understand what you are saying and either clarify or correct my stance. There is another way of looking at this. Assume that something is fundamentally outside of awareness. It might have an influence on awareness that is neither uniform, nor randomly non-uniform. It might have an effect that we can only know through probability. Thus its effects are not always the same, hence not uniform, but they are also not immune to reason, since we can reason about probabilities. In fact, probabilities are the best way to reason about most complex systems, such as life forms, and even considerably less complex systems than that (if anything can be said to be less complex than any other thing). Lets say further that awareness can influence this set of probabilities, even without ever being able to develop perfect knowledge of them, just as it is influenced by them, without those probabilities ever developing full awareness. Thus awareness would not be total, and could potentially be a subset of a larger whole, which has significant effects on it that are amenable to reason. Would it not then be to our advantage to consider this possibility, so that we can become aware of these effects and influence them if such is deemed beneficial? There are two approaches to this. First, how do you know that awareness is not generated by something else? If there are things that awareness cannot know that have an effect on awareness, as I explored just above, then it is possible that awareness is only a subset of a larger whole, and is potentially a very small subset of that whole, and it might be to our advantage to consider this possibility. There might even be awarenesses, and not merely some singular awareness. The second approach is to get rid of the idea of primary and secondary generation altogether. This is where I was headed with my critique of linear reason. We can also arrive at the same place starting only from awareness. Can awareness exist without an object of awareness? What use would it be to call it awareness in such a case? Awareness of what? Awareness is defined as being aware of some object, no matter how subtle and non-object like such an object might be. Since awareness cannot exist without objects, then objects are at least as much the source of awareness as awareness is the source of objects. There is no submission or domination in their relationship, since they are mutually necessary. In such a case, if we were to say that there is a source, then it would have to be a non-awareness, non-object source, with potential for awareness and objects. All that we could know of it is this potential, which can only be inferred, and cannot be experienced. Such an inference might have a great impact on awareness, since then no aspect of awareness or objects within awareness can be established as being primary, or a source, and hence no given thing, even awareness, is imbued with unnecessary permanence, which frees all expressions of this potential, including awareness.

Post #20 Maybe you and he can talk about it, if you don't agree. If he doesn't want to, then maybe I'll take his position for awhile. Just state what you find untenable, if anything.

It is only a paradox if you believe in linear causality. I edited my post. I added a suggestion that you check out Gold's arguments, since you have such a strong faith in linear causality.

I suspect you don't believe that everything relevant to our experience in the world can in principle be known either, huh? If you do then I have ready made argument for you to respond to. If not, then I can simply say that your faith in linear logic is based upon faith in an unknowable beginning, which you probably wouldn't have a problem with either. Then I could point you to recent studies done on people studying for tests after they took them, and this having a statistically significant effect on the results of the tests that they took before they studied for them, and hence effects passing back in time. This is not even close to rock solid evidence, but its the best I can do at the moment. Also, if you still believe in linear causality, then please check out Gold's arguments that depend upon this that are pretty convincing that awareness is the only thing relevant to our existence that we can know exists, and hence any object in awareness (such as the brain or matter) cannot be the source of that awareness in any way that is relevant our experience.

The uncertainty principle is relevant since it demonstrates that there are aspects of the world, which we interct with and have effects, which we cannot in principle be aware of, such as the exact position and velocity of any object at the same time. This is crucial, since you rule out the possibility that anything which is in principle unknowable can have any relevance to the known world, despite referring to the uncertainty principle from time to time, as if you consider it to be valid.

Ok, my abbreviated list of connections did not include your entire argument. I did not include the aspect of objects fundamentally outside of awareness, because you define them as irrelevant. I did include the crux of your argument that you can agree is relevant. You say that, excluding objects that are fundamentally outside of awareness (and hence cannot be known to exist or not exist), no object of awareness (including objects that are unknown but in principle accessible to awareness) can be the source of awareness. The argument that I quoted, and you refused to even address, was a direct answer to this argument. I showed how your argument is based upon assumptions. I detailed why those assumptions are not tenable. If you do not agree with my reasoning, then please address my reasoning. Right now, you have only refused to even consider it. Let me make it really simple. 1.Your argument is based upon linear logic 2.Linear logic is a flawed approach 3.It is based on the assumption that nothing can affect its own cause 4.This reduces to absurdity if logically explored 5.Abandoning such absurdity, one is left with a situation where there is no domination or submission, but a net of interrelated causes and effects, if any cause and effect can be said to exist at all 6.In such a situation, an object such as awareness can arise from another object, such as a brain, and potentially become at least partially aware of that brain, while still being an effect of that brain Since you base your proof on linear logic, then you are basing it on absurdity. I'm not saying that your experience might not offer a lot of good reason to believe the things you do, but to pretend that it is logically proven is untenable. It is your right to choose not to talk to me again. I have enjoyed the conversation and might continue to explore these issues as discussed above, though if you specifically request that I don't share this here, then I won't. (Though if someone else specifically requests that I do, then I will. You can feel free to ignore it, then.)

Your argument depends on assumptions. If I agree to your assumptions, then your argument is sound. If I do not agree to your assumptions, then it is not. That is why I do not directly address the individual points of your argument. I address the assumptions, which are a much deeper level, which you seem to be totally unwilling to consider, since it might entail changing your views. You say that my arguments are irrelevant. Allow me to draw the connections for you, since you have been unwilling to follow along. 1.Your argument is based on the assumption that awareness, in principle, cannot be a subset of a larger set, or an object among objects. 2.The argument that you make to support this is that awareness is before all objects of awareness, and hence must be causal of all objects, and cannot therefor be another object among objects. 3.I make a clear argument that your logic in making this point is flawed.* 4.You do not respond to this argument, but dismiss it as irrelevant. 5.Further you request that I demonstrate understanding of your view. 6.I wholeheartedly offer to do so and ask you to do the same for my view. 7.You respond very negatively, dismissing my ability to understand even your dumbed down reasoning and refuse to demonstrate understanding of my view, as if you worry what the outcome of such a process might be and are attempting to avoid it. *I am including this argument here to give you another chance to respond to it. "'goldisheavy, on 06 August 2011 - 01:47 AM, said:Yes it does. A thing C cannot be both an effect and cause of thing D. It's illogical. If a thing C is an effect of thing D, then thing C is in a submissive position relative D. If thing C is a cause of thing D, then thing C is in a dominant position relative D. The same thing cannot be both submissive and dominant at the same time, as that kind of thinking is gibberish. ... Thus by logically analyzing the qualities of concrete objects that are currently present I can disqualify all of them, even all of the potential such objects, the entire infinity of them. Why? Because the same logic applies to all concrete objects, be they currently vividly apparent ones or those that are not yet apparent but have the potential of becoming apparent.' There are two key assumptions here: 1) There is causality 2) Causality is linear I won't deal with #1, since my counter example depends upon it as well. #2 is fatal though. This view of causality is of things only progressing in one direction, and of effects that never feed back to the affect the level that generates them. The issue with things progressing in only one direction, is that you end up with the question of, "What was the first cause?" If you believe that everything can in principle be known, then this is logically inconsistent, since for any first cause, one can reasonably ask, "What caused that?" It becomes absurd and not treatable by logic. So this does not accord with your own assumptions and logic. Beyond logic, we can observe many effects in the world that feed back to affect the level that caused them. An example is learning. It is based upon perception. We perceive the world, we have an experience, and then we form a model of the world based upon this experience, which then becomes a filter through which we perceive the world. The learning, based on perception, affects the perception that caused it. I have left out the interpretive function, since its kinda part of perception, but the interpretive function is also effected. This all affects the next learning as well, so all levels are affected by every event. There is no domination and submission. Domination and submission is a very Yang, straight-line way of viewing the world. There are plenty of other examples of this. There are computer programs that learn, and alter themselves in response from feedback from systems that they can influence, and without any obvious awareness. Living systems are pretty much defined by a cornucopia of mutually supporting and controlling feedback loops, as we discussed before in the magic thread. So the possibility that the brain is one such cause that can be affected by its effects is quite in keeping with what can be observed in the world, and your logic in no way rules it out, unless you accept untenable assumptions. What I say does not prove that the brain has this position (especially since causality itself need not be assumed), but neither does what you say prove that it doesn't, or that awareness is all that is. " Can you not see the symmetry of your position and my (provisional) counter position? They both make positive statements about the nature of reality that cannot be proven. You attack the unprovable nature of my position, but refuse to provide proof for your position, stating that the unprovable nature of my position is proof enough for your position. You make the very same sorts arguments that you vehemently deny, and dismiss as based on faith. One advantage that I have in this conversation is that I do not maintain that my counter position is truth. I do not take a stance that requires faith. I only present a counter position to demonstrate that it is no more or less faith based than your position. Is this the best you can do? Can you see no potential development beyond the statement, "keep and open mind.. anything is possible."? I suggest we make wholehearted attempts to express the other's views, as if they were our own, and then offer critiques of how well the other presented our views, see how this changes the landscape, and go from there.

Ok. I offer to demonstrate understanding and perhaps further your view, and you refuse to do the same for mine. You also refuse to respond to my points but dismiss them as irrelevant, and then accuse me of slipping out the side door. I don't think you understand what I am trying to say, and that is why it seems irrelevant to you. You seem to think this is an argument about physicalism, where I am on the side of physicalism and you are on the side of non-physicalism. This is fine. I may explore the view from your angle, and/or other angles similar to yours, in later posts, for my own enjoyment and edification. Perhaps then you can show me how I am misunderstanding your position.

Thank you for the information. Its funny, I was struck with an impulse to begin taking He Shou Wu again yesterday or the day before (can't remember). I think pure cocoa, sun-dried or raw, might also be related. This is based mostly on subjective experience, however, as well as evidence of the relationship to emotional and cardiovascular health.

How do you see this association? I am aware of the herb and its textbook functions within Chinese medicine, and I have taken it for periods of time myself.

I will do this, wholeheartedly. Do you want me to start from your assumptions, or should I start from as few assumptions as possible? It will be more wholehearted if I start from as few assumptions as possible, but there is a good chance that it will end in a similar place, going through different vocabulary and experiences, to where my other explorations have pointed, since the assumptions are the most important thing. Will you do this for what I have been presenting? Just remember that I am not primarily arguing for the possibility of brain as cause of awareness. This is a minor point. I am arguing for the inability to conclusively establish either awareness as all, or brain as cause of awareness, at least based on anything that has been presented in our discussion so far. I suggest that there is a usefulness to this view.

Did I say this?

Thank you for sharing. _/\_

Just as: if you live your life as if there is definitely not something fundamentally beyond the scope of awareness, then your are definitely depending on blind faith. Remaining open to a recognition that something might be beyond the scope of awareness is not remaining open to blind faith. One can use reason to come to the conclusion that there are things that in principle, at least based upon all that we currently know, cannot be known. The uncertainty principle is such a conclusion, which you refer to from time to time. Please refer to the uncertainty principle. I do not know that this is 100% true in all possible situations, but apparently there is good logic and evidence for it. If you provide me with convincing evidence that awareness is all that exists, then similarly I will have to shift my views further in that direction, commensurate with the degree to which your evidence is convincing. I can imagine a way that it might be better. If it is more in accord with reality then it would be better. I do not want something based on an assumption. I like things that are in accord with reality, because in my experience, they work better and there is less unnecessary stress. In such a case, you wouldn't keep wondering why the universe doesn't seem to be bending itself wholly and easily to your conscious intentions. You wouldn't have to explain such things away, and you wouldn't be as likely to fall on your face trying, since you would be more likely to keep your balance as you exercise your intention. Your rating of reasons for accepting these various views is based upon the assumption that the views are entirely intentional, and that there is no "is-ness" quality to the world outside of view, and there is nothing outside of awareness. You have not demonstrated this to me. There are two key assumptions here: 1) There is causality 2) Causality is linear I won't deal with #1, since my counter example depends upon it as well. #2 is fatal though. This view of causality is of things only progressing in one direction, and of effects that never feed back to the affect the level that generates them. The issue with things progressing in only one direction, is that you end up with the question of, "What was the first cause?" If you believe that everything can in principle be known, then this is logically inconsistent, since for any first cause, one can reasonably ask, "What caused that?" It becomes absurd and not treatable by logic. So this does not accord with your own assumptions and logic. Beyond logic, we can observe many effects in the world that feed back to affect the level that caused them. An example is learning. It is based upon perception. We perceive the world, we have an experience, and then we form a model of the world based upon this experience, which then becomes a filter through which we perceive the world. The learning, based on perception, affects the perception that caused it. I have left out the interpretive function, since its kinda part of perception, but the interpretive function is also effected. This all affects the next learning as well, so all levels are affected by every event. There is no domination and submission. Domination and submission is a very Yang, straight-line way of viewing the world. There are plenty of other examples of this. There are computer programs that learn, and alter themselves in response from feedback from systems that they can influence, and without any obvious awareness. Living systems are pretty much defined by a cornucopia of mutually supporting and controlling feedback loops, as we discussed before in the magic thread. So the possibility that the brain is one such cause that can be affected by its effects is quite in keeping with what can be observed in the world, and your logic in no way rules it out, unless you accept untenable assumptions. What I say does not prove that the brain has this position (especially since causality itself need not be assumed), but neither does what you say prove that it doesn't, or that awareness is all that is. I'll respond to your next post later.

You even with this bar, you have not demonstrated the the non-awareness factor to which I was referring must be permanently external to it, nor have you demonstrated that it is irrelevant. I will discuss this when I respond to your next post. I agree.

There a lot of different ways that I can respond to this. There is a pithy way, but I'm less inclined to that, right now. I am being a little self-indulgent, following through on threads that reveal themselves. I am leaving a lot out, just because of time and space, but I enjoy offering an attempt at expressing various threads. I am talking with Gold and Vmarco because I want to. I am not trying to disseminate a message. I am conscious that the way that we talk is not directed to a lot of people. I can feel the moment in a lot of posts, often quite early, where I have just left most people out-- to them its just gibberish. With Gold, it has to do with his general clarity and sharpness. To talk to him I have to be a lot more precise than with other people, because he will attack anything that he sees as less than precise, often, it seems, even if he gets the general drift of what I am saying. I appreciate this, because it gives me the opportunity to be very precise, which can open conscious involvement with vistas that before were much more hazy. I use a lot of non-standard vocabulary with Vmarco, because he uses it. It is his language, and I see that he is trying to convey something that I recognize. Learning a new language can open me to different perspectives. I also see that he has views that do not accord with mine in some areas, so I want to establish a mutual understanding so that we can explore those areas where we disagree, which might be mutually profitable. The same goes with Gold. We make efforts to come to a mutual understanding of words, and then try to use them consistently, so that we can discuss things that are not commonly discussed. I do this, so that I might encounter different views and communicate my own views. I like that he tries to use everyday language, though. I also prefer this, though I slip into more technical usage with him at times. I am grateful that there is an opportunity to communicate with people who share certain experiences and viewpoints, so that the conversation does not have to remain at those levels and can go to areas less commonly explored. Often I skip long posts by people who I do not feel a strong connection with. Sometimes I read them, but more and more I go with my immediate gut reaction to the post. I depends on how much time I have and my interest in the topic. I encourage anyone who does not feel a strong connection with me to skip any of my posts the are not drawn to. There are basically as many languages as there are people. And its not just people. Every city and town has its own language, every profession, every gender and age group, every school, every religion and spiritual practice, every group of memories, every set of books read, every TV show watched, sport enjoyed, mental, spiritual and physical experience. It is impossible to speak all of these languages at once. You can do a decent job just speaking a certain style of English. You can get by in a huge portion of the world like that, but there are things that you cannot explore and people that you cannot reach like that. There are plenty of things that are impossible to express like that. So language is a huge field of possibilities. I enjoy exploring that with different people, in different ways. I do not want to limit myself to just one way. As Gold says, if you want to talk, all you have to do is ask a question or offer a suggestion. Practices: To get at the essential insights that Vmarco, Gold and I are speaking from, the method is simple. Just stop and remain interested in what is. Stop looking for any particular thing. Just see what is. At some point you can even stop the stopping, and remain interested in what is. Most people cannot do this method well, in part because they want something, they expect something other than what reveals itself, which is very much like nothing. The nothing has a lot to show you though, and I recommend giving it your time and attention and allowing it to reveal itself to you. Just dipping your toe in and then thinking about it, wondering whether it is valuable or not, whether one still existed when it revealed itself or not, or whatever, does not do it justice. It has depths and depths. This is the gate. The gate can also be a trap, because we are better off not to just go to that gate and try to get all of ourselves through it. There is a koan: "Why can the water buffalo get its horns, its head, its hooves, its body, and its ass through the window, but its tail cannot pass through?" There is a call that will be felt, to realize the nothing and stillness that is revealed through stopping and looking, when there no longer seems to be stopping, in all this catastrophe, wonder and dullness. Another huge block for a lot of people is that all their stories about what is wrong with the world come up. Thats all well and good, but it does not help to dwell on them. What there is to do in the world or in yourself does not disappear if you take this all the way. You just have a lot more energy to respond and it no longer seems like the "problem" that it did before. I am not claiming any perfection or even close in this regard, but in my experience this is the trajectory. More important than all that is to remain true to what moves you. That is more important than anything. It is a question, since sometimes we can seem to be at conflict with ourselves, can't we? I have already shared my main source of "outside" guidance: Adyashanti. I think you have already checked him out. He probably won't resonate for a lot of people, but there he is for anyone who resonates with him. I cannot recommend his retreats and whatnot highly enough. His teachings seem simple, but they reveal more and more depth, especially in conjunction with practice and inquiry. I am amazed, even though at times I get sick of it. I refer to it less and less, but I am amazed at what it can continue to offer. Recently, his teachings have focused more on post awakening. Anyone who is interested in his more awakening oriented teachings can check out Spontaneous Awakening. I used them as Dharma talks for a self-guided retreat and it was a very revealing experience. The awakening teachings can be helpful to clarify just what awakening is and increase its depth, even for those who have had an "awakening". The post awakening teachings speak more to a quieter movement, which is often happening before any teachings have been heard probably (I actually tend think its always happening in everyone, even if in a very subterrainian way). I've also been exploring spontaneous movement practices recently. Its only been several weeks, so I'm not so inclined to talk about them though they might have something to do with why I am posting more. I'm glad you're enjoying them!

Well, there is an impersonal experience. It feels like it has nothing to do with what we want or don't want. It just is. As it meets day to day existence, the feeling of it is that it is taking the whole into account, without input from the usual personal concerns that usually cloud perception. Or else, all personal matters are seen in their true place, which is usually much less total or important than the personal perspective thinks it is. There is a perspective that feels totally impersonal. There is nothing that we might think of as a self there. This perspective can inform many things in day to day life. The issue arises when a person claims this perspective as their own. There is a lack of humility, a lack of recognition that no amount of realization or accessing of the impersonal actually erases our tendency to experience day to day life through filters. It also cannot erase the fact that our expression always passes through filters, cultural, linguistic, physical, energetic, etc... Thus anything that we conceive or express will always have some degree of error in it, in relation to the impersonal. There will always be a personal element. Those who deny this personal element tend to get into trouble and to cause trouble. Those who recognize it can allow the impersonal to function through them in a much more clear way. It is very tempting to ignore what remains of the personal, to try to transcend or eradicate it, or just not to refer to or acknowledge it, since this is seen to be the major source of most people's blindness and difficulty. History shows that this is not an effective approach, because it is not realistic. I hope you can see the implications of this. If not, then we can explore them further. Do you see these implications? No one gets a pass, no matter how clear the recognition and realization of the impersonal. The personal is always there, as long as there is a body, and maybe after. If there is any claim to impersonal, then it must also be given to all beings, and it never absolves responsibility. I do not recommend attacking the messenger, but some messages, though well meaning, have a toxic aspect that is well to be recognized.

If any person claims to speak or act for the impersonal, while denying their personal nature, then this is willful ignorance. To the extent that that person has faith in their own impersonality, abominations are likely to arise. Essentially every religion is the result of either the founder or his followers taking this stance. You don't get a pass because you are you and those other people didn't know what they were talking about.

Maybe we just don't know how to talk right.

1. I can only agree to "Awareness is." based upon the presented evidence. I can agree to "contextual" to some degree, but you'd have to clarify your meaning. "Intentional" is tricky. 2. That depends on how you define meaning. 3. Yes. 4. Yes, depending on how you answer 2. 5. No, you would first have to demonstrate a equality between the type of meaning that awareness gives and existence. You would have to demonstrate that there is no existence beyond such meaning. 6. Agree, though the imaginary can affect the real, and in a dream raising your heartbeat, or an imagined plan being brought into fruition, or imagined threat causing a change of plans, or the causing the diversion of the mind from truth. In that sense it can be the source of real effects. In that sense, it can be said to be a source of real.

There are two main aspects to this discussion: 1. What you have logically demonstrated about the source of awareness 2. The logical validity of the possibility that non-awareness is the source of awareness based upon agreed assumptions With regard to the first aspect, I maintain that you have not demonstrated that awareness is its own source. This is important, because the viewpoint based upon the conclusion that awareness is its own source is very different from that based upon the absence of that conclusion. With the conclusion that awareness is its own source I can safely dismiss all references to matter or non-awareness as misguided and lose all interest in explorations of a source beyond awareness. Without that conclusion, I am open to a variety of ways of seeing experience, and I might develop a more inclusive and appropriate view over time. I also remain open to the development of better arguments for any of a variety of conclusions, including that awareness is its own source. There also might be an underlying assumption here that there are only two options: either matter is the source, or awareness is the source. That would hamper our view. This hampering would be similar to a scientist assuming that light must be either a particle or a wave, and not being able to grasp its broader nature. He also would remain closed to any potential evidence for non-particle, non-wave aspects of light. You have not shown this. A non-awareness source of awareness does not have to be fundamentally outside of awareness. Some level of the processes by which awareness arises would be outside of awareness, but this does not mean that such an object would necessarily be irredeemably outside of awareness. For example, for the most part we are unaware of the physical, electrical, chemical and quantum mechanical processes that are going on in our particular brains. We may know some things about this in principle based upon observations of other people's brains, or indirect observations of our own brains, but we are not directly aware of our own brain processes. I have never met anyone who claims this. I am not saying that it is impossible, but I think most people can agree on this experience (please speak up if your experience is different). So a brain is a candidate for a non-awareness source of awareness. Just because there are means of indirectly observing one's brain, does not change the direct experience of lack of awareness of the processes that are occurring in the brain, which makes them a potential source of awareness. That is an implication of the non-awareness giving rise to awareness interpretation. I do not claim that this is true, only that you have not demonstrated any more support for your position than I have demonstrated for this position. To say that either position is true requires faith, and I prefer not to base my positions on faith, since this is often limiting in unhelpful ways. I'm sorry. I didn't notice that this was just you entertaining a view. Well, in case we adopt #1 then we would probably still need some word. "Is self-aware" or "self-aware" does not mean much as a statement in English. I do not see that awareness is necessarily better than matter in this case, except perhaps as a provisionally corrective measure, since there would be matter qualities as well as awareness qualities to this third thing. So you rule out the unknowable by fiat. This limits your view and leads to some erroneous conclusions. Well, yes, if we did not respect logic based upon a host of assumptions, then logic would be used to make fewer absolute statements of truth, and I would consider this to be a good thing. I am not likely to be convinced of many absolute statements of truth. Logic is useful in a conventional way, especially when dealing with probabilities and provisional realities. The brain basis of awareness viewpoint is not only a non-modest explanation of observations. It can explain some things more modestly than the awareness basis of the brain viewpoint. For example, all of the specific changes of consciousness based upon specific changes of the brain are mostly easily explained by the brain basis of awareness viewpoint. There are other aspects which may be better explained by the awareness basis viewpoint, such as OBEs, physic experiences, seeming reality of dreams, recounting of past-life experiences, intention influencing apparent physical reality, awareness seeming to exist in the absence of detectable brain activity, etc. So you cannot pretend that the brain basis argument or the awareness basis argument have no more evidence for them than Uncle Bob on planet Cz-432-B, In Huehufwi Galaxy, in Multiverse 273i controlling all awareness or all beings everywhere simultaneously by pressing buttons really, really quickly, while singing a tune does. Touche! Though you also do not know that in principle nothing is unknowable. On the contrary. All my life I've experienced this or that knowns. I've also experienced unknowns becoming known and knowns reverting back to an unknown state. What I've never experienced though and what I have not the slightest shred of evidence for (by definition!) is something that's fundamentally unknowable, something unknowable even in principle. I mean, if you could give me some evidence for something that's unknowable even in principle, I'll gladly accept it. Until then why don't you admit you take such things on blind faith. This is an argument from ignorance. My argument is that we should believe and act as if awareness has no source outside of itself. If awareness does have a source outside itself, that source is utterly irrelevant, inscrutable, has no logical connection to any contents of awareness (or if it does, it renders all the contnts meaningless and beyond reason) and changes nothing whatsoever from a hands-on point of view. There is probably a lot to be learned for the average person who takes this viewpoint. I could probably learn a lot from it too, but I choose not to limit my perceptions based upon faith.