(long) Test case - Do round and square objects exist outside?

[Guest guest]

This is a bit long...

 

A ball and a cube -- are these objects' qualities IN the OBJECT? Do we

touch the same thing that we see? Are the objects external to us?

 

In the non-dual perspective, a stumbling block can be the belief that

physical objects really are Out There. This geometrical model of the world

has even influenced our thinking at the psychological level and spiritual

level. We take thoughts and spiritual perspectives as objects on the

physical/geometrical model as well. We say, for example, that "There's a

thought in my head," or "I'm coming from a very loving place right now,"

or, "I'm resting in the vastness." As ways of speaking these are OK, but

if we somehow believe them, it increases our feelings of separation.

 

What if the geometrical model is insupportable? What if there really are

no objects Out There? This would include the sense organs and the brain,

of course.

 

Well, there's an argument that goes like this, and it has a famous test

case that casts grave doubt on the geometical model of the world:

 

1. If physical objects exist external to us, then

its qualities exist external to us.

 

2. If qualities exist external to us, then

somehow our senses contact those qualities.

 

3. If our senses contact those qualities, then

the qualities of roundness and corneredness

are qualities of objects that our senses touch.

 

4. If roundedness and corneredness are objects that

our senses touch, then we both see and feel and

can differentiate between roundedness and

corneredness.

========================================================

5. If (4) is false, then objects do not exist external

to us.

 

Now, there is a famous perceptual test case, a thought experiment, that

tests the truth of (4). It is called the Molyneaux case, proposed by an

ingenious optician named William Molyneaux in 1693. It has some

implications for one's understanding of the non-dual perspective. When you

read this, try to imagine for a moment that you aren't familiar with

Eastern teachings saying that the phenomenal world is an illusion.

 

Here's the way John Locke posed the problem in the late 17th century.

 

Suppose a man born blind, and now adult, and

taught by his touch to distinguish between a

cube and a sphere of the same metal, and nighly

of the same bigness, so as to tell, when he

felt one and t'other, which is the cube and

which is the sphere. Suppose then the cube

and sphere placed on a table, and the blind

man made to see: quaere, whether by his sight,

before he touched them, he could now distinguish

and tell which is the globe, which the cube?

 

Some philosophers have argued Yes, others say No. But there have been test

cases, even a recent movie (At First Sight) about an adult gaining his

sight. Based on empirical research, the upshot is NO. Upon gaining his

sight and training it a bit, the newly sighted person can distinguish

between the cube and sphere. But, until s/he is taught to link the sight

with the touch, s/he cannot say which is round, which is cornered.

 

This makes (4) above false, which, given the argument above, entails that

objects are not external to us!

 

Regards,

 

Greg

[Guest guest]

Greg Goode wrote:

> This makes (4) above false, which, given the argument above, entails that

> objects are not external to us!

 

So objects are internal with respect to us?

If so, there is still the element of duality to reckon with.

[Guest guest]

At 02:18 PM 7/2/99 -0400, David Bozzi wrote:

>David Bozzi <david.bozzi

>

>Greg Goode wrote:

>

>> This makes (4) above false, which, given the argument above, entails that

>> objects are not external to us!

>

>So objects are internal with respect to us?

>If so, there is still the element of duality to reckon with.

 

Exactly, it serves just to dissolve one duality. A big one, however.

Besides getting rid of the notion of external, physical objects, it can

also get rid of the duality of IN HERE/OUT THERE. This one can continue

even when people think that subtle objects are illusions. There are still

dualities left, but then they dissipate more easily without belief in the

geometric model. This is when the usual reasonings of the non-dual paths

kick in more effectively.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

At 03:30 PM 7/2/99 -0400, David Bozzi wrote:

>Sorta like using the jab to set up the right.

 

Yeah, like using a warm-up act before the main attraction.

[Guest guest]

Greg Goode wrote:

> Exactly, it serves just to dissolve one duality. A big one, however.

> Besides getting rid of the notion of external, physical objects, it can

> also get rid of the duality of IN HERE/OUT THERE. This one can continue

> even when people think that subtle objects are illusions. There are still

> dualities left, but then they dissipate more easily without belief in the

> geometric model. This is when the usual reasonings of the non-dual paths

> kick in more effectively.

 

I see.

Sorta like using the jab to set up the right.

 

Have Fun