Is anything really objective?

[Apech]

 

...

 

 

To my understanding Tao is impersonal. Hey, it can't be personal. It is without consciousness. We (and any other intelligent life forms in the universe) are its consciousness. We are the expression of Tao's Manifest realm.

 

Aha! here we go! Where exactly did our consciousness come from? the Tao or not the Tao. If not the Tao from where? If consciousness emanated from the Tao then how can you say it is 'without consciousness'? Consciousness must at the very least be an aspect of the Tao which has become manifest. Yes?

 

You might say, if you stretch it a bit, that the Tao is both conscious and unconscious but you can't say it is 'without consciousness'. Not IMO anyway.

 

(by consciousness I mean sentience, awareness and so on ... not the B skandha).

[Marblehead]

Aha! here we go! Where exactly did our consciousness come from? the Tao or not the Tao. If not the Tao from where? If consciousness emanated from the Tao then how can you say it is 'without consciousness'? Consciousness must at the very least be an aspect of the Tao which has become manifest. Yes?

 

You might say, if you stretch it a bit, that the Tao is both conscious and unconscious but you can't say it is 'without consciousness'. Not IMO anyway.

 

(by consciousness I mean sentience, awareness and so on ... not the B skandha).

 

You do know that we are walking in muddy water here, don't you?

 

Yes, our consciousness is of Tao. All things and all non-things and all potential things are Tao.

 

I agree with you. We cannot say that Tao is without consciousness.

 

There are some pretty good scientific explanations as to where our consciousness came from but I am not qualified to speak to that.

 

Nothing is of not the Tao. Hehehe. I just had to say that. (Yes, many things are of not the Way.)

 

But I don't consider consciousness a direct attribute of Tao, it is an evolved attribute. It is my understanding that consciousness requires at least a brain with (self)awareness.

 

I'm out of words for the moment. Hehehe.

[zerostao]

it is my understanding that the changes have no consciousness.

and i agree that we cannot say that the tao is without consciousness.

 

edit> Mh, i am pondering the new thead you suggested.

may take a bit before i decide.

Edited August 19, 2011 by zerostao

[Marblehead]

edit> Mh, i am pondering the new thead you suggested.

may take a bit before i decide.

 

No hurry. We have the rest of our life to get to it.

[konchog uma]

anamatva, welcome .i am certainly enjoying all of your posts and insights. thanks for sharing. the reason i highlighted this post is the "existence is suffering " thing.

i admit i have a very limited knowledge about (B word) but from the general discussion area i have seen alot of thought , that there is no existence but yet there is suffering. for me this is hard to relate to.

one reason i have chosen the taoist path over any other is becoz it details many options for better health and longevity. and for me it seems that the bguys need to be quite intellectual and that leaves me out.

my idea is i am trying to get to a place where both object and subject vanish and there i feel a unifying connection to everything.

imo there is spirit. within us and all around us and in everything. or maybe it is just awareness. imo they are closely related.

 

thanks zerostao.

 

yeah oneness is where its at.

 

one last bit about the big B, the bon shamans of tibet rejected every single transmission of buddhism until about 750ad, when king indrabhuti's vajrayana was transmitted by padmasambhava to the shaman-emperor's court. vajrayana is basically an import of shaivite tantrism, focused on unmitigated acceptance. those shamans knew better than to accept a doctrine based on suffering, and i respect anyones rejection of that doctrine. if its good enough for the himalayan mountain shamans, its good enough for me. interestingly indrabhuti's sister codified sahajayana, which is the instinct path. thats those chanting dreadlocked sadhus that go homeless and do all manner of entheogenic sacrament (smoking scorpion tails is bad for your health tho) and basically mock the buddhist establishment as a whole. so anyway this has nothing to do with subjectivity and objectivity, but it does support my earlier statement that there are as many kinds of buddhism as there are kinds of daoism, from the path of pristine purity to being a drug-addled bum, so lumping them together is stupid.

 

anyway, back to the topic...

Edited August 20, 2011 by anamatva

[konchog uma]

 

But I don't consider consciousness a direct attribute of Tao, it is an evolved attribute. It is my understanding that consciousness requires at least a brain with (self)awareness.

 

 

what about dreams?

[dwai]

I love disagreeing with you. Ah! Another opportunity. Hehehe.

 

(But yes, I can speak to this only from a Taoist perspective.

 

 

 

That is exactly the point I am supporting. Man, or any living organism need not be present for there to be objective reality. The Earth took about 1 billion years before it had finally assumed a condition that would support life. But it surely did exist during that 1 billion years without any organism observing it.

 

Hehehe. I get to say it again: Nothing matters but everything matters. However, things actually did matter during that first 1 billion years because if things did not happen the way they did there would likely be no life on Earth and then for sure nothing would have mattered.

 

True...however what would acknoledge the existence of such an objective reality? Surely to imply the existence of an objet is also to imply the existence of a subject as well...right?

 

And I spoke to this above. Yes, I totally agree with you that most of our life is spent observing subjectively. The bird exists. What a beautiful creature. But the damn things shits on my truck. What a pest. (Actually it doesn't because I park my truck where it is out of the flight path of the birds.)

 

I spoke of the rose before. What a beautiful flower! I grab the branch to pull the flower closer so I can smell it and grab a thorn! Damn rose!!!

 

But, if we observe the entire rose bush (except for what is underground, of course) we realize it has flowers, leaves, stems, thorns, and little bugs crawling on them.

 

This is why I am so much against trying to take something apart to see how it works. Once we have removed one piece we no longer have the Totality.

 

But how possible is it to take in the totality of even your neighborhood, let alone the world or the universe? In order to intake we must break things down to appropriate chunks no?

 

 

To my understanding Tao is impersonal. Hey, it can't be personal. It is without consciousness. We (and any other intelligent life forms in the universe) are its consciousness. We are the expression of Tao's Manifest realm.

 

I meant the experience of tao...is it personal or impersonal?

[Marblehead]

what about dreams?

 

It's the same brain while dreaming. It's just that while dreaming all the 'normal' connections are not functioning and the dreams pop in and out spontaneously. I associate dreaming more with the unconcsoious aspect of our brain.

[Apech]

....

 

I agree with you. We cannot say that Tao is without consciousness.

 

There are some pretty good scientific explanations as to where our consciousness came from but I am not qualified to speak to that.

 

Nothing is of not the Tao. Hehehe. I just had to say that. (Yes, many things are of not the Way.)

 

But I don't consider consciousness a direct attribute of Tao, it is an evolved attribute. It is my understanding that consciousness requires at least a brain with (self)awareness.

 

I'm out of words for the moment. Hehehe.

 

Out of words! You! Huh! I suppose it had to happen

 

I don't think it is true that there are satisfactory scientific explanations of consciousness. They may be able to map how the brain evolved but that is not the same thing. Actually the main failing of science in general is to be able to explain consciousness.

 

I don't want to hijack this thread which is about objective reality ... but I think it is important to remember that if we are going to use this term for what we consider to be 'real' then we have to include sentience/consciousness since above all we know that we are conscious ... in fact we know this more for certain than anything else since it is our awareness which allows us to perceive the objective reality.

 

Because you don't like to link the Tao to consciousness ... you feel more comfortable with the idea of impersonality. I suspect this may be a reaction (rejection of) the Judeo-Christian 'God as a person' ... far enough but don't throw the baby out with bath water just yet. Better to look for what the Taoist Classics say anyway ... not that I know the answer to this. There may be a way to count consciousness is without that grey beard in the sky.

[Marblehead]

True...however what would acknoledge the existence of such an objective reality? Surely to imply the existence of an objet is also to imply the existence of a subject as well...right?

 

In a sense, yes. However, I accept the fact of evolution and realize that, going back into the history of Earth, there was a time when only single-celled organisms existed. I don't think it can be said that they possessed consciousness. So who was there to observe these life forms? No one. But they still existed.

 

The present estimate is the the universe existed for over 9 billion years before our solar system even came into existence. Many things have been going on without an observer.

 

But how possible is it to take in the totality of even your neighborhood, let alone the world or the universe? In order to intake we must break things down to appropriate chunks no?

 

Yes, I do agree with you. We are limited as far as what our brain and senses can deal with. Understanding this concept is important though, I think. For example, the entity "Dwai"; if we consider only one aspect of this entity, perhaps how he relates with others on this board, and form an opinion of the totality we will most likely be in great error.

 

The only aspect of the object (Dwai) that I am capable of applying subjectivity to is what I have observed. If I saw you in person I might judge that you are over-weight because you haven't been exercising enough. All of this is subjective though. It doesn't change what "Dwai" objectively "is".

 

No, we can't see the entire universe and hope to understand what its all about. But we can try to understand the totality of our own little part of the universe - those areas that directly effect our life. (Yes, there are many things that indirectle effect our life but most often we are unaware so no need concerning ourselves with them.)

 

I meant the experience of tao...is it personal or impersonal?

 

Ah! And the answer is "yes". Hehehe. Sorry. Thinking back on mine ... yes, it was impersonal in that there wasn't me and them, it was "us". But then, after the fact, upon mentally recalling the experience, it became personal because I internalized it.

 

So yes, the experience was objective, but then, thinking about it it became subjective.

 

I think that this is the key. The tree exists objectively. As soon as we start thinking about it it also becomes subjective. But it still exists objectively regardless of our subjective judgements of it.

 

With Chuang Tzu's tree in the story, we are walking a path and wish to rest a while. We see a shadey spot. We sit down. The fact that the tree is providing the shade doesn't matter - the shade matters.

[konchog uma]

It's the same brain while dreaming. It's just that while dreaming all the 'normal' connections are not functioning and the dreams pop in and out spontaneously. I associate dreaming more with the unconcsoious aspect of our brain.

 

i guess there is a brain its just asleep. what about ghosts? non-corporeal entities?

[Marblehead]

what about ghosts? non-corporeal entities?

 

Yeah, we are talking about them in the Chapter 60 study of the Tao Te Ching sub-forum.

 

Check it out and you will see some of my opinions and understandings concern that subject.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19941-ttc-study-chapter-60-of-the-tao-teh-ching/

[doc benway]

It seems to me that an assumption is being made here - specifically, that prior to human or "higher organized" life forms existing on earth there was no conscious awareness. This existence of the universe absent some conscious awareness seems to be the position from which objective existence is being supported.

 

We currently inhabit a universe which is suffused with awareness. That awareness takes on so many unique and surprising forms that we are really completely in the dark about what is and what is not aware and in what fashion. All of our understanding of awareness is limited to people, mammals, other animals and creatures on earth.... that's it, life forms with a level of awareness that closely approximates our own. And the further we look, the more strange and incomprehensible are the manifestations of awareness.

 

To my mind (and I'm fairly strongly in the scientific camp mind you), our understanding and ability to recognize and measure awareness is infantile. Awareness may be hierarchical, so that the Earth itself can be thought of as possessing an awareness. You can liken it to the human body. Each of our cells have individual "lives" - they behave in certain ways reacting to appropriate stimuli. They live and die. They reproduce. They fight battles and wars (infection, cancer). We have no way to relate to what the awareness of a cell or much more complex and organized life forms like plants, worms, insects, birds, whales, and so on. And some of these life forms have amazingly complex social interactions and behaviors we really don't understand at all. We make assumptions only. So the Earth, as a living organism, is composed of us and we can experience and comprehend the Earth's awareness and intelligence as much (little ) as we are aware of that of our cells (or they of ours). That doesn't even get into extraterrestrial awareness.

 

We seem to be making the assumption that subjectivity depends on internal dialogue. This is what we assume makes us unique in terms of mentation. Is that true? Does awareness exist without internal dialogue? WIthout the thoughts? Without the pesky thought that claims the title of thinker and doer? Of course it does, absolutely. That is the basis of meditation. Awareness does not equal thought. And we have no way of knowing the internal dialogue, or lack of, in other species.

 

Finally, the concept and experience of awareness that is not encapsulated within the cranium, as discussed in the thread on brain vs mind, is something that is germain here. I maintain that we live in a world that is conscious. Whether that consciousness can be pinned to my brain or something behind the curtain is not really important. Consciousness exists, there is no separation between man and universe (only artificially so) and so there is not separation between universe and consciousness. If we are aware and we are inseparable from our environment, then our environment is aware.

 

The problem here is that intellectual arguments are no substitute for meditation. That is the way to really investigate this stuff.

[Marblehead]

Hi Steve,

 

Nice post.

 

I never expected everyone to agree with me. Hehehe.

 

I can at least say, "Thanks for disagreeing with me."

 

(We do need alternate opinions and understandings even if they disagree with mine.)

[dwai]

In a sense, yes. However, I accept the fact of evolution and realize that, going back into the history of Earth, there was a time when only single-celled organisms existed. I don't think it can be said that they possessed consciousness. So who was there to observe these life forms? No one. But they still existed.

 

The present estimate is the the universe existed for over 9 billion years before our solar system even came into existence. Many things have been going on without an observer.

 

has it really been? How do we know? Also, why do we assume humn sentience is the only one that matters? And if that were indeed to be case, then of course there is the naghing fact of an after the fact theorization, even based on the partial confirmation of certian other agreed upon theories of the materilistic paradigm currently popular (viz., scientific)

 

Yes, I do agree with you. We are limited as far as what our brain and senses can deal with. Understanding this concept is important though, I think. For example, the entity "Dwai"; if we consider only one aspect of this entity, perhaps how he relates with others on this board, and form an opinion of the totality we will most likely be in great error.

 

The only aspect of the object (Dwai) that I am capable of applying subjectivity to is what I have observed. If I saw you in person I might judge that you are over-weight because you haven't been exercising enough. All of this is subjective though. It doesn't change what "Dwai" objectively "is".

 

No, we can't see the entire universe and hope to understand what its all about. But we can try to understand the totality of our own little part of the universe - those areas that directly effect our life. (Yes, there are many things that indirectle effect our life but most often we are unaware so no need concerning ourselves with them.)

 

The entity dwai is only a represenation/ label of someone/ something in your mind. Lets set the beast aside for a bit and consider the beautiful apple. Without describing the apple it is just a label that exists in your mind. Apple only makes sense in context of its description ( the details)

 

 

Ah! And the answer is "yes". Hehehe. Sorry. Thinking back on mine ... yes, it was impersonal in that there wasn't me and them, it was "us". But then, after the fact, upon mentally recalling the experience, it became personal because I internalized it.

 

So yes, the experience was objective, but then, thinking about it it became subjective.

 

I think that this is the key. The tree exists objectively. As soon as we start thinking about it it also becomes subjective. But it still exists objectively regardless of our subjective judgements of it.

 

With Chuang Tzu's tree in the story, we are walking a path and wish to rest a while. We see a shadey spot. We sit down. The fact that the tree is providing the shade doesn't matter - the shade matters.

 

when it comes to any phenomenon, if there is an object, there has to be subject. Without one, the object cannot existor rather its existence cannot be verified. And if thee is an object, there has to be labeling and categorization, without which the object cannot be. So the subject categorizes the object as known or unknown. If it is known, then it is mapped against a database of all things known and with labels until it accurately of vaguely matches one. If it is unknown, then too it is mapped against the db until its characteristics can be mathced with an existing label or labels, failing which a nw label is assignd to it.

[doc benway]

Thanks M, yeah it's not so much about agreeing with each other or causing someone else to shift their point of view. It's more about an exchange or sharing of perspectives that may just help both of us to broaden our horizons...

Your point of view has certainly helped me to more deeply examine my own, thanks for that!

[Marblehead]

Hi Dwai,

 

has it really been? How do we know? Also, why do we assume humn sentience is the only one that matters? And if that were indeed to be case, then of course there is the naghing fact of an after the fact theorization, even based on the partial confirmation of certian other agreed upon theories of the materilistic paradigm currently popular (viz., scientific)

 

Okay. It is true. I do not know. But I listen to those who I believe would know these things. There are some things (theroies) presented by science that I do not accept. There are other theories that I do accept. I do accept the estimates, and remember, they are only estimates, of the age of our solar system and the present universe that are commonly accepted in the scientific field.

 

And remember I did state that I understand that there are three realms of Tao: Manifest, Mystery, and Chi. I live in the Manifest so this is the one that is important to me.

 

The entity dwai is only a represenation/ label of someone/ something in your mind. Lets set the beast aside for a bit and consider the beautiful apple. Without describing the apple it is just a label that exists in your mind. Apple only makes sense in context of its description ( the details)

 

But it was you who put the label "Dwai" on you, not I. I simply accept that as it is a way to address you personally. I have already admitted that when we label things we naturally place limits on them at the same time. However, I see no way around this if we are to speak of a particular thing. I can't call you Steve and expect you to respond to me.

 

Our brain needs the labels. Our inner essence, our direct interaction with the other realms does not need labels or even words.

 

If I were to ask you to bring me an apple I would expect you to arrive with an apple, not an orange.

 

I agree, the word is not the object. The word 'apple' is the label we have subjectively applied to the object. (Hehehe. I snuck that in nicely, didn't i?)

 

when it comes to any phenomenon, if there is an object, there has to be subject. Without one, the object cannot existor rather its existence cannot be verified. And if thee is an object, there has to be labeling and categorization, without which the object cannot be. So the subject categorizes the object as known or unknown. If it is known, then it is mapped against a database of all things known and with labels until it accurately of vaguely matches one. If it is unknown, then too it is mapped against the db until its characteristics can be mathced with an existing label or labels, failing which a nw label is assignd to it.

 

Can't agree with you here. An object does not require a subject in order to exist. The object does not need any verification from some puny human or any other life form for it to exist.

 

And I disageee too about a need for a label. Not necessary. What is, is. That is all. However, if we want to talk about it it will be almost necessary to give it a label.

 

Now, the rest of that paragraph is something I have never considered. Can an object exist even if we don't know what it is? I think so. Can I look out my window and see something I have never seen before and not know what to call it? Sure I can. But if I already know what one of those things are then I would immediately slap the label on it.

 

Don't people look into the skies and see things they label UFO's? Of course they do. These are Unidentified - unknowns. But not ready to label them flying saucers.

 

But I do agree with the part of what you said that I agree with. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

 

Your point of view has certainly helped me to more deeply examine my own, thanks for that!

 

Thanks. I appreciate that comment. The feeling is mutual. And the feeling goes to all others I converse with here in that even if my opinion and understanding undergoes no change I have at least had to examine my own and I think that this is important in life.

[dwai]

Hi Dwai,

 

 

 

Okay. It is true. I do not know. But I listen to those who I believe would know these things. There are some things (theroies) presented by science that I do not accept. There are other theories that I do accept. I do accept the estimates, and remember, they are only estimates, of the age of our solar system and the present universe that are commonly accepted in the scientific field.

 

And remember I did state that I understand that there are three realms of Tao: Manifest, Mystery, and Chi. I live in the Manifest so this is the one that is important to me.

 

 

 

But it was you who put the label "Dwai" on you, not I. I simply accept that as it is a way to address you personally. I have already admitted that when we label things we naturally place limits on them at the same time. However, I see no way around this if we are to speak of a particular thing. I can't call you Steve and expect you to respond to me.

 

Our brain needs the labels. Our inner essence, our direct interaction with the other realms does not need labels or even words.

 

If I were to ask you to bring me an apple I would expect you to arrive with an apple, not an orange.

 

I agree, the word is not the object. The word 'apple' is the label we have subjectively applied to the object. (Hehehe. I snuck that in nicely, didn't i?)

 

 

 

Can't agree with you here. An object does not require a subject in order to exist. The object does not need any verification from some puny human or any other life form for it to exist.

 

And I disageee too about a need for a label. Not necessary. What is, is. That is all. However, if we want to talk about it it will be almost necessary to give it a label.

 

Now, the rest of that paragraph is something I have never considered. Can an object exist even if we don't know what it is? I think so. Can I look out my window and see something I have never seen before and not know what to call it? Sure I can. But if I already know what one of those things are then I would immediately slap the label on it.

 

Don't people look into the skies and see things they label UFO's? Of course they do. These are Unidentified - unknowns. But not ready to label them flying saucers.

 

But I do agree with the part of what you said that I agree with. Hehehe.

 

Labels dont have to be names...they can be descriptives. As a rule, the act of cognition also assigns a categorization of the object.

 

Eg., Is it tall, is it short?

Is it hard or oft?

Etc.

We would even categorize as real or imaginary...but always categorize. Why? Thats how the mind functions. We cant escape from this. Even in meditation the act of cognition involves categorization....only thing is we detach from the object.

[Marblehead]

Labels dont have to be names...they can be descriptives. As a rule, the act of cognition also assigns a categorization of the object.

 

Eg., Is it tall, is it short?

Is it hard or oft?

Etc.

We would even categorize as real or imaginary...but always categorize. Why? Thats how the mind functions. We cant escape from this. Even in meditation the act of cognition involves categorization....only thing is we detach from the object.

 

Well. What can I say? I agree with you.

 

Well, okay, one little disagreement. I have on a couple occasions during meditation totally lost my mind. But that never lasted very long. Kinda' like an awake dreamless sleep.

[Apech]

Well. What can I say? I agree with you.

 

Well, okay, one little disagreement. I have on a couple occasions during meditation totally lost my mind. But that never lasted very long. Kinda' like an awake dreamless sleep.

 

We were thinking it might be more often than that.

[Marblehead]

We were thinking it might be more often than that.

 

No, that's the other experience and we are not going to talk about that. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

Okay. I just want to thank everyone who participated in this thread. I think we did a really good job at staying on topic while there were active conversations going on.

 

I am looking forward to someone starting another conversation based on Taoist Philosophy.

 

I think it would be good to take any of the concepts from any of the TTC Chapters we have already worked in the TTC sub-forum and see how much damage we can do.

 

Thanks again.

[zerostao]

Mh,

Okay. I just want to thank everyone who participated in this thread. I think we did a really good job at staying on topic while there were active conversations going

 

i agree it is a good thread even if this type of thing,

"i guess there is a brain its just asleep. what about ghosts? non-corporeal entities?"

from a post of anamatva , certainly grabs my attention and i hope for further discusion along these lines as well. but being a little seasoned here, knowing it is a Marblehead thread, i exercised restraint

and hope it presents itself in another thread(soon)

 

maybe we can start exploring some of the other taoist classics aside from ttc?

(as we have a sub forum for that)

has chuang tzu been completely worn out here already?

[doc benway]

 

has chuang tzu been completely worn out here already?

We haven't even grazed the surface of Zhuang Zi - I think the intention is to get that up and running once all the Dao De Jing chapters have been addressed at least a bit. At least that's the scuttlebutt I read.