but that it's strongly associated with samadhi, states of trance and metabolic suspension which enables yogis to maintain stillness of extended periods of time. — Wayfarer

Are you suggesting (I'm not taking issue) that The explanation for samadhi as expressed in Vedanta etc, is the physiological thus inducing, say, an "illusion" of unity? Or just that this extremely rare experience of unity is organic based (as in metabolic suspension etc)?

It may be that those with a more mystical leaning find it makes sense than those with a more theoretical approach. — Jack Cummins

If I may hazard a guess, the so called East (and the farther east you get the more this applied) "did" there philosophy, rather than keeping it in their "heads". While the Brahmins and rest of India created a wealth of theoretical work, they also had Jnana Yoga and the other Yogas. Then by the time Buddhism reaches China, it's stripped of most of the theoretical--iconaclastically--
and the focus is on Zazen, tge exercise of sitting.

Maybe there is something in that which the West, having ignored (in Philosophy, to date), has not "seen." I.e., for instance (and now I'm being almost recklessly hypothetical) that the human organism can by a physical exercise of the body sitting in meditation, come to "see" with its organic senses, released very briefly from Mind's constructions, that all in Nature (what we call the Universe) is One. A thing that cannot be arrived at in theoretical reflection where difference, logic, cause, effect, are necessary mechanisms. How can one come to know all is one? One must only be that reality. Perhaps, though very vaguely, meditation has been a gift to the Eastern thinkers.

Great question. I am not fully confident in the precise definition of 'Non-duality'. But if it is like monism in regard to ultimate reality being One, isn't difference required to have "theism vs atheism" to begin with?

In other words, in non-duality, as Im reading it, there is ultimately neither atheism nor theism, all of reality is One (if non-dualism is like monism).

In that sense, maybe it bridges the gap by "telling" both theism, and atheism (and everything in between) that they're ultimately all wrong. Ultimately, it (metaphysically, literally and poetically) makes no difference.

Well, not assigned, but appearing historically and producing signification. — Constance

Yes

I would argue that it is the assumption of inside/outside talk that makes the very barrier in question a problem. — Constance

Quite possibly, I'm digging up the dirt to clear the way but am jumping right into the very hole I'm digging. A thing always cognizant of, and yet being pushed back to make room for hypothesizing.

But I know, you're saying the "dirt" is part and parcel of the "way." That it neither can, nor need be cleared.

But if that leaves the Subject in tact...

Much to consider. A very interesting thread which you are managing so well. Thanks

religion consists in 'metaphysics expressed through symbolic myths' (e.g. "Platonism of the masses" according to Nietzsche).. — 180 Proof

Again, generally I agree with you.

But I'm focused on an essence of religion which is a doing of metaphysics, beyond discourse. To do so with a goal in mind. It might be you persuade me that it is not possible to achieve that goal; that the goal for something like Husserl's transcendental phenomenology is not possible. But I don't think it's fair to insist religion in totality (let alone at its essence) is flawed metaphysics just because (and I agree) tge vast majority of its practice has mutated into flawed metaphysics.

origins of religion, would that be relevant here? — I like sushi

This overall thread? Not for me to say, I don't object; but I see that as an anthropological pursuit; one shared by at least one excellent representative of same on this thread.

As for our very specific exchange, for what it may be worth, I'll try once more and hopefully briefly. Though, to explain it well, would require pages; and I cannot refer you to a source, the information I'm providing comes from hundreds of sources, if not countless.

By "essence" of religion, what structures my thinking has led me to this: religion is a mechanism by which we might, at least, "recognize" that the ego is secondary; at best, turn away from ego, if only for a glimpse of the being emancipated from a world of constructions; the ego/Subject/I among such constructions.

As an aside which will not be explained for the sake of space here, Husserl went far but at the end remained as confused as the rest of his Western Age and identified the "goal" of his exercise as the (transcendental) Subject. It is not. His method seems sound, but the goal is no different than that of this essence of religion: a glimpse into our (you won't like this) "true consciousness," reduced from all constructions.

Though personally, I follow neither the methodology of Transcendental Phenomenology (which was very recently patiently (re)introduced to me by none other than the OP) nor any institutionalized method. The point nonetheless applies to me. I can benefit from the mechanism of religion applied in accordance with its essence, to discover my true nature(s). One, not real, ultimately immaterial in all senses of the word, a fleeting empty system of images to which my true consciousness, the only real nature, has been "attached." And that attachment is our condition and tge condition of our unique suffering. Religion frees us from the attachment, though we remain.

How do I know religion does this? Where in religion is this essence found? Briefly three examples but one could provide pages, and I'm simplifying and paraphrasing
Jesus--love god with all your might love your neighbor as yourself; that sums up the scriptures--read abandon ego
Vedanta--Moksa is freedom from ego
Zazen--a glimpse into true nature/no mind

Suffering from attachment N and S wrong

Sorry, no. I agree with you. It is a useful pacifier.

I'm just saying religion at essence is more

Without at least some spirituality that manages to transcend the nihilism of rationality, the rationalist cannot compete in the cutthroat environment of biological life — Tarskian

Good enough. But why is the most we can credit religion with is its opioid effect; to sedate us in the face of our inevitable suffering.

In its essence, like philosophy, religion is metaphysics first. Its goal is to answer the same big questions. I do not think any one serious about truth, is being "reasonable" by wilfully blinding themselves to the potential light which this essence may shed, in spite of the layers and layers of BS it may be burried under.

And anyway, as for pacifier, the same can be said about philosophical attempts to alleviate human suffering, from will to power, to communism, to transcendental subjectivity, to living in good faith. None of these approaches are apodictic. Not unlike mystical hypotheses, they're genuine attempts at addressing our condition.

Apologies. You're right.

Do you reject religion and mysticism because they do not adhere strictly to reason?

If not that, then why do you reject religious or mystical "contributions" about consciousness outright (which is what you seem to be saying about the former, while relegating the latter to a pacifier, which I read as a useful fiction)?

If so, then why do you think these (religion/mysticism) cannot be sources about consciousness? What is it about reason (assuming that is where you place your trust) that makes it the only path to understanding consciousness?

What if the best way to "access" consciousness is not the understanding but, like hunger and arousal, by "feeling-doing-being"? What if mysticism--admittedly, some hypothetical particular form--provided the methodology for such access? Would you deny it because it takes a path other than reason?

While I'm not denying the usefulness of reason, is it not possible that on some matters, reason can only go so far before it reaches a bridge which reason cannot cross?ĺ guess, I was suggesting--poorly--that there might be "truths" notwithstanding all of the self serving myth, ritual and dogma. It would be an absurd irony if our strict adherence to reason, rather like a dogma, forever barred us from making headway on the very topic which continues to baffle us.

Since we seem to have gone very far with reason--across the universe and down to subparticles--why is it we cannot understand consciousness? Is it possible that the latter requires some alternative methods of pursuit?

When you or Joshs talk about guilt in this way it is much the same as claiming that a tool such as a knife is inherently evil, and imputing bad motives to everyone who uses knives. — Leontiskos

Guilt serves a function. Sometimes it triggers functionally, sometimes it misfires.
But ultimately, it is, like a knife. And in that context, you are correct, it has no inherent value beyond function.

This, I submit, applies not just to all tools of morality-ethics, but to all words, thoughts, ideas. They have neither inherent value, nor is there necessarily inherent value in what they purport to represent; nor, and especiallythis, do they import value upon their users.

There is only used functionally, thus settled upon (believed) or dysfunctionally, thus modified or abandoned.

And all of these, temporarily, cyclically, perpetually, and autonomously (as in not under the direction of any central agent including any so called Subject).

Hence there is no (absolute) right or wrong in our concepts etc., and the OP is correct, a body should follow its "heart." [Albeit, alas, that final imperative, too, is empty and fleeting].

There are many personal motivations which from the heart that are "good" but may conflict with morality, such as loyalty and love, which may lead to actions that "betray the group" — Judaka

Yes, but, you rightly pointed out that morality is the second quote--coercive rules. How I read the OP is they're wittingly moving away from that to follow their heart; implicitly, to make room for "good" which may not be considered conventionally moral.

I am not keen on religious doctrines posing as a philosophy of consciousness, nor am I inclined to side with mysticism as anything other than a pacifier of sorts — I like sushi

While I understand one must always discriminate, may I ask, what has locked you in so seemingly tight such that you have fettered your discretion to pursue truth openly. Is your strict adherence to reason not prescribed by the very thing adhered to?ɓ

just like "gbischitz": nothing meaningful being said and entirely out of meaningful contexts — Constance

Yah, but gbischitz has now been assigned "signifier of nonsense."

But really. Signifier only of the inherent meaninglessness of all signifiers until meaning has been assigned.

Being too shares that origin. Inherently meaningless. That I know is ultimately what you are saying. It is implied that in uttering being, I have already accepted that my utterance is only as good as how far I can throw it; and, I can't ever throw it outside of Mind's reaches.

And yet, I use the tool to point at the moon, knowing it's not the moon, but the finger.

Have you read Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu? — T Clark

Ages ago. But the essence lingers. Like shit on a stick. :joke:

We are social animals. We like each other... usually. We want to be around each other. We want to protect and take care of those we are close with - our family, friends, community. — T Clark

I completely agree. I think our Natures have been slandered by wrongful claims that it is tge seat of our (implicitly, uncontrollable) appetites.

What does one surrender the will to but another will? — Joshs

I would say (especially since the OP brings up Taoism) that this "will" so-called, is just that, a thing so called.

But more to your point, what if you are surrendering the will--the incessant desires to make and believe unified in the made and believed subject, "I"--to no will, but rather to the organic aware-ing of the organic body in nature?

The "heart" as the OP suggests. Since we are forced to construct and project, I'll put such a morality into brief and simplistic words (but by doing so, I have already misrepresented). When hungry I eat, enough to be satisfied. When tired, I rest. When with my group (for the now global village, everyone) I bond and cooperate; I mate and guide young ones. All of these, always insofar as to satisfy the organic needs of my body and my group (today, humanity in totality), neither more nor less.

Applied to our inescapable world of make and believe, how does such a surrendering of the will to nature apply as a morality? We cannot drop out. History has made us something other than nature, and we cannot avoid it. But at least in the face of moral questions, act in accordance with our nature. When does it serve the body to rape or molest, murder, be taken away by constructions of emotions like greed and jealousy?

Acting in accordance with the Tao, the Heart, or Heaven, for that matter, I think means acting in accordance with our often displaced nature. We need to surrender "I" and my will to my true nature.

Chuang Tzu — T Clark

I think what Emerson readily expresses, "Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this", Chuang Tzu was aware of. That all of the "things" ultimately constructing our morals, are just "things" arising from the evolution of difference. They are neither pre-existent nor absolute, but the contrary, constructed and projected to move our stories and project signifiers; things made-up and believed.

As for following your heart, if there's an iota of thought, let alone reasoning, harsh as it seems to say (for one, because it seems impossible to avoid), I think you are not following the Way that Chuang tzu presumably did. That Way would be to follow your organic feelings or drives (we, in the human world of make and believe only construct feelings and drives as being ravenous and aggressive; in nature, eons of evolutionhave ensured that they work appropriately).

As for the constructions and projections, I think Chuang would suggest, go along for the ride without any prejudice. Do that, and to the world, you might seem dimwitted and indifferent, even reckless in your lack of concern. But in your heart, you are always doing as your body naturally responds, so you are always doing right. While in the projected world, there is no right besides what has been constructed and projected from time to time.

Pull as far away from this as possible, and questions become one question, that of being qua being. — Constance

Yes. The only question in which the answer transcends Mind.

But to get here, this is the issue — Constance

Yes. But you are here. You don't know it. Not for want of brilliant effort, but because it transcends knowing. You are-ing it; that's where you'll find it.

see a tree and tree memories rush in to make "seeing a tree" seeing a tree — Constance

Yes. Everything is that. Even the self, where memories of "I" flood in to make seeing me, "seeing me."

excerpt from the Deduction interesting, — Constance

Thank you. I intend to read Husserl for the first time beyond Anthologies and intros to Heidegger. And reread critique and being and time. Agree?

Consider that time is one moment occurring after the next and in order for the mind to grasp a whole thought, these moments must be linked together or "synthesized" into a unity. — Constance

Yes. I think that's exactly what happens--in the process, Mind--a synthesis of successive presents into a constructed unity. Two of the mechanisms having evolved to make that now functional linear, narrative form happen are the Subject (/object duality ie difference) and Time. Yes, constructed. Hence becoming. Being may be in some space/time universe. But being just is-ing, the movement of that time, if any, has no meaning.

You might find Henry's — Constance

Right, and Henry. Which I assume is either not a Husserl phenomenologist or has radically modified it?

:up:

Sorry. No. I mean, the presumably necessary conscious observer need not be the deceased individual whose experience of death we are "assessing". It simply needs to be [a] conscious observer.

and might postdate him as well (say, after his death). — LuckyR

But not necessarily "him" in any sense of that word. Right?

Meditation and Husserl's epoche are, I argue, simply the same thing, only meditation is the reduction radically executed. — Constance

I agree; maybe you mean this, but my modification might be, meditation is an exercise of the body/epoche an exercise of the mind. H's epoche is arguably as close as one can get without turning away from tge intellect altogether.

it is questions all the way "around". — Constance

Yes, I'm totally with you on everything preceding. It is a "dream world," which happens to be a label constructed by tgat very dream world, and so on. That too, all the way down. No access that way, to ultimate truth. So what to do with it? Abandon? No. No need. It's not in all respects a dysfunctional thing, quite the contrary. What to do? Tend to it. Tend to the business knowing that knowing is incessant "asking".

This is simply to say that to "pursue" refers to a basic structure of consciousness itself. Being cannot be extracted from becoming — Constance

Sorry. Not careful/skilled. It's exactly the point I too think I have been expressing. Of course being cannot be pursued; pursue is the very meat of becoming.

What I mean to say is just that. To know Being is what philosophy ultimately desires. But being cannot be known. It can only be.

The same, unironically, can be said of any organic activity. They can be discussed, represented in ways which justify belief because they serve ancillary functions, but they cannot be known truly for what they are.


I'm saying that about the whole human being. Knowledge is necessarily not truth because our truth is in our organic functioning, period.

We love our imaginations, they have enhanced our prosperity, but they are still just our imaginations.

Even our excitement about metaphysics, phenomenology, existentialism, etc., is just imagination excited about imagination.

Being requires agency. "No one" there implies no experience at all. — Constance

I think Agent desires agency and has structured that into the laws of reasoning

It is in the same way the Subject has been so structured by grammar, and from that logic, and general reasoning to the extent of common sense. No one would wonder when this body presses these buttons, triggered by autonomous movement of images in this body's image-ing organ, to produce signifiers which surfaced because they "won" the incessant lightening speed dialectical process to project the fittest, that it isn't I doing it.

But I submit, it is not. Do a simple tracing of the Signifier and find what is the natural root of I. If it's anything but the silent, thoughtless, body, unconcerned about protecting its identity because it has none, concerned only with perpetuating life, then it's part of the story, following an evolved--because fit--rule of grammar. It's out of the latter, grammar, that the soul or spirit Narratives arose. We did not create tge Subject to signify the soul.

We are always already existentially schizoid, for the division between acceptedness and the question is implicit in the paradigm of normalcy, just as, as they say, one does not become the Buddha, but rather realizes that one IS this, and has always been this. — Constance

Well, yes. I totally agree with you here. For me, what we have always been is Nature, rudely put by science, matter. Mind despises that. It is not fit for mind's prosperity to project such a construct, so it's outright denied by the melancholy poets/mystics of philosophy, metaphysics. But the silly truth is, I am this biological being. Why not praise God for that? Because we don't want what we already are, Living. We want knowledge.

I don’t think the badness of something is necessarily dependent on a conscious mind being aware of it or — Captain Homicide

I agree.

And yet, I also think the "badness" of something is necessarily dependent on a conscious mind, to begin with. That is, though we might argue differently, it seems to already be "the experience" of conscious minds (collectively) that death is bad. So, is it only bad for conscious minds? And if so, once dead, does it cease to be bad for the deceased?

I'll admit, I may not have framed it well. Hopefully you can still find my point. Is being alive a necessary condition of death being bad?

Maybe within grammar (Nietzsche). — 180 Proof

I can get behind that.

The argument moves forward to show how this analysis moves inevitably toward metaphysics, — Constance

Insightful! Everything--even value, thus, ethics--is "hiding" in the metaphysical. But where is the latter "hiding"?

I know not actually hiding.

Because there is no life after death. It is purely an emotional desire people want to believe in. — Philosophim

Yes, like out of body experiences, spiritual enlightenment/"salvation", ghost and alien summoning/sightings; all of which have similarly consistent reports.

I loved this. Thank you. I am persuaded on the face of it. I can't help a couple of hesitations below. Your skill in logic/knowledge of the literature is far more advanced than mine, so maybe you can quickly dismiss them. And I'm not patronizing: I am truly impressed, but for...

First let me get what troubles me out of the way. I know and appreciate all of the complex layers of your cogent reasoning. But what stands out is the persuasiveness of the 5%=millions. Could millions be liars and or delusional and or themselves persuaded before its first conversion into data? Maybe, but assume not. Could you say (and I haven't looked into this) the same about those who claim to be born again, saved by the holy spirit (speaking in tongues, muscle spasms, new outlook etc) or those who claim Satori etc? Or visitations/alien viewings?

And you can't just say in those other e.g. consistencies arise from shared wishful thinking, without applying that to NDE testimonials.

What are these consistent reports? — Sam26

What if there might be other explanations for the consistencies besides that the claims are factual?

And it doesn't have to be deviant. Absorbed from human culture/History, are these shared "desires" regarding immortality/"an" afterlife, built into our collective Narratives to which we each assimilate by simply sharing in our locus in History. These manifest/are input when as children we express fear of the end of our own Narrative and a "teacher" (anyone) soothes them by inputting modifications to the Narrative: bright light, Jesus will call you, you'll be reunited with loved ones. And as for the tunnel: death is the otherside, the passage to etc.

Perhaps when one is close to death, or whatever such trauma is, these modifications flood the brain to trigger soothing feelings and to allay the pain of fear.

I don't think it possible to go back to business, — Constance

I must have confused you. "Business" is what we can't leave. Assuming the hypothetical staring at the abyss of being is even possible (if anything, it's a micro-glimpse, not a stare; an aware-ing, not a vision), it's not so much a returning, as a being smothered (once again).

something there originally that made their thinking compelling. — Constance

Not just originally, continously. We "pursue" being because we are being.

It's just that we "pursue" being; thereby, ignore that we are.

thin line between existential enlightenment and schizoid personality, — Constance

Though the latter may suffer from the misfortune of thinking they are two things. Both are "pathological," if by existential enlightenment, you are referring to the "pursuit" of being, thinking you will access being by such pursuit. It's the same for you and I, if either one of us denied the inherent contradiction/futility in a dialogue which intermittently (to wit: now) pointed out it's own futility.

While schizoid, as you say, or any other pathology recognized as such yields no functional benefits, not so for philosophy, though the latter seems futile. Philosophy, just as it is wilfully blind to the futility of its pursuits, is wilfully blind to its own actual role: to make sense/navigate the meaning making system. To order the Narratives in functional ways.

Philosophy gets us even to the essence of religion, that pursuit of and glimpse into the real truth outside of our Fictions.

One direction the OP takes us is toward the self, the ontology of the self. This is value-in-being. — Constance

I think that to be both a valid and worthwhile discussion, but through my lenses that takes place as two discussions. Ontology of the real self would exclude the ego/subject and therefore necessarily all signifiers, including but not limited to all words/thoughts/ideas. So called ontology of the so called Subject self, I, would yield much intriguing discussion, but I would recognize that we are analyzing the laws and mechanics of Mind.

I have argued that the notion of "no self" is not taken up very analytically in the East. — Constance

With all due humility and modesty, we are applying western analysis to the concept of no-self; not to the level of technical precision you might prefer, but still; despite phenomenology, mahayana is permeat.

Heidegger called gelassenheit, his meditative thinking that does not dogmatically seize hold of the world but yields to its possibilities of disclosure. — Constance

Hah, like an uncarved block, actionless action. That Heidegger! I have to imagine he knew more than he let on to, delivered it to his world in the most progressed language of the day. But that sounds like wisdom beyond logic.

It is our own finitude that is somehow lost, but lost IN that very finitude — Constance

Oh yah. That's perfect!

Ironically, I may be diverging from your position (I hope not) but the first finitude is what we exactly are, and always are, a finite, organic, mortal animal. We create out of that finitude, out of its imagination, a filter which without escape modifies how we perceive the first and real finitude.

It is only by disclosing transcendental intersubjectivity (even if only in its protomodal form) that constitutive regressive questions, which in every instance
proceed from the construct of acceptedness which is "the phenomenon of the world," achieve the rank that makes possible adequate understanding of the intersubjective world as the correlate of a transcendentally communicating constitution — Constance

I don't want to jump to conclusions (need to read Husserl now, and him, within context, understand especially their use of "intersubjectivity") but this seems very compelling (Mind/History).

Fink is no mystic. He is a very rigorous intellectual, but his thoughts attempt to find where in the already given world transcendental impositions have their ground — Constance

Ok, right. Reduction, as in, can I put it this way, "trace signifiers down to the root in "nature" for the first signifier"?

All of the "metaphysics" in the ancient Eastern texts are reducible to phenomenology, whether it is in Pali or Sanskrit. How can I say this so emphatically? — Constance

No disagreement here! I totally agree. Just as, and I say this in support of your point, not as a "tit for tat"

one has to read Derrida: — Constance

I totally agree again. I'm no Derrida scholar, but having actually enjoyed reading Grammatology (enjoyed as cf to Hegel or Lacan) same has built Foundations in my mind.

Consider that I am the scientist that is asking the simple question about a relation between two objects, a brain and a fence post. One has to isolate the condition and study it as it appears, and nothing else. — Constance

Ok. Got it. So hypothetically, though we don't know what other animals see, can the question be asked of other beings? Obviously my dog will see the ball in the air that he lead to catch. Same question applies dog brain here ball mid air, how is it the two meet?

Isn't that a question biology/physics can answer? Leaving the real question how is it object becomes "fence post" in a human mind after science explains the optic system.

Within my current thinking, there is no question the object in the distance exists outside of my Mind and is a real thing in a real world. Any confusion over that, I submit, betrays the absurdity that logic/reasoning, though functional, can sometimes create. It is

The answer to this question is that everything we experience is interpretatively received. The "good" as Wittgenstein called it does not wear its interpretation on its sleeve in the entanglements of familiar affairs.

Such is the problem of the "simplicity" of analysis-free living. — Constance

Worthwhile points. Ignorance is not bliss. Knowing that you cannot know does not mean stop pursuing knowledge.

I'm triggered by the urgency in your tone to read and think about these things, especially my current hypothetical place, in more of a Phenomenological context. See where it leads

some form of firmware as well as a soul. — Tarskian

Assuming you don't mean "firmware" literally; sticking to the metaphor, what is the soul? Does it not also code the hardware so that it operated effectively? Is the soul, software? The operating system for the software?

religion is built into our preprogrammed biological firmware, — Tarskian

Quran 30:30

I'm not a scholar, if I'm being presumptuous, accept my apology in advance.

Is it necessarily instilled in us biologically? Or is that a favored interpretation because your's is currently a physicalist view?

Could it have been instilled in each human soul; this innate desire for religion?

I looked at Quran 30:30 and your reference to Fitr, and neither is explicit; but your "nature", given Islamic dualism, I'd lean on religion is built-in desire of the soul. (?)

I don't think our biology thinks. No blanks to fill in because it's all blank.

But you likely disagree.

From a purely physical perspective. Ig must be something like you say. Religion manifests because it is fit to do so, in terms of our survival. For example, given the complexity of our brain, it counters a natural drive to die. Or even, it manifests a mysterious intuition we have materially connecting us to Nature as a Whole.

And here we are 1000 yrs later still believing our first intelligent mushroom induced fantasies. — Gingethinkerrr

Ok, all that might be so.

But what was that fantasy? What was pug into words and captivating? What was the result of human imagination?

Was it commandments? Was it a revelation of truth? Or, what is the essence?

As for our (that is yours, Constance, and mine) dialectic seeming never to arrive at a complete close [BTW, fine by me, and, I sense, by you] here is another beam of light on the point of difference.

I see in the Western philosophers I have read (comparatively, Eugene Fink! for me, not a lot) places where they have erred and others where they have not gone far enough. I'm sure others do. And I do, fully aware of my ignorance. But it happens. I can't help it. As I believe, Mind is an autonomous "thing." The difference between us contextually might be my ignorance. Either it leads me down a provably wrong path, or it permits me to wander away from authorial intention, or both.

So I see Husserl as erring when he correctly hypothesized that the transcendental experience belonged to what we've loosely agreed to call the "language." But then seemingly elevated that experience in what I find to be this shadowy hierarchy of reality inescapable since Kant, but showing up everywhere starting with Plato. Heidegger then repeats this error with his Dasein talk.

For me it is simpler. The elevated reality where humans are concerned, belongs to being [that organic being]. All else is talk.

Husserl's transcendental contradictorily involves the Ego. It is, by definition, not elevated.

I now both anticipate and welcome your reply as to why it is in fact an elevated experience notwithstanding the Subject's place front and center.

Addendum: the ego/I is only self evident (or apodictic) within the "rules of play" giving "life" to the ego, to begin with. It is (I am) not absolutely apodictic.

Addendum: but I recognize Husserl's Transcendental experience might be as far as we go re the essence of religion; and that just being, as I've been promoting, may actually be impossible for us. And, that this is akin to what you're saying. But I'm not certain.

To speak the word "construction' or "organism" is a construction. — Constance

Agreed. But that never stopped anyone (generally).

Every time inquiry goes as deep as it can go it encounters the language that produces the thought that is inquiry itself — Constance

Well put

Structures of thought itself are not analyzable once thought is reduced to logicality simpliciter and so the existentialist finds herself just staring unproductively at nothing in search for being. — Constance

So well said!

Or admits to having no access via [that uniquely human form of] existence, and so, gets on with the business of existence, knowing (unlike postivists) that it's just business.

he knew what he was doing and why. Most interesting test for the nature of agency, the "who" one is. — Constance

Do you think he maintained focus on knowing, right through to the end; or, did he silence the knowing, the pride that would follow, and the fear which the former arises to overcome. Did he make the ultimate sactifice; one stripped of all construction, loosened from the (safety) net of becoming; a sacrifice of being?

If the former, "one" remains "I" even in its noblest sacrifice.

If the latter, one truly is the body being and ceasing to be.

Cloud of Unknowing, — Constance

A fascinating Western construction for its time.

to reduce that life to the transcendental constituting experience of the world that was concealed by the apperception of the human — Constance

WTF? I'm intrigued. Thanks!

I stop, and bring the whole of productive thought to a halt, and turn thought into an indeterminacy by removing the certainty of the affirmation that goes unchallenged in the thinking. — Constance

You know, that might be a "crack" a glitch in the mechanics where aware-ing might find "it's [organic] self." I've never tried.
But you must agree. Instantly "thoughts" flood the aware-ing, even in its "effort" (which habitually employs thought).

But then, this indeterminacy, conceived as indeterminacy is a new thought construction itself, a — Constance

ah, yes, you do agree.

rather dramtatic impasse as the regression never stops, — Constance

The trick is in the "focus" your organic aware-ing makes. Yes, infinite reduction, you cannot stop. But "you" can aware the silent breathing instant. Get a glimpse of that and see what "you" is.

Caputo in his Prayers and Tears of Derrida that is complicated, but worth the read. — Constance

Thank you! Is it nevertheless "true" to Wittgenstein? Does it assess Derrida? Favorably?

language" never leaves perception for us — Constance

And I have never ceased to agree.

Then why harp on about being and the essence of religion? At worst, it is a useful ritual. If we can get a glimpse of only being, a nanosecond, to add that to our knowing, albeit, by definition, that experience as knowledge, is no longer that experience, yet, our knowing will be enriched and grounded. Both phenomenology (Kant's and Husserl's) and existentialism (SK's, N's, Heidegger's and Sartre's) are "more" functional with that added tool. At the very least.

This has to be pondered, you know, cup there, brain here....errrr, explain — Constance

This comes up consistently. Does this answer, if any necessary premises are accepted, address it? Use rock because cup has the added complexity of being a cultural construct.

In nature without language eyes see rock and brain process it bt sending signals to trigger an appropriate feeling, drive, action, if any. The "conversion" of the rock into the object, "the rock" doesn't take place. So that your question, "how rock there brain here" does not even come up.

In world of human mind, eyes see rock, a conversion into language autonomously takes place, drives feelings actions, are displaced/determined by those constructions. Now eyes "see" "rock

physicality say about this relation? It says there are two separate localities — Constance

Is this necessarily so? Am I misunderstanding "physicality"? Mind makes difference, Mind makes the space between. Physically, it might be simply as I described above. Sensor and object are One in Sensation

And so, in response to your "turning away from making and believing" in discussing being, this would entail the physicalist position, the treating of subjective states as independent of the observed — Constance

Yes. You may be absolutely and inevitably right here. Where you have taken us. It may be that--even if my [admittedly fully constructed] depiction happens to be accurate, and Sensor-object-response are all One in being; we--we specifically human beings are irreversibly alienated from that Reality. That, I agree with you, and any resistance on my part is psychological, or, wishful thinking.

You and I REALLY ARE in a world and our problems and their entanglements are real. What is NOT real is that which belongs to the interpretative error made as a matter of the habits of the race, as Kierkegaard put it. — Constance

No maybe about it, from where I'm standing; there are many ways to express it but yes:

1. We humans are real; as real and present as a stone or an elephant.

2. But we are ineluctably in a world of representation; and, "owing to that" we do not aware-ing that present being; but, instead, turn our aware-ing to the Narratives of becoming.

So what if I shoot a teapot? What if I want to kill the scary spider on Kirk's chest without killing Kirk? How does the device handle that without needing to explain it at length first, something nobody has time for in combat? — noAxioms

If it has been uploaded at astronomical speed and volume, with all the information that a reasonable person of reasonable intelligence is from infancy to middle age; and since it's smart, you point it, speak (perhaps think, but nah) "spider only" and it takes care of the rest, even if it's your job to aim. For sure. Look where we are now, that you're probably not even laughing. By late 23rd C, phasers are smart.

Is it ontology? — noAxioms

I, 1, might not know where the latter properly fits, 2, wanted it as hyperbole.

What constitutes an object is not to be found in physics or in the physical structures around us, but in what we are doing with our language — Banno

Is that as far as W went?

Are you saying that , loosely Kant-like, he didn't want to get into the "reality" of the object and so, took the position, that what we can know of an object is in our language?

Or did W say the only reality of an object is in the language and there is no physical?

Thank you all for your replies. My topic was mostly an observation. If you can think of exceptions to my 'it isn't physics' assertion, such counterarguments would be especiallywelcome — noAxioms

Sorry! Just got to this part.

A word is a device that can carve out a boundary. — Fire Ologist

More than that. It's a device that constructs so called boundaries [that aren't really there]

I decided to call them gutters because they could be used as gutters. — Ludwig V

That is a helpful distinction because it further illustrates point. Do one thing to an object, say, paint it: still one object. Cut it in half, maybe still one object cut in half. Give the two halves a new Signifier; suddenly the ontology has changed! No. We make everything and believe it; a dynamic process, while Reality remains present. We, becoming, accessible to our so called knowledge. Reality, Being, only accessible to "doing the being" to is-ing. But the latter does not mean that there is no physical basis to it; that's just the former--we--talking. It's the contrary. For physical objects, from air to my body, there is only a physical basis. The rest, we make and believe.