I am my Subconscious ...

[Guest guest]

Gary:

>

>> Of course, the only way to taste mango is to taste it. That is true by

>> definition. But biochemists explain much about the mango and its taste. Their

>> explanations have many good uses, as do some explanations of enlightenment.

>

> An explanation about the mango is possible because it can be objectified.

 

Science does not just explain much about the mango but also about our

subjective taste experience of it. That is because our taste-experience has

objective correlates associated with the subjective experience. For example,

we know that we will taste nothing if we have a stuffy nose, since the sense

of smell is involved in tasting anything.

>

> Truth, that unmanifest subjectivity, the state of enlightenment (conceptual

> terminologies being used for the purpose of this communication) cannot be

> objectified and thus all explanations are absurdities.

>

But enlightenment has objective correlates, like any other conscious event.

You would of course deny this, but you also have two worlds, the phenomenal

one and the unmanifest one (conceptual terminology being used for the

purpose of this communication), with no explanation for how they're related.

Of course, you yourself (conceptual terminology being used for the purpose

of this communication) do not care about any such explanation. Fortunately,

I am not writing to you, since I do not enjoy fruitless effort, but to

readers who share my interests.

 

> Secondly, the terms of useful or not-useful applied to the state of

> enlightenment is absurd, because the " entity " to whom the issue of usefulness

> or uselessness, is relevant, that entity itself is no more.

 

This is like arguing that a taste-experience is useless since it cannot be

objectified and in that sense is " no more " . In fact, that is exactly what

material reductionists claim. Their materialism is the mirror-image of your

own idealism. Both have the advantage of being logically consistent but the

disadvantage of being able to say nothing about the world of our experience.

 

> Gary, no entity ever has become enlightened and hence there is no " enlightened

> entity " to note the fact, claim the fact, record it for posterity or explain

> it to an un-enlightened audience.

>

Then you and I are talking about two different things (conceptual

terminology being used for the purpose of this communication).

 

Best wishes,

 

Gary

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho