That is idiotic — Blue Lux

It is.

But, consider the gravitation theory and its many applications in projectile motion. For thousands of years civilizations had been applying those theories (hunting, fighting, etc), and yet until scientists found objective ways to explain them (Newton's theories), they remained in the pages of 'things we do but can't explain how we came about them'. Also, remember when computers were solely for industrial use -> they were like some kind of mythical tools from the gods. Nowadays, we can't imagine how small the capacity of the computer was which monitored the first rocket to space and to the moon.

If the best discovery or invention remained hidden in the scientist's basement, it may as well not exist. There's something to be said about sharing an experience.

A language-less creature... — creativesoul

I understand lacking what we currently consider as language, but is there a creature which lacks self-expression? I think beliefs and thoughts are part of self-expression which is inherent in all creatures.

Why is there a need to explain and 'establish' our experience when it is already established, say NOW when I am seeing the screen of my phone, and I am translating my own meaning of words, and I am using as the most absolute reference knowable, my own experience? — Blue Lux

Because science is always seeking to establish its theories through objectivity. A fact is not significant if it does not have objective applications.

How can Neural Activity of any kind ever result in a Red experience? Think about the Redness of the Red. What is that? — SteveKlinko

The 'red' or 'redness' that we perceive is the difference between the signals induced from the different vibrations impacting our senses. There are always multiple vibrations impacting our senses constantly and perception is the distinction between them. A red dot cannot be distinguished on a red paper (when both reds are of equal 'redness') because the filtration process is not equipped to do that. All products of perception are comparisons. We don't see red, we perceive a particular vibration in contrast to other vibrations. Red light is a vibration which is lacking in the other vibrations other than that which it has. It also explains the combination of colours to form a completely different colour. (When the vibrations are matched, from whatever circumstance is producing that effect, it becomes impossible for the brain to tell that there are different vibrations acting as a unity, e.g., purple -> red + blue; orange - red + yellow; white light -> all the vibrations in the spectrum.)

I have altered the definition of perception. Please bear with me.

By which standard would we be measuring our internal ethical rules and external judgments that allow us to change our internal moral compass or decide not to? — Benkei

I think, naturally, we are always seeking greater harmony with our environment and everything in it. Because of that, we continuously seek to redefine the parameters of our interactions. I believe we all attempt to improve our ethics/morals, only some of us do it more often or quicker than others.

Following from the OP, please allow me to give my take on this topic using what I believe are the basic mental processes preceding the idea of 'knowing something'.

Sensation - The recognition of neural impacts by the 'mind' or 'mental process'. This means that the 'mental process' has determined that the brain has registered (recorded and categorized) an impulse which has come through any of its neural pathways.

The brain and the neural pathways act as both recording and filtering instruments. The vibrations from an external object (red light - light whose wavelength and frequency is within the range we identify as red.) reaches the nerve fibres through the specialized organs (in this case, the eyes, others sensory organs include the nose, tongue, etc.). Upon impact that vibration induces a nerve signal in the nerve fibres which is then carried to the brain. Each nerve signal is received as a unique impression and graded in accordance with its characteristics such that even minute changes produce minute differences in the nerve signal induced. The signals are then recorded in the brain, each signal in its own domain. (Signals from the nerves in the eyes are recorded separately from those in the nose or skin.) In this way the neural organization is the first filter. From there, the 'mind' applies its own processing towards identifying the impulse and determining a channel of response.

A major part of the mind's process is what we refer to as attention.

Attention - The focus or distinct application of concentrated awareness towards an object/subject.

"The real truth is that we become conscious of the report of these senses only when the attention is directed toward the sensation, voluntarily or involuntarily. That is to say, that in many cases although the sense nerves and organs report a disturbance, the mind does not become consciously aware of the report unless the attention is directed toward it either by an act of will or else by reflex action. For instance, the clock may strike loudly, and yet we may not be conscious of the fact, for we are concentrating our attention upon a book; or we may eat the choicest food without tasting it, for we are listening intently to the conversation of our charming neighbor." -
From Your Mind and How to Use It by William Walker Atkinson.

Perception - The interpretation or characterization of the acquired sensation by the mind. This process relies heavily upon memory and, sometimes, a little upon the imagination.

"While perception depends upon the reports of the senses for its raw material, it depends entirely upon the application of the mind for its complete manifestation."
"A sensation is a simple report of the senses, which is received in consciousness. Perception is the thought arising from the feeling of the sensation. Perception usually combines several sensations into one thought or percept. By sensation the mind feels; by perception it knows that it feels, and recognizes the object causing the sensation."
"Sensation merely brings a report from outside objects, while perception identifies the report with the object which caused it. Perception interprets the reports of sensation. Sensation reports a flash of light from above; perception interprets the light as starlight, or moonlight, or sunlight. Sensation reports a sharp, pricking, painful contact; perception interprets it as the prick of a pin. Sensation reports a red spot on a green background; perception interprets it as a berry on a bush."
"Moreover, while we may perceive a simple single sensation, our perceptions are usually of a group of sensations. Perception is usually employed in grouping sensations and identifying them with the object or objects causing them. In its identification it draws upon whatever memory of past experiences the mind may possess. Memory, imagination, feeling, and thought are called into play, to some extent, in every clear perception."
"The infant has but feeble perception, but as it gains experience it begins to manifest perceptions and form percepts. Sensations resemble the letters of the alphabet, and perception the forming of words and sentences from the letters. Thus c, a, and t symbolize sensations, while the word “cat,” formed from them, symbolizes the perception of the object." - From Your Mind and How to Use It by William Walker Atkinson.

Conception - The process by which we create or develop objects/subjects in our minds in relation to the external objects and subjects perceived.

From perception, through processes such as reference to memory, abstraction, comparison, classification, generalization, imagination, etc., we create, build or develop an object/subject in our minds which bear characteristics which are similar or relatable to the external objects/subjects.

Therefore, that relationship between the concept and the external object/subject is what I refer to (not conclusively) as 'knowing'.

(Sorry, it turned out to be reeeaaally long.)

:gasp:

Quality is the structural configuration of form. I agree with @tim wood, -> "it is that in which quantity inheres." Quality is the structure while quantity is the force within (analogous to having a material being fundamentally composed of quarks -> structural units; which have charge -> force within). Form is a relationship between quality and quantity.
As to the other acceptable definition of quality being 'value' or 'worth', I posit that it's because form is the aspect which we appreciate through perception, and quality being its more objective characteristic, it is imbued with that identity.

Say that I want to go to college, and I'm presented with three different options and after my research I conclude that college A seems the better option. Does that mean that I can't simultaneously hold that I might be wrong about this judgement? — Πετροκότσυφας

Perhaps.
There is nothing wrong with doubt in the face of truth, as long as it fuels the impetus to seek that truth.

No one has come out and claimed that without doubt 'consciousness does survive the body'. Therefore, I think it is unjust to dismiss such a premise with another hypothetical statement without giving actual proof or applying undeniable logic (based on actual principle and not subjective propositions however 'scientific' they may be clothed).

There is no doubt that this argument of 'consciousness surviving the body' is just a hypothesis. Using the scientific method implies subjecting it to a number of rigorous tests each marking a degree which, if it passes, takes it closer to being considered as truth. However, without the last step, that of experimental testing and the conclusive analysis and deductions from the results achieved therefrom, it can never conclusively be said to be fact. However, the scientific method does allow a hypothesis to satisfy certain parameters which make it a 'working hypothesis' while the rigour of the scientific method proceeds. The argument 'consciousness does not survive the body' or 'consciousness does not exist' is not an invalidating argument, since it is not based on actual observation, and is just as un-empirical as the premise, and therefore cannot be used to dismiss it.

To think that we may be wrong in principle and be right in application (details) is quite the paradox. I often make my arguments in principle because they are more objective than individual applications which are liable to be misinterpreted (tinged with personal bias) and attached to the wrong fundamental principles, often due to a lack of in-depth investigation or by being too quick to dismiss a premise without checking to offer the proper conclusion deduced from actual experimental testing and therefore would be immature for such a summation.

I have studied philosophy and I believe (subjectively) that I know what I'm about.

Finally, one person 'feels' strongly that 'consciousness survives the body'; another 'feels' just as strongly it doesn't, but none can show proof. Therefore, don't claim fact!

Energy and matter is what makes up the physical universe, life and consciousness are not energy, they are product of matter and energy, something that evolved from it and they are driven by it, but they aren't it themselves. — Christoffer

This is wrong because it does not keep with the law that states 'like begets like'. A product of matter and energy would be matter and energy.

As I described, the consciousness and the mind of a person exists because of the neurons, and the formation of neurons are the basis for the consciousness we have. This is the current scientific theory of the consciousness. — Christoffer

What you are stating is that consciousness and mind are limited to brain physiology. I'm saying there's physiology and psychology at work. One is physical and tangible, the other is metaphysical and intangible but both are manifest and interrelate in human activity. Is not psychology a science?

I repeat my point, there is no proof of persistence of consciousness after death or lack thereof. Considering the validity of the discussion is not a fallacy, it's part of the scientific process - questioning and considering the options.

First, everything is energy, whether tangible or intangible (or an activity). Therefore, you need to check your definition.

Second, you need to google 'the scientific method'.

Third, just because consciousness doesn't fit your profile of science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does the mind exist? Does the psyche exist? Then, in the same way that a relationship between the brain and mind or brain and psyche exists, so we have the analogy between life and consciousness. If everything was 'physical', do you think doctors wouldn't have dissected the brain and found the mind and psyche? It's why this discussion belongs in metaphysics or spiritual or religious philosophy. Else, we would be talking about the physical.

Lastly, if your 'scientific method' is based on Karl Popper's method of falsification, then, it is deficient because all it does is find flaws. If it doesn't find any, then it approves. What if you can't falsify a statement, does that prove that it's right or that you are unable to?
The scientific method existed before Karl Popper and while his falsification method, points to the obvious, it does not add any conditioning (which wasn't known before) to the process. All it does is caution people not to be too quick to judge without as much consideration as possible, a proposition which I'm deflecting back to you.

I'm looking into consciousness the same way I would look into mind or psyche. If you can't, don't blame it on being un-scientific.

I think the scientific method is also a very good way of thinking, meaning; you don't try and prove your idea, you try and disprove it, by any means necessary. If you cannot disprove your idea, however much you try and however someone else tries to do it, it then becomes proven, rational and logic in it's form. — Christoffer

What you're referring to is not the scientific method. I think you're the one who's got things twisted. Are you implying Newton worked to disprove gravity?

Once a principle is proved, it can never be disproved. As to the inability to disprove something, it is just that - inability. It does not become proof of anything.

Yes, everybody knows that corpses decay.

You seem to miss the meaning I'm trying to convey. If everything is energy, then life and consciousness would also fall in that category. If you don't appreciate the names, fill the blanks with what you may. Also, thermodynamics does not prove that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed'. If it can, show me.

As to 'life after death', there is no definitive proof of what happens or doesn't happen but there is a logical argument that life (or the energy configuration commonly referred by that name) could not only be defined by the limits of the vibrations we interact with. I'm saying it is illogical to presume that life is limited within the rates of vibration of osmium (the densest solid - just googled it) and gamma rays (the highest frequency known yet). It is very logical to suppose lower and higher vibrations exist and in relation to lives like ours just as we now know there are gamma waves in the brain. And it may be that 'life after death' is just an energy relationship which we have not yet discovered.

Science is not supposed to claim that what it knows is everything to know. Life after death is about possibilities not definitives.

1. KRISHNA -
-> 3:5. No one can stay truly action-less even for a moment, for the properties of prakriti (matter) compel all to act!
-> 3:21. What the best one is doing, the others are doing as well: people follow such an example.
-> 4:11. In whatever way people come to Me, in the same way I receive them. For the paths by which people come to Me from all sides are My paths.
-> 5:15. The Lord is not responsible for the deeds of people, be they bad or good. This wisdom is covered by ignorance that overcame people.
-> 5:18. The wise look equally upon all — be it a brahman endowed with knowledge and humility, an elephant, a cow, a dog, or even a man eating a dog.
-> 8:6. Whatever state is habitual to man at the end of existence in the body, in that very state this person remains.
-> 9:29. I am equal towards all beings. To Me there is no hateful or dear ones.
-> 10:36. I am in the gambling of cheats, in the magnificence of the most magnificent things.

The above quotes by Krishna are from The Bhagavad Gita.
While representing God, Krishna does not exclude anyone or anything from his teachings. People may say they're spiritual or religious, but all I see is philosophy.

2. GOD (Christian God) -
-> 'I AM WHO I AM'

This quote (from the Bible) is the best there is. Most people, if asked 'who are you' would give their names or a description of their personality. But, let's face it, we are who we are, not who we were or can be.
Eminem comes close with, "I am, whatever you say I am. If I wasn't, then why would I say I am." This is as close to the principle of subjectivity as you can get. No matter what we perceive, it is coloured by our inherent bias, even when we are objective. Hence, the intelligent question is never 'what do we perceive?' But, 'why do we perceive what we perceive?'

3. JESUS -
-> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
-> Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.

It is hard to see beyond the many miraculous events surrounding him, but I think Jesus is the best psychologist. He was also a master in ethics.

4. BUDDHA - The teacher.
-> “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

It isn't enough to say that his teachings have revolutionized our modern society. in principle, they define and inspire the ethics we try to attain as humanity.


5. SOCRATES - This is the man who leads himself straight and true and would not compromise his morals no matter what. To me, he represents true leadership.

6. PYTHAGORAS/PLATO - The true scholars. They achieved more, using logic, than science has through the intervening millenia, from their deaths to the present.

7. EMANUEL SWEDENBORG - Perhaps the best example that science and spirituality have the same origin - universal wisdom.

8. RALPH WALDO EMERSON - The seer. Through all his writings, as demonstrated in 'Representative Men', no one has shown such a capacity to observe the essence of things as has Emerson.

9. MUHAMMAD ALI - He fought in and out of the ring.
He denied and changed his 'slave-name'; stood against his nation over 'unjust' war politics; even lost his well-deserved and hard-earned titles for a while; and all because he believed in his principles. If life has a warrior, perhaps it somwhat resembles Ali. It is no wonder his romanticized title as the G.O.A.T is yet unchallenged.

There are many others: Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, William Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth I & II,... etc.

The unity I refer to is LIFE. It is the principle underlying everything we mean by truth or reality. Theosophy is more a mixture of the various religious principles.

'Godhead' is just a name. The principle is that of unity. Unfortunately, theosophy is limited to spiritual language, though the underlying principles are very universal.

In principle, we share agreement on life after death. As to application, I think the theosophical explanation of reincarnation and evolution of life is better than the others.

I don't think the more poignant point is whether there is or isn't life after death. If you accept the philosophical (later scientific) assertion that, 'energy (life) can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed', then the bottom line becomes there's life before birth and after death. The better question would be: "What kind of life is it?"
In earlier times, before 'science' became the by-word for everyone trying to explain reality, the weight of a person's theories were measured in how logical they were and not necessarily on proof. Science would like to refute that, but then I ask: "If science is okay with the postulate that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed... ' does it mean it has tested all the energy in existence and therefore has undeniable proof of that? Literally, that's a resounding NO! So, then, perhaps the answer to 'life after death' is not in the proof we may or may not have, but in how logical it would be for the presence or absence of that life after death.

Then you probably mean something else than Western esoteric traditions — litewave

Also try theosophy (mixture of eastern and western esoteric teachings), yoga (old teachings by Swami Vivekananda and Swami Sivananda, new by Dr. Vladimir Antonov - Swami Centre), books by William Walker Atkinson/Yogi Ramacharaka, also Bhagavad Gita, Spiritism books by Allan Kardec.

I don't know about mistakes or spiritual fall but I understand it from the perspective of necessity and choice. Necessity is law, Choice is will. Choice must align to Necessity. We choose to act in a certain way, we reap repercussions according to law.

From what I've learned from esoteric studies, the progression as we evolve from our initial, through our transitory and to the final phase of life cannot have a regression. There may be delays but never regression.
The teaching goes something like:
Initially, we are like 'electrons' in the 'sun'. We have the warmth and light (love and wisdom) of the 'sun' but we are solely dependent on it. That is, by ourselves, say the 'electrons' are hurled through space, the warmth and light would diminish gradually. Therefore, our evolution is the process by which we learn to become 'suns' and have the capacity to give warmth and heat of our own volition and nature.

Does this make any sense?

Even if I couldn't ultimately be harmed why would I choose to go through hell without not much to learn from it? — litewave

First, I believe there is much to be learned from every situation. Secondly, you got me thinking, what about addiction? Addicts do choose to go through hell and most often without much to learn from it. I think the balance between knowing and not knowing has many shades of grey.

Perhaps, instead of 'suppressing memory', it's more of a provision where by you can only remember certain things if you attain certain degree of experience. For example, with our humanity being largely primitive 'emotionally' and even 'mentally', imagine what someone like hitler would do if he realized in present times of his atrocities back then? Probably suicide or worse become unhinged and go on another killing-spree. Therefore, like Yogis, I think we unlock as much of our memories as we can handle.

I wouldn't say the 'suppression' is unintentional, more of, it's a choice whether we are aware or unaware of it. It can be intentional in the sense that, the wisdom extracted from the experience is of significance while the minute details or circumstances are not, hence our analytical and memory processes work in unison to give what is necessary.

I'm grey on this topic so I'm still trying to process it.

My beliefs run parallel (for the most part) with @Sam26 particularly in the sense of life's unity. Anyway, I would like to contribute my opinion on the 'suppression of memory'.
I think if asked to retell anything about any of our past day(s) in life, especially the most memorable, whether the best or worst of moments, it would be difficult to express every detail to the hour, let alone minute. We lose a lot of information to our untrained capacity to remember. While I cannot offer any proof of reincarnation/metempsychosis, I do find it rather captivating in the way it unifies experience and, somewhat, in accordance with the scientific law that, "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed." (Reincarnation is all about transformation of 'human' energy.)
Anyway, sorry I digressed a bit there, the 'suppression of memory' seems to me as an 'unachieved capacity' to fully recall, not just our current life experiences but all our experiences as 'human' energy (or souls, spirits, consciousness, ego, self, etc, whichever your currency is). This, to me, somewhat explains such phenomenon as people who have eidetic memories or perfect recall, people who claim to remember past lives with high levels of accuracy, or people like the Buddha, whom it is said, recalled all his past lives through all the levels of evolution, from the beginning to his present, during his meditations. Perhaps with time and through certain disciplines we learn to 'more fully' remember (realize) our connection to life (or God, energy, etc, again, per your currency).

So, there is no common historical school of thought that you find agreeable/amenable to your own worldview in enough ways that you would self-identify with it. — creativesoul

Was Jesus a Christian? Was Buddha a Buddhist?

It's okay to learn from others as long as we remember our duty to ourselves. Understanding is an individual aspect no matter from whom or where it is learned. I do learn from notable philosophers but I do not pretend that my thought processes are aligned with (or limited to) theirs. Most of those we learn from were not limited to the schools of thought they have been ascribed to. So far, these distinctions to knowledge seem to be a modern and progressive theme. Moving back towards antiquity, we find a unification of disciplines where philosophy, mathematics, alchemy, science, astronomy, astrology, spiritualism/religion, metaphysics, etc were all part of the same discipline.
Presently, most of the -isms we have are just shades of fanaticism. Schools have become like religion -> they want to be special in an exclusive way. (I don't mean specialization. Even in the olden days it was possible to specialize without the exclusion of other disciplines. Also, most great scholars and philosophers had multiple fields of study, experience and practice.)

I'm not pro determinism or any other -ism. (I hate -isms, they limit philosophy to human bias)

You seem stuck on dependence; on humans being some kind of 'gods' or on exemplifying human genius.
My point is interdependence. Thought and belief are part of human activity. If they were created or invented at some point, wouldn't that mean there was a time when they didn't exist? Is that your point? That, there was a time, prior to their creation/invention, when thoughts and beliefs didn't exist?

My point is that thoughts and beliefs are part of the human process. We did not invent/create them, we just realised we had such capacities and applied them deliberately.

I'm not saying we don't have things we call 'inventions' and 'creations'. But they are all imitations of some function already existing in nature.
Books, typewriters, computers -> imitations of some brain functions.
Human thought and belief, social constructs -> we had them before we were consciously aware of mental process. They are instinctive. We didn't create or invent instincts.

As much as we think they depend on us, we also depend on them. That is my point.

Through the processes of creation, invention, dependence, etc., humans are neither the first nor last in that chain of cause and effect. I understand the term 'existentially dependent upon' to imply 'owing existence to'. My point is nothing owes its existence to humans. Life is the pattern we are a part of; it determines us, we do not determine it.

Instead of reducing things to fit your perspective, try expanding your perspective to include things. I believe it is how to increase our knowledge base.

The beauty of common language is, even though it does not express common thought, it does, however, express common experience. It is a fact of common human experience that beauty is a thing (identity). Hence we say, "that is beauty," or "that is not beauty,".
We also say, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." This expresses another fact of human experience, which is that, beauty is a relationship.

The principles I have deduced may not be agreeable but how can we doubt experience? Unless, perhaps, my understanding of it is mistaken... ?

You fail to understand how both absoluteness and relativity, or objectivity and subjectivity, interrelate with each other. An inherent quality is also a relationship. To give an example closer to home:

Dna is an inherent quality in our genetic make-up. However, it is also a relationship in the sense that multifarious dominant and recessive factors combine to give the specific outcome that we are. It expresses both the overall person as well as the multiple channels of activity.

Allow me to explain in principles:

The truth, though singular and unyielding, cannot be expressed only in unity. If that were the case, then there would be no multiplicity. The ultimate is also the fundamental; the greatest is the simplest. That which is absolute is also the most relative. Hence LIFE is not just the whole but the individual as well.

Beauty is an aspect of the absolute, but only with respect to its relative aspects. If beauty was the quality of attraction in the absolute only, what would it be attracting? There would be nothing beyond itself to attract, else, it would not be absolute. However, because it operates in the whole through the many, it is both a principle and a relationship. It defines both identity and activity.
Another analogy would be a comparison with sense perception. Not only are we aware of our whole body as one, but also of each appendage independently though not detached. We can move one arm or leg while the other remains dormant even though sensation is continuously active in both.
The fundamental principle of beauty is the same - it is present within all life, though, by its activity, particular areas can be exemplified over others depending on choice.

As an identity, we can speak of that or that being the beauty of something. As a relationship, we can also speak of beauty as being in our perception, that is, in our minds, thoughts, emotions, feelings, sentiments, etc. Unfortunately, our language, as yet, does not filter perspective and cannot differentiate between subjectivity and objectivity without giving a lengthy and often tiresome discussion.

[When science discovered the atom, it proclaimed it to be the fundamental of life. Years later, simpler configurations have been discovered, but because the language is still the same, we find that we keep shifting from one ultimate to another. Scientists want to claim that what they have discovered is the furthest in human knowledge, though, over the years, philosophy has proved that literal fact and practical fact are not the same. Science works in literal activity while philosophy works in practical activity. Hence, philosophy, however primitive it may be, realized that the world was a globe thousands of years before science saw that it was.]

Beauty is a relationship - both objective and subjective. Because everything in LIFE is dependent upon each other, therefore, everything in LIFE has the capacity to attract another and has beauty as an inherent quality. However, there is also the beauty that is a real-time relationship between aspects that are in a particular phase of activity/interrelation - this is relative and subjective.

For example: Suppose you live somewhere in the Alps and outside your house is a most captivating scenery. However, due to the demands of your employment there is never time to enjoy that beauty. Now, also, suppose your neighbour is a work/stay-at-home individual who wakes up every morning and meditates to the beautiful scenery. Though such is the predominant state of their relation to the Alps' beauty, it does not take away from it. At any time, should they wish and for whatever reasons, any of them could ignore that beauty as much as they could appreciate it. That is what free-will is about - CHOICE. To me, ugly just means a lack of appreciation!

The Bible (and all religious/spiritual books and teachings) are subjective. Just because it is written does not mean it is or was. Most of religious/spiritual teachings are symbolic and lose practical significance when taken to be literal. If GOD, as described in the Bible is taken to be literal all the time, then He becomes no more than a tyrant.

Isn't well-being the application of the knowledge of truth?

I think dependence and independence are just ways to imply relationships. Fundamentally, everything in LIFE relates/interconnects to each other in one way or another. LIFE does not exclude. When two things are said to negate each other, it just means they have a particular kind of relationship (perhaps antagonistic; or, one in which the distance between them, from a certain perspective, seems to be greater than expected or on the increase). Even human inventions and creations just mean new 'configurations' of already existing material (and are only new, at least, from our perspective).

There is nothing new under the sun and no man is an island.

If the relationship between things is of current import or we are aware of it in real-time, we often use the word dependence; if the relationship is not of current import or we are not aware of it, we use the term independence.

I think we have always been dependent on LIFE and everything in it. We just have a different outlook of it from our perspectives. For, example, we have always depended on tools - at one time they were fingers, hands, teeth, etc. At some other times, sticks, ropes, fire, wheels, pulleys, gears, machines... Nonetheless, tools.

We may notice the distance/difference/distinction between the various aspects of LIFE, but they are not permanent, hence not real. Subjectivity is about limiting perspective or being aware of the relative aspects of LIFE; while objectivity is about unification into wholes, the ultimate being LIFE itself.

Therefore, anything that seems to depend on another, is itself depended upon by that other.

When referring to logic, it's not a matter of 'if it is true'. Logic is a statement of fact/in relation to fact. If there is any error, it cannot be logic/logical. Thinking may be erroneous and still retain its identity because it refers to a process without the significance of the end result.

A circular argument is just another way of saying paradoxical or 'not-yet-figured-out'.

As to using the mind to study the mind - check your definition of mind. This sounds like 'I use light to observe light'. It may be true when there are separate lights, but, you don't have separate minds, do you? I think the question should be, 'If I study my mind/look into my mind, what is it that actually does the studying/looking? [Perhaps that is the basis for terms like ego, id, self, the 'I',... etc.]

; ;

Beauty can be both objective and subjective. Objectivity and subjectivity do not necessarily negate each other. Suppose we defined beauty as the aspect of attraction in something. Isn't that as objective as it is subjective?

Read this:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

By Rudyard Kipling.