Tertium Organum

pillars

Discuss

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.

.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Chris Thompson  On April 16, 2013 at 2:56 AM

    Wha?!? Another homework assignment? For the luv of . . . .*&^%$#@!

    • vinaire  On April 16, 2013 at 5:30 AM

      LOL! You have picked up only very few assignments.

      .

  • vinaire  On April 16, 2013 at 6:09 AM

    Desire has something to do with conditioning. It seems to be a good area to investigate with mindfulness.

    Scientology auditing can lead one into conditioning in the absence of mindfulness.

    What is missing in the basic Scientology TRs is mindfulness.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 16, 2013 at 1:10 PM

    When we simply look at what is there, either with closed, or with open eyes, without any preconceived notion, we really don’t know what we are looking at. This is because we have nothing to compare it to.

    In normal course of events, we recognize what is there, based on our preconceived notions. These preconceived notions come about by being taught the name and form of what see to be there.

    Gradually, we build up logical associations among these name and forms in our mind to “understand” what is there.

    Somewhere along the way, we start seeing what we wish to see, or, at least, what we see is influenced by what we wish to see.

    It seems that we really don’t know what is out there. All we know is the name and form that we assign to them through logical associations.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 16, 2013 at 9:04 PM

    We really don’t know about NOTHING. So, it can very well happen that things may at first seem to be appearing out of nothing.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 16, 2013 at 11:48 PM

      Vin: We really don’t know about NOTHING. So, it can very well happen that things may at first seem to be appearing out of nothing.

      Chris: When they might really be appearing from out of sight.

  • vinaire  On April 16, 2013 at 9:11 PM

    I think I have gotten stuck on the first page, where Ouspensky says,

    “In relation to our cognition of the world and of ourselves the conditions would be ideal if it were possible to accept nothing as data and regard everything as requiring definition and proof. In other words, it would be best to assume that we know nothing, and take this as our starting point.

    “Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to create such conditions. Something has to be laid down as a foundation, something must be accepted as known; otherwise we shall be constantly forced to define one unknown by means of another.”

    .

    When we look mindfully we notice that

    ONE: There is looking and perceiving.

    TWO: There is something to be looked at and perceived.

    THREE: Thus there is manifestation and perception.

    So, we must accept that there is manifestation, and there is also perception of manifestation. We cannot go any more fundamental than that.

    We have to start from the above assumption.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 17, 2013 at 6:53 AM

    Mindfulness is the state where nothing is being assumed. One is simply looking at what is there non-judgmentally and without any filters. If there is a filter, one will discover it sooner or later as one continues to be mindful. At that point the filter will no longer act as a filter.

    I define a “filter” as the assumption one is using unconsciously to view things with. My contention is that it does not matter what assumptions one starts from. If one is being mindful, such assumptions will gradually drop out.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 17, 2013 at 8:30 AM

      Maybe anticipating and using the other person’s filters is all there is to “communicating with reality.”

      • vinaire  On April 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM

        Good point!

        No filters = no personal reality = all reality is out there.

        .

  • vinaire  On April 17, 2013 at 7:07 AM

    Ouspensky asks:

    “What do we actually know? The existence of consciousness in us and of the world outside us. Dualism or monism?”

    I would simply say that there is manifestation; and that there is perception of that manifestation. That pretty much covers everything one may think of.

    Dualism and monism applies to somethingness and not to nothingness.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 17, 2013 at 8:35 AM

      Communicating this to someone not well drilled and grooved into this conversation would sound cryptic. The dualism and monism? Those aren’t the only choices. Check out “Pimples On The Skin Of Consciousness.”

    • vinaire  On April 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM

      From Wikipedia:

      DUALISM: Was coined originally to denote co-eternal pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in meaning. Dualism holds to the belief that there are two elements of existence: Physical and Spiritual.

      I believe that physical and spiritual are two aspects of the same system.

      MONISM: Argues that the variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. The wide definition states that all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them. The common, restricted definition implies also a unity of substance and essence.

      Dulalism and Monism are based on the assumption that there is “something” as ultimate reality. Is that assumption true? Inconsistencies occur among “somethings” and these may be regressed forever indefinitely. The ultimate reality could theoretically be “nothing.” NOTHING cannot be defined because there is nothing to define.

      .

  • vinaire  On April 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM

    Ouspensky says,

    “The most difficult thing is to know what we do know and what we do not know.”

    I guess what he is trying to say is that it is very difficult to differentiate between “what we do know” and “what we do not know.” We already create an outline of what we desire to know, and think that we know to some degree.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 5:08 AM

    Ouspensky asks,

    “Subjective and objective cognition. Where do the causes of sensations lie? Kant’s system. Time and space. Mach’s observation. What the physicist actually works with.”

    Per mindfulness, there is no subjective space. There is only the objective space wherein lie mental and physical objects.

    .

    What is the ultimate cause of any manifestation is unknowable.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 18, 2013 at 6:46 AM

      Vinaire: Per mindfulness, there is no subjective space. There is only the objective space wherein lie mental and physical objects.

      Chris: Profound, especially so if correct.

    • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 6:52 AM

      I am listening to

      .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 6:56 AM

    Unknowable…

    Enlightened mystics have been trying to describe all this for centuries, millennia…including Gautama Siddhartha…

    It is just mindfulness. Whatever happens happens.

    MINDFULNESS

    .

    .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 7:07 AM

    “Learn to discern the real from the false.”
    ~ The Voice of the Silence, H.P.B.

    REAL = What is there.(existence)

    FALSE = What you put there (creation)

    .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM

    Ouspensky says,

    “The most difficult thing is to know what we do know and what we do not know.”

    .

    The desire to know fixes something in our mind that we wish to know. And this gets mixed up with what we know to be there.

    Thus, we start assuming that we know some datum, when, in fact, we do not know it. Thus, it becomes very difficult to differentiate between what we know, and what do not actually know.

    This is the case with the concept of God.

    .

    .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM

    Ouspensky writes.

    “Therefore, if we wish to know something, we must first of all establish what we accept as data, and what we consider requires definition and proof, that is, we must determine what we know already, and what we wish to know.”

    .

    (1) Mindfulness simply looks at what is there and accepts it as data. It does not need to establish anything.

    (2) We know this already because it is already there.

    (3) It is our conjecture that requires definition and proof. This is what we wish to know.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM

    Ouspensky writes.

    “In relation to our cognition of the world and of ourselves the conditions would be ideal if it were possible to accept nothing as data and regard everything as requiring definition and proof. In other words, it would be best to assume that we know nothing, and take this as our starting point.”

    .

    (1) When one is being mindful, one is not assuming anything or making any judgement.

    (2) Both the inner and outer worlds (mental and physical objects) are being perceived. Thus, everything is out there. There is nothing subjective.

    (3) One has to accept as data what is there. If there are no physical objects then there still could be mental objects. One cannot assume that nothing is there.

    (4) Thus, the starting point cannot be nothing.

    (5) Then it is only our conjecture that requires definition and proof. This is what we wish to know.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 18, 2013 at 11:46 PM

      How shall we define subjective?

    • vinaire  On April 19, 2013 at 5:30 AM

      It seems that subjective would be looking at mental objects from a viewpoint that is identified with some idea of self.

      The consideration attached with subjective is “it is a process peculiar to me.”

      .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 10:26 PM

    Ouspensky writes.

    “Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to create such conditions. Something has to be laid down as a foundation, something must be accepted as known; otherwise we shall be constantly forced to define one unknown by means of another.”

    .

    (1) It is not a matter of having to lay down some foundation for knowledge. It is a matter of simply accepting what is there.

    (2) Thus, “known” is what is already there.

    (3) “Unknown” is our conjecture for which we require definition and proof.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 11:02 PM

    Ouspensky writes.

    “On the other hand, we must be chary of accepting as known -as data things that, actually, are completely unknown and merely presupposed –the sought for. We have to be careful not to find ourselves in the position occupied by positivist philosophy in the nineteenth century. For a long time the basis of this philosophy was the recognition of the existence of matter (materialism); and later, of energy, i.e. force or motion (energetics), althoughin actual fact matter and motion always remained the unknown quantities, x and y, and were always denned by means of one another.”

    .

    Things like matter, energy, force, motion, God, etc. are conjectures that have never been defined fully or proved completely.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 11:11 PM

    Ouspensky writes.

    “What then do we know?

    “We know that, from the very first step towards cognition, a man is struck by two obvious facts: The existence of the world in which he lives, and the existence of consciousness in himself.

    “Neither the one nor the other can he prove or disprove, but both of them are facts for him, they are reality.”

    .

    Mindfulness tells us that, at a minimum,

    (1) There is manifestation.

    (2) There is perception.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 19, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “One may speculate about the mutual relationship of these two facts. One may attempt to reduce them to one, that is, to regard the psychological or inner world as a part, or a function, or a reflection of the outer world, or look upon the outer world as a part, or a function, or a reflection of the inner world. But this would mean a digression from facts, and all such concepts would not be self-evident for an ordinary, non-speculative view of the world and of oneself. On the contrary, the only fact that remains self-evident is the antithesis of our inner life and the external world.”

    (1) Ouspensky is using the terms “inner world” and “outer world,” but these concepts seems to be relative to the idea of self. And what is self? Is it the interface between the inner and outer worlds?

    (2) The inner world is made up of mental objects. The outer world is supposed to be made up of physical objects. What is the difference between the two? The mental objects seem to be more malleable than the physical objects.

    (3) But could there be a spectrum from mental to physical objects instead of a sharp divide? That seems to be evident in schizophrenics. So “self” may not be something fixed. Maybe self can be spread over this “spectrum of objects.”

    (4) Could same be suspected of manifestation and perception? That there is not a sharp divide between the two, but a gradual transition. I think that this idea is radical.

    I have long suspected that manifestation and perception are possibly the two sides of the same coin. It could be the thought that is aware of itself. Ultimately, it is the manifestation that perceives itself. Again, this is a radical idea.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “Later, we shall return to this fundamental proposition. But meanwhile we have no grounds for arguing against the obvious fact of our own existence that is, the existence of our inner life – and the existence of the external world in which we live. This, therefore, we must accept as data.

    “But this is all we have the right to accept as data. All the rest requires proof of its existence and definition on the basis of these two data we already possess. Space with its extension; time, with the idea of before, now and after; quantity, mass, materiality; number, equality, inequality; identity and difference; cause and effect; ether, atoms, electrons, energy, life, death -all that is laid down as the basis of our usual knowledge, all these, are unknown quantities.

    “The direct outcome of these two fundamental data – the existence in us of a psychological life, i.e. sensations, representations, concepts, thinking, feeling, desires and so on, and the existence of the world outside us -is a division of everything we know into subjective and objective, a division perfectly clear to our ordinary perception. ”

    .

    I do not accept the assumption of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds. I prefer to look at the fundamental data to be ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’.

    I do not accept the assumption of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. I prefer to look at the division in terms of ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ objects, which is diffused at best.

    I suspect the division between ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’ to be diffused too.

    I do agree that rest needs to be defined and proved, such as,

    Space with its extension; time, with the idea of before, now and after; quantity, mass, materiality; number, equality, inequality; identity and difference; cause and effect; ether, atoms, electrons, energy, life, death, sensations, representations, concepts, thinking, feeling, desires and so on.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 20, 2013 at 6:14 AM

    Ouspensky writes,

    ”Everything we take to be the properties of the world, we call objective, and everything we take as properties of our inner life, we call subjective.

    “The ‘subjective world’ we perceive directly; it is in us; we are one with it.

    “The ‘objective world’ we represent to ourselves as existing outside of us, apart from us as it were, and we take it to be exactly or approximately such as we see it. We and it are different things. It seems to us that if we close our eyes, the objective world will continue to exist, just as we saw it, and that, if our inner life, our subjective world, were to disappear, the objective world would go on existing as it existed when we, with our subjective world, were not there.”

    .

    The physical objects of the “external world” seem to exist in a physical space. The mental objects of the inner life seem to exist in a mental space. Both are manifestations. Both are perceived. There seems to be an arbitrary and undefined reference point of “we”, “us”, or “I” added to these fundamental facts.

    This reference point of “I” is assumed to be separate from the physical objects of the external world, but somehow identified with the mental objects of “inner life.” However “I” seems to be a convenient point of reference like “zero” on a number line. “Zero” separates positive from negative numbers. “Zero” may be similarly identified with the negative numbers but it is not necessary.

    The mental and physical objects may form part of a single spectrum like the positive and negative numbers in mathematics. The assumption of “I” seems to be there like “zero” for the sake of convenience for further construction.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 20, 2013 at 9:45 AM

      Excellent.

    • vinaire  On April 22, 2013 at 5:49 AM

      From Ivan (who plays the devil’s advocate):

      The comment in bold is a speculation.
      Maybe Outspensky will clarify his view of “I” later in the book.

      .

      I would call that “comment in bold” a conjecture per MINDFULNESS.

      For me the criterion is consistency. All previous ideas and beliefs to do with “I” are on the table for critical examination. Let’s see where this all will lead us to.

      .

  • vinaire  On April 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM

    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.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

    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.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM

      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.

    • vinaire  On April 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM

      I am glad you like this thread. It is on the same lines as the

      PHILOSOPHY PROJECT

      .

  • vinaire  On April 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

    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.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      This language has gotten better and better.

      • vinaire  On April 21, 2013 at 9:59 AM

        You may be getting conditioned to the slant I have been putting all this time.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM

          Both I think.

        • vinaire  On April 21, 2013 at 10:05 AM

          All logic seems to be conditioning.

          .

        • vinaire  On April 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM

          There seems to be so many layers to this onion of logic that the core has really hardened into a reality.

          .

        • vinaire  On April 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

          Do we really see what we have convinced ourselves of, or is it the other away around?

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM

      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?

      • vinaire  On April 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

        Yes. In a way energy and mass are properties of space too.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 22, 2013 at 11:19 PM

          . . . and time.

        • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 5:10 AM

          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.”

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 8:43 AM

          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.

        • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM

          It seems that the higher is the frequency, the more solid an energy wave may appear.

        • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM

          That is the way it looks to me.

  • vinaire  On April 21, 2013 at 6:41 AM

    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.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 21, 2013 at 7:52 AM

    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.
    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 21, 2013 at 9:11 AM

      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?

      • vinaire  On April 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

        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.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM

          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.

        • vinaire  On April 22, 2013 at 7:21 AM

          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.

          .

        • vinaire  On April 22, 2013 at 12:13 PM

          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.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 21, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      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?”

  • vinaire  On April 22, 2013 at 5:48 PM

    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.

    .

    • vinaire  On April 22, 2013 at 5:57 PM

      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.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On April 22, 2013 at 11:52 PM

        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.

    • Chris Thompson  On April 22, 2013 at 11:27 PM

      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.

  • vinaire  On April 22, 2013 at 7:01 PM

    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.
    .

  • vinaire  On April 22, 2013 at 7:30 PM

    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).
    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 22, 2013 at 11:58 PM

      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.

  • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM

    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.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 8:44 AM

      Now that is a poetic metaphor!

    • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 9:35 AM

      I think it is pretty accurate too.

      • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM

        It wouldn’t be so poetic if it weren’t!

        • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 3:42 PM

          Hahaha… that is quite an endorsement.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 8:49 PM

          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!

        • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 4:16 AM

          To me beauty seems to come from consistency.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 6:28 AM

          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?

        • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 6:47 AM

          By absence of inconsistency.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 7:06 AM

          Vin: By absence of inconsistency.

          Chris: That’s the spirit! Welcome to my tautological universe.

        • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM

          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.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 2:37 PM

          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.

        • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 8:19 PM

          “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.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 11:34 PM

          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?

        • vinaire  On April 25, 2013 at 5:14 AM

          Inconsistencies would be different from person to person because they are relative to a person’s considerations.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM

          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.

        • vinaire  On April 25, 2013 at 7:30 AM

          Inconsistencies may flag element’s of one’s filter that one is unaware of. Solving inconsistencies may help dissolve one’s filters.

          .

  • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM

    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.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 2:51 PM

      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.

      • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 4:08 PM

        Good point! Then we are made up of space-time. 🙂

        If we are a thetan, then thetan is made up of space-time.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 8:56 PM

          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.

        • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 4:22 AM

          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.

          .

  • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 4:47 PM

    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.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 8:34 PM

    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.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 10:23 PM

      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.

      • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 5:24 AM

        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.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM

          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.

        • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 7:04 AM

          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.

        • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 1:25 PM

          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.”

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM

          Alright then.

        • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 1:28 PM

          Randomness is what seems to appear as “free will.”

          .

  • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 8:37 PM

    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.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 11:20 PM

      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.

  • vinaire  On April 24, 2013 at 8:55 PM

    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.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2013 at 11:25 PM

      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.

      • vinaire  On April 25, 2013 at 5:10 AM

        Now we have to explore the character of mental space-time.

        .

  • vinaire  On April 25, 2013 at 5:47 PM

    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”.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 25, 2013 at 6:44 PM

    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.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 25, 2013 at 9:19 PM

    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.”

    .

  • vinaire  On April 25, 2013 at 9:26 PM

    The reason nobody can get around Kant is because everybody is implicitly assuming a “self-in-itself.”

    .

  • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 8:40 AM

    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.”

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM

      I’ve been trying but failed to get the “self in itself” idea. Help me with this term?

    • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 12:05 PM

      “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.

      .

  • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 9:26 AM

    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!

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM

      Vin: (3) How does Kant know all this except by logical association!

      Chris: Kant is busted.

      • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM

        LOL! It is about time.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM

          It would be great for us and for them if they would blog with us.

        • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 2:05 PM

          Let’s invite Kant here, and Hume too who really got Kant started on his quest.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 27, 2013 at 2:34 PM

          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?

        • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 4:25 PM

          What makes you think you are not a giant?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM

          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.

        • vinaire  On April 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM

          To me, anybody who is being mindful, is a giant.

          We need many, many more people who are being mindful.

          .

  • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 9:39 AM

    In A Critique of Pure Reason Kant says:

    “What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our mode of perceiving them. … Supposing that we should carry our empirical intuition [sensory perception] even to the very highest degree of clearness, we should not thereby advance one step nearer to the knowledge of the constitution of objects as things in themselves.”

    .

    (1) Mindfulness is seeing things as they are.

    (2) Mindfulness requires minimum of logical association.

    (3) In fact, in mindfulness mode, one actually spots logical associations and discards them.

    (4) “Thing-in-itself” is a consideration. It is a mental object. It can be known as a mental object.

    Objects are constituted by considerations. Hasn’t “thing-in-itself” been a consideration of Kant?

    .

  • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM

    In A Critique of Pure Reason Kant says:

    “To say, then, that all our sensibility is nothing but the confused representation of things containing exclusively that which belongs to them as things in themselves, and this under an accumulation of characteristic marks and partial representations which we cannot distinguish in consciousness, is a falsification of the conception of sensibility and phenomenization, which renders our whole doctrine thereof empty and useless.

    “The difference between a confused and a clear representation is merely logical and has nothing to do with content.”

    .

    (1) The overall system may be referred to as CONSCIOUSNESS.

    (2) Sensibility (perception) is an aspect of that consciousness.

    (3) Intuition as “manifestation without cause” is also an aspect of consciousness. Perception comes about with manifestation.

    (4) Representation is “manifestation with cause” by logical association. Perception of “cause” is by logical association only.

    There is no other meaning to manifestations other than what is perceived. There may be more meaning assigned by speculation.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 27, 2013 at 6:15 PM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “… Kant simply put the question, threw to the world the problem, demanding the solution but not pointing the way toward it.

    “This fact is usually omitted when speaking of Kant. He propounded the riddle, but did not give the solution of it.

    “And to the present day we repeat Kant’s propositions, we consider them incontrovertible, but in the main we represent them to our understanding very badly, and they are not correlated with other departments of our knowledge. All our positive science—physics (with chemistry) and biology—is built upon hypotheses CONTRADICTORY to Kant’s propositions.

    “Moreover, we do not realize how we ourselves impose upon the world the properties of space, i.e., extension; nor do we realize how the world—earth, sea, trees, men—cannot possess such extension.

    “We do not understand how we can see and measure that extension if it does not exist—nor what the world represents in itself, if it does not possess extension.

    “But does the world really exist? Or, as a logical conclusion from Kant’s ideas, shall we recognize the validity of Berkeley’s idea, and deny the existence of the world itself except in imagination?”

    .

    Alright, so Kant’s pronouncements are not set in stone. But the only way we can improve upon Kant is to

    (1) Verify his conclusions, and if we cannot do that then
    (2) Look for inconsistencies in his conjectures starting from his fundamental assumptions, and
    (3) Remove those factors causing the inconsistencies.

    We cannot deny that the world exists. It doesn’t matter how it exists. Let’s just apply mindfulness to it.

    MINDFULNESS
    .

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2013 at 6:47 AM

    Some definitions:

    CONSCIOUSNESS: The overall system of manifestation, perception, and perception-point.
    MANIFESTATION: That which can be perceived to be there.
    PERCEPTION: How a manifestation appears to be.
    PERCEPTION-POINT: That which appears to perceive.

    Consciousness is ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing’. Yes the definitions of the components of consciousness are somewhat circular. But that is how it is, in my opinion.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM

      Vin: But that is how it is, in my opinion.

      Chris: Welcome to my tautology! (Sung to the tune of “Welcome to My Nightmare!”)

      • vinaire  On April 28, 2013 at 11:13 AM

        Mindfulness is not nightmare!

        There is nothing wrong with tautologies. When you look at them they simply expand to encompass more.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2013 at 12:13 PM

          ah! well I didn’t say there was anything wrong with tautology. Just pointing it out – it’s prevalence.

        • vinaire  On April 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

          It seems that the bigger chunk you look at the more tautological it seems to be. The closer you go to basics, the more tautological the arrangement appears to be.

          .

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM

    INFORMATION = That which gives “form” to the mind.

    Could manifestation, learning, expectation, and memory be examples of information?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2013 at 3:37 PM

      Vin: Could manifestation, learning, expectation, and memory be examples of information?

      Chris: Not sure. I have this life-long experience of learning music. My head is full of tunes and lyrics. Then I have this other experience of teaching myself the guitar. I went for years learning little ditties, scales, etc.,.

      Then one night I had a dream where I was on the street near our local major league baseball park. I was standing there with people walking by and looking down at myself, I was holding a guitar. I felt obligated to play and it was a nervous moment but then I just tried and began playing. I could play!

      When I woke, I picked up my guitar and suddenly I could play for real! Something occurred. The way I describe it is that the dream was a metaphor for something happening in my brain that allowed the data base of music to connect with the skill set I had been practicing with my hands and guitar. The two connected making the music available for me to play. Now if I can hum a tune, I can play it.

      This seems related to your comment but I’m not sure how to bring the two together.

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM

    What influences the “form” of the mind in short and long term bases? What gets adjusted and becomes fluid and effortless? What falls into place?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2013 at 1:19 AM

      In my example, a bridging occurred. That is my metaphor for something happened. What exactly happened is for someone with greater understanding than my own to say. Did something occur in my brain, yes. Did it occur only in my brain? I don’t know. Guitar practice conditioned-programmed my body and mind resulting in dexterous ability. Memorized music database somehow became available and linked to my conditioned body and mind resulting in ability to play. The most remarkable aspect to me was that the bridging aspect manifested suddenly. The previous conditioning of body and mind took place over decades. And it is interesting to me because unlike other so-called OT phenomena, I can demonstrate this phenomena. It is not utterly subjective. Of course, the sudden appearance of the ability is on my word alone. The dreaming was subjective and metaphorical.

      I have only made a few small observations without answering any of your or my questions.

    • vinaire  On April 30, 2013 at 7:53 PM

      That is quite informative. Thanks.

      .

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2013 at 7:18 PM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “Positive philosophy stands in a very ambiguous relation to Kant’s views. It accepts them and it does not accept them: it accepts, and considers them correct in their relation to the direct experience of the organs of sense—what we see, hear, touch. That is, positive philosophy recognizes the subjectivity of our receptivity, and recognizes everything that we perceive in objects as imposed upon them by ourselves—but this in relation to the direct experience of the senses only.”

    .

    Perception should be acceptable when it is mindful. Mindfulness is looking at perceptions non-judgmentally, noticing inconsistencies and straightening them out on a continual basis. All ideas, beliefs, assumptions, viewpoints, and feelings, associated with an observed inconsistency, are subject to closer examination. No other criterion is necessary.

    “Subjectivity” is made up of data from mental sense channel, such as, ideas, beliefs, assumptions, viewpoints, and feelings. “Objectivity” is made up of data from physical sense channels of eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. “Objectivity” alone does not provide adequate criterion.

    It is the consistency among perception through different sense channels (both mental and physical) that forms the important criterion.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “When it concerns itself with “scientific experience” however, in which precise instruments and calculations are used, positive philosophy evidently considers Kant’s view in relation to that invalid, assuming that “scientific experience” makes known to us the very substance of things, the true causes of our sensations—or if it does not do so now, it brings us closer to the truth of things, and can inform us later.”

    .

    Science uses “objectivity” as its criterion and concerns itself with data from physical sense channels only. But no matter how objective science is, its data is still influenced by subjectivity, which it ignores. This is a weakness in current science.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 29, 2013 at 4:18 AM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “Contrary to Kant, the positivists are sure that “more clear knowledge of phenomena makes them acquainted with things in themselves.” They think that in looking upon physical phenomena as the motions of the ether, or as electrical or magnetic phenomena, and calculating their motions, they begin to know the very substance of things, i.e., the causes of phenomena; in other words, they believe exactly in the possibility of what Kant denied—the comprehension of the true substance of things by means of the investigation of phenomena. Moreover many physicists do not consider it necessary even to know Kant; and they could not themselves exactly define in what relation they stand toward him. Of course it is possible not to know Kant, but it is impossible to controvert him. Every description of physical phenomena, by its every word, is related to the problems set forth by Kant—remains in this or that relation to them.”

    .

    There are no such things as “things-in-themselves.” Manifestation, perception and perception-point are aspects of the system of consciousness. These aspects are not independent of each other.

    Positivists (scientists) are incorrect in believing that they will understand the phenomena out there, and their causes, totally objectively.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 29, 2013 at 4:39 AM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “In general, the position of “science” in regard to this question of “subjectively imposed” or “objectively cognized” is more than tottering, and in order to form its conclusions “science” is forced to accept many purely hypothetical suppositions as things known—as indubitable data, not demanding proof.

    “Moreover, physicists forget one very significant fact: in his book, Analysis of Sensations, Mach says:

    In the investigation of purely physical processes we generally employ concepts of so abstract a character that as a rule we think only cursorily, or not at all, of the sensations (elements) that lie at their base…

    The foundation of all purely physical operations is based upon an almost unending series of sensations, particularly if we take into consideration the adjustment of the apparatus which must precede the actual experiment. Now it can easily happen to the physicist who does not study the psychology of his operations, that he does not (to reverse a well-known saying) see the trees for the wood, that he overlooks the sensory element at the foundation of his work. . . Psychological analysis has taught us that this is not surprising, since the physicist is always operating with sensations.

    “Mach here calls attention to a very important thing. Physicists do not consider it necessary to know psychology and to deal with it in their conclusions.”

    .

    The fundamental axioms that science operates on are not totally objective. So, the claim by science that it is totally objective is contradicted.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 29, 2013 at 5:13 AM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “But when they are more or less acquainted with psychology, with that part of it which treats of the forms of receptivity, and take it into consideration, then they hold the most fantastic duality of opinion, as in the case of the man of orthodox belief who tries to reconcile the dogmas of faith with the arguments of reason, and who is obliged to believe simultaneously in the creation of the world in seven days, seven thousand years ago, and in geological periods hundreds of thousands of years long, and in the evolutionary theory. He is thus forced to resort to sophisms, and demonstrate that by seven days is meant seven periods. But why seven, exactly, he is unable to explain. For physicists the rôle of the “creation of the world” is played by the atomic theory and the ether, with its wave-like vibrations, and further by the electrons, and the energetic, or electromagnetic theory of the world.”

    .

    Scientists live with beliefs that are inconsistent with their theories. It is like living a double life. Maybe, the reason scientists keep on going is because they unconsciously want to understand themselves.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 29, 2013 at 6:32 AM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “Or sometimes it is even worse, for the physicist in the depth of his soul feels the falsity of all old and new scientific theories but fears to hang in the air, as it were; to take refuge in mere negation. He has no system in place of that whose falsity he already feels; he is afraid to make a plunge into mere emptiness. Lacking sufficient courage to declare that he believes in nothing at all, he accoutres himself in all contradictory theories, as in an official uniform, only because with this uniform are bound up certain rights and privileges, outer as well as inner, consisting of a certain confidence in himself and in his surroundings, to forego which he has no strength and determination. The unbelieving positivist—this is the tragic figure of our times, analogous to the atheist or unbelieving priest of the times of Voltaire. Out of this abhorrence of a vacuum come all dualistic theories which recognize “spirit” and “matter” existing simultaneously and independently of one another.”

    .

    It is obvious that objectivity cannot be separated from subjectivity and consistency must be found between the two. But just because there is a vacuum, does it need to be filled?

    Knowledge is not absolute. The utmost we can do is spot inconsistencies and determine the factor which is contributing to that inconsistency. Let the rest be.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 29, 2013 at 6:46 AM

    Ouspensky writes,

    “In general, to a disinterested observer, the state of our contemporary science should be of great psychological interest. In all branches of scientific knowledge we are absorbing an enormous number of facts destructive of the harmony of existing systems. And these systems can maintain themselves only by reason of the heroic attempts of scientific men who are trying to close their eyes to a long series of new facts which threatens to submerge everything in an irresistible stream. If in reality we were to collect these system-destroying facts they would be so numerous in every department of knowledge as to exceed those upon which existing systems are founded. The systematization of that which we do not know may yield us more for the true understanding of the world and the self than the systematization of that which in the opinion of “exact science” we do know.”

    .

    Today, science is becoming increasingly complex because there are simply too many observations floating out there that have not been knitted together. There are too many inconsistencies that have not been resolved.

    It is time again to look at the fundamental axioms on which we base knowledge.

    .

  • vinaire  On April 29, 2013 at 6:54 AM

    This is the end of the review of Chapter 1 of TERTIUM ORGANUM by P.D. Ouspensky. Now I need to organize my notes.

    A thought just came that there may be a book on MINDFULNESS here. It doesn’t have to be a long drawn book, but a very simple book.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 2, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    Space seems to be the “fabric” of perception. Filters and consideration provide overtones to space.

    The dimensions of time seem to be persistence, motion and sequence. Persistence comes from the degree of condensation. Motion comes from relative change. And there is a sequence to occurrences.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM

      Vinaire: Persistence comes from the degree of condensation.

      Chris: And both condensation and persistence seems to come from “ratio of iteration.”

      • vinaire  On May 5, 2013 at 12:15 PM

        That is an interesting thought.

        Maybe mantra reverses this iteration.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM

          That is an interesting thought. Especially when beautiful girls do the chanting!

          I see this possibility in two ways: 1. To slow the iteration, which I consider impossible. Or, 2. Speed up or widen the scope of perception of the mind.

        • vinaire  On May 6, 2013 at 6:55 AM

          At the moment my approach is mindfulness and resolving inconsistencies by looking at them more closely.

          I have almost resolved the inconsistency on the subject of beautiful girls.


          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 6, 2013 at 9:15 PM

          LOL! Good one.

  • katageek  On May 7, 2013 at 8:39 AM

    Irrational Haiku

    The truth is a lie.
    Something is nothing’s subset.
    Be. Free. Anyway.

    • vinaire  On May 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

      A not-a-haiku:

      Truth and lie
      Are both manifestations
      Both intriguing.

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2013 at 6:48 AM

    When we look at what is there, either with closed, or with open eyes, without any preconceived notions, we find it to be quite astonishing. Suddenly, we realize that we really don’t know what we are looking at. It is at once scary and exhilarating.

    Then the names and forms that we have been taught, start appearing in the mind, and we start to “understand” once again what is there. The logical associations are back in place again. That provides a relief.

    The foundation of knowledge is not something esoteric. It is simply the logical associations among what is there.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2013 at 7:06 AM

    A “cause” of a manifestation is an “earlier” manifestation by some logical association. The cause of this earlier manifestation may still be an “earlier” manifestation by similar association. Thus, the causes may stretch back endlessly as long as logical associations are provided.

    Ultimately, there has to be a manifestation with no association with some prior manifestation, which could be perceived. But the logic of “there must be a cause” may force us to speculate. A mental object, such as, “uncaused cause” may then be established to satisfy the logic. Thus, come about filters.

    Logic is likely to lead ultimately to speculation and filters.

    The known is simply the reality, which is there. The unknowns are the logical “filters” that are “coloring” that reality.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2013 at 8:44 AM

      Vin: Logic is likely to lead ultimately to speculation and filters.

      Chris: This seems a disservice to an important thinking tool. I think its better to say fallacious logic leads to speculation and filters. Looking is also a good tool. But if we left out the step of looking for inconsistencies we could misuse this tool as well. Good sound logic wrings out and presents inconsistencies for our viewing pleasure.

      • vinaire  On May 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

        How do you define fallacious logic?That would be an inconsistency wouldn’t it?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM

          Correct. The operative word being fallacious. These are already worked out such as “false major premise.” I think it is useful to be well drilled in the make up of a syllogism since our minds tend to operate after that model. Or if not, lining up our thinking, well, actually as I think of it, logic is a type of filter designed to snag inconsistencies, isn’t it?

        • vinaire  On May 14, 2013 at 12:45 PM

          So, fallacious logic would be inconsistency in logic.

          What makes logic consistent?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2013 at 12:54 PM

          haha lack of inconsistencies? Do I pass?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM

          OMG! It’s circular! I simply cannot believe it!

  • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2013 at 12:57 PM

    So in reality we begin with consistency, such as the singularity and proceed with inconsistencies forever after? That is one way of looking at it. I have to be careful that you do not brainwash me into one of your cults though!

    • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2013 at 12:57 PM

      I have come to recognize that I am cult-prone.

    • vinaire  On May 14, 2013 at 1:29 PM

      We are already part of a cult called “the universe.” Currently we are trying to chart a way out of it.

      You are doing pretty good so far.

      .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM

    (1) The starting point is what is there.

    (2) When we are not mindful we are likely to add filters.

    (3) When we are mindful we are likely to subtract filters.

    (4) I have no way of knowing in advance if 100% of the filters are subtracted. I don’t even know if that is possible.

    (5) All we can do is keep being mindful.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM

    (1) Logic has to do with associations among what is there.

    (2) When we are creating new associations among what is there we are creating new logical filters.

    (3) When we are recognizing logical associations that we forgot about then we are subtracting logical filters.

    (4) We cannot get rid of all associations 100%. We keep associations that are consistent. We level the associations that are inconsistent.

    (5) Logic cannot work in isolation. We must look at logic among what is there.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      Vin: (5) Logic cannot work in isolation. We must look at logic among what is there.

      Chris: = good. There is a good observation, that something must be there to compare.

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM

    All logic is ultimately circular.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: