The discernible features of This

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

The discernible features of This

Postby relinquish on January 12th, 2019, 8:07 pm 

Evidently, here is this discernible 'multiplicity'.

Obviously, any one of it's members can ONLY exist if the necessary conditions are present. All of these conditions are other members of the multiplicity, which can ONLY exist if the necessary conditions are present. All of THESE conditions are -OTHER- other members of the multiplicity, which can ONLY exist if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, no member of the multiplicity could possibly be existing in exactly the way that it is without ALL OTHER members existing in exactly the way that they are. In this way, every single member naturally INCLUDES every other member within it's own uniquely impermanent existence.

This being the case, none of them can ACTUALLY be the soley self-inclucive 'things' or 'events' that they conceptually SEEM to be.

As such, it is most accurate to regard ALL members of the multiplicity (including ourselves) as 'impermanent discernible features' of This (also called Reality Itself).

Naturally, the totality of these impermanent discernible features spend their ENTIRE existence within the boundaries of one of the two 'permanent discernible features' of This; the 'Everything' (which, as a whole, can be described as an 'ever-changing coherent asymmetry').

The so-called 'space' that apparently encompasses the 'Everything' is the other permanent discernible feature of This; the 'Nothing' (which is itself absolutely changeless, structureless and un-encompassed).

If the 'ceaseless change' that is the 'Everything' had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Logically, such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore (given the fact that the 'Everything' DID 'evidently' have a beginning), this ceaseless change MUST be eternally cyclic.

Logically, there can be no reason why This has THESE (permanent and impermanent) discernible features.

In other words, This just (((IS)))

Exactly WHAT It is, is absolutely unknowable.

Evidently, some of the 'conscious' impermanent discernible features are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings.

This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex 'conscious features' (or in other words, 'intelligent body/mind life-forms') that each of the impermanent discernible features (including themselves) are in fact 'solely self-inclusive' (which is to say, that they are all fundamentally existing different 'things' and 'events' that each have their own separate, independent nature), and that they themselves each have their own personal consciousness and are the autonomous originators of their own particular movements.

As such, the 'hypnotized conscious features' perceive This to be a vast, confusingly fragmented and threatening situation, and so perceive themselves to be isolated and vulnerable individuals. This is the illusion of seperateness and duality. The hypnosis it arises from is the fundamental basis of ALL suffering.

Sometimes, this hypnosis is unexplainably woken up from. This waking up is the very REALIZATION that ALL so-called 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are NEVER anything other than impermanent discernible features of This. When this happens, the illusion that one has ever been (or will ever be) a solely self-inclucive individual naturally dissolves, as do the feelings of isolation and vulnerability that are inherently associated with this illusion.

From this point on, one's very stand is taken AS This....
relinquish
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Aug 2013


Re: The discernible features of This

Postby BadgerJelly on January 13th, 2019, 3:28 am 

I read up to “absolute” ... I have issues with that term being used without greater clarity.

It is far to easy to get lost the words when their meaning isn’t made explicit enough. The reader will merely end up either agreeing, or disagreeing, for the wrong reasons and neither party will be any the wiser until the conversation hits a perplexing impasse brought about due to a lack on pedantry early on.

“Absolute” is one of those terms I simply refuse to bend to without the person uttering it admitting that it is a meaningless term (especially in the context you’ve framed it above).

In short when I see “absolute” it is akin to reading “God,” which is a fair enough term to use as long as you’re willing to explain what it means.

For clarity on my part “absolute” to me means that which is exactly the same within preset abstract systems. As in a formula that leads to only one answer that is wholly out of the reach of speculation - hence its need to be “abstract” rather than a “reality” claim. (1+1=2 is such an absolute set out by the basic abstract rules of arithmetic).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5574
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The discernible features of This

Postby -1- on January 13th, 2019, 7:33 am 

BadgerJelly, I had tons of problems similar to yours with the OP. For instance, why does the OP put some words in quotes? The usual and customary meaning of quotes is to alter the meaning of the word, to express "similar to, but not quite like". For instance, if Fred tells me, in writing, "Your nice gesture was not appreciated", then it is understood that I had not done any bad things, but the parties receiving some benefits from me did not reciprocate in any way, or did not even acknowledge it. However, if Fred tells me, in writing, "Your 'nice' gesture was not appreciated", it means that I did something nasty, and recipients of my nast were made unhappy with that.

Or in spoken speech, one would indicate a word that was used not to mean itself as if in quotes, by doing an intonation of the voice, possibly accompanied by gestures, that mean "wink, wink, nudge, nudge". "Did you see the bumpstickles on that lady?" where 'bumstickles' obviously is a cover-up word for another word, which is not appropriate to say in the circumstances (such as "breasts" or "hooters"), so the speaker winks or nudges the other with the elbow.

So putting "multiplicity" in quotes threw me right off. Does this guy mean multiplicity, or does he mean something that appears to be a multiplicity but is actually not a multiplicity? why put it into quotes?

The rest of the opening post goes on in harmony with this stylistic error. The opening poster has perhaps valuable thoughts and insights, but it is hard for him to put it into words. He cannot be faulted for a poor English, or for poor composition skills-- after all, we are philosophers here, we care about content only.

However, his poorer than poor composition skills and style stops him from communicating his ideas comprehensibly for the reader. This is sad, but what can you do.
Last edited by -1- on January 13th, 2019, 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: The discernible features of This

Postby -1- on January 13th, 2019, 7:39 am 

relinquish » January 12th, 2019, 8:07 pm wrote:Evidently, here is this discernible 'multiplicity'.....

This waking up is the very REALIZATION that ALL so-called 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are NEVER anything other than impermanent discernible features of This.


BadgerJelly, I also hit at something of a god-argument in the OP's post. Here we have a long and elaborate, albeit by me incomprehensibly written, proof that what he takes as granted in the first paragraph, is proven to be, in the last paragraph (or second last). The point the OP makes, at least as far as the argument's structure is concerned, is "A, therefore A." It smacks so of a class of ontological proofs.
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: The discernible features of This

Postby BadgerJelly on January 13th, 2019, 9:33 am 

-1-

I get the gist if the point. I vaguely understand the use of quotations for “multiplicity” when trying to encapsulate human knowledge; the issue being “vaguely” and I know it is tiresome to dig into semantics even though it is often the greatest obstacle to deal with.

It is fair enough, to me at least, to frame “whole,” “multiplicity,” and “absolute” on the same landscape. The difficulty is then addressing how best to use these terms (if at all!)?

When I attempt to write thoughts on these lines I too suffer from the inescapable problem of bringing experience to communicative language - ‘experience’ in the sense of my weltanschauung. I am still stuck on the question whether or not expressing such things, if possible in any explicit way, is of any inherant value or merely a shadow of another even less tangible problem.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5574
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The discernible features of This

Postby gentric on February 16th, 2019, 11:41 pm 

I would like to counter a little, though I agree with much of what you say. Human's have the ability to create identities. It is to take our the totality of our experience, and focus it into a "this" as you say. Multiplicity is when you take a "this" and another "this" as together into a "that". Or 1+1 = 2. Math is a descriptor of how we abstract our experience from one to many.

Now is this an illusion? An illusion is an interpretation of reality that is at odds with what reality is. Reality is that thing that does not care what you will or desire. The goal of knowledge is to map our identities in such a way as they are not contradicted by reality. Such things are not at odds with what reality really is, and are not illusions.

I think that the identity of separateness is not contradicted by reality. Neither is the idea that if we identify in another way, every separate thing is part of the class of reality. All tigers are cats, but not all cats are tigers.

The identity that you use is most useful when it is not contradicted by reality. Reality will not argue with you if you want to put everything in the same class called "existence". It will argue with you though if you tell the tiger in front of you that we're all the same thing, so you shouldn't eat me.

I think we sometimes get lost in our ability to identify, and believe that the power to abstract things into "thises", somehow means this is not contradicted when we apply it to reality. We can imagine many things, but they are often shattered when thrown into reality. It is fun to believe that if we just imagine reality to be a certain way, it is. The reality is, we are desperately trying to fit in with reality, and not be dashed against it ourselves. When you get lost in the abstract of philosophy, never forget to place it against reality. It will never lie to you, and ground you once again.
gentric
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 23 Sep 2018



Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests