Deep in the Abyss

[LuxObscura]

A thought that keeps coming into my head after reading this last one, Lux.

On 1 and 1.1

When we delve this deep into human psychology and the nature of conciousness how can we even trust ourselves anymore?

I've been down a similar path of thought in recent years a number of times. I was born to believe flawlessly in my own perspective of reality. Unaware of even the concept of what you're talking about.

Following this line of logic we can never be individually on a path of truth. The only truth there is would take every soul seeing it at once.

Thank you for your input and the resulting brainstorming.
I understand what you mean by being unaware of even the concept of what I am talking about, and I must admit that I have doubts myself in this text.
But that is exactly why I find reflecting on perspectives so interesting,
identification does not automatically equal truth.

I think that we can choose what we want to believe, as long as it is realistically credible and a causal connection exists.
Even if every soul were to see something at once, not everyone would think the same.
I would be interested in hearing more perspectives on this.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Even if every soul were to see something at once, not everyone would think the same.
I would be interested in hearing more perspectives on this.

Well, in addition, everyone thinking the same thing doesn't make the thing the truth; the truth would be that everyone thinks x. If everyone thought green was the prettiest color wouldn't make "green is the prettiest color" a truth.


One love

 

[fink]

I would disagree still. Wouldn't that be exactly the truth? When every possible subjective viewpoint in the cosmos agrees green is the best colour, it definitely is.

Or switch green for every subjective viewpoint in the cosmos deciding love is the answer. Who is going to argue that is not truth?

 

[Voidmatrix]

I would disagree still. Wouldn't that be exactly the truth? When every possible subjective viewpoint in the cosmos agrees green is the best colour, it definitely is.

Just because people hold the same opinion doesn't make it truth.

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

What you're observing, and potentially conflating with ideals like objectivity, is intersubjectivity.

One love

 

[fink]

What about we have a test subject, born in isolation and never any contact with another living thing until they die? Could that person's truth not be be undoubtable?

It might be useful if truth was defined here. I'd suggest a definition being truth exists when there is zero doubt.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Sure, their subjective truth, but that says nothing about truth beyond them, you, or me.

Just because everyone thinks something doesn't mean there is no doubt about it. Just that of everyone, no one has thought of it.

One love

 

[LuxObscura]

A redbull can on a desk can be perceived from every soul as a can.
But only if every sould would perceive it.
It exists objectively.
Independently of what redbull or can means for every sould.
The object exists independently of its meaning or purpose.

The color of the can can be perceived from every sould differently.
A can could have no meaning for some at all.
Give a can to an animal and he will not know what to do with it.

 

[LuxObscura]

A redbull can on a desk can be perceived from every soul as a can.
But only if every sould would perceive it.
It exists objectively.
Independently of what redbull or can means for every sould.
The object exists independently of its meaning or purpose.

The color of the can can be perceived from every sould differently.
A can could have no meaning for some at all.
Give a can to an animal and he will not know what to do with it.

Does this mean the objectivity is only restricted to objects?
While subjectivity is restricted to interpretation?
While objectivity is apriori to subjectivity?
I dont know and am very unsure about it tho.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Objectivity is an attempt, and a necessary and valiant one. But we can never fully escape our own subjectivity and phenomenology, that's what's necessary to be purely objective. As soon as we wonder about something and as soon as we put words to it, the less objective our pursuits become.

What about we have a test subject, born in isolation and never any contact with another living thing until they die? Could that person's truth not be be undoubtable?

It might be useful if truth was defined here. I'd suggest a definition being truth exists when there is zero doubt.

I thought of a better counterexample. There was a period when everyone thought the world was flat. Everyone thought it, and it was untrue... unless it was flat and then became round

One love

 

[northape]

"The nature of space is that there is nothing that is space."
- Ken McLeod

A redbull can is a play of energy in space, and our human system creates meaning by applying a label to it. That is simply our biology at work and how we survive as an organism. Our whole mental world is a play of energy (thoughts) in the space of awareness. Even our sense of self is just a collection of thoughts bundled together.

What is that physical space where we see objects? What is the space of awareness where we perceive thoughts? Who is seeing?

 

[Voidmatrix]

We could also ask, what is energy and what is a mental world

One love

 

[northape]

We could also ask, what is energy and what is a mental world

One love

You are a true tantrika, my friend. In Vajrayana, they have Mahamudra and Dzogchen, which point to the same nature of the mind. However, in Mahamudra, you investigate every aspect of experience to reach realization, whereas Dzogchen introduces it from the very beginning and you work to return to that initial glimpse.

I think mind energy is love and the mental world is emptiness, but they are non-dual. It is better to investigate and see for yourself than to play with concepts. Concepts, by definition, exist only in the intellect, whereas the truth is of a higher order. Some schools of thought emphasize philosophy, but I prefer direct experience. It carries more transformative power. May we all recognize the nature of the mind.

 

[fink]

I feel like the arguments that come from long and diligent study of established, external teachings are not sufficient to counter arguments that come directly from personal felt experience. The same the other way around also.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I feel like the arguments that come from long and diligent study of established, external teachings are not sufficient to counter arguments that come directly from personal felt experience. The same the other way around also.

Depends on the context. Our senses and assertions are wrong often once we do diligent investigation. This is why metastudies are held to a higher standard than anecdotal evidence.

You are a true tantrika, my friend. In Vajrayana, they have Mahamudra and Dzogchen, which point to the same nature of the mind. However, in Mahamudra, you investigate every aspect of experience to reach realization, whereas Dzogchen introduces it from the very beginning and you work to return to that initial glimpse.

I think mind energy is love and the mental world is emptiness, but they are non-dual. It is better to investigate and see for yourself than to play with concepts. Concepts, by definition, exist only in the intellect, whereas the truth is of a higher order. Some schools of thought emphasize philosophy, but I prefer direct experience. It carries more transformative power. May we all recognize the nature of the mind.

For some reason, one of the first things that popped into my mind was a recollection of a dude that stated he didn't think minds existed.

Some schools of thought emphasize philosophy, but I prefer direct experience. It carries more transformative power.

I like to have my cake and eat it to, so I prefer both.

One love

 

[LuxObscura]

I feel like the arguments that come from long and diligent study of established, external teachings are not sufficient to counter arguments that come directly from personal felt experience. The same the other way around also.

I think mind energy is love and the mental world is emptiness, but they are non-dual. It is better to investigate and see for yourself than to play with concepts. Concepts, by definition, exist only in the intellect, whereas the truth is of a higher order. Some schools of thought emphasize philosophy, but I prefer direct experience. It carries more transformative power. May we all recognize the nature of the mind.

I agree to the point that both are individual ways to realize something.
One being conceptual ralization the other being experience based realization.
While both have their own way of validity.
I think it is a different way to access the same thing.

Same as mathematical realization, theoretical realization, practical realization, ..
Some could argue that mathematical and theoretical realization have similaritiey.
But math as subject itself has practical purpose.
Computers exist only because of math.

Would it mean that computers would not exist when saying math does not exist because concepts do not exists?

 

[Voidmatrix]

You are a true tantrika, my friend.

Thank you my friend. I meant to say that before.

One love