Making peace with femininity

[divine focus]

How do you know that it's not even more correct to view things as essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating with one another?

If things were essentially separate, you could not know of them. Things are only apparently separate; they are essentially one. This I know the same way I know that I live.

If things were essentially separate, how could they affect each other? How could they communicate? There must be a medium for all interaction.

[xerox]

...

[sue hindmarsh]

Laird wrote:

How do you know that it's not even more correct to view things as essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating with one another?

It is impossible to answer your question because you provide no basis to your idea of things being “essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating”. I can’t compare my knowledge of causality with your bit of whimsy unless you tether it to something more substantial.

For example: you write of things being “essentially separated” - but this remains a meaningless concept unless you put it into context. To provide meaning, you’ll have to describe what you think it means in detail. You could do this by using examples of particular things (like a chair, or a flower) and show how these things being “essentially separate” “react, respond and communicate” with one another. This way you'll be able to show how your idea is the timeless and never changing basis of all existence.

[Unidian]

"Essential separation," like all ontological statements, implies dialectical monism. On its face, it is simply a meaningless statement - "separation" is incoherent in the context of "essential." But beyond that, it points to the idea that all ontological statements are efforts to express the conceptually and linguistically inexpressible.

[sue hindmarsh]

And that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[Unidian]

Of course. But you and I likely have different definitions of "truth."

[sue hindmarsh]

You wrote that the truth was "conceptually and linguistically inexpressible" - yet you now say you have expressed the truth!?

[Unidian]

Your pose of hyperbolic incredulity is just a rhetorical ploy which does not change the fact that the kind of "truth" you guys blather about is conceptually and linguistically inexpressible - that is to say, it doesn't mean anything. My view of truth involves premises that actually refer to something conceptually coherent within a given context. You guys' salvationist version of "Truth" invariably boils down to making some reference to "the Totality" or similar concepts, which of course do not refer to any thing at all and are therefore conceptually indistinguishable from nothing.

You should listen to Victor on this one. He's actually right - you guys and other religious ontologists are always trying to talk about things that aren't things, and as a result, you say nothing meaningful. You try to bludgeon people with your pretensions of TRUTH, but when examined, they are utterly empty - like the Emperor's New Clothes.

[sue hindmarsh]

Unidian wrote:

But you and I likely have different definitions of "truth."

You would agree though that by definition there can be but one 'truth'. Our individual definitions therefore should both at least reflect the timeless and universal nature of 'it'. All you have said is that it, the truth, cannot be "conceptually and linguistically inexpressible" - which we have established is indeed an expression of your "inexpressible truth". I cannot see how your thought comes anywhere near describing the nature of truth. In comparison, I write of causality and the Totality - which is the complete package.

You should listen to Victor on this one

I have listened to Victor, but his thinking is severely limited due to him having so many attachments (wife, children, career and status) to protect. These attachments create in his mind huge mental-blocks, thereby reducing his potential for philosophical development.

My view of truth involves premises that actually refer to something conceptually coherent within a given context.

Are you saying that your "conceptually and linguistically inexpressible" idea explains the existence of things? How so?

[Unidian]

You would agree though that by definition there can be but one 'truth'. Our individual definitions therefore should both at least reflect the timeless and universal nature of 'it'. All you have said is that it, the truth, cannot be "conceptually and linguistically inexpressible" - which we have established is indeed an expression of your "inexpressible truth". I cannot see how your thought comes anywhere near describing the nature of truth.

It doesn't, and that's the point. Duh. It is only a pointer.

In comparison, I write of causality and the Totality - which is the complete package.

And in doing so, you write nothing meaningful. You only point to what is already apparent, just as I do - but in order to maintain a psychologically satisfying self-image of exceptional wisdom, you attempt to pull a bait-and-switch maneuver in which the moon is replaced by the finger which points to it. It's an ego trip of epic proportions, made all the more deliciously ironic by the fact that it can only be done effectively by those who claim little or no ego.

BTW, pretty much everyone but QRS and a few QRS-in-training are onto this shell game. It is by no means a big revelation to most observers.

I have listened to Victor, but his thinking is severely limited due to him having so many attachments (wife, children, career and status) to protect. These attachments create in his mind huge mental-blocks, thereby reducing his potential for philosophical development.

Ah, of course. He has been educated stupid by academic-induced one-corner family singularity and is unfit to comprehend true Cubic Wisdom. He deserves a philosophical hanging. Do you offer $10,000 to any evil-ass academic who dares to disprove Totality Cube? If not, you should. Cubeless human relationships are bastardly queer and doom Nature and future youth to a hell.

But, slightly more seriously, I do award you 20 Nat Points for bashing Victor, even if you are doing so for all the wrong reasons.

Are you saying that your "conceptually and linguistically inexpressible" idea explains the existence of things?

That which is "conceptually and linguistically inexpressible" is not an "idea." Your attachment to ideas blinds you. Direct experience cannot and does not explain the existence of things, nor does it need to do so. Chop wood, carry water, and get over it.

I do have ideas about what does and does not constitute a "thing," some of which I've already outlined here. But they only point to that which is beyond all of this hair-splitting. They are only maps, and not the territory itself.

Remember, as Dr. Gene Quinn says, "Totality Cube's ineffable truth!" The key to understanding what I'm getting at with all of this is the term "ineffable."

[Jamesh]

[Laird wrote:] How do you know that it's not even more correct to view things as essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating with one another?

[Unidian (that name is just one letter ""i" of One-Dan :) wrote:
I think it's equally correct. Neither monism or dualism is a "more correct" description of how the world "really is." This is why I came up with them "universal dialectic." It contains this non-dualist, non-monist view implicitly - universal (one) and dialectic (two). Both "one" and "two" are conventionally correct descriptions, depending on the context - and in still another context (the "ultimate" or paramartha one, to use the Sanskrit), neither of them is.

So, regardless of whether oneness or duality are taken as meaningful terms, they are always of equal value. This is what is meant by the seemingly self-contradictory term "dialectical monism" (or dualistic monism, plural monism, etc).

That’s my view as well.

Dualism is the cause, oneness is the outcome.

Separation (dualism) is the cause of non-separation (oneness).

Our oneness's for instance, arise by being caused by that which is not us, becoming a oneness as an outcome. Our true oneness is not our mind or body, but rather it is our awareness.

Awareness, like anything else, is caused by an infinite number of dualities*, but the highest level awareness-causing duality is the duality of time as it is perceived. Awareness arises by the dualistic merging of past (memory) and future (the brain performing mental calculations of what will occur next, using what is stored in memory), the outcome of which we term the present moment of awareness.

*Note here that the phrase "infinite number" means including both PAST dualities with present dualities, otherwise it would not be infinite. You'll see why I raise this point as it relates to what follows.

Interestingly, this awareness / everything else duality is has one static/noun side, memory, and one non-static/verb side - perhaps all dualities are of this nature. Yes they are, even say night and day represents a static/non-static duality. Night is the absence of the high levels of light action that occurs in the day, it is more relatively static than daytime. Light is not light, it is a certain form of volatility we have evolved to relate to, or sense. Things only exist because they contain a conglomerate of degrees of staticness, relative to the degrees of staticness that surround them. Wind is dualistically aligned with no wind. What this means is that what I refer to as the Contracting Force is really the static force, the force of non-change, as opposed to eternally changing. If the Contracting Force is merely a form of time, then it is static time, as I have suggested before. Ahh, it all makes sense!

Well except for the apparent separate-ability of something that is not supposed to change. There must be a logical cause of the imperfection of perfection, because only by imperfection can more than one thing exist.

All things have centres of gravity, but in different locations. A centre of gravity is simply the most static causal balance. The perfect causal centre of something cannot be other than static. A spinning top remains upright because its centre is encircled by activity. It is easy to stand in the centre of a merry-go-round, because it is centrifugally less active at the centre.

I guess this could be explained because, for the expansionary force to expand, it must always be in the act of becoming more than it presently is. Now there is only one thing, one true God that can do this, and that thing is time as we know it - time that flows. In time flowing, what is actually occurring is that time is always in a continuous state of adding to the time that has been. Time that has been time, becomes static time. In becoming static time, things such as strings, then quarks and atoms can gradually arise through evolution from nothing other than active time. Given enough time, galaxies can arise in empty space (itself created by past time). Black holes are the oldest conglomerate of time we know, they exist in the centre of galaxies, because they have become the centre of gravity by being the oldest part of the galaxy, the part where there is the most static time, pushed together by the surrounding expansionary flowing time.

(I am expecting to be too busy at present and for some time, to reply to any responses)

[Unidian]

Interesting ideas, Jamesh. I'll send you a PM about something that might interest you.

[brokenhead]

You should listen to Victor on this one. He's actually right - you guys and other religious ontologists are always trying to talk about things that aren't things, and as a result, you say nothing meaningful. You try to bludgeon people with your pretensions of TRUTH, but when examined, they are utterly empty - like the Emperor's New Clothes.

I have listened to Victor, but his thinking is severely limited due to him having so many attachments (wife, children, career and status) to protect. These attachments create in his mind huge mental-blocks, thereby reducing his potential for philosophical development.

If we are speaking of Vicdan, I have to go on record as saying I have disagreements with him, but he is actually saying something. Sue, in the following statement, you encapsulate what is wrong with QRS logic.

You would agree though that by definition there can be but one 'truth'. Our individual definitions therefore should both at least reflect the timeless and universal nature of 'it'. All you have said is that it, the truth, cannot be "conceptually and linguistically inexpressible" - which we have established is indeed an expression of your "inexpressible truth". I cannot see how your thought comes anywhere near describing the nature of truth. In comparison, I write of causality and the Totality - which is the complete package.

Yes, you write about it and say nothing. Tell me this: what is the meaning of the word "ineffable"?

If you are in fact writing anything worthwhile abut "the complete package," then it would be worthwhile in any serious case where the truth is required. What if you were asked to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what you witnessed of a murder? Would you start in with the same "complete package"? Do you know what the words"contempt of court" mean? Do you enjoy showering with other women?

And in doing so, you write nothing meaningful. You only point to what is already apparent, just as I do - but in order to maintain a psychologically satisfying self-image of exceptional wisdom, you attempt to pull a bait-and-switch maneuver in which the moon is replaced by the finger which points to it. It's an ego trip of epic proportions, made all the more deliciously ironic by the fact that it can only be done effectively by those who claim little or no ego.

After all, Sue, doesn't the truth have to be about something? If it is about everything, then why does your truth seem to say nothing? I am not sure if you have taken yourself out of the world about which you think you are philosophizing, or if you have been pushed aside by it so that your response is to deny involvement with it enough to proclaim your superiority to it and your self-proclaimed intellectual victory over it. But the reality of the situation is that you cannot be separate from it. If everything is in fact connected, then everything, every concept or idea, has a navel. By saying you have the "complete package," you invalidate your own argument. You are guilty of precisely what Unidian is suggesting in the quote just above. By "guilty," of course, I do not mean any wrong has been committed; there is nothing punishable here. You are merely guilty of falling into an intellectual trap. You are punishing yourself. We are trying to make you see that it is completely unnecessary.

[sue hindmarsh]

Unidian wrote:

Sue: You would agree though that by definition there can be but one 'truth'. Our individual definitions therefore should both at least reflect the timeless and universal nature of 'it'. All you have said is that it, the truth, cannot be "conceptually and linguistically inexpressible" - which we have established is indeed an expression of your "inexpressible truth". I cannot see how your thought comes anywhere near describing the nature of truth.

It doesn't, and that's the point. Duh. It is only a pointer.

No, it isn't a "pointer" - though you may wish to imagine it as so, for it provides you with a comfy mindset where you don't have to back it, or live by it. No, your pointer is the truth, or it is meaningless drivel - which is it?

BTW, pretty much everyone but QRS and a few QRS-in-training are onto this shell game. It is by no means a big revelation to most observers.

I don't believe you. If it (causality and the Totality) was really a "revelation" to you, you wouldn't be messing around with "pointers".

But, slightly more seriously, I do award you 20 Nat Points for bashing Victor, even if you are doing so for all the wrong reasons.

The truth is that Victor has attachments that prevent him from facing reality directly. This is not an unusual situation. It all boils down to the fact that you cannot advance spiritually if you love more than one thing. It is either truth, or your wife/husband, etc. You cannot have both.

I do have ideas about what does and does not constitute a "thing," some of which I've already outlined here. But they only point to that which is beyond all of this hair-splitting. They are only maps, and not the territory itself.

Your "ideas" then describe how a 'thing' exists. Could you just give me a quick example of your thinking?

[samadhi]

Jamesh,

Dualism is the cause, oneness is the outcome.

Separation (dualism) is the cause of non-separation (oneness).

This is patent nonsense. Causation has nothing to do with either one.

Our oneness's for instance, arise by being caused by that which is not us, becoming a oneness as an outcome.

Oneness isn't caused. That would be a contradiction in terms.

Our true oneness is not our mind or body, but rather it is our awareness.

Okay, now you are back on track.

Awareness, like anything else, is caused by an infinite number of dualities*, but the highest level awareness-causing duality is the duality of time as it is perceived.

Now you are back to nonsense. Duality causes awareness? Did you ever consider that it is within awareness?

Awareness arises by the dualistic merging of past (memory) and future (the brain performing mental calculations of what will occur next, using what is stored in memory), the outcome of which we term the present moment of awareness.

The problem is that time is a function of consciousness which arises within awareness. So you seem to have it backwards.

Interestingly, this awareness / everything else duality is has one static/noun side, memory, and one non-static/verb side - perhaps all dualities are of this nature. Yes they are, even say night and day represents a static/non-static duality. Night is the absence of the high levels of light action that occurs in the day, it is more relatively static than daytime. Light is not light, it is a certain form of volatility we have evolved to relate to, or sense. Things only exist because they contain a conglomerate of degrees of staticness, relative to the degrees of staticness that surround them. Wind is dualistically aligned with no wind. What this means is that what I refer to as the Contracting Force is really the static force, the force of non-change, as opposed to eternally changing. If the Contracting Force is merely a form of time, then it is static time, as I have suggested before. Ahh, it all makes sense!

Yikes! No comment.

Well except for the apparent separate-ability of something that is not supposed to change. There must be a logical cause of the imperfection of perfection, because only by imperfection can more than one thing exist.

The imperfection of perfection? What does that mean? And who is to say which is which?

All things have centres of gravity, but in different locations. A centre of gravity is simply the most static causal balance. The perfect causal centre of something cannot be other than static. A spinning top remains upright because its centre is encircled by activity. It is easy to stand in the centre of a merry-go-round, because it is centrifugally less active at the centre.

Causal balance? You are being needlessly obscure.

I guess this could be explained because, for the expansionary force to expand, it must always be in the act of becoming more than it presently is. Now there is only one thing, one true God that can do this, and that thing is time as we know it - time that flows.

Except it doesn't. Consciousness changes, that's all.

In time flowing, what is actually occurring is that time is always in a continuous state of adding to the time that has been.

See above.

Time that has been time, becomes static time. In becoming static time, things such as strings, then quarks and atoms can gradually arise through evolution from nothing other than active time. Given enough time, galaxies can arise in empty space (itself created by past time). Black holes are the oldest conglomerate of time we know, they exist in the centre of galaxies, because they have become the centre of gravity by being the oldest part of the galaxy, the part where there is the most static time, pushed together by the surrounding expansionary flowing time.

You've gone off the deep end.

(I am expecting to be too busy at present and for some time, to reply to any responses)

I'll take that as a good thing ... lol

[Unidian]

Sue,

No, it isn't a "pointer" - though you may wish to imagine it as so, for it provides you with a comfy mindset where you don't have to back it, or live by it.

Hehe, here's where you guys goof again. In your cultivated egotism, you imagine that living by your meaningless proclamations is some sort of titanic struggle, when in fact yours is the "comfy" approach - the same comfy approach taken by all religious believers. Like any of the faithful, your psychological landscape includes a sense of specialness and superiority granted by your ontological realizations which the heathens, infidels, and other unwashed lack. The "comfy factor" of this psychological landscape cannot be overestimated, and that's why billions flock to it. You have Totality and Cause and Effect, Muslims have Allah and the Ayatollah, Christians have God and Jesus, Gene Ray has Time Cube, etc. All of you have some superior understanding which secures your place as one of those who "really gets it."

I, on the other hand, claim precisely squat in that department. Certainly I have an above average intellect and some potentially useful ideas which have evolved over the years - but none of this makes me a "special person" in the all-important psychologically-satisfying sense. Unlike you, I lack religion. And I can assure you that there is nothing "comfy" about that - particularly compared to the warm and fuzzy haze of egotistical specialness the Quinnological self-image provides. Trust me, I know this firsthand, because I almost became a QRS a few years ago. I was just about that desperate to "be somebody" - but not quite. Conscience intervened on my behalf.

But I know the QRS line on this, too. It's because of attachments that I retreated at the very brink of enlightenment, and since everyone knows I have no attachments of any consequence beyond a relationship with a woman, that will have to take the blame. WOMAN, the temptress of Eden, strikes again! Her Satanic maleficence and her diabolical capacity to snatch men from the very embrace of Truth knows no bounds. Horrors! If only I had just believed God.

No, your pointer is the truth, or it is meaningless drivel - which is it?

Only a pointer, just as I said. You can't point a false dichotomy at me as if you were the Dirty Harry of philosophy and expect me to acknowledge it simply because of a scowl and a broken-record insistence. Save that approach for the weak-minded, who are moved by such ploys.

Sue: BTW, pretty much everyone but QRS and a few QRS-in-training are onto this shell game. It is by no means a big revelation to most observers.

Nat: I don't believe you. If it (causality and the Totality) was really a "revelation" to you, you wouldn't be messing around with "pointers".

The "revelation" I was referring to had nothing to do with your "Totality/Causality" blatherings. Why are you apparently unable to see anything but what you want to see? I was referring to the "revelation" that you guys play a bait-and-switch shell game in which guru-speak is substituted for that which it is intended to point to. An act of egotism of the highest possible order, in which the ego is elevated through identification to the status of God Almighty.

However, your implicit claim of being more insightful than all the Zen and Taoist writers of history, who would have nothing to do with various attempts at egotistical theosis and spoke of "pointers" the same way I do, is noted. It comes as no surprise, of course. When it comes to QRS proclamations, nothing is shocking anymore.

The truth is that Victor has attachments that prevent him from facing reality directly. This is not an unusual situation. It all boils down to the fact that you cannot advance spiritually if you love more than one thing. It is either truth, or your wife/husband, etc. You cannot have both.

Oh? How very religious. And what, might I ask, is to be done if "truth" IS your wife/husband, your dog, your bad breath, and everything else in your direct experience? Where are you going to get a religious dichotomy with which to elevate yourself then? Oh, wait, you can't - and that's why you aren't interested in it.

Your "ideas" then describe how a 'thing' exists. Could you just give me a quick example of your thinking?

I'm highly skeptical there's any point in doing so, but what the hell:

http://naturyl.humanists.net/synthesis/physicalism.html

[Faust]

I have listened to Victor, but his thinking is severely limited due to him having so many attachments (wife, children, career and status) to protect. These attachments create in his mind huge mental-blocks, thereby reducing his potential for philosophical development.

Victor has a wife and children???

Sue, why do you think that a simple philosophical conversation about the nature of reality and Truth create mental-blocks due to simple things such as a wife and kids?

what is the substance of these mental blocks? And why are these 'attachments'?

What is the nature of Truth that it causes to create mental blocks to these attachments?

[Faust]

Unidian,

don't you consider the absoluteness of Causality to be important to know and be aware of during every moment of your being? We aren't following a religion because there's proof of causality, but there's no proof of religion being right. Causality is very important to know because it shows the illusory nature of our social identity, the illusory nature of our inherent self. Just look at how desperately people flee from them selves if they catch a glimpse of Causality pervading their every behaviour.

[Unidian]

Causality isn't absolute. Not only is at absent at the quantum level, which is the fundamental basis of physical reality, it is also subject to the well-known problem of infinite regress, as well as Hume's objections regarding induction, etc.

As a term of convenience regarding everyday occurrences at the macroscopic level, causality is a useful model. In daily life and most human experience (other than quantum research), determinism holds up and is pragmatically sound. I don't believe in "free will," so please don't bring that up. I don't share the common fear of my actions being determined.

But making a religious tenet of "Causality" is just as silly as religious ramblings about Jeebus.

[Faust]

Causality isn't absolute. Not only is at absent at the quantum level, which is the fundamental basis of physical reality, it is also subject to the well-known problem of infinite regress, as well as Hume's objections regarding induction, etc.

quantum physics hasn't refuted causality, in quantum the particles still need to interact in the environment, they aren't isolated. Regardless of infinite regress causality is still happening everywhere all the time right now, and Hume didn't deny causes, he denied our ability to find those specific causes.

As a term of convenience regarding everyday occurrences at the macroscopic level, causality is a useful model. In daily life and most human experience (other than quantum research), determinism holds up and is pragmatically sound. I don't believe in "free will," so please don't bring that up. I don't share the common fear of my actions being determined.

It's not about fearing determined actions but issues of responsbility. Determinism shows how real causality is, despite assumptions of its abscence in quantum physics.

But making a religious tenet of "Causality" is just as silly as religious ramblings about Jeebus.

no because causality atleast exists overwhelmingly in human life

[sue hindmarsh]

Unidian wrote:

Sue: Your "ideas" then describe how a 'thing' exists. Could you just give me a quick example of your thinking?

I'm highly skeptical there's any point in doing so, but what the hell:

http://naturyl.humanists.net/synthesis/physicalism.html

"Skeptical" of what - that I won't agree with your thinking? Heaps of people don't agree with much, if anything, that I write - what of it! My interest is truth - people can do what they like with my work.

Thanks for the link to your essay, but I only asked if you could provide a "quick example", such as say, how a cup exists.

[divine focus]

It all boils down to the fact that you cannot advance spiritually if you love more than one thing. It is either truth, or your wife/husband, etc. You cannot have both.

Can you imagine loving, without an object? Saying, "I love...," without being able to finish the sentence? This is what you're looking for, and nothing is excluded from this truth.

Jamesh,

I guess this could be explained because, for the expansionary force to expand, it must always be in the act of becoming more than it presently is. Now there is only one thing, one true God that can do this, and that thing is time as we know it - time that flows. In time flowing, what is actually occurring is that time is always in a continuous state of adding to the time that has been. Time that has been time, becomes static time. In becoming static time, things such as strings, then quarks and atoms can gradually arise through evolution from nothing other than active time. Given enough time, galaxies can arise in empty space (itself created by past time). Black holes are the oldest conglomerate of time we know, they exist in the centre of galaxies, because they have become the centre of gravity by being the oldest part of the galaxy, the part where there is the most static time, pushed together by the surrounding expansionary flowing time.

The static time you mention is not actually "static." All power of change is in the present, and the past is not immune from this power. There is a development, but that is actually an aspect of the present, as well. The present is constantly developing; it is the "expansionary flowing time." The nature of Reality is to grow, to be expansive, to develop eternally. The constant change, which is "time," is the one unchanging factor, along with its inseparable "effects" or simultaneously arising "conditions." These be joy, love, life, direction, and expression (or self re-creation).

[sue hindmarsh]

Divine wrote:

Sue: It all boils down to the fact that you cannot advance spiritually if you love more than one thing. It is either truth, or your wife/husband, etc. You cannot have both.

Can you imagine loving, without an object? Saying, "I love...," without being able to finish the sentence? This is what you're looking for, and nothing is excluded from this truth.

That's right, everything is always in flux. A person or a table is never the same thing in any consecutive moment, so trying to love any 'thing' (a person, a table, a cat, an artwork, a room, etc) is an impossible task, for you'd have to reassess your love for that thing in every moment. Added to this, because 'love' (a thing) is also always in flux, the what, how, and why of your love is also always changing, altering from moment to moment - never the same thing twice. This means that even Superman, with his ability of being faster than a speeding bullet, would find it impossible to keep up with the all the changes. Which goes to show that loving a thing - any thing - is an impossibility.

[brokenhead]

I wondered about this:

It all boils down to the fact that you cannot advance spiritually if you love more than one thing. It is either truth, or your wife/husband, etc. You cannot have both.

until I read this:

A person or a table is never the same thing in any consecutive moment, so trying to love any 'thing' (a person, a table, a cat, an artwork, a room, etc) is an impossible task, for you'd have to reassess your love for that thing in every moment.

Sue---you really don't know what love is, do you?

[Ataraxia]

http://naturyl.humanists.net/synthesis/physicalism.html

Only recently aquainted with your work,some really good stuff. :)You might find this paper interesting(some of it went over my head,I'm still pretty new to the mind body problem)

http://www.wittgenstein-network.dk/home ... Dualis.pdf