GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan,

'Life is suffering' is just an empty fact, however, an enlightened thinker barely suffers at all compared to those caught in Samsara.

Is the elimination of suffering good?

maestro wrote:Because if there is an observer, what qualities does he have of his own?

Abstractly speaking, the "individual soul" you talk of need not be an observer that actually has an effect on the human body. What if it was truly an observer that is limited only by the sensorial reaches of it's host? It has no form, it has no substance. It parasites the host body until it dies, then - if we stick to the theory that those individual souls would go to some sort of heaven and hell - where it can continue to exist, retaining it's perceptions and memories. You seem to treat functionnality as if it had to accomplish something that you could perceive. Perhaps it does not.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Ryan,

'Life is suffering' is just an empty fact, however, an enlightened thinker barely suffers at all compared to those caught in Samsara.

Is the elimination of suffering good?

No. Suffering brings pain, pain brings learning to avoid pain - failure to comply results in death. One step closer to the extinction of species.

If you don't suffer, or don't make mistakes, you will grow misguided, lulled in a false sense of security, unable to learn what's dangerous and what's not, unable to learn what's real and what's not.

You can be intelligent and learn without suffering by thinking and planning ahead. I think you're talking about the Lemming Method of learning.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote:If we define God to mean utterly everything, then the idea of a creator God (Christian-style) automatically becomes superfluous.

Could it not happen that an advanced species of aliens created the earth as some sort of experiment. The creators are the Gods. This is logically consistent right?

That's certainly possible. But such a conception only relegates God to the status of just being another creature within the totality, making him unimportant from the ultimate perspective.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote:You would have to define what you mean by "individual soul"

How about individual soul meaning the feeling of awareness that every human experiences. How will you prove this awareness should disappear with death. Could it not happen that the awareness leaves the body and enters a new body (the popular view of reincarnation). Seems to be logically consistent.

It's not impossible, no. It's essentially an empirical question and therefore will always be tainted with the uncertainty that afflicts all empirical questions.

I would reject both on the basis of empiricism, the first because there is no evidence of the handiwork of a god and evolution seems like a good fit to the world we observe around us (maybe the mechanism of evolution is still not clear). The second based on evidence from neuroscience, if there is such an observer what functionality does he have without the brain, ie without the eyes he cannot see, without the neocortex he cannot think, so the observer seems to be more of an artifact of the language.

Yes, the empirical evidence available to us suggests that there is neither an extra-terrestrial God, nor the possibility of our consciousness surviving the death of our brains.

Though without this evidence it can be argued that the observer is a kind of driver of the body, with the thinking faculties, and the senses are his instruments, how would you argue for the nonexistence of this observer.

The very fact that all things are caused is enough to undermine the status of the observer. Although a person might think that he has a self which is the driver of his actions, in reality his every action is driven by causes which stretch back endlessly.

Logically speaking, the self is in the same boat as every other "thing" in the Universe in that it lacks inherent existence, with its boundaries being created by the mind.

-

Trevor wrote:

Is the elimination of suffering good?

One cannot eliminate suffering altogether. For instance: certain types of physical pain are still necessary to ensure survival, but many forms of physical pain are caused by ignorance, just as most forms of psychological suffering are caused by ignorance.

So it seems to me that a sensitive person becomes acutely aware of the types of psychological/physical suffering that can be prevented by not experiencing the world through the dualistic veil of samsara, (attachment).

Maestro wrote: Could it not happen that an advanced species of aliens created the earth as some sort of experiment. The creators are the Gods. This is logically consistent right?

David Quinn wrote:That's certainly possible. But such a conception only relegates God to the status of just being another creature within the totality, making him unimportant from the ultimate perspective.

Maestro wrote:How about individual soul meaning the feeling of awareness that every human experiences. How will you prove this awareness should disappear with death. Could it not happen that the awareness leaves the body and enters a new body (the popular view of reincarnation). Seems to be logically consistent.

David Quinn wrote: It's not impossible, no. It's essentially an empirical question and therefore will always be tainted with the uncertainty that afflicts all empirical questions.

Yes but these are some of the most important questions for a philosopher, the fact that they have empirical answers shows that empiricism is very important to lead a truthful life. I feel that exclusive logical reasoning (without empirical evidence) will give tautological truths, whereas application of reason and empirical evidence gives us truths which are doubtful (though many are overwhelmingly likely), however these truths are definitely more important than tautologies.

In my opinion the real value of meditation is to gather empirical evidence about the functioning of the mind so that truths can be deduced about the mind and the ego. Enlightenment is the discovery of the functioning of the mind and the mechanism of the ego, the knowledge automatically causes the mechanism to dissolve.

Let me know your views about these matters.

maestro wrote:Yes but these are some of the most important questions for a philosopher, the fact that they have empirical answers shows that empiricism is very important to lead a truthful life. I feel that exclusive logical reasoning (without empirical evidence) will give tautological truths, whereas application of reason and empirical evidence gives us truths which are doubtful (though many are overwhelmingly likely), however these truths are definitely more important than tautologies.

Very true, but they're not doubtful! Only personal, and so, absolute to you. Their truthness can only be determined by their accuracy and value, which is empirical.

David said:

In my view, good philosophic thinking consists of consciously creating flawless definitions for the task at hand and pursuing their logical implications to the very end.

Your definition of masculinity is "flawless" to you, yet completely fucked in relation to reality, as it bears only about 50% relevancy to the totality of masculinity (as in all the attributes of males, rather than a subset).

Your definition is thus completely flawed in relation to communication with others, and you show enormous arrogance, thus enormous ego, in the manner in which you use this term.

Jamesh wrote:Your definition is thus completely flawed in relation to communication with others, and you show enormous arrogance, thus enormous ego, in the manner in which you use this term.

Sometimes, James, in your couldn't-care-less bluntness you really hit the nail on the head.

Actually, what James said was stupid. You don't see why?

Enlighten me.

David Quinn wrote:The very fact that all things are caused is enough to undermine the status of the observer. Although a person might think that he has a self which is the driver of his actions, in reality his every action is driven by causes which stretch back endlessly.

Logically speaking, the self is in the same boat as every other "thing" in the Universe in that it lacks inherent existence, with its boundaries being created by the mind.

This reminds me of that other thread about God causing his own existence. What you seem to be saying here is that causes create the observer, but also that the observer creates the causes(boundaries). It's circular. I suppose I have to ask: without boundaries can there be no causes? Also, not sure I've ever heard you actually address this directly, but surely you must have: do causes themselves lack inherent existence?

Also, given that the observer/self apparently hasn't existed for eternity, and yet the observer is supposedly the creator of boundaries/causes, how could it be said that causes stretch back infinitely into the past when they would lack any observer to create them?

Am I having a brain freeze right now or what, these questions of mine seem elementary yet I can't remember them being answered. Too long out of the QSR loop perhaps.

maestro wrote:

Maestro wrote: Could it not happen that an advanced species of aliens created the earth as some sort of experiment. The creators are the Gods. This is logically consistent right?

David Quinn wrote:That's certainly possible. But such a conception only relegates God to the status of just being another creature within the totality, making him unimportant from the ultimate perspective.

Maestro wrote:How about individual soul meaning the feeling of awareness that every human experiences. How will you prove this awareness should disappear with death. Could it not happen that the awareness leaves the body and enters a new body (the popular view of reincarnation). Seems to be logically consistent.

David Quinn wrote: It's not impossible, no. It's essentially an empirical question and therefore will always be tainted with the uncertainty that afflicts all empirical questions.

Yes but these are some of the most important questions for a philosopher, the fact that they have empirical answers shows that empiricism is very important to lead a truthful life. I feel that exclusive logical reasoning (without empirical evidence) will give tautological truths, whereas application of reason and empirical evidence gives us truths which are doubtful (though many are overwhelmingly likely), however these truths are definitely more important than tautologies.

In my opinion the real value of meditation is to gather empirical evidence about the functioning of the mind so that truths can be deduced about the mind and the ego. Enlightenment is the discovery of the functioning of the mind and the mechanism of the ego, the knowledge automatically causes the mechanism to dissolve.

Let me know your views about these matters.

Those questions you mentioned are not very important to the philosopher, but they can seem terribly important to the ego. Understandably, the ego wants to know what is going to happen to it in the future, and thus wants to know whether it will be extinguished at death and so on. But the philosopher sees this as worrying over an illusion.

As far as understanding and experiencing the nature of Reality is concerned, questions of whether an extra-terrestrial God created the human race, or whether consciousness will survive death, are trivial. Not only are they empirical in nature and therefore uncertain, but they revolve around an imaginary thing that has never really existed in the first place. It would be like worrying about whether a mirage will survive the causal conditions that are currently supporting it. It is a case of being infinitely distracted from the real purpose at hand.

When you go beyond life and death, questions concerning life and death suddenly seem very comical. Uproarious laughter is the natural response.

I don't subscribe to your neat division between tautological (and therefore meaningless) truths and empirical (and therefore meaningful) speculations. I know it is what society teaches us nowadays, but I find it to be a limited viewpoint. It doesn't take into account those deep tautological truths which necessarily apply to all things and are infinitely meaningful for those who can discern their significance.

-

Jamesh wrote:David said:

In my view, good philosophic thinking consists of consciously creating flawless definitions for the task at hand and pursuing their logical implications to the very end.

Your definition of masculinity is "flawless" to you, yet completely fucked in relation to reality, as it bears only about 50% relevancy to the totality of masculinity (as in all the attributes of males, rather than a subset).

Your definition is thus completely flawed in relation to communication with others, and you show enormous arrogance, thus enormous ego, in the manner in which you use this term.

My definitions of masculinity and femininity are indeed flawless and logically connect to the psychological requirements of the spiritual path. As a conceptual framework, it is perfectly consistent from top to bottom and very useful for the spiritual person in his inner life.

It is when we apply this conceptual framework to the human race in general that doubts and uncertainties arise - which is only natural, given that we are now extending the framework into the empirical realm.

It is possible that I'm entirely wrong about women. For example, it may be that behind our backs women behave like perfect Buddhas with clear minds and perfectly rational thoughts, and it is only when they are in our presence that they revert back, for reasons of their own, to the ditzy, emotional, flowy creatures they always seem to be. I have my doubts, but who knows? We can only make judgments on the evidence that is available to us.

-

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The very fact that all things are caused is enough to undermine the status of the observer. Although a person might think that he has a self which is the driver of his actions, in reality his every action is driven by causes which stretch back endlessly.

Logically speaking, the self is in the same boat as every other "thing" in the Universe in that it lacks inherent existence, with its boundaries being created by the mind.

This reminds me of that other thread about God causing his own existence. What you seem to be saying here is that causes create the observer, but also that the observer creates the causes(boundaries). It's circular.

You're right. My thinking here breaks down when it reaches a certain point because it is based on the false assumption that a particular thing can be the sole cause of other things. In reality, a thing can at best only be a contributing cause of other things, just one among millions of other contributing causes.

So yes, we have to go more deeply into the matter and discern that it is Nature itself which is creating these existences and these boundaries. The very existence of the observer itself is a spontaneous creation of Nature. Its own boundaries are just as arbitrarily created as the boundaries of all other things.

I suppose I have to ask: without boundaries can there be no causes?

Absolutely. Boundaries, causes. No boundaries, no causes.

Also, not sure I've ever heard you actually address this directly, but surely you must have: do causes themselves lack inherent existence?

Of course. Causes are merely "things", after all.

Also, given that the observer/self apparently hasn't existed for eternity, and yet the observer is supposedly the creator of boundaries/causes, how could it be said that causes stretch back infinitely into the past when they would lack any observer to create them?

Nature spontaneously creates this scenario of an endless past in the moment. It is as much an illusion as anything else.

The idea of a past stretching back endlessly only has truth and meaning in the context of the deluded view that Nature exists as an objective entity and flows through time. Similarly, the idea that all things have causes only has truth and meaning in the context of the deluded view that things inherently exist to begin with. Both of these truths are correctives to particular deluded viewpoints and shouldn't be treated as anything other than that.

-

Jamesh wrote:David said:

In my view, good philosophic thinking consists of consciously creating flawless definitions for the task at hand and pursuing their logical implications to the very end.

Your definition of masculinity is "flawless" to you, yet completely fucked in relation to reality, as it bears only about 50% relevancy to the totality of masculinity (as in all the attributes of males, rather than a subset).

The definition of wisdom has got even less to do with the actual reality of human consciousness yet the potential is there which makes the definition totally valid and useful. The degree to which males possess and express the masculine is not relevant to the core validity of the definition. Almost all men possess that core to some degree. How the hell is one supposed to tease out into full expression that which tends to be latent, if one doesn't have a working definition of that which one is attempting to bring to greater fruition? Seriously, your objection is nonsensical to me, James. It's as if you're trying to say a solid definition of sanity is worthless and fucked up in relation to reality because most people are largely insane. That, my friend, is insane.

Your definition is thus completely flawed in relation to communication with others, and you show enormous arrogance, thus enormous ego, in the manner in which you use this term.

That is pretty pissweak. You should be forced to go without beer for 2 months for engaging in such piffle. Most men with a functioning brain that I've met are capable of understanding and relating to the content of the definition. They may not be able to fully manifest it, as things stand, but that's sort of the point of talking about it. I personally think you're simply trying to rationalise and justify your own failures by these arguments. Not very convincing. Keep it up and not only will you be banned from beer, but much worse, you'll be forced to drink South Australian beer.

South Australian beer surely is the work of satan himself.

Maestro wrote: It would be better if one of sometimes them plays the Devil's advocate with full force to expose the finer points of their mutual philosophy and why it is consistent and stands to scrutiny, and is a good model of the universe.

I think that Victor is what the forum was lacking, in fact he has come as the Devil himself (and not merely an advocate). With his clear knowledge of logic/science/maths he is shredding the dogma infesting this place to bits. Plus his totally belligerent attitude makes his attacks more lively.

If the absolutes peddled here are really absolutes they must be able to stand up to a tough challenge as offered by Victor. The moderators instead of merely showing annoyance with him, should try to match his logic with logic.

We've been round the carousel with Victor more times than I'd care to remember (actually 1 time is more times for me). If you do a search for Victor Danilchenko at Genius News you'll find a few of his past contributions. I'm afraid I don't share your belief in the value he brings.

Victor shredding us? You've got to be kidding.

-

The reality is, Victor and ourselves are operating out of different ballparks.

I go over to his ballpark and say, "Come and have a look at this", and he says, "Are you kidding? Look at you. You're not even dressed properly. Your hair is parted the wrong way. You don't have a professional title. Of what possible interest could you be to me." And then he adds, "But come and have a look at this".

To which I reply, "I've looked at that sort of thing before, it doesn't really interest me. Sorry."

Out of curiosity, I'd like an example, maestro, of where I am being annoyed by him and not engaging in logical discussion. I've just had a look at our recent discussion and I can't see it.

-

David,

You don't actually hear what he is saying, or understand it. I think victor has some value here. As he said at the end of the first reasoning show, he did it for the listeners to see how you guys "redefine" your want to victory. You guys will probably never get over your argument, but at least others can see your flaws before they get absorbed in your dogma. :)

I've already shown, and was utterly ignored, why the "redefining" accusation is entirely hollow. We all define our way to where we are. Why would I use someone else's definition of something if I can see where it got them is wrong?

Agreed, it's a baseless argument.

-