This post refers to the Philosophy Project.
The purpose of this post is simply to provide a holding area for ideas.
We shall be looking around at all different kind of stuff to digest it. The ideas shall first be discussed under the COMMENTS section. Anything pertinent will then be added to this post.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(December 2025) I am writing these comments in color, 13 years after writing this post, just to see how much my viewpoint has changed. This should be fun.
A self (being) seems to be simply a “center of considerations” that it holds and continually outputs.
Self exists to resolve anomalies. The sense of self dissolves when no anomalies remain. There remains only a dimension of awareness independent of the universe.
As the perception point identifies itself with knowledge through considerations, it gets fixed in its place, and loses it fluidity. Thus, “I,” or the self, is generated.
Knowledge, thought, consciousness, etc., are part of the universe. These are subject to awareness, just as the rest of the universe is.
All knowledge, regardless of its source, should be consistent. When there is inconsistency, there must be something unresolved that is underlying that inconsistency. Spiritual progress occurs when one starts to spot inconsistencies as they come up naturally and applies mindfulness to them until they dissolve.
Oneness (continuity, consistency and harmony) is the ideal state of awareness. A violation of oneness appears as an anomaly.
As one starts to look mindfully at an inconsistency, it may lead to a chain of inconsistencies. Just keep looking more closely at the inconsistency that is on the “top of the stack.” It is very important to follow the 12 points of mindfulness.
Inconsistency is referred to as anomaly now. This above link is also updated to The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness.
“I” generates considerations (assessment, speculations, judgments, justifications, assumptions, etc.). These considerations are capable of filtering whatever “I” looks at. Taking responsibility means not letting one’s considerations color one’s perception and seeing things as they are.
“I” (sense of self) exists in the dimension of awareness to resolve anomalies with the goal to bring about oneness. A “filter” is an anomaly of “I” due to identification. Identification is “I” confusing itself with something in the universe.
Considerations seem to bring in the factor of “preservation,” whether it is the preservation of self, or the preservation of property. Justice seems to be concerned with such preservation.
When “I” identifies with anything in the universe, then that is an anomaly. It is moving away from its function of resolving anomalies.
Everything about this universe is in flux. Nothing stays the same. Everything is impermanent. Yet this whole system made up of impermanence seems to be permanently there. How can this inconsistency of “impermanence being permanently there” be explained?
Relative permanence is a view from a higher dimension.
Perception is there as long as manifestation is there. When manifestation is not there, there is no perception either. Thus, there can never be a perception of the state of non-manifestation. We would always perceive manifestation to be there. Ha ha… Q.E.D.
Consciousness starts with sensation.
.
(1) An “identity” may simply be a tight “knot” of considerations that needs to be loosened up.
(2) The self is the “center of considerations” analogous to the “center of mass.”
(3) An identity may not affect the self if it is somewhere at the periphery of considerations.
(4) If the identity is closer to the center, it may appear as if the self is stuck with it.
(5) But there are simply a bunch of considerations knotted together, which needs to be loosened up.
(6) Being stuck is simply “some considerations locked into each other.”
An identity comes about when the self (solver of anomalies) starts to identify itself with something in the dimension of the universe.
.
There seems to be two different levels of knowledge:
(1) A level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.
This is the dimension of Awareness.
(2) Another level of knowledge, which is generated when SELF starts to react to the previous level of knowledge.
This is consciousness in the dimension of the Universe.
Such a reaction may occur in chain resulting in ballooning of considerations. The only way to stop and reverse such ballooning of considerations would be to look non-judgmentally and see what is actually there.
This is mindfulness.
Then one is no longer reacting to what is there. Instead one is now continually realizing what is there. This starts to deflate the ballooning considerations. In other words, the ego, or self, gradually starts to dissolve.
This is the resolution of anomalies.
One can never predict where this process might lead to. 
.
At death, the body disintegrates into its particles, and the identity that was the body is dissolved. Similarly, the observing and thinking part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into its particles (considerations), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.
In death, awareness separates from consciousness.
However, the particles remain and they can recombine into another “body plus living soul” combination. There is infinity of such recombination.
In birth, awareness combines with consciousness.
What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know the details at the moment. But this seems to be going on forever like complex cycles of some eternal wave according to Hinduism.
Nirvana is something different altogether. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, nirvana is like exteriorization from CONSIDERATIONS. It is the separation of perception-point from all its considerations. This is called giving up of all attachment in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.
Nirvana is returning to the dimension of Awareness.
Nothing arrives at Nirvana. it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.
Parinirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into its own manifestation, extinguishing both. The laws of disintegration and reintegration are thus bypassed. But this is only my speculation.
The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.
.
Comments
First cause makes the process of searching for consistency a futile practice.
There is no implicit “reason” for manifestation.
Why do you demand consistency from that which has no need to be so?
This is something you should apply your mindfulness to. It might help you cut the gordian knot you seem to have wrapped around you 🙂
From the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT:
FIRST CAUSE:
[“First Cause” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the notion of “cause and effect”. “Cause and effect” denote a certain association between two events where the second event is looked upon as the outcome of the first event. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is the property, which makes a manifestation simply appear without association with anything else. It is interesting to observe that that the property of “first cause” may be applied to all manifestations before applying the association of “cause and effect.”]
.
TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.
TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.
TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.
TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.
TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.
.
.
Yes, I already had read that before commenting. Requoing it does not add to the discussion.
What do you have to say about this search for consistency that you are engaged in regards to my statement?
But I don’t search for consistency. I simply let the inconsistencies come to me. What inconsistency do you see here?
.
Brian, here is the process that I follow:
1. Use mindfulness till it becomes effortless as second nature.
2. Recognize inconsistencies as they arise. Do not ignore them.
3. Immediately look at the inconsistency more closely.
4. Consistencies can be drawn upon quite easily as needed in Information Age of today.
5. Simply track down the inconsistency and look at it closely until it dissolves.
6. When the inconsistency is dissolved, then that’s it. Let it go.
7. Focus on the next inconsistency as it arises.
The above is taken from KHTK LOOKING: AN OVERVIEW
.
Vinay, for me this fluid nature of the ” I ” is the harmony installed in the rest of the existence, a mirror of the created things by probabilistic combinations which are condensed in a fixed and statistical reality . The realising of this fixed statistical reality brings the ” I ” to the understanding of their probabilistic nature. imo
Hi Rafael. Good to hear from you.
I just modified my comments about “I” as follows but that does not affect your comment.
A self (being) seems to be simply a “center of considerations” that it holds and continually outputs.
As the perception point identifies itself with knowledge through considerations, it gets fixed in its place, and loses it fluidity. Thus, “I,” or the self, is generated.
I think that I understand what you are saying. The existence is there simply because of the perception, and vice versa. Existence and perception are two sides of the same coin. There is really no perception point even. There is just a potential for it.
.
Vinay, so, you do consider that the existence is a subjective thing or just up to a level ?.
All I know is that there is perception. That is my starting point.
Existence is there because I perceive it. Whether you call it subjective or objective it is up to you.
.
It is the inconsistencies among people’s desires and aspirations, and also with respect to their environment, that make it difficult for them to live together in harmony.
If we can only train people to start addressing such inconsistencies with KHTK approach, then what a fantastic society we’ll be able to create. This should be the case from top to bottom in a society.
Plato looked for a wise leader at the top. But such a leader cannot accomplish much without support from immediate subordinates. The president and the congress, both should be able to see things as they are and recognize the inconsistencies.
.
Plato: Underlying the Ethical and Political problems lies the Psychological problem. Ultimately, it is the nature of man that needs to be examined.
Human behavior flows from desire, emotion and knowledge. Desire is fundamentally sexual. Emotion is the organic resonance of experience and desire. Knowledge is the eye of desire.
Those who are embodiment of desire dominate and manipulate industry. They are acquisitive. Those who are temples of emotion (feeling and courage) care more victory “in and for itself.” Thay are pugnacious. Their joy is on the battle-field. Those few who delight in knowledge (meditation and understanding) lose themselves in quiet clarity of secluded thought. They are the men of wisdom, who stand aside unused by the world.
Now just as effective individual action implies that desire, though warmed with emotion, is guided by knowledge; so in the perfect state the industrial forces would produce but they would not rule; the military forces would protect but they would not rule; the forces of knowledge and science and philosophy would be nourished and protected, and they would rule. Only a philosopher-king is fit to guide a nation.
What is needed:
(1) The first turn on our road is universal education (do not use compulsion).
(2) Physical education and health be given the priority.
(3) Training in music and use of psychology should be the next priority.
(4) Education in mathematics and science should then follow.
(5) Within limits a libertarian spirit must prevail.
(6) A moral basis must be provided through religious education (must believe in God)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Plato is talking about his Utopia, which has good reasoning behind it. However, he is speaking in general terms only because he has no technology to bring about that Utopia.
Plato recommends religion and faith to keep baser instincts in check. Here lies his inconsistency. He wants to bring about wisdom but then he resorts to conditioning through religion.
.
Plato: Granted that none of the beliefs can be demonstrated; that God may be after all only the personified ideal of our love and our hope, and that the soul is like the music of the lyre, and dies with the instrument that gave it form: yet surely it will do us no harm to believe, and it may do us and our children immeasurable good.
Plato finds belief to have a lot of control and strengthening power. He thus wants God to be installed as a “super role model” and an “authority” that can punish and reward the individual. The idea of indoctrination is quite strong here. Thus, Plato looks for solution in God and faith.
Plato does not believe that minds could be developed simply by removing confusion..
.
THE DOCTRINE OF IDEAS (Plato)
Idea = “general idea” of the class to which something belongs
= the laws according to which the thing operates
= the perfect purpose and ideal towards which the thing and its class may develop
Idea = the ideal scene?
.
Yes, maybe. This thought added to the inverse square law remind me of my earlier question of where the fractal growth originates.
(1) “What-is” is not enduring but what we consider about it can be very enduring.
(2) Certain laws inferred from “what-is”, such as, the inverse square law, are quite enduring.
(3) Knowledge underlying what we perceive can be quite enduring.
(4) Mathematics provides us with a certain consistency of ideas.
(5) What are these laws that hold up the structure of this universe?
.
Excellent way to ask. Now we are getting down to it.
The basic law seems to be that
(1) There is manifestation-perception phenomenon.
(2) This phenomenon seems seems to generate considerations.
(3) Considerations then seem to feed into the manifestation-perception phenomenon.
.
I am trying to trying to read and understand the three laws of philosophy that I found here, but I am too tired and the site seems to be Russian. These don’t seem to be the ones attributed to Aristotle.
These “laws” seems to be written in a language that I don’t understand.
.
I believe the language is Russian and the translation is a not too good computer product… I looked a bit for another reference but failed… I am resting today but tomorrow I will look again.
“What are these laws that hold up the structure of this universe?”
Everything about this universe is in flux. Nothing stays the same. Everything is impermanent. Yet this whole system made up of impermanence seems to be permanently there.
How can this inconsistency of “impermanence being permanently there” be explained?
.
Vin: How can this inconsistency of “impermanence being permanently there” be explained?
Chris: This question strikes at the heart of the “chicken or egg” question and is the reason that I am not currently subscribing to the concept of a “beginning” or of a “prime mover unmoved.” Man seems to be a part of the dynamic flux of universe. His main uniqueness seems to be that of being aware of himself in a troublesome way if that. The sense of impermanence posed off against permanence is a dichotomy that may only exist as a result of our imagination.
Written another way, THERE IS UNIVERSE. No qualifiers, no modifiers, no dichotomies, no paradoxes, no disagreements, and no “if, ands, buts, or justs.” Writing this is taking my best shot at non-judgmental looking. Every other embellishment beyond this strong statement is an additive, including all philosophy of every type including the subset of religion.
Vinay, influx, a consideration comes to my mind:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/143782-mit-discovers-a-new-state-of-matter-a-new-kind-of-magnetism
That is very interesting!
.
Perception is there as long as manifestation is there. When manifestation is not there, there is no perception either.
Thus, there can never be a perception of the state of non-manifestation.
We would always perceive manifestation to be there. Ha ha… Q.E.D.
.
I know. “haha” is all there is left to say. Thus my statement above that THERE IS UNIVERSE. Q.E.D.
Without considerations the manifestations would be to us as the world must seem to the first-opened eyes of the child. So, there would be immense curiosity to make sense out of it all. There would be perfect ground to generate considerations.
.
Yes, these considerations, like primary colors, are more pure being unadulterated by consequential considerations. As the child grows, they begin to create secondary and tertiary considerations. These considerations depend for their endurance the underpinnings of primary considerations.
We look at what seems to be very complex to us. We try to simplify it. We try to find few common patterns (laws) that would simplify all that complexity. That is well and good. It reduces confusion.
But there will always be things that do not neatly fit those few known laws we have reduced everything down to. So, we must not abandon actual looking for these laws that help reduce our confusion.
We seem to be abandoning actual looking when it comes to Quantum Mechanics. We seem to be resorting to logic and mathematics alone. This will only increase confusion because, ultimately, it is looking that reduces confusion
In my opinion the most far reaching operating basis is
“See things as they are. If they fit your frame of reference (known laws) then well and good. But if they don’t then don’t force them to fit.”
This is mindfulness.
.
Physical sensations seems to be more real than other perceptions.
.
You are onto something with that comment. But reality; what is most real seems to be segregated by the mind according to some priority that I don’t quite get. You said physical sensations seem to be more real than other perceptions and I see how you can say that. But this differs between people. For instance “delusional” (we call them) people don’t prioritize this way. Elizabeth Hamre does not seem to prioritize this way… Yet, this seems to be something we can benefit from exploring. Elizabeth, you should please take a look at this and let us know how you see it…
Plato introduces direct experience and looking at the end of his educational curriculum that has mainly been theoretical and imparted as indoctrination up to that point. This is inconsistent.
(1) There should be no indoctrination.
(2) There should simply be a presentation of all knowledge available.
(3) There should be emphasis on Looking.
(4) One should be encouraged to look and examine freely.
(5) Confusions and inconsistencies should be sorted out in discussions.
(6) Self should be understood as “center of considerations” held by a person.
(7) These considerations, which contribute to self, should be subject to examination as well.
.
There should be no elimination through tests. Test should be used to guide a person toward developing a skill set most natural to the person.
.
From Wikipedia article METAPHYSICS
Scientific questions in ancient Greece were addressed to metaphysicians, but by the 18th century, the skeptics’ How do you know? led to a new branch of philosophy called epistemology (how we know) to fill-out the metaphysics (what we know) and this eventually led to science (Latin, knowledge of) and its scientific method.
The only way to know is by looking at inconsistencies. An inconsistency is something that doesn’t seem to make sense. Inconsistencies would be different from person to person. A person with a closed mind, who seem to know it all, wouldn’t be able to find any inconsistencies in anything because he or she would have justification for everything.
.
Vin: Scientific questions in ancient Greece were addressed to metaphysicians, but by the 18th century, the skeptics’ How do you know? led to a new branch of philosophy called epistemology (how we know) to fill-out the metaphysics (what we know) and this eventually led to science (Latin, knowledge of) and its scientific method.
Chris: Yes, this is the newest, and to me, the best of modern religions. It is the one to which I currently subscribe.
You see, the oneness to which we bloggers subscribe seems to be based on an idea that underpinning our conscious centers is a common and greater consciousness. The greater consciousness to which I refer is the area which you say is unknowable. At that level there seems to be consistency.
After that, as consciousnesses appear, there seems to become individuality and with that individuality increasing inconsistency.
Now at the joined layer of these consciousnesses, at the realm of reality, we have epistemology explaining the world in a way to make it consistent at the physically real level that we call reality so that the reality can be made consistent. This is our science; our religion. Explaining to one another how it can all be consolidated and made not just knowable but consistent as well.
I would say that knowledge would increase to a certain point and after that it would start dissolving until nothing knowable is left.
.
Vin: I would say that knowledge would increase to a certain point and after that it would start dissolving until nothing knowable is left.
Chris: Example?
Check it out with learning any subject. Take music for example. It is laborious in the beginning, then it becomes easier and easier, until you can play an instrument as a second nature.
.
Ah, I see what you mean.
You know, this is how I imagined gradations of certainty to be when I entered Scientology. Not a fixation on rightness, but the type of certainty that lets me walk without attention on how I do it.
That is how I have always imagined it to be. Knowledge should simply dissolve itself when fully comprehended.
.
I’m still not comprehending the “dissolving until nothing knowable is left”… I see that as one’s disharmony decreases that harmony increases; plus the overall manifestation of knowledge increases — always a ballooning sphere…
I’m not quite following why use the word “dissolving” or else how are you using it?
What you know, you usually don’t think about. You just do it. Look at the knowledge you have in your profession, and compare it to the knowledge of someone just starting out in that profession. You are much faster than him because you don’t have to stop and think at every step.
This is what I mean by knowledge being dissolved. It is not that you don’t have the knowledge. You just don’t have to stop and think about it.
.
Vin: This is what I mean by knowledge being dissolved.
Chris: I do get the sense of what you write. But in fact, what is happening? Tuning in? Lessening of disharmony – non essential thought noise? De-fragmentation? All of these? Because we are more capable, it seems intuitive that there must be more of something. But there can also be less of non-essential and distracting fragmentation of thought. This last can account for your “dissolving.” So is there less or more or both or neither?
Think of sugar being dissolved in water. There are granules floating about in water when not dissolved. After sugar is dissolved there is one smooth texture. No granule of sugar stands out.
Similarly, no “granule” of knowledge stands out after knowledge is dissolved.
.
Scientologist’s talk repeatedly about how theta comm it is, or what a beautiful flow they are getting… This is all undissolved knowledge.
All these “sensation” and “perceptions” get talked about incessantly rather than simply felt and enjoyed. They sound so very artificial to me as being deliberately put on.
.
“Science, a branch of philosophy based on a standard of comparison, of measurement, leading to a generalized and reasoned conclusion regarding the natural world, with a high rate of reproducibility to support the claim.”
It is where that reproducibility is lacking even by 0.001 % that new truths will be revealed.
That truth will also reveal why 99.999% is reproducible.
..
Aristotle believed the study of first principles, such as the law of noncontradiction, to be the foundation of all other inquiries.
KHTK believes inconsistencies to be the foundation of all inquiries.
.
“The nature of Being is a perennial topic in metaphysics. For instance, Parmenides taught that reality was a single unchanging Being. The 20th century philosopher Heidegger thought previous philosophers have lost sight of the question of Being (qua Being) in favour of the questions of beings (existing things), so that a return to the Parmenidean approach was needed.”
KHTK believes that ‘being’ (verb) is ‘existing” and that depends on looking and perceiving. There is something to be looked at and perceived. Thus there is manifestation and perception.
All perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF. All perception is thought to involve separation from manifestation.Thus there is the consideration of SPACE. Perception primarily involves the considerations of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION.
The entirety of EXISTENCE consists of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION. It is what is. There is nothing underlying it except PERCEPTION.
Reality is what is. Calling reality to be a single unchanging Being seems to be additional thought that is being added to what is..
All that is persisting is perception, but what is being perceived is changing continuously. And that is the actual reality.
.