Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

[clyde]

That was an extraordinarily lame response. A surface is a boundary and here (the moebius strip) there is a surface (boundary) with only one side.

[Imadrongo]

In other words, like Laird, you're only speculating when you say that boundaries with only one side might be possible. That is, you don't really know whether such things are possible or impossible.

Yes. Just because "boundaries" on planet earth are defined to have 2 sides doesn't mean the term extends into "other worlds".

[Kevin Solway]

Just because "boundaries" on planet earth are defined to have 2 sides doesn't mean the term extends into "other worlds".

Of course the term may not extend to other worlds. In other worlds they would probably use a different word or symbol than "boundary". But the concept of a boundary will necessarily be the same.

My point is that you don't know whether the same concept of a boundary can't automatically be extended to "other worlds". It seems that you are only guessing, since you aren't providing any solid reasons so support your claim.

[Sapius]

David to Laird;

You are still fixated on the finger and ignoring where it is pointing. Everything in the book is the finger pointing. The wisdom to which it is pointing can't be found in the book, just as it can't be found in any book.

Those that say, “There are no Absolute Truths’, can justifiably throw this exact comment back. That one should not be fixated on the finger, but rather see what it points to.

What would be your advise in such a case? Go back to definitional logic?

David: Kevin used the term ["block"] metaphorically, you silly sausage. To indicate the interconnectedness and deterministic nature of all things. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to focus on

Laird: However he used it, it's apt. You believe that the Totality is fixed and deterministic: block-like i.e. thing-like.

Although I don’t fully agree with Laird’s 'boundary' idea, I’m afraid he is pointing in the right direction here. (Don’t take that as personal finger pointing). One cannot point to "totality” unless one conceptualizes, be it even sub-consciously, as an ultimately infinite silly sausage of a “thing” perhaps, since he is naming it, which arguably may not be the case, but one still holds a mental picture of a not-nothing-whatsoever of a “thing”.

“A Tao that can be named is not the Tao” comes to mind, or the Allah of Islam saying, “anything you can think or imagine, I am not that”.

I think we mistakenly or wishfully superimpose an idea of Oneness (God) seen through interconnectedness of things, failing to see that that interconnectedness is not possible without division, and at no point can an absolute non-division be possible.

[Sapius]

Just because "boundaries" on planet earth are defined to have 2 sides doesn't mean the term extends into "other worlds".

Of course the term may not extend to other worlds. In other worlds they would probably use a different word or symbol than "boundary". But the concept of a boundary will necessarily be the same.

My point is that you don't know whether the same concept of a boundary can't automatically be extended to "other worlds". It seems that you are only guessing, since you aren't providing any solid reasons so support your claim.

I think this type of argument takes one nowhere.

It is quite logical that whatever the world may be, consciousness is necessarily required, and consciousness is necessarily dependent on differentiation; differentiation of at least any two different things, with a boundary of differentiation that lies in-between.

On the other hand, anyone can equally deny anything at all; there is indeed a choice available.

[Kevin Solway]

One cannot point to "totality” unless one conceptualizes

This might well be your own personal experience, but the Totality of which I am speaking of is in no way a concept or a picture of any kind. It is the source of all concepts, pictures and models.

A frog jumps in a pond. Splash!

Do you see how this escapes concepts and models? That is the purpose of all Zen koans - to point you beyond all concepts and models. Such words are pointers to the Totality.

[Sapius]

S: One cannot point to "totality” unless one conceptualizes

K: This might well be your own personal experience,

I think that goes without saying; as if you speak from my experience; do you? Or does this profound comment deserve a new thread?

..but the Totality of which I am speaking of is in no way a concept or a picture of any kind. It is the source of all concepts, pictures and models.

So Totality is the source, and is not what it powers, and ‘source’ is not a concept that meaningfully resonates in ones mind when the word Totality pops up.

The moment one speaks or thinks, it is necessarily of some-thing, meaningful if lucky, irrelevant of what it is defined to be or not be. Is it not so?

A frog jumps in a pond. Splash!

Yeah… so?

Do you see how this escapes concepts and models?

May be. Are you saying that concepts and models are not necessary for totality to operate? That irrelevant of how we conceptualize or model our experiences and express what we see and hear, it still remains the same thing? That brut sensual experiences are exactly what they are, no questions or doubts beyond that? That such direct experiences should not be considered as illusory?

That is the purpose of all Zen koans - to point you beyond all concepts and models. Such words are pointers to the Totality.

Could it be that they are the pointers that point to the futility of pointing itself, when “totality”, God, Tao or such likes are pointed AT.

[Alex Jacob]

[The parentheses indicates what I write takes place in golf whisper, so as not to disturb the champs. I just want to know, after pages and pages and pages of the same circular 'games', does anyone actually get anything out of this? If so, what? Did it or does it help to clarify ideas that can then become useful?]

[Sapius]

[The parentheses indicates what I write takes place in golf whisper, so as not to disturb the champs. I just want to know, after pages and pages and pages of the same circular 'games', does anyone actually get anything out of this? If so, what? Did it or does it help to clarify ideas that can then become useful?]

[I think you will have to find the answers by and for yourself, and may be live accordingly ;) ]

[Kevin Solway]

A frog jumps in a pond. Splash!

Do you see how this escapes concepts and models?

May be. Are you saying that concepts and models are not necessary for totality to operate?

No. I'm saying that your experience of reality doesn't need to be filtered through models or artificial conceptual constructs.

When you hear the splash of the frog, you don't have to experience it through a complex maze of models and systems of knowledge, etc. It is immediate.

. . . such direct experiences should not be considered as illusory?

Things are illusory when seen through the distorting lens of models and suchlike. On the other hand, if a person experiences things directly, though without consciousness, they will have the (relatively) unconscious experience of an animal like a cow. By contrast, the sage experiences things directly, but with full consciousness.

Kierkegaard says, "Enlightenment is immediacy after reflection."

That is the purpose of all Zen koans - to point you beyond all concepts and models. Such words are pointers to the Totality.

Could it be that they are the pointers that point to the futility of pointing itself, when “totality”, God, Tao or such likes are pointed AT.

That sentence is way too complicated. Truth is not that complicated.

The above koan doesn't literally point anywhere, but it can cause a person to experience something.

[Kevin Solway]

That was an extraordinarily lame response. A surface is a boundary and here (the moebius strip) there is a surface (boundary) with only one side.

The trick with the moebius strip is that it isn't really a strip at all, but merely a twisted loop.

In normal language, a "strip" has open ends, such as "the Vegas strip".

By calling the twisted loop a "strip" it tricks the mind into thinking that something wonderful has been achieved, when in fact nothing has happened at all. Call it a "moebius twisted loop" and all the magic disappears.

It is the same kind of trick that Zeno used - and takes advantage of sluggish minds.

[clyde]

Ouch! I wish you had merely ignored my post rather than post an even lamer response than your previous one. Now you are confused by the name "moebius strip"! Whatever name you give it, it has a surface and only one side.

[Sapius]

S: Are you saying that concepts and models are not necessary for totality to operate?

K: No. I'm saying that your experience of reality doesn't need to be filtered through models or artificial conceptual constructs.

When you hear the splash of the frog, you don't have to experience it through a complex maze of models and systems of knowledge, etc. It is immediate.

Yes it is, so?

Things are illusory when seen through the distorting lens of models and suchlike. On the other hand, if a person experiences things directly, though without consciousness, they will have the (relatively) unconscious experience of an animal like a cow. By contrast, the sage experiences things directly, but with full consciousness.

Kierkegaard says, "Enlightenment is immediacy after reflection."

Does he? Then it must be true.

The above koan doesn't literally point anywhere, but it can cause a person to experience something.

Sure, no koans literally point anywhere; enjoy the experienced feeling any ways. Good for you, mate.

[Imadrongo]

My point is that you don't know whether the same concept of a boundary can't automatically be extended to "other worlds". It seems that you are only guessing, since you aren't providing any solid reasons so support your claim.

No, I don't know. If you have some proof that our concepts extend beyond our world please present it and then I will posit some meaning to your metaphysics. Until then, since I have no reason to believe that our concepts do extend in this manner, I will see your metaphysics as futile.

[Kevin Solway]

When you hear the splash of the frog, you don't have to experience it through a complex maze of models and systems of knowledge, etc. It is immediate.

Yes it is, so?

You were arguing that one cannot point to a Totality unless one conceptualizes. I'm demonstrating that this is not the case. It is perfectly possible to do things, have experiences, and communicate ideas, without having them filtered by models, concepts, and systems of knowledge.

Just as the "splash" can escape concepts, so can the "Totality".

[Kevin Solway]

it has a surface and only one side.

A shame that the surface of which you speak is not a boundary.

[Kevin Solway]

does anyone actually get anything out of this? If so, what? Did it or does it help to clarify ideas that can then become useful?]

My view is that unless these issues are dealt with they'll continue to crop up all the time. It's better to get them out in the open and deal with them.

If these issues are not dealt with they'll just be suppressed, and if people are at least thinking about them that's better than not thinking about them at all.

[Kevin Solway]

If you have some proof that our concepts extend beyond our world please present it

If you can't see that duality, a consciousness of "things", extends wherever there is consciousness, then there is nothing I can present to you.

[average]

Kevin can you point at Totality, so I can see what you mean.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin can you point at Totality for us, so we can see what you mean.

I've been doing it all the time.

Edit:
Here's another example of pointing at the Totality:

What were you before your parents were born?

[average]

Kevin can you point at Totality for us, so we can see what you mean.

I've been doing it all the time.

Can you do it again, clearly.

[Kevin Solway]

What were you before your parents were born?

[average]

What were you before your parents were born?

Ok.

[clyde]

it has a surface and only one side.

A shame that the surface of which you speak is not a boundary.

Come-on, Kevin, point to a surface which is not a boundary.

[Kevin Solway]

point to a surface which is not a boundary.

I did. When a surface becomes a boundary it separates two things. Boundaries are always mentally constructed.