The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Reality is you . . .

    Share
    avatar
    encode_decode

    Posts : 18
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 43
    Location : Australia

    Reality is you . . .

    Post by encode_decode on Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:38 pm

    The following was posted on my forum by another user and I thought I would post it here to get some thoughts from others as I have not yet formed my own thoughts on it - I thought it would be interesting to see how the thoughts of others differed from my own on this posters comments.

    ---

    Reality is you. I realize that difficult to comprehend as I've been struggling with it for about a year now, but it's getting clearer. It takes time to grow in the right direction because, after all, that's what learning is... a process of growing new neural connections (as well as hacking away the old ones).

    There cannot be a differentiation between what you consider you and what you consider the universe. There has to be an underlying reality that engenders you, but you interpret and influence the reality as well, so it's an infinite regression of reality creating you and you creating reality and so on because, essentially, you cannot look at yourself. You can look at aspects of yourself, but not at the core, so you can never really answer your question. It will always be as a camera looking at its own monitor.

    Imagine a cloud of dust that forms a part of itself into an eye and then it takes a look at itself and, try as it might, it cannot look at it's own eye. So it can see outward, but not inward.

    You grew out of this universe like an apple grew out of a tree and so you are a part of it and you are the "eye" of the universe which is looking at itself. You are the focus of the universe's conscious attention. Evolution is the universe's way of getting better and better at being more and more conscious in an effort to learn more and more about itself, but it can never succeed in its goal.

    Reality is you and you are the intertwined system of the source of your origination and the object of your observation which are codependent on each other in order to exist. Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. You are the nondual combination of the duality of subject/object and that is reality.

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Reality is you . . .

    Post by Zoot Allures on Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:03 pm

    i'll give it shot, sure.

    the poster wrote:Reality is you.

    the poster might be bordering on solipsism here, i dunno. of course we are a 'part' of reality, but to say 'reality is me' would mean that the chair i'm sitting on is me, and the capital of arkansas is me, and the right angle of a square is me, and the war on terror is me, and everything else that is part of reality is me. i don't think he means that. he probably means everything in the universe is composed of the same stuff. that's pretty much true... unless some things in the universe have sub-atomic particles in them that other's don't. i doubt it. so yeah, it's perfectly plausible to say 'we're all one, bro', though not in the omnipresent, supergalactic oneness way that some want to believe.

    the poster wrote:so it's an infinite regression of reality creating you and you creating reality and so on because, essentially, you cannot look at yourself.

    not sure if 'we create reality', but the copenhagen crew would agree with him, i think. this poster's pretty zen, man. what with the whole 'eye that can't see itself' stuff.

    the poster wrote:You grew out of this universe like an apple grew out of a tree

    more like a hangnail out of a big toe or a hair out of a nostril. in my case, anyway.

    the poster wrote:Evolution is the universe's way of getting better and better at being more and more conscious in an effort to learn more and more about itself, but it can never succeed in its goal.

    holy hegelian absolute spirit, batman! has this guy read hegel? if he hasn't, he should. he's right up his alley.

    so, this guy would do good to study zen buddhism, the copenhagen interpretation, and hegel, if he hasn't already.













    avatar
    encode_decode

    Posts : 18
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 43
    Location : Australia

    Re: Reality is you . . .

    Post by encode_decode on Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:59 am

    Thanks for your thoughts Zoot, I will spend some time thinking about them - also you have increased my list of things to read quite considerably. Perhaps you could offer some criticism on what I ended up posting in return as follows:
    ---
    I have thought about all this a bit more and the following is what I have come up with - keep in mind that I have attempted things in such a way as to hopefully give a (even if somewhat blurry) picture of how I approach "things".

    Reality is you. I realize that difficult to comprehend as I've been struggling with it for about a year now, but it's getting clearer.
    If reality is me then what does that make you?

    It takes time to grow in the right direction because, after all, that's what learning is... a process of growing new neural connections (as well as hacking away the old ones).
    I have asked the question many times: what is the right direction? How do we know with certainty what the right direction is? After all there are many directions one could follow that claim to be right, each with their beloved disciples.

    There cannot be a differentiation between what you consider you and what you consider the universe. There has to be an underlying reality that engenders you, but you interpret and influence the reality as well, so it's an infinite regression of reality creating you and you creating reality and so on because, essentially, you cannot look at yourself.
    Hmm, and yet we have made a distinction between the self and the universe with words.

    You can look at aspects of yourself, but not at the core, so you can never really answer your question. It will always be as a camera looking at its own monitor.
    This reminds me of something Henri Bergson said in his introduction to metaphysics about the absolute and the only way you can connect with the absolute is via the intuition. Everything else is a discrete snapshot of reality and hence not absolute.

    You are the focus of the universe's conscious attention.
    Interestingly, this is something that is being considered in the thread of the same name at ILP, albeit with a slight twist.

    Starting somewhere around ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193671#p2687932.

    Evolution is the universe's way of getting better and better at being more and more conscious in an effort to learn more and more about itself, but it can never succeed in its goal.
    I will leave this alone for the time being as it is closely related to more than two contradicting ideas that I am working with that are very stimulating to think about.

    Reality is you and you are the intertwined system of the source of your origination and the object of your observation which are codependent on each other in order to exist. Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. You are the nondual combination of the duality of subject/object and that is reality.
    I believe this requires more explanation to avoid pointless debate, possibly with a few more simple examples to illustrate where you are coming from. From the "truth" perspective(ie absolutist) your statement seems to fit well that: Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. I do wonder about the usage of nondual combination which points at a homogeneity - is a homogeneous substance a combination? Of course we are looking at things semantically here.

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Reality is you . . .

    Post by Zoot Allures on Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:50 am

    E_D wrote:If reality is me then what does that make you?

    good question. either reality is only one person (him or you), in which case his thesis applies only to himself/yourself, or, reality isn't anyone and the thesis is false. contrarily, if everyone is reality, then each person should be able to see everyone else through their eyes... but clearly this isn't possible. he admits this in part when he says 'the eye that can't see itself'.

    E_D wrote:I have asked the question many times: what is the right direction? How do we know with certainty what the right direction is? After all there are many directions one could follow that claim to be right, each with their beloved disciples.

    indeed. the greeks attempted to answer this question and pretty much covered all the possible options. socrates, plato and aristotle considered man to be by nature a political animal, and encouraged mass socialization; each person should be aware of their place in large society and make an effort to contribute to it (farmers should farm, soldiers should fight, artists should art, slaves should serve, philosophers should rule, etc.) epicurus, on the other hand, believed men should distance themselves from society at large and form small communities, free of all the political and religious mess that large scale society was subject to. finally, diogenes disagreed with both; he though men shouldn't be involved in anything, as its all nonsense. similar to this position, though a little less radical, was the position of the stoics; socialize, but with indifference.

    you could probably trace any modern theory of 'man's position in society' back to one of these fundamental forms. the importance of being both the social man and the individual has been the focal point of many thinkers, since. what do i lose or gain from taking any position rather than the other? for kierkegaard and heidegger, in conforming we lose ourselves as individuals... we become one of 'them' (see 'theyness'). for sartre, our individualism can become our curse; radical isolation and alienation from others... 'hell is other people'.

    where is a comfortable middle ground?

    E_D wrote:Hmm, and yet we have made a distinction between the self and the universe with words.

    not so much in that way because the 'words', whether written or spoken, are still made of the same 'stuff' as the universe. the distinction that is made is the phenomenological 'first-person' point of view... a condition of being conscious. as long as i am able to point at an object and say there is 'that', i am recognizing a difference, a space, a distance between my awareness and the thing i am aware of. i realize that my consciousness is not the thing it is conscious of.

    now whether or not my consciousness is reducible to the physical stuff is a question that is still asked in philosophy and neuroscience. though despite our possibly being able to eliminate this cartesian second-substance (the 'soul') entirely, or at least reduce it to an epiphenomenon, the experience of being conscious is still very peculiar. it's the strange fact of what they call 'qualia' that brings this difficulty to light. the 'what it is like' to experience something, and not the experience itself (which presumably could be reduced to physical brain states).

    E_D wrote:This reminds me of something Henri Bergson said in his introduction to metaphysics about the absolute and the only way you can connect with the absolute is via the intuition. Everything else is a discrete snapshot of reality and hence not absolute.

    i like bergson, especially his idea of the elan vital. one problem though is, it isn't quite clear what he means by 'intuition'. is this an intellectual form of knowing that is free from being 'rational', and if so, how?

    E_D wrote: From the "truth" perspective(ie absolutist) your statement seems to fit well that: Subjects and objects cannot exist independently. I do wonder about the usage of nondual combination which points at a homogeneity - is a homogeneous substance a combination? Of course we are looking at things semantically here.

    good eye. you said 'semantic'. yes, one has to be very careful when using words like 'subject' and 'object'. there is a hundred different meanings for these terms, depending on which context they are being used.

    again, remember that if everything is the same stuff, everything can be considered a subject or object, depending on how it is referenced in a statement. semantically, the object (universe) can be the subject of a statement about itself... and even vice-versa. in ordinary language then, there is no real distinction between these two concepts.

    in epistemology/metaphysics, on the other hand, there can arise differences according to the unique ways the words are used. that's the tricky part. making meaningful statements with these words. problem is, the meanings of the words won't be the same in the various ways they are used... and when these individual uses intersect, conceptual confusions arise. while on the other hand, philosophically unspecialized use of the words in ordinary grammar yields no confusions (or very little). any intersection is seamless and the definitional use of the word doesn't change.

    wittgenstein's theory of 'language-games' is something you ought to check out. according to witty, you are engaged in a language-game above, and a language-game is not to be thought of as a competition or some underhanded attempt to confound. rather think of a language-game as an exchange of propositions and exclamations that generates its own exclusive rules, rules that don't govern other uses of the same words in a different context.

    the two of you believe you agree on a definition for a word. you then use the word. the word 'makes sense' in the following ways you use it. but here's the cool part; you two might not even be in agreement on what the word means, and you wouldn't know the difference. you wouldn't know the difference because the rule that makes the language meaningful is not what the word means, but how it is used in relation to other words.

    think of a chess game. the rules for chess are arbitrary; the game could be designed so that the knight moves like the bishop, and vice-versa. but once whatever moves are agreed upon for each piece by the players, the game can be played. the players are no longer concerned with what the piece is allowed to do, but how it is used in the game.

    a conversation exists much in the same way. it generates its own temporary, internal rules. we can be unclear regarding what the word 'object' means, but still be able to play the word in a meaningful discussion according to how we use it. when we say 'that makes sense', what we mean is, the pawn can be taken by the rook by moving the rook to e4.

    the word 'object' or 'subject' makes sense by its positioning in relation to the other words. not what it means, but how it moves about and relates.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Reality is you . . .

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:45 am