GENIUS FORUMS

Dennis Mahar wrote:

The chair appearing to consciousness however is an illusion

The chair exists.
A mode of consciousness ascertains how the chair exists.
Agree?

If you agree we must look for a mode of consciousness that 'groks' the truth of the chair.

Several modes of consciousness ascertain how the chair exists, and also the real physics of the chair are also ascertained. So for example I know which parts of my mind create the illusion of the chair, and which parts of my mind know the real physics of the chair. I separate them into two different sections...

Reality... particles, infinity, flow

Illusion... colours, temperature, smell, taste

So I see the chair at all scales, as all physics, and I know which physics are illusionary, and which physics are real.

Physics and particles are part of the illusion too Pincho, duh.

Russell wrote:Physics and particles are part of the illusion too Pincho, duh.

That's the obvious reply, but the not so obvious reply is that the physics make sense without illusion. I mean I was 11 when I had your idea, but understanding the physics requires my higher intelligence which had to grow in my adult life. When you can understand the physics, you are free of the illusion. The sphere is the shape with no creation involved in its structure. So the sphere exists with no illusion. It is merely energy travelling in every direction equally at once. That is without logic, it is the lack of logic which makes the sphere. If energy didn't travel equally in all directions that would require reason, so then you have illusion created by reason. But the sphere is only logical in the fact that to understand it is to understand that it has no logic. So particles are spherical, and therefore are not illusionary.

... Nevermind.

Dan, if you're reading, I have a good reason, comedy!

You have a weird sense of humour ;)

That isn't true, Pincho just has a great one.

Pincho is a great source of hilarity, but I think you'll find he has no sense of humour at all. It's one of the curious things about his personality.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

What does attachment mean?

belief in inherent existence.

40 love, your serve.

What does "inherent" mean?
Arent you able to predict this? Thats why i say you really dont get it.
So maybe i should ask you if you understood what i meant by "infinite regress".

Russell wrote:

chikoka wrote:Its not the same firstly because half is a number and at each halving there is a well defined number , the result does not depend on any other number (its half)
After each question in the infinite regress the result fully depends on the next question.

Just because a number is "well defined" doesn't mean that there's no requirement for a conscious agent to employ its "existence". The same goes for each question of "meaning" in your infinite regression. Both numbers and meaning are abstract.

The question was not "in what manner does it exist" but "it shouldnt exist (in whatever manner) because of the infinite regress of questions.
You didnt get what Dan meant by asking the question.
I ask you now Russel:

What does meaning mean?
And i want to see you avoid the infinite regress that Dennis seems (obliviously i might add) headed for.

Don't worry about infinite regress.
sophistry.
storm in a teacup.


there are causes/conditions.

go out and step in front of a speeding bus.


I say you will be knocked about.
come back and tell me I was interpreting or believing.

come to your senses.

if conceptualising mind conceives Jesus was sent by god to cleanse your sins.
that is a concept that undergoes an infinite chain of justifiers and is found to be a matter of belief finally.

you can't argue with a speeding bus.
there are causes/conditions.
its not a belief nor an interpretation.
conceptualising mind can match 'what's so'.

you're gonna spend years trying to refute emptiness which is an impossible feat.

Dennis Mahar wrote: Don't worry about infinite regress.
sophistry.
storm in a teacup.

I'm not worried about it.You should however , it undermines the whole of QSR.
Anyone else want to have a shot at this. These arent dennis's concepts alone.

A belief means 'no evidence' and 'based on hearsay'.
it requires justification.

go step in front of a speeding bus.
give me a report.

wisdom is pragmatic.

Dennis Mahar wrote:A belief means 'no evidence' and 'based on hearsay'.
it requires justification.

go step in front of a speeding bus.
give me a report.

wisdom is pragmatic.

You are as clueless to what i'm saying as pincho is to what you guys are saying.LOL:)

What QRS is saying in a nutshell.

There's an infinite regress (I'm using infinite in the sense of quantity there) of dependent causes/conditons.
In that there's a tiny seed there called 'Buddha Nature' which can be opened up in the process which is called enlightenment.

Like a thunderbolt,
that which is separating the knower from what is to be known vanishes.
There's no question about it.
a knowing that does not necessitate an infinite regress because some knowledge does not depend on demonstration.

QRS use the term infinite in the sense of 'quality' or 'nature'.
which means you're not in the ballpark, or suffering a comprehension failure which requires an adjustment in readership.

You are as clueless to what i'm saying as pincho is to what you guys are saying.LOL:)

You haven't said anything apart from running an advertising campaign.

Is there anyone else willing to take a shot at this ? I'm prepared to debate this further.

chikoka wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote:A belief means 'no evidence' and 'based on hearsay'.
it requires justification.

go step in front of a speeding bus.
give me a report.

wisdom is pragmatic.

You are as clueless to what i'm saying as pincho is to what you guys are saying.LOL:)

He's saying 'Buddha Nature' Like a thunderbolt, that which is separating the knower from what is to be known vanishes.
There's no question about it.
A knowing that does not necessitate an infinite regress because some knowledge does not depend on demonstration.
Which means you're not in the ballpark, or suffering a comprehension failure which requires an adjustment in readership.

That's what he's saying. It doesn't mean anything though.

Even if I try to translate it...

There is a pre-thought that does not require a consciousness, the subconscious thought from the void. It generates what you need in your life. It self illuminates from nothing.

... It can be read in words, but not created from any physics. Physics apparently are not required for this Buddha Nature to occur. But no matter what ideas can be spoken in words, the words require mapping, the Buddha Nature requires a map to create the infinite regress beginning. The pre-thought requires a map. The lightening bolt requires a map.

So this idea cannot happen. Understanding it is pointless... it cannot happen. Ideas come from a map. Everything I require comes from a map. One part of my brain is for a chair, and another part of my brain is for a table, and another part of my brain is for a door. It is mapped out. Buddha Nature has to be mapped out, so it cannot be a void. If you map it out into what a person requires you are back to a brain. So now you don't need Buddha Nature. You already have a brain, so you are back to physics.

Is there anyone else willing to take a shot at this ? I'm prepared to debate this further.

Why?
there are no reasons, no 'the answers' ultimately.
that's nagarjuna's conclusion
ineffable silence.

despite all that,
existence persists which you agree with.
some knowledge doesn't need demonstrating.

nothing exists,
what's on the menu?

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Is there anyone else willing to take a shot at this ? I'm prepared to debate this further.

Why?
there are no reasons, no 'the answers' ultimately.
that's nagarjuna's conclusion
ineffable silence.

despite all that,
existence persists which you agree with.
some knowledge doesn't need demonstrating.

nothing exists,
what's on the menu?

Hi Dennis

If we are going to make progress in this discussion, first tell me what you understand a "viscious infinite regress" is.Step by step we'll do this.

Also , i dont mind entertaining a conversation with the rest of you who are past that level. All for enlightenment. (i'm going to make that my credo):~)

Existentially, from a Zen perspective,
a vicious circle involves:

what happened and a story about what happened.

what happened disappears into a story about what happened.

the story perpetuates an infinite regress of justifiers until it breaks down into a disclosure about what happened.

That's why they have defence and prosecuting attorneys and magistrates trying to sort out out the stories from what happened.

When what happened or what didn't happen is disclosed there's an Aha moment.

You seem to be suggesting knowledge isn't possible chikoka.

is a universal truth opened up in that Zen perspective?

to get to truth requires a series of penetrating questions or 'know-how'.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Existentially, from a Zen perspective,
a vicious circle involves:

what happened and a story about what happened.

what happened disappears into a story about what happened.

the story perpetuates an infinite regress of justifiers until it breaks down into a disclosure about what happened.

That's why they have defence and prosecuting attorneys and magistrates trying to sort out out the stories from what happened.

When what happened or what didn't happen is disclosed there's an Aha moment.

You seem to be suggesting knowledge isn't possible chikoka.

is a universal truth opened up in that Zen perspective?

to get to truth requires a series of penetrating questions or 'know-how'.

What you have described above is an infinite regress true but not a viscious infinite regress.

in a viscious infinite regress, using your above example ,the story is never disclosed but just passed down.
Since the "problem of finding the meaning of a word" is only substituted by another word which itself gets substituted by another word ..and so on it involves an infinite regress.
Since the regress does not result in a resolution of the original problem at any stage in the regress, the regress is viscious.

In a viscious infinite regress the above bolded and underlined part of your post never happens.

All conceptions (stories) are based in identity and difference.
The story breaks down in a process of interrogation by 'circling the wagons' of identity and difference.

not that, could be this, maybe, check that out, what did he say, what did she say, couldn't be that surely, that doesn't work, not that, never like that, has to be this way,
who was where and when as opportunity, motive?
THIS. Aha.
Disclosure.
You yourself have franked an aha moment where some kind of prior conception got swept away.
In order for a major recognition that transforms how the world occurs for you there has to be a prior that breaks down.

Dennis Mahar wrote:All conceptions (stories) are based in identity and difference.
The story breaks down in a process of interrogation by 'circling the wagons' of identity and difference.

not that, could be this, maybe, check that out, what did he say, what did she say, couldn't be that surely, that doesn't work, not that, never like that, has to be this way,
who was where and when as opportunity, motive?
THIS. Aha.
Disclosure.
You yourself have franked an aha moment where some kind of prior conception got swept away.
In order for a major recognition that transforms how the world occurs for you there has to be a prior that breaks down.

Wow ! I honestly fail to see how you dont get it.

Allright ..

What is meaning?

What you're saying is a breakthru' to an experience formlessness, groundlessness.
In order to do that form is interrogated.

It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

Dennis Mahar wrote:What you're saying is a breakthru' to an experience formlessness, groundlessness.
In order to do that form is interrogated.

It's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

But its also empty and meaningless that its full and meaningful.

just tell me what meaning means.

I know you're leading me down the path.
So what?
You owe me a coffee.