advaitin Is there light in Enlightenment? (On Einstein)

[Guest guest]

On 9/30/03 06:56 pm Benjamin Root (orion777ben) wrote:

 

But I draw a further conclusion from relativity, which nobody else

seems to. If measurements of the same events differ for different

observers, then this can only mean that there CANNOT be any objective

reality outside of consciousness corresponding to the events. For

example, if the measurement of the length of a rod is different for

different observers, then there cannot be a 'real' and unique

material rod external to the observers, which they are all looking

at.

 

 

===============Historically, the variability of observation was always a tool in

the idealist's shed. "Table appearances" aren't ever the same from one glance

to the next. The light changes, one's position changes, visual acuity changes,

etc. The "table" is rectangular once glance, quadrilateral another, perspective

shifting, etc. There's simply no evidence that there is anything fixed out

there. So a construct is projected to account for these appearances. The

"table" emerges as a construct created and projected, based upon these

observations.

 

But idealism can run into problems. It treats tables and chairs one way, and

treats observers another way. It is more lenient in allowing other observers

than it is allowing tables and chairs. This is because idealism carries the

residues of the classic cartesian dualism and also wants to avoid solipsism.

That is, in a vague and oft-unexamined way, idealism locates consciousness

inside the observer (this makes no sense, for how can something immaterial be

inside anything? And just what kind of thing is it inside?).

 

So idealism allows there to be Smith's consciousness as well as Jones'

consciousness. Smith, even though he is an idealist, allows Jones existence by

granting validity to Jones' observations equal to the validity of his own. If

Smith applied the very same criteria to Jones as to the table, Smith would worry

about solipsism. So to avoid this, he sneakily allows Jones to exist, but not

the table.

 

This is an inconsistency which advaita never has, since consciousness is not

divided, and there aren't more than one. Any observer is inside consciousness,

not the other way around.