To Dennis

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

chikoka wrote:True emptiness. Nothing can exist under these rules. In order for statement i to be true (as it obviously is) nothing must be in existence.No minds , no reality, nothing.

Statement i was: *there is no such thing as meaning*


You said, in exactly these words: in order that 'there is no such thing as meaning' to be true, nothing must be in existence.

Then you said "experience is meaningless to but I'm positive it exists".

See how the contradiction is coming only from you? There is no such thing as meaning and for this to be true nothing must be in existence, followed by, experience is in existence despite it being meaningless.

You decided the contradiction when you equated meaninglessness with 'nothing in existence', those two aren't the same.

Why can't something be in existence and be meaningless?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You decided the contradiction when you equated meaninglessness with 'nothing in existence', those two aren't the same.

Why can't something be in existence and be meaningless?
well, yeah,
meaningless means it doesn't exist from it's own side therefore can't be attached to meaningfully.
you can attempt to attach yourself to it meaningfully as a meaning-maker and it will slip away.

doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
how it exists is the investigation.


what does objective reality mean.
'existing independent of consciousness'

when did that happen Chikoka?
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: To Dennis

Post by chikoka »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: Why can't something be in existence and be meaningless?
If This was chess i would say check but maybe not check mate.

Why cant the above quote apply to reality?
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You said, in exactly these words: in order that 'there is no such thing as meaning' to be true, nothing must be in existence.

Then you said "experience is meaningless to but I'm positive it exists".

See how the contradiction is coming only from you? There is no such thing as meaning and for this to be true nothing must be in existence, followed by, experience is in existence despite it being meaningless.
I acknowledge the contradiction because that was what i was intending to do.Find a contradiction that i cant fix. Because i have another like it: that of objective reality being meaningless and yet able to exist. it was a parallel. I'm saying fix my contradiction about meaning and existence and you would have simultaneously fixed the contradiction of a meaningless objective reallity that exists.
Last edited by chikoka on Mon May 20, 2013 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: To Dennis

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
You decided the contradiction when you equated meaninglessness with 'nothing in existence', those two aren't the same.

Why can't something be in existence and be meaningless?
well, yeah,
meaningless means it doesn't exist from it's own side therefore can't be attached to meaningfully.
you can attempt to attach yourself to it meaningfully as a meaning-maker and it will slip away.

doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
how it exists is the investigation.


what does objective reality mean.
'existing independent of consciousness'

when did that happen Chikoka?
Hi Dennis

You've talked about meaninglessnes.
Now tell me one thing that has meaning.
Dennis Mahar wrote: well, yeah,
meaningless means it doesn't exist from it's own side therefore can't be attached to meaningfully.
you can attempt to attach yourself to it meaningfully as a meaning-maker and it will slip away.

doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
how it exists is the investigation.
Another check

Just like objective reality. VIz the underlined words following from the preceding question.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

your meaning is 'objective reality'.
you are attached to that. It is meaningful to you.
you can't explain it and you are 'positive' about it.
It is a possibility for you.
'objective reality' never existed independent of a thinker/thought.

your actual experience is that objects appear to your mind and you provide the meaning or attachment possibility.

Evolutionists/scientists construct a fossil record.
what they 'see' is appearance and disappearance of life-forms over time due to causes/ conditions.
What they 'see' is causality.
Causality 'seen' does not exist independent of consciousness.

No scientific theory has ever or will ever exist independent of the consciousness conceiving it.

objective reality means existing independently of consciousness.
that is a belief, an assumption, a case of meaning making.
because there has never been any evidence whatsoever of anything 'outside' consciousness.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: To Dennis

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:your meaning is 'objective reality'.
you are attached to that. It is meaningful to you.
you can't explain it and you are 'positive' about it.
It is a possibility for you.
'objective reality' never existed independent of a thinker/thought.

your actual experience is that objects appear to your mind and you provide the meaning or attachment possibility.

Evolutionists/scientists construct a fossil record.
what they 'see' is appearance and disappearance of life-forms over time due to causes/ conditions.
What they 'see' is causality.
Causality 'seen' does not exist independent of consciousness.

No scientific theory has ever or will ever exist independent of the consciousness conceiving it.

objective reality means existing independently of consciousness.
that is a belief, an assumption, a case of meaning making.
because there has never been any evidence whatsoever of anything 'outside' consciousness.
For you to say "objective reality doesnt exist" You have to know what "objective reality" means, otherwise you are talking of what you dont know or to rephrase the words in italics :" you dont know what you are talking about" , do you agree? (that you dont know what you are talking about)
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To Dennis

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
No scientific theory has ever or will ever exist independent of the consciousness conceiving it.

We don't conceive reality, we translate reality. This is the mistake that everyone seems to be making. We translate what is out there, our mind is made from the same physics. It would be a paradox for our mind to conceive our mind. Any theory that contains a paradox is a false theory. Nobody bothers with a theory that has a paradox as its foundation.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

I said 'objective reality' is your possibility for existence, what is meaningful to you.
your grip on it.

I say the idea of 'objective relativity' requires a thinker/thought.

when you realise emptiness you will see consciousness chooses reality.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: To Dennis

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:I said 'objective reality' is your possibility for existence, what is meaningful to you.
your grip on it.

I say the idea of 'objective relativity' requires a thinker/thought.

when you realise emptiness you will see consciousness chooses reality.
But nothing is meaningful to anyone.
What does "emptiness" mean?
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: To Dennis

Post by chikoka »

chikoka wrote: Dennis Mahar wrote:
I said 'objective reality' is your possibility for existence, what is meaningful to you.
your grip on it.

I say the idea of 'objective relativity' requires a thinker/thought.

when you realise emptiness you will see consciousness chooses reality.


But nothing is meaningful to anyone.
LOl, this also means i dont know what i am talking about (as i dont know what meaning means), 's why i think both our analyses are wrong somewhere.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

What does "emptiness" mean?
when you experience emptiness or formlessness.
you will see that form is empty of inherent existence, that it is ceaselessly changing.
a mind viewing form as solid, permanent and having its own 'soul' is to experience erroneous thinking.

any object you sense didn't drop out of the sky.
it is composed of an array of causes/conditions you don't 'see'.
you only 'see' the object.

If your mind was a clear and pure detachment you would 'see' the intricate web of causes/conditions just 'hanging there' against a background of ineffable silence.
The objects,causes/conditions are mind.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: To Dennis

Post by chikoka »

I meant what does the word emptiness mean.
I'm trying to trap you with an infinite regress.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You are living in Disneyland buddy.

You've experienced emptiness many times in your life.
somebody told you something, you engaged its meaning, got all gooey-eyed and emotional, went on the ride and suddenly you 'realised' it was bulldust and you 'got off it'.
Then you 'found' something else.

How many times have you put yourself in somebody's way and tried to persuade them you are 'all that', (put them under a spell) and they found out you're full of shit.
They 'got' your act.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dan Rowden »

chikoka wrote:I meant what does the word emptiness mean.
I'm trying to trap you with an infinite regress.
Yes, but what you're doing is equivalent to endlessly asking what is "half of that" and pretending it means numbers don't exist.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To Dennis

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:I said 'objective reality' is your possibility for existence, what is meaningful to you.
your grip on it.

I say the idea of 'objective relativity' requires a thinker/thought.

when you realise emptiness you will see consciousness chooses reality.
That still includes a paradox. You have included a pre-thought...

"What is meaningful to you."

So you have to have a meaning first, which is also consciousness. The pre-thought, before a thought. All you have done is moved reality one step down, and tried to hide it. You are in an infinite regression. It means that you are trying to avoid physics, and not succeeding.

Now you need a pre-pre-thought... and you can go on forever.

That's why thoughts are circular, a circuit. Then you don't need the pre-thought.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Talking conventionally.
Primordial being prior to conceptualising mind.
Doesn't mean conceptualising mind cannot avail itself of correct view.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Mon May 20, 2013 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: To Dennis

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:You are living in Disneyland buddy.

You've experienced emptiness many times in your life.
somebody told you something, you engaged its meaning, got all gooey-eyed and emotional, went on the ride and suddenly you 'realised' it was bulldust and you 'got off it'.
Then you 'found' something else.

How many times have you put yourself in somebody's way and tried to persuade them you are 'all that', (put them under a spell) and they found out you're full of shit.
They 'got' your act.
Dude, I'm not living in disneyland, i do beleive in meaning which is just as real as objective reality.
I'm not trying to prove that i'm all that, Didnt i say your veiws made sense? and didnt i the last time we met admit that you were right despite your attempt to make me feel bad about it.
this is what you said:

"Facing up is a very emotional experience for you chikoka"

despite attacking my ego i was honest enough to keep silent as i fully got your views.
Now i posed a question to you that you keep evading.

"What does meaning mean?"
With the collary of the infinite regress.

I'm asking you that because i dont know what it means despite (us both) beleiving in it.because i also dont know what objective reality means despite beleiving in it.

Try be honest like i try to be dennis.
Dan Rowden wrote:
chikoka wrote:I meant what does the word emptiness mean.
I'm trying to trap you with an infinite regress.
Yes, but what you're doing is equivalent to endlessly asking what is "half of that" and pretending it means numbers don't exist.
Its not the same firstly because half is a number and at each halving there is a well defined number , the result does not depend on any other number (its half)
After each question in the infinite regress the result fully depends on the next question.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

"What does meaning mean?"
attachment to form.

logic is form.
it goes so far, don't get lost in it.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: To Dennis

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
"What does meaning mean?"
attachment to form.

logic is form.
it goes so far, don't get lost in it.
What does attachment mean?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

What does attachment mean?
belief in inherent existence.

40 love, your serve.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: To Dennis

Post by Russell Parr »

chikoka wrote:Its not the same firstly because half is a number and at each halving there is a well defined number , the result does not depend on any other number (its half)
After each question in the infinite regress the result fully depends on the next question.
Just because a number is "well defined" doesn't mean that there's no requirement for a conscious agent to employ its "existence". The same goes for each question of "meaning" in your infinite regression. Both numbers and meaning are abstract.
Last edited by Russell Parr on Tue May 21, 2013 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To Dennis

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Talking conventionally.
Primordial being prior to conceptualising mind.
Doesn't mean conceptualising mind cannot avail itself of correct view.
A primordial being has physics. You mention a void. What I read is....

1/ Void
2/ Everything

It's like you don't need any logic in your explanation. My brother is dyslexic, and he does this a lot. He misses out any logic to go from point A to point B. Void to everything.. no middle.

You need a middle to connect the void to the pre-thought, and the middle is evolution. Then you just end up with the same theory as everyone else... evolution.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

P,
You've made a range of assessments,
out of which a set of options showed up,
from that you got a formula you settled into.
its your winning formula.

The formula is 'holes and fillers'.

That's a wonderful realisation for a Dentist.
Thanks for the heads up.

We don't want to be frikkin' Dentists.

The chair you are sitting on, appearing to consciousness.
explain to me,
how does the chair exist?

An explanation of which the mode of appearance and the mode of being are in agreement.
match the existence and the appearance.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To Dennis

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:P,
You've made a range of assessments,
out of which a set of options showed up,
from that you got a formula you settled into.
its your winning formula.

The formula is 'holes and fillers'.

That's a wonderful realisation for a Dentist.
Thanks for the heads up.

We don't want to be frikkin' Dentists.

The chair you are sitting on, appearing to consciousness.
explain to me,
how does the chair exist?

An explanation of which the mode of appearance and the mode of being are in agreement.
match the existence and the appearance.

The chair exists from sphere held together by flow forces through holes. The same as a bead necklace. The tree is a flow force from the ground, it even looks like a fountain that has been frozen in time. Everything is flow forces.. holes, and fillers.

The chair appearing to consciousness however is an illusion. We invent the colours, the textures, the temperature... but we don't invent the location, and the push forces that tell us that we are bumping into it.

The major problem with your idea of the void is the failure to realize location is real. If I think of a chair, that thought needs a location to separate it from the thought of an Orange. The mind cannot work without locations for each thought, so a void fails to work. A void has no mapping, and the mind requires mapping.

A void has no mapping, no physics, so the void is wrong.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To Dennis

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The chair appearing to consciousness however is an illusion
The chair exists.
A mode of consciousness ascertains how the chair exists.
Agree?

If you agree we must look for a mode of consciousness that 'groks' the truth of the chair.
Locked