1

Consciousness as such is - I think - said to be made of vague parts; it has parts that are vague, e.g. the sensation of seeing red. I think this means that borderline cases of my consciousness exist necessarily, and so forever. Does that mean the bardo, by which I mean - perhaps ignorantly - transition, bardo, from life and consciousness to death and non-consciousness, is forever?

Here's why I make that inference:

  1. I read that composites with vague parts have a vague identity (so my Consciousness as Such - CaS - has a vague identity)

  2. Evans shows that vague identity is not in the world.

  3. If everything were something with a vague identity then wouldn't vague identity be in the world, in which (with 1 and 2) not everything is CaS.

  4. I intuit we can infer (from 3) that borderline states of consciousness are never absent from everything

Has anyone suggested we have direct or mystic or similar access to borderline states of consciousness and/or the bardo existing necessarily?

forlove1
  • 401
  • 1
  • 9
  • 1
    What you're trying to say is unclear. What does it mean for consciousness to be "made of vague parts"? Give examples, clarify your idea. What's an example of a "vague part" of consciousness? Your first link, by the way, is David Lewis arguing that Evans was misinterpreted and what he really showed is that vagueness is a property of language, not of objects. i.e. there are no vague objects, only vague terms. That interpretation by Lewis certainly makes sense to me. – causative Aug 30 '23 at 02:41
  • 1
    yeah i know. what exactly are you asking, for clearer steps in my reasoning, clarification of 'bardo', 'consciousness as such', what exactly @causative ? – forlove1 Aug 30 '23 at 02:42
  • Explain what you mean in detail, maybe explain it in multiple different ways, address possible misinterpretations, try to make sure that a reader won't be mistaken about what you're trying to say. And give examples wherever possible. I did also ask for clarification on *specific* points of what it means for consciousness to be made of vague parts, or what's an example of a vague part of consciousness, and I asked you to address Lewis' interpretation that there are no vague objects, only vague terms. You wrote "the sensation of seeing red" but how is that sensation vague? Justify your claim. – causative Aug 30 '23 at 02:45
  • hmm well maybe i cannot be understood @causative – forlove1 Aug 30 '23 at 02:47
  • You could be trying a lot harder to communicate clearly than you are. Clarifying your ideas to others also helps clarify them to yourself. There's no virtue in seeming mysterious. Seek instead to be clear and specific. – causative Aug 30 '23 at 02:49
  • no they are clear to me @causative – forlove1 Aug 30 '23 at 02:51
  • 1
    I have periodically wondered why Kant did not think that consciousness is permanent, if time as an intuition and substance as a category are partly subjective conditions. I read some of the A-edition of the first *Critique* and it *seemed* like he said that everyone has their own personal "copy" of pure time, to their name, which seemed almost like claiming an intuition of a personal soul. However, his discussion of the paralogism testifies against pressing such a claim too strongly; he admits we might all wake up from the dream of phenomena one day, but that "might" is rather tenuous. – Kristian Berry Aug 30 '23 at 03:39
  • interesting. not familiar with kant, but husserl says something similar, that the transcendental ego has a kind of permanence to it (Eugen Fink claimed Husserl believed in a kind of personal immortality, but no-one takes that very seriously) @KristianBerry – forlove1 Aug 30 '23 at 04:09
  • 1
    Interesting points have been raised. I would've recommended a particular course of action if only it hadn't been discredited aeons ago. Nonetheless, I'm here. WTF?! – Agent Smith Aug 30 '23 at 07:41
  • 1
    the bible @AgentSmith it's a huge book? i practise meditation. – forlove1 Aug 30 '23 at 07:56
  • 1
    @forlove1, you're blessed mon ami. I knew Christians, I lived and shared meals with them, they invited me to their homes, even asked whether I'd like to join 'em for Sunday mass, I've seen the *Biblia Sacra*, felt it with my hands, even opened it, but never got down to reading it. So close, so, so close, and yet so far. *In nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti*. I pray when I remember to. As for *bardo*, being mathematically inclined (a sad, one-sided tragic love tale), I'd investigate the number 7. I believe it's *important* – Agent Smith Aug 30 '23 at 08:13
  • and at least it is - indeed - a philosophical argument i created all on my own (bar the obvious references and various email conversations that brought me here). oh, except it's not philosophy @AgentSmith hah! – forlove1 Aug 30 '23 at 09:23
  • There are different views on what consciousness is and therefore what happens to it after we die. Under the naturalist emergent view, it stops entirely when your brain activity stops. Outside of that, there are about a billion different dualist views, most of which aren't compatible with one another. [Bardo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo) seems pretty specific to Buddhism (unless you mean something else?), so I don't expect that to be recognised far outside of that. Is your question intended to be specific to Buddhism? Because beyond the mention of bardo, I see no indication of that. – NotThatGuy Aug 30 '23 at 11:01

0 Answers0