Is it possible that existence is a solid commodity, rather than a property?

[baxishta]

dear friends,

i've noticed that the main feature of my inner experience is the sense that something exists, and that the main feature of my outer experience is the sense that something is solid, and I've wondered if these two experiences might be two views of the same thing: solid existence.

according to Wikipedia, the Greek philosopher, Parmenides,

" ... maintained that the true explanation of things lies in the conception of a universal unity of being ... that we can pass beyond the false appearances of sense and arrive at the knowledge of being, at the fundamental truth that the All is One. ... and that the reality of the world is one unchanging, ungenerated indestructible whole."

Wikipedia also says,

"Erwin Schrödinger identified Parmenides' monad of the "Way of Truth" as being the conscious self"

one of my favorite Indian teachers, Nisargadatta Maharaj, is quoted as having said,

"Reality is one, it is deep and dark, mystery beyond mystery, but it is while all else merely happens.
The light of consciousness can only be compared to the solid, dense, rock-like, homogeneous and changeless mass of pure awareness.
There is something changeless, motionless, immovable, rock-like, unassailable, a solid mass of pure being, consciousness and bliss.
See yourself as you are and you will see the world as it is, a single block of reality, indivisible, indescribable."

and my favorite teacher, Ramana Maharshi's favorite description of self was said to be "a dense mass of existence".

i've noticed that existence, far from being the extrapolation of thin consciousness, is infinitely solid, and that none of the events and objects which appears upon it possesses the so-called property of existence at all.

i've come to believe that if a person wrestles with the idea of a non-local (true) mass, it will restructure all of his perceptions, and that there's no need for complex theories or new-age posturing. nothing needs to change, or will change once this is recognized. just like learning the truth about Santa Claus, it changed everything without really changing anything.

although I'm quite sure of what I've seen, i know that communicating it respectfully and passing on the experience is another thing. in case you think I'm full of myself, please consider that I've seen that i don't really exist, a humbling experience to be sure.

i welcome discussion, but please limit it to the basic idea that existence might be an (or the only) actual solid commodity, rather than a property.

thank you for reading. i appreciate the camaraderie,

baxishta

 

[apeiron]

You have the problem that the complementary stance - that all is changing, restless, developing flux - also seems true to a great many people.

It seems true about consciousness - always shifting, never solid.

And it seems true about the world - at least science seems to have to model reality in some rather non-solid, freely dynamic, notions like fields and processes.

So to have an argument, you have to address the contrary view that has always been equally convincing in the history of philosophy and science.

Is one view false, the other true? Are both false and something else the truth? Or are both true as aspects of a greater truth?

 

[baxishta]

thank you, Apeiron, for at least taking the question seriously enough to address! most people don't take it seriously, but i think it's a 'mental jacket' worth at least trying on for size.

bax

 

[apeiron]

thank you, Apeiron, for at least taking the question seriously enough to address! most people don't take it seriously, but i think it's a 'mental jacket' worth at least trying on for size.

The Heraclitus vs Parmenides path is well trodden in Western philosophy. So the first thing is are you wanting to argue anything new or particular here?

Or you might want to consider how this structure~process, stasis~flux, dichotomy is handled in Eastern philosophy. So what do you know about the Buddhist alternatives for example? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence

 

[Maui]

and my favorite teacher, Ramana Maharshi's favorite description of self was said to be "a dense mass of existence".

Bear in mind that the stance that existence and reality are different things is just an opinion.

 

[yoda jedi]

Bear in mind that the stance that existence and reality are different things is just an opinion.

Right and a very weak stance...
real <is> exist.

 

[baxishta]

yoda jedi,

i'd like to address the relationship between reality and existence, but would you please first remind me what the convention a <is> b means?

bax

 

[Maui]

Right and a very weak stance...
real <is> exist.

Certainly. So the question now becomes - what is to 'exist'? Assuming the unity(nonseparability) of all emergent matter, time and space, the basic(unchanging and fundamental) building blocks of reality is existence. I can only relate to that as 'having a personal experience'.

 

[apeiron]

Certainly. So the question now becomes - what is to 'exist'? Assuming the unity(nonseparability) of all emergent matter, time and space, the basic(unchanging and fundamental) building blocks of reality is existence. I can only relate to that as 'having a personal experience'.

Again, many would want to challenge the idea of existence with a word that assumes less perhaps, like persistence.

If change is as basic to reality (mental or physical) as stasis, then the fundamental question becomes why does anything persist?

A fluctuation is an example of something that "exists", yet not in a particularly strong way. It is when things persist (showing stability as well as plasticity) that they become "real".

 

[baxishta]

i appreciate all of the comments so far, and would like to suggest three things,

1. that the subtle intellect is capable of sensing monopolar unity (based on the number 1) and, together with digital modeling (based on the number 2) and analog modeling (based on the number 3), triangulate to describe to itself what it intimates and knows to be true.

2. that to employ irreducible digital modeling, we ask ourselves “does it exist?” looking at this from the other direction, existence is a digital property, because something either exists or it doesn’t. likewise, to employ irreducible analog modeling, we ask ourselves “is it real?” looking at this from the other direction, reality is an analog property, because something can be more or less real (for example, a memory is more real that a mirage, but less real than a perception).

3. that for philosophy to be of value, it should strive to move from reason to intuition by first reducing data from multiplicity to a satisfactory trinity, and then to the primal duality in which it compares everything known to the intimation of unity to see which one prevails.

i admire what Einstein said about the value of intuition, and that “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler”. what could be simpler than equating the primary commodity of inner experience (the sense of existence) with the primary property of outer experience (solidness) and noticing that existence is solid?

baxishta

 

[baxishta]

friends,

i noticed that the poll associated with this thread is tied at a modest 1 to 1. voting is anonymous and your name will not be shown, so please add to the fun and vote on the question: is it possible that existence is a solid commodity, rather than a property?

thanks!

bax

 

[berkeman]

Thread is temporarily closed pending Moderation...

 

[Math Is Hard]

I had some hopes that if this previously deleted thread were re-posted with some references, it would clarify the topic. After multiple readings, I'm still befuddled, and judging by the comments coming into the moderator forum, others are, too. The latest "1-2-3" post only seems to add murk to the mud puddle.
Sorry, bax, but you may be on that island alone a bit longer. Since this thread has no perceptible solidness, I guess we can assume that it does not exist, and there should be no problem with closing it.