Reference: Tertium Organum
My friend Ivan presented me with this book Tertium Organum by P D Ouspensky. The title refers to THE THIRD CANON OF THOUGHT, A KEY TO THE ENIGMAS OF THE WORLD.
The work is concerned with the nature of the universe and cosmic consciousness – anyone who hobbies to struggle with those matters will find this book to be most insightful and helpful. Download Tertium Organum here free, unabridged and yours forever:
Tertium Organum by P D Ouspensky
P.D. Ouspensky starts out with the implicit belief that something cannot come from nothing. He says,
“Knowledge must start from some foundation, something must be recognized as known; otherwise we shall be obliged always to define one unknown by means of another.”
My thought is that the desire to know brings about expectation. Expectation brings about speculation. Speculation brings about assumptions. And assumptions bring about beliefs. And, thus, knowledge expands.
The seed of all knowledge seems to be the DESIRE TO KNOW. Where this desire comes from is anybody’s guess.
Here is my favorite Hymn.
The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
The basic questions are: “Where?”, “When?”, Who?” or “What?”
Neither such questions, nor their answers are there in the beginning.
There is only manifestation and awareness of that manifestation.
In case of absolute beginning, there is no “prior.”
In the “after,” there are these questions, and speculations for answers.
The questions manifest, and the speculations manifest
There is awareness of these further manifestations.
This awareness then generates more questions and speculations.
Such speculations then going forward, as well as going backwards
Hide the unknowable.
Note added 11/24/25
The unknowable can be known only through postulates. The first postulate is that the universe has substance that can be sensed.
.
Comments
Ouspensky writes,
”Our relation to the objective world is most clearly defined by the fact that we perceive it as existing in time and in space and cannot perceive it or represent it to ourselves apart from these conditions. Usually, we say that the objective world consists of things and phenomena, i.e. of things and of changes in the state of things. A phenomenon exists for us in time, a thing exists in space.
“But such a division of the world into subjective and objective does not satisfy us.
“By means of reasoning we can establish that, actually, we only know our own sensations, representations and concepts, and that we perceive the objective world by projecting outside of ourselves the presumed causes of our sensations.”
.
Objects, whether mental or physical, are described by their properties that we perceive. We describe them by use of dimensions, such as, space, time, mass, labels and other significance. The terms like “phenomenon” and “thing” seems to stress on different aspects of an object’s properties.
Ouspensky seems to be looking for some relationship between mental and physical objects. Maybe there are no physical and mental objects. But there are only physical and mental properties of what is being perceived.
We use different sense organs to perceive different properties of an object. The object would then be a sum total of these different perceptions obtained through different sense organs put together. Mind is really a sense organ where mindfulness is concerned. The mental sensations, feelings and emotions arising from contact are as much the properties of that object as are the visual or other physical perceptions arising from that contact.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“Further, we find that our cognition of both the subjective and the objective world may be true or false, correct or incorrect.
“The criterion for determining the correctness or incorrectness of our cognition of the subjective world is the form of relationship of one sensation to others, and the force and character of the sensation itself. In other words, the correctness of one sensation is verified by comparing it with another of which we are more sure, or by the intensity and the taste of a given sensation.
“The criterion for determining the correctness or incorrectness of our cognition of the objective world is exactly the same. It seems to us that we define things and phenomena of the objective world by means of comparing them one with another; and we imagine that we discover the laws of their existence apart from ourselves and our cognition of them. But this is an illusion. We know nothing about things separately from ourselves, and we have no means of verifying the correctness or incorrectness of our cognition of the objective world apart from sensations.”
.
The perception of objects is always in relative terms. It is neither absolutely true or correct, nor absolutely false or incorrect. Any criterion to assess one’s perception can only be in terms of whether it is consistent with other perceptions or not.
Under the discipline of mindfulness, the mind becomes aware of consistency or inconsistency almost instantaneously. One looks at the various perceptions coming from the same object. If there is inconsistency then one looks at the object more closely to see what could be missing. One keeps looking in that area until the inconsistency is resolved.
For sensations one may become aware of inconsistency in terms of force, intensity and/or other characteristics. In the framework of mindfulness, the factor of “I” does not enter the picture, as discussed earlier.
.
Vin: “. . .the mind becomes aware of consistency or inconsistency almost instantaneously.”
Chris: An old saw in construction work is that the straightest line is a visual one comes to mind. This is good in practice. Mindfulness of it help carpenters construct the straightest possible lines and architects create visual illusions such the narrowing of the Greek collumn to appear taller.
Our senses tell us both truths and fictions. The truths are true because they get confirmation, agreement if you will, from other senses whether our own or belonging to others. Our senses are said to be delusional or hallucinating when their perceptions are contradicted by factors such as our own knowledge, other senses whether our own or others, and also repetitive consistency through time.
This is quite an interesting thread you’ve started.
I am glad you like this thread. It is on the same lines as the
PHILOSOPHY PROJECT
.
Ouspensky writes,
“Since the remotest antiquity, the question of our relation to the true causes of our sensations has been the main subject of philosophical research. Men have always felt that they must find some solution of this question, some answer to it. These answers alternated between two poles, between a complete denial of the causes themselves, and the assertion that the causes of sensations lie in ourselves and not in anything external and the admission that we know these causes, that they are contained in the phenomena of the external world, that these very phenomena constitute the causes of sensations, and that the cause of observable phenomena themselves lies in the movement of ‘atoms’ and the vibrations of ‘ether’. It was presumed that the only reason why we are unable to observe these movements and vibrations is because we are lacking in sufficiently powerful instruments, but that when such instruments become available we shall be able to see the movement of atoms as clearly as, through powerful telescopes, we now see stars whose very existence had never even been supposed.”
.
The sensations arise when the object is perceived. So the sensations must be part of the properties of the object. A search for the causes of an object may lead to logical associations, but the ultimate cause cannot be perceived.
.
This language has gotten better and better.
You may be getting conditioned to the slant I have been putting all this time.
.
Both I think.
All logic seems to be conditioning.
.
There seems to be so many layers to this onion of logic that the core has really hardened into a reality.
.
Do we really see what we have convinced ourselves of, or is it the other away around?
.
Vin: So the sensations must be part of the properties of the object.
Chris: Just as gravity must be part of the properties of space?
Yes. In a way energy and mass are properties of space too.
.
. . . and time.
Time seems to be a measure of the transition from space to energy to matter. I like the following statement on Time from Scn 8-8008:
“A further investigation and inspection of time has demonstrated it to be the action of energy in space, and it has been found that the duration of an object roughly approximates its solidity.”
.
Hubbard: ” . . . and it has been found that the duration of an object roughly approximates its solidity.”
Chris: This is a carefully disguised tautology and says nothing about the mechanics — not even a conjecture. The only indication about it that I feel is helpful is that it points to discrete units of time strung together to create solidity. The conjecture is that time is conditioned, relative and impermanent. Using this analogy, we would find that amount of time is directly proportional to solidity. A corollary is that there is more space and time within solid objects.
It seems that the higher is the frequency, the more solid an energy wave may appear.
That is the way it looks to me.
Ouspensky writes,
“In contemporary knowledge, a central position in this problem of the causes of sensations is occupied by Kant’s system, which does not share either of these extreme views and holds a place midway between them. Kant established that our sensations must have causes in the external world, but that we are unable, and shall never be able, to perceive these causes by sensory means, i.e. by the means which serve us to perceive phenomena.”
.
There is manifestation. Saying that the manifestation is in the “external world” is unnecessary per mindfulness.
A manifestation is proved by its perception. When there is no manifestation, there is no perception either. When there is no perception then there is no manifestation, though there may be assumptions, such as, ‘the manifestation is hidden’.
A “cause” of a manifestation is another manifestation by some logical association. Thus, a chain of manifestations may stretch back many number of times.
Ultimately, there has to be a manifestation with no prior cause. Obviously, there would be no perception there either. There may only be speculation. Logic ultimately leads to speculation.
We may say that all manifestations ultimately have no prior cause except by speculation.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“Kant established the fact that everything perceived by the senses is perceived in time and space, and that outside of time and space we can perceive nothing through the senses, that time and space are the necessary conditions of sensory perception (i.e. perception by means of sense-organs). And, above all, he established the fact that extension in space and existence in time are not properties of things -inherent in them but merely properties of our sense-perception. This means that, in reality, apart from our sensory perception of them, things exist independently of time and space; but we can never sense them outside of time and space, and the very fact of perceiving things and phenomena through the senses imposes on them the conditions of time and space, since this is our form of representation.”
.
Fundamentally there is manifestation as proved by its perception. Perception occurs via the senses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. These senses, in turn, may be looked upon as manifestations, which are perceived through a “higher sense.”
A sense may be conceived as recognition of a pattern within a structure. A chain of sense perception may stretch back many number of times as recognition of pattern within pattern.
Ultimately, there has to be a sense, which itself cannot be sensed. There may only be speculation.
These senses may simply be represented as a spectrum of logical association that is very flighty at one end but quite structured and solid at the other end.
This is perception. This is also manifestation.
NOTE: This is radical. This has to be looked at more closely.
.
Vin: Ultimately, there has to be a sense, which itself cannot be sensed. There may only be speculation.
Chris: There might not be any reason to make this assumption. It is convenient, yes. But isn’t this an attempt to tie up the loose ends and make our consistent observations complete? And if so, then what to do about Godel’s Incompleteness?
Well, what I have written is consistent with Godel’s theorem. See
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/godel-and-determinism/
You cannot know it all. When you know it all, then, probably, all elements cancel each other out.
.
Vin: Ultimately, there has to be a sense, which itself cannot be sensed. There may only be speculation.
Geir wrote: No system of rules can be both complete and consistent per Godels Incompleteness Theorems. Thus, no system can be deterministic.
Chris: You are right to challenge the applicability of Godel’s arithmetic theorem to the broader view of life. However, to my mind, the reason that Geir’s syllogism doesn’t falsify determinism is because the universe is dynamic, increasing, and incomplete. His syllogism falls off the rails not in his major premise, but in his minor premise which assumes that the physical universe is a closed system when astrophysics shows us that it is not. It is not Godel’s which fails us but rather the second assumption that the universe is a closed system.
Chris: I do not disagree with nor agree with the sense that there may outside forces at work. My thrust is to understand whether using extant knowledge that we can falsify determinism and so far, it seems we have not falsified it. Nor have we proved nor disproved free will. These two choices do not seem sufficient. The greater understanding won’t be so single dimensioned as either one or the other.
As I indicated earlier, in my opinion the broader applicability of Godel’s theorem is as follows:
(1) If this universe (with both its physical and spiritual aspects) can be expressed through a consistent set of principles, then there is a truth about this universe that cannot be demonstrated using those set of principles. That truth may look at this universe (as a whole) exactly for what it is. Such a truth may not be derivable from the set of principles that supposedly describe the universe.
(2) this universe cannot contain the ultimate truth about itself. The ultimate truth is unknowable from the reference point of this universe.
(3) So a system may be deterministic only in a relative sense. It can neither be absolutely deterministic, nor can it be absolutely non-deterministic.
I believe that my thinking is consistent with the above.
.
We cannot determine the boundaries of this universe with any certainty. So we do not know what is in this universe and what is outside of this universe. I have no clue as to what those outside forces could be that you are alluding to.
Determinism comes from how the mental and physical energies come together. There is no point determinism in this universe. If there is any determinism it is diffused all over the universe. Per THE STRUCTURE OF “I”,
What we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’, according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies.
.
Vin: These senses may simply be represented as a spectrum of logical association that is very flighty at one end but quite structured and solid at the other end.
Chris: I do not see a problem with this. We seem to reside both within together with and as a part of and manifestation of a set called universe. Even the word universe betrays our bias because the universe is dynamic and not complete since it seems to be increasing. Or as my wife asks, “How does that seem to you now? How about now?” Then, “How about now?”
Does your wife have a voodoo doll in her hand that resembles you?
.
LOL! How did you know that???
Let’s look at the following once again.
“Kant established the fact that everything perceived by the senses is perceived in time and space, and that outside of time and space we can perceive nothing through the senses, that time and space are the necessary conditions of sensory perception (i.e. perception by means of sense-organs). And, above all, he established the fact that extension in space and existence in time are not properties of things -inherent in them but merely properties of our sense-perception. This means that, in reality, apart from our sensory perception of them, things exist independently of time and space; but we can never sense them outside of time and space, and the very fact of perceiving things and phenomena through the senses imposes on them the conditions of time and space, since this is our form of representation.”
.
Kant starts to make much more sense when we look at manifestation and perception to be the two sides of the same coin. Time and space then become the properties of the “manifestation-perception” system.
For all practical purposes there is nothing, except speculation, which exists outside this “manifestation-perception” system. And even speculation may be included in this system when we put it in the category of mental objects.
Kant separates ‘things perceived’ from ‘senses that perceive them’. But, in turn, senses may be looked upon as “things perceived”, and the “organ” that now perceives them is the mind. Mind, therefore, may operate as the “next level” sense organ.
The physical sense-organs can see ‘three spoons’, ‘three cups’ and ‘three plates’, but it is the mental sense-organ that recognizes the pattern of three. So we have mental objects being perceived in mental space by the mental sense-organ.
Kant concludes that apart from our sensory perception of them, things exist independently of time and space… The error which Kant seems to be making is that he is not recognizing mental objects, mental space, and mind as a sense organ.
.
So, there are most probably… (and this is a conjecture),
(1) Physical objects to mental objects to objects of still higher dimension.
(2) Physical space to mental space to space of still higher dimension.
(3) Physical sense organs to mental sense organs to sense organs of still higher dimension.
Mental is a dimension higher than the physical dimension.
.
Yes! That is some fine conjecturing. I observe people getting a whiff of “sense organs of higher dimension” and immediately label, codify, identify, personify, or deify that sense. What you are doing is going somewhere. If we stay mindful and non-judgemental and keep looking, it seems to be happening — our wishes to have greater understanding are becoming real.
Men have been poetically and successfully working out the details since the beginning. It seems that a human understanding has to dissolve to make way for a higher sense of understanding. Each generation that gains spiritual insights seems to think they are the firsts. I smile. I just don’t want to be the generation or part of the generation which is unfulfilled and it seems I won’t be.
We are all missing because of our limited perceptions of space. There are more dimensions sitting all about us just waiting to be identified, consolidated, condensed. The greatest mistake that I see us making is to look too shallowly, then say the end of the research lies just over there.
You are doing great! We just need to keep looking. Many more marvels are waiting for us to discover than we already know or suspect – by many orders of 10.
Ouspensky writes,
“Thus, by determining everything we know through our senses in terms of space and time, they themselves are only forms of our perception, categories of our reason, the prism through which we look at the world. In other words, space and time are not properties of the world, but merely properties of our perception of the world by means of sense-organs. Consequently, the world, taken apart from our perception of it, has neither extension in space nor existence in time. It is we who invest it with these properties when we sense and perceive it.”
.
Space and time seems to contain manifestation and sense organs, and they act as perception. Energy appears to be a ripple in the fabric of space. Mass seems to be a condensation of energy. So, space-energy-mass seems to be three different states of perception. Time seems to be a parameter which determines the state of perception.
Manifestation, sense organ and perception (space-time), seems to spiral up from physical to mental to some “silly” dimension. This is a model that seems to be forming up here.
“We” or “I” is also a part of this model. It is not something separate. Here is how I am looking at it:
It needs to be understood from the the outset that Atman is incorrectly translated in English as soul. The two concepts are as different as a “doughnut hole” is different from “doughnut.”
Let’s imagine a “doughnut” that is made up of considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.). Basically, we are looking at a “doughnut” made up of thought material. This is the concept of SOUL in western religions.
Now let’s look at the “doughnut hole.” This hole is defined by the doughnut. If the doughnut is gone, the hole is gone too. But that hole has no substance. There is nothing there. This is the true concept of ATMAN in eastern religions. When there are no thoughts or considerations, there is no atman either, because, at that point, atman (doughnut hole) has merged with parmatman (infinite nothingness).
Parmatman cannot be described because there is nothing there to describe. On the other hand, the God of western religions is something or someone, and the soul is also something or someone. Therefore, the two cannot merge.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“The representations of space and time arise in our mind on its contact with the external world through the sense-organs, and they do not exist in the external world apart from our contact with it.”
.
What is messing up Ouspensky’s model is the unknown called “self”, which is not accounted for in his model. The model I am looking at is the combination of manifestation, perception (space-energy-mass, time) and sense organ (perception-point). The “self” seems to be sitting at the perception-point.
There is no internal or external world. There is no mind separate from the self. Mind is simply a sense organ of an order higher than the physical sense organs.
Self has substance. It is not “nothing”. What is difficult to spot, because it is implicit in this model is the atman (the doughnut hole).
.
Vin: Self has substance. It is not “nothing”. What is difficult to spot, because it is implicit in this model is the atman (the doughnut hole).
Chris: Correct. (haha) And it won’t be being spotted any time soon either! But the self may be dissolved and the last thought might be some or another exclamation such as “Oh! For the love of Pete! ” or “Oh! For goodness sakes!” or “WTF!?! I barely had any idea!”
The higher sense organs may have more duration, or they may not. There may yet be a higher and finer self which might have nothing whatsoever to do with earthly selves, but it might be there and be available to be dissolved. I have been conjecturing for many comments in a row so I’ll let it go for now.
Ouspensky writes,
“Space and time are categories of our reason, i.e. properties which we ascribe to the external world. They are only signposts, landmarks put up by ourselves, for without them we cannot visualize the external world. They are graphs by means of which we depict the world to ourselves…”
.
Space is a mold that gives rise to consideration. Reason develops through association among considerations. It forms like a cloud in a clear sky. Thus, comes about visualization.
.
Now that is a poetic metaphor!
I think it is pretty accurate too.
It wouldn’t be so poetic if it weren’t!
Hahaha… that is quite an endorsement.
.
The reason that I write that is because in an existence where truth is quite relative, conditioned, and impermanent; I sense that beauty is high on any scale of truth. I want beauty to be durable but having written that I can readily see that ugliness is also quite relative, conditioned, and impermanent. That just went all circular on me and I lost my train of thought. Nevermind — long day. Good thing I am already home!
To me beauty seems to come from consistency.
.
I can see how that is true — relatively, conditionally, and impermanently speaking! Such as the beautiful St. Louis Arch. Then again, without the inconsistent break in the Niagra River, we wouldn’t have the Niagra Falls. How do we apply consistency to the definition of beauty in this example?
By absence of inconsistency.
.
Vin: By absence of inconsistency.
Chris: That’s the spirit! Welcome to my tautological universe.
If you carefully look at it, it is not fully tautological.
I don’t really know what consistency is, but inconsistency is a deviation from that state. Consistency normally goes unnoticed, whereas, inconsistency stands out like a grating sound.
.
Vin: Consistency normally goes unnoticed, whereas, inconsistency stands out like a grating sound.
Chris: Yes, I see that. But the state of a person’s mind is also part of this equation. You’ve heard someone remark, “It’s too quiet around here.” Meaning that the environment wasn’t inconsistent (noisy) enough to please them? Or stepping into a winter’s night when the snow is quietly falling and sound doesn’t travel very well. This consistency stands out against the sometimes inconsistent state of a worrying or stressed or noisy mind.
“It’s too quiet around here.” is actually an inconsistency for this person. He is objecting to it because it is deviation from what he expects. Attention never goes to consistency. Consistency forms the background.
.
Ok. I can live with that.
Many things (inconsistencies) occur at the surface of objects. Transmission of electricity and chemical reactions are examples. Maybe inconsistent waves on the more consistent underlying ocean is an example of how you are using this analogy?
Inconsistencies would be different from person to person because they are relative to a person’s considerations.
.
Vin: Inconsistencies would be different from person to person because they are relative to a person’s considerations.
Chris: Which begs the question whether each person creates the inconsistencies that he sees. In other words, there are things as they are, and then there seems to be the way in which we see them.
Inconsistencies may flag element’s of one’s filter that one is unaware of. Solving inconsistencies may help dissolve one’s filters.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“Projecting outside of ourselves the causes of our sensations, we build up these causes in space, and visualize continuous reality in the form of a series of consecutive moments of time. We need this because a thing that has no extension in space, does not occupy a certain part of space, and does not exist for a certain length of time, does not exist for us at all. This means that a thing without space, not placed in space, not taken in the category of space, will not differ in any way from another thing; it will occupy the same place as that other thing, will merge into it. In the same way, all phenomena taken without time, i.e. not placed in time, not taken in one or another position from the standpoint of before, now and after, will happen for us simultaneously, blending with one another, as it were, and our weak reason will be unable to disentangle the infinite variety of one moment.”
.
The following is conjecture: As separation occurs, space is created and perception comes about. Perception defines the manifestation and also the perception point.
There is no cause. There is only the mechanics of separation. There is no projection. There is only the awareness of becoming. This is space. As the separation continues, we have more and more awareness of becoming. Thus, comes about time. It seems that awareness is made up of space-time. It is the molding of space-time that brings about manifestation and perception.
Space-time is becoming aware of itself. It perceives itself.
.
And furthermore, space seems to want to group into sets. From super-clusters of galaxies down to atoms, space seems to “want” to gather itself.
We do this socially as well as physically. Examples are social clubs, work groups, families.
Good point! Then we are made up of space-time. 🙂
If we are a thetan, then thetan is made up of space-time.
.
Space seems to want to gather itself. This quality is referred to as gravity. Our textbooks tell us that gravity is a property of mass; however, I think we may find that mass is the resulting condensate because of an elastic quality of space.
As I have always felt that
(1) Space has fabric.
(2) Energy is ripples in that fabric of space
(3) As the frequency of that ripple becomes very high.we get mass.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“Therefore, our consciousness segregates separate groups out of the chaos of impressions, and we build, in space and time, representations of objects, which correspond to these groups of impressions.
We have got to divide things somehow, and we divide them according to categories of space and time.”
.
Looks like the “donut of SELF” starts with space-time. In fact, when we talk about anything, it must start with space-time.
As Chris Thompson said, “…space seems to want to group into sets. From super-clusters of galaxies down to atoms, space seems to ‘want’ to gather itself. We do this socially as well as physically. Examples are social clubs, work groups, families.”
The group of impressions and objects are borne out of space-time. They do not come from anywhere else.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“But we must remember that these divisions exist only in us, in our perception of things, and not in the things themselves. We must not forget that we neither know the true interrelation of things nor do we know real things. All we know is their phantoms, their shadows, and we do not know what relationship actually exists between them. At the same time we know quite definitely that our division of things according to time and space in no way corresponds to the division of things in themselves taken independently of our perception of them; and we also know quite definitely that if some sort of division does exist between things in themselves, it can in no case be a division in terms of time and space, as we usually understand these terms, because such a division is not a property of the things but only of our perception of things acquired through the sense-organs. Moreover, we do not know if it is even possible to distinguish those divisions which we see, i.e. divisions according to space and time, when things are looked at, not from the human point of view, not through human eyes. In other words, we do not know whether, for a differently constituted organism, our world would not present an entirely different picture.”
.
From earlier discussion, space-time seems to have three different aspects (a) manifestation, (b) perception, and (c) perception-point. Apparently, these aspects come into focus as division takes place in space-time. The division leads to multiple manifestations, multiple perceptions, and multiple perception-points.
“Us” is focusing on the aspect of perception-point. The “things themselves” will be focusing on the aspect of manifestation. “Knowing” would be focusing on the aspect of perception. Individually, each of these three aspects provides only part of the picture. The complete picture will occur only when all three aspects are taken together.
When division takes place in space-time, then each division will possess the aspects of (a) manifestation, (b) perception, and (c) perception-point. Suppose I am walking on a treadmill, then my body and treadmill together may be considered to form a division of space-time. The manifestation aspect would be the combination of my body, the treadmill, the physical space and time. The perception aspect would be the knowledge of the all these items. The perception-point aspect would any location in this division of space-time.
The perception-point should be able to diffuse itself throughout the space-time or be at any location in that space-time. The perception-point should not be focused and fixed at any one point in space-time.
In my opinion, fixing of the perception-point at one location, such as, the body, is the prime aberration. Perception-point tends to get fixed in a body because the body seems to facilitate and magnify perceptions. It also provides a variety of perceptions.
.
Vin: The perception-point should be able to diffuse itself throughout the space-time or be at any location in that space-time.
Chris: “Should?” That may be an extraneous assertion, assumption, or judgement. This is based on your earlier conjecture that the “manifestation may be the perception,” The perception point might then be the manifestation point. As individuals, we may be clumping manifestations of considerations, drawn about another gravitational particle called a perception point. I am thinking of your “center of gravity” analogy of the self.
My current opinion is that my existence may be simply a game somehow set up and played not by me, but rather through me.
I hope my nit-picking around the edges doesn’t come across as a negative. I don’t particularly seem to be able to organize large groups of thought as you do. I get overwhelmed. I seem to be at my best when only looking at a couple datums at a time.
When we follow the track of manifestation, we see space-time having a fabric that may express itself as some kind of field. Deviations from the equilibrium in this field appear as a combination of electrical and magnetic fields. These deviations ripple through the fabric of space-time at a certain velocity based on the property of the fabric. The phenomenon of clumping occurs as these ripples increase in their frequency and interfere with each other in infinitely different ways. And so we have physical objects.
When we follow the track of perception, we seem to focus on the patterns within the manifestations and assign significance to them. Here we see different frequencies of electromagnetic waves in form of different colors. We see different spatial distributions as shapes, such as, galaxies, stars, planets, substances, molecules, atoms and fundamental particles. The stuff we seem to be dealing with here are significance. There seem to be fundamental laws that lead to clumping of significance, which appear as perception. And so we have perception of physical objects.
What is perception-point? This seems to be a third aspect of space-time and not merely a clumping of assigned significance. It has something to do with randomness that we touched upon elsewhere. It has to do with focus. It has to do with what we sense as consciousness. It is something of a higher order. It is something that is expressed as attention. It can get interiorized into the clumping of manifestations and their perception, or which can perceive the whole space-time in one go. This requires more contemplation.
It seems to be atman versus self.
.
Vin: It has something to do with randomness that we touched upon elsewhere.
Chris: Randomness intrigues and troubles me. I see no particular reason to give it too much significance. Randomness seems like icing on the cake of the human condition. It seems to be there simply for additional flavoring. With the human advent of fast computations, randomness can be accounted for without resorting to thetans, etc.,. What I see is a self somewhat like an unsolved Rubic’s Cube running an onboard application to solve itself. Solving the puzzle makes the puzzle go poof! Then, new game, but not for that puzzle.
Vin: It seems to be atman versus self.
Chris: That type of significance sounds like theta vs mest. I’m not sure what you want to mean by versus.
Chris: That type of significance sounds like theta vs mest. I’m not sure what you want to mean by versus.
.
versus = as compared to or as one of two choices; in contrast with: traveling by plane versus traveling by train.
Atman versus self is like comparing “donut hole” to “donut.”
.
Alright then.
Randomness is what seems to appear as “free will.”
.
Ouspensky writes,
“We cannot picture things outside the categories of space and time, but we constantly think of them outside of time and space.
“When we say ‘this table’, we picture the table to ourselves in time and space. But when we say ‘an object made of wood’, without meaning any definite object, but speaking generally, it refers to all objects made of wood, throughout the world and at all ages. An imaginative person might take it that we speak of some great object made of wood, composed of all wooden things that have ever existed anywhere and which represent, as it were, its atoms.”
.
Ouspensky does not look at mind as a sense organ that perceives mental objects in mental space-time. This is a limitation of his framework, which leads to his incomplete conclusion above.
Physical objects seem to exist only in physical space because that is the framework Ouspensky has assumed. There is no reason why thoughts cannot be looked upon as mental objects that exist in mental space-time.
We observe three spoons, three cups and three plates in physical space-time. But we observe the pattern of three in mental space-time. Thus, any abstraction would exist in mental space-time.
In fact, space-time would exist as a gradient from physical to mental to possibly higher dimensions.
.
Vin: In fact, space-time would exist as a gradient from physical to mental to possibly higher dimensions.
Chris: This seems like the right general direction, doesn’t it? And if we look non-judgmentally, we might learn fresh new things, not outside MEST, but outside our current assumptions. This has quite a wonderful potential to me.
I hope Kant is happy!
.
Ouspensky writes,
“Although we do not give a very clear account of this to ourselves, generally, we think in time and space only by representations; but when we think in concepts, we already think outside of time and space.”
.
Ouspensky is calling the perception of objects to be a representation of what might be there. It is this representation that we perceive in time and space. We circumvent the mystery of what might be there by assuming the framework of mindfulness, which insists on seeing things as they are and to resist the desire to speculate.
From the framework of mindfulness,
(1) Those “representations” are physical objects that exist in physical time and space. These are perceived by physical sense organs.
(2) Those “concepts” are mental objects that exist in mental time and space. These are perceived by the mental sense organ known as mind.
Thus, one never thinks outside of time and space. Only the character of time and space changes from physical to mental.
.
Vin: Thus, one never thinks outside of time and space. Only the character of time and space changes from physical to mental.
Chris: We seem to be in sync as I just wrote almost that on my previous post to you.
Now we have to explore the character of mental space-time.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“Kant called his view critical idealism, to distinguish it from dogmatic idealism, as presented by Berkeley.
“According to dogmatic idealism, the whole world – all things, i.e. the true causes of sensations, have no existence except in our knowledge – they exist only in as far as we know them. The whole world as we represent it is only a reflection of ourselves.
“Kant’s idealism recognizes the existence of a world of causes outside of us, but asserts that we cannot perceive this world through sense-perception, and that, in general, everything we see is our own creation, the ‘product of the perceiving subject’.”
.
Both approaches above are looking from some idea of “self” that divides reality into external (objective) and internal (subjective). This “self” may be looked upon as mind plus mental objects.
This is explained in the book What the Buddha Taught as follows:
“A word about what is meant by the term ‘Mind’ (manas) in Buddhist philosophy may be useful here. It should clearly be understood that mind is not spirit as opposed to matter. It should always be remembered that Buddhism does not recognize a spirit opposed to matter, as is accepted by most other systems of philosophies and religions. Mind is only a faculty or organ (indriya) like the eye or the ear. It can be controlled and developed like any other faculty, and the Buddha speaks quite often of the value of controlling and disciplining these six faculties.
“The difference between the eye and the mind as faculties is that the former senses the world of colours and visible forms, while the latter senses the world of ideas and thoughts and mental objects. We experience different fields of the world with different senses. We cannot hear colours, but we can see them. Nor can we see sounds, but we can hear them. Thus with our five physical sense organs— eye, ear, nose, tongue, body—we experience only the world of visible forms, sounds, odours, tastes and tangible objects. But these represent only a part of the world, not the whole world.
“What of ideas and thoughts? They are also a part of the world. But they cannot be sensed, they cannot be conceived by the faculty of the eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. Yet they can be conceived by another faculty, which is mind.
“Now ideas and thoughts are not independent of the world experienced by these five physical sense faculties. In fact they depend on, and are conditioned by, physical experiences. Hence a person born blind cannot have ideas of colour, except through the analogy of sounds or some other things experienced through his other faculties. Ideas and thoughts which form a part of the world are thus produced and conditioned by physical experiences and are conceived by the mind. Hence mind (manas) is considered a sense faculty or organ (indriya), like the eye or the ear.”
.
Thus, there are not only physical sensations of vision, hearing, smell, taste and touch, but there are also the mental sensations of ideas, feelings, emotions, etc. “Self” is mind as sense organ plus mental objects.
The physical and mental sensations complement each other in describing this universe. So, the physical universe is not a “reflection of ourselves” as Berkeley believed.
Now we see manifestation and perception as an inseparable pair, where each appears as the cause of the other. There is no cause outside of perception as postulated by Kant, because Kant’s postulate is based on an arbitrary “boundary of self”.
.
And so the wheel turns.
Ouspensky writes,
“Thus, according to Kant, everything we find in objects is put into them by ourselves. We do not know what the world is like independently of ourselves. Moreover, our conception of things has nothing in common with the things as they are in themselves, apart from us.”
.
(1) Kant implicitly assumes that there is independent self, or that there is a “self-in-itself.”
(2) Kant, then, explicitly concludes that there is independent manifestation, or that there is “thing-in-itself.”
(3) Kant then concludes further that perception results from the interaction between “self-in-itself” and “thing-in-itself” and that the perception of the thing is different from the “thing-in-itself.”
.
In the framework of mindfulness:
(1) There is no “self-in-itself.”
(2) There is no “thing-in-itself.”
(3) The “self” “thing” and “perception” are interdependent aspects of a single system.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“And, most important of all, our ignorance of things in themselves is due not to our insufficient knowledge, but to the fact that we are totally unable to have a correct knowledge of the world by means of sense-perception. To put it differently, it is incorrect to say that, as yet, we know but little, but later we shall know more and, in the end, shall arrive at a right understanding of the world; it is incorrect because our experimental knowledge is not a hazy representation of the real world; it is a very vivid representation of an entirely unreal world, arising around us at the moment of our contact with the world of true causes, which we cannot reach because we have lost our way in the unreal ‘material’ world. Thus, the expansion of objective knowledge brings us no nearer to the cognition of things in themselves or of the true causes.”
.
A “thing-in-itself” is a conjecture derived from the implicit assumption of “self-in-itself.” To claim that we can never know the “thing-in-itself” is superfluous, because it is assumed implicitly in the first place as “self-in-itself”.
In mindfulness framework, manifestation (the thing), perception, and perception-point (the self) are three aspects of a single system. These aspects are not independent of each other. There is no “self-in-itself.”
Thus, knowledge is an aspect of this system too. All knowledge is relative. There is no absolute knowledge or “knowledge-in-itself.”
.
The reason nobody can get around Kant is because everybody is implicitly assuming a “self-in-itself.”
.
Ouspensky quotes Kant here,
“Nothing which is intuited in space is a thing in itself, and space is not a form which belongs as a property to things; but objects are quite unknown to us in themselves, and what we call outward objects are nothing else but mere representations of our sensibility, whose form is space, but whose real correlate, the thing in itself, is not known by means of these representations, nor ever can be, but respecting which, in experience, no inquiry is ever made.”
.
(1) Space is simply an aspect of consciousness. A “thing-in-itself” is a speculation based on the assumption that there is “self-in-itself.”
(2) Both speculation and assumptions are mental objects. They can be perceived as such.
(3) Things (physical objects, mental objects) are manifestations. Manifestations are aspects of consciousness.
(4) Self (Looker, “I”, “You”, etc.) are perception-points. Perception-points are also aspects of consciousness.
(5) Perception is the interaction between manifestation and perception-point. Perception, therefore, is also an aspect of consciousness.
Kant is conjecturing based on a model created from the assumption that there is “self-in-itself.”
.
I’ve been trying but failed to get the “self in itself” idea. Help me with this term?
“Self-in-itself” is a play on Kant’s “thing-in-itself”. Actually it is more than a play. It is the chink in Kant’s armor.
When people think of themselves, they think of some property. If nothing else, they think, at least, of consciousness. So, basically they are looking at self as a manifestation. Any ‘thing’ is a manifestation. So, self can be looked upon as some ‘thing’.
Kant starts out with the implicit assumption of self as that, which is doing the perceiving. He then comes up with the conclusion of there being a thing-in-itself, which cannot be known. It is only the representation of “thing-in-itself” that can be known.
I see it as Kant going around in a circle and proving the assumption that he implicitly starts out with. No body, has found this weakness in Kant’s theory because almost everybody starts out with the same implicit assumption of self as a thing-in-itself.
It was only Buddha who questioned the permanence of self, and found it to be a relative phenomenon like anything else. Most people in the West haven’t understood Buddha in this respect.
.
In A Critique of Pure Reason Kant says:
“The things which we intuit are not in themselves the same as our representations of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and if we take away the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear.”
.
(1) Intuitions just seem to appear. Nobody intuits them.
(2) Representations are created out of logical associations among what is intuited.
(3) How does Kant know all this except by logical association!
(4) Senses (perception-points) are an aspect of consciousness, just as manifestation and perceptions are.
(5) Space and time are aspects of consciousness too.
Space and time will disappear only when consciousness disappears. And then everything else (manifestations, perceptions, perception-points) will disappear too… I suppose!
.
Vin: (3) How does Kant know all this except by logical association!
Chris: Kant is busted.
LOL! It is about time.
.
It would be great for us and for them if they would blog with us.
Let’s invite Kant here, and Hume too who really got Kant started on his quest.
.
It would be so great if the giants could have access to the internet. The response time is so fast and easy to manipulate. I wonder what they would seem like in this environment?
What makes you think you are not a giant?
.
It is an assumption because being a giant is relative to the size of other entities. Compared to the great ones, I am hardly a dwarf. One thing the giants have different than I is their ability to suffer the slings and arrows of their competitors and to publish and to wait for confirmation and agreement for their conjectures and hypotheses. That is a toughness that I just don’t have.
You might, though. You don’t seem to let the attacks of others get under your skin and you continue to function, to think, to write.
To me, anybody who is being mindful, is a giant.
We need many, many more people who are being mindful.
.