Rather than answers, I come across labyrinths, knots, crosses and spirals and, of course, gigantic question marks looming in front of me... — Jack Cummins

:up:

The question, though, is do we have a consciousness or does consciousness have us? — Apollodorus

:up: I think that hits the nail on the head .

It's a great topic, but I agree with @Xtrix in that it lacks definition. We are considering one indefinite term ( metaphysics ) as it relates to another indefinite term ( Philosophy ), as it relates to another indefinite term ( consciousness ). The result is frustratingly vague for me.

Philosophy is information about a philosophers consciousness ( absolutely and definitively ) - this is all it reliably is - every time it is uttered. That it alludes to some truth or other is unreliable. All that is reliable and enduring about philosophy is that it reflects the philosophers thinking ( consciousness ). This you can take to the bank, as it has always been so and must always continue to be so.

Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. Life expresses a singular thing - a process called consciousness, but this may be easier to understand if we say life expresses self organization. The words consciousness and self - organization are interchangeable -

I can't help but ask questions because it is as if they explode into my [ self organization ] — Jack Cummins

. What, as a part of [ self organization ], is considered a timeless truth? — 3017amen

But there are facets of [ self organization ] that are interesting, even if they're not "theories" in the modern sense — Manuel

Metaphysics, for me at least, is the underlying and fundamental logic that causes various phenomena.

So, If you agree with these definitions, then the question of metaphysics and philosophy reduces to - what is the underlying logic of self organization? And, I think, along these lines some progress in understanding can be made. If you do not agree with the definitions then that can be discussed.

So, If you agree with these definitions, then the question of metaphysics and philosophy reduces to - what is the underlying logic of self organization? — Pop

As stipulations, for the sake of discussion, this question derived from them definitely works for me. :up:

re: e.g. Autopoiesis

Jack - Just one thing about dualism. In Western philosophy this usually refers to mind-body dualism. In non-dualism it has a much broader meaning. It is best expressed in the word advaita or 'not-two'. It is not just that mind and body that are not two. It is the claim that that there are not two phenomena. This gives us the 'One ' of Plotinus and the claim that Reality and Consciousness are the same unitary phenomenon.

Thus while the rejection of mind-body dualism opens the door to various other ideas, the rejection of all dualism leads ineluctably to mysticism and the single, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. .

. . .

unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. — FrancisRay

So it must be possible that the intrinsic human complementary system......isn’t?

Which is to say, it must be possible that for every single thought, ever, by a human, its immediate negation does not necessarily follow?

There very well may be a metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism, but I rather suspect it cannot arise from rejecting ALL dualisms. Or, on the other hand I suppose, there very well could be a metaphysical doctrine of non-dualism that rejects ALL dualisms, but such doctrine cannot stand in conjunction with the rational agency calling itself human.

Dunno.....maybe there are humans that conceive up but not down, good but not bad, yes but not no. Bet it would be pretty hard to talk to somebody like that, even so.

Advaita "nondualism" is a mystical exercise (like Zen or daojia) but not a cognitive practice. The latter (traditionally) is framed by and subordinate to, yet not eliminated or blocked by, the former (unless I'm mistaken and will soon be corrected).

Advaita "nondualism" is a mystical exercise..... — 180 Proof

My lack of experience causes me to ask....what is being exercised, and that exercised mystically?

My experience, on the other hand, mandates that if this is mystically exercised, than necessarily, that is not, creating a dualism of its own.

Do you agree with the validity of a unique metaphysical doctrine of non-dualism?

It is best expressed in the word advaita or 'not-two'. It is not just that mind and body that are not two. It is the claim that that there are not two phenomena. This gives us the 'One ' of Plotinus and the claim that Reality and Consciousness are the same unitary phenomenon.

Thus while the rejection of mind-body dualism opens the door to various other ideas, the rejection of all dualism leads ineluctably to mysticism and the single, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. . — FrancisRay

I buy this (and thank you for it!). But in the world we live in it's not the sameness of things that is of primary concern, but the differences between things. So it may be all one big phenomenon, but that big one breaks down into sub- and sub-sub- ..., phenomena. And all of that would seem to pivot on the questions asked and why, and how they're answered.

But can you make clearer what you mean by "leads ineluctably to mysticism"? To me it all seems a matter of the purpose of questions asked, and the efficacy of both the asking and answering. Well-asked and well-answered would seem to eliminate mysticism, itself merely evidence of an unsuccessful or incomplete effort.

edit. And what Mww and 180 said.

Metaphysics, for me at least, is the underlying and fundamental logic that causes various phenomena. — Pop

It's an interesting formulation. The only concern on my part is that we try to avoid attributing self organization to the world, when it could be the case that we are the one's doing the organizing e.g. "starmaking", "ways of talking", etc.

It's not so clear to me how to distinguish these two when speaking about the world. The phenomena that arise fleeting in my consciousness seem to be fragmented, incomplete, sometimes random and repetitive. But it could be that when we write or speak to others, we are organizing whatever goes on in the head, in a more structured manner.

I assume something like this happens to other people.

....what is being exercised, and that exercised mystically? — Mww

Maybe meditation is clearer than "mystical exercise". Relaxing the learned fixations on thinking / speaking / believing via dualities (i.e. binary opposites) by meditating on paying attention without using dualities to categorize our experiences (and, thereby, our expectations).

Do you agree with the validity of a unique metaphysical doctrine of non-dualism?

I conceive of plural-aspect holism (Spinoza, Deleuze ... Bohm) whereby 'epistemological distinctions' are disambiguated from 'ontological wholeness' much like e.g. waves and other surface features are distinct yet not separate from the ocean. This is what I think "non-dualism" is getting at: distinctions-without-disconnect.

Well-asked and well-answered would seem to eliminate mysticism, itself merely evidence of an unsuccessful or incomplete effort. — tim wood

Well, horizons (of meaning, intelligibility, information, perception, memory) are absolutely presupposed and can't be "eliminated", therefore, the mystical, like poor, shall always be with us. Trouble (i.e. confusion, delusion) comes, IMO, with filling-in the gaps with gods & other mystagogic woo.

Are you basically saying consciousness is a mystery?
— 3017amen

Yes, in a scientific sense. In a practical sense, it's the most obvious thing in the world. — Xtrix

In that same sense as we know metaphysics includes all that which is behind reality, does this mystery you & I refer to also relate to the Christian (Jesus who had a consciousness) or Cosmological God?

To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd
— Xtrix

Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal?
— 3017amen

This is baffling. What's abstract about syllogisms? It's like saying "What's abstract about 2+2=4?"

Logic is usually called a "formal science." It's very similar to mathematics. Both are grounded in abstractions. I don't see how this is difficult. — Xtrix

This seems to be a little confusing, are you saying the nature of conscious existence is abstract like mathematical structures?

1. What are feelings?
2. What are my experiences made of?
3. Where do my needs reside? For example, is that some sort of metaphysical Will (Schopenauer)? Are the manifestations of the Will itself abstract?
4. Are junk thoughts a euphemism for Maslonian stream of consciousness, and if so, does the law of non-contradiction/excluded middle logically apply to the conscious and subconscious mind?

Maybe just pick one, if you care to... I'm trying to understand your assertion that consciousness is not abstract.
— 3017amen

I'm saying the sentence "consciousness is abstract" is completely meaningless. Abstraction is a cognitive process -- conceptualizations, symbols, words, etc., are all involved in abstraction. Consciousness -- in the ordinary use of the word -- is simply human life, human experience. Abstraction -- like thought, like language, like vision, like hunger -- is one feature of human experience.

So to make a wild statement like that is equivalent, in my view, of saying "experience is hunger," or "consciousness is vision." It's just confusion through and through. — Xtrix

Pardon me but I don't think you answered the question concerning Item 1, which was the complete understanding of human sentience/feelings?

Question 2 is completely incoherent, as I've pointed out before. It assumes there's a materialist explanation for something we have no concrete understanding of, apart from our own subjectivity. — Xtrix

Generally, I agree, thus no exceptions taken. However, for the sake of logical discussion, what makes that question incoherent?

It's what goes on all day long when you're talking to yourself. — Xtrix

You seem to be referring to self awareness or self-consciousness is that correct? To that end what do you actually mean by saying basically one chooses to engage in cognitive " talking to yourself" ?

It's a great topic, but I agree with Xtrix in that it lacks definition. We are considering one indefinite term ( metaphysics ) as it relates to another indefinite term ( Philosophy ), as it relates to another indefinite term ( consciousness ). The result is frustratingly vague for me. — Pop

Thanks Pop!

If we try to put logic to consciousness obviously we encounter many problems that are vague, as it should be. For example, considering how the subconscious and conscious mind work together (not to mention unconscious), we find that more often than not it violates the logical laws of bivalence/excluded middle.

The words consciousness and self - organization are interchangeable - — Pop

This again assumes the there's nothing that transcends the logic associated with the mind, or Being. In other words, if we say the essence of consciousness is self-organization then we can easily refer to say Heisenberg uncertainty principle and see that it is something beyond pure reason.

Accordingly Kant was still ground breaking in his theories hence:

...the mind is viewed as something like a vast blank form which determines the kinds of answers that can be given, but not the specific content which only experience can determine. The forms of intuition, the logical functions of judgment and the categories, fix the necessary conditions of both experience and knowledge but the actual content arises only from something independent of us

So what is independent seems to be much like how the computer works. Consider a computer with hardware and software, your software being your sense experiences, and your hardware being a fixed design comprising intuition, which is something, in part, that seems to be hardwired into the cognitive processes/consciousness. The extended manifestation of the hardware analogy returns us back to the 'nature' behind our sense of wonderment (why do we have this need to wonder about things like causation, etc.), the Will, and other fixed,/innate/intrinsic abstract features of consciousness and self-awareness.

This gives us the 'One ' of Plotinus and the claim that Reality and Consciousness are the same unitary phenomenon.

Thus while the rejection of mind-body dualism opens the door to various other ideas, the rejection of all dualism leads ineluctably to mysticism and the single, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. . — FrancisRay

Hello Francis Ray! Thank you for your contribution.

That is a very intriguing supposition. What do you mean by, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non dualism?

If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?

Maybe meditation is clearer than "mystical exercise". — 180 Proof

Ok. I understand that clarity. Thanks.
—————

Relaxing the learned fixations on thinking / speaking / believing via dualities (i.e. binary opposites) by meditating on paying attention without using dualities to categorize our experiences (and, thereby, our expectations). — 180 Proof

Can I say that reduces to....Relaxing (...) fixations on thinking (...) by meditating on paying attention?

And at the risk of seemingly picking nits, can I say that reduces further to....relaxing by paying attention?

Pardon my predispositions, for in those alone, your proposition becomes a performative contradiction, insofar as I see no logical means for meditation that does not necessitate human thought. How is paying attention accomplished under the auspices of meditation, that is different than paying attention by mere cognitive faculties?

Go find a sensei or guru and learn to meditate.

In that same sense as we know metaphysics includes all that which is behind reality, does this mystery you & I refer to also relate to the Christian (Jesus who had a consciousness) or Cosmological God? — 3017amen

If by God we mean anything we don’t understand, sure.

To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd
— Xtrix

Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal?
— 3017amen

This is baffling. What's abstract about syllogisms? It's like saying "What's abstract about 2+2=4?"

Logic is usually called a "formal science." It's very similar to mathematics. Both are grounded in abstractions. I don't see how this is difficult.
— Xtrix

This seems to be a little confusing, are you saying the nature of conscious existence is abstract like mathematical structures? — 3017amen

No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.

However, for the sake of logical discussion, what makes that question incoherent? — 3017amen

Because it’s like asking about the molecular structure of ectoplasm. Or like asking “Why do things happen?”

You seem to be referring to self awareness or self-consciousness is that correct? — 3017amen

No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean.

@3017amen

From your reference. "Life science is alternatively known as biology, and physical science is subdivided into branches: physics, chemistry, Earth science, and astronomy."

No religion. Time for you to put up or withdraw.

The original question:
Thank you for your input. Let's parse one at a time.
— 3017amen
My turn. Answer this:
"With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion...." Stop right there! Exactly when did religion become a natural/physical science?
— tim wood

I do not want to ask this ten or twenty times. — tim wood

This the third or fourth time asking. We've played this game before. And you're overdrawn on my patience.

Go find a sensei or guru and learn to meditate. — 180 Proof

Yeah.....no I’m not going to do that.

And there’s your sufficient reason for claiming “if you’ve never tried you’ll never know”, which is the most pathetically empty phraseology ever.

(Sigh)

Your words, not mine. Just a suggestion so you'd not ask irrelevant questions next time the topic of 'meditation' comes up. Though maybe not.

Hello Francis Ray! Thank you for your contribution. — 3017amen

Thank you for saying this, since I often wonder whether philosophy forums are a waste of time. .

That is a very intriguing supposition. What do you mean by, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non dualism?

The doctrine of non-duality as expressed by Shankara, the Buddha, Lao Tsu, the Upanishads and so forth is not a proper topic of study for metaphysicians since it makes claims that extend beyond what logic can establish or even what we can think about. If we want to evaluate this doctrine in metaphysics by the use of logic it has to be reduced to a formal metaphysical theory. When translated it is a neutral metaphysical theory. This theory is accessible to any philosopher and is not at all complex but, to quote Michael Caine, not a lot of people know this. This is because most philosophers think mysticism is is not worth studying. . .

A neutral theory states that all positive or extreme metaphysical theories are false. We cannot know they are actually false by the use of logic, since for all we know Reality does not obey the rules, but we do know with complete certainty that metaphysics rejects all these theories for being logically indefensible. Thus Bradley tells us 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result' and Kant tells us 'All selective conclusions about the world as whole are undecidable'. These statements are equivalent. It is simply a fact that all positive global theories fail under analysis.

This leaves just one theory standing and this is a neutral theory, non-dualism and the Perennial philosophy. It is Perennial because it makes complete sense in metaphysics and cannot be refuted. It is the only theory the philosophy department does not teach.

If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?

I don't think so. They would just be acknowledging two kinds of truth. Truth, for the mystic,would be Being, a consequence of what Merrill-Wolff calls 'introception' or 'knowledge-through-identity', aka 'Realisation' and self-knoweldge. Relative truth would require a duality of knower and known, but to assume this is the best we can do for Truth and Knowledge is dualism. A neutral theory denies that there are two things and this includes the distinct phenomena 'knower' and 'known'. By reduction this distinction would evaporate. Relative knowledge may be true or false but is never Truth, for to be a Truth we must know it is True. I think Aristotle says somewhere, 'True knowledge is identical with its object', for this is just a matter of logic, but I've never been able to find the quote.

The epistemology of a neutral theory states that Knowing is Fundamental. Hence the Sufi master Al-Hallaj was crucified for saying 'I am Truth, and not 'I know Truth'. The former is a statement of non-duality, the latter a denial of it. . .

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it. — Xtrix

Sure it seems that human consciousness itself is abstract, mysterious and illogical... much like (and not any different than) the concept of God.

However, for the sake of logical discussion, what makes that question incoherent?
— 3017amen

Because it’s like asking about the molecular structure of ectoplasm. Or like asking “Why do things happen?” — Xtrix

That wouldn't meet the definition standards of incoherence. To ask why do things happen vis-a-vis consciousness one of many answers would be the Will.

No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it. — Xtrix

How do you reconcile the fact that a simple a priori syllogism is not abstract yet the nature of such is abstract (formal logic equals mathematics)?

No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean. — Xtrix

I'm not exactly following that can you provide an example?

I have read about Plotinus, and plan to read his writings in the near future. It is just so difficult to frame and give perspective to the ideas of the various writers. Obviously, there are big differences between concepts, but some of it comes down to the specific language they use. I believe it is important to look for the objective, but it is so hard when we live within our subjective realities. For example, you (Francis) interpret Lao Tzu, in a mystical way, whereas I have just been reading someone arguing for viewing his ideas in a non mystical way. Also, the beliefs we grew up with affect us deeply too, on some level.

So, it is difficult to know how far to go with certain ideas, so I try to keep a fairly open mind, until I reach further clarity. I wish to keep reading as widely as possible. I do also try to come to my own personal conclusions too, partly through discussion on this site, and through contemplation.

Hello Mr. Wood:
Thank you for your input. Let's parse one at a time. If my experiences are made of nothing (as you seem to be implying), are you suggesting some sort of metaphysical reality instead? — 3017amen

Like a breath of fresh air, after the stifling atmosphere of circular philosophical argumentation, I enjoy the clear-eyed views of Tim Wood's terse, and often acerbic, contributions to this forum. His adamant Atheism (Scientism?) simplifies the world into "what matters" (Materialism) and "what doesn't matter" (Metaphysics). That neat & tidy Black & White worldview allows him to make concise & emphatic comments on the ambiguous & equivocal concepts that frivolous philosophers concern themselves with.

But in the early 20th century, such Classical scientific clarity was muddied by Quantum queerness. That's why the no-nonsense physicist Richard Feynman expressed his negative attitude toward wishy-washy Philosophy in a curt statement of frustration : "shut-up and calculate". But other quantum pioneers, such as Heisenberg, accepted the challenge of their baffling "facts", and attempted to reconcile their ambiguous quantum calculations with the mysticism of Eastern Philosophy. In doing so, they inadvertently crossed the line between "serious" science and "trivial" philosophy. And that line in the sand becomes fainter after every wave of speculation into metaphysics. God help us! :cool:

Quantum mysticism :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

PS__As an amateur philosopher, I don't claim to be doing hard science, but merely playfully exploring the remaining mysteries that have not yet succumbed to the sharp-edged scalpel of reductionism. So, please continue asking your questions about "nothing". :joke:

What you say is well worth discussing but I've become involved in too many conversations to pursue it far.

You say - "Which is to say, it must be possible that for every single thought, ever, by a human, its immediate negation does not necessarily follow?"

A negation is always required for a thought or concept. This is why the mystics say we live in a world of opposites. But there would be a way out. 'Man partake of the perpetual', says one Sufi sage wrily, 'but not by thinking he can think about it'. .

That neat & tidy Black & White worldview allows him to make concise & emphatic comments on the ambiguous & equivocal concepts that frivolous philosophers concern themselves with. — Gnomon

Ahhh, could not be further from the truth! Much like time itself, metaphysics is not so neet and tidy. ☺ You may want to review the video...

Heisenberg, accepted the challenge of their baffling "facts", and attempted to reconcile their ambiguous quantum calculations with the mysticism of Eastern Philosophy — Gnomon

And that's because those who consider life being neat and tidy have to face the harsh reality that it's not. Heisenberg/Godel proved that.

But can you make clearer what you mean by "leads ineluctably to mysticism"? — tim wood

The study of metaphysics reveals that all extreme metaphysical theories are logically absurd. This is the most general and final result of metaphysical analysis. It is not disputed by the academics or the mystics. for it is just a matter of logic. The difference is one of interpretation. The mystics reject all these absurd theories and states they are absurd because they are false.

In this way the results of metaphysical analysis lead ineluctably to the door of mysticism. It is a simple argument but unassailable. Quite why so few people see it is a comlpex question, but I think mainly it is because professional philosophers don't do their job properly.

Now I'll be in trouble.
.

The study of metaphysics reveals that all extreme metaphysical theories are logically absurd. — FrancisRay

Which of course is no different than the logical explanation of human consciousness itself. And so one can say it is beyond/transcends logic.

Quite why so few people see it is a comlpex question, but I think mainly it is because professional philosophers don't do their job properly. — FrancisRay

Mr. Ray! If we did not wonder about causation our quality of life would not be what it is today. Among many other humanities science would suffer...

The irony is we are barred from ultimate knowledge and explanation by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek an explanation in the first place. But without the self-aware curious mind, philosophy doesn't exist...

In this way the results of metaphysical analysis lead ineluctably to the door of mysticism. — FrancisRay

Yes, but only when "metaphysical analysis" is inadequate (i.e. Woo-of-the-Gaps via the principle of explosion). From the incoherent to the unintelligible is the shortest "leap of faith" imaginable.

If you can get a grip on the metaphysical scheme of Plotinus then you'll have no trouble with any other authentic teacher. They all say the same thing in their own way. But you;re right to say this is difficult to confirm. This is why I feel metaphysics is so important, since the only other way to syncretise their teachings is meditation.

Relevancy is a judgement, dependent solely on understanding. You find irrelevancy in the questions I ask, not from the understanding from which they arise, but from the understanding by which they are received.