Is political discourse even desired?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Is political discourse even desired?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:48 pm

(split from Trump thread)
jupiviv wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:For me, the deciding factor is freedom of speech, but others may vary.
But it's not rational to value freedom of speech more than, or even as much as, rationality (...) So the goal should be free speech as one of the ways in which *rational* discourse is fostered, not just discourse in general and unqualified by any standards of truth, decorum or morality.
So what fosters rational discourse exactly in the public area? Some degree of freedom, space, opportunity? Some emptiness perhaps as "creative space" to foster reason or more like providing work for the devil (as in: idle hands)?

Complete freedom, being it for speech or anything else, needs as well some ability, some talent to make use of. For many people it would mean getting some overdose of opportunity to cultivate meaninglessness, insults, nihilism or just any depraved form of entertainment or even the lust to destroy, to self-end. In those cases it seems very good to have limited free time, well defined borders and restrictions on free speech. It's like the analogy of gardening: all civilized discourse or civic activity needs some strict maintenance, guides, weeding out and planning. But not that much that it would kill, freeze or discourage the most valuable and often unpredictable, most beautiful surprises. It should be obvious that this is a very difficult balance to strike. Mistakes should be allowed for. Formulas are bound to fail, perhaps in some cases some repression fosters more than freedom!

It seems quite clear to me that the current age looks like one that is struggling with liberating itself from older, increasingly impossible, bankrupt and ghostly ideas which lost most, if not all deeper meaning, apart for those who believe they still contain that by pure force of will and need. It's struggling as well with getting a grip on the requirements of a viable future, one that is not "free" since without proper context or restrictions such freedom could very well become the most destructive, nihilist force, to the same degree as it contains possibilities of creation with its radical recombinations and reorganizations.

Newer ideas arise on how to organize society, ethics and economics. And these are related, all tied together in the surreal political sphere. But it's unavoidable that this will introduce various new restrictions, new authorities and new bandwagons. Right now it's somewhat of a melting pot of ideas but in the end people will increasingly demand some more structure, some set of laws to create the safety and vision that is being craved by this particular structure which we call "human mind". As mind does not function without it -- on this the whole field of psychology can agree in case experience would not suffice.

Or as alternative we'd have the complete disappearance of the human concept of mind, for example by neurological advances, like when the human-machine barrier would be broken. At that stage, we cannot speak anymore of "mind" in any classical sense -- as surface activity between the body and the social -- and as such even the possibilities of reason and morality might radically shift. But while that's really still science fiction, one cannot not exclude this looking at the various emerging technologies. It's important to keep this in mind though when speculating about any "future" -- as if we'd have the means to comprehend all future situations while we might not have at all: mankind defined as transition between two eternities.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:54 am

Diebert: So what fosters rational discourse exactly in the public area? Some degree of freedom, space, opportunity? Some emptiness perhaps as "creative space" to foster reason or more like providing work for the devil (as in: idle hands)?
As with all things that are manifested in the mind, desire for rational discourse is required to foster rational discourse. How to foster desire for rational discourse then is the real question. Experience tells me that human beings only desire what is healthy when they are thoroughly sickened with what is unhealthy, which I believe is what you are asserting here:
Complete freedom, being it for speech or anything else, needs as well some ability, some talent to make use of. For many people it would mean getting some overdose of opportunity to cultivate meaninglessness, insults, nihilism or just any depraved form of entertainment or even the lust to destroy, to self-end. In those cases it seems very good to have limited free time, well defined borders and restrictions on free speech. It's like the analogy of gardening: all civilized discourse or civic activity needs some strict maintenance, guides, weeding out and planning. But not that much that it would kill, freeze or discourage the most valuable and often unpredictable, most beautiful surprises. It should be obvious that this is a very difficult balance to strike. Mistakes should be allowed for. Formulas are bound to fail, perhaps in some cases some repression fosters more than freedom!
It does seem as if the mind needs to push its desire for objective certainty (even if this objective certainty is believed to result in nothingness) to its limits before it is able to wisely question the validity of such a desire. In other words, wrong view must be existentially rejected before right view can existentially be realized.
It seems quite clear to me that the current age looks like one that is struggling with liberating itself from older, increasingly impossible, bankrupt and ghostly ideas which lost most, if not all deeper meaning, apart for those who believe they still contain that by pure force of will and need. It's struggling as well with getting a grip on the requirements of a viable future, one that is not "free" since without proper context or restrictions such freedom could very well become the most destructive, nihilist force, to the same degree as it contains possibilities of creation with its radical recombinations and reorganizations.
How I read the current struggle of the collective human mind is that it is the struggle of awakening to wisdom of the eternal infinite. A struggle that includes awareness that the unconscious non-conceptual eternal is valueless and meaningless while the conceptual conscious cannot function without value and meaning. A monumental sorting out of the impersonal/personal process to be sure! An excellent reason then for compassion and patience on the part of those who have overcome most or all of the awakening struggle.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:38 pm

Pam Seeback wrote: How I read the current struggle of the collective human mind is that it is the struggle of awakening to wisdom of the eternal infinite. A struggle that includes awareness that the unconscious non-conceptual eternal is valueless and meaningless while the conceptual conscious cannot function without value and meaning. A monumental sorting out of the impersonal/personal process to be sure! An excellent reason then for compassion and patience on the part of those who have overcome most or all of the awakening struggle.
The only way that I make sense of it is "overload". Such as an overload of accessible information which one could not hope to sort through, with all the opposing views. To the common person, entertaining each world view is like stepping into an entirely different reality unto itself. I could give examples here but one need only browse the internet for a few minutes to see these contrasts.

This overload seems to be most often dealt with in a few ways.
1) The pursuit of truth is ignored altogether, deemed to be an unimportant mess, and there is the 'normal' life centered around vanity/desire. (The route most people seem to take.) Though some defending of certain worldviews/belief systems are dispersed throughout it when the topics arise.
2) One takes a stance, or is born into, a focus on one view or issue which seems to me like an attempt to make sense of the world, often to the point of obsession, deeming that topic most important and somewhat satisfying the ego, as well as the drive and existential confusion.
3) The 'lucky' ones follow the spiritual path and rise out of the world:
"The greatest seers, saints and yogis
agree on very little.
Seeing this,
who could not be indifferent to knowledge
and become still?"

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:14 pm

John: The only way that I make sense of it is "overload". Such as an overload of accessible information which one could not hope to sort through, with all the opposing views. To the common person, entertaining each world view is like stepping into an entirely different reality unto itself. I could give examples here but one need only browse the internet for a few minutes to see these contrasts.
And of course, the ignorance that is wrong view you note above is caused by the causality itself. 'The common person' entertaining wrong view is the illusion. As the wise come to realize, ignorance is no more an inherently caused thing than is wisdom. Like a seed not yet watered, the flower of the light of wisdom awaits blooming in the darkened garden of ignorance.
This overload seems to be most often dealt with in a few ways.
1) The pursuit of truth is ignored altogether, deemed to be an unimportant mess, and there is the 'normal' life centered around vanity/desire. (The route most people seem to take.) Though some defending of certain worldviews/belief systems are dispersed throughout it when the topics arise.
2) One takes a stance, or is born into, a focus on one view or issue which seems to me like an attempt to make sense of the world, often to the point of obsession, deeming that topic most important and somewhat satisfying the ego, as well as the drive and existential confusion.
3) The 'lucky' ones follow the spiritual path and rise out of the world:
"The greatest seers, saints and yogis
agree on very little.
Seeing this,
who could not be indifferent to knowledge
and become still?"
It is true that ignorance manifests in many ways, but of course, attachment to the idea of a self is always the root cause. I challenge the idea that the wise become still out of indifference to knowledge. Is not what is really happening when stillness 'calls' a passionate rejection of the mess that is 'my' knowledge, a passionate rejection of the information overload of which you speak? I point this out because, to me, indifference implies a stillness absent of the 'spirit of life' or 'energy of manifestation' or 'desire to reveal' that is ever present in the causality/eternal/infinite. By definition, because causes are eternally 'interacting' with one another, kind of like firing pistons in the engine of a car (except silently), indifference is a metaphysical impossibility. Indifference is a claim made by ego. Another way of putting this is that the stillness is not still in the sense of being a vacuum, it is ever and always alive in and of itself.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:32 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:As with all things that are manifested in the mind, desire for rational discourse is required to foster rational discourse. How to foster desire for rational discourse then is the real question. Experience tells me that human beings only desire what is healthy when they are thoroughly sickened with what is unhealthy, which I believe is what you are asserting here:
Well, it's very hard to even begin pointing out the difference between the desire and the thing. But I might qualify that last line: one desires that what is deemed healthy to what one identifies with. And sickened by that is deemed a threat. Also be aware that one of the things what is desired is desire itself. No brain teaser once it's understood one cannot have things without desire. It's a self-propelling, bootstrapping, circular world in that sense; the human being of old.
It does seem as if the mind needs to push its desire for objective certainty (even if this objective certainty is believed to result in nothingness) to its limits before it is able to wisely question the validity of such a desire. In other words, wrong view must be existentially rejected before right view can existentially be realized.
Yes but be careful here. You are just describing the scientific process of falsification. In other words, reasoning just works that way, being it existentially, spiritually or every day concerns. One needs to reject that is deemed false and move towards what's not.
How I read the current struggle of the collective human mind is that it is the struggle of awakening to wisdom of the eternal infinite.
It's more like the struggle not to fall asleep again. Awakening is not a project or end point of any kind. It's not even accomplishment. The million things of desire are like perfume, like alcohol, like exhausting. But they arise with their own causality. Mind arises, reason arises, awareness arises when a peak is high enough not to be engulfed again before it blooms. It doesn't need to cause itself but can, if willing, guard itself from being extinguished, personally or transpersonally. However, it's with all things and desires alike, meaning the wisdom for the eternal infinite it nothing but a desire for the eternal infinite.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:44 pm

JohnJAu wrote:3) The 'lucky' ones follow the spiritual path and rise out of the world:
  • The greatest seers, saints and yogis agree on very little.
    Seeing this, who could not be indifferent to knowledge and become still?
But you do not rise out of the world without unbecoming you. Please realize this scripture is usually used to argue for mortification and many times understood as such. It suggests to solve the itch, the stress of knowledge, of body or aging by rigid amputation or suppression. Solving life by running to death or sleep. Or sitting still in a bubble protected by others, by bloody charity.

When using such quote, it would be better to stress the reevaluation of suffering, of war, or strife and the yes-saying, amoral acts of nature. Keep in mind these are all unrealized ideals of unattachment, of immaterial projections of soul or inner core. Name me the human being embodying any of it and I'll show you the disastrous failures in the attempt. But this friction itself has wisdom.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:49 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Please realize this scripture is usually used to argue for mortification and many times understood as such. It suggests to solve the itch, the stress of knowledge, of body or aging by rigid amputation or suppression. Solving life by running to death or sleep. Or sitting still in a bubble protected by others, by bloody charity.
Yet the quote itself, nor any of the rest of the text as it's written there at least, does not suggest any such activity, especially not in such a direct fashion to reasonably presume it's promoting that behavior, so it's not really relevant how it has been used. It seems to do the opposite really, contradicting itself repeatedly so that one does not make those mistakes which might be borne of paying too much attention to specific language use or verses. I think only when considered in its whole does this scripture have clear value as it varies so much throughout.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: When using such quote, it would be better to stress the reevaluation of suffering, of war, or strife and the yes-saying, amoral acts of nature. Keep in mind these are all unrealized ideals of unattachment, of immaterial projections of soul or inner core. Name me the human being embodying any of it and I'll show you the disastrous failures in the attempt. But this friction itself has wisdom.
The specific quote I don't think needs much explanation as it's relatively simple. An example might be someone meditating or focusing on breathing in silence as opposed to theorizing and debating. But I read it simply as a caution against being blindly pulled along by the whirlpool stew of messy conceptualizations that people cling to in various attempts to explain reality. Obviously I have always and still give a great deal of merit to the importance of 'direct realization', probably better summed up as a lack of the distortion of delusions in ones experience.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Keep in mind these are all unrealized ideals of unattachment,
I agree, the text goes far and essentially claims a 'perfected detachment' of sorts. The ideal described tho is interesting and one to investigate. Who knows really what an 'ideal mind' would look like, but figuring that out is the goal of wisdom as I understand it.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: of immaterial projections of soul or inner core
I don't read it as such, it seems to take great effort in denying and avoiding such interpretations, and in my view does an incredibly unique job at achieving a balance between relaying 'spiritual insights' and not getting bogged down by any of them or any specific language. Even saying that tho, there is, I agree, an arguably overuse of terms like 'I am witness' and 'awareness', etc.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:29 am

JohnJAu wrote:But I read it simply as a caution against being blindly pulled along by the whirlpool stew of messy conceptualizations that people cling to in various attempts to explain reality. Obviously I have always and still give a great deal of merit to the importance of 'direct realization', probably better summed up as a lack of the distortion of delusions in ones experience.
No, by posting this directly inside this Trump discussion it would seem to counter any possibility (at least for you?) to engage in these messy conceptualizations or even politics. You talked of "information which one could not hope to sort through" and that "entertaining each world view is like stepping into an entirely different reality unto itself". Doesn't mean "impossible"!

And you are employing the quote to illustrate your intention, challenging possibilities to get to knowledge of how or why we operate in this world? But you're missing that the story was already there: for example this thread, the ideas, the participants and then you arrive, to introduce this. And then you appear, the idea appears, with concept, with quote, with interpretation. It's way too late to wash your hands from it now. You delivered a message inside an existing context of ideas and exchanges, in a collection of people, thereby becoming person, opinion, goal and intention. You cannot decide differently: in context it all arose.

You are therefore in effect "countering" something which one should really wonder if it needs countering. In the past I addressed this with Dennis by asking him if he was aware of the violence, the destruction he was bringing. And all the power play attached to it. These are issues introduced especially by texts as the one you quoted. Violence against a self, violence against a world in terms of annihilation like "sitting still" -- the very force which is always in motion by its very nature: your mind, views, actions, forming convictions, challenge and discussion, like trees, leafs, birds and bees go around. It doesn't need quelling or easing unless somehow existence itself hurts. Desire hurts. Dealing with things hurt. Which is great! A birthing place for learning about what it all is.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:19 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: this thread, the ideas, the participants and then you arrive, to introduce this. And then you appear, the idea appears, with concept, with quote, with interpretation. It's way too late to wash your hands from it now.


I was under the impression 'worldly matters' was a different discussion altogether, one where opinions and conventional viewpoints are welcomed, even tho they often are not relevant to ultimate reality. It is not something I'd wish to wash my hands of entirely anyway, at least I haven't and can't predict such a thing if it's possible. I'm interested in examining much of which 'the seers saints and yogis' of today (everyone) disagree on, many of these alternate views have merit to be investigated, I simply regard them as (usually) being irrelevant to the greater ultimate truths. I don't think the text discards them either, to me the point of the text is wisdom founded upon individual insight, a well balanced understanding. Hence the endless contradictions which are purposefully made and made obvious, I see that as discouraging the reader from following the language blindly, it is intentionally made impossible. (Apparently not impossible enough.)

In my view, in regard to truth, one needs to 'prioritize'. It's the difference between, for example, a being engaging solely in the realm of investigation of the messy conceptualizations, where person, opinion and vanity are most obviously at play, as opposed to rising above the world of messy conceptualization, that is, to go on the path of truth entirely alone (not of the world). It is also in my view a metaphor outlining the realization that most of that conceptual playground exists as imagination and belief, impermanent in nature and often providing no benefit or conclusion.

I am both a person and not a person. The context of ideas and exchanges exists and does not exist.
This contradiction, the dichotomy, is in my view, a reference to 'oneness'.
Discussing worldly matters, we are more on the side of displaying belief in existence and person-hood.
But the truth, in my view, if described, is more on the side of emptiness and non-existence in regard to person-hood and the world. At least, that is the side that is seemingly harder for people to come to terms with or understand. In my view, whichever side a wisdom seeker leans too heavily toward, is the one that ought to be discouraged and discredited.

So in saying all that:

"I am not the body.
I do not have a body.
I am Awareness, not a person.
My thirst for life
bound me to a seeming of life"

Further elaborates. I purposefully have used a direct and one-sided quote.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: You are therefore in effect "countering" something which one should really wonder if it needs countering.


Very much so, I think that it does need countering and with reason. It is one of the concerns I've always had when reading the founders writings for example, or when reading forum discussions of metaphysics. I would counter much of it. If you disagree, that's something to discuss.

My original intention though was only to point out what I see as 'overload', as I find all the opposing views and the clashes between them interesting, especially that we can witness this almost all at once from a desktop. Spend ten minutes on YouTube and the opposing beliefs of entire groups surrounding 'trump' and what 'trump' is alone border on overload. I could no doubt link you to ten wildly different views on this one person without applying any effort in the search. It's absurd, hundreds of thousands, or millions, seem to subscribe to any possible view one could imagine; from inter-dimensional beings to the flat earth. This to me is 'overload' on display, a clear example of how bad the effects of messy conceptualization can be, and I wouldn't know how to address it.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: In the past I addressed this with Dennis by asking him if he was aware of the violence, the destruction he was bringing. And all the power play attached to it. These are issues introduced especially by texts as the one you quoted. Violence against a self, violence against a world in terms of annihilation like "sitting still" -- the very force which is always in motion by its very nature: your mind, views, actions, forming convictions, challenge and discussion, like trees, leafs, birds and bees go around. It doesn't need quelling or easing unless somehow existence itself hurts. Desire hurts. Dealing with things hurt. Which is great! A birthing place for learning about what it all is.
Again this may be where we disagree, I would promote 'sitting still'(meditation) as the single most important and significant activity one can do on the road to truth. Not necessarily as some attempt to empty the mind, which as you say is not exactly possible by definition, but I regard different forms of meditation as important. I wouldn't know exactly how to describe them, or if they ought to be called meditation at all, I simply do them sitting still and with my eyes closed so I'd call it that. I take it as an investigation more than anything else, and am weary of the common tendency to cling to certain 'special states' or mystical experiences. A few examples of things I'd attempt regularly tho in summary are: Contemplation, concentration, clear verbal thought.
I have my own reasons and understanding surrounding the relevance of all this, some of which I've described in conversation with Pam.
Explaining those in detail tho becomes almost impossible unless we are to mostly disregard any expectation that language could paint a detailed or accurate picture. A bit like trying to describe color. I would say that Pam does a good job of these discussions sometimes and isn't too concerned with entering the muddy waters required to describe those individual experiences and observations. I think they are relevant, whereas you seem, in my view, overly skeptical or dismissive of such 'exploratory meditation'. Am I misunderstanding you in this regard? I wouldn't mind hearing your views on meditation as I cannot recall a time where you have really spoken about it?

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:59 am

Diebert: The million things of desire are like perfume, like alcohol, like exhausting. But they arise with their own causality. Mind arises, reason arises, awareness arises when a peak is high enough not to be engulfed again before it blooms.
With both realities being possible in any given moment, the engulfment or the blooming. Yin and yang, female and male, going and coming, to be or not to be, etc. Obviously neither reality is absolute.
It doesn't need to cause itself but can, if willing, guard itself from being extinguished, personally or transpersonally.
It would appear then that reasoning consciousness and animal consciousness share the the same desire/drive of survival: one of idea, one of flesh.
However, it's with all things and desires alike, meaning the wisdom for the eternal infinite it nothing but a desire for the eternal infinite.
The desire for things, either to wear or display or to be or to embody, the feminine/masculine mirror called self.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:08 am

JohnJAu wrote:.. a metaphor outlining the realization that most of that conceptual playground exists as imagination and belief, impermanent in nature and often providing no benefit or conclusion.
Fair enough. But what would happen, without imagination and belief though, practically, to people and the society? It's not something you can ban to another conceptual playground. Obviously it's important to understand how sure one can be that some made-up foolish errant of some kind might have 'benefit' or not.

If of course "not-knowing" is ones business, then one cannot really know the ultimate benefit, necessity or damage of anything at all. Not on a larger scale, not over sufficient time and other possible perspectives. Therefore any conversation, any opinion, any mission to change this or that, is as silly as it's over-arching in its meaning. It's all dependent how one steps into it then?
In my view, whichever side a wisdom seeker leans too heavily toward, is the one that ought to be discouraged and discredited.
All people are already caught between those sides. It's what makes up their "reality", which is just an intricate web between the unknowable, untouchable truths and the never-ending contradictions of their experiences.
It's absurd, hundreds of thousands, or millions, seem to subscribe to any possible view one could imagine; from inter-dimensional beings to the flat earth. This to me is 'overload' on display, a clear example of how bad the effects of messy conceptualization can be, and I wouldn't know how to address it.
You talk like there's no path possible in the wilderness because in your experience, one is bound to get lost for good? The essence of reason is to "decide" on each turn which is the "way" forward. That happens mostly subconsciously in day by day living. Despite the randomness, there's a lot of order there too. Life itself is such a pathway. It's not dead because it's not random chaos. This is how we define life as being distinct. This is how we know [it] and so we have no choice but to have a path in every possible desert.
I would promote 'sitting still'(meditation) as the single most important and significant activity one can do on the road to truth. .... whereas you seem, in my view, overly skeptical or dismissive of such 'exploratory meditation'. Am I misunderstanding you in this regard? I wouldn't mind hearing your views on meditation as I cannot recall a time where you have really spoken about it?
Well I've spoken rarely about mediation here and I'm not going to start now. But I'll say it seems like a natural thing for awareness to "meditate" in some fashion. It's almost too mundane to speak of! For me it seems odd to conceive of it as some method or way to truth. Then having power naps could be as important. So I'm not elevating it I guess, it's just a given that good minds function in certain ways to become 'good' in the first place. Meditation is how it already functions, not something to add on or learn.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:15 am

Pam Seeback wrote:It would appear then that reasoning consciousness and animal consciousness share the the same desire/drive of survival: one of idea, one of flesh.
It could be seen more atomic though. The body, cells and genes drive to survival. Social structures behave a bit chemical or like dumb animals as well, like with any large group dynamic. Individual consciousness however sometimes appears to drift on top of all that, perpetually distracted for some reason or none at all.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:53 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But what would happen, without imagination and belief though, practically, to people and the society?
There would necessarily have to be an explosion in the popularity of wisdom and the degree to which people are wise, such as the Buddha's wisdom, to replace old beliefs, very unlikely of course. If this somehow occurred, I would expect people and society to flourish, albeit in a very different fashion which might not look like current concepts of flourishing. Feel free to ask my opinion on what an ideal society would be like, including morality and how people spend their time, but that's just speculation.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Therefore any conversation, any opinion, any mission to change this or that, is as silly as it's over-arching in its meaning. It's all dependent how one steps into it then?
I'm reminded of this quote:
"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

In my view, whichever side a wisdom seeker leans too heavily toward, is the one that ought to be discouraged and discredited.
All people are already caught between those sides. It's what makes up their "reality", which is just an intricate web between the unknowable, untouchable truths and the never-ending contradictions of their experiences.

You talk like there's no path possible in the wilderness because in your experience, one is bound to get lost for good?


I view metaphysical conceptualizations, theories, and conventional truths, as secondary in priority to ultimate truth.
Almost like the relevance of comfort, compared to food and water, for one's survival. I'll get to the why in a minute, but to me, all that matters in this life is getting as many healthy decades as you can, and focusing them on wisdom, contemplation, discussion, and meditation, sharing all that, and making relevant choices based on the best one has got so far at any given time. As you said, deciding on each turn which is the way forward.


Well I've spoken rarely about mediation here and I'm not going to start now. But I'll say it seems like a natural thing for awareness to "meditate" in some fashion. It's almost too mundane to speak of! For me it seems odd to conceive of it as some method or way to truth. Then having power naps could be as important. So I'm not elevating it I guess, it's just a given that good minds function in certain ways to become 'good' in the first place. Meditation is how it already functions, not something to add on or learn.
It's true, it is a natural thing for awareness to 'meditate' in some fashion. But it's a bit like how it's natural that we do exercise compared to intentionally going to work out, the guy going to the gym is still going to develop much more muscle. Meditation in my view is the gym compared to the playground.

One does not naturally focus on developing concentration while still for great lengths of time, unless it's on a task or form of entertainment. Meditation differs here by being focused on truth, or one's own "mind".

Contemplation definitely occurs naturally, whether we are walking around or going about a busy day, or sleeping or taking a power nap, it's going on all the time as you say, naturally, but often in a very undirected and altogether 'messy' way. Another analogy, meditation here would be the difference between trying to put together a speech in ones brief thoughts as one travels around, compared to taking a seat and writing without distraction. Philosophizing without too much distraction would be another way to describe contemplation.

Clear verbal thought occurs somewhat, but we've all heard the saying "It's so loud I can barely hear myself thinking", is it some absolute truth? No. Is it a mundane phrase? Yes. It seems you discount this sort of experiential truth without justification. The fact is that this saying reflects something very real, unmistakable, shared by all. So the difference in this case would be, turning off the music and tv, being still, developing clear verbal thought, perhaps even 'directing' it at dark places, as opposed to a shaky all over the place thinking that is barely cognized, sort of like unconscious thought or thought during that power nap.

And those are only a few examples of 'types' of meditation as described via my own experience, just because the subject is one that alludes clear definition, doesn't mean it ought to be disregarded, and I think you've made a grave mistake by not taking 'classical' meditation more seriously. I understand the tendency tho, at first it can seem like no progress at all is possible, that there's nothing to be had in such activity. Now I see it almost as an entire universe to be explored and understood from many different angles, all the tools honed by yourself alone, all the objectives decided by insight. What is being explored is truth. Questions like free will for example can be 'looked at', 'investigated', by 'looking at' ones own thoughts arising. Creating a satisfying description of such things when speaking to someone looking to poke holes in it becomes impossible though, because even to talk about one aspect of it requires separation of categories. This being "thoughts", that being "awareness", this being "imagined", this being "insight", that being "lack of focus", this being "concentration", and so on. It's an ineffable task. For that reason one could say it requires a level of faith, but that's not how I see it. Something a bit instinctual perhaps, mystical insight, call it what you will. I understand the object and the insight all being reality itself, and in that way, it is sort of like a true science, a true investigation into what is. After all, the prevailing view is that it's simply causality at play, and there's no ego/self doing any true directing of attention at all. When poking holes in philosophy, there is no end, this very conversation can be cast under the weight of too much doubt or skepticism.

The major reason behind meditation, contemplation, discussion, etc, as I understand it, is that it is the only path forward.
Technology will not ensure freedom from suffering, or one's future 'fate'. (As I've mentioned, I expect and reason out an existence which continues beyond bodily dissolution.)
Ignoring the importance of life and death in favor of sexual desire, vain pursuits, politics, holidays, or entertainment, will not do that either.
Only understanding reality and the self, only developing good karma (habit-energy, example being a pure mind, another example being developing concentration) is the way to "store up treasures in heaven" (benefiting one's future existence or progress toward perfect wisdom), whatever that would be, if there is such a thing.

I feel as if I've barely scratched the surface of this 'exploration', but it is the path which my reasoning has led me toward currently, and it is the understanding which seems by far the most logical and consistent with reality, in my view.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:13 am

JohnJAu wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But what would happen, without imagination and belief though, practically, to people and the society?
If this somehow occurred, I would expect people and society to flourish, albeit in a very different fashion which might not look like current concepts of flourishing. Feel free to ask my opinion on what an ideal society would be like, including morality and how people spend their time, but that's just speculation.
The fact remains that you're freely speculating on the effects of the disappearance of imagination or beliefs. Also you're referring to a new definition of flourishing which would involve, I suppose, some change of moral dimension. Exchanging opinions on this would result in a complex discussion and we're back to where we started again. Or am I missing something?
I'm reminded of this quote:
"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."
But this has been attempted so many times! Like with the pope and many king-priests of old. Then the bible has Ecclesiastes: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun". It's philosophy which has mused that power itself might have some corrupting effect. Or society festering the emotional as bartering agent. Or the animal arising through group dynamics. Therefore one has to question just as well if the biggest troubles were not exactly those attempts of "wisdom" to become "powerful" in the first place. You need to ask that question first before quoting old idealists.
So the difference in this case would be, turning off the music and tv, being still, developing clear verbal thought, perhaps even 'directing' it at dark places, as opposed to a shaky all over the place thinking that is barely cognized, sort of like unconscious thought or thought during that power nap.
There are many roads leading to the unlearned or unshaken. Sometimes a certain kind of activity is needed, sometimes the same activity should be avoided. This is the reason I likely won't mention meditation, as activity, or lack thereof, ever again.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:03 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: There are many roads leading to the unlearned or unshaken. Sometimes a certain kind of activity is needed, sometimes the same activity should be avoided. This is the reason I likely won't mention meditation, as activity, or lack thereof, ever again.
For the beginning of the path of wisdom, the relevant reason, the logic, the awareness, I agree with you absolutely, it can be reached by any road or activity whatsoever.

As for the conclusion, as I understand it - and I find it highly unlikely it could be any other way- meditation is thousands of times more important than any other activity one could engage in. Why? Because one cannot bring anything with them after death except for one thing; the karma one develops. (habit-energy, habits of mind, practices that are perpetuated, such as concentration and control of ones own mind developed through concentration meditation.)

Life should be known as continuing because existence is. Existence is and therefore will be. Non-existence should never be expected after death, it is illogical and nonsensical. It may be thousands of lifetimes experienced in a frightful chain of rebirths before one comes across the opportunity of the wisdom of the Buddha and understanding of the importance of meditation again.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:54 am

John, bringing 'one's karma with them' after death purports an inherent soul or self which falls into the imagination/belief realm of reasoning. In your meditation do you not come to complete silence when your thoughts of karma/self are not active? Here you have the opportunity to observe the difference between idealistic thought (I-attachment, I desire) and thought that is not attached to to an idea(l).

As long as you believe in the existence of a continuing self you will not be free of its delusional hold. The idea of rebirth is taught so that there can be a gradual letting go of the idea of self. After all, it's a deeply ingrained idea, it won't go away just because of one or two flashes of insight of no-self.

The Tao or God or the Causality thinks/does all thing -- in truth, there is no middleman that collects karma. The Tao is, as it always has been, infinite and eternal.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by JohnJAu » Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:47 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:John, bringing 'one's karma with them' after death purports an inherent soul or self which falls into the imagination/belief realm of reasoning.
Does a domino bring every domino that fell before it with it as it falls? It is just cause and effect, that is what is meant by karma following one. Certain habits are perpetuated, caused, and thus the momentum (such as the momentum of the habit of anger, or desire for pleasure seeking, etc) continues on. In much the same way, the habit of maintaining a pure mind continues on and blossoms.

"I am everything,
or nothing"
-Ashtavakra

There is no self-substance, unless you count the entirety of impermanent forms moment by moment. The "mind" (which is actually just "reality") is the nature of things, it isn't dependent on a form such as the body, and one should never expect reality(which is what you truly are) to come to cessation. One can very well expect reality to continue to unfurl it's illusory/real chain of causation tho.
Pam Seeback wrote: In your meditation do you not come to complete silence when your thoughts of karma/self are not active?
Indeed, in my view, the purpose of good karma is to eventually rise above ones karma entirely so that it no longer has a hold. (To never return to existence.) It is in fact causality (god) which leads one to 'seemingly find oneself engaging in wisdom' out of pure luck or circumstance really, then ironically leading to one rising above the bondage of the illusory causal world.
Pam Seeback wrote: Here you have the opportunity to observe the difference between idealistic thought (I-attachment, I desire) and thought that is not attached to to an idea(l).
I would say the same to you. If you reason correctly, you will see that it requires no thought attachment whatsoever to see this truth. Really, consider it. If one is completely silent, what is left? Existence. If one postulates nothing, imagines nothing, expects nothing, what is left? Existence. If one accurately describes reality, what would that look like? Existence.

Existence is. Full stop.

That's how one recognizes eternal existence. By not postulating the existence of a self (which then may come to an end).

There is only reality, yet the foolish mind imagines that reality is something other than the only reality anyone has ever known.
Pam Seeback wrote: The idea of rebirth is taught so that
The idea of rebirth is taught very clearly, with reference to life after life and descriptions therein, so that those who are confused are less likely to think it's just a metaphor.
Pam Seeback wrote: there can be a gradual letting go of the idea of self.
You think letting go of an idea alone is salvation? This is magical thinking, just like praying is going to lead one to heaven, through such fantasy the spiritual life is wasted, and one does not diligently pursue actual change in the only avenue/platform available, ones own mind. The only significant change one can make is ones habit-energy, directing it toward nirvana and away from worldly existence. This path goes far beyond just the presence or absence of an idea.
Pam Seeback wrote: After all, it's a deeply ingrained idea, it won't go away just because of one or two flashes of insight of no-self.
The deeply ingrained idea/delusion is that you are something other than reality, or that reality will somehow dramatically change at bodily dissolution.
Pam Seeback wrote: The Tao or God or the Causality thinks/does all thing -- in truth, there is no middleman that collects karma. The Tao is, as it always has been, infinite and eternal.
Indeed, that is why the concept of being 'chosen' comes about, it is only by circumstance/causality that we come to seemingly find ourselves engaging in wisdom. Karma is simply a reference to ones apparent chain of cause and effect (habit-energy).

For example, smoking a cigarette is a domino into the causal chain, increasing the likelihood of desiring cigarettes in future. In the same way, meditation is the domino path of wisdom, awareness, restraint, concentration, etc, in the causal chain, increasing the likelihood of a pure mind in future, and progress on the spiritual path. That is the very purpose of this forum, for example.

Unless we are getting into the topic of free-will, then it is a simple and accurate description to say that one who is aware that different actions bring different fruits (such as pleasure-seeking vs meditation) can then direct ones karma toward the wise path.

rasnajacob
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:35 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by rasnajacob » Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:53 pm

Democracy’s demise will not come in the form of a sudden shock, but as a gradual erosion of the epistemic dimension of democracy and as a gradual erosion of social capital. This process of disintegration is observable today.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:20 am

John: That's how one recognizes eternal existence. By not postulating the existence of a self (which then may come to an end).
Exactly! And yet you speak of an existence after existence (life after life).
John:There is only reality, yet the foolish mind imagines that reality is something other than the only reality anyone has ever known.
And yet, here you are, subscribing to an 'after' that you do not know.
Pam Seeback wrote:
The idea of rebirth is taught so that
John: The idea of rebirth is taught very clearly, with reference to life after life and descriptions therein, so that those who are confused are less likely to think it's just a metaphor.
Metaphorical stories are often very complex and layered, that does not make them true. I am one who once loved metaphorical teachings and could write them in great detail myself.

Rebirth in an existence that is, is logically impossible. What is replays nothing.

When/where did the Buddha describe any sort of life after life? Of my understanding, and wisely so, he refused to speak of such things.
Pam: there can be a gradual letting go of the idea of self.
John: You think letting go of an idea alone is salvation? This is magical thinking, just like praying is going to lead one to heaven, through such fantasy the spiritual life is wasted, and one does not diligently pursue actual change in the only avenue/platform available, ones own mind. The only significant change one can make is ones habit-energy, directing it toward nirvana and away from worldly existence. This path goes far beyond just the presence or absence of an idea.
John, you left out the part where I said that the idea of self is a deeply ingrained idea which in no way suggests an intellectual sloughing off of 'self', which would indeed be magical thinking. The idea of self is not just the idea 'self', it includes the worlds within worlds of imagined beliefs that are built on the root idea of self. So to be clear, no way am I claiming some sort of magical enlightenment after an insight or two of no-self. On the contrary, it is my personal experience that unraveling the worlds of self is a long and daunting, albeit hugely rewarding process of alternating moments of insight and falling away from insight.

What is when the relational, imagined worlds of the deluded, ignorant idea of self ends? The play of causality without relationship to things, aka, the absolute.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by JohnJAu » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:03 pm

Pam Seeback wrote: Exactly! And yet you speak of an existence after existence (life after life).
No, I just don't speak of an end to existence. This is honestly the most basic line of reasoning I can't see how you continuously skip over it.

Existence is.

Full stop, no postulating an end to it, and therefore recognizing that "existence is" is the only known reality.
And yet, here you are, subscribing to an 'after' that you do not know.
No I'm not, that's you subscribing to an 'end' followed by the magical 'after', how can't you see that? I'm saying existence is, the only after being of the same kind as 'tomorrow'. It's different but always the same.
What you're implying is that death is some huge difference and that the type of existence itself may change to 'non-existence' or something 'after', it's absurd, not based in reality at all, and not even in sound reasoning, just some deluded attachment to the body.

Existence is.
By itself that statement concludes "existence is and therefore will be". (As long as one does not add in the words "Until death")
Rebirth in an existence that is, is logically impossible. What is replays nothing.
That's definitely true, which is why the description "Never born and cannot die" is elucidating. Rebirth simply means continuing on. The point is that death is just another change of forms- those are going on every day- in the same way you have no enduring self-substance, any form is not now the same as it was 30 years ago, yet your existence continues, as it will after the passing of the form "my body". Because all forms are nothing more than impermanent illusions. The only remaining and enduring factor being reality/the tao itself and the qualities of the Tao (which you literally are).
When/where did the Buddha describe any sort of life after life? Of my understanding, and wisely so, he refused to speak of such things.
It is throughout the whole doctrine. It is even present in the most basic of Buddhist texts such as the Dhammapada, and much more so in other texts.

"Arise! Do not be heedless! Lead a righteous life.
The righteous live happily both in this world and the next."

"The craving of one given to heedless living grows
like a creeper. Like the monkey seeking fruits in
the forest, he leaps from life to life (tasting the
fruit of his kamma)."

"Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered
in vain, seeking in the builder of this house (of
life). Repeated birth is indeed suffering!"

I'm honestly not sure how you can deny the plain reality of things so blatantly and without reason. Not just in this aspect above, but also how all at once you agree existence is, at the same time you do not postulate that death is the end of any self-substance since there never was one, yet then also postulate it will be some great change and the daily experience will disappear or you're somehow just 'uncertain'.
unraveling the worlds of self is a long and daunting, albeit hugely rewarding process of alternating moments of insight and falling away from insight.
Wrong view of self/ the delusion of egotism is simply differentiation of form followed by attachment to, identification with, or unconscious clinging to, this or that arising of appearances. (As if they are self-substance, or as if they are products of the free will of some self-center)
Whilst simultaneously concluding that other forms, (this or that arising of appearances) are not you and are not the products of the free will of that self-center. "Others, other things".

In truth, you are the entire reality of the existence, that is your 'true self', the causality, god, tao.
What is when the relational, imagined worlds of the deluded, ignorant idea of self ends? The play of causality without relationship to things, aka, the absolute.
Exactly, and you seem to think the play of causality may end at the dissolution of the illusory form of the body for some unknown reason? (I assume it's because you think the body is some entity upon which your fantasy "caused consciousness" depends.)

In truth, you are reality, never born, and cannot die. Your "consciousness" that you experience daily will never cease and never had a beginning, because it is not "consciousness" at all, it is reality/causality itself at play. Reality does not have an ending or a beginning. Your existence does not have an ending or a beginning, it is not a product of causality. (That delusion is based on the assumption that the play of reality lead to the creation of your daily experience which is some phenomenon dependent upon temporary circumstances, such as the arising of the body.)

Your 'consciousness' is all that exists for you.
Your 'consciousness' is all that exists. (For you) Because all that exists for you is all that exists to you.
Your 'consciousness' is deluded terminology which tries to split reality from reality, which is impossible.
Your 'consciousness' is actually plain old reality.

You are reality, you are all that exists. (This does not mean that you are the totality of all that exists, but for you/to you, you are indeed the totality of all that exists.)

"Your ignorance alone
creates the universe.
In reality One alone exists.
There is no person or god
other than You."
Ashtavakra

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:59 am

Pam: And yet, here you are, subscribing to an 'after' that you do not know.
John: No I'm not, that's you subscribing to an 'end' followed by the magical 'after', how can't you see that? I'm saying existence is, the only after being of the same kind as 'tomorrow'.
Your words verbatim:
John: The idea of rebirth is taught very clearly, with reference to life after life and descriptions therein, so that those who are confused are less likely to think it's just a metaphor.


Within 'is', there is no after, period. While I believe I understand what you are trying to suggest by saying "the only after being of the same kind as 'tomorrow' (that death of the body does not change awareness/causation), all that is happening here is a muddying of the waters, an interjection of time when such an interjection is a display of ignorance of the eternal nature of existence.
John: What you're implying is that death is some huge difference and that the type of existence itself may change to 'non-existence' or something 'after', it's absurd, not based in reality at all, and not even in sound reasoning, just some deluded attachment to the body.
Absolutely not so. All I subscribe to is the end of attachment to the idea of self, what you call karma, period. The causality does not end, die or take a vacation. :-)

Given that you do not subscribe to an existent self, I am puzzled as to your usage of this quote in particular and of Ashtavakra in general:
"Your ignorance alone
creates the universe.
In reality One alone exists.
There is no person or god
other than You."

Ashtavakra
Ashtavakra wrote the Aṣṭāvakra Gītā, a Hindu text that subscribes to the concept of an existent Atman, belief in an existent inner self or soul, a major point of difference with the teachings of the Buddha. You quote both teachings, to which do you subscribe?

How I would rewrite the above to better reflect the nature of ultimate reality:

Ignorance that is belief in an existing self/You/One is caused.
There is only causation, eternal and infinite.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by JohnJAu » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:04 pm

Pam Seeback wrote: Within 'is', there is no after, period.
You seem to have lost touch with reality. I definitely wrote this after your previous post. Just like "life after life" simply means a continuation of existence after the current form "my body" comes to dissolution.
Pam Seeback wrote: ignorance of the eternal nature of existence.
So you're saying all at once:
1) existence is eternal
2) existence is temporary for you
3) there is no you/self-substance/personal consciousness
4) You/your self-substance/personal consciousness may end at bodily dissolution.

Not making any sense.

Absolutely not so. All I subscribe to is the end of attachment to the idea of self, what you call karma, period. The causality does not end, die or take a vacation. :-)
You don't seem to realize that the self never existed in the first place. It was a false idea altogether. So ending attachment to that idea is not going to bring an end to the very real existence of what we would refer to as ones individual experience/consciousness.

You agree that there is an individual 'experience'/'consciousness' yes? If not you are denying the most basic reality and are clearly caught up in deluded attachment to conceptualizations over the blatant reality.

If you do agree, why would you postulate that the individual 'experience'/'consciousness' may have an ending?
And if you are not postulating such, then why would you say there is no continuing karma/causal chain when it is very clear in 'this life' that there is? You seem to have mistaken the teaching of no-self, and have a conceptual understanding which does not fit in with reality.
To say that you don't exist, that would be extremely foolish an interpretation. You do exist. All it means is that the apparent "self-substance" making up the ego (the forms that are identified with/attached to) are actually not-enduring, the boundaries between them are not inherent, and there is no form which is more "self" than any other.
Given that you do not subscribe to an existent self, I am puzzled as to your usage of this quote in particular and of Ashtavakra in general:
I do not subscribe to an existent self because 'the self' is reality. Just like I don't subscribe to the existence of 'consciousness' because 'consciousness' is reality. You are one with reality/God, and definitely exist.


Ashtavakra wrote the Aṣṭāvakra Gītā, a Hindu text that subscribes to the concept of an existent Atman, belief in an existent inner self or soul, a major point of difference with the teachings of the Buddha. You quote both teachings, to which do you subscribe?
The Ashtavakra Gita speaks for itself and contradicts the belief in an existent inner self or soul and in my view strikes a clear balance which represents reality well. It equates consciousness with reality, the same way you do with causality/reality.

"Where is Self?
Where is not-Self?"
"Where is the soul in bondage?
Where is the liberated soul?
My nature is Unity."

The view that there is an atman/soul is wrong is true because there is no enduring self-substance whatsoever, not even from this second to the next second. Meaning there are no 'pam-thoughts' or 'pam-identity' or 'pam-feelings' or 'pam Will' or ego which endures, there is only the arising of appearances/ the play of causality/ reality at play.

What you need to realize is that you are that reality, not a product of it or just some illusion of existence.

Existence is. The confusion happens when one becomes attached to concepts which contradict reality. Hence the promotion of stillness and silence so that one can know truth rather than imagine it. The truth never changes,(the qualities of God never change), only the forms/illusions/experiences change.

"Rare is the one who believes nothing
and is never confused."
There is only causation, eternal and infinite.
This is getting a little repetitive.

Pam: There is only causation.
Also Pam: There is also the experience known as 'individual consciousness' which with wisdom is recognized as actually just causation; a temporary arising resulting from causality at play.

The only difference here is that I'd say:
Causation and 'consciousness' are the very same thing exactly. As opposed to consciousness being some temporary product or illusion; as long as there is causation there is 'consciousness'. (Eternal)

Whereas your version necessarily implies a split between the two (that consciousness is caused).

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:27 am

John: Causation and 'consciousness' are the very same thing exactly. As opposed to consciousness being some temporary product or illusion; as long as there is causation there is 'consciousness'. (Eternal)
Causation and consciousness "are not the very same thing exactly." If that were the case, consciousness would cause unconsciousness: not a logical conclusion to say the least.
John: Whereas your version necessarily implies a split between the two (that consciousness is caused).
There is no split in causation. Causation is a seamless reality, be it conscious or unconscious.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by JohnJAu » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:12 pm

Pam Seeback wrote: Causation and consciousness "are not the very same thing exactly."
Yes they are, just not in the sense of the totality.

Pam Seeback wrote: If that were the case, consciousness would cause unconsciousness
What do you mean? I'm not sure, but my first reaction to the words.... "if that were the case"... this "would" be... is not a good one.

Using the 'if that were then this would be which doesn't make sense' line of reasoning is usually faulty, but we'll see your explanation.

Causation and consciousness "are not the very same thing exactly."
There is no split in causation.
See the contradiction here?

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Is rational or political discourse even desired?

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:06 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Causation and consciousness "are not the very same thing exactly."
John: Yes they are, just not in the sense of the totality.
Where is your reasoning that the totality is not the causality?
Pam Seeback wrote:
If that were the case, consciousness would cause unconsciousness
John: What do you mean? I'm not sure, but my first reaction to the words.... "if that were the case"... this "would" be... is not a good one.

Using the 'if that were then this would be which doesn't make sense' line of reasoning is usually faulty, but we'll see your explanation.
In your reasoning of consciousness = causation, consciousness causes unconsciousness, a logical fallacy.
Quote:
Causation and consciousness "are not the very same thing exactly."

Quote:
There is no split in causation.

See the contradiction here?
Not at all. I'll use your term 'totality' to explain why using my sound reasoning that the totality and the causality are the same thing.

Because the totality causes consciousness, as does the totality cause unconsciousness, there is a distinction between the two causalities (i.e., consciousness is different than unconsciousness just as ignorance is different than wisdom), however, a distinction or difference is not a split, implying a literal severing of the totality into different parts. Obviously, by definition, it is impossible for a split to exist in the totality/causality. Splitting is a conventional concept, not an ultimate one, i.e., the splitting of a log in two.

Post Reply