Non-duality

[Karl]

Yes but communication is designed for human experience, which is greatly infused with feelings and emotions (actually I'm not sure what the difference is between feelings and emotions).RC

Depends on what we are trying to communicate. If I want to be creative then I speak differently, we call it expression. However, expression is really about the values we hold, the things which we fear and the things we love.

 

To speak philosophically requires us to give up self expression and to think rationally. It means we work hard to define, differentiate and integrate concepts with regard to our direct perceptions.

 

Darkness can be expressed as malevolence, ignorance, depression, fear etc, but this isn't defining it.

 

We are born with the faculties of emotion and cognition. Eventually we come to conceptualise our sensations into emotional categories, but really it comes down to pleasure or pain, it is we who connect these to cognition. A sunset gives us pleasure and we refer to it as a beautiful sunset, then, if we communicate our feelings about the sunset we shift into expressive language.

[redcairo]

Depends on what we are trying to communicate. If I want to be creative then I speak differently, we call it expression.

Expression doesn't have anything to do with emotions or feelings except of course that they can be expressed as can anything else, right.

 

However, expression is really about the values we hold, the things which we fear and the things we love.

Why did you abandon the emotion and feelings words (not that I mind). Were they not qualified to address 'fear' and 'love'? :-)

 

To speak philosophically requires us to give up self expression

Do you really think that human beings can somehow a> express anything without fundamentally including the self, b> actually, even experience anthing without including the self, or c> even have a reality that is not at least half composed of the self?

 

and to think rationally.

I think there is more to thinking than what our culture considers rational-logical. I think there is a form of thinking at every level of the body and each chakra for example has thinking (and feelings although I've only got those for 3 so far) that is specific to its nature.

 

You are locked in the head. It is not the only thing worth validating.

 

It means we work hard to define, differentiate and integrate concepts with regard to our direct perceptions.

...OK. That sounds like nothing is allowed to be considered real or sound if not pre-validated by the filter of our belief systems about reality though.

 

Had I not had these paradigms utterly annihilated so often over the last 25 years I might respect them a little more. I've spent most of this half of my life constantly having to rebuild.

 

Darkness can be expressed as malevolence, ignorance, depression, fear etc, but this isn't defining it.

I did not mean any of those things by what I said. Although at a much, much lower level of what-we-deal-with-in-the-streets I suppose those words could be part of it.

 

No word defines anything in Truth (capital T) though some are accurate (the poor substitute for truth in this realm when people cannot connect to the Tao and feel Truth, IMO), but most words generally convey more than their surface meaning even without that design or intent. There is little language which is not filled with assumptions and enormous amounts of cultural baggage. I am constantly running into this when trying to journalize about my experiences (meditations, dreams, visions, and some of life) and english is just so insufficient for much of it, and often the only words available range from nearly unrelated to confusingly-subtly-misdirecting to must-be-'stretched'-to-work to implies-entire-concept-paradigm-that-is-utterly-wrong.

 

We do what we can. As opposed to sit in some kind of semantic box, like, I'm sorry, half or more of life isn't an objectively measurable object, function or process, so I cannot communicate with my fellow man about it. Should they suggest, for example, that during prayer they were filled by the light, I shall explain to them that skin is opaque, and there is no technology that could fill them with light, aside from which they are already filled with bones and muscles and intestines, and while we are at it I will explain that we could call light things like love or energy but that wouldn't be defining it.

 

I am having fun picking on you, don't stop me now...

 

We are born with the faculties of emotion and cognition. Eventually we come to conceptualise our sensations into emotional categories, but really it comes down to pleasure or pain, it is we who connect these to cognition. A sunset gives us pleasure and we refer to it as a beautiful sunset, then, if we communicate our feelings about the sunset we shift into expressive language.

Yes... although I'm not sure how we got here from where we began. :-)

 

RC

Edited October 28, 2016 by redcairo

[Marblehead]

 

Yes... although I'm not sure how we got here from where we began. :-)

 

RC

 

Neither do I but I'm still reading the posts.  I might say something if Y'all ever get back on topic.

[Karl]

Expression doesn't have anything to do with emotions or feelings except of course that they can be expressed as can anything else, right.

 

Why did you abandon the emotion and feelings words (not that I mind). Were they not qualified to address 'fear' and 'love'? :-)

 

Do you really think that human beings can somehow a> express anything without fundamentally including the self, b> actually, even experience anthing without including the self, or c> even have a reality that is not at least half composed of the self?

 

I think there is more to thinking than what our culture considers rational-logical. I think there is a form of thinking at every level of the body and each chakra for example has thinking (and feelings although I've only got those for 3 so far) that is specific to its nature.

 

You are locked in the head. It is not the only thing worth validating.

 

...OK. That sounds like nothing is allowed to be considered real or sound if not pre-validated by the filter of our belief systems about reality though.

 

Had I not had these paradigms utterly annihilated so often over the last 25 years I might respect them a little more. I've spent most of this half of my life constantly having to rebuild.

 

I did not mean any of those things by what I said. Although at a much, much lower level of what-we-deal-with-in-the-streets I suppose those words could be part of it.

 

No word defines anything in Truth (capital T) though some are accurate (the poor substitute for truth in this realm when people cannot connect to the Tao and feel Truth, IMO), but most words generally convey more than their surface meaning even without that design or intent. There is little language which is not filled with assumptions and enormous amounts of cultural baggage. I am constantly running into this when trying to journalize about my experiences (meditations, dreams, visions, and some of life) and english is just so insufficient for much of it, and often the only words available range from nearly unrelated to confusingly-subtly-misdirecting to must-be-'stretched'-to-work to implies-entire-concept-paradigm-that-is-utterly-wrong.

 

We do what we can. As opposed to sit in some kind of semantic box, like, I'm sorry, half or more of life isn't an objectively measurable object, function or process, so I cannot communicate with my fellow man about it. Should they suggest, for example, that during prayer they were filled by the light, I shall explain to them that skin is opaque, and there is no technology that could fill them with light, aside from which they are already filled with bones and muscles and intestines, and while we are at it I will explain that we could call light things like love or energy but that wouldn't be defining it.

 

I am having fun picking on you, don't stop me now...

 

Yes... although I'm not sure how we got here from where we began. :-)

 

RC

Emotions and feelings are not seperate to the concepts of them. We could not know we were scared, happy, excited, sad, or amused until we had developed those concepts which are congnitive and related directly to our perceptions of reality. As I have explained, there is no such thing as duality, so to suggest that there is a further anti-concept is ridiculous to me. Its like believing in Santa Clause then saying that there is an anti-santa clause concept.

 

Im not sure what you mean by 'abandoning'. If Im writing on an emotive subject, particularly in fiction the I use my own feelings to create colourful wording. However, in philosophical discussions colourful wording gets in the way.

 

We cannot express anything that isnt from the self-and the self as a contained, intergrated whole. If I gave you that impression, then that is incorrect.

 

Real is real, it is what it is, X is X. What we perceive is real, as an automatic perception, how we interpret what we see conceptually is not an automatic process. Therefore concepts can be erronous, but perceptions are always real.

 

Truth is fact. Facts are in the perception of reality and not its conception. We test what we think, by looking to see if its true. All abstracts need grounding to reality.

 

As answered previously. If we experience something that has no basis in reality, then we are going to be dealing with floating abstractions. We cant carry out a conversation related to fact, without relating it reality. So, I need to know exactly what you mean and vica verca. We need to define the terms.

 

Emotions as opposed to sensations are not automatic. They are not perceptual, they are programmed by us to reflect our value choice. We feel suffering when we lose a value and joy when we gain one. We mix sensation with emotion so these are what we loosely describe as feelings. If you were to develop a high level of introspection you can relate the emotion directly to the value.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

What we perceive is real and facts are the perception of reality and if we experience something not based in reality then...

 

FULL STOP.

 

Ummm...

 

What???

[Karl]

What we perceive is real and facts are the perception of reality and if we experience something not based in reality then...

 

FULL STOP.

 

Ummm...

 

What???

Then it isn't real.

[Brian]

Then it isn't real.

So then you are experiencing things you don't perceive?

[Brian]

By his jargon that's actually a fair sentence. Perceive is coupled to perception of "reality" which is understood, generally, in a direct realist sense (with some nuances). Experience includes perception and the stuff in the mind. But, the stuff in the mind is generally undefined beyond the fact that it is in the mind. The mind isn't treated as a solitary object unto itself per se. That is, it is defined by what it does and that it has an ongoing correlation with (a generally independent) reality. This goes back to the original triad of axioms related to existence, consciousness and identity. (In the system, we don't talk about reality until we've established an understanding of existence and consciousness).

 

So, to that end, it's actually a pretty good description.

 

The fault isn't in the words or their relations as much as it would be in the particularities of how mental faculty are orchestrated. But I think we've covered that...

So an experience is not an interaction or event or phenomenon or contact (etc.) nor the conscious awareness that this phenomenon has resulted in an impression on one's self but is instead the subsequent unending sequence of intellectual interpretation, understanding and rationalization of the conscious awareness of the impression on one's self made by that phenomenon?

[Karl]

So then you are experiencing things you don't perceive?

I worry about you Brian. You are using circular reasoning on yourself. If you didn't percieve it, then you didn't experience it.

[Karl]

Side Note: I'm not defending Karl...but Objectivism, in the abstract, isn't too bad.

I read through your post and it seemed to reflect objectivism pretty well to the extent I understood it, I can't say exactly because some of the terms you use are strange to me.

[Brian]

Not quite. It wasn't a formal term. But it was used in relation to part of a formally defined framework. Perception is always understood in a sensory sense---by the established terms, perception does not apply to ideas or concepts. Experience includes perception but perception is regarded as the raw sensory material that can be used to make different concepts. Experience includes the concepts and raw material from which they were made (this is understood as the "form and object" distinction). In this regard, though, if a concept is mapped to perceptual things and works, the concept gets promoted to an object and is considered as a thing in reality. If the concept doesn't work, then it is considered unreal.

 

The thing is that the notion of concept formation is broad enough that it includes a lot of things that would be considered present at hand or ready to hand in a Heideggerian sense. So the terms make it seem like we're using solely the stuff of A is A---but the framework itself molds itself to more than the cognitive churning of different tokens of thought.

 

This is why I mentioned the problem being in the orchestration of the mind...

 

There is a very Wittgensteinian quality of importance to the empty space in the framework.

 

But, to more directly address your post, experience is generally regarded as the set of all things that consciousness has access to.

And an experience doesn't include that set of "things" which are not part of the conscious awareness in real-time (at the moment the phenomena occur) regardless of impact or impression the things have on the individual physically, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, etc., and regardless of whether the "thing" was perceived?

 

I still don't buy the idea that any experience is entirely dependent upon conscious awareness but we'll set that aside for now.

[redcairo]

Just to remind about how we find ourselves in the middle of this swamp, it was because I shared an 'insight' I had during a meditation, and then a word that I used in it (darkness) was officially-defined to preclude my use of it. When I defended words having meanings that are more than the 'physical' element, it led to... all this.

 

I feel like it just talked in a backward circle until everyone's dizzy. Was there a point, originally, to the 'correction' of my use of a word in that context? :-)

 

RC

[Brian]

I worry about you Brian. You are using circular reasoning on yourself. If you didn't percieve it, then you didn't experience it.

Just trying to understand your logic here, Karl. I was hoping you'd explain how perception is reality and conscious awareness of perception is reality and experience is therefore reality but it then somehow makes sense to talk about an experience which is disconnected from reality.

[Brian]

Just to remind about how we find ourselves in the middle of this swamp, it was because I shared an 'insight' I had during a meditation, and then a word that I used in it (darkness) was officially-defined to preclude my use of it. When I defended words having meanings that are more than the 'physical' element, it led to... all this.

 

I feel like it just talked in a backward circle until everyone's dizzy. Was there a point, originally, to the 'correction' of my use of a word in that context? :-)

 

RC

As I read it, the point was to label you an irrational mystic who rejects reality because you aren't a devout believer of Randian Objectivism.

 

<shrug>

 

A year ago, you would have been labeled as one who had been brainwashed into irrationality by being force-fed a corrupted interpretation of the Trivium, created by the Catholic Church by reversing the order of two of the three elements of that model expressly to prevent people from being able to think rationally despite our ability to think rationally being identified as the only thingl which keeps us alive long enough to see tomorrow.

[Karl]

Just trying to understand your logic here, Karl. I was hoping you'd explain how perception is reality and conscious awareness of perception is reality and experience is therefore reality but it then somehow makes sense to talk about an experience which is disconnected from reality.

No, that's what you said. I just replied that it wouldn't be real, I didn't say you could experience it.

 

Perception is conscious awareness. Consciousness must be conscious of something. Existence, consciousness and Identity are corollary axioms - A&P mentions that in his post.

 

So, it doesn't make sense to talk about an experience disconnected from reality, you have got yourself into a loop of your own making. This is because you hold to the primacy of consciousness premise.

 

It's exactly as I explained to Ralis initially. I don't need an anti-duality premise because I never had a duality premise-both these premise arise as a condition of accepting the primacy of consciousness. It's where the equation dumps out an anomaly and so I needs an anti-anomaly to correct it. Objectivism is compact, it doesn't have these anomalies, it integrates both mind/ body or spirit/ body or body/soul and the anomaly disappears.

[Brian]

Emotions and feelings are not seperate to the concepts of them. We could not know we were scared, happy, excited, sad, or amused until we had developed those concepts which are congnitive and related directly to our perceptions of reality. As I have explained, there is no such thing as duality, so to suggest that there is a further anti-concept is ridiculous to me. Its like believing in Santa Clause then saying that there is an anti-santa clause concept.

 

Im not sure what you mean by 'abandoning'. If Im writing on an emotive subject, particularly in fiction the I use my own feelings to create colourful wording. However, in philosophical discussions colourful wording gets in the way.

 

We cannot express anything that isnt from the self-and the self as a contained, intergrated whole. If I gave you that impression, then that is incorrect.

 

Real is real, it is what it is, X is X. What we perceive is real, as an automatic perception, how we interpret what we see conceptually is not an automatic process. Therefore concepts can be erronous, but perceptions are always real.

 

Truth is fact. Facts are in the perception of reality and not its conception. We test what we think, by looking to see if its true. All abstracts need grounding to reality.

 

As answered previously. If we experience something that has no basis in reality, then we are going to be dealing with floating abstractions. We cant carry out a conversation related to fact, without relating it reality. So, I need to know exactly what you mean and vica verca. We need to define the terms.

 

Emotions as opposed to sensations are not automatic. They are not perceptual, they are programmed by us to reflect our value choice. We feel suffering when we lose a value and joy when we gain one. We mix sensation with emotion so these are what we loosely describe as feelings. If you were to develop a high level of introspection you can relate the emotion directly to the value.

You might want to reread what you wrote, Karl...

[Karl]

As I read it, the point was to label you an irrational mystic who rejects reality because you aren't a devout believer of Randian Objectivism.

 

<shrug>

 

A year ago, you would have been labeled as one who had been brainwashed into irrationality by being force-fed a corrupted interpretation of the Trivium, created by the Catholic Church by reversing the order of two of the three elements of that model expressly to prevent people from being able to think rationally despite our ability to think rationally being identified as the only thingl which keeps us alive long enough to see tomorrow.

Pretty unfair Brian. I'm not a 'devout believer' it's just common sense. That was always the overriding impression- like discovering hidden Christmas presents, bang goes the fantasy.

 

Actually I dispensed with the 'reversal' and happily posted that was the case. I admit when I have it wrong. Neither do I say I cannot be in error, I try and do my best to avoid it.

[redcairo]

Just to be clear -- I apologize that sometimes my lizard-brain shrinks under a warm rock and I have to coax it out with small words -- you are not, I assume, saying that an experience has to be physically-manifest-objectively-for-others for the experience -- OR (separate) for the-source (e.g. Identities) of what-is-experienced -- to be real/sound, are you?

 

RC

[Brian]

Pretty unfair Brian. I'm not a 'devout believer' it's just common sense. That was always the overriding impression- like discovering hidden Christmas presents, bang goes the fantasy.

 

Actually I dispensed with the 'reversal' and happily posted that was the case. I admit when I have it wrong. Neither do I say I cannot be in error, I try and do my best to avoid it.

I've always found it interesting to observe how people, including me, respond to dissonance between the way they perceive themselves and the way others perceive them.

 

I've also find it mildly amusing when seemingly reasonable people use either "It's just common sense" or "It's axiomatic" to rationalize their personal belief systems, especially since so often the person with the conflicting belief system is using the exact same language.

[Brian]

We have a mighty derail smashing through this thread.

 

I'm not opposed to derails, though I like to limit the ones that I create. Even so, I guess I'll add something more:

 

 

 

You're dealing with the stuff that doesn't have a formal representation in the jargon of objectivism. In part, because the axioms don't permit the type of relationality that you are using when thinking in these terms and, in part, because the level of description is not couched in as phenomenological a starting point as you are using.

 

Although Karl won't like this explanation, the axioms are fairly similar to Kant's architectonic in that they are abstract things that are supposed to hold true for everything. There is also a very epistemic grounding for objectivism. The closest to phenomenology that objectivism gets is with its use of that state to inform its description of consciousness. Beyond that, the things you are describing are too in-the-details of different things that are described within the framework.

 

And the blending that I was talking about---with "concepts" being linked to things that Heidegger would consider as present-at-hand or ready-to-hand---covers a bit of what you are talking about. The sort of promotion of concepts from perceived forms to actual objects that are considered to have distinct ontological status.

 

On the one hand, it's a sketchy way of structuring things because it gets extremely easy to use concepts to overwrite reality. On the other hand, it is also a pretty robust system in that it works like a generative function that describes itself and whatever it creates terms for.

Thank you.

[Brian]

So let's try this...

 

All experience is cognitive perception

Perceptions are always real

Therefore all experience is always real

 

Valid syllogism?

[Karl]

Just to be clear -- I apologize that sometimes my lizard-brain shrinks under a warm rock and I have to coax it out with small words -- you are not, I assume, saying that an experience has to be physically-manifest-objectively-for-others for the experience -- OR (separate) for the-source (e.g. Identities) of what-is-experienced -- to be real/sound, are you?

 

RC

You experience a dream. The reality is the experience of a dream. How do you know it's a dream ? Where did the concept of a dream arise ? The distinction was made that it wasn't reality.

 

The dream is the real experience, but the content is not.

[Karl]

So let's try this...

 

All experience is cognitive perception

Perceptions are always real

Therefore all experience is always real

 

Valid syllogism?

long winded but looks OK

[Brian]

long winded but looks OK

Your words rather than mine...

 

So, then, all experience is always real but an experience of something not based in reality is not real. Correct?

[Karl]

We have a mighty derail smashing through this thread.

 

I'm not opposed to derails, though I like to limit the ones that I create. Even so, I guess I'll add something more:

 

 

 

You're dealing with the stuff that doesn't have a formal representation in the jargon of objectivism. In part, because the axioms don't permit the type of relationality that you are using when thinking in these terms and, in part, because the level of description is not couched in as phenomenological a starting point as you are using.

 

Although Karl won't like this explanation, the axioms are fairly similar to Kant's architectonic in that they are abstract things that are supposed to hold true for everything. There is also a very epistemic grounding for objectivism. The closest to phenomenology that objectivism gets is with its use of that state to inform its description of consciousness. Beyond that, the things you are describing are too in-the-details of different things that are described within the framework.

 

And the blending that I was talking about---with "concepts" being linked to things that Heidegger would consider as present-at-hand or ready-to-hand---covers a bit of what you are talking about. The sort of promotion of concepts from perceived forms to actual objects that are considered to have distinct ontological status.

 

On the one hand, it's a sketchy way of structuring things because it gets extremely easy to use concepts to overwrite reality. On the other hand, it is also a pretty robust system in that it works like a generative function that describes itself and whatever it creates terms for.

No, Kant did the opposite, but then you are effectively viewing the philosophy through a mirror so I can see why you would reach that conclusion. The axioms aren't abstract unless you view them from the position of the primacy of consciousness, then everything becomes a floating abstraction to which you glue a datum. I'm familiar with that argument, but its the stolen concept fallacy, which, I know you won't like either :-)