You are assuming this world is an illusion. How could you know that when everything you could possibly know comes form your experience in this world?

Know independently, yes.

I was referring to the spiritual teachings.

As to my own beliefs (I don’t hold beliefs, rather I seek wisdom), part of my predisposition on these issues is formed by spiritual teachings. Although, I pare it down to the bare minimum, so have very little in what could be described as beliefs. I am working on the hypothesis that physical material and the physical world is a concrete representation of noumena which is so dense and rigid that an entire cosmology of powerful forces is required to sustain it. Rather like if you imagine a delicate melody rendered in concrete blocks that can only be heard by physically banging them together.
As to the details of how, or why, or what, I withhold judgement.

Actually Māyā is Hindu terminology. The Buddhist term is saṃsāra, ‘cyclical existence’.

Yes, l presupposed that saṃsāra was part of maya forgetting its root. Thanks for putting me right.

Unfortunately that is not a sensible, or even meaningful, thing to say―better just to remain silent. If philosophy is about anything it is certainly not about talking nonsense.

But we were always going to hit this wall once straying into Buddhism. In Buddhism this whole world of appearances is nothing but maya. So how can these appearances, or a being enthralled by them, know, or account for the noumena when they themselves are part of the illusion?

It was this realisation that led the Buddha to sit under the bodhi tree.

It’s a bit too radical for me, I don’t usually go further east than Hinduism. Although I do generally consider the phenomenal world we know to be an artificial construct.

Well, putting religion and spirituality to one side, no. But is there a good reason not to?
— Punshhh

Religion and spirituality are not really discursive endeavors. Is there a good reason not to put religion and spirituality aside when doing philosophy?

Sorry, I meant, is there a good reason not to believe in a demiurge. I’m happy to keep religion and spirituality to one side.

Cogent means clearly (and thus clearly expressible) and convincing, so I asked whether you had a clearly expressible and convincing reason to believe in a demiurge.

Yes, I see now. I was interpreting the word belief in its religious context. Now I see that you were using it in the sense of ‘holding an opinion, or idea’.
I do have such an explanation, but whether it would be convincing , is unlikely. Because I became convinced by the idea myself, I doubt I could have been convinced of it by being told it. Or that I could necessarily convince someone else. As it is more of a lived experience, a journey.

Are you suggesting you have experienced the demiurge?

Yes, although it would have more likely have been a higher being(indicating there was a demiurge) But this is besides the point now, as we are putting spirituality to one side.

but I don't think the same applies with a demiurge

Agreed.

If we feel an unshakeable conviction regarding what it was an experience of, it will be enough to non-rationally convince us, but it will not be enough to non-rationally convince others unless they have a will to believe as we do.

Agreed, this is what I was getting at with ‘convincing’

I’ll put my idea again, in a simple form.

What we have is the coming together of two things spirit(not in the spiritual sense) and matter( a field of spatial temporal potentiality). This results in the diverse forms we find. But where ever we look, the two are wedded, that one can’t be teased from the other. Because what we see is neither(spirit, or matter) but the fruit of that union. Resulting in three things and a world that is neither spirit, or matter.

Perhaps. Do we have any cogent reason to believe in a demiurge, though, beyond the fact that it's (kind of) an imaginable possibility?

Well, putting religion and spirituality to one side, no. But is there a good reason not to?

I don’t see what belief has got to do with this, surely if something is cogent, it’s not a question of belief.

It wouldn’t be a unique situation, as a human is a colony of cellular organisms. And a beehive, a termites, or ants is a colony of colonies of cells. Each cell, while being alive, has no idea (pretending that a thinking being was able to experience the life of a cell) that it is part of a larger being, or how that would work. Likewise a human would have no idea of the larger colony (that they are a part of) as an entity, including through all knowledge discovered in our world.

I want to hear an actual argument for why space, time, differentiation, form, matter and all the rest cannot exist beyond the context of perception. And I should note, I acknowledge that if there is space, time, differentiation, things in general outside the context of perception, we should not expect them to be just as we experience and understand them. That would be naive realism, and I'm not arguing for that. I have in mind something along the lines of Ontic Structural Realism.

The Ontic structural realism, may be external and pre-existing to the perception of humanity (or any beings on earth), but intrinsic (internal and not pre-existing) to the perception of a greater being of which humanity is a constituent part, such as a demiurge.

So far, out of the things I mention and the way I define those we have seen :

Chaos (lack of distinction, not deterministic)
Simplicity (One thing which is composed of itself)
0 dimensional entity (Distances are not real-Ill get to that in a sec)
the big bang (beggining of Two, or the great split)
The One (lack of distiction, Chaos, infinite, simple and unique)

The universe cannot expand "outward" because, according to physics, there is no external reference point or boundary outside of it. The universe is not expanding into a pre-existing space; rather, space itself is stretching. This means that distances between points within the universe are increasing, but there is no external space into which it expands. Thus space is not made of actual space.

If the universe is stretching the way physics describe(not outwards but "inwards"), space is not composed of space but rather the effect of phenomena on matter.

This all sounds great, they are good ideas and pretty much everyone here would agree with the gist of it and already knew about it before you arrived. But I haven’t seen anything new here. These ideas might be new and profound to an ordinary person in the street. But you’ve come to a philosophy forum where people discuss, analyse, critique and rip apart ideas like this all day long. What did you expect?

I’m not the only one.
— Punshhh

I was referring to you, who says lots of things about the one and then says they are true etc.

Yes, I’m not denying that, with the use of infinity as you define it here. It all makes perfect sense and I have had a lot of these thoughts and contemplations myself over the years.
— Punshhh

Then you are contradicting yourself, in one responce youre saying that nothing can be said yet you agree it is infinite and have been contemplating on it, which one is it? You basically said that A=B and B=C yet A does not equal C. It is either infinite and this information is common, valid based on reason and perception, or it’s not.

I said it makes sense, not that I agreed with it. I remain open minded on the issue.

There is no sound of one hand clapping as it does not clap but itself, therefore there is no clapping, for this reason it is an invalid question and a subjective interpetation, we dont do that here.

Google ‘Koan’

Did I answer this question or not? The rationale is that we can do it and possibly should, the why we should is also included in the book, it is the return to the One. There is nothing besides ourselves stopping us from doing so.

You agreed with me that nought can be said about the one and then continued saying things about the one, claimed they are true and said here in this passage, that we can say things about the one.


In order to have a rational discussion, you have to adopt a position, or stance on an issue and stick to it. So that your interlocutor can critique, or agree with it. This does not mean you can’t change your mind, or approach in the discussion, but if you do, you should provide an explanation for it.

no one seems to notice this forum has been a stagnant pond years.

I was just getting ready to start discussing the pro’s and cons of Everythingism versus Nothingism with him. I’m not sure that would have enriched our experience much.

He would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

Belly laugh!!

Youre saying “the apophatic method is the* only way”, youre making a comparative claim, not necessarily apophatic.

I only adopted this position once you had agreed with me that nought can be said. If we are both in agreement about something, then we can take it as read, to assume it to be true for the sake of argument.
We, or I can’t be sure at all whether we are saying anything about it, or if we’re talking about it all the time, but just don’t realise it.

When youre saying “even the method itself cannot be defined or privileged”, then youre applying apophasis to the method itself, which is a kind of meta-apophasis.

This is a recognised technique, mainly adopted in Zen Buddhism in the form of a koan. For example;

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

The idea is to make one think harder, or realise the impossibility of answering some questions, or that the truth is not to be found in intellectualisation, but in the self, the being of the self, somehow.

Its like saying "no- we cant discuss it because the only way to discuss it(more accuratelly-or at all) is a non-discussion, meaning we can have no discussion on it", basically invalidating every single point without an argument.

Yes I know it looks like that, but as I say, you did agree with me that nought can be said, didn’t you? If you didn’t then fine, I might be wrong to say that nought can be said. I’m perfectly happy to accept that. Provided there is some rationale behind it.

You are literally saying something about the One(that nought can be said). This is not the apophatic method.

I’m not the only one.

Everything that I have said so far holds ground and you know it, it is Simple (composed only of Itself), Unique (there is no other, it is singular and alone) and Infinite (has no defined form).

Yes, I’m not denying that, with the use of infinity as you define it here. It all makes perfect sense and I have had a lot of these thoughts and contemplations myself over the years.

I think though that we must accept at some point that whatever we say about it, or deduce, or work out. It can’t be tested, or proved and might not bear any relation to the truth about the matter. Because the reality might be totally different to what we are able to understand, might be entirely inconceivable to a creature like us, might be too obvious, or hidden in someway. Or that we can only talk about the things we have evolved to understand, in the world we find ourselves in. How to survive in an ecosystem and organise ourselves into groups, tribes.

I’m not trying to shut down debate, or say we shouldn’t even talk about it. We can talk about it and about the way we talk about it etc. On the understanding that we don’t know anything about it, other than what makes sense from our relatively insignificant position.

Personally I am more concerned with the understanding of existence through other forms or learning, knowing and understanding than the intellectual reasoning done by philosophers. More in the realms of meditation, communion, direct experience and developing affinities with nature.

I come to the forum for some light relief and to enjoy and exercise some intellectual rigour.

I also have already adressed this question before it was even asked, inside the book, here in the OP and in comments, I am quoting myself more than once for the same quote but since you missed it :

Apologies for not having read all of your posts, or your book. But unfortunately all I keep seeing is you saying things about the one about whom nought can be said. Even the apophatic approach is doing this, by saying things about it by negation. Literally nothing can be said, other than to indicate that it has something to do with a unity of all things.

I happen to be a mystic who uses the apophatic approach all the time and I certainly don’t say anything about this. I simply defer to thoughts about our local God, gods, demiurge, universe, realm etc. That this is no concern for me.

I suppose there is a role for explaining where we project the fruits of human intellect onto such subjects. But that is not saying anything about it as such, but rather about us.

All that it is required to be said is that nought can be said.

It seems to be true. Though one could also argue that the ability to do that was conferred by evolution and it looks as if the planet is taking action to restore balance.

Yes, but I would draw back to the idea of the organism and natural selection working in lockstep. And that of the two, the one which was adapting was the organism. But in humanity’s case, we abandoned the adaptation, broke the lockstep and adapted to what we thought rather than what natural selection dictated.

That humanity has broken free from the constraints of natural selection and is endangering the whole endeavour. Going off on an ego trip and trashing the ecosystem which brought her into being. So perhaps the planet is now taking action. But is that the inorganic planet, or the organic planet (the ecosystem) or both?

What you are describing is the one about which nought may be said.

-Punshhh

Thats the whole point of the entire book, I don't understand where your misunderstanding lies so far.

But you have said a lot about the one about which nought may be said.

Isn’t that a contradiction?

“But can that which does not exist have anything pertaining or belonging to it? Of course not. Then the One has no name, nor is there any description or knowledge or perception or opinion of it... It is neither named nor described nor thought of nor known, nor does any existing thing perceive it.” - Saint Parmenides, 138b-c

We are getting there now.

What you are describing is the one about which nought may be said.

Yes, but the lineage hasn’t finished yet. Who knows where it will go in the future.
Although, when it comes to the devastation of the planet, that turn of events happened when we had used intellect to subvert natural selection. Become too big for our boots.

There's no need to posit any minds - unless you want to include them for other reasons than explaining the phenomena.

Not minds in the usual sense of the word. But an agency, which wouldn’t be present if there were no life at all. Even with natural selection there wouldn’t have been a T Rex without that agency.
I accept that the effect of natural selection played a formative role in this process. But so too did the living entities and their capacity to develop along with the resultant effects.

It was a dance so to speak, these organisms found the world and somehow were able to alter it and themselves to their benefit. While the world somehow lead them (shaped them) on an evolutionary path.

Both the organisms and the world as they found it were necessary for this lineage to happen.

The first living organisms on Earth were bacteria, which had no minds, so It cannot be that life was created by the mind.

Well maybe we need to look at our definition of mind again. Because there was some kind of intelligence going on. An intelligent and strategic response to the environment of these single cell organisms, which led to the T Rex and Sartre.

I cannot accept that Tyrannosaurus rex did not have an existence outside the human mind, a real, living and breathing existence outside of our concept of it.

Think about it like this. If life had not evolved at all on earth, today the planet would be just rock and sand with sterile oceans. There would not have been a T Rex. The existence of TRex is as a result of the endeavours of life, living organisms. Same with Sartre.
So everything in our world except for rock, water and gas, was created by our cousins and ancestors. Their minds literally created/caused these things.

Even if we agreed that "Dasein is more radically in the world" we may not agree as to where this world is. Does this world exist within the mind or external to the mind? Is our world the construction of our mind.

Perhaps what these people are talking about is always skirting around the edge of the truth of the matter. Whenever one takes aim, the attempt glances of in a tangent and never reaches the target. This would suggest a return, or synthesis with, the alternative approach of the East. The apophatic, or realisation of the route of stillness.
If one is not addressing the target, or not addressing that which always misses the target, one is not wrong. Not as wrong as the person who addresses it, but misses.

The English word “one” traces back from Middle English oon, on, and oan to Old English ān, which comes from Proto-West Germanic *ain, itself from Proto-Germanic *ainaz, and ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *h₁óynos, all meaning “single” or “one.”

What is infinite about this? It’s just one.
Or if it’s a singularity, what is infinite about it?

Infinity in mathematics isn’t a really big number or just the result of dividing by zero. It’s the idea of ‘unboundedness’ or ‘endlessness",for any number you name, there’s always another number beyond it.

Yes, I know what infinity is, it’s a concept. It describes an idea, how has this got anything to do with a universal primordial undifferentiated singularity, something we know nothing about, or can’t explain?

I did not say that it is infinitelly One, I said that the quality of infinite (which I defined earlier) is assigned to the same thing that has the quality of One (which I also defined) . See it like this: If the universe is all there is then what is the end of it? What would a limit to existence itself be? Non-existence? The universe does not have a limit besides its own geometry

How is it ‘assigned’?
Just because it might not seem to make sense that the universe, or existence has an end to it, it doesn’t follow that it is unbounded, or endless. We just can’t make these conclusions. If so, you will have to justify this conclusion.

meaning what you see as space is not actual space, because space may not exist in fact, what you witness is an internal relation

Internal in what, the mind? The one?

Space and time are deterministic (ordered), quantifiable and exist only in relation to everything else (and also have two opposite ends-, e.g. Big bang-Big crunch)

What you are describing here is something finite, bounded, limited. How do we get from an infinite one, to a finite realm?
Does the one somehow contain finite things, potential?

In ancient Greek, “apeíron” literally means “the boundless” or “the unlimited,” deriving from the negative prefix a- (“without”) and peîrar (“limit”), thus denoting that which has no boundaries or end. Anaximander posited apeíron as the primal archḗ of all things—immaterial, timeless, and indivisible—from which everything emerges and to which everything ultimately returns. Through its eternal motion, apeíron explains the birth of opposites (hot–cold, wet–dry) and the ongoing cycle of world creation and dissolution.

I have no problem with this, although, as I say this is a description of eternity. Whoever said it is not in a position to conclude that such a thing is strictly boundless, or strictly unlimited in the terms of infinite extent. Which is the consequence of applying infinity to finite space, or time. It leads one to interpret this as describing an infinite space and time, something which results in intellectual absurdities and confusion.
Whereas when eternity, or boundless, or unlimited are used to describe divinity, or existence of the universe. It is accepting transcendence, limitless potentiality, possibility. Ideas which don’t lead to these absurdities.

"that which has no end"

There are numerous problems with the use of infinity here.

One is a number and infinity in maths is about large quantities of numbers, or divisions of numbers. Either very large, or very small, endlessly so. Whereas infinity in this sense is not saying anything about ‘1’, because anything other than one thing, number, isn’t one, infinitely so.

When we look at it in terms of spacial, or temporal ideas, spacetime and existence then other problems arise. Is this one existing thing, or potentiality, infinitely so, Infinitely one? Which is meaningless. Is it opposed to infinitely large (space), or duration, both of which have big logical inconsistencies and may be incoherent. In a way by saying it is infinite, you are suggesting it is infinitely large, so as to encompass an infinite, finite universe.

Whereas if it is outside space, outside time, the use of infinite becomes meaningless. It is simply a unity, oneness. There’s nothing infinite about that.

If it is a oneness, but with infinite potential, is that anymore a oneness, something outside of time and space? Because it has a very large set, of potentials, infinitely so.

Now if we consider it in a religious way, it makes more sense. But a much better word to describe this is eternity. Something which is endless, but not infinitely large, or infinitely temporal. But endlessly transcendent, or something.

There is one word which doesn’t fit here, it’s the word “infinite”. It actually signifies the opposite of what you mean to convey.

Is that what it is? Ok.

It has tendency to slip into that.

Wasn't there a time when the Mods removed this sort of thread on sight?

Or did I dream it

Is navel gazing frowned upon now. Whatever next!

Dasein is more radically in the world than any notion of a conscious subjectivity perceiving objects can convey.

Interesting, I hadn’t realised that philosophy had gone this far. Has a vocabulary been developed, for this subject?

Yes and we know how difficult it is to prove something.

Is it possible to identify a process? Rather than identify, it is more accurate to compare. Compare, but not with a thing, but with a process.

Well we have a narrative of process, rather like our interpretation of ourselves, it is an interpretation. It can be refined through experience and trial and error during our involvement in processes. It can be analysed intellectually, but again this is an abstraction a narrative.

There are schools of practice endeavouring to develop wisdom and mastery of these processes and their interpretation. Shiva Nataraja, symbolises this mastery, an expression of self mastery. The actualisation of divinity, or the whole of creation in a being who can say, I am that I am.

[quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataraja

Asking about "how I being?" we must have something as an example, an image, a template. In this way, one of the key signs of being (which I will propose later) is realized - involvement. That is, something can be itself only on the condition that there is something else or different, from which I deduce that any existence is impossible in a single instance, but is something exclusively in relation to another (Being together).

Agreed.

But on the other hand, when we both look at this "red postbox", how do we know our subjective experiences of the colour "red" are the same?

We are clones from a common ancestor (small group of pre-mammalian predecessors)*. One continuous living lineage. It would be surprising if we saw different things, when looking at the same object.

*I know that there is genetic and sexual variation, but this doesn’t alter our cloned lineage much.

You’re flirting with solipsism a bit there. I’ve no problem with a bit of that, but it might not be of much use here.

The truth may be staring us in the face, but we may well see different truths.

We largely speak a common truth. To claim solipsism with regard to other people is quite extreme.

As I could never run a 4 minute mile because I am limited by the physicality of my body, all brains are limited by their physicality. Brains are physical things.

Yes I agree with you. I was making a point about our ability to understand the truth about existence. That the idea that the answers are complicated, or inconceivable, because if they were simple we would have worked it out by now, are misplaced. That the reason we haven’t worked it out might be for another reason. We are blinkered, or blind to it.

For Heidegger, Dasein’s Being is its existence, but existence understood as the transcendence of a self, an exiting from itself in being ahead of itself in already being in the world. The ‘I am’ , the self, does not pre-exist its relation to the world, but only exists in coming back to itself from the world. The direction of this ‘act’, occurrence, happening, is from future to present, from world to self, rather than the other way around. In the happening of Being, what is the case is secondary to how it is the case, which is in turn secondary to why it is the case. The happening of Being always begins again and again from this wonder.

Interesting, this reminds me of the triadic use of ‘I am’ in Theosophy, which can be tabulated this way.

I am————Personality———— Matter——————-Individuality
I am that——-Soul———————Consciousness——Initiation
I am that I am—Monad—————Spirit———————Identification

To me this suggests that the human being ‘I am’ identifies themself as a being in the world, ‘I am that’. This informs the personality which reflects on what it is (It is that which it is). Which results in when that personality is acting in the world, it acts as a thing (that thing it realises it is)*. But this personality is its own interpretation of itself, so is never actually being itself. It is always its own idea of what itself is. It is always acting out (as if on stage), what it thinks it is, or would be. This means that what is experienced as the self is all the baggage from the past, being projected into the future. A future which is anticipated to be a continuation of what happened in the past.

This then through initiation (trial and error) (eventually) identifies with what it means to be this conscious thing and realises the soul. ‘I am that I am’**.This identifies the personality as an individualised thing that is acting out (as on stage) their own identity in the world.

Then at a later stage, the old sage, identifies the monad and imbues the personality with an identification of divinity, or the world and creation as a whole and that it is the embodiment of this whole in the world. And actualises ‘I am that I am’ and sits under the Bodhi tree.


* this also entails self doubt, confidence, or the lack of etc.

**origin of ‘I am that I am’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

To me it seems likely that improved and more widespread knowledge of our natures is the best hope humanity has for avoiding the bleakness that the denial of our natures is leading towards.

The only hope that humanity has is the transfiguration of our natures, otherwise we are doomed to become extinct due to the overstretch of resources and resultant conflict.* The fossil record has numerous examples, why would we be any different.

Cause; the self obsessed over use of resources.
Effect; extinction, or collapsed civilisation struggling to survive in a polluted world.

* I remember when I learnt of the plight of the mutinous crew of the Bounty. When they became shipwrecked on Pitcairn island. Rather than cooperate and survive, they killed each other.

Then we have bleak future ahead of us then.

We are confronted by aliens all the time: alien cultures, politics, ethics and philosophy. We have enormous difficulty in understanding these aliens, and they are right in our midst. They are our neighbors. Thomas Kuhn said that new scientific paradigms become accepted not because everyone is made to understand the new science, but because the old generation dies off.

Yes, we are cumbersome and slow to learn new tricks. But this trick might not be so difficult. I think part of our problem is we have convinced ourselves that it is complicated. Simply because we have not worked it out yet. But this may be a mistake, the trick might be quite simple, but we are blind to it. Have we considered that we are blind, cannot see the obvious?

You see, philosophers and other thinkers have probably thought of the answer amongst all the wrong and equally plausible answers. But we just don’t know if they have, or which one it is. It might well be one of the less plausible answers, or just something so obvious we just can’t see it. I don’t think it is sensible to assume that it is complicated, inconceivable, or profound. We might just be stupid, or blind.

How fortunate.
If only we could all behave sensibly, we could throw off all this physical stuff we are wearing like an old coat and hang out in peace and harmony. I think there’s a word for this.

An alien may as be different to us as we are to a cat.

Would a cat understand if we explained Sartre's theory of existentialism to it?

Would we understand if an alien explained what they know to us?

But in the example I gave, I was not addressing the likelihood, or possibility that an alien would come along who could tell us. I am assuming that. But rather, if such an alien were to arrive and tell us, we would likely have no difficulty in understanding it.
The secrets of existence may be very simple, like a biology lesson. We are just in the unfortunate position of being blind to this truth.
There may be sufficient information, or clues in the world we find ourselves in to work it out. That it just requires some clever, or intuitive thinking to work it out.

Or rather a change in orientation, ‘metanoia’, in us.

While the basic fact of the matter is that Being is an act, not a thing. (Something that is hardly news to Buddhists.)

Or to me neither.

That change you’re referring to is ‘metanoia’, a transformation of perspective.

Thanks, a useful word.

Husserlian Phenomenology is not at all concerned with material existence as it is focused on the experience of consciousness. It is not merely sayign everything is Mental it just does not care about material measurements -- the aim being to figure out an approach that can better ground science in subjectivity.

I don’t know if this has any bearing on any of this, but it plays a role in my thinking.
The idea that each being is a pure consciousness (or spirit) and the world they are born into gives enough structure around them to articulate being and experience. Another way of seeing this is that each human is a consciousness, a pure being. But if this structure weren’t there no one would be able to determine who was who and where one person ended and another began. Also we would all know each others thoughts all the time. The whole world would just be a chaotic mess.

So the constraining structures in our world play a major role in defining who we are when we are in this world. But also they may play a role in educating us to prepare for a world where these structures are reduced and we need to be able to maintain our defining qualities without them. To anchor these features in spirit.