This is partial write-up of some stuff that’s been rattling around in my head for awhile, be interested to know what y’all make of it:
We are trapped within the domain of our interpretive schema. There is no absolute perspective which can interpret the whole of reality. Those which purport to accomplish this are necessarily self-contradictory; a totalizing schema (a finite set of rules, laws or heuristics) cannot exist which accounts for all the infinite variation of observations that have, are, will and could occur. More practically, no scientific theory yet has been advanced which adequately explains the nature of consciousness. The most glaring flaw about such systems like this is that, since they claim they encompass and explain everything, they leave no room to ground their assertions: there’s nowhere left to find evidence to support their claims.
So let us say that no particular sense datum can ever be fundamental in the sense of being absolutely self-justifying*. Just as one gains confidence in a hypothesis by observing and meditating on actual occurrences of phenomena that concur with theoretically predicted outcomes, an experience acquires meaning by virtue of the phenomenal reality in which it is immersed, by implanting the given sensation into a totalizing system, through the perceived associations and distinctions between this sensation and others (the vast majority of these associations cannot be formulated as propositions and are only feelings, strong or vague--the bulk of our knowledge is encoded in these subconscious emotional associations and distinctions. A question beyond the scope of this essay: are feelings voluntary?)
An object of consciousness is already within such a totalizing system of associations (causal, metaphysical, sociohistorical relations between entities) since it exists for consciousness in a state of being revealed. A revelation is both a stripping away of accidental details and a drawing out of meaning; objects of consciousness are not raw, unfiltered existence--they are a translation, an interpretation. We live within compasses of a revealed yet subjective perspective. Our perspectives implicitly contain a horizon beyond which sight is not merely impossible but contradictory and paradoxical. For example, writing a number larger than infinity--the action is linguistically describable in terms of the given totalizing schema (number theory or mathematics more generally) but out of the question in practice and on principle. We cannot even imagine what sort of number we should start writing: we can have the idea to write it, we can attempt to write it, but the task remains unattainable because of the way we have defined our system--it is beyond the interpretative horizon of our totalizing schema.
I’ll post more if anyone wants, answer questions, defend objections, etc.
I like your first sentence here quite a bit. The second, however, I believe makes a mistake. Granting the first statement, the second presumes the first to be invalid. Since we are ‘trapped within the domain of our interpretive schema’, the ‘whole of reality’ is indeed the whole of our interpretive schema; that is, ‘reality’ and the totality of information housed within one’s mind are sematically and conceptually the same thing.
I agree to a point. But in keeping with the theme I present above, I believe it makes a similar mistake. Namely, you contend there is contradiction where there is only tautology. All philosophical systems are tautological; this includes all ‘domains of interpretive schema’ or perceptive totalities, if you will. What you have in mind when you say ‘infinite variation of observations’, for example, is only a collective whole of all of intelligence and/or information as it relates to all peoples, all times, and all places. Instead, what I consider the ‘whole of reality’ to mean is nothing other than what I perceive and interpret, the information currently housed within my own ‘domain of interpretive schema’. This may in fact include contradiction without detracting from the value or validity of my ‘reality’.
Yet must they? The nature of consciousness is irrelevant, at least in the ‘practical’ sense this comment is purportedly in. We manifest within our consciousness with or without such a theory, and the emergence of one is clearly a bit secondary in the larger picture - my opinion.
I won’t refute this directly, you may be correct, I don’t know. But I will say I think whatever claims they may make are, as above, secondary in relation to how one may use their data to effectively govern their ability to navigate within the system. It’s a lot like religion: who really cares if any of it is ‘true’ or not? It has much more to do with how its effects carry themselves out, positively or negatively, for the individual or group that imposes a given doctrine on themselves.
P.S. I recognize there’s much room for further discussion here; much of what I’ve said is incomplete even in my own eyes - have to save some energy in the event you never return or ignore my post . But I’ll be here if you care to continue. And nice post, btw. I much prefer reading posts of original philosophy than I do posts dealing with ‘classical’ questions - those that ceaselessly quote Hume and Kant and Nietzsche, shamelessly attempting to look authoritative - opposed to simply presenting those thoughts that distinguish one from an algorithm - a robot - of philosophical history. Well done.
The asterick in the initial post referred to this: “* Further support for this assertion is the empirical evidence that no sense datum occurs in a vacuum, entirely supported by itself. Indeed only one kind of sensation is a singularity and even that’s stretching the terminology, since consciousness is strictly consciousness of sensation and not a sensation itself. Consciousness is a singularity, is known and yet occurs in a vacuum; thus belief in consciousness is self-justifying and approaches knowledge. But it is misleading to label ’experience’ or ’consciousness’ a sense datum or an object of consciousness; it is the primary, it is experience itself.”
Here’s some further argumentation to support the disputed claims…
The act of interpreting, of deciphering requires two systems whose meanings are interrelated in a special way; isomorphic systems are mirror images or inversions of one another, where the meaning behind the symbols is maintained throughout translation, but the formal properties (the physical structure of the symbol system: the sound made when I utter a word, the shape of a letter on a page) may change. Of encoding/decoding, translating between languages is the least confusing example of this process: ‘azul’ means the same thing as ‘blue’ but the appearance of the symbol has changed. Strictly it is impossible to know whether two symbol systems are perfectly isomorphic, or on any specific occasion whether a speaker using the word ‘azul’ actually intends to refer to the same entity I intend to using the word ‘blue’; the point is that we do not demand exact equivalence between systems, only that meaning usually emerges mostly intact (the only truly isomorphic systems are those which are identical, that is, a system is only exactly equivalent to itself. Generally, though, when we speak of isomorphism, we mean that many systems are roughly isomorphic, that is, a translation or interpretation from one system to another is meaningful if not exact.) The fact that someone else exists who is trying to communicate a concept which is clear and distinct to him (like the color blue) means that it’s not impossible for me to ultimately come to grips with his meaning, to interpret and elicit it through discussion. For he can draw pictures, cite examples, can talk around difficulties in communication–indeed, he is physically present to answer my questions about his intentions and respond to my questions with HIS questions. The meaning is revealed because of the symbols or their arrangement but because there is another consciousness which has an intention and already grasps the meaning, and there are actions in the world consistent with an other consciousness intending to express a thought. How did we come to be using these symbolic systems to express our invisible subjective experience?
Language is recursive (that is, the only meaningful definition is in terms of itself) and it is a highly interesting quality of such self-referential systems that they contain more information than can be derived from an analysis of the ‘pieces,’ that is, a sentence contains more information than the information in each of the words in a sentence either separately or in their arrangement (their collective meanings added up.) The intention is hidden within the arrangement of the particles of meaning, the pragmatics are contained through the relationships between the words, the meaning is grasped by an act of apprehension which is always interpretation. The symbols on the page could quite literally mean anything; the fact that I am armed with more information than is present in any given book (and that the book can give me more information than could possibly be contained within it) allows me to interpret and derive meaning from the concrete symbols which say absolutely nothing in-themselves. Interpretation is a self-referential process of revelation; it is both a derivation of meaning from and an ascription of meaning to: interpretation, most generally, is the form of connection between thoughts (the idea or essence or qualia of blue, that is, the unique lived subjective experience of seeing a blue object) and actions (writing or saying the word ‘blue‘.) It is by interpretation that symbols reveal meaning. But how is this fleeting dynamic quality of meaning captured within the static realm of physical symbols and gestures?
Meaning is an emergent phenomena. Strictly it is nowhere at all; it is nonlocalized. Meaning is not the same kind of stuff balls or airplanes or viruses are; we are dealing with a metaphysical other. The point is that meanings are never absolutely clear or unmovable, that a meaning is not a translation of an experience but is the experience itself–the purposeful actions expressing the meaning are translations. How do these actions contain the meaning if they are merely expressing or representing it? Because the consciousness of the agent is responsible for the actions which express the thought; the word is not reducible to audible frequencies, wavelengths, vibrations of particles, interactions with excited cells in the inner ear: the word contains a meaning, is about something, has an intention. In order for a meaning to be revealed, more information than is contained within the linguistic utterance must be utilized; the speaker must be conscious, must have had experience to translate into action. Meaning must be interpreted, drawn out.
Daybreak:
Sorry, to answer your points directly:
You argue:
To me, this is essentially what existentialists like Sartre are saying in one way and positivists/nominalists like Quine and Wittgenstein are saying in another: that appearances, as such, consitute reality. Claiming that reality is the totality of information housed within ones mind is an irrational restriction of Reality and Truth to the objects of consciousness. Perception is not an approximation of the entirety of being. We do not and cannot limit the Real to that which we can see, either as an object of awareness or the subjective experience of the sensation.
Not all systems are tautological, just as not all systems contain contradictions. The axioms of elementary geometry are relatively mundane but by no means self-evident; many theorems are not tautologies but the result of many complex inferences combined with not a little intuition. But mathematics is a bad example in any case, since with math it is easier than in, say, Sociology, Economics or Psychology, to construct propositions in the terminology of the system which are tautologies. Indeed, mathematics and logic excel in this propensity, but they are not requisites for a system.
Moreover, perceptive totalities are not tautological. Awareness creates a self-reference and a rupture, since consciousness is always implied, must be present for the perception and recognition of an obvious, self-evident or tautological state of affairs.
I agree with you completely. To paraphrase Nietzsche, the truth or falsity of a proposition is of less concern than its success as life-affirming and purpose-affirming. I believe that a basic animal faith persists in spite of our rational aspect. The fact that: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a philosophical or religious rather than a scientific question speaks to this weakness inherent in formal systems.
Meaning the ‘objects of consciousness’ are in some way short of ‘reality’ and ‘truth’? Explain that, if you would.
I agree with your second sentence here. The first, however, I think is blatantly false: the definition of ‘percetion’ is ‘an approximation of the entirety of being’.
WOW. Anyway, so what? This doesnt mean that our interpretations, though subjectively flawed, cant slowly become less self-referenced. This consciousness exist as the object, interpretor, and self-awareness. As the interpretor becomes more identified with awareness, he is becoming less the interpretor and more the awareness. Once more identified with awareness, the object is percieved more as itself, and more equal to the awareness itself. Everything will be perceived as equal, even though subjective interpretation is still possible, this new perception of equality allows for the objects to be perceived as identical to the awareness, which both are inevitably consciousness itself.When relating to consciousness, nothing can be isomorphic, for all is consciousness. So even as consciousness exist as objects inside this totalized system of associations, it also exist as the totalized system itself. When one becomes more identified with this system, rather than the subjective nature from which the associations in this system derive to, experience is perceived less filtered and seemingly more inclined to what is the system as a whole. As this subjectivity becomes less and less prominent within the limited consciousness of the observer, the outside experience becomes identified as full consciousness itself as does the perceiver. In the end all falls back into consciousness as itself. It seems as though you realize this, but the inability to perceive consciousness objectively as an absolute perspective through the subjective perspective we ultimately contain as individual “pieces” of consciousness seems to bother you? You understand what occurs, but why have a problem accepting it? It isnt self contradictory, for we are already consciousness. It is invariably impossible to be outside of this consciousness, why even argue?
This discussion is similar to the thread I started here:http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=146751
I would love to entertain your comments as to the relevance of experience and how it pertains to this conscious absorbtion of consciousness into consciousness.
Thank you both for your insightful commentary and criticisms.
Daybreak:
Yes, but the point here is not that an object of consciousness is unreal in some sense. My point is simply that our perceptions, the objects of our consciousness, our own interior thoughts, etc., neither individually nor collectively account for or encapsulate the whole of reality.
This doesn’t mean they’re not real, or that the world isn’t true–it just means that they are not Truth or Reality.
Perception is an approximation of a portion of being. From perception we make inferences and projections, so that we are able to estimate a much larger portion of being. But neither perception nor inference accounts for the entirety of being, only for the entirety of our knowledge of being.
You may be asking whether I think there’s a difference between what we think/know/believe being to be and what being actually is. I think there is a difference which we infer negatively by the limitations of human reason and human knowledge. But exactly what this difference is can only be a mystery since we cannot talk of what we do not know, think or believe: rather, we can only talk about it since we do not know it, think it or believe it.
illativemindindeed:
“This doesnt mean that our interpretations, though subjectively flawed, cant slowly become less self-referenced.”
I wouldn’t put it exactly this way, but essentially I agree with you. Language and justice are both ways to escape totalizing interpretations and flawed subjectivisms. Both of these begin with the Other, so my argument can be taken as a polemic against solipsism.
I take issue with becoming less self-referenced, especially since you seem to be saying this is an escape from subjectivity and therefore a road to the Real. How is this “deself-referencing” to be done with truth? How can something be true if it’s not true with reference to you, or something which you have knowledge of? Or, more pointedly, how can something be true if it’s not true in reference to itself? How could we know or even believe something like that to be true?
I take these kind of paradoxes to be indicating something peculiar about the subjective condition. More on this in my essay at http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=146796.
But aren’t we always both? Identifying with an object, we are both aware of the object and interpreting it to ourselves. Speaking to others, we are aware of their presence, aware of internal mental and physiological states, and are interpreting our feelings, emotions and thoughts for the others via language.
Everything is not equal. The other persons consciousness is what affects this, makes the relationship between me and the other person asymmetrical. Subjectivity does not mean that everything is the same, or that morality is just opinion, or something like that. You are here rehashing a theme which you originally brought up in the thread “meaningful experience inevitable” in which you claimed that: “everything that occurs in life has equal importance.” You bring out some sound evidence to make this assertion, but I still must find myself in disagreement with your claim: what makes certain events in life more important than others belongs to history, human drama and psychology. All of these sciences are social sciences, that is, they are subjective, to a point. Many of a psychologists observations are also often somewhat ‘obvious’ for this reason, as well: the problem with subjectivity is that no can get around it and everyone has it, because it comes with having your own unique perspetive. OF COURSE, everyone has it–that’s just restating the problem. Even you say:
Well, my problem with this obvious situation is an ethical one, not the everyday, obvious existential and metaphysical one.
The other person is not the same as you, he’s not even the same as you as though he were the mirror image or negative of you. He is radically other, my worldview is not isomorphic to his-- and I can’t just put a category on him, name him linguistically, and hope to understand. I must look at the other person and honestly give a response (be responsible, in an ethical sense.)
Language is to me guided by morals. Language, like morality, is subjective. So the problem is that if you look at all things as the same, you’re ignoring the differences, the unique properties and features that everything has (no two eggs are perfectly alike, from this angle any residing sameness would have to be either abstract, or metaphysical.) If you look at all things as different, you ignore the similarities (which are abstract and metaphysical.)
The point is that they’re both at the same time (and to be clear: at different times.) Perception is direct awareness of both simultaneously; we make inferences based on either similarity or difference, and make syntheses of inferences based on both. But everything is certainly not just one thing, nor all just the same.
I understand exactly what you are saying here, and you’ve raised some wonderful questions. I think that we, while being consciousness in itself, simply smaller parts makes this question seem unanswerable in regards to how anyone could obtain knowledge that is outside of itself. But one has to consider our subjective nature, being that we identify ourselves with this nature it is possible in this condition to deself-reference to the more inclusive reference of entire consciousness. It is our limited understanding that is widened to this infinite understanding, making for us as individuals to become less so, and as a result less referenced to the particular identified self.
Our experiences with our environment force us to vibrate at somewhat the same level to the specific experience. The identification that occurs can be derived from this vibration. When one learns to have the same vibration for all experience, more specifically a type of vibration that neutralizes the experience to the point of which one in a sense dissolves the experience, this idenification is perceived at a different level. This neutralizing vibration ie. acceptance, forces a true balance between object and interpreter, as acceptance allows each separate piece of consciousness, whether it be object or individual, to fall successively into the interpreter himself with no opposing or reacting vibration to disrupt this process. This process in itself allows for an identification with the objects in the environment that is less self-referenced, for their is no intermediary subjective thought about the objects.
I take it you meant to say objectivity does not mean that everything is the same, but the evidence I provided in my other thread does make this appear so. To truly be objective, everything has to be deduced to being equal, as if to possibly look at any situation from a standpoint of objectivity from our subjective perspectives, theres no other way other than that of saying nothing of whats being examined, which wont do any good. You and the other persons consciousness you are referring to is not complete consciousness, it is only a small piece that doesnt have the perspective of objectivity. Full consciousness contains the asymetrical discrepancies within itself and a myriad of other infinite possiblities, which from our perspective is an infinite number of possiblities with separate value, but within itself completely these possiblities can only be equal to each other, each having the same amount of value being that there can be no end to the possiblities. Its hard to digest, but the infinite amount of possiblities have no room to interject difference in value, for all possibilities of this are also infinite and therefore contain the same relevance as all others.
I understand the difficulties you have described. But one must derive at metaphysics to truly describe ethics in its best form. I think you are getting to this. I believe that an ethical theory that completely relates to the spiritual self, or conscience; rather than ones life or what is outside of oneself, would be as close as we can get to true morality. I mean everyone within themselves has a voice or a feeling that knows when something should be done or shouldnt in relation to good and bad, evil etc. Thing is, this voice is subjective, but regardless; it contains a basis of morality that is suited best for the individual. As the individual becomes more identified with this “other” self within themselves, this increases ones conscious awareness of themselves in relation to this more ethically based self. Increasing their morality. What do you think?
I don’t disagree. But what I would stress is that nothing can or ever will ‘encapsulate the whole of reality’. Short of supernatural omnipotence, this is something, I think, is simply beyond the scope of mortal intelligence altogether. What are we left with? ‘Reality’ has limitations: namely, our own - individually or collectively. That there is more to ‘reality’ than one’s own perception, I grant you. Where I think we diverge is where it’s assumed (by you) that it’s possible to appropriate or configure one’s perceptions relative to that ‘part’ of reality unknown to us.
If something is unknown, it cannot be part of reality. Are there things unknown to me that are indeed part of reality? Yes, but only because I am aware of my ignorance. This plethora of data that represents my ignorance does not preclude the formulation and definition of my ‘reality’: even my ignorance is, in a way, a part of what makes up my reality. An individual’s ‘reality’ and ‘reality’ as implied in the present philosophical context must be the same thing, else we’re never talking about the same concept.
In short: the word or concept of ‘reality’ is inherently limited to the concept of ‘the whole of perception’. I would contend they’re synonyms, not because I do not think there’s more to reality than perception, but because I think what we mean when we say ‘reality’ cannot be conceptually distinguished from that which composes the totality of data within the mind.
Let’s be precise here. Reality, you say, is indistinguishable from that which I perceive. So what is to be done about unconscious memories, for example? I remember them, but do not know that I remember them. I experienced them, at one point perceived them, but now cannot really say that I know them. They are not part of my reality yet my unconscious memories collectively exert an enormous amount of influence upon my presently experienced perception of reality.
If reality is confined to the internal mental construction of the world from sense data, then reality is not only different for every person, it’s different for every person at each discrete moment in time. There’s a few difficulties with limiting ourselves to this point of view.
First, let’s say that someone else knows something that I don’t know. Let’s further say that this knowledge is not just a belief, that’s it’s a true and justified belief so that it is indeed knowledge for someone else. Either way, we can say that, even if the item of knowledge is not itself true, it is true that that person believes it.
Now, based on your argument about reality and perception, we would say that before that person tells me this knowledge, that belief is unreal, since it is not part of my perception, memory or inference from prior experience. But by telling me, that belief becomes real. We have harmonized two discordant versions of reality (his world where that knowledge is truth and my world where that belief is unreal) into a convergent synthesis through language and conversation.
Second, let me argue that conversation is not so unimportant as one would think; it’s not just mindless babbling about people and ideas, it’s the radical convergence of internally different realities. Conversation breaches the same subjective limitations of the self that drove you to the conclusion that we can never escape these limitations, that the limits of our perception are accordingly the limits of Reality. But they are only the limits of our personal reality, our subjective mental construction of the world-- it is not the intersubjective, self-harmonizing Reality that is revealed (though only in small doses at a time) through language and ultimately through the desire for justice.
I’d say unconscious memories as a whole cease to have effect unless one is made aware of them; just as our reality ‘expands’ as we learn something, our reality can expand by learning of our inner-workings (philosophy, introspection) or by recalling experiences or memories that aid our understanding. Yet, without this recall, without this introspection, that data in question either doesn’t exist, has fallen out of existence, or is beyond our capacity to incorperate into our reality - all of which mean the same thing: they’re not part of reality; at least not presently.
Correct. I’m listening.
Yes.
Quick tangent: I’m not in any way implying this is unimportant - not sure where that’s coming from. I couldn’t agree more this the pivotal stage of communication and the very foundation of the ‘expanded’ reality of human beings.
Other people, other mental-configurations (sources of information outside my mind) are part of reality. The limitations I’ve placed on reality do not preclude the existence of outside or incoming data, they preclude outside data (effectively, the ‘unknown’) from being part of reality before it enters my mind. Said another way: the unknown does not exist.
We’ve come full-circle, my friend. What you say here is exactly what I disagree with. In describing reality, we can only do so by way of describing those aspects of it that are known to us.
You guys are sharp! These are some really good points. Here’s what I think:
illativemindindeed:
Definitely. Not just an unanswerable contradiction but a paradox. It seems like we shouldn’t even be able to think about something which is outside of ourselves. Put another way, this is the question of the existence of God, that is, an origin which is higher than our own. Our subjectivity transcends itself, becoming an objective unified universal essence which is then recaptured in the fractured limited interior of the self. There is also a similar problem with the mathematical notion of infinity, an idea that overflows any thought that thinks it like catching a waterfall in a mason jar. How can our finite minds even grasp the idea, much less manipulate it meaningfully? In this sense, infinity is a hypothesis just as much as God or truth…
Just realizing we are limited to subjective knowledge doesn’t breach the horizon of totality. We relate all knowledge, all perception, all experience to the self, as you said earlier, “In the end all falls back into consciousness as itself.” But I see what you’re saying about a process leading to true understanding, but I still see this ‘true’ understanding to be similarly restricted by the outer limits of the knowledge of the human race (these limits are, admittedly, more theoretical than quantifiable.)
My question about infinite understanding is this: short of submerging ourselves into the infinite, into the universal–that is, making the leap of faith and admitting the eternal absolute–how can we rid ourselves of the subjective condition? How can our understanding become infinite unless we cease to be finite? Are you saying that our consciousness is widened after death? --or after some kind of spiritual or philosophical revelation? --or that we just need to become less selfish to attain ultimate cosmic truth?
Why would we want to vibrate the same way for different experiences? Wouldn’t increased experience lead to intelligence, reason and ultimately, a choice between different modes of vibration? Hopefully, we would reach the sophistication to determine which vibratory frequency would be most effective for a given situation. Why, also, would we want to dissolve our experiences? On the contrary, wouldn’t we want to integrate them into ourselves in order to learn from the past?
But all real-world situations are asymmetrical. I don’t believe we could locate a true balance except conceptually, that is, in the abstract or with imagination. Intepretation is always fallible, since as soon as we ask someone whether we are interpreting correctly, we must again interpret their answer. This is similar to the question of whether the color red is the same for everyone, whether people mean the same thing when they say ‘red.’ The problem is one of interpretation, but I must stress that it does not often present practical difficulties–usually only in situations where it is important to be extremely precise, such as consciousness or God. This is, incidentally, my problem with the Bible. People accept the bible, and instead of falling into a neutral relationship with it, they use it as a shield against alternate perspectives and as a sword of judgment. They all too often forget their intepretative schemes are not just resonant vibrations from a pure source, but a polluted swamp of half-truths and assumptions out of which the Truth does not easily flower.
There is always an intermediary subjective thought about an object of consciousness. Consciousness itself mediates and interprets that which is present to it (sensations and memories.) I guess the problem to me is that, how can this process of accepting the truth lead to aligning our consciousnesses with reality if we still have no uninterpreted standard to judge good acts from wicked, true statements from false ones? We still don’t know which truths to accept and which to reject, and we’re in worse trouble than that since we have no recourse to reality since it, too, is always intepreted.
I think ethics has to precede metaphysics, but it’s a rather trifling point. I agree with you in saying that a true morality would relate to man in his most essential aspect, that is, his spirit. Yet to be practical a morality must deal not only with generalities but the practical everyday questions. I like how you make the move here to conscience–that feeling which knows right from wrong. Perhaps we train our conscience with these larger, more general moral ‘axioms’ (like don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie) and if we listen to it–really our own imagination–it will tell us, based on these more general rules, which applies most in the current situation. What if the rules don’t cover every conceivable situation? This is a necessary result simply because of the finite and thus incomplete nature of any system. In such a case we have to improvise. Being in tune with ones conscience is simply having a good imagination. It is constructing an imaginary moral judge within our minds and placing relevant words into his mouth. Much of this, after a certain age, is done subconsciously: all we must do is listen. We much be careful not to confuse this voice with Truth or with God: with the conscience, we are dealing only with the emotions. Morality has an emotional resonance (or vibration) on a pleasure-pain association kind of level; this is not a conscious understanding of good and bad, but feelings of guilt or shame and happiness linked with classes of actions and features of situations. Importantly, there is no rational way out of many conceivable human drama-style situations–we must indeed rely on our emotions and conscience and yes, our spirit, to help guide us through moral decision-making.
Daybreak:
I disagree. The contents of memory have a significant influence upon our actions whether consciously recognized or not. By introspection or hypnosis or psychotherapy, we can come to an understanding of the myriad ways our conscious actions are informed by memories, perhaps realizing that we have been acting in a certain way because of events in our past. Often once this realization has been made recovery from this linkage is possible. Yet the link between subconscious memories and feelings and everyday actions exist even before we recognize the connection fully.
Does that mean the unknown is nothing? Like I’m saying: the ideas of other people before they say them are not ‘unknown’ to me, yet they are not part of my ‘extended’ reality. I’m just saying there are degrees here, I think we’re in agreement about the important issue here about reality not being absolute in the traditional sense.
I’m trying to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) that lack of knowledge of a thing doesn’t imply that thing doesn’t exist. Nor does it prove that it does not exist. You’re firmly stuck on the fence for those things which are beyond the outer limits of the knowable, the horizon of human sight and inference. Other people can expand this by integration into a social, consensus-based reality the whole or any portion of which is mutually accessible to all participants. Yet this is just a patchwork quilt of varying perspectives and worldviews; it is not a consistent framework or an explanation of the true nature of reality, which is as you say, unknown. But that doesn’t mean that the true nature of things doesn’t exist! Appearances, though they are indeed a reality in and of themselves, are not the whole of reality.
So what else is there besides appearances? The Truth is that knowledge is structurally beyond the horizon of human sight, yet not beyond inference. We can reasonably say a great number of things that do not reflect the immediate perceptual presence of sensations yet this does not mean the things which we refer to in making such propositions are the less real.
Maybe this will help clear things up: Daybreak, do you think reality is infinite?
But see, this ability that you refer to, simply being able to “think” about that which is outside ourselves; suggest that there is something outside ourselves, that indeed we are somehow connected to. Just as was mentioned before, consciousness is all, now whether consciousness is infinite can be debated, but in itself, full consciousness is definetely more than we are, hinting of a more complete something that we are only a small part of. We ponder and consider those things that are outside of our subjective perspective all the time. As you and Daybreak were discussing, this can occur via language. Even though this ponderance involves an interpretation from our own subjective perspective, it provides a widening of perspective, even if only entertained for a moment. If you look at the sky, ones perception only allows us to see as far as one can, but its obvious the sky extends further than we can perceive. Its simple logic to come to the conclusion that what we can see in or even through our perceptions isnt all there is.
In attempting to rid ourselves of our subjective nature, we must do just that. We have to come to a point where we are tired of having opinions and beliefs for ourselves. We have to be tired of doing for ourselves. We can no longer act or think for ourselves. This can be derived by abating all desire until there is none for anything at all but to rid yourself of this subjectiveness. One must forget all knowledge learned, even if done piece by piece. This I will admit sounds impossible, but what I really mean is to have a true open mind. A mind that has no opinions or thoughts about anything, especially as it pertains to him or herself. One must accept all that occurs within his perception equally. It must be as if he was consciously sleeping, and nothing within the range of perception will arouse him in anyway. If this occurs in the mind, it will also occur in the physical. I assure you, these are no easy task, but definetely attainable. It must be understood that we are not our body, and that there is something, whether it be contained in this body or simply held in place by some energy force or whatever that makes it seems as so, that is not of this body and more importantly not physical, yet is essentially us. We have to shed all the layers of our subjective nature with willingness like no other, and truly be conscious of and then become conscious in this non-physical aspect of ourselves.
Our understanding does not become infinite right away as I would understand it, but it slowly expands to that of infinite capacity. One will inevitably lose all focus of past and future, and as a result lose conception of his previous self, simply existing. His knowledge then is beyond that of any subjective nature for he is no longer bound by his own perception, he exist as all things and no longer has the concept of individuality. His only desire is to promote the growth of all, for he realizes he is all. If consciousness could be limited to having desire, it would be the growth of all; which is constant and evident in itself. I know your probably going to tear these thoughts apart, but this is the only way I can describe it. Furthermore, I believe our consciousness is widened after death, but only to have it narrowed again by an incarnation into another body experiencing more limited experience producing limited perspecitve after some time. The process I am referring to is an end to this cycle of reincarnations, and usually occurs while alive. It can be described as a philosophical or spiritual revelation, yes. Ultimately, in order to reach this revelation we do have to become completely or at least attain a certain degree of selflessness.
Yes, increased experience will lead to intelligence, reason, and the like, but this is not the goal of humanity. The goal, is to get beyond this learning, to no longer desire specific experience, but rather to accept all experience as it is. No more running for pleasure, or from pain. No more wishing for this to happen or that. No more wishing to be able on ones own will and merit due to past knowledge know what type of vibration is best suited for each situation. The simple want or desire is to have the consciousness that is beyond ones own, for our own consciousness is inevtiably what limits our view of going beyond it. Trust me, when one derives to this point, he has had plenty of experience and as a result plenty of intelligence, not necessarily logical. But one knows in general for fact what type of actions will produce specific reactions, ie. has sound knowledge of karma, and no longer has an urge to perform any action for himself due to the results of karma. This makes a lot of sense with bad action, for you will get bad results. But it is the same with good action, for you will get good results, but they wont last; this individual is searching for something that isnt physical or mental, for they both will inevitably perish, but spiritual or simply beyond physical or mental, because it is not fleeting.
Learning from the past is of no use when one has learned all he wishes to learn. There is no longer a need to integrate or understand for further advancement, for one is already as advanced as he wishes. When one comes to say I will no longer search for or run from anything in life, which inevitably produces consequences from this running or searching, which will induce learning or knowledge, he will simply be still(more so in his thought) and accept all things.
Just as in your example provided concerning the Bible, it is better to fall in a neutral relationship with all things, for to hold stringent to ones perceptions will inevitably blind you of knowledge that; for one could be better for you, and for another could be closer to truth. The balance I refer to is personal, and only derives in the acceptance of all things. There can be no assymetrical discrepancies when there is no thought, even if the interpretation of the perceived phenomena is incorrect, the acceptance dissolves the interpretation and it no longer has any merit to be thought upon or analyzed, and therefore is dead.
The only time consciousness mediates and interprets is through human minds or if possible souls who still have subjective perspectives, for consciousness itself has no need for this, as it encapsulates all.
The beautiful thing about the whole good and evil situation is that these are only relative concepts. They exist only as subjective thought, and though it may be agreed upon as evil being something against that which the universe inevitably pushes towards, it is only interpreted through our subjective minds. This is why one must come to accept all things, good and bad. In doing this, the truth will be revealed, because the only thing left after subjective thought is halted, can only be of an objective nature. And if you’ve understood what I am saying, then you will be alluded to the fact that beyond subjective thought, there is no thought, and therefore no labels, no truth, no nothing, just what it is in itself. There is no label for any of it all, it just is. Reality is simply what is, it cant be interpreted or conceptualized as anything because to do so will make it your reality.
Thats the beauty of this theory, a man in his own conscience has the true moral answer to every question or choice he is presented with.
I dont believe conscience is imagination. Why would everyone make an imaginary voice inside their heads to remind them of what they should or shouldnt do? I dont think its plausible. I believe conscience truly derives from that the spiritual part of ourselves. The existence of a conscience points to this spiritual, higher, or simply more wise self. These more general axioms you refer to are already implanted into our individual conscience, and I dont believe any preping had to take place in order for these axioms to exist there. You could make the argument that children dont have conscience, for they have to be told whats right and wrong. But they do not arrive at abstract thought until later on in their development, which possibly alludes to the development of this conscience at a later time also; this is inevtiably affected by our subjectivness, but seemingly not produced by it.
As I ponder it a bit more, Im not completely convinced of my thoughts though, for I can only speak of myself, Ill be sure to consider this subject further though when I consider research later in life. As a matter of fact, I think I agree with you about the entire imagination thing. Im not afraid to admit I am wrong. It does seem to make since that we have derived an imaginative voice, that has the knowledge of right and wrong. But what I find to be interesting, and still conducive to my earlier points is that this voice is propelling us to do whats right. Therefore it is seemingly spritually connected, and a formulation of our spiritual nature.
I think I agree, but even though this conscience is not God, isnt still more so closer to God that we or our wordly selves can be? Even more intriguing to me is the emotional reaction we have due to morality. This inevitably points at the belief that if we deviate from these moral influences then it was as related to human nature, a wrong choice, and we suffer through guilt as a result in order to learn from this mistake. Good observations.
. But I’ll be here if you care to continue. And nice post, btw. I much prefer reading posts of 
And here I thought we were going to have dialogue.