October Discussion Topic / "Existence of Objects" / Intro

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

First to address the question in a common-

sense way. Are there objects? The answer to that has to

be 'Yes, because we perceive them'.

 

The next issue would be to examine the question itself.

It seems to me that it only makes sense when we accept

that the world is describable in Idealist or Realist

terms. Di-Lemma is Greek for 2 horns and you avoid the

dilemma by throwing sand in the bull's eyes. But

denying two horns doesn't mean no objects. Is there pain

from one horn pronging?

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

At 09:51 PM 9/30/2003 +0100, ombhurbhuva wrote:

>Hello All,

> First to address the question in a common-

>sense way. Are there objects? The answer to that has to

>be 'Yes, because we perceive them'.

>

>The next issue would be to examine the question itself.

 

==========I like this stepping back and examining the question. One could also

ask, "What is an object? What does it mean to exist? What does it mean to

perceive something?"

 

Michael:

It seems to me that it only makes sense when we accept

that the world is describable in Idealist or Realist

terms. Di-Lemma is Greek for 2 horns and you avoid the

dilemma by throwing sand in the bull's eyes. But

denying two horns doesn't mean no objects. Is there pain

from one horn pronging?

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

==========And that also gives no encouragement to the dilemma.

 

I'm not sure whether in the Indian tradition this issue habitually falls out

into two sides (realist-physicalist/idealist) as it does in the West. These

issues have been big bugaboo issues in the West for centuries.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

This time, I'm determined not to get caught up in my own verbiage

like a rat in a wheel. Not that I don't believe my verbiage, but

it's too exhausting answering everybody who has an argument. And

there is one thing we can be (almost) certain of: nobody's opinion

will change, no matter how much we talk about this. Is it ego?

 

Here is but a sketch of some ideas to think about.

 

(1) In my opinion, it is certainly true that we cannot VERIFY that

anything exists 'outside' of consciousness. This should be

especially evident to 'hard-headed' scientists, who say that they

only believe in what they OBSERVE (and not in some metaphysical

gobbledygook). Hence, they can only believe their observations,

which are by definition in consciousness. Any supposition that these

observations are caused by some material substance outside of

consciousness is but an unfounded and unverifiable (because

unobservable) hypothesis, and hence it is 'unscientific'.

 

This does not prove that there is no material reality outside of

consciousness, only that we can never know it. (For me, 'material

reality' is used in a general sense for anything that might be

outside of or other than consciousness. And yes, I know that using a

word like 'outside' in this context is fraught with danger, which is

why I put it in quotes above.)

 

(2) But at a more subtle level, I claim that the VERY NOTION of

anything possibly existing outside of consciousness is inconsistent

and impossible, not just unverifiable. This is more difficult to

explain and prove, and so I am somewhat less sure of this argument.

The idea is that any notion of material 'objects' with shape, size,

extension, etc. moving about in 'space' is but a pale reflection of

observation, as discussed in (1). That is, whenever we think of

these external objects, we are just playing a 'diluted' movie in our

minds of the observations that are within consciousness. I should

explain at greater length, but I will spare you. Just something to

think about...

 

At any rate, we can be sure of yet another thing. The notion of

something existing outside of consciousness is utterly USELESS. Our

observations would still be what they are, and we would only be able

to explain them in terms of themselves, since we could know nothing

about the utterly invisible and unimaginable 'outside' entities, so

that we couldn't even talk about them and fit them into our model of

reality. By Ockham's razor, they should go. All that a scientific

theory can do is produce causal laws such as 'If event A is observed

to occur, the event B follows.' This is all in terms of

observations, which are strictly within consciousness.

 

Regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Michael

 

One can have pain from the horns of horns or the dream sand falling in

the dream eyes for dreamer who thinks there is real bull and sand out

there. Is that bull and hand that caused pain the dreamer eyes exist?

Do you want to answer from a dreamer's point of view or from a waker's

point of view or one leg in the dream and one leg in the dream.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Hello All,

> First to address the question in a common-

> sense way. Are there objects? The answer to that has to

> be 'Yes, because we perceive them'.

>

> The next issue would be to examine the question itself.

> It seems to me that it only makes sense when we accept

> that the world is describable in Idealist or Realist

> terms. Di-Lemma is Greek for 2 horns and you avoid the

> dilemma by throwing sand in the bull's eyes. But

> denying two horns doesn't mean no objects. Is there pain

> from one horn pronging?

> Best Wishes, Michael.

>

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity

> of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Yes. You are playing. The big question: Do we intend to be playful

all through October? God forbid.

 

PraNAMs.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> At 11:09 AM 9/30/2003 -0700, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

>

> Thanks for playing along, Sadananda! I'll continue too, for a bit.