Spirituality and Logic

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Not at all (following Spinoza) something false has no reality, you just doesn't have what it takes to work it out without ambiguities? (using logics and all, committing to self-causation)

Here's what I've found where he addresses what I was talking about:
  • Prop. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.
    Proof.—Besides God, no substance is granted or can be conceived (by Prop. xiv.), that is (by Def. iii.) nothing which is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (by Def. v.) can neither be, nor be conceived without substance ; wherefore they can only be in the divine nature, and can only through it be conceived. But substances and modes form the sum total of existence (by Ax. i.), therefore, without God nothing can be, or be conceived. Q.E.D.

    Note.—Some assert that God, like a man, consists of body and mind, and is suscaeptible of passions. How far such persons have strayed from the truth is sufficiently evident from what has been said. But these I pass over. For all who have in anywise reflected on the divine nature deny that God has a body. Of this they find excellent proof in the fact that we understand by body a definite quantity, so long, so broad, so deep, bounded by a certain shape, and it is the height of absurdity to predicate such a thing of God, a being absolutely infinite. But meanwhile by other reasons with which they try to prove their point, they show that they think corporeal or extended substance wholly apart from the divine nature, and say it was created by God. Wherefrom the divine nature can have been created, they are wholly ignorant ; thus they clearly show, that they do not know the meaning of their own words. I myself have proved sufficiently clearly, at any rate in my own judgment (Coroll. Prop. vi., and note 2, Prop. viii.), that no substance can be produced or created by anything other than itself. Further, I showed (in Prop. xiv.), that besides God no substance can be granted or conceived. Hence we drew the conclusion that extended substance is one of the infinite attributes of God. However, in order to explain more fully, I will refute the arguments of my adversaries, which all start from the following points :—

    Extended substance, in so far as it is substance, consists, as they think, in parts, wherefore they deny that it can be infinite, or consequently, that it can appertain to God. This they illustrate with many examples, of which I will take one or two. If extended substance, they say, is infinite, let it be conceived to be divided into two parts ; each part will then be either finite or infinite. If the former, then infinite substance is composed of two finite parts, which is absurd. If the latter, then one infinite will be twice as large as another infinite, which is also absurd.

    Further, if an infinite line be measured out in foot lengths, it will consist of an infinite number of such parts ; it would equally consist of an infinite number of parts, if each part measured only an inch : therefore, one infinity would be twelve times as great as the other.

    Lastly, if from a single point there be conceived to be drawn two diverging lines which at first are at a definite distance apart, but are produced to infinity, it is certain that the distance between the two lines will be continually increased, until at length it changes from definite to indefinable. As these absurdities follow, it is said, from considering quantity as infinite, the conclusion is drawn, that extended substance must necessarily be finite, and, consequently, cannot appertain to the nature of God.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Yes but in that sense only God really exists. In the same way we can say only causality is or that there's only Tao or Nature.

Any false reality cannot be separate from that yet calling the false existing as "something" would remain a fundamental error, according to the above definition of what it means to exist. This is why my statement "a false reality would still remain reality in the most fundamental sense" holds true even following Spinoza's definition. For Spinoza extended substances "must necessarily be finite" and "cannot appertain to the nature of God". And yet conceiving of them necessarily has to happen through God, as he writes "they can only be in the divine nature". Since we would define existing as a conceiving of and as well as what they are, Spinoza basically says all things only truely exist under and as God (but not as part of God)--- of course as far we're able to conceive of them.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Only god has inherent existence (another thing you probably won't commit to) you could call it other names, that doesn't help very much in making what you are talking about more clear mixing it with time or other concepts could be even worse. God, nature, tao, are the same thing as long as by it one means a substance with infinite attributes which happens to be the only substance there is.

I think even the term 'false reality' would be something unconstructable following his definitions, an absurdity or a play on words, nothing like philosophy. He's actually arguing against the idea that an extended substance is divisible and thus not part of god (which for some would make god immaterial), he said without god nothing can be conceived, not that things are conceived as god, the parts of god can be conceived trough themselves. Prop. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance must be conceived through itself.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:Only god has inherent existence (another thing you probably won't commit to) you could call it other names, that doesn't help very much in making what you are talking about more clear mixing it with time or other concepts could be even worse. God, nature, tao, are the same thing as long as by it one means a substance with infinite attributes which happens to be the only substance there is.
This is a muddling of the terms used around here. How can you purport that there exists a substance with an infinite amount of attributes?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Infinite attributes are given to what's definitely not a substance. But I agree that a term like "false reality" is deceptive on its own. This is about the illusion that something exists, like anything material. But experiencing either truth or falsehood, the experience still stands. This way one could arrive at the notion of seeing "many realities" or seeing human mind as a "reality generating machinery", realities which are then more or less according to truth. Or one goes the way of defining God as the only reality and something else only being real in as far it's conceived under it. Which means being derived from it, in accordance to it and referring to it. But now one could say: could not everything become real that way when we see it as derived, according and referring to God or the infinite? Yes, so it appears here as a matter of perspective or orientation. But we, ourselves, are always bound up in perspective. Hence we always hit the same conundrum.
  • ... there is a third, as I shall hereafter show, which we shall call intuitive science. This kind of knowing advances from an adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things. (Spinoza)
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Russell wrote:This is a muddling of the terms used around here. How can you purport that there exists a substance with an infinite amount of attributes?
This touches upon your question and some other things you were saying before (of things being eternal)
:
  • Prop. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.
    Proof.—If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist : then his essence does not involve existence. But this (Prop. vii.) is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But now one could say: could not everything become real that way when we see it as derived, according and referring to God or the infinite?
This is more like it, here's something he wrote:
  • Prop. IX. The more reality or being a thing has, the greater the number of its attributes (Def. iv.).
You may be mistaking something here with the view that a thing needs to be experienced, I think that would be mixing affections with attributes. (affections here even in the sense of emotions).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:You may be mistaking something here with the view that a thing needs to be experienced, I think that would be mixing affections with attributes. (affections here even in the sense of emotions).
Qualities, modes, or affections, the point I think is that Spinoza argues against any essentialism like Descartes would have it. And in the end the sum of all attributes and the idea of substance would be essentially the same when it comes to any infinite nature. That said, I'm not sure how far I'd go with Spinoza's metaphysics each and every step of the way, how "adequate" it would be in the end. For example Nietzsche in the end expressed disappointment, describing Spinoza as too much of a spider inside "metaphysical cobwebs". And for Nietzsche a spiderweb was still a sign of essentialism or substantialism, a set of beliefs and morality which together would weave reality and so "catches" truths but only those designed to catch (as everything too small or too large would miss the net). But perhaps that's the way of thought and, overall, linguistics: the way we catch all the stuff to learn? This is about the issue of relativity and tied to what I described earlier as the conundrum of our selves being equal to a surprisingly limited set of modes and perspectives.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:This touches upon your question and some other things you were saying before (of things being eternal)
:
  • Prop. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.
    Proof.—If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist : then his essence does not involve existence. But this (Prop. vii.) is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists.
Defining anything to be "infinite" other than the Infinite itself is self defeating. Attributes, or observing the attributes of something, is an act of demarcation by consciousness, which is, in effect, a finitizing (if you will) of the Infinite. This is impossible, of course, so it is really an illusory act (if Reality is indeed infinite, which it is). As soon as we draw boundaries in the Infinite, we defy it's true essence. In other words, the lines that we draw between things, in order to make them "things", aren't really there. There isn't an infinite amount of anything, as "amount" implies finitudes. The Infinite can literally only mean boundless.

There's a fellow that goes by "vsauce" on youtube who puts out interesting, somewhat philosophical videos, his latest involving paradoxes using "infinite sets." It's interesting to see math and science geniuses refer to these problems as paradoxes without ever acknowledging that an "infinite set" is, in reality, a logical impossibility. The paradox lies in attempting to work with infinity in finite ways. Neither science or math can tell us anything truly meaningful about the Infinite because they necessarily deal with finites.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Russell wrote: The paradox lies in attempting to work with infinity in finite ways. Neither science or math can tell us anything truly meaningful about the Infinite because they necessarily deal with finites.
I think there's indeed a gulf of difference between having some unlimited, uncountable, unending amount of something and the whole of totality itself. The first way is how one could conceive of something to be "infinite" but in an abstracted, theoretical way. The philosopher however might use abstracted language but is still extremely concrete and practical in his activity. His conception of the infinite is infinite, meaning: always completely applicable to everything he sees, things and feels. While the finite way of conception is to create some special set and trying to add all its content together in his mind as image. A nice exercise but kind of missing the major point. It might actually hinder any further understanding now as some safe incapsulation has been put in place.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

I find it hard to find one original idea in Nietzsche it's more like he was the one spinning, inverting... Maybe this by Spinoza is closer to what you are saying:

Metphysical Thoughts: Part 1, Chapter 1.
  • Concerning Real Being, Fictitious Being, and Being of Reason.
        Concerning the definition of knowledge (Scientia) I shall say nothing, not even of the knowledge of the things here discussed. I shall only attempt to explain some obscure points in those authors who write on Metaphysics.

    Definition of Being.
        We shall begin, therefore, with Being, by which I mean, all of that which, when it is clearly and distinctly conceived is found to exist necessarily, or at least to be able to exist.

    Chimeras, fictitious being, and being of reason are not real.
        From this definition, or, if you prefer, from this description, it follows that chimeras, fictitious being and being of the reason can in no way be called real. For chimeras [1] by their nature do not exist. Fictitious being precludes any clear and distinct concept, because man by his mere power of Freedom, not unknowingly as in false concepts, but advisedly and intelligently, connects what he wishes to connect, and dissociates what he will. Finally, being of reason is nothing except a mode of thought which pertains most properly to the intellect [understanding], viz., to retention, to understanding [explanation], and to the imagination. It should here be noted that by mode of thought we mean, as was explained in Schol. Prop. 15 Pt. 1., all forms of mental states as understanding, joy, imagination, etc.
    [Note N1]: By chimera is understood a being which by nature involves a contradiction as is clearly shown in Chapter 3.

    ...
    In what way we imagine things.
        Finally since we have become accustomed to picture all of those things which we understand, even the images of our fancy at times, it happens that we imagine non-being positively, as an image of some real being. For mind considered as a thinking being has no more power to affirm than to deny. And since to imagine is only to perceive the traces in the brain produced by the movement of the spirits, which in turn are caused by the stimulation of the senses by an external object, such a sensation can only be a confused affirmation. Hence we imagine all the forms of thought which the mind uses for denying as blindness, the limits or termini, the end, shade, etc., are beings.

    ...
    It is not correct to divide Being into real being and being of reason.
        It is easy to see how inapt is the division which divides Being into real being and being of the reason. For they divide Being into being and non-being or into being and a mode of thought. However, I do not wonder that philosophers sometimes fall into these verbal or grammatical errors. For they judge objects from the names and not names from the objects.

    In what sense being of the reason may be called nothing and in what sense real.
        Those who say that being of the reason is nothing, however, are not less in error. If you seek for some meaning for these terms apart from the mind you find nothing; but if we understand by the term a mode of thought, then it signifies something real. For if I ask what a species is, I only inquire for the nature of that form of thought as something real and to be distinguished from other modes. These modes of thought, moreover, cannot be called ideas, nor can they be said to be true or false, just as love, e.g. cannot be called true or false but only good or evil. So when Plato said that "man is a biped without feathers," he did not err more than if he had said that man is a rational animal. For Plato knew that man was a rational animal as well as he knew the other. He merely put man into a certain class, so that when he wished to reflect upon man by referring to the class in which he had been classified he would come immediately to recognize certain characteristics as belonging to his nature. Aristotle, indeed, made a grave mistake if he thought that Plato in this definition attempted to express the essence of human nature. Whether Plato did well we may question, but this is not the place to discuss that.
This will sound a lot like Nietzsche (maybe too much alike):
  • What is true and what is false, as generally understood and as understood by philosophers.
      
      In order to properly understand the terms true and false we will begin with their signification from which it will appear that they are not names of qualities in the things themselves nor attributes at all except rhetorically. Since general usage first fixed their meaning, and they were only used afterward by philosophers, it seems best to inquire for their primary significance. Especially is this necessary since other sources from the very nature of language, are wanting. The significance of true and false seemed to have first arisen from narration. That narration was true which was in accord with the facts which it concerned; that was false which was not in accord with the facts of the case. This use of these terms was then borrowed by philosophers for denoting the correspondence of the idea with the thing it represents, and the contrary. Therefore, that idea is said to be true which represents the thing, as it is in itself. That idea is false which does not so represent its object. For ideas are nothing else than mental narratives or histories of nature. Afterward these are metaphorically applied to other things. As for example, that gold is true or false if we thought that gold which we perceive might tell us what was in itself, or what is not.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Russell wrote:Defining anything to be "infinite" other than the Infinite itself is self defeating. Attributes, or observing the attributes of something, is an act of demarcation by consciousness, which is, in effect, a finitizing (if you will) of the Infinite. This is impossible, of course, so it is really an illusory act (if Reality is indeed infinite, which it is). As soon as we draw boundaries in the Infinite, we defy it's true essence. In other words, the lines that we draw between things, in order to make them "things", aren't really there. There isn't an infinite amount of anything, as "amount" implies finitudes. The Infinite can literally only mean boundless.

There's a fellow that goes by "vsauce" on youtube who puts out interesting, somewhat philosophical videos, his latest involving paradoxes using "infinite sets." It's interesting to see math and science geniuses refer to these problems as paradoxes without ever acknowledging that an "infinite set" is, in reality, a logical impossibility. The paradox lies in attempting to work with infinity in finite ways. Neither science or math can tell us anything truly meaningful about the Infinite because they necessarily deal with finites.
I'm not sure I follow it, I think you are making the grammatical mistake that Spinoza was tœalking about and confusing words with things. The word infinite is intimately linked with numbers and other concepts even if you mean something different by the word. Saying that the infinite can only be defined as infinite doesn't make lot of sense.

Saying that the infinite cannot be conceptualized too doesn't make much sense, as it can be a grammatical construction only that doesn't have any real meaning behind itself, like a chimera, a contradiction or a pure fictional entity. The "square circle" can't be conceptualized too.

A paradox is normally used to show contradictions or shed some light on terms and concepts beyond their common and apparent use. In the video the notions of infinity display contra intuitive consequences when applied to everyday reality (Hilbert's hotel) and even compared to common notions of infinity (as in cantor's diagonalization, it shows that there are levels of infinity).

For example of some use of tnese notions, you wrote: In other words, the lines that we draw between things, in order to make them "things", aren't really there. is this different from saying that the infinite is uncountably infinite? The argument was that from 0 you can only go to the 'next' number in an 'arbitrary' fashion, the 'lines draw that aren't there'.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:I'm not sure I follow it, I think you are making the grammatical mistake that Spinoza was tœalking about and confusing words with things. The word infinite is intimately linked with numbers and other concepts even if you mean something different by the word. Saying that the infinite can only be defined as infinite doesn't make lot of sense.
It's a matter of context. Sure, "infinite" is traditionally is used in relation to numbers and amounts (that is, within the finite world of consciousness), but I'm trying to get at the fundamental nature of reality as it is both within and beyond consciousness. Infinite is synonymous with boundless in this philosophical sense, not only because of Reality's immeasurable and uncountable nature, but also due to the erosion of boundaries between things in consideration of the immeasurable and uncountable. This extra step isn't as obvious, as the natural inclination is to understand the Infinite as it is within the confines of consciousness alone.
Saying that the infinite cannot be conceptualized too doesn't make much sense, as it can be a grammatical construction only that doesn't have any real meaning behind itself, like a chimera, a contradiction or a pure fictional entity. The "square circle" can't be conceptualized too.
The Infinite can definitely be conceptualized, as we are doing it right now in a few ways. It cannot be dealt with in full for obvious reasons, namely the inherent limitations of consciousness.
A paradox is normally used to show contradictions or shed some light on terms and concepts beyond their common and apparent use. In the video the notions of infinity display contra intuitive consequences when applied to everyday reality (Hilbert's hotel) and even compared to common notions of infinity (as in cantor's diagonalization, it shows that there are levels of infinity).
Agreed.
For example of some use of tnese notions, you wrote: In other words, the lines that we draw between things, in order to make them "things", aren't really there. is this different from saying that the infinite is uncountably infinite? The argument was that from 0 you can only go to the 'next' number in an 'arbitrary' fashion, the 'lines draw that aren't there'.
I'll agree that the two statements are similar, but again, the context differs by a large degree, in my opinion, due to the profound implications of the italicised statement.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:I find it hard to find one original idea in Nietzsche it's more like he was the one spinning, inverting... Maybe this by Spinoza is closer to what you are saying
There's no such thing as true original ideas. You'll find everyone spinning, inverting and re-applying stuff. Examination as the 'restlessness of faith' as in Kierkegaard. For what it's worth,Nietzsche described his introduction to the works of Spinoza in some detail.

As for your Spinoza quotes (“he wrapped himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors” remarked Kipling, begging to be quoted on it) -- be aware that his "Metaphysical Thoughts" is a spinning and inverting of René Descartes, being the appendix to a geometric reconstruction of Descartes ("principia philosophiae cartesianae"). Therefore there's a bit of irony in talking about a possible lack of "original ideas" in Nietzsche and then turn around quote the hell out of Spinoza literally reframing Descartes.

As for the content you'd have to equal Being to "existence", so we can start by asserting there's existence and "not nothing whatsoever". Then reason will provide the certainty that this very existence is infinite and total.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Nietzsche was a polemicist so he appropriated things literarily which is a step down from an appropriation of thought and structure, it is something that may have lead to his rejection of Darwinism, for example.

You were talking of ambiguity always being in language and of false realities, given the subject of this thread is logic, the ambiguity and falsity may be in the mind of the one who speaks?

Of truth and falsity it is clear by the quotes that an object is required for there to be any truth or falsity, that puts an end on sophistries about what 'truth' is, if it is relative or absolute... He also speaks that what belongs to thought has no reality so mind doesn't generate realities. (The view that perception is reality is not a consequence of there being no 'truth')

Whether we equate something to "existence" or not it has no consequences on "existence".
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:Of truth and falsity it is clear by the quotes that an object is required for there to be any truth or falsity, that puts an end on sophistries about what 'truth' is, if it is relative or absolute... He also speaks that what belongs to thought has no reality so mind doesn't generate realities. (The view that perception is reality is not a consequence of there being no 'truth')

Whether we equate something to "existence" or not it has no consequences on "existence".
If Reality is ultimately infinite, then delineation must be present to give an object existence. For example, when you look out of the window, what "exists" out there is what you identify by your senses, in contrast to the infinitude of phenomena. Further, the Infinite itself cannot "exist" because there is no means to identify infinitude, and identification requires demarcation, a dividing of "something" from an "other." The Infinite, by definition, includes all "somethings" and "others", so division is impossible, except only by way of appearances, i.e. identifications.

While Reality isn't generated by the mind, existence certainly is. The mind is the key ingredient to existence.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

What's wrong with plain old regular reality? You are dividing reality in ultimate infinite reality and regular finite reality where there's no need for such division, something is either real or unreal.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:something is either real or unreal.
Making that proper distinction is the actual hard part of all thought.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

What, you are struggling to distinguish between what is and isn't real, what have you been smoking? There's no unreal reality by definition. A = A.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

For those who understand, yes there is only one Reality. But for those who do not yet understand, and are under the spell of duality, there is the delusional perception of reality that they think represents Reality, and there is Ultimate Reality that actually is Reality.
crow
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:01 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by crow »

Russell wrote:...and logic is the means to take one beyond...
Logic will take you precisely nowhere. Unless stuck inside your skull equates to somewhere.
Thought, reason, rationality, all take Reality and conjure it into abstracts that are not Reality.
Thinkers think.

Enlightenment occurs when the machine is finally halted, and silence reigns.
The scariest state a human can experience, which is why they mostly flee in panic and start up the machine again.
Beyond the fear of the void, Reality is all around.
Logic couldn't even get up from the couch.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Pam Seeback »

crow: Logic will take you precisely nowhere. Unless stuck inside your skull equates to somewhere.
Thought, reason, rationality, all take Reality and conjure it into abstracts that are not Reality.
Thinkers think.
Reality thinks. Sometimes reality thinks about a thinker...oops...
Enlightenment occurs when the machine is finally halted, and silence reigns.
The scariest state a human can experience, which is why they mostly flee in panic and start up the machine again.
Beyond the fear of the void, Reality is all around.
Reality, why have you voided yourself? See what happens when you do this foolish thing? You end up circling yourself, looking for a place to land. Fortunately, once you see through your foolishness of "voiding", you'll find the way to land your questions.
Logic couldn't even get up from the couch.
Reality, if not for your logic the couch would not exist.
crow
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:01 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by crow »

The highly intelligent man, blundering across truth, ridicules it for not being what he expected truth to be.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

crow wrote:
Russell wrote:...and logic is the means to take one beyond...
Logic will take you precisely nowhere. Unless stuck inside your skull equates to somewhere.
Thought, reason, rationality, all take Reality and conjure it into abstracts that are not Reality.
Thinkers think.

Enlightenment occurs when the machine is finally halted, and silence reigns.
The scariest state a human can experience, which is why they mostly flee in panic and start up the machine again.
Beyond the fear of the void, Reality is all around.
Logic couldn't even get up from the couch.
Who am I replying to here? Is it not a human, who sleeps, eats, walks and sits? I assure you, as long as you're alive, the machine never stops, and logic will always play a role. Enlightenment isn't the halting of the machine, but the alignment of one's thoughts with it so that one perceives ever-flowing Reality with pure eyes. The clinging ego, which causes the hiccups and hesitations of fear and panic, is what becomes silenced.
crow
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:01 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by crow »

Russell wrote: Who am I replying to here? Is it not a human, who sleeps, eats, walks and sits? I assure you, as long as you're alive, the machine never stops, and logic will always play a role. Enlightenment isn't the halting of the machine, but the alignment of one's thoughts with it so that one perceives ever-flowing Reality with pure eyes. The clinging ego, which causes the hiccups and hesitations of fear and panic, is what becomes silenced.
I am more crow than human, at this point. My machine has stopped, several times. I've almost died a score of times, and did actually die at least once.
One uses any tool, religiously, until one discovers a better tool. Logic no longer serves me as it once did. And even when it did, it did not serve notably well.
Enlightenment is nothing whatsoever to do with thought. If it is, it is not enlightenment.

Transcendence is a useful term, here. One transcends mind, to a state of no-mind, that is - in absolute fact - no state at all.
Human life is a state, or many states. Transcend that human state, and you arrive at no-state.
Locked