Epistemological Realism vs. Epistemological Idealism

[Consilience]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

First we need to establish which axioms have to be taken on faith contrary to the position of idealism (or from a position that talks about directness of experience and so forth). Does idealism possibly require it's own axioms to be held?

Where exactly is the contradiction between naive realism and the tools of rationality?

Why is actual direct experience the most objective point of view, and how does it falsify naive realism?

Idealism doesnt require axioms other than that experience is evident. This is the only axiom required which is self evident. Existence validates itself. There is form, look into your direct experience and verify this. 

The contradiction comes from using epistemological realism as your epistemological framework for proving materialism because E.R. itself requires an objective world to already be true(aka materialism), by definition which is what I pointed out in the op. Moreover, materialism requires E.R. as an epistemology to be qualified as a true metaphysics. 

Actual direct experience is the most objective pov because it is the only aspect of reality we can be certain of. Naive realism throws extra metaphysics on-top of the actuality of direct experience, which when looked at, this extra metaphysic’s substance is more mind, which is more form being observed as direct experience. This isnt even taking into account the infinite regress problem all forms of rationality have when trying to make truth claims (all axioms ultimately either having to be taken on as faith or having to have their own logical arguments for why they are true, which then require more axioms). The only axiom we can find within reality is the axiom of direct experience. If you cannot see this, if you are not aware of this observation, I cannot help you. 

[abrakamowse]

41 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I know the video abrakamowse, but I think it is far from an indepth philosophical analysis of naive-realism. If you were to show this to a philosopher who does not reject Naive Realism it will hardly convince them of the opposite.

Because he is holding a belief... he won't accept truth.

[Scholar]

11 minutes ago, Consilience said:

Idealism doesnt require axioms other than that experience is evident. This is the only axiom required which is self evident. Existence validates itself. There is form, look into your direct experience and verify this. 

The contradiction comes from using epistemological realism as your epistemological framework for proving materialism because E.R. itself requires an objective world to already be true(aka materialism), by definition which is what I pointed out in the op. Moreover, materialism requires E.R. as an epistemology to be qualified as a true metaphysics. 

Actual direct experience is the most objective pov because it is the only aspect of reality we can be certain of. Naive realism throws extra metaphysics on-top of the actuality of direct experience, which when looked at, this extra metaphysic’s substance is more mind, which is more form being observed as direct experience. This isnt even taking into account the infinite regress problem all forms of rationality have when trying to make truth claims (all axioms ultimately either having to be taken on as faith or having to have their own logical arguments for why they are true, which then require more axioms). The only axiom we can find within reality is the axiom of direct experience. If you cannot see this, if you are not aware of this observation, I cannot help you. 

Read the what I responded to the other guy. I am not an epistemic realist nor an idealist, to me both positions are essentially ungrounded and in the deepest sense non-sensical.

You are viewing idealism from a materialistic lense, as you have a notion of experience, which in itself contains a seperation between What is and Subjectivity. You are attributing to What Is some sort of Experiential Nature, which is unfounded. If you let go of this distinction however, both the notion of idealism and realism become two aspects of What Isness. They will both become equally redundant.

 

A Realist simply can make a distinction between the contradictions and groundless axioms in the most existential realms, and claim that these contradictions only occur there. Sure it's groundless to assume that, but it is just as groundless as assuming anything else. This is the very problem with your Idealism framework, you refuse to admit that you have created a framework that is just as unjustified.

[Jakeem Ortiz]

@Scholar

32 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Firsty, the problem is that you are already framing it in a way that is unsubstantiated. You already claim that "What is" is experience, not "world". Why is "What is" not direct world? Where does the whole experience framework come from, how is it evident that anything is experience? It is what is there, how come you are able to make claims about what that which is there is?

Secondly, why is occam's razor relevant in this? Why is it a good tool for establishing the existential nature of reality? Occam's Razor, after all, is a rule that was established from empirical data based on a materialistic framework of reality. We are operating far prior to that, far before we can even get to establish whether occam's razor is a valid way of establishing truth. After all, occam's razor is not some sort of divine rule, it is simply a principle that seems to be useful in investigating the likelihood of something to be true or not. We are talking about something that goes far prior to the phenomena of the world in which this principle was established in.

If we go by this standard, then ultimate solipsism is what you should believe in, completely devoid of any framework whatsoever. After all, by claiming that there is direct experience rather than simply what is, you are adding parts to your theory.

 

How do you substantiate that there is such a thing as science or materialists if by OC it is more likely that it is all simply what is, a groundless dream? And how do you substantiate the existence of OC, when once it is out of direct experience it cease to exist, because after all there is nothing outside of direct experience? Just not thinking about OC means it doesn't exist, therefore it could not possibly be a principle to follow. Infact, any principle you will establish will only exist and be valid as long as it is an object in experience, as it could not exist anywhere outside of it.

How do you get passed these issues?

Firstly, you can call direct experience whatever you want, I am using the term in the broadest way I can so don't overthink it, it's like nitpicking over me saying "can I have some food" and you say "I don't know CAN you". By Direct experience, I essentially mean what Leo G means by "Actuality" and what Meta Sage means by Pure Awareness. Are you going to deny this self-evident experience you're having right now? The whole point was to establish a starting position that conceivably everyone can agree on, so try to interpret my words correctly by not focusing so much on the specific nuances of the terms I happened to use and instead try to grasp at what I'm trying to get at. The terms Direct experience and pure awareness and Actuality are 'marker' words or hints for the meaning that corresponds to that which we could all agree is the case at least for our own selves.

Secondly, I am against using OR, which I know to be a Maxim and I'm aware of its primary uses, etc. I was simply showing how one could hypothetically use OR to support idealism over materialism. I am personally against the usage of any kind of rationalist methods to come to an understanding of idealism as true. I personally think phenomenology is better suited a technique for gradually raising one's consciousness to the perceptions of self-evident truths that we simply lack lucidity of, like idealism for example. 

Thirdly, when it comes to synthetic apriori statements like the kind you just made (whether you are aware of that or not), statements like, "any principle you will establish....." are being made out of lack of awareness of the true nature of language, logic and the so-called apriori necessary truths. I implore you to go on Google and search for a PDF document explaining Later Wittgensteins recontextualization of logic and apriori truths in terms of 'normative grammar', it is very enlightening and I think this will help you get around these issues. 

Fourthly, I also advise looking into what the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna had to say about conventions and ultimate reality. There's a lot of useful insights and i won't go into here (including 'tetralemma', '2 truths doctrine', etc.) But I will say this, you don't have to abandone the use of conventions, this includes uses of language and even logic. In true nonduality fashion, you're going to instead seek the way to using conventions (ie; useful fictions) skillfully to your advantage in life while also not letting them control you (via being vexed philosophical problems and paradoxes or being compelled to accept certain conclusions of logic because you believe logical rules actually exist independent of your mind and will, etcetera). Hopefully this too can help produce some clarity for "getting around these issues".

Good Luck!

Edited September 23, 2019 by Jakeem Ortiz
Typo

[Consilience]

@Scholar Me explaining anything with words by default creates a framework. You are mistaken, however. Direct experience needs no framework. Idealism is a language based framework to explain and communicate actuality but all linguistic communication is framework based. You need to read between the lines my friend.

[Jakeem Ortiz]

@Consilience

29 minutes ago, Consilience said:

@Scholar Me explaining anything with words by default creates a framework. You are mistaken, however. Direct experience needs no framework. Idealism is a language based framework to explain and communicate actuality but all linguistic communication is framework based. You need to read between the lines my friend.

How about you take the rest of my advice after that first part though, I want us to learn from each other.

Secondly, "reading between the lines", no bullshit I actually like that you said that, it's a skill I have expressed interest in developing and now you just inspired me to get a move on that. You see, I suspect that the essence of the means by which one grasps or understands someone else's use of language is quite literally some form of 'telepathy' for lack of a better term but I digress and more can be said about this point. One more thing though, we both are not sufficiently telepathic so if we could really not nitpick over misunderstanding that would be great.

Secondly, when you explain idealism in contrast to direct experience like that, I now understand where you are coming from and I have to say that I agree with you completely, idealism is a framework whereas direct experience is what simply is, pure being. 

Here's the thing though, when I or even Leo (I imagine) say that idealism is true, we are simply using the term idealism to stand for actuality or direct experience.

Also, idealism is a term generally used in reaction to materialism. It's like your entire life people have been saying there is an external world and matter is prior to mind and all that stuff, even though the exact opposite is true. So you have to invent new terminology to describe what is actually already the case in contradiction to what everyone erroneously has taken for given(materialism, realism,etc.) So from that perspective, idealism now looks like some newly posited philosophical position. We are honestly arguing semantics though.

While I agree with you that I need to learn to read between the lines, I really suggest you develop the skill of grasping the point of what somebody intends to say and don't distract yourself on the nuances of the terminology. Also, really take a look at the reading material I recommended, it'll really help.

 

Edit: I guess you can consider this a proxy reply, I thought your reply was directed at me, I was mistaken.

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Jakeem Ortiz
Mistake

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Jakeem Ortiz said:

@Scholar

Firstly, you can call direct experience whatever you want, I am using the term in the broadest way I can so don't overthink it, it's like nitpicking over me saying "can I have some food" and you say "I don't know CAN you". By Direct experience, I essentially mean what Leo G means by "Actuality" and what Meta Sage means by Pure Awareness. Are you going to deny this self-evident experience you're having right now? The whole point was to establish a starting position that conceivably everyone can agree on, so try to interpret my words correctly by not focusing so much on the specific nuances of the terms I happened to use and instead try to grasp at what I'm trying to get at. The terms Direct experience and pure awareness and Actuality are 'marker' words or hints for the meaning that corresponds to that which we could all agree is the case at least for our own selves.

Secondly, I am against using OR, which I know to be a Max and I'm aware of its primary uses, etc. I was simply showing how one could hypothetically use OR to support idealism over materialism. I am personally against the usage of any kind of rationalist methods to come to an understanding of idealism as true. I personally think phenomenology is better suited a technique for gradually raising one's consciousness to the perceptions of self-evident truths that we simply lack lucidity of, like idealism for example. 

Thirdly, when it comes to synthetic apriori statements like the kind you just made (whether you are aware of that or not), statements like, "any principle you will establish....." are being made out of lack of awareness of the true nature of language, logic and the so-called apriori necessary truths. I implore you to go on Google and search for a PDF document explaining Later Wittgensteins recontextualization of logic and apriori truths in terms of 'normative grammar', it is very enlightening and I think this will help you get around these issues. 

Fourthly, I also advise looking into what the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna had to say about conventions and ultimate reality. There's a lot of useful insights and i won't go into here (including 'tetralemma', '2 truths doctrine', etc.) But I will say this, you don't have to abandoning don the use of conventions, this includes uses of language and even logic. In true nonduality fashion, you're going to instead seek the way to using conventions (ie; useful fictions) skillfully to your advantage in life while also not letting them control you (via being vexed philosophical problems and paradoxes or being compelled to accept certain conclusions of logic because you believe logical rules actually exist independent of your mind and will, etcetera). Hopefully this too can help produce some clarity for "getting around these issues".

Good Luck!

First:

It is not nitpicking. If you cease to create a framework, you will recognize that Idealism and Realism are the same from the perspective of What-Isness. They are both basically descriptors and aspects of whatisness. They are, in essence, themselves two dimensions of Whatisness.

In my opinion your prefence of Idealism over Realism is due to a fundamentally ignorance of what Realism, from the perspective of higher consciousness, truly is. I would recommend some of Ken Wilbers work and his 4 quadrant models. Grasping it might help you understand what I am doing here.

I refuse the notion of experience and subjects. I know very well what these words are marking, but that has nothing to do with the validity of Idealism vs Realism. In the "eyes" of Isness, they are both the same, literally.

 

Second:

I don't think anyone who believes in materialism will find the argument of using OC to establish the existential nature of existence convincing. I don't see how that is rational. Please don't move the goal-post of this topic, it was specifically about Idealism being the more rational position to assume, not which position is in the end true or not.

 

Third and Forth:

I don't know what to respond to, I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't believe in necessary truths of any kind, because the source is irreducable. I am not here to defend realism, but to show that neither idealism nor realism contain Truth, but that they both are part of Truth and that both have useful applications.

 

Don't forget that realism is not merely a mental framework that people came up with, it is literally the way reality is perceived by humans. You cannot escape it by just adopting idealism. If you do escape it, the impossiblity of realism will blow your mind. It literally is magic, and it is happening right now, despite you creating fancy frameworks to deny it.

 

@Consilience

Alright, if you do not want to engage with what I am saying then I guess we can leave it at that.

[Jakeem Ortiz]

@Scholar if you'd simply take my advice you'd know what I'm talking about. Wittgensteins meaning as use is the key here but without that understanding you keep making the same mistakes. 

One of the things you fail to understand is that I actually agree with you. Simply believing in idealism as a philosophical perspective is not going to make you directly conscious of the true nature of reality. I think what's going on here is a confusion caused by conflation of meanings. Idealism is just a word and its meaning is however someone happens to be using it at the time. Idealism can refer to a belief system or me and meta sage like to use it, it can refer to whatisness. The problem here is that you're not paying enough attention to how I'm using the term in my speech to correctly grasp what I'm talking about(and honestly it's probably not your fault, unless we consistently give an explanation of meaning for every expression we use to communicate a thought, these misunderstandings are bound to happen.) 

[Scholar]

11 minutes ago, Jakeem Ortiz said:

@Scholar if you'd simply take my advice you'd know what I'm talking about. Wittgensteins meaning as use is the key here but without that understanding you keep making the same mistakes. 

One of the things you fail to understand is that I actually agree with you. Simply believing in idealism as a philosophical perspective is not going to make you directly conscious of the true nature of reality. I think what's going on here is a confusion caused by conflation of meanings. Idealism is just a word and its meaning is however someone happens to be using it at the time. Idealism can refer to a belief system or me and meta sage like to use it, it can refer to whatisness. The problem here is that you're not paying enough attention to how I'm using the term in my speech to correctly grasp what I'm talking about(and honestly it's probably not your fault, unless we consistently give an explanation of meaning for every expression we use to communicate a thought, these misunderstandings are bound to happen.) 

I don't think what you are doing here is fair. You are reframing what we are talking about. This conversation was specifically about the frameworks of Idealism vs Realism and which is more rational to adopt.

I don't believe any of the two can be more rational to adopt, because they cannot be grounded. It is faith in either case. And in the case of enlightenment, both of these frameworks become the same, they become descriptors of the absolute. From that perspective the realist is failing to recognize that when he talks about material, he cannot talk about anything but consciousness, because consciousness is being itself. The realist cannot be anything but an idealist, that is essentially all there is.

This reframing is important because realism is actually amazing. At that point realism and idealism are just two ways of looking at the same thing.

 

However that still has nothing to do with the original conversation. You can't just take idealism to mean enlightenment, how is that fair?

Edited September 23, 2019 by Scholar

[Jakeem Ortiz]

@Scholar also, I agree with you on the topic being which was more rational, we got talking about OR because it is a rational tool that "conceivably" could have been used to favor idealism over materialism. I agree that a materialists would not find that agrument satisfactory however and I even provided an explanation for why. Ultimately I expressed numerous times that I was against someone relying upon any form of rational or logical, empirical or otherwise explanations as conditions for accepting idealism. This implies albeit subtly that I am against the notion of idealism as a conceptual framework to be believed in. Instead, I advocated for direct experience of idealism truth, here my use of the term "idealism" is different as I previously expressed in a prior comment, here I use "idealism" to mean whatisness and NOT the conceptual framework. So all in all so far I am agreeing with everything you've said. I'm just saying it differently and you keep missing the point.

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Jakeem Ortiz said:

@Scholar also, I agree with you on the topic being which was more rational, we got talking about OR because it is a rational tool that "conceivably" could have been used to favor idealism over materialism. I agree that a materialists would not find that agrument satisfactory however and I even provided an explanation for why. Ultimately I expressed numerous times that I was against someone relying upon any form of rational or logical, empirical or otherwise explanations as conditions for accepting idealism. This implies albeit subtly that I am against the notion of idealism as a conceptual framework to be believed in. Instead, I advocated for direct experience of idealism truth, here my use of the term "idealism" is different as I previously expressed in a prior comment, here I use "idealism" to mean whatisness and NOT the conceptual framework. So all in all so far I am agreeing with everything you've said. I'm just saying it differently and you keep missing the point.

The problem with calling it idealism is obviously that you seem to put some validity into that framework, as if it was revealed as truth after Enlightenment. What you call Idealism, you might as well call Realism. Why name it idealism?

[Jakeem Ortiz]

@Scholar

29 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't think what you are doing here is fair. You are reframing what we are talking about. This conversation was specifically about the frameworks of Idealism vs Realism and which is more rational to adopt.

I don't believe any of the two can be more rational to adopt, because they cannot be grounded. It is faith in either case. And in the case of enlightenment, both of these frameworks become the same, they become descriptors of the absolute. From that perspective the realist is failing to recognize that when he talks about material, he cannot talk about anything but consciousness, because consciousness is being itself. The realist cannot be anything but an idealist, that is essentially all there is.

This reframing is important because realism is actually amazing. At that point realism and idealism are just two ways of looking at the same thing.

 

However that still has nothing to do with the original conversation. You can't just take idealism to mean enlightenment, how is that fair?

Actually I totally can, I don't know how you can't see that. Again we both completely agree on everything yet you are confusing everything I say, probably because you still think you dont have to do any of the readings I recommended about language and conventions.

How do we agree? Simple, you just said from the pov of enlightenment, the realist has no choice but to admit that consciousness is all there is and therefore realism is idealism, I literally 100% agree with you, no disagreement there whatsoever. The realist prior to that however believes that there is either consciousness plus something that is not consciousness or even that there is no consciousness at all. The idealist in contrast prior to enlightenment believes that there is only consciousness, the difference between the enlightened and unenlightened idealist is that one is merely adhering to a conceptual framework that is defined in contrast to the opposing views while in the enlightened mode, one is simply directly experiencing the truth without it having to be compared or contrasted to anything. The realist on the other hand necessarily believes that there is such a thing as something that is not consciousness, while the unenlightened idealist believes in only consciousness. The idealist has a true belief but does not directly experience the truth while the unenlightened realist has a false belief and is also not directly conscious of the truth. 

 

I assure you the rest of our disagreements and probably any future disagreements are merely semantic in nature , im positive they are.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Jakeem Ortiz
Typo

[Jakeem Ortiz]

@Scholar

9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The problem with calling it idealism is obviously that you seem to put some validity into that framework, as if it was revealed as truth after Enlightenment. What you call Idealism, you might as well call Realism. Why name it idealism?

This should put it to bed. The reason I don't call it realism is because of what I've explained in my last post. Realism either completely denies consciousness, which is absurd or it posits another fundamental reality that is not consciousness. 

From this understanding I cannot help but acknowledge that the realist is manifestly wrong.

When as you say, the realist realizes there is only consciousness and thus understands that realism And idealism are one, in my opinion that's the same as saying the realist has directly realized the truth of idealism and has ceased to be a realist, realism has now been completely recontextualization but even more so than that, it has been redefined and realized at the same time. Whereas the idealist who believes that all is only consciousness is in the same boat as the realist who has not attained enlightenment, both have no direct consciousness of the truth. The difference being, that when the idealist realizes the truth, it finds that it's prior belief that all was consciousness is quintessentially true and that realism is false.

But again, at this point we're arguing semantics, because we both evidently agree on the same meanings, we just don't agree on how to express them.

 

[Scholar]

22 minutes ago, Jakeem Ortiz said:

@Scholar

Actually I totally can, I don't know how you can't see that. Again we both completely agree on everything yet you are confusing everything I say, probably because you still think you dont have to do any of the readings I recommended about language and conventions.

How do we agree? Simple, you just said from the pov of enlightenment, the realist has no choice but to admit that consciousness is all there is and therefore realism is idealism, I literally 100% agree with you, no disagreement there whatsoever. The realist prior to that however believes that there is either consciousness plus something that is not consciousness or even that there is no consciousness at all. The idealist in contrast prior to enlightenment believes that there is only consciousness, the difference between the enlightened and unenlightened idealist is that one is merely adhering to a conceptual framework that is defined in contrast to the opposing views while in the enlightened mode, one is simply directly experiencing the truth without it having to be compared or contrasted to anything. The realist on the other hand necessarily believes that there is such a thing as something that is not consciousness, while the unenlightened idealist believes in only consciousness. The idealist has a true belief but does not directly experience the truth while the unenlightened realist has a false belief and I also not directly conscious of the truth. 

 

I assure the rest of our agreements and probably any future agreements are merely semantic in nature , im positive they are.

No.

What-Isness

Consciousness = What-Isness

Materialism = What-Isness

Both the idealist and the realist confuse ideas with What-Isness. You idea of consciousness has a huge load of crap attached to it, much like the idea of materialism has a huge load of crap attached to it. However, both of them are What-Isness.

My entire point is that you "Idealist"/"consciousness" framework is just as valid as the "realist"/"materialist" framework. This is what you cannot see, because you have attached you notions of consciousness to whatisness. You still believe in subjectivity, in experience, in consciousness. But these notions are as misguided as the materialists notions.

What is is simply what is, they are not consciousness nor material. However both consciousness and material are the same, Whatisness. Stop assuming that I am ignorant and consider for a second that you might be missing something here.

You idea of consciousness is not What-Isness. The idealist is just as "wrong" as the realist when he is not enlightened. Idealism and Realism are just two ways of looking at that which is. But both the idealism and the realism are PART of Whatisness, they are not above it.

 

The realist, even prior to enlightenment, cannot point to anything but Whatisness. EVERYTHING that can be possibly pointed to IS and MUST BE whatisness. There is no exception. The realist, whether he is conscious of it or not, cannot talk about anything beyond whatisness. Therefore the realist is pointing to Whatisness. His description of the material is pointing to a SPECIFIC aspect of whatisness. This is fucking mindblowing, it's literally magic. The unconsciousness is WHATISNESS, it cannot escape it. This is the genius of the magic that his happening. The materialist cannot point to anything but whatisness. And yes, the materialist is pointing to something very important. If you go truly Meta on this, you will realize that the materialist has literally created and altered reality, he has literally created truth. It's fucking insane. Just that it's not the materialist that is making the magic happen, because he is part of the magic.

 

If you believe the materialist can believe that there is something other than consciousness, than your notion of consciousness cannot be whatisness, meaning that whatever notion of idealism connected to consciousness you believe in is necessarily delusional. Consciousness is everything, even the concept of "outsidedness" is consciousness. And the concept of outsidedness actually exist! It is so important and fundamental that we would not be having this conversation if it wasn't there. It's just as real as anything else you believe in, literally.

 

Just consider that I am pointing to something profound here. Reflect on the "You cannot point at something beyond consciousness", and reflect upon what the materialist actually means when he talks of consciousness. Also do the same to your notion of consciousness. I am telling you, there are minds to be blown, it will be wonderful.

12 minutes ago, Jakeem Ortiz said:

@Scholar

This should put it to bed. The reason I don't call it realism is because of what I've explained in my last post. Realism either completely denies consciousness, which is absurd or it posits another fundamental reality that is not consciousness. 

From this understanding I cannot help but acknowledge that the realist is manifestly wrong.

When as you say, the realist realizes there is only consciousness and thus understands that realism And idealism are one, in my opinion that's the same as saying the realist has directly realized the truth of idealism and has ceased to be a realist, realism has now been completely recontextualization but even more so than that, it has been redefined and realized at the same time. Whereas the idealist who believes that all is only consciousness is in the same boat as the realist who has not attained enlightenment, both have no direct consciousness of the truth. The difference being, that when the idealist realizes the truth, it finds that it's prior belief that all was consciousness is quintessentially true and that realism is false.

But again, at this point we're arguing semantics, because we both evidently agree on the same meanings, we just don't agree on how to express them.

 

We are not arguing semantics, I am pointing to something that will blow your mind if you see it, I promise you. Again, if you believe someone can believe something being "beyond" consciousness, then your notion of consciousness has nothing to do with Whatisness. You need to reflect on that, I promise that if you do, you will see what the realist is doing. It is fucking magic, literally.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Scholar

[Jakeem Ortiz]

@Scholar

33 minutes ago, Scholar said:

No.

What-Isness

Consciousness = What-Isness

Materialism = What-Isness

Both the idealist and the realist confuse ideas with What-Isness. You idea of consciousness has a huge load of crap attached to it, much like the idea of materialism has a huge load of crap attached to it. However, both of them are What-Isness.

My entire point is that you "Idealist"/"consciousness" framework is just as valid as the "realist"/"materialist" framework. This is what you cannot see, because you have attached you notions of consciousness to whatisness. You still believe in subjectivity, in experience, in consciousness. But these notions are as misguided as the materialists notions.

What is is simply what is, they are not consciousness nor material. However both consciousness and material are the same, Whatisness. Stop assuming that I am ignorant and consider for a second that you might be missing something here.

You idea of consciousness is not What-Isness. The idealist is just as "wrong" as the realist when he is not enlightened. Idealism and Realism are just two ways of looking at that which is. But both the idealism and the realism are PART of Whatisness, they are not above it.

 

The realist, even prior to enlightenment, cannot point to anything but Whatisness. EVERYTHING that can be possibly pointed to IS and MUST BE whatisness. There is no exception. The realist, whether he is conscious of it or not, cannot talk about anything beyond whatisness. Therefore the realist is pointing to Whatisness. His description of the material is pointing to a SPECIFIC aspect of whatisness. This is fucking mindblowing, it's literally magic. The unconsciousness is WHATISNESS, it cannot escape it. This is the genius of the magic that his happening. The materialist cannot point to anything but whatisness. And yes, the materialist is pointing to something very important. If you go truly Meta on this, you will realize that the materialist has literally created and altered reality, he has literally created truth. It's fucking insane. Just that it's not the materialist that is making the magic happen, because he is part of the magic.

 

If you believe the materialist can believe that there is something other than consciousness, than your notion of consciousness cannot be whatisness, meaning that whatever notion of idealism connected to consciousness you believe in is necessarily delusional. Consciousness is everything, even the concept of "outsidedness" is consciousness. And the concept of outsidedness actually exist! It is so important and fundamental that we would not be having this conversation if it wasn't there. It's just as real as anything else you believe in, literally.

 

Just consider that I am pointing to something profound here. Reflect on the "You cannot point at something beyond consciousness", and reflect upon what the materialist actually means when he talks of consciousness. Also do the same to your notion of consciousness. I am telling you, there are minds to be blown, it will be wonderful.

We are not arguing semantics, I am pointing to something that will blow your mind if you see it, I promise you. Again, if you believe someone can believe something being "beyond" consciousness, then your notion of consciousness has nothing to do with Whatisness. You need to reflect on that, I promise that if you do, you will see what the realist is doing. It is fucking magic, literally.

Very interesting, I must admit then that I have no idea what you're talking about. "Fucking magic", I like that, I wish I could understand.

Cheers!

[Jakeem Ortiz]

@Scholar I accidentally didn't read your whole reply. My first impression was that if realism was equally true then that means the realist is literally inventing the noumena just by conceiving of the notion.

Then I read your whole reply and saw hints of that idea. That is just too cool and I am clearly light-years away from sufficiently appreciating that notion, I don't even know how I would begin to approach attaining direct realization of what you're pointing to beyond all doubt. 

I stand corrected, very very interesting. Reminds me of the word "transcendental".

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Jakeem Ortiz said:

@Scholar I accidentally didn't read your whole reply. My first impression was that if realism was equally true then that means the realist is literally inventing the noumena just by conceiving of the notion.

Then I read your whole reply and saw hints of that idea. That is just too cool and I am clearly light-years away from sufficiently appreciating that notion, I don't even know how I would begin to approach attaining direct realization of what you're pointing to beyond all doubt. 

I stand corrected, very very interesting. Reminds me of the word "transcendental".

The way how to "get" this is by going in some weird sense "meta". It's like there is the conceptual (the realism/the idealism) and then there is the Conceptual. The Conceptual is more of part of the way reality is perceived rather than merely how we are thinking about. It's like the "structure" of reality, even though that might not be a fitting word.

It just has to make click, and once it does, you will get so frustated because people just won't get it. You will be pointing to it but they will confuse your words, operating on a different level of analysis.

 

I got to this point by questioning and inspect the most common sense things there are, like roundness. What is curvature? Actually inspect, look at the existential nature of curvature. What the hell is it? How can it even exist? What is the feeling of roughness? What the fuck is it?

Do that with all things you call perception, and at some point everything will reverse. That which you have framed to be perception is actually the substance. It is literally existence, it is literally reality. And it is impossible, it's literally impossible.

Think about some of the senses you have. Taste, Vision, Hearing, Feeling. Notice how radically different the. How absurdly weirdly different they are from each other. I mean, how different is Feeling from Vision? It's like impossibly different. What if you never had vision? What would that mean?

And then it will strike you, holy fucking shit, there are literally infinite "senses". And that which one calls senses is LITERALLY what reality is made of. There are infinite more "senses" that are completely different from all the senses you are experiencing. They are all so radically different as each of your senses are to each other. So foreign you could not possibly imagine. That is literally what reality is (atleast as far as Maya goes). It is fucking insane.

 

This kind of realization will blow your mind, you will get a real sense for how fucking weird reality actually is. It is so weird, one cannot comprehend it. Once you see this you will immediately know that everything you were telling yourself was bullshit, this is beyond thought. You will get a really spooky sense of how impossible this is. What you viewed as most common, as most self-evident, what you thought to be so insignificant that you did not even notice it before, it will now seem like magic. Whatever is the cause is beyond all comprehension, it is beyond all intelligence. To create the color red takes as much intelligence as to create all of the universe. Intelligence is really the wrong word, it is almost insulting. Calling it Infinite intelligence is limiting it. It's more like Incomprehensible Creativity.

I mean how can it possibly do this? How can it create Redness where there has been no redness prior? From what did it create Redness? How could it create, from something that was not redness, Redness? This is insane, it is literally impossible.

Think about it, when you create something, you need parts. You need to take the parts and develope something from these parts. But you cannot create Redness from parts, because you would require red parts to create redness! This is what this Creativity can do, it can Create beyond limitation. It can create so radically that it can create things that are uncreatible. It can create that which cannot even be imagined.

Ask yourself, how could you possibly imagine a completely different sense without ever having experienced it? This is what is happening, even though it is impossible.

 

Then there is an aspect of interconnectedness. Look at the rawness of these senses, of these dimensions of realness or isness. Look at how what is going on is completely, insanely, hilariously ridiculous. How in the fuck can there be THIS? Chairs, trees, cakes, pebbles, moons, literally anything. It's fucking insane, it literally is insane. It's the weirdest thing ever, and we take it completely for granted. We don't even question it. How come we can explain the motion of the universe with math? It's fucking magic, I mean literally. Math is magic, just like redness is. The fact that all of this is so interconnected, the fact that there can be understanding, that there can be logic and everything else. It is magic, I don't know what else to call it.

 

Look at the physicist, the philosopher, the biologist, the surgeon, the plumber, the computer scientist, the prostitute, the artist, the musician. Look how deeply immersed they are in creation. If they were to stop and reflect upon what is going on, they would know that reality is impossible. That music is impossible, that physics is impossible, that nature is impossible, that philosophy, plumbing, computers and sex are all impossible. They are literally magic.

And yet, none of them believe in magic. They ALL study magic for a living! It is fucking hilarious, it is a cosmic joke. Each and every one of them literally studies magic, they make a living off magic, yet none of them believe in magic.

The greatest magic trick is to be so immersed in magic that you do not even recognize it anymore.

 

Somewhere along the line of these realizations you will recognize naive realism, beyond it's mere conceptual framework, is much like vision or feeling simply one dimension of reality. And it is an important one, as it allows for this to happen. It is not understanding, it is literally a way reality expresses itself so as to play in the way it does. We wouldn't be talking if the magic of naive realism wasn't part of our "perception", or in other words, if it was not a dimension of Isness.

 

Think about it, how can a cat operate in world if there was no difference between world and cat? For catness to be there, there needs to be worldness. This is different from non-dual work, as it is more of an recognition of duality.

It is not about understanding Duality, but about the Substanceness of Duality.

 

Once you really see the magic, you will not even need to doubt the most common sense view of reality anymore. The scientist discovering the outside world? Sure, why not, it's all magic anyways.

Discovering this feels like that:

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Scholar

[tedens]

17 hours ago, Consilience said:

 I don't see how it's possible to deny subjective conscious experience and I don't see how all of these high level thinkers don't how irrational this supposedly rational metaphysics is.nHow is it that the majority of academics don't see that all of our experience, OBJECTIVELY, *is* conscious experience? The 5 bodily senses and our minds all are various forms of consciousness... Yet because brain states correlate so consistently with conscious experiences they make the metaphysical assumption that consciousness is simply the brain, and that there exists an object-ive physical world. However, WHY does everyone miss the fact that this is, in the strictest, and even most rational sense (which is what these type of mind's tend to cling to), an assumption, an axiom, a metaphysical starting point taken on by faith? Where is the attachment to materialism coming from? Why so many great minds of humanity clinging to this philosophical assumption? 

There is probably something like collective consciousness.

[Inliytened1]

@Scholar what @Consilience speaks of is Truth with a capital T.  Language, logic, and rationalism cannot capture Truth because it is mystical.  It defies rationalism and it transcends it.   You need an awakening.  You need to become it because everything else is prior to it.  You ARE it.   Everything else is finite.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

Reality is an infinite mind. This is not a framework, assumption, belief, or axiom. It is what it is.