Dependent Origination

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

B1: In order to allow our mind and state of being to be in sync, the first realization is that nothing exists but perceptual observations. Things do not have complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves. The universe and the mind are one and the same. Any objections?


Diebert: Should it even be questioned at this stage? What made you think that these fundamentals would be disagreed upon? Sometimes I think you bring disagreement where there's none.

I agree, it should not even be a question at this stage. As you can see, it still is.

You might not understand what my motivation is because it is difficult to ascertain when one has no hidden agenda.

But I do want to add that your "perceptual observation" turns out to be conceptual in nature. Perhaps in "henid" form at times like half finished thoughts and impressions but underneath them one can discover a lot of half-baked meaning and association.

That is because of preconceived ideas of what most want reality to be instead of what it actually is. The ego superimposes its belief systems, favorites and self validating "henid" structures of thought to create the ideal human being. This ideal human, of course, is always the 'me' that others have not yet learned to worship.

The ego is tricksey.

Observations are never "pure", they are relative and person-bound in how they work out in the way we respond to those observations.

Observations are "pure." We cannot help but experience raw reality. I think what you are saying is that the after the fact conceptualization is bound to the identity structure and that is almost always the case.

For example someone might think : " I am an atheist because I cannot stand the thought of being a stupid theist."

It's still unclear to me why you don't want to call such observation another form of conceptualization. They go hand in hand: assigning meaning and r?e?a?l?i?t?y? existence.

I do call such things concepts. I said - the infinite cannot be a concept.

Perhaps we debate because you reinterpret what I say.




Leyla:

B1: First must be dispelled the myth that the infinite is finite because it can be conceptualized.

Leyla: I think you've been talking to yourself all this time, B1. Like, who said/argued that??

B1: You did for one.

Leylas: I did not, and I insist that you either retract or prove this statement.

Page 1:

B1: Is it a 'thing' we are talking about?

Is the totality a thing?



Leyla: Sure, if you step out of the limitations of Buddhist philosophy and into structuralism...

If the totality/infinite is a thing as you answered, it is then finite.

L: Lol

B1: I get that a lot. Usually from people who have a problem that is hard to pronounce.


leyla: Namely?

It was a joke.

Like this is a joke:
Madness takes its toll, please keep exact change.

Its just not funny when you have to say "this is a joke." Maybe I have to work on my sense of humor?

At least then you'd be seeing stars rather than blinding, bright lights.

You!

Off my planet!





Jupiviv:

You see, this is what I don't understand about you people. You speak about the infinite like great sages as long as you don't receive any serious criticism, but you turn into prima donnas the instant anyone starts pointing out where you're wrong.

Think what you want but you need to be asking questions because at this point, you are not being cogent.

I welcome criticism, it refines and purifies. I do not welcome stubborn, illogical, dishonest and incongruity pontification. I do not have the time or energy for that.

[Jamesh]

If two things cannot be in the same place at the same time, how then does the mind and body exist in the same place at the same time as you said earlier in this thread?

There is no category difference between the mind and anything else. Wholes are always emergent properties.
There is the flow of the parts and immediately following or concurrently along with that is the flow of the whole.
Consciousness is just the later, and the mind is what we’d call a semi-static form of consciousness if that was possible. It ain't possible, but we still call it our mind as that is more convenient.

If all distinctions are perceived, it follows that all distinctions are applied by and through consciousness. You may not like it but that is irreducible logic.

Distinctions arise during consciousness but are applied by the ego program and other parts of the brain, not by the mind. The mind doesn’t do anything except be an effect representing the combined form of underlying causal changes in its parts – if it was a cause, then by Jeeves we’d have free will.

The mind is not a car (brain) being driven by a person (consciousness). The mind is the unity of car-person, travelling over time - thus is an occurrence. Consciousness in turn is the unity of body/brain and finite external effects.

One could say the brain does not include the flowing rivers of electrons that provide thoughts, but the mind does include this, and that is the difference between brain and mind, but come on - that would be a bit like saying the body is only the body if blood is excluded.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Observations are "pure." We cannot help but experience raw reality.

Nothing pure and raw about it when you look deeper and more attentively. You might not feel like it though.

I do call such things concepts. I said - the infinite cannot be a concept.

Nothing can "be" a concept but concepts. The infinite is behaving like everything really that way.

[Leyla Shen]

[drum roll] ... and I argue that the difference between the notion a) “nothing exists but perceptual observations” and, b) “perceptual observation cannot exist without something to be perceptually observed” is ... a world strictly caused by perceptual observation—i.e., perceptual observation as causality*, rather than perceptual observation as a manifestation of causality

Causality dictates that even "perceptual observations" would not be without causes. Here you sneak in the expression "strictly caused by" which you then challenge. Hmmm. When does something exists, where does this existence happen, where are the boundaries to that process? Existence: a presence, an entity, something arising ("existere"), something standing out (outstanding! excellent). Or any ontological flavor one desires to present. And yes, it is very much as well a problem of language, simply because its conceptualization is related to all perceptual observation.

What the hell are you talking about, Diebert?

[Leyla Shen]

B1:

Maybe I have to work on my sense of humor?

Yes! I mean, some shit you say just ain't funny at all!

I got a great laugh out of the purse joke, though (:

[Leyla Shen]

If the totality/infinite is a thing as you answered, it is then finite.

It is a thing; namely, the referent to which the word "totality" or "infinite" applies.

And since it is infinite by definition, it certainly is not finite.

[guest_of_logic]

What the hell are you talking about, Diebert?

Oh, man, Leyla, how many times have I wanted to ask that question? Sorry, Deebs.

Disclaimer: at best I've been skim-reading GF of late. To be honest, I've wanted to ask this question of many current contributors. It's peculiar to find that a forum you used to participate in regularly has devolved into a sort of slush of ill-thought-out, reactionary argumentativeness. Anyhow, wishing you all well, I just had the urge to stick my little beak in for a moment or two...

Oh, and briefly, one other "thing": certainly I agree with you, Leyla, that a thing can be infinite. Whyever not?

Party on, people.

[Beingof1]

Jamesh:

B1: If two things cannot be in the same place at the same time, how then does the mind and body exist in the same place at the same time as you said earlier in this thread?


Jamesh: There is no category difference between the mind and anything else. Wholes are always emergent properties.

"There is no category difference between the mind and anything else."

How do you know that?


The statement was made by the poster that two things cannot be in the same place at the same time. He then posted that the mind and body are in the same place. This is what I was addressing.

There is the flow of the parts and immediately following or concurrently along with that is the flow of the whole.

How do you know that?

Consciousness is just the later, and the mind is what we’d call a semi-static form of consciousness if that was possible. It ain't possible, but we still call it our mind as that is more convenient.

Can you determine a thing without your mind?

B1: If all distinctions are perceived, it follows that all distinctions are applied by and through consciousness. You may not like it but that is irreducible logic.


Jamesh: Distinctions arise during consciousness but are applied by the ego program and other parts of the brain, not by the mind. The mind doesn’t do anything except be an effect representing the combined form of underlying causal changes in its parts – if it was a cause, then by Jeeves we’d have free will.

If you look at an object that is not inside your brain, where does it appear?

The mind is not a car (brain) being driven by a person (consciousness). The mind is the unity of car-person, travelling over time - thus is an occurrence. Consciousness in turn is the unity of body/brain and finite external effects.

Can you choose to think of anything you want?

How many objects can the mind be aware of?

Have you ever experienced a universe outside of your occurring consciousness?

One could say the brain does not include the flowing rivers of electrons that provide thoughts, but the mind does include this, and that is the difference between brain and mind, but come on - that would be a bit like saying the body is only the body if blood is excluded.

If the brain requires a free flowing current - the electromagnetic wave extends way beyond the brain and therefore, the mind extends way beyond the body/brain.

http://peanutchuck.com/human-moves-rats ... n-thoughts

Here we have a clear example of the mind having an impact on its environment by pushing a particular data stream of choice. The strict conventional materialist will want to stop right there. This would only demonstrate the lack of understanding of the physics involved.

Your mind just emitted a stream of electrons by reading this post and they most certainly impacted the environment. Because of entanglement, your thought just effected/affected the entire universe.

That is a scientific fact. You and the universe are connected at the most fundamental level and you just effected me by thinking about it.



Diebert:

Observations are "pure." We cannot help but experience raw reality.


Nothing pure and raw about it when you look deeper and more attentively. You might not feel like it though.

Then how can you say anything about it at all if you cannot know it? We cannot conceptualize experience would be accurate but this does not mean we do not experience - experience.

I do call such things concepts. I said - the infinite cannot be a concept.


Nothing can "be" a concept but concepts. The infinite is behaving like everything really that way.

The infinite behaves like everything else?

The logic is stretching till it snaps with this statement.

I thought we settled this?

Lets see if I understand you - We cannot know our experience, things or the infinite so the only thing we know is we can know nothing at all?


Its really not this hard, I mean really. Things are finite and can be conceptualized. The infinite is infinite and therefore is beyond conceptualization.




Leyla:

Yes! I mean, some shit you say just ain't funny at all!

I got a great laugh out of the purse joke, though (:

If I am the only one that laughs, it just means I laugh more than you.

If the totality/infinite is a thing as you answered, it is then finite.



It is a thing; namely, the referent to which the word "totality" or "infinite" applies.

And since it is infinite by definition, it certainly is not finite.

Let me repeat what I said to Diebert:
"Its really not this hard, I mean really. Things are finite and can be conceptualized. The infinite is infinite and therefore is beyond conceptualization."

If the infinite/totality is a "thing", please list its characteristics that will help us identify it as a "thing."


Guest of logic:

Oh, and briefly, one other "thing": certainly I agree with you, Leyla, that a thing can be infinite. Whyever not?

Very simply, if a thing is infinite, what is this thing?

How many infinities are there?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Lets see if I understand you - We cannot know our experience, things or the infinite so the only thing we know is we can know nothing at all?

You can know the infinite in as far as you can know any darn thing, yeah!

Its really not this hard, I mean really. Things are finite and can be conceptualized. The infinite is infinite and therefore is beyond conceptualization.

Your words, gestures and implications around the topic however are not beyond conceptualization, they are conceptualized when communicated. Like everything else.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What the hell are you talking about, Diebert?

You need to think more about what existence means before thinking you know how I might have used it in this dialog.

[jupiviv]

Think what you want but you need to be asking questions because at this point, you are not being cogent.

If you're going to advise me to do something, like ask questions, then you need to provide convincing reasons. So far you've only come up with accusations backed only by your weird interpretations of what I said, like conflating my intended meaning of the location of more than one finite thing with the specialised mathematical-physical language of the approximate location of more than one boson. Or this one in response to Diebert:

I do call such things concepts. I said - the infinite cannot be a concept.

Nothing can "be" a concept but concepts. The infinite is behaving like everything really that way.

The infinite behaves like everything else?

You changed "everything" to "everything else" without giving any reason for doing so.

Lets see if I understand you - We cannot know our experience, things or the infinite so the only thing we know is we can know nothing at all?

Here again you've interpreted what he said in a dishonest way, as in not at all. You've just attributed a statement to him that makes him look ridiculous. This isn't the behaviour of someone whose advice to start asking questions I would consider following.

Its really not this hard, I mean really. Things are finite and can be conceptualized. The infinite is infinite and therefore is beyond conceptualization.

If the infinite was beyond conceptualisation then you couldn't have conceptualised that it was. Any concept, or just any thing whatsoever, can be said to be a concept of the infinite, since all things point to the infinite itself by default.

[Dennis Mahar]

Reason depends on Data.
dependent arising.

When data is faulty the conclusion will be wrong and looked upon as unreasonable.

Sherlock says,
If one has a grasp of what makes things illogical or irrational, it is then possible to conceive of what makes things logical.
dependent arising.

A situation becomes irrational thusly:

Omit a fact
Change sequence of events
Drop out time
Add a falsehood
Alter importance
dependent arising

Therefore,
Logic must have several conditions.

All relevant facts must be known.
Events must be in actual sequence.
Time must be properly noted.
The data must be factual, which is to say true or valid.
Relative importances amongst the data must be recognised by comparing the facts with what one is seeking to accomplish or solve.
dependent arising.

Contextual thinking or existential thinking,
a place to come from,
recognises dependent arising as a 'full account' for any and all circumstances.

[Leyla Shen]

What the hell are you talking about, Diebert?

You need to think more about what existence means before thinking you know how I might have used it in this dialog.

Another non-sequitur.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There is no evidence that consciousness has a beginning.........
Many have attempted to use consciousness as a subset of the universe. This is logically impossible as it is a singular consciousness perceiving the total and making comparisons. Nothing that exists is outside of your consciousness.

Being gets it.

The above wisdom makes clear that (a) consciousness "precedes" and "follows" the formation of the sentient body

Moving gets it.

For the "enlightened enough" there is no death.

Diebert gets it.

My body and more specifically my brain seems to be the direct physical cause and location of my consciousness.

Jup doesn't get it.

Why are you still on the forum Jup?

[jupiviv]

Both Diebert and Beingof1 "get it", and they're arguing with each other.

You "get it", and you see nothing hypocritical about slinging ad homs at anyone who categorically disagrees with your claims of enlightenment.

Dennis "gets it", and the only time he manages to be coherent is when he's being passive aggressive.

Moving "gets it", and she seems to be a New-Age Christobuddhist.

Leyla "gets it" too, and she thinks she's funny.

That^^^ is why I don't "get it". As to why I'm on this forum - well, ideally I want to make everyone here *not* get whatever it is they are getting. I've officially replaced Darth Alexius as the resident Sith Lord of this forum, and I'm kicking ass and taking names.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No one ever said Leyla gets it.

I'm kicking ass and taking names.

Egotism,
still don't get it.

Your mind is stuck 'in the brain' Jup, un-stick it.

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

Lets see if I understand you - We cannot know our experience, things or the infinite so the only thing we know is we can know nothing at all?


You can know the infinite in as far as you can know any darn thing, yeah!

Yeah, once you have seen one coffee cup, you have seen em all. Once you have seen one infinity, you have seen em all. have you ever heard of the Law or Principle of Sufficient Reason? A very well known philosopher from your neck of the woods came up with it. His name was Leibniz.

The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:

For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.

-- Wiki


So you have made the choice to err on the side of the illogical and plunge ahead with blind faith again?

Makes perfect sense, no really.

Its really not this hard, I mean really. Things are finite and can be conceptualized. The infinite is infinite and therefore is beyond conceptualization.


Your words, gestures and implications around the topic however are not beyond conceptualization, they are conceptualized when communicated. Like everything else.

I know that Diebert - that is what I have been saying as in over and over and over again. What in blazes are you disagreeing with?

Are you trying to protect people on this forum by locking them in cages of thought where the evil of my philosophy cannot get to them?

Are you aware when we agree or do you just take it for granted that we always need to disagree - even when we agree?




Jupiviv:

Think what you want but you need to be asking questions because at this point, you are not being cogent.



If you're going to advise me to do something, like ask questions, then you need to provide convincing reasons.

Just because you cannot see convincing reasons, does not mean they were not given. I suggest that when playing Pin the Tail on the donkey game, its much easier when you remove your blindfold.

So far you've only come up with accusations backed only by your weird interpretations of what I said, like conflating my intended meaning of the location of more than one finite thing with the specialised mathematical-physical language of the approximate location of more than one boson. Or this one in response to Diebert:

You are honesty challenged.

I gave many more examples - like the knife and rock, waves, thoughts etc. etc. etc.

It is not my fault you are stuck in dogma. You really should be asking questions.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori ... t-form.jpg

B1: I do call such things concepts. I said - the infinite cannot be a concept.


D-man: Nothing can "be" a concept but concepts. The infinite is behaving like everything really that way.


B1: The infinite behaves like everything else?


Jup statement about what was said:
You changed "everything" to "everything else" without giving any reason for doing so.

Because that is what he said and meant. Its not my fault you cannot discern the meaning of a clear sentence.

You notice he said nothing about it because that is what he meant to say. It is not my comprehension skills that are lacking - you might want to check in and see who it is covering their ears and stopping up their eyes.

You really need to be asking questions because you think busting someone for spitting on the sidewalk is a big deal.

Lets see if I understand you - We cannot know our experience, things or the infinite so the only thing we know is we can know nothing at all?


Here again you've interpreted what he said in a dishonest way, as in not at all. You've just attributed a statement to him that makes him look ridiculous. This isn't the behaviour of someone whose advice to start asking questions I would consider following.

You just do not get it do you?

I began that sentence with

Lets see if I understand you

What does that mean in Jupiviv land?

And yes - you need to be asking questions because it is clear you do not get it - gettit?

Its really not this hard, I mean really. Things are finite and can be conceptualized. The infinite is infinite and therefore is beyond conceptualization.



If the infinite was beyond conceptualisation then you couldn't have conceptualised that it was. Any concept, or just any thing whatsoever, can be said to be a concept of the infinite, since all things point to the infinite itself by default.

I know all things point to the infinite - that is what I have been saying for like a billion times already.

Tell us what incomprehensible means.

I've officially replaced Darth Alexius as the resident Sith Lord of this forum, and I'm kicking ass and taking names.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... tthurt.jpg

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yeah, once you have seen one coffee cup, you have seen em all.

You've seen enough!

• A mere glance at a breeze blowing through the trees is enough to reveal everything there is to know about God. You don't have to go looking in exotic places beyond the universe. -- David Quinn, september 2013

A very well known philosopher from your neck of the woods came up with it. His name was Leibniz.

He was German by the way. Geography and culture are not your strong points but still. Perhaps it's all the same to you :-)

Your words, gestures and implications around the topic however are not beyond conceptualization, they are conceptualized when communicated. Like everything else.

I know that Diebert - that is what I have been saying as in over and over and over again. What in blazes are you disagreeing with?

I still disagree with: "None can conceptualize the infinite and neither can one conceptualize the consciousnesses that is". Some conceptualization of the infinite is not equal to the infinite itself, like with all things. But that doesn't mean we cannot conceptualize properly to communicate, even when it comes to the infinite. Is this so hard to understand? Or are you withdrawing your claim?

[jupiviv]

I gave many more examples - like the knife and rock, waves, thoughts etc. etc. etc.

None of those examples proved that two things can exist at the same place at the same time. The edge of an sharp-edged is not in the same location as the rock itself, and the waves on the ocean's surface are not in the same place as all the water on the ocean's surface. They are only in approximately the same location, which is not the same as the same location. Unless you're a very careless reader or being deliberately obtuse, I don't see how you could conflate the two meanings.

You changed "everything" to "everything else" without giving any reason for doing so.

Because that is what he said and meant. Its not my fault you cannot discern the meaning of a clear sentence.

There's a clear difference between saying the infinite behaves like everything and saying it behaves like everything *else*. If Diebert didn't see anything wrong with the change then I retract that statement, but it was just an example. My point still stands.

If the infinite was beyond conceptualisation then you couldn't have conceptualised that it was. Any concept, or just any thing whatsoever, can be said to be a concept of the infinite, since all things point to the infinite itself by default.

I know all things point to the infinite - that is what I have been saying for like a billion times already.

Tell us what incomprehensible means.

I disagree. You don't know that all things point to the infinite, because you don't know what "infinite" means. You're trapped in your fantastical concepts of the infinite, which is ironic since you think it's not possible to conceptualise the infinite. From what I gathered from your posts, you think that the mind is the infinite, and that the mind creates all things, which is enough to discredit any understanding you claim to have.

For the above reason, you don't understand why it is possible to conceptualise the infinite even if it is not finite. We cannot help but conceptualise the infinite every time we conceptualise any thing whatsoever. A state of not conceptualising the infinite while conceptualising a finite thing is impossible, since finite things are the body of the infinite. It is precisely because the infinite is not a specific finite thing, and thus *all* finite things, that this is the case.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... tthurt.jpg

Thanks for informing me.

[Leyla Shen]

Hey, Laird. (:

Disclaimer: at best I've been skim-reading GF of late. To be honest, I've wanted to ask this question of many current contributors. It's peculiar to find that a forum you used to participate in regularly has devolved into a sort of slush of ill-thought-out, reactionary argumentativeness. Anyhow, wishing you all well, I just had the urge to stick my little beak in for a moment or two...

Yeah, the place has been populated for quite some time apparently by a bunch of males who come here to jack off, and then complain how everybody here is just jacking off.

Really, it's a solo activity and it's not wise to disturb them in the throes of this process too much.

[Dennis Mahar]

Disclaimer: at best I've been skim-reading GF of late. To be honest, I've wanted to ask this question of many current contributors. It's peculiar to find that a forum you used to participate in regularly has devolved into a sort of slush of ill-thought-out, reactionary argumentativeness. Anyhow, wishing you all well, I just had the urge to stick my little beak in for a moment or two...

In order to for the sake of

Yeah, the place has been populated for quite some time apparently by a bunch of males who come here to jack off, and then complain how everybody here is just jacking off.

In order to for the sake of

Really, it's a solo activity and it's not wise to disturb them in the throes of this process too much

In order to for the sake of

[jupiviv]

Yeah, the place has been populated for quite some time apparently by a bunch of males who come here to jack off, and then complain how everybody here is just jacking off.

The worst jackers are actually female, namely Pye, Kunga and movingalways.

[guest_of_logic]

Beingof1, I don't see any point to the questions you asked me. I'd like to refer you simply to one sense of the definition of "thing", #15 on the first entry on dictionary.com: "something signified or represented, as distinguished from a word, symbol, or idea representing it". An infinite thing meets this definition just fine.

Leyla, you're a classic. GF as a public auto-erotic hangout, I love it.

In order to for the sake of

I like this catchphrase better than "empty and meaningless", although it is quite... empty and meaningless.

[Dennis Mahar]

existentially,
there's never been a move showing up that's not of the character;

in order to for the sake of.

Yo!

put that in your curriculum of education.
no.1 with a bullet.

[guest_of_logic]

Oh, Dennis. "People do things for reasons". Is this really the level your philosophising has reached?