To Dennis

[chikoka]

To Dennis (and Q,S and R) everything is a concept. That is because meaning is conceptual, everything depends on its meaning so by transitivity everything depends on the mind.
Sounds solid...but wait?

i) *there is no such thing as meaning*

Only correlations.An arrangement of atoms in the brain correlate with something else and that is what we call meaning. It has no ontological basis.
Before i was told "reality" has no meaning so how can it be said of it that it exists?
But now i say to you meaning has no meaning neither do concepts so none of them ,by your logic , can be said to exist.
What then is the status of statement i). Does it have meaning?
I am forced to say no and yes.

Where does that leave us ?

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.

But nothing is a concept, you say, and so requires minds for its existence.

If it is the prerequisite that something must be a concept in order for it to exist then we have two competing concepts both fully existing.

That of "nothing" and that of "everything".
So which is it?

Does nothing exist or does everything exist.
Even everything exists is not much good all by itself for with it married bachelors should also be in existance.

If everything is a concept means "every" "thing" then the married bachelor thing wont work , but if you go that route then nothing is a concept must also mean "no" "thing" (e.g the computer i am typing on) is a concept. Which swings us all the way back to an objective reality.

which is the lesser evil; "married bachelor" or "no thing is a concept"?

BTW. I still dont see how the so called non dual "totality" doesnt qualify as objective reality.


Then we come to the non duality of the totality.

Duality is an illusion brought about by how the mind deals with the totality.Take a peice of paper with a hole in it.
Does the hole exist independantly of the paper.
I agree that it doesnt, but does the hole exist independantly of another hole i may choose to make somewhere else on the paper.
Yes.
But their still connected, you say, .
I disagree , and to do this i invoke the ealitic principle.
To exist is to cause.
If the second hole doesnt cause anything in the other hole then to each other they do not exist.And that is the proper definition of a thing.
An existant that does not get caused (the ealitic principle) or affected by another existant for it to be.

[Dennis Mahar]

Your post Chikoka appears to me.

An appearance.
I'm not looking for the meaning in the post.
I'm looking for the Truth in regard to the post.

the mode of being of the post.
how the post comes to exist.

The post appears thanks to an array of causes coming together, as wide as the universe, too numerous to mention.

Truth must be a concordance between the appearance of the post and the how the post came to appear.
The post is caused,
therefore the post lacks something,
a complete and utter lack of inherent existence.

The post is relative, its of dependent origination.

The logic is, if it doesn't exist from its own side, is causally related, then it has no meaning absolutely.

[chikoka]

The logic is, if it doesn't exist from its own side, is causally related, then it has no meaning absolutely.

But meaning itself and everything else has no meaning.

Your points make a lot of sense, but then so do mine.
In all this i've taken this to mean that perhaps (both) of our analyses are wrong because they cant both be right.
If you do not agree with this , show me where i err.And do so by quoting the OP and replying after. Point by point.

[Dennis Mahar]

a married bachelor is a human convention concerning human relationships.
can't be married and a bachelor at the same time.
its a rule humans made up.
Its an idea.
married is an idea
bachelor is an idea.
the basis of division for them is Ideas.
you can get unmarried tomorrow via divorce and become a bachelor.
you can be a bachelor today and get married tomorrow.
convention doesn't admit both status' at the same time
it's a distinction concerning phenomena.
to be married is relative.
to be a bachelor is relative.

there is a domain ,inferential logic,
if its inferred a bachelor can exist then inferentially a married bachelor cannot exist logically by way of inferential logic.
married and bachelor are theoretical possibilities enrolled in by consensual agreement and have no absolute existence.
before the logicians cut that up.
I'll say bachelorhood and marraigehood are causal machinery conferred upon by consensual community agreement.
If a couple appear in my vision and are wearing gold rings and holding hands its safe to infer they are married and neither he can be a bachelor nor she a spinster because those status' cannot be conferred upon by way of an agreed community consensus.

a married bachelor has no meaning conventionally
married and bachelor are supposed to be meaningful conventionally

These appearances, for Truth to occur, must be investigated on the basis of how they came to be.
The Truth is they are empty of inherent existence ultimately, are of dependent origination.

If you punched the second hole in the paper then its existence depended on that.
I don't know how the first hole occurred but it would have been caused as well as the paper.
all these phenomena are of dependent origination.

What has meaning in the Context I live in,

Tomas is enrolled in the possibility of marraige.
He brings a fullsome Spirit to that table and reports that he is dining at a banquet.
Meaning is Spiritual.

[chikoka]

a married bachelor is a human convention concerning human relationships.
can't be married and a bachelor at the same time.
its a rule humans made up.
Its an idea.
married is an idea
bachelor is an idea.
the basis of division for them is Ideas.
you can get unmarried tomorrow via divorce and become a bachelor.
you can be a bachelor today and get married tomorrow.
convention doesn't admit both status' at the same time
it's a distinction concerning phenomena.
to be married is relative.
to be a bachelor is relative.

there is a domain ,inferential logic,
if its inferred a bachelor can exist then inferentially a married bachelor cannot exist logically by way of inferential logic.
married and bachelor are theoretical possibilities enrolled in by consensual agreement and have no absolute existence.
before the logicians cut that up.
I'll say bachelorhood and marraigehood are causal machinery conferred upon by consensual community agreement.
If a couple appear in my vision and are wearing gold rings and holding hands its safe to infer they are married and neither he can be a bachelor nor she a spinster because those status' cannot be conferred upon by way of an agreed community consensus.

a married bachelor has no meaning conventionally
married and bachelor are supposed to be meaningful conventionally

These appearances, for Truth to occur, must be investigated on the basis of how they came to be.
The Truth is they are empty of inherent existence ultimately, are of dependent origination.

If you punched the second hole in the paper then its existence depended on that.
I don't know how the first hole occurred but it would have been caused as well as the paper.
all these phenomena are of dependent origination.

What has meaning in the Context I live in,

Tomas is enrolled in the possibility of marraige.
He brings a fullsome Spirit to that table and reports that he is dining at a banquet.

Dont get hung up on the idea of a married bachelor. "Everything" would include even purple flying t-rex's.
Lets do this point by point.

Do you agree that there is no such thing as meaning?
And while you are at it show why the meaninglessnes of objective reality differes in any way from the meaninglessnes of concepts and even the term mind.

[Dennis Mahar]

Do you agree that there is no such thing as meaning?

Clearly there is meaning.
People are passionate in their existence.
They protect, defend vigorously and promote what is meaningful to them.
Spirited.

The spirited investment is in people, ideas, institutions and things mainly.
Those phenomena lack permanence, inherent existence.

ultimately,
its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.

meaning is and it isn't.
that looks like a paradox.

if looked at in a particular way,
meaning opens up as a possibility,
a possibility for wise investment of Spiritedness.


the possibility is a way out of suffering.

[chikoka]

Clearly there is meaning.

Do you disagree with the following quote of mine . Please explain why.

) *there is no such thing as meaning*

Only correlations.An arrangement of atoms in the brain correlate with something else and that is what we call meaning. It has no ontological basis.

[chikoka]

Just to add to the above quote:

Correlations cannot be deemed to be wrong or right. Their essence does not permit it.So even if you accept that meaning correlates recursicvely then permits the meaning of other things. The truth of that correlation cannot be established by that recursion.

[Dennis Mahar]

the brain doesn't exist from its own side.
its phenomenal.
it processes data.

correlations being dependent cannot be cause,
is that what you mean.

because we live in causal machinery there are causes conditions for suffering.
whether suffering is right or wrong is a moot point.
a sane option is addressing the causes of suffering.
that's the possibility.
that's the meaning.

[chikoka]

the brain doesn't exist from its own side.
its phenomenal.
it processes data.

correlations being dependent cannot be cause,
is that what you mean.

because we live in causal machinery there are causes conditions for suffering.
whether suffering is right or wrong is a moot point.
a sane option is addressing the causes of suffering.
that's the possibility.
that's the meaning.

No.
My point is that every time you ask what something means , another term, (in the answer to that question of what something means) can also be asked of it what it means.And then the answer to that second question brings in another term which we may ask what it means .This leads us to an infinite regress and nowhere closer to finding out what that something is. Therefore there is no meaning, just a passing down of terms.

Since there is no meaning saying anything ,(objective reality for example), is meaningless doesnt state anything amazing or wonderful because nothing else has meaning either.

[Dennis Mahar]

You've slipped into post modernism.

Truth means.

Your post Chikoka appears to me.

An appearance.
I'm not looking for the meaning in the post.
I'm looking for the Truth in regard to the post.

the mode of being of the post.
how the post comes to exist.

The post appears thanks to an array of causes coming together, as wide as the universe, too numerous to mention.

Truth must be a concordance between the appearance of the post and how the post came to appear.
The post is caused,
therefore the post lacks something,
a complete and utter lack of inherent existence.

The post is relative, its of dependent origination.

The logic is, if it doesn't exist from its own side, is causally related, then it has no meaning absolutely.

from Quinn:

"As for surrendering, the only kind of surrendering that I recognize as being valid is the surrender to truth. This involves recognizing what truth is, such as the truth of causation, and allowing it to transform your whole being. It is a case of allowing God to take over your whole life. And that requires dissolving one’s self in the sea of causation which makes up the body of God

from Kierkegaard:

Coming close to God brings catastrophe. Everyone whose life does not bring relative catastrophe has never even once turned as a single individual to God; it is just as impossible as it is to touch the conductors of a generator without getting a shock

God creates 'what is'.

I don't know how that happened. There was a shift. One minute I was looking at you from my vantage point, from my perspective. The next minute something shifted (did you do that?) and I saw the world from your vantage point, from your perspective. That's when I saw you're everywhere. When I looked at the world from your vantage point, from your perspective, I saw you're everywhere.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Dependent origination is ultimately also referring to consciousness. This is part of what it means that appearances are empty, empty of existence outside of appearing. You experience the "how"/"where“ of their existence every day, it can't be described better than you can "see" it. Everything does exist as far as seen of the mind. Nothing exists save for what is seen of the mind. The whole array of concepts and meanings and sights and feelings depend on the mind, "mind" also depends on what is seen of the mind.

Dennis doesn't mention precisely that everything depends on consciousness because everything depends on everything else, which is the same thing and should be obvious. Unless you were going to say consciousness didn't exist.

[chikoka]

You've slipped into post modernism.

Truth means.

Your post Chikoka appears to me.

An appearance.
I'm not looking for the meaning in the post.
I'm looking for the Truth in regard to the post.

the mode of being of the post.
how the post comes to exist.

The post appears thanks to an array of causes coming together, as wide as the universe, too numerous to mention.

Truth must be a concordance between the appearance of the post and how the post came to appear.
The post is caused,
therefore the post lacks something,
a complete and utter lack of inherent existence.

The post is relative, its of dependent origination.

The logic is, if it doesn't exist from its own side, is causally related, then it has no meaning absolutely.

from Quinn:

"As for surrendering, the only kind of surrendering that I recognize as being valid is the surrender to truth. This involves recognizing what truth is, such as the truth of causation, and allowing it to transform your whole being. It is a case of allowing God to take over your whole life. And that requires dissolving one’s self in the sea of causation which makes up the body of God

from Kierkegaard:

Coming close to God brings catastrophe. Everyone whose life does not bring relative catastrophe has never even once turned as a single individual to God; it is just as impossible as it is to touch the conductors of a generator without getting a shock

God creates 'what is'.

I don't know how that happened. There was a shift. One minute I was looking at you from my vantage point, from my perspective. The next minute something shifted (did you do that?) and I saw the world from your vantage point, from your perspective. That's when I saw you're everywhere. When I looked at the world from your vantage point, from your perspective, I saw you're everywhere.

You are just repeating yourself. Remember i said your views make sense, but here is the crux, sense has no meaning neither do the words you are using to convey your points. They are just a useful fiction or they would be if fiction had a meaning.

Unless you were going to say consciousness didn't exist.

Consciousness is meaningless , so how can it exist? If you dont beleive this please tell me what it means and do it in such a way that you avoid the infinite regress i showed above.

[Dennis Mahar]

You are just repeating yourself. Remember i said your views make sense, but here is the crux, sense has no meaning neither do the words you are using to convey your points. They are just a useful fiction or they would be if fiction had a meaning.

You've just given me a bunch of meaning, therefore your view is profoundly contradictory.

we can't grasp at nihilism because nihilism in its attempt to get rid of everything actually comes up with a handful of stuff.

existence exists.
I exist.

How?

[chikoka]

Quote:
You are just repeating yourself. Remember i said your views make sense, but here is the crux, sense has no meaning neither do the words you are using to convey your points. They are just a useful fiction or they would be if fiction had a meaning.


You've just given me a bunch of meaning, therefore your view is profoundly contradictory.

we can't grasp at nihilism because nihilism in its attempt to get rid of everything actually comes up with a handful of stuff.

Thats my point exactly. There is meaning , despite the fact that there is no way to account for its meaning (presumably because its meaningless), just as there may be objective reality despite your arguements (that its also meaningless).

Once you solve the problem of meaning you have solved the problem of accounting for objective reality. Then again like i said , we could both be wrong in our analyses.

What you need to do is come up with a solution for aggripas trilema. Google it if you are not aware of it.

[Dennis Mahar]

on the other hand you could be supporting Quinn's insightful project,
that:

where there's form,
there's causation, consciousness, meaning.
where there's formlessness there ain't.

is that it?

[chikoka]

on the other hand you could be supporting Quinn's insightful project,
that:

where there's form,
there's causation, consciousness, meaning.
where there's formlessness there ain't.

is that it?

No.
I am saying the objections you have for an objective reality are the same objections that are there for conciousness and minds.
You solve one , youve solved the other.

[Dennis Mahar]

Perhaps the best example of real skepticism is Agrippa's Trilemma: the question asked is, how is any belief justified? and there are only three ultimate answers we can give. First, we could say that it's justified by another belief, which is justified by another belief, which is justified by another belief... and this chain goes on to infinity. So it's a case of infinite reference. Second, we could say the belief is justified by another belief, which is justified by another belief, which is justified by another belief ... which is justified by the first belief. This is a case of circular reference. Third, you could say the belief is justified by another belief which is justified by another belief ... and that belief requires no justification. This is a case of foundational reference, i.e., it refers to a belief that functions as a foundation.

how is agrippa's trilemma justified?
clearly it's a matter for skepticism if its internal logic is any guide.


I'm not looking for any meaning in Agrippa's Tetralemma.
I'm looking at how Agrippa's Tetralemma came to be.
There is no doubt it is causal in nature.
It exists as an array of causes as wide as the universe, too numerous to mention.
It is in itself, empty of inherent existence.
emptiness can not be refuted.

[chikoka]

Perhaps the best example of real skepticism is Agrippa's Trilemma: the question asked is, how is any belief justified? and there are only three ultimate answers we can give. First, we could say that it's justified by another belief, which is justified by another belief, which is justified by another belief... and this chain goes on to infinity. So it's a case of infinite reference. Second, we could say the belief is justified by another belief, which is justified by another belief, which is justified by another belief ... which is justified by the first belief. This is a case of circular reference. Third, you could say the belief is justified by another belief which is justified by another belief ... and that belief requires no justification. This is a case of foundational reference, i.e., it refers to a belief that functions as a foundation.

how is agrippa's trilemma justified?
clearly it's a matter for skepticism if its internal logic is any guide.


I'm not looking for any meaning in Agrippa's Tetralemma.
I'm looking at how Agrippa's Tetralemma came to be.
There is no doubt it is causal in nature.
It exists as an array of causes as wide as the universe, too numerous to mention.
It is in itself, empty of inherent existence.
emptiness can not be refuted.

You really dont get it, do you? I have been repeating myself over and over again from the OP (getting simpler and simpler). I dont think i am able to make it anymore simpler. Maybe someone else, kelly perhaps or maybe Dan could help me. . I dont want to say you are not intelligent enough because it could just be i'm not good at comunicating ideas.*sigh*
Aggripas trilemma is about beleif. It says beleif is ultimately unjustified. Your beleifs in this debate are therefore unjustified, just like mine. I am not talking about agrippas trilema as a "thing" but as a concept. Not the topic of the trilemma but the content of it.

[Dennis Mahar]

a belief in inherent existence is refuted.
Agrippa's Tetralemma is empty of that.

Agrippa's Tetralemma in it's internal logic demands I be skeptical of Agrippa's Tetralemma itself and that's it.
He's right to demand I ought not believe it.

[Dennis Mahar]

Do you see Chikoka that Agrippa is effectively saying what I'm saying.

that the belief in inherent existence is the problem.

To believe means to fixate existants, (idea, person, institution, thing, phenomena) in its own nature and have that function as a foundation which requires perennial justification.

lack of inherent existence is not a belief.
its a clear, obvious, factual observation.

if I stick a tomato seed in a jar, seal the lid and stick it in the fridge, I won't get a tomato plant producing tomato's.
If I put the seed in friable soil, apply nutrient, water, and plant in the summer of sufficient sunlight I will get a tomato plant producing tomato's.
there are causes/conditions.
causality.
the tomato appears to exist as itself and doesn't,
it exists as an array of causes.

In saying that, I have matched the appearance with the existence and told the truth of it.
I can apply this to all existants and never know belief.

[chikoka]

lack of inherent existence is not a belief.
its a clear, obvious, factual observation.

Ok , i see where you are going.
But this "obvious , factual observation" is also lacks inherent meaning( its not a meaningful observation), so how can it be so?
Agrippas trilema talks of "beleif" but the source of lack of beleif stems from a lack of meaning, so the "clear, obvious , factual observation" isnt clear because , far from being even murky , its not even meaningful.

I have to put a holt on participating in this thread for a day or two (i'll be out of town) so excuse me if i dont reply promptly from here on.
I know this thread was directed to Dennis but other QSRians are welcome to join in the fun.:)

[Dennis Mahar]

I'm interested in matching the appearance with the existence and telling the truth of it.
OK?
Think about it?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Unless you were going to say consciousness didn't exist.

Consciousness is meaningless , so how can it exist? If you dont beleive this please tell me what it means and do it in such a way that you avoid the infinite regress i showed above.

I don't care about your conceptualization of an 'infinite regress', consciousness is just a pointer for 'this', experience, you going to tell me experience doesn't exist? Or is experience meaningless too and hence doesn't exist?

Is this not appearing to you somehow?

[chikoka]

Unless you were going to say consciousness didn't exist.

Consciousness is meaningless , so how can it exist? If you dont beleive this please tell me what it means and do it in such a way that you avoid the infinite regress i showed above.

I don't care about your conceptualization of an 'infinite regress', consciousness is just a pointer for 'this', experience, you going to tell me experience doesn't exist? Or is experience meaningless too and hence doesn't exist?

Is this not appearing to you somehow?

It is appearing, so the logic must be wrong somewhere but i cant spot where. Can you?
And yes , experience is meaningless to but I'm positive it exists, just like how objective reality is meaningless but i am positive it exists.