Logical Evaluation of Human Self

@Pathfinder,

Reconstructo,

Thank you for these Wittgenstein quotes. Yum!

I keep meaning to read more of him. Can you spell procrastinate? ; ^ )

I agree with you, but to go further, “Consciousness is both the root and branch of Being.” (Mine) The body is just imagination much like a dream.

Concepts and thoughts described as being mental objects is very Buddhist, my friend. Have you dabbled?

Ramana, “We don’t live in the world. We live in our head.” (Similar to 5.63)

Lin Chi, “Who is this fellow going in and out of my eyes?” He speaks of this mysterious unseen witness, which escapes being made into an object. (Similar to 5.633)

Your turn, Please tell me what 5.631 and 5.632 makes you think of, in you own words.

This is fun,
S9

@Subjectivity9,

Isn't everything in the visual field telling you, allowing you to infer, that it's seen by an eye ?

@Pathfinder,

memester,

Seen by an eye, yes, but what eye; a physical eye, a mental eye, or a Spiritual I?

There are those who believe that there is absolutely nothing there (in the material world) to be seen, except what we project there, a mental projection, (AKA Idealism)

So what?

We mustn’t fall into believing that anyone who doesn’t agree with us, must be a fool.

S9

@Pathfinder,

I think we divide consciousness into subjective and objective after the fact. We call that "objective" which tends to be visible for all or most us. We call that "subjective" which seems to be a more private experience. But as Hegel makes clear, there's a dialectic between these two poles. William James also presented something like this.

I have dabbled in the Eastern, yes. I'm a big fan. The way I see, words are technology enough for psychology. Words can lead us to the transcendental ego, which the philosophical self in Wittgenstein's sense. Heidegger calls it Being. Being is the "light" that makes beings visible. In my view, consciousness is equivalent to both Being and the transcendental ego. Ken Wilbur also wrote well on this. He's a weird guy, but his "A Brief History of Everything" has such clarity and important subject matter that it's worth putting up with his occasional awkwardness. Wilbur's keyword is integration. He's a student of East and West and does his best to fuse them together. For instance, he thinks Buddha and Freud are a potent combo and should be used together. Wilbur does something like combine Hegel and the East in general. He also looks at all the new age religious movements, like Eco and Feminism and such. He looks at history as well. It's quite a synthesis actually. I don't mention him much because he's sort of on the margins. But I learned from him.

On Witt. He basically sees what Heidegger and Hegel and Wilbur see. That what we call the self is just an object of consciousness. By naming a object, we imply the possibility of negation. This is Rumpelstiltskin, for you. We create an object by naming it. But there is something that is impossible to properly name, and that is the philosophical self. Of course we do have words for it, but these words are deceptive. Heidegger wrote the word Being and crossed it out. Because "Being" isn't being. The word "Being" is just an object of consciousness and not consciousness itself. Hegel said that indeterminate being is nothingness. I think this is what Easter traditions have called the "uncreated." Also the Tao says the Way that can be told is not the true Way. In my view, both idealism and realism are limited. But I think idealism is closer to the truth, for reality is a construct of the brain. And yet our lives are evidence that there are other subjectivities out there. One could say that we are all the eyes of God and that God is both subject and substance. (Subject and substance are actually one. Hegel examines this.) So God shatters and each piece of him has a limited viewpoint on all the other pieces of him as they interact together in an environment. "That Art Thou." That's sublime stuff. Seems like the East was ahead of the West on certain central things. But the West seems to be there now as well. Do you know Wittgenstein's life story? Not the usual life by any means. Here are a few links you might find engrossing.
Nondualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Summary of Hegel's Philosophy of Mind
Martin Heidegger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Giambattista Vico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Finnegans Wake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contingency, irony, and solidarity - Google Books

---------- Post added 12-22-2009 at 05:45 PM ----------

memester;113539 wrote:

Isn't everything in the visual field telling you, allowing you to infer, that it's seen by an eye ?

That's a good point. I would say that objectivity and subjectivity are both inferred and also both limited viewpoints. I think a fusion of the two does better justice to our human situation.

I would say that there is, metaphorically speaking, an eye behind the eye. And this is consciousness itself. Which is really one of the strangest concepts to wrestle with... What is consciousness? Is it not equivalent somehow with existence and being? Is it not the "thing" that makes all other things real?

@Pathfinder,

memester,

The human eye is a tool for seeing this material world, much like a telescope is a tool for seeing the stars, and the electron microscope is for seeing the tiny mitochondria.

If the eye were you, when a surgeon they plucked it out, you would die. Obviously, you are more. But what?

S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;113852 wrote:

memester,

The human eye is a tool for seeing this material world, much like a telescope is a tool for seeing the stars, and the electron microscope is for seeing the tiny mitochondria.

If the eye were you, when a surgeon they plucked it out, you would die. Obviously, you are more. But what?

S9

The field of enquiry determines the question and kind of answer. In this case, it's "visual feld" that we're talking about. Not "The Ether", Lobsang. :devilish:

@Pathfinder,

Reconstructo,

The way that I approach psychology is not through words only, but more directly. For years, I have been participating in a practice called “Mindfulness,” among others. (I meditate on breath.)(Very Buddhist)

No, I am not a Buddhist. I just believe that it is one the best psychologies (Buddhism) to come down the road in a long time.

I also believe that words can go a long way towards understanding oneself, and they are very portable much like money. Words accumulate knowledge, like money accumulates labor for easy transport.

Could you tell me a little bit about Wittgenstein’s philosophical self, and his life, please? I love to learn. {My kingdom for more time, and ambition.} ; ^ )

I agree that the ego-self, and the body/mind-self are mere dream selves (AKA imagination). But, I call Ultimate Consciousness my most Essential Self, and my most Intimate Self, or what the Christian Mystics call the “I Am,” or ‘Presence.” (No these are not God in the usual sense, as a separate Being, (AKA the I/Thou) these are all, “Me.”

It would seem that, “By naming an object, we imply the possibility of negation,” but this is only a failing within our dualistic language, and the human mind that demands, no requires, contrast/comparison.

Also Wittgenstein said there are things that cannot be named, or said with language. He saw this failing in language, because he personally witnessed things, which he couldn’t convey with language. I believe you I are in agreement with him.

“Nothingness,” “uncreated,” or Nagarjuna’s “Empty of emptiness” are all attempts to dance around the (maypole) of “Ultimate Truth, which is full of Its Self, but empty of finitude and mind objects.

The Hindu’s use a practice called Neti/Neti (AKA Not this/Not this) to eliminate everything that is the mind from our view, (Litmus test: if it comes and it goes, it is mind.) so that what is left standing is the Ultimate Consciousness.

Let us remember that the brain is also a physical construct, perhaps a projection as well. Is the brain a creator of this world, or a radio station conveying messages into this dream state?

Calling our mysteries, “ God,” doesn’t add anything. We just have to figure out God.

The Sufi’s say that we are all just the names of God. But, I wonder, is God a jigsaw puzzle with each of us a piece? REALLY? Is God a Gestalt? I find that limiting, too. (Not to mention dependent.)

Thanks for the links.

S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;113876 wrote:

Reconstructo,

The way that I approach psychology is not through words only, but more directly. For years, I have been participating in a practice called "Mindfulness," among others. (I meditate on breath.)(Very Buddhist)

If you mean we should learn by/from personal experience including techniques, I agree. But if we want to communicate, we must use words, usually trope, or art/music/etc. I haven't meditated, but it interests me.

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 04:23 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;113876 wrote:

Reconstructo,

I agree that the ego-self, and the body/mind-self are mere dream selves (AKA imagination). But, I call Ultimate Consciousness my most Essential Self, and my most Intimate Self, or what the Christian Mystics call the "I Am," or 'Presence." (No these are not God in the usual sense, as a separate Being, (AKA the I/Thou) these are all, "Me."

It would seem that, "By naming an object, we imply the possibility of negation," but this is only a failing within our dualistic language, and the human mind that demands, no requires, contrast/comparison.

"Nothingness," "uncreated," or Nagarjuna's "Empty of emptiness" are all attempts to dance around the (maypole) of "Ultimate Truth, which is full of Its Self, but empty of finitude and mind objects.

The Hindu's use a practice called Neti/Neti (AKA Not this/Not this) to eliminate everything that is the mind from our view, (Litmus test: if it comes and it goes, it is mind.) so that what is left standing is the Ultimate Consciousness.

Calling our mysteries, " God," doesn't add anything. We just have to figure out God.
S9

This sounds to me like what I mean by Being, Consciousness, and what Wittgenstein means by the philosophical self. The word/negation thing allows us to realize that what we have taken for our "self" is just an object of consciousness. "God" is just a symbol for the ineffable. Or this is one use of the token. I'm not attached to any particular word, but I do think highly of the Bible. "I am what I am. God, etc." --as far as words being essentially discursive/dichotomous I agree. I think you will like those links as they connect very well to this last post of yours.

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 04:25 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;113876 wrote:

The Sufi's say that we are all just the names of God. But, I wonder, is God a jigsaw puzzle with each of us a piece? REALLY? Is God a Gestalt? I find that limiting, too. (Not to mention dependent.)
S9

Well, I don't have real dogma. I don't believe in any static truth. It's all poetry. I scribble one for this moment and another for that moment. Truth is a lie. Have you looked at Subversive Absolute Christianity? I started that thread with a twisted interpretation of Christ. Tomorrow maybe I'll make a false god out of my friend from Saturn, Umo.

recon

@Pathfinder,

Reconstructo,

I think psychology has a lot to do with finding our (Eternal?) Self, and we do not necessarily need words to do that. It all depends on what direction you are looking in.

Like you say, words are not our only tool for communicating. We have a right brain that wants to be heard from.

What is good about some forms of meditation, “Bare Attention” being one, is that you are suppose relax into a place where you can simply watch what is going on in your mind/psyche without preconceptions, or theory. There is a kind of un-worded wisdom that comes out of this activity. But, I am not anti-word by any means.

Yes, a good deal of what we are saying, you/me/and the other guys, seems to be pointing in the same direction, (a rose is a rose, is a rose).

Yes, “God is a symbol for the ineffable,” but unfortunately the word God seems to carry with it a hint of separation. (I/Thou) Whereas I am saying that, separation is an illusion of the mind. So in essence, when we seek God, directly, we are actually seeking our very own Self. Why?

The ego is just a phantom of our imagination, an overlay on top of Ultimate Being. The Hindu’s say that Brahman (Ultimate Being/Ultimate Consciousness) is dreaming,this whole material world is dream stuff. Or that this life we live is merely a dance (process without purpose [AKA play]).

I’m with you. I don’t actually believe ANYTHING at this point in my journey. I contemplate “Pure Being” directly as my Self, as“Me.” I do not try to capture it in either word or concept, in order to own it. No need to own It (Presence/Being), if It is you. Can’t lose it either.

I do enjoy playing with metaphysics, and with psychology, but true wisdom leaves both of those in the dust. They are simply toys for the mind.

This Contemplation I do, starts as a practice, and goes on to become continuous. It is empty of everything, except Presence here and now. (No, it is not a trance state.) It is more like an insight into Being that is purely satisfying and nourishing.

I will read more of your links as time allows. I am one of those people with piles of books beside my chair, waiting for me to get to them.

Smiles,
S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;113936 wrote:

I do enjoy playing with metaphysics, and with psychology, but true wisdom leaves both of those in the dust. They are simply toys for the mind.

I agree. There's an ineffable something beneath discourse. A word like "feeling" could be used, but this is still part of the discourse. Life is lived. Thoughts are the ashes or toys of life. And yet the right metaphor is a key to new perspective. One metaphor incites the next. Discourse itself is a nexus of metaphor. All our language is a web, a system of relations. So talk about god is never god, unless talk itself is god. In a way, Hegel suggests this.
I feel at a state where ideas are toys. I have my sustaining ineffable, no doubt. And this allows me complete doubt in most other areas. Also an experimentation with "faith." One could call a sustaining ineffable "faith" or "grace" or "enlightenment." This would be to eff it, but what of that? Eff what you please, right?

@Pathfinder,

memester,

No we are talking about what exactly a visual field is, and not what your personal idea of the physical, or even mental, visual field is. You are not alone here. You cannot single handedly dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your favorite paradigm. Not fair.

The field of inquiry is as big as, and no bigger than, what each mind is capable of covering, or opening up too.

S9

---------- Post added 12-24-2009 at 03:31 PM ----------

Reconstructo,

Yes, very often metaphors can open up doors, and avenues into new territories of understanding. Perhaps this is because it combines pictorial thinking (Right Brain) and can bypass the gatekeeper (left brain) with its old habitual thinking. In this way, metaphor is a little like dreaming, and can sneak wisdom in under the radar. Could this be why poetry was called, “the language of the gods?”

However, it is my thought that, while the mind is busy with lineal/word thought and the most spacious pictorial thoughts, that there is something that stands completely free of both of these, and only allows them to dance their dance.

These are layers of consciousness, like the old adage about the onion with its mysterious empty center after peeling off all of its layers.

This is what I was getting at with Pathfinder earlier, that we do not even know what Life Is. It certainly isn’t simply a biological story. It isn’t just a physical manifestation, even if living things seem to fly out of it like sparks from a fire. What is this mysterious seemingly endless force, which is its own fuel?

If a single metaphor throws open our windows, we shouldn’t be surprised if a whole flock of metaphors fly in that same window. Wisdom does seem to want to be recognized.

S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;114071 wrote:

If a single metaphor throws open our windows, we shouldn't be surprised if a whole flock of metaphors fly in that same window. Wisdom does seem to want to be recognized.
S9

The thing is, we can't even talk about wisdom or anything else without this logos and all its limits. So the finger points at the moon. We use words to describe the limitations of words.

@Pathfinder,

Reconstructo,

This indeed, words do take us quite a way towards understanding wisdom, (the wisdom of how circular our thinking is) and yet they are the exact right tool for doing that, IMPO.

Words also cancel themselves out, because they are circular, (opposites are circular and our dualistic language is made up of opposites) and traveling in a circle actually goes nowhere.

Up describes down, and down describes up, but like you say they also limit each other, and don’t really tell us anything about where we are. Up to where? Down from where? That’s easy: “Up from down, and down from up.” ; ^ )

“A house of cards.” Gautama Buddha called this Co-dependent Arising.” ; ^ )

Transcendence is beyond talking. So like you say, “We point at the moon.” However, let us remember that the moon only reflects the Sun, burrows the Sun’s illumination. What do you think the Sun represents metaphysically?

S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;114211 wrote:

Reconstructo,

This indeed, words do take us quite a way towards understanding wisdom, (the wisdom of how circular our thinking is) and yet they are the exact right tool for doing that, IMPO.

Words also cancel themselves out, because they are circular, (opposites are circular and our dualistic language is made up of opposites) and traveling in a circle actually goes nowhere.

Up describes down, and down describes up, but like you say they also limit each other, and don't really tell us anything about where we are. Up to where? Down from where? That's easy: "Up from down, and down from up." ; ^ )

"A house of cards." Gautama Buddha called this Co-dependent Arising." ; ^ )

Transcendence is beyond talking. So like you say, "We point at the moon." However, let us remember that the moon only reflects the Sun, burrows the Sun's illumination. What do you think the Sun represents metaphysically?

S9

Nah, it's not that "up" is "down" - that way of communicating leads to nonsense...it's that there can be a bottom to a top and a top to a bottom. As in a deck of cards..even the top card has a face and a back. Top and bottom of the top.

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;114211 wrote:

Reconstructo,

This indeed, words do take us quite a way towards understanding wisdom, (the wisdom of how circular our thinking is) and yet they are the exact right tool for doing that, IMPO.

Words also cancel themselves out, because they are circular, (opposites are circular and our dualistic language is made up of opposites) and traveling in a circle actually goes nowhere.

Up describes down, and down describes up, but like you say they also limit each other, and don't really tell us anything about where we are. Up to where? Down from where? That's easy: "Up from down, and down from up." ; ^ )

"A house of cards." Gautama Buddha called this Co-dependent Arising." ; ^ )

Transcendence is beyond talking. So like you say, "We point at the moon." However, let us remember that the moon only reflects the Sun, burrows the Sun's illumination. What do you think the Sun represents metaphysically?

S9

Good post. I used the moon because it's an oldy, but the Sun I like better. The sun I would put at the top. Great symbol. The spherical golden source.

@Pathfinder,

memester,

Up and down is a matter of perspective and convenience.

If I stand on the Empire State Building, just about everything seems to be down. If I stand way down in the Grand Canyon, just about everything seems to be up.

They don’t really exist in themselves, like, “Here, have a cup of up.” ; ^ )

S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;114514 wrote:

memester,

Up and down is a matter of perspective and convenience.

If I stand on the Empire State Building, just about everything seems to be down. If I stand way down in the Grand Canyon, just about everything seems to be up.
They don't really exist in themselves, like, "Here, have a cup of up." ; ^ )

S9

That's a big "nothing said".

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;114514 wrote:

Up and down is a matter of perspective and convenience.

I agree. Relativity! All the chatter about reality makes us forget that reality is an ideal concept like god. And the reality-clan likes to knock on god. To quote my man Hamlet: words, words, words. A foolosopher should sniff at these words. What is "truth" made of? Words. What are words made of? Other words.... Etymology hides the dirty secrets of all our contingent after-birth-dripping concepts...

@Pathfinder,

Reconstructo,

I can agree with you that 'limited reality' is an ideal, mind made. Ultimate Reality is trans-mind.

God (as so often, commonly understood) is so obviously man-made that it is sad. These best and worst sides of our selves (as a species) are personified in God, and has become the justification for so much that "turns right around and bites us on the butt."

When the Mystics refer to God, it is an entirely different matter, altogether, as this thinly described God is actually what I call ‘Ultimate Truth’ (AKA ‘Ultimate Reality’), and bears little, or no resemblance to our mind-crazy species.

A foolosopher should not only sniff at his words, he should rip them to pieces, and make them stand on their heads. ; ^ ) Sort of like brainstorming. Very often, something comes visible that we couldn’t have expected.

I remember a friend telling me about a prediction for NYC, given the circumstances as they were and all of the horses necessary to get things done, back a ways), that lineally speaking, or predicting, we would all be up to our hips in horse dung by this year of our lord such/n/such.

; ^ )

But, sometimes creativity comes in one thing, or another (seemingly) small innovation, like the auto, which seemed only a toy for the rich at first. Yet, it changed everything drastically. Or not! Now, we are up to our hips in cars. (Technological dung)

Let us rather say that truth is made of thoughts, both words and pictures. Don’t forget our fellow traveler, the Right Brain.

R: Etymology hides the dirty secrets of all our contingent after-birth-dripping concepts...

S9: Wow, strong words my friend. That will give me sleepless nights, and a loss of appetite. ; ^ ) Actually, I liked them.

Just an aside:
A book that very much makes me think of you, and that I believe you would enjoy.

Crazy Wisdom by Wes "Scoop" Nisker

The best and wisest friend I have, just loves this book. (And it is full of great quotes from a vast variety of types, from the most profound mystic to the most observant of double-edged comedians)

S9
__________________

Philosophy Forum

Logical Evaluation of Human Self

Quick Links

My Account

able2know