Talking to the wall is not Genius

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
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:The Infinite is not a concept and can't be realised through any kind of reasoning.
Duh, what is?
Similarly a rock causes other things by being a rock - since it is, after all, a rock.
It isn't anything at all. And surely any supposed inherent "rockness" is yours alone.
His output consists of a helpful posture (that becomes indignant and obtuse when pinned down) and a permutation of material he has read that justifies his desire to turn the universe into a dream where he gets to choose what is "real".
Sounds familiar :)
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:
His output consists of a helpful posture (that becomes indignant and obtuse when pinned down) and a permutation of material he has read that justifies his desire to turn the universe into a dream where he gets to choose what is "real".
Sounds familiar :)
Well I don't think you are affecting a posture necessarily, but the second part really does sound familiar:
You wrote:It isn't anything at all. And surely any supposed inherent "rockness" is yours alone.
Surely the "inherent "rockness" is yours alone"-ness is yours alone. But perhaps I am not putting your statement into the proper context, but then that isn't anything at all either!
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:Surely the "inherent "rockness" is yours alone"-ness is yours alone.
But I'm not claiming your rockness, your statement or your impression exists. Actually I was disputing that.

The dispute is mine and it doesn't exist as anything anywhere. But I realize that and could never say anything about it being a dispute only "since it is, after all, a dispute". Reasoning exists in so far "as it conceives things under the form of eternity" (Spinoza). But that's only true because eternity has been defined as actual existence. The definition itself has no existence, it's just an appearance which has no relation to itself. As far as it can be conceived as relating to the infinite, it would be relating to everything and thereby become absolute truth.
But perhaps I am not putting your statement into the proper context, but then that isn't anything at all either!
Correct, who knows "proper context"? Perhaps if your mind and experiences are similar enough, some of the words could mean something. Probably not exactly what I think they mean but that doesn't need to be a problem. As long as you can relate them properly to the infinite, which is absolute.

There's even no other relating available in the end. Perhaps one which doesn't do much at all: drifting, distracted, clouded, unconscious 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 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Surely the "inherent "rockness" is yours alone"-ness is yours alone.
But I'm not claiming your rockness, your statement or your impression exists. Actually I was disputing that.
If identification is identical to its object, then the identification of this statement as true is itself identical to its object (which is truth). Therefore, that statement exhausts all truth - *any* other statement/assertion is false because 1 is not more than 1. But how can the statement that another statement exhausts all truth be true itself? It must be false! And the statement that it is false must also be false! And the statement that it is false that it is fal---->cool green grass and clear blue skies.
Reasoning exists in so far "as it conceives things under the form of eternity" (Spinoza).
Agreed, but there is no eternity without finite things. That's why it is a mistake to talk about conceiving eternity - it is supererogation.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Reasoning exists in so far "as it conceives things under the form of eternity" (Spinoza). But that's only true because eternity has been defined as actual existence. The definition itself has no existence, it's just an appearance which has no relation to itself. As far as it can be conceived as relating to the infinite, it would be relating to everything and thereby become absolute truth.
If eternity is defined as actual existence as you rightly state above, then by Spinoza's definition, reasoning would actualize things not conceive things. Merriam Webster:

Actualize: transitive verb: to make actual

Conceive: transitive verb: to cause to begin, to take into one's mind, to apprehend by reason or imagination, to have as an opinion

As for your use of the term 'absolute truth' I suggest it is a redundancy that hinders more than helps on the path to finding the truth of being conscious existence. Truth and absolute mean the same thing, why say them twice? What I have found is that when the term 'absolute truth' is used rather than just 'truth', an implication is being made that truth is also relative.

"Become truth?" Yikes! :-)
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

To understand reality better, use the practice of complete silence(to not describe or explain or question) coupled with non action. Start looking, don't stop.

Try it, and if you're still confused about anything at all, try it for longer

"Become truth", just one of many ways of signalling toward it. :)
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:"Become truth", just one of many ways of signalling toward it. :)
This is true. :-)
throughthemud
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:52 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by throughthemud »

Does that make any more sense? What about to you, mud?
It seems that Seeker has a decent hunch about these things but I suspect that he has trouble consolidating insight with the experience of ego, for the ego hates the prospect of non-existence. When enlightenment is near, and a relapse occurs, the ego retaliates violently. I think his youth has something to do with this, as the ego is a bit more active and "louder" in younger folks, which is why he sort of lashes out a bit and is quick to point out the blindness (or what appears to be) in others. I know this was (and often still is) the case for me.


Wasn't geared up and ready to make a post today, but you've been very polite and asked me a direct question, so I will.

Took a bath, cat on my lap, the waters are clear and my mind is ready. What to say, what not to say, what thoughts to combine, what thoughts to discard, what words to form the ultimate mechanized machine, the lord of logic, creating the philosophical memes that will stand strong 500 years from now, how to convey the words in the most vibrant and palatable manner. Or perhaps only 5 hours, and I will forget about this post by tomorrow. ^_^

Time has a habit of things, if it even can be said to exist, it's contents here one second and gone the next. Always chasing to make it last, but the only thing that does last is the fact that it doesn't last.
I could ask myself a pointless question. But before I ask it, someone could say, "Oh, they used the word "self" in a sentence, they must believe in the inherent idea of a self." Then I would reply to them, it is a literary device, a figure of speech. One need not derive conclusions from surfaces, one must develop a keen sense of intuition to find what lurks beneath the surface. But not only intuition is needed, it's a two-way street - the author's themselves also find the duty to make clear what is beneath the surface, which is the intent and purpose of communication. In this sentence, the word "themselves" serves as a redirect to the weight of the author's duty, not so much as an allusion to the notion of inherent self-itude. But what is all this if I will forget it tomorrow, or forget it when I die?
The pointless question I could ask is, is my lack of motivation to make this post today, and things in general, due to my lack of ego, or because of my ego? The answer could simply be, both and neither. It could be to energies blowing in the wind. It could be simply due to lack of energy itself, for if I had an ego I might say to myself - "If only I had no ego, I would be free to do this." And if I had no ego I might say "I wish I had an ego, so I could feel like this was important enough to do." But both times, I might be missing the core cause of the event, which is simply lack of energy being caused by lack of energy. I might scour the Earth reading Prize-Nominated material, reading the latest books devoted to gaining energy, or ancient religious books showing the 3 modes of being, and how to achieve automatic processes the Hindu way. But none of these insights might be as grand as my own personal insights, perhaps no author could hit the ideas in the same as having a personal 1 on 1 conversation.
And, someone might say, why do I use I, if I don't adhere to the modern idea of self-itude? I believe in I. I don't believe I have a name. I believe the purpose of a name is for others to find you, and perhaps a hidden meaning about your life experience and behaviors, that is mainly it. When parents name their child willy-nilly, the hidden meaning of the name may not always match their experience and future behaviors, so even that aspect goes out the window. Often times though, their ego tries to accommodate the name and behaviors it implies, but not always.
Far as ego goes, I don't even know what ego even is. Perhaps I am so egoless that I lost track of what an ego is even supposed to be. Same with self. What is a self? I don't even know. When people of earth talk about it, I don't even know what they are saying anymore, the conversation feels alien to me. What it seems to be, is related to your inner voice, which seems to be linked to the idea of self, because the inner voice sounds similar usually everytime you hear it. Ego seems to be related to the idea that other people are not "you". But that definition smells wrong to me, there could be an egotistical person who believes others are like smaller versions of them, and an ego-less solipist. What I'll say is this, self seems to be a "soup" if you will, a soup of existence that certain consistent properties over time. I believe the delusion that people have, is that the human body is the "self", which is a delusion because we rarely see our own bodies, and are usually looking at other bodies. But there is a good chance it's not delusion to say that our human bodies are somehow related to our experience of consciousness, since consciousness seems to be spatially located in our human bodies, or at least, the appearance of our human bodies. But there's a chance that our bodies functions as merely "avatars", virtual entities linked to our consciousness location, but are not actually the powerhouses that Causality uses as hubs of consciousness, rather the hub Causality uses for consciousness is located elsewhere and there is no power of our bodies other than "avatars". Scientific consensus says that this is not the case, that our brains are "generators" of consciousness but still this theory does not paint a full picture. The "I" is an accurate enlightened statement, I am truly I, I refers to the perceived centre of perception. And make no mistake there is perception, no matter how transient. The exact center of it is debatable though. In dream-like states one can look at other bodies and feel as though you are them, such as one is "one with the table". Sometimes you can "get the feeling" of formless entities. For example, I had a dream about Seeker of Wisdom last night, there were some pipes, he said "One can be enlightened, but not Nirvana, but one cannot be Nirvana without enlightened". I could not see him with my eyes, nor hear him with my ears, but I felt it was his identity saying it. Far as "one with the table" goes, one must wonder the feelings someone who claims this has. Is this simply feeling very feminine loving feelings for the table, taking pity on, and being "in love" with the table?
Yes, the QRS doctrine that "masculinity is genius" is on the hotseat. But this is not due to the aforementioned table meme, but instead due to the power of clarity a feminine bathing and tranquil peace has. While there is something genius about masculinity, one must also wonder if femininity is actually a vital component of masculinity. It is said that "women are the personification of ego." But perhaps this is the perception one gets of "modern women", and perhaps there is an aspect of femininity which is fundamentally egoless. After all, it is a woman's nature to breastfeed her young and there is an aspect of womanhood which is "emptiness". Still one cannot ignore the general vibe men give of being down to earth and intelligent. But perhaps what one might be ignoring is the feminine aspect of men, which might be a vital contributor to their genius. Seeker of Wisdom seems to be feminine in various ways. But perhaps this is not actually an obstacle. Seeker claims that negative energy, strife, etc. are "darkness". Darkness being the opposite of light. Perhaps there is something to be said of this, because it is harder to explore some ideas when the mind is too stressed. One might argue that Seeker still has a bit of ego if he feels he must run away from strife to find light. But if that is the case, that means I also have a bit of ego, because it is hard for me to think clearly during certain types of strife (but not all types of strife.) For instance, some flavors of strife can actually provide insight for me. Far as the masculinity goes, perhaps femininity does clear the mind, but perhaps the mind cannot grow if it is always clear, perhaps the mind must trod throughthemud as it were, to gain insight. Seeker seems to be opposed to throwing ideas and theories out there, but perhaps they must be thrown. If the mind wallows on itself, how can it know what direction to turn? Hypothesis may serve as flags, markers, to be thrown on the ground. And after a few moons, one may look back on them, and see how silly they were, and that is how one knows one is headed in the right direction. But if one never throws flags or markers, the mind is left to wallow inwardly on its own soup. The pattern I see in Seeker is described by TYT as the pattern of BarackHusseinObama, he leads by sitting on the sidelines. He does not clarify his ideas, or state his exact views, but sits behinds the ideas of others, "scouting the waters" rather than risking embarrassment. But what can I hope to change of this, as one does not hope to change the dandelions beauty, but simply watch what it does in the meadows. No more can I expect him to reveal himself, as I would a flower of the field to blossom on my request. Flowers of the field have their own schedule, reveal and blossom themselves in their own due time.
It is not a sign of only "hippies" to hypothesize about things, but a sign of any thinker. It is a sign of hippies to blame ego for all of the world's problems. The ego is not inherently evil or good, and it is, I dare say, possibly hippieish to reach erroneous conclusions. To assume that someone is a hippie, simply for hypothesizing about metaphysics seems very much like a reach, especially since you cannot judge by inflections over a text. It is very humorous to me that I would be compared to the pothead of late.
When I feel exceptionally worthless, I feel like I am a blade of time, hovering above my body. This is not a literally out of body experience, but a feeling. Normally I feel like I am a "glow" of time, not a blade. And that is where Causality comes in.
There seems to be discussion of what genius is. Genius is a very smart person of art, science, [strikethrough]mathematics[/strikethrough], mechanics, or philosophy. At Genius forums mathematics seems to be subordinated, possibly because it may be viewed as one of the categories which can deviate from Reality in an unnacceptable manner. It is viewed as less of genius and more of savantitude. Furthermore, the modern attitude is that "math is science" which can be argued taints the purity of science. That is my guess at least.
And one must wonder what the endgame of Enlightenment as it prides itself in having no endgame. Or does it really? We feel like our words are immortal, that Truth must be found, as if we don't die and we forget everything we learned? In Buddha's case, they said there were some endgame, so his spirit could be at a different place. And so we don't know if that is true, but there is a logical reason to pursue Truth and whether things are true, because of their potential function, such as returning to Earth or helping others. But can one ever renounce some fundamental logic, such as if death is truly the end, how can other's have a beginning?

I've come to a place where that the more I know, the less I know. For instance, one day I said out loud that I was bored. Then I realized, I don't really even know what boredom is. The moment was almost the same 1 minute ago. What about that particular moment was more like boredom than the other? Similar to self, ego, and "causality", the more I try to pinpoint what it exactly is, the less I feel I am able to.

However, since you are on record arguing for consciousness being a sort of first cause, and for non-duality contra duality,Since causality is infinite (as in boundless or simply nonfinite; not a numerical value), there is no first cause. Consciousness is merely a required aspect for any specific thing's existence, because causality is.. well, infinite. More on this below. Consciousness cannot perceive or conceive of the Infinite other than as a concept, or a symbol if you will. The Infinite is realized through logical reasoning.

I feel that I have changed gears and am now using different sectors of my brain. Earlier, I was trying to focus on my own thoughts, now I am trying to focus on my thoughts and what I imagine are your thoughts, and the relationship between those ideas, and the relationship which can best be described as "facts". I've underlined what seem like facts, if it is not underlined, there is a sector of my brain which is perceiving the statements as "iffy".
I underlined "there is no first cause" because this is often the case. One can become endlessly circular arguing if consciousness caused the universe or the universe caused consciousness.
The rest are "iffy" because I'm not sure what causality is. If the Infinite can be realized through logical reasoning, please provide the exact logical steps behind the reasoning.
As for non-duality contra duality, I don't oppose duality in the slightest. For example, when you say:
The "self" is unavoidable. Consciousness is a specific thing, that requires specific things to survive in the world - ergo, the self.
I find this completely true and utterly obvious. It is the function of consciousness to contrast a "self" with the rest of reality. With a bit of further reasoning, however, I understand that all things get their "thing-ness" by the same contrasting property of consciousness. Finites appear when conscious awareness "picks out" finites in an otherwise infinite reality. At bottom, there is only infinite causality. Where conscious awareness is caused, so are the appearances of things, or contrasts, or finites.

What consciousness does is collects a finite amount of entities and compresses them all into a sphere of space. The sphere of space is often called a "self".
The other kind of "self", defined in regards with ego, is not required for existence, but works as an agent to prioritize objects for survival.
Causality seems to come into play, by determining what is past and what is future. From one philosophical perspective, our brains are in hyperpositions, in all times at once and only Causality determines the location of our consciousness. Another perspective is that there is only the present, and space is ever changing and flowing around it, and hyperposition could be a deceptive abstraction. Rolling with perspective 1, Causality determines what state they are in and what slice of space (time) that they are to be. Causality also determines what bodies and planet we are bound to. Causality is linked to consciousness, you cannot say for certain consciousness causes causality or causality consciousness. It does seem to be Infinite, after all we were birthed from nowhere, in a a very big universe, and it seems there is an infinite potential for more universes to be born. But it's debateable if this universe is infinite in terms of it's contents, and for this reason some new language should be defined.
It is not enough to say whether something exists, but what kind of non-existence it has.
Exists - We are conscious of it
Metaexists - A rock in a distance galaxy somewhere, that we cannot see, but we can travel to.
Metaexists type 2 - A universe that we cannot travel to, but we presume that we can somehow get to exist using some strange technique or hoping Causality will make it exist
Metaexists type 3 - The idea that things will still exist in some empirical notion even after Absolute End
Absolute non-existence - Something that cannot exist
Absolute End - The cessation of consciousness ever appearing again
Infinite type 1 - The idea that consciousness cannot end
Infinite type 2 - The idea that no matter how far we travel, space will contain entities and "stuff"
Infinite type 3 - The idea that space spans infinitely, but may not contain "stuff" in all areas
Infinite type 4 - A type of circular logic which is linked to each other's cause
Infinite type 5 - The idea that consciousness cannot end, but this particular universe can
Infinite type 6 - The Idea that consciousness can end, but the contents of this universe cannot end, (metaexists type 3)
Infinite type 7 - The idea that neither consciousness nor even this particular universe can end
Infinite type 8 - Perceiving past, present and future at the same time, as well as containing all "stuff" of the universe at the same time, but unlike omniscience, there is no thought or action, because thought is finite, there is just maximum saturation, and thus, cannot exist because there is no contrast (unless it is white noise?).
Infinite type 9 - Some kind of thing that produces consciousness, but cannot be perceived
Infinite type 10 - I'm starting to forget some of the things in my head, so please finish the definitions for me
throughthemud
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:52 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by throughthemud »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Similarly a rock causes other things by being a rock - since it is, after all, a rock.
It isn't anything at all. And surely any supposed inherent "rockness" is yours alone.
Does rock cause or is it caused? Latter seems to be the case, but the image of the rock is surely a "rockness" in both realities.
It is yours and mine as well, assuming you are a sentient being in a space containing entities with the same properties as his rock things. What is the real gamble, his word "rock" could be secretly translated - the old case of the evil genius - his statement rock could be secretly translated from a reference to flower, and you'd have no way of knowing. You can't be certain his rock is not a flower in your eyes, and your flowers are not rocks in his eyes. But you can be fairly certain that whatever they are, will be with you till you get alzheimers. The other gamble, is whether his word corresponds to an actual reality - as is the case with robots, generated words which point to no entities contained within the author. But he has a nice mustache, so he is probably sentient.
jupiviv wrote: If identification is identical to its object, then the identification of this statement as true is itself identical to its object (which is truth). Therefore, that statement exhausts all truth - *any* other statement/assertion is false because 1 is not more than 1. But how can the statement that another statement exhausts all truth be true itself? It must be false! And the statement that it is false must also be false! And the statement that it is false that it is fal---->cool green grass and clear blue skies.
Your logic seems a bit iffy to me. Such a statement would not exhaust all truth, there are more than 1 entities of truth, therefore no need to post 1 is not more than 1, it is supererogative.
Also the statement that a statement cannot exhaust all truth, need not be false, so I am not sure your logic is on point.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

throughthemud wrote:
jupiviv wrote: If identification is identical to its object, then the identification of this statement as true is itself identical to its object (which is truth). Therefore, that statement exhausts all truth - *any* other statement/assertion is false because 1 is not more than 1. But how can the statement that another statement exhausts all truth be true itself? It must be false! And the statement that it is false must also be false! And the statement that it is false that it is fal---->cool green grass and clear blue skies.
Your logic seems a bit iffy to me. Such a statement would not exhaust all truth, there are more than 1 entities of truth, therefore no need to post 1 is not more than 1, it is supererogative.
Also the statement that a statement cannot exhaust all truth, need not be false, so I am not sure your logic is on point.
You seem to have misread. I was showing the fallacy in Diebert's premise, i.e., identification is the same as the object of identification. I admit I was being coy, since "truth" can't be the object of identification. However, I feel the basic point - that such a premise is infinitely regressive - was amply established.
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 seem to have misread. I was showing the fallacy in Diebert's premise, i.e., identification is the same as the object of identification. I admit I was being coy, since "truth" can't be the object of identification. However, I feel the basic point - that such a premise is infinitely regressive - was amply established.
"identification is the same as the object of identification" is a bad way to put it, and somehow I doubt Diebert put it that way.

An object is only what it is identified to be. Any inferences about that object, including its function, what it's made of, its past, etc., is part of the identification process. There is no object independent of the process, because objectification itself is also part of the process.
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 »

[cringe]

Wake up and smell the roses, Russell!

What Diebert is trying to pass off as ultimate reality is wholly inconsistent with this:
An object is only what it is identified to be. Any inferences about that object, including its function, what it's made of, its past, etc., is part of the identification process. There is no object independent of the process, because objectification itself is also part of the process.
Between Suicides
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 »

I'm not sure who you think you agree with, Leyla. What I'm trying to do is bridge the gap between what jupiviv thinks Diebert is implying and what we've actually been trying to explain to jupiviv.

I'm glad you see a difference, though. But if you look closely, what I'm saying is in agreement with Diebert. It's just that Diebert has been telling the conclusion of the story, which can hard to believe, granted.
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 »

throughthemud wrote:I underlined "there is no first cause" because this is often the case. One can become endlessly circular arguing if consciousness caused the universe or the universe caused consciousness.
The rest are "iffy" because I'm not sure what causality is. If the Infinite can be realized through logical reasoning, please provide the exact logical steps behind the reasoning.
Truth be told, there's been more than enough material to go around that demonstrates the reasoning that leads to the realization. I will make a couple of points though.

- Understanding causality is paramount. Causality is infinite because there is nothing in reality that could be without causes, and all things are causally connected. Consciousness does indeed cause the universe and vice versa.
- I don't think it is very useful to propose the idea of multiple universes and/or alternate realities, because such thinking, in a sense, violates the above point. There is only one universe, one reality, with possible sub-realities if you like to entertain the idea. There is one Ultimate Reality that all things are a part of.
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 »

Russell:

Let’s take one of those hollow rubber balls and, for the purposes of illustration, cut it in half so we have two equal spherical caps and place one of them on a table plane side down.

Let’s then say the table doesn’t exist. In fact, nothing except that spherical cap exists and, by way of analogy, let’s say the outer surface represents causality (or “the process”).

Am I to understand your position regarding ultimate reality is that causality exists in a manner analogous to the cap on the table and that if we invert that cap there’s nothing caused there?
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 »

What I'm trying to do is bridge the gap between what jupiviv thinks Diebert is implying and what we've actually been trying to explain to jupiviv.
Why don't you just speak for yourself?
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 »

It'd be a lot more efficient, for one thing. For example, you wouldn't have to keep dealing with what you think jupiviv thinks Diebert's implying.
Between Suicides
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 »

Leyla Shen wrote:Russell:

Let’s take one of those hollow rubber balls and, for the purposes of illustration, cut it in half so we have two equal spherical caps and place one of them on a table plane side down.

Let’s then say the table doesn’t exist. In fact, nothing except that spherical cap exists and, by way of analogy, let’s say the outer surface represents causality (or “the process”).

Am I to understand your position regarding ultimate reality is that causality exists in a manner analogous to the cap on the table and that if we invert that cap there’s nothing caused there?
Oh no, what's under the cap is definitely caused. Whatever it may be however, be it air, a ball, an elephant, a skyscraper, etc. has no existence until it conscious awareness perceives the necessary contrasts. Don't get me wrong, the contrasts of the object cause consciousness just as much as consciousness causes the contrasts, but the interplay of both is what is necessary for that object's existence.

To put it another way, the existence of things is dependent on the relativity of the observer and the observed. Causality permeates all of this, and is absolute, whereas existence is not because it is always changing.
Why don't you just speak for yourself?
It'd be a lot more efficient, for one thing. For example, you wouldn't have to keep dealing with what you think jupiviv thinks Diebert's implying.
I'm also dealing with what I think you're implying :)

Don't worry, my reasoning stands on its own feet. My response above was directed towards what jupiviv claims to be Diebert's premise, which I perceive to be in error.
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 »

The question was that of rockness (identification) and rock (object).

Diebert emphatically denied the existence of rockness, whilst you posit the sameness of identification and object in defence of what you suppose to be "Diebert's premise".

Please explain how you manage that.
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 »

Especially since what follows from your premises in this discussion is simply that Diebert has no "conscious awareness" of rocks.
Between Suicides
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 »

Leyla Shen wrote:Especially since what follows from your premises in this discussion is simply that Diebert has no "conscious awareness" of rocks.
Indeed it would, but what I assume Diebert is getting at, and what I meant when I said that he is telling the conclusion of the story, is the nature of existence in relation to the absolute (just took a quick look and he has been saying as much, more than once).

Existence relies on relativity, and relativity isn't absolute. So what happens when you relate the existence of things to the Infinite? It is then revealed that existence is an illusion of causality.

I'm sure this is where I will lose you. There's a jump in logic here that can be challenging, admittedly even for me at times. I can only urge you to review the evidence until it all clicks.

To put it in another, perhaps better way, you can't relate existence to the absolute, precisely because it (existence) is relative. So if the absolute is said to be real, then existence must not be.
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 »

Hi, Russell.

I believe you've left out a premise to make your argument stick and you would need to explain to me what sort of "evidence" I need to review before "it" clicks if you think I'm wrong.

Your argument, paraphrased, with the missing premise in bold:

1. Existence is causal and not infinite.
2. Since things which are caused are contingent upon their causes and those causes are not themselves infinite, existence is an illusion of causality.
3. Causality is infinite.
4. Therefore, if the infinite is real, all things are an illusion of causality.

Comments before I go on?
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 »

L, just one small thing about "rockness (identification) and rock (object)". That's the other way around as I meant it in this discussion and everywhere else since eternity. Better encapsulation would be "rockness (object/inherently there) and rock (identification/appearance)". Carry on...
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Unclarification

Post by Leyla Shen »

Much of a muchness.
Between Suicides
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 »

Leyla Shen wrote:1. Existence is causal and not infinite.
Correct.
2. Since things which are caused are contingent upon their causes and those causes are not themselves infinite, existence is an illusion of causality.
Well, not quite. I admit that my phrase "existence is an illusion of causality" is a bit loaded and not clear. It's missing the part about the role consciousness plays in things' existence. It would've been better to say something like "existence is an illusion caused by the interplay between consciousness and its subject"
3. Causality is infinite.
True.
4. Therefore, if the infinite is real, all things are an illusion of causality.
Given that #2 isn't very clear, this conclusion, while not entirely untrue, is a bit unclear as well.

I'm game to continue if you don't mind my adjustments, but if you're interested, it'd be better to work with the reiteration of my point, which was simpler and concise, being:
you can't relate existence to the absolute, precisely because it (existence) is relative. So if the absolute is said to be real, then existence must not be.
Which would make my argument, in its most simple form:

1. The absolute is real
2. The Infinite is absolute
3. Things are finite
4. Things are not real

You can interchange "things" with "existence". In order to save time, I'll flesh out the middle two points a bit:

1. The absolute is real
2. The Infinite is absolute. The Infinite is descriptive of causality, which pervades the whole of reality. Causality describes the the interrelationship of all things, and therefore the oneness of the All. It also describes the ever changing nature of all things.
3. Things are finite manifestations of causality. Things "exist" by way of conscious perception. To exist is to stand apart from the rest of reality, which is found to be not only temporal, but illusory as well in the sense that such "standing out" only occurs with conscious perception. As consciousness as a thing is included in this process, the existence of consciousness is also therefore illusory.
4. Things are not real
Locked