Contradiction and the Absolute

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'm not sure what ordinarily regulates serotonin, though.

There are many cycles in our activities and environment which can influence, correct or reset any regulation. Generally a highly irregular life, disturbing patterns of staring at artificial light, ingesting certain activating foods, all can in each individual case have great effects. But the interlocking appears to be highly individual, as if we all form some balance over time, which might expire and has to be remade at times. These are very recent areas of research though and hard for scientists who always look for the general and universal.

I suppose therefore that the problem of suffering can be mitigated by simply not seeing it as suffering, but blessing. (...) suffering is a subjective interpretation which could be the root cause. Many times we suffer due to our expectations.

Expectations have a lot to do with how we approach the past and future. How we are constructed as beings of time. It's part of our mental fabric in the non-physical sense.

There is a lot of depth to that show. Perhaps you haven't given it a fair chance?

Do you have reading problems perhaps? How much more praise could I have given it?

Your philosophy would be the reason for your preference. For example, you eat the crust before the cheesy part because you're saving the best for last (and that can only be understood by living it, as Keats said).

That's not really "philosophy", that's just talking about possible causes of some behavior. Philosophy addresses what comes before any notion of the physical, that is our sense of existence, meaning and the nature of truth and reality. Or for example to examine this need to find causes or the larger tendency of addressing those. It's not about talking about particular causes since it's easy to establish there will be a few, some easy to see, some hidden.

You're right; there is no goal, but the universe has a noticeable track-record of desiring to become increasingly conscious as if it were a goal.

If that was so, wouldn't you expect some more planets with life, some more signals, some more species with higher consciousness on this planet? From first impressions it almost looks like an accident! It's just one vantage point though, there are many possible.

how do we objectively know we've eliminated all the untruths?

By understanding the dynamic between truth and untruth fully. This is why self-knowledge is always key: understanding fully ones limits in a context. Of course there's a moment it will not be something to prove any more since proving "a thing" to "one self" would simple not be representing any more any viable way to deal with the larger reality. But only at some point.

[Serendipper]

You stated that communication *literally* contains meaning, truth, falsity etc. within themselves. My rebuttal was, in brief, that meaning has to occur - by definition - in the mind of at least one person, i.e., the original communicator of meaning, in order for it to be communicated. If it is understood by someone, it likewise occurs in the mind of that person. The actual medium/piece of communication itself contains/conveys no meaning. If it did, then understanding on the part of anyone would be unnecessary for meaningful communication to occur.

Why didn't you say that before? "Literal" has 7 different meanings http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literal?s=t Yes of course the words have no meaning of themselves, but I endow them with meaning when I string them together and you discern meaning implied by their construction. Maybe I overcomplicated the problem since I never expected you'd be pointing out the obvious, but I do tend to miss easy solutions so it's entirely possible it's my fault.

I made the same points repeatedly, and they were meant to counter your argument that "a statement is a thing because it is a series of words ... it is also a thing because it is a concept that conveys information". To my mind, it was clear enough which definition of "literal" I was using. But obviously there was a misunderstanding and now its cleared up. Presumably we can agree that statements are just series of words and not concepts or any sort of literal containers of meaning.

Unfortunately, no :( I can't agree that statements are only series of words and not concepts. I suspect another problem of semantics.

Within the set of "series of words" we have meaningful series and gibberish. If we define "statements" = "meaningful series", then all statements are concepts that convey meaning. The meaning isn't inherent to the statement, but is endowed by the issuer of the statement. The statement itself only has meaning because of the prior agreed upon system of communication.

I could send up smoke signals, but it will have no meaning to you unless we've agreed upon what meaning it will have. So even though I may think I am conveying meaning with smoke, you cannot perceive it because the smoke has no intrinsic meaning (other than indicating there is a fire).

So, I think the problem is that you define "statement" to be merely a series of words and I define "statement" to be a declaration by someone with intent to carry meaning. Obviously, unless someone were intent upon speaking gibberish, all declarations would be inherently meaningful. I think there is value in making a distinction between "statement" and "series of words" and prefer to define "statement" = "declaration".

"Literal" is a confusing word because I can't tell if it is opposed to "figurative" or is simply "literary". I think "intrinsic" or "inherent" are better choices.

I would suspect that you and I are going to agree more than not and if there is a disagreement, it's probably a result of a misinterpretation of a word.

Truth is a concept and subjective.

If truth is subjective, then it is not "a" concept but many concepts. Since it is subjective, any and all concepts can be said to be truth-concepts. Thus, your statement is self-contradictory because it assumes - contrary to its own conclusion - that the concept that truth is not a concept and not subjective is not a truth-concept.

Oh man, talk about acrobatics, but I think we may have different definitions in mind: truth is a property of an observation wherein a property is a concept among many concepts. A concept is a conceptualization or how we "think" about a thing.

If truth is a property of observation, then what observation contains the truth of this same observation?

The truthfulness of an observation is self-evident and subjective.

Jack: It is hot in here.
Jill: I see no truth in that statement because I'm freezing!

No statement is inherently true or false, but truthfulness is determined by the subject observing the object.

1+1=2 is not inherently true, but is only true within a dualistic universe within the context of mathematics, otherwise we'd have to concede that duality is inherently true and is the only way to have a universe and that mathematics inherently exists. Rather, duality just happened and wasn't dependent on some previous notion or determination. Nothing can be inherently true without presupposing many other things being inherently true, not least of which is the supposition of an authority dictating truth.

1+1=10 in binary and 1 lump of clay added to another lump makes 1 lump of clay, so 1+1=1. So the truthfulness of a seemingly explicit statement is still subjective which is relational to the context of interpretation. Beauty (truth) is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh I see what you're saying... the All would be less than All if something were cut from it. But the All is still a thing, right?

That's the point - unlike things, nothing can be added to or subtracted from the All. He who says the All is deficient is himself completely deficient.

I like that!

You can't have an objective view of yourself; only other things and people, but even that's not objective, but subjective.

Like I said, me in the future and past is "other things and people", as is someone else in the present, future or past. So basically at any given moment there is just me and other things and people. There is no third entity, viz. "me experiencing or not being able to experience myself".

Well if you take that view, then you must realize that you (as you think you are) exist in the past while the you that exists in the present is not something you can be aware of because it takes time for information to travel along nerves and time for reasoning to happen. If you look at yourself in the mirror, you are looking into the past and it's impossible to live in the present. And the farther away you look, the farther into the past you see. So to look increasingly inward is to be nearer the present, but you can never achieve it in actuality.

So all the different people you say exist in the past, are they different at 1s in the past or .000000000001s? Or .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001s? Or is it minutes? Where is the line that defines past from present?

"Objective view" is not synonymous with "logical view". A true objective view would have no observer because all observers "taint" the view with their subjective interpretations of the object.

If this is objectively true, then this is not objectively true.

There is no such thing as objective truth because there is no one who could possibly observe it. If you are observing this statement, then that is a subjective view.

Also, a comment on the Alan Watts quote:

The important thing to find out is this: That the sensation of being the knower and the experiencer of all this, is not, as it were, aside from everything else that's going on, but it's part of it. Although you experience your existence subjectively, you are nevertheless part of the external world. You are in my external world just as I am in your external world. So in this way, the final barrier between the knower and the known is broken down. There is nobody being carried along by fate; there is just the process... and all that you are is part of the process.

He experiences no longer a passive relationship to the world, he simply sees that all that he is and all that he ever was, was something that the entire process was doing. At the time, when he felt himself to be separate, he sees in a certain way that that was just what he should have felt because that was what the process was doing in him, in exactly the same way as it was giving him brown or blue eyes. And that's going through the door and turning round to see there was no door. You're not fated; you're not trapped because there's nobody in the trap.

It certainly isn't wise to tempt fate by denying its existence and then insulting it by calling it "the process".

He is saying there is no fate because you are part of what determines what would otherwise be fate.

If this process refers to the All, then things are not a part of it for the same reasons they might be a part of other things.

Yes the process refers to the All. All that there is is the All and you are part of it.

If someone is trapped and in despair, or free and wise, and the "entire process" is doing that in them or as them, it isn't for the same reasons other things might be doing so.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but he is saying that you and the trap are the same thing. Anytime within these philosophical discussions that we find ourselves trapped in an infinite regression, I believe we can assume the subject and object are the same thing. There are no infinities, but circular observation.

There isn't any reason why things are a part of or created and directed by the All, because in relation to the All all things are as nothing. Even the All itself isn't a reason for those things, since what reason does nothing need?

The All can't be nothing because there is nothing within nothing to make something. Even if everything within the All cancelled to leave nothing, there would still be something unaccounted for, which is the question of how it became separated in the first place. Nonexistence is not nothing, but a state of potential to exist.

When a light is on, it has potential to be off. When a light is off, it has potential to be on. Neither state is nothing.

Marry or do not marry, be trapped by or be free of fate, realise your inseparability from other things or your isolation from them - whatever you do or think, if you relate it to the All you will regret it. If you are clever and decide to do both or neither or neither and both, and then relate that to the All, you will still regret it.

I don't understand what you're trying to convey with that.

Rather, do what you truly believe is right, not what the All is making you do or doing as you or whatever else.

You can only do what you believe is right and you cannot dictate what you believe is right because what you believe is right is what the All has caused in you.

Let us now turn from Watts to Kierkegaard:

If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or if you do not marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret both. Laugh at the world’s follies, you will regret it; weep over them, you will also regret it; if you laugh at the world’s follies or if you weep over them, you will regret both; whether you laugh at the world’s follies or you weep over them, you will regret both. Believe a girl, you will regret it; if you do not believe her, you will also regret it; if you believe a girl or you do not believe her, you will regret both; whether you believe a girl or you do not believe her, you will regret both. If you hang yourself, you will regret it; if you do not hang yourself, you will regret it; if you hang yourself or you do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or you do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum of all practical wisdom. It isn’t just in single moments that I view everything aeterno modo, as Spinoza says; I am constantly aeterno modo. Many people think that’s what they are too when, having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate these opposites. But this is a misunderstanding, for the true eternity lies not behind either/or but ahead of it. - Either/Or

So if I regret it, I will regret it; and if I don't regret it, I will regret it. All this says to me is that regretfulness is absolute and I don't understand the significance of that claim. That is, of course, unless he is saying what Watts is saying in that there is no way to beat the game because by trying to beat the game you're a hamster on a wheel trying to get off the wheel. The only way off the wheel is not trying to get off the wheel. The only way not to have regrets is to not try to do anything, and that includes doing nothing as a way to do something.

[Serendipper]

The Soprano's was a great show and character study but it would be easier if you just summarize your point. The show didn't seem to look that kindly on the therapeutic process or psycho-analytical beliefs surrounding it. The rawer reality of lives completely wound up in personality structures and behaviors, to the degree of ones physical safety becoming linked to it, seemed completely new to Melfi. In fact, she got at some point seduced by these rawer power games, the reality and exhilarating immediacy of her psychopathic client.

There is a lot of depth to that show. Perhaps you haven't given it a fair chance?

Do you have reading problems perhaps? How much more praise could I have given it?

Perhaps I do have a mind reading problem, yes, because there isn't much praise to be interpreted from that.

"It's a great show BUT..."

Your philosophy would be the reason for your preference. For example, you eat the crust before the cheesy part because you're saving the best for last (and that can only be understood by living it, as Keats said).

That's not really "philosophy", that's just talking about possible causes of some behavior. Philosophy addresses what comes before any notion of the physical, that is our sense of existence, meaning and the nature of truth and reality. Or for example to examine this need to find causes or the larger tendency of addressing those. It's not about talking about particular causes since it's easy to establish there will be a few, some easy to see, some hidden.

That would be your philosophy of "meaning and nature of truth and reality". Furthermore, your desire to define philosophy this or that is your philosophy of nomenclature.

A phd is a doctor of philosophy where doctor comes from the Latin docēre meaning "to teach", so a doctor of philosophy is someone who is qualified by an authority to teach his own "love of wisdom" or method of practicing whatever field in which he obtained his doctorate. A doctor of medicine is qualified to teach (and of course, obviously, to practice) the philosophy of medicine.

Philosophical problems are such that do not have inherent solutions and therefore depend on subjective interpretations, such as the nature of reality: do you believe the fundamental nature is sterile junk or living? There is no obvious way to prove one or the other and it really boils down to whether you prefer chocolate over vanilla and such subjective preferences.

Philosophy is the highest on the hierarchy of science because you cannot practice science unless you have a philosophy for doing so.

You're right; there is no goal, but the universe has a noticeable track-record of desiring to become increasingly conscious as if it were a goal.

If that was so, wouldn't you expect some more planets with life, some more signals, some more species with higher consciousness on this planet? From first impressions it almost looks like an accident! It's just one vantage point though, there are many possible.

I'm confident that life is everywhere. First, it depends how we define life. Is a star alive? But beside that, we've found bacteria in the bottom of gold mines, 2 miles below:

Scientists found a gold mine of bacteria almost two miles beneath the surface. The subterranean microorganisms, a division of Firmicutes bacteria, use radioactivity to convert molecules into useable energy. Uranium is an element contained within the Earth’s crust and is an abundant source of energy. The presence of such terrestrial organism raises the potential that bacteria could live beneath the surface of other planets. https://www.livescience.com/4229-bacter ... round.html

So, anywhere there is an energy source is a suspect for containing life.... and that is everywhere.

And there could exist billions of intelligent societies out there for all we know.

some more species with higher consciousness on this planet?

Any species like that would have to look like us: thumbs, binocular vision, bipedal and so we are the only species to evolve from the lineage of apes and even if there were others, we would have bred with them or made war with them. There can be only one king of the hill.

From first impressions it almost looks like an accident!

I don't believe that. I believe it would have been an accident if it didn't happen and was inevitable in time. That's just my philosophy, though, and I can't really prove it.

Check this out at around 27:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVW9CBI52nU

Anywhere there is clay and the appropriate molecules, there is the risk of having life spontaneously erupt.

how do we objectively know we've eliminated all the untruths?

By understanding the dynamic between truth and untruth fully. This is why self-knowledge is always key: understanding fully ones limits in a context. Of course there's a moment it will not be something to prove any more since proving "a thing" to "one self" would simple not be representing any more any viable way to deal with the larger reality. But only at some point.

If we already understand the dynamic between truth and untruth, then why proceed with the exercise? If the purpose of the exercise is to discover the difference between truth and untruth, then how can we presuppose to know?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Perhaps I do have a mind reading problem, yes, because there isn't much praise to be interpreted from that.

"It's a great show BUT..."

Your tendency to imply that what is actually written is meaning something else is noted :) What is hard to understand about

The Soprano's was a great show and character study but it would be easier if you just summarize your point

So I call it a great show and character study (yeah GREAT) but only question what you want to say with it. You translate it as that I should give it a "fair chance". Hmm, I suspect you have interchanged the show and yourself. That I should give you a fair chance, that I'm not giving that to you or your views? Maybe not but something must have caused your strange interpretation of "great show and character study". But lets move on.

Furthermore, your desire to define philosophy this or that is your philosophy of nomenclature.

Philosophy is to me all about the ability to define things properly. Call it the philosophy of philosophy then. Go for the highest!

Socrates might have said: "And I say too, that every wise man who happens to be a good man is more than human (daimonion) both in life and death, and is rightly called a demon. My dear Hermogenes, the first imposers of names must surely have been considerable persons; they were philosophers, and had a good deal to say. They are the men to whom I should attribute the imposition of names. Even in foreign names, if you analyze them, a meaning is still discernible. -- from Cratylus by Plato"

I'm confident that life is everywhere. First, it depends how we define life. Is a star alive? But beside that, we've found bacteria in the bottom of gold mines, 2 miles below

Well apart from playing with definition of life lets not forget this was about your view of a universe desiring to become increasingly conscious. Do you equal that as a universe striving for life or perhaps more complexity? Life has been defined by some as being counter-entropy, that in the great desire for universal entropy, life is that what goes against it. Creating the impression that there are at least two desires in the universe. A truly dualistic view of course.

There can be only one king of the hill.

You mean increasing consciousness implies wiping out all competitive consciousness? That would be an interesting concept! :)

If we already understand the dynamic between truth and untruth, then why proceed with the exercise?

Pure momentum?

If the purpose of the exercise is to discover the difference between truth and untruth, then how can we presuppose to know?

The means equal the purpose. It's like bootstrapping: as if the fruit was already contained in the seed and the seeding. In the end there's a timeless, eternal aspect to this. Which means you cannot keep playing with concerns of "pre" and "post". When something is known to be timeless it's everywhere and always the case. It's the reason, cause and effect. It's the only thing that could be said is "as it is". This is simply bigger than us, our time and our lives. And yet it can make everything, even the smaller issues, unbelievable significant in another type of light. But not as additional stress but as a type of maximized awareness which is natural, moving and appropriate, like reason ideally could function as well.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam: So your reasoning is that there is an actual subject-object relationship prior to awareness that splits upon becoming aware? I'm very surprised at your answer, a little bit shocked if truth be told, but it does explain your vision of the self as an inverted pyramid.

Diebert: The shock should be that you are arguing for some state of awareness preceding the subject-object relationship.

What I am arguing for is that there is no subject-object relationship to split, that invoking a relationship between Self (Awareness) as if two selves is the delusion.

It's just a form of invocation which cannot stand.

It is your invocation of a subject-object relationship that cannot stand: "a house divided cannot stand." Where in awareness is there a place to fall?

It's also overloading a term like "awareness" with properties in a theological way.

Where I have given awareness theological properties?

Any experimental access to such kind of awareness does never transcend any subject-object, although it could morph and warp it to the degree it might be educational. However, truth cannot be found here, mostly indifference or deference: a refuge.

There is no actual transcendence of subject-object because there is no subject or object to transcend. Instead, what is transcended (ended/finished/moved beyond/cleared away) is wrong view a subjective-objective (split) reality.

What is hidden about any duality? It's appearance by definition, in thought, feeling, vision or imagined absence of such. The son and the father are one in the sense that the past and the future are: all visions of the future are continuations of the past (learned behavior, memory, law, habit, formation etc). And our hopes and dreams, our expectations define our ability to deal with the past, that is : appropriate it fully.

You have just defined man’s suffering in a nutshell! It is interesting is it not that 'dealing' and 'death' contain the same first three letters?

The past projected into the future IS man's collected/collective weight of dealing and appropriating: Edvard Munch's "The Scream" comes to mind.

[Serendipper]

So I call it a great show and character study (yeah GREAT) but only question what you want to say with it. You translate it as that I should give it a "fair chance". Hmm, I suspect you have interchanged the show and yourself. That I should give you a fair chance, that I'm not giving that to you or your views? Maybe not but something must have caused your strange interpretation of "great show and character study". But lets move on.

I wanted you to give the show a fair chance because I believe there is an abundance of insight contained therein.

Sometimes it's easier to put on a demonstration than to articulate with words since words can only take us so far.

You said:

The show didn't seem to look that kindly on the therapeutic process or psycho-analytical beliefs surrounding it.

That left me with the impression that perhaps you're a fan of psychiatry and are therefore critical of the show for painting it in a bad light.

The rawer reality of lives completely wound up in personality structures and behaviors, to the degree of ones physical safety becoming linked to it, seemed completely new to Melfi.

This gives the impression that you didn't have much admiration for Melfi, especially in light of my previous assumption.

In fact, she got at some point seduced by these rawer power games, the reality and exhilarating immediacy of her psychopathic client.

Seduction by a psychopathic client has derogatory connotations that weren't clarified.

But I think the tipping point that led me down the path of negative perception occurred when you admonished me in the beginning for not getting to the point, which I could only surmise that a succinct point is more valuable than a lengthy illustration from what otherwise must be a distasteful show and I suppose all of this is an illustration of the limitations of language ;)

Furthermore, your desire to define philosophy this or that is your philosophy of nomenclature.

Philosophy is to me all about the ability to define things properly. Call it the philosophy of philosophy then. Go for the highest!

Can you do that with language? You can only define words with other words. What about nonconceptual knowledge?

Socrates might have said: "And I say too, that every wise man who happens to be a good man is more than human (daimonion) both in life and death, and is rightly called a demon. My dear Hermogenes, the first imposers of names must surely have been considerable persons; they were philosophers, and had a good deal to say. They are the men to whom I should attribute the imposition of names. Even in foreign names, if you analyze them, a meaning is still discernible. -- from Cratylus by Plato"

I suspect nomenclature took a long time to evolve and has a long way to go.

I'm confident that life is everywhere. First, it depends how we define life. Is a star alive? But beside that, we've found bacteria in the bottom of gold mines, 2 miles below

Well apart from playing with definition of life lets not forget this was about your view of a universe desiring to become increasingly conscious. Do you equal that as a universe striving for life or perhaps more complexity?

I ask myself: if the universe is alive, what is it up to? I can only find two answers to that question: either the universe is simply occupying eternity by playing (no goal) or the universe is striving to discover what it is (goal). Since a subject cannot become object to itself, the universe likewise can never succeed in its goal of discovering itself, but is trying nonetheless, which is why we see infinite regressions in nature as if a camera were looking at its own monitor. Or if the universe is simply playing, then it is striving for increasing consciousness (of itself because what else is there to be conscious of?) in order to have better games.

Evolution can only work if it is being resisted. Since there is a resistive force, there must be a driving force propelling it forward. That fundamental force we can call "will" or "desire".

Life has been defined by some as being counter-entropy, that in the great desire for universal entropy, life is that what goes against it. Creating the impression that there are at least two desires in the universe. A truly dualistic view of course.

Intelligence, life, the fight against entropy, are all the same things. Atoms must represent some kind of intelligence... something that was learned in the past that now enables it to be organized into what it is. The atom itself represents knowledge and must be considered a simple form of life.

There can be only one king of the hill.

You mean increasing consciousness implies wiping out all competitive consciousness? That would be an interesting concept! :)

Perhaps king of the hill was the wrong analogy. How about refinement of gold instead? In the end, there is one nugget. The refinement of consciousness is the tip of a pin. There are many ways to be unconscious, but fewer to be conscious.

If we already understand the dynamic between truth and untruth, then why proceed with the exercise?

Pure momentum?

If the purpose of the exercise is to discover the difference between truth and untruth, then how can we presuppose to know?

The means equal the purpose. It's like bootstrapping: as if the fruit was already contained in the seed and the seeding. In the end there's a timeless, eternal aspect to this. Which means you cannot keep playing with concerns of "pre" and "post". When something is known to be timeless it's everywhere and always the case. It's the reason, cause and effect. It's the only thing that could be said is "as it is". This is simply bigger than us, our time and our lives. And yet it can make everything, even the smaller issues, unbelievable significant in another type of light. But not as additional stress but as a type of maximized awareness which is natural, moving and appropriate, like reason ideally could function as well.

I maintain that if truth were known from the beginning (whatever that means), then there would be no justification for evolution and all the variety we see. The point of all this learning, evolving, reduction of entropy, or whatever you want to call it can only be refinement which removes the possibility that truth (a purely refined state) could have existed from the start.

When the universe first began, it had no idea how to do anything, including duality. Through trial and error, it found a way forward from a state of complete unknowing.

Gravity doesn't perplex me since that's just a drawing in of the fabric of spacetime which is constantly expanding, but what bewilders me is charge: what is charge? In the division of plus and minus, what is being divided?

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper: I ask myself: if the universe is alive, what is it up to? I can only find two answers to that question: either the universe is simply occupying eternity by playing (no goal) or the universe is striving to discover what it is (goal). Since a subject cannot become object to itself, the universe likewise can never succeed in its goal of discovering itself, but is trying nonetheless, which is why we see infinite regressions in nature as if a camera were looking at its own monitor. Or if the universe is simply playing, then it is striving for increasing consciousness (of itself because what else is there to be conscious of?) in order to have better games.

Is it a truth to say that you will never know the reason why the universe is the way it is because you cannot know the reason for the universe?

It is this juxtaposition of knowing that I, the universe, cannot know the reason why I am and yet, by some invisible force of my own unknown making, I am moved to reason why I am is how I (currently) define Who and What I am and how I define the Who and What of mankind as a whole. Some days I think I'm going crazy, then I remember that I can't know I'm going crazy so I laugh and do something mundane like eat a sandwich or go for a walk.

My hubby and I were talking about this very thing this morning over coffee, a conversation that started when he asked me "do you think Beryl (my beloved deceased aunt) regretted not spending more of her money before she died?" Without thinking about it, I started spinning the usual "I think" spiral, I think yes and gave my reasons, then, I think no and gave my reasons, and suddenly I stopped mid-sentence, looked at my hubby and said "I don't know."

From this point onward we talked about how much of a human's day is occupied with giving reasons for something when, unconsciously or consciously, he or she knows he or she doesn't know the reason for anything. We ended the conversation with this question to one another: "If the truth we seek is that we can't know anything, is it possible then to live a truthful life?"

I don't know if living a truthful life of I don't know is possible, I guess there's only one way to find out. On the onset, I see a lot of laughter on the horizon, I also see someone asking me "why are you laughing?" and me answering "because I don't know why."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

ithout thinking about it, I started spinning the usual "I think" spiral, I think yes and gave my reasons, then, I think no and gave my reasons, and suddenly I stopped mid-sentence, looked at my hubby and said "I don't know."

And one could therefore see that all three answers are false just by themselves. But you insert quality by reflecting on all possibilities, the third one being the least since you have already demonstrated you knew a couple of things about the situation. You reflected truthfully as a whole.

It's of course like this with all things. One can shed light on it and then, some leaning, some inclination forms. There's no perfect neutral, not-knowing position. While we're born, "driven out of Eden", knowledge happens, positions form and keep forming.

I don't know if living a truthful life of I don't know is possible, I guess there's only one way to find out.

Truth is like a decisive sword. Living with the consequences and positions, knowingly, is part of any desired truthful path.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What I am arguing for is that there is no subject-object relationship to split, that invoking a relationship between Self (Awareness) as if two selves is the delusion.

Two selves or "not two selves", that does not matter, either would still invoke it. In any case terms like awareness or "Awareness" do not have meaning beyond the subject-object dynamic. Their usage is downright suspect, as if trying to invite back through the back door what was just pushed out the front door.

Where in awareness is there a place to fall?

The invocation or notion itself might be that very place and fall. Does it increase or extinguish perception of the situation?

You have just defined man’s suffering in a nutshell!

Well, I merely defined life in a nutshell :)

Suffering would flow from any misunderstanding or remaining ignorant of its nature.

[Serendipper]

Serendipper: I ask myself: if the universe is alive, what is it up to? I can only find two answers to that question: either the universe is simply occupying eternity by playing (no goal) or the universe is striving to discover what it is (goal). Since a subject cannot become object to itself, the universe likewise can never succeed in its goal of discovering itself, but is trying nonetheless, which is why we see infinite regressions in nature as if a camera were looking at its own monitor. Or if the universe is simply playing, then it is striving for increasing consciousness (of itself because what else is there to be conscious of?) in order to have better games.

Is it a truth to say that you will never know the reason why the universe is the way it is because you cannot know the reason for the universe?

It is subjectively true to say that, yes. It is subjective truth to claim that objective truth can never be known. Others disagree with me; hence, it's subjective.

It is this juxtaposition of knowing that I, the universe, cannot know the reason why I am and yet, by some invisible force of my own unknown making, I am moved to reason why I am is how I (currently) define Who and What I am and how I define the Who and What of mankind as a whole. Some days I think I'm going crazy, then I remember that I can't know I'm going crazy so I laugh and do something mundane like eat a sandwich or go for a walk.

Yes, there is no way to know if we are crazy. What does crazy mean?

"do you think Beryl (my beloved deceased aunt) regretted not spending more of her money before she died?"

I can tell you this: My father on his deathbed will almost certainly ask me to turn off the lights to save his money. Savers do not know how to spend and spending causes them pain. They will always live as if they are never going to die. They will always prepare for a dire future.

Someone once asked me why I put lids back on bottles right before I throw them into the trash. It's just habit.
Why save money right before you die? It's just habit.

From this point onward we talked about how much of a human's day is occupied with giving reasons for something when, unconsciously or consciously, he or she knows he or she doesn't know the reason for anything. We ended the conversation with this question to one another: "If the truth we seek is that we can't know anything, is it possible then to live a truthful life?"

Subjective truth, yes. You cannot avoid doing what you view as subjectively true, but you cannot know what is objectively true because objective truth cannot have an observer, and if it did, it would then be subjective truth.

I don't know if living a truthful life of I don't know is possible, I guess there's only one way to find out. On the onset, I see a lot of laughter on the horizon, I also see someone asking me "why are you laughing?" and me answering "because I don't know why."

I suspect that is how you know you are crazy ;)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I wanted you to give the show a fair chance because I believe there is an abundance of insight contained therein.

Yes, as I wrote in my first reply, it was a great show and character study. Glad we still agree on that simple one thing :)

left me with the impression that perhaps you're a fan of psychiatry and are therefore critical of the show for painting it in a bad light.

That interpretation is yours alone. But still doesn't justify changing "great show and character study" into "critical and dismissive of the show". Again, I think this is more about how you felt, say defensive.

This gives the impression that you didn't have much admiration for Melfi, especially in light of my previous assumption.

Well, the show paints her often in an ambivalent light with many faults of her own. That's why it's such a great character study! The criminal boss has human and realistic sides which Melfi cannot access or respond to very well. It shakes her to the bone.

Seduction by a psychopathic client has derogatory connotations that weren't clarified.

Well if you watched the show you'd know that Toni made constant advances, which simultaneously attracted and appalled Melfi. My feeling now is that you haven't dug very deep into the show after all.

you admonished me in the beginning for not getting to the point

Well you didn't and still fail to make clear the relevance. Although I love talking about the show. But did that, been there, a lot.

What about nonconceptual knowledge?

That turns a notion like knowledge into something else entirely! Like experience, feeling, opinion, uncertainty, bliss or coma.

Intelligence, life, the fight against entropy, are all the same things. Atoms must represent some kind of intelligence... something that was learned in the past that now enables it to be organized into what it is. The atom itself represents knowledge and must be considered a simple form of life.

But clearly not all atomic or biological arrangements would qualify as "intelligent". If it did, we have to invent a new world for truly intelligent behavior to distinguish it from foolish or ignorant behavior. It seems you just prefer to muddy waters? It must be the source of your sense of fun ;-)

The point of all this learning, evolving, reduction of entropy, or whatever you want to call it can only be refinement which removes the possibility that truth (a purely refined state) could have existed from the start.

I mean in the sense that truthfulness begets truthfulness. Wisdom is needed to grow wisdom. This is not about any end states.

[Serendipper]

I wanted you to give the show a fair chance because I believe there is an abundance of insight contained therein.

Yes, as I wrote in my first reply, it was a great show and character study. Glad we still agree on that simple one thing :)

Yay :)

left me with the impression that perhaps you're a fan of psychiatry and are therefore critical of the show for painting it in a bad light.

That interpretation is yours alone. But still doesn't justify changing "great show and character study" into "critical and dismissive of the show". Again, I think this is more about how you felt, say defensive.

Yeah that could be.

This gives the impression that you didn't have much admiration for Melfi, especially in light of my previous assumption.

Well, the show paints her often in an ambivalent light with many faults of her own. That's why it's such a great character study! The criminal boss has human and realistic sides which Melfi cannot access or respond to very well. It shakes her to the bone.

Melfi - Let me ask you a different question. Why a female? Why a female doctor?
Tony - You know, she asked the same friggin' question. I sometimes wonder myself. And? I'll tell you what I told her. Cusomano gave me a choice between two jewish guys and a paisan like me. I picked the paisan.
Melfi - What's the one thing every woman-- your mother, your wife, your daughter-- have in common?
Tony - They all break my balls. No, I know what you mean. They're all Italian. So what?
Melfi - So maybe by coming clean with me, you're dialoguing with them.
Tony - Let me ask you a question. Why do you have me as a patient? Most legit people, they'd go a hundred miles out of their way not to make eye contact with me. But you-- you didn't flinch.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s01e06

No answer.

Seduction by a psychopathic client has derogatory connotations that weren't clarified.

Well if you watched the show you'd know that Toni made constant advances, which simultaneously attracted and appalled Melfi. My feeling now is that you haven't dug very deep into the show after all.

Who is able to pull quotes from his hat ;)

you admonished me in the beginning for not getting to the point

Well you didn't and still fail to make clear the relevance. Although I love talking about the show. But did that, been there, a lot.

Yes I did. I even made the font huge to exhibit the point: That when the desperate struggle for food and shelter is finally behind us we can turn our attention to other sources of pain and truth.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7688&start=75#p159212

What about nonconceptual knowledge?

That turns a notion like knowledge into something else entirely! Like experience, feeling, opinion, uncertainty, bliss or coma.

I suppose maybe, but like Bruce Lee said, "Don't think, but feeeeeeeel!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d5o8d1kitM

He said we should learn to forget. Not learn how to forget, but learn so well that we don't think about how we do it (nonconceptual knowledge).

Intelligence, life, the fight against entropy, are all the same things. Atoms must represent some kind of intelligence... something that was learned in the past that now enables it to be organized into what it is. The atom itself represents knowledge and must be considered a simple form of life.

But clearly not all atomic or biological arrangements would qualify as "intelligent". If it did, we have to invent a new world for truly intelligent behavior to distinguish it from foolish or ignorant behavior. It seems you just prefer to muddy waters? It must be the source of your sense of fun ;-)

Well, the atom is order, right? That order represents knowledge because that's what knowledge is (an uncanny decrease in entropy).

We could say that consciousness is a complicated form of mineral or that mineral is a simple form of consciousness.

The point of all this learning, evolving, reduction of entropy, or whatever you want to call it can only be refinement which removes the possibility that truth (a purely refined state) could have existed from the start.

I mean in the sense that truthfulness begets truthfulness. Wisdom is needed to grow wisdom. This is not about any end states.

If wisdom is needed to grow wisdom, then there could never have been a time when wisdom didn't exist. The life property must be eternal because otherwise life would have to emerge from nonlife.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam wrote: ↑Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:35 am
What I am arguing for is that there is no subject-object relationship to split, that invoking a relationship between Self (Awareness) as if two selves is the delusion.

Diebert: Two selves or "not two selves", that does not matter, either would still invoke it. In any case terms like awareness or "Awareness" do not have meaning beyond the subject-object dynamic. Their usage is downright suspect, as if trying to invite back through the back door what was just pushed out the front door.

Why does the act of speaking or writing invoke or cause a split? Why is speaking simply not speaking and writing not writing?

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper to Diebert: If wisdom is needed to grow wisdom, then there could never have been a time when wisdom didn't exist.

Well said! Rather than 'growing' wisdom from wisdom, it is truer to say that the eternal principle of wisdom unfolds until self realization - I am that - occurs. And unlike Diebert's vision of the self as a continuation of the past into the future via present 'appropriations' (a sort of 3D extension moving back and forth in time and space 'becoming' wise), wisdom as self does not move, it does not continue. How can that which is eternal continue?

Rather than the false idea of a continuation of self in time and space, ultimate truth reveals an eternal and infinite play (movement) of form of self.

The life property must be eternal because otherwise life would have to emerge from nonlife.

'Emerging life' is one of the concepts that keeps the mind forming a 3D extension it calls 'the body' or 'the self.' In truth, nothing emerges, instead, things appear of self (not to self, an important difference).

You have probably heard that self realization (the infinite and eternal self) comes in stillness. The mind seeking infinite possibilities (the building of a self) avoids the stillness of self realization because it -- correctly -- perceives that to do so will result in the falling away of seeking. But of course, ultimately, the fear of no-more-seeking is unfounded -- forming does not end when seeking ends. It could be said that wisdom is eternally seeking form to appear and in a sense this is true, but since what appears of self or wisdom is instantaneous / spontaneous, it is not ultimately helpful to think in terms of seeking as if hunting for something 'to appear.' This is why the mind's love affair with duality must come to an end if suffering is to come to an end. And for those here who believe suffering is a necessary component for 'life to be', think for a moment the consequences of this belief: does the concept of 'eternal hell' ring a bell?

[Serendipper]

Serendipper to Diebert: If wisdom is needed to grow wisdom, then there could never have been a time when wisdom didn't exist.

Well said!

Thanks! :)

Rather than 'growing' wisdom from wisdom, it is truer to say that the eternal principle of wisdom unfolds until self realization

Unfolds like a mechanistic process as opposed to growing? Is wisdom an attribute of something living or nonliving? If wisdom is an attribute of the living, then how does wisdom come from a mechanistic process that unfolds until it self-realizes? If wisdom is a property of the living and if wisdom came from a mechanistic process as opposed to growing, then wisdom came from the nonliving. How does a property of the living come from the nonliving?

I am that - occurs.

What sort of lifeform would you suppose is capable of knowing that? Human, dog, cat, mouse, bird, snake, fish, plants, bacteria, viruses, prions, molecules, atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, universe?

How can that which is eternal continue?

That's a good point. Is an infinite amount of time the same as the nonexistence of time?

I don't know how to visualize/conceptualize the nonexistence of time. It seems if there is no time, then reality as we know it cannot be imagined since there would also be no distance, no movement, no processes... everything would happen in an instant. How can an instantaneous experience be experienced being that there is no time in which to experience it?

Rather than the false idea of a continuation of self in time and space, ultimate truth reveals an eternal and infinite play (movement) of form of self.

Can you elaborate on that? I'm not sure what it means.

The life property must be eternal because otherwise life would have to emerge from nonlife.

'Emerging life' is one of the concepts that keeps the mind forming a 3D extension it calls 'the body' or 'the self.' In truth, nothing emerges, instead, things appear of self (not to self, an important difference).

Can you elaborate more on the importance of the difference?

You have probably heard that self realization (the infinite and eternal self) comes in stillness. The mind seeking infinite possibilities (the building of a self) avoids the stillness of self realization because it -- correctly -- perceives that to do so will result in the falling away of seeking.

Seems like you're saying the self doesn't want to die. The self needs seeking to be built and to end seeking means the self dies. So, who ends the seeking?

But of course, ultimately, the fear of no-more-seeking is unfounded -- forming does not end when seeking ends.

What is forming?

It could be said that wisdom is eternally seeking form to appear and in a sense this is true, but since what appears of self or wisdom is instantaneous / spontaneous, it is not ultimately helpful to think in terms of seeking as if hunting for something 'to appear.' This is why the mind's love affair with duality must come to an end if suffering is to come to an end. And for those here who believe suffering is a necessary component for 'life to be', think for a moment the consequences of this belief: does the concept of 'eternal hell' ring a bell?

I suspect if you had no suffering, that would be an eternal form of suffering because there would be no context in which to realize it's opposite: happiness. One must eat bitter in order to taste sweet. To end suffering is to feel nothing; to die.

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper: I suspect if you had no suffering, that would be an eternal form of suffering because there would be no context in which to realize it's opposite: happiness. One must eat bitter in order to taste sweet. To end suffering is to feel nothing; to die.

Is it true that reality is divided?

[Serendipper]

Serendipper: I suspect if you had no suffering, that would be an eternal form of suffering because there would be no context in which to realize it's opposite: happiness. One must eat bitter in order to taste sweet. To end suffering is to feel nothing; to die.

Is it true that reality is divided?

No, I don't think so, but reality is relational between subject and object. To realize oneness is to end reality; to die.

I've gone round and round with this philosophy and it always takes me to the same place: nonexistence. How can you have an oceanic feeling and also feel existence? The two are contradictory. It seems the only escape from suffering is to end living.

Alan said "when you identify with the universe and the grim reaper comes, there is no one there to kill." Obviously, because you're already dead. Buddhism seems to be the practicing of dying. Alan also said "If you can't let go in life, it happens automatically in death, so you've nothing to worry about haha." That's what all this is about: how to die. Death is the 100% realization of oneness with the universe; the ultimate letting-go. Buddhists can practice letting go in meditation and achieve X% realization of oneness with the universe, but they come back to reality which means X<100.

Show me how this is all untrue. It seems to make perfect sense to me.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Why does the act of speaking or writing invoke or cause a split? Why is speaking simply not speaking and writing not writing?

Your invocation of a word like "simply" betrays a contrived blending of a complex, dualistic process into "one" while simply hiding the obvious shadow of the truth: that all words spoken and written are bloody swords. But I suppose you prefer a more peaceful image to maintain? For us or to yourself? Where there's a light, the shadow forms. It needs self-observation to understand.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s01e06

No answer.

Beyond her drinking hard liquor in between sessions and popping serious sleeping medication, her own therapists suggested to her once that "talk therapy may only help a sociopath become more sociopathical" and also that treating Tony might be a form of thrill-seeking. Food for thought!

The point could be made that addiction to high drama might underlie a lot of action here, for therapists and sociopaths alike.

like Bruce Lee said, "Don't think, but feeeeeeeel!"

And then he died likely from what pain killers and muscle relaxants do with a person on long term. Kind of Michael Jackson then or better yet: Prince Rogers Nelson of the martial arts? Possibly not that wise to use as inspiration.

We could say that consciousness is a complicated form of mineral or that mineral is a simple form of consciousness.

In that case consciousness is just equaled with matter. Or one has first predefined: all matter is (part of) consciousness. Either way, it's a void and meaningless thing as we can remove the notion of consciousness from all such statements on minerals and still saying basically the same thing.

If wisdom is needed to grow wisdom, then there could never have been a time when wisdom didn't exist. The life property must be eternal because otherwise life would have to emerge from nonlife.

Not necessarily. A spark can start a petrol engine, which then provides more sparks to keep itself going. That doesn't mean that sparks are eternal or forever. Or that sparks are engines. In any case the question if something is eternal or not requires a strictly defined concept of linear time.

[Pam Seeback]

Why does the act of speaking or writing invoke or cause a split? Why is speaking simply not speaking and writing not writing?

Your invocation of a word like "simply" betrays a contrived blending of a complex, dualistic process into "one" while simply hiding the obvious shadow of the truth: that all words spoken and written are bloody swords. But I suppose you prefer a more peaceful image to maintain? For us or to yourself? Where there's a light, the shadow forms. It needs self-observation to understand.

You don't think its possible to wake up to the absurdity of casting a shadow? And not to fall asleep again because you can't forget how absurd it is to cast a shadow?

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper: I've gone round and round with this philosophy and it always takes me to the same place: nonexistence.

A philosopher can only go to the silence of his thoughts. Silence of thought is not non-existence, it is silence of thought. When your thoughts are stilled, are you not aware of your beating heart? Of sounds, of sight? Are these things not 'existence'?

[Serendipper]

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s01e06

No answer.

Beyond her drinking hard liquor in between sessions and popping serious sleeping medication, her own therapists suggested to her once that "talk therapy may only help a sociopath become more sociopathical" and also that treating Tony might be a form of thrill-seeking. Food for thought!

Yup, I saw a video concluding that psycho/sociopaths have no ability to empathize therefore any therapy will only be used as tools added to the toolbox for their own self-centered advantage. They cannot be helped and trying to do so is only teaching them to be a better and more insightful sociopath.

The point could be made that addiction to high drama might underlie a lot of action here, for therapists and sociopaths alike.

Yeah probably.

like Bruce Lee said, "Don't think, but feeeeeeeel!"

And then he died likely from what pain killers and muscle relaxants do with a person on long term. Kind of Michael Jackson then or better yet: Prince Rogers Nelson of the martial arts? Possibly not that wise to use as inspiration.

I'm not sure of the connection between what people say and what they do. If I say "do not jump off this bridge" and then I jump, would you presume my advice was bad because I jumped and therefore you do the opposite of my advice and jump too?

Alan Watts was married thrice and drank himself to death by 58, so are we to discount everything he said? On the other hand, Jacque Fresco lived to 101, so shall we embrace the Venus Project? Jesse Livermore is regarded as the guru of stock trading, but shot himself at 63.

Trump maintains a steady diet of McDonalds yet is a model of health, so what do we make of that?

Anyway, in defense of Bruce:

There was no visible external injury; however, according to autopsy reports, Lee's brain had swollen considerably, from 1,400 to 1,575 grams (a 13% increase). The autopsy found Equagesic in his system. On October 15, 2005, Chow stated in an interview that Lee died from an allergic reaction to the tranquilizer meprobamate, the main ingredient in Equagesic, which Chow described as an ingredient commonly used in painkillers.

At the 1975 San Diego Comic-Con convention, Bruce Lee's friend Chuck Norris attributed his death to a reaction between the muscle-relaxant medication he had been taking since 1968 for a ruptured disc in his back, and an "antibiotic" he was given for his headache on the night of his death.

In a 2017 episode of the Reelz TV series Autopsy, forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Hunter theorized that Lee died of adrenal crisis brought on by the overuse of cortisone, which Lee had been taking since injuring his back in a 1970 weight lifting mishap. Dr. Hunter believes that Lee's exceptionally strong "drive and ambition" played a fundamental role in the martial artist's ultimate demise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lee#Death

The brightest flames burn quickest.

We could say that consciousness is a complicated form of mineral or that mineral is a simple form of consciousness.

In that case consciousness is just equaled with matter. Or one has first predefined: all matter is (part of) consciousness. Either way, it's a void and meaningless thing as we can remove the notion of consciousness from all such statements on minerals and still saying basically the same thing.

True. Maybe it's consciousness that is eternal due to being "uncreatable".

If wisdom is needed to grow wisdom, then there could never have been a time when wisdom didn't exist. The life property must be eternal because otherwise life would have to emerge from nonlife.

Not necessarily. A spark can start a petrol engine, which then provides more sparks to keep itself going. That doesn't mean that sparks are eternal or forever. Or that sparks are engines.

Where did the initial spark come from? When the fuel runs out, where will further sparks come from?

In any case the question if something is eternal or not requires a strictly defined concept of linear time.

How about absence of time? Light experiences no time, so what's that like? Is no-time the same as eternity?

Every object moves through spacetime at one and only one speed. If we increase spacial velocity, we'll travel slower through time. If we could be perfectly still, we'd travel maximally trough time (whatever that means).

If the universe is bounded at zero size at the speed of light, then at perfect spacial stillness, are distances and times infinite? It would seem therefore that it's equally impossible to be still as it is to travel at c. Of course, we can't test that since we're flying through space at remarkable speed all the time.

I enjoy these FermiLab videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2JCoIGyGxc

[Serendipper]

Serendipper: I've gone round and round with this philosophy and it always takes me to the same place: nonexistence.

A philosopher can only go to the silence of his thoughts. Silence of thought is not non-existence, it is silence of thought. When your thoughts are stilled, are you not aware of your beating heart? Of sounds, of sight? Are these things not 'existence'?

What does it mean to be aware? Isn't that thinking? Is one atom aware of another? Or does it require a brain to have awareness?

A long time ago, mom was concerned so she took me to a psychologist who administered a MMPI Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Test. The doc said my addictiveness was "off the charts" and gave me stern instructions never to do drugs. How do you help someone like me? How can I still thoughts? Is it like asking the crippled to exercise more?

I know what you're saying: geese flying over a lake do not intend to cast their reflection and the lake has no mind to retain it. If I have no mind, then what am I? If I melt into the scenery, then what am I? Maybe it's not nonexistence, but if it were an existence worth having, then why am I here in the first place? This is where buddhism and hinduism diverge because the hindu would say the brahman is playing games for something to do and so if I go back into the ground of being, then I'm back where I started and will need a new character-role to occupy my time. I'm not really sure what the buddhist thinks regarding who is "reborn" and who is "suffering" as they are still unanswered questions for me. Can you help?

[Pam Seeback]

Serendipper: I'm not really sure what the buddhist thinks regarding who is "reborn" and who is "suffering" as they are still unanswered questions for me. Can you help?

This is how I experience enlightenment now in relation to 'who' and 'rebirth' and suffering:

I am sitting on my bed typing on my computer as if the subject, me and the object, the computer are indivisible. There is no desire for an outcome present, there is 'just' the story of me being told. Absence of desire = absence of rebirth of desire = absence of suffering. It could be argued that I desire the outcome that you see what I am saying so your suffering will be reduced and hopefully one day, be no more, but as I see it, compassion includes desire, compassion includes an awareness of suffering, but it is not the active experience of desire and suffering (I hope that makes sense).

I totally understand the fear that if one drops desire and suffering that life will cease to exist or that life will be boring. About five years ago, I had this fear myself to the point of paralysis, not a pleasant time! But what I have since discovered is that dropping desire (the natural outcome of the subject-object split philosophy) does not mean that emotions are dropped or reasoning is dropped, it only means that these things come without the burden of self-consciousness, what Buddhists call 'monkey mind.'

I am still seduced by self consciousness, by dualism, it is a hard habit to break. But at least now I am aware when it is happening and I can consciously 'nip it in the bud.'

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The point could be made that addiction to high drama might underlie a lot of action here, for therapists and sociopaths alike.

Yeah probably.

This would include, rather obviously, in deluded, safer doses, the audience of the show. :-)

I'm not sure of the connection between what people say and what they do. If I say "do not jump off this bridge" and then I jump, would you presume my advice was bad because I jumped and therefore you do the opposite of my advice and jump too?

But it would signify a serious disconnect and therefore the words as well as the actions would need some further scrutiny, to understand if anything meaningful was there. The disconnect itself might be an indicator of why the jump was initiated in the first place. Being alienated in an alien world drives people to further divorce, ironically. It's like a trajectory with only one track.

Alan Watts was married thrice and drank himself to death by 58, so are we to discount everything he said? On the other hand, Jacque Fresco lived to 101, so shall we embrace the Venus Project? Jesse Livermore is regarded as the guru of stock trading, but shot himself at 63.

Certainly one should allow for some serious questions. Like Weininger --highly valued on this forum for good reason, shot himself in the heart inside Beethoven's house. Depression? High drama? A message? But if it would be like a mood disorder amplified by cultural obsession with dramatic acts (Vienna at the time) one should certainly read his words with a bit of healthy suspicion.

The brightest flames burn quickest.

There's wisdom in warning signs, since the story of Icarus. Ambition to push boundaries beyond ones natural limits often involve death or large amounts of suffering. Therefore a deep self-knowledge is key to endurance. And it better be worth it!

Maybe it's consciousness that is eternal due to being "uncreatable".

Do you mean that consciousness might be uncaused? That means no matter how hard you hit your head against that wall, your ability to observe and be aware will remain unchanged? It needs a lot of faith to put that to a test.

Where did the initial spark come from? When the fuel runs out, where will further sparks come from?

We could talk about the causality of the spark. But it doesn't matter, the petrol engine was simply shown not to be some mysterious perpetuum mobile. And the spark wouldn't be either, once the principles of change and motion are being allowed for. Of course this implies that causality is itself something unchanging and eternal. Or at least impossible to challenge?

Is no-time the same as eternity?

In some cases time plays simply no role because it's nor part of the equation or mathematical model. But timelessness would only be meaningful if it would include all of time or any other measure. It's simply limitlessness. Near impossible to conceive of but somehow there's a possibility to approach it through higher reason, close enough to step into, a movement which simple defies, or goes beyond any notion of will, faith or fate.