1. Non-difference, as an ontological category, is based in the idea of difference itself, found between people, discovered through various means such as believing in other minds.
2. Brahman is more "real" than Maya when the former is conceived of as a model. The scale of "reality" of phenomena/experiences only works when the mystical mindset is already in some sense accepted, when one has some portion of "faith", however rational or not.
3. The subject is just an object that disagrees with that designation.
4. Brahman relates to the thing-in-itself in a manner that is precisely analogous to that between Truth and correctness as a formality.
5. Drone music is supremely creative in its very un-creativity. It simply does on the level of the audience what typical music does almost solely on the level of the composer.
6. Conceived of broadly enough, everything is good. Unfortunately, conceived of broadly enough, everything is also bad. Conceived of most broadly, it is neither.
7. The "current of history" or other such formulations are always introduced theoretically after the fact. History is relentlessly objective. This means that the subject ought to become objective to change anything.
8. Objectivity is not just the sum total of subjective conceptions. It is that plus the overcoming of reification/alienation.
9. There can only be an internal world because there is an external one. That both exist is attested to by the ubiquitous conception of duality itself.
10. A little masochism is necessary to prove that one is a living, thinking being.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Thoughts into Words
It's very hard to put thoughts satisfactorily into words unless there is an external force to push up against. This is why it is so important to have good intellectual friends. Typically, one has very little ability to self-judge one's ideas. Not to say that the experience of that idea beyond the veil of language (a very real veil to be sure) is unable to to assessed, but it is true that those subjective experiences typically are quite formless, and must go through a miniaturized process of pseudo-manifestation (not to be confused with the manifestation or formlessness of the absolute).
So, one must have an opposition of some sort or another, against which one's thoughts and modes of subjectivity may take form. The form taken depends on a wide variety of objective factors (and even, indeed, one's subjective semi-formless experience is, as a piece of the whole, determined by these as well). And then again the particular form taken reacts back upon the subjective inner sanctum, in good dialectical fashion, and so on goes the evolution of thought. In fact, the places to which we are led by phenomenal thought are often of quite a different nature than was our initial intuitive understanding. One thing that is often forgotten, especially in spiritual circles, is that the intuition itself develops in dialectical interaction with other, non-intuitive forms of knowledge. The influences of society, of the phenomenal universe, are paramount in shaping how we view both the phenomenal and the non-phenomenal.
The question arises: What is the relation between the socially-determined world of phenomenality/society and the so-called eternal Absolute, non-phenomenality, the Unmanifest? The complete indeterminate quality (or better yet, non-quality), the non-duality of Brahman, leads one to conclude (although prematurely) that Brahman is un-social, eternal in the old-timey metaphysical sense of the word. This, however, is not the case, because of the social construction of the phenomenal reality against which that non-duality is opposed. Of course, this is only part of the solution, namely that from the point of view of Maya, phenomenality. What about from the viewpoint of the Absolute? Is that, then, social or unsocial in its self-understanding? The answer, of course, is that it is neither, because it is beyond distinctions like this, from its own perspective only, however. One would do well to keep in mind that to progress to the non-dual in any sense of the term, and to speak of it of course, we must bow to the inescapable logic of the plane in which we live and work and philosophize.
So, one must have an opposition of some sort or another, against which one's thoughts and modes of subjectivity may take form. The form taken depends on a wide variety of objective factors (and even, indeed, one's subjective semi-formless experience is, as a piece of the whole, determined by these as well). And then again the particular form taken reacts back upon the subjective inner sanctum, in good dialectical fashion, and so on goes the evolution of thought. In fact, the places to which we are led by phenomenal thought are often of quite a different nature than was our initial intuitive understanding. One thing that is often forgotten, especially in spiritual circles, is that the intuition itself develops in dialectical interaction with other, non-intuitive forms of knowledge. The influences of society, of the phenomenal universe, are paramount in shaping how we view both the phenomenal and the non-phenomenal.
The question arises: What is the relation between the socially-determined world of phenomenality/society and the so-called eternal Absolute, non-phenomenality, the Unmanifest? The complete indeterminate quality (or better yet, non-quality), the non-duality of Brahman, leads one to conclude (although prematurely) that Brahman is un-social, eternal in the old-timey metaphysical sense of the word. This, however, is not the case, because of the social construction of the phenomenal reality against which that non-duality is opposed. Of course, this is only part of the solution, namely that from the point of view of Maya, phenomenality. What about from the viewpoint of the Absolute? Is that, then, social or unsocial in its self-understanding? The answer, of course, is that it is neither, because it is beyond distinctions like this, from its own perspective only, however. One would do well to keep in mind that to progress to the non-dual in any sense of the term, and to speak of it of course, we must bow to the inescapable logic of the plane in which we live and work and philosophize.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Non-Dual Non-Experience?
Continuing my previous project of advaitic dialectics, I have several new thoughts which came to me during a discussion with a friend.
The Totality is experienced as a model, and as a model only. When asked the meaning of a poem, one cannot quote the entire poem back to the asker, though this would be the most direct and truthful answer in some sense. Rather, one must provide something which points to the wholeness of the poem without exactly repeating it. One must, in other words, give a model of the poem. Similarly, the Totality cannot be directly experienced or talked about as Totality, because of the previously-mentioned impossibility of squaring the particularity of one's consciousness with the universality of everything. The individuality cannot make the leap to Totality as Totality, but only may commune with it in microcosm, in model.
This brings me to the point that non-dual experience is quite different from non-dual non-experience. A subjectivity experiencing non-duality is going to be quite different from the simple non-duality that lies "outside" subjective/socially-determined forms and names. The singularity/particularity of one's subjective experience is a component of the mystical experience that is quite clearly not present when there is no sufficiently advanced consciousness to have that experience. Owing no small debt to Marx and to Marxian philosophy, I do not believe that the nature of non-duality is in-itself consciousness, but rather that social conditions yada yada yada...
The Totality is experienced as a model, and as a model only. When asked the meaning of a poem, one cannot quote the entire poem back to the asker, though this would be the most direct and truthful answer in some sense. Rather, one must provide something which points to the wholeness of the poem without exactly repeating it. One must, in other words, give a model of the poem. Similarly, the Totality cannot be directly experienced or talked about as Totality, because of the previously-mentioned impossibility of squaring the particularity of one's consciousness with the universality of everything. The individuality cannot make the leap to Totality as Totality, but only may commune with it in microcosm, in model.
This brings me to the point that non-dual experience is quite different from non-dual non-experience. A subjectivity experiencing non-duality is going to be quite different from the simple non-duality that lies "outside" subjective/socially-determined forms and names. The singularity/particularity of one's subjective experience is a component of the mystical experience that is quite clearly not present when there is no sufficiently advanced consciousness to have that experience. Owing no small debt to Marx and to Marxian philosophy, I do not believe that the nature of non-duality is in-itself consciousness, but rather that social conditions yada yada yada...
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Clarification of the Brahman-Totality Relation
Thanks to a good friend and brilliant thinker, I have been pushed to develop a number of concepts or relations that I had previously been pursuing. The first of which, the Totality, I will deal with here.
Objection: Given that Brahman is typically understood as a uniform non-dual experience, how can it be said to be the Totality? The Totality is duality in non-duality or vice versa, so the experience of Totality would need to be experience of distinction in non-distinction, in other words it would need to be experience of the previously-defined Brahman PLUS something extra.
Answer: Non-duality in some sense occurs when one is dead. I believe that state to be different than the awareness of non-duality that is sought in intense meditation. The difference implies that awareness/consciousness, being still subject, is merged with the object, which in this case is thought to be not AN object but THE object, the undifferentiated whole. Experiencing this whole implies a merging of the non-differentiated subject with that object. This is non-differentiated, but it is yet differentiated because the subject and object exist still within the state, though sublated. Therefore, the experience of Brahman is the experience of the Totality (as idea?), even though we typically relate it as being non-differentiated wholeness.
Objection: But what about understanding and knowing everything in the universe? Isn't that the totality?
Answer: That is either impossible (I think it is) or irrelevant. The Totality as perfect merging of subject and object in a single non-dual experience which yet has differentiation is, it is true, not a totality of names and forms. So, it does have all things within it, but in a logical/mystical way, and not as an explicit amalgamation of information. That, too is a Totality, but then again why should there be just one? It is like Hegel's philosophy, in which the idea of difference in non-difference (I can't remember which category, but I think it's the Notion?) is deduced as a separate entity from the really-existing "Totality", as it's called in that context.
Objection: Given that Brahman is typically understood as a uniform non-dual experience, how can it be said to be the Totality? The Totality is duality in non-duality or vice versa, so the experience of Totality would need to be experience of distinction in non-distinction, in other words it would need to be experience of the previously-defined Brahman PLUS something extra.
Answer: Non-duality in some sense occurs when one is dead. I believe that state to be different than the awareness of non-duality that is sought in intense meditation. The difference implies that awareness/consciousness, being still subject, is merged with the object, which in this case is thought to be not AN object but THE object, the undifferentiated whole. Experiencing this whole implies a merging of the non-differentiated subject with that object. This is non-differentiated, but it is yet differentiated because the subject and object exist still within the state, though sublated. Therefore, the experience of Brahman is the experience of the Totality (as idea?), even though we typically relate it as being non-differentiated wholeness.
Objection: But what about understanding and knowing everything in the universe? Isn't that the totality?
Answer: That is either impossible (I think it is) or irrelevant. The Totality as perfect merging of subject and object in a single non-dual experience which yet has differentiation is, it is true, not a totality of names and forms. So, it does have all things within it, but in a logical/mystical way, and not as an explicit amalgamation of information. That, too is a Totality, but then again why should there be just one? It is like Hegel's philosophy, in which the idea of difference in non-difference (I can't remember which category, but I think it's the Notion?) is deduced as a separate entity from the really-existing "Totality", as it's called in that context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)