Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?) (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 08, 2011, 14:56 (4817 days ago) @ xeno6696

PART ONE-My apologies for the length of this post, but just four days ago we were down in the rabbit hole of ranks and priorities, trying to find out why we believe what we believe. Now we are burrowing through Eastern philosophy (not that I have anything against that) and in particular the nature of time, of knowing, of reality, of cause and effect. Ah Matt, you young rabbits move too fast, but watch out, for this old fox has a plan to get you back into your own epistemological hutch.
 
MATT: To know isn't just to have knowledge, to know is to live your knowledge. (Inaccurate representation, but your prior use of 'internalization' is close.)-I started a thread entitled "Feeling Reality", by which I meant much the same as living your knowledge. Your use of "know" has already got you into all kinds of trouble with your logic, and I had hoped we'd left that problem behind.

MATT: Cause and effect being delusion: Brought up because David brings up the Aristotelian "prime cause." He said he can't get past it. To a degree, this is your problem too, because you've previously asked "If we were created, what created the creator?" -My own question merely indicates the futility (in my view) of pursuing the first cause argument. I stand by my comment: "if there is a first cause, no-one can possibly know what it is." But see later regarding "delusion".-MATT: In the post you're responding to, you're accusing me of philosophizing (sophistry perhaps?) away your concerns.
 
No, no, no, no, no! I'm not accusing you of anything (certainly not sophistry!). And the concerns began as being YOURS, not mine. You wanted to establish an epistemological framework, and we came up against the problem of rank. You asked me specific "why" questions. I'm pointing out that those questions cannot be answered, and the question of rank cannot even be approached, if you move onto a philosophical level at which there is no "because". -MATT: You have to give up your notion of time; which is counterintuitive. The universe has only ever been 'right now.' The past is a picture of yesterday's state compared to today's. The future can be predicted, but not known. This isn't saying that previous states have no impact on now, or the future, only that reality itself is only ever the present moment. Hindu's Brahman, Buddha's enlightenment, David's panentheistic God.-I don't have a problem with the UNREALITY of past and future, or with the relativity of time which you are discussing with David. It's when you exclude the concept of SEQUENCE that it becomes impossible to move to the level of common sense. This applies to all kinds of "realities". Why are you studying? Your answer will consist of a backward "because" and a forward "because" (cause-effect(study)-cause), both unreal, but sequential and distinguishable. What, then, is the delusion?-MATT: Again, in eastern traditions, the notion of cause and effect are products of language and ego. Language because language attempts to make permanent things that are not intrinsically permanent. Ego because we're driven to use language to make sense of our world. Ancient sages in India recognized this and came to the conclusion that reality--is consciousness only. To perceive this you must learn to shut off the parts of your mind that deal with past and future.-ALL our articulate notions are products of language, and yes we use it to try and make sense of our world, and the symbol is not the reality. But what is the goal of your sages? More importantly, what is your goal? You said earlier you wanted to gain a "deeper understanding" of reality. What does it mean to say "reality is consciousness only"? We can NEVER know what reality is. The most we can hope to achieve is a concept of reality which will always be partial and may or may not be accurate. You rightly say yourself that the past has an impact on the present. Why should your sage's to me incomprehensible conclusion that "reality is consciousness only" be "deeper", i.e. RANK HIGHER than the conclusion that to understand the real present you must understand its connections with the unreal past (the sequence of cause and effect)? [The fox is now putting his plan into action.]-Continued in Part Two