Musings, Critiques.

[David Quinn]

What David calls for is the installation of an absolutist religious program.

No, what he calls for is people to become more rational in their thinking and more conscious in their everyday lives. To have genuine passion for truth. To stop being insane.

This forum is about intensifying passion for truth. Your intent is to dilute it.

I am suggesting a closer examination of the core thinking system outlined in a specific document the influence of which is 'felt' throughout the forum. It is the core and defining document of a House Philosophy.

Kevin Solway's Poison for the Heart has probably had a greater influence on most of those here, which is only right since it is a far greater work than Wisdom of the Infinite. And these two works form only a small part of the larger body of truthful writings that the human race has produced so far, a body that includes the Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, the Diamond Sutra, the Gospels, Kierkegaard's writings, the Ancedotes of Diogenes, the Teachings of Chuang Tzu, Meister Eckhart's sermons, the writings of Nietzsche, etc.

If you want to delineate the "house document" (an absurd aim, of course, one that completely misses the point), then you will have to consider all of these works together. But even that won't be of any use unless you uncover the truth for yourself.

I am also suggesting the inclusion of a great deal of material, 'possibilities' I have called them, that is excised by a radical-absolutist religious program.

I think Dennis answered this best:

That's you talking to your parents concerning an old wound.
Your war on the East is your war on your parents.

Yes, this really does seem to be the main factor that drives Alex's "campaign" against this forum. It certainly explains his persistent desire to belittle everyone here - a desire that he can't seem to let go of, even after many years.

Growing up, he no doubt found an escape from his parent's restrictive regime through books, which in turn caused him to become many-sided and postmodernist in outlook. In this way, he felt that he was becoming larger and less restricted than his parents.

But then, lo and behold, he comes to this forum and he finds that his box of tricks does not work here. Far from being considered a virtue, his many-sidedness is quickly laughed at. It does not receive the validation that he feels he deserves. And so he reacts by belittling and belittling and belittling.....

He is actually paying a compliment towards the forum when he does this. It indicates that he recognizes something genuine here, something that can't be overcome by mere trickery - although this does not stop him from continuing to try!

[David Quinn]

I agree with Alex that the house philosophy is reactionary: I think it reacts against that which is painful in the world, including, as Dennis's contributions make clear, lack of authenticity. The quotes that James has just offered (on intolerance of pain) are interesting in this respect too. I think a useful way to approach a full critique of WOTI, and the house philosophy in general, would be from the perspective of it being a system of pain management: to view it as a way of reducing e.g. the pain of having a free will, and the personal responsibility that comes with that freedom, of reducing the pain of having to "fit in" and live a conventional, limited/mediocre life, of reducing the pain of broken romances, of reducing the pain of loss and broken attachments in general, and, ultimately, of reducing to zero all pain altogether (or rather, by its terms, all suffering, since it distinguishes between the two).

No, the main goal is to rid the mind of all its illusions, to put an end to the mind's tendency to deceive itself. The impact this has on suffering is merely a by-product.

There is always some suffering involved with the spiritual path - in the form of growing pains, and of being alienated and misunderstood by society. What does go away, however, is unnecessary suffering - that is to say, the suffering caused by clinging to illusions.

The house philosophy is only "reactionary" in the sense that it opposes insanity - in all of its forms, both externally and inwardly.

[guest_of_logic]

As for your suggestion that this 'system' may be for "pain management," What David and others discuss here (the "path of enlightenment" you could call it) is clearly not about avoiding pain.. what could be more painful than doing away with all worldly desires? Friends and family turning against you as you turn to reason? The path of enlightenment is much more about embracing the "pains of life" (or "long suffering" as they say in Christian traditions) in route to buddhahood, not in seeking avoidance.

I think you're presenting facts selectively here though. I could equally point out that the "doing away with all worldly desires" is undertaken because desire is seen (by the house philosophy) as being necessarily associated with pain (suffering, in GF terms), and so the real reason (worldly) desire is done away with is to avoid the necessarily-associated pain. I could also point to the many indictments of the pain purported by the house philosophy to be associated with love-based relationships - as David writes in WOTI: "love is easily the biggest source of human misery in the entire spectrum of human behaviour". The pain of friends and family turning against you might be a real one, but again, through this lens it is undertaken in the spirit of eliminating one's capacity to experience the "human misery" associated with those type of love-based relationships in the first place.

In any case, I'm not suggesting that the lens of pain management is the definitive one through which to view the house philosophy, just that it's a useful one. It's certainly possible to view WOTI as an exercise in providing reasons why "non-attaching" ourselves with respect to reality will eliminate our suffering. For example, from this perspective the purpose of the observations in the final chapter of WOTI based around the fact that we cannot truly know what lies beyond our perception could be seen as providing a reason not to become attached to anything in (external) reality - because that reality is in some sense illusory/ungraspable/untrustworthy.

I think it's fair to say that a basic tenet of the house philosophy is "attachment => suffering" (James and Diebert seem to recognise this, and so it's curious that you object to a framing of the house philosophy in terms of pain management (or avoidance of pain)). I think that this tenet can reasonably be questioned - at least it is one that might vary between individuals - and that alternative conclusions can be drawn from the observations David et al present, and even though I'm wary of being drawn into an extended discussion, or worse, argument, this time, and so can't promise to continue engaging, I will just offer a few talking points:

• Is it really necessarily the case that pleasure entails suffering?
• Even if that really is necessarily the case, is it possible that for some (many) people, the (desire-based) suffering in their lives is vastly outweighed by the (especially love-based) pleasure in their lives?
• Is there any compelling evidence that the approach of non-attachment advocated by David et al genuinely improves a person's experience of life compared to those who live according to the alternative "maximise-pleasure, minimise-pain" approach?
• Even if every experience/appearance, including the ego, is ultimately an "illusion", isn't this outweighed by the fact that other people, animals and probably plants too have real consciousnesses, and are really (in the sense that they experience them directly) capable of feeling both pleasure and pain (or of experiencing suffering, if you prefer)?
• Doesn't the reality of other beings' consciousnesses and their (our) capacity for pleasure and pain imply that a philosophy ought to contain recommendations for how to treat other beings (so as to avoid causing them to suffer)? Isn't it odd that effectively the only recommendation in the house philosophy for how to treat other beings (indeed, people only) is to encourage them to view life in the same way that David et al view it (to "promote wisdom" in them)?
• Given the reality of other beings' consciousnesses and their (our) capacity for pleasure and pain, doesn't this suggest that even if every experience/appearance, including the ego, is ultimately an "illusion", we could still view life as "a game with real consequences", and take pleasure in it on those terms - as much in the receiving of pleasure as in the giving of it, and insofar as we do no harm to others?

Dennis asserts that "recognising emptiness [is] a way of being", but is it the only or most meaningful way of being? Is the alternative of "sucking the marrow out of life", giving one's all in "the game of life", any less valid? The way most people on this forum talk about it, there is no real alternative, and I see that as part of the phenomenon of cult-like thinking.

In any case, there are many, many other questions that can be posed, but I will stop there.

I'm not sure if direct experience is still "experience" in the usual definition

That seems a little odd - experience is not experience? Yes, I know there were qualifications ("direct" and "usual"), but I'm not sure how you avoid an oxymoron there. In any case, how would you characterise it (direct experience) instead?

[W]hen it comes to knowing what or who oneself is, the fact of experiencing itself looks like a crucial subject. To get that in focus might have surprising effects.

Perhaps you could talk a little about those effects.

But if life really equals suffering, how to avoid any of it without avoiding life? Perhaps I misunderstood? You are mixing "life is suffering" with "life contains seperate elements of suffering". Those are I think two different philosophical starting points altogether.

Right, right - when I wrote that an ultimate truth of the house philosophy is that "life is suffering, which can be avoided", what I really meant was more like "conventionally experienced, life is suffering, which can be avoided through unconventional ('rationally enlightened') experience/living".

An indifference to former attachments is felt the same way as developing certain strengths. If what once affected you now does not then it is the same as developing muscle strength – you have built a resistance to what formally made you suffer.

So as a result have you lost the joy as well? Well yes, the joy that attachment once had will no longer arise.

So as a result of this indifference will you now feel dead and void?

Umm, I’m not sure. I’ve not lost attachments, though they do have lesser affect on me, I’ve at least developed in varying degrees at least some indifference to them.

It's interesting that Dan's view on the value of "indifference" seems to be different to yours. You seem to be describing an approach of resistance (to attachments) whereas the house philosophy describes an approach of dismantling (of the apparatus that attaches in the first place).

Could it be that you're drawn to the house philosophy largely because of the lens I've presented it through: because there is a lot of suffering in your life and you see this philosophy as a way to minimise that suffering? Probably you are one of those people for whom it is not true (as I questioned above) that "the (desire-based) suffering in their lives is vastly outweighed by the (especially) love-based pleasure in their lives". David affirms that elimination of suffering is "merely a by-product" of his approach, but perhaps for many who are attracted here, like you, it is the main game.

I don't think you'd dispute that you're very cynical, and I wonder whether overcoming your cynicism and transforming your life into one that is rich and meaningful, where you truly are "sucking the marrow" out of it, would be an even better (perhaps braver?) choice than trying to to numb yourself into indifference. I'm not saying I know how you could achieve that - I have enough trouble achieving it in my own life that I wouldn't presume to advise others - but I sense you've lost hope of that possibility, which to me is a sad thing.

[Russell Parr]

I think I'll go straight for the bullet points.

• Is it really necessarily the case that pleasure entails suffering?

Depends on what you mean by "pleasure." One might call the feeling of simply 'being' pleasurable. But the pleasures that are rooted in irrational behavior (such as common-day love) absolutely do entail suffering, because the pleasure is derived from an attachment to one side of a duality.

[*] Even if that really is necessarily the case, is it possible that for some (many) people, the (desire-based) suffering in their lives is vastly outweighed by the (especially love-based) pleasure in their lives?

Perhaps. But this does not mean that they aren't delusional, and it most certainly doesn't mean that they aren't doing any harm to the advancement of mankind, consciously speaking.

[*] Is there any compelling evidence that the approach of non-attachment advocated by David et al genuinely improves a person's experience of life compared to those who live according to the alternative "maximise-pleasure, minimise-pain" approach?

If the measure of quality of life is dependent on the pursuit of pleasure for the sake of pleasure, as your "maximize-pleasure, minimize-pleasure" phrase seems to imply, then the seeker will almost certainly suffer due to their ignorance. The pursuit of further false pleasures such as religious/postmodernist beliefs, in order to mask their suffering, is the common result. But the pursuit of ultimate wisdom is not at all the equivalent to the typical "pursuit of pleasure/avoidance of pain" agenda, as you and Alex seem to think.

[*] Even if every experience/appearance, including the ego, is ultimately an "illusion", isn't this outweighed by the fact that other people, animals and probably plants too have real consciousnesses, and are really (in the sense that they experience them directly) capable of feeling both pleasure and pain (or of experiencing suffering, if you prefer)?

The range of measure in which you use the word "consciousness" here is far too expansive to be useful here. Remember, consciousness is the opposite of delusional thinking, in regards to enlightenment. The impact of fully realizing the illusionary nature of experience/appearances results in living more consciously. Yes it is true that emotional/egotistical lifestyles rule the earth, but that doesn't mean that you have to settle for less "because everyone's doing it."

[*] Doesn't the reality of other beings' consciousnesses and their (our) capacity for pleasure and pain imply that a philosophy ought to contain recommendations for how to treat other beings (so as to avoid causing them to suffer)? Isn't it odd that effectively the only recommendation in the house philosophy for how to treat other beings (indeed, people only) is to encourage them to view life in the same way that David et al view it (to "promote wisdom" in them)?

This is because the pursuit of wisdom naturally results in behaving more consciously towards others. We're not promoting brands here, just wisdom.

[*] Given the reality of other beings' consciousnesses and their (our) capacity for pleasure and pain, doesn't this suggest that even if every experience/appearance, including the ego, is ultimately an "illusion", we could still view life as "a game with real consequences", and take pleasure in it on those terms - as much in the receiving of pleasure as in the giving of it, and insofar as we do no harm to others?[/list]

You're basically suggesting that everyone is entitled to indulge in egotism at least a bit of the time, because, well gosh darn it, it feels so good.

Most common egotism allows people to live in peace amongst each other for the most part. But just as surely there will be the few who seem to be lucky enough to experience the greatest of pleasures that egotistical lifestyle provides, the contrast will too appear (as egotism is attachment to duality), ie. the serial rapist/post office gunman, as they feel cheated by a society that dealt them a bad card. Just hope you're not caught in the line of fire, I guess!

On the other hand, if we, for example, embrace the profundity of causation instead, and thus realize the illusionary nature of things and the dualistic spectrum egotism creates, we can do away with such an irrational thing. We can choose not to play the games that most people deem inevitable for all.

[guest_of_logic]

I've just returned home from my trip, please pardon the delayed response.

It's interesting the way you throw around words like "irrational", "delusional" and "egotistical", and the justifications you will (I know, because I've been around here long enough to know, plus you raise one or two in your post) offer for them if questioned: the supposedly "illusionary" nature of existence, in particular of the ego, in particular as backed by hard determinism and by the supposed arbitrariness, i.e. "consciously created"-ness, of boundaries, the supposed necessity of suffering under the "dualism" of the ego, etc. To you, the connections between these justifications and the conclusions implied by your buzz-words are "ultimate wisdom"; to me, those connections are arbitrary albeit ideologically driven, not to mention that the justifications themselves are as much a matter of perspective and/or conjecture as anything "ultimately wise".

Mind you, I don't begrudge you your life choices, I simply question whether they are the best choices, and I certainly challenge the supposed infallibility by which you arrive at them. The questions I posed and that you answered probably give you a sense of the possible alternative way of approaching life that I'm suggesting. The key question in that lot with respect to life choices is the third one. The justifications for your recommended approach to life aren't cogent to me; the only thing that will convince me, then, is results. If you can show me a group of people living by the house philosophy who generally have a vastly superior experience of life than that of people living by any other approach to life, then you might make a start on persuading me that you've got something worthwhile going on. Your answer, though, didn't seem to be geared in that direction - it didn't even seem to be particularly responsive to the question.

Perhaps what you're trying to say in your answer to that question is that the quality of one's experience of life isn't important, and that the question is based on the assumption that it is, which is an assumption that you don't share. In that case, I would point out that this simply affirms what I observed above regarding the ideologically-driven arbitrariness of the house philosophy, in this case in the sense that it makes its own arbitrary assumption about what truly is important in life, and then masks this assumption with the label, "ultimate wisdom", barely to be questioned from then on: who would challenge the significance of "ultimate wisdom"... unless that wisdom turned out to be more value-driven than ultimate?

In any case, I've written in more detail of the arbitrariness of the house philosophy and its values in my post, Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy.

[Dan Rowden]

That was clearly one hell of a trip.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

guest of logic


You are still under the assumption that more thought is what will bring about wisdom.

In reality, it is less thought that will bring about wisdom.

Direct experience is the source of wisdom, it is wakefulness and empty minded observation that will bring about wisdom.

Realize the truth of the words above, forget everything else, you'll see that most of the reasons you have for the things you think you know, the logic you have attached....those justifications you aren't finding in bluerap's logic but seem to finding in your own, are in themselves illusory.

Bluerap did not include the "rational justifications" that you were hoping to find, because what he knows he can't very well describe in words.

"the supposedly 'illusionary' nature of existence, in particular the ego"

Not supposedly.

[guest_of_logic]

Hello SeekerOfWisdom,

I appreciate the attempt to enlighten, but since according to your username you seek wisdom, I'll be bold enough to offer some. Here's my little nugget of wisdom then: be cautious in the views you ascribe to others, especially online and especially when you are inferring those views; instead of pronouncing, question (my "assumption" is not quite so simple as "more thought is what will bring about wisdom"...).

"Illusory" and "illusionary" can mean different things. I don't find the way they are used by the house philosophy to be particularly meaningful, but perhaps you mean something different by them. As I understand the house philosophy, what is meant by the "illusoriness" of existence is the relational nature of existence i.e. that a thing not only exists in relationship to ("is caused by" in the dubious terminology of the house philosophy) all that lies beyond it, but also exists in relationship to, and is comprised of, arbitrarily dissectible elements ("causes", again in the (still dubious) terminology of the house philosophy) within it.

To me, this doesn't deserve to be described as "illusory". To me, for existence to deserve to be qualified as "illusory", there would have to be something more real which is being hidden behind it - something like the way there is a real existence behind the illusory (virtual) existence in the movie, The Matrix. Checking the dictionary (after writing all of the preceding), I find it backs me up, in particular take note of this at that link: "An illusion is a false mental image produced by misinterpretation of things that actually exist". If existence itself is an illusion, then where is there any room for anything that actually exists?

Anyhow, I get the "finger pointing at the moon" thing, I focus on the finger only because precision in language is important to me, however, the moon being pointed to doesn't seem to me to be particularly profound or significant anyway. Your mileage might vary.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I understand your meaning, and I'm not sure about the varying views of the house philosophy on the word illusion, but my meaning is just that the universe exists only in sensory experience, that there is no corresponding reality which we are interpreting and then experiencing, but rather all that exists are the experiences of consciousness.

Is this what you had in mind?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Also, yes it is as "real" as it gets, the illusions make up all that is real, but they are still illusions.

[guest_of_logic]

Riddle me this, SeekerOfWisdom: if "the illusions make up all that is real", then have you not reduced "real" and "illusory" to synonyms, and destroyed any distinction between these two words? Does that not strike you as an... unhelpful... thing to do?

Riddle me another: if "there is no corresponding reality which we are interpreting and then experiencing", then how is it that we all have an experience of a shared reality about which we can communicate? What is it that is being shared?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Riddle 1

I told you what illusion means, you tell a scientist the world is not real and physical, but an illusion existing only in sensory experience, and he will find the distinction pretty clearly, it only you that has played with synonyms and forgotten the meaning of the words. You can call it whatever you want, it exists only in the mind, as hallucinations do, is that a better word for you?

Riddle 2

yes the big assumption, we are experiencing these miraculous senses, and they are shared, so incredible you could never understand how they work, and the thing that puzzles your mind is, how is it possible that these miraculous experiences are shared?

The answer is, its a miracle, that's how, it just is. It being shared doesn't constitute the belief in some imaginary physical world outside of sensory experience.

[guest_of_logic]

So, why do you believe this? Why, given that you have to resort to miracles, do you think it's a better hypothesis than the hypothesis that there is some sort of shared ("physical" if you like) reality, which, miraculous as it is in its own way, at least admits of a more accessible understanding as to how our experiences of reality are shared?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Guest

Remember the last comment you posted, and remember it well. Think on it for a long time, because it is the fundamental question, ( the fact that our experiences of consciousness are shared, or how we perceive this, can have massive implications on our understanding of everything)

Think on it forever, let me know if you come to the same conclusion as me, I see that the idea that there needs to be something outside that we are experiencing, comes only from the experiences and nowhere else.

[guest_of_logic]

SeekerOfWisdom, did you not like my little nugget of wisdom? I ask because you've ignored it and falsely inferred something again: that I haven't already thought about this.

The question of what, if anything, is the basis of our perceptions, including the question of whether or not an objective, shared reality exists beyond the mind (is that an acceptable phrasing to you?) is an empirical one, and is subject to hypothesising. There is a range of possible hypotheses, as evidenced by Wikipedia's philosophy of perception article. Some of these are:

• naive realism: the hypothesis that a physical reality exists beyond the mind in pretty much exactly the way we perceive it (critical realism[1] modifies this hypothesis by stipulating that only some of our sense data accurately represents external objects)
• phenomenalism: the hypothesis that some sort of objective phenomena exist beyond the mind that stimulate perceptions in reliable ways, but that there is nothing corresponding to 'physical objects' in the way we usually understand them
• the extreme hypothesis you seem to want to posit, that no objective reality exists beyond consciousness at all, and that our shared experiences are a miracle. I can't think of or find at short notice an established philosophy of perception to which this position corresponds, perhaps the closest is some form of idealism[2], perhaps the closest being absolute idealism[3].

[remove the space after "http" to use these urls - I've had to do it this way to evade the 3-url-per-post limit]
[1] http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
[2] http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
[3] http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism

My own position is that ultimately we can't know which is most accurate, but that phenomenalism is the most plausible hypothesis, whereas yours is the least plausible. Why do I think yours is least plausible? For two reasons:

1. It accepts the existence of individuated human consciousnesses. This, then, seems to require that an external reality of some sort exists: that within which these individuated consciousnesses are located or "reside". If you disagree, then perhaps you could provide a reason why it's plausible that consciousnesses could exist individually without existing in anything, and why in fact this is more plausible than consciousnesses existing in some type of external reality as hypothesised in the two alternatives I listed (and whose Wikipedia articles I linked to) above: realism (naive, critical or any other type) and phenomenalism.
2. It requires, in the absence of a shared external reality, that the task of coordinating everybody's experiences as though there were a shared external reality is distributed across everybody's consciousnesses, but not in a way that they're actually aware of or in which they have access to the processes involved, such that these processes are subconscious or pre-conscious processes. This is a much more complicated solution than that of the alternatives I listed and linked to. I know based on my experience as a computer programmer how much harder it is to write distributed systems in which each process has access to (and update rights on) only its own individual data than for all individual processes to simply access (and update) shared data. So, my second specific suggestion to you is to explain why we should choose a hypothesis that is more complicated than necessary.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Because I can experience reality without any input, forming things infront of me that I can see and touch, this points toward the input being an illusion, and all that exists are the experiences. The only reason you think of any other type of existence than this shared world as unreal is because its not shared.

Your way goes like this
"The outside world exists only within consciousness, but consciousness is a result of the outside world"

The mystic way goes like this
"Mind is, consciousness is, that is where our very perception of this world originates, that is where it is contained"

You say yours is more plausible, but it is impossible to evidence or support, you are assuming the existence of a world outside of these "illusions", the source of these sensory illusions, without any logical reason. You are assuming an entirely non-existent thing, simply because of the complexity of your experience, because of our lack of understanding of how it works.

All that we know is consciousness, it is impossible to verify or evidence or observe anything outside of observation, therefore it is just a guess to make this claim.

You have distinguished us too much, we are not bound to these physical bodies, we simply experience these feelings, besides that, there is no us, no consciousness but the feelings.

My whole hypothesis is based purely on the frailty of individual experience. If you were too observe honestly your experiences without judgement, the dream-like and illusionary nature of them becomes very clear.

This discussion is based heavily on our direct experiences, the rational mind cannot answer this because rationality is part of the illusion, the logic we have attached to most things is based on assumed knowledge, the mind accepts things even if they are irrational because it is trying to stabilize a belief system.

In a dream you accept what is happening, you run from the monster you created without knowing you created it, and you screw the girl you dreamt without knowing its a dream, surely this direct experience alone is enough to warrant the belief that life is of the same imaginary dream-like substance?

You can rationalize it another way, and say it works from interpretation of the physical, and that anything else is simply your mind mimicking what it has seen before from the physical, but can you see how this seems just as unlikely? That truly there is no obvious distinction between which is which, and opinions on the matter vary greatly the more one ponders it or observes their sense experience.

I am not trying to convert you to my point of view, as it is the trickiest of subjects and the biggest of questions, just showing you where I am coming from, which you should understand, being a human.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Also try less to distinguish our individual consciousness, we each witness different manifestations, but they are of the same source, and they make up what we are, hence we are all of the same source.

The way I see it, its like watching a sci fi movie and going, hey how did he just jump down there without getting hurt? When he has just been zooming through space with his powers and energy guns...

Non of it is logical, does the sun and space and the atom seem logical to you? It just is. So why assume outside realities based on what must be logical for there to exist a shared experience?

"He who experiences the unity of life sees his own self in all beings and all beings in his own self", the oneness of experience is part of the miraculous nature of everything.

There are a few assumptions to choose from, and they are a matter of opinion, heavily affected by how one perceives his individual sense experience, how he feels about it, rather than how the rational mind feels about it.

[guest_of_logic]

I can experience reality without any input, forming things infront of me that I can see and touch

I'd like to know more about this. Is this only when you are smoking pot, or can you do it at any time? Have you ever done it around other people? Can they see and touch these things too?

The only reason you think of any other type of existence than this shared world as unreal is because its not shared.

Your way goes like this
"The outside world exists only within consciousness, but consciousness is a result of the outside world"

Whoa, you're doing it again. Why do you keep on assuming things about my views? None of that is particularly accurate.

You say yours is more plausible, but it is impossible to evidence or support, you are assuming the existence of a world outside of these "illusions", the source of these sensory illusions, without any logical reason.

It's odd that you say that because I gave two logical reasons in the post you were responding to. I even numbered them for your convenience. You pretty much ignored them totally, except for suggesting that I "try less to distinguish our individual consciousness".

If you were too observe honestly your experiences without judgement, the dream-like and illusionary nature of them becomes very clear.

I know what you're saying - I've had experiences of reality that don't conform to conventional (scientific etc) understanding, and I've also had lucid dreams that are pretty much indistinguishable from waking reality except for the knowledge (somehow, I don't know how) that I'm dreaming, and I've had dreams where I believe I've woken up and really *don't* know that I'm dreaming, only to realise some time later that I am (still dreaming).

None of that, though, causes me to adopt the view that you're promoting. In my last post, I suggested that phenomenalism is most plausible out of the hypotheses I listed, but it really doesn't describe my views all that closely. As, I believe, for you, for me consciousness is not likely to be an emergent phenomenon, likely not a product of "physical" reality. More likely, in my view, it is a creation of, or aspect of, God. That doesn't mean that I disbelieve in external reality (I've given you two reasons to believe in it). Most likely, in my view, there are various realms or levels to reality, various "realities" - some shared, some individual, but all real - in which and to which consciousness has access (and in which it can be "hosted"): in the case of our physical reality, consciousness is hosted in a physical body.

The reason I have some affinity for phenomenalism is because I don't think we can be sure that what we experience of physical reality through our senses is a "literal" representation of external reality, but rather that that reality stimulates our senses reliably in some way, causing us to experience something that has its roots in whatever it is that lies outside of us.

Anyway, that's all very rough and tentative, I don't like to commit myself to any particular view. Intuitively, though, don't you think it would be weird if the energy of your body (spiritual energy, not just material energy - I'm sure given your mystical bent and drug use that you have experienced this type of energy yourself) were some illusion of consciousness? It would seem to be a pretty pointless illusion, in my view. It's much more intuitive to me that spiritual and physical energies are real things.

By the way, on the subject of drugs, David has rightly cautioned you that they can interfere with your judgement, and I'd like to caution you strongly that they can cause serious psycho-spiritual problems, potentially leading to catastrophe - potentially involving multiple forced stays in psychiatric wards, as happened to me (I don't believe drugs were the sole contributing factor in my case, but I do believe that they were a significant one). Don't believe the myth that pot is harmless. For some people it may be (relatively) harmless; for others it is a disaster. In my experience, it affects a person's spiritual energy and psychic defences, potentially opening up gaping holes in those defences through which a person can be attacked and badly damaged. It's not, in my view, a drug that should be used casually or recreationally.

This discussion is based heavily on our direct experiences, the rational mind cannot answer this because rationality is part of the illusion, the logic we have attached to most things is based on assumed knowledge, the mind accepts things even if they are irrational because it is trying to stabilize a belief system.

Really, you're being inconsistent: the very first sentence of your post is an attempt at logic; if you don't believe logic is of any use here, then why are you using it? It's not the only attempt at logic that you make either - the paragraph following the one I've just quoted also attempts to use logic.

You can rationalize it another way, and say it works from interpretation of the physical, and that anything else is simply your mind mimicking what it has seen before from the physical, but can you see how this seems just as unlikely?

Or you can take the view I outlined above: that there are various different realities to which consciousness has access, all constructed by (a) common Source(s), which explains their common features.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Guest of logic

Don't be a noob, you have had the same experience I was referring to.

"I've also had lucid dreams that are pretty much indistinguishable from waking reality" < That is exactly what I meant when I said "I can form things in front of me", obviously no one else can see it, and no it is not when I'm high, its either when I have become aware or lucid during the middle of a dream, or when I have meditated or kept focus while moving into a dream state, this allows lucid manipulation.


" As, I believe, for you, for me consciousness is not likely to be an emergent phenomenon, likely not a product of "physical" reality. More likely, in my view, it is a creation of, or aspect of, God."

If you have recognized all forms as direct manifestations of God than we are on the exact same page.

I am not saying separate realities I haven't experienced do not exist, I am not even saying for sure that an external physical reality does not exist, just that it can't be evidenced or shown to me and so I do not hold a belief in anything further than what has been shown to me or is self-evident from what has been shown (these divine sensual experiences)

And I appreciate your concern, I am aware of what you are talking about, but I have a very stable mind in terms of examining myself and having control over my actions, so although psychological effects can be serious in others after long term use, I don't smoke much and hence always maintain that clarity of mind, there is no distinguishable difference in the way I act or think when I have not been high for months. (well there is a difference, I am high when I'm high)

I regard being high as a very informative experience, witnessing consciousness alter through playing with the manifestations reveals a lot in itself.

I have seen these disaster people you are referring to, I have witnessed them go on trips, freak out, and appear to be having what seems a mental break, but personally I have never experienced any negative effects from weed, all it does is relax me and make me think. If I did start to notice marijuana effecting me negatively, or if the people around me started to point out changes in me, I would definitely reconsider my opinion, but so far I have been lucky enough to have only had good experiences and to have experienced the open mindedness a change of perspective can bring. (except maybe some negative coughing haha)

Other than that I have never participated in any other kind of drug use, safe for drinking rarely, again thank you for pointing out your issues with it, I would always rather have a realistic view on it rather than a false idealistic one. A bit curious tho, did you ever use any other drugs?


Yes, many attempts at logic, but they are based off my direct experiences, which can not be considered logical, they just are. I am only pointing out that direct experience is the only source for real understanding, understanding derived from logical deduction is prone to many many problems.

For example, saying, "I am experiencing sight and this forum" now, requires no logical deduction, it is a fact derived from my direct experiences, I would rather source all my knowledge from these kind of facts, rather than logically deducing the need for an external world outside of my observation, something I can't be sure of, not that the possibility doesn't remain.


Also, is it that we are accessing different kinds of reality? Or wouldn't you say rather that it is only our sense experiences that are changing? from this world, to dream world, death, birth, seems to be nothing but the changing of the same stream of sense experience.

Either way, if we are both under the belief that these are sourced from divinity, then our underlying belief is the same.

The rest is just details, the use of labels for what has been given to us to experience, for example, trying to distinguish between whether the changing senses are a product of a changing external reality or don't require an external reality to exist...we can't know for sure, and we have different opinions, but it doesn't really matter, what we should be doing is trying to devise some kind of genius experiment to test this, to show it is one way or the other ...( which right now seems impossible, I have no idea how to do it, although I guess we need some outside the box brainstorming) that would be a real breakthrough...

[guest_of_logic]

Don't be a noob, you have had the same experience I was referring to.

Not really. Even in my lucid dreams, I've never been able to "form things in front of me". My dreams are lucid only in the sense of me being aware that I am dreaming, and of the dream reality being indistinguishable from waking reality, not in the sense of me being able to manipulate the dream (except that sometimes I can will some course of events to occur, but for me that's rare, difficult and not very effective).

If you have recognized all forms as direct manifestations of God than we are on the exact same page.

I don't really go that far though - mostly I have doubts about the word "direct"; I believe reality can also be manifest or manipulated by other beings, malignant as well as beneficent.

I am not even saying for sure that an external physical reality does not exist

I'm glad you clarified that because until now it very much seemed to me that you were (saying "for sure" that an external physical reality does not exist).

A bit curious tho, did you ever use any other drugs?

Yes. Unsurprisingly, alcohol, caffeine and medical drugs (cough medicine, pain killers, etc), but also three other illegal drugs, on one occasion each. Two of these (psychoactive drugs) had similar destructive effects on me as pot (which I was only ever an occasional, at worst semi-regular, user of).

These days the only drug I use is caffeine, and even that I'd like to give up because it, too, is a double-edged sword.

Yes, many attempts at logic, but they are based off my direct experiences, which can not be considered logical, they just are.

Well, my attempts at logic are based off my direct experiences too, I just recognise that there are different ways of interpreting those experiences, and that the interpretation you prefer has problems that other interpretations don't have. I'm sure you make inferences beyond your direct experiences all the time. For example, I'm sure you make the inference that the people in your direct experience are real and can really be hurt, and so you try not to hurt them. The inferences I'm making are no less reasonable than that one (in fact, they're based on it).

Also, is it that we are accessing different kinds of reality? Or wouldn't you say rather that it is only our sense experiences that are changing? from this world, to dream world, death, birth, seems to be nothing but the changing of the same stream of sense experience.

That we experience a continuous stream of sense experience doesn't prove that the reality from which those experiences are sourced doesn't change though - it simply proves that our conscious experience is continuous. I think the fact that we experience transitions (e.g. the transition from wakefulness to sleep) is more significant, suggestive of a transition between realities. That said, I believe it's possible for multiple realities to intersect, such that we experience more spiritual phenomena here in our more physical reality, even if others don't experience those same phenomena at the same time (and the phenomena are no less real for that).

Either way, if we are both under the belief that these are sourced from divinity, then our underlying belief is the same.

Except that from what I understand, you are more inclined to a nondualistic perspective, whereas mine is more dualistic. My experiences (some of which I've already alluded to) have convinced me of the existence of a negative counterpart to divinity.

And yes, I agree that an experiment to find out "whether the changing senses are a product of a changing external reality or don't require an external reality to exist" seems impossible, for the simple fact that metaphysical solipsism cannot even be disproved; ultimately even that other people really exist is a matter of (admittedly reasonable) belief.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Not really. Even in my lucid dreams, I've never been able to "form things in front of me". My dreams are lucid only in the sense of me being aware that I am dreaming, and of the dream reality being indistinguishable from waking reality, not in the sense of me being able to manipulate the dream (except that sometimes I can will some course of events to occur, but for me that's rare, difficult and not very effective).

This is what I meant by saying we might have different opinions on this subject because of our different direct experiences.

If you had been completely awake, and within minutes of closing your eyes, with complete awareness of your experiences, been able to manifest whatever came to mind, and see it clear as day light, ( even be burnt and shocked into awake mode by pointing fire you just created at yourself), and then to consciously watch that vision of fire or passing trees on a train fade from pure real day light to the blackness of closed eyes again, you might have opinions more similar to mine. ( you can take those experiences as fact for consideration, as I could consciously choose what to literally see and touch, witnessing the arising and passing away of this inner vision)


Guest, if there is anyone who is on the same page as you when you say this:

"for the simple fact that metaphysical solipsism cannot even be disproved; ultimately even that other people really exist is a matter of (admittedly reasonable) belief."

It is me. I was caught in solipsism for a while, to really look from its philosophical perspective is to understand how truly undeniable it is, ( and most importantly, it shows one clearly what it means to "Not-know"), which is why this experiment seems like an impossible one, but if there is a will there is a way. By having these understandings we have great capability to go where no one has gone before, to do so, we need to assume each as true and take on that mindset completely, afterward we can then see what can be inferred from those assumptions.

Eventually I had to accept the reasonable belief that other people exist, simply because no one was willing to entertain the notion(that their perspective was the only one in existence) for long enough to allow me to reflect ideas or figure out how to test it cooperatively.

For the same reason that I was forced to accept that reasonable belief (based on what would be false reasoning if solipsism were correct), with no evidence or proof, is the same reason you have accepted the reasonable belief of an external reality. Although this is an even trickier situation, because we are assuming the existence of other shared perspectives that correspond with our own, and then using that assumption(which has massive implications on the issue) to influence our belief or not belief in an external reality.

Sometimes it seems obvious that the reasonable beliefs are the correct ones.

Then other times, when I am in a state of skepticism and doubt, I realize how unreasonable the reasonable is, that I can't yet know and shouldn't assume.

So tricky.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you had been completely awake, and within minutes of closing your eyes, with complete awareness of your experiences, been able to manifest whatever came to mind, and see it clear as day light, ( even be burnt and shocked into awake mode by pointing fire you just created at yourself), and then to consciously watch that vision of fire or passing trees on a train fade from pure real day light to the blackness of closed eyes again, you might have opinions more similar to mine. ( you can take those experiences as fact for consideration, as I could consciously choose what to literally see and touch, witnessing the arising and passing away of this inner vision)

This sounds to me like some advanced form of creative visualization techniques. The ability you have to make it appear so realistic points to a very creative, visual mind. No doubt our brain can conjure up all sorts of things when triggered to do so. The more serious schizophrenic cases come to mind: how they are not in control of the manifestations and can become paranoid too, since their own shadows are stalking them literally!

What I wonder Seeker, if this can justify solipsism in any way. The question needs to be answered: what makes something real? The reality principle most folks are using does not lie in the senses or their vibrancy. Well, for some people it appears that way because they are overly sensual and just denying the real principle at work, a principle of selection, evaluation and affirming beliefs. I think reality is created by the amount of connections and internal consistency the senses and reflections on those can provide. And those connections obviously do not have to stop with oneself. For this reason one can not maintain the position that nothing exists outside the mind unless the mind would be everything it connects and refers to, including the unknown. But how would we know that the unknown is still the same mind'? The problem of knowledge therefore annihilates any notion of perfect solipsism.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Diebert

No not advanced, it is a result that you too would experience if you were to try laying down meditation after having slept 5 hours then been awake during the day for about 2 hours (with day light helping you not to fall straight into the depths of sleep)

I say it is a guarantee that if one were to be in this detached and tired state, but have enough will to stay focused on ones experiences, they will after about 20-30 minutes of first just observing the start of sleep without trying to interfere or do anything, be capable of these same formations. (for me it involved trying to picture things without the words, mental formations rather than thoughts accompanied by mental formations)

In my view if it is experienced by the senses, it is as real as it can possibly get for you, whether it is a shared experience that others can also sense has nothing to do with its reality, that is only something that has been assumed while here because we only know about here while here.

I think the moment someone sees clearly a monster in front of them, while their eyes are closed, they no longer have a real belief in what is real and what is not real.

"But how would we know that the unknown is still the same mind?"

The very idea of separate minds only arises from separate experiences of this shared order.
Without those different experiences, there is nothing that makes up a separate mind, no individual consciousness, we return to the same realm of nothing without sense experience.
The only thing we know that distinguishes us is the different sensual experiences, different angles of the same shared reality, the oneness of it all begs one to wonder about the supposed separation of our minds.

To be honest in how I am viewing this... we are witnessing the creations of consciousness, the minds eye gazing in, but we have no knowledge of the hand that forms them, the cause, which has many names.

And do to be even more honest, at the risk of sounding like an idiot, what brain? You mean that thing that exists only in your miraculous transient sensual experiences?

I do not believe my body caused my consciousness, rather that the body exists only in mind and mind is all that is. All I know is mind, external reality outside of mind is nothing but an assumption ( that has zero evidence and cannot be proved or supported), albeit, it is a very logical assumption... Luckily I also think that most logic is false and based on shallow illusions, like logic in a dream, that just keeps providing an answer when you seek for one until you are satisfied, but truly by the end you know as little as when you started asking questions.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No not advanced, it is a result that you too would experience if you were to try laying down meditation after having slept 5 hours then been awake during the day for about 2 hours (with day light helping you not to fall straight into the depths of sleep)

It is advanced simply because not many people are able to have these kind of experiences to the degree you're describing. The question is why would anyone want to? My range of experiences and states of the mind awake and during sleep is rather extensive and what you are describing sounds a bit boring and meaningless. And I'm not sure what this exercise would really add to "reality making" but I can see it might help with certain visualizations in art and mathematics.

In my view if it is experienced by the senses, it is as real as it can possibly get for you, whether it is a shared experience that others can also sense has nothing to do with its reality, that is only something that has been assumed while here because we only know about here while here.

The senses do not create reality, otherwise it would be impossible to know if one is dreaming or not. Actually lucid dreams are more real looking because one knows it's a dream! So vividness is a function of awareness of the whole situation, not the other way around.

I think the moment someone sees clearly a monster in front of them, while their eyes are closed, they no longer have a real belief in what is real and what is not real.

That's not because of the monster but because of the loss of distinguishing between true and false, which is another faculty altogether.

And do to be even more honest, at the risk of sounding like an idiot, what brain? You mean that thing that exists only in your miraculous transient sensual experiences?

It's a concept just like "miraculous transient sensual experiences". With the difference that "brain" has turned out to be more practical as it doesn't need "miraculous" to stop any further inquiry into the model.

Luckily I also think that most logic is false and based on shallow illusions, like logic in a dream, that just keeps providing an answer when you seek for one until you are satisfied, but truly by the end you know as little as when you started asking questions.

"Logic is false" is a logical statement. Really, you must think a bit deeper before opening your mouth with so much confidence. Your thinking is at times very sloppy although also clearly inspired. Word of advice, although you probably will not listen since you're playing the role of "rebel": just don't start thinking you've achieved something that's worthy of leaning backwards. The real monsters still have to come.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

diebert

That's nice that it "sounds" boring and meaningless to you, for me it was actually the opposite of boring and meaningless, it was an ecstatic experience in which I clearly and consciously witnessed my dreams forming and fading, while being able to manipulate them, if anything, it was one of the most significant events in the expansion of my general awareness.


Do you see how we are conversing when we have completely opposing philosophical views? This is clearly the cause of the tone of opposition you have just now adopted, which was seen also in the post you made a few minutes ago.

It is my belief that all sensual formations, including that of the brain and body, exist only in those sensual experiences.... that the mind exists independent of body and is not a cause of the body.

That the logic we have attached to try and justify these things as being real and physical things is completely false, shallow, and illusory.

See how opposing this view is to one that says consciousness is a result of an external world?

Since we are in such great difference of opinion, it is unwise to continue talking about this topic.

Am I playing the rebel? How can one be a rebel on a forum? It seems to me I'm simply stating very conflicting opinions that you have labeled as rebellious. If I were saying only things that were agreeable to you then there would be no labeling me as playing the "rebel". Are you sure it isn't because you disagree?

Diebert, I am writing these ideas in only a few sentences, they are 'sloppy' because I am not intending to prove my points or detail them, I am only stating them simply, you have to do the rest if you want to understand where I am coming from, I think i have made my meaning and beliefs clear enough, which ones have been too sloppy for you not to have grasped my meaning?

"you must think a bit deeper before opening your mouth with so much confidence."

My reply is that I have thought deeply, why would you assume to know how deeply I've thought about what I am saying? How could you know? It can't be because of my lack of detail, as I obviously have not tried to include detail, again, could it be because you disagree with my views? If you didn't disagree, would you have still made that comment?

We are almost the same being, feeling the same emotions and thinking even many of the same thoughts, end the opposition please, I hate wasting time.