FOOTHOLDS

[Jason]

You are confusing these issues over and over again.

It's you who are confusing them.

No it really is you, and you are looking dumb because of it.

- it simply means that no causes will ever arise that will destroy it. At best you could say that it is merely an unfounded prediction that these people are making when they say that such causes could never arise to destroy heaven.

No. I'm saying that it's an outright impossibility that there could ever be a thing that cannot be affected from the outside. And I'm saying that it's a fantasy that such a thing could exist — which is precisely the fantasy of inherent existence.

That's not "the fantasy of inherent existence" at all. That there is an "outside" in the first place, is enough to mean that the thing does not inherently exist. Have you taken a blow to the head recently, by chance?

Let me quote the very first sentence that I wrote in this thread about this subject, and which you have managed to completely confuse and veer away from:

All "non-inherent existence" means, in QSR philosophy, is that a thing can't exist entirely on its own.

"A and non-A" describes the principle of non-inherent existence. As you stated yourself, there is something outside heaven, which means that heaven is not the only thing that exists. So there is "heaven and non-heaven" in your scenario, and thus heaven in your scenario actually does follow the principle of non-inherent existence.

[Jason]

I think I have enough grounds to call you to debate. Do you accept?

No I don't. Let's just keep discussing it here.

But you just said you have "called David" on his stating the truth that causal interdependence means things don't really exist at all. And you just said it was pathetic of me to state it as well.

I didn't mean I had "called" David to a crucible debate on the issue, I meant I had pointed out his error.

Am I to conclude that you haven't really thought the matter over at all?

No, I've thought it over, I'm just not interested in a crucible debate on it. Let's keep discussing it in this thread.

[Jason]

That something might exist forever doesn't mean it inherently exists. It would be caused to exist forever.

The trouble is, the causal conditions which sustain such a thing would themselves be required to maintain their existence forever, and for that to happen their own causal conditions would need to be maintained forever, and so on. It wouldn't be possible for a thing, or a group of things, to last forever without it having drastic implications for everything else in reality.

You're completely wrong.

Non-inherent existence means a thing, "A", can only exist if there also exists a "non-A." In other words, a thing can only exist if there is something that is not it.

Say we take "self" and "non-self" as particular manifestations of this principle. Self is obviously a specific thing, but non-self is not a specific thing.

Because non-self is not a specific thing it can change. At one moment in time "self" may exist in contrast against "car", at the next moment in time the car may have disappeared and "self" now exists in contrast against "truck." Both car and truck are "non-self" and thus can serve as the necessary contrast that allows the self to non-inherently exist.

So we can see that a thing can continue to exist even when the things that it relies upon for contrast and non-inherent existence, change.

[Kevin Solway]

but non-self is not a specific thing.

Since it is specified, it is a specific thing. It is specified to be the thing that "not the self".

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, stop it, Kevin!

Non-self is every thing (that is, the class of things) that is not self. Since heaven is specified, it is a thing. Even if it is a thing caused to come into existence by the thing delusion, it is still a thing.

Given that, this too is consistent:

Because non-self is not a specific thing it can change. At one moment in time "self" may exist in contrast against "car", at the next moment in time the car may have disappeared and "self" now exists in contrast against "truck." Both car and truck are "non-self" and thus can serve as the necessary contrast that allows the self to non-inherently exist.

Just how one defines or conceives of heaven itself is "caused" by the things with which he contrasts it.

[Matt Gregory]

Jason and Leyla, you're trying to project logical thought onto Christians, but it doesn't work that way. If, for example, you were to ask them, "What would happen to heaven if everything else in the universe disappeared?", they would assuredly say that heaven would still exist. They don't acknowledge the heaven/not-heaven relation. That's what the belief in inherent existence is. It doesn't matter where their ideas actually come from. What matters is how they are using them.

[Leyla Shen]

I so am not, Matt Gregory! :)

I said, earlier:

However, I think it should also be conceded that such an observation is not made by the Christian. He doesn’t stop to think deeply about what it means for the self to exist inherently---in fact, he is precluded from it.

I'm "projecting" logical thought onto Jason.

[Alex Jacob]

'Hey, Alex!'
'Yeah? Whaddayou want?'
'Got a question for you!'
[Sotto voce: 'Oh Jaysus!'] Okay, what's the fucking question?
'If the whole universe were to disappear, would Heaven still be there?'
'What have you got planned, you shmuck!?'
'It's a theoretical question Alex'
'I don't think it is, I think you got something planned, you Satanist!'
[Sotto voce: Oh Christ!] No, it's a legit question Alex, whattaya think?'
'If the whole universe disappeared, Heaven'd disappear too. No doubt about it!'
[silence]
[...]
'But how could Heaven just disappear, all your theistic beliefs hinge on it!'
'Well, it would, it would fucking just disappear, just completely disappear'.
[silence]
'And you're sure of that?'
'Yep, I'm sure, Matt'
[Wounded silence]
'Well, I'm not so sure, Alex'
'No?'
'No. Heaven'd still have to be there, It'd havta be there, for Christians.'
'Ya think?
'Yes. Heaven would HAVE to remain even if everything disappeared'.
'Well, you're wrong Matt, and you're an idiot to think so!'
'Heaven would still be there, I'm certain of it!'
'It.s logically impossible, Matt! Use your fucking brain, man!'
'ALEX, I'M TELLING YOU THAT A PROPER CHRISTIAN'D BELIEVE THAT HEAVEN WOULD STLL BE THERE EVEN IF THE UNIVERSE WERE WIPED OUT!'
[Thoughtful silence]
'Well, to each his own then Matt...'

[Jason]

I'm "projecting" logical thought onto Jason.

Don't you think I'm being logical?

[Leyla Shen]

I understand your logic perfectly well, Jason. I have not at all been sarcastic in my support of it.

The reason I put the word "projecting" in quotes is because Matt's observation of my engaging in such an activity is entirely unsupported. Of course, as always, if he can demonstrate otherwise with actual evidence and supporting logical proofs, I'm always willing to reconsider.

[Matt Gregory]

I so am not, Matt Gregory! :)

I said, earlier:

However, I think it should also be conceded that such an observation is not made by the Christian. He doesn’t stop to think deeply about what it means for the self to exist inherently---in fact, he is precluded from it.

I'm "projecting" logical thought onto Jason.

Ok, sorry. My mistake. And I just realized that I only repeated the same point Kevin made almost verbatim. So, nevermind :)

[Matt Gregory]

'Hey, Alex!'
'Yeah? Whaddayou want?'
'Got a question for you!'
[Sotto voce: 'Oh Jaysus!'] Okay, what's the fucking question?
'If the whole universe were to disappear, would Heaven still be there?'
'What have you got planned, you shmuck!?'
'It's a theoretical question Alex'
'I don't think it is, I think you got something planned, you Satanist!'
[Sotto voce: Oh Christ!] No, it's a legit question Alex, whattaya think?'
'If the whole universe disappeared, Heaven'd disappear too. No doubt about it!'
[silence]
[...]
'But how could Heaven just disappear, all your theistic beliefs hinge on it!'
'Well, it would, it would fucking just disappear, just completely disappear'.
[silence]
'And you're sure of that?'
'Yep, I'm sure, Matt'
[Wounded silence]
'Well, I'm not so sure, Alex'
'No?'
'No. Heaven'd still have to be there, It'd havta be there, for Christians.'
'Ya think?
'Yes. Heaven would HAVE to remain even if everything disappeared'.
'Well, you're wrong Matt, and you're an idiot to think so!'
'Heaven would still be there, I'm certain of it!'
'It.s logically impossible, Matt! Use your fucking brain, man!'
'ALEX, I'M TELLING YOU THAT A PROPER CHRISTIAN'D BELIEVE THAT HEAVEN WOULD STLL BE THERE EVEN IF THE UNIVERSE WERE WIPED OUT!'
[Thoughtful silence]
'Well, to each his own then Matt...'

Yeah, I know it's bad form to assume what someone will say, but frustration makes me rash :)

[Leyla Shen]

I'll let you off this time, Matt, my friend in Kant...

~

Jason:

Because non-self is not a specific thing it can change. At one moment in time "self" may exist in contrast against "car", at the next moment in time the car may have disappeared and "self" now exists in contrast against "truck." Both car and truck are "non-self" and thus can serve as the necessary contrast that allows the self to non-inherently exist.

I think we have no choice but to go back to the law of identity, A=A. A thing is that thing and not any thing else.

Now, from there, we can contemplate dichotomies, which gets interesting. I think the true dichotomy is expressed as A/not-A in such a way as, in the dichotomy itself (e.g., self/other), both A and not-A can be either. That is, “other” can be expressed as “A” and self as “not-A,” and vice versa. In each case, we have a singular thing/identity. However, if you try to do this with, say, self/not-self, as two existing singularities in a dichotomy rather than as a singularity (“self” in the original case under discussion) expressed as dichotomy, you must exit dichotomy and enter plurality in order to actually say something meaningful, and plurality is different. The singular identity A (“Woman,” for example) as a plurally-derived, singular identity, looks more like this: b+t+c=W (or, in Kevin’s case, u+f+o=W) rather than W/not-W.

I think this is what you were pointing at when you said “not-self” isn’t a specific thing.

Thus, we see that this idea of A/not-A, whilst fundamentally essential as a function of logic in its own right, is a very particular and limited expression of existence (or, any particular, singular thing like "heaven") by contrast.

[David Quinn]

That something might exist forever doesn't mean it inherently exists. It would be caused to exist forever.

The trouble is, the causal conditions which sustain such a thing would themselves be required to maintain their existence forever, and for that to happen their own causal conditions would need to be maintained forever, and so on. It wouldn't be possible for a thing, or a group of things, to last forever without it having drastic implications for everything else in reality.

You're completely wrong.

Non-inherent existence means a thing, "A", can only exist if there also exists a "non-A." In other words, a thing can only exist if there is something that is not it.

Non-inherent existence means so much more than that. What you describe here is just one facet of the overall understanding of what it means for things to lack inherent existence. There are thousands of other facets to uncover as well.

Ideally, you should be able to perceive the illusion of existence in everything that you experience in the most concrete way possible and from countless angles and perspectives. It should permeate every aspect of your conscious life. That is the only way such a truth can begin to impact on the mind and orientate it towards wisdom.

At the moment, you are keeping philosophic truth, or a narrow version of it, confined to a very abstract realm, well away from the rest of your personal existence. You do have your irritations and ego-enjoyments to protect, after all.

Say we take "self" and "non-self" as particular manifestations of this principle. Self is obviously a specific thing, but non-self is not a specific thing.

Because non-self is not a specific thing it can change. At one moment in time "self" may exist in contrast against "car", at the next moment in time the car may have disappeared and "self" now exists in contrast against "truck." Both car and truck are "non-self" and thus can serve as the necessary contrast that allows the self to non-inherently exist.

So we can see that a thing can continue to exist even when the things that it relies upon for contrast and non-inherent existence, change.

"Self" and "non-self" are both static abstract categories that refer to ever-changing realities. In reality, the self changes just as constantly as the non-self does. As abstract categories, neither of them change, other than when they get obliterated.

So you're not being consistent in your analysis here. Your treating the self in its static abstract mode, while at the same treating the non-self in its ever-changing reality mode.

The only way that the non-self, as an abstract category, can change is by being obliterated, and that in turn can only happen if the self, as an abstract category, were to be obliterated. Both of these categories live and die together.

Applying your own reasoning in reverse, we could just as easily say that the non-self never changes, even though the self is constantly changing. And it would be just as meaningless.

-

[skipair]

Ideally, you should be able to perceive the illusion of existence in everything that you experience in the most concrete way possible and from countless angles and perspectives. It should permeate every aspect of your conscious life. That is the only way such a truth can begin to impact on the mind and orientate it towards wisdom.

Ok, this makes sense. I've been looking for a "master key" or singlular tool for the task, but attacking on countless and deepening angles sounds more realistic!

[Jason]

At the moment, you are keeping philosophic truth, or a narrow version of it, confined to a very abstract realm, well away from the rest of your personal existence. You do have your irritations and ego-enjoyments to protect, after all.

If it fails in the abstract realm, as I believe I have shown that it does, then only a fool would try to make it affect their personal existence.

Say we take "self" and "non-self" as particular manifestations of this principle. Self is obviously a specific thing, but non-self is not a specific thing.

Because non-self is not a specific thing it can change. At one moment in time "self" may exist in contrast against "car", at the next moment in time the car may have disappeared and "self" now exists in contrast against "truck." Both car and truck are "non-self" and thus can serve as the necessary contrast that allows the self to non-inherently exist.

So we can see that a thing can continue to exist even when the things that it relies upon for contrast and non-inherent existence, change.

"Self" and "non-self" are both static abstract categories that refer to ever-changing realities. In reality, the self changes just as constantly as the non-self does. As abstract categories, neither of them change, other than when they get obliterated.

So you're not being consistent in your analysis here. Your treating the self in its static abstract mode, while at the same treating the non-self in its ever-changing reality mode.

The only way that the non-self, as an abstract category, can change is by being obliterated, and that in turn can only happen if the self, as an abstract category, were to be obliterated. Both of these categories live and die together.

Applying your own reasoning in reverse, we could just as easily say that the non-self never changes, even though the self is constantly changing. And it would be just as meaningless.

You're wrong, and this is all irrelevant, because I wasn't conceiving of the self or the non-self as static. A thing doesn't have to be static for me to be able to categorize it and for it to have an identity. A walking cat is still as much a cat as one that is frozen solid.

Given your response you obviously didn't understand my point anyway. Let me go over it again for you. This is what you wrote:

The trouble is, the causal conditions which sustain such a thing would themselves be required to maintain their existence forever, and for that to happen their own causal conditions would need to be maintained forever, and so on. It wouldn't be possible for a thing, or a group of things, to last forever without it having drastic implications for everything else in reality.

For the sake of simplicity I will imagine that the universe only ever contains two existing things at the same moment, but my argument and following example would work with any number of things. Now remember, I am using the principle of non-inherent existence which says that a thing can only exist when there is something other than it also existing.

At 9AM the self and a tree exist in the universe.
At 10AM the self and a duck exist in the universe(the tree no longer exists.)
At 11AM the self and a car exist in the universe(the tree and duck no longer exist.)

In each case the self exists alongside something that is not it, therefore the self is following the principle of non-inherent existence. Yet the "causal conditions which sustain" the self, as you put it, have changed dramatically. At first a tree is causing the self to exist non-inherently, then a duck is causing the self to exist non-inherently, then a car is causing the self to exist non-inherently.

So the same "causal conditions" absolutely do not have to be "maintained forever" for a particular thing to exist forever. There are also no "drastic implications for everything else in reality" that you claim, rather the causal conditions could be practically anything - there is essentially a complete disconnect between a thing and its causes.

Your argument has been eviscerated.

[Dan Rowden]

That was lame, Jason and seemingly blind and irrelevant to what David just said.

[Leyla Shen]

At 9AM the self and a tree exist in the universe.
At 10AM the self and a duck exist in the universe(the tree no longer exists.)
At 11AM the self and a car exist in the universe(the tree and duck no longer exist.)

[laughs] Wow. Simple? I have to brace myself, here, Jason! Here are my thoughts.

I don’t know about this example. Reminiscent of the scene in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where everything on the spaceship, including certain appearances and activities of the people, morphed into completely different forms from one moment to the next. Yet, the form that must be assumed to be the essential self (location and physical characteristics, probably?)--the selfhood that was maintained by each self despite the continued, instantaneous morphing remained the same, thus allowing self-continuity.

I mean, how do you actually distinguish that the three selves in your example above aren’t three different particular-by-relation-to-the-other selves? Time? If, at 12PM, self and tree exist in the universe, do we conclude that since these are the same causal conditions that existed at 9AM, the 9AM and 12PM selves are the same self?

Self cannot come into existence without other, whether the other is a single tree, duck, car, all four at the same moment, or 42 different forms altogether. Yet, with this, we still haven’t touched upon the question of continuity (permanent or impermanent) of “the particular” self because what makes the self particular is, in fact, continuity between the forms with which it is contrasted.

For instance, continuity of self might be proposed as follows:

At 9AM the self, a tree, grass, rain and mud exist in the universe
At 10AM the self, a tree, grass, rain, mud and a bump on the forehead exist in the universe
At 11AM the self, a bump on the head, a hospital bed, a nurse and an ice pack
At 12PM the self, no bump, a car, a road and home exist in the universe
At 1PM the self, two cars, and a collision exist in the universe
At 1.000001 no self

(As an aside, essentially, how one gets heaven at 1.000002 from this is beyond me. How far away is it?)

[Jason]

That was lame, Jason and seemingly blind and irrelevant to what David just said.

Dan I can't remember the last time you made more than an insubstantial snipe at my posts. Plenty of your other posts are cryptic single sentences, silly jokes or more snipes. Your apparent boredom and lack of energy and interest in this forum seems to be really killing the quality of your posts.

[Dan Rowden]

That was lame, Jason and seemingly blind and irrelevant to what David just said.

Dan I can't remember the last time you made more than an insubstantial snipe at my posts.

Maybe your posts have not been this insubstantial before. I was encouraging you to go back and read what David posted, because your reply seemed to be utterly blind to it, as though you hadn't read it. It's kind of hard to do much more given the glaring nature of it (unless, of course, I am totally misreading your intended meaning). The specific form "other" takes in 100% irrelevant to the essential point that it is necessary for "self" to exist. Saying that the "other" can be all the things you listed isn't actually saying anything. The content of the category of "other" changes and can be anything at all.

The "causal conditions which sustain" the self is - not self. End of story. End of discussion. End of argument. The form "not self" takes doesn't matter, although it is determined in its specificity by the self that it delineates (even if minutely and incrementally), like an object in a bath of water determines the specific form the water takes. Change the object and the water changes, although throughout any alternations of form it always represents the category - not self, or other.

Is that substantial enough for you?

[Jason]

Dan I can't remember the last time you made more than an insubstantial snipe at my posts.

Maybe your posts have not been this insubstantial before. I was encouraging you to go back and read what David posted, because your reply seemed to be utterly blind to it, as though you hadn't read it. It's kind of hard to do much more given the glaring nature of it (unless, of course, I am totally misreading your intended meaning). The specific form "other" takes in 100% irrelevant to the essential point that it is necessary for "self" to exist. Saying that the "other" can be all the things you listed isn't actually saying anything. The content of the category of "other" changes and can be anything at all.

I refer you to what David wrote here(pay extra attention to the second paragraph):

The trouble is, the causal conditions which sustain such a thing would themselves be required to maintain their existence forever, and for that to happen their own causal conditions would need to be maintained forever, and so on. It wouldn't be possible for a thing, or a group of things, to last forever without it having drastic implications for everything else in reality.

If we use Kevin's water fountain as an example, for such a fountain to last forever the pipes leading to it would have to remain intact forever, the electricty driving the motors would have to be supplied forever, the coal used to generate the electricity would have to be mined forever, the earth would have to survive the sun going supernova and last forever, and so on.

David is saying that "non-fountain" must necessarily be composed of specific things, and that these specific things must continue to exist for the fountain to continue existing. Does this not contradict what you wrote just above? Can you see the issue now?

The "causal conditions which sustain" the self is - not self. End of story. End of discussion. End of argument. The form "not self" takes doesn't matter, although it is determined in its specificity by the self that it delineates (even if minutely and incrementally), like an object in a bath of water determines the specific form the water takes. Change the object and the water changes, although throughout any alternations of form it always represents the category - not self, or other.

Do you think that my example of the self being caused first by a tree, then by a duck, then by a car, is a valid example of the principle of non-inherent existence?

[Kevin Solway]

Do you think that my example of the self being caused first by a tree, then by a duck, then by a car, is a valid example of the principle of non-inherent existence?

A self is caused by "not-self." "Not self" contains countless things, such as ducks, cars, trees, etc. A self is caused by a tree only to the extent that a tree is part of "not self."

[Dan Rowden]

Do you think that my example of the self being caused first by a tree, then by a duck, then by a car, is a valid example of the principle of non-inherent existence?

I need extra info to answer you: specifically, does the self in your "timeline" change or remain static?

[Jason]

Do you think that my example of the self being caused first by a tree, then by a duck, then by a car, is a valid example of the principle of non-inherent existence?

I need extra info to answer you: specifically, does the self in your "timeline" change or remain static?

I'm not sure that information is necessary. Put simply, self=self. It's a specific example of, and consistent with, A=A. That's enough for it to be in accordance with the principles of identity and non-inherent existence espoused by you, David and Kevin isn't it?

Perhaps you could tell me if you think the self must or must not remain static, and how or if you think this impacts on my example.

You didn't respond to the part of my post relating to David's post. Should I take it that you changed your mind on the issue?

[mansman]

Am i the only one?

Dis is xscrewsheightinglee painful to wach....