- June 3rd, 2019, 6:31 pm
#331774
Tamminen: "On the subject/consciousness/object dependence"
Thank you for the summation, please allow me to dissect it. Fear not, I have injected it with a strong anesthetic prior to surgery.
Tamminen said: "By 'object' I mean material objects, not objects of consciousness."
No, you do not mean that, if you did, you would not say that objects are dependent upon subjects for their being. Material objects are clearly not dependent upon subjects for their existence, subjects come and go, but material objects persist. Since they persist when individual subjects pass away, it is reasonable to assume (as Consul has), that they would persist if all subjects passed away. But you refuse to acknowledge this.
Tamminen said: "Consciousness needs the being of objects to be conscious of them, and the being of the subject to determine whose consciousness it is."
If Consciousness is truly transcendental and eternal, it does not "need" material subject/objects, it's existence does not depend on them, they are instruments for Its creative expression.
Tamminen said: "An object does not need consciousness of itself for its being, but it needs the being of the subject for its own being."
This is just a reiteration of your first statement, which, as I pointed out, is incorrect: objects of consciousness need the subject for their being but material objects apparently do not.
Tamminen said: "This is what makes the difference compared with materialism."
The main difference I see is that, agree with it or not, materialistic theory is logically consistent while your thesis is not.
You cannot construct a metaphysical skyscraper on a foundation of empirical logic. Envision it, yes, but not construct an edifice that any empirically minded person can see. The only people who will be able to see and enter your building are those who have swallowed the red metaphysical pill and left the empirical matrix.
To quote Alan Watts, from his book, The Supreme Identity:
"The metaphysical doctrine as found in the Vedanta (i.e., that Consciousness is the very ground of all being) and elsewhere does not rest on theory but on realization. The proposition tat twam asi, the Self is the infinite, is based on an experience of its truth. When the Self is no longer identified with the ego, when, in certain spiritual practices, it penetrates and realizes its own depths, it simply knows that it is eternal and all-inclusive. Words can convey no proof, no conviction, of this experience. But, when realized, this knowledge is of a certainty so much greater than any other kind of knowledge that doubt seems impossible.
Because there is not the slightest possibility that an experience of this type can be checked by scientific instruments, it can be criticized only from the standpoint of theory. One can only say that it seems unreasonable or that one does not like the idea. We shall therefore have to content ourselves with showing that, it is not unreasonable, but that, on the contrary, it continues to give light beyond that point where other doctrines lapse into contradictions compared with which even paradox is clarity. Beyond that remains the supremely important matter of describing the preparations for realization, wherein lies the only satisfactory means of verification."
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin