Existence/Lewis

[Guest guest]

Lewis: The commentator is describing that the application

of Putnam's position is not applied to mind and if it was, there

are no minds as such inherently existing. Not doing so, is simply

a chronic positing of existence, even after Putnam's position has

laid it to rest. In not applying it to mind or consciousness

(read existence) there are these " things " left. The result of

this lack of application, is the continued reifying of mind and

existence which arises in it; There is an inherently existing, mind

with consciousness and existence arising in it but no objects

independent of it or idealism.

 

The alternative for Putnam (if it is the case) is to apply his position

thoroughly to mind and in doing so extinguish the sense and notion of

existence where it arises. However, it seems from the commentators

view, that Putnam and others similar, this is not done, there is no

application to mind and by relation existence on account of some

undefined psychological discomfort that overcomes. And so in this

manner, these writer retain specialness and undeniability to the sense

and concept of existence, to chronically posit a last " it, " or " thing. "

 

As it goes, and as the commentator says, " This is far from an

entre-deux and far from Madhyamika. "

 

Inveterate, tenacious positing of " existence. " Just can't live without

it. A fixated belief.

 

P: No, Lewis, the subtlety doesn't elude me. Maybe we have been

saying the same " thing, " ) but talking at cross purposes. I confess,

sometimes, I find your exuberant writing style as an impenetrable

jungle my dull machete cannot hack. I think you are saying above, that

there is only appearance beyond words. Well, then there is this X you

call appearance, and discursive thinking objectivize that into 'wordily

objects.'

 

Lewis: No, Pete, I am not saying that. The phrase is " There is no thing

beyond words " (green) and not " There is only appearance beyond

words, " (blue) We still have positing of X, an existent, a thing.

 

A form, appearance, as special case in this instance only, is not a

thing, existent, a referent, as are all other words. Perhaps this

helps.

 

 

The paradox is: form, appearance named and empty.

 

Emptiness is form. Form is emptiness.

 

The resolution of the paradox is not solved by seeing form, appearance

as a unamed [ineffable] thing that can be objectivized. That turns

appearance in an ineffable, a thing, an existent at some remove, sensed

and all that. Sensed is a word based in existence based in awareness

/consciousness of it based in brain and neurons based in... based

in...It is all a circle. When the positing of existence ends, it all

drops away.

 

You say thus:

 

Well, then there is this X you call appearance, and discursive thinking

objectivizes that into 'wordily objects.'

 

" ...objectivizes that " turns appearance into an [ineffable] thing.

 

" Letting go " of existence (source of all views) and it can be resonated

with.

 

Inveterate, tenacious positing of " existence. " Just can't live

it. A fixated belief.

 

 

P: Existence need not be posited. It goes without saying, the above

could not have been written or read without it. Not that that, would

have

been a bad thing.

 

L: Yes. Existence need not be posited. Yes. It goes without saying. No,

the above was written and read without out the need of existence. It

simply was done as it goes....

 

What is existence, Pete? Please explain it or should I just realize

" it. " Realize " what? " How? What are you talking about? What are you

referring to?

 

Can you explain existence without tautology and without interdependence

on other words and concepts? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please tell me.

 

Is existence an independent, self-existent? If it is, it seems that it

is no different than the Self, the supreme existent, that encompasses

all. Is it like that? Is there such a thing as the Self? If it is, do I

need the Self to type these words, to write what was above or read your

response? What is the difference between the Self and existence?

 

As far as it goes with me I cannot find this existence that is spoken

of by others. No one I know has ever been able to say what it is. It

seems to be a conceptual assumption. So, I am in the dark about it.

 

It seems to me that existence is a vague concept dependent on other

concepts and inseparable from those and other stuff like it is always

said and not an independent self-existent [invoking here sunyata and

dependent origination as related to Zen practice, Buddha and

Nagarjuna]. There are other heads who see, more or less, eye to eye,

with those two. Not that there is any thing significant about that.

Sort of like nothing significant about billions of believers in

monotheistic Gods.

 

Take a look at this Wikipedia article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

 

Assuming existence is necessary to do anything [can], [may], and

usually is a fixated belief. Not that there is any thing wrong with

that.

 

Sort of like believing in the Self, which in some versions of it, does

not do any thing at all. Is existence like that too or does it do

things like make me walk and talk and type stuff like I do and not

like someone else? If so, I can imagine it must be like some

controlling force that I am powerless to deal with it of some sort, a

mysterious force that works in hidden ways, like the mystics God or

what drives Darwin's evolutinary construct or some other interesting

story. There probably is a load of stories about it too, if that is the

case. Do you have some? What is existence.....hmmmmm? A great container

for creating stories as has been for millenia.

 

What is existence, Pete? Please explain it or should I just realize

> " it. " Realize " what? " How? What are you talking about? What are you

> referring to?

>

 

P: " Done as it goes. " is as good a definition of existence as any.

 

L: No reason not to mean that. It can mean anything you want it to.

 

> L: Can you explain existence without tautology and without

> interdependence on other words and concepts? I have no idea what you

>

> are talking about. Please tell me.

 

P: You know exactly what I'm talking about!

 

L: No I don't. It is like air trying to be grasped by a hand. Some

vapory idea. Can't find a referent of any kind for it. If " done as it

goes " means " existence " for you, I will understand it as that.

 

Existence = doing some thing as it goes.

 

P: But when you play with ideas, then you don't. If we were face to

face, I could show you.

 

L: What would show me? Your body. Something in nature. Some artifically

made thing. Hit me with a Zen stick. Just accept that I do not

conceptualize existence, can't find a referent for it, cannot

experience it. You say words have referents. I can experience you,

natural things, artificial things, sensations, perceptions, memories,

sweat, others but not existence. What the hell is it? Is it an " it? "

Give me the referent for existence.

 

P: Here, with written words no thing I write could stop your urge to

play with ideas. See below, you already agreed it goes without saying,

but you keep on saying.

 

L: I agreed with part of you statement because why talk of it when

there is no referent for it to experience it. Like the Self. According

to you words have referents outside of them. Well, where is the

referent for existence? I think it is an unexamined assumption without

any referent of any kind. Just a concept with no referent that you say

you can show me.

 

P: You did write, what you wrote below because you love the word game

for its own sake. Nothing wrong with that as long as you know is a

game.

 

L: When using them many modes can be employed. It can be a game. It

also can be educational, technical, practical, musical (prosody),

poetic, satirical, scientific, whatever you want you to make with them.

 

You commented on something I wrote in relation to quote from Joyce.

 

In response I asked you a direct question: What is existence?

 

You provided no answer and ran around doing other stuff while cross

posting the dialogue. Now, you either have an answer or you do not.

What difference does the answer make? It is your answer and that is

good enough for me to go on. There is no argument. Yet, there is no

answer. So I go on to ask you for it in all those ways I did. If you do

not prefer to directly answer just say so so we can get off the bed. Or

answer so we can get on with it.

 

Lewis