Cartesian Dualism and Solipsism

[batfly]

Back into the neighborhood of Rene Descartes: What is the association of Cartesian Dualism and solipsism?

Cartesian Dualism and Solipsism

https://sagebodisattva.tumblr.com/post/170157546014/cartesian-dualism-and-solipsism-so-jumping-right

So jumping right back into the topic of solipsism, we once again return to the wiki documents on the subject to provide a point of reference. This time, it’s the association with Cartesian Dualism to solipsism. Of which, the wiki documents states, quote:

“There is another option: the belief that both ideals and “reality” exist. Dualists commonly argue that the distinction between the mind (or ‘ideas’) and matter can be proven by employing Leibniz’ principle of the identity of indiscernibles which states that if two things share all exactly the same qualities, then they must be identical, as in indistinguishable from each other and therefore one and the same thing. Dualists then attempt to identify attributes of mind that are lacked by matter (such as privacy or intentionality) or vice versa (such as having a certain temperature or electrical charge). One notable application of the identity of indiscernibles was by René Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself (the famous cogito ergo sum argument), but that he could doubt the (separate) existence of his body. From this, he inferred that the person Descartes must not be identical to the Descartes body since one possessed a characteristic that the other did not: namely, it could be known to exist. Solipsism agrees with Descartes in this aspect, and goes further: only things that can be known to exist for sure should be considered to exist. The Descartes body could only exist as an idea in the mind of the person Descartes. Descartes and dualism aim to prove the actual existence of reality as opposed to a phantom existence (as well as the existence of God in Descartes’ case), using the realm of ideas merely as a starting point, but solipsism usually finds those further arguments unconvincing. The solipsist instead proposes that his/her own unconscious is the author of all seemingly “external” events from “reality”, unquote.

Alright, so back into the neighborhood of Rene Descartes. In case any of you were wondering; “Cartesius” is the Latin form of the name Descartes; hence, “Cartesian dualism” is a reference to Rene Descartes’ idea of dualism. So; with this in mind, an alternative option exists? What does this imply? Another option? Only: an option of what? What the hell are they talking about? The option of a BELIEF that both ideals and reality exist? Oh, you mean an alternative abstraction? A different story to tell ourselves about the stream of sensory perceptibles? THAT option? Oh. Yeah ok, whatever. The concept that both ideals and reality exist. Interesting. But how does this relate to solipsism? If anything, this is a move AWAY from solipsism, not a move towards it. Awareness is the only reality. Concepts, and objects are existential factors, but are merely varying layers of illusion. A dualist is actually a detriment to the truth of solipsism, as solipsism acknowledges the implications of non-duality… so to embrace dualism, with distinctions of quality in illusion as proof of some kind of separation in illusion, is a counter productive exercise.

Distinctions of mind and matter? They don’t really mean mind though. Not in the sense of awareness. They mean it in reference to the thinking function. So, more aptly stated: they are discerning distinctions of abstractions and matter, and this is only possible from a deluded stand point. Matter is an aspect of mind, and abstractions are an aspect of mind; so to seek to prove a difference between matter and abstractions, by referencing different appearances of the exact same thing, is worm eyed and short sighted. Accordingly, if there cannot be ‘separate’ objects, or entities, that have all their properties in common, then it follows that everything contained in sense perception is one and the same, as everything in sense perception share the exact same core foundation. Indeed, “qualities” are illusory. Just as in a dream, delusion facilitates the belief that dream concepts and dream objects differ in their attributes. Lucidity, however, shows this distinction to be a complete fantasy. This is to forget the fundamentals and get stuck on the surface. This would be the same type of mindset that might similarly jump to an assumption that ice and steam are different.

“But Sage, ice and steam are a different ball of wax then matter and the abstractions.”

No, it isn’t any different. It’s a metaphor, but we can liken abstractions to steam and objects to ice. The only difference in this, is the mistaken belief that there is a difference. The whole idea of “difference” is a falsehood. Differences set up polarity, and polarity is varying degrees of sameness. This is the age old lesson of non-duality. Yin and yang are the symbolic representation of dualism, but to believe in the seemingly oppositional differences of the yin yang is to consider the configuration from the most absolute shallowest perspective. Non-duality is wisdom attainted from the meta perspective, and attaining this wisdom entails not letting the mind get inattentive by the incitement of illusion… and whether it’s a buzzing fly, or falling bombs, the game is the same: Illusion facilitates delusion by snagging the attention through varying extents of distraction. Once the mind is distracted, it is in a position of acquiescence to externals. Once a mind is submissive to externals, it is disempowered, and hence has fallen into mental slavery. When the mind can finally discern this all this, the overall deception of illusion becomes laid bare.

Rene Descartes’ confusion and subsequent conclusions regarding this issue highlights the difficulty of the overall discernment. Ideas and matter are not a dualistic polarity. Concept and object are identical aspects with the appearance of a difference. Thus, the proposed dualism here is really just a false dichotomy, and hence, the principle of the identities of indiscernibles is a tool of misapplication. Descartes made a distinction between his physical body and ‘the person’ Descartes… but what the hell is a ‘person’, anyway? An object? An idea? The body only exists as an idea in the mind of the ‘person’ Descartes, but isn’t the thinking function itself also just an idea? The fault here is the assumption that there’s gonna be some one true only existing identification found that we can then slap a label on and call the ‘actual reality’. Hence, the idea of a ‘person’… only, there isn’t any person existing anywhere.

Remember: ‘Descartes and dualism aim to prove the actual existence of reality, as opposed to a phantom existence, using the realm of ideas merely as a starting point’… but, is that an actual existence? The realm of ideas doesn’t seem very actual. This would be more abstract then actual. And this is why, despite cogito ergo sum, Descartes must have unconsciously chosen to assume some sort of basic template of objective materialism; as, the “self” that he decided could not be doubted, and differed from his physical body, was assumed to be the thinking function. It’s: “I THINK, therefor I am”, right? Hence, ‘thinking’ is set up as the only aspect know for sure to exist. Only, why get caught up on the thinking function? That’s not the true identity. And to set up some disparity of existing factors based on an erroneous identification strays away from the truth. With lucidity, you can’t grab ahold of the magical red balloon as the undisputed reality and then declare all else to be dubious aspects to be doubted. The magical red balloon is no different then anything else in the equation.

And then the statement:

“The solipsist instead proposes that his/her own unconscious is the author of all seemingly “external” events from “reality”…?

What solipsist? What his/her? What unconscious author? And moreover, what reality? Reality is what is actual, and there is nothing actual about the transient stream of sense perception illusion. Reifying an external is not in line with lucid awareness. With lucidity, there is no need to find an identification… as the true identity of the empty self isn’t represented as any kind of manifestation in dream phenomena. So Descartes was sort of on the right track with his inquires, but stumbled when he settled down on the thinking function as the undoubtable existing truth. The question must be asked: What is the context of the thinking function? Enter the expanse inflating container that gives platform to all existential manifestation. Enter pure awareness.

Edited January 26, 2018 by batfly