What is the strongest argument against idealism/non-duality?

[Stoic Warrior]

Or phrased a different way, what do you consider to be a major drawback to this ideology?  

[za_w...@yahoo.com]

The origin of specific qualia that we have. There seems to be some limitation and selection of qualia that don't depend on my will, so there seems to be something outside consciousnesses, though if this is the case I don't know how we could ever know about it.

[Mark Robert]

First I would separate those two. Idealism is an ideology, while nonduality, like waking or sleeping, is a state of being, the foundational state. It can be pointed to, but not logically established. (Can sleeping be logically established?)

The vocabulary of idealism is very helpful in pointing to the nondual state, which is a state of freedom, so in that way idealism is very useful. But it has a drawback, which is that it can contract into solipsism. And that's claustrophobic or spaced out rather than free.

The strongest arguments I know of against idealism come from the Consequence school of Middle Way Buddhist philosophy (where "consequence" has to do with pointing out the absurd logical consequences of any view that reifies concepts). Idealism, unless it is understood as a pointing tool towards nondual being, reifies mind or consciousness or formlessness or awareness (pick your word). "Reifies" means it makes something more of it than it is, rather than just letting it be as it is.

When consciousness is reified, typically matter is de-materialized. Consciousness is made All, and matter (or form) is flattened into formlessness. Psychologically, this is an attempt at escape from the tyranny of form, but it ends in a dissociation. The Middle Way is a philosophical tool to correct the extremes of reifying either matter or consciousness. The true nature is nondual; mind and matter not separate, not different. Mind is not real, nothing to hold on to; and matter is also not real, nothing to hold on to. And -- this explanation is also merely provisional. "Holding on to" and "not holding on to" are merely conceptual designations. 

Conceptual designations are all there is -- but only if we must talk. Cosmin's interesting paper (among other things) uses the duckrabbit image popularized by Wittgenstein to make the point that consciousness is meaning/understanding. As Wittgenstein pointed out, "seeing" cannot be separated from "seeing as." We see a duck or we see a rabbit. Whatever we experience in consciousness is a meaning. 

A materialist would say, "actually, all that's there is just some lines, and your brain is interpreting it as a duck or a rabbit." But we simply don't experience it that way. We don't experience "interpreting," we experience meaning. We never see "just the lines." Or, if we do see "some lines," that is the meaning. There is always more meaning to explore. "What is the basis of those lines?" One could say, "ink" or "points that make up the line" or something else. More words. It's ducks and rabbits, or something else, all the way down. In the end, like peeling away an onion, we find an empty center. It's always and forever meanings with no self-existing basis. Because it's always and forever mind. That's an idealist's rejoinder to the materialist.

Here though the idealist is in danger of falling into a trap inherent to the materialist dualistic paradigm, which is that true knowledge is knowledge of objects. "Meaning" itself is a problematic notion, because it is rooted in naming objects, on the sense of an inherent physical basis for imputation. "This (basis) means that (meaning)." As soon as you move out of that paradigm into an understanding of and facility with nonduality, that view begins to falter. When nothing is actually imputed because there is no separate physical basis or stimulus, suddenly there is no true duck or rabbit, no true meaning. There are merely appearances. Like a rainbow or a magic show or a flash of lightning. The appearances of course, do not disappear. They are just seen.

So what happens is that, in dropping the materialist paradigm, we find that it tugs on the idealist paradigm as well. If, having dispensed with objects, we look to the mind for Reality, again there is the reification problem. By calling It "mind" we beg the question "whose" mind? If it's "my" mind, that's solipsism. And if it's Mind, or the reification of a transpersonal One Mind, then we imply that there is one True way to see the duckrabbit (The Mind's Way), one True Meaning for the color red, etc. (Although Cosmin, I would agree that there are archetypes deeper than merely individual experiences.) Specifiying a "One Only" tends to devalue the many. 

This is subtle. Everything can't and doesn't mean everything. That's a reification of formlessness. "What" exactly the meanings are and why is an interesting question and is one of the questions addressed by postmodern philosophy (constructivist epistemology, structuralism, etc.), but for my money, it's better addressed by Ken Wilber's meta-developmental theory. What we experience depends on our stage of development of consciousness, IMHO. Which is also a conventional truth, and not ultimate.

[Dana Lomas]

What if one sees a bunny thinking: "Uh, what's up duck?" :))

Seriously, thanks for that elucidation Mark ... much to be parsed.

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:04:00 PM UTC-4, Mark Robert wrote:

First I would separate those two. Idealism is an ideology, while nonduality, like waking or sleeping, is a state being. It can be pointed to, but not logically established. (Can sleeping be logically established?)

[Mark Robert]

What if one sees a bunny thinking: "Uh, what's up duck?" :))

It can happen! The world will not be constrained by our notions... :) 

[Dana Lomas]

Amen to that Mark ... I'm only surprised that no-one came back with a retort accusing me of being daffy  :)

[benjayk]

I agree with Mark that reifying mind is the biggest problematic aspect of idealism.
We cannot find a fundamental thing that could be identified as mind.

We have an intuition what we mean when we say "mind", but there is no guarantee it means the same for everyone.
It's also not a solid concept, the very idea that it's "all" creates paradoxes - we don't really know what "all" is, given that it includes the infinite reaches of the unknown.
So we don't really know what we are talking about.

Scientific concepts are solid because they seperate themselves from the thing being talked about, and have a limited applicability.
Idealism can't do that, because it's supposed to be about "everything".
It might have a subjective meaning, but is it a solid foundation to metaphysics? I don't think so.
In fact, I question whether there is any such foundation.

[Dana Lomas]

Agreed, it seems doubtful that there will ever be any ontology to end all ontologies. As Mark states, at best it can be a valid pointing toward a glimpse of the knowing that defies all ontologies. But as ontologies go, and we assess the current prevailing one that denies the primacy of Consciousness, can it truly be said that it is serving that function well? Will some version of Idealism, as the one that may supplant it, be the one the turns the tide toward an integral, inclusive vision of an ideal world we imagine is possible? I don't really know. However, surely there is a call for improvement.

[Scott Roberts]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 6:04:00 AM UTC-10, Mark Robert wrote:

The strongest arguments I know of against idealism come from the Consequence school of Middle Way Buddhist philosophy (where "consequence" has to do with pointing out the absurd logical consequences of any view that reifies concepts). Idealism, unless it is understood as a pointing tool towards nondual being, reifies mind or consciousness or formlessness or awareness (pick your word). "Reifies" means it makes something more of it than it is, rather than just letting it be as it is.

I am curious as to what you think a Consequentialist (if that's a word) would make of my proposal as given in my essay tetralemmic polarity, in that part of its name ("tetralemmic") is in a sense a reference to the process in which they refute views. The essay is intended to present a basis of an idealism in which it is impossible to objectify that basis.

 

When consciousness is reified, typically matter is de-materialized. Consciousness is made All, and matter (or form) is flattened into formlessness. Psychologically, this is an attempt at escape from the tyranny of form, but it ends in a dissociation. The Middle Way is a philosophical tool to correct the extremes of reifying either matter or consciousness. The true nature is nondual; mind and matter not separate, not different. Mind is not real, nothing to hold on to; and matter is also not real, nothing to hold on to. And -- this explanation is also merely provisional. "Holding on to" and "not holding on to" are merely conceptual designations. 

This characterization strikes me as being out of date. Modern idealism is concerned with rejecting the notion that there is real stuff which lies outside any experience of it, and so rejects both materialism and substance dualism. It doesn't reject ideas or appearances, which have form, so the meaning "matter (form)" is not what is being rejected. 

 

This is subtle. Everything can't and doesn't mean everything. That's a reification of formlessness. "What" exactly the meanings are and why is an interesting question and is one of the questions addressed by postmodern philosophy (constructivist epistemology, structuralism, etc.), but for my money, it's better addressed by Ken Wilber's meta-developmental theory. What we experience depends on our stage of development of consciousness, IMHO. Which is also a conventional truth, and not ultimate.

Here, too, I see a traditional view that can be assimilated, and from which one can move on. While there are many conventional truths, none of which is ultimate, there is the ultimate truth that the ultimate creates conventions. I like to think that post-modernism had its origin in the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry, with the realization that there are no unshakeable eternal axioms underpinning reality. Instead, basic rules are thought up, and the consequences explored. In this way one can remove the language/reality dichotomy. A language is a reality, a reality is a language. Ultimate truth creates languages, that is, conventional truths.

 

[Dana Lomas]

"Modern idealism is concerned with rejecting the notion that there is real stuff which lies outside any experience of it, and so rejects both materialism and substance dualism."

Yes, it is of course materialism that reifies the experience of form and qualia into so-called matter, as a separate existing substance 'out there' -- the very notion that idealism refutes. However, Idealism does encounter the problem of reifying Consciousness into a substrate-like 'ocean' that produces modulations of itself, when at best that is a metaphor. The profound implication of Idealism is that there is no such substrate producing or causing any such substance.

[Mark Robert]

Scott, I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to review your proposal, but in general, a Prasangika (or consequentialist) would seek to undermine any philosophical assertations in order to exhaust the conceptual elaborative process and establish a person in post-philosophy. Thanks for pointing out where I may be out of date, and sorry for the looseness of my writing here. I did say "matter (or form)" though, not "matter (form)." I recognize the difference, although at this point, matter is not substance to physicists either, only to naive realists. Substance dualism is not really the issue, but form itself. I could rewrite the offending paragraph like so:

When consciousness is reified, typically form is de-fanged [what's the best verb? de-natured, dismissed, de-emphasized...]. Consciousness is made All, and matter (or form) is flattened into formlessness. Psychologically, this is an attempt at escape from the tyranny of form, but it ends in a dissociation. The Middle Way is a philosophical tool to correct the extremes of reifying either form or formless consciousness. The true nature is nondual; mind and form not separate, not different. Mind is not real, nothing to hold on to; and form is also not real, nothing to hold on to. And -- this explanation is also merely provisional. "Holding on to" and "not holding on to" are merely conceptual designations. 

Your statement, "there is the ultimate truth that the ultimate creates conventions," I would not say is an ultimate truth, in as much as it is an appearance. It's evocative of Emptiness as the Womb or Creative Matrix of Reality or God the Creator, and it can appear that way, but the absolute has to do with unfindability of any such conventions. It's about the essential nature of all conventional truths, which is that they are empty of inherent existence. 

Dana, your statement, "The profound implication of Idealism is that there is no such substrate producing or causing any such substance," would be another way to say that.

[Scott Roberts]

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 4:46:03 AM UTC-10, Mark Robert wrote:

Your statement, "there is the ultimate truth that the ultimate creates conventions," I would not say is an ultimate truth, in as much as it is an appearance. It's evocative of Emptiness as the Womb or Creative Matrix of Reality or God the Creator, and it can appear that way, but the absolute has to do with unfindability of any such conventions. It's about the essential nature of all conventional truths, which is that they are empty of inherent existence. 

So what if conventional truths are empty of inherent existence? The reality of their non-inherent existence still needs to be related to the reality of the unfindable for any coherent metaphysics. Humanity is not ready to go post-philosophical. First it needs to reach the philosophical stage, and just saying "whatever one says is merely conventional" doesn't strike me as very helpful in that regard. 

[Mark Robert]

Great comments Scott. 

So what if conventional truths are empty of inherent existence? 

This fact – when one realizes it, at the very moment one realizes it, in any situation – frees from suffering. It doesn't matter if the conventional truth is a very personal one, or a spectacularly philosophical one, the recognition that that relative truth is ultimately not real puts it in its proper place. That de-reification or gesture of dropping the effort of fabrication, which is what relative truths actually are, motivated by the wisdom that sees that one is not bound by the chains of that so-called relative truth, creates an experience of ease. It puts one consciously in contact with absolute truth – at least an intuitive recognition of it, and possibly a direct recognition of absolute truth. So from a soteriological point of view, this is the whole ballgame. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Etc.

The reality of their non-inherent existence still needs to be related to the reality of the unfindable for any coherent metaphysics. 

Precisely. I think this is accomplished quite well already within Vajrayana Buddhism. The relation is usually described as a "union." Depending on how or what one is experiencing of the relative truth, sometimes this is described as the union of compassion and emptiness, the union of appearance and emptiness, the union of awareness and emptiness, or the union of the relative and absolute. A pithy slogan is "emptiness is interdependence." But all this is just evocative; the precise relation is handled quite fully in treatises from the 1000-year long conversation about the topic. And in a certain sense, the matter is not "solved," see here, but not because the philosophy is deficient, but because it is a skillful means to help human beings recognize the non-conceptual truth of their being. For example, the Prasangika approach, while it is excellent at defeating other views, can create the habit in the philosopher of perpetually negating everything and never resting in suchness. So a strong point becomes a weak point. Conversely, the Middle Way approach that I personally prefer, known as the Shentong perspective, can end in reification, if one has not fully passed through the via negativa rite de passage. And finally, Buddhism is obviously a religious tradition and for many people its arguments are therefore tainted and many may in fact be outdated – or anyway minds and needs evolve.

Humanity is not ready to go post-philosophical. 

You are so right! This is exactly why there are so many schools of philosophical thought, to my mind progressive in nature, to meet human beings exactly where they are and help them progress in their understanding. And why there are so many different sorts of spiritual practices aimed at different minds. A six-year-old may be ready for physics, but she is not ready for quantum physics. Within Buddhism, emptiness traditionally has not been talked about with people who are not ready for it, for the precise reason that you do not want to hurt them or cause them to come to a mistaken view. It is frighteningly easy to go off the rails and slip into nihilism, hedonism, solipsism etc. Also, when we undercut either our own or others' conventions, this can be frightening and destabilizing. People fight back. Watch what cognitive scientist Thomas Metzinger (The Ego Tunnel) says here about the risks involved. And if you like, check out a beguiling film on youtube, Zero & One, that explores the shocking confrontation that post-philosophy can be.

First it needs to reach the philosophical stage, 

Again, I totally agree. Human beings need to reach the rational or scientific stage, and then I think they need to reach the postconventional or pluralistic stage, and then they need to reach the integral stage before they can really understand what we're talking about here, on a good day. I'm a fan of Ken Wilber because he maps out the stages quite clearly, and I've long been a follower of Vajrayana Buddhism because it provides practices and philosophy for people (and myself of course) at our different stages. But by no means is it the only or the best method for everyone and I am not here in this forum to be a mouthpiece for the thought of either Ken Wilber or Buddhism. It just happens to be in me, so it comes out when you pull the string on the back of my neck.

and just saying "whatever one says is merely conventional" doesn't strike me as very helpful in that regard.

And isn't it irritating when people do that? You say something, and they just say "oh, that's empty, that's just conventional." You stub your toe, and they say, "Don't be concerned, that pain is not real." I've heard the story that Osho used to like to take a long pin and stick it in the ass of Advaita realizers who were spouting off in that way: "It's all an illusion! None of it exists!" That's why I don't do that. I try to show how it is conventional, and the relation between the conventional and the absolute. And I have great sympathy for the problems of the conventional. I'm actually a therapist, believe it or not. I deal almost entirely with the problems of the conventional. It's not "merely conventional" for people, let me tell you. Except it is, when we're ready for that message. But – and here is a very important point – even if we are ready for that message, that doesn't mean that that message is the highest or the best. The best message is the one that fits the purpose at the time of helping any individual evolve.

[Dana Lomas]

Truly, learning to express this is tantamount to learning an entire new language, that has nothing to do with the interlocutors speaking the same conventional language -- in this case English. So often, as with writing poetry, one finds that there aren't even the words or syntax imagined yet to express it adequately, while fumbling with the baggage-laden language of the prevailing paradigm. And like learning any language it surely must be stage-specific -- as in KW's model. I can imagine bodhisattva-like beings watching over me with the loving smile that one sees on the face of a parent listening to their child's first meaningful words, such as "Look, I see emptifullness" ... Oh what a clever neophyte, they might think! :))

[RHC]

I dont think there can ever be any such thing as post-philosophical in any metaphysical discussion (as opposed to direct experience). That presumes a level of certain knowing that denies our condition as localizations. Watching the very enjoyable Zero & One (thank you Mark) shows you why, but not entirely for the reasons expressed by the participants.  As soon as you begin trying to think about, intellectualize the inherently unknowable you immediately risk falling  into massive rationalization; language games that are direct reflections of our human limitations, that become mistaken for knowledge, and ultimately an absurd certainty develops that appeals to those same structures and limitations of human thinking. True believer Non-duality as displayed here, strikes me as one of these ideas.  It has a quality of perfection or completeness to it that is intoxicating to some people, especially men it seems, even though as any outsider can plainly see while watching this, it causes people to start filtering though all kinds of contradictory absurdities. And even that is part of its appeal. All mental constructs when you follow them to far bring you to absurdity. They have to because the inherent limitations of our humanity, and because we are living as/in/through this bizarre amalgam of models, various levels of consciousness and perspective, and the mother of all filters, thinking in time and space.  -Go back and watch for the number of unacknowledged references to time in the film, modifying everything said, because how could it be otherwise? Humility is acknowledging this, taking ideas so far and then when they start demanding heavy rationalization and 'gap jumping', and blatant contradictions stepping back and accepting the Mystery that lies beyond. The ideologue embraces the absurdity! Hence Daniel Dennett and the morass of Physicalism.  Its not a coincidence that some Physicalists embrace this kind of Non-Dualism.  On an egoic level you can see parallel expressions of glee in secret knowledge that most people cant handle, but look special people like us can handle the Dark Truth!  Simple ego tripping by men of a certain intellectual bent.

Note im not saying that the purist Non-Duality conception of ultimate reality is wrong, rather that it is wrong to even presume that we would be significantly more capable than a cockroach in knowing that it is right, with the kind of finality of Answer, on display here.  This is what is so appealing to me about Bernardo's Idealism and ruthless insistence on parsimony.  Its a form of humility.  It takes things about as far as you can, intellectually.  Not to say that his thinking is the final word on the subject by any means, but I think much beyond where he goes, you need to let the intellect go and return to and accept what direct experience brings you,whatever that is.  It seems to me we always need to be aware of the edge of the cliff of dogmatism because once you fall off, its very hard to climb out. 

Another thing the film reinforced in me is that for me anyway, the words experience and perspective are much more useful constructs than real and illusion.   

The Metzinger interview was also very enjoyable, and I plan to read more of his stuff.  He is obviously filtering heavily though his physicalism, but said some things that I found very interesting. 

[Ben Iscatus]

Well said, Bob. This cockroach agrees.

[Dana Lomas]

Yeah, good points RHC ... I found the Zero & One video interesting to a point. But after hearing several references amounting to: "There is no person, there is no individual, there is no-one speaking, it's just speaking happening, there is just this" ... etc, it went into deja vu mode. Yes, one can say that there is 'just this', and say that any elaboration is just BS, but it seems a common mantra of bemused, mystified materialists who have recently glimpsed that it is not what they have so long believed it to be, and yet have no ontological context for that initial realization. For sure, the notion of a segregated matter-dependent individual, and not realizing one's fundamental Divine essence is problematic and suffering prone, and must be dispelled. But, equally, not realizing the very nature and impulse of Consciousness to express and experience individuality, and the denial of its sacred validity, seems just as problematic. 

[Larry Schultz]

Putting aside any philosophy, and from the perspective of living one's life from moment to moment - - the strongest 'argument' against idealism is a feeling or sense of being a separate self, and the result there being a sense of alienation from that which we perceive - and the world being different than self, or the world seen as 'material'.

IOW, the strongest argument against Idealism/non dualism, is that as seen from a separate self, the world acts and behaves as though it were material - and no philosophy or mode of thinking can can change that.

So one has to undo the separate self, there's no other way to 'win the argument'.

Adopting this or that philosophy or mode of thinking is to simply perpetuate the separate self

[Dana Lomas]

Experiencing the world as a segregated matter-dependent self vs. other material objects 'out there' is of course a philosophy and a mode of thinking -- aka materialism. Idealism is a philosophy and mode of thinking that disputes that notion. But I would agree that simply supplanting materialism with idealism doesn't necessarily dispel the notion of a separate self. 

But again, this does not negate that I am That whose very nature is to express and experience this individuality, and as such it seems pointless to deny that. I can only say that it is never exclusively being either/or, and thus there is no denying either/or. However, the dispelling of the notion of a segregated, matter-dependent individual vs other separate material objects is another matter altogether. Insofar as idealism is at least an ontological refutation of that notion, and therefore a more effective pointer toward that eventuality, it may well serve a valid, if ultimately dispensable, function.

[Scott Roberts]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 8:41:07 AM UTC-10, Dana Lomas wrote:

Yeah, good points RHC ... I found the Zero & One video interesting to a point. But after hearing several references amounting to: "There is no person, there is no individual, there is no-one speaking, it's just speaking happening, there is just this" ... etc, it went into deja vu mode. Yes, one can say that there is 'just this', and say that any elaboration is just BS, but it seems a common mantra of bemused, mystified materialists who have recently glimpsed that it is not what they have so long believed it to be, and yet have no ontological context for that initial realization. For sure, the notion of a segregated matter-dependent individual, and not realizing one's fundamental Divine essence is problematic and suffering prone, and must be dispelled. But, equally, not realizing the very nature and impulse of Consciousness to express and experience individuality, and the denial of its sacred validity, seems just as problematic. 

I agree. The subtitle to Seth's first book, Seth Speaks, is The Eternal Validity of the Soul. Of course, one can't just treat Seth as a divine Authority, but I think what we are dealing with is a case of rejection of the "there is no person/individual" doctrine. It is necessary for a person to understand that s/he is not a separate thing, but on the other hand, once an individual has developed to the point of being able to say "I am", that individual is eternally able to say it, and will continue to be the same "I am" as it works its way through differing conventional truths, making it an absolute truth.

Further, the reason one can say "I am" is that "just this" includes various "just that"'s, i.e., memory and thoughts that connect memories with now and future now's.

I have to say that I found the Zero and One video to be off-putting, and gave up after about five minutes, so if there was a radical change in approach, the following may need retraction. Anyway, I found the emphasis on the ineffability of it all to be misguided. Of formlessness (or no-thingness or whatever) one can say

- it is real

- it is inseparable from form (and hence ubiquitous whenever one is aware of form)

- there can be only one formlessness

and go on from there.

  

[Larry Schultz]

I use the word philosophy differently as in one does not experience a philosophy, rather a philosophy is a framework or intellectual construct useful for describing experiences.

[Dana Lomas]

Agreed Larry, I wasn't clear in the wording ... I intended to indicate that whatever philosophical paradigm one may adopt, determines the inclination of our experience. As such, if we think in terms of materialism, i.e. that experience is matter-dependent, then we'll experience a world of seeming material objects. Again, insofar as idealism may erode that mode of thinking, then it may be useful in dispelling the notion of a self as such a separate object.

[Mark Robert]

The charm of the film for me was the confrontation with not knowing and how that can play out. Funny, the ego tripping I didn't see so much in these guys except maybe Tony Parsons, and I think your Dark Truth comment really has to do with materialist tough guys; there was a lot of laughter there. 

I dont think there can ever be any such thing as post-philosophical in any metaphysical discussion (as opposed to direct experience). That presumes a level of certain knowing that denies our condition as localizations. 

Quite a strong, certain statement. :) Why do you oppose philosophy against direct experience? "Post philosophy," or direct experience, obviously informs philosophy. Are you saying that we cannot talk about the "post philosophical" in a philosophy discussion? Or that philosophy never ends, never comes to any conclusions? Or perhaps that, to have a conclusion implies a degree of certainty that somehow "denies our condition as localizations"? Can philosophers never rest in any certainty?

In fact for me, expressions of certainty are what confirms our condition as localizations. It is my direct experience of my own being that I can give voice to as a kind of certainty about my experience. Whereas if I make a claim that I have certain knowledge about what is outside myself, then I am going outside my direct experience. What is that direct experience and how to characterize it, seems to be the question, not as philosophical speculation, "it could be," but as some kind of truth statements.

We seem to agree that conceptual knowing, as a method of knowing, has a limit. Many traditions suggest that that "true certainty" is not a conceptual certainty, not an "I know this fact," but rather an acknowledgment of the fact of not knowing--as Truth. It's a simple experience, and then a simple acknowledgment of that experience. It's not a conceptual knowing, but a gnosis. This is very different from materialists' idea of not-knowing, of a separate real cockroach-like human who is ever acquiring new information about the infinite universe, but, poor cockroach, since his brain is too small, he will never know all there is to know or in the right way. Sad! :) I'm not talking about that particular type of "embrace of the Mystery," of our supposed limits as separate "knowers" in a separate "universe." That type of embrace is counter to the Idealist assertion that everything is mind. Because if everything is mind and we are mind and we experience that directly, can't we know truth certainly and directly?

We can clarify this by asking, what kind of truth can we know with certainty and directly, and what kind of truth is ever open to new and better formulations? For me, the absolute/relative distinction is very helpful here. Obviously, for me the answer is that absolute truth can be known absolutely and directly and correctly, whereas relative or conventional truth is ever open to discussion. I prefer the use of the term "absolute" rather than "ultimate" for the very reasons you warn about. In the realization of the absolute truth, in the rationalization of that, people can have the idea that they have understood or realized the "ultimate" truth that surpasses any and all other truths. When the fact is, cockroaches and worms no less than humans fully experience the absolute truth, so there is no need for pride or arrogance. 

Within the Buddhist tradition, this problem of being immature about the meaning of absolute truth is suggested by the requirement for Buddhahood of the "two accumulations" both of merit and wisdom. Only wisdom isn't enough, you need the development of all the virtues. There's even a sense of a warning about becoming "enlightened" too fast. The idea is that psychosocial development is exceptionally important if the person is ever going to be able to benefit others, instead of merely becoming an "enlightened nerd" (or worse), to use a delightful KW term. The Bodhisattva heart path is to forever delay "enlightenment," some kind of imagined stasis or completion, in order to continue to benefit others.

Finally, on the orgin of "post philosophical." Former philosopher/neuroscientist-turned-life-retreat-meditator Christine Skarda (check out the paper she wrote as a kind of sayonara, The Perceptual Form of Life) once told a group of us that once she digested Nagarjuna's thought, for her, "the time for philosophy was over." Epistemologically, post philosophical is an assertion that there is a certain limitation on thought in clarifying what reality "is." It's not a claim that "my thought is best." It's not even claiming, "my thought is true." It points, nothing more.

...Bernardo's Idealism and ruthless insistence on parsimony.  Its a form of humility...you need to let the intellect go and return to and accept what direct experience brings you,whatever that is...

How about form = emptiness, for parsimony? Problem is, it needs to be explained, and better than I can.

The Metzinger interview was also very enjoyable, and I plan to read more of his stuff.  He is obviously filtering heavily though his physicalism, but said some things that I found very interesting. 

Complete agreement...a place where Idealism has begun to inflitrate the academy and is still doing its work.

[Mark Robert]

Nicely said Larry

[Mark Robert]

- it is real

In what sense would you say that formlessness is real?

[RHC]

I actually enjoyed the film.  I particularly enjoyed its attempt to show, as a work of art, that some things cant be spoken without sounding absurd. And of course some things spoken are just absurd. 

>and I think your Dark Truth comment really has to do with materialist tough guys; there was a lot of laughter there. 

This statement was a little harsh on my part. No there is at least one instance in there where the notion that most people arent ready for this is spoken about. Or maybe im confusing it with the Metzinger interview?  I interpreted the laughter to be the kind people show when letting others in on a secret, and a kind of dark humor laughter about what they believe.  A kind of "You cant handle the truth" machismo ran through the whole thing for me. 

>Are you saying that we cannot talk about the "post philosophical" in a philosophy discussion? Or that philosophy never ends, never comes to any conclusions? Or perhaps that, to have a conclusion implies a degree of certainty that somehow "denies our condition as localizations"? Can philosophers never rest in any certainty?

Yep.  Thats exactly my point.  Philosophers can never rest in any certainty. We are limited beings and those limits set boundaries about what we can intellectually understand.  For example time and space are so central to what we are, that they constitute an absolute boundary to what we can coherently think about.  It is probably impossible to verbalize anything coherent and substantial about existence or reality outside time and space.  Direct experience on the other hand might, no I will be more optimistic probably can give individuals knowing beyond what we can reason about.  For example NDE experiencers probably have some kind of knowledge about reality outside of space/time, that we cant, but they routinely say that it is impossible to put in words. 

>We seem to agree that conceptual knowing, as a method of knowing, has a limit. Many traditions suggest that that "true certainty" is not a conceptual certainty, not an "I know this fact," but rather an acknowledgment of the fact of not knowing--as Truth. It's a simple experience, and then a simple acknowledgment of that experience. It's not a conceptual knowing, but a gnosis. This is very different from materialists' idea of not-knowing, of a separate real cockroach-like human who is ever acquiring new information about the infinite universe, but, poor cockroach, since his brain is too small, he will never know all there is to know or in the right way. Sad! :) I'm not talking about that particular type of "embrace of the Mystery," of our supposed limits as separate "knowers" in a separate "universe." That type of embrace is counter to the Idealist assertion that everything is mind. Because if everything is mind and we are mind and we experience that directly, can't we know truth certainly and directly?

Yes but only so far as our limitations as humans permit as I talk about above.  

>We can clarify this by asking, what kind of truth can we know with certainty and directly, and what kind of truth is ever open to new and better formulations? For me, the absolute/relative distinction is very helpful here. Obviously, for me the answer is that absolute truth can be known absolutely and directly and correctly, whereas relative or conventional truth is ever open to discussion. I prefer the use of the term "absolute" rather than "ultimate" for the very reasons you warn about. In the realization of the absolute truth, in the rationalization of that, people can have the idea that they have understood or realized the "ultimate" truth that surpasses any and all other truths. When the fact is, cockroaches and worms no less than humans fully experience the absolute truth, so there is no need for pride or arrogance. 

This is very interesting.  What passes for skepticism in me wonders if even this is further than we can go.  Can any philosophical position reach a point where no one can make a coherent, defensible argument against it?  Maybe so and my skepticism might simply reflect my ignorance.  Can you comment more on this please? Note I am again separating this from direct knowledge base on subjective experience.  I would never presume to question absolute truths someone has arrived at for themselves.  I realize this distinction could well be a loose thread waiting to be pulled on.  : )

>Finally, on the orgin of "post philosophical." Former philosopher/neuroscientist-turned-life-retreat-meditator Christine Skarda (check out the paper she wrote as a kind of sayonara, The Perceptual Form of Life) once told a group of us that once she digested Nagarjuna's thought, for her, "the time for philosophy was over." Epistemologically, post philosophical is an assertion that there is a certain limitation on thought in clarifying what reality "is." It's not a claim that "my thought is best." It's not even claiming, "my thought is true." It points, nothing more.

Will read the Skarda paper.  I am much more comfortable with this definition of post-philosophical. 

>Quite a strong, certain statement. :)

You are right, i'm being overly declarative in all this.  

 

[Scott Roberts]

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 2:21:31 AM UTC-10, Mark Robert wrote:

- it is real

In what sense would you say that formlessness is real?

In the sense that it is necessary to account for our experience. Formlessness must be real for there to be awareness of form. (Or so I argue -- see my Tetralemmic Polarity essay.) 

[Mark Robert]

Can any philosophical position reach a point where no one can make a coherent, defensible argument against it?  

Yes it can. It achieves this precisely by making no positive assertions regarding existents. Therefore there is nothing to refute. Instead, it refutes all assertions regarding existents. In doing so, philosophical assertions are humbled, and finally the mind of the asserting philosopher gets a much-needed rest. In that rest and relaxation of post-philosophy, the true nature can be seen: true because unfabricated, not made up, not asserted. (Google Madhyamaka and you will find many books, etc.)

As I said somewhere though, ego habit is strong and it's possible to have too much of a good thing. Sometimes it's better to be the one whose position is defeated -- so you can rest -- than the one who keeps refuting, keeps arguing forever and ever. The aggression of Madhyamaka can be an impediment to realization. 

I would never presume to question absolute truths someone has arrived at for themselves.  I realize this distinction could well be a loose thread waiting to be pulled on.  : )

Yes, it doesn't really make sense to talk about absolute truths. Plural implies forms and as soon as you have distinction, you have assertion of that distinction. You have point of view, you have subjectivity, you have error, you have the whole ball of wax. Absolute truth, whatever it is, clearly has to be totally beyond cultural or personal or biological or mental construction, totally beyond any form whatsover, including the form or idea of nothingness or emptiness or awareness or mind, etc. It has to be the real thing which is not in any way conventionally real. It even has to be beyond the conventional distinction of absolute and relative. 

Being beyond locus or point of view, absolute truth as the unconstructed, unfabricated, birthless, deathless, stainless purity of unqualified Reality Itself, can never be realized or seen or experienced by a person or individual or locus of consciousness. From the corner of the eye of mind it can be logically inferred (for example as the vacuity within which all forms exist) but it needs to be understood that that is a mental image of a vacuity, rather than the actual emptiness of inherent existence.

It's sometimes said that it is experienced as itself, by itself, which is why it can seem like a personal affront: it doesn't care, and "I" am not involved. At the same time, it is so deeply personal as the most intimate expression of oneself, like following the wormhole of identity out the other side into a nonbeing that is the only possible basis, obviously, for being. And there is so much caring in the human being.

So I pulled on the thread a little :)

[Scott Roberts]

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 9:29:46 AM UTC-10, Mark Robert wrote:

Can any philosophical position reach a point where no one can make a coherent, defensible argument against it?  

Yes it can. It achieves this precisely by making no positive assertions regarding existents. Therefore there is nothing to refute. Instead, it refutes all assertions regarding existents. In doing so, philosophical assertions are humbled, and finally the mind of the asserting philosopher gets a much-needed rest. In that rest and relaxation of post-philosophy, the true nature can be seen: true because unfabricated, not made up, not asserted. (Google Madhyamaka and you will find many books, etc.)

I assert that there is awareness of form. I also assert that there is thinking. How do you refute these without thinking or being aware of form? 

 

Yes, it doesn't really make sense to talk about absolute truths. Plural implies forms and as soon as you have distinction, you have assertion of that distinction. You have point of view, you have subjectivity, you have error, you have the whole ball of wax. Absolute truth, whatever it is, clearly has to be totally beyond cultural or personal or biological or mental construction, totally beyond any form whatsover, including the form or idea of nothingness or emptiness or awareness or mind, etc. It has to be the real thing which is not in any way conventionally real. It even has to be beyond the conventional distinction of absolute and relative. 

I assert that there is an absolute distinction ('absolute' in the sense of "eternally in play")  between distinctions and distinctionlessness (less clumsily said: between form and formlessness). Further, this is not beyond "mental construction" but is mental construction. That is, the real is mental construction, which is carried out by making distinctions. (Obviously, by minds or Mind much more powerful than ours.)

 

Being beyond locus or point of view, absolute truth as the unconstructed, unfabricated, birthless, deathless, stainless purity of unqualified Reality Itself, can never be realized or seen or experienced by a person or individual or locus of consciousness. From the corner of the eye of mind it can be logically inferred (for example as the vacuity within which all forms exist) but it needs to be understood that that is a mental image of a vacuity, rather than the actual emptiness of inherent existence.

Opposed to this, I assert that absolute truth is the tetralemmic polarity of the unconstructed, ...unqualified, and the constructed,...,qualified. It remains the case, though, that the unconstructed, etc. can only be logically inferred, short of being Known by Identity, but if one has that Knowledge, one doesn't need metaphysics.

 

My point in all this is that I think metaphysics can do better than just saying "neti, neti".

[Mark Robert]

Opposed to this, I assert that absolute truth is the tetralemmic polarity of the unconstructed, ...unqualified, and the constructed,...,qualified. It remains the case, though, that the unconstructed, etc. can only be logically inferred, short of being Known by Identity, but if one has that Knowledge, one doesn't need metaphysics.
 
My point in all this is that I think metaphysics can do better than just saying "neti, neti".

Scott, I think for our discussion to go further, we would have to carefully define agreed-upon meanings for "real" and "absolute." (but not this week, I'm too busy now) From my reading, your definitions are loose and idiosyncratic, also as shown in your tetralemmic polarity paper. It's not clear to me that you have studied how the tetralemma was actually used within Indian philosophy. I'm not saying that you haven't, but you are using it in an unusual way that I don't think works. But to even have that discussion, we would have to build up a base of mutual understanding that we do not yet have. If by chance you would like to understand some of the metaphysics surrounding the use of the tetralemma within Buddhist practice (which would help to see where I'm coming from), see the excellent introduction to a set of teachings by Chandrakirti here, written by my teacher, Lama Tashi Namgyal.

Regarding the "neti neti" practice, while it shares a surface similarity with Madhyamaka in that it has a purpose in negating conceptual overlay, the funny thing is that it was especially used in the tradition of Shankara, which metaphysics was very much a target of the Prasangikas. So to equate the two is ironic. This also shows why context (the relative) is so important in any discussion of "the absolute." From my reading, you lean in the direction of Shankara when you write about an "absolute distinction between form and formlessness," Where is such a distinction to be found? Distinctions are ever relative, including the one I just made. In this confusion, imho, you are in very good company, including the company of the enlightened nerds in the film of which you could stand only five minutes. 

For me your most interesting assertion is regarding Gnosis. I also used to believe that if one has Gnosis, Knowledge through Identity, that one no longer, as you say, needs metaphysics. But as the enlightened nerds ably show, that is exactly wrong. All they have is "just this." That is not a mature metaphysics. Are you familiar with the Wilber-Combs matrix? See here for a funny sweet talk by Combs that includes a child's version of it.(!) According to this understanding, one can have an honest-to-God genuine realization of non-duality but still have totally screwed up metaphysics. If you are at the mythic stage of cognitive development, then your understanding will reflect that. Rational also. And so on.  

Finally, of all your assertions, the one that sticks out most is this one: "the real is mental construction, which is carried out by making distinctions. (Obviously, by minds or Mind much more powerful than ours.)" That is absurd, according to conventional understanding. Conventionally, we define the unreal as mental construction. That gives a clue as to the problems there. Further, even within the context of an Idealist forum, it is merely a statement of idealism: that all phenomena is mental construction. But you go further, you want to call that "real." As Kant argued, existence is not a predicate. In other words, by calling mental construction real you lose the distinction "real" because then everything is real, as mental construction. Even more interesting is your "obvious" parenthetical statement about minds more powerful than ours, evoking God(s). I can refute that easily: it is not obvious. Again, this is why I would go back to your problematic definitions of "real" and "absolute." There are much better ones out there imho, even more so because they were not invented by me.

[Dana Lomas]

According to the KW stage-specific model, it seems unlikely that there'll be any consensus about definition of terms, unless it is first agreed that the 'definers' are referring to and from the same stage. In any case, I've long ago accepted what has been said about the Tao that can be told not being the so-called Eternal Tao. What this exercise is all about is coming up with a valid (at least under the circumstances) ontological context for the Tao that can be told, so that we're not left with the inadequate choices of materialism, baggage-burdened religious models, or 'just this.' I remain optimistic, but it very much seems to remain a work in progress. :)

[Scott Roberts]

Mark,

My loose use of words like 'absolute' and 'real' comes from not wanting to make posts too long. But I recognize the need to tighten up on usage if I want to clarify my POV. I took a look at the link you gave, and I can agree with this definition of 'absolute':

 “Absolute Truth or Absolute Reality means the end

point of one’s analysis, in other words, the most basic or fundamental

element of existence or experience."

As to whether my usage of the tetralemma differs from that of Chandrakirti, perhaps. As far as I can see, his purpose was to demonstrate that all things lack inherent existence, while I wish to go beyond that, that is, to work out a metaphysical system in which that is understood, and to go on from there. As I see it, absolute idealism (that is, not subjective idealism) implies the lack of inherent existence in all things. All things are appearances, ideas, etc., and in these posts I am assuming that this implication is accepted. One thing I object to, though, is adding the word 'mere' to this. For me, a form is the awareness, or appearance, of a form. In any case, I could be convinced that my usage "tetralemmic polarity" should be reconsidered, but at present I do not know of a better way to put it.

And I object to calling appearances 'unreal'. As to how I use the word 'real', well, any ontological thesis is a definition of the word 'real', so the definition comes out in the thesis, and can't be presupposed. Nevertheless, I can say that what I start with is some sort of definition like "X is real if X ought to be taken into consideration when making a decision." So oncoming buses are real, horses are real, unicorns are not real, things existing outside of any and all experience are not real, God -- suitably defined -- is real (or so I would argue), hallucinations are, themselves, real, though the contents are not real, the physical world is real.

Anyway, what I want to make clear is that I am working on metaphysics as someone raised in the Western philosophical tradition understands the term, and not soteriology, at least not directly (the metaphysics does have soteriological and ethical implications, but they come later). Although I am more or less aware of the mystical tradition, I try not to base anything on it, working instead from ordinary experience, to develop a natural theology. I start with the irrefutable assertions that there is awareness of form, and thinking, and from there have worked to "the end point of my analysis", which I describe as tetralemmic polarity. Which is to say that the "end point" is not the unconditioned, nor the conditioned, nor both considered separately, nor neither in the sense of something beyond both. Yet the end point is positive, in that we can infer it in our thinking and in our awareness of form, that is, in ordinary experience.

By the way, in making the "obvious" remark on mental constructions by "minds or Mind" I was again assuming idealism, and all I meant to say was that my ego-bound ordinary consciousness obviously did not create, say, the Earth, and so, given idealism, there must be more powerful minds than my own.

[Dana Lomas]

 “Absolute Truth or Absolute Reality means the end

point of one’s analysis, in other words, the most basic or fundamental

element of existence or experience."

Well then, it's just another name for the ontological primitive, for which every mystical or spiritual tradition then gives a preferred name. But by whatever name, there must be the understanding that there can be no further reduction of that, and it can't be opposed to some conceivable opposite of that, for then we have another imagined duality that must be reduced. I'm still not quite sure what Buddhism's name for that is. Surely we all agree here that it is not referring to some substrate-like notions, such as the 'screen' of Reality, except insofar as such metaphors might make a useful teaching tool. However, preferred traditions and models aside, perhaps it's time we decide on a consensus name, so at least there is no more disagreement about that. Seems not too much to expect.

[Scott Roberts]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 10:33:05 PM UTC-10, Dana Lomas wrote:

However, preferred traditions and models aside, perhaps it's time we decide on a consensus name, so at least there is no more disagreement about that. Seems not too much to expect.

Since it is probably a bad idea for me to hold my breath until a consensus forms around "the triunity of formlessness, form, and self-awareness" or "mumorphism" :), let's see what else is on offer.

From the religions we have

Brahman, Tao, God, and the closest I've seen from Buddhism might be Buddha-Nature. Satchitananda is also available, and we can fight over the alternate spelling Sachchitananda. I think we can ignore the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

From general idealism we have:

Mind, Consciousness, Awareness, Experience. Capitalized, of course, ignoring that they then won't translate into languages without lower- and upper- case letters. Some oldies but goldies are the Idea of the Good, Logos, and the Unmoved Mover, though as I said recently I would prefer Unmoved Motion.

From Hegel there is Absolute Idea, but that leaves out the thinking of the Idea. From Nishida we have 'zettai mu', which translates as Absolute Nothingness, but that raises the problem of distinguishing it from "absolutely nothing".

I might be in favor of 'God', and then join in the wars of how best to conceive of God. However, then one gets strained syntax to avoid using the male pronoun.

There is, of course, the option of just saying "the Absolute", but then one has to assume that the reader understands that it is a mental Absolute, and not a material Absolute, and then we're back in the struggle with the word 'mental'.

[Dana Lomas]

No, breath holding is seldom a good idea, except where water or poisonous gas may be involved. I was thinking mostly of an OP in terms of idealism. The ones that come with anthropomorphic, or patriarchal, or cultural, or moralistic baggage, seem problematic -- and probably why Buddhism, with its emphasis on non-attachment, avoids the naming part, and notions of the Self/self. We can probably rule out any consensus around neologisms, even though, of course, all words begin as new words. The issue with any notion of Absolute, is reconciling it with the relative, without slipping back into dualism. The nihilistic connotations of 'nothingness' also seems problematic. And lest we forget All That Is. Or we could just go with the OP. However, like you, I'm inclined to go with referring to awareness of some sort, which expresses/experiences as inextricable polar aspects, and is also, in essence, BK's OP as TWE.  But for whatever reason, this seems a hard sell for all concerned. I do wonder what this may have to do our relative lack of submersion in any given traditional approach. 

[Mark Robert]

Scott and Dana, I really like where this conversation is heading, but I just don't have time at the moment to respond as I'd like to the comments made. Just a couple of quick points though: one is that the tension between assertion and negation when we get into subtle areas is very much part of Buddhist discourse and training. The ontological primitive, in Sanskrit, is Shunyata, but translated in English as Emptiness, can bring nihilistic connotations. Stated positively, as you said Scott it is Buddhanature (on the subjective side) or Dharmadhatu (on the objective side), or Dharmakaya, as one the three (or 4) kayas (bodies) of a Buddha, which include both the formless and form (gross and subtle) kayas, and their union in experience as the Svabhavikakaya.

There is a fascinating centuries-old dialogue between the negative and positive mode of discourse to be found within Tibetan intellectual history, in which the "self-empty" camp, the Rangtongpas, are in eternal battle with the "other-empty" camp, the Shentongpas, about how to talk about all this. And when I say battle, I mean that it got down to knives and accusations of heresy. See page 5 in Shenpen Hookham's brilliant The Buddha Within for a poem by the great Buddha from Dolpo, where he laments the misunderstanding of those who stop at negation, and prays for their well-being.

One thing more: according to KW it's even more complicated than the fact of having different epistemologies based on our stage level of development; in addition to the structure-stage of our consciousness dictating what we define as true and real, there is also the fact of our parallel state stage of development (gross, subtle, causal, and non-dual), all of which disclose a different realm of experience or ontology. So each one of us, in addition to seeing things differently, also sees different things. Not only from within different states, for example when we are dreaming versus when we are awake, but we are each tuned to different "frequencies" for lack of better word at the moment, of possible experiences right at this moment. 

So, in addition to there being no outer physical world that we share, this suggests that there is no greater mental world that we share, no truly existing MAL (apparently existing, yes). We literally do experience our own phenomena as ourselves, and the mystery of communication or communion between different loci is perhaps best explained as residing along a continuum between communion, union, and identity, with it becoming less and less mysterious as one moves from one side of that spectrum to the other. In that way, the fact of having to explain the apparent existence of multitudinous beings who somehow must find a way to communicate with each other through the semipermeable membranes of their own projections, falls away. But still, all this needs to be explained parsimoniously, which is what we're all trying to do. More later!

[Ben Iscatus]

The Ocean of Life

The Source of all streams,

The Dreamer of dreams,

The Ender of strife.

[Mark Robert]

Nice!

[Dana Lomas]

Yeah, interesting poetic prayer from The Buddha Within ... a whole lotta pity going on there :)  After that's out of the way though, the last four succinct stanzas sum it up. I especially like the last one of all: "The intended meaning of the whole of the Buddha's teaching on openness is the Open Place"  And go figure, its initials are OP.  :)

[Scott Roberts]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:50:19 AM UTC-10, Dana Lomas wrote:

Yeah, interesting poetic prayer from The Buddha Within ... a whole lotta pity going on there :)  After that's out of the way though, the last four succinct stanzas sum it up. I especially like the last one of all: "The intended meaning of the whole of the Buddha's teaching on openness is the Open Place"  And go figure, its initials are OP.  :)

You might be interested to know that Nishida's philosophy is based on what he calls the Logic of Place, and the name of his OP is more fully "the place of Absolute Nothingness". It's an interesting logic, where the place of whatever is always, to the whatever, nothingness. He starts with exploring the "place of being", or objective reality, works out that its place is self-consciousness. The place of self-consciousness (that is thoughts, feelings, acts of will) he calls "relative nothingness". Relative nothingness, in turn, where one finds the True, the Beautiful, and the Good -- directing the thoughts, feelings, and will of self-consciousness --  has its place in absolute nothingness.

By the way, apologies for leaving out "emptifullness". 

[RHC]

Mark very interesting comments thank.  

[Dana Lomas]

Nothingness in its proper place I can live with :)

[Mark Robert]

Dana, I agree those last lines by Dolpopa are gorgeous, with quite a lead up. Scott, thanks so much for pointing out Nishida. I encountered Japanese philosophy sometime in college but clearly wasn't ready for it, and once I got into Buddhist philosophy I never looked back (until recently) :) Anyway first google glance is very promising.
...............
The field – basho – is “literally nothing, it is not a being at all,” since as a universal, “the field has absolutely none of the characteristics applying to the parts … It is the place, given as an intuition, as a whole, a gestalt, which knowing, saying, analysing, and defining try to specify. They all distort the original unity, take it apart, dissect it, re-structure it for specific purposes. So long as such partial and ripped-out-of-context specification is seen as having its place in its field, no damage is done, and indeed something is actually to be gained … But such advantage is epistemologically sound if, and only if, one returns to the source intuition again and again to re-structure it anew.” (Robert E Carter, The Nothingness Beyond God p 32)

[Dana Lomas]

Well, Nishida looks somewhat intriguing, but at the same time dauntingly intellectualized. I'm more mystic than logician, so its appeal is limited. The basho I'm more likely to be interested in is the poet Matsuo Basho :)

[Mark Robert]

Dana, I think your earlier comment about our relative lack of submersion -- together -- in any given traditional approach, is what makes dialogue here such a challenge, but also fruitful in helping us see our biases and learn to have better conversations with others.

Nishida has put me in mind that the essential teaching that you often return to, that "the Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao," might be formalized as a kind of OP. It's in agreement with the metaphysics of "just this", but it goes further (I would say, is more helpful to more people) in that it does implicitly admit that the Tao can be "told" as in fact it just was (e.g., as a way or path or other relative understanding).

Absolute: The Tao cannot be told. (Nishida's Absolute nothingness)
Relative: The Tao is. (Nishida' relative nothingness)

?

This would begin to get at a definition of both Absolute and real, where the Absolute turns out to be a pointer towards the conceptually unknowable and the real turns out to be the relative truth. Which is still a truth, as opposed to a falsehood.

[Dana Lomas]

Yes, I'm not a big in believer a definitive telling of this. The Tao that can be told, may forever remain a moving target. At best it can be an axiom that can be a way or path of life -- of which the current prevailing models are generally not serving us well. So it seems relatively crucial that we find some consensus paradigm to supplant them. However, as KW's model suggests, it's a challenge to speak to each stage-specific POV and keep the message coherent and relatable. Indeed, it may not be feasible at all. In any case, I'm not sure that referring to Absolute nothingness is going to accomplish that, outside of quite erudite forums such as this. 

I still feel that somehow Awareness needs to be factored into the OP, as it is the one fundamental axiom that can't be refuted -- we are all aware. This is the appeal of BK's model, in that he posits TWE as the OP, and then builds from there an alter-mode explanation for the how and why of this relative relational experience. It may well have to be an Aware Nothingness, if we are to avoid just another version of the hard problem, of which an absolute and relative aspect are like an integral polarity, revealing itself as That which expresses/experiences/explores ... well ... just this. 

[Mark Robert]

the current prevailing models are generally not serving us well. So it seems relatively crucial that we find some consensus paradigm

Completely agree; and what any one of us, certainly including me, thinks might be a pristine expression, might not be the best one for the culture right now

 I'm not sure that referring to Absolute nothingness is going to accomplish that

I think you're probably right here. "Absolute nothingness" is an experience that can be had, but it is not logical and can only be misunderstood by the conceptual mind, since it cannot be understood by the conceptual mind

I still feel that somehow Awareness needs to be factored into the OP, as it is the one fundamental axiom that can't be refuted -- we are all aware

This is a place where people cut hairs in description, imho. I would say that emptiness is ontologically prior to awareness. That might seem nonsensical, because one can ask, then who or what is aware of that emptiness? However, when realized, it can be seen that no who or what is aware of it, rather it is only self-existing, and not even self-aware or self-reflecting. (I say can, leaving open other possibilities...) ("and what awareness saw that?" yeah I know....) 

Why bother distinguishing emptiness from awareness? Perhaps it's just an upaya or skillful means. There seems to be more freedom in not being bound by "awareness." Another is that most people have the experience of awareness coming and going. The OP is the actual absolute or "permanent," as it were. It is truly self-existing, permanent, and independent, like nothing else. Since it is only itself, there is actually no problem requiring it to be validated by being seen by an observer, or in needing to combine our manifest awareness with it in some way, or even to make it the basis for the awareness of objects. But even though it does not need to be, it yet is the basis for awareness, and in a sense, is indistinguishable from awareness, as the ground of it, in a human being. And in "funnelling" through the human being, it is also the basis of wisdom and compassion etc. Here I'm just writing, trying to articulate what others might describe differently. E.g., there is the Buddhist term "primordial awareness" that I like as getting to the essence of awareness, without using the E word.

Anyway, as I take part in the discussions here, I am seeing more and more the distinction that you pointed out someplace else, that there are at least two modes of discourse going on. One is a kind of expressing/pointing out of absolute reality, as for example Rupert Spiro does in helping people along the path of spiritual discovery/realization; and another is just the establishment of a coherent metaphysics that a group of people can basically agree upon, so that the language can be clarified and most helpful arguments developed so that there is an offering for the public at large. Both valuable, and I should probably pay more attention to what I'm trying to do when!

[Dana Lomas]

Well, it now seems an offering for the public at large may be way too optimistic. One may have to settle for a consensus expression of idealism, amongst those inclined to investigate idealism as a viable alternative. For if KW's stage-specific model holds true, then that is likely to rule out the purview of much of the public at large.

In any case, I can see how Awareness alone may be too non-specific, even allowing for the uppercase 'A'.  It may have to be prefaced by 'primordial', or 'non-dual', or 'non-partial' to indicate that it is awareness without a second (now realizing that 'without a second' makes for an nice double-entendre), in much the same way that Taoism refers to the eternal Tao, as opposed to the Tao that can be told. Of course it also teaches that "the name that can be named is not the eternal name." In which case, what is most crucial is knowing that that which the name refers to is essentially nameless. In that sense, I can see how emptiness is also apropos, in that it implies being even empty of names. But still somehow it does not seem to be empty of Awareness without a second ... however, I could just be fumbling in the dazzling dark :)

[Mark Robert]

awareness without a second (now realizing that 'without a second' makes for an nice double-entendre), 

love that double-entendre, never occured to me before!

 ... however, I could just be fumbling in the dazzling dark :)

I think this is our condition. Thrangu Rinpoche once said that the clarity of emptiness was a little too bright. It's as if it bedazzles itself and swooning, while reaching for the night table to steady itself, invents a Self. Which, if you're into Perfection, then that seems like some kind of problem. Whereas, if you don't mind there being the manifest universe, then it's okay. I personally don't mind :)

[Dana Lomas]

Can't say I mind it either, however, no-one imagining a someone presents its challenges, and surely remains the ontological mystery ... this apparent subject-specific relational experience.

Imagine one is imagining

A place of nothing happening

And yet ever-now beginning 

This mystery of the dancing

And is the silence singing

Or the stillness spinning

Is the empty hall now filling

Without a dancer willing?

[Mark Voss]

Only no-one could imagine a someone

That is truly imaginary

If that someone were ever real

Then no-one would be real as well

But how could it be, being no-one, and nothing whatsoever?

Ever now beginning,

This mystery of the dancing

The silence never sings, being quiet past the depths

The stillness never spins, for what is there to move?

The empty hall never fills

The imagined dancer never wills

But oh, it seems so, it seems so!

And that is as real as real will ever be

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/mYyhvD3jA70/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/376e92bb-c4ea-412d-a45e-c345b3949bcc%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dana Lomas]

Jazzy improvisational riff ... this may perchance, oh so gradually, even inevitably, morph into Bernardo Kastrup's Metaphysical Poetics  :))

[Mark Voss]

Won't that be great? :))

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/mYyhvD3jA70/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/7938b606-7fb5-4224-95a7-7875d6196614%40googlegroups.com.