Why whole observation is superior to systematic logic.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Certain People believe that whole observationn rooted in an unknowing emptiness is irrational, while systematic logic rooted in a knowing fullness is rational.

However, I have demonstrated that observation as an instrument is much more effective/rational than the illogical nature of systematic logic.

Quinn has given examples, which have been refuted by illustrating that simple whole observation reins supreme over the limited and distorted nature of a systematic logical framework.

Quinn’s example:

If I were to define a spaceship as a children's tricycle, then I would naturally reach the conclusion, using logic, that space ships can never fly up into outer space.

The problem with systematic logic is it is so hypothetical and divorced from living. I would never define a spaceship as a children’s tricycle because if I observe a children’s tricycle I would assign certain properties to it automatically by observing. And this is the same with a spaceship. These two objects would never be combined in daily life because I can simply observe the differences.

The formula for systematic logic is something like this:

A has X as a property that I randomly assign, so therefore my conclusion is that B is true or not true.

This is the general formula, but observation can be replaced with the formula, you’re thinking doesn’t need to be restrained to a linear time-based formula.

For Instance:

Spaceships fly into space because I have observed spaceships fly into space therefore I can be quite certain that a function of spaceships is to fly into space.

there is only whole observation there, no systematic logical framework.

I only observe how something relates to something else, in this case it is how a spaceship relates to its environment. Note: no systematic logic needed.

Years ago, I took a systematic logic course in university and my professor and I were always butting heads because I simply wanted to observe phenomena, and he wanted to see everything through the filter of systematic logic.

[DHodges]

Logic is the basis of (or formalization of) rationality.

Rejecting logic is rejecting rationality.

Rejecting rationality makes you irrational - i.e., crazy.

Arguing with someone who has rejected rational, logical thinking is at best a complete waste of time, as they have stated up front that they will reject a logical argument.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges wrote:

Arguing with someone who has rejected rational, logical thinking is at best a complete waste of time, as they have stated up front that they will reject a logical argument.

Are you assuming that systematic logic is rational? This argument is exploring how whole observation is rational, while systematic logic is irrational.

[AgentB]

As you'll probably recall from Philosophy, reason can be divided up into two types, a priori (definitional)and a posteriori (empirical)

From what I gather, this forum is chiefly interested in a priori reasoning.

The problem with logic is it is so hypothetical and divorced from living. I would never define a spaceship as a children’s tricycle because if I observe a children’s tricycle I would assign certain properties to it automatically by observing. And this is the same with a spaceship. These two objects would never be combined in daily life because I can simply observe the differences.

Looking at the tone of the Quinn quote, it seems more of an indirect assertion of "words are merely labels which define some boundary" rather than denying the properties of what we call "spaceship" and "tricycle".

Spaceships fly into space because I have observed spaceships fly into space therefore I can be quite certain that a function of spaceships is to fly into space.

there is only observation there, no logical framework.

I disagree. Here, you define Spaceship as "machine which flies into space", or at the very least, define it in a way which describes which properties it has ("A") and which properties it does not have ("Not-A"). The law of identity (and therefore logic) is in full swing.

I only observe how something relates to something else, in this case it is how a spaceship relates to its environment. Note: no logic needed.

Enviroment ("A") and what isn't the enviroment ("Not A") needs to be defined in order to do this, so it's still a logical activity.

[David Quinn]

AgentB has hit the nail on the head. The act of observing cannot generate any meaning without the logical process involved. Merely to recognize an object requires a logical ability to identify it. We can only know that a tree is a tree, for example, because we understand that it is not something else. That is logic.

DQ: If I were to define a spaceship as a children's tricycle, then I would naturally reach the conclusion, using logic, that space ships can never fly up into outer space.

cp: The problem with logic is it is so hypothetical and divorced from living. I would never define a spaceship as a children’s tricycle because if I observe a children’s tricycle I would assign certain properties to it automatically by observing.

And yet you define logic in an equally ridiculous way. That is why I brought up this example, to give you an idea of how limited and absurd your conception of logic is. In effect, you are arguing that logic cannot take us to Truth ("it is a tricycle") and I am saying, "No, it is really a spaceship."

At root, your powers of observation are failing you in this instance, because you currently have large mental blocks which prevent you from seeing logic as it really is. You really need to exercise your logical powers to their full extent and tear down these mental blocks. Only then will your observational powers be unhindered and fully functional.

The formula for logic is something like this:

A has X as a property that I randomly assign, so therefore my conclusion is that B is true or not true.

This is the general formula, but observation can be replaced with the formula, you’re thinking doesn’t need to be restrained to a linear time-based formula.

For Instance:

Spaceships fly into space because I have observed spaceships fly into space therefore I can be quite certain that a function of spaceships is to fly into space.

there is only observation there, no logical framework.

On the contrary, you are using logic here in spades. For example, you have reasoned (subconsciously at least) that spaceships are different from tricycles, that vehicles travelling into space need the appropriate technology to get them there, that your memories of past spaceships are reliable, that your senses are not deceiving you, etc. Although you may not be aware of these logical proceses ticking over inside your mind (they have long since become automatic and faded from view), they are still occuring nonetheless.

The idea there can be pure observation without logic is a pipe-dream, a myth generated by delusional mystics. It just cannot happen. Consciousness fully depends on the logical process for its existence. Logic is what generates the awareness. Without it, awareness ceases to be.

Years ago, I took a logic course in university and my professor and I were always butting heads because I simply wanted to observe phenomena, and he wanted to see everything through the filter of logic.

We could never see the same things because he was in veneration of logic with a knowing fullness, while I value observation with an unknowing emptiness.

It seems you are still having that argument with him on this forum. You have brought him along uninvited and continued debating with him, rudely ignoring us in the process. Where are your observational powers? This isn't an academic forum; it does not adhere to the academic worldview. We have no alignment with your professor.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

okay, perhaps I should have better defined what I meant by logic.

I was attacking the narrow, rigid, stereotypical logic one finds in university classrooms...

but I see the way you are defining logic here, and I think I have misinterrupted you completely.

I agree that for one to see the relationship between things that the undivided whole must be broken up into the 'A' and the 'not A' so the observation is not separate from this simple logical process, I agree.

so one sees the significance between 'A' and 'NOT A' and then an insight is realized, but then one returns to a state where the intellect is not dividing the undivided whole, because there is no need.

when there is a need such as a conflict in oneself, then one must observe the relationship between 'A' and 'NOT A', but only a means to return to a state where there is no division.

For instance: the stomach hurts, and one must inquire into what is the cause? so immediately the undivided whole is broken up into "the stomach" and the rest of the world. Then there is an examination of the rest of the world to try to find the causal connection. One discovers that someone put loads of refined white sugar in the tea that was just drank, so the causal connection is formed, and the remaining tea is discarded, and then one drinks a glass of water to return the body to a state of equilibrium. So all this breaking up of the undivided whole is solely done to return to a state where there is no divison, where the mind is not separate from the undivided whole.

So relationship between things is seen between the 'A' and the 'NOT A' only as means to return the mind to a state where there is no divison.

[David Quinn]

cosmic-prostitute,

okay, perhaps I should have better defined what I meant by logic.

I was attacking the narrow, rigid, stereotypical logic one finds in university classrooms...

but I see the way you are defining logic here, and I think I have misinterrupted you completely.

I agree that for one to see the relationship between things that the undivided whole must be broken up into the 'A' and the 'not A' so the observation is not separate from this simple logical process, I agree.

Okay, good.

so one sees the significance between 'A' and 'NOT A' and then an insight is realized, but then one returns to a state where the intellect is not dividing the undivided whole, because there is no need.

when there is a need such as a conflict in oneself, then one must observe the relationship between 'A' and 'NOT A', but only a means to return to a state where there is no division.

For instance: the stomach hurts, and one must inquire into what is the cause? so immediately the undivided whole is broken up into "the stomach" and the rest of the world. Then there is an examination of the rest of the world to try to find the causal connection. One discovers that someone put loads of refined white sugar in the tea that was just drank, so the causal connection is formed, and the remaining tea is discarded, and then one drinks a glass of water to return the body to a state of equilibrium. So all this breaking up of the undivided whole is solely done to return to a state where there is no divison, where the mind is not separate from the undivided whole.

So relationship between things is seen between the 'A' and the 'NOT A' only as means to return the mind to a state where there is no divison.

This division you make between "states where there is division" and "a state where there is no division" - isn't this just another creation of your own divisive mind? In other words, isn't the non-dualistic realm simply an illusion generated by the dualistic mind?

If all divisions are illusory, how can one enter and leave the non-divisive state without engaging in illusion?

I have a slightly different take on the matter. The enlightened mind is able to divide things up without ever leaving its undivided state. The divisions it makes are literally part of the fabric of the non-divided state, for the very reason that the enlightened mind making these divisions never loses sight of the fact, not even for an instant, that the divisions it creates are illusory.

That is why it is said in Taosim that the sage's mind is like an uncarved block. Or in Buddhism, why it is said that nirvana is samsara.


-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn wrote:

This division you make between "states where there is division" and "a state where there is no division" - isn't this just another creation of your own divisive mind? In other words, isn't the non-dualistic realm simply an illusion generated by the dualistic mind?

Let me put it this way, having a mind that is not dividing the undivided whole is primary, meaning one is rarely breaking up the undivided whole into pieces unless there is an absolute need.

This absolute need is acceptable, and yes, the sage sees that he is not deluded while engaged in this activity, but he is still in fact breaking up the undivided whole into pieces, when these very pieces are an illusion. There are no separate pieces there to begin with.

So what is an absolute need that would give one the right to weld the intellect to break up the undivided whole?

1. building a computer, an engine, or a house.
2. or if the body is in a state of suffering, physically or psychologically, then one must start investigating and to do so, one must divide up the undivided whole to get to that realization, and yes, this is perfectly acceptable.

But my point is that having an intellect that is not constantly breaking up the undivided whole is primary, one only needs to engage in this activity when there is that absolute need, which is a fairly rare occurrence for the enlightened mind.

One just cant prance around, dividing up the undivided whole at will without reason, there must be a need there. And yes, that need is caused, so there is no free will.

However one may say, screw you buddy, I can divide up the undivided whole whenever I want to. But I would say this is a strong act of will, there is still a doer there, and the root motive behind his breaking up of the undivided whole is a fear of stillness, a fear of the truth.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason, you retracted your post, so I decided to retract mine.

[Jason]

I think maybe you misunderstood what I meant about the senses. Forget my example of looking at text on a screen. Just any visual perception is composed of divisions, in that specific things in the visual field appear distinct from one another. Say a computer screen were displaying pure white on the left half of the screen, and pure black on the right half. I don't have to use my intellect to create the division between the the black half and the white half - it just happens as a consequence of visual perception, I'm born with that, I don't learn it.

[Ryan Rudolph]

yes, I see Jason.

[David Quinn]

cosmic_prostitute,

DQ: This division you make between "states where there is division" and "a state where there is no division" - isn't this just another creation of your own divisive mind? In other words, isn't the non-dualistic realm simply an illusion generated by the dualistic mind?

cp: Let me put it this way, having a mind that is not dividing the undivided whole is primary, meaning one is rarely breaking up the undivided whole into pieces unless there is an absolute need.

You've immediately placed yourself in a bit of a conundrum here. How can this so-called "undivided mind" perceive a need for making divisions if it isn't already perceiving divisions in the first place?

The truth is, the mind is constantly dividing Reality up into "things", regardless of whether it is enlightened or not. There is never an instant when it is not doing this. If it didn't make divisions, it wouldn't be conscious. Consciousness literally emanates out of divisions and contrasts.

This absolute need is acceptable, and yes, the sage sees that he is not deluded while engaged in this activity, but he is still in fact breaking up the undivided whole into pieces, when these very pieces are an illusion. There are no separate pieces there to begin with.

And thus no undivided whole either. Both of these dualities have to be abandoned

So what is an absolute need that would give one the right to weld the intellect to break up the undivided whole?

1. building a computer, an engine, or a house.

Again, if one desires to do these things, it is because one's mind has already divided the Whole into "things". For example, the need to build a house is created from the perception that being constantly exposed to the elements is uncomfortable and dangerous for one's health.

2. or if the body is in a state of suffering, physically or psychologically, then one must start investigating and to do so, one must divide up the undivided whole to get to that realization, and yes, this is perfectly acceptable.

Suffering is already a "thing" divided from the rest of the Whole. So already, the damage has been done.

-

[Lennyrizzo]

it seems that we are incredibly conditioned throughout our childhood years to perceive the world as separate things. The teachers do not expose the kids to material that allows them to perceive the immensity of the totality, and the undivided-ness of it.

Speaking of teaching, you seem to be pretty good at it. May I ask, have you told us what you do, and what brought you here to genius forum?
You explain things exceedingly well, and we're all blessed to witness your engagement here.
If you would allow some boldness-- the idea of the Totality being immense, or being anything at all for that matter, is impossible, meaningless.
Perhaps you see that now. Nevertheless, enlightened people would never write such a thing. And there is no need nor value in defending nor explaining it, so I hope you dont bother to do that.

If you remain here long enough, and are open to advancement, and do not allow attachments to sabotage this incredible opportunity to know Truth, if you can be truely humble and can bear to admit to yourself that you have been mistaken all along (not to us god forbid!), if you dont freak out when it becomes apparent to you that Quinn is for real, as am I, and you are no match for him, if you dont run off like so many before you have, then I'm confident that an individual of your caliber can have the most incredible experience as you grow toward sagehood and the genuine freedom that accompanies it.

You may know that you are on your way, when you look back at this statement of yours above, and notice immediately, as I have, the absurdity.

Now do me one favor. Resist the temptation to respond at this time. Just ignore me for a week or so.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Lenny wrote:

and we're all blessed to witness your engagement here.

What is the root motive behind a personal insult? I’ve done it, and continue to do it, and usually when I do it, I’m not seeing clearly, there is an emotionally entity there that feels insecure.

Look at some of my past posts, where I have felt insecure, or some of Quinns. The blatant insecurity hits one in the face.

Lenny wrote:

the idea of the Totality being immense, or being anything at all for that matter, is impossible, meaningless.

It’s a duality. Yes everything is meaningless ultimately, but that’s not to say one cannot walk on a beach, and take in the beauty, or watch the immensity of a sunset. Meaningless is meaningful.

Many of our disagreements in this forum is due to our inability to perceive the other half of the argument. I have done it, and I have seen many others do it as well, including the holy men in here that claim to be genius.

Lenny wrote:

enlightened people would never write such a thing.

I don’t claim to know what enlightenment is, I know sometimes I speak as a teacher, but this is my conditioning. Many philosophers speak as teachers. However, I do not claim to be a genius. On the contrary, I prefer to be perceived and regarded as something less than genius. To be labeled genius puts incredible pressure on one to hide all character flaws, I hide nothing, when I see I’m insecure, I will express that. When I feel confident, I will express that too. Total chaos is expressed as a means to give birth to order.

Lenny wrote:

if you dont freak out when it becomes apparent to you that Quinn is for real, as am I.

I don’t possess confidence, I think confident is a dangerous thing. Again I don’t claim to be a genius, although I do openly explore the nature of sagehood.

The interesting dynamic that I have observed is these inferiority/superiority battles that we all get into with each other. We may want to explore together the source of all that, instead of insulting each other, and claiming to be genius, and then giving advice for the other person to leave us alone for a week.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn wrote:

You've immediately placed yourself in a bit of a conundrum here. How can this so-called "undivided mind" perceive a need for making divisions if it isn't already perceiving divisions in the first place.

okay, let me put it this way, there is a state of no division, no mind at all. There is state where there is no division between the observer and the observed. In essence you are correct, there is no undivided whole that is separate from what the mind is, there is nothing at all really. But suddenly suffering occurs, which divides the observer from the observed, and then he must inquire into what is the source of the pain.

Quinn wrote:

There is never an instant when it is not doing this. the mind is constantly dividing Reality up into "things", regardless of whether it is enlightened or not. There is never an instant when it is not doing this.

There is never even one instant where were not doing this, not dividing things up, Phew! this sounds incredibly exhausting Quinn.

Quinn wrote:

Both of these dualities have to be abandoned.

how about the observer is the observed, but when there is suffering, there is an illusion of separation, so then one must inquire. And to do so, artificial placeholders must be created into order to find that insight. Ie: undivided whole, pieces. But yes, there is nothing there, but one needs to use words Quinn. Placeholders need to be assigned even if there is nothing meaningful there at all.

Quinn wrote:

the need to build a house is created from the perception that being constantly exposed to the elements is uncomfortable and dangerous for one's health

yes, I build a house as a direct response to suffering in that sleeping in the woods is undesirable, so I need to break up the whole into pieces to do that, but after the house is built, I do not have to continue breaking things up, do I?

Quinn wrote:

Suffering is already a "thing" divided from the rest of the Whole. So already, the damage has been done.

How about this Quinn, suffering causes one to inquire. If there isn’t suffering there, there is no reason to inquire and break things up, there is nothing there at all.

that is what I mean by absolute need. this absolute need is not separate from suffering, and the suffering causes things to be broken up.

There needs to be a cause/motive for all this breaking up of things, and if that cause/motive isnt there, do we still break things up?

[David Quinn]

cosmic_prostitute,

DQ: This division you make between "states where there is division" and "a state where there is no division" - isn't this just another creation of your own divisive mind? In other words, isn't the non-dualistic realm simply an illusion generated by the dualistic mind?

cp: Let me put it this way, having a mind that is not dividing the undivided whole is primary, meaning one is rarely breaking up the undivided whole into pieces unless there is an absolute need.

DQ: You've immediately placed yourself in a bit of a conundrum here. How can this so-called "undivided mind" perceive a need for making divisions if it isn't already perceiving divisions in the first place?

cp: okay, let me put it this way, there is a state of no division, no mind at all. There is state where there is no division between the observer and the observed. In essence you are correct, there is no undivided whole that is separate from what the mind is, there is nothing at all really. But suddenly suffering occurs, which divides the observer from the observed, and then he must inquire into what is the source of the pain.

Why does this suffering occur? How does suffering emanate out of the undivided state?

DQ: There is never an instant when it is not doing this. the mind is constantly dividing Reality up into "things", regardless of whether it is enlightened or not. There is never an instant when it is not doing this.

cp: There is never even one instant where were not doing this, not dividing things up, Phew! this sounds incredibly exhausting

Not really. It is all Nature's doing, and She is inexhaustible. Being formless, creating forms is all She can ever do.

Things like "exhaustion" and "energy" are creations of duality, and don't apply to the principle of duality itself.

DQ: Both of these dualities have to be abandoned.

cp: how about the observer is the observed, but when there is suffering, there is an illusion of separation, so then one must inquire. And to do so, artificial placeholders must be created into order to find that insight. Ie: undivided whole, pieces. But yes, there is nothing there, but one needs to use words Quinn. Placeholders need to be assigned even if there is nothing meaningful there at all.

How would you describe the undivided state? How do you distinguish it from complete unconsciousness?

Why does a person who dwells in the undivided state lack the power to remain there? Why does he lapse into the illusions of separation and suffering?

How about this Quinn, suffering causes one to inquire. If there isn’t suffering there, there is no reason to inquire and break things up, there is nothing there at all.

What causes one to suffer?

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn wrote:

What causes one to suffer?

Being in relationship to other human beings, living in the world.

[David Quinn]

Are you now saying that separation and division exist prior to suffering? Up until now you have been saying that the mind creates separation and division in order to deal with suffering. Which is it?

-