Choosing a single path

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: wow.

Post by Leyla Shen »

Oh my God, David Quinn!

Quote:Quote:<hr>In my view, everything is perfect and beautiful because everything is a manifestation of Nature. Even the warts on a person's face and the stammerings in his voice and the stools he produces in the toilet are perfect manifestations of Nature and wholly beautiful because of it. So too is the misery and carnage of genocidal terrorism, the pandemic outbreak of a viralent disease, and the swallowing up of stars and planets by a blackhole. All of it is Nature's perfection and wholly beautiful. <hr>

You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let''s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Gettin' horny now

Beautiful.

What is the meaning of this?
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: wow.

Post by Sapius »

mooks
Quote:Quote:<hr>I don't know if what I do is wise, but I enjoy myself. I'll let you boys figure out the value of it.<hr>
What is being wise when it could be considered foolish by another, be your own judge.

Quote:Quote:<hr>I do have good reasons for acting the way I act. I, for lack of a better term, "roleplay" whatever truths I discover.<hr>In other words, experience, and that is all there is to life no matter how one sees it.

Quote:Quote:<hr>If something convinces me, it affects the way I behave.<hr>
Of course, cause and effect is not only physical, it is mental too.

Quote:Quote:<hr>To be contrary and perhaps a bit more precise, I would say that I believe that everything is 'imperfect the way it is' -- and that imperfection is its beauty. If beauty is perfection, then what Sapius says is true to my beliefs... but I'm not positive that perfection is certain to be beautiful. Regardless, the world's not a math test. I'm not so sure I'd even be able to recognize perfection in such a vacuously abstract context.<hr>

Well, in my opinion, taking it a bit further to the next step, as far as Reality is concerned, even the word Perfect does not apply, neither does Beauty. You see, it is true that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Unless and until one gives "values" to whatever, it has no value, no perfection, no beauty. It is only my ego that finds things perfect or beautiful, and by ego I mean the "I" of my mind, which cannot disappear unless I am knocked out cold, or dead, otherwise, who is it that finds anything perfect or beautiful!?

Quote:Quote:<hr>A true answer is likely to be perfectly correct, and hence perfect by definition.<hr> In the world of definitions, yes, which includes the definition of 'truth' as well. Others think, practice makes you perfect, they are right too. hehehe

Quote:Quote:<hr>Thinking about something is likely to change the thinkers' behaviour (remember what I said about roleplaying). So does it follow that thinking about truth will make someone perfect?<hr>Sure, but who could truly judge that except yourself. It is bloody dammed personal.

Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: wow.

Post by Sapius »

David wrote to Mooks:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius was trying to say that you had reached a state of perfection and I simply pointed out that the experience of boredom is not consistent with this.<hr>
Sorry David, I never said anything of that kind. It is you who are obsessed in finding a "State of Perfection" in a Self, and hence the wise thought.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The philosophic path to perfection is twofold - firstly, reasoning oneself into the ultimate understanding and, secondly, changing every aspect of one's existence to conform with this ultimate understanding.<hr>
True.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The first is relatively easy, while the second is an immense challenge.<hr>
No, not necessarily. The second part is relatively easy too, if you have strong emotional strength to support clear reasoning.


Edited by: Sapius at: 6/16/05 18:17
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Sapius »

David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>It turns into an objective truth the moment it accurately reflects the objective truth.

For example, the personal opinion that Reality is not nothing whatsoever accurately reflects the objective truth that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.<hr>
Sure, and a dream is not nothing whatsoever. Does this reflect any inaccuracy?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DQ: Since it is objectively true that only a sage (i.e. a person who is without delusion) can be aware of Truth,

S: You have yet to prove, be it philosophically, how this is objectively true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:Quote:<hr>You've got to be kidding, Sapius.<hr>

No, I'm not.

Quote:Quote:<hr>A sage's mind also never stops. At the same time, it never flows into states of boredom.<hr> As long as there is a mind, and cause and effect, there will be "boredom" for the mind cannot rest, and it has nothing to do with your ultimate understanding or living it. Don't tell me that you have never thought of answering a post a little later because you were not in the mood, or not answered it at all because you were a bit annoyed at the stupid reply.

Quote:Quote:<hr>I agree that striving for perfection is egotistical and a sign of imperfection. However, it is the one form of egotism that can lead to the perfection of Buddahood.<hr>
...but aren't we supposed to get rid of that ego, the "I", to attain the Perfection or Buddahood? Could Perfection or Buddahood be attained without the "I"? At which point of time does the "I" not exist?

Quote:Quote:<hr>Me: It is the act of discussing which is perfect, not the discussion itself. It is life that is perfect, not how you live it.

You: If that is the case, then why are you taking issue with my behaviour? Your thinking on this issue still lacks consistency.<hr>

Because you say you are enlightened, which, if I'm not wrong, is the same as being in a state of perfection, but you seem to be less than perfect. You are basically a public property once you claim enlightenment and long for others spiritual wellbeing, so you got to listen to all kinds and keep your cool. Don't question if someone takes up any issues with you, or seems inconsistent.

No offense, but isn't it fun too!

Quote:Quote:<hr>Mooks: The consequence of once having limitless greed is that I now have no greed -- not even greed for happiness. I could call this 'greatness' or 'enlightenment' to satisfy my ego, but why? I call it 'myself' and am just as satisfied.<hr>

Again, David, listen and learn.

Well said, Mooks. I wish my English were any better to help express my thoughts so precisely. Nice to know your thoughts.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: It turns into an objective truth the moment it accurately reflects the objective truth.

For example, the personal opinion that Reality is not nothing whatsoever accurately reflects the objective truth that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.

Sap: Sure, and a dream is not nothing whatsoever. Does this reflect any inaccuracy? <hr> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but there is no inaccuracy.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Since it is objectively true that only a sage (i.e. a person who is without delusion) can be aware of Truth,

Sap: You have yet to prove, be it philosophically, how this is objectively true.

DQ: You've got to be kidding, Sapius.

Sap: No, I'm not.<hr> You want me to prove the obvious fact that only the undeluded mind can perceive the Truth?


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: A sage's mind also never stops. At the same time, it never flows into states of boredom.

Sap: As long as there is a mind, and cause and effect, there will be "boredom" for the mind cannot rest, and it has nothing to do with your ultimate understanding or living it. Don't tell me that you have never thought of answering a post a little later because you were not in the mood, or not answered it at all because you were a bit annoyed at the stupid reply. <hr> If I do anything out of boredom or annoyance, I am not in the enlightened state.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: I agree that striving for perfection is egotistical and a sign of imperfection. However, it is the one form of egotism that can lead to the perfection of Buddahood.

Sap: ...but aren't we supposed to get rid of that ego, the "I", to attain the Perfection or Buddahood? Could Perfection or Buddahood be attained without the "I"? At which point of time does the "I" not exist? <hr> There is never a time when the "I" exists. That is the illusion which must be given up. He who does that reaches perfection.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Sap: It is the act of discussing which is perfect, not the discussion itself. It is life that is perfect, not how you live it.

DQ: If that is the case, then why are you taking issue with my behaviour? Your thinking on this issue still lacks consistency.

Sap: Because you say you are enlightened, which, if I'm not wrong, is the same as being in a state of perfection, but you seem to be less than perfect. You are basically a public property once you claim enlightenment and long for others spiritual wellbeing, so you got to listen to all kinds and keep your cool. Don't question if someone takes up any issues with you, or seems inconsistent. <hr> I did listen and coolly asked why, if you truly believed that "everything is already perfect as it is", you were taking issue with my behaviour.



User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Quote:Quote:<hr>You want me to prove the obvious fact that only the undeluded mind can perceive the Truth? <hr>
For a second I thought you were being snarky, but then I burst out laughing.
:lol

Definitions, definitions, definitions! When all else fails, go back to definitions.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Sapius »


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DQ: It turns into an objective truth the moment it accurately reflects the objective truth.

For example, the personal opinion that Reality is not nothing whatsoever accurately reflects the objective truth that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.

Sap: Sure, and a dream is not nothing whatsoever. Does this reflect any inaccuracy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but there is no inaccuracy.<hr>

The point above is, we were talking about what is an objective truth and using the same example you gave above, every personal opinion that I can think of is not nothing whatsoever, hence is every thing that I can think of an objective truth?
... then what remains so special about "Reality" being not nothing whatsoever, or its "objectiveness"?

Quote:Quote:<hr>You want me to prove the obvious fact that only the undeluded mind can perceive the Truth?<hr>
What can I say, especially after reading Mooks comment.

Quote:Quote:<hr>If I do anything out of boredom or annoyance, I am not in the enlightened state.<hr> You didn't seem to be in an enlightened state when discussing with Tumbleman.
Quote:Quote:<hr>There is never a time when the "I" exists. That is the illusion which must be given up. He who does that reaches perfection.<hr>
I consider the "I" being the result of a working mind which cannot shut down as long as I am not brain dead, I could always delude myself in thinking philosophically that this "I" does not exist, but then again, it is the very same "I" which is thinking this, so when does it not exist? In fact, I believe, that it is only the "I" that exists. What do you say?

Quote:Quote:<hr>I did listen and coolly asked why, if you truly believed that "everything is already perfect as it is", you were taking issue with my behaviour.<hr>
It is not me who claims to be enlightened or perfect, you do, and when you say 'everything is perfect as it is', it carries more weight then my babbling. You got to practice what you preach since you are enlightened. Basically, if you are really enlightened, then you cannot help but lie still since the fact that 'everything is perfect as it is' should be permeating in your blood. Why do you take up issues on femininity? Or anything at all. Are they not a result of cause and effect, hence a perfect manifestation of nature? Think hard and deep about your own consistencies first, David. You don't seem to be enlightened by your own standards.



User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by David Quinn »

mooksestink wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Definitions, definitions, definitions! When all else fails, go back to definitions.<hr> Exactly. You're right on the money.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: It turns into an objective truth the moment it accurately reflects the objective truth.

For example, the personal opinion that Reality is not nothing whatsoever accurately reflects the objective truth that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.

Sap: Sure, and a dream is not nothing whatsoever. Does this reflect any inaccuracy?

DQ: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but there is no inaccuracy.

Sap: The point above is, we were talking about what is an objective truth and using the same example you gave above, every personal opinion that I can think of is not nothing whatsoever, hence is every thing that I can think of an objective truth?
... then what remains so special about "Reality" being not nothing whatsoever, or its "objectiveness"? <hr> I've already explained this in my conversation to mookestink. See the "Ontological Thought Experiment" thread.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If I do anything out of boredom or annoyance, I am not in the enlightened state.

Sap: You didn't seem to be in an enlightened state when discussing with Tumbleman. <hr> There wasn't any annoyance or boredom not on my part there. Rather, it was my sense of humour at work. The more Tumbleman proclaimed the supremecy of his dialectical system and its ability to harmonize all points of view, the more it inspired me to attack him viciously and insert as much disharmony as possible. And it worked. His system utterly failed with respect to me.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: There is never a time when the "I" exists. That is the illusion which must be given up. He who does that reaches perfection.

Sap: I consider the "I" being the result of a working mind which cannot shut down as long as I am not brain dead, I could always delude myself in thinking philosophically that this "I" does not exist, but then again, it is the very same "I" which is thinking this, so when does it not exist? <hr> The brain is thinking it, not the "I". The "I" cannot think anything, as it is just a thought itself.


Quote:Quote:<hr>In fact, I believe, that it is only the "I" that exists. What do you say?<hr> If you define the "I" to be the Totality of all there is, then that would be fair enough. But, of course, this is not the same "I" that people normally think of.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: I did listen and coolly asked why, if you truly believed that "everything is already perfect as it is", you were taking issue with my behaviour.

Sap: It is not me who claims to be enlightened or perfect, you do, and when you say 'everything is perfect as it is', it carries more weight then my babbling. You got to practice what you preach since you are enlightened. Basically, if you are really enlightened, then you cannot help but lie still since the fact that 'everything is perfect as it is' should be permeating in your blood. Why do you take up issues on femininity? Or anything at all. Are they not a result of cause and effect, hence a perfect manifestation of nature? Think hard and deep about your own consistencies first, David. You don't seem to be enlightened by your own standards. <hr> Let me ask you this. If a sage encounters a young baby who is lying down on a burning stove and screaming in great agony, does he refuse to help him on the basis that "everything is perfect as it is"?

Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>The brain is thinking it, not the "I".<hr>

I'd like to see you logically substantiate this claim in the same way as you did the only-a-sage-and-truth proposition.

The brain does not function alone.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The "I" cannot think anything, as it is just a thought itself.<hr>

Not "a" thought -- but "analytical thought." I think there is a difference, for example, between any possible cow-I and the human-I.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Quote:Quote:<hr>I'd like to see you logically substantiate this claim in the same way as you did the only-a-sage-and-truth proposition. <hr>
I think the truth was empirical. The brain is often regarded as the seat of mind in its entirety (and with good reason), therefore every thought that occurs within the mind (inluding "I") is thought by brain, not by any specific thought. A thought doesn't think a thought; a thought can, however, lead to other thoughts when processed by the brain.

The brain thinks. Thoughts do not.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>There is never a time when the "I" exists. That is the illusion which must be given up. <hr>

Impossible. Why should this particular illusion be given up any more readily than any other presented by sensory perceptics?

It is delusion that must be given up. Delusion about "the I." Now matter which way you look at it, David Quinn, you are looking at it -- unless you're omniscient. "I" is determined by viewpoint and opinion. With this come all the opinions of beauty and ugliness, good and bad, et cetera. A fully enlightened being does not necessarily value any of it. For him, there is only truth. Logically, I reckon, he does not exist in the truest meaning of the idea.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>I think the truth was empirical.<hr>

Exactly.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The brain is often regarded as the seat of mind in its entirety (and with good reason), therefore ...<hr>

Not a very sound argument or logical proof, really. We are talking philosophy, here, not science.

Quote:Quote:<hr>...every thought that occurs within the mind (inluding "I") is thought by brain,<hr>

Prove it.

Quote:Quote:<hr>A thought doesn't think a thought;<hr>

Yes, I got that.

Quote:Quote:<hr>...a thought can, however, lead to other thoughts when processed by the brain.<hr>

Strictly speaking, not by your logical standards.

Edit: OMG, since when did we have those emoticons? Edited by: Leyla Shen at: 6/19/05 1:09
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Quote:Quote:<hr>(You: We are talking philosophy, here, not science.)
Me: ...every thought that occurs within the mind (inluding "I&quot ;) is thought by brain,
You: Prove it.
<hr>
Make up your mind! Do you want to talk philosophy or science? I'll stick to philosophy.

If one says "the brain is the mind", and the mind is where all thoughts originate, then the brain is where all thoughts originate.

Now whether or not a thought can think a thought -- I believe it would be up to you to prove that such is possible. You have already admitted that "I" is a thought (an 'analytic thought', you called it). Now how can one thought think another thought? Can you hope to prove that without the help of science?


Anyway, to help you understand what David was saying when you said:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Impossible. Why should this particular illusion be given up any more readily than any other presented by sensory perceptics?<hr>
It's quite simple, if you only bother to provide yourself with examples.

Let's say one is trying to solve a simple mathematical problem: 1+2=3.
There is one way to arrive at the truth of this problem.

If one goes "1, now how do I feel about 1 being there. Let's turn it into a 3? And the addition sign looks ugly to me today, I would rather it were a multiplication sign. And my perspective says that the number 2 is actually the number 9. The answer in that case would be 27, but I don't like that answer so I will make it a clean 25."

The "I" gets in the way of the truth. It provides only delusion; how is it suddenly permissable afterward to say "I feel great because I answered that problem"? There is delusion there, as well. If one is seeking truth, then forget the "I".

It's not magical or metaphysical. It's simple.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Do you want to talk philosophy or science? I'll stick to philosophy.<hr>

Yeah?

Quote:Quote:<hr>Make up your mind!<hr>

Oh, be consistent will you. Don’t you mean “make up your brain”?

Quote:Quote:<hr>If one says "the brain is the mind", and the mind is where all thoughts originate, then the brain is where all thoughts originate.<hr>

Given that you seem to be on the side of the argument that says the brain is the mind, why two different words for it?

Quote:Quote:<hr>Now whether or not a thought can think a thought -- I believe it would be up to you to prove that such is possible. You have already admitted that "I" is a thought (an 'analytic thought', you called it). Now how can one thought think another thought? Can you hope to prove that without the help of science?<hr>

I don’t believe I said a thought can think a thought. That’s your inference. I said the I is analytical thought. Take that away, and what's left? I certainly would not be using science to prove it.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Anyway, to help you understand what David was saying when you said:...<hr>

Wah, thank-ye, sah! Ah’ve always relahd ohn the kahn’ness of strengez.

Quote:Quote:<hr>[Blah, blah, blah…]The "I" gets in the way of the truth.<hr>

Yes. You are speaking of a very deluded “I” indeed. Do you think I have the abovementioned difficulty? If you do, I don’t think you are very perceptive. Perhaps you have assumed I have a low IQ? Nonetheless, your point here about the math problem substantiates mine -- you may need to think about it really hard.
Edited by: Leyla Shen at: 6/19/05 2:38
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Sapius »

David wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>I've already explained this in my conversation to mookestink. See the "Ontological Thought Experiment" thread.<hr>
OK. will do.

Quote:Quote:<hr>There wasn't any annoyance or boredom not on my part there. Rather, it was my sense of humour at work. The more Tumbleman proclaimed the supremecy of his dialectical system and its ability to harmonize all points of view, the more it inspired me to attack him viciously and insert as much disharmony as possible. And it worked. His system utterly failed with respect to me.<hr>
Well, you fooled me and many others, but on the other hand, you did admit that it is quite all right for a sage to lie for the the greater good, that is spread the word of Ultimate Truth. So I guess that's all right.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The brain is thinking it, not the "I". The "I" cannot think anything, as it is just a thought itself.<hr>
Huh! I don't see the connection in your response. What has me saying....
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sap: I consider the "I" being the result of a working mind which cannot shut down as long as I am not brain dead, I could always delude myself in thinking philosophically that this "I" does not exist, but then again, it is the very same "I" which is thinking this, so when does it not exist?<hr> ...got to do with the "I" doing any thinking???

Since when do you not believe that the "I" is the basis of consciousness? Is any thought possible without it? Including the thought that the "I does not exist". Hence what you are saying is that consciousness does not exist.

Quote:Quote:<hr>If you define the "I" to be the Totality of all there is, then that would be fair enough. But, of course, this is not the same "I" that people normally think of.<hr>
No, I define "I" as the basis of my consciousness, hence if no "I", then zilch, nada, nothing exists. It is arrogant to think that "I" is the Totality of all that there is. Reality or Totality is not an "I" which is but another "thing" just as any other.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Let me ask you this. If a sage encounters a young baby who is lying down on a burning stove and screaming in great agony, does he refuse to help him on the basis that "everything is perfect as it is"?<hr> As far as I can tell, the sage will most assuredly help, because he still has, and operates with a conscious base call "I", and because he loves Reality and all it has to offer. So?

As I said earlier, you can only THINK yourself out of it, but basically you don't and you cannot. But THINKING yourself out of it has its positive effects, and that is that it changes your perspective and humbles you to the extant that each and every manifestation of Reality is appreciated to the hilt. In other words, the "I" still exists, only that it operates differently.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by David Quinn »

Leyla wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>DQ: The brain is thinking it, not the "I".

Leyla: I'd like to see you logically substantiate this claim in the same way as you did the only-a-sage-and-truth proposition.

The brain does not function alone.<hr> Okay, how about: brain + society + oxygen + quantum particles + genes + evolution + everything else in the Universe. That suit you? Nature creates the thoughts.

Blimey, what a tough taskmaster.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: The "I" cannot think anything, as it is just a thought itself.

Leyla: Not "a" thought -- but "analytical thought." I think there is a difference, for example, between any possible cow-I and the human-I. <hr> Yes, the cow probably doesn't have an "I", as its conceptual faculties are pretty limited.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: There is never a time when the "I" exists. That is the illusion which must be given up.

Leyla: Impossible. Why should this particular illusion be given up any more readily than any other presented by sensory perceptics? <hr> Because it is the root cause of all ignorance and misery in the world.

In essence, what has to be given up is the belief in inherent existence - right across the board. This applies to all things in the world, not just the "I". The spiritual teachings tend to focus on the "I" because it is our attachment to the "I" which makes us so emotional and defensive and close-minded.


User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: There wasn't any annoyance or boredom not on my part there. Rather, it was my sense of humour at work. The more Tumbleman proclaimed the supremecy of his dialectical system and its ability to harmonize all points of view, the more it inspired me to attack him viciously and insert as much disharmony as possible. And it worked. His system utterly failed with respect to me.

Sap: Well, you fooled me and many others, but on the other hand, you did admit that it is quite all right for a sage to lie for the the greater good, that is spread the word of Ultimate Truth. So I guess that's all right. <hr> Most of my posts are infused with this ironical sense of humour, so you need to factor this in when reading me.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: The brain is thinking it, not the "I". The "I" cannot think anything, as it is just a thought itself.

Sap: Huh! I don't see the connection in your response. What has me saying....

I consider the "I" being the result of a working mind which cannot shut down as long as I am not brain dead, I could always delude myself in thinking philosophically that this "I" does not exist, but then again, it is the very same "I" which is thinking this, so when does it not exist?

...got to do with the "I" doing any thinking??? <hr> As I have highlighted with italics, you state that the "I" is doing the thinking. Hence my response.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Since when do you not believe that the "I" is the basis of consciousness? Is any thought possible without it? Including the thought that the "I does not exist". Hence what you are saying is that consciousness does not exist. <hr> It's perfectly possible that your entire life, including every experience and every thought you have ever had, is nothing more than a computer simulation run by mathematical algorithms in a machine. Where is the "I" then?


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: If you define the "I" to be the Totality of all there is, then that would be fair enough. But, of course, this is not the same "I" that people normally think of.

Sap: No, I define "I" as the basis of my consciousness, hence if no "I", then zilch, nada, nothing exists. <hr> It's a poor definition because, as I have shown with the computer simulation example above, it is perfectly possible for consciousness to exist without any "I" whatsoever.


Quote:Quote:<hr>It is arrogant to think that "I" is the Totality of all that there is.<hr> To quote your last post:

Quote:Quote:<hr>In fact, I believe, that it is only the "I" that exists. What do you say?<hr>If you want to say that only the "I" exists, then you are definitely equating it with the Totality.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Sap: It is not me who claims to be enlightened or perfect, you do, and when you say 'everything is perfect as it is', it carries more weight then my babbling. You got to practice what you preach since you are enlightened. Basically, if you are really enlightened, then you cannot help but lie still since the fact that 'everything is perfect as it is' should be permeating in your blood. Why do you take up issues on femininity? Or anything at all. Are they not a result of cause and effect, hence a perfect manifestation of nature? Think hard and deep about your own consistencies first, David. You don't seem to be enlightened by your own standards.

DQ: Let me ask you this. If a sage encounters a young baby who is lying down on a burning stove and screaming in great agony, does he refuse to help him on the basis that "everything is perfect as it is"?

Sap: As far as I can tell, the sage will most assuredly help, because he still has, and operates with a conscious base call "I", and because he loves Reality and all it has to offer. So? <hr> Well, in the same way, I try to help people out of their samsaric agony by speaking against femininity and their other related attachments.


User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Yes. You are speaking of a very deluded “I” indeed. Do you think I have the abovementioned difficulty? If you do, I don’t think you are very perceptive. Perhaps you have assumed I have a low IQ?<hr>
No, not at all. I was having fun being a jackass. :b

Seriously, I could not tell whether you had overlooked the obvious, what with the shape your argument was taking, so I spelled it out as simply as possible. The arguments you were offering were nothing more than potential additions to what David Quinn had said, but seemed phrased to be refutations.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Sapius »

Quote:Quote:<hr>DQ: The brain is thinking it, not the "I". The "I" cannot think anything, as it is just a thought itself.

Sap: Huh! I don't see the connection in your response. What has me saying....

I consider the "I" being the result of a working mind which cannot shut down as long as I am not brain dead, I could always delude myself in thinking philosophically that this "I" does not exist, but then again, it is the very same "I" which is thinking this, so when does it not exist?

...got to do with the "I" doing any thinking???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David: As I have highlighted with italics, you state that the "I" is doing the thinking. Hence my response. <hr>

All right, I didn't really mean that, may be it was my bad English. I know that the "I" is NOT doing any thinking since it is a thought itself, but without it you simply cannot differentiate between a single thing and even form a sentence. Do only thoughts exist? Is the Thought a thinker? Can the Thinker literally not exist?
(See my further response below on a simulated "thinker")

Quote:Quote:<hr>It's perfectly possible that your entire life, including every experience and every thought you have ever had, is nothing more than a computer simulation run by mathematical algorithms in a machine. Where is the "I" then?<hr>
Of course it is perfectly possible, and the simulator could be a simulation of another simulator, and so on, but for all practical purposes, there still remains an "I" if it has to operate any further, even if it is only a simulation made to think that it is an "I". Simply taking a possible simulation into account does not practically remove the "I". The simulator has to first simulate an "I" to do anything further about it. The "I" may not inherently exist, so may anything at all considering the connection of cause and effect, but for all practical purposes, it does.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Well, in the same way, I try to help people out of their samsaric agony by speaking against femininity and their other related attachments.<hr>
Ah! then you simply speak against it, but yet you love it since it is also a manifestation of Reality. You cannot be indifferent about it, since you do speak against it.


Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Okay, how about: brain + society + oxygen + quantum particles + genes + evolution + everything else in the Universe. That suit you? Nature creates the thoughts.<hr>

Hm. From one extreme to the other, eh? Well, this one is better. I mean, I'd hate for someone to get the idea that they could solve insane thought and behaviour by chopping up grey matter -- or, conversely, become a genius by surgically adding to it.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Blimey, what a tough taskmaster. <hr>

I tell ya, it's the bane of my existence. :)

Quote:Quote:<hr>In essence, what has to be given up is the belief in inherent existence - right across the board. This applies to all things in the world, not just the "I".<hr>

Yes.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The spiritual teachings tend to focus on the "I" because it is our attachment to the "I" which makes us so emotional and defensive and close-minded.<hr>

Yes. And, personally, my emphasis would be on that very phrase -- our attachment to the "I" -- as opposed to its existence or non-existence.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> I know that the "I" is NOT doing any thinking since it is a thought itself, but without it you simply cannot differentiate between a single thing and even form a sentence. <hr> Our current-day computers can easily make these distinctions, even though they have no "I".


Quote:Quote:<hr> Do only thoughts exist? Is the Thought a thinker? Can the Thinker literally not exist? <hr> Nothing really exists, not even thoughts.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: It's perfectly possible that your entire life, including every experience and every thought you have ever had, is nothing more than a computer simulation run by mathematical algorithms in a machine. Where is the "I" then?

Sap: Of course it is perfectly possible, and the simulator could be a simulation of another simulator, and so on, but for all practical purposes, there still remains an "I" if it has to operate any further, even if it is only a simulation made to think that it is an "I". Simply taking a possible simulation into account does not practically remove the "I". The simulator has to first simulate an "I" to do anything further about it. The "I" may not inherently exist, so may anything at all considering the connection of cause and effect, but for all practical purposes, it does. <hr> Simply repeating your supposition over and over doesn't make it any truer. You need to provide some proper reasoning to support why an "I" is necessary for a conscious existence. Otherwise, how are we going to be persuaded of your point of view?

A computer simulation which is programmed to create the illusion of an "I" is not the same thing as the computer really having an "I". Surely, you must know that.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Sap: It is not me who claims to be enlightened or perfect, you do, and when you say 'everything is perfect as it is', it carries more weight then my babbling. You got to practice what you preach since you are enlightened. Basically, if you are really enlightened, then you cannot help but lie still since the fact that 'everything is perfect as it is' should be permeating in your blood. Why do you take up issues on femininity? Or anything at all. Are they not a result of cause and effect, hence a perfect manifestation of nature? Think hard and deep about your own consistencies first, David. You don't seem to be enlightened by your own standards.

DQ: Let me ask you this. If a sage encounters a young baby who is lying down on a burning stove and screaming in great agony, does he refuse to help him on the basis that "everything is perfect as it is"?

Sap: As far as I can tell, the sage will most assuredly help, because he still has, and operates with a conscious base call "I", and because he loves Reality and all it has to offer. So?

DQ: Well, in the same way, I try to help people out of their samsaric agony by speaking against femininity and their other related attachments.

Sap: Ah! then you simply speak against it, but yet you love it since it is also a manifestation of Reality. You cannot be indifferent about it, since you do speak against it. <hr> It is similar to the way a tree is emotionally indifferent to all things and yet is naturally inclined to seek out sunlight and water, and to grow leaves and fruit. It's in its nature to do these things. In the same way, a sage naturally values wisdom and works for its survival, even though, emotionally, he has nothing invested in the outcome.

This is a difficult point to grasp, I know, and a lot of people have trouble with it. But it's one of those things that are very straightforward and obvious once you see it.
rwill9955
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:03 pm

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by rwill9955 »

This is psychobabble and not intelligent reasoning. The blunt truth is that you have to make a decision rather that use word play to defer making it, when you wish to be part of a decision making matrix .

You can philosophize all you want about the nicities of picking your decision making proceedure, but if you do you will be left in the dust by those who wish to survive. That is the blunt admonition of behavioral genetics.

Of course, if you wish to be as dead as the dodo, go ahead, but you will become of no consequence to the evolutionary history of this world, and also a laughing stock.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course, if you wish to be as dead as the dodo, go ahead, but you will become of no consequence to the evolutionary history of this world, and also a laughing stock.<hr>
At least we'll go out doing something we like doing, instead of making real decisions like what colour to wear to a baby shower or which one of our spoiled children gets to inheret our vast fortunes.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Choosing a single path

Post by DHodges »

Quote:Quote:<hr>A computer simulation which is programmed to create the illusion of an "I" is not the same thing as the computer really having an "I". Surely, you must know that.<hr>

David, this is one of those things that may seem intuitively obvious - but when you dig into it, there is quite a bit of debate on the topic. (This is similar to the "Chinese Room" argument.)

In the end, it is not at all clear that there is a difference. If the computer is well-programmed, it will give the same answers if it really has an "I" or if it is simulating having an "I". So how can you tell?

Locked