Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental

[Eugene I]

My reasoning is that, to paraphrase Coleridge, formlessness' desire for expression is counteracted by forms' desire for stability, and these conflicting desires make the awareness aware that it is doing what it is doing. If that makes sense.

Yeah, this sounds like a stretch to me, I'm not so sure if forms have any "desires"

[AshvinP]

Oh, of course, everything is entangled with everything in this amazing "all-there-is" universe of consciousness. And we definitely can experience their associated meanings if we develop enough level of insight and sensitivity.

Alright, so if at least some meanings are real, and if those meanings become more clear to us as we develop "insight and sensitivity", what happens at the OP 'singularity'? Can there be any meaning associated with the OP? (not asking you to describe the meaning, but just whether it can exist at that level)

[Eugene I]

Alright, so if at least some meanings are real, and if those meanings become more clear to us as we develop "insight and sensitivity", what happens at the OP 'singularity'? Can there be any meaning associated with the OP? (not asking you to describe the meaning, but just whether it can exist at that level)

IMO meanings are the qualia of thoughts (if we adhere to such definition of the term "meaning") and therefore belong to the world of forms. In the tri-muomorphism of formlessness-awareness-forms they belong to the realm of forms. Of course they are real and inseparable from the fundamental and invariant aspects of the OP (which are emptiness/suchness/formlessness and awareness) but by themselves they do not belong to those fundamental aspects. But when we engage the thinking capacity of the OP in our individuated streams of consciousness, we can definitely associate meanings with the fundamental aspects of the OP (and we usually do exactly that), but still such meanings would remain belonging to the world of forms. Take the beingness aspect for example: the OP just IS and can't not BE, that is a simple fact of reality and of suchness and there is no intrinsic meaning to it whatsoever, but we can still associate it a lot of meanings with it when we start reflecting this amazing fact with our thinking capacity.

[AshvinP]

Alright, so if at least some meanings are real, and if those meanings become more clear to us as we develop "insight and sensitivity", what happens at the OP 'singularity'? Can there be any meaning associated with the OP? (not asking you to describe the meaning, but just whether it can exist at that level)

IMO meanings are the qualia of thoughts (if we adhere to such definition of the term "meaning") and therefore belong to the world of forms. In the tri-muomorphism of formlessness-awareness-forms they belong to the realm of forms. Of course they are real and inseparable from the fundamental and invariant aspects of the OP (which are emptiness/suchness/formlessness and awareness) but by themselves they do not belong to those fundamental aspects. But when we engage the thinking capacity of the OP in our individuated streams of consciousness, we can definitely associate meanings with the fundamental aspects of the OP (and we usually do exactly that), but still such meanings would remain belonging to the world of forms. Take the beingness aspect for example: the OP just IS and can't not BE, that is a simple fact of reality and of suchness and there is no intrinsic meaning to it whatsoever, but we can still associate it a lot of meanings with it when we start reflecting this amazing fact with our thinking capacity.

So we are back to ideal content (meanings) being non-fundamental. They are arise from dissociated alters of the OP but cannot be found within a non-dissociated OP because they "belong to the world of forms" and that world is derivative of the OP (although you also mention tri-mumorphism which includes forms so I am not sure where that fits in?). Is that accurate under your view? And is so, is there a possibility of OP existing without any dissociation?

[Eugene I]

So we are back to ideal content (meanings) being non-fundamental. They are arise from dissociated alters of the OP but cannot be found within a non-dissociated OP because they "belong to the world of forms" and that world is derivative of the OP (although you also mention tri-mumorphism which includes forms so I am not sure where that fits in?). Is that accurate under your view? And is so, is there a possibility of OP existing without any dissociation?

I do not know the definite answer to this and I'm open to different possibilities. One of the possibilities (the BK's one) is that even in the non-dissociated state the OP can still be in a sate of forms (in a state of conscious activity - MAL) and create ideations and meanings, and we alters would be able to experience those meanings when they are communicated to us through the "blankets". Whether the OP can exist with no activity and no forms at all remains undecidable to me.

But I'm more inclined to the "Buddhist" model that the OP "within time" always exists in the dissociated state, and all meanings are created by the "alters" through their thinking process (although the term "alter" does not apply anymore as there is no MAL as the "prime" subject). And yes, in such model the alters, the meanings and the world are the "derivatives" of the OP, a result of the unfolding its creative potential into forms.

You can still pose that the meanings are intrinsic to the OP regardless/independent of thought forms (in other words, meanings always exist regardless if there is any subjects that experience them through thoughts), but that's exactly Platonism, we already discussed that before.

But in the end, here is the reality shining and flowing in our direct experiencing of it here and now, and the meanings are just inseparable part of it. It does not matter so much whether they only exist as the qualia of thoughts, or they exist as fundamental and thought-independent aspects of the OP.

[AshvinP]

So we are back to ideal content (meanings) being non-fundamental. They are arise from dissociated alters of the OP but cannot be found within a non-dissociated OP because they "belong to the world of forms" and that world is derivative of the OP (although you also mention tri-mumorphism which includes forms so I am not sure where that fits in?). Is that accurate under your view? And is so, is there a possibility of OP existing without any dissociation?

I do not know the definite answer to this and I'm open to different possibilities. One of the possibilities (the BK's one) is that even in the non-dissociated state the OP can still be in a sate of forms (in a state of conscious activity - MAL) and create ideations and meanings, and we alters would be able to experience those meanings when they are communicated to us through the "blankets". Whether the OP can exist with no activity and no forms at all remains undecidable to me.

But I'm more inclined to the "Buddhist" model that the OP "within time" always exists in the dissociated state, and all meanings are created by the "alters" through their thinking process (although the term "alter" does not apply anymore as there is no MAL as the "prime" subject). And yes, in such model the alters, the meanings and the world are the "derivatives" of the OP, a result of the unfolding its creative potential into forms.

You can still pose that the meanings are intrinsic to the OP regardless/independent of thought forms (in other words, meanings always exist regardless if there is any subjects that experience them through thoughts), but that's exactly Platonism, we already discussed that before.

But in the end, here is the reality shining and flowing in our direct experiencing of it here and now, and the meanings are just inseparable part of it. It does not matter so much whether they only exist as the qualia of thoughts, or they exist as fundamental and thought-independent aspects of the OP.

It matters if we are ever capable of experiencing OP level consciousness or if OP level consciousness is naturally continuous with lower modes of consciousness, right? Our somewhat higher modes of consciousness, and perhaps even normal mode, could give us glimpses of the OP level if the latter is true.

So if the meaning is intrinsic to OP, then thinking activity is also intrinsic to OP, since meaning never appears without thought. We can distinguish between our intellectual concepts which only help us differentiate the world of perceptions, and therefore can be unique to each alter, and our Reason (ideas) which allow us to reunite the differentiated concepts-percepts back into a coherent whole, which is the same for each alter, without sacrificing the utility of differentiation. Do you agree or at least think that is plausible?

[Eugene I]

It matters if we are ever capable of experiencing OP level consciousness or if OP level consciousness is naturally continuous with lower modes of consciousness, right? Our somewhat higher modes of consciousness, and perhaps even normal mode, could give us glimpses of the OP level if the latter is true.

So if the meaning is intrinsic to OP, then thinking activity is also intrinsic to OP, since meaning never appears without thought. We can distinguish between our intellectual concepts which only help us differentiate the world of perceptions, and therefore can be unique to each alter, and our Reason (ideas) which allow us to reunite the differentiated concepts-percepts back into a coherent whole, which is the same for each alter, without sacrificing the utility of differentiation. Do you agree or at least think that is plausible?

The ability to experience and communicate the same meanings is not a proof of their existence independent of thoughts. As we discussed earlier, we can not even experience the same meaning twice, so how do we know if the meaning that you experience is the same as the meaning that I experience when we communicate?

[AshvinP]

It matters if we are ever capable of experiencing OP level consciousness or if OP level consciousness is naturally continuous with lower modes of consciousness, right? Our somewhat higher modes of consciousness, and perhaps even normal mode, could give us glimpses of the OP level if the latter is true.

So if the meaning is intrinsic to OP, then thinking activity is also intrinsic to OP, since meaning never appears without thought. We can distinguish between our intellectual concepts which only help us differentiate the world of perceptions, and therefore can be unique to each alter, and our Reason (ideas) which allow us to reunite the differentiated concepts-percepts back into a coherent whole, which is the same for each alter, without sacrificing the utility of differentiation. Do you agree or at least think that is plausible?

The ability to experience and communicate the same meanings is not a proof of their existence independent of thoughts. As we discussed earlier, we can not even experience the same meaning twice, so how do we know if the meaning that you experience is the same as the meaning that I experience when we communicate?

I am saying meanings are not independent of thoughts. Rather they are totally inseparable from thoughts and thinking activity pervades the Universe. The ability to effectively communicate must indicate a shared essence of at least some real meanings. I am not sure why you claim "we can not even experience the same meaning twice". If you are using "meaning" here as a basic intellectual visualization of a concept, then perhaps. But as a well-reasoned experience which sets those visualized concepts into a coherent whole, we can definitely experience the same essential meaning twice.

[Eugene I]

I am saying meanings are not independent of thoughts. Rather they are totally inseparable from thoughts and thinking activity pervades the Universe.

That's what I'm saying too. Of course all aspects of muomorphism are inseparable, yet they are distinct in their unique aspects and qualities. So, we call the invariant (unchangeable, unconditional) aspects of OP as "fundamental", such as beingness and awareness, because OP always IS and is always AWARE, it can not not BE and can not be not aware. Other aspects, such as forms, are conditional upon each other and impermanent. Thoughts are forms, because they change and are conditioned by other forms. So, as you accepted that meanings are not independent and are inseparable from of thoughts, therefore they are also part of the aspect (world) of forms, they are also subject to change and conditioning. Meanings that people developed, use and share in a society of Bushmen are quite different from meanings that Christians developed and use. So yes, meanings are definitely also aspects of the OP, yet they belong to the world of forms and subject to change and conditioning.

[AshvinP]

I am saying meanings are not independent of thoughts. Rather they are totally inseparable from thoughts and thinking activity pervades the Universe.

That's what I'm saying too. Of course all aspects of muomorphism are inseparable, yet they are distinct in their unique aspects and qualities. So, we call the invariant (unchangeable, unconditional) aspects of OP as "fundamental", such as beingness and awareness, because OP always IS and is always AWARE, it can not not BE and can not be not aware. Other aspects, such as forms, are conditional upon each other and impermanent. Thoughts are forms, because they change and are conditioned by other forms. So, as you accepted that meanings are not independent and are inseparable from of thoughts, therefore they are also part of the aspect (world) of forms, they are also subject to change and conditioning. Meanings that people developed, use and share in a society of Bushmen are quite different from meanings that Christians developed and use. So yes, meanings are definitely also aspects of the OP, yet they belong to the world of forms and subject to change and conditioning.

Well yes in that sense both formlessness and forms are always in process rather than static. Being-awareness is not static either. The fact that all aspects of OP are always in process does not make one aspect more shared between us than the other aspects. In other words, the essence of our thinking activity is just as shared between us as the essence of our awareness. We can enter the same stream of thought just as we can enter the same stream of awareness.