Definite ontological status?

Question

Vedantic problem here. The only thing I can find (like Descartes) with a definite ontological status is my own consciousness. Since I cannot assign any definite ontological status to anything else without bringing in other beliefs (even if reasonable), is it even possible to find a relationship between consciousness and it's contents? Until I can demonstrate something else existing, is it not premature to try to relate "it" to consciosuness? I realize that asking my question subtlely contradicts its basis, but please put that aside.

sophist: i do not believe thatis thecase. i have had (several times) an expereince of pure consciousness; boundless, contentless, without even a space-time manifold within which any content might exist.

Answer 1

Try reading Martin Heidegger. He profile a new way of ontology. I can't explain you because my english is not so well.

Answer 2

If I understand you correctly, your problem is that consciousness is immaterial, further only human beings have consciousness. I think you are going beyond the limits of Descartes' Methodological Doubt. Once he was able to establish the indubitable fact that he existed; Descartes used that as a foundation to build upon. Many people question Descartes's Cogito, that is why foundationalism is under such scrutiny recently. I don't believe you will find any contents that are a quality of consciousness, it is just our ability to be self aware and reflective, something no other creature is endowed with by God.

Answer 3

I would dispute that even your consciousness has a definite ontological status. Descartes simply 'noun'ed himself into existance. He thought, so if nothing else his 'self' was whatever it was doing the thinking, even if it proved to be just a fragment of a larger mind or whatever.

If you can noun yourself into being, then you can just as easily noun everything else into a -kind- of being. The rock you see may, or may not, be some physical object. But the very least we can say about it is that they creates an impression of seeming on your thoughts.

To trace the line backwards - it may or may not exist, it may or may not deflect photons, you may or may not percieve those photons with your eyes, your brain may or may not process that information into an impression on your mind. But you ABSOLUTELY have an impression on your mind. If that rock is NOTHING ELSE, it MUST be at least that.

So then you can construct an entire universe of impressions on your mind, and develop whatever theories you like to connect them all. Of course, we both know what the simplest explanation is - that thing ARE as they SEEM, and reality is as real as can be.

Answer 4

You don't exist. Pretty soon I will wake up and you will be gone.
You have touched on one of the big questions of Ontology. "What actually exists?"
It is up to each entity to determine what exists. Therefore, you must identify other entities as existing in order define that entity's ontological status.
One could argue that without "consciousness" nothing exists, so in order to relate "it" to "consciousness" would be defining "it" as having ontological status.
You have reasoned yourself into an infinite loop.

Answer 5

It depends on what you mean by consciousness. Define it and you'll also define content.

Answer 6

hhhmmmmm, and apparently your ego's doing well, too :-)