I spit on Advaita Vedanta (spoken in a harsh Arabic accent ). Just kidding.
Anyway, tell me, what possible reason would there be for the existence of anything whatsoever if the so-called āillusionā of the multiplicity of minds and their accompanying agents did not exist?
You say that minds are a āā¦projection of consciousnessā¦ā
Well, tell me, then, what is it that initially imbued this nebulous term āconsciousnessā with the impetus, and will, and creative ability to project minds?
They donāt know, and they donāt care. This is their religion and their weird therapy session. Not an exercise in rational thought or logical deduction.
What is ānutsā is a person living in 2024, relying on the body of knowledge that has been gained since Kant, calling someone who was poineering into philosophy ānuts.ā
I suppose this is the arrogance of late-born, whose dependency upon their predecessor should evoke humility, but doesnāt.
I have some respect for Kant, but the fact remains that the last 250 years of philosophy he pioneered was a dead end from the start. And yet many people worship him even today.
And I didnāt call Kant nuts, on the contrary, he could have been quite deliberate with his deception.
Kant might have been thinking: hmm we have these the rationalist and empiricist views, and I could bring them together in a few different ways. Naturally, what would make by far the most sense would be the representationalism/indirect perception view, but I wonāt be doing that one. Iāll destroy objective reality instead, and these fools will love it.
One idea is that the universal consciousness (the world, all existence) is playing hide-and-seek with itself. It plays the game of forgetting who/what it is, and then through us humans and other sentient beings, which are also parts of the universal consciousness, it finds itself again, remembers who/what it is.
Actually I like this metaphysics more than most, and it cointains grains of truth, but overall see no evidence for it.
Most of us donāt know who or what we really are. We have forgotten. Or, the human mind has not evolved to the point where it can comprehend clearly itās origins. We have creation myths like the Big Bang. Consciousness has the innate capacity to create worlds. Analogously we create computer games. Physicist John Wheeler introduced the slogan āit from bitā. āEvery physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-and-no indications, a conclusion which we epitomize in the phrase, it from bit. He ties it to the idea that the universe is participatory, fundamentally involving the participation of observers. Observations are of course states of consciousness. (Chalmers)
As I have said before, the universe viewed dualistically, consciousness is the ground of being. As such it is inexplicable. Everything must be explained in terms of it. Etiological questions like āwhy?ā proceed from it and thus are presupposed by it. Therefore, with respect to the being of being, the question āWhyā is unanswerable. Nevertheless, the fact that the question persists points to its existential origins. It is a basic need.
Youāll have to be more specific. If youāre identifying your āIā with the universal consciousness, then again I see no evidence that you arenāt still caught in another ego-trap.
Except there are two kinds of subjectivities: 1. the subjectivity of the human body/mind and 2. the first-person view of the ground of being (the āitā).
). Just kidding.