GENIUS FORUMS

So, we agree, an appearance is an appearance (or A=A). So? So, even this truth is an appearance (it is distinguishable and namable, and we point to it) and lacks inherent existence. It may lack inherent existence, but it still remains timelessly true. Maybe. But we can say that appearances are cond...

You wrote, “An appearance always presents as a form and thus is identifiable.” Appearances do not “present” themselves, but are the presentations. And I would not use the term “form” as I associate form with sense perceptions and, for example, thoughts which may not have form (as sense perceptions)...

David; My phrasing did not exclude “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects”. Since we define a thing by pointing at it and you are able to point to “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects”, the thing is defined, and since “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects” are defin...

It all comes down to this: No matter where you care to point to in reality - whether it be to a particular phenomenon such as a quantum event, or to a principle such as change - you are, in this very act of pointing, affirming the principle of A=A. This is because the thing being pointed to necessa...

I am not positing that A=A does not ever hold in reality for certain mappings of A to reality (it might hold for instance for the total energy content of our universe). I am positing that the mapping of A to the phyiscal realm is a separate step that does not involve logic alone. This only shows th...

:-) That is 'dropping body and mind'.

Do no harm,
clyde


p.s: Since this isn't the game of "Jeapardy", your answer does not need to be in the form of a question :-)

Now that you've established that you have no idea what my interpretation is, but that you KNOW it is probably wrong,

Since your ideas are absolutely correct, what is your interpretation?

Kevin Solway wrote: I already know that my ideas are absolutely correct.

WOW! Kevin is done and his every idea is absolutely correct.
Not me; I'm a 'work in progress' :-)

A monk is walking around outside and suddenly stubs his toe. A violent pain shoots up his leg. Hopping around in agony he thinks, “I’ve read that pain is a void. What the hell is this?” Then suddenly he gets it. When his teacher asks him to explain, the monk said, “I cannot be deceived by others.” ...

41. Bodhidharma Pacifies the Mind Clyde, you really shouldn't bother with the quotes especially if you aren't going to offer any discussion to go with them, since your interpretation of these quotes is often completely wrong. You would be better off just to do your own reasoning. Since I didn't off...

No, that's why it is best not to use any of it. Reject utterly everything that one has learned and start afresh, that is my dictum. Accept nothing but the logical process. It seems you haven't rejected utterly everything you learned. clyde How so? If you are thinking about my acceptance of logic, i...

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:If I step on your foot, what do you experience?

Possibly nothing at all.

Kevin, if you are going to maintain that position, I’ll quit this thread.

David Quinn wrote:No, that's why it is best not to use any of it.

Reject utterly everything that one has learned and start afresh, that is my dictum. Accept nothing but the logical process.

-

It seems you haven't rejected utterly everything you learned.

clyde

Your unconscious mind that you do not experience is one of the causes of your mind that you do experience. How do you know that? It is a logical necessity. Consciousness is necessarily caused by unconsciousness. Why couldn't unconsciousness be caused by consciousness? Or perhaps they could arise si...

Whatever one's own mind is - whatever one experiences - is exactly the state of one's own mind. The unconscious mind is one of the causes of mind. HUH? Your unconscious mind that you do not experience is one of the causes of your mind that you do experience. How do you know that? And since you stat...

Whatever one's own mind is - whatever one experiences - is exactly the state of one's own mind. Really? Does your definition of the mind include, for example, the unconscious? You are missing the point. There is no way to know that the state of the brain is closely linked to the state of the mind. ...

Trevor pointed to this: Kant divides intuitions into groups in several different ways. First, Kant distinguishes intuitions into pure intuitions and empirical intuitions. Empirical intuitions are intuitions that contain sensation. Pure intuitions are intuitions that do not contain any sensation (A50...

Kevin; As I explained previously, it is impossible, even theoretically, to tell the state of the brain . . . If by this you mean that we cannot tell completely and perfectly the state of the brain, I agree, but that is true for all things, including the mind. . . . and it is impossible to know that ...

Trevor;

It seems that the definition of intuition as a form of immediate knowing does not rely on logic.

clyde

Kevin; Given that we agree that there is but one world of causation and all things (measurable and immeasurable) exist within this one world of causation, how is it that you hold that brain (the measurable) and mind (the immeasurable) are not dependent on one another, so that one cannot tell (at lea...

Kevin;

Your reply does not address my point: Do you believe there are two independent worlds of causation, one which includes expirical measurements and one which includes your experience? I don't.

clyde

How do you understand the functioning of intuition? The brain is programmed to function logically. It does this either consciously or unconsciously. Kevin; It seems to me that the brain also functions in many other ways (e.g. - perceiving, feeling, etc.), so intuition may or may not include reasoni...

"Empirical" means measurable, and preferably verifiable by others, but all the things that appear in our mind are not measurable in an empirical sense. What I means is, we might be able to measure chemical and electrical activity in my brain, but such measurements don't tell me whether I ...

Kevin Solway wrote:Intuition definitely uses logical processes. If it didn't, it would be useless.

Kevin;

I understand intuition to be "a gut-feeling", meaning that it does not rely on the intellect or logical processes. How do you understand the functioning of intuition?

clyde

maestro; Regarding Buddhism, different people have different understandings as to the teachings of Buddha. My understanding is that Buddha taught the Middle Way, not asceticism. He is reported to have said in his very first teaching: There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one...