3 ms·
>There is also “awareness”, but awareness is not a thing or localized in a particular place, so to even say “there is also awareness” is already a tremendous pr
by xmonkee 12y ago
>There is also “awareness”, but awareness is not a thing or localized in a particular place, so to even say “there is also awareness” is already a tremendous problem, as it implies separateness and existence where none can be found. To be really philosophically correct about it, borrowing heavily from Nagarjuna, awareness cannot be said to fit any of the following descriptions: that it exists, that it does not exist, that it both exists and does not exist, that it neither exists nor doesn’t exist. Just so, in truth, it cannot be said that: we are awareness, that we are not awareness, that we are both awareness and not awareness, or even that we are neither awareness nor not awareness. We could go through the same pattern with whether or not phenomena are intrinsically luminous.
-Daniel Ingram
You're too quick to reject it. The classic dichotomy works well in the objective sphere, but not so well on the boundary of objective and subjective.
- javert 12y agoThis quote is just a load of crap. There is awareness---I am conscious, so are you. It's a fact. It's true. There is simply no problem, here. It is not a great mystery. We don't know precisely how consciousness works, of course. There is no boundary of the objective and subjective, because there is no such thing as subjective truth, which is an oxymoron. For example, if vanilla is my favorite ice cream, that is an objective truth about my personal preferences.
- xmonkee 12y agoHow is it a fact? It's your fact, subjective fact. That we both have an agreement doesn't make it objective. You can't prove that there exists no man that will say he doesn't possess awareness. Even if everyone agreed that vanilla is their favourite flavor, it won't make vanilla objectively the best flavor of all.