Talking to the wall is not Genius

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

The idea of 'before' when referring to the appearance of consciousness in relation to the totality/causality is a potentially confusing pointer as it suggests consciousness appears in linear time and/or space. Consciousness is OF the causality and is caused no more when wisdom of 'the single eye' is caused to be complete ('finished').
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:You are unable to perform what Kierkegaard called a "dialectical redoubling". You can reason that no boundaries can exist without consciousness, and that it therefore follows that only with consciousness do boundaries, and therefore things, come to be. But you don't go the one step further and conclude that before consciousness *was*, the All *is*! This tenth step is crucial; it's like a lame tortoise bouncing up and down in a glass jar suddenly assuming the form of a dragon that could swallow up the world and then flying home. The other nine are worthless if one falters here.
You are projecting that I am unable to do this, but I do it with no problem. I think you aren't reading carefully enough, or maybe slipping up with your own meanings and showing a reluctance to owning up to it. I know full and well that the All is, was, and will be for all time and beyond time. But I also know that things do not, and cannot exist without consciousness. Do you think the two views are incompatible? Do you think that my quotes of David and yours of Kevin are in disagreement? If you do, then it is you that is showing an incapacity for dialectical redoubling. Oh sweet irony.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:All I said was that all the finite things I know of appear to be physical, i.e., what is conventionally defined as being "physical". I didn't introduce a *new* concept of physicality. Perhaps the current concept of physicality is erroneous or at least too vague, but that is a *scientific* question.
But what is conventionally defined as being "physical" has little philosophical meaning or use. They are the result of a complex, almost theological set of metaphysics and some "Instrumentalism". But you are invoking it here as some ultimate factor unless you are applying it unconventionally. Like here: "models of physical phenomena require those phenomena to have existence beyond themselves". Again you are just restating "inherent existence" in other words. You are trying to make the philosophical terms like employed by Kevin et al, which are denying and demolishing inherent existence, somehow mean its opposite. A quality normally only reserved for women in domestic discussions.
Why this need to complicate disagreement? I'm always in a fluid state of defining things, because things can be defined in countless ways. The mental rigidity created by an adherence to certain definitions is precisely what led me to reject the idea of consciousness being somehow special.
Some consistency helps clarifying and enables you to attack your self. To grow up and be a man. Fluidity is nothing without some strength, some back bone. You can call it mental rigidity from your perspective of course but I do think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Even your fluid states seem rather stiff to me, you're not even flexible enough to stand by your own definitions and work with them! Normally because of too much aches coming with it, too many unused muscles with your attempts to be "fluid" like a flopping fish out of water.
Magic is the belief in some *thing* beyond appearances that shape those appearances. I prefer to call things permanent or changing based on how they appear to me, whereas you call them absolutely changing *regardless* of how they appear to you or anyone else. Who is thinking magically?
Not regardless, change is seen as the nature of appearances as it can be deduced that there are no "constant" or "permanent" appearances. Since such thing would require a lot of magic indeed...
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hell is Other People

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:We all necessarily act on or presume that what appears to us exists—or, if you like, is actual, non-illusory reality. Since it does so, it is actual, non-illusory reality. We generally don’t run around checking with other people whether or not a cliff’s edge exists before we refrain from walking off it because we’ve concluded that we’ll likely die if we do, for example.
You mean the reality of these things are all tied up with a context where they arise: all the behaviours, opinions, information, moods, language, education, maps, randomness and perspectives? That's hardly an argument for non-illusion. And after all, some do end up walking off the cliff though, for whatever misguided or inspired reason. What you suppose doesn't "generally happen" does not form any philosophical argument for its actual, non-illusory reality. Generally, the sun comes up over the horizon, after all...
one foot in the heart of the burning pits of Sartre’s Hell; that realm where self is objectified in the consciousness of the other. You know, like talking to walls...
I really like that one! As you might have seen, I've been working with the idea of "self-as-object" linked to the need to have a subjective world in relation to such objectified self. Way more seductive than the ironic but still equally erroneous view of the true subject: to have an objective, "actual" world out there.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

Diebert:
You mean the reality of these things are all tied up with a context where they arise: all the behaviours, opinions, information, moods, language, education, maps, randomness and perspectives? That's hardly an argument for non-illusion.
It’s a perfectly fine argument for non-illusion since those things are very real, as you yourself unabashedly testify here:
  • And after all, some do end up walking off the cliff though, for whatever misguided or inspired reason. [...]
Unless you would like to argue that misguidance or “divine” inspiration are not real. In other words, this proves rather than refutes my argument.

You'll have to do much better than that, I'm afraid.
What you suppose doesn't "generally happen" does not form any philosophical argument for its actual, non-illusory reality.
See above.
Generally, the sun comes up over the horizon, after all...
Well--hallelujah?
I really like that one! As you might have seen, I've been working with the idea of "self-as-object"
Yes, since I have apparently not produced anything on the order of what might form a philosophical argument for non-illusory reality, you may call it “inspired”...
...linked to the need to have a subjective world in relation to such objectified self. Way more seductive than the ironic but still equally erroneous view of the true subject: to have an objective, "actual" world out there.
You propose, as forming "philosophical argument" for illusory reality, modern egoism as an inversion of scientific materialism?

Think about it. How does that follow?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:Diebert:
You mean the reality of these things are all tied up with a context where they arise: all the behaviours, opinions, information, moods, language, education, maps, randomness and perspectives? That's hardly an argument for non-illusion.
It’s a perfectly fine argument for non-illusion since those things are very real, as you yourself unabashedly testify here:
  • And after all, some do end up walking off the cliff though, for whatever misguided or inspired reason. [...]
Unless you would like to argue that misguidance or “divine” inspiration are not real. In other words, this proves rather than refutes my argument.

You'll have to do much better than that, I'm afraid.
You seem to be making a case for causality, that's fine. Are you perhaps equating "non-illusion" with relative truth, a set of causes one could attribute to some appearance?

Generally, the sun comes up over the horizon, after all...
Well--hallelujah?
That was an example of an appearance leading in the past to many certain assumptions and illusions. Most people are now familiar with the more abstract truth of entering and leaving the shadow of a rotating earth. But that's just another appearance. All we have are illusive senses and ideas, although I'm not claiming they are random. Illusion is not the same as a random feverish dream, at least, not necessarily.
As you might have seen, I've been working with the idea of "self-as-object" linked to the need to have a subjective world in relation to such objectified self. Way more seductive than the ironic but still equally erroneous view of the true subject: to have an objective, "actual" world out there.
You propose, as forming "philosophical argument" for illusory reality, modern egoism as an inversion of scientific materialism?
Warning: some longer text follows. Do not read try to read it in between laundry hanging, whatsapping, exercising and pet feeding :)

Modern egoism is closely linked to scientific materialism. Actually a form of materialism happens in both mentioned instances of fundamental objectification. When the self is objectified, the world and the other becomes accessory, as the "subjective". But when the self is found to be subjective -- thus empty -- the world and other tends to become objectified instead.

This can be universally applied but as usual it's easier to see in the good old psychological gender divide. The masculine tends, through that phallic "thing", to address reality as objective which would include the other as object or in your words: "self objectified in the consciousness of the other". And since men are weak, they will require the absolute reality of the object to "be". Now the feminine objectivity as reverse: the self, filling all the space, needs to become object and desires objectification, needing the world as accessory, a completely subjective, relative world with the objectification, this recognition as object and "self-existence", is maintained through others or more generally "information".

There you have it! The positions Jupiviv and yourself take here seem certainly masculine in nature, as you both indeed embrace the typical objective position, but you are in fact both employing weak and illusive stands, lets say like an average man, running away from genius. In both cases it's easy to understand as a struggle to become a man while rejecting the very demand itself to follow through -- between a rock and a hard place indeed. They are signs of the stubborn unwillingness to admit to the full emptiness of the subject which will show the emptiness of all the objects, the world and its things. It's that depth, that abyss, which is offered here. As for material reflections: for women it would become all too often suicide, for men some form of worldly destruction. These days you see it appearing as blending of those two simply because the genders blend in the collision course of the modern.

Gee, I wish I could have condensed this a bit. The problem is that reality does not fit in one-liners and explaining a vastly different perspective on the same old matter requires some larger context or changing approaches. And yet it's not difficult in essence: emptiness.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

Warning: some longer text follows. Do not read try to read it in between laundry hanging, whatsapping, exercising and pet feeding :)


Well actually, I'm preparing a statement of claim, but I guess it's all the same to you; anything other than nose picking, farting and nay saying, of course.

I seldom reply to thought that's actually insightful because, well -- I'm too busy being insighted.

Yes, Diebert. You're just a plaything! And don't pretend you don't like it that way.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

And that's about all the time I have for play right now. But I'll be back!
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:They are signs of the stubborn unwillingness to admit to the full emptiness of the subject which will show the emptiness of all the objects, the world and its things. It's that depth, that abyss, which is offered here.
Nice post Diebert, I wonder if we're on the same page, you'd have to tell me:

There should be no difference between a metaphysical 'investigation' and an experiential 'investigation'.

In other words, when you're trying to understand the nature of reality, the moment your focus drifts away from what is true in your experience, you start working within irrelevancies, you cling to specific imaginations, words, thought processes, events, metaphors, world views and thought experiments. These should initially be considered irrelevancies in regard to metaphysics because they are not yet resting upon a foundation of understanding. To one caught up in one form of experience, such as a particular conceptual groundwork, there is often a self-perpetuating creation of complex answers to questions which only appear logical within the context of misguided metaphysical assumptions. When you're investigating the very nature of reality, the further you cling to that mass of imagination, the more immersed you are in it, and the less clarity you experience in regard to the core of the issue- their arising. You're focused on specific appearances, 'the surfaces', and not on their nature, 'the depths'.

Instead, when you focus on the nature of your own experience, what you 'see' is that all appearances are constantly changing. You also 'see' that you are not some omnipotent god with free will dictating which appearances will arise, that instead, all appearances are a direct 'manifestation' of reality. In other words, this very sentence is a manifestation of reality, as are your thoughts and imaginations. This is then realized for every aspect of life, every interaction, every event, and every idea.

The ignorant one does not 'see' the nature of appearances and their impermanence, and cannot see that they are not created or put in place by any greater self, he is unaware that they do not come from any deity, source, external reality, brain, physical realm, or body- that fundamentally, they do not require causal or scientific explanation. He does not *know* emptiness, and so any understanding he might have on the topic is usually conjecture, hearsay, or purely based in some specific concept he deems agreeable. He cares little for contemplating the nature of his own experience, but in his investigation looks out to what he believes is ‘external’, and through ignorance, becomes ‘entangled in a cocoon of discrimination', in which distinct 'objects' are spoken of as having inherent existence. Thus he holds faith in some ridiculously complex metaphysical platform, from which he attempts to explain the appearance of the world he believes in using causality. In this case we have scientific materialism, which reduces the significance of investigating the experiential reality we know and instead asserts that it is only an aspect of- a viewing window used to investigate- a wider mysterious universe.

The fact is, Jupiviv is just plain delusional. The ‘physical world’ he believes in doesn’t exist, though the appearances are very real, they are very empty. There’s nothing 'physical' ‘behind’ them, as he clearly believes.

To know whether you are caught up in delusional or imaginative 'surface' beliefs, start from the very beginning of philosophy, which is to investigate your own 'mind'. Experiential investigation, introspection, meditation, contemplation of the senses, and so on.

Recognize that first you have the impermanent experience, and then by virtue of only one aspect of that experience- thought - entire worlds and realms are created and believed to be real. Stop clinging to any imagined explanation for what you're seeing for but a moment, and right there is the nature of reality, just now it is without the distortion of delusion or conceptual narration. Does this mean one is abandoning reason, thinking and logic? Or that these are useless in regard to knowledge, elucidation, and understanding of truth? No, all it means is that you should stop to contemplate the actual nature of conceptual platforms before you build on them :)
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:All I said was that all the finite things I know of appear to be physical, i.e., what is conventionally defined as being "physical". I didn't introduce a *new* concept of physicality. Perhaps the current concept of physicality is erroneous or at least too vague, but that is a *scientific* question.
But what is conventionally defined as being "physical" has little philosophical meaning or use.
It is very useful for refuting a premise that denies the nature of things that are defined to be physical. Or one that falsely posits non-physical things like 72 virgins in heaven in exchange for blowing oneself up. On that note, did anyone find the accidentally dropped passports at those airports yet? Those terrorists....such ditzy little scamps!
They are the result of a complex, almost theological set of metaphysics and some "Instrumentalism". But you are invoking it here as some ultimate factor unless you are applying it unconventionally. Like here: "models of physical phenomena require those phenomena to have existence beyond themselves".
If I meant that *all* models rely upon *assertions* about *unconditional* existence, then your objection is valid. And indeed, that is how you - true to form - seem to have interpreted the statement.

But I was talking about models themselves - *all* of them rely upon *assumptions* that the things that are being modelled *probably* exist (and are not identical with the models). Now this assumption, in particular cases, may be wrong but there are reliable ways of scientifically determining whether it is so. Why, then, is it metaphysical?

It goes without saying that such an assumption does not rely upon a belief in inherent existence. If it did, you wouldn't be reading this post.
Even your fluid states seem rather stiff to me, you're not even flexible enough to stand by your own definitions and work with them!
For example?
Magic is the belief in some *thing* beyond appearances that shape those appearances. I prefer to call things permanent or changing based on how they appear to me, whereas you call them absolutely changing *regardless* of how they appear to you or anyone else. Who is thinking magically?
Not regardless, change is seen as the nature of appearances as it can be deduced that there are no "constant" or "permanent" appearances. Since such thing would require a lot of magic indeed...
Assuming that to be true - since you are acting as if you have held certain views in opposition to myself for the past few *weeks* (let alone moments), you clearly believe in magic. Burn the witch!
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:I know full and well that the All is, was, and will be for all time and beyond time. But I also know that things do not, and cannot exist without consciousness. Do you think the two views are incompatible?
They are incompatible because you are introducing a hierarchy to the "cannot exist without". Consciousness causes non-consciousness in the exact *same* way that non-consciousness causes consciousness. You and others are trying to think of "emptiness" or "non-duality" as something besides, or beyond, this interdependence. However, you deny that you are doing so. Why? For the same reason managers deny that "people skills" refer to flattery and deceit. To wit:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The fact is, Jupiviv is just plain delusional. The ‘physical world’ he believes in doesn’t exist, though the appearances are very real, they are very empty. There’s nothing 'physical' ‘behind’ them, as he clearly believes.
He thinks that I am delusional, and also that appearances are "very" real and empty. In other words, he believes that the *appearance* of poor delusional me *appears* to be empty. But he won't admit this, because if he does then he would also have to admit that his own premise bars him from calling me or anything else "delusional" (or anything else).

How can delusion even exist if *everything* is an empty appearance? What imperfection in apparently empty appearances would lead us to conclude that they are delusional? Even those questions are delusional according to his premise, since it assumes that the person who makes such a claim is deluded. And of course, so is the previous statement about the delusionality of that question. And the previous statement as well----*cuckoo* *cuckoo*
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

In other words, Russell, do you also know with the same conviction that consciousness does not and cannot exist without things?

~
The ‘physical world’ he believes in doesn’t exist, though the appearances are very real, they are very empty. There’s nothing 'physical' ‘behind’ them, as he clearly believes.
'Lol'
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:He thinks that I am delusional, and also that appearances are "very" real and empty. In other words, he believes that the *appearance* of poor delusional me *appears* to be empty. But he won't admit this, because if he does then he would also have to admit that his own premise bars him from calling me or anything else "delusional" (or anything else).

How can delusion even exist if *everything* is an empty appearance? What imperfection in apparently empty appearances would lead us to conclude that they are delusional?
It's clear you are simply abusing the words 'empty' and 'appears' to suit your straw-man joke.

You haven't said anything about the definitions of the words or how they have been used, nor have you pointed out any contradiction. All you've done is imply a lie- that I ever denied or refuted the existence of people, imperfection, or delusion, just by jokingly asking that if everything is empty then how can there be delusion or imperfection. In case you didn't notice, you completely ignored context, like you always do. Otherwise you just exaggerate and abuse language to suit your needs.

It is not valid or sound reasoning to write 1) "But if that's true, then how could this be?" ten thousand times in a row. Or, 2) "If that is, why then does this happen?. Or 3) "If it did, then this would/wouldn't be". Or 4) "How can this be, if that is?" or 5) "Which means that, which proves this" or similar to 5: 6) If this is, then this must be"

Undeniable proof that you endlessly use these poor forms of argument:

A case of 1)
jupiviv wrote:because if he does then he would also have to
A case of 4)
jupiviv wrote:How can delusion even exist if *everything* is an empty appearance?
A case of 3)
jupiviv wrote:If it did, you wouldn't be reading this post.
A case of 3)
jupiviv wrote: If it did, then there would be
A case of 5)
jupiviv wrote: which means that the... Which in turn means that the
A case of 6)
jupiviv wrote: If that's true then this
A case of 3)
jupiviv wrote: If it does then it isn't
I only stopped because I ran out of time for now.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote:
'Lol'
Would you assert that appearances, or objects of sensation, exist only by virtue 'physical' counterparts?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

Well, yes—that’s what an object of sensation is, by definition: physical.

Why not?

If I didn't, I’d have no way to tell, for example, the difference between an oasis in the middle of a desert and a mirage, the former being an object immediately discernible to the mind and senses and the latter residual memories caused by physical stress.

Would you assert one can satiate thirst by drinking from a mirage, or philosophising about whether or not water “really” exists?

Have you stopped drinking water, or do you just think it’s a non-real illusion but do it anyway?
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Leyla Shen »

Lol

Here's a "real appearance" for the no-things-exist crowd: whilst Diebert thinks he's a torch bearer, in reality he's janitor who treasures above all his own mess!
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:All you've done is imply a lie- that I ever denied or refuted the existence of people, imperfection, or delusion
I haven't implied that. In fact my point was that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want problematic physical realities like death, pain, guilt and suffering to be unreal. Thus, very empty appearances. You also want to eat delicious cake, criticise and get angry at things you dislike, and generally indulge in every need and desire that happens to alight upon you. Thus, very real very empty appearances.

In all this you do not, for whatever reason, notice the blatant contradiction in this worldview. If there are only appearances, without any division of awareness and object of awareness, then no further distinction between such appearances is possible since it would involve the appearances *appearing* to be distinct in various ways.
Leia Shen wrote:Lol

Here's a "real appearance" for the no-things-exist crowd: whilst Diebert thinks he's a torch bearer, in reality he's janitor who treasures above all his own mess!
Now why get personal? Or is that a personal question? Anyways, I think he's done a pretty good job with spammers and maintaining the civilised minimum in discourse. I only hope he's making regular backups of the site against the eventuality of fuckedfuckedcompany.com.com (Usenet forbid).
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:They are incompatible because you are introducing a hierarchy to the "cannot exist without". Consciousness causes non-consciousness in the exact *same* way that non-consciousness causes consciousness. You and others are trying to think of "emptiness" or "non-duality" as something besides, or beyond, this interdependence.
Emptiness and non-duality isn't besides or beyond, but the actual reality. It is the conclusion reached upon after an intense and thorough examination of the implications of the 1)uncertainties of empiricism and 2)the boundless nature of causality.

You're only shooting yourself in the foot by sticking to your guns without delving deeper into the details. Look through the apparent contradictions and see the whole picture. Don't be deterred by the whatever egos you perceive involved here. Go reread the works of others, like the last chapter of Wisdom of the Infinite (which Kevin helped write), until you get it.

You are missing out on the progression of wisdom, skipping the last step, and settling for what is in fact the simple, common worldview regarding existence. Scientific materialism sums it up. Dialectical redoubling is key, as you alluded to. Admittedly, understanding the complete picture is not as easy as I might've implied, case in point when I briefly mistook that we were in agreement.
Last edited by Russell Parr on Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:Here's a "real appearance" for the no-things-exist crowd: whilst Diebert thinks he's a torch bearer, in reality he's janitor who treasures above all his own mess!
But I don't disagree at all, I've called my self the forum janitor and all one can ever try to treasure is ones own mess or "stuff"! As long as it's buried deep.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: Or one that falsely posits non-physical things like 72 virgins in heaven in exchange for blowing oneself up.
What makes you think it's false? It seems to mean something in terms of "all desires fulfilled perpetually" in the heavens. Which sounds to me as a poetic version of no-desire and nirvana for all ends and purposes. With every teaching one has numskulls who take things literally, as object, as thing, as "real". Anyone falling for that is in my eyes suicidal terrorist. Some have a bomb and the training to use it, others miss the guts even for that. But I try to discuss reason with all of them all the same (as an aside, I do believe Muslim terrorism rises like a mirror image to the repressed suicidal terrorism of a dominant Western belief system with its symbolic and real violence - but that's not as interesting as philosophical topic as it sounds, just my opinion).
But I was talking about models themselves - *all* of them rely upon *assumptions* that the things that are being modelled *probably* exist (and are not identical with the models). Now this assumption, in particular cases, may be wrong but there are reliable ways of scientifically determining whether it is so. Why, then, is it metaphysical?
I don't think even a scientist would think the model represents some Platonic "original thing" out there. That's just you, the believer in objects, who cannot even be sure he is right about that. And yet you talk about they "exist", some eventual "I may be wrong" ambivalent form of existence. And that's exactly where I agree. But I think the term "illusion" is way more helpful here.
change is seen as the nature of appearances as it can be deduced that there are no "constant" or "permanent" appearances. Since such thing would require a lot of magic indeed...
Assuming that to be true - since you are acting as if you have held certain views in opposition to myself for the past few *weeks* (let alone moments), you clearly believe in magic. Burn the witch!
What I put to you in opposition is causality and change in various wordings and phrases. Burning witchcraft to the ground is just one of the effects.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:When you're investigating the very nature of reality, the further you cling to that mass of imagination, the more immersed you are in it, and the less clarity you experience in regard to the core of the issue- their arising. You're focused on specific appearances, 'the surfaces', and not on their nature, 'the depths'.
That's what I'd call the discovery of the subject and the depths of that journey. But since it's internal, it won't as such surface in communication and the whole social consciousness developing around that, which remains all about appearances and surfaces. What is called "human being" is really a flatland creature, skin thick, more even like a rash on that skin.
In this case we have scientific materialism, which reduces the significance of investigating the experiential reality we know and instead asserts that it is only an aspect of- a viewing window used to investigate- a wider mysterious universe.
I see that as outcropping of the development of "self-as object". Perhasp it should not be called materialism, since matter is not even really known here. We're talking ghost images covered by a language speaking of matter.
... all it means is that you should stop to contemplate the actual nature of conceptual platforms before you build on them :)
Indeed, such contemplation is as much effect as cause of that very platform, so what could it ever reveal? Although I think even that inquiry, when done seriously enough, could prepare the way. Probably because it was already there though, this "will to "truth", to inquire further, intellectually as well as non-intellectually.. One has to be born with such illness and unrest already in place. It's not clear to me how it could happen otherwise!
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote: Or one that falsely posits non-physical things like 72 virgins in heaven in exchange for blowing oneself up.
What makes you think it's false? It seems to mean something in terms of "all desires fulfilled perpetually" in the heavens. Which sounds to me as a poetic version of no-desire and nirvana for all ends and purposes.
Except that Nirvana in the original Buddhist sense does not mean the fulfillment of any desires nor the lack or transcendence or repression of them. BTW I wasn't trying to insinuate anything against Muslims in general, since I know quite a few of them myself. Anyway, what is your point again?
With every teaching one has numskulls who take things literally, as object, as thing, as "real".
Can you spot the contradiction in that statement?
But I was talking about models themselves - *all* of them rely upon *assumptions* that the things that are being modelled *probably* exist (and are not identical with the models). Now this assumption, in particular cases, may be wrong but there are reliable ways of scientifically determining whether it is so. Why, then, is it metaphysical?
I don't think even a scientist would think the model represents some Platonic "original thing" out there. That's just you, the believer in objects, who cannot even be sure he is right about that. And yet you talk about they "exist", some eventual "I may be wrong" ambivalent form of existence. And that's exactly where I agree. But I think the term "illusion" is way more helpful here.
"Me" is a "Platonic original thing", because you clearly believe that I exist and that my words represent an original me out there who writes them. Physician, heal thyself!
change is seen as the nature of appearances as it can be deduced that there are no "constant" or "permanent" appearances. Since such thing would require a lot of magic indeed...
Assuming that to be true - since you are acting as if you have held certain views in opposition to myself for the past few *weeks* (let alone moments), you clearly believe in magic. Burn the witch!
What I put to you in opposition is causality and change in various wordings and phrases. Burning witchcraft to the ground is just one of the effects.
Of course it's causality, but it is also constant. You might have died or undergone some radical change in brain chemistry, but you haven't because you have been caused not to. Or do you disagree that you have constantly disagreed with me? And if so, given your premise of absolute change, you should instantaneously change your position and agree that you have constantly disagreed...etc.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:Emptiness and non-duality isn't besides or beyond, but the actual reality.
You, a dualistic and material being, are saying that about non-duality. Why, then, should anyone believe you? It's like someone proudly announcing that he is a conman and then offering to safekeep your money.
You're only shooting yourself in the foot by sticking to your guns without delving deeper into the details. Look through the apparent contradictions and see the whole picture. Don't be deterred by the whatever egos you perceive involved here. Go reread the works of others, like the last chapter of Wisdom of the Infinite (which Kevin helped write), until you get it.
Ego is the first and last of seeking wisdom. Anything else - emptiness, nirvana, you name it - is just window dressing. But since you say you want me to read the works of others, let me assure you that my knowledge of both QRSian and Buddhist philosophy is considerable. The actual content of these teachings, and indeed all wise teachings, are unimportant and actually misleading to a student who hasn't understood them already. They are meant to be pats on the back and meaningful nods penetrating the barriers of time and space to motivate potential sages.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Except that Nirvana in the original Buddhist sense does not mean the fulfillment of any desires nor the lack or transcendence or repression of them.
Lets just use a more usual definition: "the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished". Then we have the other common Buddhist notion of: "complete fading away and cessation of this craving [tanha]; its abandonment and relinquishment; getting free from and being independent of it". Of course you're free to define your own original, sharper, more complete sense (and you should) but it's not reasonable to introduce suddenly your personal, meaningless and ineffective sounding one now just to be able to disagree.

And any "perpetually fulfilled" desire is by definition extinguished or non-occurring, since it won't be able to occur in that instance and all following instances. It seems your lust to oppose is inhibiting your knack for logic somewhat :)
"Me" is a "Platonic original thing", because you clearly believe that I exist and that my words represent an original me out there who writes them. Physician, heal thyself!
Why do you think I believe those things? Because you do? Perhaps you're just objectifying the other too much here, as some mirror image. In any case, all the words uttered by anyone represent something and are caused to be spoken. In that sense, there's always great truth in them. But the wisdom lies in the domain of hearing and realizing people are not really able to talk about the same thing. Although there's some stubborn belief we do, perhaps because we feel we have to.
Of course it's causality, but it is also constant.
Causality here is the constant because if it was not, the uncaused would appear immediately. We couldn't have that!
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Lets just use a more usual definition: "the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished". Then we have the other common Buddhist notion of: "complete fading away and cessation of this craving [tanha]; its abandonment and relinquishment; getting free from and being independent of it". Of course you're free to define your own original, sharper, more complete sense (and you should) but it's not reasonable to introduce suddenly your personal, meaningless and ineffective sounding one now just to be able to disagree.
There is no cessation and no origination. If there is no cessation, how can desire be extinguished? If there is no origination, how can its objects be called unreal? They do exist and influence us in various ways. Now what are you going to *do* about it? Does it logically follow that because something exists you must desire it, or because a desire exists you must indulge it? You seem to have a problem with *your* desires being unsatisfied. But does that really warrant hollowing out the universe? Much ado about nothing!
And any "perpetually fulfilled" desire is by definition extinguished or non-occurring, since it won't be able to occur in that instance and all following instances. It seems your lust to oppose is inhibiting your knack for logic somewhat :)
Which is precisely why it is delusional to separate desires from their objects, either by negating the desire's reality or the object's. Delusions are incomplete chains of reasoning. Reason says that the object does exist, when desire intervenes and demands that existence doesn't matter when it comes to desired objects, since reason also says that it can't be attained, or that it can't exist perpetually. Sound familiar? In the other case, reason says that the object isn't eternal, when desire intervenes and demands that eternity doesn't matter when it comes to desired objects, since reason also says that they exist and can be attained.

The fewer the things that are desired (whatever they are) the more of a say reason has.
"Me" is a "Platonic original thing", because you clearly believe that I exist and that my words represent an original me out there who writes them. Physician, heal thyself!
Why do you think I believe those things? Because you do? Perhaps you're just objectifying the other too much here, as some mirror image.
I could say the same of you. And indeed was. You are clearly on a roll at this point - whatever I assert about things ends up being some version of a belief in inherent existence.
Locked