Thus, have you refuted your own definition of existence contingent as it is on perception.
A need for something outside existence, immune to causality, to change is common.
Existential anxiety, seeking in metaphysics a solution to their physical pains.
The definition concerns us, our knowledge and substantiation, not the dependence of existence on it.
Do you really not see the problem in your definition, conflating as it does epistemology with ontology rather than clarifying it?
I thought you started out well. I’m surprised you don’t see this. Everything must be defined in terms of being, that is ontically. Being encompasses everything and is encompassed by nothing. So, it can’t really be defined. So, at best, as far as language is concerned, the problem should resolve itself in a tautology which is the foundation of the system. Otherwise, you run afoul of Godel’s incompleteness theorem which I would contend is not some kind of mathematical anomaly but a necessary limitation of language systems as they relate to metaphysics.
Existence is dynamic.
Energy.
A state of agitation.
Non-existence, or what many imagine being ‘outside existence,’ using the temporal terms ‘before and after’, as if they made sense outside existence, is, by definition, non-existent.
Such concepts can only ever ‘exist’ in human brains, as vague concepts, that contradict the experienced.
Metaphysics is where man seeks salvation from his own limitations.
The science of physics, when considered in a philosophical context, implies a metaphysical position. Physics, while focused on the observable and measurable, can also lead to questions about the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and the universe, which fall squarely within the realm of metaphysics which is what I take Lavender to be doing here. Existential motivation is another topic in itself, it seems to me.
It does not conflate, it connects.
Existence simply is.
Existence does not depend on any definition.
Existence does not depend on any thing.
Existence is all things. There is no other thing upon which to depend.
The commonality of all things, the metaphorical fabric of all things is existence.
All variance, all difference, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.
Existence is not dependent on perception or definitions however perception and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence.
If you are going to include perception as a tool in your definition why leave out apperceptions? Do you disagree with Descartes that your own existence is proved by the apperception “I think”?
What does apperceive achieve that perceive does not?
The connection between perception and consciousness is addressed in the essay.
Perception, that which is perceived, is sufficient.
Apperception/apperceive is more involved, less familiar and adds little if anything for functionality.
“Perceive” is sufficiently functional:
Perceive (verb)
-
a : to attain awareness or understanding of
-
: to become aware of through the senses
(Perceive. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perceive)
Perceive (verb)
-
a. To become aware of (something) directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing
b. To cause or allow the mind to become aware of -
To achieve understanding of; apprehend
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/perceive)
“Perception” as well:
Perception (noun)
- the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or the mind; cognition; awareness.
(Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary https://www.thefreedictionary.com/perception)
For the sake of laughter, I’ll give a definition of what magic is.
Magic is the comprehension of essence through understanding meaning.
And then I’ll ask: What meaning is there in philosophy, physics, and other things you mention in the topic? If there is any, please state it briefly. It will definitely be funny because it won’t work out.
And by the way, what’s stopping you from asking without listing all that? Ask a magician how they understand the structure of this world.
It achieves thought. Hence, according to Descartes it achieves existence. Ordinary perception produces phenomena. The objects of sense are perceived to be beings not being itself. So you never get to being itself by perception alone. I would turn Descartes’s predicate around and assert that “I exist therefore, I think”because I hold that existence and consciousness are synonymous. But that’s beside the point here which is that perception doesn’t disclose being itself a point made at length by Kant in Critique of Pure Reason, a situation which Martin Heidegger sought to overcome in his book Being and Time.
I hold that existence and consciousness are synonymous
This is the problem.
True, where else would you encounter the problem but in consciousness?
Yes…so where life does not emerge in existence there’s no problem.
The problem is when a consciousness does emerge and becomes self-aware.
Then the paradox of its interpretations of existence contradicting existence, arise.
Therein lies the problem of your superstitions.
You equate consciousness with existence.
I do. I don’t identify myself with my body. My body is something that belongs to myself. I’m conscious of it. Nor do I identify myself with my thoughts. I am likewise conscious of my thoughts. So it seems to me that consciousness is what I am. And I suppose it’s the same for you.
I’m only conscious of my body through the medium of my senses by which I am conscious of other things in the world as well. And I’m given to understand that through perception, I don’t see things as they are, but rather according to the capacities and limitations of my senses.
So I can’t say what the world is like in itself, but only as it discloses itself to me through the medium of my senses to the consciousness that I am. And I infer that everything else in the world is conscious as well, so that what everything ultimately is, is consciousness itself, which is perceived as a world by the various beings that are in instantiated within it, given their sensory and intellectual capacities.
I do. I don’t identify myself with my body. My body is something that belongs to myself.
Classic Abrahamic.
Body is other than self…other than mind, ego.
You are trapped in your body.
is it the wrong gender?
Wrong race?
Is it too imperfect - mortal?
I am likewise conscious of my thoughts. So it seems to me that consciousness is what I am. And I suppose it’s the same for you.
Consciousness of other, precedes consciousness of self.
Animals do not perceive themselves. They only perceive other.
first stage of self-consciousness is negating:
I am other than it.
Just as life is a part of existence becoming aware of existence, so too self-consciousness is a part of consciousness becoming aware of itself.
All is action…including the body…including your thoughts.
All of it.
Existence and action are synonyms.
You awaken to yourself as life awakens to existence.
You are your actions…mind and body.
You are your physical movement, conscious and subcosnciuos, and your thoughts.
Mind body dissonance is common in your kind.
Ergo…transsexualism is a byproduct of Abrahamism.
The idea that you are some ‘thing’ other than your body and thoughts…is mind/body dissonance.
Jaynes describe this, in his book Bicameral Mind.
As self-consciousness emerges individuals believe their inner voice, their conscience, is some external agency…spirits, gods talking to them.
No wonder your kind denies free-will.
As if some external agency is in charge of you.
You’ve disconnected one part of your consciousness from the other part…and your body.
You call it ‘spirit’…or ‘soul.’
Remarkable this compartmentalization - schizophrenic.
No cohesion. Denial of yourself.
You are not your body…you are not even your bad thoughts…but you are.
Body is past made present, as presence…consciously interpreted as appearance.
Your body is a manifestation of your determined past.
As if multiple spirits are in your head…
Schizophrenics suffer this to the extreme.
How sad for you…so self-hating.
So resentful of yourself. So divided.
Fractured and fragmented, Mary called it.
Your frame of reference is apparently limited to Western religions. Why not explain how it is different for you? Maybe it isn’t. Are you conscious of your body or is it conscious of you?
That’s true. What’s the next stage? Or is that still the stage you are in?
Okay. Explain how consciousness is action.
So you say. I think it is carrying out what you called the first step to its logical conclusion. The body is impermanent as is the mind as are all actions. It is the simple consciousness of those facts.
It was a fun read. Fun to imagine a different ways of being in the world. Jaynes bases his hypothesis on of the externalized voice on Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Is that how you imagine it is to be me? You’re way off.
No actually what I described were just preliminary steps toward nondual consciousness.
That makes sense.
It seems there is only one way you could know such experiences so well i.e. they are your own which you are now projecting on me in hopes that some will stick. I was describing a kind of thought experiment as a prelude to self discovery. Upon such discovery, there is no fragmentation division or duality.
Your frame of reference is apparently limited to Western religions. Why not explain how it is different for you? Maybe it isn’t. Are you conscious of your body or is it conscious of you?
Abrahamic is not western. it is an Affro-Asiatic import.
My body IS me.
Know thyself, implies to know your body, as it is a manifestation of your past.
That’s true. What’s the next stage? Or is that still the stage you are in?
That’s the second stage.
First stage is perception of other.
First-person, then second-person perspective.
subjectivity
The third is objectivity…or the third-person perspective.
To see yourself and other, from a third-person perspective.
Other is always involved in self-awareness.
In the third-person perspective, eve you become other…but only to achieve clarity, not to deny yourself.
Nihilistic asceticism is not Hellenic asceticism.
Helelniuc asceticism is about training yourself - an exercise.
In nihilism it is the end - self-denial.
You are there.
Okay. Explain how consciousness is action.
EVERYTHING is action. All is energy.
Your entire body is energy.
If you look into matter, even organic matter, it disappears into a field of particles, which are themselves energy. Magnetic fields.
Consciousness is constant brain and cellular activity.
Your every cell participates in consciousness.
Two sources of information - exoteric and esoteric.
Your sense organs, scudding your skin, is constantly interacting with the world - except when it sleeps…when the interactivity lessens, but does not stop.
But your brain is also constantly flooded with data from your organs, and the cells that comprise it.
It was a fun read. Fun to imagine a different ways of being in the world. Jaynes bases his hypothesis on of the externalized voice on Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Is that how you imagine it is to be me? You’re way off.
Then you know that as self-consciously is developing your mistake your inner voice for an external voice.
And that’s how you mistake your body as something other than yourself.
you are awakening to who and what you are…and you discover your own body, as something alien…strange…mysterious.
Know Thyself begins here.
This is your past manifesting as a presence. You ARE your body and your thoughts…and nothing else.
Your mind/body dissonance is self-inflicted, even if it is common
Denial of the body…and this is how we get to denial of race, and sex, and the tangible.
In the Bible it is narrated as a sacrifice of the body to be reborn as pure mind - incorporeal spirit.
Through this alien spiritualism you’ve become ashamed of yourself…your appearance…your physicality.
You want to be more…special, immortal…unlimited by your physicality.
you want to become idea…ideal.
Platonic ideal.
Cognition and mental apprehension are included with the terms perceive and perception as illustrated above. Thought is considered a subset of cognition.
Existence does not require disclosure. That issue, along with all other issues related to it, are issues encountered by conscious beings, specifically humans.
Consciousness creates those complexities.
Existence simply is.
All is existence.
Both action and energy are existence.
Regardless what one may reference it is an aspect of existence, of being.
It is. The thing is.
The tree is existence.
The car is existence.
Nature is existence.
Artificiality is existence.
Existence is.