- This topic has 9 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
kFoyauextlH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
05/06/2017 at 03:09 #17997
The main summary would be that we can not be certain or grasp anything except information or what appears to us. That all we deal with is unique and private information, a particular set of pixels making up an overall image that no one else is actually supposed to be seeing “as is” meaning “as us”.
This information is inclusive of everything we seem to be returning in a moment, including our thoughts and feelings and what we call memories. We can not even be certain of their real chronology or truth, only able to speak of the current experience.
To Berkeley, and me, these are generated by the One Power that generates information or experience “as is”. We are thus only able to see our experience, we can not even be certain of anyone else seeing anything, but know for certain they are not “seeing as us” or else they would “be” us that moment.
Our experiences appear to be sporadically generated and can’t be known beyond the current moment of experience which is inclusive of everything we are experiencing which is all just data or information. That is the only “stuff” we ultimately only ever “know” and so really we are ourselves just a screen of information generated in a moment, with nothing of any real substantial or stable “self” to hold on to. The next moment we could be “informed” which is “transformed”, and our only form is our information or experience, and would think we are someone else somewhere else with consistent memories affirming it just as if in a dream, where things make people afraid just by the feeling of fear happening or the strange facts are just accepted as if true “oh yes of course I remember when that haplened”, until we wake up.
What I have written here encompasses more than the ideas of Berkeley but a whole range of Idealism based or compatible ideas. Even though it can sometimes seem strange or counter-intuitive, it is based very much on an attempt to describe the apparent condition or reality of our unique illusion. I am an Idealist in every sense of the word generally, and believe that what we think is hard can just as easily be soft or our hands can go straight through or practically most anything that one can seem to experience can seem to happen easily, but that we do not really control this or determine it as we ourselves are just a photograph, a frame of experience, and whatever does indeed determine it is alone the true power, which is itself Non-Information or non-substance but the Unseeable Action or Power which can freely generate experience and make its “form” whichnis inclusive of all we see and even how we seem to interpret it and feel about it and understand it.
05/06/2017 at 09:56 #19583George Berkeley’s main argument is that we perceive ordinary objects and ideas therefore objects are ideas.
Cartesian and Lockean responses differentiate two types of perception in response to Berkeley – ordinary object are indirectly (mediately) perceived and ideas are directly (immediately) perceived and so ideas represent objects in the material world.
Berkeley rejects the resemblance explanation that is required for representationalism and declares that ‘ideas can only be like other ideas’. As the mind can only know its own ideas, it cannot compare a likeness to anything else and this puts representation in big trouble. This is Berkeleys’ likeness principle.
Dualists, representationalists and materialists could not satisfactorily answer the problem of how matter and ideas interact, how ideas can exist without matter causing them and that the existence of matter does not explain the occurance of ideas.
Berkeley completely undermined the substance dualists of his day and concluded esse est percipi – to be is to be perceived.
05/06/2017 at 11:15 #19584I like Berkeley when he says ‘we must think with the learned and speak with the vulgar’, which is to say that in the language of idealism, causes are with spirits – fire no longer heats, water does not cool- these are done with spirit.
05/06/2017 at 11:21 #19577@”kFoyauextlH” Not bad, but I recommend keeping the link between our own ideas and the basic concepts separate in the beginners area.
There was no rush to do this by the way.
05/06/2017 at 21:22 #19592Oh haha, well you can do one too and you can also move this one elsewhere. Once I had written in response to you, I just thought it might as well be used, but if you move it elsewhere that is fine. This information may also be useful for a beginner when it comes to trying to understand my own statements and ideas since I am a pretty staunch idealist in the fashion of or having similar ideas as Berkeley and other idealists from the past from around the world.
The other group besides idealists may be those who believe in substance besides information or experience, and that things are “really there” but we just can’t see them directly. I can only understand statements like that in a mystical way though, because I can not be certain of anything outside of information being experienced by me. The “out there” or “the real object” does not seem to be anything knowable if it is at all present. Knocking into things does not mean to me that the experience is not information. It is all “real”, as “real” as it can be, but what we are experiencing is a unique creation, a unique set of ever changing direct experience, never anything else.
I responded to the Wizard’s version with this further commentary when some seemed to wonder at what God might be in relation to the non-materialist perspective:
“Yeah, Berkeley stated it all as in “the mind of God” where as Buddhists might say in the Dharmakaya and Hindus in the Brahman, and Muslims as Encompassed by Allah. These are not meant to be imagined as “outside forces”, only that this Force which generates apparent animation or frame by frame is Not Itself A Frame like we are, but literally Like Nothing, as in not being like us, a dependent frame, but whatever at all is responsible for “all” the generation and destruction.
It requires only that it first exists and has the power, its existence and its ability are One, that is why it may say in the Bible as well as Sanskrit writings that God and God’s Command or Action or Power or Ability to Generate are One (in Japanese this is known as Musubi as the Musubi in Takami-Musubi-No-Kami) and Logos in Greek, Vac in Sanskrit.
Furthermore than Presence or Existing as a prequisite for anything to be said to Do anything, it must also have the drive or desire to act. Yet blind power and desire can not accomplish anything, because if faced with to do and not to do or to make Be or not to make Be to Be or not to Be it can not choose both as it would negate any happening and it can not choose neither because likewise it would result in nothing happening and no action possible, the yes and no negating one another. It needs to choose 1 or 0 for 10101, and even beyond that to choise what is there and what is not there, since if it choose one of something there is then only that, but what we are dealing with now is that any apparent event or object is so much Not as well as Is, and this is what crafts its particular shape. So the third necessary aspect is The Choice, consciousness, the ability to Choose and determine, yes and which yes, no and which no, how much is and how much is not, the measuring, scales, and judgment or decision. The Blind hunger or desire or force can only beligerently choose both and do nothing and so there would only be nothing or one thing.
If one says it is By Chance, then Chance is just an epithet for this one power which is responsible for what has bern brought about, it is itself the Free Will and the Will Smith (lol).”
06/06/2017 at 15:13 #19578
Oh haha, well you can do one too and you can also move this one elsewhere.
I added a shorter version of Berkeley’s main arguments in the first reply so that noobs can just get to grips with the main point of Berkeley.
The idea of the beginners zone is to use it as a reference for other posts in the more detailed sections, so we can add our own points of view of Berkeley’s arguments in another thread and then provide the link here so that anyone who doesn’t grasp the argument can see it in its raw form.
I will leave this here, it’s fine.
07/06/2017 at 21:21 #19593
The main summary would be that we can not be certain or grasp anything except information or what appears to us. That all we deal with is unique and private information, a particular set of pixels making up an overall image that no one else is actually supposed to be seeing “as is” meaning “as us”.This information is inclusive of everything we seem to be returning in a moment, including our thoughts and feelings and what we call memories. We can not even be certain of their real chronology or truth, only able to speak of the current experience.
To Berkeley, and me, these are generated by the One Power that generates information or experience “as is”. We are thus only able to see our experience, we can not even be certain of anyone else seeing anything, but know for certain they are not “seeing as us” or else they would “be” us that moment.
Our experiences appear to be sporadically generated and can’t be known beyond the current moment of experience which is inclusive of everything we are experiencing which is all just data or information. That is the only “stuff” we ultimately only ever “know” and so really we are ourselves just a screen of information generated in a moment, with nothing of any real substantial or stable “self” to hold on to. The next moment we could be “informed” which is “transformed”, and our only form is our information or experience, and would think we are someone else somewhere else with consistent memories affirming it just as if in a dream, where things make people afraid just by the feeling of fear happening or the strange facts are just accepted as if true “oh yes of course I remember when that haplened”, until we wake up.
What I have written here encompasses more than the ideas of Berkeley but a whole range of Idealism based or compatible ideas. Even though it can sometimes seem strange or counter-intuitive, it is based very much on an attempt to describe the apparent condition or reality of our unique illusion. I am an Idealist in every sense of the word generally, and believe that what we think is hard can just as easily be soft or our hands can go straight through or practically most anything that one can seem to experience can seem to happen easily, but that we do not really control this or determine it as we ourselves are just a photograph, a frame of experience, and whatever does indeed determine it is alone the true power, which is itself Non-Information or non-substance but the Unseeable Action or Power which can freely generate experience and make its “form” whichnis inclusive of all we see and even how we seem to interpret it and feel about it and understand it.
I believe perception is everything and no one completely perceives what others truly perceive. However, we can help them “see” it through relation. Relating is a powerful notion that blends the perception in order for others to comprehend it virtually on the same level. I find that definitions of words in context are important in order to properly relate to others.
08/06/2017 at 05:14 #19585I find myself a little more unsure about any real transfer occurring between people and am more lost in the immediate illusory seeming nature of my eyes being the only existence for me, viewing what is sporadically generated.
08/06/2017 at 06:43 #19586
I find myself a little more unsure about any real transfer occurring between people and am more lost in the immediate illusory seeming nature of my eyes being the only existence for me, viewing what is sporadically generated.
I believe “Viewing what is sporadically generated,” is based on one’s beliefs, motivators, needs, emotions, models, rules, preferences, and goals to name a few aspects. Our perception of these aspects of one’s life are constantly changing/evolving into new ideas (open minded).
Constant dissemination of information through our five senses with the complexities of our experiences moving at the speed of thought equal sporadically generated outcomes.
08/06/2017 at 12:30 #19597I wrote this story when someone mentioned Tulpas:
Test them. There is no unity in thought. So each person is “calling a different name”. Three to six to nine people can be standing in a room looking at a diamond. There are as many diamonds in that room as there are people, and not One in any sense, even in the sense that the diamond they all agree among one another is there, is not actually mutually apprehensible to any of them. They can not really grasp it, nor can they steal it from the others.So when they speak of a “joint thought” there is nothing which they are able to reach, as they can not even reach each other. They are lost in Maya, they are buying what should never be sold, since it is fraudulent and deceptive.
Now can there be for one an appearance that such and such is the cause and such and such is the generation? Yes, there can be many appearances, so in that sense, it can absolutely be seen that “six, six I say I say, six monks sat around and from it formed a mound, lifting up the robes set between them”, this report can only come from one monk, and all the monks who report it are one, and the monk who hears it and wonders “is it so?” should know in the sane breathe that it can be and in a gasp, that it is not so.
When the monks gather to show the monk, and he beholds it in his vision, they say “now do you see? Is what we say not true?” the monk is split into two.
Is it so or is it not so. This splits into four, this is how it is so, this is how it is not so, this is how it can not be so, this is how it is always so.
In any case, if wise, he replies like a foolish person saying “I really don’t think what you demonstrated is the samevas what you say”
The Abbot then comes, and may say, what did you witness?
The monk replies if honest, I witnessed robes lifting up.
“Indeed”, says the Abbot, “and what was the cause of such occurring? Was it not these monks who created a Tulpa which lifted it up before your vary own eyes?”
“How can a Tulpa lift a robe, when these monks can not lift their own robes?”
“How do they not lift their own robes, young monk, you see it.”
“Indeed, I see the robes upon them, I see them appear to move.”
“What then is the cause of this? Are they not responsible?”
“My vision stands in the way of the cause.”
“Do you believe there is something behind it?”
“Something can always be apprehended, and apprehension is the child of ignorance, born of grasping.”
“Do you understand your words?”
“As best as I am able.”
“Do I understand your words?”
“Your substance is not apprehensible to me.”
“If you look behind apprehension, what will you see?”
“I will not see.”
“What then is your answer regarding the responsible causation for what you witnessed?”
“Indra’s net Apprehends All Falsehood, only the Truth escapes it.”
“What is the Truth regarding this event?”
“The Truth is that I have seen it, the cause of which can not be attributed to the monks if one is sure.”
“Why is that so?”
“Because they could not confirm each other and I could not confirm them.”
“Is anything confirmed?”
“Yes, I assure you, that I have experienced this sight.”
“Do you not know its cause?”
“Its cause is known to me.”
“What then is the cause?”
“The cause is the same cause as any sight or phenomenon.”
“Which is?”
“All apprehension stems from ignorance, all knowledge is available in emptiness.”
“Why is that so?”
“Ignorance is apprehension, while one can not know what they see, but in emptiness one makes available room for the truth.”
“What is the truth?”
“The truth is the reality, which is not apprehension, not ignorance, and what emptiness reveals.”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
