Certainty

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Certainty

Post by samadhi »

David and I had an exchange in the "Forget Enlightenment" thread a couple days ago. Here it is:
me: Do you really think there is some holy grail out there you are going to find with your logic?

DQ: I've already found it.

me: You've found something, I'll give you that. Just what you found is another question.
After I posted, I thought about it for a while. What had he found? Enlightenment? Hmm. Something else, what? And then it became obvious. Certainty. David had found his certainty.

And that raised another question with me. What is the difference between certainty and, what shall I call it? Enlightenment doesn't capture the contrast because of the tendency to treat that concept like another state of mind, grasped by the mind, ennobled by it and thus quite certain of its new state. There is something else that isn't certainty but beyond it. Whereas certainty insists on itself by definition, this has no insistence in it. In fact, there is nothing in it by which it is known, yet an encounter with it can take you past your certainty quite easily if you are open to it. Since there is nothing in it to know it by, let's call it emptiness.

Though emptiness is not something you know, perhaps it can still by contrasted with certainty in terms of the effects of each. The first is the quality of mind reflected in them. Certainty as a state of mind is reflected by ideas bound up in knowledge. "I am this, I know this, this is right, this is true, this is good," etc. Emptiness, not being a state, makes no attempt at knowledge, therefore, "I don't know what I am, I don't know what is right, what is true, what is good." Certainty is bound by logic and reason and works to convince. Emptiness arises out of experience, not logic, and doesn't try to convince but likes to inspire. It isn't that emptiness doesn't have ideas or doesn't talk about them, it's simply that all ideas are sourced in emptiness whereas all certainty is sourced in ideas.

Certainty is about arriving at the end of a process. "I was deluded, now I am enlightened." It's fixed, unchanging, unmoved by new information. Emptiness is about awakening out of a process. "I was deluded, now I see there is no one to be deluded." It is fluid, moving, always flowing into the next moment. Certainty knows its path, emptiness recognizes all paths and is comfortable with any path.

Certainty is linear, it takes things step by step, it denys contradiction, it recognizes only its own logic. Emptiness has no direction, its reasoning is paradoxical, it embraces contradiction and recognizes what is useful. Certainty embraces process and in process, the future. "You may not be certain now but do this, this and this and you will become certain." Emptiness rests in the present, there is nothing you need to do to get there because wherever you are, emptiness is. Certainty rejects that contradiction, emptiness embraces the paradox. Emptiness itself IS a paradox. You cannot say what it is because there is nothing to talk about. Yet here it is, being talked about. Like talking of non-duality. Any word creates a distinction so how can any word point to non-duality? To the mind, non-duality is emptiness. Certainty deals with it by grasping. "Yes, I'm empty, you can be empty too." Emptiness itself isn't becoming, it IS, whatever is coming out of it. You don't become it. It is the idea of becoming that stands in the way of what already is.

These are a few of the things that occurred to me. I'm sure there are others which I may share as I consider it more. I think it's helpful to look at these things because a lot of our dealings with others arise out of our certainties. Politics, economics, religion, so much of it based on certainties. And in this forum certainty has come to enlightnement. And with certainty comes conflict. So if there is conflict, you know people have become entrenched in their own certainties. It's not bad or wrong but simply indicative of a certain state. Can there be a forum on enlightenment without the certainty? What would it be like? Is anyone interested in finding out?
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

Nice effort, Samadhi,
Is anyone interested in finding out?
Sure, why not.
Certainty as a state of mind is reflected by ideas bound up in knowledge. "I am this, I know this, this is right, this is true, this is good," etc. Emptiness, not being a state, makes no attempt at knowledge, therefore, "I don't know what I am, I don't know what is right, what is true, what is good."
If “emptiness” is not a state, and you are certain about "emptiness" itself, AND its "state" of no-state, then given its no-state, how can “IT”, make or not make an “attempt” to begin with?

Sounds more like a certainty of a certain belief.
---------
sagerage
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:32 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by sagerage »

samadhi - Did you know that if you take the last 2 letters of your name - "hi" - and put them in front of "samad", only spelled backwards - "damas" - then the name spelled sounds like this:

Hi dumbass:)
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Certainty

Post by samadhi »

Sapius,
Nice effort, Samadhi
Thanks.
me: Certainty as a state of mind is reflected by ideas bound up in knowledge. "I am this, I know this, this is right, this is true, this is good," etc. Emptiness, not being a state, makes no attempt at knowledge, therefore, "I don't know what I am, I don't know what is right, what is true, what is good."

you: If "emptiness" is not a state, and you are certain about "emptiness" itself, AND its "state" of no-state, then given its no-state, how can "IT", make or not make an "attempt" to begin with?

Sounds more like a certainty of a certain belief.
One of the things you want to be careful with is turning this into a semantics game. The point isn't whether I can nail down to your or anyone else's satisfaction what emptiness implies. That isn't going to happen. You can tell me what your experience is an we can have a discussion if you want but I don't want to talk about it in terms of trying to convince you of anything. If I were to do that, I would be indulging in the very thing I see as problematic.

All I can say as a response is to ask whether you think the distinction is meaningful. I have tried to say why I think it is and why turning enlightenment into a certainty game undermines the very thing it is pointing to.

sagerage,

Good to make your acquaintance. You are a clever one, aren't you. Your mommy will be so proud of you! lol ...
sagerage
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:32 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by sagerage »

samadhi,
One of the things you want to be careful with is turning this into a semantics game. The point isn't whether I can nail down to your or anyone else's satisfaction what emptiness implies. That isn't going to happen. You can tell me what your experience is an we can have a discussion if you want but I don't want to talk about it in terms of trying to convince you of anything. If I were to do that, I would be indulging in the very thing I see as problematic.
Isn't the point to increase our understanding as much as possible - learning. One of the ways in which to learn, is to understand in as close a way as possible the exact replica of an others point-of-view. Once that's achieved or if it's achieved, the two models maybe compared and modifications maybe made where necessary. Moreover, once an insight into another person's thinking is reached, more questions my arise. The point of this is to figure out exactly what the other person is thinking and their reasoning for it. It's quite easy to establish whether a person knows what they are talking about or whether they're simply blowing wind. Questions and the way in which they answer those questions is key. The beauty with this, is that there is no such thing as knowledge which cannot simply be communicated. If it makes logical sense, then it maybe right. Whatever makes logical sense, is understood logical. If you're logical it's easily understood.
Good to make your acquaintance. You are a clever one, aren't you. Your mommy will be so proud of you! lol ...
The feeling's mutual. Although, it should be noted and understood that no offense was intended. I was only making an observation. An observation which I thought you were fully aware of...
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Certainty

Post by samadhi »

sagerage,
Isn't the point to increase our understanding as much as possible - learning. One of the ways in which to learn, is to understand in as close a way as possible the exact replica of an others point-of-view. Once that's achieved or if it's achieved, the two models maybe compared and modifications maybe made where necessary. Moreover, once an insight into another person's thinking is reached, more questions my arise. The point of this is to figure out exactly what the other person is thinking and their reasoning for it. It's quite easy to establish whether a person knows what they are talking about or whether they're simply blowing wind. Questions and the way in which they answer those questions is key. The beauty with this, is that there is no such thing as knowledge which cannot simply be communicated. If it makes logical sense, then it maybe right. Whatever makes logical sense, is understood logical. If you're logical it's easily understood.
I have no problem having a conversation about ideas. I just don't want the conversation to be about semantics. My point isn't to make what I say about emptiness into another certainty so you can be convinced. I am not trying to convince you, I am trying to interest people in looking for themselves at certainty in relation to emptiness in enlightenment discussions. Is that something you're interested in looking at? What is your take on it?
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Certainty

Post by daybrown »

My take is that "emptiness" is the wrong word. I dunno that the right word exists in English. Sanskrit is notorious for subtlety lacking in English. Enlightenment is more like a state of sentience in which you are aware of your own existence, but dispassionately so. From a scientific standpoint, it does not matter to you whether you continue to exist or not.

The Mahayana/Hinayana problem is whether it matters whether anyone else becomes enlightened or not, with, or without, your assistance. If egolessness is the goal, then why should you care whether anyone else gets it? Who is it that cares? And why should it matter whether you are certain?
Goddess made sex for company.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

Samadhim,
One of the things you want to be careful with is turning this into a semantics game.
I don’t, but you too be careful of not projecting your idea of it over my genuine inquiry.
The point isn't whether I can nail down to your or anyone else's satisfaction what emptiness implies. That isn't going to happen.
So what is the point then? It will then remain your belief, and that was my point earlier.
You can tell me what your experience is an we can have a discussion if you want but I don't want to talk about it in terms of trying to convince you of anything. If I were to do that, I would be indulging in the very thing I see as problematic.
Fair enough, I do understand, but I have to necessarily ask; my experience about what?
All I can say as a response is to ask whether you think the distinction is meaningful.
That depends on what is being distinguished. Does it not? I might not find it that meaningful to begin with. Or are you purely talking about the aspect of ‘distinction’ itself? Then of course, distinguishing is necessarily meaningful and as natural as nature itself, and is the basic necessity on which consciousness itself rests.
I have tried to say why I think it is and why turning enlightenment into a certainty game undermines the very thing it is pointing to.
I understand what you mean by “certainty game’, and hence, that gives you no grounds on which to try and explain or say anything at all. Apparently, your explanation was not good enough for me, and hence I asked the question that I did. Now if you think that was semantics, then I can’t say anything or ask a single question.

"Worshipping" certainty is a different matter than understanding that there is no other way in which to convince ones self of what ever one is trying to understand. I can only be absolutely certain about "I am", otherwise absolutely nothing is, and to KNOW that "I am", something other than me is necessary, you can call that 'emptiness', in which case that becomes a 'thing', since it has to necessarily be some-thing else other than consciousness or it to be AWARE of IT. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to me to call it 'thing-ness' for example, for without that, consciousness cannot be. An 'emptiness' is not necessary for consciousness to be, but 'thing-ness' most definitely seems to be the case.

This too, may be a certainty to me ONLY, in and of my belief that that is absolutely certain according to my reasoning, hence I cannot actually question someone else’s certainty, but merely question his reasoning. No one can really convince somebody else, except the Self itself. All one can do is, take it or leave it, and there are those who believe that free will does not really exist; then there is actually no logical point in pressing any point at all. Is there? You see, it is not just one thing that leads me to believe what I believe; there are a whole lot of other things connected.

I have mentioned before, that this “pointing to” business, believe it or not, essentially points to ones absolutely personal beliefs, and the personal certainty that that belief has to necessarily be universal. Meanings begin and end with every individual reasoning thing, projecting meanings beyond ones own self is essentially meaningless, because any thing does not exist indefinitely, nor does its meaning-making capabilities, but however the potential of its reoccurrence has to necessarily be there, for something cannot come out of nothing, and absolutely nothing is never ever possible, by the mere fact that something already IS.
---------
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

daybrown wrote:My take is that "emptiness" is the wrong word. I dunno that the right word exists in English. Sanskrit is notorious for subtlety lacking in English. Enlightenment is more like a state of sentience in which you are aware of your own existence, but dispassionately so. From a scientific standpoint, it does not matter to you whether you continue to exist or not.

The Mahayana/Hinayana problem is whether it matters whether anyone else becomes enlightened or not, with, or without, your assistance. If egolessness is the goal, then why should you care whether anyone else gets it? Who is it that cares? And why should it matter whether you are certain?
Exactly so, and hence, I see that ego-less-ness is a delusion of the ego itself, for naturally it does care, and that seems to be a natural aspect of a very natural thing, and cannot be absolutely removed even if one thinks one does not care at all, for in that, one necessarily cares about ones own self-conviction. I – don’t – care! There is no such thing as indifference, for that means consciousness isn’t. How logical is that?!
---------
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by divine focus »

Sapius wrote:I understand what you mean by “certainty game’, and hence, that gives you no grounds on which to try and explain or say anything at all. Apparently, your explanation was not good enough for me, and hence I asked the question that I did. Now if you think that was semantics, then I can’t say anything or ask a single question.
Samadhi doesn't mean there can't be certainty. For the purposes of discussion, he's defining a particular kind of certainty by contrasting it to a different kind of certainty. Something "beyond certainty," something obviously hard to discuss since there are no words for it, yet too many words describe it.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Certainty

Post by David Quinn »

samadhi wrote:David and I had an exchange in the "Forget Enlightenment" thread a couple days ago. Here it is:
me: Do you really think there is some holy grail out there you are going to find with your logic?

DQ: I've already found it.

me: You've found something, I'll give you that. Just what you found is another question.
After I posted, I thought about it for a while. What had he found? Enlightenment? Hmm. Something else, what? And then it became obvious. Certainty. David had found his certainty.

And that raised another question with me. What is the difference between certainty and, what shall I call it? Enlightenment doesn't capture the contrast because of the tendency to treat that concept like another state of mind, grasped by the mind, ennobled by it and thus quite certain of its new state. There is something else that isn't certainty but beyond it. Whereas certainty insists on itself by definition, this has no insistence in it. In fact, there is nothing in it by which it is known, yet an encounter with it can take you past your certainty quite easily if you are open to it. Since there is nothing in it to know it by, let's call it emptiness.

Though emptiness is not something you know, perhaps it can still by contrasted with certainty in terms of the effects of each. The first is the quality of mind reflected in them. Certainty as a state of mind is reflected by ideas bound up in knowledge. "I am this, I know this, this is right, this is true, this is good," etc. Emptiness, not being a state, makes no attempt at knowledge, therefore, "I don't know what I am, I don't know what is right, what is true, what is good." Certainty is bound by logic and reason and works to convince. Emptiness arises out of experience, not logic, and doesn't try to convince but likes to inspire. It isn't that emptiness doesn't have ideas or doesn't talk about them, it's simply that all ideas are sourced in emptiness whereas all certainty is sourced in ideas.

Certainty is about arriving at the end of a process. "I was deluded, now I am enlightened." It's fixed, unchanging, unmoved by new information. Emptiness is about awakening out of a process. "I was deluded, now I see there is no one to be deluded." It is fluid, moving, always flowing into the next moment. Certainty knows its path, emptiness recognizes all paths and is comfortable with any path.

Certainty is linear, it takes things step by step, it denys contradiction, it recognizes only its own logic. Emptiness has no direction, its reasoning is paradoxical, it embraces contradiction and recognizes what is useful. Certainty embraces process and in process, the future. "You may not be certain now but do this, this and this and you will become certain." Emptiness rests in the present, there is nothing you need to do to get there because wherever you are, emptiness is. Certainty rejects that contradiction, emptiness embraces the paradox. Emptiness itself IS a paradox. You cannot say what it is because there is nothing to talk about. Yet here it is, being talked about. Like talking of non-duality. Any word creates a distinction so how can any word point to non-duality? To the mind, non-duality is emptiness. Certainty deals with it by grasping. "Yes, I'm empty, you can be empty too." Emptiness itself isn't becoming, it IS, whatever is coming out of it. You don't become it. It is the idea of becoming that stands in the way of what already is.

These are a few of the things that occurred to me. I'm sure there are others which I may share as I consider it more. I think it's helpful to look at these things because a lot of our dealings with others arise out of our certainties. Politics, economics, religion, so much of it based on certainties. And in this forum certainty has come to enlightnement. And with certainty comes conflict. So if there is conflict, you know people have become entrenched in their own certainties. It's not bad or wrong but simply indicative of a certain state. Can there be a forum on enlightenment without the certainty? What would it be like? Is anyone interested in finding out?
That’s a nice try, but you’re bumping against the limitations of your own generic mentality here.

Just because a person utilizes logic doesn’t necessarily mean that he is looking for a fixed state, or a conceptual certainty, to grasp at. That is a very presumptuous assertion for you to make. It is entirely possible that he might have a very different goal in mind – for example, he might be seeking to free his mind from all conceptual prisons in order to open it up to the great reality of Emptiness that is everywhere around us, and in us.

This great Emptiness that I speak of has nothing to do with a particular state, or point of view, or concept. It is not tied to any particular form. It cannot be found within any duality. It is identical to the living, breathing, ever-changing flow of Nature which comprises all things. It is the very same Emptiness that the Buddha spoke so eloquently about.

In a recent thread, called Fundamental Assumptions, I made these comments:
These issues [of certainty and uncertainty] only arise when you're not in that place I spoke of. When you are in that place, then even the affirmation of A=A is no longer necessary. You have transcended everything - even the need to affirm A=A; even the need to think that you are in a particular place. The very idea of being in a particular place loses all meaning.

But when you are not in that place, you are suddenly looking for certainties. You are being taken in by duality and looking for solid ground in some kind of dualistic haven. When this happens, you have no choice but to rely on logic and A=A to get you back in that transcendent place.

Certainty and uncertainty, sanity and insanity - these are phantom issues which only arise to the degree that you are being taken in by the phantom of duality.

What happens when you use knowledge and concepts to reach a realm in which you no longer depend on any concepts, points of view, or forms at all?

Free-fall is our natural state.
It is like using a boat to cross to the other side. Once you reach the other side, you no longer have any use for the boat. You no longer have to rely on it. You can put it aside and move on. Logic is that boat.

If the boat takes you beyond the duality of true and false, sane and insane, real and unreal, etc, then [certainty and uncertainty] no longer becomes an issue for you. There is no you.

If, on the other hand, you are still battling for certainty and experiencing doubts, then it means you are still being taken in by duality. In that instance you have no choice but to utilize the tools of A=A and logic to work your way out of duality.

Is it insane to go beyond all duality? The issue has no meaning for the person who is beyond all duality.

Is it insane to value A=A and ensure that one's thinking conforms to it? The person stuck in duality has no choice about the matter. To reject A=A is to fall into the realm of incoherence and contradictory nonsense, where most people dwell.

As for your (generic) idea that emptiness embraces paradoxical thinking, that is laughable.

From the perspective of an enlightened sage, there is nothing paradoxical about emptiness. He understands it completely. However, whenever ignorant people try to grapple with it, they invariably project their own delusions onto it and that is what creates the contradictions or "paradoxes". They unwittingly build unrelated edifices onto it and turn it into something that it's not.

Given this, whenever people start affirming and praising paradoxical thinking, you can take it as a given that they are trying to justify the contradictions in their own thinking. Christians do this all the time whenever they talk about God or the Bible being "paradoxical". It is a case of irrational people trying to rationalize their own irrationality.

We also see this essential dynamic in the Zen koan. A Zen koan is simply an expression of emptiness, couched in words. To the ignorant, it is a paradoxical riddle. But to the enlightened, it is clear and direct pointing to the nature of Reality.

As for your attempt to distance yourself from your own mental certainties, which clearly informed the content of what you wrote above, that is also laughable. It is hard to take anyone seriously if they are so out of touch with their own minds that they cannot recognize the role of certainty in their own thinking.

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

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

divine focus wrote:
Sapius wrote:I understand what you mean by “certainty game’, and hence, that gives you no grounds on which to try and explain or say anything at all. Apparently, your explanation was not good enough for me, and hence I asked the question that I did. Now if you think that was semantics, then I can’t say anything or ask a single question.
Samadhi doesn't mean there can't be certainty. For the purposes of discussion, he's defining a particular kind of certainty by contrasting it to a different kind of certainty. Something "beyond certainty," something obviously hard to discuss since there are no words for it, yet too many words describe it.
May be I'm not able to express myself that well, but I think I do understand. What I mean is that "beyond certainty" can ONLY be a personal certainty, be it that there is such a thing like "beyond certainty" that is logical according to an individual Self, of which he is personally very certain about.

He cannot actually convince me of that unless I follow or agree to the exact reasoning behind it. So one can tackle only the reasoning, not the certainty itself. And if he is certain that there is something "beyond certainty", then that could only be a personal thing, not universal, by the mere fact that I do not see it that way. If anything, I can only believe in his certainty because he cannot prove it to me through reason, nor can I if I claim something similar. I simply try to show what IS as I see it, not something "beyond" that can only be absolutely personal.

If one says (necessarily egotistically) that I am blind or deluded and hence cannot see it, then that’s his problem, not mine. Or is it?

I don’t mean to disrespect anybodies certainty, only that they cannot really give me that. All I can say is, hey! Good for you. But I will question that which seems illogical to me, for that by nature is the essentially living aspect of a reasoning-thing; which particular question does one focus on, is a proof of individuality to me, and absolutely necessary to even think that an individual ego isn’t real. If individual ego’s aren’t real, then what is? Unless one doesn’t consider the ego to be real, nothing that comes out of it could be real, including the claim of ego-less-ness.

I can’t bring myself to believe that those who claim to have achieved non-separated-ness, can live to tell the tale.

Lets see this for example.
David: This great Emptiness that I speak of has nothing to do with a particular state, or point of view, or concept. It is not tied to any particular form. It cannot be found within any duality. It is identical to the living, breathing, ever-changing flow of Nature which comprises all things. It is the very same Emptiness that the Buddha spoke so eloquently about.
Firstly, one is already egotistically calling Emptiness “great”, (without most probably realizing it, for definitely it displays personal value, not universal, although one can simply deny that, but then there is no point in calling it “great” in the first place), and then egotistically claiming that it has to necessarily be universal since he egotistically equates IT (another word/concept [emptiness] by definition) to nature, (which essentially says nothing other than a personal certainty in and of personal reasoning), and then, it seems to him that he has discovered, through logic, something beyond logic, since THAT is not a particular state, or point of view, or concept, which I have no reason to believe. So, what else could it be except an extremely personal certainty, and so would it be in any case for me too.
These issues [of certainty and uncertainty] only arise when you're not in that place I spoke of. When you are in that place, then even the affirmation of A=A is no longer necessary. You have transcended everything - even the need to affirm A=A; even the need to think that you are in a particular place. The very idea of being in a particular place loses all meaning.

But when you are not in that place, you are suddenly looking for certainties. You are being taken in by duality and looking for solid ground in some kind of dualistic haven. When this happens, you have no choice but to rely on logic and A=A to get you back in that transcendent place.
In my opinion, one cannot be in a place other than say in and of certainties, the NOW, by the mere fact, that if any one claims ‘there is no Absolute certainty’, he is immediately asked – are you CERTAIN about THAT?!

In accordance to that, what is claimed above, is self-contradicting since David obviously is CERTAIN about THAT, HOWEVER; so he isn’t beyond duality however. So, it remains a personal certainty in and of duality itself. Any point of view can only be in and of duality itself, not beyond it, or from beyond it.
---------
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Certainty

Post by daybrown »

Sapius wrote:
daybrown wrote:My take is that "emptiness" is the wrong word. I dunno that the right word exists in English. Sanskrit is notorious for subtlety lacking in English. Enlightenment is more like a state of sentience in which you are aware of your own existence, but dispassionately so. From a scientific standpoint, it does not matter to you whether you continue to exist or not.

The Mahayana/Hinayana problem is whether it matters whether anyone else becomes enlightened or not, with, or without, your assistance. If egolessness is the goal, then why should you care whether anyone else gets it? Who is it that cares? And why should it matter whether you are certain?
Exactly so, and hence, I see that ego-less-ness is a delusion of the ego itself, for naturally it does care, and that seems to be a natural aspect of a very natural thing, and cannot be absolutely removed even if one thinks one does not care at all, for in that, one necessarily cares about ones own self-conviction. I – don’t – care! There is no such thing as indifference, for that means consciousness isn’t. How logical is that?!
Not very. I rather prefer the Stoic position to only care about that which you have some control over. You have the most control over what you think, and what you feel about what you think.
Goddess made sex for company.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

daybrown wrote:Not very. I rather prefer the Stoic position to only care about that which you have some control over. You have the most control over what you think, and what you feel about what you think.
Could you please explain that?
My English is not that good. Though I've heard it before, I had to look up 'Stoic'.
Main Entry: (1)sto·ic
Pronunciation: \ˈstō-ik\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin stoicus, from Greek stōïkos, literally, of the portico, from Stoa (Poikilē) the Painted Portico, portico at Athens where Zeno taught
Date: 14th century
1:capitalized : a member of a school of philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium about 300 B.C. holding that the wise man should be free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submissive to natural law
2: one apparently or professedly indifferent to pleasure or pain.
---------
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Certainty

Post by daybrown »

I've yet to see a work by Zeno, the founder of Stoicism. But in reading Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, from whom we have an extensive body of work, I see that they actually cite Aristotle far more often. I've yet to see a point on which they differ from him, and kinda wonder why its not called 'Aristoteleanism'. Maybe that's too long a word.

But the place to start is with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, which he said he got from his father, Nicomachus. So maybe its Nicomacheanism instead.

Anyway, Stoicism is based on logic, not faith. One could be an atheistic Stoic. To claim that something, in this case a divine, does not exist is not logical since the absence of proof is not proof. None of the Greek Philosophers were atheists. Stoics did not however, try to define the divine or say what divine will was. You cannot justify action in the name of a Stoic god.

Instead, they follow Aristotle who said that the evildoer wishes to feel good about himself the same as everyone else. But to do that, he must forget the evil he does. But in forgetting, he also forgets the situation and factors leading up to evil, and thus he repeeats his action. He therefore does not learn from experience, and remains a fool. That is punishment enuf. There's no need for divine justice.

The other thing we see is that the evildoer, as we now say, 'objectifies' his victims, making them things, not people, and thereby avoiding the guilt. However, Aristotle noted, this means that he not only does not feel their pain, he has no idea at all of how they feel, and cannot understand why others act as they do. And since he does not understand why they do as they do, he fears what they mite do. And to deal with that, he relies on weapons and force, those things which he feels he does understand. But the problem with that, is that there is never enuf force.

I dunno if the foregoing is too complex for most people to deal with, or if they are just too neurotic and want to keep on being driven by their passions. Aristotle said that most people are such slaves to passion that they'd be better off in the hands of more rational masters. This has been used to justify slavery, but nobody ever set out to see if the masters were, indeed, more rational. IIRC, it was Marcus Aurelius who noted that boys who grow up learning to control others, dont learn to control themselves. He should know. His son was Commodus. Course, Roman Senator Seneca was a another famous Stoic, and his most famous student was Nero.

Gibbon commented that none of the emperors who grew up as boys in Rome turned out to be competent emperors, and that all the remarkable examples grew up on farms out in the boonies someplace. Epictetus was exiled from Rome, sent to live in obscurity, for which he was grateful. Likewise, he grieved when his neighbor received an appointment to Rome. So we see an example where a Stoic has an emotion, but as he has made clear, he chooses to express it, in this case partly as a warning to his friend of the danger he faces in the marble jungle.

Starting from Aristotle, they try to understand the nature of man, and of themselves, and seek to improve their powers of reason, not faith. They warn of the attachment and distortion of perception from sex or other pleasure, but any pleasure can be indulged in at some level, yet remembering how it can become addiction. Dont be celibate, but make sure you have the resources to properly raise a child before siring one.

You can prolly find the Nicomachean Ethics in any Western Language posted online for free download. The English version is about 90 pages. Prolly 60 in Greek. "The Golden Sayings of Epictetus" is also posted, be a couple hundred pages. But that was just a collection of his dialogues, never really intended as a book, its a bit repetitive. http://daybrown.org/epictus/epictus.html includes a summary.

Stoics didnt aspire to sainthood. Marcus Aurelius never mentions slavery in his famous "meditations" even tho the Stoic stand against it was one of their well known principles. But as emperor, not a Stoic, he knew what he could get done, and eradicating slavery in the Roman empire was not an option. The wages of sin are not damnation, but neurosis.
Goddess made sex for company.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

All this history on human ethics is well and good, Daybrown, but don’t you have anything to say for yourself? Or since you prefer to take a Stoic position, you prefer not to even express your position in your own words?

However…
Anyway, Stoicism is based on logic, not faith.
OK.
One could be an atheistic Stoic. To claim that something, in this case a divine, does not exist is not logical since the absence of proof is not proof.
I see; so say if I say that I have been interacting with ghosts and sprits, then there is no logical reason for you to doubt me, even though I might not have any proof; and that my claim should be sufficient enough, and that you have no logical basses from which to question me. And if you do doubt or question me, then my logical argument should be - absence of proof is not proof, so either believe me without a question, or take a walk, but I do speak the truth however.
None of the Greek Philosophers were atheists. Stoics did not however, try to define the divine or say what divine will was. You cannot justify action in the name of a Stoic god.
What made them think they would have to justify any thing at all? What I understand from this is, Stoicism does not essentially require any justifications to begin with, since logically speaking - absence of proof is not a proof at all - so absolutely anything goes, irrelevant of there being a justification or not.
Instead, they follow Aristotle who said that the evildoer wishes to feel good about himself the same as everyone else. But to do that, he must forget the evil he does. But in forgetting, he also forgets the situation and factors leading up to evil, and thus he repeeats his action. He therefore does not learn from experience, and remains a fool. That is punishment enuf. There's no need for divine justice.
Strange. How could an “evil doer” forget the “evil” that he does, if he does not even consider it to be “evil” in the first place. I think he must remember his actions, but not necessarily as "evil". Just that it simply makes him feel good, just like everyone feels good about doing anything at all, I can agree to that.

And learn what from experience? That he feels good, or that he realizes that his deed is indeed "evil"? He doesn’t even consider it to be evil in the first place, so what is there to learn? Being a human himself, living in the same society, he most probably should be aware what evil means, but being selfish enough, or may be helpless enough, or may be thinking that he is smart enough to get away with it, (all being the aspects of human nature), he turns for an easy way out. Isn’t this a possibility? Or is it necessarily only as Aristotle says?
The other thing we see is that the evildoer, as we now say, 'objectifies' his victims, making them things, not people, and thereby avoiding the guilt. However, Aristotle noted, this means that he not only does not feel their pain, he has no idea at all of how they feel, and cannot understand why others act as they do. And since he does not understand why they do as they do, he fears what they mite do. And to deal with that, he relies on weapons and force, those things which he feels he does understand. But the problem with that, is that there is never enuf force.
I can't see what is Aristotle actually talking about? I think the evildoer is perfectly aware that they are people, since he is perfectly aware that he can scare another by wielding a weapon. I think Aristotle had some really shit-scared evildoers running about carrying weapons to protect themselves from the good-doers, since they did not understand why these "good" people are offering me food for instance, or being so polite to each other. And this is supposed to have created some real terror in the evildoers that made them pick up weapons? I don't see how or why?

BTW, the evildoer may not feel guilty because of his ‘objectification’, but simply that he doesn’t consider his deed “evil” for a start. Or is aware, but doesn't care.

Can we have some of your personal views as against historical figures? I like history too, but I prefer talking about what you or I think, rather than discuss over what history has recorded. There is a time to discuss that too, but I had asked for clarification, or justification, of your personally preferred position of Stoicism.
I rather prefer the Stoic position to only care about that which you have some control over. You have the most control over what you think, and what you feel about what you think.
According to this, I should actually care only about what I think and feel thereof, and screw the rest. I don’t have to necessarily justify to anyone. Never mind if others call or think of me as an evildoer. Would that be close enough?
---------
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Certainty

Post by samadhi »

daybrown,
My take is that "emptiness" is the wrong word. I dunno that the right word exists in English. Sanskrit is notorious for subtlety lacking in English.
Probably, but it's the best I could come up with.
Enlightenment is more like a state of sentience in which you are aware of your own existence, but dispassionately so. From a scientific standpoint, it does not matter to you whether you continue to exist or not.
I assume you mean whether the body continues to exist or not? Emptiness can't not exist, can it?
The Mahayana/Hinayana problem is whether it matters whether anyone else becomes enlightened or not, with, or without, your assistance. If egolessness is the goal, then why should you care whether anyone else gets it? Who is it that cares? And why should it matter whether you are certain?
It isn't that you no longer care, I believe. It is that your caring is no longer on a personal level. Nothing needs to happen. That doesn't stop you from doing whatever it is you will do.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Certainty

Post by samadhi »

Sapius,
me: One of the things you want to be careful with is turning this into a semantics game.

you: I don’t, but you too be careful of not projecting your idea of it over my genuine inquiry.
Okay. I was just wary of the "are you certain of not being certain?" kind of thing (I don't know that that's where you were heading but I didn't want to go there) which just goes in circles.
me: The point isn't whether I can nail down to your or anyone else's satisfaction what emptiness implies. That isn't going to happen.

you: So what is the point then? It will then remain your belief, and that was my point earlier.
The point is to get some reflection from others. Yes, it is my belief that being certain of enlightenment is the tail wagging the dog. I tried to say why. I would like to hear what you think and why. From a shared perspective may come a greater understanding/appreciation.
me: You can tell me what your experience is an we can have a discussion if you want but I don't want to talk about it in terms of trying to convince you of anything. If I were to do that, I would be indulging in the very thing I see as problematic.

you: Fair enough, I do understand, but I have to necessarily ask; my experience about what?
Certainty with respect to emptiness, what else?
me: All I can say as a response is to ask whether you think the distinction is meaningful.

you: That depends on what is being distinguished. Does it not? I might not find it that meaningful to begin with. Or are you purely talking about the aspect of ‘distinction’ itself? Then of course, distinguishing is necessarily meaningful and as natural as nature itself, and is the basic necessity on which consciousness itself rests.
I was trying to distinguish between certainty and what I called emptiness.
me: I have tried to say why I think it is and why turning enlightenment into a certainty game undermines the very thing it is pointing to.

you: I understand what you mean by “certainty game’, and hence, that gives you no grounds on which to try and explain or say anything at all.
I'm not sure why you say this. The point isn't how certain I am of what I am sharing, it is to reflect on what certainty means in relation to something I call emptiness. What does it mean to say, "yes, I have found it."? Is "it" something to be grasped by the mind, which is what certainty implies? All religions teach certainty yet that is precisely the problem with them, isn't it? So is emptiness too a matter of contention, "I am more empty than you."? Do you see where that goes?
Apparently, your explanation was not good enough for me, and hence I asked the question that I did. Now if you think that was semantics, then I can’t say anything or ask a single question.
I wasn't trying to silence you. I didn't understand the question you raised except as a kind of comment about the uncertainty of my take on emptiness. I am not looking for a certainty on emptiness, only a perspective based on your own inquiry.
"Worshipping" certainty is a different matter than understanding that there is no other way in which to convince ones self of what ever one is trying to understand. I can only be absolutely certain about "I am", otherwise absolutely nothing is, and to KNOW that "I am", something other than me is necessary, you can call that 'emptiness', in which case that becomes a 'thing', since it has to necessarily be some-thing else other than consciousness or it to be AWARE of IT. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to me to call it 'thing-ness' for example, for without that, consciousness cannot be. An 'emptiness' is not necessary for consciousness to be, but 'thing-ness' most definitely seems to be the case.
I don't think this is the emptiness I am referring to. Emptiness in my context is about what enlightenment reveals about the self, not the "not me-ness" encountered in ordinary consciousness.
This too, may be a certainty to me ONLY, in and of my belief that that is absolutely certain according to my reasoning, hence I cannot actually question someone else’s certainty, but merely question his reasoning. No one can really convince somebody else, except the Self itself.
Again, I don't want to convince you. Your reflection on an idea has value whether that reflection is shared by me or not.
All one can do is, take it or leave it, and there are those who believe that free will does not really exist; then there is actually no logical point in pressing any point at all. Is there? You see, it is not just one thing that leads me to believe what I believe; there are a whole lot of other things connected.
Of course. But that isn't a problem, is it?
I have mentioned before, that this “pointing to” business, believe it or not, essentially points to ones absolutely personal beliefs, and the personal certainty that that belief has to necessarily be universal.
Why does it have to be universal? Who is saying that?
Meanings begin and end with every individual reasoning thing, projecting meanings beyond ones own self is essentially meaningless, because any thing does not exist indefinitely, nor does its meaning-making capabilities, but however the potential of its reoccurrence has to necessarily be there, for something cannot come out of nothing, and absolutely nothing is never ever possible, by the mere fact that something already IS.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Sharing my perspective does not require you adopting it nor vice versa. Your perspective has value to me. Why else would I ask for it?
daybrown: If egolessness is the goal, then why should you care whether anyone else gets it? Who is it that cares? And why should it matter whether you are certain?

Sapius: Exactly so, and hence, I see that ego-less-ness is a delusion of the ego itself, for naturally it does care, and that seems to be a natural aspect of a very natural thing, and cannot be absolutely removed even if one thinks one does not care at all, for in that, one necessarily cares about ones own self-conviction. I – don’t – care! There is no such thing as indifference, for that means consciousness isn’t. How logical is that?!
Caring is not necessarily about the ego. Only when the ego makes the caring about itself, i.e. "my caring deserves acknowledgment, look how much I care," does it become problematic.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Certainty

Post by samadhi »

divine focus,
Samadhi doesn't mean there can't be certainty. For the purposes of discussion, he's defining a particular kind of certainty by contrasting it to a different kind of certainty.

Something "beyond certainty," something obviously hard to discuss since there are no words for it, yet too many words describe it.
Yeah, I think you see what I was getting at. Certainty isn't a problem, it reflects a state of mind. It is the using of that state of mind to grasp what essentially isn't a state of mind that I see as a "tail wagging the dog" application.

Sapius,
df: Samadhi doesn't mean there can't be certainty. For the purposes of discussion, he's defining a particular kind of certainty by contrasting it to a different kind of certainty. Something "beyond certainty," something obviously hard to discuss since there are no words for it, yet too many words describe it.

Sapius: May be I'm not able to express myself that well, but I think I do understand. What I mean is that "beyond certainty" can ONLY be a personal certainty, be it that there is such a thing like "beyond certainty" that is logical according to an individual Self, of which he is personally very certain about.
"Beyond certainty" is only meant to indicate what isn't graspable by the mind, not some higher form of certainty. It is only personal in the sense that a human being is expressing him or herself. The Tao Te Ching is personal in that way too but expresses something that is completely impersonal regardless of who actually wrote it.
He cannot actually convince me of that unless I follow or agree to the exact reasoning behind it.
Look at the Tao and tell me whether it is expressing certainty or something else.
So one can tackle only the reasoning, not the certainty itself.
The Tao doesn't reason, does it? Would you find it more or less compelling if it did?
And if he is certain that there is something "beyond certainty", then that could only be a personal thing, not universal, by the mere fact that I do not see it that way. If anything, I can only believe in his certainty because he cannot prove it to me through reason, nor can I if I claim something similar. I simply try to show what IS as I see it, not something "beyond" that can only be absolutely personal.
Yes, I can't show it to you. If I could, then we would be talking about reason and logic. Emptiness isn't about reason and logic. What is your own experience of it?
If one says (necessarily egotistically) that I am blind or deluded and hence cannot see it, then that’s his problem, not mine. Or is it?
You don't have to see it! I am not trying to convince you! I am only asking you to look.
I don't mean to disrespect anybodies certainty, only that they cannot really give me that. All I can say is, hey! Good for you. But I will question that which seems illogical to me, for that by nature is the essentially living aspect of a reasoning-thing;
I posted to get other perspectives. It's fine to bring some reason to those perspectives. It doesn't mean reason and logic is all that is within one's perspective.
which particular question does one focus on, is a proof of individuality to me, and absolutely necessary to even think that an individual ego isn't real. If individual egos aren't real, then what is? Unless one doesn't consider the ego to be real, nothing that comes out of it could be real, including the claim of ego-less-ness.
You are confusing a persona with an ego. Everyone has a persona (including certain conditioning that comes with a persona), a means of expression. The ego is that which claims ownership of the persona. You don't need one of those.
I can’t bring myself to believe that those who claim to have achieved non-separated-ness, can live to tell the tale.
Hmm. Try Nisargadatta. He's pretty good.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Certainty

Post by samadhi »

David,
That’s a nice try, but you’re bumping against the limitations of your own generic mentality here.
First comment, a putdown. Yeaaaaaaa!
Just because a person utilizes logic doesn’t necessarily mean that he is looking for a fixed state, or a conceptual certainty, to grasp at. That is a very presumptuous assertion for you to make. It is entirely possible that he might have a very different goal in mind – for example, he might be seeking to free his mind from all conceptual prisons in order to open it up to the great reality of Emptiness that is everywhere around us, and in us.
Logic is about the mind and functions within it. Trying to use logic to go beyond the mind is like trying to use a spaceship to go beyond space. Perhaps it can show you the contradictions inherent in ego but that has never seemed to be your point. Am I wrong in saying that you insist logic is the means to enlightenment?
This great Emptiness that I speak of has nothing to do with a particular state, or point of view, or concept. It is not tied to any particular form. It cannot be found within any duality. It is identical to the living, breathing, ever-changing flow of Nature which comprises all things. It is the very same Emptiness that the Buddha spoke so eloquently about.
Okay.
In a recent thread, called Fundamental Assumptions, I made these comments:

These issues [of certainty and uncertainty] only arise when you're not in that place I spoke of. When you are in that place, then even the affirmation of A=A is no longer necessary. You have transcended everything - even the need to affirm A=A; even the need to think that you are in a particular place. The very idea of being in a particular place loses all meaning.

But when you are not in that place, you are suddenly looking for certainties. You are being taken in by duality and looking for solid ground in some kind of dualistic haven. When this happens, you have no choice but to rely on logic and A=A to get you back in that transcendent place.
Hmm. "A=A" is no different than "A", or "I am." "I am" isn't logic as that term is commonly understood. If you insist on calling it logic, then I would say you have a need to appear logical, which is about your image, not about logic.
Certainty and uncertainty, sanity and insanity - these are phantom issues which only arise to the degree that you are being taken in by the phantom of duality.
Yes, this is my point, that certainty is within duality, the realm of mind. Bringing it to emptiness is throwing away the baby to splash around in the bathwater.
What happens when you use knowledge and concepts to reach a realm in which you no longer depend on any concepts, points of view, or forms at all?

Free-fall is our natural state.
Sure but you have to give something up to get there. You are trying to drag all your baggage with you when you embrace logic from the standpoint of emptiness.
It is like using a boat to cross to the other side. Once you reach the other side, you no longer have any use for the boat. You no longer have to rely on it. You can put it aside and move on. Logic is that boat.
Okay, you and I probably agree more than not about the other side. My difficulty is you purporting to be on the other side and clinging to logic at the same time. You say you put it down and move on but you don't. Your teaching is about logic and certainty.
If the boat takes you beyond the duality of true and false, sane and insane, real and unreal, etc, then [certainty and uncertainty] no longer becomes an issue for you. There is no you.
Sure.
If, on the other hand, you are still battling for certainty and experiencing doubts, then it means you are still being taken in by duality. In that instance you have no choice but to utilize the tools of A=A and logic to work your way out of duality.
Logic makes you logical. Am I being illogical when I say that? Or are you saying emptiness is logical?
Is it insane to go beyond all duality? The issue has no meaning for the person who is beyond all duality.

Is it insane to value A=A and ensure that one's thinking conforms to it? The person stuck in duality has no choice about the matter. To reject A=A is to fall into the realm of incoherence and contradictory nonsense, where most people dwell.
No one rejects "I am." The problem is attaching "I am" to "this" or "that." And even that is problematic only when suffering arises.
As for your (generic) idea that emptiness embraces paradoxical thinking, that is laughable.
Ah, let's see your perspective!
From the perspective of an enlightened sage, there is nothing paradoxical about emptiness. He understands it completely.
Understanding cuts two ways. There is "I understand" as in "I know" and there is the understanding that is about not knowing. The former is about certainty, but the understanding of a sage isn't about what is known. Remember, the tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. What can't be known is what is eternal. And yet that "not knowing" seems to be what distinguishes the sage and his ease. That is a paradox since everyone else seeks more knowledge to arrive at peace, not less.
However, whenever ignorant people try to grapple with it, they invariably project their own delusions onto it and that is what creates the contradictions or "paradoxes". They unwittingly build unrelated edifices onto it and turn it into something that it's not.
Sure. It's not approachable by mind, where certainty resides.
Given this, whenever people start affirming and praising paradoxical thinking, you can take it as a given that they are trying to justify the contradictions in their own thinking. Christians do this all the time whenever they talk about God or the Bible being "paradoxical". It is a case of irrational people trying to rationalize their own irrationality.
Paradox is not simply that which can't be understood by conventional reasoning. Nonsense can't be understood either, that doesn't make it paradoxical. True paradox is not about what the mind can reason out, it is the use of contradiction to point to a higher truth. For instance, the Tao is about paradox, is it not?

Look, and it can't be seen.
Listen, and it can't be heard.
Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't bright.
Below, it isn't dark.
Seamless, unnamable,
it returns to the realm of nothing.
Form that includes all forms,
image without an image,
subtle, beyond all conception. Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end.
You can't know it, but you can be it,
at ease in your own life.
Just realize where you come from:
this is the essence of wisdom
. (v.14, Mitchell)

Pure paradox.
We also see this essential dynamic in the Zen koan. A Zen koan is simply an expression of emptiness, couched in words. To the ignorant, it is a paradoxical riddle. But to the enlightened, it is clear and direct pointing to the nature of Reality.
The reality will always appears as paradox within duality. You cannot express non-duality without paradox. That's why koans use it.
As for your attempt to distance yourself from your own mental certainties, which clearly informed the content of what you wrote above, that is also laughable. It is hard to take anyone seriously if they are so out of touch with their own minds that they cannot recognize the role of certainty in their own thinking.
I love this. It expresses your essence beautifully. First, your certainty about my certainty. What could be more wonderfully you than that! Next your condemnation. Also, perfectly you, setting yourself up on high. Finally, your dismissal of me based on your certainty of your own projection! Voila! You are the perfect product of your teaching. But your teaching is much more than what you think it is.

For the record, my experience of emptiness comes from sources such as the Tao and teachers both living and dead. Am I certain there is something besides certainty? It is pure foolishness to see it in those terms. Whatever I believe is not the point. I am not here trying to impress anyone with my certainty. I am asking you and others to look at your own certainty just as I look at mine. Are you saying that this is a useless exercise? What is this forum for if not to question both certainty and enlightenment and what each points to?
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Certainty

Post by daybrown »

>All this history on human ethics is well and good, Daybrown, but don’t you have anything to say for yourself? Or since you prefer to take a Stoic position, you prefer not to even express your position in your own words?>
Why should anyone care what I say? Epictetus, Aristotle, & Marcus Aurelius have been read for a couple thousand years by enuf illustrious men to suggest that they mite be worth looking into.

And what I've posted of what they had to say seemed worth consideration just on its own terms without regard to who said it first. The Greeks had the notion that ideas were not private personal property, but gifts of the Muses. On that basis alone they have value without any appeal to any other authority.

In like manner, I've met those who say they can perceive auras. I already know my hearing is impaired, my sense of taste was never that good to start with, yet I dont argue with them any more than I would a wine taster or musician. If you say you see ghosts, I dont need proof. I dont argue with you to try to prove such cannot exist. I dont see the point. What's it to me? Why should I care whether you believe in god or not? Stoic moral values dont depend on a faith in god.

Epictetus, picking up on Aristotle, argued that you did not make your body, the divine did. I dunno who made your body, but doubt very much that you did. You can call the creative force that enabled you to exist whatever you like. Now, which of these ideas are mine, Aristotle's, or Epictetus's I dont remember, Or what parts of which idea were posted first from which source. The ancients werent real picky about it. They didnt have a copywrite office. None of them got their panties in a wad if I didnt get the attribution right.

You make your own judgment on whether the ideas are right; that's what matters. It looks to me like all these guys were Epoptes. That had a lot to do with their ideas, and why none of them were atheists. Ethnobotanist RG Wasson made the case that they all took Kykeion, and thereby got a generous hit of Lysergic acids. And having done acid myself, I can understand some aspects of where they are coming from which are not evident to those who've not tried the sacred potion or experienced an altered state of consciousness.

If you ask for evidence, I say the evidence is within your own head, and that an entheogen affects the neural wiring, like ramping up the speed and power of a CPU, and that while that produces lotsa garbage, it also produces new levels of data organization that are hard, or impossible, for most people in the ordinary state of mind to achieve. You forget the garbage, but the enlightenment had at Eleusis or wherever, is unforgettable.

The extrapolation of that spiritual insight produced, among other things, stoicism. Evildoers cant deal with it. That which they have repressed comes back to them, like a bad trip. They can do alcohol, which is a depressant, making them forget even more, but acid freaks them out. You can go around treating other people like traffic, but like traffic, you can only predict how the mass of it flows, not what any given vehicle will do. So- whatcha need to drive is a big truck to feel secure. Its not agile, and not energy efficient, and maintenance is expensive.

There aint no free lunch; if you are not a social predator, you can think more clearly about what others are doing and why. You can do so dispassionately because you are not depending on their resources. The successful hunters studied the prey animals, learned their ways, but after the kill, performed expiation rituals to deal with the guilt. Christianity was so successful because Jesus did that for them after they raped the planet.

There is now a lot of synergy between Stocism, Aristotle, and the human genome, DNA, the biochemistry of the mind, and neurological data. Nobody is claiming divine revelation. Even if the ideas first appear in an altered state of consciousness, the question remains whether they still seem valid in the cold light of day. Those coming to mind all appear more valid than those resting on the claims of divine revelation in a sacred text.

Epictetus is about ordinary people, not saints, prophets, or apostles. "You say he is angry with you. Ask him to stop by, and I will speak with him. But to <b>you,</I> I have nothing to say about <i>his</I> anger." What would a shrink say?
Goddess made sex for company.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

Daybrown, I find your expressions much clearer than I could have found reading any of the philosophers you mention, whom I have never actually read. I, myself simply discuss ‘ideas’ rather than ‘people’ as such, and not necessarily interested in who said what, but what was said; and have the same attitude towards any “super” natural claims as you describe, but however, I do engage in discussing ideas that fall outside such super natural beliefs, or at least claim to be, for my own further understandings of other’s experiences.

I agree to the essence of what you describe, and for that I did not have to really read or learn as such. Life itself is a big teacher, if one is ready to listen. This tells me, if one thinks deeply enough about his own experiences, then that should most probably be a natural outcome, however, as you indicate, most are too busily engrossed with daily life to even stop for a while and reflect back. I guess it’s a matter of interest and the focus of ones curiosity. I don’t believe that any of the ideas I have actually belong to me in any sense, nor do I have any copyright to them, that is the extent I believe the interdependency of all things teaches me.
You make your own judgment on whether the ideas are right; that's what matters.
Ultimately, yes, but what I, or any individual thinks as right, may not necessarily be right/good for all, and that is what can be discussed in my opinion. So, it may not be that I argue over what one calls that which made ones existence possible, but what may actually follow or surround some unreasonable beliefs. I try to find rationality in others belief that is, but of course, I necessarily make my own judgment on whether certain ideas are right, and that’s what really matters eventually.
---------
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Certainty

Post by daybrown »

Part of the problem is that the translations you can download were all written by late 19th or early 20th century academics in Greek or Latin. They tried to make the text look like the King James Bible to give it some authority. Yech. We have the word "euphemism" because of the original author's disdain for flowery speech. I've read of some new translations that seem to have been aware of the problem, but even so their target market would be the readers of the Standard Revised.

Then too, neither the original authors nor the translators dreamed of a time when there was so much other media clammoring for your attention, and they expected readers to have the time to pause and reflect on complex presentations on the page. [One of the things I try to do at http://daybrown.org is present facing pages so that the reader can glance back to refresh short term memory, and thereby present ideas that span more than a few lines. I've started to think about the Chinese scroll, in which blocks of text on a horizontal scroll were shown with the preceeding 'page' always still visible. With the new wide screen PC flat panel format, it seems possible. ]

But like anything else, if you read enuf of it, you learn to skim thru like a lawyer, picking up on the pertinent facts amid the verbiage. Here, when stuff rolls up past the top of the screen, its gone, out of sight, out of mind. You can trace ideas down thru the centuries; nobody thot they had "god's word", so they thot there was room for improvement and clarification.

When Solon founded the Athenian democracy, he burnt the mortgages in the town square and told them that if they allowed slavery, rich men would by slaves and use their labor to get the money to buy up their land. What we'd now call agribusiness consolidation. Aristotle saw how the Athenians, by making slaves of POWs, became slaves to passion, and lost the democracy to the demagoguery of Alcibiades.

Epictetus, who was born a slave, and knew it up close and personal, understood where Aristotle was coming from. Then went on to point out how slavery is not only bad for the slave, its bad for the master. But now, we can bring all those insights and add in the recent data on neurology, brain chemistry, DNA, and psychopathology that tend to create slave, or wage slave, relationships with masters.

The ancients didnt have the anthropology reports showing how tribal elders, witches, and shamen raised the kids of incompetent parents to maximize diversity in small gene pools. The kids mite have good immune responses to cholera, dysentery, plague, malaria... and what we have now is a problem of case management. You cant really free slaves; you can only give them more rational masters. http://daybrown.org/fertilty/fertility.html is about breeding fewer slaves.
Goddess made sex for company.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

Samadhim;
"Beyond certainty" is only meant to indicate what isn't graspable by the mind, not some higher form of certainty. It is only personal in the sense that a human being is expressing him or herself. The Tao Te Ching is personal in that way too but expresses something that is completely impersonal regardless of who actually wrote it.
You know what, I did write up a response to your posts, but I think that might take this thread off the immediate topic too soon. I know you are talking about the different kinds of certainty, but unless I don’t ask for clarifications of what I think are your assumptions, I cannot reach the point of discussing the “kinds” of certainties. I might not see a certain paradox as a paradox, which you readily accept it as so. So, the direction I would take is to question from the basics, including asking your definition of the Tao or emptiness, which you assume that I should know and accept it as you do. Your response already reflects that.

So I think you better discuss this with David since you two have had quite a few discussions, and know where each other stands.

I may join in later. I hope you don't mind.
---------
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Certainty

Post by Sapius »

Daybrown, I have looked into your site earlier too; I see much effort has been put into it. Quite a few interesting info all in one place.
---------
Locked