The Analysis.

Since you (David) and Tom obviously have gotten into an interesting topic in Radical Understanding 5, let's continue here.

~   ~   ~

First of all, the last thing to do in this kind of analysis is to go back to the beginning of some Big Bang, which is just abstract nonsense and will never induce any realization. As I said before, this kind of behaviour is just the mind trying to run away from the analysis since it can't bear the possibility that its entire existence might be based upon a huge misunderstanding. (Which would equal death.) So let's stick to the IKEA table or the brick wall. The key is to keep the analysis personal.

“The error is that the lines should have begun in the place where the vertical axis and horizontal axis meet”

The error was here, I said:

”- If no, good, because you can't.”

The error was that you actually could, using example B, find the exact moment of production. That is because if the red line - representing the existence of the table - is curved and not straight. (It is of course curved because the table doesn't exist forever, it eventually ceases to exist.) So by simply shifting the frame of reference (perspective) from the small diagram in the middle of example C to a larger frame of reference, you can see that the red line indeed cuts through the time-axis in the larger frame of reference as it is exactly in a vertical position, which signals the inexorable transition from example B to example A.

What this means is that if you agree with example B, you automatically are forced to accept example A instead, since otherwise the IKEA table must have existed either a) eternally or b) never at all, as demonstrated in example D.

Since I couldn't find any place where you flowed along with the analysis presented but went off on various tangents, I ask again: David, which one of these two examples below do you find to best represent your understanding of the production of the IKEA table? A - the objective sudden production, or B - the objective gradual production?

Let's take it slow. Let's keep it simple. Let's take it step by step, and not run away to the Big Bang, or to abstracts concepts like gokumis, infinite turtles or quantum physics. And most important of all, I think, since this entire anlysis is centered around your claim that the IKEA table objectively exist relatively, if we want to get anywhere at all we must use the language of objectivity - logic. Logic will ensure that we are both on the same playingfield, and not in completely different worldspaces incapable of intercommunication and mutual resonance.

Re: The Analysis.

Here are the examples C and D. I think we will need them as we proceed with the analysis.

Re: The Analysis.

I don't have a clear sense of your question, yet, Dawid, but just to add one point: I think you cannot but reference something like quantum physics because you're asking a physical question.  Your two examples look to me to pose the question whether the table appears in a discrete jump or as on a continuous line (which then must be arbitrarily intersected).  Quantum physics says that, so far as the material world is concerned, things in that world appear and move only in jumps.  The physical world is discontinuous—now here, now there; or now here, now not—and cannot be modeled using the notion of 'continuity.'  You see, you get into all sorts of trouble when you attempt to model physical process as continuous.  Xeno showed that trouble early: you cannot even describe motion using a model of continuity.  The “quantum” in quantum physics embodies just this reversal of usual perceptions: continuous models of physical process are wrong.  Though, again, I don't have a clear sense of your question, I suspect your example B is pre-quantum physics (ie, an invalid approach).  Reality actually works like your example A: discrete jumps.

Re: The Analysis.

I think one of Dawid's points is that an object, such as a table, doesn't 'define' itself from its own side.  Being-a-table is an observer-dependent enactment, and there is no final, definitive, universal 'point' that we can identify when an object or collection of 'parts' becomes a wholly objective 'table-in-itself.'  Looking for a wholly objective table-in-itself, or the point where one suddenly comes into being, is pointless because it misses the point that “tableness” is situational or context dependent, and contexts are boundless.  The challenge here is to in-itselfness.

Re: The Analysis.

I appreciate that, Bruce.  What I don't understand is how Dawid's two examples illustrate something of relevance to his query.

Re: The Analysis.

The question is: is there an objective table (absolutely or relatively) out there? David has said that there indeed is an objective table relatively out there, so we are simply trying to find it. That's what this analysis is about.

(Update: very well said, Bruce.)

Re: The Analysis.

I think what Dawid was driving at with his discrete (infinite velocity up) vs. continuity (smooth continuous increase) examples was to say reality is continuous, and there's no way, but arbitrarily, one can 'divide' something continuous to get what the thing-in-itself substance-argument wants, a discrete something that in one instance is not there, in the very next is.  Unfortunately, that's, in a real sense, how things work.  Reality is discrete: poof, appearance appears fully formed with no “lead-up,” no smooth, preceding, continuous developmental path.  The latter is the way of Xeno, which quantum physics has discredited: the paradox of continuity (the rabbit can never catch the tortoise) is in fact a misunderstanding, at least so modern science says.

Re: The Analysis.

Let me go a little further with this.  Quantum physics suggests there is some truth to the 'substance' intuition, which the emptiness crowd looks to me to want to entirely obliterate.  But to quote Wilber, how could any perspective be entirely wrong?  Emptiness theorizers, from what I can see, typically want things just-empty—capital E Empty in a kind of outward and inward going reductio & posito ad infinitum.  But that can't be true either, it's a reification of the very thingness thinking the emptiness crowd criticizes, something I've said 800 times in this pod, a form of performative contradiction whose only action is to step back, “no, that too is empty, as is this saying, as is ………………………..”  But negation requires a position to negate: the two co-appear.

But what could be the true element in the substance intuition?  It could be that reality appears and moves discretely, just as in Dawid's example A.  Continuity, which typifies Nagarjuna's thinking to a tee, is not of this world, but is a mental construct properly suited to descriptions of possibility.  Actual-discrete vs. potential-continuous is the very problem at the root of the controversy regarding “collapse of the wave form” in quantum physics.  That “collapse” must posit, as it does, infinite velocity, as in Dawid's example A.  And infinite velocity always seems like a problem.  But do you see the pattern here?  Reality is both A and B, A in actuality, B in possibility.  It's not just-empty (B), nor does B even apply to actuality, just possibility.

Re: The Analysis.

I think this is recognized in Buddhism, at least in my reading of some traditions within it.  My Buddhist terminological precision and scriptural knowlege are both suffering at this point, since it has been a couple years since I've read a Buddhist book.  But roughly and generally speaking:  in the Dzogchen tradition, for instance, teachers do not take a negation-only approach; they also freely make positive statements, often in celebratory manner, and they use the metaphor of 'magic' to express this wonder at the mystery of appearance.  The way they put this is to exclaim that, no matter how carefully we look, we can't find any final or permanent or foundational basis to reality, and yet, despite the fact that we can't find any “thing” that anything is, here we are in the middle of it, all this wondrous display and teeming multiplicity.  ”Emaho!  How wonderful!” 

So, there is something to negate, but we can never pin that “something” down in any definitive way; we can't locate that something in any final state of independently existing in-itselfness.  That's why the dream metaphor is used as well.  In a dream, there's clearly something going on, but as we all know, when we try to grasp it, it evades us.

We can speak of foundations of appearances, conventionally, but those foundations are appearances as well (e.g., part of the overall situational enactment).  Form is emptiness, but emptiness is also form.  The two co-arise.

[If you see a step I'm missing, Tom, I certainly welcome your insights, since I respect your viewpoint; but I'm making this point here because I think your critique misses some of the subtlety of what I have perceived in the Buddhist teachings I've studied, though it appears appropriate to much of the popular 'emptiness talk' in Integral circles.]

Re: The Analysis.

Hi Bruce, I can live with that more refined Buddhist view of emptiness as an action or movement that prevents one settling into some finality of concept, perception, etc.  Negation, for me, plays this role of unsettling a position, which for various reasons tends in some manner to be more or less fixed, to allow it to move to a more subtle formulation.  Negation, to me, serves this purpose.

Re: The Analysis.

And finally, also this:

Re: The Analysis.

Tom: “Emptiness theorizers, from what I can see, typically want things just-empty—capital E Empty in a kind of outward and inward going reductio & posito ad infinitum.”

I don't want anything. I'm simply asking questions based on the assertions or non-assertions that people make. (See questions below.) This is how the Prasangika analytical approach differ from other buddhist schools.

Tom: “What I don't understand is how Dawid's two examples illustrate something of relevance to his query.”
Tom: “I think what Dawid was driving at with his discrete (infinite velocity up) vs. continuity (smooth continuous increase) examples was to say reality is continuous”

What the analysis is showing is not that A is wrong and B is right, or that B is wrong and that A is right. Rather, it is showing how both A and B suffer from devastating logical consequences if an objective table (relatively or absolutely) is asserted to exist.

A doesn't work because one can not find that exact moment when the table comes into existence. (“Where exactly is that exact moment you say exists?”)

B doesn't work because if one agrees that the table eventually ceases to exist, then B becomes A, as demonstrated in C. (So it's the same question as above.) A truly gradual production would require that the table either a) always existed, or that b) it never existed and never will, as demonstrated in D. David can not accept a) because he agrees - I think - that tables eventually ceases to exist. (“Have you never seen a table that exists forever?”) And he can not accept b) because he asserts that a table exists. (“How can you say that the table never comes into existence if you say that it exists?”)

“So, what's going on here?” See, I'm just asking questions. :)

Re: The Analysis.

Ok, well, I'm not totally plugged into this conversation.  My sense is if you push your analysis too far, you're going run into problems with language.  All the words you're negating to kingdom come are connected to other words, particularly their opposites, whose meaning depends on some meaning being given to the negated obliterands.  For instance, one could ask what do you mean by your use of the word “exist”?  You use it, so one could imply you have some meaning you intend.  If that meaning is, well, exist is a useless idea because I've just shown that nothing can be seen to exist, then you've entirely negated the meaning of exist.  And if matter doesn't doesn't exist in some manner table-like, or atom-like, or Dawid-like, I don't know what it means to say “matter” or “exist.”  And not having any meaningful sense for those words, all other words likewise fall.  Silence is nice, but words are also part of what is.

Re: The Analysis.

“My sense is if you push your analysis too far, you're going run into problems with language.”

You bet.

“For instance, one could ask what do you mean by your use of the word “exist”?”

I mean whatever the person I'm doing the analysis with mean. Because s/he is the one who started to use the word, and I'm simply asking questions based on that assumption of “existence” or “nonexistence” that the person holds. If the assumption falls away, so does the analysis.

“Silence is nice, but words are also part of what is.”

Yes. I read somewhere a person who said that the Totality is not in the words, but the words are in the Totality. I kinda digged that.

Re: The Analysis.

Is: First of all, the last thing to do in this kind of analysis is to go back to the beginning of some Big Bang, which is just abstract nonsense and will never induce any realization. As I said before, this kind of behaviour is just the mind trying to run away from the analysis since it can't bear the possibility that its entire existence might be based upon a huge misunderstanding. (Which would equal death.)


I think the evolutionary process does have implications for us in terms of vertical realization, vertical enlightenment—-because emptiness is form, form is evolving; thus, we would want to align ourselves with that process as a moral orientation—but we can leave it out of this discussion if you like.

(I brought it up because it seems to me if we analyze parts that's where we are headed: into deep time. What are the parts made of? Plastic and metal. What are plastic and metal made of? We go down to atoms and quarks, holon theory, etc. It seems to me that that would be an interesting analysis at some point, another time if you don't want to now.)


Dawid: You can see that the red line indeed cuts through the time-axis in the larger frame of reference as it is exactly in a vertical position, which signals the inexorable transition from example B to example A.

What this means is that if you agree with example B, you automatically are forced to accept example A instead, since otherwise the IKEA table must have existed either a) eternally or b) never at all, as demonstrated in example D.



Yes, in both the table has some beginning in time.

(It occurs to me we might, for frame of reference, put the table in the four quadrants for a moment: it's an artifact in the lower-right quadrant, appearing in the information age.)



Dawid: Since I couldn't find any place where you flowed along with the analysis presented but went off on various tangents, I ask again: David, which one of these two examples below do you find to best represent your understanding of the production of the IKEA table? A - the objective sudden production, or B - the objective gradual production?


I will get to the semiotics in a moment, but, just treating the table as an artifact for a moment, I would have to say it would be more in line with B, emerging at a certain point in evolutionary, dependent origination.

What is that point? It will be when the last peg has been inserted. You haven't answered that question. Has the table not emerged at the moment the last peg has been inserted? Is there any other reasonable answer to the question, When did the table begin to exist? Of course the table can only exist in particular worldspaces, but in at least an Orange worldspace, is there any other reasonable answer?



Dawid: This entire anlysis is centered around your claim that the IKEA table objectively exist relatively.


My claim is that the table's relative existence is in part objective. What is your claim? We both agree that the table doesn't exist ultimately.


Bruce: I think one of Dawid's points is that an object, such as a table, doesn't 'define' itself from its own side.


Yes, that has seemed to me to be one of the points.

However, when we put it like this it sounds very much like “It is all interpretation” or “the nature of the table is determined entirely by the interpretant.”

This couldn't be the case, however. If we take a rock, for example, no one anywhere will mistake it for a piece of food. No species of animal eats rocks. It's not that a rock exists objectively; it needs some interpretant to enact it. But interpretant and object arise together, like a bird rises in the air with two wings.

I gave the Robinson Crusoe example a while ago—the book was thrown into several rooms, each containing one interpretant: a dog, a five year old, a ten year old, a fifteen year old, etc. Not one of them mistook the book for a piece of food; all the people recognized it at least as a book. The older people interpreted it as a book about a guy who got shipwrecked on an island.

If we threw in a pear, we would get different interpretations, all revolving around an edible, I would think. If we threw in a cat, we would get different interpretations still, all revolving around something that was recognized as an organism.

The interpretations are not determined solely by the interpretant. They are determined in part by the object we throw into the room.


An typical Orange analysis would say that the table simply exists as a universal fact for all interpretants.

A typical or extreme Green analysis would be that the table does not exist as a pure object fact; nothing does; it is all interpretation. It is all up to the interpretant.

But put a rock in those rooms, and each of those interpretants will come up with a different interpretation than they did for the pear. And there will be some similarities in their interpretations—not one of them, for example, will think that the rock is edible.

An integral analysis would include both the interpretive aspect and the objective aspect. We can't say that there is a purely objective table out there free of interpretation, but notice: We are using a particular signifier, table, that has a particular referent among a universe full of referents.

Like we can find a cell looking through a microscope, we can empirically find the table in an Ikea store, assembled and ready to use in the display area and as parts in a box somewhere behind the scenes. It will appear differently to each person, but I don't think we can ignore it that interpretations of particular objects will often revolve around certain themes and at least specifically exclude other themes.

That's just to clarify my position. I'm not sure what the Prasangika claim is exactly or where the analysis is headed, so I'm not arguing against anything, just kind of guessing at what seems to be the claim. We all agree at the very least that the table will not exist forever and did not always exist, but I think that the fact we continue to use the same signifier (table) tells us that there is an objective aspect to the intepretation.

But even if we agree that the table doesn't ultimately exist or even if we believe that there is absolutely nothing objective at all about the entire thing, we will still likely, at least some of the time, believe in the table and ourselves as though they inherently exist forever and we are in an absolutely life or death moment or something, and that's what I think the analaysis is good for.

It is one thing to understand something cognitively, another thing to have it as an operating system. In addition I think the analysis is good for construct and ego awareness in general. Our minds, it occurs to me as I write this and looking out the window, are like a movie projector—we play a movie for ourselves; the scene outside my window is a movie. And there is the me looking out (the interpretant) and the objects in the movie, but both me and object are in the movie, always arising together when the movie starts.

So, I suppose in a sense we can say that the entire scene, the entire movie is an imputation of the mind, as long as we don't confuse that with the interpretation-only, no-objective-aspect worldview. As long as we understand that within the movie there is an interpretive aspect and an objective aspect, always arising together.


Dawid: David has said that there indeed is an objective table relatively out there.


Never said that a purely objective table exists relatively out there; I've always said that the table only rises with an interpretant, in a particular enactment or worldview. It's just that we can't really say that there absolutely isn't a table that exists relatively out there unless we are simply stating the absolute truth. We can't say that there is not an objective aspect to the table and leave our “I” hanging out there as if it does really exist; we can't leave the interpretant hanging out there once we've analyzed away all the objects.

If the objects go, so do the interpreters! And that's the absolute truth side of the two-truths doctrine. The moment there is an interpreter, there has to be an object as well. So the analysis has to consume itself all at once, not gradually!

Re: The Analysis.

So, I suppose in a sense we can say that the entire scene, the entire movie is an imputation of the mind, as long as we don't confuse that with the interpretation-only, no-objective-aspect worldview. As long as we understand that within the movie there is an interpretive aspect and an objective aspect, always arising together.

I don't think anyone on this thread has argued for an idealistic or solipsistic interpretation-only or mind-stuff only perspective.  That would, in fact, just be the reverse side of thing-thinking, not a move beyond it, because it still thinks in terms of 'things' and just describes them now in terms of a different 'substance' (mind-stuff, not material-stuff).

Re: The Analysis.

David: “I will get to the semiotics in a moment, but, just treating the table as an artifact for a moment, I would have to say it would be more in line with B, emerging at a certain point in evolutionary, dependent origination.

What is that point? It will be when the last peg has been inserted. You haven't answered that question. Has the table not emerged at the moment the last peg has been inserted? Is there any other reasonable answer to the question, When did the table begin to exist?”
 
Before we continue with this, you have to answer which one of the productions you agree with. A, or B. You say “more in line with B”, that is a very dodgy, non-definitive answer. As you know, both A and B can't be true, so you need to say which one you agree with. Then we can proceed.

Re: The Analysis.

I will say now that the table begins to exist suddenly when the last peg has been inserted. Before that it was not a table. Once the last peg has been inserted it is a table. We would be able to specify a time at least to the second when that occurred. However, I am not saying that that table is arising without an interpretant.

In fact, it is tetra-arising!

We could say, “It is tetra-arising in the field of my awareness.” (3p, L/8, s/c)

Or (3p, L8, l/c, S/c) X (Q/4, L/6)

Re: The Analysis.

Right, I'm not saying anyone did. It was just that my position kept getting mistaken for the pure-object position, so I wanted to differentiate it from that.

No one has argued for anything yet, really, except me. I've just been answering questions.

Re: The Analysis.

“I will say now that the table begins to exist suddenly when the last peg has been inserted.”

So, your answer is A?

The reason I'm being so stubborn is that if we don't agree on stuff like this, we will never be able to make any progress.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid, the answer has to be A, unless we're talking physics without reference to physics.

So assume: the last peg is moving into place, it enters the hole and begins to resist, the table-maker pushes harder on the peg and at some point decides it's in far enough.

Now, you could ask, where in that sequence does tablehood appear?  The answer, I see, is: depends on who's defining table, whether a table is defined as a table minus the peg, or as with the peg half in, or as with the peg “satisfactorily” fully in.  In any of these instances, the table-coming-to-be is in a definite state, and each next state (peg further in) is likewise definite, with definite leaps boing boing boing and nothing in between.  Thus if you want to define a table as corresponding to any of those, you will find something in the material world fitting whatever definition you choose subject to quantum and normal scientific-theoretical uncertainties.  “Table,” being a definition, is a word-carried delimitation that, once all tablequalities are decided by the interpreter, becomes a workable definition that orients behaviour.  Of course, the definition could be refined probably ad infinitum, but any such refining changes nothing respecting the definiteness of the object, or so science now seems to suggest: what is called a table remains such whether I call it a goose or a car or empty, or not a table because the peg isn't in far enough, or a table.

Re: The Analysis.

Concerning the issue of everything being interpretation, which you've critiqued, that is different from saying everything is interpreted.  Are you familiar with the fallacy of division, which I've mentioned in this context?  Related to the problem of trying to identify what 'part' of any appearance is the 'objective' or 'non-interpreted' part?

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid, yes, suddenly! A! From the kosmic address I mentioned.

Bruce, right, we can never fully or cleanly separate subject and object; they arise together every time, and we could never say exactly what is interpretation and what is object. But that doesn't mean that we should no longer make a distinction between interpretant and object.

For example, we will identify an interpretation with a particular kosmic address, an object with a kosmic address as well.

So if a Turquoise integralist is talking about a Teal atheist critique of Christian fundamentalists it would go something like:

(3p, L/8, l/c) X (3p, L/7, l/c) X (Q/3, L/4, t/c)

Re: The Analysis.

Okay, just checking. 

I'm standing aside now, so Is can continue with his analysis.  (He's gotten you to definitively commit to a position, an important step in Madhyamika analysis).*






* After we're done with this, I have a fun application of this that can also be used in the psychotherapeutic arena.

Re: The Analysis.

David: “A!”
 
Great! So you said:

“I will say now that the table begins to exist suddenly when the last peg has been inserted. Before that it was not a table. Once the last peg has been inserted it is a table. We would be able to specify a time at least to the second when that occurred.”
 
So let us again record with a nice high quality HD camera that, say, 3 second period when the last table peg is being inserted by the carpenter, marking as you say the objective production of the table. Then we go watch it in a very slow motion version. In the slow motion version it is all slowed down so that every 1 second is equal to 1 hour of time. So we have a 3 hour movie clip to watch. Yay!

Now, when exactly will you pause the movie clip and signal that this was the exact moment of production?

Because as you can see very clearly in example A, there is one exact, definite and objective moment when the table begins to exist. So when within the three hour movie clip will you become aware of this objective moment?

And then when you've done that, we invite your ten friends again. Each will watch the same movie clip for three hours, and be given the same instructions as yourself to pause when they've become aware of the table's objective production.

Do you think that they will all pause at the exact moment as yourself? If no, why not? Given the objective production demonstrated in example A, it should be dead easy. Just to pause when it happens!

Re: The Analysis.

I will pause it once it is clear the peg has been inserted completely but perhaps while the carpenter's hands on are still touching it.

Will others stop of the film at the exact same time? Perhaps not. But can you think of another time where it would be reasonable to stop the film? Is the table not finished when the last peg has been inserted, at the moment we see it click into place?

If they stop it before that moment, would they not have stopped it too soon, before the table was finished? If they stopped it after that point, wouldn't the table have been fully assembled before they stopped the film?

Re: The Analysis.

“Perhaps not.”

But why wouldn't they? If you look at example A it is very clear exactly - exactly means there is no room for interpretation - when that red line is emerging from the time-axis. Is there something wrong with their eyes perhaps? Are they not seeing what you're seeing on the TV monitor?

It should be to simply pause the movie clip when it happens.

Re: The Analysis.

The table exists when the material thing matches the predetermined, pre-agreed, prespecified definition of a table.  That definition can be as tight or as loose as those who agree on it care.  I don't get the question.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: But why wouldn't they? If you look at example A it is very clear exactly - exactly means there is no room for interpretation - when that red line is emerging from the time-axis. Is there something wrong with their eyes perhaps? Are they not seeing what you're seeing on the TV monitor?


Could you please answer these questions that I asked:

Re: The Analysis.

I think that's the better analysis, David.  You don't get a “table” without human beings with a lifestyle and language and whatever else is required to agree between themselves, or not, that this or that thing is a table in a function they associate with that naming.  Thus to attempt to find tableness absent reference to what language is and how it operates is commit a serious category confusion.

So assume: you've placed the item marked “table” on your IKEA dolly, you pay money in agreement that what you have purchased is a table, you take the thing home and find all parts are there.  So you put it together.

You have a thing called a table.  Borrowing a little thinking from another thread I'm active in, assume you place this thing on a rocketship—it's a lunch table for the ship crew!  This is a very fast ship, and true to form it takes off into space and travels at 99.999% of the speed of light for 10 years on its clock, and at which point it returns home to earth.

Upon return, earth will have aged (centuries*) and all brother IKEA tables, including perhaps every other table whatever, will have turned to dust and who knows what.

This little story is just to emphasis the self-consisting separate aspect of the object-thing we call the table.  Just for clarity.   ; )


* I can't do the math, but the result is probably many centuries

Re: The Analysis.

“Could you please answer these questions that I asked?”

You are the one doing the analysis. I simply represent the Prasangika-interlocutor, and therefore, it would be unacceptable for me to try to give you answers. In Prasangika, the point is not to force people into believing something, but to present consequences making the opponent realize he's in a conceptually contradictory or uncomfortable position where he don't want to be. I think I've followed this principle like 80% of the time, which is a little bad, so I'd like to continue to simply ask you questions based on your own assumptions.

“But can you think of another time where it would be reasonable to stop the film? Is the table not finished when the last peg has been inserted, at the moment we see it click into place?”

My answer to this question will become apparent when you have success with the analysis.

So, you dodged the question, let's have another go:

David: “Perhaps not.”

But why wouldn't they? If you look at example A it is very clear exactly - exactly means there is no room for interpretation - when that red line is emerging from the time-axis. (That is, the table is objectively produced at one exact moment, represented by the red line emerging from the time-axis.) Is there something wrong with their eyes perhaps? Are they not percieving what you're perceiving on the TV monitor?

It should be to simply pause the 3 hour movie clip when it happens.

Re: The Analysis.

I think it would be best if this were flexible, more of a dialogue. Did you see the recent Andrew Cohen/Genpo Roshi discussion? There were two. In this one they discuss the importance of flexibility in relationships in terms of what roles we play. Even if you were a Prasangika master, it wouldn't make sense to always stay in that role.

We need to both use this analysis for digging deeper into our own mental constructs, and we should scrutinize the analysis itself as well. I don't think we should assume that it is perfect or even that it delivers what it claims to deliver, though I am not saying it doesn't. I am not going into this with blind faith about anything but questioning each step.

I think you are dodging the questions I have been asking. I have been answering your questions, sometimes directly and sometimes with questions of my own. That is how I have been trying to delve into it and deepen the inquiry, but it has to be a dialogue, and the analysis itself may have to be questioned at times.

I don't really understand your question either. The question has to do with the moment when the table is produced, becomes a table that is, and whether there is one moment for this that is true for everyone, or whether it is subjective. I think it is a very interesting question and worthy analysis, but I think it does depend on a lot of things and will differ from table to table.

With regard to the Ikea table, if it comes in parts in a box with a picture of the end product on the box and instructions to assemble it, isn't the moment when it is finished clear cut and true for everyone?

Now, if we slowed the film down much more and extended the last five seconds of production into, say, one entire week of continuous viewing, it would get much more difficult if not impossible to agree on one exact moment. I think that is kind of interesting: Even if everyone could agree on a particular minute the table was produced or even second or perhaps even less than a second, if we continued to divide time into smaller and smaller units would people continue to agree?

But is it really so important if people agree that the table was finished in the same second, when the last of the Ikea instructions was carried out?

It might be interesting to look at some natural phenomenon, like the opening of a flower or the freezing of a raindrop or a bolt of lighting or a rain drop hitting the ground. Or a caterpillar turning into a butterfly.

Re: The Analysis.

“I think it would be best if this were flexible, more of a dialogue. Did you see the recent Andrew Cohen/Genpo Roshi discussion? There were two. In this one they discuss the importance of flexibility in relationships in terms of what roles we play. Even if you were a Prasangika master, it wouldn't make sense to always stay in that role.”
 
This thread is designed specifically for this analysis, so I don't see any problem. In other threads I always openly state my views and try to impose them on others. :P

“…and we should scrutinize the analysis itself as well”

Sure, why not? But please remember that this kind of analysis have been cultivated and refined by scholars, sages and logicians for over like 2500 years of human history, and therefore have proven a highly effective and reliable tool for inducing a realization of suchness. (Though of course, just because something has a long history doesn't mean it is automatically true, so indeed - keep up that healthy skepticism!)

“it has to be a dialogue”

It is a dialogue; just a special kind of dialogue where I ask the questions and you provide the answers.

“It might be interesting to look at some natural phenomenon”

Sure, I'd love to. But let's continue to focus on the current object, which is the IKEA table. As said, the mind's greatest weapon against this analysis is to jump from object to object, never focusing 100% on one at a time. This way it doesn't have to deal with the contradictions and uncomfortable results this type of analytical thinking brings forth.

“But is it really so important if people agree that the table was finished in the same second, when the last of the Ikea instructions was carried out?”

Oh my God, yes! You may not understand it right now, but this is actually a key to the liberation from suffering; a key to the infinite Totality. I am talking from experience now; while I do not have a penetrating insight into true emptiness and its limitless implications yet, I have recently been blessed to tip-toe across this most profound bottomless source, and it is crystal clear that this kind of insight is a true destroyer of ignorance, and a true liberator from the chains of suffering. The ultimate meeting point of all the worlds religions. That's why I am so passionate about this analysis. So let's look at this, you say:

“Now, if we slowed the film down much more and extended the last five seconds of production into, say, one entire week of continuous viewing, it would get much more difficult if not impossible to agree on one exact moment.”

But why do you think this is? If you look again at example A - which you've candidly stated is the way the IKEA table is produced - you'll notice that the objective production of the table occurs at one exact moment in time. Therefore, it shouldn't matter how much we slow down our video clip, 5 hours, 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months, 5 years, 5 decades, 5 centuries or even 5 millenia: since the objective production occurs at that one exact and unquestionable moment in time indicated in example A, it should be dead easy to just point it out.

So why do you think it becomes harder and harder the more we slow down the video clip of that last peg being inserted? In my mind, looking at example A, it actually ought to become more simple, because we are given more time to be more accurate about that one moment of production represented in the diagram.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: You may not understand it right now, but this is actually a key to the liberation from suffering; a key to the infinite Totality.

Dawid, those words are all fine and well, an accurate rendering IMO of the implications of moving beyond conceptual fixity, but only if you're speaking from experience.  If you're not, you're doing what so many people interested in integral and spirituality do: they parrot words that cohere that speak of a power-place.  And parroting is a trap.  People love the power-place the words intimate, but that love is immaturely motivated, and self-deceiving.

There''s a lovely fairy tale from Persia called “The Bath Called Investigating the Castle of Nothingness,” where the progenitor, to achieve his goal—no less than finding the diamond, that which is eternal in awareness—must kill a parrot.  In the tale, many have tried to kill the parrot and have failed, and have turned into statues as a result.  Absolute fixity.

So, yes, there is no “thing” out there and there is no exact moment when any “thing” comes into existence, because things as things don't exist, they're mental fictions, a writing-over or limiting of what is relevant for limited purposes.  Anything called by a word is of that character and doesn't exist: words are not “representations” of reality.  The emotional upshot of this, to those who have done enough inner work to move perception to this level, and this work goes well beyond the conceptual, is one of release from striving, from discontent, from difficulty, resistance and suffering.  As valuable as a diamond.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: Sure, why not? But please remember that this kind of analysis have been cultivated and refined by scholars, sages and logicians for over like 2500 years of human history, and therefore have proven a highly effective and reliable tool for inducing a realization of suchness.


Yes, that's worth keeping in mind, though sometimes I wonder if the analysis is designed more for vertical realization than for horizontal suchness realization. The analysis is, in the end, conceptual when suchness realization is nonconceptual. But a higher conceptual realization will set a higher base camp for nonconceptual realization and enable a higher post-enlightenment expression and interpretation.

Also, everything in the Prasangika analysis may not survive an integral anaylsis. For example, the idea of objects not defining themselves at all from their side—I don't think this survives an integral analysis, so if that is where this is headed I think we should discuss it.



Dawid: It is a dialogue; just a special kind of dialogue where I ask the questions and you provide the answers.


Nope.  :) You're going to have to start answering some questions. It is about your analysis as well, as well as about the analysis itself.



Dawid: But why do you think this is? If you look again at example A - which you've candidly stated is the way the IKEA table is produced - you'll notice that the objective production of the table occurs at one exact moment in time. Therefore, it shouldn't matter how much we slow down our video clip, 5 hours, 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months, 5 years, 5 decades, 5 centuries or even 5 millenia: since the objective production occurs at that one exact and unquestionable moment in time indicated in example A, it should be dead easy to just point it out.


Let's revisit this once again. If we agree that the table is finished once the last of the IKEA instructions has been carried out, and the last instruction is to insert the final peg into the table top, then, once the peg has been completely inserted the table is finished, right, according to the IKEA instructions, according to the designers of the table.

So then the question becomes, When is the last peg inserted or when has the last peg been inserted? Let's slow down the camera and see: It has been inserted completely once the head of the peg is flush with the table top or bracket or whatever it is coming into contact with.

If we slowed it down with a fine camera zoomed in on this point, we would see light disappear between peg head and bracket; we would see the motion of the peg head as it travels toward the bracket stop—when it's motion in that direction has stopped, the peg has been inserted completely, yes? Could we not, with a fine camera and possibly other equipment, determine exactly when the motion of the peg has stopped? If we can determine the exact moment when the motion of the peg has stopped, have we not determined the exact moment the table has been completed according to the instructions of its designers?

Re: The Analysis.

“You're going to have to start answering some questions.”

Why? This is your moment. You're standing by the gates of Heaven, I'm not going to ruin this opportunity.
 
“If we slowed it down with a fine camera zoomed in on this point, we would see light disappear between peg head and bracket; we would see the motion of the peg head as it travels toward the bracket stop—when it's motion in that direction has stopped, the peg has been inserted completely, yes?”

So according to you, the table starts to exist at this one exact time when the peg has been “fully inserted”. (Let's just assume for the moment that there is one such exact moment, say, when the last peg has been inserted in the way you describe. Let's play by your rules.)

The table has certain qualities that it must possess in order to be an existing table. Most prominently: we must be able to have our dinner on it, and sit by it and eat. The way we recognize a nonexistent table is that this function is not fulfilled; we can not sit and eat by a nonexistent table, that would be ridiculous. I think you agree with this.

You said earlier:

“I will say now that the table begins to exist suddenly when the last peg has been inserted. Before that it was not a table. Once the last peg has been inserted it is a table.”

Now, one of the consequences following from this reasoning of yours is that 0.1 second before that last peg is “fully inserted” in the table - say, when the peg is 0.1 cm away from being what you call “fully inserted” - we would not have a table that we can eat on! Why? Because according to your reasoning, the table starts to objectively exist only at that exact moment when the peg is “fully inserted”, and not before. (See example A, with which you have agreed is an 100% accurate visual representation of your position on production.) So before that peg is “fully inserted”, the not-yet-existing-table is not in any way different from the table lying unassembled in the IKEA box.

Also, absurdly, we could not eat on this table in which the last peg is 0.1 cm from being fully inserted, because according to you the table has objectively not yet come into existence.

Also, say the carpenter by accident left the last peg sticking out 0.01 cm so that it doesn't fulfill the precise criterion you described earlier. Then if we would invite the designer of the table and ask if he thought it was complete, he wouldn't say that it was. Because the table objectively has not yet come into existence. He would perhaps say that the parts he designed were there, but not the table.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: Why? This is your moment. You're standing by the gates of Heaven, I'm not going to ruin this opportunity.


It's your moment, too!



Dawid: The table has certain qualities that it must possess in order to be an existing table. Most prominently: we must be able to have our dinner on it, and sit by it and eat. The way we recognize a nonexistent table is that this function is not fulfilled; we can not sit and eat by a nonexistent table, that would be ridiculous. I think you agree with this.


This is interesting. Have a look at the picture I have attached to this post.

It is based on what Wilber wrote in Eye of the Spirit about integral art. We can just substitute table where it says artwork. In fact, I have just done that, so you have two pictures to look at.  :)

So, according to IKEA (the “artist,” the designers of the table, in the upper right) the table is finished when the last of their instructions has been carried out. That is very clear cut.

Would everyone agree? Not everyone would agree there because not everyone would be able to follow the instructions. Archaic individuals wouldn't be able to follow the instructions, nor Magenta, probably not Red, but with Amber (“concrete operational”) I think they might be able to follow the instructions, though we would probably have to integrate different lines of intelligence.

Not everyone would agree (not L/1 to at least L/3), but I think from at least L/5 on people who were putting together the table themselves would stop after the final peg were inserted and consider the table ready for use. We are talking about a particular table, a particular IKEA table with a certain number of parts and a certain number of steps that need to be taken to put it together—the number of parts to put it together and steps to be taken would be the same for everyone, at least from L/5 on (probably L/4 on).


Dawid: Now, one of the consequences following from this reasoning of yours is that 0.1 second before that last peg is “fully inserted” in the table - say, when the peg is 0.1 cm away from being what you call “fully inserted” - we would not have a table that we can eat on! Why? Because according to your reasoning, the table starts to objectively exist only at that exact moment when the peg is “fully inserted”, and not before.


I don't think that is a consequence of my reasoning. My reasoning is that the IKEA table would be finished when the last of the IKEA instructions were carried out, according to the intention of the designer in the UL (or, if a group of IKEA designers, in the LL, but even there a social holon doesn't have a dominant monad, so we might have to say the design-group leader's intention in the UL). That does not necessarily mean that we wouldn't have a usable table if, say, a disgruntled IKEA worker put a piece of chewed gum into the hole the peg needed to fit in, and the peg could only go part way.

We might not have a usable table if it had been a large piece of gum, but if it had been just been small piece of gum we could use a little extra force and push the peg in to where it wouldn't go all the way in, as far as the manufacturers intended (say .01 cm away as in your example), but would go far enough to have a reasonably even and usable table—now, the IKEA table, as the manufactures designed it, would not be finished in this case because of the gum that shouldn't be there, but we (in the lower left, in our particular cultures and predominant waves) would have a usable table.



Dawid: So before that peg is “fully inserted”, the not-yet-existing-table is not in any way different from the table lying unassembled in the IKEA box.


I think it is quite different at that point. It has not been assembled to the specifications of the manufacture so it is not technically completed, but it is a usable table. Even if the piece gum had been large, to the point of making the table too uneven to use, it would still be very different than the entirely unassembled parts in the box. In that case it would be neither the unassembled parts nor the IKEA table finished to the manufacture's specifications nor a usable table, nor a combination of these!

Re: The Analysis.

“Not everyone would agree there because not everyone would be able to follow the instructions.”

We're not talking about whether we can put together the table or not. The scenario is that we're standing and observing a carpenter kindly doing the job for us.

And since the table is objectively produced at that one exact moment you described, it shouldn't matter what level of development any perticular observer is at, because something that is objective exists independently of observers.

“I don't think that is a consequence of my reasoning. My reasoning is that the IKEA table would be finished when the last of the IKEA instructions were carried out, according to the intention of the designer in the UL (or, if a group of IKEA designers, in the LL, but even there a social holon doesn't have a dominant monad, so we might have to say the design-group leader's intention in the UL). That does not necessarily mean that we wouldn't have a usable table if, say, a disgruntled IKEA worker put a piece of chewed gum into the hole the peg needed to fit in, and the peg could only go part way.”

Sorry, David, but you're contradicting yourself now. You say that the table is created at one exact moment, and that before this moment it is not a table. So how can we have a table if a little bit of chewing gum is in the way of successfully fulfilling the criteria you described for when that last peg is fully inserted?

If the last peg is sticking out 0.1 cm so that the table is not yet produced, what then do we have in front of us? Another table? How many tables are we talking about here, really? What are the criteria of production for this pre-IKEA table? When did it start to exist? Were there a table before that table also, or is it definitely no table before that pre-table, so that there is just two tables in total during the time of the carpenter's assembling job? Does the pre-table stop existing when the IKEA table comes into existence, or does it continue to exist as an unmanifest potential just in case the peg of the IKEA table would come a little bit loose so that the IKEA table would stop existing again? Or do we have perhaps twenty or thirty pre-tables coming into existence around the time when the IKEA table is being produced (and destroyed), so that we still can eat on the to-be-IKEA table (or previously-existing-IKEA table) even though it is not yet existing (have ceased to exist)?

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: We're not talking about whether we can put together the table or not. The scenario is that we're standing and observing a carpenter kindly doing the job for us.


To determine whether the table had been completed according to the manufacturer's intentions, the observers would have to know what all the parts were and the instructions.


Dawid: And since the table is objectively produced at that one exact moment you described, it shouldn't matter what level of development any perticular observer is at, because something that is objective exists independently of observers.


You're still confusing my position with the extreme Orange position, that of an object existing free of perspectives. That is what the Prasangika analysis was apparently designed to do, but that is not my position. It's also why I think the Prasangika anaylsis is going to have to evolve if it is going to remain relevant, because it does seem to be simply arguing against the extreme Orange position in favor of the extreme Green position.

I've written a great many things to differentiate my position from the Orange position. To give just one example, in my second-to-last post I said, “Once the peg has been completely inserted the table is finished …  according to the IKEA instructions, according to the designers of the table“—you see, the italicized part gives the beginning of a kosmic address for the assertion of the completed table: completed in the eyes of the designers.


Please answer this question: Are you trying to show that there is absolutely no objective aspect to the table?


Dawid: Sorry, David, but you're contradicting yourself now. You say that the table is created at one exact moment, and that before this moment it is not a table. So how can we have a table if a little bit of chewing gum is in the way of successfully fulfilling the criteria you described for when that last peg is fully inserted?


I haven't contradicted myself at all (though I have modified my position as the analysis has gone on, as I hope you have!). The chewing gum will prevent it from being completed precisely to the specifications of the manufacture, but it is still a usable table. We all would agree on that because we would surely not notice .01cm of a difference in the height of one corner.

Now, if four IKEA employees had all stuck their gum into the hole and the person were not able to insert the peg at all, then it would not become a usable table. Then the parts would be put back in the box, and it would be returned.



Dawid: If the last peg is sticking out 0.1 cm so that the table is not yet produced, what then do we have in front of us? Another table? How many tables are we talking about here, really? What are the criteria of production for this pre-IKEA table? When did it start to exist?


The quasi, par-built IKEA table (with the gum keeping it from being perfectly assembled) came into its relative existence when the peg was inserted as far as it could go (.01cm from all the way). It would not have come into its relative existence before then because I have assumed we are talking about a rectangular table with four legs, which would not be able to stand or support the top with just three legs so could not be considered a table. But even with the gum it would still function perfectly well as a table.

There wasn't more than one table in either scenario: In one scenario just one table completed according to the designer's instructions; in the second scenario a table nearly completed according to the designer's instructions but still perfectly usable as a table; probably no one would ever know the difference except for the person who inserted the peg and maybe not even him or her.

Re: The Analysis.

David: “You're still confusing my position with the extreme Orange position, that of an object existing free of perspectives […] that is not my position.”

Example A-cognition is a phenomenon arising in a pre-Green worldspace. You agree with Example A. Therefore you are at a pre-Green worldspace.

Your problems start when you try to reconcile pre-Green cognition with cognition arising at Green or 2-tier worldspaces, and what results is something that we might call “realm-interference”; a disharmony between conceptual realms as one realm tries to impose its own rules (which exists only within that realm) onto the other.

David: “Please answer this question: Are you trying to show that there is absolutely no objective aspect to the table?”

I have already answered this, I said:

“By reading my posts through my time here on this forum, I'm sure you've figured out that I do not subscribe to either post-modern absolutism (“The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth”) or subjective idealism (“Everything is of the character of mind”/”No external world outside mind exists”). And let me say - I always step out of the way when buses are coming down the street, without feeling that this behaviour contradicts my conceptual understanding of Reality in any way.”
 
David: “The quasi, par-built IKEA table (with the gum keeping it from being perfectly assembled) came into its relative existence when the peg was inserted as far as it could go (.01cm from all the way).”
 
Wait, when exactly is this pre-IKEA table - which makes it possible for us to have dinner even though the IKEA table is not yet existing - produced? When the peg touches the surface of the table, perhaps? Are there even more tables involved in the production of the IKEA table that you haven't yet told me about? Or are there definitely only two? Perhaps also one quasi post-table that will come into existence about the time when the IKEA table will stop existing to help us have dinner on the table even though all your essential requirements for its existence have ceased? Like, if it looses all legs we might be able to, like the Japanese, have dinner on the floor with just the surface part, so then this surface-part-only-table become a quasi post-table. If so, when exactly does the quasi post-table come into existence?

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: Example A-cognition is a phenomenon arising in a pre-Green worldspace. You agree with Example A.


Here is what I said:

Re: The Analysis.

“And I have since clarified that by saying that the IKEA table begins to exist when the last of the IKEA instructions have been carried out because that is how the designers planned it.”

I know, but it is still example A.

“The parts become something we could call a table when the final peg has been inserted as far as it can go, .01cm short of the manufacturer's specifications.”

I don't understand what you mean here. You say that the IKEA table come into relative existence objectively when the last peg is fully inserted, as represented in example A. We then said that the carpenter made a tiny mistake so that the peg sticks out a tiny, tiny bit. So what we have in front of us is not an IKEA table, because it doesn't fulfill the objective requirements you stated, but still it fulfills the functions of a table - you say we can eat on it - so therefore there must be another table there, but what table is this? You said: “[a] quasi, par-built IKEA table”, and I wonder when this pre-table comes into existence? What are the objective requirements for the pre-table?

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: I know, but it is still example A.


Remember my example A goes all the way back to the Big Bang.  :) (See picture below.)

That's important, because the table is just one particular phase in a long continuum of evolutionary dependent origination.



Dawid: So what we have in front of us is not an IKEA table, because it doesn't fulfill the objective requirements you stated, but still it fulfills the functions of a table - you say we can eat on it - so therefore there must be another table there, but what table is this?


There is just one table in this case. In the scenario where the peg couldn't go all the way in, the IKEA table, technically speaking, never came into its relative existence, and instead we got this almost-IKEA table, which for all intents and purposes was the IKEA table because it was only .01cm off in one corner.

This table comes into existence (meaning it becomes a usable table) once the final peg has been inserted, just like the other case, only in this case it isn't able to go fully into the hole.

Re: The Analysis.

“Remember my example A goes all the way back to the Big Bang.”

Bullshit. Your example A in this case is the table, and it is not produced in some Big Bang: it is produced by the carpenter. If the table were produced in a Big Bang, why would we need a carpenter to produce it?

“This table comes into existence (meaning it becomes a usable table) once the final peg has been inserted, just like the other case, only in this case it isn't able to go fully into the hole.”

Ok, so say that we held the parts of the table together with some wire, so that we didn't need the last peg in order to have dinner on the table. (The last peg just lies in a corner, not being used.) So what kind of table are we using then? A third table? When did this one come into existence? How many tables are there, really? It seems like we got over a real bargain at IKEA, as we got so many tables in just one box!

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: Bullshit. Your example A in this case is the table, and it is not produced in some Big Bang: it is produced by the carpenter. If the table were produced in a Big Bang, why would we need a carpenter to produce it?


My!

Is the table not composed of holons, and could they not be traced all the way back to the Big Bang? I understand the table itself is an artifact, an artifact of a particular social holon (IKEA) in the information age (LR), but the artifact and the designers are composed of different elements going back to the death of stars and even before that. So, the entire affair didn't simply spring up out of nothing in the information age, though I think the perspective that Almaas and Suzuki put forth, that things emerge from the unmanifest rather than along some time continuum (which is a mental construct) is also important.



Dawid: Ok, so say that we held the parts of the table together with some wire, so that we didn't need the last peg in order to have dinner on the table. (The last peg just lies in a corner, not being used.) So what kind of table are we using then? A third table? When did this one come into existence? How many tables are there, really? It seems like we got over a real bargain at IKEA, as we got so many tables in just one box!


We only have the potential for one table in the box unless we are going to bring out a saw. If we brought out a saw and use some other implements like wire we could make more than one table out of that material, but leaving the parts as they are, and just adding wire in your example, we just have the potential for one table.

In each scenario there has only been one table, but it has been a different table than other scenarios. In one there is the IKEA table built to specifications; in another there is the table .01cm short of IKEA specifications in one corner; in another the table has been sawed for use in a Japanese-style home, and in this latest example we have a table that has been strung together by wire.

So, just one table in each scenario so far. But the IKEA box containing the parts of the table does have the potential to be different than the table the manufactures designed it to be if we, the buyers of the table, wish to alter the parts or if the parts become altered through some kind of mishap.

Re: The Analysis.

“Is the table not composed of holons, and could they not be traced all the way back to the Big Bang?”

Just abstract, impersonal theorizing. Will not relieve suffering. You know how Jesus told us how hard it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom? Yeah.
 
“In one there is the IKEA table built to specifications; in another there is the table .01cm short of IKEA specifications in one corner; in another the table has been sawed for use in a Japanese-style home, and in this latest example we have a table that has been strung together by wire.”

Ok, so we have four different tables. Since you say that all these objectively exist relatively, can you state the exact requirements for their production for each one? The IKEA table I've understood kinda what you mean, it is produced when the last peg has reached the bottom of the hole and there is no further to go - let's simply assume for the moment that there is one such exact moment. For the three others, when exactly do they become objective manifest realities as illustrated in example A?

“But the IKEA box containing the parts of the table does have the potential to be different than the table the manufactures designed it to be if we, the buyers of the table, wish to alter the parts or if the parts become altered through some kind of mishap.”
 
So you say all these four tables exist as potential existents. Since, when they are produced, all start to exist objectively, one might start to wonder where they are when they are not existing (i.e. before the production-point illustrated in example A).

How exactly do these tables exist before production? Are they 1) completely and utterly nonexistent? Or do they 2) exist in a kind of unmanifest potential state, just waiting to be unleashed into the world when the exact conditions of production objectively align? Think hard about this.

Re: The Analysis.

David: “Is the table not composed of holons, and could they not be traced all the way back to the Big Bang?”

Dawid: Just abstract, impersonal theorizing. Will not relieve suffering.


Actually, there is vertical liberation as well, and the ultimate is to those who have both.

The deep-time perspective is a part of vertical awakening—it liberates people from the I-was-born-in-19— story.

You see that your true birthday was 13.7 billion years ago (unless you are going to posit some wholly other God). This is inherently liberating.

Life is seen as a process then rather than a personal dilemma or personal problem (or, in the case of a plateau-experience “enlightenment,” rather than divine egoism).

In the case of vertical and horizontal enlightenment together, this will unfold in stages: first, life is a problem, then life as a process, then the truly transpersonal stages.



Dawid: You know how Jesus told us how hard it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom?


Yes, I imagine he meant it because he equated wealth with worldliness or something or that God wouldn't be pleased by him hoarding his wealth (which probably He wouldn't be!).

I think it is true because if one has all the money in the world one will continually try to distract oneself from one's suffering rather than inquire into the root cause of the suffering. I know people like this: They travel the world constantly year after year. They've been to every country at least six times, and they're not done yet.



Dawid: For the three others, when exactly do they become objective manifest realities as illustrated in example A?

The .01cm-short table—-when the peg has been inserted as far as it can go.

For the Japanese table—once the last peg has been inserted as in the first example; we have just sawed off the bottom of the legs and placed the floor caps back on prior to inserting the pegs into the table top.

The wire table—that table is yours! It's your turn to say when it is finished!  :) Or, if you tell me how you put it together, I will tell you when it was finished.



Dawid: How exactly do these tables exist before production? Are they 1) completely and utterly nonexistent? Or do they 2) exist in a kind of unmanifest potential state, just waiting to be unleashed into the world when the exact conditions of production objectively align?


The table as such does not exist until the assembly process has been completed. Before then it is just parts, separate parts at first and then the parts in various stages of assembly, not yet a table until we have something that can function as a table.

Also, we need to keep in mind that nothing exists outside of a perspective. If it could, we wouldn't have any way of knowing about it. So when I say the table exists when the assembly process has been completed it is from at least an L/5 perspective.

Re: The Analysis.

“Yes, I imagine he meant it because he equated wealth with worldliness or something or that God wouldn't be pleased by him hoarding his wealth (which probably He wouldn't be!).”

“Rich” in this saying isn't just pointing to wealth, but extends to all forms of attachment; attachment to self, things, concepts - everything. Concepts like “I know the Mind of God” as in Andrew Cohen or “Everything was produced in a Big Bang” equal conceptual riches that keep one from recognizing grace of God.

“The .01cm-short table—-when the peg has been inserted as far as it can go.

For the Japanese table—once the last peg has been inserted as in the first example; we have just sawed off the bottom of the legs and placed the floor caps back on prior to inserting the pegs into the table top.

The wire table—that table is yours! It's your turn to say when it is finished!  :) Or, if you tell me how you put it together, I will tell you when it was finished.”

Ok, the important thing to recognize here is that you assert an exact objective moment of relative production.

“The table as such does not exist until the assembly process has been completed.”

Ok, so is it 1) - the table is completely and utterly non-existent before that point of production?

Again, if this analysis is to be fruitful we need to decide on these things, that's why I'm being so stubborn.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: “Rich” in this saying isn't just pointing to wealth, but extends to all forms of attachment; attachment to self, things, concepts - everything.


Does Jesus ever say anything like that?

Re: The Analysis.

“There was a rich man who had much money. He said, 'I shall put my money to use so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouse with produce, with the result that I shall lack nothing.' Such were his intentions, but that same night he died. Let him who has ears hear.”

Right. Anything that has a beginning and an end will not satisfy. Money and things has beginnings and ends. Concepts has so too. Self. Hear: even though God abandons no one, only in Heaven will we truly experience the love of God, which is without beginnings, ends and conditions.

“I shall destroy this house, & no one shall be able to rebuild it.”

Thomas: 71

As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”  

“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Mark 13: 1

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 6: 19

Impermanence, impermanence, impermanence.

“And how would you know this without knowing the mind of God?”

I do not claim to know the mind of God. Every person who does is a blasphemer, and will suffer greatly. All I really know as an individual is that I do not know shit.

“There is no table before the assembly reaches a certain point, the point after which there is something we can use as a table. Before then there are only parts in various stages of assembly. There is no IKEA table before all the parts provided have been assembled according to the instructions.”

So……. nr 1), then?

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: I do not claim to know the mind of God. Every person who does is a blasphemer, and will suffer greatly. All I really know as an individual is that I do not know shit.


That might be the most evolved thing anyone can say!

Re: The Analysis.

I forgot. I actually do know two things, apart from that I don't know. The first is suchness, and the other is Law. (Don't know the KAs for these, but there are KAs for them.)

I know suchness because when I clap my hands, there is a sound. (Note: I don't understand suchness, I simply observe that there is suchness.)

I know Law because when I walk, I do not fly, disappear, or explode - I walk. (Note: I don't understand Law, I simply observe that there is Law.)


Apart from this, I truly don't know anything.

—

Fascinating how you seem to do everything in your power to avoid answering simple questions. The question you still fail to answer is:

How exactly do these tables exist before production? Are they 1) completely and utterly nonexistent? Or do they 2) exist in a kind of unmanifest potential state, just waiting to be unleashed into the world when the exact conditions of production objectively align?

Just answer “1)” if you agree with 1) or “2)” if you agree with 2). Without the mind coming to conclusions, progress will be impossible.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: I know suchness because when I clap my hands, there is a sound. (Note: I don't understand suchness, I simply observe that there is suchness.)


I don't believe that suchness can be observed because it is the observer; it is the seer, so to speak. Anything observed is a thing, within a perspective.



Dawid: I know Law because when I walk, I do not fly, disappear, or explode - I walk. (Note: I don't understand Law, I simply observe that there is Law.)


Law is cool. I think we might subdivide it into at least three categories:

1) “Involutionary” givens, meaning simply law that was present at the Big Bang, as Wilber speaks about here:

Re: The Analysis.

“I don't believe that suchness can be observed because it is the observer; it is the seer, so to speak. Anything observed is a thing, within a perspective.”

Yeah. The things about suchness is that it cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. Period. It is like trying to grasp a swirl of smoke; you can't do it, yet obviously the smoke is not utterly nonexistent. This is why buddhism evolved, for hinduism tried to grasp the ungraspable. To stress that the ungraspable really is ungraspable, the Buddha emerged and pointed this out.

“Law is cool.”

Yeah, it is! The Green structure tend to deny Law, which often results in a nihilistic perspective.

“I think we might subdivide it into at least three categories”

Law can be divided by the mind into infinite categories. And I don't mean infinite here as just a really large amount of categories, I really do mean infinite in the sense that we can never exhaust the glorious body of God. The mind is infinitely creative, mental evolution knows no end.

As they say in this awesome video that Holden shared (0:20): “I think Nature's imagination, is so much greater than man's. It is never gonna let us relax.” 

However, just because Law can be divided infinitely by a discriminating mind, that doesn't mean it is fragmented. The mind is fragmented, God is not. This is one part of Amber we need to reintegrate.

“I would say that the IKEA table in question—when in the box unopened, for example—is lying in an unmanifest, potential state (2).”

1) and 2) are really the only two possibilities. (Well yes, there is also 3) both 1 and 2 and 4) neither 1 nor 2, and you can include those if you like and we'll analyze from there.) 

I hope you find it really interesting that you have a problem deciding which one is correct. This is because the mind never thinks in analytical terms, it just wobbles about in the blissful ignorance on which it feeds.

Just think about the table ontologically. The objective (relative) IKEA table which you've excellently manage to point out in this discussion. Before the last peg is inserted in just the right and complete way that you describe, what is its ontological status? Is it 1) completely and utterly nonexistent, or is it 2) in a kind of unmanifest potential state?

You seem to be unsure about which one it is, so take your time and inquire deeply into the question. With the same high intensity as if you were inquiring into Ramana's “Who Am I?”

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: This is why buddhism evolved, for hinduism tried to grasp the ungraspable. To stress that the ungraspable really is ungraspable, the Buddha emerged and pointed this out.


According to Murti, Vedanta may have developed their absolutist teaching independently from Buddhism. It isn't clear, apparently. He cites someone who wrote an entire book on it; apparently it's a very complex issue.

Even if they didn't come to their “Middle Way” teaching independently it wasn't like Hindu meditators were grasping at the ungraspable. Here is quote from one of the earlier Upanishads, the Mundaka Upanishad, which appears to pre-date Buddha by at least a hundred years or so:

Re: The Analysis.

You say that before the objective production of the IKEA table, it both does utterly not exist, and exists in an unmanifest state.

How is this possible? If the table were utterly nonexistent before its production as in alternative 1), how could it be produced? If the table were already existing before its production as in alternative 2), how could it be produced?

It isn't OK that something that doesn't exist is produced. Why? Because how can something that doesn't at all exist at the time of its causes ever be produced? If the table can come into existence without depending on a cause for its own production, then it follows that all kinds of stuff like flying rabbits and unicorns would also be produced, but clearly they are not.

It isn't OK that something that does exist is produced. Why? Because something that already exists obviously has no need for production.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: You say that before the objective production of the IKEA table, it both does utterly not exist, and exists in an unmanifest state.


Before the last peg inserted, the IKEA table, technically speaking, has no referent, though it will kind of look like it if all but one leg has been inserted.

And the table exists as a potential in the minds of some people regarding the box or the partially constructed “table.”


Dawid: If the table were utterly nonexistent before its production as in alternative 1), how could it be produced?


Because it could exist as a potential in the mind of the designer and in the mind of the buyer, especially after the box were purchased. The referent is utterly nonexistent before the designer produces the parts. The referent does still not exist once the parts exist, though the possibility of it existing has increased. The referent still does not exist when the customer buys the box containing the parts and the instructions, but between the box and its contents and the buyer and his or her know-how and ability to construct a table from pre-fabricated parts, the likelihood of the referent existing has increased.

The referent only exists once the last peg has been inserted, though the signified and signifier can exist before then.


Dawid: If the table were already existing before its production as in alternative 2), how could it be produced?


It doesn't exist as a referent, but it does exist as an idea. The signifier and signified can exist—it can say table on the box; there can be a picture of the table; the box can contain the parts; the buyer can understand that the box contains the potential for the referent, together with his or her ability to construct it, so he or she buys the box containing the parts and takes it home. Then he or she puts it together, inserts the last peg, and the referent exists!



Dawid: It isn't OK that something that doesn't exist is produced. Why? Because how can something that doesn't at all exist at the time of its causes ever be produced?


The parts can exist before the referent is produced, and the signified can exist; the buyer can have the idea of the finished table in mind. The parts of a referent (which is really only a signified at this point) plus the ability to assemble the parts can result in the referent.


Dawid: It isn't OK that something that does exist is produced. Why? Because something that already exists obviously has no need for production.


The referent doesn't exist before it is produced, only the parts and the signified, the idea of the referent.

Re: The Analysis.

David: “It doesn't exist as a referent, but it does exist as an idea.”
“…the buyer can have the idea of the finished table in mind.”
“…the idea of the referent”
“Because it could exist as a potential in the mind of the designer and in the mind of the buyer…”
 
Ideas, and mind. Are these subjective or objective phenomena? Do they belong with the table, which is said to be existing out there, or do they belong with you, the cognizing subject?
 
 

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: Ideas, and mind. Are these subjective or objective phenomena? Do they belong with the table, which is said to be existing out there, or do they belong with you, the cognizing subject?



This is interesting. It depends to some extent on how we define subjective and objective. Ideas are subjective if we define objective as only referring to gross-realm objects—an idea of a table doesn't amount to a referent, at least as we normally consider them.

But there may be some objective aspect, some subtle material involved with the imagination process, material we may or may not be able to detect at this point.

In the mind of a person imagining the table, there is the subject imagining and then the object the subject is imagining, in this case the image of a table. So, flipping back to Pierce's language, there is an interpreter and an object. But not a gross-realm object, at least not one we can detect or that anyone else could see (except for psychics like Derren Brown!  :) ).

So at this point, I'm not saying that the table exists “out there.” At this point the referent doesn't exist, except perhaps as a subtle referent in the mind of the designer (and a psychic honing in on him :) ).

Re: The Analysis.

“So at this point, I'm not saying that the table exists “out there.” At this point the referent doesn't exist, except perhaps as a subtle referent in the mind of the designer”

Ok. So if you now come back to the question:

Before the last peg is inserted in just the right and complete way that you describe, what is its objective status? Is it 1) completely and utterly nonexistent, or is it 2) in a kind of unmanifest potential state?

Again, I implore you not just to answer with the first idea that pops into your mind, but to inquire intensely into this. Is it still both 1) and 2)?

Re: The Analysis.

I think we have to get into LL semantics just a little bit for this. We need to agree what table means. A table is a flat surface that is elevated from the floor, that people can sit around or at least along one side of, and that is flat enough to hold a completely full glass of water so that the water won't spill. Do we agree that this is what a table is? Perhaps we can add more to that in terms of definition, but that is a start at least.

I will assume we agree. In that case there would be no table until the final peg is inserted. All that would exist would be, assuming we were just up to that point, three legs and the flat surface, which could not function as a table because it would be leaning at an angle, not flat enough to hold a full glass of water without spilling it.

But, especially if we had the fourth leg with the final peg attached, what I described in the previous paragraph could be regarded as something that could potentially be a table, including the IKEA table we have in mind.

If we define table just as the IKEA table, then the IKEA table also wouldn't exist until the final peg is inserted. There is a picture on the box depicting the table in its finished form, so we will know what it looks like. See below for picture.

So, if the fourth leg hadn't been inserted, we couldn't say that that table exists. Nor could we say that the table exists in an unmanifest state. The table, the IKEA table that we can see below, doesn't exist at all at that point.

What does exist is something that could be the IKEA table if the final leg is inserted. I don't know of a good signifier to use for it. If we said “partially constructed table” that kind of makes sense, but it also kind of makes it sound like the table is already there when it isn't, except for the image in our minds. It's defining it in terms of the finished product when it hasn't been finished yet.

What exists before the last peg is inserted is what we see in the second picture, and that clearly isn't the IKEA table, which can be seen in the first picture, or anything that we can call a table, if we agree to the above definition. So, it's just 1.

Re: The Analysis.

“Do we agree that this is what a table is?”

Use whatever definition you think is the correct one, and we'll work from there. This is the cool thing about Prasangika analysis, it takes the beliefs of the opponent at flat value at works from there. The Prasangika interlocutor doesn't need to force the opponent to believe in anything whatsoever, instead he works with the person on his own turf. In this way, it is an extremely non-dogmatic spiritual practice.

So a table is:

“A table is a flat surface that is elevated from the floor, that people can sit around or at least along one side of, and that is flat enough to hold a completely full glass of water so that the water won't spill.”

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: The Prasangika interlocutor doesn't need to force the opponent to believe in anything whatsoever, instead he works with the person on his own turf. In this way, it is an extremely non-dogmatic spiritual practice.


That's good to know. In the beginning I thought it was a routine that was meant to lead to a specific conceptual understanding, like dependent imputation or something. Are you sure this isn't the case? Isn't it held that some analyses are more correct than others or that there is even a “most-correct analysis”?



Dawid: Based on this reasoning, I'd say your answer must be 1) - the objective table is utterly non-existent when the final peg has not been installed.

Can we confirm this, or do you want to discuss it more?


Yes, just 1. I said that at the end of my post, though it was an edit and you may have read it immediately after I posted.



Dawid: We could attach the last leg in a manner that isn't in accord with the plans (see pic), and it would still be utterly no table there.


In that case, as I've said earlier, there would be no IKEA table, not the specific IKEA table we are talking about nor any table at IKEA, but it would be a functional table, like the wire example.

Re: The Analysis.

“That's good to know. In the beginning I thought it was a routine that was meant to lead to a specific conceptual understanding, like dependent imputation or something.”

Of course there is a reason to analyze. The reason is to realize suchness, to break the chains of birth and death, to be liberated from suffering. If there were no reason, all this would just be plain stupid, like watching sports on TV.

Yet, the Consequentialist approach is unique in that it doesn't - if it is done right - positively assert anything from the interlocutor's side. This is because a realization of emptiness cannot be given to someone from the outside, it must be a break-through from within. Also, this approach offers little to nothing in terms of stuff to which the mind can latch on to. It is a pull-the-rug-approach. And it doesn't matter what rug it is, it could be a fancy, oriental, 100 000$ carpet - it will still get pulled.

“Yes, just 1.”

Great. These kinds of shifts are very important to take note of. First you said 3: both 1 and 2. Now you have changed your mind and say 1.

“In that case, as I've said earlier, there would be no IKEA table, not the specific IKEA table we are talking about nor any table at IKEA, but it would be a functional table, like the wire example.”
 
And you don't find it in any way strange that objective tables can just pop into existence like this? Anyway, now that we have your answer to the question I gave, as to what the objective status of the table - be it the IKEA table, the wire table, or the table in my most recent picture - is before production, we can proceed with the analysis:

This IKEA table, when it is produced, is it produced from 1) itself, or from 2) causes that are other than it? You also have two more alternatives to choose from, if you'd like: is the table produced 3) from both itself and from other, or 4) causelessly?

There are no other alternatives.

(When you think about this, keep that image of the finished IKEA table firmly in mind. Standing there on the floor, in all its table:y glory, whether we are in the same room as it or not. Just there for us to use and enjoy.)

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid, no other alternatives?  How about 5) none of the above?  If you efface the meaning of “itself” under 1, then any notion of “other” under 2 falls with it.  1 and 2 being meaningless, so are 3 and 4.

Nagarjuna is old hat, a symmetrician in a non-symmetrical universe.  Pre-scientific you might say. 

Re: The Analysis.

Is: Great. These kinds of shifts are very important to take note of. First you said 3: both 1 and 2. Now you have changed your mind and say 1.


My view really hasn't shifted; I've just been interpreting the words a little differently as it has gone along, as well as clarified my position. You've asked, “Is it 1) completely and utterly nonexistent, or is it 2) in a kind of unmanifest potential state?” And you could interpret this in different ways. One way is that there is actually no difference between the two: In both cases, whether “nonexistent” or “unmanifest potential state,” there is no referent for table. In both cases the table as such, the referent, is completely nonexistent.

In the first there is the implication that it couldn't ever manifest because it is held to be different than 2, when it could potentially exist (or maybe that when it did come into existence it sprung out of a total vacuum). That's why I said it would have to be both. Now when I say 1 it is just because it more clearly describes the nonexistence of the referent at that point, but I am still imagining the potential for the table there—the same as when I said “both.”

So just to be clear: the referent doesn't exist, but there is the potential for the referent. In this way, the two responses together provide a more complete answer. We may have had different ideas about what each question meant; you may want to give me your understanding of them now.



Dawid: This IKEA table, when it is produced, is it produced from 1) itself, or from 2) causes that are other than it? You also have two more alternatives to choose from, if you'd like: is the table produced 3) from both itself and from other, or 4) causelessly?


The last one, 4, “causelessly,” is the absolute truth, or could be construed as that. Really, all of the above.

From itself, because the elements that make up the parts were not created by the designer and carpenter (they didn't create the tree, for example, or the elements that make up the metal), but we could say, on the relative side of the street, that the table as such was produced by the designer and carpenter (but not the elements that make up the parts). And if we leap to the absolute side of the street we could say “causelessly” because the law of cause and effect surely applies to the relative side of the street.

But maybe you mean something else by “causelessly,” that it sprung out of a vacuum for no reason or something like that.

Re: The Analysis.

“Now when I say 1 it is just because it more clearly describes the nonexistence of the referent at that point, but I am still imagining the potential for the table there…”

It is very important that we decide on stuff like this. When things get fuzzy and abstract, everything is lost. So as to the question of the status of the objective table before production, it is either utterly nonexistent or in an unmanifest potential state. It just can't be both because things can't both objectively exist and objectively not exist at the same time.

For example, wouldn't it be absurd if the computer that you're using now both existed and not existed at the same time? The computer exists, because you're using it. Yes? If it did not exist, it could not fulfill the functions of a computer, and therefore the computer you're using right now wouldn't work properly or not at all. Therefore, the computer can't have a status of existence and nonexistence in combination.

If the objective table 2) exist in an unmanifest potential state, that means that the table actually exists. The essence of the table exists, but it is not visible. The table:ness exists, but is somehow not manifest at the present moment. Yet, it still exists. If the objective table does 1) utterly not exist, that means that it does not exist, in any way. Period. Think about something that you know is objectively utterly nonexistent, say, a unicorn. Alternative 1) entails that the table has the same status of objective existence as the unicorn before production. Is this how you conceive of the table before production?
 
Think about this.

You need to make a decision. We can't proceed to the question of production until we've settled this.

Re: The Analysis.

Tom: Dawid, no other alternatives?  How about 5) none of the above?  If you efface the meaning of “itself” under 1, then any notion of “other” under 2 falls with it.  1 and 2 being meaningless, so are 3 and 4.

Nagarjuna is old hat, a symmetrician in a non-symmetrical universe.  Pre-scientific you might say.


Tom, I'm interested in hearing your input on this. I have long felt you had something interesting to say about Nagarjuna's logic, ever since you made some remark about it, and want to hear it. There is another logic question I want to hear from you about as well; I have been thinking of starting a thread on it the last few days; I will remain mysterious about that, however; you will know it when you see it …

I don't think it's accurate to call Nagarjuna pre-scientific, though. He's clearly at least rational (and at least “integral for his day,” as Wilber puts it) and going about it in a methodical way. This stuff, actually, isn't Nagarjuna, though, as I understand it, but a later addition from Prasangikas.

Probably some things Nagarjuna said will stand as they are for awhile, but other things will need to be updated, especially in light of integral semiotics. Let's wait a little while on that, though, and stay with the flow of this analysis.

Re: The Analysis.

“Let's wait a little while on that, though, and stay with the flow of this analysis.”
 
I'd implore this of you as well. Or atleast start a separate thread for that discussion.

“This stuff, actually, isn't Nagarjuna, though, as I understand it, but a later addition from Prasangikas.”

Simply not true, and I can show you evidence of this, if you'd like. Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is the Holy Bible of the Prasangikas, and all their arguments are grounded in this text. Some clarification has been added to the teaching though, like for example a fuller elucidation on the two truths, and clearer distinctions between causal dependence (Orange), mereological dependence (Orange), and conceptual dependence (Green). But this doesn't mean that Nagarjuna was not aware of these, simply that he didn't emphasize them as much as later schools.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid, I appreciate the way you are going through this analysis, very carefully and methodically, making sure that we have actually covered ground properly before going beyond it.

Yes, I get what you mean about things not being able to exist objectively and not exist objectively at the same time (the two truths doctrine being something different).


Dawid: If the objective table 2) exist in an unmanifest potential state, that means that the table actually exists. The essence of the table exists, but it is not visible. The table:ness exists, but is somehow not manifest at the present moment. Yet, it still exists. If the objective table does 1) utterly not exist, that means that it does not exist, in any way. Period. Think about something that you know is objectively utterly nonexistent, say, a unicorn. Alternative 1) entails that the table has the same status of objective existence as the unicorn before production. Is this how you conceive of the table before production?


Now the question and options are more clear; that's good.

Dawid: Alternative 1) entails that the table has the same status of objective existence as the unicorn before production. Is this how you conceive of the table before production?


It's not like a unicorn, certainly, which is something that has never had any kind of a referent outside of people's minds.


Dawid: If the objective table 2) exists in an unmanifest potential state, that means that the table actually exists. The essence of the table exists, but it is not visible. The table:ness exists, but is somehow not manifest at the present moment. Yet, it still exists.


What do you mean by “essence” here? It sounds like you mean that the table is existing in subtle realms as some kind of subtle object or like Captain Kirk exists when he has been dematerialized but not yet rematerialized in the transporter room or on the face of some planet. Is that something like what you mean?

Neither of those options is sounding particularly good to me. Because the unicorn has never had any referent, nor have any parts of the unicorn had any referent. But in our scenario nearly all the parts of the table have a gross-realm referent, as in the picture below again. We can't say that about a unicorn or any part of a unicorn.

With regard to 2, we could say that it exists as a subtle object in some way because the idea of it exists in the designer's mind and in the buyer's mind. But that is different than the transporter scenario. Captain Kirk is not some idea in Scotty's mind as he is in his dematerialized condition.

Yet, if we imagine the designer is also the builder of the table, it is kind of interesting to consider how his subtle image of the table can become manifest. In that way we could say that the table exists in an unmanifest state, but that's different than saying that the essence of the table exists somewhere as the essence of Captain Kirk is suspended in dematerialization as he travels through space.

The designer, with his image of the table in mind, has to go out and get some wood and metal, some plastic, maybe some glue, some varnish, etc. He's not materializing any of that out of his mind or anywhere else but finding it already materialized in the gross realm or finding raw materials that are already materialized that can be refined into what he wants.

So it's not like the table exists out there dematerialized and the designer beams it up, nor that it doesn't exist at all as the unicorn doesn't exist at all.

Re: The Analysis.

“Dawid, I appreciate the way you are going through this analysis”

And I appreciate that you appreciate the analysis. That's quite rare!

“So it's not like the table exists out there dematerialized and the designer beams it up, nor that it doesn't exist at all as the unicorn doesn't exist at all.”

So how does the objective table exist before production? I believe that you're on to something. Keep thinking deeply about this.

Remember to have the image of the finished objective table in mind. And recall that it was produced. And because it was produced, how did the table exist before production? Can you think of any other reasonable option regarding the objective table's status before production, apart from 1) and 2)?

(Or 3) both, but you I think you agree that things can't both exist and not exist at the same time. Or 4), but what is produced is it neither exists nor not exists before production?)

Great pictures and examples, btw.

Re: The Analysis.

David: “This stuff, actually, isn't Nagarjuna, though, as I understand it, but a later addition from Prasangikas.”

Dawid: Simply not true, and I can show you evidence of this, if you'd like. Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is the Holy Bible of the Prasangikas, and all their arguments are grounded in this text. Some clarification has been added to the teaching though, like for example a fuller elucidation on the two truths, and clearer distinctions between causal dependence (Orange), mereological dependence (Orange), and conceptual dependence (Green). But this doesn't mean that Nagarjuna was not aware of these, simply that he didn't emphasize them as much as later schools.


Yes, Nagarjuna may have been aware of this (or even done something that was nearly identical; I know he did some analyses that were very similar). I can't recall just what he analyzed. Motion was one, right? I will show you where I get the idea that it was a later addition, though, from Murti. It may well be in the spirit of Nagarjuna and consistent with his reasoning, but that doesn't necessarily mean he gave it his blessing or even considered it. There may be some reason he didn't write about it if he didn't.

Re: The Analysis.

“Did he analyze objects in the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā?”

The whole shebang is analyzed. Every chapter in the Mulamadhyamakakarika is an analysis of something to which the mind is attached. In every chapter he uses reason to display how unacceptable consequences follow if there's an attachment to the subject in question. These are the items he analyze in the book:

1. Pratyayaparīkṣā: Analysis of conditions
2. Gatāgataparīkṣā: Analysis of motion
3. Cakṣurādīndriyaparīkṣā: Analysis of the senses
4. Skandhaparīkṣā: Analysis of the skandhas/aggregates
5. Dhātuparīkṣā: Analysis of the elements/dhatūs (“constituents” or “strata” (in the sense of metaphysical substrata))
6. Rāgaraktaparīkṣā: Analysis of desire and the desirous
7. Saṃskṛtaparīkṣā: Analysis of the conditioned
8. Karmakārakaparīkṣā: Analysis of agent and action
9. Pūrvaparīkṣā: Analysis of the prior entity
10. Agnīndhanaparīkṣā: Analysis of fire and fuel
11. Pūrvaparakoṭiparīkṣā: Analysis of past and future limits / or initial and final limits
12. Duḥkhaparīkṣā: Analysis of suffering
13. Saṃskāraparīkṣā: Analysis of disposition / or compounded phenomena
14. Saṃsargaparīkṣā: Analysis of connection
15. Svabhāvaparīkṣā: Analysis of being or essence
16. Bandhanamokṣaparīkṣā: Analysis of bondage and liberation
17. Karmaphalaparīkṣa: Analysis of action and their fruits
18. Ātmaparīkṣā: Analysis of the soul
19. Kālaparīkṣā: Analysis of time
20. Sāmagrīparīkṣā: Analysis of holism / or combination 
21. Saṃbhavavibhavaparīkṣā: Analysis of becoming and un-becoming
22. Tathāgataparīkṣā: Analysis of the Tathāgata
23. Viparyāsaparīkṣā: Analysis of error
24. Āryasatyaparīkṣā: Analysis of the Noble Truths
25. Nirvānaparīkṣā: Analysis of Nirvāṇa
26. Dvādaśāṅgaparīkṣā: Analysis of the twelvefold chain (of dependent origination)
27. Dṛṣṭiparīkṣā: Analysis of views
 
”I don't think it matters that much, really.”

Me neither. What matters is the end of suffering.

Re: The Analysis.

Dawid: So how does the objective table exist before production?


First of all, we can't regard it as not existing at all like the unicorn because while neither the unicorn nor the mother of the unicorn nor parts of the unicorn ever had a referent, the parts of the “unfinished table” (a phrase that combines the parts already put together and an image of the finished the table) do have a referent, as do the designers of the table, the tree, the elements of the metal, etc.

The essence of the table also can't be said to exist as Captain Kirk exists as he is being beamed from one location to another. But in one sense it can: in the minds of the designer and buyer. But that is different than the Star Trek example once again: Scotty was not simply imagining the captain back on board a la Secret.

The table, meaning the finished product, as a referent does not exist before it is finished, but, unlike the unicorn, its parts do exist, in our example. I would simply offer an integral, deep-time analysis, including the evolutionary arc of the designer, the elements, the tree, the buyer, etc., box including the parts ending up in an IKEA store somewhere around the globe in the information age.

So when we ask, how did the table exist before it was finally produced? the question becomes, how did it exist when, how long before it was produced? It nearly existed just before the final peg was inserted; it was on the verge of existing; the probability of it existing, of it emerging in an upcoming AQAL moment was very high. Barring some natural disaster or some suddenly discovered fault in the final peg or some such thing it would almost surely emerge.

The idea of it existing in the minds of the designer and the buyer counts for something. Even with a unicorn it counts for something, more so when there is a possibility of that vision becoming manifest. We can say it existed in the minds of the designer and buyer of the table; the potential for the table lay in the parts and the tools and the buyer.

The answer is, it didn't exist at all before it was produced, and yet once again that is different from a unicorn not existing at all. In a way it existed in a potential unmanifest state (in the minds of the designer and buyer, in the parts), but it was not as though the table were spinning about it some alternate universe and suddenly popped into the gross realm of this one.



Dawid: Great pictures and examples, btw.


Glad you liked them. I am very proud of my IKEA tables in particular.  :) It is a splendid unicorn, too, and very fortunate to find a landing party half way between materialization and dematerialization. You seem to have an uncanny knack at finding great pictures yourself. I have wondered how you came up with them.


Dawid: The whole shebang is analyzed. Every chapter in the Mulamadhyamakakarika is an analysis of something to which the mind is attached. In every chapter he uses reason to display how unacceptable consequences follow if there's an attachment to the subject in question.


I would like to go through those carefully sometime. When we went through it before it was mostly about emptiness. Murti also goes through those arguments in some detail, and I haven't read those sections yet.

Re: The Analysis.

Re: Mulamadhyamakakarika. Each chapter references teachings of Buddha. Nagarjuna after all was only trying to set other Buddhists straight down the middle. He is debating with Buddhists about specific Buddhist teachings.

Re: Referrent. A referent is a conceptual category used to classify other thought constructs. The bus, table, you and me only exist (born and die) in thought. What is not thought?

Re: The Analysis.

David: “…in the minds of the designer and buyer…”
David: “The idea of it existing in the minds of the designer and the buyer counts for something.”
David: “But in one sense it can: in the minds of the designer and buyer.”

We're analyzing the objective table you've posited, remember? Therefore, if the table exists only as an idea before production, that is tantamount to picking alternative 1), becuase the objective table is utterly nonexistent, but an “idea-table” is all that exists, which is obviously not the same as the objective table which we use to eat on.

But by all means, if you have an idea of a table which we can put our dinner plates on this evening, I'd be happy to see a demonstration of such a feat.

David: “First of all, we can't regard it as not existing at all like the unicorn because while neither the unicorn nor the mother of the unicorn nor parts of the unicorn ever had a referent, the parts of the “unfinished table” (a phrase that combines the parts already put together and an image of the finished the table) do have a referent, as do the designers of the table, the tree, the elements of the metal, etc.”
David: “The table, meaning the finished product, as a referent does not exist before it is finished, but, unlike the unicorn, its parts do exist, in our example.”

So you say that the table exists as a potential within the parts. We have already agreed that the objective table is produced at an exact moment in time. But if you look at the parts of the table before and after this exact moment of production, you'll notice that there's not the slightest change to the parts themselves. All the parts individually all look the same as before production.

Because of this, how is it possible that the table exists as a potential within the individual parts? Since none of them change by that exact moment of production, there must be some other ingredient or power which is actually responsible for the production. And just to reiterate, that ingredient or power can not be the parts, because they don't change when that exact moment of production occur.

Because the individuals parts do not contain the unmanifest potential of the table, and because, before production, the individual parts are all that exists out of which the objective table can possibly be produced - how could alternative 2) be correct?

Re: The Analysis.

e: Re: Referrent. A referent is a conceptual category used to classify other thought constructs. The bus, table, you and me only exist (born and die) in thought.


Yes, I think that is right and a good reminder.

However, consider this: A person is walking down the street, dreaming, not watching where he is going. Either not a mindful Buddhist or not a very good one. He wanders out into a busy street and gets run over by a bus without even thinking about it or seeing it.

Of course the entire episode can only be considered as a perspective, but this scenario illustrates how the bus had an existence outside of the thought stream of the person it ran over.


e: What is not thought?


Sounds like an Advaita inquiry.  :)



Dawid: If the table exists only as an idea before production, that is tantamount to picking alternative 1).


Yes, that's so, only it's different than the way the unicorn doesn't exist. Actually most of the “table” (in quotes because at this point it is only an idea) does have a referent before the final peg is inserted but not the table as such.



Dawid: So you say that the table exists as a potential within the parts. We have already agreed that the objective table is produced at an exact moment in time. But if you look at the parts of the table before and after this exact moment of production, you'll notice that there's not the slightest change to the parts themselves. All the parts individually all look the same as before production.

Because of this, how is it possible that the table exists as a potential within the individual parts?



The parts don't change, but their relationship to each other does change. One moment all of the table but the one leg with the peg attached has been put together, and the one leg with the peg attached is lying off to the side (or perhaps still in the box if the peg came attached). The next moment the peg is inserted into the underside of the flat surface of the table, locks into place, and we have a table.

So the potential for the table lay in the parts of the table and the human being with the ability to put them together in a particular way.

Re: The Analysis.

Your story shows that people do not ultimately exist. That is why we get out of the way of a bus. But buses don’t ultimately exist either, go to a junk yard. All things have a temporal existence in a conceptual consensus reality only. Which means they ultimately don’t exist. In other words, what in your experience of consensus reality is permanent?