Talking to the wall is not Genius

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Philosophy is entirely personal. There is no such thing as a direct communication of "philosophical" understanding, all you can do is provide some pointers, some vague signs through language, and if the traveller doesn't see the direction you're suggesting, or can only see it from the viewpoint of another road, then that is all there is to it. No language is clear enough that it can directly or sufficiently communicate your understanding, it's always a gamble or maybe a vain hope, like sending out a message in a bottle via the ocean when you're stranded on an island, either it is recieved and it is understood, or it's not. You can send out plenty of these bottles, write the message a thousand different ways, but it may never change a thing.

As I see it, relations and relationship is all about barriers and the overcoming of them, and you will always come across unbreachable barriers. Often we "talk to the wall" and there is little chance of getting through.

Perhaps it would be more "genius" of us to eschew the focus of the forum entirely, to refuse to discuss the indiscussable, and instead skip right to wherever common ground can be found, such as the best practical methods to 'butter your toast', to avoid sufferring, or even to attain 'peace'. Understanding cannot be communicated with any certainty that it will be recieved, but 'methods' are much more easily communicable.

Give me methods, give me conclusions, give me advice, give me suggestions, all of these I can try for myself and explore personally, they can be learned from more efficiently, but don't try to provide some direct explanation of how you 'got there', to attempt to do so is usually futile, it often only leads away from whatever "gifts" one might have to share.
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 »

Where does this drive of "getting through" come from you think? It seems still part of the whole social make-up of our being, this amount of attempts to communicate ideas and viewpoints as well as jokes and stories. If anything that exchange has come to a record high because of all the means available. The electronic highways are c̶l̶o̶c̶k̶e̶d̶ clogged up with it right now in attempted "real" time.
Perhaps it would be more "genius" of us to eschew the focus of the forum entirely, to refuse to discuss the indiscussable, and instead skip right to wherever common ground can be found, such as the best practical methods to 'butter your toast', to avoid suffering, or even to attain 'peace'. Understanding cannot be communicated with any certainty that it will be received, but 'methods' are much more easily communicable.
Do you believe there are any "practical methods" in this context? Philosophy has never brought peace to anyone, sooner the sword. As I see it, all we ever do, with philosophy or with any other communication, is to discuss the indiscussable. This is not some mysterious element of spirituality. It's just the area where the issue becomes the most clear. Discussing toast and politics are just areas we might fool ourselves easier in thinking we actually talk about something tangible. But we rarely ever do. Of course real, natural forces do play out and verbal exchanges can be part of that. But that doesn’t mean we really ever know what we're talking about.

Philosophy starts with realizing that, the knowing one doesn't know. And with that opens a whole different realm as now a new way has been found to talk about knowledge which cannot be known. It's the same thing as before but now inside out.
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:Where does this drive of "getting through" come from you think?
There seems to be little use in contemplating the causal relations to such a drive.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Philosophy starts with realizing that, the knowing one doesn't know. And with that opens a whole different realm as now a new way has been found to talk about knowledge which cannot be known. It's the same thing as before but now inside out.
I'm no longer concerned with discussing where philosophy starts, but where it leads. Purpose and further benefit seem to me to be the only reasonable drives behind such an activity. As I see it, philosophy has benefited me immensely, yet these benefits almost never came from accepting explanations by word of mouth, but from my personal contemplation of the core statements that are made, the conclusions, suggestions, advice, and 'methods'.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker: I'm no longer concerned with discussing where philosophy starts, but where it leads. Purpose and further benefit seem to me to be the only reasonable drives behind such an activity. As I see it, philosophy has benefited me immensely, yet these benefits almost never came from accepting explanations by word of mouth, but from my personal contemplation of the core statements that are made, the conclusions, suggestions, advice, and 'methods'.
Philosophy has benefited me greatly as well (although at times, it feels like just the opposite), but it is my experience that one is born with a philosophical nature or they are not.

I am aware that philosophy has brought you to the conclusion that form/experience is impermanent/transient. What do you perceive as being the end goal of this long-contemplated conclusion?
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:
Where does this drive of "getting through" come from you think?
There seems to be little use in contemplating the causal relations to such a drive.
Unless you want to talk about it having use or not! And you are indeed talking about it in your first paragraph although you might not realize it. You talk about changes to accomplish, some efficiency of the process I suppose, some gamble and hopes invoked... but what do you want to achieve exactly? World peace? Progress of World Evolution? Laying your own egg? This is what I mean with causal relations since you talk about a "wall" which is directly, causaly linked to your expectations which are linked to motivations. And as such the wall is actually there or not, depending on how you desire to step into this game.
I'm no longer concerned with discussing where philosophy starts, but where it leads.
It's rather pointles, perhaps a diversion, to be only interested now in effects but not in causes. There's only one causality at work and contemplating effects will eventually be shown to be of just as much use as contemplating causes.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Proof that Jesus is real and will give us candy after we die: I decide to surf the forum after a couple of weeks and Diebert posts right before I hit submit. Anyways:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Perhaps it would be more "genius" of us to eschew the focus of the forum entirely, to refuse to discuss the indiscussable, and instead skip right to wherever common ground can be found, such as the best practical methods to 'butter your toast', to avoid sufferring, or even to attain 'peace'. Understanding cannot be communicated with any certainty that it will be recieved, but 'methods' are much more easily communicable.
Before you "butter your toast", you need a toaster. Dropping the metaphor: you don't have enough wisdom yet even to tell wisdom from foolishness. Your repeated attempts to start discussions about what are, at best, peripheral issues in relation to wisdom evince an impatience with wisdom itself, probably as reaction to a recognition of your deficiency in it.

Lawyers don't need vague and unclear advice on being a lawyer. Married couples who despise each other to begin with need marriage counsellors to tell them, "look, I can't tell you how not to despise each other, so I might as well get paid for telling you that same thing in a much nicer and more roundabout way."
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Your post Jup is a perfect example. Worse actually, you're trying to explain myself for me. I see it only as niavety.
but what do you want to achieve exactly? World peace? Progress of World Evolution? Laying your own egg?
I'm not sure if I could say there was something, and if there was, I couldn't explain it.

Also, I said 'starts' and 'leads' not 'causes and effects', I'm relatively sure we are not thinking of causality in the same light anyway.
movingalways wrote: I am aware that philosophy has brought you to the conclusion that form/experience is impermanent/transient. What do you perceive as being the end goal of this long-contemplated conclusion?
For one. I wouldn't say that I had an end-goal, and I'm not sure in what context you mean. It seems that you think of being as some journey toward transcendence of being, as if "what is" currently were flawed or not ideal and you're hoping for a fix, in metaphysical terms I would say there is no "end goal". Then again I expect that what I imagine "seems to be" about you misses the mark, my point is that I can't explain you and you probably can't explain yourself to me. Though I guess you could say there are varying 'degrees' of barriers, in the sense that I'm probably 'further away' from someone like Alex than you.
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:Also, I said 'starts' and 'leads' not 'causes and effects', I'm relatively sure we are not thinking of causality in the same light anyway.
This might be an interesting difference. What would cause and effect then be if it would exclude notions like "starts" and "leads"? You might not be able to explain your own motive, origination and goal but you should be able to explain your notion of causality at least. Every conversation should start with that perhaps! But maybe they all do, implied in all the various assumptions then.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Yeah, I'm fine with making statements, I'm just no longer claiming I can explain with any certainty that it will be received.

I didn't mean to exclude "starts" and "leads" from cause and effect, only pointing out that I didn't use the term, just to clarify what I said about explanation, which is always coming through a filter.

With causality I'd say that it is a term we apply to our perception of relations, something which is imposed more so than it is the fundamental nature of reality, at least I get the sense that this is how moving always speaks about causality, as in the language 'reality' or 'spirit' are equated with causality.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

movingalways: I am aware that philosophy has brought you to the conclusion that form/experience is impermanent/transient. What do you perceive as being the end goal of this long-contemplated conclusio
Seeker: For one. I wouldn't say that I had an end-goal, and I'm not sure in what context you mean.
Perhaps "end" goal is a poor choice of words, let's leave it at "goal." As for context, I am speaking of a goal or reason for having wisdom of impermanence.
It seems that you think of being as some journey toward transcendence of being, as if "what is" currently were flawed or not ideal and you're hoping for a fix, in metaphysical terms I would say there is no "end goal".
There is no "what is" in our current world of relativity. Every word we utter is dependent on a multi-layered causal relationship with every other word. I no longer am proposing a transcendence of anything, instead, I am working at clearing away the attachments that were formed because of the above-mentioned multi-layered world of relativity. This is my reason for (goal of) wisdom of emptiness/impermanence.
Then again I expect that what I imagine "seems to be" about you misses the mark, my point is that I can't explain you and you probably can't explain yourself to me. Though I guess you could say there are varying 'degrees' of barriers, in the sense that I'm probably 'further away' from someone like Alex than you.
Case in point. Your above statement is steeped in relativism. It is both my experience and logical conclusion that the effect of the murky cloud of relativism is one of chronic stress and dissatisfaction because of attachment to the murky cloud. Is this your experience and logical conclusion?
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:Your post Jup is a perfect example. Worse actually, you're trying to explain myself for me. I see it only as niavety.
If you really believe that, why are you naively trying to explain myself to me by telling me how I'm trying to explain yourself to you?
Yeah, I'm fine with making statements, I'm just no longer claiming I can explain with any certainty that it will be received.
Does this newfound uncertainty have *anything* to do with my having put your internet-assembled philosophy out to pasture in that other thread?

Just asking.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:Does this newfound uncertainty have *anything* to do with my having put your internet-assembled philosophy out to pasture in that other thread?

Just asking.
I wasn't even aware you had replied on that thread until now. I just checked and you did, I hadn't seen it. Will read it today.

jupiviv wrote:SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Your post Jup is a perfect example. Worse actually, you're trying to explain myself for me. I see it only as niavety.

....
If you really believe that, why are you naively trying to explain myself to me by telling me how I'm trying to explain yourself to you?
The quote was "cannot be explained with any certainty that it will be received", not, "cannot be explained". As was clear in the analogy.

You essentially miss-quote by inference, as if your purpose is to confuse and distort the most simple of statements, perhaps because of your prejudice and 'grudge', or maybe you really just don't get language, as you continuously make inferences under the implication that language was ever absolute, exactly defined, or universally applicable, rather than incredibly vague, incredibly unclear, incredibly inexact, in every single case, you're not exempt from this. If you think you are, and that I'm just a failed example, please 'let the universe laugh'. Communication of understanding usually requires a common grounding of experience, hence how it is always a gamble to hope that any message will be "received", perhaps take that into account next time you're writing. If, for example, you were correct in everything you were saying and it was in my best interest to learn so, but I was simply too ignorant to see it, then your attempts to 'get through' are still essentially failures, so if you know that what you're attempting is failing at every turn, then is it really wise to continue with the same methods, the same message in the bottle? Talking to the wall. Indeed it was probably naive for me to explain to you at all, but I'm really doing so as a final 'lengthy' explanation before I opt-out of these generally wasteful endeavors to explain how one has 'arrived' at any claim. I think that fewer words, more basic statements, methods, advice, and suggestions, which are then taken for use in personal exploration and 'judgement', are more effective in the long run, and that these continuous attempts at lengthy explanation (Alex being a perfect example) are often futile, can you really fault me for thinking so? I very much doubt you could show otherwise, though I guess you could try if you want, but then you might need some people as evidence, to show that your method was more effective, wouldn't you?

That's it for me, going to stick to statements, methods, advice, and suggestions, for now at least.
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:
jupiviv wrote:SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Your post Jup is a perfect example. Worse actually, you're trying to explain myself for me. I see it only as niavety.

....
If you really believe that, why are you naively trying to explain myself to me by telling me how I'm trying to explain yourself to you?
The quote was "cannot be explained with any certainty that it will be received", not, "cannot be explained". As was clear in the analogy.
Those two statements effectively mean the same thing. If there is no certainty *at all* that an explanation will be understood, there isn't much point in forming one to begin with. If you think that any communication or explanation of any philosophical understanding is vague and (therefore) unlikely to be understood, you have no reason to communicate that same understanding to anyone else. Unless, of course, you believe that *your* explanation is somehow less vague and more likely to be understood than everyone else's.
If, for example, you were correct in everything you were saying and it was in my best interest to learn so, but I was simply too ignorant to see it, then your attempts to 'get through' are still essentially failures, so if you know that what you're attempting is failing at every turn, then is it really wise to continue with the same methods, the same message in the bottle?
Look, I'm shooting pearls here. What you do with them is your business.
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:With causality I'd say that it is a term we apply to our perception of relations, something which is imposed more so than it is the fundamental nature of reality, at least I get the sense that this is how moving always speaks about causality, as in the language 'reality' or 'spirit' are equated with causality.
But aren't you implying here another nature of reality beyond perception of relations and whatever causes these perceptions to be?

One way to look at causality is the idea of aggregate, that everything necessarily is composed of many factors and elements, forces and unknowns, in the past, present and who knows the future. That there's dependency or like that Buddhist term Pratītyasamutpāda, dependent origination or dependent arising,

Once it's positioned that something arises even when we had somehow realized some emptiness or nothingness, we can know there are relations in place, dependencies, causes and consequences to that.

Now we appear to have stumbled upon a fundamental principle which applies to every physical, sensory or spiritual event. And this term is also caused and dependent, therefore it can only be realized, not just intellectually picked apart, although it should be challenged, it almost demands that. But what makes this particular term so interesting is that it somewhat leads to its own undoing and realisation when applied rigorously. There are a few of those ideas which can serve that role.
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:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:With causality I'd say that it is a term we apply to our perception of relations, something which is imposed more so than it is the fundamental nature of reality, at least I get the sense that this is how moving always speaks about causality, as in the language 'reality' or 'spirit' are equated with causality.
But aren't you implying here another nature of reality beyond perception of relations and whatever causes these perceptions to be?
No, I would say the term causality is similar to terms like time or free will, while they all refer to something perceived (change, choice, or in the case of causality, relations and relationship), they are closer to ideas or inferences imposed or 'added after' the perception, rather than some all-encompassing reference to the absolute nature of reality, as I've noticed a few people speak of causality on the forum. (I could have said ideas or inferences 'arising' instead of 'imposed', so as to avoid implying 'another nature beyond', or some split between two)
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: I would say the term causality is similar to terms like time or free will, while they all refer to something perceived (change, choice, or in the case of causality, relations and relationship), they are closer to ideas or inferences imposed or 'added after' the perception, rather than some all-encompassing reference to the absolute nature of reality, as I've noticed a few people speak of causality on the forum. (I could have said ideas or inferences 'arising' instead of 'imposed', so as to avoid implying 'another nature beyond', or some split between two)
But aren't you now implying there's a some kind of perception before perception? Or at least a "raw" version leading to something more processed? I guess I have a similar question as in my last post about that manoeuvre. Can we really speak still of a "perception" existing before the idea or inference in being added that there's such a thing. Surely there are many things leading up to what we call "perception". But how does it help to speak of pre-perception, pre-awareness, proto-thought and so on? All that can be shown to be aggregates. by logic but also by meditation and self-study.

This is why I'd call causality a leading principle. And while the thought indeed occurs "late" or "high", lets say at the apex of a pyramid of causality, that doesn't mean it can not perfectly, or at least sufficiently tell you something about that whole pyramid.
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: But aren't you now implying there's a some kind of perception before perception? Or at least a "raw" version leading to something more processed?


No, I'm talking about perceptions and then ideas, and they usually happen in one order or another, but to try and distinguish between these absolutely is a useless attempt, we are only using language of differentiation to refer to common experience, not to create what isn't. I don't see where you reason that I'm implying a perception before perception or another nature of reality. It seems to be some backwards attempt to justify causality as a 'leading principle'. I'm simply pointing out that it is similar to any metaphysical idea or description of what is perceived, like talking about free will. If we were to start judging 'principles' and dividing them up into which ones are 'leading' - or whatever the opposite is, 'not so prevalent' ? - then I would agree that causality is closer to the lead :) I simply don't deem causality as being some description of the absolute fundamental nature of reality, but rather as being closer to a 'worldly' explanation for relations and relationship.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I guess I have a similar question as in my last post about that manoeuvre. Can we really speak still of a "perception" existing before the idea or inference in being added that there's such a thing. Surely there are many things leading up to what we call "perception". But how does it help to speak of pre-perception, pre-awareness, proto-thought and so on? All that can be shown to be aggregates. by logic but also by meditation and self-study.

This is why I'd call causality a leading principle. And while the thought indeed occurs "late" or "high", lets say at the apex of a pyramid of causality, that doesn't mean it can not perfectly, or at least sufficiently tell you something about that whole pyramid.


I wouldn't separate perception from ideas or inferences in terms of their fundamental nature and arising, but if we are to differentiate between them, they can definitely be said to occur in one order or another, though attempting to determine exact boundaries between them would be futile.

The point I was making is that many here speak of causality as if it were reality itself, and thus by 'absolutizing' this 'principle', the 'logic of causality' is then blindly applied to everything that is spoken of, such as being itself, our existence must be caused because reality is causality and if there is something then it must be caused by something which it isn't, probably something of 'the infinite unknown causality'. Or, to quote movingalways, "The actual form "apple" that is eaten is made up of uncountable things of the everything of God that the intellect cannot single out."

When I consider nearly all the world views and 'philosophies' I've heard, or heard implied, there is always this inclusion of "more". Reality is not what you know it to be, it isn't what you experience, what you know, it is "more" than that and it's "out there" beyond the reach of your intellect, you just can't see it. Whether it's God, the infinite amorphous realm of causality, the invisible source of awareness beyond all form, or the "mind-independent" physical realm of the materialist, it often seems to be an attempt to reduce. Reduce the existence you know, the only existence anyone has ever been privy to, (that which we refer to as consciousness), as only being a part of the nature of reality, the "more" of that which is different in nature, is always implied, and the nature of reality you know is just a reflection, a portion, a creation, an effect of, (etc) the greater nature of reality. Inevitably these views also belittle or reduce the 'self' to mortality, or even to definition, which is far enough. This distinction seems to be at the core of metaphysics, a foundation which is unquestioned and passed along, just as God was. A belief which is prevalent in nearly every discussion of the nature of reality. Yet I ask you or anyone to tell me or show me what this "other" nature of reality is, and the only reply is always a plea to logic, as if words alone could create an infinite unknowable realm, as if logic were some tool transcendent from the reality of our experience. Instead I say that Reality determines what is logical, logic does not determine what is real.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:55 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 »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:No, I'm talking about perceptions and then ideas, and they usually happen in one order or another, but to try and distinguish between these absolutely is a useless attempt, we are only using language of differentiation to refer to common experience, not to create what isn't.
Your *idea* of what is a useless attempt and what isn't is founded upon your *perception* of the fruits of such attempts. If the former isn't founded upon the latter then it is unsubstantiated. Perception and ideas do happen in an order and it's clearly identifiable as I've just demonstrated.
I wouldn't separate perception from ideas or inferences in terms of their fundamental nature and arising, but if we are to differentiate between them, they can definitely be said to occur in one order or another, though attempting to determine exact boundaries between them would be futile.
Everything occurs in one order or another, which doesn't mean they don't have separate natures and modes of existence. The only fundamental nature they possess is that of causality, which by *its* nature doesn't nullify any aspect of *their* nature (because they cannot be other than what it is).
When I consider nearly all the world views and 'philosophies' I've heard, or heard implied, there is always this inclusion of "more". Reality is not what you know it to be, it isn't what you experience, what you know, it is "more" than that and it's "out there" beyond the reach of your intellect, you just can't see it.
Reality is, by definition, more than you know it to be. If it weren't then the two options are a) you are or create reality (solipsism) b) someone else does (supernaturalism). A belief in either of these is self-annihilating.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker:
When I consider nearly all the world views and 'philosophies' I've heard, or heard implied, there is always this inclusion of "more". Reality is not what you know it to be, it isn't what you experience, what you know, it is "more" than that and it's "out there" beyond the reach of your intellect, you just can't see it.
There are an infinite number of causal entities of reality that are beyond your intellect's scope of reasoning. To name a few: elephant, spider, tree. And of course, within each of these three causal entities mentioned exist multiple causal entities of reality viewed only through the aid of an electron microscope: viruses, cells, atoms, protons, etc. Not to forget the causal elements/effects of sun, water, earth, air and fire that support the life of sense-perceived macro and micro entities, none of which can be qualified or quantified by any human means.

Contemplating the dance of Causality/Reality beyond one's limited sentient perception has the potential of opening the door to the spiritual heart. William Blake: "To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour." Do either of these thoughts mean anything to you?
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote: Reality is, by definition, more than you know it to be. If it weren't then the two options are a) you are or create reality (solipsism) b) someone else does (supernaturalism). A belief in either of these is self-annihilating.
SeekerOfWisdom wrote: the "more" of that which is different in nature, is always implied, and the nature of reality you know is just a reflection, a portion, a creation, an effect of, (etc) the greater nature of reality
I'm speaking about a "more" which is (apparently) fundamentally different in nature.

"the existence you know, the only existence anyone has ever been privy to, (that which we refer to as consciousness)," then becomes only one 'type' of reality, it is reduced to being one 'kind' of its greater nature. Yet this different nature is not to be seen, and has never been described to me. "I ask you or anyone to tell me or show me what this "other" nature of reality is".

Also, I should probably ignore your use of the word "create". Your reasoning that reality must be 'created' from this viewpoint follows from nowhere. I'm sure you didn't mean that literally, but were just using the word generally? Solipsism is entirely different from Idealism, and neither necessarily imply any 'creation'.
movingalways wrote:There are an infinite number of causal entities of reality that are beyond your intellect's scope of reasoning. To name a few: elephant, spider, tree. And of course, within each of these three causal entities mentioned exist multiple causal entities of reality viewed only through the aid of an electron microscope: viruses, cells, atoms, protons, etc. Not to forget the causal elements/effects of sun, water, earth, air and fire that support the life of sense-perceived macro and micro entities, none of which can be qualified or quantified by any human means.

Contemplating the dance of Causality/Reality beyond one's limited sentient perception has the potential of opening the door to the spiritual heart. William Blake: "To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour." Do either of these thoughts mean anything to you?
What I see is the implication that you believe in a world that does not exist, in the sense that you attempt to 'absolutize' the conventional/worldly. You don't refer to the real world as it is, but as you imagine it to be. There is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself, appearances(thoughts,sensations,concepts, and so on) exist only so far as they arise, they make up the entirety of your knowledge and insight, and objects of sensation are not reflections of some distinct perpetually existing objects of a realm- and I use the word 'realm' because I really don't know what you imagine it to be, energy? atoms? "unknown causality"? - different in nature from 'the mind' (a word which loses its meaning without the contrast of the delusion of this "other" nature of things).

This seems to have drifted away from the topic about methods of communication, which is relevant to all of these other discussions. If a man has an insight, lets say about the curvature of the earth, and tries to explain it to another person who has not had the corresponding insight, then whether the man is correct or not, the message will likely not be received or understood. So the question becomes, how do we most efficiently and accurately determine, then communicate, what is true or what is delusional while faced with these inevitable barriers? I say that attempting to explain oneself alone is an insufficient method and is often misleading, it can even end up misleading the speaker himself. It seems to me that a lengthy explanation is often less efficient than a short core statement. While this isn't always the case, the fact is that a lengthy explanation also takes up more time and is prone to more instances of error and miscommunication, as it demands more. It demands a kind of accuracy or exactness which rarely exists in language. I think that if we communicate core statements, succinct questions and answers, methods, practices, and advice, then allow each person to contemplate or engage in them personally, without attempting to explain how we 'arrived there', then there is greater chance of reception.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker, as I see it, everyone is sincere on this board and is being as clear as they can be. Intent, for me is important. You said to jupiviv:

"I ask you or anyone to tell me or show me what this "other" nature of reality is".

The absolute principle is not an "other" reality, it is the hidden reality of the appearance. A simple example: the experience of pleasure comes and goes yet no one can be shown what causes the coming and going of pleasure. However, not seeing the cause of pleasure does not negate the logical truth that pleasure is caused.

I am making the core logical statement that the absolute hidden principle of Reality is causation and what is shown/revealed to the (caused) consciousness is Reality's (caused) productions. Which I believe contradicts what I believe to be your assertion that the mind and the appearance are one 'thing', that they are not caused, that they simply 'are.' Core request: show me the logic of "mind and appearance" is "all there is."
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:
Reality is, by definition, more than you know it to be. If it weren't then the two options are a) you are or create reality (solipsism) b) someone else does (supernaturalism). A belief in either of these is self-annihilating.
I'm speaking about a "more" which is (apparently) fundamentally different in nature.

"the existence you know, the only existence anyone has ever been privy to, (that which we refer to as consciousness)," then becomes only one 'type' of reality, it is reduced to being one 'kind' of its greater nature. Yet this different nature is not to be seen, and has never been described to me. "I ask you or anyone to tell me or show me what this "other" nature of reality is".
The All is not the fundamentally uniform or differentiated nature of anything, because that would imply there is a superficial nature that is not the All.
Also, I should probably ignore your use of the word "create". Your reasoning that reality must be 'created' from this viewpoint follows from nowhere. I'm sure you didn't mean that literally, but were just using the word generally? Solipsism is entirely different from Idealism, and neither necessarily imply any 'creation'.
A Reality that is "not more than you know" is indeed created, since either *you* decide what it is and is not (solipsism/internet-assembled idealism) or someone else to whom you *ascribe* your knowledge does (any supernaturalism). Hence nonsensical statements such as:
Instead I say that Reality determines what is logical, logic does not determine what is real.
Similar to:
It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. (Chesterton)
The only thing you can know about things you do not know is that they are parts of Reality just like you are, but that isn't really "knowledge" but rather the greatest and only miracle. Hence truthful statements such as:
Truth is not a matter of knowing this or that but of being in the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here, best seen in Christ’s response to Pilate. Christ did not know the truth but was the truth. Not as if he did not know what truth is, but when one is the truth and when the requirement is to be in the truth, to merely “know” the truth is insufficient – it is an untruth. (Kierkegaard)
As opposed to:
The modern philosopher had told me again and again that I was in the right place, and I had still felt depressed even in acquiescence. But I had heard that I was in the WRONG place, and my soul sang for joy, like a bird in spring. The knowledge found out and illuminated forgotten chambers in the dark house of infancy. I knew now why grass had always seemed to me as queer as the green beard of a giant, and why I could feel homesick at home. (Chesterton)
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:
Also, I should probably ignore your use of the word "create". Your reasoning that reality must be 'created' from this viewpoint follows from nowhere. I'm sure you didn't mean that literally, but were just using the word generally? Solipsism is entirely different from Idealism, and neither necessarily imply any 'creation'.
A Reality that is "not more than you know" is indeed created, since either *you* decide what it is and is not (solipsism/internet-assembled idealism) or someone else to whom you *ascribe* your knowledge does (any supernaturalism).
Again, your claim that it must be "created" from any of these viewpoints is nonsensical and does not follow. Why must it be created rather than simply be? When you say "since either you decide what it is and is not", you're implying that the *you* must be separate from reality, rather than a part of it, the same goes for any decisions therein.
jupiviv wrote: Hence nonsensical statements such as:
Instead I say that Reality determines what is logical, logic does not determine what is real.
That you think the above statement is nonsensical only reveals to me a monolithic barrier between us. I see the above statement as necessarily residing at the core of any worthwhile contemplation of metaphysics.
movingalways wrote:The absolute principle is not an "other" reality, it is the hidden reality of the appearance. A simple example: the experience of pleasure comes and goes yet no one can be shown what causes the coming and going of pleasure. However, not seeing the cause of pleasure does not negate the logical truth that pleasure is caused.
You said: The absolute principle is not an "other reality", it is a hidden reality. Yet all you have done is repeat the claim, again.

Then in your example about pleasure you simply applied your claim and used it to reason itself. Can you not see that? You said the experience of pleasure comes and goes, then assumed it must be ultimately caused, therefore there must be the hidden reality of the causes. Just repeating the claim.

As I see it causation is a reference to relations and relationships, patterns based on observation, and so on, these are only ever in reference to temporary appearancces and their apparrent correlation, certain instances, specific events and objects, or specific feelings such as pleasure. It works more as an attempt to explain on a conventional 'level', as a description of what is seen, not as any absolute truth or absolute nature, the logic of which you then applied to consciousness itself.
movingalways wrote:Core request: show me the logic of "mind and appearance" is "all there is.
This to me is another backwards argument, the answer to which seems obvious. All of your thoughts, all of your knowledge, all of your sensations, all of your feelings, all of your concepts, all of your observations, all your ideas are "mind and appearance", all these we know to exist, they are not hidden, so the question should be posed to you, not the other way around. You could not for the life of you, if you attempted for ten thousand years, reveal one instance of anything, any knowledge, any insight, any idea, any object, or any aspect of reasoning itself, which different in nature from we refer to as "mind and appearance". (All you can do is erreneously refer to some object of 'mind and appearance' -such as the body, which is a word referring to sensations, feelings, and so on- then claim that it is actually caused by something more, something 'hidden', something unknown, which you cannot show).

Don't you find it odd that you failed to reveal even one thing which was not simply an aspect of what we refer to as 'consciousness'? All you managed to say was that there is a "hidden reality", which you have implied is different in nature from 'consciousness'. Yet it only exists in the words and in the idea, it does not exist in the reality you know, by your own definition it is "hidden" to you. This is essentially because you have misunderstood the role of logic, which does not determine or create what is real. You act as if your thoughts were some transcendent tool, they aren't. Your "hidden reality" only exists as an ephemeral idea, nowhere else.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker, you are not following your own rules of efficient communication. I do believe this one paragraphs sums up nicely your position in relation to mine:
You could not for the life of you, if you attempted for ten thousand years, reveal one instance of anything, any knowledge, any insight, any idea, any object, or any aspect of reasoning itself, which different in nature from we refer to as "mind and appearance". (All you can do is erreneously refer to some object of 'mind and appearance' -such as the body, which is a word referring to sensations, feelings, and so on- then claim that it is actually caused by something more, something 'hidden', something unknown, which you cannot show).
I don't need ten thousand years, I need only a few sentences. Mind and appearance changes, mind and appearance is temporal and finite. Truth does not change, truth is eternal. I assume you consider that your view of "mind and appearance is all" is absolute truth, which implies does it not that its truth exists regardless if mind and appearance acknowledges its existence? Therefore, I have shown to you that truth (the absolute) is different in nature than is mind and appearance (relativism).
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:
jupiviv wrote:
Also, I should probably ignore your use of the word "create". Your reasoning that reality must be 'created' from this viewpoint follows from nowhere. I'm sure you didn't mean that literally, but were just using the word generally? Solipsism is entirely different from Idealism, and neither necessarily imply any 'creation'.
A Reality that is "not more than you know" is indeed created, since either *you* decide what it is and is not (solipsism/internet-assembled idealism) or someone else to whom you *ascribe* your knowledge does (any supernaturalism).
Again, your claim that it must be "created" from any of these viewpoints is nonsensical and does not follow. Why must it be created rather than simply be? When you say "since either you decide what it is and is not", you're implying that the *you* must be separate from reality, rather than a part of it, the same goes for any decisions therein.
The assertion that reality cannot be more than what you know begs the question - how do you know that? In response, if you actually try to explain it to me, then you necessarily acknowledge that a>> there are some things *I* don't know & b>> there are things outside of *your* consciousness (my consciousness) and about which *you* do not fully know (why I disagree with you, how to convince me otherwise). The only other options available besides actually explaining it with good reasons are the au contraire BS in your latest post or irrelevancies about Reality determining logic.

So that is why it is created and cannot simply "be". Of course, it isn't a *reality* that is "created" (it is nonsense) but rather the false rationale for ignoring that which is considered painful (and which is called "reality" in order to strengthen that rationale). Like the first Chesterton quote: the reality where miracles exist is never created, nor is it really the intention of those who purport to create such a reality. What is "created" is a defence of the manner in which one chooses to despise or ignore the Reality one already inhabits. Or alternatively, a defence of the joy and contentment one desires to feel within a Reality more accordant with one's idea of joyfulness (the second Chesterton quote).
Instead I say that Reality determines what is logical, logic does not determine what is real.
That you think the above statement is nonsensical only reveals to me a monolithic barrier between us. I see the above statement as necessarily residing at the core of any worthwhile contemplation of metaphysics.
There is only one kind of logic, and it is the only way truth can be known. Your statement seems to assume that logic itself has a nature that is determined by Reality, which in turn implies that you - consciously or otherwise - have imputed a specific type of nature upon Reality. Without that assumption, your statement is meaningless; with it, illogical.
Locked