What is objective?

[godnotgod]

Does coal suffer under the geological pressures that transforms it into diamond?

Coal has neither nerve endings nor ego. The transformation of coal into a diamond is more like play rather than suffering. It is a total action of The Universe which creates a diamond.

Sentient beings suffer either via metaphysical anxiety or physical pain. Perhaps we can define ourselves as conscious nodes or protrusions of The Universe with sensitivity to pleasure or pain, joy or sorrow, agony or ecstasy. We are The Universe in the same way that a wave is The Ocean. There is no separation between our consciousness and The Universe, except that imagined by the mind, which sets up a construct of a separate observer of the observed in a subject/object split, along with the assumption that the observer is conscious, while the observed is merely an unconscious object. This is conditioned mind at work, which is in actuality, altered consciousness. We call such an alteration 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity'. Neither are the default state of consciousness. The default state of consciousness is that it is Unborn, Uncaused, Unconditioned, Uncreated, without inherent self-nature. Buddhists call this state 'emptiness' or 'Sunyata'. There is no self that is either objective or subjective. There is only the seeing of things as they are, without an 'I' that sees.

 

[godnotgod]

The Hindus 'tell us' no such thing! Many believe this is the case.

mmmm....no, that is exactly what they tell us:

The Definition and Concept of Maya in Hinduism

The metaphor is that of the rope (The Absolute) seen as a snake (The Universe), as Vivekenanda defines it:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

The reality is those who make the claim that every thing is material as from the Philosophical Naturalist assumption, and those that claim everything is illusion, mental, or simply consciousness represent anecdotal assertions concerning the ultimate nature of existence of which they are actually clueless like everyone from the fallible human perspective.

Yes, the duality of logic and reason vs. belief, but neither of these is what the spiritual experience is about. It is, in fact, transcendent of both, a 'merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'. You are describing outcomes of the machinations of the mind and it's thought process; the spiritual experience is not of the mind, but of consciousness, without thought.

I support the reality of the belief that the ultimate nature of reality is like the Taoist describe the Tao. If you claim to know the Tao it is not the Tao. From the fallible human perspective we are not able to define the ultimate nature of reality one way nor the other,

Well, no. But it can be seen, as the Tao te Ching itself tells us:

Freed from desire, you can see the hidden mystery.
By having desire, you can only see what is visibly real*

Yet mystery and reality
emerge from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness born from darkness.
The beginning of all understanding.

Tao te Ching, Ch 1

and......

Can you wipe and cleanse your vision of the Mystery till all is without blur?

Tao te Ching, Ch 10

*What is 'visibly real' is the method of scientific observation, or 'objectivity'; seeing the hidden mystery is to see things as they actually are, that is to say, seeing into the true nature of Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

I thought this is a good post to respond to concerning the assertion of many believers in Eastern philosophies and religions.

Unfortunately, you only assume Eastern philosophies and religions to be about beliefs. What you are leaving out are the mystical branches of such practices. Zen is the mystical branch of Buddhism; Yoga the mystical branch of Hinduism; Sufism that of Islam; Kaballah that of Judaism; The Contemplatives that of Christianity; and Taoism has its own mystical vs. religious spheres.

Have you ever had a spiritual experience other than what you think you see from the outside looking in?

 

[godnotgod]

A philosophical perspective ok, but does not change the physical origins of the mind and consciousness.

How do non-physical mind and consciousness originate from the physical? A leap of faith, perhaps?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, if not exactly 'proven', then 'shown', or 'revealed'.

Not exactly 'proven', 'shown', nor 'revealed'. The knowledge of science evolves and changes over time by the Methodological Naturalism of science and the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

Newtonian physics (ie 'biliard ball physics') was pretty much presented as 'fact'.

So what?!?!?!? As far as the history of science goes, this is ancient history. Over recent history Methodological Naturalism is essentially an evolving process of change when new information becomes available. By considering certain things as 'fact' you are referring to an old school of science, by the late 19th century science became a dynamic process of change and Methodological Naturalism became the standard of change and progress in science.

So, according to what you're saying, we can never establish certitude via 'objectivity'.

Which is good!! Though the certitude via objectivity is the evolving knowledge of science changes over time as new knowledge becomes known,

'Incomplete' science, unless presented as such, is essentially wrong.

Newtonian science is not considered essentially wrong in contemporary science. Its application is limited to macro world of physics.

Most physicists are materialists. A handful, such as Goswami, Capra, Haramein, and others see the 'material world' in spiritual terms.

There is no problem with some scientists making 'subjective' philosophical claims concerning the nature of our physical existence, but as far as the science of physics and cosmology they fundamentally do not disagree.

I recently saw a video of 10 physicists each offering their own theory of cosmology, at the end none of them agreeing with each other.

Need citation. This at present is merely an assertion on your part. Of course there are different theories of origins of the universe, and that is the way of science, and NOT a problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

mmmm....no, that is exactly what they tell us:

The Definition and Concept of Maya in Hinduism

The metaphor is that of the rope (The Absolute) seen as a snake (The Universe), as Vivekenanda defines it:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

This remains a subjective religious claim. Many diverse conflicting religious views may claim to 'tell us' their beliefs, but this is only meaningful to those who believe without any objective evidence to differentiate between the many conflicting subjective religious beliefs that claim to 'tell us.'

Yes, the duality of logic and reason vs. belief, but neither of these is what the spiritual experience is about. It is, in fact, transcendent of both, a 'merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'. You are describing outcomes of the machinations of the mind and it's thought process; the spiritual experience is not of the mind, but of consciousness, without thought.

The problem here is your misuse of 'fact.' What you are describing remains a 'subjective' religious view decidedly in conflict with other religious views that are in conflict with what you 'believe.'

Well, no. But it can be seen, as the Tao te Ching itself tells us:

Freed from desire, you can see the hidden mystery.
By having desire, you can only see what is visibly real*

Yet mystery and reality
emerge from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness born from darkness.
The beginning of all understanding.

Tao te Ching, Ch 1

and......

Can you wipe and cleanse your vision of the Mystery till all is without blur?

Tao te Ching, Ch 10

OK, but it remains that you are trying to define the Tao by what you 'subjectively' call fact, but the bottom line is the 'IF you claim to know the Tao, it is not the Tao.'

By making the claims you make and call them 'fact' you are creating a world of conflict with those that subjectively believe differently. The Tao cannot be defined as the Tao from the human perspective.

*What is 'visibly real' is the method of scientific observation, or 'objectivity';

It is a subjective assumption of belief that the 'visibly real' does not reflect a physical reality. First rule of Methodological Naturalism is that it does not assume 'Materialism,' not Philosophical Naturalism, nor that there are not 'spiritual realities beyond the physical.

seeing the hidden mystery is to see things as they actually are, that is to say, seeing into the true nature of Reality.

Hidden mystery is the weak link in your 'subjective' claims to know what cannot be known; the Tao, The absolute nature of reality is beyond the fallible human comprehension and it analogous to trying to build a Tower of Babel to reach God and know God..

 

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately, you only assume Eastern philosophies and religions to be about beliefs. What you are leaving out are the mystical branches of such practices. Zen is the mystical branch of Buddhism; Yoga the mystical branch of Hinduism; Sufism that of Islam; Kaballah that of Judaism; The Contemplatives that of Christianity; and Taoism has its own mystical vs. religious spheres.

I do not leave any thing out, but nonetheless they are conflicting 'subjective' religious beliefs, especially if any one view is egocentrically presented as fact

Have you ever had a spiritual experience other than what you think you see from the outside looking in?

Yes, but it remains a 'subjective' experience of the mind only from my perspective.

 

[godnotgod]

OK, but it remains that you are trying to define the Tao by what you 'subjectively' call fact, but the bottom line is the 'IF you claim to know the Tao, it is not the Tao.'

By making the claims you make and call them 'fact' you are creating a world of conflict with those that subjectively believe differently. The Tao cannot be defined as the Tao from the human perspective.



It is a subjective assumption of belief that the 'visibly real' does not reflect a physical reality. First rule of Methodological Naturalism is that it does not assume 'Materialism,' not Philosophical Naturalism, nor that there are not 'spiritual realities beyond the physical.



Hidden mystery is the weak link in your 'subjective' claims to know what cannot be known; the Tao, The absolute nature of reality is beyond the fallible human comprehension and it analogous to trying to build a Tower of Babel to reach God and know God..

You are missing the point of the verses. Yes, it does indeed begin by saying:

'The Tao that can be 'tao'd' (ie 'explained') is not the Absolute Tao'.

This is the view of the thinking, rational mind and its conceptual framework. Then it goes on to say:

“Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes."

You are referring to the experience as illustrated by the last sentence re: 'Outcomes'. IOW, due to desire clouding one's vision, one thinks one can 'explain' the Tao, but is mistaken. However, the Secret Essences can be seen only by those who rid themselves of desire. IOW, they see things as they actually are, but that is not the same as those who only think they see things as they are. So in spite of what you say, which is true, there is a way of seeing into the true nature of Reality without being mistaken. 'Objectivity' only sees the 'Outcomes', but misses the clear vision of The Secret Essences, or 'The Mystery'.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are missing the point of the verses. Yes, it does indeed begin by saying:

'The Tao that can be 'tao'd' (ie 'explained') is not the Absolute Tao'.

This is the view of the thinking, rational mind and its conceptual framework. Then it goes on to say:

“Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes."

You are referring to the experience as illustrated by the last sentence re: 'Outcomes'. IOW, due to desire clouding one's vision, one thinks one can 'explain' the Tao, but is mistaken. However, the Secret Essences can be seen only by those who rid themselves of desire. IOW, they see things as they actually are, but that is not the same as those who only think they see things as they are. So in spite of what you say, which is true, there is a way of seeing into the true nature of Reality without being mistaken. 'Objectivity' only sees the 'Outcomes', but misses the clear vision of The Secret Essences, or 'The Mystery'.

My citation stands as well as the problem of you claiming to 'know' that which is true concerning what cannot be known. The problem remains the 'subjective' Secret Essences, or 'The Mystery,' which you are trying to define as true what cannot be defined from the fallible human perspective.

 

[godnotgod]

I do not leave any thing out, but nonetheless they are conflicting 'subjective' religious beliefs, especially if any one view is egocentrically presented as fact

Yes, but it remains a 'subjective' experience of the mind only from my perspective.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

The spiritual experience is actually impersonal. It is not about how 'I' is having the experience; it is an experience completely outside of the scope of 'I'.

What you are leaving out is that the mystical experience is purely one of seeing directly into the true nature of Reality without any belief, concept, idea, thought etc. in the way of one's vision. It is not subjective because in the experience, there is no 'experiencer of the experience' otherwise known as 'I'. There is only the experience itself, and you are that experience. You are still attempting to define the spiritual experience as a belief system, which it absolutely is not, and that is because you are still on the outside, looking in with the rational mind, thinking you understand it intellectually. You don't. That is all.

 

[godnotgod]

My citation stands as well as the problem of you claiming to 'know' that which is true concerning what cannot be known. The problem remains the 'subjective' Secret Essences, or 'The Mystery,' which you are trying to define as true what cannot be defined from the fallible human perspective.

No, and that is the point of the verses! It cannot be defined, but can be SEEN, and seeing is knowing. Note that the verses do not say that Tao cannot be known; only that it cannot be 'spoken of', ie; 'defined'; 'explained'; 'tao'd', etc. Seeing is via pure consciousness; explaining and defining via the thinking mind.

The entire Tao te Ching is a product of the sage's intuitive insight into the true nature of Reality and the tao of human relations. It is entirely transcendent of the mind of desire which 'sees only the Outcomes', ie, the karma-driven path, as opposed to the Way-driven path.

 

[shunyadragon]

The spiritual experience is actually impersonal. It is not about how 'I' is having the experience; it is an experience completely outside of the scope of 'I'.

What you are leaving out is that the mystical experience is purely one of seeing directly into the true nature of Reality without any belief, concept, idea, thought etc. in the way of one's vision. It is not subjective because in the experience, there is no 'experiencer of the experience' otherwise known as 'I'. There is only the experience itself, and you are that experience. You are still attempting to define the spiritual experience as a belief system, which it absolutely is not, and that is because you are still on the outside, looking in with the rational mind, thinking you understand it intellectually. You don't. That is all.

Not leaving any thing out. You are claiming to know the Secret Essences, or 'The Mystery' in terms of absolute truth, and this is an unfortunate egocentric claim of truth you cannot reasonable 'know' intellectually That is all.

You cannot know the Tao, of course, as you claim to 'know' that which cannot be known.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, and that is the point of the verses! It cannot be defined, but can be SEEN, and seeing is knowing. Note that the verses do not say that Tao cannot be known; only that it cannot be 'spoken of', ie; 'defined'; 'explained'; 'tao'd', etc. Seeing is via pure consciousness; explaining and defining via the thinking mind.

Your claim of SEEING is in essence a claim of knowing the absolute truth, which cannot be known from the fallible egocentric human perspective. That is all.

 

[godnotgod]

Your claim of SEEING is in essence a claim of knowing the absolute truth, which cannot be known from the fallible egocentric human perspective. That is all.

Again, you still cling to a personal view which is clouding your understanding. The seeing into the true nature of Reality has nothing to do with any personal view; it is instead transcendent of all personal views, ie; "fallible egocentric human perspective". The Absolute cannot be known via any personal view; it can only be known via The Absolute itself. The authentic spiritual experience reveals that you are not the 'I' that you think you are that is having a spiritual experience; you are none other than The Absolute. That is the radical transformation of consciousness that occurs in the authentic experience. As the Hindus tell us: 'Tat tvam asi', or ''thou art That'.

 

[godnotgod]

Your claim of SEEING is in essence a claim of knowing the absolute truth, which cannot be known from the fallible egocentric human perspective. That is all.

You want to indict me as the claimant, when no such claim is being made. Understand that there is no 'experiencer of the experience', but only the experience itself, and that experience is simply to see things as they are. Seeing things as they are is not a personal claim, but an experience without anyone making any claim to that effect.

One either sees things as they are or they do not. How about you? Do you see things as they are, and if not, why not? There need not be an ego making the claim of seeing things as they are; there need only be the seeing of things as they are. The passages quoted from the Tao te Ching tries to make this clear. If you truly understand the meaning of the verses, then you are seeing things as they are, which is not a distorted personal view, but the view of Universal Consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

You want to indict me as the claimant, when no such claim is being made. Understand that there is no 'experiencer of the experience', but only the experience itself, and that experience is simply to see things as they are. Seeing things as they are is not a personal claim, but an experience without anyone making any claim to that effect.

One either sees things as they are or they do not. How about you? Do you see things as they are, and if not, why not? There need not be an ego making the claim of seeing things as they are; there need only be the seeing of things as they are. The passages quoted from the Tao te Ching tries to make this clear. If you truly understand the meaning of the verses, then you are seeing things as they are, which is not a distorted personal view, but the view of Universal Consciousness.

Yes, I clearly and specifically indict you as the claimant of claiming to absolutely know the truth of the nature of Universal Consciousness, because to make the claim of SEEING the truth is in reality the claim of knowing the ultimate reality of the Tao, which cannot be known from the fallible human perspective.

I also indict you for misrepresenting the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics to justify a selective subjective religious agenda.

I have repeated made my view concerning what I can see and know from the fallible human perspective, and no it does come close to your egocentric view of knowing the truth of the absolute universal nature of everything.

The Tao is the Tao, and the universal ultimate nature of our existence, and cannot be SEEN nor known from the fallible human perspective.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I clearly and specifically indict you as the claimant of claiming to absolutely know the truth of the nature of Universal Consciousness, because to make the claim of SEEING the truth is in reality the claim of knowing the ultimate reality of the Tao, which cannot be known from the fallible human perspective.

I also indict you for misrepresenting the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics to justify a selective subjective religious agenda.

I have repeated made my view concerning what I can see and know from the fallible human perspective, and no it does come close to your egocentric view of knowing the truth of the absolute universal nature of everything.

The Tao is the Tao, and the universal ultimate nature of our existence, and cannot be SEEN nor known from the fallible human perspective.

heh..heh..are you making those claims from the POV of the "fallible human perspective", or from the POV of 'seeing things as they are'; ie 'the Tao'?

hint: 'seeing' IS knowing, without claiming to know. You are adding baggage where none exists, besides the fact (ahem) that you still have completely failed to comprehend the meaning of Chapter One of the Tao te Ching. Here is the Waley translation for your examination:

1

The Way that can be told of is not an Unvarying Way;
The names that can be named are not unvarying names.
It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;
The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind.
Truly, “Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This “same mould” we can but call the Mystery,
Or rather the “Darker than any Mystery”,
The Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences.

from: The Tao Te Ching
by Lao Tzu
English version by
Arthur Waley, 1934
The Way and its Power: A Study of the Tao Te Ching and its Place in Chinese Thought , 1934

http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Daodejing

If one 'can see' the Secret Essences, it means he is not referring to a tao that can be 'spoken of', but rather to the true Tao. Seeing is not making any claims at all. It is simply to see things as they are. Is this too difficult for you to grasp?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I clearly and specifically indict you as the claimant of claiming to absolutely know the truth of the nature of Universal Consciousness, because to make the claim of SEEING the truth is in reality the claim of knowing the ultimate reality of the Tao, which cannot be known from the fallible human perspective.

I also indict you for misrepresenting the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics to justify a selective subjective religious agenda.

I have repeated made my view concerning what I can see and know from the fallible human perspective, and no it does come close to your egocentric view of knowing the truth of the absolute universal nature of everything.

The Tao is the Tao, and the universal ultimate nature of our existence, and cannot be SEEN nor known from the fallible human perspective.

The problem you are having is that, when someone points to the moon, you attack the pointing finger instead of looking at the moon.

By your erroneous logic, the author of the Tao te Ching is making a claim of knowing the Tao via a 'fallible human perspective'.

So not only am I 'The Claimant', but you are now 'The Indicter'. Or maybe it is more like 'The Grand Inquisitor', or even 'The Accuser'. You, like the materialists, have failed to find any solid 'stuff' at the bottom of your 'investigation'. Now go to your room.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem you are having is that, when someone points to the moon, you attack the pointing finger instead of looking at the moon.

By your erroneous logic, the author of the Tao te Ching is making a claim of knowing the Tao via a 'fallible human perspective'.

So not only am I 'The Claimant', but you are now 'The Indicter'. Or maybe it is more like 'The Grand Inquisitor', or even 'The Accuser'. You, like the materialists, have failed to find any solid 'stuff' at the bottom of your 'investigation'. Now go to your room.

Yes, I clearly and specifically indict you as the claimant of claiming to absolutely know the truth of the nature of Universal Consciousness, because to make the claim of SEEING the truth is in reality the claim of knowing the ultimate reality of the Tao, which cannot be known from the fallible human perspective.

I also indict you for misrepresenting the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics to justify a selective subjective religious agenda.

I have repeated made my view concerning what I can see and know from the fallible human perspective, and no it does come close to your egocentric view of knowing the truth of the absolute universal nature of everything.

The Tao is the Tao, and the universal ultimate nature of our existence, and cannot be SEEN nor known from the fallible human perspective.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I clearly and specifically indict you as the claimant of claiming to absolutely know the truth of the nature of Universal Consciousness, because to make the claim of SEEING the truth is in reality the claim of knowing the ultimate reality of the Tao, which cannot be known from the fallible human perspective.

I also indict you for misrepresenting the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics to justify a selective subjective religious agenda.

I have repeated made my view concerning what I can see and know from the fallible human perspective, and no it does come close to your egocentric view of knowing the truth of the absolute universal nature of everything.

The Tao is the Tao, and the universal ultimate nature of our existence, and cannot be SEEN nor known from the fallible human perspective.

The problem you are having is that, when someone points to the moon, you attack the pointing finger instead of looking at the moon.

Yes, I clearly and specifically indict you as the claimant of claiming to absolutely know the truth of the nature of Universal Consciousness, because to make the claim of SEEING the truth is in reality the claim of knowing the ultimate reality of the Tao, which cannot be known from the fallible human perspective.

.

Chapter 1 of the Tao te Ching, which you originally cited, does not say Tao cannot be known; it says that, due to desire, one only sees the Outcomes, and never the Secret Essences. But by the same token, it also states that one who is free of desire can indeed see the Secret Essences. So there is indeed a view that is free of the trappings of the 'fallible human perspective', one which allows one to 'see the Secret Essences'. That view is sometimes referred to as 'Enlightenment'. It is the 'fallible human perspective' that sees only the Outcomes, as this conditioned view is driven by desire, and it is this 'fallible human perspective' which creates an illusory subject/object split in an attempt to 'make sense' of something it cannot understand conceptually. That split is 'objectivity', though useful as it is as a means of prediction of behavior of phenomena we call 'science', it can never fathom the true nature of Reality as direct seeing can. It is this direct seeing that is the realization of perfect union with The Universe, where no such subject/object split is to be found; nary a whiff.