could only conclude that what constitutes an 'object' is entirely a matter of language/convention. There's no physical basis for it. I can talk about — noAxioms

Yes, what constitutes an object for us in a world structured by language, is a matter of language. But that doesn't mean there's no physical basis for it; we just can't know the physical basis--there's no physical basis for "us" (who "see" now, only through languge).

Apparently — noAxioms

Apparently the convention is that whatever you are carrying is part of you, and vanishes with you. But how does the phaser beam know this convention? — noAxioms

Because the phaser beam is designed by an advanced civilization with, say, quantum computing powers, even the phaser beam has been uploaded with enough that it knows what a reasonable person of reasonable intelligence knows.

Does it take the railing, a piece of it, or the building, or what? The convention isn't clear in this case since the boundaries of a non-living thing require more detail than just 'take this'. — noAxioms

Again, what would be reasonable in the circumstance? It will do. If one out of a thousand are grey, so be it; same for a reasonable person of reasonable intelligence. Convention is convention, programmed by an evolutionary process over time, constructed and uploaded into all humans, and soon enough, their technology too.

Non-fictional examples: — noAxioms

All just examples of where convention stands today. Your point is brilliant I think, and was said immediately. Objects[as we see them]are just constructions and projections settled upon and transmitted from mind to mind. If you push enough, maybe in 200 years, when asked, what does a truck weigh? The conventional answer is, depends on what's in it. The fact will remain, we do not Really/Truly define Truck now; and we won't be then. A truck (itself a construction any way, so...) ...a rock is only whatever is being or is-ing, it is not a solid form of sand or minerals.

Same goes for that object "me". And that's the real point. "I" am a convention. What the body really is is accessed only in its is-ing.

To Ludwig's gutters — noAxioms

They are what your locus in mind has settled at; that's usually triggered by convention, but like any evolutionary process, it's ultimately whatever is the "fittest".

This existence based on the fulfillment of others is particularly altruistic and unnecessary — Igitur

If you are looking from the perspective that you aren't already these others; that is, that you are mistaken if you think you are an individual self.

Physically you are a recycling of atoms, never a stable anything.

Organically, your genes are shared by countless combinations of others.

Your mind has been constructed out of "code" input from countless other loci in history; the Subject projecting a "self" is no more than a mechanism.

We don't know this en masse, or even conventionally, because of how History has thus far developed "our" Narrative, but it's absurd that we speak of so called self fulfillment instead of altruism, or advancing "us". Everything we do, including pursuing and evaluating so called self fulfillment is inextricably bound up with others, the rest of moving history. Whatever you do to fulfill self inevitably affects others. If you are a desert father isolated from others, you are that because and in the face of others. If you bring with you any philosophy, mysticism or ideology, any thoughts, you have brought others.

I'm not saying I'm altruistic, nor am I preaching. I'm just pointing out something overlooked; and likely, rejected, perhaps by you. But it is what is. Human existence, "both" physically and so called "spiritually" or existentially, is ineluctably others.

sorry, I know you are receiving multiple notifications. Last one, just thought I'd say, because I know you may have alluded to this, most recently, when you may have properly protested, that that "glimpse" we've been volleying back and forth, each in our own "language," is a "big deal" (cant remember your word) when I had said it was unnoticeable.

Maybe there's something to Kant's "sublime" before it is described; that is, before it is "sublime."

You look at a mountain, you feel something instantly because you have aware-ing-ed seein without the intrusion of Mind. That feeling is a big deal. And maybe, and this is depressing, that's exactly what aware-ing being without Mind always feels like. Maybe our superimposed order, functional as it has been for thd prosperity of the species, has, by displacing present aware-ing being, dulled the experience of the sublime which is often the feeling triggered by sensation, but has been displaced by meaning.

And just as any superficial copy is a dull version of the original. . .

Vedanta says Brahman (ultimate reality) is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

Epistemology and ontology are the same thing in two words. — Constance

Another way to encapsulate where I seem to diverge from what I assume to be the limitations of your more well grounded, logically, and thus, conventionally, current belief/settlement. And to tie our discussion back in to the OP.

For me, all of philosophy from aesthetics to metaphysics, is a process of knowing, which is a process of making and believing.

Except ontology qua what ontology purports to pursue, Being. That, if pursued to its end, is not knowing, but being. How does this require any logical assessment? Ontology pursues the nature, ultimately, of being [itself]. How better to pursue being than by turning away from making and believing (including but not limited to all philosophy) and just being?

And here's where the essence of religion resurrects. Being, necessarily not being any "pursuit" let alone a philosophical one, is virtually impossible for an organism whose brain has been generationally and individually conditioned to flooding of autonomously surfacing images, in complex structures and in accordance with evolved laws, which trigger the body, like code, to feel, and act. The catch being, the Body, mesmerized by the form; the Narrative form--Subject and predicate constructing meaning successively and in recursive(?) loops, building swirls of meaning--stops aware-ing it's true nature: nature; and, starts aware-ing "a self" in the swirls of meaning.
Eating to satisfy hunger becomes, sushi, crab cakes, and Icecream; then, I love Icecream; then, I am loved; simplified and rushed, but, I think you see the picture.

Soon enough, I need to be rich, to hell with my neighbor, she's encroaching on my driveway 12 inches. Etc. We have utterly become the they, because everything is the they. Heidegger can try to come up with tricks, sophisticated western versions of Wu-wei or Zazen, but ultimately none of these are actually just being.

Religion at its essence but rarely properly executed, provides only a Crack, a glimpse notwithstanding the impossibility, into being. Because regardless of institutions and their motives, at essence religion demands the sacrifice of ego. That is, abandon Mind.

and the phenomenal IS the noumenal. They are only interpretatively distinct, — Constance

Understood. Thank you.

Epistemology and ontology are the same thing in two words — Constance

I understand that statement as applying only because, ultimately, any "ology" is rooted in epistemology, in the sense that we construct all knowledge including ontology.

However, the subject of ontology is falsely applied to/by knowledge, causing the confusion that perception can access the "ontology" of "things," when I believe it cannot. It can only access the [constructed] knowledge.

term 'existing' — Constance

From my pursuit, I have been moved to separate existence and reality. Mickey Mouse exists, but he is a fictional character, ultimately empty of reality. The same, I have settled at, applies to the Mind, the experiences constructed and projected by the Mind, and the Subject of every "sentence," constructed and projected.

John Caputo's Radical Hermeneutics is very good on examining this idea. — Constance

Thank you!

So bound to the "tranquilization" of the "they" of inauthentic existence, as Heidegger will later put it, one never rises up to even ask basic questions — Constance

I do not dare dispute that all three, Plato, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger have their role at advancing the puck to the net. The shadows, the inauthentic, the They, are all recognitions of the way our organic aware-ing becomes lost, entangled, enmeshed, in the constructions/projections. However, these thinkers and their concepts, like the thinkers herein and their concepts (myself included, if I can be so bold), are sill no less lost/entangled. At some point the puck can be carried no further and the players must leave the game altogether; not to enter some mystical transcendent reality, but to go home where they really always are in the first place (poor metaphor, but you get my drift).
Plato, SK, H, et al., simply cannot uncover truth because they are still using covers; theirs, perhaps, a bit less opaque, but still, covers.

"seeing" is not a brain function. Seeing is the act of consciousness awareness. — Constance

seeing is a brain/bodily/optic faculties function. Perceiving (or, choose your word) is an act of consciousness as in Mind. The organic aware-ing (consciousness) does witness "a brain" in its truth/reality; but promptly Mind displaces that sensation with perception structured by Signifiers.

phenomenologically, there are meanings in play — Constance

Phenomenologically, yes. Meaning, yes. Meaning is what the constructions/projections have evolved to construct and project. Meaning does not exist in Nature. An animal without language, regardless of its sophistication ( a prehistoric homo sapiens) does not look at something and contemplate its meaning. It looks at something and responds by feelings, drives, and/or action.

For us, "what does it mean" is the perpetual question in the face of every perception. But what it means is simply "informed" by data already input and reformed to suit any given perception.

The meaning is not some reality we uncover. It is ultimately empty nothings.

But the giveness or presence of these constructions still IS presence — Constance

Hmm. But is it in the constructions? Or is it in the Organism providing both the infrastructure and feedback?

The error is in the interpretation of these constructions, not in there being there at all. — Constance

Such constructions constitute the world in its everydayness. — Constance

Yes, the interpretation is another "level" error. You're right, their being there, is not an error. It is what it is. The first "level" error is one of interpretation, but maybe not what you had in mind.

The primary error regarding the constructions is in interpreting them as presence, and real. When they are not. They are becoming and fleeting, there and gone, perpetually. This error may be harmless, but is potentially problematic on several grounds, all of which only directly apply to within the constructions themselves. One primary one is interpreting the Subject for tge actual being it mechanically represents; its stories, for being, for reality. I lost my job only matters within the story. Your body is breathing. Praise "gods".

This is what makes truth possible, not what makes truth, truth, but is essential for truth. — Constance

We differ so subtly, yet we each seem planted on the subtly. I would add to that directly preceding, "is essential for understanding truth; understanding, being ultimately, like knowledge, certainty, another word for belief. In otherwords, the constructions make "truth" a possibility within the system of constructing becoming (note: not constructing being, contra existentialists like H and S, being is not constructed, it already always is-ing). The constructions are not essential for truth, which always is-ing. But they are essential for belief.

OTOH, Christian metaphysics doesn't have to be tied to churchy narratives. — Constance

100% and if it is "good" metaphysics, it can easily erase or displace; e.g. God-->nature, etc.

am not trying to be argumentative, but something "outside" of constructed truths is hard to imagine — Constance

No argument here. I'd say impossible to imagine by definition, since imagine (for me) is ineluctably constructions.

So, I say, the only access to reality outside of constructions, is to be, without constructions. It's not a thought thing, it's a doing thing. But I admit, it lasts nanoseconds.

I observe it and it is there, but I cannot say how this is made possible given the standard physicalist model of the world — Constance

I believe it's because you are seeing only the coffee cup for what it is in itself. But quickly, rapidly, Signifiers flood the brain and these code certain feelings which the signifiers in turn hijack with Narratives. That's what phenomenologically you end up seeing. Naturally you do see the coffee cup for what it is. As does an owl or a beaver; anything not affected by human Mind.

[quote="Constance;910735"]The self is elevated, profoundly reified, and acknowledged as the very source of the divinity objectified by popular religion. None of this is undone. But one's finitude is understood as infinite. This is a way to understand Kierkegaard's knight of faith.[/quote]

This nothing: Eternity in time and space is familiar, and this is not simply quantitative: when one reaches out to these eternities, one is confronted with an existential impossibility that is not reducible to an abstraction, though we are mostly familiar with this kind of reduction and so familiarity, once again, trivializes something pretty amazing. Now think of eternity, not in space or time, but in the existing things around you and see how this familiar intuitive anomaly of perception trailing off into eternity, now throws the world into question, rendering indeterminate not merely space and time, but everything, every breath taken. — Constance

Here, we seem to agree. And I have picked up from you, and with gratitude, will adopt, that, though it is impossible to assimilate being into knowing (becoming), maybe one could at least try to maintain that presence of being by perceiving it in every breath of the ordinary, though it incessantly passes over it.

I like that, but am compelled to see that as (to modify Kierkegaard) a movement in the aesthetic. I mean that, if that's what you mean, and I like it, still, who's kidding who. We are still (as is SK's leaping knight) moving within the realm of the ordinary, becoming.

But still Maybe what that's saying--if you eliminate the Dualism of a spiritual--is that the essence of religion; the religious movement is neither an ethical, nor a "metaphysical" (as in emancipation from Mind's hold on consciousness), but an aesthetic movement. A symbolic reminder that Mind and the phenomenal (I include noumenal) is a motion picture, a dynamic construction/projection, and that we really are is the stillness of being.

the presence is registered in a language context and the significance of this is contextual as well. — Constance

And there is nowhere a human be-ing that has ever existed, or can exist without it; this mandatory mediation of language?

Call this openness eternity — Constance

provided I understandd the "gap" in the hammering and this correctly, I ask,

Is this openness accessible to any other earthly being, to your knowledge? Or does it require the special human being, a seeming combination of things, one of which no other creature seems to have.

By way of side note:
I cannot help but read in both out text, no matter how artfully delivered by you, and many others, for instance, just speculation built by the available tools and materials both of which neither express nor have any ontological reality like the rest of the natural universe does. But thd constructions and projections of Mind, of History; they're images in memory, and their reality is just a function which happens to trigger feelings in reality; that is, in a human organism. They're code, the very Narratives structuring our experiences, is an empty fleeting function. What is real; what matters, are the feelings and sctions triggered by thd code.

close the gap made by language that separates the ordinary world from the esoteric: — Constance

I'm proposing the esoteric is within the boundaries of the ordinary; both are constructed. I have the same dispute with phenomena/noumena. The gap which is unbridgeable, leaving us on the "wrong" side, is between the ordinary and Ultimate Reality. The latter, it turns out, is just Nature. Our body being our body. Eating and Breathing. That's real. You want to access Ultimate Reality? Turn for a sec from the ordinary and just be aware-ing organic being. We can't mate, bond, eat, etc. without instantly re-receiving them with our make-then-believe. Is it not obvious what must be real? Why is that--natural being without the intervention of becoming--what is real for every other atom in the universe save and except the ones forming us (which, by the way, came from the other creatures we consume, etc). [Unless you fully accept dualism. The universe has a material and a "spiritual" domain and Mind is the evolved spiritual domain. But I really believe if either view: Mind is an autonomous but empty process which evolved/emerged in an advanced animal with language (the basic structure of Mind) vs Mind is the spiritual realm occupying or animating the material realm; which seems a stretch? It is dualism.

all thinking is categorical, and thus what is apprehended is implicitly categorical — Constance

phenomenology laid some potent Foundations.

All thought is categorical is a law of that autonomous process of construction and projection called Mind. It evolved that way to allow for movement, then growth. Difference, linear time, dialectic, meaning/belief. The Narrative form. Logic, reasoning, Aristotle, Kant, categorical thought. These are not realities but evolutions in an artificial autonomous process advancing and growing as History.

Religion says. Don't get fooled.

this "singularity" (which is, of course, itself a boundaried word) "works". — Constance

The singularity and its workings, from my pov, if we are talking Being-Ultimate-Reality (the body/nature), has neither works nor interest in works nor is there any access to knowledge about its works because Mind constructs all of the above. It, Reality, cares not. It Reality, just is-ing.

we say is "Being as an absolute" itself cannot escape the world in which it is discovered for this would be ony "bad metaphysics," the kind of metaphysics that exceeds what is there in the world to posit. Being is, after all, a word, conceived in the time matrix of phenomenal being, and to call something Being "outside" of this makes no sense. — Constance

Fascinating how fundamental this question is. Yes. And what I believe religion might provide an admittedly weak and fleeting answer to. We can't access being through the world we have constructed; and being can escape that world because it already always has/does.

The world which we constructed on top of being, the one where, because we are being we don't have to discover being; and yet because we make becoming, we yet make and pursue being out of becoming. Hence, our being is always a representation and not the real and present; which we are; but which we ignore. [Probably what Buddha meant by Avidya/ Ignorance]

The self is elevated, profoundly reified, and acknowledged as the very source of the divinity objectified by popular religion. None of this is undone. But one's finitude is understood as infinite. This is a way to understand Kierkegaard's knight of faith. — Constance

I agree this is SK's, and understand why it may be yours, though we seem only to diverge here. But I see the self as a mechanism which has gone far out of hand; and if I could melt into humanity and lose myself, that I suspect would be the highest, though unattainable, state of reality while in the world.

I hope we do see, and I believe there is still room for this faint, improbable hope. — Fire Ologist

Fair enough. But who or what exactly is doing the hoping? And on whose behalf? And what will it see? And, to what end? And. How? How, any of it without a body?

I too have hope. Maybe we can't help it; even those who suppress it with Science. But my hope is that immortality already is, and that "I" never really was. Because hope in that doesn't seem improbable.

There are other options. Like, the matter which made up our Bodies was incessantly transforming, but they, in themselves, have a virtually immortal existence. Living or dead, is irrelevant to what we really are.

As for what we were conscious of; these were stories. Stories end. Or they live on, already in other stories, just as they were constructed from other stories. And so, our Minds, as human history, are virtually immortal.

It's just that there's not what "we" want; we who form the subjects of the multiferous local stories. We want to carry on only as that subject. But, it was only a mechanism linking the Body to the stories, and has no function when the body is gone, so...

The body lives on because it's not thd body but the universe.

The Mind lives on because it's not an individual spirit but universal history.

It is only the ego, never alive to begin with, that finally becomes obsolete. Nothing feels nor experiences that loss. And, nothing was there to begin with.

"'I know that I am a human being.' In order to see how unclear the sense of this proposition is, consider its negation. At most it might be taken to mean 'I know I have the organs of a human'. — Sam26

I think skepticism is the inevitable position, and philosophy, and philosophy forum, and this discussion persists because we are l intuitively skeptical in spite of intermittent settlements called belief knowledge or certainty.

That it is inevitable can be seen even in the language in propositions "I know I am x because" No you don't. We all so called know that everything we so called know is subject to adjustment. So even the language of the non-skeptic betrays skepticism is already built in. That temporary settlement we call knowledge, or certainty is nothing more than a functional belief necessitated by the way tge whole aystem--Mind--moves. There would be no human Mind or a very different one if tge mechanisms for belief didn't evolve. Or, in W terms, belief is a built-in "rule" of play.

To say I know I have two hands already implies that it is accepted by you, nothing more can ever be said. True so called certain can never be about a thing; it can only be the thing.

I can be certain that I am, only in the being, not in the knowing.

My interpretation is that there is something foundational here, viz., that some propositions are foundational to our claims of knowledge or our claims of doubt. When you reach bedrock no part of the foundational structure is stronger. — Sam26

I agree with you, there are "strong foundational" propositions; even ones which we can conventionally settle upon as having nothing preceding it but the "truth". But doubt that it would be possible to "trace back" and "locate" the factual foundational proposition which is derived from no other. Because that proposition would consist of words; in whichever language, each word the strong and foundational, would likely have been derived from several, if not many preceding words. And before words, in some cases, grunts or gestures (though I accept that may be going too far).

And if you're referring to what the phenomenological crowd calls noumena, or something like, those too are, no matter how reasoned tge argument, just too vague to confidently rest at "no preceding concept."

I do not know if I have wandered far from Wittgenstein or any expectations of orthodoxy. So I apologize.

My point is, all of our propositions are weak, there is no accessible bedrock, beyond speculation, follwed by convention; reasoned, but still, speculation (since all of the mechanisms constructing reason, too, are now remote, far removed from that initial representation of the truth.

then, it is philosophy that requires us to speak what it is that this is about — Constance

Sorry. Maybe I pressed something.

Anyway philosophy is brilliant. It keeps mystics grounded. There are a million charlatans for every Buddha.

As I see it, one has to be clear about this mysterious threshold, and this requires a careful dissection of the structure of experience-in-the-world, the average everydayness. — Constance

Yes. I respect that highly. In my untrained way, yet I strive for that. I take risks because I'm unconstrained; it can be fruitful. But I totally wish to stay within the boundaries, or be certain of cause to cross them. And the latter, I would not presume to do alone.

But terms like unfettered and unencumbered reality are philosophically problematic. Experientially, perhaps not, though this will have its limits, and will be vaguely understood at best, not unlike the term religion, all mountains, so they say, arrive at the same peak, meaning what one believes doesn't matter, for faith itself liberates one from the constraints of everydayness. — Constance

Ok. Yes. And yet, that's what I think I mean to say. So, I need to understand the problem. First, this so called unencumbered reality is like everything, the wording is a stab at a target, and I am not a well trained fencer. In itself is implied, its failure. But that can be said of everything, all wording, to obviously varying degrees. But none is immune. But I know you mean beyond that. So does this help. When speaking of reality; not only do I have no business qualifying it with conditions like unencumbered, but I have no business period. What I reiterate is I do not and cannot know reality; I can only know the seasoned version. I can only be reality; which is that (not that "I" already am) that already is.

In perception, there is no looking up to confirm. The image is itself its own being. One cannot look away from it to discover the Other. All there is or has ever been available to experience is experience. — Constance

Yes, I totally get that. There might even be a melancholy to it. But that's because Mind moves egotistically. The system "desires" manifestation of its constructions (because the organic infrastructure upon which it drives is structured to fire images to the aware-ing part of the organism for conditioned responses. So "it" that is, experience and the Subject to which it attaches, "want" to extend into the being itself. It's not an illusion it's a process of evolution wherein a thing thrives by growing. So "you" which constructs meaning, knowledge, want to extend that fiction into being itself. But being is being, not knowing. And not just into being, "you" want knowledge to extend beyond being but into an imagined eternity; and so Mind evolves to construct itself in History as spirit. And being a functional construction, it sticks.

The absolute stillness of "being" is conceived by Plato as the changeless form that this world is an inferior manifestation of — Constance

That is sublime. I'd adjust my own take to it by saying "the world" is just the images constructed by mind and flooding organic consciousness. Plato, afterall, laid that foundation regardless of the given locus in the history of evolving interpretations. No skin off his back.

an actual event such that one discovers in the flux of one's existence a presence relative to the busy, what Heidegger calls "the they" self, — Constance

Ok, but the "event" only in the context of the essence of religion, i.e., to save us from our "selves" remind us we are all one, all of us, not even, just humans.

In the rest of "thought", it is in my opinion, though thought of as Philosophy of Mind,
the heart of metaphysics, explains, therefore "negates" epistemology, and, since Ethics is the offspring of the two...etc.

However, the Heideggerian process you described, and, maybe, on a strictly intellectual level, Husserl's bracketing (though I am a novice at both Hs, not for lack of sweat squinting, and tears), is close enough to what I'm proposing. Zazen just happens to be almost bang on, if properly practiced. Soto. Rinzai is probably a close second. I say just happened because I made the connection after witnessing tge hypothesis that Western philosophy built.

I note that, in my opinion, for both Hs as for Zazen, and Koans; the "reward" that sublime experience of presence you called it (it is utterly uncallable, so that feels right, why not) is extremely momentary. It's "hope" or "promise" from a "religious", but I submit, Hs perspective, is to "jolt" you so that you're on to the truth. And, as you instantly and inevitably return to the Narratives, maybe yours will be restructured autonomously to follow a path more functional for the Host organism, and its species and planet.

But this does not change the "becoming structure" of experience. — Constance

That's right, I agree. Inevitably Mind's autonomous process is still flooding the brain and triggering the body with its constructions.

But this seems to be raised by others as a reason to insist that because they are experienced, and ineluctably our experience, they cannot be any less real than the organism, or at least that they and the organism are one. But they aren't one with the organism, they are images stored in memory and moving by an evolved law which flesh only provides the perfect hardware for. Once the data is input, it has evolved to function. But the data, though existent and functional, is not Real like the flesh is real. And the flesh is the real consciousness; it's organic aware-ing. Even a plant has it when it grows toward the light, or it's roots search for water. But Mind is just data making us feel by projecting stories. The stories are not real. An apple is what it is; not what we perceive when Mind constructs and projects "A is for Apple".

. I can still conscious activity, but I cannot still the construction of the moment itself. This would not be the "no self" of the Buddhists; it would be are duction to literal nothingness. — Constance

It's a physical exercise, but it's easy to stay stuck in Mind with advice like watch your breath, or worse, count them. I believe one must hone in on that breathing is. Not I am or my breaths: just breathing [organism breathing]. There are no fireworks; nor eureka I'm sure. It's more like Kierkegaard's knight of faith. To the world you are still just a clerk, if you have masterfully glimpsed being, by momentarily being. To yourself you remain a clerk, but you now "realize" something "true" outside of the constructed truths.

Brains and everything else are discovered IN consciousness. — Constance

Yes, I agree, if you are saying my reliance upon this object "brain" being what it really is, is a projection of Mind. In which case so is everything I say.

If you're saying the organ brain only exists as a construct projected, and that the thing brain in itself may be vastly different, I accept that possibility, but think it's far more likely our organic senses are not tricking us. There are objects and bodies in the world around us. We could sense them as they are so called in themselves. But Mind floods sensation with images and churns out perception. So now we can't help but see the seasoned version. We aren't outright seeing an alien world, but compared to apes, it's alien enough.

We are connected in consciousness, in an occult intimacy that only phenomenology can discover. Science will never understand this. — Constance

I think, psychoanalysis has gotten pretty close. I think science could Crack a lot of the code. And phenomenology, as did Plato, laid a strong foundation. But I think what none of those can do is know what reality is, or truth. They can only construct it, just as I too, am only constructing. Phenomenology, from Kant to Husserl does, I agree, ironically (?) also express this essence of religion; it points to the fact that there is Truth "hidden behind" the knowledge.

this is not available to one who is IN the "fettered" state — Constance

I think this would be true if there were two selves. There is only the organic aware-ing being. There is no knowing, no meaning, nothing but aware-ing the present is-ings. View that aware-ing as unfettered reality; being unencumbered by the projections of becoming. We were so obviously once an animal like that. Our [what I've been calling] brain was fed images to trigger conditioned responses. Now our brain us flood with stories. And tge organism aware-ings the "I" in tge stories as itself. Neither the "I" nor the stories are anything. They're empty nothing. So no one is in the fettered state needing to get out. The body just needs to aware-ing its organic being so that tge stories follow a--ironically just as fictional--path which is more functional to the Body and the species.

this terrible burden of philosophy that interferes with what I believe is the very simple (if difficult to achieve) revelation. But then, it is philosophy that requires us to speak what it is that this is about — Constance

I completely agree. And, actually, philosophy, burdened by logic and reason, and all, is still the best path to unders

the agency of the "I" of my encounter with the world, even when matters turn profoundly insightful and deeply felt, is going to be constituted by the interpretative language education that gave me my "presence" out of infancy. — Constance

serious meditation reduces the world to its essential or "pure" phenomena — Constance

Yes!

does this language and the "totality" of my educational grounding which prior to the "sublime experience of presence" determined my thinking, discover "something else" revealed as one approaches the ground zero, if you will, of the famous nunc stans. — Constance

With respect. That expresses a lingering in the very thing that "metaphysical" aware-ing you're implying. That thing--yes, call it language (Human Mind)--from which the sublime presence is, we agree, a "reprieve", but actually, simply, a turning inward, into silence, asks the question, and you, with respect, "let it" (its all autonomous anyway), but "here" in presence, where reality is being (what it is-ing which we call being), there are no questions, no discovery.

The instant "you" discover the "experience" of sublime presence, it has ceased being aware-ing-ed. And organic attention is once again flooded by made up images from memory and reprocessed for "the world" by the imagination; all in lightning speed and incessantly.


I will continue to read your response. I wanted to separate the above because it is essential to my thinking, and as it becomes clearer, so will your critique. I am witness to that very process!

the desire to know based on the knowledge of our ignorance. — Fooloso4

Ok, fair enough, but with the assurance that you will know? Or notwithstanding your inevitably inescapable ignorance?

how does one get around the "post construction" of anything which is acknowledged at all, even and especially "just xy" — Constance

By remaining present. By being. By not being-knowing-and-becoming.

But, yes, we are flooded, our brains, with images of becoming and it is hard, arguably impossible, to escape.

But in the spirit of this particular discussion, though we may be trapped by our condition, if anything provides a window, an opportunity for a glimpse, it is the essence of religion, which I (presumably not alone) am positing as attending, not to the self, and the weaved narratives it appears in; but, rather to being; first, by being its unfettered, unencumbered reality; second, upon returning, as one ineluctably does (instantly), to the self; then, by attending to the welfare of the body, the species, and the nature we share with all others. Not to desire more; not to settle complacently for less. And, not to entertain the inevitable desires of the self, flooding the brain with reasons to go way beyond the welfare of reality (I.e. the body, species, nature).

It COULD be that x and y are in some metaphysical, non relational simultaneity — Constance

If, never mind Eastern Monism, Parmenides is right, xy happen all at once.

I'm not confidently proposing Parmenides, but the thought that reality (and here's where I traditionally lose you et. al.) happens all at once explains a few things.

Mind evolved everything by its function, many of them conventionally thought of as, if not noumena, noumena-like. Reason and logic, among them; first grammar, all of these still evolving. And difference, hence, dialectic, movement. It constructs and projects more or less in narrative form (nature is); becoming, linear time, causality. All of these not actually separate categories, mixed, built upon, etc.

So xy which are, let me be lazy and say tree falls and landing on a person, kills it. In the event's being when it exists or ceases to exist is irrelevant. It is present being. It is only for our post construction that time becomes relevant, along with its movements, logic to structure the narrative, cause and effect.

In reality, tree--falling--landing--organic dying.

In mind, what killed Plato? A tree fell on him?

There being something "there" at all is prior to anything one could say about its relations with other things, but then, to talk about its thereness begs the epistemic question, how does "it" get into judgment at all? — Constance

Very possibly I am not understanding something technical in your question. But it gets into judgement, 1. Because that is what Mind is, a knowing system; meaning is its "aim/product," 2. It happens autonomously. Like vision does to begin with (I.e. pre'consciousness') etc. For a hypothetical human never born into an age of humans with Mind, I.e. History, an apple comes into its line of vision (randomly, or because it is foraging) and it truly sees this aspect of its nature as, whatever, food; and it, whatever, eats it. For Mind, "judgement"--apple, ruit, healthy, red, green, large, ripe, crunch, squirt, sweet, etc etc etc--floods our brain autonomously, just as pre historically, the drive to eat might alone, have flooded the brain of the human organism, and yet, no less autonomously.

Foolish to doubt the "thereness" of the sight and feel of the cat — Constance

Yes I agree. When I describe mind as constructions and projections, or even fiction, that is not to say there is not a real and present world going on, and of which we are. But we no longer receive it purely through our senses, it has been heavily seasoned and processed by our imagination .

And why? Why did our imagination evolve to displace our sensations with constructions of its storehouse in memory? In order to thrive. Like any theory of evolution. It's not so much a teleology, as it is a post facto raison d'etre. Because Mind evolved from a bunch of reminders stored in memory to trigger feelings and actions, into a Hollywood sized industry of making stories to do so, it grew to what it is today. It has full control to the extent that nature has bought into its Fiction via tge human animal.

With AI fast on the way, Mind will carry on without the human animal, and perhaps, the essence of religion--i.e. to cherish the body--will become our eschatological, not just metaphysical, and ethical salvation.

universally valued; love, freedom. knowledge, wisdom, creativity... — Janus

Agreed

existential indeterminacy. This is an foundational epistemological, and therefore, ontological, problem. — Constance

And only "resolvable" as such. That is, within and limited to the framework of those "studies" and their specific ways of using language to reconstruct already constructed "realities."

These have functions but they do not open up/unveil for discovery any ultimate truths. The latter, which I still hold to be, our organic bodies, their survival, and the organic prosperity of our species and the rest of nature to which we belong.

there is nothing at all epistemic about causality. — Constance

What if it only appears to us as a linear process x-->y, because whatever "happened" to x and to y was immediately post constructed as x-->y and re-presented that way by Mind to "the" aware-ing ans assimilated in that form as "knowledge". But in "actuality" it was always just xy?

Is that not suggestive of causality being an epistemic process and effect?

I would say there's no "stuff" of mind or minding, because it is an activity, and as such is merely conceptual unless it is equated with brain processes. — Janus

Agreed. I hope I too was prudent enough to put "stuff" in quotations to highlight that it is not really stuff at all but, stuff-ing.

differences can be found within the dialogues themselves and in the works of Aristotle themselves — Fooloso4

Yes

Whoa. A relief! I always thought of "Plato" as diverging from, even betraying, Socrates skepticism.

Is there such clear evidence of this lingering-skepticism-notwithstanding-writings-to-the-contrary in Aristotle too?

But maybe life is living. And living is many things, — Fire Ologist

Is this not the long and the short of it?

With a Bricolage of logic and reasoning, a skilled artist can construct complex hypotheses to justify many things in ethics. As much as we like to think ethics transcends us, that thought too, emerged because it is functional to view ethics that way. Contra Descartes et. al., the only thing this organism can claim with certainty is that this organism is. Period. The same cannot be said of any of its constructions from "I" to "all life is Dukkha," to "thou shalt not x".

So does it not boil down to: life is living. We humans make the distinction suffering/no suffering. These, and like distinctions are how our world turns. But with antinatalism we are clearly going too far. People think asceticism a radical approach; how much more is extinction?

Even practically. If you can mobilize an entire species to eliminate one of the three strongest drives--to perpetuate living, and to bond with one's offspring--you might as well exhaust first, all other efforts to change the conditions. If the livestock are suffering under our current conditions, the solution is to change the conditions, not to sterilize the cattle.

As much as I have been turned on to Schopenhauer. This is the corrupted truth which emerges out of the insistence that the will is both the seat off the suffering and our essential human nature. The will constructs suffering. Our human nature may experience pain, the absence of pleasure, but it does not construct anything out of that; it responds to it, just as it responds to pleasure.

The so called will is the name we give to those dynamics of Mind. Difficult to escape, but actually malleable.

The concept of the self which we, in the so called western tradition, seem to cling to, is plainly a "fiction" blinding us to reality.

Picture the biosphere where you can see the air flowing into and out of every living creature, shared as if it were the unified being, all of the creatures, just its "offspring" or manifestations; mobile or planted, land air or sea.

It is only because of the attachment to this mechanism, the "I", which doesn't even participate in the air, that we, among all of the creatures, question whether or not nature is one. Clinging, as we are, not to the real unifier, but to the Fictional one, the Subject which connects the, thought, feelings, or actions to both mind and body, by making them seem as one, and unique from all others.

I can become fixated. Feel free to move on. I've already been enriched. I also understand Buddhism is not your thing. But it seems, there is a place where (certain, but broad) western philosophy and (certain, and a narrow certain) Buddhism intersect, and we can float between the two unconscious as to their historical divergence. But full disclosure I'm no scholar in either.

body is minding, so mind is more of a verb than a noun, an activity rather than an entity. — Janus

Very nice. But following what proceeded in your response, I'm not certain that observation compels me for exactly the reason you were compelled by it.

explanation is impossible insofar as its realization would demand the unifying of categories of understanding which are inherently incompatible. — Janus

Interesting. Could you simply mean "knowing" vs "being" as incompatible? I will have to think through. Of course any elaboration would be welcome.

we could just as well, or better refer to them as minding, itself conceived as the central activity of the living body — Janus

Fair enough but I have settled upon the belief that the "stuff" of minding is neither the stuff of the body (as in organic matter) nor even of its nature or being.

Except unlike breathing, digesting, mating; when minding, the by-product is an empty and fleeting image, a Signifier, the "reality" of which is entirely in its function; like zeros and ones, in how it triggers organic matter.
It does its thing then disappears for ever, reappearing just as fleetingly as a new construction.

And it is to that and not the body, that we attach this so called self, most commonly in the form of the Subject I.

the idea that only physical objects exist absurd — Janus

Mental objects "exist" but are not the ultimate reality of present being; they are fleeting becoming. So whatever we want to call that. I prefer the bold statement "fiction" makes. But it's a very hard pill to swallow, hence sell. I call it constructions-and-then-projections. It is definitely not what my actual aware-ing Organism is. It's what the latter is compelled to watch because by an evolved process of conditioning (generational and individually) its images flood the human brain and monopolize the response loop. Where once we were aware-ing and responding to reality. Now we are aware-ing and responding to imaginary stimuli gone wild (but following an evolved autonomous law and mechanics).

Point is. The self is the Subject Signifier in that process of turning reality into Narratives.

stories generated by the body — Janus

Ok, but then, the key word, binding us, is "stories". Body is the source of mind. But mind is stories. That's the point. And self is the Subject in the stories. It's fine for a 16 year old, while reading The Catcher in the Rye to sympathize with Holden Caufield, even to "become" the character. But that's what's happening. Should we aware-ing that?

nothing dualistic about the body and its activitie — Janus

Yes I agree completely. I reiterate that I agree the body is the one and only reality. No wink even necessary, because I see no conundrum. Mind is, as I say, a fleeting and empty nothing. It is not necessary. Our nonconceited ape cousins do fine. It is a fiction flooding our brains. There is, in reality, only thd body.

I am making a rule that says I should not be making rules. — Fire Ologist

Totally

Antinatalism isn’t tailored to the specific problem it is trying to prevent, and is way overboard of a response to just suffering. — Fire Ologist

And, if you don't mind, add: and, a response directed at the wrong party. If you want to end suffering, end mind's constructions, and attachments thereto. Why end a species?

I changed body to bodymind — Janus

Maybe your intial intuition followed a valid path. I'm hypothesizing your so called intuitions, to offer a point.

The body is a being in itself. The body feels, senses, has drives, explores, bonds, and acts in present aware-ing of these and the world around it. We can understand all of that fairly well enough. But the intuition which has puzzled philosophy for millennia (not necessarily always expressed in the same way) is never mind all that; how does this lump of flesh "do," in your words, "experiencing/thinking/aspiring/acting"?

Hence (and I'm being presumptuous as hell) your two-fold intuition, both-folds being "right". First, your intuition that when your talking about your real being, you know (in spite of millennia of chatter) it's the body which moves, feels and senses that you're talking about. Second, your intuition that the "experiencing/thinking/aspiring/acting" is not the body itself, but is being generated by and in mind. The latter seems like it's doing its own thing, yet the body is real. Thus, ultimately, you turn to "mindbody."

But I think your intuitions (presumably) are right. These goings-on of experiencing/thinking/aspiring/acting (oh, and I'd delete "acting" which is plainly the body; unless you really mean, choosing) are just the stories generated by mind. They are not really happening as mind "depicts" them. Body is affected; but just as body is affected by a sad movie. Images trigger feeling, drives, action.

The fact that we speak of the self in terms of subject and object (me/you/they) highlights that they are mechanisms in the stories mind projects, just as is their role in grammar; to unify/order and attach, etc. It provides a function.

"I" displace the body in Mind's projections; but the body remains present and real. Though body is attuned to its representation as "I/Me" it never ceases being (body). And from there--from present being; not becoming--there is no self. Not only is there no self; but [for many Buddhists] no Mind.

Given all agree that antinatalism applies uniquely to humans, and the unique human condition (that there is a "condition" most seem to agree; the nature or structure of that condition seems to be in contention) it seems like most people think, once again, that Ethics is the path to the "answer" (to be or not to be). Further, it seems most would say, albeit applying varying degrees of standard of proof, that if adjudged "unethical" antinatalism might be justified.

But I think ethics is either irrelevant, or is not being applied far enough. From my perspective, if a person, or a generation, is even grossly unethical, the organism and species should not be punished. Antinatalism is unethical itself; a patent example of the arrogance that our constructions have led "us" to. That we are considering sterilization of a living organism, because we can't seem to simply change our ways. Many even blame the body for that: craving, drive, aggression. As if much of the animal kingdom isn't basically variations of us. Our condition; our immoral condition, if that's what we're settled at, is not because our organism is naturally immoral. We constructed immoral in that uniquely human condition, Mind. And we can deconstruct it. We don't have to end an entire species to do so.

but the calm repetitive rhythmic work of rather mundane thread-weavers, arbitrarily spinning a variety of different-colored stories : some very good, some awfully bad, some just tolerable. — Gnomon

That best describes it, I think. And they do so, the weavers, not by a plan or design; and, definitely not in accordance with some already determined outcome. Yet "they" do it, and not "I" so it is not free will. It is also, not random.

They do it by doing it.

What they do is weave in response to the immediately preceding weaves coming from all directions, plus the current goings on in both the natural environment including the given organic body, and in History, including the given locus, i.e., the given individual-in-history. In that sense it is "deterministic" as in there is no individual choice, no free will, no will at all; but it is "indeterminable," (because there is no will).

This, I think, by understanding the "weavers" in that allegory, as that autonomous system of constructing representations out of sensations, that which we commonly think of as Mind. The stories are the projections manifesting as Narratives and commonly called perceptions, ideas and experiences.

The good/tolerable/bad in the allegory are such constructions/projections displacing our organic feelings with such Narratives. If an event triggered by projection triggers pleasant feelings, good. And out of that more projections triggering more events and more feelings, some good, some bad, some in between in varying degrees.

These feelings in nature, are just feelings; "value" does not factor in. The response they condition only does. But for individuals-in-history, "experiencing" our happenings as linear narratives, or "fates", these feelings must have value; are only understood as/within the meaning they themselves construct. Added to this, is that one evolved mechanism in this dynamic system of constructing-projecting-triggering-repeat, is the evolution of the Subject, attaching those processes to the Body. As if the body is [now] in control of them by attaching to the I of each narrative. Hence, the illusion of both free will and fate; the illusion that there really is an I to whom the Narratives are happening. When really, bodies are feeling and reacting.

The Body is just going with it; affected by triggered feelings and actions, but not attaching value nor making choice. It's choosing nothing, anticipating nothing, regretting nothing. And as for the processes, no one is at the wheel choosing them either. They are a process of images weaving stories out of triggers, acting in accordance with millennia of evolved laws; and in return, triggering the body.


So to me, while fate and determinism conventionally refer to the same. Determinism is really not fate as in predetermined or predestined. It is a dynamic determinism, determjning as it goes, without central choice nor plan, but neither randomly. It moves by its own evolved laws, constructing and projecting meaning in a narrative form in accordancewith what is fittest given all intersectings at any given licus in History.

Cool. I've always thought of it in terms of Cha'an. A wealth of metaphysics and psychology even at the primary "scriptural" level, eh? I wonder if (generally) "we" from a Western perspective are still just treating Buddhism with a sentiment of quaintness, or at least, fixated on the [false] label of "religion." As if Descartes, Kant and Hegel aren't at least shaped by their Christianity. Anyway, off topic, but I can always count on you for accurate direction, thanks!

Yogācāra, one of the principle Mahāyāna schools, has a theory of the unconscious. See the Wikipedia entry on the ‘ālāyavijñana’ — Wayfarer

Ok, interesting. Reminds me of the Lankavatara Sutra. It might implicitly reference the same sort of "unconscious.", no?

The thing is, the presence of some unconscious process taking place without a central authority suggests no self. It suggests that the seeming of a central authority in Conscious processes is just that: seeming.

But that lack of central authority could also suggest the possibility of some kind of subconscious psychical process. — Heracloitus

Yes it could.

Which now makes me wonder if Buddhism accepts/rejects the concept of a sub(un)conscious. — Heracloitus

Good question. My guess, irrelevant; at least originally. Wayfarer might know.

There is a kind of locality of thought implied here and thus ownership of thought, or thought as belonging to the particular individual. — Heracloitus

The locality supports the illusion that there is ownership. But like a bubble in a locus of the ocean manifests seemingly separated from the ocean but there is no unit to whivh tàhe bubble attaches, the thought manifests seemingly separated, but there is no self to which it attaches.

we are unaware where thoughts come from and where they go - so why the leap to no-self? — Heracloitus

That is exactly a reason to leap to no self. If thoughts are why/what we attach to a self (Descartes), and thoughts move without the direction of a central authority, then where or what is this presumed self lacking control over thoughts? Isn't it more reasonable to conclude there is only the convenient fiction of a self unifying these thoughts as they affect what also appears to be a single body?

Also, for Mahayana, since no thing whatsoever enjoys independent origination, each thought arises out of a prior thought/event triggering such thought. Therefore there is no need of a central authority constructing such thought.

There is another way of putting it--this essence of religion--and now, having pondered, I see that thinking my focus was beyond ethics, you were right, and I wasn't right enough. The metaphysical is ethical--at least on this focus. Because here is the exact thing I've been "pushing" just worded differently.

The essence of religion Is to pursue, or at least know, the Truth that there is a being, and a species of being, for which you are an agent, a tool, and more so, a fiduciary who must apply the highest good faith in carrying out such a duty. You are not a thing in itself which can exploit that being, though you think you can and in the process construct suffering.

(I don't like the condescension of preaching or even advising) — Constance

Let's get this one out first. I get the sentiment. We just have to plow through. I'm learning that. Your info is invaluable, if I haven't made that clear.

logic into the discussion is simply provide an unproblematic model for what certainty is. No more than this. — Constance

Of course. I agree that should be the approach. Provided no false barriers are created.

treat ethics as something that is as variable as belief systems, as customs and "taste". — Constance

I agree that such an approach to ethics is a corruption of the "purer" root of relatively, being that ethics have a solid and rigid place in our world, but we can recognize that they are yet an evolving, moving, process of construction and then
projection.

There is no history. There never has been. — Constance

YES. This is what I've been wondering in the inverse. Despite history and its fleeting and empty moments, Being is consistently present.

Why not allow the world to be what it is? There is nothing in the pain of a sprained ankle that is dialectical. One is not comparing nor is the event historical in any way. It has a "thereness" that transcends analysis. — Constance

Yes you are entirely correct. What I meant was the analysis; this takes place instantly; this is the Dialectic. The pain is the only reality, the thereness which transcends dialectic. But as you know, instantly and ineluctably, we are flooding the being-natural-aware-ing-pain-ing with dialectic. "My ankle hurts. Why did I leap for that Frisbee? Should I be on morphine?" Simplified but you get the picture. These re-present the thereness (of) pain-ing with meaning about pain. Not real, real.

this is dismissed in the reduced analysis, for we want to know what the essence of ethics is, not the many "states of affairs" we find ourselves in. — Constance

Aha! Right. I'm doing to ethics the very thing I'm defending religion from. Right, the essence.

THIS is where Henry comes in and the essence of religion becomes clear, for while I can see how powerful this idea of the hermeneutic delimitations of thought and understanding is, I am IN a world that is in NO way interpretatively distant. — Constance

You have a very helpful way of putting thoughts into perspective. I see the truth in the above clearly. That latter part is what I've been calling being not knowing.

Now one can see why this reduction is used to give religion its meaning that was lost in the modernist critique — Constance

Aha, right

And this is where we stand in the world as enlightened beings, very aware that our language cannot possess the "givenness" of the world, yet there it stands before one, the world of beingS, the chairs and tables and interests and things and moods and anything that is "said" being now "under erasure". — Constance

Yes, yes. The tragedy of the (uniquely) human condition, resolved not by the ideas of, but by the precise practice of tge essence of religion. By, as SK intuited, but I am adjusting, resigning yourself to the infinite impossibility of possessing the real world as a Subject, yet knowing enough that the objective is only a representation and also, can never possess it--and yet taking the leap anyway; for me, the leap into being. It cannot be an intellectual pursuit because that utilizes and constructs knowledge; it must be a leap of silent faith that for that timeless moment you will face being, your organic self, when you land.

It is a matter of understanding in the rarest sense, in the occurrent seeing and being here, that we are not "here" at all. — Constance

Nice


[/b]uote="Constance;909299"]And so, it is in language that we "discover" what is not language. Language has already evolved to this radical manifestation of confronting the tout autre of language. Here, history is no longer an interpretative obstruction, nor does it inform understanding.[/quote]
I think this may be a point of difference I have with current convention period. The idea behind the treminology being, Language (Mind) cannot be relegated to an emergence, or worse, illusion or fiction, it must maintain its privileged status in this imaginary hierarchy of Truth/Reality (which we adamantly deny but all assume) because, after all it is only by (I sense Heidegger in this but know I am extrapolating) going through that process of becoming which language affords, that we uniquely made in g's image (also implicit) get to know being.

But mind has many built in mechanisms which propagate the illusion tgat its the privileged reality, and that's why it has thrived. One of them is that knowing is the highest aim, that it is an unveiling rather than what it really is, a making-up.

No, thank you very much. I don't want to know being. Many have constructed skyscrapers of that. I want to be being. And genius that Mind is, it has provided a tiny rare and extremely muddled and buried crack--one so muddled and buried that highly intelligent people protest against all of the shit covering it up, thinking they are protesting it; a not only harmless, but clearly beneficent construction.

I'll post and address the rest separately

one cannot, say, even imagine an object being its own cause, to move all by itself, that is. — Constance

I agree. So it's apodictic. But I still think it is apodictic because the imaginer is already constrained by/conditioned into cause and effect. Ask a relative who shares 98% of our genes if it can so imagine. For the rest of the universe lightning strikes fire ignites is not a Narrative moving in the form of linear time. So our system makes logic apodictic within our system.

language that discovers it, — Constance

And I say, Language that constructs it. This is exactly where we diverge. I am not convinced logic is a "whatever" (attribute, principle, truth?) in Nature; only in Mind. But I remain radically open to any convincing out there. In here, I'm admittedly settled.

this coercivity, of logic — Constance

Then you'd say the same of the Self, it is coercive as he'll. Yet I doubt it's occurrence in the universe anywhere outside of the evolution/emergence of mind, as History, structured by Language.

doubt logic as it appears is disingenuous. — Constance

I agree. And I clarify, logic, its function in human existence (history/mind) is undeniable. I say so what if it is part of the constructed? We must adhere to it to function. Then why deny its universality, pre-language, etc? Because it helps when navigating through the ocean of how things really are, to know you are on a ship. Abandon it? No way. Know what it is. Which again is how religion saves us even from logic. It shows us the ocean from the ship, though we are compelled, or at least best to remain aboard.

Our self is a living and breathing, caring, pragmatic, historical temporally structured existence that anticipates a future in a perpetual "not yet". — Constance

I agree with every word, and yet here's how I think we still differ. For me our real self, is not a self, reacts to feelings, sensations, drives. Among those drives is bonding, a drive so powerful which at any level of analysis reveals how not individual our organic so called self is. That real self is caring. But as for pragmatic, Historically/Temporally structured, perpetually becoming, you describe; like logic, that "Self" me/I, is just another mechanism constructed by History as a fit way to move that temporal narrative becoming along. It works to have a mechanism within the system of signifiers, to signify the body it is occupying and affecting.

it is only trivially inviolable. Logic QUA logic is vacuous. — Constance

Maybe mine is not so far from this.

means you would count value as not something as universally and necessarily true outside of its own construction. But what is its construction? With logic, there is the coercivity in the intuition regardless of the aporia of the language, — Constance

Unless I am misunderstanding the use "Ethics" in some specific way, with Ethics, it is the binary feeling pleasant/not pleasant; there is the coercivity in the intuition regardless of the aporia of the language.

But, let me put it in my terms. At the organic root of ethics, as in all things, is thd binary feeling, or the on not on of bliss. But the construction of ethics is, also like everything else, a dialectical process of competing constructions. The most functional is projected into our world/history.

in ethics, it is the pain of this sprained ankle. — Constance

I'd say the pain of the sprained ankle is one "event", immediate, present and organic. The ethics is constructed seemingly
immediately, but nevertheless constructed.

Great further information. Thanks!

One is that it is a dimensionally diminished map of reality -- — Dfpolis

Very nice

The Hard Problem arises because an object acting on our senses does not mean that we are aware of it — Dfpolis

Firstly, sorry, but you might need to apply some imagination because I am not using words precisely, nor necessarily properly (from an academic/conventional perspective). Does the following help in any way? Please bear with my use of "real" for e.g.

1. There is a real consciousness humans have, like all animals, at least, albeit in varying "complexities." It is organic attunement to organic feelings drives movements sensations presently and with no movement in time, possibly not space, as in monistic ("aware-ing"). But Ive said too much because we cannot know aware-ing; aware-ing is "pre" knowing. Our only access to aware-ing is being the aware-ing.
2. The aware-ing can organically attune, when feelings of pleasure arise, aware-ing pleasure; pain, aware-ing pain. Apple comes into view, aware-ing apple. Not "I" subject of the sentence see apple object. Aware-ing x-ing is one present event; no duality because Mind hasn't constructed difference yet.
3. Once mind emerged (through (to oversimplify) the evolution of Language) aware-ing x-ing was displaced by "I" am looking at an apple, or I am enjoying this Icecream.
4. While at one time (and still, I'll explain later) organic aware-ing processed x-ing as x-ing engaged with body in the oneness/present processes of Nature just being; now displaced by mind, aware-ing attunes to apple, or pleasure, or icecream; and, it does so riding on the back of this "I" and what it engages with is, by the Laws of mind, necessarily "different". First, they are objects, to body's "I". Second, they are apple not orange; pleasure not pain.
5. So now "aware" of an object acting on my senses just means that the natural aware-ing, where there is no hard problem, is displaced by mediating processes of constuctions and projects. Such that there is the "illusion" of a hard problem; the illusion that we are "aware" of an "object" when really we have constructed it then projected it as object.

At the level of sensation we do not judge, we respond. Errors are ineffective responses, not falsehoods. At the intellectual level, we judge, affirming or deny this of that. The result (our new intellectual representation) either reflects reality adequately for our purpose or not. That implies that we have purposes, not just needs. — Dfpolis

This quote supports/addresses, the immediately preceding. But the last sentence brings up a new point. You are exactly right. For Mind. For Mind, one of its driving mechanisms is that the Signifiers move to construct meaning; they run through a dialectic, and settle upon knowledge or belief. Until the process recycles for any given "truth" from this is an apple to God is metaphysically necessary. And the mechanism which allows for each settlement at the end of each dialectic is function: what is, given all movements gathering at this locus in History, the fittest settlement? What is the fittest representation to manifest into the world? It is functional to believe a certain red fruit is an apple. If a philosopher proposed tge necessity of God, it would be functional to settle there.

So yes, the constructions and projections of Mind serve a purpose. It is only body which is satisfying simply its needs.