Does an objective non-symbolic world exist?

It's mid-August. It's hot. I'm in a living is easy frame of mind. I haven't had a caffeine fix for quite a few hours. Not the best time to address the question I set out in the title of this post. "Does an objective non-symbolic world exist?"

But philosophizing can't wait. This subject has popped up in some blog post comments. Here's a sampling of what's been said (with a few spelling errors corrected).

Janya: I know, it is hard to digest, because after all its all personal experience, and what objectivity does ANY purely personal experience hold? We have dreams and sometimes, enthusiastically describe them to family and friends, but it doesn't hold the the same meaning to them that it does to the dreamer.

Janya: Because, strangely but so simply so, GOD cannot be reached merely by "going in" is because the objective fullness of GOD is outside! What is inside is our own stuff and IT'S relation to GOD, Karmic Lords etc. It is purely subjective in the sense its personal to us.

Me: Janya, that makes sense to me -- that our relation to God (I prefer the term "ultimate reality") is purely subjective. No one else can know what we feel, not really. Not about God, not about food, not about music, not about anything. Feeling is us, our own, our private subjective world.

Like you said, outside is where objectivity lies. Not perfect objectivity, because our attempts to understand the world objectively are made by people with those above-mentioned subjective feelings. But on the whole, it seems true that there's an objective shared world, and a subjective personal world.

Janya: Indeed, thinking, feeling and willing are all three, private states of being. And just like the external, objective world is shared, the internal subjective world is also sharable, even across time and space. Such is the case with my description in the controversial post; a descriptive in common with Heraclitus and Faqir Chand; personalities who I knew absolutely nothing decades ago,when this occurred.

The point is, that this is evidence of an objective, verifiable, shared inner/subjective experience/world even across time and space.

Roger: "The point is, that this is evidence of an objective, verifiable, shared inner/subjective experience/world even across time and space."

---explain in detail, the evidence that you are claiming. How would one know that there is sharing? Sounds like more honest sincere babble. Janya, you seem OK. All this is No Big Deal.

Roger: Brian, could you write something on a mental image of an objective reality, say a chevy pickup truck. We can all visually picture and subjectively experience such a truck at a Chevrolet dealership. Then, what would be a shared objective, INNER, subjective experience? Why any better than an outer subjective experience?

Now, I'm not going to be able to clear up this whole question of subjectivity and objectivity, because no one ever has, and I'm certainly not capable of being the first to do so. 

I just find the question deeply interesting.

It goes to the heart of what it means to be human; how "science" relates to "art," using those words broadly; whether consciousness is an independent attribute of the cosmos or an artifact of physical brain functions; and many other issues.

Back in the early 1990s I'd started to work on a book about mysticism and the new physics, which later became "God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder" (now out of print; I'm working on a revised version). I was struggling to figure out how to organize my thoughts. 

Then it hit me. In a Victoria B.C. hotel room, during a vacation with my wife. I'd been pondering the nature of subjectivity and objectivity. Suddenly I knew how I'd approach this. A two by two matrix, four possibilities, popped into my mind. (Indented excerpts are from the revised book manuscript.)

First, there's a subjective and objective reality.

Is there a reality independent of ourselves? If so, it is objective. Is there a reality that only exists within our own personal consciousness? If so, it is subjective. 

This produces a distinction between the objective domain of science and the subjective domain of art. A scientific truth exists whether or not any particular individual does, while a work of art springs from a personal rather than universal consciousness. 

Second, there's a symbolic and non-symbolic reality.

In human consciousness there are private and public domains. The public part is what can be shared with other people through symbols. The private part is what remains essentially incommunicable, known only to the person experiencing it.

...Not everything that is experienced is expressible. Further, there never is an exact correspondence between a symbol and reality. Something always is missing from the description. For example, even though the symbolic language of mathematics is extraordinarily effective in describing the laws of nature, a mathematical description of how nature operates is far removed from the reality of nature itself.

I argued that this produces four states of being, which I pithily described with the italicized words: (1) subjective and non-symbolic, feeling; (2) subjective and symbolic, thinking; (3) objective and symbolic, observing; (4) objective and non-symbolic, contemplating.

The last state of being is by far the most controversial. I still consider it to be a possibility, but I no longer believe in it as strongly as I did when I wrote the book. 

Referring to the comment conversation mentioned above, Tanya appears to believe that contemplating (or whatever other word you want to give to this state) can put us in touch with an objective, non-symbolic world. 

In other words, a sort of real dream. Or a real feeling. 

It isn't possible to provide any evidence of that reality. No photograph, mathematical formula, precise description, audio recording, scientific experiment, or such. Yet if there truly is something objective yet non-symbolic, it is as real as anything observable. It's just inexpressible, incommunicable, ineffable.

Which raises the Big Question: how could anyone know whether his/her non-symbolic experience is of something objective, or subjective? Tanya argues that if several people describe an "inner" experience in similar ways, then this points to it being objectively real.

However, in this case the experience would be of something symbolic, because the reality can be captured by words. The various people can agree that they experienced the same thing, because their descriptions of it are so similar.

In this case, the reality seems to fall into the area of science, not religion, spirituality, or mysticism. Seemingly there should be objective signs of it, since the reality can be reliably observed and described by a number of people.

So in my current way of thinking, any objective non-symbolic reality is always going to be definitively known by only one person: whoever experiences that reality.

There's no way for him or her to know whether anyone else has also experienced it, because it is non-symbolic, incapable of being described in any way.

Comments

[cc]

There's no such thing as "non-symbolic". The known is symbolic (no matter how true or false), and the unknown is unsymbolized.

[sgl]

you might interested in the book "The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_His_Emissary

i haven't read it, but i've seen a few discussions of it. as i understand it, one side of the brain is primarily the symbolic part, and his limited data it can manipulate at one time. the other side is the non-symbolic part, and can process much larger amounts of data, but our conscious symbolic mind can't directly access that most of the time. contemplation is quieting the symbolic part so the other side of the brain can be more prominent.

you might also find of interest the blog "voice in the wilderness", by maggie ross, author, theologian, and professed solitary for 30 years in anglican church. (but very much anti-hierarchy, and very critical of the church too.) a link showing results of when she mentions the book is below:
http://ravenwilderness.blogspot.com/search?q=master+emissary

you might also find the second half of the following interview with sam harris, so called "new atheist", to be of interest. the first half he excoriates religion. but in the second half, he show's he's open to the notion of contemplation or mysticism.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

"One clue as to how daunting most people would find such a project is the fact that solitary confinement—which is essentially what we are talking about—is considered a punishment even inside a prison. Even when cooped up with homicidal maniacs and rapists, most people still prefer the company of others to spending any significant amount of time alone in a box.

And yet, for thousands of years, contemplatives have claimed to find extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast stretches of time in total isolation. It seems to me that, as rational people, whether we call ourselves “atheists” or not, we have a choice to make in how we view this whole enterprise. Either the contemplative literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, deliberate fraud, and psychopathology, or people have been having interesting and even normative experiences under the name of “spirituality” and “mysticism” for millennia."

--sgl

[Brian Hines]

sgl, thanks for the interesting comment. I've ordered the first-mentioned book. Amazon reviews were very good. Sounds like a fascinating look at how the two sides of the brain work together.

I also liked the Harris talk, after a quick scan of it. Yes, we jabber away to ourselves crazily much of the time. All that left brain monkey mind stuff. We don't have to believe in God to believe that it's possible to be happier by altering our habitual mind patterns.

[Roger]

Contemplating, as described, sounds interesting. The objective, non-symbolic object(noumenon?) that would be declared real, would also be incapable of being described in any way. How would science venture into this realm of investigation? I'm not saying this couldn't be done, but further information sounds in order. Like I said, sounds like a fascinating topic.

[Willie R]

I enjoy equivocating with respect to "Reality", or more prosaically, the default condition which abides whether or not anything exists. (Everyone does, actually, since to merely exist is to equivocate - the question is: what is doing the equivocating)

How is it that we can be absolutely certain of death (whether we want to admit it or not) and, at the same time, be absolutely clueless as to what we die in to or out of?

I think that the essence of "objectivity" is, somewhat paradoxically, that existence itself is symbolic of "Reality". I dare say - it's glaringly obvious.

Does the physical universe exist even if there is no consciousness to detect it? So what if it did. All indications are that it existed for what we call billions of "years", but before consciousness invented time, there could only be "Reality", which is a condition totally bereft of concern of any kind.

[tucson]

Does an objective, non-sympolic world exist?

All manifestation depends on what is perceived in a spacial dimension and also upon the extension of such in a dimension of time.

Without space an time no manifestation could arise in awareness. Which is to say that the sensorially perceived universe is entirely dependent on the concept of space-time in order to have objective existence.

But the existence of space-time, as a thing in itself, as an objective reality, is as inconceivable metaphysically as it is unacceptable in physics or philosophy.

When we see that space-time is merely a mental construct devised in order to make perception possible, it can be regarded as no more than an implication or inferrence without any real existence.

Once we see that the sensorially perceived universe is entirely dependent on a mere concept, that of space and time, we begin to see what the sages throughout the ages have been saying all along...

The universe is objectively void and non-manifest. Nothing objective actually exists.

[sgl]

you might also like Raymond M. Smullyan's essay "Planet Without Laughter"
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/smullyan.html

he uses laughter as an allegory/analog of mysticism and religion, and how when people mimic the outer forms of laughter, or use the words of a joke without the feeling behind it, it falls flat (ie, religion), and people with a sense of humor (ie, mystics/contemplatives) can sense it.

i think it's a good and interesting allegory, but i think he takes it a bit too far in some cases, but that's a problem with most every allegory.

--sgl

[George]

if nothing objective exists, what the hell am i reading?

gdam this makes no sense.

[Janya Barrish]

If the requisite faculties for apprehending and comprehending spiritual beings populating the extra-physical are left undeveloped (we all have these faculties, )the universe will always appear to be "empty".

The universe does go into void and non-manifest conditions called Pralaya (s)as described in Eastern philosophy (spiritualises), however, it also re-manifests (materializes) but under different conditions.

[tucson]

George wrote:

"if nothing objective exists, what the hell am i reading?"

...In reality, what you are as subject is all objects. You are reading you.

As relative subject you are the observer of a named object in consciousness which you call "what I am reading". As subject limited by the concepts of space and time you become identified with this named object called 'you' which then appears to be an independent entity observing seemingly independent print on the computer screen.

When you realise that the named object in consciousness called 'me' is such only (merely a named object), identification ceases, and you are no longer limited. The conceptual bondage is over, and you know yourself as what you really are which is all apparent objects that appear in consciousness while 'you' remain no 'thing' at all.

So, when subject is seen to be illusory, then objects cease to be objects because there is no subject. Everything is no 'thing' (which is quite different from 'nothing'). There is something, but not as we customarily perceive it. Here is where words fail because for the sake of discussion it must be called an it when it is no such thing at all.

I know we have tried this a number of times over the years to no avail. I realize nothing is likely to change this time, but this is the best I can do to describe an intuition that comes in the absence of conceptual, discursive thought processes, aka 'reason'. No argument will ever resolve it. It is either seen or it isn't. But this should cause no anxiety. It doesn't matter if it is seen or not. Nothing changes because there is no 'thing' to change.

[Roger]

tucson,

Great message. Loved the last 2 sentences.

[Janya Barrish]

Very small children don't have any ego bounderies. They do not know the difference between themselves and external objects, often bumping into tables and other things. They are also "one" with the people and other beings around them. There is no separation between subject and object. This is because the "ego" has not yet "birthed"; meaning, they are unable to know their "I". This is why most small children will say, "Jamie wants the ice cream," and not "I want the ice
cream." Very young children are, in a very large part, still part of the spiritual or what I believe can also be called the "non-symbolic" world (?). This is what I think you mean when you write "the conceptual bondage is over." However, for an adult having this very interesting experience, it will in all probability be a "knowing one"; different than the young child's, whose "ego" is still in the spiritual worlds and the identification with objects is merely, yet, importantly a natural state of being. You ARE all those objects when in that state. You look at a flower and the flower smiles and speaks to you (inside yourelf) You and the flower are one! :)

Also there is state that is sort of similar when one is deeply thinking about something. Its very evident when one is in a state of "pure thinking", and I don't mean this in a moral sense of the word. Mathematicians often get into this state.

There is an important and very esoteric tenet in Indian philosophy: Tat Tvam Aasi (sanskrit) meaning: ‘Thou art that’,

"Who is this 'Thou'?
'Thou' stands for the inherent substratum in each one of us without which our very existence is out of question. Certainly it is not the body, mind, the senses, or anything that we call ours. It is the innermost Self, stripped of all egoistic tendencies. It is Ātman."

Reference Wikipedia: Page titled "Tat Tvam Asi."

[Janya Barrish]

When we "know" something else, a book, an "object of cognition", a stone, a car etc. the "Knower" and the "Known" are different things.

But under certain "conditions", the knower and the known, subject and the object of cognition are the same.

[Janya Barrish]

"Everything is no 'thing' (which is quite different from 'nothing'). There is something, but not as we customarily perceive it."

True. Its "something". This "something" is the state of unity of the subject and the object. Its all "one." You are it and it is you. Here there is no "you" and "Me." This is why when someone in this state smiles at you, you fall in love with them.

[Jon]

Hi Tucson

Can't you see that a get-out clause such as "no argument will ever resolve it. It is either seen or it isn't" puts what you say in the category of 'babble' discussed elsewhere. You may as well be telling us about voices in your head or fairies at the bottom of your garden.

As to your actual point:

You say: "what you are as subject is all objects." and "you know yourself as what you really are which is all apparent objects that appear in consciousness while 'you' remain no 'thing' at all."

Well let's look at this. If I am all objects that appear then I would have intimate knowledge of these objects - nothing would be concealed. This is clearly not the case. For example, I have no knowledge of the psychological states of those around me. I only seem to have knowledge of 'my own' psychology, internal thoughts and perceptions. Existence always appears to proceed from a specific LOCAL outlook.

Now this indicates either one of the following:

1. The psychology, perceptions, consciousness, perspective of others is in fact concealed/beyond knowledge. If this is so, then talk of 'being ALL objects' is utterly without foundation.

Or:

2. There is NO OTHER psychology, perception, consciousness etc. apart from this that is apparent right now. If this is the case then what you are proposing is in fact SOLIPSISM.

Now, the whole premise of solipsism is dependent on something known as the egocentric predicament (the unfortunate fact that ultimately we only know the world through our own perceptions.)

And this predicament is a gift to those who adopt a solipsistic or supernatural perspective - it provides a defensive (but ultimately sterile) argument for a range of dubious assertions.

[Janya Barrish]

'Have no knowledge of the psychological states of those around me."

There is no supernatural process involved in being able to do gain knowledge of the psychological states of those around one.

At this very fundamental level: You start off with simple things like: Compassion, pity, concern, understanding, caring, non-violence (Ahimsa), reverence, thankfulness/greatful-ness, kindness, patience and other such states/attributes. However, in order for these to occur,a person has to become less self centered. This is the absolute first step to overcoming the bondage of egotism [(This does not mean obliterating one's sense of who one is (individual's ego)] that keeps one confined to the mundane "self." The other inner senses of Feeling, Thinking and Willing, which clearly we all know of, contain subtleties that can be developed, and which lead to experiences or states of union with other objects of the physical or extra physical worlds.

But these need to be developed before perceptions or states such as Tuscon spoke about can be experienced.

[tucson]

Jon,

Thank you for finding my comment stimulating enough to comment on even if it is only to criticise it.

I think your initial comment is the most accurate and sums things up nicely...what I say is just babble. We could just leave it at that, but I'll just babble some more since that is what we do here knowing full well that it amounts to nothing. Take it or leave it.

I said that what I was discussing is not something that logic and reasoning can come to terms with. It is a paradox and can't be resolved intellectually. I attempt to describe it because a few readers seem to appreciate the direction it points to which is no direction at all. To me, that is where truth lies.

You said: "If I am all objects that appear then I would have intimate knowledge of these objects - nothing would be concealed."

--To your way of thinking this may be true, but think of air. The atmosphere is a single unit, simultaneously at all places on the planet and at the same time it is only in a specific locality like a certain beach, house, subway, cave or mountain without being at a certain desert, restaurant or children's playground. It is present at all these locations at once in one sense, but in another it isn't. It is where it is and yet no where in particular at all.

If one recognises oneself as one's absence as subject, what remains?

That's what I'm talking about.

I don't think there are any prerequisites as Janya described above, but in the struggle to develop these prerequisites one may come to a point of exhaustion and give up and forget about themselves. Then....?

[Roger]

tucson,

I get your messages. Keep writing away, my friend. i liked,

".........seem to appreciate the direction it points to which is no direction at all. To me, that is where truth lies."

Your writings are good pointers.....to.>>>>>

[Janya Barrish]

I don't think at all, that Tuscon's writing was "just babble". And I continue to take deep offense at the indiscriminate use of this word, no matter who it is coming from or to whom it is directed or with what insinuating intent it is being used. To me, it simply demonstrates the immaturity of the writer. A mature person of wisdom learns from everybody and everything, from the King as well as the Knave, from a P.H.D as well as from the so called mad person. Would not it be better to ask "Can you explain it in a way that I may be able to understand?"

You see the real problem with this discussion is that it is missing important building blocks; concepts that can bring about a rational understanding. These concepts can be as controversial, little understood and misunderstood as the Tuscon Experience itself, (I beg your permission to use this term) But they do exist and I know of them, complete with references, but again, I feel like I should not explain them here so I will defer for now, but will consider placing this information on another platform with a link to it here, in the future.

The prerequisites that I mentioned mainly apply to what Jon wrote: 'Have no knowledge of the psychological states of those around me." With the prerequisites it would not at all be difficult to know about the psychological state of other people. When you see someone sobbing, and you compassionately feel for them, you definitely recognize their psychological state!

More importantly:

"If one recognises oneself as one's absence as subject, what remains?"

All is One, One is All. (This brings up images of a Maharishi Mahesh Yogi like smiling face.)

The impersonal self, which is not a no-thing is an evolutionary step. You are the impersonal witness. Whether you implode/ascend/have insights,revelations or even merge into the ultimate reality while in this state or instead descend from it,(descend meaning, back to earth reality, ordinary life, gotta pay the bills, walk the dog etc.)as well as how often and how long; let me not use the word "long", but rather "duration"(because otherwise we get into time and space discussions and whether they have objective reality or are they figments of our consciousness, etc.) you experience this state will be influential in answering the question,"What remains."

The implosion will happen, how can it be otherwise?

[Janya Barrish]

I don't think there are any prerequisites as Janya described above, but in the struggle to develop these prerequisites one may come to a point of exhaustion and give up and forget about themselves. Then....?

Well, the prerequisites build a solid foundation, maybe some don't need or value this foundation, or in-fact may already have the composite essentials of the attributes that I mentioned. The inner ones: Thinking, Feeling and Willing are obviously indispensable.

The prerequisites that I mentioned are not quantitative (they don't need to be applied to millions of people/situations) but are qualitative in that once one gets the quality, it is there and can be applied in accordance with the applier's free will. So, no exhaustion ensues.

But not knowing what kind of "system" you are into, Tuscon, or how you are able to achieve and maintain this experience, I can only guess, but it sure seems like what I think it is.

[Janya Barrish]

Just landed on this PDF. Hmm... sounds like the Tuscon Experience to me. Link to this very interesting PDF.

http://www.yogadarshana.com/downloads/THE%20IMPERSONAL%20WITNESS.pdf

"Consciousness no longer able to identify itself with its instrument lets go fo the illusion of "I am" and settles into the impersonal delight of its own presence within which there is no other or self of any kind. The impersonal witness, or Self has become as redundant as the persona seer, doer, or self. This is the final revelation of that which actually is: consciousness in self-expression to itself. The being state in which there is neither self nor other is not one in which there are neither body nor universe, mind nor manifestation. "

[tucson]

Janya,

Tha quote from the PDF sounds familiar.

I was initiated into TM, and by Radha Soami gurus Charan Singh and Thakar Singh. All that is getting to be quite awile ago.

Now, I am not into any particular system, path, teacher, guru, method, philosophy or religion. I find things of value and things to be discarded in all of those that I am aware of. I don't do any sort of formal or routine practice or special diet.

None of this is of any significance but it seems like you asked.

I understand what you are saying about prerequisites but I prefer roadblocks...avoiding things that get you sidetracked like beliefs, behaviors and methods. Sometimes a teacher is needed to help you to avoid these things so you can find your own truth, to sort of act as a funnel and channel your consciousness/mind/awareness to a point where there is nowhere to turn.. to not this and not that.

I am not in any special state of awareness or realization so there is nothing to "maintain". I am just another slob on the bus, just an ordinary Joe with faults, weaknesses and strengths like everyone else. I do have perceptions from time to time that are helpful and meaningful to me that I try to share on this blog. I also write about other topics that interest me.

Thanks for listening.

[Janya Barrish]

Tuscon - Hey, thanks for the background info.

The PDF is 5 pdf pages, not too long, large print. It would be interesting to read your comments on it and if it mirrors your experience.

[Jon]

Janya, you miss the point. Forget psychology for a moment. It follows from a claim that 'I am everything' that nothing could be concealed.

Not only the perceptions of those around me, but the perceptions of those I have never met. Including… the consciousness of bats, spiders and aliens in distant galaxies. I used the example of the psychology of those around me to keep this more grounded.

[Jon]

Tucson

Apologies if my terse 'analysis' came over as rude, no offence intended.

How is it meaningful to talk of being "present in all locations" if 99.9999….% of locations, phenomena, thoughts, perceptions are concealed/hidden/outside of knowledge/out of reach?

[Jon]

Having been around the spiritual and philosophical block a few times (balanced with a deep appreciation of science), I have come to the understanding that spiritual enlightenment is based on a delusion.

The insight into no-self or the non-multiplicity of the universe is one thing... (variously referred to as Tao, dependent origination, emptiness etc. Also Spinoza's radical equation of God and nature/totality - adopted by Einstein, Carl Sagan and other monist scientists and materialists...)

But spiritual enlightenment has the addition of metaphysical solipsism.

The enlightenment delusion works like this: Rather than the proposition that there is a THAT (the universe, totality, reality) from which I emerge as an expression or configuration (as suggested above), some traditions make the claim that I AM THAT. In other words: this witnessing subjectivity that is palpable right now CONTAINS the universe. This is a solipsistic delusion.

To use the old ocean-wave analogy; the wave comes to realise that it is not other than (independent of) the ocean.

It could express this in one of two ways:

1. I (the wave) am an expression/configuration of the ocean - the ocean is ultimately the source, substance and power of my being.

2. I am not a wave, I am in fact the ocean.

The latter is the enlightenment delusion. It may at first glance seem like a subtle distinction but the difference is critical.

One proposal sees subjectivity as emergent of something deeper and perhaps ultimately ineffable.

The other sees subjectivity as the container and witness of the universe.

(I might add that the enlightenment/solipsism delusion is a wonderful delusion. If you can convince yourself that this witnessing subjectivity that is present right now is eternal, infinite and indestructible, then a sense of bliss, peace and spaciousness will permeate experience. But the fact is that the psychosomatic generated manifestations of bliss, peace and spaciousness cannot by default be eternal, infinite and indestructible.)

[Brian Hines]

Jon, nicely put in the comment above. Great points. Including the last paragraph. I heartily agree. I love the idea of being eternal and all that stuff (one with everything), but the evidence, and/or lack thereof, belies my wish.

[tucson]

We want THE Answer delivered to us on a platter that we can see, understand and reason about, but any attempt to do that just leads to more questions and going around in circles chasing our tails with disputes about various theories and postulations.

Enlightenment has been mentioned here. There is, in my view, no such thing because the thing that would be enlightened is a phantom.

We are nothing but one another's objects--and we are our own objects too. But as what we really are, we are no thing at all. So, I am not sure where solipsism fits in here because any sort of ubiquitous Ultimate Subject would just be another object that would require another subject to recognise it as an object (Ultimate Subject) an so on ad infinitum in a perpetual regression.

With the concept of 'non-objectivity' maybe we can go a little closer to indicating what can only be intuitively perceived, but the nearest is 'absence of both objectivity and non-objectivity' which is not any kind of thing or object.

As long as we insist on objectivising as a self looking outwards for an answer or truth, on being a subject seeking an object, we are stuck because 'here' no object is.. because 'here' no subject is either: and the absence of both is...?

You might answer by saying 'Unification' or 'One' but two absences do not make a presence. So then what?

What we are talking about is not any sort of thing or object and yet, what we are, apart from one another's objects, is the absence of all objects by which all objects appear to be!

We are that objective absence which is all that is. It has been called noumenon or void and as such we are also every object that appears to be because all appearance is our appearance and, noumenally, all that is phenomenal appearance is us.

It is likely most will be confused by what I have said, saying "huh?". But this is not because it is difficult but because it is different from our habitual way of thinking.

But some may be going "humm" or "ahh". Perhaps momentarily you have left the fictitious phenomenal center from which you habitually operate and have found the noumenal center that has no center which has been referred to as your 'true nature'.

[George]

janya,

"If the requisite faculties for apprehending and comprehending spiritual beings populating the extra-physical are left undeveloped (we all have these faculties, )the universe will always appear to be empty".

what faculties are these? and who says there are spiritual beings to apprehend?

our senses of apprehension, like every other bring on this planet, are fully developed as per the dictates of evolution by natural selection. we do not say the elephant's senses are under-developed or the orangtangs, so we should our species of hairless ape have underdeveloped senses?

we have exactly the same faculties of apprehension as apes, which are different from the vision of the eagle or the EM-sense of sharks. What possible evolutionary reason could there be for developing faculties to sense spiritual beings? in fact, what spiritual beings are you referring to - what is there this world and then this supposed spiritual world?

Tucson,

its an interesting perspective as per usual, but its just too circular and does not explain our reality - how can i be reading me, otherwise i;d know what you (or i) was going to say next, but i dont.

[Roger]

Just loved,

"We want THE Answer delivered to us on a platter that we can see, understand and reason about, but any attempt to do that just leads to more questions and going around in circles chasing our tails with disputes about various theories and postulations."

[tucson]

George wrote:
"its an interesting perspective as per usual, but its just too circular and does not explain our reality - how can i be reading me, otherwise i;d know what you (or i) was going to say next, but i dont."

--When someone reads my posts the best I can hope for is that they will be taken to a point where dualistic logic is suspended. At that point they may perceive what transcends it. They may say, "I think I get what he is talking about but.." "But" is the precipice. Take the leap into the unexplainable and see for yourself what there is to see.

[Janya Barrish]

Tuscon,

Explain clearly to me, in detail what world/space/beingnes you are in when you claim to have, what I with your kind permission call the Tuscon Experience? Is it anything like the PDF link I posted here? How long do you stay in it? Is it a peak or a plateau experience? Are you always;day and night in that experience? Do you lead your life on Earth,(where clearly there are physical objects) while in that space? You, as the ordinary person here on Earth do not exist there, Are you a witness there, or are you aware but spread out, permeating everything? But the "everything" is effectively "nothing" because you are in another "space" or "dimension" that interpenetrates the so called material? The anti-matter dimension?

I am merely attempting to de-mystify, that space.

Once I understand this space, which appears to be foundational to you, I will attempt to answer the questions you have asked of me.

Its all very interesting and of course controversial and debatable because we each have our own core beliefs. Therefore, even what you claim is purely a subjective experience, just like mine.

BEING SUBJECTIVE IS BEAUTIFUL

[Jon]

Tucson

"What we are… is the absence of all objects by which all objects appear to be" amounts to subjectiveness in any language (even convoluted advaita speak). Sorry Tucson, can't help myself.

As for confusion (and again, I don't want to be rude, but) there is much muddlement and contradiction here. You report: we are nothing but one another's objects… we are our own objects… we are really no thing at all… Throughout there is reference to a 'we' that possesses these (non) qualities.

Also it appears that you are desperately trying to avoid positing both an object and a subject in order to have your cake and eat it. But what is happening here is purely semantic (it's possible that you don't even realise this). You are quite rightly saying that subject (noun) and object (noun) are ultimately non-existent. Yes, true! But it's clear from comments like "what we are… is the absence of all objects by which all objects appear to be" that you are evoking a form of subjective-ness (verb) as the nature of this absence.

[tucson]

Jon, I don't take your remarks to be rude. Maybe a little condescending but that's OK. However, you seem to feel you know more about what I am talking about than than I do so I'll leave our discussion with your remarks as the final word if that will satisfy you. Folks, I defer to Jon as the authority on my perceptions. Please direct any further inquiries to him.

I have no axe to grind, no books to sell, anyone to convince or impress or anything to win or lose. This is not something I care to argue or split hairs about. I mean, up to a point I am willing to do so but I'm not into going on and on about it. I do my best to explain something unexplainable as I perceive it. That's all.

The PDF Janya posted above actually expresses what I try to say better than I do, but it too, due to the limitations of concepts and language, falls a little short and no doubt could be picked apart by naysayers who insist upon objective, logical discursive thinking as the final frontier.

Janya,
The "Tucson Experience"? Ha! That sounds more like being drenched in a summer monsoon downpour they have in the area after frying in the heat all day.

I said in a comment above: "I am not in any special state of awareness or realization so there is nothing to "maintain". I am just another slob on the bus, just an ordinary Joe with faults, weaknesses and strengths like everyone else. I do have perceptions from time to time that are significant, helpful and meaningful to me that I try to share on this blog. I also write about other topics that interest me.

For me, maintaining such a state as described in your PDF file would be impossible, but I am familiar with much of it. This life requires a certain amount of relativity and duality in order to function in it. Otherwise I would just be lying around in a diaper with someone spoonfeeding me banana puree'.

However, at death one could slip into it with no restrictions.

[Roger]

Thanks Tucson,

I recall the long long irritating threads with the 'elephant' person. Thanks again for sparing me more of their comments.

[George]

Tucson,

Of all the non-duality views put forward, yours is by far and away the most convincing, mostly because you simpy admit there is no logical explanation. But even more so because you try and explain the un-explainable in your own words and metaphors, rather than the re-cycled wording of some noddy whose been imbibing too much recycled new-age claptrap for the last 50 years.

I am willing to accept that science and objective logic may not be the final frontier and that perhaps even there is a higher or at least different faculty of mind - but i think like most things, if another "pure awareness" faculty of the mind does exist, which is capable of a sort of holistic experience of reality and all the benefits that this might bring over a narrower more objective differentiating and conceptual view brought about by our thinking or scientific minds - it is likely that these faculties are mutually supportive - even if the holistic faculty exists, which there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it does, it makes sense to me not to discard the conceptual or intellectual faculty of the mind, which is able to provide more accurate provable aspects of reality.

Put another way, einstein and science gave us e=mc2, newton gave us his laws, and there are many others laws which explain a great deal about our universe, and what is more we can prove these theories are correct with evidence. As narrow as these theories may be, they are at least supported by some evidence and find practical use.

I am still yet to understand what it is that any of the wisdom traditions or mystics have yet to teach human beings about the world or reality. What single discovery have the mystics or non-dualists put forward about reality, for which they can clame to be enlightened?

An enlightening experience is einstein or newton or darwin explaing how the world works, which was not known before. What do the non-dualists or mystics claim about the world that was not known before?

that everything is interconnected - so what we know that, but there are degrees of connectivity. I cannot read your mind, nor you mine.

that there are is no mind-independent reality? i disagree, the world continues to function independent of us or our minds or any other minds.

[tucson]

Roger,
You're welcome.

George,
I agree with much of your comment, especially the question of the contribution of mystics, etc. to the betterment of mankind.

What good are these teachings it if it is all ineffable? If it is total BS, then I would say no value or even harm. But some mystics/philosophers give hope to those who want there to be more, a higher/truer perspective of life. They may even instill/encourage good character traits such as honesty, discipline and altruism that benefit society. Even if it all turns out to be nothing I guess that's a good thing.

[Janya Barrish]

Thank you for acknowledging the PDF.

Now, I could attempt to answer the questions that you asked, but I don't think you really need the answers.

I also appreciated: "However, at death one could slip into it with no restrictions."
But, naturally, this would not apply to everyone, since not everyone at Death is at the Self realization or GOD realization level.

Don't feel compelled to respond, after all this is a small room.

[cc]

"It is either seen or it isn't. But this should cause no anxiety. It doesn't matter if it is seen or not. Nothing changes because there is no 'thing' to change."

This is what supposedly enlightened people say to the unenlightened, just like born-again Christians say to the unborn-again.

If it can't be explained, there's nothing to say. If being enlightened makes any difference, the being says it all.