UnbornTao

I don't know. In any case, I'd refrain from judging one's consciousness based on a belief system (nonduality, et al.) One might directly know his nature, or not. Assessing the presence and "degree" of such consciousness in others is made yet the more difficult without one's self-realization. Intuition might serve here if you're able to pay close attention; ultimately, though, who knows? Unless you've been in the presence of an enlightened individual and can perhaps sense something "unusual", all we've got to evaluate are their communications. In the end, we might be limited to our own assessment of their authenticity.

@Leo Gura Is he enlightened? Why the emphasis on mapping, models, stages? What is he trying to measure? It can be good, even brilliant, work, although it seems to be conceptually-based. It is putting the cart before the horse when it comes to enlightenment. Even with profound consciousness, I seriously doubt mapping consciousness is necessary or possible at all. As a sidenote, Ken was influenced, among others, by Adi Da and Franklin Merrell-Wolff, which is interesting.

Probably because it is highly intellectual, abstract and based on a complex system of implicit assumptions.

Exchange with ChatGPT that I found interesting: You Tell me about Wittgenstein's work on certainty ChatGPT Ludwig Wittgenstein's work "On Certainty" is a significant philosophical text that explores the nature of knowledge and certainty. This work, composed in the last 18 months of his life, comprises a collection of notes edited by his students, G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright. Here are some key points from "On Certainty": Critique of Skepticism: Wittgenstein critiques the radical skepticism of philosophers like Descartes, who doubt everything, including the existence of the external world and the self. Wittgenstein argues that such doubt is not genuinely possible in practice, as our everyday actions show that we do not doubt these basic aspects of life. Framework Propositions: He introduces the concept of "framework propositions," which are basic beliefs or certainties that underlie all our knowledge and inquiries. These are not known through evidence but are a part of the framework through which we see and interpret the world. Role of Language: Wittgenstein emphasizes the role of language in forming our concepts of knowledge and certainty. He argues that what counts as evidence or justification is partly determined by the language games we participate in, and these games are grounded in our form of life. No Private Language: He continues his earlier idea from the "Philosophical Investigations" that there is no private language. Knowledge and certainty are embedded in communal practices and cannot be understood in isolation from these practices. Epistemology and Pragmatism: Wittgenstein's approach to knowledge in "On Certainty" is often seen as a form of epistemological pragmatism. He suggests that the justification for our beliefs ends not in absolute certainty but in the practical, unchallenged bedrock of our life experiences. Reaction Against Traditional Epistemology: Throughout "On Certainty," Wittgenstein reacts against the traditional epistemological quest for absolute, indubitable foundations for knowledge. He argues that such a quest is misguided and that our real-life practices of asserting, doubting, and justifying are sufficient for understanding knowledge. Limits of Doubt and Justification: Wittgenstein explores the idea that there are limits to meaningful doubt and justification. Some things are so fundamental to our conceptual scheme that they cannot be meaningfully doubted or need no justification. Contextual Nature of Knowledge: He highlights that what counts as knowledge or certainty is context-dependent and varies with different circumstances and language games. "On Certainty" is a profound work that challenges and extends Wittgenstein's earlier ideas in the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and the "Philosophical Investigations." It offers a unique perspective on epistemology, emphasizing the practical, communal, and language-based aspects of knowledge and certainty.

@Water by the River Not agnostic but thank you.

Does it get delivered to Spain?

@Squeekytoy I'm basically saying be honest (about what you're conscious of or not), not that it is bad not to know oneself. Notice I haven't claimed to be enlightened either. Contribute as much as you want. Also it's good that you feel angry, something in you might have been threatened in relation to what I said. If it's not true or as true as possible and it's dropped, that's progress.

@Water by the River You might as well convincingly parrot enlightened individuals as much as you want but without the essential direct consciousness that sourced such communication in the first place, that's basically pretending. Unless you in fact are talking from direct consciousness which doesn't sound like it. "Coming from" as if your stance on this which looks like an adopted cosmology. I'm pointing out that it sounds like no one here knows his nature deeply, and that it's easy to confuse dialogues like this as resolving that fundamental condition. Or you are directly conscious of your nature and I'm being unnecessarily obnoxious.

I'm judging where I assess you're coming from, which sounds to me like hearsay and intellect, no interest in engaging in this. I'm saying, if it's the case that direct profound consciousness is lacking, then conclusions and parroting cosmologies is of no use, so better be honet about that. It's entertaining, but looking for agreement or validation for what is essentially a belief is looking in the wrong place, but have at it.

Assuming any of us really knows what's he's talking about. Seems to me like a chitchat and exchange of beliefs. Giving assertions about the nature of reality while not acknowledging the real possibility that they are believed to be true. I'm judging the way it comes up as it stinks of intellect. In this context that might not be useful, may even be a hindrance. But then again, one might know what he's talking about and being honest about it.

@Squeekytoy Pointing out this social game is not producing direct consciousness, whether an agreement is reached or not.

Agreeing our way to enlightenment!

Plus 20 warning points to OP.

That's deliberate. At best, debates on this matter open doors for introspection; at worst, the exchange and mutual agreement validate what might fundamentally be a pretension of knowing. Regardless of what's said, start by confronting your experience. If you're ruthlessly honest with yourself, are you deeply conscious of your own nature, beyond dogma and philosophy?

@Leo Gura Blueberries for me.

Thank you! Good team.

My dog.

You should just contemplate the fundamentals, like what a belief is.

The principle itself seems to be applicable to many aspects of experience. In a social context, you might be a dick and yet be able to effortlessly question your own stance on other topics. But I don't know.

A lot of intellectual content is likely conflated with genuine comprehension, especially when it comes to the nature of things themselves -- self, mind, emotions, existence, relationship, communication, perception -- whatever. When you set aside the crap (everything that isn’t direct apprehension), what do you actually know -- within your experience or beyond it? What are you deeply conscious of -- truly and directly? So, it is useful to be honest about that.

Highly biased, low-quality.

@Osaid You seem to be holding enlightenment as something experienced. Experiencing is indirect as it is a process mediated by biological senses. You perceive, say, a pencil, but what is it? It can be easy to confuse state, beliefs and unusual experiences with enlightenment, it's better to remain open and to keep contemplating.

At last.

Speculation and make-believe, it seems to me.