Non-duality

[blackstar212]

Here you say 'a room with a flea' this is you saying the room has a flea in it. How did you know it was there ? Oh yeah, look, you imagined it would be. Exactly the same is happening when you are making up the other stuff, you are confirming your own fallacy, it's a form of question begging.

 

LOL so, if I say, in my little dream world there is no flea, then one could not have been experienced, then this is the same question begging. However I wouldn't argue that way.

 

All we can say is that we experience a flea, or we didn't, in any particular place.

I know the flea is there because I am a third party that knew the flea was there. However you were in the room and were not consciously aware of the flea. Now you deny that the flea was there because you did not interact with it.

 

You are denying reality. This is a thought experiment. Here are the facts You are in a room with a flea.

 

You have now had the experience of being in a room with a flea in it.

[Karl]

And where in that definition to you imagine to have found a requisite "conscious awareness?" You didn't; you simply fabricated it because it is convenient for your current belief system.

 

You, as a simple example, are currently experiencing electromagnetic radiation penetrating your body which leaves an impression at a cellular level but of which you are consciously unaware.

Facts my dear Brian, just the facts. You must observe a fact. Observation requires conscious awareness.

 

As to the radiation-of which I'm unconscious. That's the point, I'm not aware of it because I can't sense it. I could feel a sense of heat, or pain, or hairs standing up etc, but if I can't feel anything then there is no experience.

[Brian]

You experienced being in the room. If you were unaware of the flea then you didn't experience it. Had the flea bitten you, then you would have experienced that. If you take your argument to its extremes then you also experience the entire universe - which you don't, only the bits you can sense directly.

So, if the flea bit you while you were asleep, you believe that you didn't experience a flea bite, even if someone later points out the mark or you discover you contracted a disease from the bite you didn't experience?

 

In your belief system, are you currently experiencing photons impinging upon your retinas?

[Karl]

I know the flea is there because I am a third party that knew the flea was there. However you were in the room and were not consciously aware of the flea. Now you deny that the flea was there because you did not interact with it.

 

You are denying reality. This is a thought experiment. Here are the facts You are in a room with a flea.

 

You have now had the experience of being in a room with a flea in it.

Yes, it's a thought experiment in which you have a flea. I can experience my imagination of it. I can experience you conmunicating that idea. So, here we have a conscious aware experience.

[Karl]

So, if the flea bit you while you were asleep, you believe that you didn't experience a flea bite, even if someone later points out the mark or you discover you contracted a disease from the bite you didn't experience?

 

In your belief system, are you currently experiencing photons impinging upon your retinas?

I did not experience the bite, but I did experience pain from the bite when I became conscious of it.

 

I experience the results of the photons impinging on my retinas but only when I'm conscious.

[blackstar212]

Yes, it's a thought experiment in which you have a flea. I can experience my imagination of it. I can experience you conmunicating that idea. So, here we have a conscious aware experience.

allow me another would you agree that you have the experience of being subjected to ultraviolet light which you are conscious of? You will say yes. Now would you agree that a human 10000 years ago also had the experience of being subjected to ultraviolet light. Now were they conscious of ultraviolet light? No yet they experienced it the same as you.

[Karl]

allow me another would you agree that you have the experience of being subjected to ultraviolet light which you are conscious of? You will say yes. Now would you agree that a human 10000 years ago also had the experience of being subjected to ultraviolet light. Now were they conscious of ultraviolet light? No yet they experienced it the same as you.

 

The effects of ultraviolet light, such as a burning of the skin you mean ?

 

They weren't aware of the things we now know as ultraviolet light, but they would still get sunburn.

 

We can now say what the cause is, but that makes no difference to either of our experiences of it, which is sunburn.

[redcairo]

I recently read a link someone (maybe Karl?) posted that was a series of three lectures by C.S. Lewis. The first one I liked best, "Men Without Chests."

 

Actually it's something I've always observed and felt strongly about but never really had the moment to go on about it, and I was so delighted that he did.

 

But the overall essay series got me thinking about what he called the Tao (of course that is only his use of the word).

 

Namely this concept that I myself accepted when young, that there was no good or evil, there was merely whatever is, and all our judgement about what is good or bad is merely subjective.

 

The more I thought about Lewis's argument, the more I am inclined to think he was accurate. In that:

 

Actually, maybe there IS, fundamentally for humans (and this does not mean this is so for spirits or aliens or trees, but is so for humans) an "objective" set of what amounts to "values."

 

Didn't Huxley call that The Perennial Philosophy or something like that. The values that around the world throughout time are generally found everywhere, e.g. that it's fundamentally wrong to kill another human being.

 

Lewis's argument is that even the drive to teach people that there is no objective set of values, to teach people that everything is subjective, is itself motivated by the sense of need to teach this because, assumedly, one thinks that what they think - that other people thinking this way - is what is right, or at least what is good. If it wasn't there would be no point to teaching it. But what defines it as good? Either the good is utterly arbitrary, or it's not. And if it's not, then where does that value come from? Either it is inherent in the ... balance of energy in this sphere, or it is not.

 

I am still going around in my head about it. But it was a wonderful essay and has given me a lot to think on.

 

Duality... I don't think it implies good/bad, but who knows. I've had some 'duality' type experiences... people later told me this relates to Binah in QBLH which I know nearly zip about. Mostly it just seems, in rare moments of insight, that self-awareness fundamentally is a thing of two (e.g. sorry to use a biblical ref but I mean like, and the word was with God, and the word was God) -- to be 'self-aware' -- that is two things. Awareness is one thing. Self by definition creates a think for the awareness to be aware of separately from other things. That is fundamentally dual. Isn't it?

 

RC

[redcairo]

P.S. I am sorry I have nothing to say about fleas.

 

LOL

[Karl]

When we are unconscious, then we are not aware of existence, even of ourselves. There is not two things here, we can move our awareness wherever we choose.

[blackstar212]

The effects of ultraviolet light, such as a burning of the skin you mean ?

 

They weren't aware of the things we now know as ultraviolet light, but they would still get sunburn.

 

We can now say what the cause is, but that makes no difference to either of our experiences of it, which is sunburn.

no Karl no sunburn. Just the experience of being subjected to ultraviolet light.

[Karl]

no Karl no sunburn. Just the experience of being subjected to ultraviolet light.

If I sense nothing, then there is no experience, whether I have the knowledge or not it makes no difference.

 

Our awareness of something, of some knowledge that we have, that is an experience we are conscious of. Of having that knowledge.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Karl

[ralis]

Yes, I know, but I still like trying to talk logically about it.  Not all that easy, really.

 

 

If this goes down the road to "you don't exist", then the Buddhists will be here any minute.

[ralis]

If you were unaware of them you cannot say you experienced them Brian. Ralis specifically said he had 'experienced' non-duality and that it was 'beyond words'. An interesting choice of words to describe something as 'beyond words'.

 

I never said 'I' experienced but direct experience without identity.

 

No separate existence from all phenomena or an integral part of the universal process of life. It is not possible to define specific boundaries/parameters of perception.

[Karl]

I never said 'I' experienced but direct experience without identity.

 

No separate existence from all phenomena or an integral part of the universal process of life. It is not possible to define specific boundaries/parameters of perception.

'I' is implied in 'experience' and conscious awareness is the corollary of both.

 

If there was no identity then there would be no residue. You would simply not have remembered the experience. As you clearly have remembered, then it was you (Ralis) that had to have had that experience.

 

The reason it appears as if there was no identity is because you switched off your mind. Don't you find this when engrossed in some kinds of entertainment, or driving a car ? sometimes you just trip out, there is no one there, but the film ends and the link begins to break. We can feel this happening as if we woke from a light sleep-which is exactly what it is. When the state is broken we suddenly become aware of the lights, audience, the stiffness of our legs, or the dryness of our eyes. We know we watched the film and drove the car, but we seemed absent from the scene.

[ralis]

'I' is implied in 'experience' and conscious awareness is the corollary of both.

 

If there was no identity then there would be no residue. You would simply not have remembered the experience. As you clearly have remembered, then it was you (Ralis) that had to have had that experience.

 

The reason it appears as if there was no identity is because you switched off your mind. Don't you find this when engrossed in some kinds of entertainment, or driving a car ? sometimes you just trip out, there is no one there, but the film ends and the link begins to break. We can feel this happening as if we woke from a light sleep-which is exactly what it is. When the state is broken we suddenly become aware of the lights, audience, the stiffness of our legs, or the dryness of our eyes. We know we watched the film and drove the car, but we seemed absent from the scene.

 

Thank you guru Karl for the enlightened wisdom. I don't agree.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.  Knowledge is wisdom only when we agree with it.

[Karl]

Thank you guru Karl for the enlightened wisdom. I don't agree.

I had no doubts that you wouldn't.

[Karl]

Hehehe. Knowledge is wisdom only when we agree with it.

Not agree, true knowledge is that which we can prove to our own satisfaction. Consciousness isn't as indestructible as we portray it. It can shrink and atrophy. All we need do is to refuse to think, or to evade. The danger isn't as obvious as the physical, but it is far worse. Our minds are our only tool of survival, they are are only means of production and our happiness is dependent on us knowing that.

[TheWhiteRabbit]

I recently read a link someone (maybe Karl?) posted that was a series of three lectures by C.S. Lewis. The first one I liked best, "Men Without Chests."

 

Actually it's something I've always observed and felt strongly about but never really had the moment to go on about it, and I was so delighted that he did.

 

But the overall essay series got me thinking about what he called the Tao (of course that is only his use of the word).

 

Namely this concept that I myself accepted when young, that there was no good or evil, there was merely whatever is, and all our judgement about what is good or bad is merely subjective.

 

The more I thought about Lewis's argument, the more I am inclined to think he was accurate. In that:

 

Actually, maybe there IS, fundamentally for humans (and this does not mean this is so for spirits or aliens or trees, but is so for humans) an "objective" set of what amounts to "values."

 

Didn't Huxley call that The Perennial Philosophy or something like that. The values that around the world throughout time are generally found everywhere, e.g. that it's fundamentally wrong to kill another human being.

 

Lewis's argument is that even the drive to teach people that there is no objective set of values, to teach people that everything is subjective, is itself motivated by the sense of need to teach this because, assumedly, one thinks that what they think - that other people thinking this way - is what is right, or at least what is good. If it wasn't there would be no point to teaching it. But what defines it as good? Either the good is utterly arbitrary, or it's not. And if it's not, then where does that value come from? Either it is inherent in the ... balance of energy in this sphere, or it is not.

 

I am still going around in my head about it. But it was a wonderful essay and has given me a lot to think on.

 

Duality... I don't think it implies good/bad, but who knows. I've had some 'duality' type experiences... people later told me this relates to Binah in QBLH which I know nearly zip about. Mostly it just seems, in rare moments of insight, that self-awareness fundamentally is a thing of two (e.g. sorry to use a biblical ref but I mean like, and the word was with God, and the word was God) -- to be 'self-aware' -- that is two things. Awareness is one thing. Self by definition creates a think for the awareness to be aware of separately from other things. That is fundamentally dual. Isn't it?

 

RC

I wouldn't worroy about you accidentally murdering someone, you have too much fear as it is.  Even at that, most world rulers participate in more homicides than the average being.  Including every president since the First World War.  So, if finger pointing be important there you go.

[Jetsun]

Language is always dual in order to make distinctions between things - for practical reasons and functioning. Therefore it can never adequately describe non-duality because as soon as you use a word you have gone back to duality. Yet language can point towards it.

[Marblehead]

Not agree, true knowledge is that which we can prove to our own satisfaction. Consciousness isn't as indestructible as we portray it. It can shrink and atrophy. All we need do is to refuse to think, or to evade. The danger isn't as obvious as the physical, but it is far worse. Our minds are our only tool of survival, they are are only means of production and our happiness is dependent on us knowing that.

 

Ha.  You actually agreed with me.

[Karl]

Ha.  You actually agreed with me.

Difficult to know if I did, or didn't, you're statement was ambiguous.

 

I was making a general point that agreement/consensus is not proof. That we have to search for proof by careful use of logic and reason. Wisdom might be better thought of as a willingness to confront our beliefs and apply scrupulous reason in order to tease out our errors, or to confirm through proof. You often say 'question everything' but this is not wisdom, it's a mantra; thinking about something is not the same as doing it. We are always thinking-but the problem is that we are not always applying discrimination to our thoughts. This lack of discrimination is true of reading-we call ourselves literate because we can read the words, but we don't actually read in a way in which we review the message-as a test, if you read properly (not pure pulp fiction), then your book will be full of pencilled notes and highlighting, if not, then you are not reading, you are binging.

 

It is irrelevant to me that someone agrees or does not agree. It only matters what I know and can prove to myself. Discussion is constructive because it opens my own awareness of concepts I may have inadvertently left floating. I might think I have proof, when I have lazily accepted a concept without completely grasping it. We shouldn't be here to confirm our bias, or gain false friendships by consensus, but to challenge ourselves to discover the truth as far as we can push ourselves to do so. Being wrong isn't a problem, it's refusing to think that is.

 

Ralis said he disagreed. In effect he refused to continue the discussion. This is neither my loss, nor my gain, it is the equivalent of a bird that stops singing, or a motor lying unused and silent. Things come in to awareness, things go out of awareness.

[Marblehead]

Difficult to know if I did, or didn't, you're statement was ambiguous.

 

I was making a general point that agreement/consensus is not proof.

 

We are still in agreement.

 

It is irrelevant to me that someone agrees or does not agree.

 

That should be obvious.

[blackstar212]

If your cells developed cancer from this radiation, your cells must surely have had an experience of the radiation.

Correct. Karl is not going to get it because he refuses too.