The Vanity of Enlightenment

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If I were to postulate that nothing exists outside of my mind, how would you prove me wrong?

I don't remember who it was, but in response to Bishop Berkley's idealism, the idea that nothing exists outside of the mind and everything is only the ideas of God, this gentlemen went out and kicked a rock as hard as he could and broke his foot. Although this is a drastic argument, I think he proved his point quite well.

Solipsism is a dead-end street, and likely the result of too much skepticism. At some point, skeptic must doubt his own doubt.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Nothing was proven except the observer believed in and subsequently experienced a rock to kick and a broken foot.

I agree it's a dead end street though not because it's not worth contemplating the implications it has on what exactly you "know"... but because the boundary between what is believed by the mind and what is experienced doesn't exist. They are two sides of the same coin.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Solipsism is a dead-end street, and likely the result of too much skepticism. At some point, skeptic must doubt his own doubt.

That's my point. In the end, no matter what it is, we must choose what to believe. And to my understanding, this means actual reality is only relevant insofar as it appeals to the observer. At some point, reality will be replaced by an active filter that transfigures the world through a lens into whatever product the observer's psyche happens to be churning out.

So the actuality of reality is always questionable. This ties into "enlightenment" with the realization that no matter what happens, every belief is a choice we have made. That is the nature of our reality - choice. We either see or we don't see. And if we don't see, then we choose what to replace it with, even if it's our subconcsious giving the orders.

Because of this, "enlightenment" is as reliable as any psychosis, because it depends heavily on our perception of the world and how we process it. It may turn out to not be real at all, and we may choose to treat it like it is real. Enlightenment will always take the back seat to our choices, which will always take the back seat to our perceptions. And our perceptions will go to enlightenment for guidance, but enlightenment will be determined by our choices which are affected by our perceptions.

We choose what is real to us. And that makes the whole difference. This is the impression I have been given in my experiences.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Solipsism is a dead-end street, and likely the result of too much skepticism. At some point, skeptic must doubt his own doubt.

That's my point. In the end, no matter what it is, we must choose what to believe. And to my understanding, this means actual reality is only relevant insofar as it appeals to the observer. At some point, reality will be replaced by an active filter that transfigures the world through a lens into whatever product the observer's psyche happens to be churning out.

So the actuality of reality is always questionable. This ties into "enlightenment" with the realization that no matter what happens, every belief is a choice we have made. That is the nature of our reality - choice. We either see or we don't see. And if we don't see, then we choose what to replace it with, even if it's our subconcsious giving the orders.

Because of this, "enlightenment" is as reliable as any psychosis, because it depends heavily on our perception of the world and how we process it. It may turn out to not be real at all, and we may choose to treat it like it is real. Enlightenment will always take the back seat to our choices, which will always take the back seat to our perceptions. And our perceptions will go to enlightenment for guidance, but enlightenment will be determined by our choices which are affected by our perceptions.

We choose what is real to us. And that makes the whole difference. This is the impression I have been given in my experiences.

edit on 14-2-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

When I lay my spirit bare and open to anything, that's when the experiences happen, such as out of body travel above our gem-like Earth, as one example. I didn't choose to go there, in fact, after the initial awe had passed, I wanted nothing more than to return from where I originated; my physical reality comfort zone. Not a split second later than when I had the desire to return, I was back. I now know why that particular experience happened after much reflection. There are many other experiences and realizations that come to me when I allow it, but I don't start off any journey with a predetermined choice, do you?

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion

Nothing was proven except the observer believed in and subsequently experienced a rock to kick and a broken foot.

I agree, logically your argument is valid.

But that's proof enough, because one cannot prove that the rock or the experience do not exist, just like he cannot prove they do exist; but because they appear both in sensation and mind, it offers more credence to their existence. To say they do not exist would be to deny existence in general, and therefore they would have to put even their thoughts in doubt.

Existence is a prerequisite of thinking. I exist, therefore I can think. If one doesn't exist, he cannot think about existence or thinking. Descartes had it backwards. He thought up his meditations while knowing intuitively that he was sitting in his nightgown meditating about these things.

The reason he renounces the sensual world is because he says his senses have deceived him before, when it is likely that it was his thoughts about those sensations that deceived them. This is, of course, opinion.

Nothing can exist in nothing.

Nothing does not exist.

Everything exists.

To say something doesn't exist is a logical contradiction.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Excellent series of videos. Thank you for sharing that.

reply to post by Wang Tang

Take that to the final exploration... everything that *can* exist *must* exist... and thus must exist *now* because it isn't possible for it to ever not exist due to its very nature of existing.

So what has happened to those things which used to exist that no longer exist? Where did they go? Where did the things that exist now come from?

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Excellent series of videos. Thank you for sharing that.

You are welcome.
I am glad you like them.

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


They went no where... if they went somewhere that is implying they still exist.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by Wang Tang

 

Take that to the final exploration... everything that *can* exist *must* exist... and thus must exist *now* because it isn't possible for it to ever not exist due to its very nature of existing.

So what has happened to those things which used to exist that no longer exist? Where did they go? Where did the things that exist now come from?

All things continue to exist but in another form, that is, if you don't believe in nothingness. Yet, I believe that even nothingness is something.

reply to post by Wang Tang

So then they came from "nothing" and returned to "nothing".

Originally posted by InTheLight
All things continue to exist but in another form, that is, if you don't believe in nothingness. Yet, I believe that even nothingness is something.

They never existed as a "thing" anymore than the "mini-brots" exist as "things" relative to the entire Mandlebrot Set. They are one and the same and "things" are simply arbitrary non-existent boundaries we use to define and divide "everything that already and will always exist".

You can't change even the most infinitesimal part of the Mandlebrot set without altering the entirety.

Of course "existence" "exists"... but what *is* "existence"?

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


Awareness. To observe and/or be observed. That's how I understand it, anyway. If you are not observing or being observed in any way, then for all practical purposes, you don't exist.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by InTheLight
All things continue to exist but in another form, that is, if you don't believe in nothingness. Yet, I believe that even nothingness is something.

They never existed as a "thing" anymore than the "mini-brots" exist as "things" relative to the entire Mandlebrot Set. They are one and the same and "things" are simply arbitrary non-existent boundaries we use to define and divide "everything that already and will always exist".

You can't change even the most infinitesimal part of the Mandlebrot set without altering the entirety.

Of course "existence" "exists"... but what *is* "existence"?

edit on 14-2-2013 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)

Yes, that makes sense to me.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I would agree.

We're still stuck with "What *is* awareness?" It doesn't matter because it's just going to be a dog chasing it's own tail. Awareness is Existence and Existence is Awareness because Existence could never be confirmed to exist without Awareness, and Awareness wouldn't be Aware unless it Existed. We can take on "faith" that existence continues beyond awareness, but we'll never have any capacity to prove that.

It's a trap conversation because it ends "nowhere", but if really felt tangibly... is capable of removing every layer of unsubstantiated assumption regarding what is *actually* existing vs what the non-existent arbitrary boundaries lead an awareness to "believe" exists.

reply to post by InTheLight

Ahh ok. That then makes clearer to me your full implication in what I responded to. Danke!

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


That is logically impossible.

reply to post by Wang Tang

Only so long as you believe the "boundaries" we use to "define things" *exist*. They don't... they are as non-existent as the boundaries between nations. Thus nations arise from "nothing" and return to "nothing".

One might argue that the "idea" of nations exists, therefore "nations" exist but that's not accurate... only the "idea of nations" exists. An idea identified as a "thing itself" is simply another "arbitrary" boundary given to define the in truth undivided and unified flow of thought which is undivided and unified with awareness itself.

reply to post by Wang Tang

Nothing can exist in nothing.

Nothing does not exist.

Everything exists.

To say something doesn't exist is a logical contradiction.

Brilliant sir.

Only everything can exist. If everything exists, and only everything can exist, then every thing must therefore exist, but only within the context of everything. But what do they exist as within that context?

So it is incomplete to say simply "enlightenment exists," because only "everything exists," so we must then define what enlightenment exists as within the context of everything. "Enlightenment exists as..." would be more a complete assertion.

This outlook makes navigating abstract ideas easier and more logical. It also makes answering these questions much more easy:

"What does god exist as (within the context of everything)?"

"What does enlightenment exist as (within the context of everything)?"

"What does consciousness exist as (within the context of everything)?"

Without something concrete displaying itself and giving the answer, we can only say these abstract terms are ideas, or more specifically, ideals, because that is what they exist as.

And yet "everything" changes and the moment it has changed (which is every "moment" of which there are no actual individual "moments" in truth) everything that "was" no longer "is" and everything that "is" previously "wasn't".

It helps to break "nothing exists" into "no 'thing' exists".

Ideals only exist in a mind... and can only exist in contrast with an environment resulting in Ideals and Environment being again two sides of the same coin and to try to create a boundary between them is to destroy what "actually is". To go along with that, ideals don't exist independently of each other any more than continents exist independently of each other.

This is why the only way to accurately describe reality/existence is as such: " "

Everything else is a deception/illusion.