Ok, this reminded me of Dr. Amit Goswami's attempt to explain Consciousness after he had laid down a decent scientific groundwork in his book "The Self-Aware Universe". I read this before any exploration of self-inquiry and probably should re-read at this point.enigma wrote:Yes, mind identification remains, and when mind turns toward the witness, there's nothing for mind. The subject (witness) is actually identifying with an object (mind) and imagines the object is the subject, and then looks for an object called the witness. Of course, there is no such object. It's all pretty convoluted. Hehe.
He starts Chapter 13 with the following:
"The self of our self-reference is due to a tangled hierarchy, but our consciousness is the consciousness of Being that is beyond the subject-object split. There is no other source of consciousness in the universe. The self of self-reference and the consciousness of the original consciousness, together, make up what we call self- consciousness.”
He defined what he meant by a “tangled hierarchy” in the previous chapter by presenting the equation:
x = -1/x
as a model for the “liars paradox” : “I am a liar, you cannot believe a word I say” … (if you assume the speaker is lying (-1) then he is telling the truth (=1) but if you assume that he is telling the truth (1) then he is lying (=-1)).
The other example of a "tangled heirarchy" he uses is that of recursion, which programmers use as a trick to solve certain problems that simply involves writing a routine which calls itself : a programmer could add 2 + 2 like this :
Subroutine Add( x, y )
...Sum = x + y;
Somewhere else in the code the programmer would write:
Counter = sum( 2, 2 );
But a recursive subroutine looks like this:
Subroutine Eye( am )
Everything in that thread above started looking like this to me: when the subject tries to perceive itself as object it is trapped by, or lost to the recursion of self-consciousness.
The answer to such paradoxes, if I understood the author correctly, is transcendence. For example, the transcendent solution to x = -1/x is to define √-1, or the imaginary number “i”, which btw, is at the root of some very important science and engineering. The lights don’t come on with out “i”.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Goswami offers no transcendent language definition of the liars paradox. I think that says a lot about language. The wikipedia resolution is that the statement can be either “both true and false” (the speaker is either a liar telling the truth or an honest man telling a lie) or “neither true nor false” (evidently, refusing to believe that a liar can tell the truth or that George or Abe could ever lie).
The transcendent resolution to a recursive software function is either a core dump leading to thread or process death or an exiting condition:
Subroutine Eye( am )
...if am is PON then return;
...Otherwise Eye( am);
The language interpretation of the former is obvious while the 2nd seems to me like getting tricked into meditation by ET’s mousehole exercise.