07-09-2010, 12:03 AM
Tiff wrote: Gonzo wrote: I'm not proposing anything rather I'm making observations. Any attempt to define thought, imo, is as fruitless as attempting to define awareness or consciousness. I'm willing to accept those notions even so. It seems to me we must have some point of acceptance of terms, even though vague, in order to see what to me is a truth as expressed by Descartes.
Ok, but your observation is that everything arises from thought, so you've defined thought right there, and it still does not make it a conclusive observation, but rather how things can appear to you.
Yes, as they appear to me, and I'm willing to take them at face value; i.e. terms I'm willing to accept.
Ok, that's fine though, lets take your premise and if we can disprove it, then it's of no benefit to you to accept it as a notion if you see it cannot be so.
Actually the premise is not original with me. As quoted, it was a premise purported by Gautama.
Objects reflect thought. Think of a time before objects (according to your premise that thought created everything) so if thought created all things, we must envision a beginning time. In this beginning time there are absolutely no objects whatsoever. So thought existing by itself must at some point have said to itself "I will create objects". In some manner this thought had to occur to thought
This assumes I accept your premise that "...we must envision a beginning time" and that "...there are absolutely no objects whatsoever."
So, I ask you, how does thought, that is pure and unreflected, know what "to create" means. Or know what "objects" are. It has absolutely nothing to reflect upon in this beginning time, no point of reference. Do you see how this aspect of creating then is not possible for thought? We in truth learn to formulate our thoughts because of objects upon which thought reflects.
Perhaps we have the famous chicken/egg controversy. It's as likely, assuming your premise there was a beginning, that thought was in existence before matter, and just as possible manifestations of matter were the result of thought. There is also the matter of creative imagining, a rather well proven notion.
For example, a person observing a pottery class sees the students take hunks of clay, put the clay on a spinning wheel and then with their hands shape the clay into a vessel. Finally the finished product is a vase. So the observer of this object-expression that just took place then concluded and verified what it means "to create" and what objects (labeled form) are and how they come into creation via form and thought interacting. So this is how a child learns from the world around them how to define the meaning of words, by observation and reflection of thought upon objects. Form is action, thought is the reaction and processing of what took place, and then thought can initiate a new action that merely builds upon what was observed. If thought is the reaction, and its ability to initiate is in fact based on reflection upon form, this is unlike what you say--that thought created everything. So, I'm saying, thought reflects upon objects and develops because of this ability to reflect. Thought know "vessel" because it witnesses vessel "being created" and also observes its uses (sees water can be poured into vessel and contained there) and then labels it "vessel" for purpose of communicating this particular object's function.
If you can tell me how this is not the case, then I would say your premise is still up for examination. If you cannot tell me how its the case, I would say your premise has been put to rest in terms of, observationally we see this is not how things occur. That is, if thought is not the creator after all, then it must be codependent on form in which to reflect and thus realize itself via form. So, thus, thought and form are interdependent.
I would agree thought and form are interdependent, however, where we part company is that in my opinion, form is the product of thought, not vice versa.
You see, your whole premise rests upon the idea that thought can stand alone. And I am pointing out to you never in our experience was this the case. For as long as we can conceive of, thought has always had objects around to enliven itself and allow itself to be realized of itself via reflection on form. So, why would we make a leap of logic and say suddenly thought does not reflect when all its ever been doing all along IS reflecting? Its very nature is to reflect. It does have a initiatory ability if given a point of reference to work with. Thus it can co-create with form within phenomenal existence.
I disagree. I remain of the opinion that form is the product of thought...that is, there is no co-creation since, imo, form has not the ability to create.
Descartes was a mind (thought) and a body (form) who within this interrelationship formulated his theory. He did not formulate from a realm of pure unrefelcted thought. So his conclusions are based upon his reflections from the world around him he observed. So, even he was subject to objects when he proposed his thought-origin theory. A theory foreign to his actual experience of co-dependent thought and form.
I don't think so. This, from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote: Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been unreliable. So Descartes determines that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is his essence as it is the only thing about him that cannot be doubted. Descartes defines "thought" (cogitatio) as "what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it". Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which he is immediately conscious.
Here's the thing...actually, my thing. It's not important to me to define "thought" or "consciousness" or "awareness" beyond where they've already been defined. In addition, it's not important to me to doubt the veracity of Gautama's comments, nor similar statements from other sources noted earlier. Richard Bach in "Illusions" said, "We are the otters of the universe." I like that image and all it entails...the universe is our playground...the whole damned thing. I cannot prove that, and to me it's not necessary to do so. I like the sentiment. Perhaps when I die, I'll dissolve totally, in which case, I won't have the awareness to realize I no longer exist in totality. On the other hand, maybe something else goes on. I'm willing to bet so. If I lose the bet, I'm done and no matter. Otherwise, I'll be looking for other otters to play with.
To me, in my understanding of Zen, what I prefer to call Essential Zen (without trappings, rituals, dogma, etc), it corresponds with the otter notion...eat when hungry...sleep when tired...and enjoy what comes next.
Ok, but your observation is that everything arises from thought, so you've defined thought right there, and it still does not make it a conclusive observation, but rather how things can appear to you.
Yes, as they appear to me, and I'm willing to take them at face value; i.e. terms I'm willing to accept.
Ok, that's fine though, lets take your premise and if we can disprove it, then it's of no benefit to you to accept it as a notion if you see it cannot be so.
Actually the premise is not original with me. As quoted, it was a premise purported by Gautama.
Objects reflect thought. Think of a time before objects (according to your premise that thought created everything) so if thought created all things, we must envision a beginning time. In this beginning time there are absolutely no objects whatsoever. So thought existing by itself must at some point have said to itself "I will create objects". In some manner this thought had to occur to thought
This assumes I accept your premise that "...we must envision a beginning time" and that "...there are absolutely no objects whatsoever."
So, I ask you, how does thought, that is pure and unreflected, know what "to create" means. Or know what "objects" are. It has absolutely nothing to reflect upon in this beginning time, no point of reference. Do you see how this aspect of creating then is not possible for thought? We in truth learn to formulate our thoughts because of objects upon which thought reflects.
Perhaps we have the famous chicken/egg controversy. It's as likely, assuming your premise there was a beginning, that thought was in existence before matter, and just as possible manifestations of matter were the result of thought. There is also the matter of creative imagining, a rather well proven notion.
For example, a person observing a pottery class sees the students take hunks of clay, put the clay on a spinning wheel and then with their hands shape the clay into a vessel. Finally the finished product is a vase. So the observer of this object-expression that just took place then concluded and verified what it means "to create" and what objects (labeled form) are and how they come into creation via form and thought interacting. So this is how a child learns from the world around them how to define the meaning of words, by observation and reflection of thought upon objects. Form is action, thought is the reaction and processing of what took place, and then thought can initiate a new action that merely builds upon what was observed. If thought is the reaction, and its ability to initiate is in fact based on reflection upon form, this is unlike what you say--that thought created everything. So, I'm saying, thought reflects upon objects and develops because of this ability to reflect. Thought know "vessel" because it witnesses vessel "being created" and also observes its uses (sees water can be poured into vessel and contained there) and then labels it "vessel" for purpose of communicating this particular object's function.
If you can tell me how this is not the case, then I would say your premise is still up for examination. If you cannot tell me how its the case, I would say your premise has been put to rest in terms of, observationally we see this is not how things occur. That is, if thought is not the creator after all, then it must be codependent on form in which to reflect and thus realize itself via form. So, thus, thought and form are interdependent.
I would agree thought and form are interdependent, however, where we part company is that in my opinion, form is the product of thought, not vice versa.
You see, your whole premise rests upon the idea that thought can stand alone. And I am pointing out to you never in our experience was this the case. For as long as we can conceive of, thought has always had objects around to enliven itself and allow itself to be realized of itself via reflection on form. So, why would we make a leap of logic and say suddenly thought does not reflect when all its ever been doing all along IS reflecting? Its very nature is to reflect. It does have a initiatory ability if given a point of reference to work with. Thus it can co-create with form within phenomenal existence.
I disagree. I remain of the opinion that form is the product of thought...that is, there is no co-creation since, imo, form has not the ability to create.
Descartes was a mind (thought) and a body (form) who within this interrelationship formulated his theory. He did not formulate from a realm of pure unrefelcted thought. So his conclusions are based upon his reflections from the world around him he observed. So, even he was subject to objects when he proposed his thought-origin theory. A theory foreign to his actual experience of co-dependent thought and form.
I don't think so. This, from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote: Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been unreliable. So Descartes determines that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is his essence as it is the only thing about him that cannot be doubted. Descartes defines "thought" (cogitatio) as "what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it". Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which he is immediately conscious.
Here's the thing...actually, my thing. It's not important to me to define "thought" or "consciousness" or "awareness" beyond where they've already been defined. In addition, it's not important to me to doubt the veracity of Gautama's comments, nor similar statements from other sources noted earlier. Richard Bach in "Illusions" said, "We are the otters of the universe." I like that image and all it entails...the universe is our playground...the whole damned thing. I cannot prove that, and to me it's not necessary to do so. I like the sentiment. Perhaps when I die, I'll dissolve totally, in which case, I won't have the awareness to realize I no longer exist in totality. On the other hand, maybe something else goes on. I'm willing to bet so. If I lose the bet, I'm done and no matter. Otherwise, I'll be looking for other otters to play with.
To me, in my understanding of Zen, what I prefer to call Essential Zen (without trappings, rituals, dogma, etc), it corresponds with the otter notion...eat when hungry...sleep when tired...and enjoy what comes next.