It’s All in Your Mind

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

@Breakingthewall I dont think im tracking, because you seem to be using the term "logic" in a very loaded way, where it is hardcore loaded with your own sense of whats true/accurate and it isn't just about the laws of classical logic.

I will try it this way - are you a modal realist?

How is your view different from non-duality?

Logic means relationship. Any relationship is logical. Any relationship is mathematical. Logic means coherence. Only what's coherent exist. Just because what is not coherent can't exist, because anything needs it's reflection, it's opposite polarity to be. 

That's because nothing exist inherently, "exist" means relationship, reflection. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:49 PM by Breakingthewall

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Logic means relationship. Any relationship is logical. Any relationship is mathematical. Logic means coherence. Only what's coherent exist. Just because what is not coherent can't exist, because anything needs it's reflection, it's opposite polarity to be. 

That's because nothing exist inherently, "exist" means relationship, reflection. 

Yeah you have a unqiue notion of logic and thats fine, just be aware that this is not how it is typically used.

You didnt directly answer the questions I asked - If you are not sure what im trying to ask, then I will clarify, but you probably know what I mean by non-duality, so again - How is your view different from non-duality?

Edited Wednesday at 11:57 PM by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, zurew said:

You didnt directly answer the questions I asked - If you are not sure what im trying to ask, then I will clarify, but you probably know what I mean by non-duality, so again - How is your view different from non-duality?

Non-duality is a conceptual framework. It states that there are no two, everything is one, and that everything is consciousness. These are definitions that occur on the mental plane, even though they think of it as no-mind or emptiness. What I'm talking about is the energetic opening to the source of all that exists, to the unlimited. It's not a realization, it's an action.

[zurew]

59 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

These are definitions that occur on the mental plane, even though they think of it as no-mind or emptiness.

I dont know what any of that means.

What does it mean for a definition to occur anywhere?

59 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

What I'm talking about is the energetic opening to the source of all that exists, to the unlimited. It's not a realization, it's an action.

I dont see how that is incompatible with non-duality.

There it sounds like you are talking about epistemology - on how you come to know what the ultimate reality is or how you connect to it, but you dont say anything about ultimate reality that would be incompatible with non-duality (when it comes to metaphysics.)

Edited yesterday at 11:59 AM by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

There it sounds like you are talking about epistemology - on how you come to know what the ultimate reality is or how you connect to it, but you dont say anything about ultimate reality that would be incompatible with non-duality (when it comes to metaphysics.)

Non-duality states that reality is consciousness, that its foundation is consciousness, and that phenomena appear within it. I believe that's impossible; reality is conscious, not consciousness.

From a conscious perspective of reality, we can open ourselves to its essential nature, have the experience of being aware of the fundamental nature of reality . But reality is not a consciousness that dreams, but rather the total absence of limits in which the possible manifests, and consciousness is an inevitable manifestation of this.

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I believe that's impossible; reality is conscious, not consciousness.

Whats impossible about it?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Whats impossible about it?

It is simply limited. It limits reality to one property of reality, and it does so because, from the conscious human perspective, consciousness is the fundamental quality, and nothing more fundamental can be conceived. Just as a two-dimensional circle could not conceive of a three-dimensional circle.

It is a primitive conception that limits reality to one dimension, that of consciousness, because I am conscious. To be conscious means to be aware of. Of what? Of a becoming, a process. Without a process, there is no consciousness, so it is said: consciousness imagines the process in order to be aware of it. So, is consciousness also an actor that creates things? Based on what? On other things. What are those other things? More consciousness. Does this make any sense to someone with even a modicum of intelligence? I don't think so.

Consciousness happens, it's just a possibility. Being human is difficult imagining anything without a creator, then, as primitive religious idolaters we deify conscience because it is obvious for us. 

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Does this make any sense to someone with even a modicum of intelligence? I don't think so.

That doesnt show that it is impossible, thats just a report about what isn't aligned with what makes sense to you. It is a move, where you ironically appeal to a limited human norm and not to an epistemic norm that isn't so constrained by the human perspective. Your own sense of rationality has almost nothing to do with whats possible. 

 

What is your  argument for metaphysical pluralism and what is your argument against monism? 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

What is your  argument for metaphysical pluralism and what is your argument against monism? 

Consciousness emerges from a self-organizing system (life) that maintains internal coherence (self-preservation) and, by generating a functional boundary with respect to the rest of reality, creates duality and acquires the capacity to reflect and model the environment. This capacity for modeling is what we call "witnessing" or "experience." This model is also reality, in a dual dimension, which we call consciousness.

It's very obvious, there are infinite possible dimensions in reality, consciousness is just one. Reality is not made of consciousness, consciousness is made of reality. Consciousness is not something different than reality, is just a way in which reality organizes itself, but reality doesn't need that way of organization to be the reality 

Edited 23 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[zurew]

That isnt an argument against monism, because even if your argument would go through (which doesn't) against idealism, that still wouldnt show that monism is false.

Monism is comaptible with reality having one substance with infinite attributes. But you for some reason say that reality has infinite number of different substances. 

 

I dont think you realize how much work you would need to do to make an argument for your system

• Establish an argument that there are an infinite number of dimensions in reality (whatever you meant by dimension)
• After that, establish an argument that you cant have that many dimensions under monism (again - monsim is compatible with more than just idealism, so you would need to categorically rule out all monisms)
• After that categorically rule out all remaining non-pluralistic models of reality.
• And lastly, rule out all pluralistic models of reality that are incompatible with yours.

Edited 22 hours ago by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Monism is comaptible with reality having one substance with infinite atributes

Reality has no substance; here's the point. Reality is the absence of limits, and the absence of limits makes infinite coherence inevitable. Coherence in the sense of stable, synchronous fluctuations linked infinitely. It is inevitable. It is not a substance that fluctuates; fluctuation creates substance.

And you cannot say that fluctuation or change of state is the substance, since change is the consequence of limitlessness. The essence of reality is limitlessness; it is the absence of something, limits, but if you open yourself to it, you will see that it is everything, it is total fullness.

Sat chit ananda. Sat, that which is; chit, absolutely coherent, knows itself without needing to be conscious because of its total coherence. Ananda: open, absolute, total. That is reality.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Reality has no substance

It doesnt have to be substance , monism is compatible with non-substance as well. It just says that there is one fundamental thing/essence or whatever other label you want to use there.

 

The difference would be that under monism you can have  an infinite number of Worlds/Universes that are all fundamentally united in one thing/essence, under your view though, there would be an infinite number of fundamentally separate realities, (you shouldnt even use the word 'reality', you should make it plural and call it realities), because there is no uniting factor between those realities at all, because they are fundamentally separate under your view.

[Breakingthewall]

13 hours ago, zurew said:

because there is no uniting factor between those realities at all, because they are fundamentally separate under your view.

In the absence of limits, there are no limits between realities. Infinity has never begun; therefore, any micro-vibration expands its effect throughout the totality, creates the whole, and is simultaneously created by the total. Everything is interconnected, but being infinite, it is unimaginable.

[zurew]

52 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

In the absence of limits, there are no limits between realities

Your absence of limits talk is just a poetic way to express an infinite number of seperate realities.

You have a reality where physicalism is true, you also have a completely seperate reality where everything is fundamentally consciousness, you have a seperate reality where everything is fundamentally something thats neither physical nor mental and so on.

 

The "Everything is interconnected" doesnt work in your case. You have completely seperate realities, where there is no possible connection between them. You talk about absence of limits, but a reality where fundementally everything is physical that reality is limited to that metaphysics and there is no absence of limits there, the reality where everything is consciousness that reality is "limited" to that metaphysics and there isn't any absence of limits there in the sense that  that reality cant be  metaphysically anything other what it already is.

So for example -  what could possibly be the connection between a reality that is fundmentally physical and a reality that is fundamentally consciousness?

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[zurew]

54 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

any micro-vibration expands its effect throughout the totality

You cant have a metaphysically ambigous micro-vibration. What is that micro-vibration fundamentally, metaphysically?

If that micro vibration is fundamentally not consciousness, then that micro-vibration wont have any possible connection with a reality where everything is fundamentally consciousness. 

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

So for example -  what could possibly be the connection between a reality that is fundmentally physical and a reality that is fundamentally consciousness?

What you call matter or physicality is a type of ripple in the fields of reality that interacts with the Higgs field, creating density. Density means space and time. Matter isn't "matter," it's a ripple in reality, like light but with a different kind of interaction.

What you call consciousness is this same ripple in the fabric of reality acquiring a dual structure within spacetime.

It's all the same: fluctuations that create reflections, which in turn create other fluctuations that group together into coherent structures. The basis of everything is the openess, that's not happening. "Happening" means a determinate kind of structure, but fundamentally is the same than not happening, but as we are happening in a determinate geometry we can't imagine another, it's absolutely impossible. We can open ourselves to the absolute, but always from the relative that is happening now. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall