Where is Peter Ralston wrong?

[Princess Arabia]

2 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

Including that one 😂

😜😛

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, AION said:

First off, he doesn’t secretly believe in a perceiving center. In fact, a huge part of his work is aimed at helping people directly realize that the perceiver, the subject-object split, and the idea of a “center” are illusions.

That's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. That statement is incoherent, and I'll explain why.

If you say that the perceiver and the object are illusions, then why do you call reality consciousness? If there is no subject and object, then consciousness would be an appearance; there would only be undifferentiated reality.

But the fact is that differences exist. Differences are necessarily relationships between opposites, between different states. These differentiations must be dynamic, constantly changing, otherwise they don't exist. So, what changes? With respect to what?

Ralston's entire ontology, from the ground up, is wrong. Let's see, forget about competing to see who's right and, as a mental experiment, consider my perspective and the possibility that Ralston is radically wrong. Then return to the mental framework where Ralston is right. See if there's any difference, if your mind expands or contracts with the different perspectives.

Edited July 2 by Breakingthewall

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

https://www.actualized.org/insights/the-concept-of-bullshit

@Breakingthewall 

[Breakingthewall]

50 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Absolute, timeless, boundless energy appearing as form

Energy is form, any energy is measurable, have a frequency, an intensity, a quality. From a physics perspective, energy is the fluctuation of a field of reality. A field is a reality-based structure where fluctuations can potentially occur, and therefore always do. A field is never static; it vibrates at different levels.

If we assume that reality has no limits, a field cannot have them either it has local limits but not absolute ones. It is a relational structure, that is, a form that can unfold in infinite relationships. This implies that everything that exists as form can unfold infinitely, without a background, and all the relationships that would appear would be perfectly synchronized and infinitely interconnected. Reality would be an unthinkable compendium of limitless interconnected relationships. It is immeasurable; what is accessible is its essence, which is what is related, which is its substance. The substance is the openess that allows the relationship and make it inevitable and without limits. This is our nature, enlightenment is openess 

 

 

.

Edited July 2 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

@Breakingthewall 

Where are bullshit? I'm just developing the inevitable consequences of the absence of limitations 

[Nilsi]

I’ve read his Consciousness Trilogy and done all the practices.

His work is sophisticated and often very compelling, but it still begins with a specific split: the assumption that there is an unmediated ground of pure consciousness and that what obscures it is the conceptual overlay - identity, belief, interpretation, etc. 

This is essentially a phenomenological move: the idea that by stripping away mental constructions, you can encounter the Real directly.

You could say that this split and its impossibility are already acknowledged in his system. That’s what makes it interesting and gives it a certain depth.

But it’s still, in the end, a particular truth practice aimed at a particular outcome. If you want to do it, you can do it, but it’s not somehow above or beyond all other possible perspectives.

Edited July 2 by Nilsi

[Breakingthewall]

9 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

the assumption that there is an unmediated ground of pure consciousness

This is exactly the problem. If the basis of your ontology is a limit, all its development will be limited. You might think that's not the case, that consciousness is infinite and therefore unlimited. A straight line can also be infinite, but it's limited to its straightness.

If you develop an ontology for years based on an error, you deepen the error, you are absolutely convinced that you are right, and you draw many people to your perspective. These people will have the feeling that they have left a limited materialist paradigm to enter another, broader dimension, but they will always have the feeling that something is missing, a slight dissatisfaction. Ralston would tell them: you have not yet reached pure consciousness; there is still noise in you. And they will never get out of there.

[CARDOZZO]

36 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I’ve read his Consciousness Trilogy and done all the practices.

His work is sophisticated and often very compelling, but it still begins with a specific split: the assumption that there is an unmediated ground of pure consciousness and that what obscures it is the conceptual overlay - identity, belief, interpretation, etc. 

This is essentially a phenomenological move: the idea that by stripping away mental constructions, you can encounter the Real directly.

You could say that this split and its impossibility are already acknowledged in his system. That’s what makes it interesting and gives it a certain depth.

But it’s still, in the end, a particular truth practice aimed at a particular outcome. If you want to do it, you can do it, but it’s not somehow above or beyond all other possible perspectives.

Pick one: Deleuze, Ralston, Wilber or Nietzsche?

[UnbornTao]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Where are bullshit? I'm just developing the inevitable consequences of the absence of limitations 

Yep, you keep thinking that. 

[Jodistrict]

34 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I’ve read his Consciousness Trilogy and done all the practices.

His work is sophisticated and often very compelling, but it still begins with a specific split: the assumption that there is an unmediated ground of pure consciousness and that what obscures it is the conceptual overlay - identity, belief, interpretation, etc. 

This is essentially a phenomenological move: the idea that by stripping away mental constructions, you can encounter the Real directly.

You could say that this split and its impossibility are already acknowledged in his system. That’s what makes it interesting and gives it a certain depth.

But it’s still, in the end, a particular truth practice aimed at a particular outcome. If you want to do it, you can do it, but it’s not somehow above or beyond all other possible perspectives.

He goes further than that.   He emphasizes having direct experience of the truth, otherwise it is just another belief as you have stated it.  

[Breakingthewall]

26 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

Pick one: Deleuze, Ralston, Wilber or Nietzsche?

Deleuze is the one who comes closest to real openness, but he remains confined within the idea of becoming as if it were the ultimate structural principle of reality, when in fact it is only its manifestation.

Wilber develops brilliant and integrative ideas, but ultimately closes his system by introducing Spirit as the unifying background of everything , a disguised ontological closure.

Nietzsche is groundbreaking in dismantling classical metaphysics, but his vision that struggle and conflict are the essence of reality is limited to the local dimension of life as we experience it, rather than reflecting the total structure of reality.

Ralston, like most neo-advaita philosophers, closes the system by equating reality with consciousness as an absolute background

Edited July 2 by Breakingthewall

[Princess Arabia]

48 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Energy is form, any energy is measurable, have a frequency, an intensity, a quality. From a physics perspective, energy is the fluctuation of a field of reality. A field is a reality-based structure where fluctuations can potentially occur, and therefore always do. A field is never static; it vibrates at different levels.

If we assume that reality has no limits, a field cannot have them either it has local limits but not absolute ones. It is a relational structure, that is, a form that can unfold in infinite relationships. This implies that everything that exists as form can unfold infinitely, without a background, and all the relationships that would appear would be perfectly synchronized and infinitely interconnected. Reality would be an unthinkable compendium of limitless interconnected relationships. It is immeasurable; what is accessible is its essence, which is what is related, which is its substance. The substance is the openess that allows the relationship and make it inevitable and without limits. This is our nature, enlightenment is openess 

 

 

.

ok I understand.......😏😴

[Nilsi]

24 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

Pick one: Deleuze, Ralston, Wilber or Nietzsche?

Deleuze. Every day of the week.

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Delueze is the one that comes closest to openness, but he remains focused on the idea of becoming as the ultimate essence of reality, when it is its manifestation. Wilber develops very brilliant ideas but closes with the spirit that is the essence of everything. Nietzsche is groundbreaking, but his idea that the essence of reality is struggle is limited to the local reality of life as we know it. Ralston closes with conciousness, same than all neo advaita philosophers 

I challenge you to actually sit down and read „Difference and Repetition“ yourself and tell me what your conclusions are. Forming opinions based on hearsay isn’t all that interesting.

[Nilsi]

12 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Deleuze is the one who comes closest to real openness, but he remains confined within the idea of becoming as if it were the ultimate structural principle of reality, when in fact it is only its manifestation.

Wilber develops brilliant and integrative ideas, but ultimately closes his system by introducing Spirit as the unifying background of everything , a disguised ontological closure.

Nietzsche is groundbreaking in dismantling classical metaphysics, but his vision that struggle and conflict are the essence of reality is limited to the local dimension of life as we experience it, rather than reflecting the total structure of reality.

Ralston, like most neo-advaita philosophers, closes the system by equating reality with consciousness as an absolute background

Although I sincerely appreciate that you at least have the intellectual integrity and open-mindedness to take someone like Deleuze seriously enough to bring him up in this conversation, rather than just dismissing it derisively as “postmodern” or “European.”

So kudos for that. 

[Nilsi]

13 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I challenge you to actually sit down and read „Difference and Repetition“ yourself and tell me what your conclusions are. Forming opinions based on hearsay isn’t all that interesting.

Same with Nietzsche. Although his work is so fragmented that it’s hard to point to a single text as his definitive statement.

Both Nietzsche and Deleuze are not saying anything as simplistic as you make it out to be. They’re two of the most sophisticated and rigorous metaphysicians around, so take any ChatGPT summary, Wikipedia blurb, or especially YouTube clickbait with a big grain of salt.

[Eskilon]

1 hour ago, CARDOZZO said:

Pick one: Deleuze, Ralston, Wilber or Nietzsche?

This is like saying "Pick one: Apple, Chair, Train, Worm".

[CARDOZZO]

23 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

This is like saying "Pick one: Apple, Chair, Train, Worm".

I see value in all of them (Deleuze, Ralston, Wilber, Nietzsche). I just want to understand people here on the forum  

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

This is like saying "Pick one: Apple, Chair, Train, Worm".

It’s a bit like philosophical astrology, I agree.

But still, it’s valuable to be aware of one’s own philosophical predilections.

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, CARDOZZO said:

I see value in all of them 

So do I.