That which is causelessly here

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Relinquish
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:22 pm

That which is causelessly here

Post by Relinquish »

Fundamentally, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent features of the manifested 'being' of 'That which is causelessly here'. This manifestation is the only one there ever really is, and is commonly known as the universe.

If the ceaseless change that is this manifestation had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, this manifestation MUST be eternally cyclic.

If the 'being' was eternally un-manifested, it would ALWAYS be in a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. For this reason, it's manifestation can ONLY be the 'structured ever-changing asymmetry' that it is.

However, the true nature of 'That which is causelessly here' (that is to say, the actual reason WHY It's own 'being' is manifested rather than un-manifested, why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within the manifestation, and in turn, why an illusion of multiplicity, separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable....


Thanks for reading. ☺
Last edited by Relinquish on Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Relinquish wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:40 pm Fundamentally, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent features of the manifested 'being' of 'That which is causelessly here'. This manifestation is commonly known as the universe, and is the only real manifestation there ever is.
Hello and welcome! That looks like good reasoning!
If the ceaseless change that is this manifestation had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.
This reminds me of a casino that installed a display of the last "red" or "black" hits on the roulette table, after which, the casino saw an increase in profits. The reason for that is the error of people to assume random events are causally connected, so after seeing a string of "reds", they bet "black" and lose their money. It just goes to show that prior random events (causeless events) have nothing to do with successive random events. So if one random event had a beginning, it doesn't mean there could not have been a random event prior. And if one random event had an ending, it wouldn't mean there couldn't be another random event following.
Therefore, this manifestation MUST be eternally cyclic.
Are you referring to Nietzsche's "eternal return" idea?
If the 'being' was eternally un-manifested, it would ALWAYS be in a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. For this reason, it's manifestation can ONLY be the 'structured ever-changing asymmetry' that it is.
So the being is mostly good, but with an element of irreducible rascality (yetzer hara ) for asymmetry? A stew with a pinch of salt seems good to me ;)
However, the true nature of 'That which is causelessly here' (that is to say, the actual reason WHY It's own 'being' is manifested rather than un-manifested, why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within the manifestation, and in turn, why an illusion of multiplicity, separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable....
Agreed. It's fundamentally random.
Thanks for reading. ☺
Thanks for writing :)
Relinquish
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:22 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Relinquish »

Serendipper wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:50 am
Relinquish wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:40 pm Fundamentally, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent features of the manifested 'being' of 'That which is causelessly here'. This manifestation is commonly known as the universe, and is the only real manifestation there ever is.
Hello and welcome! That looks like good reasoning!
If the ceaseless change that is this manifestation had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.
This reminds me of a casino that installed a display of the last "red" or "black" hits on the roulette table, after which, the casino saw an increase in profits. The reason for that is the error of people to assume random events are causally connected, so after seeing a string of "reds", they bet "black" and lose their money. It just goes to show that prior random events (causeless events) have nothing to do with successive random events. So if one random event had a beginning, it doesn't mean there could not have been a random event prior. And if one random event had an ending, it wouldn't mean there couldn't be another random event following.
Therefore, this manifestation MUST be eternally cyclic.
Are you referring to Nietzsche's "eternal return" idea?
If the 'being' was eternally un-manifested, it would ALWAYS be in a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. For this reason, it's manifestation can ONLY be the 'structured ever-changing asymmetry' that it is.
So the being is mostly good, but with an element of irreducible rascality (yetzer hara ) for asymmetry? A stew with a pinch of salt seems good to me ;)
However, the true nature of 'That which is causelessly here' (that is to say, the actual reason WHY It's own 'being' is manifested rather than un-manifested, why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within the manifestation, and in turn, why an illusion of multiplicity, separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable....
Agreed. It's fundamentally random.
Thanks for reading. ☺
Thanks for writing :)
Hi Serendipper. Thanks for responding. ☺

It seems that, in following my line of reasoning, you have reached the exact opposite of my intended conclusion. My point is that, in Reality, there is only ever one eternally cyclic, completely deterministic process or event going on. There is no such thing as a causeless or random event.

A distinction should be drawn here between 'eternal' and 'causeless'. Reality Itself (and It's own 'being' of Itself) is eternally causeless, but the cyclic manifestation of that 'being' is eternally CAUSED by Reality Itself.

The absence of manifestation is a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. As such, the presence of manifestation is a structured, ever-changing asymmetry.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Relinquish wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:31 pm Hi Serendipper. Thanks for responding. ☺
No trouble. I'm trying to figure it out too, so this topic aligns with my interest.
It seems that, in following my line of reasoning, you have reached the exact opposite of my intended conclusion. My point is that, in Reality, there is only ever one eternally cyclic, completely deterministic process or event going on. There is no such thing as a causeless or random event.
I can see how one would think so, and it confounded Einstein, but randomness really exists:

http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/1 ... andomness/

"It took a while, but hidden variable theory was eventually disproved by John Bell, who showed that there are lots of experiments that cannot have unmeasured results. Thus the results cannot be determined ahead of time, so there are no hidden variables, and the results are truly random. That is, if it is physically and mathematically impossible to predict the results, then the results are truly, fundamentally random."

The world of the very small is governed by randomness, but conglomerations of small particles become more deterministic as more particles are added to the aggregate by virtue of the central limit theorem.

I like this demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xUBhhM4vbM

Where each marble goes is hard to predict, but the distribution of many marbles is determinable.

How many is "many"? More than 15,000 apparently:

“Our data confirm the fully coherent quantum delocalization of single compounds composed of about 5000 protons, 5000 neutrons and 5000 electrons,” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 2c39db8e7b

15,000 is still very small.
A distinction should be drawn here between 'eternal' and 'causeless'. Reality Itself (and It's own 'being' of Itself) is eternally causeless, but the cyclic manifestation of that 'being' is eternally CAUSED by Reality Itself.
Almost seems you've described the Galton Board in the video.
The absence of manifestation is a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. As such, the presence of manifestation is a structured, ever-changing asymmetry.
The problem with infinity here are the implications on probabilities. I agree there must be an asymmetry or else everything would cancel-out.

Astronomers created a simulation of star explosions, but they weren't getting the results matching what they see in the cosmos. After adding an asymmetry in the initial triggering event inside the star, the simulation jibed with reality.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

In the end there is not much difference between invoking a mysterious observation of randomness, hidden variables or "one deterministic process" -- at least philosophically. It ends up as some determining force as of yet not to be determined by any human mind, scientist or measurement.

During these discussions one really has to ask the question: is one trying to approach the questions from a scientific position, as a context of philosophy of science, of (reductive) materialist prepositions -- physicalism, naturalism and so on? Or for example from existentialist of even metaphysical positions?

In my view the issue is often overlooked. Scientific questions on experiments, models, theories, measurements and technology are great. But they as well sort of define the very context for these questions to arise in the first place. And then one proceeds to use the methods as such defined, but still in that exact same context, to answer them! Or at least muse, speculate about them leisurely (harmless, safe, with hardly any stake?).

It's very well possible to do philosophy without rejecting or ignoring science while even supporting fully its methods. But one can venture beyond it and enter way more difficult areas, which are usually a collision of so many areas and categories. The human experience is ultimately not a scientific one or it refuses to be boiled down to one at least.

One ends up with not only the question on truth but also on what is life, what is the way? Scientific research divides up and opens up options, offers up concepts but will by its very nature never be able to address meaning, suffering or liberation. And yet those are historically the great questions of philosophy: on morality. on the desire for meaning, the nature of dualism but mostly the drive to go beyond. Beyond what? Beyond humanity perhaps, beyond the visible and quantifiable, sometimes, beyond dreams, beyond commonality and the familiar. To enter places for which there are no words, protocols, established guides or academic degrees. In short, philosophy aspires the summa and pinnacle of existence. Only that can ever justify, in hindsight, the road behind -- for those looking to justify anything happening in nature. But that is the nature of mind, as well...
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:02 am In the end there is not much difference between invoking a mysterious observation of randomness, hidden variables or "one deterministic process" -- at least philosophically. It ends up as some determining force as of yet not to be determined by any human mind, scientist or measurement.
Are you sure randomness is a determining force?

Reminds me of a poem circulating around 5th grade:

One bright day in the middle of the night, two dead men came out to fight. Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. A deaf policeman heard the noise and came to shoot those two dead boys. If you don't believe this lie it true, ask the blind man, he saw it too!

Or something like that. It was terribly funny back then :)

I don't think there would be a point to anything if everything were determinable. Why go for a ride down a chain of deterministic causality? For reasons I can't articulate, I don't think I could even be conscious in such an arrangement. There is something about the lack of determining forces that engenders me with a sense of self and free will. If everything could be known, there would be no point to it. Why does there have to be a point? Well, it would be much easier for there to be nothing.
During these discussions one really has to ask the question: is one trying to approach the questions from a scientific position, as a context of philosophy of science, of (reductive) materialist prepositions -- physicalism, naturalism and so on? Or for example from existentialist of even metaphysical positions?
I try not to distinguish science from philosophy or physics from metaphysics as it would be arbitrary anyway. I'm just interested in reality, truth, whatever that is. It seems to me that philosophy is how one chooses to see things, and in order to practice science, one needs a philosophy of science to guide the practice of science. I mean, one could have a philosophy for brushing their teeth! (Wet the brush first and then add the paste or the paste first and then the water or some other way.) So it seems that philosophy is just a preference of things.
In my view the issue is often overlooked. Scientific questions on experiments, models, theories, measurements and technology are great. But they as well sort of define the very context for these questions to arise in the first place. And then one proceeds to use the methods as such defined, but still in that exact same context, to answer them! Or at least muse, speculate about them leisurely (harmless, safe, with hardly any stake?).
I see what you mean (though I can't think of a good example at the moment.) Back in the old fighter-pilot days they'd warn pilots that when you lock-on to a plane to shoot, first look behind you because if you can target your enemy, another enemy can target you! So as we near the discovery of an answer to philosophical questions, we should first see if we're falling into our own trap. I think Nietzsche said something along those lines "Beware when fighting monsters that you don't become a monster."

All that serves as illustration for when observing nature that it's too easy to forget we're part of nature and not outside it.
It's very well possible to do philosophy without rejecting or ignoring science while even supporting fully its methods. But one can venture beyond it and enter way more difficult areas, which are usually a collision of so many areas and categories. The human experience is ultimately not a scientific one or it refuses to be boiled down to one at least.

Yes, it's an art.
One ends up with not only the question on truth but also on what is life, what is the way?
Science makes the assumption that life comes from nonlife and I don't see why that should be assumed, except for the purpose of eliminating god. Why not assume the whole thing is alive? They think if they find life on some other planet that it will prove something. So they're spending billions and billions only to fall into their own trap.

Science carves rules out of the arbitrary to avoid concluding the intuitive, but for every advantage there is a disadvantage.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Serendipper wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:10 pm Are you sure randomness is a determining force?
Well, my use of the word "force" is certainly highly debatable but the word "determining", not as much.

Probability and randomness are still descriptions of various processes which would have causes. The idea of randomness becomes more of a phenomenological issue then? Perhaps we should also talk about the difference between weak or strong randomness?

Lets take one example: quantum dice. There's no statistical independence between measurements on different particles (in the experiment) even without any known interactions. But this says nothing about any lack of determination -- the opposite would be more likely but this is all part of rather irrelevant theory.

You could also say that randomness, in the weak, technical sense, is simply part of any predictive theory.

But something like "quantum non-determinism" doesn't exist. The uncertainty principle, the collapsing wave function, the randomness are all part of theories, interpretations which are themselves again indeterministic. The math itself has simply no opinion about its own randomness and probability. That's perhaps where the phrase "shut up and calculate" came from . Because to propose randomness as some magical faery dust that somehow makes the quantum world go round is just as tricky as suggesting non-local variables or many worlds. Probability yes, but that's a calculation, not an explanation of any kind.

Here's an interesting paper The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics.

Speaking of many worlds interpretation: this is a great example how randomness becomes fully deterministic and predictable while still not predictable from a single-world point of view. Indeed the causal process of randomness would become accurately modeled with this theory, if it would pan out.
There is something about the lack of determining forces that engenders me with a sense of self and free will. If everything could be known, there would be no point to it.
There are things to unwrap here: positing determining forces or causality does not imply some real possibility of omniscience. It might as well be impossible for a [limited] being or intelligence, from the logical perspective. As for the sense of free will or meaning: they might simply not be in the same discussion or category happening. This is perhaps what I meant earlier with something existing and not-existing, simply depending on the level and context applied. The human mind is perfectly capable of doing that. Actually it's so capable that we are too often mixing categories and context outside of the sciences.
I think Nietzsche said something along those lines "Beware when fighting monsters that you don't become a monster."
To fight a monster one is already that, like staring into the abyss: the earth opens up inside ourselves, to even get to such depth.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:36 am
Serendipper wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:10 pm Are you sure randomness is a determining force?
Probability and randomness are still descriptions of various processes which would have causes.
I definitely see what you're saying and I knew before that everything needs a cause, but I realized randomness is necessitated as well, so my first inclination was to figure that some things, apparently, don't have causes (even though I didn't understand it, just like you don't understand it). So, I think the solution may be to define randomness as determined by either an infinite number of variables or a dark-number of variables such that prediction with certainty is absolutely impossible from within this universe, which accomplishes the same goal as the strict definition of randomness. Whacha think? A kind of blend of determinism and randomism that kills two birds with one stone.

We could determine the result of a coin flip if we knew all the variables, but on the quantum level the variables include the whole universe, which includes the devices taking the measurements and the people doing to the measuring, so the very fact that measurement is taking place affects the result of the measuring. Maybe that explains the double-slit experiment.
So that paper is claiming that information loss is responsible for our perception of randomness in quantum experiments? Ok, maybe, but that seems another way of saying what I just said... that there is no way to account for all the variables in the universe (ie information loss).

Ultimately, the universe cannot look at itself like an eye cannot see itself. Whether that be caused by information loss due to inaccuracy of measurement or inability to account for every variable (which includes us, the measurers) or simply that the point of reception cannot also be the point of radiation or a combination of all three, the point remains that it is impossible to determine anything with certainty from within the universe.
Speaking of many worlds interpretation: this is a great example how randomness becomes fully deterministic and predictable while still not predictable from a single-world point of view. Indeed the causal process of randomness would become accurately modeled with this theory, if it would pan out.
Yes but the many worlds requires an infinite amount of energy. Every quantum event from the beginning of time would have to diverge and it would quickly escalate into a very exponentially divergent series of worlds which would have to occupy some "space" while also not touching each other. It seems a crazy and unnecessary idea. A very poor management of resources which begs the question of how something with such luxury-consumption could have evolved. To put it in economic perspective: it would be like buying everything at the grocery store, then tossing out everything except what's on your list. That sort of waste is not consistent with anything I've seen in nature.
There is something about the lack of determining forces that engenders me with a sense of self and free will. If everything could be known, there would be no point to it.
There are things to unwrap here: positing determining forces or causality does not imply some real possibility of omniscience.

Why not? If there is a way to know everything and if there is enough time, then, eventually, someone, somewhere, will attain omniscience. Maybe some AI. And when everything is known and nothing is unknown, then there is no more known and unknown. Be careful you don't educate yourself out of existence :p
As for the sense of free will or meaning: they might simply not be in the same discussion or category happening.

I feel that a series of switches inside a computer could not engender a sense of self because it is fully deterministic. Essentially, a computer is a line of dominoes and I can't, for the life of me, imagine how a dumb mechanical process such as that could cause a sense of oneself. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Furthermore, why do I need to be here to witness the show that I have no control over? If my being in the driver's seat makes no difference, then why am I here? Consciousness is such a waste of resources and there is no evolutionary mechanism to select for this perception of myself because we've already assumed that my perception of myself makes no difference to anything. Occam's razor says I shouldn't be here, yet here I am.

So, working backwards, if I am here, then I'm not determined. It's not a proof, but evidence, and taken together with other such evidence, it's builds a strong case for the existence of randomness (as defined by a dark-number of determining variables).
This is perhaps what I meant earlier with something existing and not-existing, simply depending on the level and context applied.

I thought of that during my discussion about whether a phone exists. Abstractly, it does not exist, but relatively, it does. So it both exists and not exists, but not from the same perspective.
I think Nietzsche said something along those lines "Beware when fighting monsters that you don't become a monster."
To fight a monster one is already that, like staring into the abyss: the earth opens up inside ourselves, to even get to such depth.
Yes, I'm sure that you are right.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Serendipper wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:05 amSo, I think the solution may be to define randomness as determined by either an infinite number of variables or a dark-number of variables such that prediction with certainty is absolutely impossible from within this universe, which accomplishes the same goal as the strict definition of randomness. Whacha think? A kind of blend of determinism and randomism that kills two birds with one stone.
It seems to me that the notion of predictability and the notion of determination are just two different things altogether. Note however that distributions of probability are in fact being determined all the time. The larger the sample space, the more exact the number becomes. Hence scale becomes another factor. Which is a form of abstraction level as well?
We could determine the result of a coin flip if we knew all the variables, but on the quantum level the variables include the whole universe, which includes the devices taking the measurements and the people doing to the measuring, so the very fact that measurement is taking place affects the result of the measuring. Maybe that explains the double-slit experiment.
And we do not exist on the scale of quanta. And neither really on the scale of a single coin flip; only in special, controlled circumstances like a game. But in a somewhat illusive sense, like a thought experiment or a specially engineered clean experiment. Not the human realm. That might sound rather obvious but since questions on randomness are often raised at our existential level, this is not unimportant.
the point remains that it is impossible to determine anything with certainty from within the universe.
This statement functions in a very specific context. Something akin to what I call the fundamental ambiguity of things existing.
Yes but the many worlds requires an infinite amount of energy. Every quantum event from the beginning of time would have to diverge and it would quickly escalate into a very exponentially divergent series of worlds which would have to occupy some "space" while also not touching each other. It seems a crazy and unnecessary idea. A very poor management of resources which begs the question of how something with such luxury-consumption could have evolved. To put it in economic perspective: it would be like buying everything at the grocery store, then tossing out everything except what's on your list. That sort of waste is not consistent with anything I've seen in nature.
If I recall correctly, most theories assume that most, if not all, parallel worlds would collapse, sooner or later. But mostly sooner. The most dramatic application in a movie of this theme was Donnie Darko, where certain actions were needed to make the parallel collapse, presumably to undo a large destabilization. A very nice concept as it tried to blend the existential realm (of our daily struggles) with the multiverse theory. And I think this is always the type of connection we are looking for, not being satisfied that in some mathematical or theoretical realm things are the case which are not in our personal realm.
There are things to unwrap here: positing determining forces or causality does not imply some real possibility of omniscience.

Why not? If there is a way to know everything and if there is enough time, then, eventually, someone, somewhere, will attain omniscience.
Again: simply positing determining forces or causality does not imply "there is a way to know everything". At least I didn't reason for it. They are simply not the same thing or in necessary relation to each other.
As for the sense of free will or meaning: they might simply not be in the same discussion or category happening.

I feel that a series of switches inside a computer could not engender a sense of self because it is fully deterministic. Essentially, a computer is a line of dominoes and I can't, for the life of me, imagine how a dumb mechanical process such as that could cause a sense of oneself. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Yes you are deploying a certain rhetorical argument here like feeling "dumb mechanical processes" not being able to cause "clever, complex, intelligence". It seems more like a lack of imagination. At least I have no trouble imagining pretty lively. In any case, one is now forced to argue for some kind of uncaused sense of self that way. Good luck!
Consciousness is such a waste of resources and there is no evolutionary mechanism to select for this perception of myself because we've already assumed that my perception of myself makes no difference to anything. Occam's razor says I shouldn't be here, yet here I am.
How did you arrive at "consciousness is such a waste of resources" and "perception of myself " is making no difference? Huge amounts of "wasted" (or not?) effort seems quite common in nature and clearly visible inside evolution. It's mind-staggering!
So, working backwards, if I am here, then I'm not determined. It's not a proof, but evidence, and taken together with other such evidence, it's builds a strong case for the existence of randomness (as defined by a dark-number of determining variables).
"All combinations demonstrate such tremendous random character: from this follows, that every action of a person has an infinitely large influence on everything that is to come. With the same awe which he, looking back, sanctifies the whole of destiny, he has to sanctify himself. I am fate". -- Nietzsche, Nachlaß, fragment VIII (1884), 158
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:22 pm It seems to me that the notion of predictability and the notion of determination are just two different things altogether.
Yes, I think so.
Note however that distributions of probability are in fact being determined all the time.

I'm inclined to agree in order to prevent having uncaused events. But knowing all the events necessary to make a prediction with certainty is impossible, which begs the question if things that are impossible to know actually can be said to exist. A sort of catch 22. Yes, the events exist because everything needs a cause, but we can never know of the events and so they may as well not exist.
The larger the sample space, the more exact the number becomes. Hence scale becomes another factor.
Yes, we can't say for sure what a small particle will do, but a large collection of particles becomes increasingly predictable with size. That's the principle put to work in the IFA funds advertisement wherein it's impossible to predict the actions of one stock, but easier to predict an index of stocks.

Nothing in the universe is certain, but we happen to live in a world of huge numbers that gives us the impression that events are predicable and certain (like not falling through the floor or witnessing entropy reverse). It's physically possible for heat to flow from the cold to the hot, but exceedingly unlikely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM-uykVfq_E
Which is a form of abstraction level as well?
I'm not sure what you mean. Large scales are abstract from small scales?
And we do not exist on the scale of quanta. And neither really on the scale of a single coin flip; only in special, controlled circumstances like a game. But in a somewhat illusive sense, like a thought experiment or a specially engineered clean experiment. Not the human realm. That might sound rather obvious but since questions on randomness are often raised at our existential level, this is not unimportant.
When you say "we", what do you mean? If we hack away my body and then parts of my brain until we get to the point called "I", what is left and how big is it? Chaos theory and small changes in initial conditions on a quantum level could be the director in the overall show that is called "me". And what determines "me", ultimately, can never be known and for that reason can be said to be random. There is no way to predict what I will say next and even I don't know.
If I recall correctly, most theories assume that most, if not all, parallel worlds would collapse, sooner or later. But mostly sooner. The most dramatic application in a movie of this theme was Donnie Darko, where certain actions were needed to make the parallel collapse, presumably to undo a large destabilization. A very nice concept as it tried to blend the existential realm (of our daily struggles) with the multiverse theory. And I think this is always the type of connection we are looking for, not being satisfied that in some mathematical or theoretical realm things are the case which are not in our personal realm.
Where does the energy go after the collapse? If it was a parallel universe, then it can't come back to this universe. If it can come back, then it wasn't parallel, but connected. So even if the universes collapse, the energy is still lost and we'd still need an unlimited supply to feed all the universes that sprout and then die. And why are we, conveniently, in the universe that happens to never collapse? What luck!
There are things to unwrap here: positing determining forces or causality does not imply some real possibility of omniscience.

Why not? If there is a way to know everything and if there is enough time, then, eventually, someone, somewhere, will attain omniscience.
Again: simply positing determining forces or causality does not imply "there is a way to know everything". At least I didn't reason for it. They are simply not the same thing or in necessary relation to each other.
Oh yes, I see what you're saying now. There are determining forces, but we can't know what they are.
Yes you are deploying a certain rhetorical argument here like feeling "dumb mechanical processes" not being able to cause "clever, complex, intelligence".

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.
It seems more like a lack of imagination. At least I have no trouble imagining pretty lively. In any case, one is now forced to argue for some kind of uncaused sense of self that way. Good luck!
How are you able to imagine and how are you confident that you're not imagining erroneously? After all, we do have a tendency to personify the inanimate as part of our evolved survival instinct. How can self-awareness be a function of a collection of if/then statements? If this domino, then that domino, with certainty... and that's a dumb mechanical process that is self-governing and needs no oversight.

1+1=2 in a computer regardless how many times we test it because it's an artifact of how the machine was constructed. There is no way a computer could, for instance, yield a result of 3 a small percentage of the time. For a computer to be said to be alive (conscious, self-aware, etc), there could be no way of predicting what decision it would output with certainty. Therefore, life cannot be created, manufactured, constructed because the creators would need access to information that is inherently unknowable in order to build the machine. It would seem, then, that life can only evolve by chance because the unknowable is fundamental and teleology can be ruled out with certainty.

The antibiotic resistance of bacteria is a good illustration because, given enough time, a chance-mutation will happen which gives the bacterium resistance, not my teleology or determination, but random happening where "random" is defined as caused by processes that cannot be fully understood in hope of predicting an outcome with certainty. In that way, life overcomes and persists regardless what is thrown at it.
Consciousness is such a waste of resources and there is no evolutionary mechanism to select for this perception of myself because we've already assumed that my perception of myself makes no difference to anything. Occam's razor says I shouldn't be here, yet here I am.
How did you arrive at "consciousness is such a waste of resources" and "perception of myself " is making no difference? Huge amounts of "wasted" (or not?) effort seems quite common in nature and clearly visible inside evolution. It's mind-staggering!
Where do you see waste in nature?

Consciousness (as in a sense of oneself and having a specific point on view inside this universe) is a waste of resources if organisms are self-governing machines. If that is so, then how did consciousness come about with no pressure to select for it? So, reasoning backwards, if consciousness is not a waste, then organisms are not deterministic machines.

Do I need to be conscious in order to sleep walk? If not, then why do I need to be conscious at all? Some philosophers and Taoists may argue that consciousness gets in the way. Why does it exist if it was not selected for? How can it exist if its existence is counter-productive?
So, working backwards, if I am here, then I'm not determined. It's not a proof, but evidence, and taken together with other such evidence, it's builds a strong case for the existence of randomness (as defined by a dark-number of determining variables).
"All combinations demonstrate such tremendous random character: from this follows, that every action of a person has an infinitely large influence on everything that is to come. With the same awe which he, looking back, sanctifies the whole of destiny, he has to sanctify himself. I am fate". -- Nietzsche, Nachlaß, fragment VIII (1884), 158
Nietzsche often requires such tremendous glucose to decipher what he's on about and sometimes I wonder if he's endeavoring to be as cryptic as language will allow and for reasons I can only guess.

What does he mean by "sanctify"? Cleanse? Set apart? How do we cleanse or set apart destiny?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Pam Seeback »

Relinquish: However, the true nature of 'That which is causelessly here' (that is to say, the actual reason WHY It's own 'being' is manifested rather than un-manifested, why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within the manifestation, and in turn, why an illusion of multiplicity, separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable.…

The absence of manifestation is a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. As such, the presence of manifestation is a structured, ever-changing asymmetry.
While you acknowledge that you cannot know the why of causation, on what basis are you claiming knowledge of the what and how of causation?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Pam Seeback »

Serendipper to Diebert: I'm just interested in reality, truth, whatever that is. It seems to me that philosophy is how one chooses to see things, and in order to practice science, one needs a philosophy of science to guide the practice of science. I mean, one could have a philosophy for brushing their teeth! (Wet the brush first and then add the paste or the paste first and then the water or some other way.) So it seems that philosophy is just a preference of things.
If you are just interested in reality, truth ‘whatever that is’, would it not then be wise to make truth THE one and only object of your attention?

For example, when you assert 'I am here' as you have done in several posts, can you answer the truth of what 'I' is and/or what 'here' is?
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:07 am
Serendipper to Diebert: I'm just interested in reality, truth, whatever that is. It seems to me that philosophy is how one chooses to see things, and in order to practice science, one needs a philosophy of science to guide the practice of science. I mean, one could have a philosophy for brushing their teeth! (Wet the brush first and then add the paste or the paste first and then the water or some other way.) So it seems that philosophy is just a preference of things.
If you are just interested in reality, truth ‘whatever that is’, would it not then be wise to make truth THE one and only object of your attention?

For example, when you assert 'I am here' as you have done in several posts, can you answer the truth of what 'I' is and/or what 'here' is?
Awesome question! Sure, "I" am a lens for the conscious attention of the universe and "here" is what the attention is focused upon. We can't have one without the other :D

(I say "just" too much. I'm sure I'm here for more than just that.)

You and I are the same, but you are a different lens than I, yet it's the same universe looking through it. The universe that is you is the same universe that shot all those people in Vegas and all the people who were shot are the same universe. There is no plaintiff and defendant, but two perspectives or masks of the same entity. (Person - persona - the mask - the phony. Per + sona = thru sound.)

If anyone disagrees, then they'd have to explain why they suppose they would do or say anything different if they were me. The only explanation I can imagine is to introduce a "spirit" that is unique to every individual and is somehow outside the universe and so where is the evidence for that? Therefore it would be conjecture for the purpose of having a higher moral ground... as if YOU would not have shot all those people if you were conscious through that lens.

So it's a preference... do you choose to believe something for which there is no evidence because the alternative is unpalatable to the ego or do you prefer the empirical? (ie. that you grew out of the universe and are an expression of it, which is plain to see.)

What do you think? That's where I'm am with it and I'd love to see evidence or rationale that disproves my theory.

I'm suspecting that the old greek philosophers stumbled upon this (hence the meaning of "person"), but the idea fell out of favor with the pervasion of the Judaic religions that offered an egoic soul for the facilitation of one-upping each other.

But even in Christianity, there is absolutely nothing you can do to save yourself:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

If there were anything you could do, then you could brag about it. Dear God, I have more faith than my neighbor. I have more faith than my previous self. I have done better works than my neighbor and my previous self, which is evidence of my greater faith. I am therefore entitled to salvation.

Matt 7: 22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

All religion is egoic and nothing can be more egotistical than true repentance. I am what I am and I cannot apologize for it because to do so would be setting myself apart from what I am for the purpose of one-upping myself.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Pam Seeback »

Hi Serendipper, I am very much enjoying our conversation!
You: Awesome question! Sure, "I" am a lens for the conscious attention of the universe and "here" is what the attention is focused upon. We can't have one without the other :D

You and I are the same, but you are a different lens than I, yet it's the same universe looking through it. The universe that is you is the same universe that shot all those people in Vegas and all the people who were shot are the same universe. There is no plaintiff and defendant, but two perspectives or masks of the same entity. (Person - persona - the mask - the phony. Per + sona = thru sound.)

If anyone disagrees, then they'd have to explain why they suppose they would do or say anything different if they were me. The only explanation I can imagine is to introduce a "spirit" that is unique to every individual and is somehow outside the universe and so where is the evidence for that? Therefore it would be conjecture for the purpose of having a higher moral ground... as if YOU would not have shot all those people if you were conscious through that lens.

So it's a preference... do you choose to believe something for which there is no evidence because the alternative is unpalatable to the ego or do you prefer the empirical? (ie. that you grew out of the universe and are an expression of it, which is plain to see.)
Unless I am misunderstanding your position, it sounds like your stand on truth is that you and I are (only) empirical lens’ for the conscious universe. You asked for evidence to refute this view which I am happy to provide using your very own words :-). I’ll start with the scripture you used to defend your position that repentance is an act of ego:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Last time I checked, there is no empirical evidence for ‘grace’ or ‘faith’ or for any of the other invisible values man holds dear, values such as ‘integrity’, ‘love’ or your personal favourites, 'reasoning' and 'fun' :-).

As for the symbolic concept of ‘spirit’, why does it have to be outside consciousness/mind? Why can 'spirit' not be part and parcel of the totality of the thinking process, empirical or non-empirical? Since you seem to be comfortable quoting the bible, I shall return the favour to make my point. ‘Spirit’ is mentioned almost immediately in the bible, from Genesis 1: " And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.". I see no dualism in this symbolic statement of ‘how things are’ (i.e., no 'outside') nor do I see any reference to morality. Instead I see a seamless and unconscious (to the empirical eye) I of spirit manifesting what is true and only true.

Staying with biblical wisdom (not Christian) morality and the suffering it causes is not suggested until Genesis 2 with the appearance of the manifestation of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
All religion is egoic
Religion promotes dualism of good and evil, therefore is an expression of ego, however, the mystical aspect of all religions, because they seek to realize the truth of the nondual I is not egoic, at least not in the gross sense of the word. For the mystic (or mystic-philosopher) ego is present during the seeking period but as nondual realization expands and strengthens, the ego of dualism is gradually uprooted until it is no more.
Nothinng can be more egotistical than true repentance. I am what I am and I cannot apologize for it because to do so would be setting myself apart from what I am for the purpose of one-upping myself.
The infinite I has no need for apology because it does not know of good and evil.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Pam Seeback wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:46 am Hi Serendipper, I am very much enjoying our conversation!
Yes, this is fun and I look forward to your comments!
Unless I am misunderstanding your position, it sounds like your stand on truth is that you and I are (only) empirical lens’ for the conscious universe.
It appears a high-fidelity transmission of information has occurred ;)
You asked for evidence to refute this view which I am happy to provide using your very own words :-). I’ll start with the scripture you used to defend your position that repentance is an act of ego:
Well, admittedly, I hijacked it from Alan Watts https://twitter.com/A_Watts_Quotes/stat ... 2510606337

Of course, "all originality is undetected plagiarism" (William Ralph Inge) so I won't feel too badly about it :)

But I lost the seminar where he said it and I'm left to my own devices in defending it :(
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Last time I checked, there is no empirical evidence for ‘grace’ or ‘faith’ or for any of the other invisible values man holds dear, values such as ‘integrity’, ‘love’ or your personal favourites, 'reasoning' and 'fun' :-).
Grace and faith are concepts that exist within the context of the christian religion. What I meant was that all religion was created for the advancement of the ego, yet even within Christianity, it is not really so (but almost always perverted to that end regardless). It wasn't anything I was hinging my premise upon, but more of an aside... a trivia.

(Technically, Christianity, in its truest sense, is not a religion because there is absolutely nothing you can do to be saved. So, it's just trivia.)

I suppose it's debatable if morality exists, but if there is only one entity, then is it even debatable? Can a person be immoral to their self?

A celestial judge dispensing justice at the end of time doesn't remove the wrong that happened which required the dispensation of the justice. But if everyone is one entity, then there is no wrong to be compensated and discussion of morality is moot. It's just a matter of interesting trivia since I'd first have to prove morality exists before I could use it to insist there is only one entity.
As for the symbolic concept of ‘spirit’, why does it have to be outside consciousness/mind? Why can 'spirit' not be part and parcel of the totality of the thinking process, empirical or non-empirical?

Because then we'd lose the benefits of conjuring the spirit. What's the point of having a spirit if it's simply an artifact of this universe? I need some reason I believe that you would be different if you had my atoms. If the spirit is simply a function of those atoms, then there is no basis to believe you'd be any different and there's no foundation for any higher moral ground.
Since you seem to be comfortable quoting the bible,
I was Christian for many years and still am in some roundabout way.
I shall return the favour to make my point. ‘Spirit’ is mentioned almost immediately in the bible, from Genesis 1: " And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.". I see no dualism in this symbolic statement of ‘how things are’ (i.e., no 'outside') nor do I see any reference to morality. Instead I see a seamless and unconscious (to the empirical eye) I of spirit manifesting what is true and only true.

The way I think about spirit is like the idioms: "the spirit of the wild", "the spirit of the great outdoors", "in the spirit of friendship", "in the spirit of good clean fun", etc. So the spirit of god is like that. And a son of god is not a direct descendant of a monarchical king, but someone having the nature of god. Like when we call someone a son of a female dog, we aren't meaning they were directly descendant from the dog, but that they have the nature of that sort of dog.

John 10:30-38 I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am a Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

The good news is that we are all sons of god... every person, cat, dog, tree, rock. They are are lenses manifested by the universe, god, what there is, whatever you wanna call it. To get that message out is why Jesus was crucified and in that way, he did die for humanity.
Staying with biblical wisdom (not Christian) morality and the suffering it causes is not suggested until Genesis 2 with the appearance of the manifestation of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I think the fall of man was preceded by the fall of Lucifer and the angels. And it's always bugged me why god would make a man in the perfect environment, then add a poisonous tree with the instruction not to eat of it and knowing full-well that the man will eat it. They say it's part of the plan... that in order to have free will, some have to be sacrificed. In order to have the saved, there must be some damned. Christians don't like hearing that, though, and insist salvation is meant for all and it's man's choice to refuse it.

Paul makes it clear in Romans 9:11-21 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


God made Pharaoh to split hell wide open simply to glorify himself. Well, more than that... there has to be some bad apples in order to have good ones.
All religion is egoic
Religion promotes dualism of good and evil, therefore is an expression of ego, however, the mystical aspect of all religions, because they seek to realize the truth of the nondual I is not egoic, at least not in the gross sense of the word.
Isn't that a clever way of one-upping the religious?

Reminds me when Alan said, "Gurus are always putting each other down, so I can say I don't put other gurus down... there, that trumps all of them!" :D
For the mystic (or mystic-philosopher) ego is present during the seeking period but as nondual realization expands and strengthens, the ego of dualism is gradually uprooted until it is no more.
I'm not sure there is a good way out of the game. As long as you're searching, you're getting in your own way. If the point is to become better, to get to some goal, then it's egoic and you're going in circles because the reason you want to be better will always be the reason why you aren't.
Nothinng can be more egotistical than true repentance. I am what I am and I cannot apologize for it because to do so would be setting myself apart from what I am for the purpose of one-upping myself.
The infinite I has no need for apology because it does not know of good and evil.
What is the infinite?

If there is no good and evil then why the desire to improve?
ego is present during the seeking period
Seeking what? Where you going? It seems that seeking, then, is the movement from a perceived evil towards a perceived good. Alright, assuming that point is well-taken, let's suppose the act of seeking is the evil, and so what is good? It's the opposite: not-seeking, which is fun.

Either your motivation is to improve your situation or your motivation is fun. Can there be another motivation? It's a duality of seeking/non-seeking, goal/non-goal and nondual is itself a part of the dual/nondual duality.

So you may say "I'll adopt this new philosophy of fun in order to improve my situation", but then you're still on the hamster wheel thinking you're going to get somewhere. As long as the hamster is trying to get off the wheel, it can't, but when it gets hungry, it mindlessly goes to the food bowl to satisfy the most basic of urges and discovers that it is off the wheel.

Geese flying over a lake have no intention to cast their reflection and the water has no mind to retain it. Everything does its thing and there is no goal in mind and that is the essence of fun.

Like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoTmNU_5A0

Matthew 18:3 Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Serendipper wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:38 amEverything does its thing and there is no goal in mind and that is the essence of fun.

Matthew 18:3 Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
So many claims on the essence, goal or nature of "fun" but rarely a good dispassionate investigation. But that's understandable when it can be seen as cover term for a great many things. One is a feeling can might appear spontaneous, meaning having no apparent cause. My own deepest senses of joy (another, related word) did not seem related to anything I did or thought leading up to it. Just takes you by surprise. But likely there are causes, timers and processes behind it. Why doubt it?

One concept that can be interesting to explore is that of seduction. Which is related to distraction and fun. A kind of derailing or upsetting of the cart. Which always serves a purpose in the realm of power: it's a reversal, a twist which pulls the rug. It's the main power available to those without much: hence the funny comedians, kids, otherwise talentless women and politicians....

The idea of becoming as little children has a lot to do with letting go of what you have collected materialistically, ideologically, psychologically, all the baggage, to gain new understandings. It's in other ways the opposite of childishness: leaving behind the toys, the needs, the fantasies of youth. To engage the harder topics, which as a chisel chips away at ones own statue until it falls over. The irony is that the people who quote Matthew 18 tend to ignore the seriousness and hardship of the context of the writer. And a such reverse the meaning. Which is in deed "making fun of it", a rebellious, challenging move like a teenager, not a child.
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:24 amSo many claims on the essence, goal or nature of "fun" but rarely a good dispassionate investigation.

Well then let's have one :)
But that's understandable when it can be seen as cover term for a great many things. One is a feeling can might appear spontaneous, meaning having no apparent cause. My own deepest senses of joy (another, related word) did not seem related to anything I did or thought leading up to it. Just takes you by surprise. But likely there are causes, timers and processes behind it. Why doubt it?
Fun is merely a 3-letter placeholder for the concept of nongoal or nonteleology; to act without purpose or plan; spontaneous. That is, after all, the nature of the universe. We've already determined from previous discussion that there cannot be a plan or it would undermine the plan because why watch a movie that you already know how it ends? If mate is certain in 3 moves, do you play it anyway or concede and begin a new game?

That isn't to say that there aren't causes, but that the causes cannot be known because if they were known, there would be no point. Do you study what you already know? Of course not. Why reinvent the wheel over and over, circularly, for something to do? So, having a plan presupposes that you already know and if you already know, then why bother with the plan? Do you see?

Scholarship has been perverted from its original meaning which was leisure because only someone with the means to live without obligation could study all the charming irrelevancies of life and hence was referred to as a scholar https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=scholar A scholar isn't someone who diligently works all the time to get to some goal.
One concept that can be interesting to explore is that of seduction. Which is related to distraction and fun. A kind of derailing or upsetting of the cart. Which always serves a purpose in the realm of power: it's a reversal, a twist which pulls the rug. It's the main power available to those without much: hence the funny comedians, kids, otherwise talentless women and politicians....
Seduction is planned and to be seduced is to fall into a snare. To be smitten is a little different from being seduced. Fun isn't the distraction; the distraction is always away from the fun. I would be doing something that I enjoy, but I'm distracted momentarily by a chore. The whole purpose of buckling-down and being responsible is to one day take our leisure and have fun; it's a necessary evil to get to some goal... which often never arrives because we're eternally living in the future and when the future comes, we're still planning for the future since it's all we know how to do.

That's essentially my life. All I know is to plan for the future since that's how I was trained by society. I'm planning for a day when I can kick back and relax, but continually finding that relaxing is boring, so I get up and start moving forward again with a new goal in mind. I'll never arrive at my goal because the journey is actually the goal and the suspension of a carrot in front of my face fools me into thinking I'm getting somewhere. And I guess that's the point... to find fun in fooling ourselves. It's the eternal hide and seek where the right hand continually discovers what the left hand was doing.
The idea of becoming as little children has a lot to do with letting go of what you have collected materialistically, ideologically, psychologically, all the baggage, to gain new understandings. It's in other ways the opposite of childishness: leaving behind the toys, the needs, the fantasies of youth. To engage the harder topics, which as a chisel chips away at ones own statue until it falls over.
I suppose the becoming as a child can have many meanings, but what it speaks to me is purposelessness, wu wei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

There is another biblical reference to children in 1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
The irony is that the people who quote Matthew 18 tend to ignore the seriousness and hardship of the context of the writer. And a such reverse the meaning. Which is in deed "making fun of it", a rebellious, challenging move like a teenager, not a child.
That's a clever observation, but the writer also said:

Matthew 6

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


That never gets preached from the pulpit because it's clearly not practical. How are we to get along without planning? Well, who said we have to survive? What's survival for? Jesus said, "Take no thought for your life." Oh, well, to hell with that we say. We'll get up sunday morning and play dress-up and sing and dance and show off our devotion to Jesus for bragging rights, but actually live like Jesus and follow his teachings? Nah, screw that. We'll just call ourselves Christians and no one will be the wiser because no one reads that nonsense anyway.

Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

If we let go, we live; if we cling, we suffocate. Nirvana... the blowing out or exhaling the breath. If you exhale, the breath returns; if you hold on, you suffocate. Let go and it returns; cling and die. Faith is the ultimate letting-go. It's not clinging to this concept or that concept... it's trust to the totally unknown because there really is no alternative.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Serendipper wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:38 amFun is merely a 3-letter placeholder for the concept of nongoal or nonteleology; to act without purpose or plan; spontaneous. That is, after all, the nature of the universe.
So where does Fun improve as placeholder instead of God or Tao? At least the latter ones indicate a broad scope already.

Obviously, the lack of plan of the "universe" does not have to relate to the plan of any individual actor. One could easily say your universe of fun spontaneously introduces a very serious, important and urgent goal for a given agent in given circumstance. How would it serve that agent realizing that the universe did not intend anything with it, really? In any case, one could argue that that very contemplation would conflict with the spontaneously generated sense of important and urgency (do or die!). As such the spontaneous universe has to allow for creation of non-spontaneous, non-fun situations for its own sake?
So, having a plan presupposes that you already know and if you already know, then why bother with the plan?
The only thing a plan presupposes is that having one improves the chance to achieve a given goal.
Scholarship has been perverted from its original meaning which was leisure because only someone with the means to live without obligation could study all the charming irrelevancies of life and hence was referred to as a scholar https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=scholar
Taking one random arcane meaning of a Greek origin from a word does not mean it was any "original meaning".
A scholar isn't someone who diligently works all the time to get to some goal.
Someone with a good mind thinks all the time about a lot of things. It isn't work. That's perhaps where the "ease" came from?
Seduction is planned and to be seduced is to fall into a snare.
More correctly, seduction is a derailing, a detour from the original plan or route. Planing for it is optional but would leave it open to seduction itself, a "counter-snare" I suppose. :-)
Fun isn't the distraction; the distraction is always away from the fun.
To me it seems we're always distracted "from".
I would be doing something that I enjoy, but I'm distracted momentarily by a chore. The whole purpose of buckling-down and being responsible is to one day take our leisure and have fun ... which often never arrives
It's an interesting idea to think like that. And I've experimented a lot with it. It seems really to depend on what you think brings you leisure, what you need for it. Or if you are consumed by any goals or ambition, yes or no. Some paths are just not do-able without buckling down and being responsible for a period. If you can't do it, those roads are not for you. Why does it need something more conceptual to defend the choices not made?
finding that relaxing is boring, so I get up and start moving forward again with a new goal in mind. I'll never arrive at my goal because the journey is actually the goal and the suspension of a carrot in front of my face fools me into thinking I'm getting somewhere. And I guess that's the point... to find fun in fooling ourselves. It's the eternal hide and seek where the right hand continually discovers what the left hand was doing.
That's a nice description of what I tried to say with the term seduction. Perhaps you're catching on! Just examine it a bit more and see if it fits your needs too. You should dig it since you're such the Bible nut ;) Actually I've been discussing Bible verses in depth quite a few times before at this forum but nowadays I feel it's generally unfit material to quote from. If anything needs to be quoted at all. We should always show our own mind's handling. What a source claims or phrases is rather immaterial, right?
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: That which is causelessly here

Post by Serendipper »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:11 am
Serendipper wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:38 amFun is merely a 3-letter placeholder for the concept of nongoal or nonteleology; to act without purpose or plan; spontaneous. That is, after all, the nature of the universe.
So where does Fun improve as placeholder instead of God or Tao? At least the latter ones indicate a broad scope already.
"God" seems to imply laws to follow; work and diligence.
"Tao" is too mystical and mystifying.
"Fun" is readily understood to mean non-goal, albeit tainted with connotations of virtueless laziness.
Obviously, the lack of plan of the "universe" does not have to relate to the plan of any individual actor. One could easily say your universe of fun spontaneously introduces a very serious, important and urgent goal for a given agent in given circumstance.
Yes because the joker thinks such pranks are fun to play on himself.
How would it serve that agent realizing that the universe did not intend anything with it, really?
It doesn't. It undermines it. But how can a nonteleological universe be created without allowing for the possibility that someone would figure it out?
In any case, one could argue that that very contemplation would conflict with the spontaneously generated sense of important and urgency (do or die!). As such the spontaneous universe has to allow for creation of non-spontaneous, non-fun situations for its own sake?
Yes because you wouldn't realize fun without chores to do. The point of the philosophy is to realize that chores are not the point, which is aimed mainly at religions that think by doing this or that you'll get some reward, as if you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps to save yourself from a situation.

Salvation is contrasted to the chore of shoveling a pile of dirt to lay a board against so you can jump it on your bicycle. Yes, you're working at shoveling the dirt, not because it's fun, but the goal of the dirt is to have fun later. I suppose you could argue that playing is honing one's skills, but it's not a conscious thing, but mindlessly doing what comes natural.

That is contrasted to shoveling dirt to make a strawberry plot where one can boast how well the berries grow. That's a conscious goal.

Why is an unconscious goal better than a conscious goal? If it's assumed we are illusions and characters in a play, then the unconscious is more real than the conscious and the conscious goal furthers the realization of the illusion. For instance if your hallucinations are telling you to do something and you obey, then you're substantiating the unreal thing.... furthering the illusion of it.
So, having a plan presupposes that you already know and if you already know, then why bother with the plan?
The only thing a plan presupposes is that having one improves the chance to achieve a given goal.
What I meant was if god had a plan for the universe then it would presuppose he knew where the universe was going to go and so why bother with having the universe if he already knows how the movie ends? If it doesn't make sense that god would have a plan, then the purpose of the universe is to not have a plan.
Scholarship has been perverted from its original meaning which was leisure because only someone with the means to live without obligation could study all the charming irrelevancies of life and hence was referred to as a scholar https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=scholar
Taking one random arcane meaning of a Greek origin from a word does not mean it was any "original meaning".
It's not random and it is the original meaning. A scholar is someone who does not work to live and has expendable time.
A scholar isn't someone who diligently works all the time to get to some goal.
Someone with a good mind thinks all the time about a lot of things. It isn't work. That's perhaps where the "ease" came from?
If you study in school to earn a grade, then you're not studying for knowledge, but employed in the task of earning a grade and that's a perversion of the meaning of school:

school - "place of instruction," Old English scol, from Latin schola "intermission of work, leisure for learning; learned conversation, debate; lecture; meeting place for teachers and students, place of instruction; disciples of a teacher, body of followers, sect," from Greek skhole "spare time, leisure, rest ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;" also "a place for lectures, school;" originally "a holding back, a keeping clear," from skhein "to get" (from PIE root *segh- "to hold") + -ole by analogy with bole "a throw," stole "outfit," etc. https://www.etymonline.com/word/school
Seduction is planned and to be seduced is to fall into a snare.
More correctly, seduction is a derailing, a detour from the original plan or route. Planing for it is optional but would leave it open to seduction itself, a "counter-snare" I suppose. :-)
Similar to the red herring intentionally poised to lead afoul. If you're doing what is fun, how can you be distracted? You can only be distracted by fun from a chore. At the moment, my distractions are chores barking at me to attend to them, but I prefer to do this because it's fun.
I would be doing something that I enjoy, but I'm distracted momentarily by a chore. The whole purpose of buckling-down and being responsible is to one day take our leisure and have fun ... which often never arrives
It's an interesting idea to think like that. And I've experimented a lot with it. It seems really to depend on what you think brings you leisure, what you need for it. Or if you are consumed by any goals or ambition, yes or no. Some paths are just not do-able without buckling down and being responsible for a period. If you can't do it, those roads are not for you. Why does it need something more conceptual to defend the choices not made?
I realized early on, mostly due to irrationality of my parents, but also school rules and other goofy laws, that the goal of life is to get in a position where I could do whatever it is I want to do, free of obligation. Why would anyone not do that?
finding that relaxing is boring, so I get up and start moving forward again with a new goal in mind. I'll never arrive at my goal because the journey is actually the goal and the suspension of a carrot in front of my face fools me into thinking I'm getting somewhere. And I guess that's the point... to find fun in fooling ourselves. It's the eternal hide and seek where the right hand continually discovers what the left hand was doing.
That's a nice description of what I tried to say with the term seduction. Perhaps you're catching on!
Maybe, but I'm a slow learner :) I've been thinking a lot about what you said about seduction because it keeps creeping up, seductively I guess ;)
Just examine it a bit more and see if it fits your needs too. You should dig it since you're such the Bible nut ;)
I used to be and for a while I thought my purpose was to be a preacher since I have an ability to teach people by finding creative ways to relate an idea to others. I had many idealisms floating around during that time. It's impossible to grow up without cultural influence.
Actually I've been discussing Bible verses in depth quite a few times before at this forum but nowadays I feel it's generally unfit material to quote from. If anything needs to be quoted at all.

It's unfashionable in academia. Post something and we can discuss it. That would be fun.
We should always show our own mind's handling. What a source claims or phrases is rather immaterial, right?
Yes we are the source of authority for all knowledge. The church says the bible is the word of god and are you going to believe them or not? Someone recently accused me of promulgating popular narratives by referring to textbooks as substantiation and I suppose there is truth to that accusation though we rarely see the act of referencing as argumentum ad verecundiam.

Someone told me a story wherein he seized the opportunity to take a few swings at a guy convicted of child molestation during a stent of incarceration and he put to me the question: Wouldn't YOU do the same? Come on now, he said, don't tell me that you wouldn't. The implication was that I'm somehow evil if I couldn't relate and that my non-action on the matter would legitimize what the guy had done. So after explaining the difference in "civilized justice" and "frontier justice" in that the role of the hangman's dispassion was to ensure the dispensation of justice, I asked him how he knew the guy really did it.

Did you see him do it?
No, but he was convicted. They had videos n stuff.
How do you know? Did you see the videos?
It's online. You can look it up.
I can't look it up... that's illegal!

In the end he conceded that many people were probably hung in innocence and it's just the nature of reality.

A dramatization of the merits of dispassion in justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYLLoG8zd74
Locked