1

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

Here's why I make that inference:

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

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

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

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

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

Improve this question
13
  • 1
    What you're trying to say is unclear. What does it mean for consciousness to be "made of vague parts"? Give examples, clarify your idea. What's an example of a "vague part" of consciousness? Your first link, by the way, is David Lewis arguing that Evans was misinterpreted and what he really showed is that vagueness is a property of language, not of objects. i.e. there are no vague objects, only vague terms. That interpretation by Lewis certainly makes sense to me.
    – causative
    Aug 30 at 2:41
  • 1
    yeah i know. what exactly are you asking, for clearer steps in my reasoning, clarification of 'bardo', 'consciousness as such', what exactly @causative ?
    – user67521
    Aug 30 at 2:42
  • 1
    I have periodically wondered why Kant did not think that consciousness is permanent, if time as an intuition and substance as a category are partly subjective conditions. I read some of the A-edition of the first Critique and it seemed like he said that everyone has their own personal "copy" of pure time, to their name, which seemed almost like claiming an intuition of a personal soul. However, his discussion of the paralogism testifies against pressing such a claim too strongly; he admits we might all wake up from the dream of phenomena one day, but that "might" is rather tenuous.
    – Kristian Berry
    Aug 30 at 3:39
  • 1
    Interesting points have been raised. I would've recommended a particular course of action if only it hadn't been discredited aeons ago. Nonetheless, I'm here. WTF?! 🤔
    – Agent Smith
    Aug 30 at 7:41
  • 1
    the bible @AgentSmith it's a huge book? i practise meditation.
    – user67521
    Aug 30 at 7:56

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.