The Philosophy of No Objects

[Jack]

     It is certainly conceivable that Dr. Wolff might have under different circumstance titled his second book as The Philosophy of No Objects.  No Objects seems like a good translation of Great Space.  We live our lives amidst objects: gross, subtle and causal.  If a spiritual aspirant steps out of the realm of objects then what?  As the individual moves into that realm he vanishes along with all objects.  In dreamless sleep we have a similar situation.  No objects and no dreamer.  But not nothingness.  Only no-thingness.  And a self is a thing.  No one experiences or imperiences Great Space.  A paradox of sorts.  Another way of viewing this realm would be as the Unity of All Things.  The True Oneness, 
     In the West we are really stuck with dualism.  We think that Sanskrit and Tamil can be translated into English.  To some extent but not at all perfectly because the East is based on non-dualism.   In a sense the problem of conscious arises out of this.  We may not be able to translate the Sanskrit word Chit into English.  Tamil does not have a word for Self.  Currently the word/concept consciousness has arisen into prominence.  Is it a product of entrenchment in dualism?  This is worth some deep reflection.  What we mean by Pure Consciousness is the Absence of Things or Objects.  We can not think or conceive this.  Nor can we experience or imperience this though it is not unknown exactly.  This is the realm where as the Upanishads say, words flee from Brahman--another mis-understood notion. 
      Were there only things a case could be made for materialism of some sort.  But there is a beyond things.  This is what gets left out of contemporary considerations. 

[Chuck Post]

Interesting, Jack.   

I have certainly thought a lot about dualism vs. singularity.   Franklin said at one point that everything is defined by its opposite, implying that it is not so much a question of Western thinking vs. Eastern thinking, but a condition common to all humanity.   Duality as a basic function of all humans.   Yet, there are significant cultural differences, like the fact that the language and thinking of our native American people is verb dominated.   We of the Euro-centric persuasion are noun dominated, in language and thought.   So, maybe you are right that Eastern languages, like our native Americans', are less captured by nouns, thus less influenced by dualism.

The Yin - Yang symbol implies dynamism, or movement (verb), as it implies perpetual motion: opposites are in eternal process of reconciliation.   The Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dynamic expresses the same principle.

Ah, but there is hope for Western man:  we have in Bucky Fuller a disciple of the eternal dynamic when he opined: "God is a verb."

Chuck

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fm-w+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fm...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/0588572a-6563-4d9c-9f01-3115232f9b68%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Chuck Post]

Well said, Ron.  I'm going to steal your short treatise for a class this Tuesday.  Thanks.   Chuck

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:14 PM, pleroma <pler...@cox.net> wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fm-w+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fm...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/23514530-c4e8-4b7b-84eb-427d7a18acdd%40googlegroups.com.

[Jack]

"Well said, Ron."  Apparently Ron's little treatise got deleted?   In any case what did Ron say?

[Jack]

     I had actually hoped to convey the idea of finding out through very careful observation just what the case was and whether the concept/word consciousness was really necessary.  Then I wondered whether chit was translated properly by the English word consciousness and even whether the word chit had an English equivalent.  I have the feeling that many in the West are "over-educated" and can not extricate themselves from all their thoughts long enough to look.  I believe Wittgenstein was confronting this problem with his therapeutic philosophy. 

[mt]

Perhaps the “Great Space” of “Pure Awareness” is simply a blank Rorschach Card, as the First Concept. In short, Consciousness, of the highest sort is that which includes all beyond thought, including that thought. Duality is all about thought as a way of knowing. But another way of Knowing is, roughly, the non-dual, (roughly because philosophy is of the conceptual, which cannot accurately characterize another way of Knowing except as a non-conceptual knowing).

What is a non-dual object? Well, of course, it begins to fall within the Subtle and non-causal range of Consciousness, as a no-thingness, in a way, but does not necessarily remove its thingness awareness, which must be included in the non-exclusive Realm of Knowing. But exclusive thingness of duality is removed, WHICH CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BY SIMPLY ADDING ON THE NON-DUAL AS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE (or belief) TO GET THE SAME UNDERSTANDING KNOWN BEYOND CONCEPTUAL KNOWING.

One might say that duality (and non-duality) is a philosophic object, used as a tool to logically project or point to a condition of no objects as Pure Consciousness, or the Great Space (themselves being thought projections at the conceptual level). In fact there is a lower level meditation tool that uses the idea that all objects are sacred, to move the neophyte into a potentially a higher realm (of which the meditation is a product from a higher realm Knowing).

Experientially, knowing means knowledge as and by a self, again the self being a contrived conceptual object. The problem is already problematic when something conceptual is made as real where it is only as a tool for a level of consciousness ultimately to Know the Real (beyond itself).

The self-tool may seem real but does not have the Reality of a Self, or level of Knowing beyond the conceptual way. The self is informed, but does not derive Understanding from its own level (except understanding conceptually). Seeing with no identity (self) is the Norm for a higher Knowing, self often coming along to record or for the ride).

What is Seen are, as Jesus suggested, “things of the kingdom” or in other words, non-dual things, objects, non-conceptual at their core, the tip of which conceptual knowing may only grasp and name. The reduction in language of  “I-Am” attempts to point to That, the original Source We are and therefore Create as Eternal Fount, where  “Pure Consciousness” literally makes senses and objects at various levels of knowing (thought) and Knowing (non-thought) where real and the Real are known and Known respectively, the self only, largely re-membering. Thus the Dance at the Still-Point Center, or Tao if you like, as I sing to the choir.

mt

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/805bfe60-2550-4a37-85c8-c0e320844cfc%40googlegroups.com.

[mt]

Confusion is natural as the Truth penetrates or clashes, momentarily, in a conceptually bound but limited world. Yes, let us step back from such a sandy ground as concept, rather than land upon a Rock of Reality Seen directly as the Territory. It’s just too unnerving. And maps have a place, do they not? Such is science as the attempt to map the cosmos, but let’s not forget, science knows nothing except in relationship to various conceptual points, at some point of Territorial peek-a-boo, and not what a “thing” actually is. E = mc^2 as putting various peek-a-boos together is only in relationship and not actually what any one of those conceptual formulations actually is (and the reason why Classical Physics becomes limited, surpassed by Relativity Physics, which is surpassed by Quantum Physics. Could two dimensional objects, were they of awareness, understand 3 dimensional space?

Each advance was preceded by a kind of scientific confusion. Each advance involves a deeper, more subtle look (earlier views, for example, Newtonian Physics, have their place and usefulness, but lose validity in the deeper look at “things”). We cannot expect the conceptual tool, even in science, to do more than it ever has ever been able to do, which is conceptual mapping, even with advanced mathematics…Godel’s Theorem suggest this….So the idea that Consciousness is a “thing” is as limited as any conceptual formulation or actual “thingness” scientific or otherwise.

Einstein had it right when he suggests that you cannot solve the problem at the same level as that which created the problem (or something to that effect). It’s likely the illusion and psychological impression of materialism (along with the limitation of sensing and conceptualization) makes concepts into things they are not in such a way as to forget things are concepts. Clearly, objects, as such are conceptual illusion. This does not mean there is not something experienced by the senses as something we call a material reality. But, again, science shows that the “material” aspect is only a function of relations at our level of sense experience while at finer observation the “material” is the illusion of energy. Since the speed of light squared does not actually exist in this particular dimension we have this light fiction times something called mass (a chameleon of energy and light, a fiction times apparent illusion that equals energy, all rather speciously defined in circular fashion giving the impression of some reality. Even mathematically it takes to imaginary numbers to make a real number. Strange.

We don’t really understand light, except in very gross and rudimentary ways (this is why there is such confusion in the “two slit experiment” - wave vs. particle issue). I suggest that perception is about light in one state of seeing (the usual consciousness) and preception (or of that also related to FM-W’s“introception”) is about another Seeing or quality of light (I called Heavy Light). And in this regard, I’ll quote FM-W from his Transformations in Consciousness: “…idealistic transcendentalism cannot be derived by logical implication from perceptual content. Consequently, the idealist thesis fails.” And a few words later…”it is impossible to prove a substantial reality by concepts alone.”  The point is (theoretically) that just as light contains more than meets the usual eye, so also Consciousness as mere perception or concept.

The “speed of light” in the equation E=mc^2 is not an actual velocity. What? Is this just another conceptual illusion? A velocity requires two separate dimensions (object (or mass)  per unit of time) but mass (or object) changes to something impossible as it approaches the constant of light “velocity.”

Time and space  are not distinct but interdependent. Velocity should involve two separate units, where space does not change with time. Space-Time was Einstein’s fourth dimension. So light, again, is not quite what it appears to be, not really a velocity at all but a weird constant in 4 dimensions where mass-time is actually created (out of the Quantum effluvium) and appears as our dimension of space-time. It’s not quite an object (photon) or a wave, yet both. Let’s compare the well known higher “consciousness” statement:”Neither this nor that and both.” Strange? And in Quantum Physics Schordinger’s cat is neither dead or alive and both (resolved apparently when normal consciousness perceives). Strange. Yes, I am confused as you, except in the Now, where time is not necessary and all is well, bathed in Heavy Light, and a little humor wouldn’t hurt.  

 

----- Original Message -----

From: William St. George

To: mt

Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 12:50 PM

Subject: Re: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel The Philosophy of No Objects

Have we turned Consciousness into another thing?  I notice when I see the word anywhere now I feel confusion.  That was not always the case.  But now consciousness is a big item in science and the academic world where there is much white bourgeois style writing about it.  And don't words have a kind of experience themselves and get weighted down with the usages?  So I am taking a break from using the term.  I find I do not need it.  I did the same things some time ago with the expression mental illness.  It was everywhere and on many tongues.  It meant really nothing. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/6C1E6EF97B294AAB99ED94CB8FB98B1F%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[Don Salmon]

Wow, that was beautiful (also one of the clearest critiques of materialism I've read in a long time).

Let's see, humor - I don't know if Jerry Fodor was being intentionally humorous when he said, about the current state of consciousness studies:

"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material [including the brain] could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious", Jerry Fodor, philosopher of mind

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/5B54323467484096BD739E9F73A57BCD%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[mt]

Hi Don,

 

Do not have formal philosophy or science background, except for minor college subjects. Do have degree in psychology. What's written here is mostly the interest in these subjects through the years, sort of distilled and mingled with a 1986 full blown kind of enlightenment. Will be releasing a poetry book called the Sill-Point in the not too distant future, just another means of communicating, as a witness, Now.

 

mt

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Don Salmon

To: mt

Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:43 AM

Subject: Re: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel The Philosophy of No Objects

sorry for the double message. I meant to send the first one to the group.

But now that I'm here -:>)...., do you have a philosophy or science background, or did you just come to this understanding on your own.  I really love what you wrote, it was VERY good!

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:09 AM, mt <m...@znet.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/5B54323467484096BD739E9F73A57BCD%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[mt]

That new book, on its way, is called Still-Point, not "Sill-Point." 

[Don Salmon]

Thanks MT. I really liked what you wrote and good luck with your book. 

Meanwhile, here's one of the best things I've ever read on "consciousness."

 From Sri Krishna Prem’s “The Yoga of the Bhavagad Gita”: APPENDIX A – NOTE ON THE TERMS CONSCIOUSNESS AND FORM

 The two terms, consciousness and form, are in constant use throughout this book and an understanding of the sense in which they are used is of vital importance.

 If any experience is analyzed – say, for example, the visual experience of a blue disc – two aspects can be distinguished.  There is the content, a round blue shape in this instance, and the 'awareness' of that shape.  The content is what I have termed form and the awareness consciousness.

 It must be carefully noted that 'form' does not here mean outline, but filled-in content-shape, and the term must also be understood in the same way of other elements of experience, sensuous or non-sensuous.  For instance we have the 'form' of a sound, a taste, a feeling, or a thought, which must be understood by analogy with the forms of visual experience.

 In contrast with these forms, which are all different both as regards individual forms within one class and as regards different classes of forms, there is the awareness or consciousness, which is of the same sort throughout. 

There are many drawbacks to the use of the word 'consciousness.'  In the first place it is used in half a dozen different senses by philosophers and psychologists, and in the second place it suffers from the great drawback that it has no active verbal form.  One can say 'to be conscious of' but not 'to conscious' such-and-such an object. There is the word 'awareness' and the dubious coined derivative 'awaring,' which I have also occasionally pressed into service, but it is ugly and not very current.  The best term is one that was coined by E. D. Fawcett in his The World as Imagination, Zermatt Dialogues, etc.  The term in question is consciring – i.e. “knowing together” - and has as its correlative, for the content-form, the word conscitum (plural, conscita.  I should certainly have availed myself of these coinages but, unfortunately, they are not as yet sufficiently widely current to be generally understood and, moreover, a great deal of the book had been written before I came across Fawcett's writings.

 It should be clear from introspective meditation that all forms are sustained in consciousness, and that, apart from consciousness, we know nothing and can know nothing of forms.  It is in fact meaningless to talk of forms as existing apart from consciousness [he adds this footnote: “This position must by no means be confused with that of subjective idealism.  The consciousness spoken of is not 'your' or 'my' consciousenss, in fact 'you' and 'I' exist only as constellated form-sequences brought to foci in that consciousness which, in itself, is neither human nor individualized, but a pervading Light.”]  The ojbecfts supposed by some to exist behind the forms are mere mental constructs devised fror dealing with experience in practice.  No one knows them, no one can ever know them; to believe in their existence is a pure and quite uncalled-for act of faith.

 It should not be supposed that by the forms are meant sensations, camera pictures of reality located somewhere in the brain.  The brain itself (as an 'object') is one of the constructs of which mention has just been made.  The usefulness of such constructs in certain realms of thought and study is not at all denied, but they are irrelevant here.

 The primary bedrock of experience is not sensations in the eye, ear, or brain, but visual and other forms in space.  All the rest is inference and construction.  Materialistic science begins by abstracting consciousness from the forms in order to deal with them more objectively and impersonally and then, when analysis fails to reveal any life or conscious principle in those forms, triumphantly exclaims that all is mechanism, nowhere is there anything of a spiritual nature.  Behaviorist psychology is an example of the same procedure applied to mental life.  If you start by abstracting consciousness from phenomena it is obviously absurd to expect to find it as a term in your concluded analysis.  For this reason no one should feel disappointed that science (as nowadays practised) does not know anything of the existence of the 'soul.'  It is the old story of looking for one's spectacles when they are on one's nose. 

 To go into this subject fully would require a volume and not an appendix.  Here I am only concerned to indicate the sense in which the word 'consciousness' has been used in this book.  It follows from that sense that the modern term 'unconscious' mind can have no meaning. There is not the slightest reason for supposing that anything whatever, physical or mental, exists or can exist save as the content of consciousness.  Hence we can talk of a sub- or a super-conscious mind, meaning by those terms mental processes that are sustained in consciousness below or above the level at which it is normally focused, processes which are not attended to by normal consciousness, but we cannot talk of an unconscious mind, for that would have no meaning.

 

It only remains to add that the Sanskrit term for hat is here termed consciousness is chit, as distinct from chitta, which means the mind.  The Buddhists, on the other hand, speak of Vijnana (Pali – vinnana).  Thus consciousness illuminating visual forms is called caksuh-vijnana (eye-consciousenss), illuminating thoughts, mano-vijnana (mind-consciousness), and so on.  Beyond the sense and mind consciousness (at least in Mahayana systems) is the Alaya Vijnana or store-consciousness, corresponding to the Mahat Atman as used in this book.  The Mahayanists also use the word chitta to do duty for consciousness as well as for mind.  For instance they will speak indifferently of chitta-matra or Vijnana

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/1661D81BEFE845DD963AC86DC3C9713B%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[Don Salmon]

here's one more set of clarifications on consciousness

Sri Aurobindo on Consciousness

 

Consciousness is a fundamental thing, the fundamental thing in existence it is the energy, the motion, the movement of consciousness that creates the universe and all that is in it not only the macrocosm but the microcosm is nothing but consciousness arranging itself. For instance, when consciousness in its movement or rather a certain stress of movement forgets itself in the action it becomes an apparently unconscious” energy; when it forgets itself in the form it becomes the electron, the atom, the material object. In reality it is still consciousness that works in the energy and determines the form and the evolution of form. When it wants to liberate itself, slowly, evolutionarily, out of Matter, but still in the form, it emerges as life, as animal, as man and it can go on evolving itself still farther out of its involution and become something more than mere man.

-- Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pp. 236-7.

 

Consciousness is usually identified with mind, but mental consciousness is only the human range which no more exhausts all the possible ranges of consciousness than human sight exhausts all the gradations of colour or human hearing all the gradations of sound — for there is much above or below that is to man invisible and inaudible. So there are ranges of consciousness above and below the human range, with which the normal human [consciousness] has no contact and they seem to it unconscious....

-- Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, p.233.

 

Our physical organism no more causes or explains thought and consciousness than the construction of an engine causes or explains the motive-power of steam or electricity. The force is anterior, not the physical instrument.

-- Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, p. 86.

 

Consciousness is not only power of awareness of self and things, it is or has also a dynamic and creative energy. It can determine its own reactions or abstain from reactions; it can not only answer to forces, but create or put out from itself forces. Consciousness is Chit but also Chit Shakti, awareness but also conscious force.

-- Sri Aurobindo, Letters on Yoga, p. 234

 

We mean [by planes of consciousness, planes of existence] a general settled poise or world of relations between Purusha and Prakriti, between the Soul and Nature. For anything that we can call world is and can be nothing else than the working out of a general relation which a universal existence has created or established between itself, or let us say its eternal fact or potentiality and the powers of its becoming. That existence in its relations with and its experience of the becoming is what we call soul or Purusha, individual soul in the individual, universal soul in the cosmos; the principle and the powers of the becoming are what we call Nature or Prakriti.

--Sri Aurobindo The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 429

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:14 PM, mt <m...@znet.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/1661D81BEFE845DD963AC86DC3C9713B%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[mt]

-

From the perspective of Preception, I suggest that Light reduced to light creates our three dimensions of space + time, just as Enlightenment is a mix of Consiousness (reduced to consciousness), consciousness, Light and light. That is, a kind of opening (still-point) is able to preceive (or introcept) that which Is and may become or occur in conceptual consciousness but which is not fully present within our usual reduced dimension from the one higher even though now apparent in the lower. As soon as It passes through the lower mind-system, it’s higher dimension attributes are dimmed. But often the usual consciousness may feel-see the sense of this Wholeness-Radiance, for example, in nature, an infant, or in the sense of beauty which still lingers in the perfection of an art able to capture some bits of that Wholeness. This also is the difference between Sapien’s compassion or feel-conceptual knowledge and that of Compassion directly Known from a higher dimension of being.   

Again, “Heavy Light” (not in our dimension as such) creates the dimension we live in at a reduced level of “normal” light involving time and space. The beauty of "Radiance" is the afterglow of Heavy Light.  

mt

 

---- Original Message -----

From: William St. George

To: mt

Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:22 PM

Subject: Re: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel The Philosophy of No Objects

From Thomas Aquinas:  Radiance. “Radiance belongs to being considered precisely as beautiful: it is, in being, that which catches the eye, or the ear, or the mind, and makes us want to perceive it again” (Gilson, 2000, 35). Radiance is a bit more difficult to pinpoint than the other standards. Radiance signifies the luminosity that emanates from a beautiful object, which initially seizes the attention of the beholder. This trait is closely related to the medieval notions concerning light. For example, in terms of natural light, there is a sense in which the paintings in a gallery lose some of their beauty when the lights are turned off because they are no longer being perceived. However, Thomas also connects beautiful things with the divine light. “All form, through which things have being, is a certain participation in the divine clarity [or light]. And this is what [Dionysius] adds, that particulars are beautiful because of their own nature – that is, because of their form” (Thomas, Commentary on the Divine Names, IV.6). This quote provides another account of Thomas connecting all beauty to the beauty of God, as the cause of all beauty.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/5B54323467484096BD739E9F73A57BCD%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[mt]

I’m not talking about perception as much as I am about Preception, and agree that talking about perception is not of much value. Normal perception is missing the crucial element that Perception has which is a quality of light that often accompanies the object (which itself is mental, as all objects are in the mind of Sapiens). Preception is not in most dictionaries, if it exists at all, as introception or imperience. Can not one usually tell the difference between two dimensional objects drawn, and their three dimensional object? That’s an analogous comparison between perception and Preception. It is the mind that makes Preception into things in the “mental” reduction to our usual perception of “things in three dimensions.” One might say a higher dimension includes the lower (3 dimension + time) like three dimensions includes two dimensions, but every two dimensional rendered object is a DISTORTION of three dimensions. A three dimensional object entering the consciousness of a two dimensional being (a plane) would have great difficulty recognizing the object for what it is, passing through the 2 dimensional plane. So it is with “things of the kingdom.” The two dimensional being can only interpret the 3 dimensional objects within two dimensional concepts (like attempting to use language or subject-object dimensions for understandings. So it is with higher dimensions of light, BEFORE they are rendered into 3 dimensional frameworks.

 

The senses are not very well adapted for sensing beyond their range, however the eye can detect as few as about 7 photons, so most of our “experience” is about objects reflecting light. What we see is a distortion of Seeing, except potentially, at the still-point “Void” of which there are about 16 types in Buddhism. Of course, there are no actual objects as such, only the conceptual mind interpreting its sensing inputs. Most of that interpretation is genetic-biological and cultural within various Sapien norms. “Form” is a standard distortion for this 3 dimensional illusion, and that “form” is considered a reality (there is no such thing, in this dimension, as a perfect circle, for example, as space is curved). The difficulty is attempting to convey what else is actually Here beyond that dimension, a more true Reality (perhaps the noumenal of Kant, or the higher plane of Plato, etc.) constricted as it is to the senses and the conceptual subject-object level of understanding, causing even Kant to declare it could be “experienced/” Of course, without the illusion of self, there is naturally the existential nothing. This position is more like logical conclusions of the “rational” or of duality. And this is why it is so difficult to convey the trans rational, or as FM-W would have it, Consciousness without objects or “things” of three dimensions, OR EVEN CONCEPTUAL OBJECTS BASED UPON THREE DIMENSIONAL PERCEPTION, OR OBJECTS BASED UPON THREE DIMENSIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

 

I don’t think that most Homo sapiens can even grasp Einstein’s proven fact that objects change their shape at different “velocities.” Why in the world of 4 dimensions would a yardstick shrink, its mass increase, and time slow in the direction of higher velocity relative to something else? Does this not suggest the illusion of time and matter or materialism? But of course these are only at the sense extremes and we don’t live our lives at those extremes, extremes which expose the illusion (of sorts) of materialism: so we interpret most everything in terms of our material “thing” experience. The “material” world is the illusion created as Heavy Light gives up a higher dimension to produce this photon existence in three dimensions with time (beginning at the Quantum Level, Moment to moment).  

 

The internal world, which everyone has, is a much larger domain, potentially, of which some have explored, but few do, the external world being more important, perhaps in a survival sense so as the first to be considered in an evolutionary sense, for this 4d illusionary experience. But historically many have suggested other worlds exist, and occasionally bring back a few gems to share. Really, what would we have if two dimensional beings, with flat nomenclature (language) could describe three dimensions? When the Knowing is reduced to knowing (three dimensions) after 2000 + years neither Buddha or Jesus are understood within the second hand, flat, conceptual knowing of duality.

 

mt  

----- Original Message -----

From: William St. George

To: mt

Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 5:02 PM

Subject: Re: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel The Philosophy of No Objects

Consider this:  every experience (or imperience) involves entities or objects or things.  Subtle things or casual things for higher imperiences.  Gross things for everyday experiences.  So it is all about things.  Or forms.  Without forms as content we can not speak about an experience or imperience.  As for perception that is the term we use to indicate our idea of how a particular form comes to be in our experience.  A blue balloon indicate the visual perceptive mode.  And so on.  I am not sure that talking about perception is of much value.  The idea takes us away into neurology and soon we are haggling about consciousness which further degrades our enterprise.  But simply back to the things we may get somewhere.  For example, in genuine meditation the objects are subtle or causal.  I include feeling as a thing or entity as well.  If we notice it at all it is a form.  Yogis talk about samadhi with seed as being an incomplete event as opposed to nirvakalpa samadhi. What about the case of no objects, no entities, no forms? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/13DCC3CD2176431F8C5E6DB4CEF734D0%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[mt]

Sorry, I should read more carefully what I write before sending. This sentence "The difficulty is attempting to convey what else is actually Here beyond that dimension, a more true Reality (perhaps the noumenal of Kant, or the higher plane of Plato, etc.) constricted as it is to the senses and the conceptual subject-object level of understanding, causing even Kant to declare it could be “experienced/” should read that "...causing even Kant to declare it could NOT be "experienced." 

 

mt

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/83D218492C4B469B9BE90141BFA4C2D3%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[mt]

In my understanding “consciousness is a relatively new word, historically, or at least in the Western,  Greek and Latin periods, and does not appear, as far as I know, with Plato. If you want a demonstration (Q.E.D.), you’re It. And something that is as fundamental as Consciousness is not definable in the absolute sense, and words only point anyway.Wittgenstein said, “Concerning that which cannot be talked about, we should not say anything.” Alluding to the Absolute, perhaps, but we do it anyway, such is the nature of “mind.” Mind is basically, Cosmic entertainment and possibly requires Ignorance for the game, otherwise there would be no moves for the Artifacts. In terms of development, the Artifacts appear to evolve increasingly complex neurological systems toward an increasing awareness of what is Here.

 

In the breakdown of the bicameral mind (right hemisphere) the sense of “I” or individual consciousness evolved (from James Jeans’ book The Evolution of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind  - this is from memory so not real sure of name and title).

“We” consciousness predominated and individual (I) consciousness was hardly present (during Egyptian – pyramid times according to his theory).

 

The development of “self” consciousness seems still, very much in process, with the relatively recent Freudian focus upon the unconscious/self. One might also surmise that people are so outwardly focused that most are still quite as primitives regarding understanding their own internal territory, relating again to the concept or idea of consciousness in development in some fashion. The entire “self,” for example is almost a completely unconscious composite of “defense mechanisms” rendering “reality” of what most perceive, an illusion, even in psychological terms, let alone metaphysical terms.  

 

So then the idea of consciousness evolvement becomes more elaborate with several levels and areas: unconsciousness (things that have never emerged, things that have emerged and repressed or suppressed on various “levels”). And of course, more recent awareness of those levels that have yet to emerge as higher levels (deeper?) as development, Q.E.D.  

 

But who or what actually determines “levels?” These ideas are very new “concepts,” “individually” Known and communicated, and mostly they are only historical writings that can be correlated as to subjective and individual experience, objectively. A different kind of science may be indicated. Each level (Newton, Einstein, and Quantum) of science required a different sort of math, so to speak. For Subtle to Causal ranges of “Consciousness” conceptual language (math) may not be relevant for “proof,” at least in the usual way, just as Classical Physics is not sufficient for Quantum Physics from certainty to uncertainty or from position to probabliity.   

 

mt

----- Original Message -----

From: William St. George

To: mt

Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 9:38 AM

Subject: Re: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel The Philosophy of No Objects

We grow up with a picture of the world and ourselves which is the product of thousands of years of life largely in what might be called greater Europe.  This picture understanding is embedded in our languages.  Especially the Western European ones which largely derive from Latin.  Most people do not realize that the Romans spoke and wrote Greek.  So we need to carefully examine what the Greek did.  Plato, yes, but also Orphism and Parmenides.  And these are very much like the philosophy of Vedanta!  On the other hand we have an influence coming out of North Africa with Judaism.  The personal supreme God.

What might we find if we just began to observe?  Phenomenology.  What is there to observe and what assumptions have we made along the way?  Buddhism encourages this looking mindfully.  Anyone who does a lot of meditating begins to notice this outer shell of presuppositions that society takes as absolute fact, as axioms.  It does not occur to most people that these lines are humanly drawn at some point in history for reasons that make sense at the time but which are not  universal in nature.  I am simply taking the word/concept consciousness and seeing where it enters and to what purpose.  Does the concept appear in Plato?  Or anywhere in Greek thought?  What is the Greek word if there is one that matches our usage?  I need access to an OED. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/179439FAF5D64D00A5347F14D70D6597%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[mt]

Well, W.S.G, my "opponent" will have to do better than this:

"We are grateful to the contributors through whose contributions, we have been able to acquire basic Radio Equipment to have webcasts. Your contributions are our bloodline. All we need 50 contributors to contribute  US $ 10/ a month. You are requested to donate through PayPal or direct into our bank account. It's not the amount but the gesture that counts."

----- Original Message -----

From: William St. George

To: mt

Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 1:00 PM

Subject: Re: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel The Philosophy of No Objects

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran - Illusions, delusions and the brain (Gifford Lectures)http://www.opinion-maker.org/2013/09/where-was-professor-richard-falk-when-i-needed-him/

Another camp.  Know your opponent.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/8C94F0FAB4EA45C4B44BD1651FBFCCC6%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[William St. George]

One of the traits of the contemporary scientists is to present hypotheses as facts.  They all do it.  Perhaps with each other and in private they qualify.  In this respect they resemble politicians; and like politicians they are almost always after money.  The need or desire for money is a great source of corruption in the present world and probably has a long and vibrant history. 

I find the following interesting.  Certain scientists using their brains, some would say being their brains, examine other brains in various ways--noting the electrical patterns, cutting them up and so on.  Some, perhaps, many are wondering how this brain produces consciousness.  They usually shy away from admitting that it may not.  They do not know what consciousness is but nonetheless they request grants in order to continue their research.  An analogy occurs to me:  obviously our computers will work poorly or not at all if some component is damaged.  To conclude from this that the content we are no longer getting as a result is something that the computer creates would be a serious mistake and one we would not make as we know the whole circuit of its operation and where it fits in. When it comes to the brain and mind it is just this information which we are missing.  At this point what happens if we drop the notion of consciousness entirely?  These poor devils of scientist might be looking for nothing at all.  It won't hurt them though.  But then what?  Our assumption that something like consciousness is necessary in order for us to see things vanishes.  And no longer do we see things.  It is not necessary as things are not hiding from us.  There is simply this endless stream which we section mentally into individual units and call them experiences though this is arbitrary.  It is like breaking a river up into this part and that.  And since we are the river . . . hopefully someone will see the point.

Instead of trying to argue the materialistic scientist out of his desire to have consciousness produced by the brain, we just snatch away consciousness.  It may be amusing to see how he behaves when we do that! 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/E67886977C90476AA4E0599265BD47B0%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[William St. George]

Michael Cremo has created a useful expression, "knowledge filtration". This expression refers to the process, apparently rampant in the academic world as well as in the scientific world, where if the facts do not fit the theory you hide or throw out the facts.  Mr. Cremo's area of interest happens to be archeology, but this is also quite true in physics and astrophysics . . . e.g. there are apparently problems with Einstein's work as well; another area is one being research by a group who have named their project the Electric Universe.  This knowledge filtration is of course no big surprise.  I believe it begins when an area of knowledge starts to take on a religious quality. 

Given the time, energy, money that people put into getting an education, getting a profession, whatever they take in acquires value whether it is true or not--and there is a corresponding reluctance to let it go even if it turns out to be false.  Hence, the medical world and its many failures that are continually hidden.  Even presumably well educated persons carry around a burden of false opinion--and are loath to deal with it.  A good spiritual exercise is to explore one own's opinions for their actual quality. 

[Chuck Post]

This checks out with Thomas Kuhn's study about a half century ago which produced the concept of scientific paradigms:  models of scientific "truth" that were resistant to challenge (thus Cremo's "filtration"), until they become kind of "overwhelmed" with new discoveries and have to change.   And that's without the monetary factor which would understandably deflect even more challenges to the status quo.

Chuck

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/CAGAPCXK8n7QJgOd2uHEAfzfvqEEV85bGpC6Qu0k30ZFqNT1ppw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hakuin Suso]

It’s interesting to read so many remarks about consciousness that explain it in terms of it’s content. Interesting, because FMW wrote of it "without an object".

Consciousness-without-an-object is undefinable because definitions demand the use of objects. At best, consciousness-without-an-object is a symbol.

Consciousness-without-an-object-and-without-a-subject is nothing less that Pure Consciousness for it contains no object or self. It is therefore not knowable in any conventional sense and therefore cannot be defined.

Definitions of Consciousness do, of course, exist. But if you look closely that definition either defines it in terms of it’s content or in terms of itself. Regarding the latter, Consciousness may be defined as the power of awareness, but such a definition is merely defining one unknown with another for one would likely define awareness as "being conscious". Put another way, this is like saying "blue is blue". To one colour blind, this definition is pretty useless.

Consciousness is not unlike the term "time", which any physicist will tell you is usually defined with a subtle reference to time. For instance, time is a measurement of "how long" (a reference to time) it takes for an object to move (movement involves a subtle definition of time) from one place to another (space, as Einstein taught us, is inseparable from time). But just as we all know what time is, even if we can’t define it, we all know what consciousness, even if we don’t know it in it’s purest form as without an object or a subject.

Consciousness-without-an-object-and-without-a-subject is a symbol of a non-dualistic, non-conceptual no-thingness. When it comes right down to it, we shouldn’t think of it as anything at all. Rather, we should use this symbol as a guide, of sorts, such that when we find ourselves sitting in meditation trying to reach it or conceptualize it or identify with it, we then say, "Oh. Wait! I’m objectifying/subjectifying it, so I’ll drop that and continue meditating."

In many ways, trying to define consciousness is like trying to define love. For isn’t Pure Love also"without and object and without a subject", that is, directed everywhere and nowhere at the same time? So if love and consciousness are interchangable, what does that tell us about the definability of either word? To me it says were talking about something for which there are no words.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/CA%2BdXLcYg_Ajknpe2-j98xJ_byY6%2BoTZKdUjMfV8gM379repVMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chuck Post]

Well said, Hakuin.  

It is hard to find a word or phrase to refer to Franklin's no-object, no-subject state, but your suggestion of love is a good one.   Another that has occurred to me is"truth" another"light"    But just as you have inserted the adjective of "pure" before love to distinguish is from the kind of love that is, indeed, object-focused,(along with capitalization to suggest something Special) perhaps I should add Pure Truth,  and Pure Light to try (fruitlessly) to capture Franklin's state of no-object and no-subject.

Chuck

[Joseph Rowe]

Hakuin, I agree very much with what you say. Unfortunately it's often overlooked, even by professional philosophers, so that people get mired in discussions of these lofty thing (oops, I mean non-things;-) which attribute referents where there are none. However, the very structure of human language encourages this, so that a radically new kind of vigilance is required. I believe that Wittgenstein (the later, not so much the earlier) saw this with unparalleled clarity. The pseudo-problems that comprise most of metaphysics disappear when one maintains vigilance about the non-referential nature of almost all deep discussion. One need non try to purify language from seemingly referential statements, just bear in mind that what appears to be a referential meaning may be only a figure of speech. An overlooked part of awakening is awakening from this hypnosis of referential language.  As Wittenstein said: "I want to show the fly the way out of the bottle." But it's hard for people to give up the referential notion of meanings of words as pointers to objects that are "beyond words". It's deeply-rooted --- and in my opinion the source of much confusion and needless suffering.
I also agree that the evocation of Love (not the emotion, something far more primordial) is very relevant to understanding Consciousness-without-an-object, as well as the Desire to awaken, which is not in the same category as other desires. One could even make a case for saying that Love and  Consciousness-without-an-oject are the same.

[William St. George]

Not only do we have a Bible Belt we also have the Academic Belt.  As to which is harder to deal with I can not say--but the Academic Belt is the far more dangerous.  And I believe we have a good start on a Spiritual Belt in the West, especially in the USA, which seems to like tight autocratic structures.  About all this, more later. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/e32c336a-e573-4192-9bb8-50003cf928f8%40googlegroups.com.

[mt]

William St. George wrote:

 

"Not only do we have a Bible Belt we also have the Academic Belt.  As to which is harder to deal with I can not say--but the Academic Belt is the far more dangerous.  And I believe we have a good start on a Spiritual Belt in the West, especially in the USA, which seems to like tight autocratic structures.  About all this, more later."

 

Belief vs. reason? Would agree that in this choice the “Academic Belt” (“reason”) is more dangerous, as it leads to more convincing falsehoods (beliefs) at this time. Both need a Belt of Enlightenment or Reality, beyond both belief and reason. All else is a pointing or interpretation.   

 

“As Wittenstein said: "I want to show the fly the way out of the bottle." But it's hard for people to give up the referential notion of meanings of words as pointers to objects that are "beyond words". It's deeply-rooted --- and in my opinion the source of much confusion and needless suffering." - Joseph Rowe

 

The “fly” is Homo sapiens stuck in a bottle. It’s like the Zen Koan of  getting the goose out of the bottle it grew up with, some belief getting larger, the walls closing in, but with no escape without breaking the bottle. How to get out without breaking the bottle? Of course there is no “real” bottle but a conceptual creation like belief and myth supported by a reason or logic has substantially created the reality-illusion, with material objects to prove it. If the level is “scientific” it tends to have more legitimate authority in a materialistic context. If the belief is a God-faith thing, the problem appears similar but both have “belief” at their core. Perhaps this is a battle between the two hemispheres of the brain, processing different sets of data both approaching a greater Reality?

 

But when the materialistic bottle-wall of a some reality begin to crumble, the wall-identity continues to be rationalized psychologically in order to preserve the identity upon which so much mental energy, time and effort has been invested. Even Einstein could not get out of his bottle (God does not play the dice of Quantum Physics).

 

Probably most Homo sapiens are in some kind of bottle they can’t get out: political religious, scientific, or spiritual. The suffering comes when the walls of the bottle impinge by law and political (or self-delusional) oppresion as belief or bomb imposes a dictatorship of “right.” This is the condition of the bottled-world at this time, identities drunk with power and delusion, insisting their “reality” is the better reality in order to preserve their bottle-wall among other similar bottles all ready to explode, insisting the identity of their bottle is the One. Absolutely grotesque. Evolve or die.     

 

 

William St. George

[William St. George]

I highly recommend this wonderful two part video on YouTube: 

Universe.The.Cosmology.Quest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/22BAB231B5944DFF8467DC48A990BC02%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[William St. George]

LEXIPHILE

"Lexiphile" is a word used to describe those that have a love for words, like: you can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish, or:

To write with a broken pencil is . . . pointless.

When fish are in schools, they sometimes . . . take debate.

A thief who stole a calendar . .. . got twelve months.

When the smog lifts in Los Angeles , . . . U.C.L.A.

The batteries were given out . . . free of charge.

A dentist and a manicurist married. . . . They fought tooth and nail.

A will is a . . . dead giveaway.

With her marriage, she got a new name . . . and a dress.

A boiled egg is . . . hard to beat.

When you've seen one shopping center . . . you've seen a mall.

Police were called to a day care where a three-year-old was . . . resisting a rest.

Did you hear about the fellow whose whole left side was cut off? . . . He's all right now.

A bicycle can't stand alone; . . . it is two tired.

When a clock is hungry . . . it goes back four seconds

The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine . . . was fully recovered.

He had a photographic memory . . . which was never developed.

Those who get too big for their britches will be . . . exposed in the end.

When she saw her first strands of gray hair, . . . she thought she'd dye.

Acupuncture: . . . a jab well done 

[William St. George]

I still maintain that the word consciousness may not be a very good translation of Chit as in SatChitAnanda.  It is certainly a mysterious notion as currently used. How much of that is due to Eastern thought is unclear.  The older American usage, circa 1940's, was pretty trouble free. If someone lost consciousness, it meant he had fainted, been struck on the head, etc.  That he or she might regain consciousness did not mean anything more than that he or she was in their five senses again and maybe cognizant of the environment.  

Freud's use of the term, or at least the English translation of,  subconscious really makes little sense.  Literally below consciousness.  Was this to mean conscious in a dream state?  Is anyone ever without consciousness?  Deep sleep? 

A term that refers to everything is not of much use.  

Of course there was the word aware.  I was not aware that you had been ill.  Or out of town.  No mystery here.  The word aware as well as the word consciousness has undergone a transformation.  Now it has an occult or esoteric meaning which is obscure to say the least.  Raising one's consciousness =  aware of subtler objects. Experiencing a subtler realm.  Pure undifferentiated consciousness =  ?  Not totally blank for sure.  Not our usual sense of nothingness.  I would prefer to use the idea of experience without objects.  A moment in the flow of experience where no object manifested,  But of course that is a little misleading as anything I write will be. However, it does go along with Sunyata,  But Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi has no reference of description involving consciousness.  Puzzle, puzzle, toil and trouble . . . I am suggesting much greater care in the use of language.  The last few decades have seen language decadence.  

[Don Salmon]

Re: Consciousness:

In 1985, Robert McDermott told me that there was a grading system at Cambridge for classics scholars.  When Sri Aurobindo graduated from Cambridge, in the 1890s, he was awarded the highest grades in classics that had ever been awarded to any student in Cambridge history.  As of 1985, nobody had yet obtained a higher grade.  Sri Aurobindo was not only a scholar of Latin and Greek (a British official sent to arrest him for sedition let him go when he found out that the "terrorist" Sri Aurobindo knew Latin and Greek), but taught himself German to read Goethe in the original, and Italian to read Dante in the original. After his experience of "Nirvana", he taught himself Sanskrit in order to read the Vedas and other classic Indian scriptures in the original. His interpretation of the Vedas, while still controversial, is considered peerless among many scholars, and his wide comprehension of the etymology of English words has rarely been questioned (I'm having a long term discussion with a Whitehead scholar who questions Sri Aurobindo's use of the word "Substance" - some of you may know that "substance" was the "demon" in Whitehead's writings - but others think that Sri Aurobindo may have had a better understanding of the origin of "substance" - in its Aristotelian, not Cartesian sense) than Whitehead!).

All of this is to say that Sri Aurobindo's use of the word consciousness (at least 3 decades before the golden era of the 1940s that Jack refers to) might be considered in light of his mastery of ancient and modern European languages as well as Sanskrit.

Sri Aurobindo on Consciousness

 

Consciousness is a fundamental thing, the fundamental thing in existence it is the energy, the motion, the movement of consciousness that creates the universe and all that is in it not only the macrocosm but the microcosm is nothing but consciousness arranging itself. For instance, when consciousness in its movement or rather a certain stress of movement forgets itself in the action it becomes an apparently unconscious” energy; when it forgets itself in the form it becomes the electron, the atom, the material object. In reality it is still consciousness that works in the energy and determines the form and the evolution of form. When it wants to liberate itself, slowly, evolutionarily, out of Matter, but still in the form, it emerges as life, as animal, as man and it can go on evolving itself still farther out of its involution and become something more than mere man.

-- Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pp. 236-7.

 

Consciousness is usually identified with mind, but mental consciousness is only the human range which no more exhausts all the possible ranges of consciousness than human sight exhausts all the gradations of colour or human hearing all the gradations of sound — for there is much above or below that is to man invisible and inaudible. So there are ranges of consciousness above and below the human range, with which the normal human [consciousness] has no contact and they seem to it unconscious....

-- Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, p.233.

 

Our physical organism no more causes or explains thought and consciousness than the construction of an engine causes or explains the motive-power of steam or electricity. The force is anterior, not the physical instrument.

-- Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, p. 86.

 

Consciousness is not only power of awareness of self and things, it is or has also a dynamic and creative energy. It can determine its own reactions or abstain from reactions; it can not only answer to forces, but create or put out from itself forces. Consciousness is Chit but also Chit Shakti, awareness but also conscious force.

-- Sri Aurobindo, Letters on Yoga, p. 234

 

We mean [by planes of consciousness, planes of existence] a general settled poise or world of relations between Purusha and Prakriti, between the Soul and Nature. For anything that we can call world is and can be nothing else than the working out of a general relation which a universal existence has created or established between itself, or let us say its eternal fact or potentiality and the powers of its becoming. That existence in its relations with and its experience of the becoming is what we call soul or Purusha, individual soul in the individual, universal soul in the cosmos; the principle and the powers of the becoming are what we call Nature or Prakriti.

--Sri Aurobindo The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 429

 

... the knowledge we have to arrive at is not truth of the intellect; it is not right belief, right opinions, right information about oneself and things, that is only the surface mind's idea of knowledge. To arrive at some mental conception about God and ourselves and the world is an object good for the intellect but not large enough for the Spirit; it will not make us the conscious sons of Infinity. Ancient Indian thought meant by knowledge a consciousness which possesses the highest Truth in a direct perception and in self-experience; to become, to be the Highest that we know is the sign that we really have the knowledge..... For the individual to arrive at the divine universality and supreme infinity, live in it, possess it, to be, know, feel and express that one in all his being, consciousness, energy, delight of being is what the ancient seers of the Veda meant by the Knowledge.

-- Sri Aurobindo The Life Divine, pp. 685-6 .

Finally, it seems to me that "consciousness" like almost any other word associated with spiritual experience, is much like Louis Armstrong's "explanation" of 'jazz" - "if i gotta explain it to you, you ain't going to get it"

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/CAGAPCXJwQ2f3D-ZSq50293gZk8Z%3DF98Kq8xcCnUxFRNei8KaTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[mt]

Most Realizers know that only a radical transformation, a direct Knowing through a still-point, can transfer a true Understanding of IT (the Consciousness mentioned below). Rational thought and religious dogma have utterly failed to lift the ignorance. I use “still-point” here as a fundamental, universal constant, just as any constant in physics. On this side of the constant there is what Aurobindo below mentions as “the surface mind’s idea of knowledge.” The Knowledge arrived at directly on the other side of the still-point is That to which Aurobindo ( and Jesus, Buddha, et al) reference.

Yes to below:

“... the knowledge we have to arrive at is not truth of the intellect; it is not right belief, right opinions, right information about oneself and things, that is only the surface mind's idea of knowledge. To arrive at some mental conception about God and ourselves and the world is an object good for the intellect but not large enough for the Spirit; it will not make us the conscious sons of Infinity. Ancient Indian thought meant by knowledge a consciousness which possesses the highest Truth in a direct perception and in self-experience; to become, to be the Highest that we know is the sign that we really have the knowledge..... For the individual to arrive at the divine universality and supreme infinity, live in it, possess it, to be, know, feel and express that one in all his being, consciousness, energy, delight of being is what the ancient seers of the Veda meant by the Knowledge.

-- Sri Aurobindo The Life Divine, pp. 685-6 .

Finally, it seems to me that "consciousness" like almost any other word associated with spiritual experience, is much like Louis Armstrong's "explanation" of 'jazz" - "if i gotta explain it to you, you ain't going to get it"

 

mt

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/CAOzTBUP69qfK7KuOimnrPUyjDUP5cYWmzVKprTxTuc%3D-pbBZ0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Don Salmon]

and a few more versions of Armstrong's comment, which I think is apropos to the discussion of consciousness

“What is Jazz? Dude, if you have to ask, you'll never know.”

― Louis Armstrong

And he could have said, "What is Consciousness?  If you have to ask, you'll never know."

or putting it more simply: 

 

“There's some folks, that, if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.”

― Louis Armstrong

 As far as using different words, you could substitute "awareness" or "knowing" or "awaring" (that was coined by Krishna Prem, who also once recommended "consciring", or knowing together.) The problem is, once people start using those words mechanically, you're right back to square one.

Or as Mr. Armstrong put it: 

“We all go Do, Re, Mi, but you've gotta find all the other notes yourself.”

― Louis Armstrong

 

l 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/47BD473E39FF413CADF4CBD55012DC92%40YOUR421CC19A38.

[Ron Leonard]

    Although some time has passed since August, clarification is always timely. First, "No Objects" cannot be thought of as an adequate translation of "Great Space," insofar as Franklin uses this term as equivalent to "Consciousness without-an-object and without-a-subject," which he derived from his non-dualistic Mystical Realization that he calls the High Indifference, which transcended the subject-object structure. He shortened the title of his book (his primary philosophical treatise) to "The Philosophy of Consciousness without-an-object" solely for convenience.

    Second, the term "Consciousness" here is essentially symbolic, as (he does say this) ultimately no term applies, but this term is helpful insofar as it reminds us that it is a matter of Realizing IT, not engaging in conceptual speculation.

    Finally, it follows that any attempt to use positive characterization (e.g., "Unity of All Things," or "True Oneness") is to misconceive nondualism. Such languaget may be helpful poetically, but it invites the error of believing that it is a literal description.

    In conclusion, let us all refrain from any further use of the designation, "the Philososophy of No Objects" in connection with Franklin's thought.

----- Original Message -----

From: pleroma

To: fm...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:14 PM

Subject: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel Re: The Philosophy of No Objects

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 8:44:58 PM UTC-7, Jack wrote:

     It is certainly conceivable that Dr. Wolff might have under different circumstance titled his second book as The Philosophy of No Objects.  No Objects seems like a good translation of Great Space.  We live our lives amidst objects: gross, subtle and causal.  If a spiritual aspirant steps out of the realm of objects then what?  As the individual moves into that realm he vanishes along with all objects.  In dreamless sleep we have a similar situation.  No objects and no dreamer.  But not nothingness.  Only no-thingness.  And a self is a thing.  No one experiences or imperiences Great Space.  A paradox of sorts.  Another way of viewing this realm would be as the Unity of All Things.  The True Oneness, 
     In the West we are really stuck with dualism.  We think that Sanskrit and Tamil can be translated into English.  To some extent but not at all perfectly because the East is based on non-dualism.   In a sense the problem of conscious arises out of this.  We may not be able to translate the Sanskrit word Chit into English.  Tamil does not have a word for Self.  Currently the word/concept consciousness has arisen into prominence.  Is it a product of entrenchment in dualism?  This is worth some deep reflection.  What we mean by Pure Consciousness is the Absence of Things or Objects.  We can not think or conceive this.  Nor can we experience or imperience this though it is not unknown exactly.  This is the realm where as the Upanishads say, words flee from Brahman--another mis-understood notion. 
      Were there only things a case could be made for materialism of some sort.  But there is a beyond things.  This is what gets left out of contemporary considerations. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fm-w+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fm...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/23514530-c4e8-4b7b-84eb-427d7a18acdd%40googlegroups.com.

[Joseph Rowe]

Greetings, Ron --- it looks like your post should be in the recent topic started by Jack, since it's clearly a reply to him. Just in case, I'm going to post it there also.
It's interesting that you say FMW considered "..without an object" to be a mere abbreviation. It coincides exactly with my long-time belief that the more accurate phrase would be "...without a subject or object."
As for the other things you say, I'll have to ponder them, for this (like all metaphysics) is fraught with language difficulties. I will say this much: at one point you say that poetic expressions such as the Unity of All should not be taken literally. But I maintain that metaphysical language in general should not be taken any more literally than poetic or mythic language. In this, I follow Wittgenstein though I'm not a "Wittgenstinian." If I could have a philosophical discussion right now with the Dr. Wolff I knew, one thing I'd be sure to ask him is if he ever read Wittgenstein, and if he agreed.

[Joseph Rowe]

[Ron Leonard]

Hi, Joseph,
It is a virtual certainty that Franklin never read Wittgenstein...or any of
the notable Western philosophers (Aurobindo was an Eastern
philosopher-mystic and, in the strict sense, Jung is a psychologist.) after
he left academics. His main focus was to attain Enlightenment, and
afterwards (as he explained to me) to use his energy to present his
philosophy that was grounded in his Realizations.
Yes, metaphysical language (like poetry and mythology) is nonpropositional,
so cannot be literally true (in the sense of propositional truth).
Shine on,
Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Rowe" <jos...@naturalchant.com>
To: <fm...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "pleroma" <pler...@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel Re: The Philosophy of No
Objects

Greetings, Ron --- it looks like your post should be in the recent topic
started by Jack, since it's clearly a reply to him. Just in case, I'm going
to post it there also.
It's interesting that you say FMW considered "..without an object" to be a
mere abbreviation. It coincides exactly with my long-time belief that the
more accurate phrase would be "...without a subject or object."
As for the other things you say, I'll have to ponder them, for this (like
all metaphysics) is fraught with language difficulties. I will say this
much: at one point you say that poetic expressions such as the Unity of All
should not be taken literally. But I maintain that metaphysical language in
general should not be taken any more literally than poetic or mythic
language. In this, I follow Wittgenstein though I'm not a "Wittgenstinian."
If I could have a philosophical discussion right now with the Dr. Wolff I
knew, one thing I'd be sure to ask him is if he ever read Wittgenstein, and
if he agreed.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:47:45 AM UTC+1, pleroma wrote:

[Peter Da Costa]

'No objects' means simply the 'here and now' of the present moment. The subject becomes the object, both terms become meaningless for as long as the mind remains quiet, before any evaluation.

[Don Salmon]

Is this forum still active?

www.remember-to-breathe.org

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Peter Da Costa <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

'No objects' means simply the 'here and now' of the present moment.  The subject becomes the object, both terms become meaningless for as long as the mind remains quiet, before any evaluation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship Discussion Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fm-w+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to fm...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/679d093c-0e3e-4c18-9be1-cfafdc94cfa8%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Robert A. Holland]

Yes, this forum is still active; or, I should say that it is available for folks to hold discussions, but has not been very active as late.

---

From: Don Salmon <donsa...@gmail.com>
To: Peter Da Costa <pete...@gmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship Discussion Group <fm...@googlegroups.com>; Jack <alethe...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 9:29 PM

Subject: Re: [fm-w], {Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel Re: The Philosophy of No Objects

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fm-w+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to fm...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fm-w/CAOzTBUPv%2B_Nyvtdf640Th1p9%2BW1trXHN%2Bmo-sM7-GAH_JbJO7w%40mail.gmail.com.