Emancipating Reality

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Emancipating Reality

Post by chikoka »

If a line of thinking (i.e. cold reason) leads you to a paradox, thats a sure way of showing that something is wrong with it.If saying to exist is to appear leads you to the conclusion that the totality doesnt exist then that must mean that that is the wrong deinition for existance.
Qsr is very confusing , if to exist really is to appear , then by definition the totality (all thats appearing) is appearing.How can you say "all thats appearing is not appearing" which is what "the totality does not exist" would be if you substituted the relavant terms in there.
If youre "all about using reason as the way to enlightenment (the truth)" then why abandon its cornerstone which is the axiom of identity by which nothing can be a way and not be that way in the same respect. How can the totality not exist and exist in the same respect.

How would you know a delusion if not by the paradoxes it creates.

Are you simply going for the lesser evil or what, what, let me know?

I've played this thread through my head a number of ways , so excuse its mundane beginnings, all the fun is yet to be:)
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by chikoka »

No Koans , no BS please.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Orenholt »

I think I get what you're saying.
The universe doesn't have an appearance because it is infinite.
Yet everything IS the universe.
So does that mean that everything does NOT have an appearance of it's own?

Dividing it that way, no, "everything" doesn't have an appearance.

It doesn't make sense when you say that something is both real and non-existent.

This is why I reject the idea that "to exist" and "to have an appearance" are synonymous because clearly the universe and everything in it is real. Otherwise we're falling into solipsism.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

chikoka wrote:If saying to exist is to appear leads you to the conclusion that the totality doesnt exist"
It doesn't lead to that conclusion. You've mushed together two different definitions for existence, or, two different conclusions in separate lines of reasoning.

"To exist means to appear" is a philosophical tool to stop people holding onto the delusion of objective reality, and, consequently, to focus profoundly on the logical realm via the workings and effects of perceptions, created by their own mind. This focus on conceptualising logically then opens a tiny gateway to finding the secret about Ultimate Reality, since it is only understood with that massive inward focus on logical thought.

Then one can compare the notion of dualistic things existing, including the illusoriness of said things, with the notion of the nondualistic Totality existing. One is comparing two different meanings for the word "exist": a deluded conception (relative things, things with form, things graspable by the ego) with a true one (nondualism, formlessness, no concepts to hold onto).

When one trusts one's reasoning to this point, then one returns to an analysis of the former perspective, and can recognise the true nature of all appearances.

Qsr is very confusing , if to exist really is to appear , then by definition the totality (all thats appearing) is appearing.How can you say "all thats appearing is not appearing" which is what "the totality does not exist" would be if you substituted the relavant terms in there.
All that is appearing is not appearing in the way the deluded mind believes it is.


.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by chikoka »

Kelly Jones wrote:Then one can compare the notion of dualistic things existing, including the illusoriness of said things, with the notion of the nondualistic Totality existing. One is comparing two different meanings for the word "exist": a deluded conception (relative things, things with form, things graspable by the ego) with a true one (nondualism, formlessness, no concepts to hold onto).
You keep bringing up a "true nondualistic totality" yet deny absolute reality. I feel people here are getting away with all the advantages of absolute reality (they slip into talk of said "true nondualistic totality") and keep non of its disadvantages (perceived).

"True nondualistic totality" is a contradiction in terms because anytalk of truth is an introduction of dualism on the way.Its like saying "true nontruth" but people here seem to get away with it"

Seriously this talk has all the advantages of theft over honest toil with what seems to be non of the disadvantages.

You talk of a deluded concept. But , according to quin..et al, a concept is an appearance and using your own words "the true nondualistic interpretation of that should be deluded concepts are just as non delusional as non delusional concepts (as well as just as delusional).Follow your line of reasoning to its end.

The whole talk of "delusional concepts" brings in another factor to consider, namely that concepts can be about other things (obviously) but the logic must be that these "other things" must themselves be concepts.
So the logic bringing it closer home is that if we define objective reality as that which exists apart from concepts, existing apart from concepts is itself a concept and so thats what the meaning of objective reality could only mean.
It cant both be a concept and not one at the same time because that would be to not give it a true identity which in otherwords is to say it does not have meaning, in which case how can it even be said to exist if its meaningless.
Thats the logic that had me stumped a while back.

So concepts can only be about other concepts.(supposedly)
But if we were to follow that logic there would only be in existance one mind. To me (say) dan rowden would be a concept of mine. It would be a concept of another concept and that other concept would be dan rowden.(we agreed that concepts can only be about other concepts so this holds, if it doesnt then simmilarly concepts can be about the person dan rowden just exactly the same way they can be about objective reality) If you are going to choose a way of thinking then use it across the board.

Dan rowden is a concept and a concept by definition is not a human being or person otherwise it would not have a true identity one or the other and so being meaningless dan rowden could not exist, which (truth) i am sure he begs to differ with.

Again we could simplify it to all depends on minds, In which case we would all depend on each others minds for our existence.
Two problems; by that definition if even one mind was to go (cease) then all would cease. (unless you beleive minds cant cease or die) perhaps thats simply another dualism. but thats my point , if minds are dualistic (either exist or not) and the truth is non dualism then there really are no minds. This truth would by definition (it forces itself to be) non dependant on minds.And so would qualify as objective reality.

So both our lines of reasoning lead to contradictions

yours:


A.Objective reality , to be true would have to be two different things at once mening it would be meaningless contradicting the asumption that it is to be true.

so conclusion

B. everything is mind dependant

Then an appeal is made to non dualism as truth which truth kelly says is non delusional, meaning it is not an appearance.

Leading to contradiction:

The truth of a non dualism is not mind dependant. (coz if it were it would be a delusion as defined by kelly and so wouldnt be truth)_theres more contradictions with the term "truth of non dualism" in the fact that truth/false is also dualistic so the statemnt denies itslef.

My contradiction on the other hand ends with your (A).
ie.

Objective reality can be two mutually exclusive things at the same time, a concept and a non concept.

We reach an impasse .We're both being illogical.


Can i carry on?
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

Let me simplify it for you.

Something is happening right now. Don't fill in the blanks. Don't name it. Whatever it is is just "something". Okay --- that's raw, direct experience.

Now, of course, the mind naturally identifies it as what it is: a mental image is projected onto "something". Okay --- that's raw, direct experience of the initial conceptualising process. Label it if you want.

There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.


"True nondualistic totality" is a contradiction in terms because anytalk of truth is an introduction of dualism on the way
Since there is only one Totality, it is not dualistic. To what can it be contrasted?

In other words, the "something" that is happening right now is ultimately nameless and formless. It is just whatever it appears to be. Do you see that all dualistic terms must therefore be nondual?


.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Pincho Paxton »

To exist is to be made of matter. Matter moves around like Lego, and builds new things. The Lego was always there in the universe moving around, but took a long time to accidentally build us. If you get a lot of magnetic Lego, and spin it around forever it will eventually build everything. It built eyes, and eyes get bumped by more moving bits, and that is vision. To appear is to be bumped by bits of stuff coming from a location. You see what has been bumped. If you hit a drum you hear the drum, you hear what has been bumped. If you touch someone you feel what has been bumped. If you smell something, you smell what has bumped the air.

When you work things out the universe is just repeating the same thing over, and over again. The universe is simple, and appearance is to send a message as a bump.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by chikoka »

Kelly Jones wrote:There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.
You made a statement "There is nothing objectively real" then you made another statement which was just a restatemnt.You did nothing to prove it. Just because there is raw experience doesnt mean thats all there is.
Lets deal with proofs , not simple statements.
Kelly Jones wrote:Now, of course, the mind naturally identifies it as what it is: a mental image is projected onto "something".
But in that statement you are already assuming that all it is is a projectioon onto "somethiong" , i could say its a projection of something and sure i could throw in the word natural in there too to make it more beleivable but that does not make it true.
Kelly Jones wrote:Let me simplify it for you.

Something is happening right now. Don't fill in the blanks. Don't name it. Whatever it is is just "something". Okay --- that's raw, direct experience.

Now, of course, the mind naturally identifies it as what it is: a mental image is projected onto "something". Okay --- that's raw, direct experience of the initial conceptualising process. Label it if you want.

There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.


"True nondualistic totality" is a contradiction in terms because anytalk of truth is an introduction of dualism on the way
Since there is only one Totality, it is not dualistic. To what can it be contrasted?

In other words, the "something" that is happening right now is ultimately nameless and formless. It is just whatever it appears to be. Do you see that all dualistic terms must therefore be nondual?


.
There is also not the totality or in other words parts of the totality to which it could be contrasted.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by chikoka »

Show me whats illogical with pincho's world being maybe the truth.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Dan Rowden »

Tell me what Pincho's world is?
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Orenholt »

Kelly Jones wrote:There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.
Ok, I can accept that the universe doesn't have an appearance and that everything is just a concept based on a perception but now you're saying the universe is not even real? Come on.
I don't see how you can jump to that conclusion.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by chikoka »

Dan Rowden wrote:Tell me what Pincho's world is?
The difficulty i have en telling you what Pincho's world is; "reality apart from concepts" , is the same difficulty i have in telling you what Dan Rowden apart from me is or means.

If you beleive you are separate from me then whatever "logic" you used to justify it , you can consult to find out what Pincho's world means.

I dont think anyone has dealt adequately with my post that ends with me asking if i can carry on
Orenholt wrote:Kelly Jones wrote:
There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.

Ok, I can accept that the universe doesn't have an appearance and that everything is just a concept based on a perception but now you're saying the universe is not even real?
Thats the problem with most gfers. They switch between definitions to accomplish totaly different goals and maintain their consistency, sometimes not even that.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

chikoka wrote:KJ: There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.

C: You made a statement "There is nothing objectively real" then you made another statement which was just a restatemnt.You did nothing to prove it. Just because there is raw experience doesnt mean thats all there is.
Whatever is beyond consciousness is not objectively real, as if subjective apprehension must be all a distorted interpretation. The very conceptualisation of such a concept is internally contradictory.

To a logical mind, no single thing causes itself, and therefore, appearances in consciousness are contrasted with whatever does not appear to consciousness. But by the same token, "whatever" is beyond experience (i.e., beyond consciousness) cannot take any form, shape, character, or properties. It could be sanely conceptualised as, for instance, a "blurry void". The true nature of Reality is not dualistic, so it cannot be confined to the blurry void.

Kelly Jones wrote:Now, of course, the mind naturally identifies it as what it is: a mental image is projected onto "something".

C: But in that statement you are already assuming that all it is is a projectioon onto "somethiong" , i could say its a projection of something and sure i could throw in the word natural in there too to make it more beleivable but that does not make it true.
It doesn't matter. Both are direct raw experience, and both are direct, raw manifestations of Reality.


There is also not the totality or in other words parts of the totality to which it could be contrasted.
There is nothing that is not the Totality. The definition of the Totality is the totality of all things.

One can contrast the finitude of any thing that is part of the Totality, with the non-finitude of the Totality, but the purpose of doing so is to recognise non-finitude as non-finitude, not to make it finite in some way by contrasting it.


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

Orenholt wrote:KJ: There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.

O: Ok, I can accept that the universe doesn't have an appearance and that everything is just a concept based on a perception but now you're saying the universe is not even real? Come on.
I don't see how you can jump to that conclusion.
I am guessing that by "universe" you are referring to what scientific materialists call the universe, namely, what is known by humans via the senses. That is, not absolutely everything (the Totality), but rather a tiny portion of it. In that case, the universe definitely does present an appearance (otherwise, how could you even talk about it?)

I am not saying that the universe, defined thus, is some kind of fantasy or mirage.

Rather, that it is a construct of human consciousness, a very specific perspective. Humans are not omniscient, but have access to data only through the way the brain presents it to them. This doesn't mean the constructs of the brain are distorted, and that the origin of such data is objective or ultimate reality. Empiricism is not the method for gaining certainty about the nature of Reality.


Also, it is not true that everything is just a concept based on a perception. That's lazy.


.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Orenholt »

I am guessing that by "universe" you are referring to what scientific materialists call the universe, namely, what is known by humans via the senses. That is, not absolutely everything (the Totality), but rather a tiny portion of it. In that case, the universe definitely does present an appearance (otherwise, how could you even talk about it?)
No, I meant the totality.
I am not saying that the universe, defined thus, is some kind of fantasy or mirage.

Rather, that it is a construct of human consciousness, a very specific perspective. Humans are not omniscient, but have access to data only through the way the brain presents it to them. This doesn't mean the constructs of the brain are distorted, and that the origin of such data is objective or ultimate reality. Empiricism is not the method for gaining certainty about the nature of Reality.
Why do you say "it is a construct of human consciousness" rather than "it is a construct of MY consciousness"?
Why do the consciousnesses of things like dolphins and elephants and chimps not count given that they have self awareness?

Also, it is not true that everything is just a concept based on a perception. That's lazy.
So you disagree with what Russell is telling me.
Because he said that things are concepts based on perceptions and perceptions based on concepts but that perceptions do come first.
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by oxytocinNA »

Kelly Jones wrote:Let me simplify it for you.

There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.

.
If there is nothing objectively real (existents) - there is nothing to experience / perceive. We experience of reality via the senses we have and that which we have invented to allow us to perceive things which are beyond are limited senses.

_______

"If saying to exist is to appear"

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word existere meaning "to appear"

Definition of EXISTENCE from Merriam Webster:
1
a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance
b : reality as presented in experience
c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being
d : sentient or living being : life
2
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>
b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being
c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect
3
: actual or present occurrence <existence of a state of war>

Not a very good definition. Should be defined as - the state of being.
Last edited by oxytocinNA on Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Getoriks
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:07 am

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Getoriks »

It's important to not get tangled up in the web of differing definitions. In philosophy, there are no official, fixed, and final definitions for words. Language is simply a tool to point to concepts, which themselves too are simply pointers to Reality. The pointers are only so important.

This is the reason that throughout the ages, wise persons have used different definitions of mind, of ego, of self, two different definitions of truth, two definitions of existence, have differentiated between Being and Existence, and between Reality, Being, and Existence. It's all about gaining the understanding, about seeing what is being pointed to.

Higher learning does not take place when the student might expect it, but when the conditions are right, when the fruit is ripe. The trick is knowing when to treat what you are learning like you are viewing a rainbow -- not something to grasp at and be absolutely certain of, but something to witness in wonder, when to grab hold of it with an iron grip which comes along with absolute certainty, and when to once more let go!

"Without piercing through the visible, without knowing the reality of the Self, how can men gain Freedom by mere outward words that end with utterance or writing?"
- Shankara
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

That's a great post Getoriks. Perhaps I could only add that there are no official, fixed and final definitions in linguistics either. The point is that there is some level of agreement before the exchange. I guess it's more like some protocol to facilitate in some established context.

I'm really on two minds about it. The need for consistency and mastery of the essential will turn words into powerful facilitators at times. On the other hand we should be flexible and understand words are closer to water than to rock: they are transports for something more than words but not limited to mental pictures, ideas, thoughts or layered feeling. It's perhaps a living thing, especially ultimately, which was also your point it seems.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

Orenholt wrote:KJ: There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.

O: Ok, I can accept that the universe doesn't have an appearance and that everything is just a concept based on a perception but now you're saying the universe is not even real? Come on.
I don't see how you can jump to that conclusion.

KJ: I am guessing that by "universe" you are referring to what scientific materialists call the universe, namely, what is known by humans via the senses. That is, not absolutely everything (the Totality), but rather a tiny portion of it. In that case, the universe definitely does present an appearance (otherwise, how could you even talk about it?)

O: No, I meant the totality.
But the Totality does present an appearance: everything that appears is the Totality. Everything that doesn't present an appearance is also, obviously, the Totality. They are two aspects of the one thing.

Your conclusion that I'm saying that the Totality is objectively real is wrong. What does that mean: objectively real? That everything one experiences subjectively is not real? Yet the latter is also a direct manifestation of the Totality.

That there is no objective reality is about dismantling attachment to the view that the world of the senses is really "out there" beyond consciousness, instead of right here, where it has appeared.

KJ: I am not saying that the universe, defined thus, is some kind of fantasy or mirage. Rather, that it is a construct of human consciousness, a very specific perspective. Humans are not omniscient, but have access to data only through the way the brain presents it to them. This doesn't mean the constructs of the brain are distorted, and that the origin of such data is objective or ultimate reality. Empiricism is not the method for gaining certainty about the nature of Reality.

O: Why do you say "it is a construct of human consciousness" rather than "it is a construct of MY consciousness"?
Why do the consciousnesses of things like dolphins and elephants and chimps not count given that they have self awareness?
You painted yourself into that corner. Can you not see the function of logical truths and generalised abstractions?

KJ: Also, it is not true that everything is just a concept based on a perception. That's lazy.

O: So you disagree with what Russell is telling me.
Because he said that things are concepts based on perceptions and perceptions based on concepts but that perceptions do come first.
He wrote they are interdependent. In philosophy, the process starts in the logical realm, but empirical experiences are used to help one confirm the validity of the philosophical method (are not proofs, but reminders that it's a mistake to rely on them). So they are interdependent, in a sense.

The concepts of the Totality develop after one conceives of the essential concept of "thing", which in turn develops after one has had a lot of empirical experience in order to build up this generalised abstraction to cover all the empirical experiences. So perceptions come first historically in the lifetime of the human being, but concepts come first for philosophers. The philosopher takes in the world, to breathe it out again as pure spirit.

But frankly, your laziness (lack of interest in reasoning carefully) is turning me off. I'll need evidence of genuine interest, if I'm going to continue. I respect that Getoriks believes you have potential, but I don't see the qualities in you that promise it's worth while. To me, you seem like a fashion philosopher, a dilettante dabbling in a few unusual thoughts, for the kicks, and gone tomorrow to a new wardrobe of frilly clothes.


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Kelly Jones »

Getoriks wrote:Higher learning does not take place when the student might expect it, but when the conditions are right, when the fruit is ripe. The trick is knowing when to treat what you are learning like you are viewing a rainbow -- not something to grasp at and be absolutely certain of, but something to witness in wonder, when to grab hold of it with an iron grip which comes along with absolute certainty, and when to once more let go!
On the contrary, Orenholt needs to develop a burning, insatiable, uncompromising desire for perfectly logical reasoning, absolute certainty, crystal-clear concepts and ultimate horizons. Telling her that concepts are fuzzy and interchangeable, that she should let the process occur randomly and by chance, and that she shouldn't get her teeth tightly clenched into a set of ideas, is definitely a misjudgment of where she's at. She is nowhere near ripe for infinite-mindedness, because her thinking is too foggy to appreciate it. She'll only patter happily away into post-modernism. Do you really think she has the muscle required for taking heaven by storm, and beating God into submission? Nothing else will do here. She has to be single-minded and go at it with all possible energy, because she is a female, and butterfly-mind will be her ongoing enemy.

Only when she has actually climbed the hundred-foot-pole, will she be ready to fly. Personally, I think the odds are stacked way against her, and I don't think you're helping in that regard.


.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Kelly Jones wrote:
Orenholt wrote:KJ: There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself.

O: Ok, I can accept that the universe doesn't have an appearance and that everything is just a concept based on a perception but now you're saying the universe is not even real? Come on.
I don't see how you can jump to that conclusion.
I am guessing that by "universe" you are referring to what scientific materialists call the universe, namely, what is known by humans via the senses. That is, not absolutely everything (the Totality), but rather a tiny portion of it. In that case, the universe definitely does present an appearance (otherwise, how could you even talk about it?)

I am not saying that the universe, defined thus, is some kind of fantasy or mirage.

Rather, that it is a construct of human consciousness, a very specific perspective. Humans are not omniscient, but have access to data only through the way the brain presents it to them. This doesn't mean the constructs of the brain are distorted, and that the origin of such data is objective or ultimate reality. Empiricism is not the method for gaining certainty about the nature of Reality.


Also, it is not true that everything is just a concept based on a perception. That's lazy.


.
Humans have the ability to think outside of the box. We can say that a colour is a wave, and heat is a vibration. We don't just use physical senses. We also use our logical minds to visualise the reality of what we are seeing. For example.. particles are spherical.. why? Because a sphere has energy from a central point that is equal in all directions. So when an ant takes boulders away from its nest it makes a perfect circle, because it always walks the same distance from its nest, and therefore always uses the same amount of energy to carry the rocks.

So a sphere is not only visual, but logical as well. You don't need to see a sphere to imagine that energy moving the same distance from a central point will be spherical.

http://jenniferbeaven.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... rcles.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21970408

So a sun, a planet etc.. we don't have to be there, you can work it out.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Getoriks wrote:
It's important to not get tangled up in the web of differing definitions. In philosophy, there are no official, fixed, and final definitions for words. Language is simply a tool to point to concepts, which themselves too are simply pointers to Reality. The pointers are only so important.

This is the reason that throughout the ages, wise persons have used different definitions of mind, of ego, of self, two different definitions of truth, two definitions of existence, have differentiated between Being and Existence, and between Reality, Being, and Existence. It's all about gaining the understanding, about seeing what is being pointed to.

Higher learning does not take place when the student might expect it, but when the conditions are right, when the fruit is ripe. The trick is knowing when to treat what you are learning like you are viewing a rainbow -- not something to grasp at and be absolutely certain of, but something to witness in wonder, when to grab hold of it with an iron grip which comes along with absolute certainty, and when to once more let go!

"Without piercing through the visible, without knowing the reality of the Self, how can men gain Freedom by mere outward words that end with utterance or writing?"
- Shankara
Did Getoriks write (as Kelly suggested) his post with Orenholt in mind? I thought it was directed to oxytocinNA ... but it could of course be for anyone who has never considered the importance of viewing life like viewing a rainbow.

Getoriks words have a substance that Orenholt shows not to be primed for. Although even if, as Kelly writes, "the odds are stacked way against her" there is no reason to believe that once she has a firm footing in understanding concepts such as causality, woman, the masculine and existence that her fluttering days won't come to an end.

Diebert wrote:
I'm really on two minds about it. The need for consistency and mastery of the essential will turn words into powerful facilitators at times. On the other hand we should be flexible and understand words are closer to water than to rock: they are transports for something more than words but not limited to mental pictures, ideas, thoughts or layered feeling. It's perhaps a living thing, especially ultimately, which was also your point it seems.
There are no two ways about it; one has to have that grounding in consistency to be able to turn those thoughts back on to themselves. Without that mental prowess, people readily accept viewing rainbows as something substantial.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Orenholt »

Kelly Jones wrote: But the Totality does present an appearance: everything that appears is the Totality. Everything that doesn't present an appearance is also, obviously, the Totality. They are two aspects of the one thing.
Ok I'll agree with that.
Your conclusion that I'm saying that the Totality is objectively real is wrong. What does that mean: objectively real? That everything one experiences subjectively is not real? Yet the latter is also a direct manifestation of the Totality.
Ok.
That there is no objective reality is about dismantling attachment to the view that the world of the senses is really "out there" beyond consciousness, instead of right here, where it has appeared.
Aren't you only saying that because it's impossible to travel beyond one's own consciousness?
You painted yourself into that corner. Can you not see the function of logical truths and generalised abstractions?
I can see how it's a logical conclusion but I was still wondering why you refer to human consciousness specifically.
He wrote they are interdependent. In philosophy, the process starts in the logical realm, but empirical experiences are used to help one confirm the validity of the philosophical method (are not proofs, but reminders that it's a mistake to rely on them). So they are interdependent, in a sense.
Alright.
But frankly, your laziness (lack of interest in reasoning carefully) is turning me off. I'll need evidence of genuine interest, if I'm going to continue. I respect that Getoriks believes you have potential, but I don't see the qualities in you that promise it's worth while. To me, you seem like a fashion philosopher, a dilettante dabbling in a few unusual thoughts, for the kicks, and gone tomorrow to a new wardrobe of frilly clothes.
I've always been curious about the nature of reality it just so happens that the conclusions I've reached thus far don't match up with yours. If you want I can link you to old posts I made on a different forum in 2006 that state some of my philosophical musings. But frankly your pomposity is turning me off.
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by oxytocinNA »

Getoriks wrote:It's important to not get tangled up in the web of differing definitions. In philosophy, there are no official, fixed, and final definitions for words. Language is simply a tool to point to concepts, which themselves too are simply pointers to Reality. The pointers are only so important.

This is the reason that throughout the ages, wise persons have used different definitions of mind, of ego, of self, two different definitions of truth, two definitions of existence, have differentiated between Being and Existence, and between Reality, Being, and Existence. It's all about gaining the understanding, about seeing what is being pointed to.

Higher learning does not take place when the student might expect it, but when the conditions are right, when the fruit is ripe. The trick is knowing when to treat what you are learning like you are viewing a rainbow -- not something to grasp at and be absolutely certain of, but something to witness in wonder, when to grab hold of it with an iron grip which comes along with absolute certainty, and when to once more let go!

"Without piercing through the visible, without knowing the reality of the Self, how can men gain Freedom by mere outward words that end with utterance or writing?"
- Shankara
This is why I am not a philosopher :)
Defining of terms is critical to exchanging information / concepts. Yes knowledge can limit the accuracy of definitions, or better words might need to be created.

For the sake of better discussion this should be avoided:
italics, underlined - The use of such adjectives (wise, genius, etc.) in discussions has no honest purpose, and is nothing more then an added supposition used to add weight without substance.
The function is as follows: A wise person said this - oh then who are we (or I) to disagree? The "throughout the ages " is also just as dishonest. Through out the ages people have believed in gods. The amount of time in which people practice, believe, or use anything, is not a validation. Validity is a matter of accuracy, in adherence to reality.

Just pointing out the problem with such arguments and why they should not be used. Some people study these techniques and have given names to them (I have no formal study in that area - just deal with faulty logic as it arises - if anyone here is knowledgeable about the names given to these faulty argumentative techniques - feel free to chime in).
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Emancipating Reality

Post by Leyla Shen »

if anyone here is knowledgeable about the names given to these faulty argumentative techniques
Logical Fallacies, like "Appeal to Authority"?
Between Suicides
Locked