GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic wrote:The only thing I'd add is that this whole "uncaused Totality that just happens to be the way that it is for no particular reason" business is very suspect, so I'm not sure that it can be classed as "absolute knowledge".

First of all, everything that happens happens because of infinitely specific reasons, not no particular reason. Second, everything that happens is all there is. There is no "totality" that we can say is caused or uncaused. That's just the name we give to everything that happens. And so long as you understand how cause and effect runs through everything that happens, that is absolute, bedrock knowledge. It doesn't mean you can know everything. It means you can know what you can't know.

Also, I think I should clear this up. There are two different kinds of "Totality". One is intellectual, where you see a picture or perspective of the universe in your mind that includes and ties together every concept imaginable. Every thing within it is in relation to one another through causes and effects. Every thing fits in there somehow.

The other kind of "Totality" is simply the present moment. Experience itself. This is where A=A comes from. Whatever you are experiencing, that is what you are experiencing. There is literally nothing more obvious than this, and again, it includes every single thing.

When you discover and continually look into the intellectual Totality and apply that to everything you experience in the present moment Totality, then you are a totally rational person.

At the same time, though, I don't think you really believe it's possible to relate to other people without guessing at what's going on in their minds; at finding meaning in relationships, even if you don't think that that meaning is inherent. Isn't that a type of assuming?

That's interesting, what role guessing about another's mind plays in a relationship. Personally, I don't like spending much time with it. I like to stay in my own world. And actually doing that generally makes me more flexible with people and allows me to actively play off my intuition.

But yes, it sure is a type of assuming, though I wasn't talking about relationships to other people. I was talking about the relationship to reality itself.

Ultimate free will in the midst of determinism...?...

Yeah, free will is determined.

Dan Rowden wrote:The only thing that is "suspect" is your inability to grasp such a simple point. Just the way you speak about it is laughable. I know you don't see the joke, but it's a doosy.

No joke - your "simple point" is lacking. Think about what you're saying: everything that exists - all of this complexity, structure and intricacy - does so for no reason whatsoever: it "just is". The entirety of the majesty of reality... and it "just is": and this bare-faced tautology is a core part of what you call "Ultimate Truth". What a massively limited "answer" to the big questions. It's bizarre to me that you guys can settle for something so obviously restricted, but then, the house philosophy as a whole is no stranger to massively restricted thinking.

By the way, it's spelt "doozy" (or "doozie"), ya woozy goose.

Dan Rowden wrote:Tell me this, if the Totality could be some other way, what way would it be?

There are many, if not infinite, possibilities. Pick one ... and given the lack of an external cause, there's no reason to preference one possibility over any other, now, is there?

Dan Rowden wrote:And, how is this possibility not already part of what the Totality necessarily is?

You obviously haven't been reading my posts too carefully, because I already gave an example of a possible way that the Totality could have been that isn't, and can't, be part of what the Totality "necessarily" already is: a Totality devoid of consciousness. We are conscious, so we know that the Totality as it already is is not devoid of consciousness. There are countless other examples - just use your noggin, Bagginses (and give up your preeeeecious).

Here's another one along the lines of what I've previously described in this thread: the possibility of a Totality in which, in the present moment, I am not typing a post to you but am instead standing in the kitchen waiting for the kettle to boil (with all of the contingent changes to the rest of the Totality that that would entail).

Cory Duchesne wrote:But there is a reason [that the Totality could not have been some other way]. The fact that the totality is the way that it is is the reason it is not some other way.

That's tautological reasoning, and moreover, it's irrelevant: it doesn't explain why the Totality could not have been some other way, only that it is some way. It's a posteriori reasoning, not a priori reasoning: it's based on experience. Absent experience, there would be no reason to believe that the Totality would be any particular way at all, let alone the way that it actually is.

That this tautological reasoning is deficient can be seen by applying it to an everyday object, such as a cup. Why is this cup made of plastic, and not some other material? Would we accept an answer of "it is because the cup is made of plastic that it could not have been made of some other material"? Of course not - we'd call the person who answered that way a simpleton. A meaningful answer would refer to the decisions made by the designer of the cup, or to the decisions made by the procurer of the cup, or to any number of relevant factors. It is the way that it is for reasons other than the tautological fact that it is the way that it is. Now, in the case of the Totality, you deny the existence of such reasons, and in the absence of such reasons for it being the way that it is, it has no determinants: its nature is essentially unfixed, and in terms of the house philosophy, there is no reason for it to be, and particularly no reason for it to be the way that it is. The fact of its being, particularly the fact of it being the way that it is, is an unanswered mystery.

Cory Duchesne wrote:You really need to stop talking about it in the past tense. ;) It is fantastically unnecessary and, in fact, incredibly wrong. But we've been through that.

Nonetheless, the totality can't be other than how it eternally is. Whenever you start wondering about how it could have been different you entirely misunderstand that past tense doesn't even apply, it is entirely wrong headed to think of it as something that exists in the past, present or future. As soon as you start doing that you are immediately confused.

I'm already aware of the problems of tense, as you might have recognised had you read in my last post what you even quoted (but which I haven't re-quoted above): "Of course these tenses are not quite correct, because the Totality itself is beyond time, but you take my point, I hope". Again, an (implicit) request for you to skip the pedantic nit-picking and try to stick with the point, but alas, to no avail. Our language is a tensed language: it is, as far as I can tell - let me know if you can think of a way to do it, impossible to talk about the possibilities of the Totality without using a tense. I'm simply doing the best that I can with the language that we have. Please bear with me.

Cory Duchesne wrote:The totality is the way it is due to it's eternal, beginningless, endless, boundless, sizeless nature.[...] The reason things are is because they are. A=A. That's the a priori logical justification, and we can make definite a priori claims of nature's properties (eternal, beginningless, endless, etc), as I did above.

More tautological reasoning, which boils down to the Totality being the way that it is because it is the way that it is: this is, as I explained above, at best simplistic a posteriori reasoning. It is not an a priori justification for the way that the Totality is.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Worldly magic tends to work in the context of defying mechanical cause and effect, where things happen in ways that can't be empirically, mechanically understood, and in this sense it has something in common with the totality. However, humanity does not go far enough with this, evidenced by it's need for incantations and wands to cause the magic phenomena it fantasizes about.

What about "worldly" magic that does not rely on incantations and wands? Would you accept that this is the same type of magic as that of the Totality?

guest_of_logic: The only thing I'd add is that this whole "uncaused Totality that just happens to be the way that it is for no particular reason" business is very suspect, so I'm not sure that it can be classed as "absolute knowledge".

skipair: First of all, everything that happens happens because of infinitely specific reasons, not no particular reason.

Wait a sec, we're talking about the Totality itself, not the things within it. According to the house philosophy, the Totality itself has no external cause, and hence no particular reason for being the way that it is.

skipair wrote:Second, everything that happens is all there is. There is no "totality" that we can say is caused or uncaused. That's just the name we give to everything that happens. And so long as you understand how cause and effect runs through everything that happens, that is absolute, bedrock knowledge. It doesn't mean you can know everything. It means you can know what you can't know.

You say there's no "totality" but then you give the word a referent - this seems inconsistent. And I think you mean "can't know", not "can know", in the final sentence.

skipair wrote:Also, I think I should clear this up. There are two different kinds of "Totality". One is intellectual, where you see a picture or perspective of the universe in your mind that includes and ties together every concept imaginable. Every thing within it is in relation to one another through causes and effects. Every thing fits in there somehow.

The other kind of "Totality" is simply the present moment. Experience itself. This is where A=A comes from. Whatever you are experiencing, that is what you are experiencing. There is literally nothing more obvious than this, and again, it includes every single thing.

I'm cool with talking about the present moment of the Totality, but some of the stricter types around these here parts (*sneaks a sideways glance at Cory*) don't seem to be.

skipair wrote:When you discover and continually look into the intellectual Totality and apply that to everything you experience in the present moment Totality, then you are a totally rational person.

That really depends on how good both your vision and your application are.

skipair wrote:That's interesting, what role guessing about another's mind plays in a relationship. Personally, I don't like spending much time with it. I like to stay in my own world. And actually doing that generally makes me more flexible with people and allows me to actively play off my intuition.

But yes, it sure is a type of assuming, though I wasn't talking about relationships to other people. I was talking about the relationship to reality itself.

Relationships with other people are part of reality too, though, aren't they? And, as I argued earlier in this thread, to go about an active life one necessarily makes all sorts of assumptions and holds all sorts of beliefs (e.g. that the other cars on the road will obey the road rules and won't veer over into your path whilst you're both travelling at 100 km/hr). So my guess is that you're talking about "higher" beliefs about reality - the sort of beliefs that could be termed "religious" or "spiritual". Even here, though, beliefs of one form or another are inevitable, even in the form of negative beliefs. Many Christian belief systems involve the possibility of eternal torment. No sane person would accept this possibility when avoiding it was so simple, unless that person actively believed (or "assumed") that that type of Christian belief system was false.

guest_of_logic: Ultimate free will in the midst of determinism...?...

skipair: Yeah, free will is determined.

You're a compatibilist?

.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:The only thing that is "suspect" is your inability to grasp such a simple point. Just the way you speak about it is laughable. I know you don't see the joke, but it's a doosy.

No joke - your "simple point" is lacking. Think about what you're saying: everything that exists - all of this complexity, structure and intricacy - does so for no reason whatsoever: it "just is". The entirety of the majesty of reality... and it "just is": and this bare-faced tautology is a core part of what you call "Ultimate Truth". What a massively limited "answer" to the big questions. It's bizarre to me that you guys can settle for something so obviously restricted, but then, the house philosophy as a whole is no stranger to massively restricted thinking.

By the way, it's spelt "doozy" (or "doozie"), ya woozy goose.

Tomas Note: SnoCaine's (Skipair's) writing reminds me of Joe (in this blog entry) and of my eldest son's 'take' on women.

The Doosy
What follows is a doosy, (Webster's dictionary defines Doosy: a days worth of writing). I wouldn't expect anyone to have time to read it. I put headers in bold. At the end are some more philosophical tangents recent experience obliged me to explore when I couldn't sleep at night. Putting all of this on the internet seems a bit self-important. I don't really know what to take out though as this is what I have been up to lately. Ella's more recent post is far more concise and relevant than any of this, check that out here.

The last few days of travel have been dominated by a personality of a fellow traveler. Rather than try to explain or analyze the goings on piece by piece, I will sketch him with my keyboard. So-long Joe >> http://wandersponders.blogspot.com/2006/10/doosy.html

guest_of_logic wrote:Wait a sec, we're talking about the Totality itself, not the things within it. According to the house philosophy, the Totality itself has no external cause, and hence no particular reason for being the way that it is.

There is no totality itself, so there is nothing within it. There are only things themselves, which are all connected to each other through an infinite web of cause and effect.

Since they are all connected, you technically could call that the totality, so long as you know that there are only things, and that there is no totality.

When was the last time you saw the sun, a refrigerator, or a blade of grass? Oh, nice. When was the last time you saw a totality? Yeah, me neither.

The first and most important thing is to accept the reality before us. The fact is that things are the way they are, and that's just how it is. Regardless of the reasons, everyone has to fully accept their own situation in order to have a solid footing and keep moving forward.

As for reasons, the most fundamental understanding is to know that there are infinitely specific causes for why things are the way they are. We can imagine that things right now might be different, and so that the causes leading up to now would be different, but that is imagination. THIS is our reality. And we can work with that and do what's necessary to live a good life.

You say there's no "totality" but then you give the word a referent - this seems inconsistent.

"Totality" is a description, it's not a thing. It's like saying, "Give me a bunch." Ummm, give you a bunch of what?

And I think you mean "can't know", not "can know", in the final sentence.

No, I specifically mean that you can only know what you can't know. That is what absolute knowledge is. It's what causation ultimately tells us when we take it to the end. What's left is the present moment, whatever that may be.

Every other kind of knowledge is fundamentally guessing, no matter how consistent and accurate the guesses turn out to be. This is not to say it's unimportant to be able to build models and make good predictions, it's absolutely critical. But the point is that those things are not absolute knowledge themselves.

Relationships with other people are part of reality too, though, aren't they?

Yes, but those are basically emotional or business affairs. I do put extreme importance on that, and there is an interplay between the causes of the emotional world and the effects of being able to reason properly. But in themselves, relationships do not have anything to do with being grounded in rationality. For that, it's all about figuring things out yourself.

And, as I argued earlier in this thread, to go about an active life one necessarily makes all sorts of assumptions and holds all sorts of beliefs (e.g. that the other cars on the road will obey the road rules and won't veer over into your path whilst you're both travelling at 100 km/hr).

If by belief you mean to assume or to guess, then I have beliefs. But if you mean anything even close to approaching faith, I don't have it.

So my guess is that you're talking about "higher" beliefs about reality - the sort of beliefs that could be termed "religious" or "spiritual".

No, I mean all beliefs when taken as a given, whether it be higher (whatever that would be), or just crossing the street. You can assume, but you can't believe the assumption is anything other that what it is (not a fact that's given).

Even here, though, beliefs of one form or another are inevitable, even in the form of negative beliefs. Many Christian belief systems involve the possibility of eternal torment. No sane person would accept this possibility when avoiding it was so simple, unless that person actively believed (or "assumed") that that type of Christian belief system was false.

You can admit that you don't know if the Christian belief system is totally made up or not. You can also admit that you don't know whether or not you'll go to hell if you don't believe it. No beliefs/faith involved.

I'm willing to take the risk.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:But there is a reason [that the Totality could not have been some other way]. The fact that the totality is the way that it is is the reason it is not some other way.

That's tautological reasoning, and moreover, it's irrelevant: it doesn't explain why the Totality could not have been some other way, only that it is some way.

Whether you realize it or not, you're asking for a cause. That's what explanations are, they are a causal account for a phenomena, but the totality doesn't have a cause, so the explanation you seek isn't there, by definition. Are you accepting the definition or not? I thought you said you held the same definition as me, but it appears you have no faith in it.

It's a posteriori reasoning, not a priori reasoning: it's based on experience.

All mathematics, which are a priori truths, are derived first from experiencing the world, making observations, and then deducing truths that are applicable regardless of the initial experience that initially funded the truths. Totality is no different than maths in this sense, you experience the world, gather data, and then deduce what must be true from the premises, and then once you have the truth, it's true everywhere and anywhere, regardless of what you are seeing in the moment, just like mathematics. The impression here is that you don't understand a prior reasoning.

Absent experience, there would be no reason to believe that the Totality would be any particular way at all, let alone the way that it actually is.

I don't have to see the totality empirically in order to know it is. Likewise, I don't have to see every instance of addition or multiplication to know that every computation will equal the same answer anywhere any time.

That this tautological reasoning is deficient can be seen by applying it to an everyday object, such as a cup. Why is this cup made of plastic, and not some other material? Would we accept an answer of "it is because the cup is made of plastic that it could not have been made of some other material"?

The tautologies clearly can't be escaped since your very question is embedded with tautologies the whole way through.

Why = Why
Is = Is
This = This
Cup = Cup
made = made
plastic = plastic

you get the idea?

Your question is based on a bunch of tautologies that you haven't been mindful enough to notice. You try to deny things you implicitly accept, oblivious to the fact you've accepted them, it's quite a laugh. :D

Kunga,

Sorry, I missed your posts.

Kunga wrote:If the Totality is Infinite... then is everything in that Totality also infinite ?
Example: Birth and Death
We appear to be born and die...but acually the substance that we are made up of is infinite ?
An infinite Energy that always existed ?
BUT HOW CAN ANYONE KNOW THAT ?

The point is that finite means bounded and limited by something else. The infinitude of the Totality means it has no boundedness or limitation by other things, either physically or conceptually. So, yes, every finite thing has an actual nature of being not-finite - since the boundaries are not really there. But, keep in mind that "substance", "energy", and the like, are all finite qualities. It makes no sense to say that the true nature of the Infinite is something particular, like an energy.

Kunga wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:The Totality is all things

So if the Totality IS ALL THINGS ...then dosn't that mean even the things that makes no sense to you ? Or whatever anyone want's to conjecture about the TOTALITY ?

All things means ALL :

Misinformation/Information
Ignorance/knowlege
Right/wrong
Duality/non-duality
God/Godless
Infinity/finite

EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTALITY !

Yes, all things, without exception, make up the body of the Totality. But again, as I mentioned above, the Totality is infinite in nature. It has no bounded characteristics. It is not "dual" nor "nondual". It is not "knowledge" nor "ignorance". Do you see what I'm getting at?

Try to see what is common to all finite things. Make everything one, and recognise that oneness has no nature.


.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Tell me this, if the Totality could be some other way, what way would it be?

There are many, if not infinite, possibilities. Pick one ... and given the lack of an external cause, there's no reason to preference one possibility over any other, now, is there?

Think, Laird. You're not making any sense. Dan was referring to the illogicality of applying causation to the Totality. You evidently still aren't thinking about why it is an illogicality.

The issue is that you are confusing the identity of the Totality with its contents. The identity - namely, all causes - does not change. But the contents do change.

This confusion leads you to think that there can be external causes to alter the nature of the Totality. You are looking at the Totality as a specific set of causes (contents), and therefore assume that other causes (you mention the non-existence of any consciousness whatsoever as an example) can change those contents. This is reasonable ---- the specific contents can and do change. But the causes for that change are part of the Totality.

To put it simply, no matter what examples you present for altering the contents of the Totality (the contents, remember, are always changing), the identity of the Totality as all causes will not change.

The Totality's identity does not change. Namely, being all causes, being unlimited, being unbounded by something else, being nondual, and so forth.

Here's another one along the lines of what I've previously described in this thread: the possibility of a Totality in which, in the present moment, I am not typing a post to you but am instead standing in the kitchen waiting for the kettle to boil (with all of the contingent changes to the rest of the Totality that that would entail).

Again, you are presenting specific contents. Every possible example you present of causes - situations - appearances - events - and so forth - will be a part of the changeless Totality.


You're trying to turn a philosophical question of the nature of "isness" into a scientific one, as if introducing other examples of "is's" can actually alter the fundamental "isness".

Cory Duchesne wrote:The totality is the way it is due to it's eternal, beginningless, endless, boundless, sizeless nature.[...] The reason things are is because they are. A=A. That's the a priori logical justification, and we can make definite a priori claims of nature's properties (eternal, beginningless, endless, etc), as I did above.

More tautological reasoning, which boils down to the Totality being the way that it is because it is the way that it is: this is, as I explained above, at best simplistic a posteriori reasoning. It is not an a priori justification for the way that the Totality is.

No, Cory has given you useful adjectives based on a priori reasoning.

guest_of_logic: The only thing I'd add is that this whole "uncaused Totality that just happens to be the way that it is for no particular reason" business is very suspect, so I'm not sure that it can be classed as "absolute knowledge".

Again, in case you need to be reminded, there are causes for the precise way that the contents of the Totality form and alter. However, it is illogical to conceive of the "isness" - the totality of causes - as being caused. Don't confuse the two.

According to the house philosophy, the Totality itself has no external cause, and hence no particular reason for being the way that it is.

No, Laird. It is absolutely illogical to think of the Totality as being caused. The reason for this, for the umpteenth time, is because the Totality includes all causes by definition. It is impossible for it to be caused or uncaused. Causation doesn't apply to the Totality in the slightest degree. It only applies to finite things.

If you can get your wits around this idea, that would be great to see.

skipair to Laird wrote:Also, I think I should clear this up. There are two different kinds of "Totality". One is intellectual, where you see a picture or perspective of the universe in your mind that includes and ties together every concept imaginable. Every thing within it is in relation to one another through causes and effects. Every thing fits in there somehow.

The other kind of "Totality" is simply the present moment. Experience itself. This is where A=A comes from. Whatever you are experiencing, that is what you are experiencing. There is literally nothing more obvious than this, and again, it includes every single thing.

Hopefully you can see that skipair was combining two concepts into one here. Namely, that the intricate web of causes is precisely what one is wholly immersed in, which leads to the realisation there is no free will.



.

skipair wrote:When was the last time you saw the sun, a refrigerator, or a blade of grass? Oh, nice. When was the last time you saw a totality? Yeah, me neither.

If the interconnectedness of all things is the Totality, as you seem to be defining it, then every time I see a thing, I'm seeing (a part of) the Totality.

skipair wrote:We can imagine that things right now might be different, and so that the causes leading up to now would be different, but that is imagination.

The fundamental question that I'm posing, though, and that no one here seems to have any meaningful answer to - merely tautologies - is why it is that reality is as it is and not one of those imaginable ways.

skipair wrote:THIS is our reality. And we can work with that and do what's necessary to live a good life.

Fine, and that's very sensible and I don't have a problem with it - I just have a problem with a claim to Ultimate Truth in the face of unanswered questions.

Laird: You say there's no "totality" but then you give the word a referent - this seems inconsistent.

Skip: "Totality" is a description, it's not a thing. It's like saying, "Give me a bunch." Ummm, give you a bunch of what?

Give you THE bunch of all that makes up reality...?...

Laird: And I think you mean "can't know", not "can know", in the final sentence.

Skip: No, I specifically mean that you can only know what you can't know. That is what absolute knowledge is. It's what causation ultimately tells us when we take it to the end. What's left is the present moment, whatever that may be.

Oh, then I misunderstood you. So, you don't see any positive aspects to absolute knowledge - things that you can know positively?

Laird: Relationships with other people are part of reality too, though, aren't they?

Skip: Yes, but those are basically emotional or business affairs. I do put extreme importance on that, and there is an interplay between the causes of the emotional world and the effects of being able to reason properly. But in themselves, relationships do not have anything to do with being grounded in rationality. For that, it's all about figuring things out yourself.

Isn't your perspective on relationships (e.g. your views on women) part of what "grounds you in rationality"?

skipair wrote:You can admit that you don't know if the Christian belief system is totally made up or not. You can also admit that you don't know whether or not you'll go to hell if you don't believe it. No beliefs/faith involved.

I'm willing to take the risk.

My point is that you are only willing to take that risk because you actively believe that the risk is not great (i.e. you actively believe that the Christian system that promotes it is false). Don't try to tell me you'd take the risk of burning for eternity if you thought it was a legitimate risk, because I won't BELIEVE you. These "admissions" that you make simply indicate that your degree of belief against Christianity is not completely 100% - but it's still obviously very, very high.

Anyway, what is it with people on this forum and their desire to deny that they believe in anything, or to disavow the utility of belief? It seems mostly to be linked with atheism: belief is seen as linked to faith in religious tenets, which are seen to be irrational, and thus faith is seen to be irrational, and thus belief, being linked to faith, is tainted. This position seems to me to be pretty irrational itself, because, as I've tried to explain in this thread, I don't see that belief can reasonably be avoided: particularly not in an actively lived life.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Whether you realize it or not, you're asking for a cause. That's what explanations are, they are a causal account for a phenomena, but the totality doesn't have a cause, so the explanation you seek isn't there, by definition. Are you accepting the definition or not? I thought you said you held the same definition as me, but it appears you have no faith in it.

Just because I accept a definition for working purposes, doesn't mean I have faith that that definition reflects reality. For example, I can accept the definition of "the Furblegoobie" as "the pink leprechaun at the centre of the sun whose laughter powers that star's nuclear fusion reactions", but in that case it seems likely that that which I've defined as "the Furblegoobie" has no referent in reality. Likewise I question whether the definitional framework that the house philosophy works with accurately reflects reality, or whether it's overly simplistic and not nearly nuanced enough to answer the biggest mysteries of reality.

Cory Duchesne wrote:All mathematics, which are a priori truths, are derived first from experiencing the world, making observations, and then deducing truths that are applicable regardless of the initial experience that initially funded the truths. Totality is no different than maths in this sense, you experience the world, gather data, and then deduce what must be true from the premises, and then once you have the truth, it's true everywhere and anywhere, regardless of what you are seeing in the moment, just like mathematics. The impression here is that you don't understand a prior reasoning.

The "truth" that "the Totality is the way it is because it is the way that it is", is tautologically true only, and not a meaningful explanation. I grant that a tautological truth is an a priori truth, but asserting the truth of the specific content of that tautology need not be: to assert the truth of the content of the tautology assumes that the truth of that content has been verified by some means, and in the case of the truth of the Totality being the specific way that it is, the means of verification is experiential - hence my reference to this as an a posteriori truth.

If scientists and philosophers settled solely for tautological truth, we would learn, and would have learnt, nothing. Admit it, Cory: a tautology is no meaningful answer to this question.

Laird: Absent experience, there would be no reason to believe that the Totality would be any particular way at all, let alone the way that it actually is.

Cory: I don't have to see the totality empirically in order to know it is.

But you have to see it empirically to know in which particular way it is, which is my point. If you hadn't seen it empirically, you would have no a priori means of knowing how it is, would you?

Cory Duchesne wrote:The tautologies clearly can't be escaped since your very question is embedded with tautologies the whole way through.

Why = Why
Is = Is
This = This
Cup = Cup
made = made
plastic = plastic

Don't be ridiculous: you inserted those tautologies! They weren't present in the original.

Laird's posts make me feel filthy. Like I've been doused with a big bucket of ignorance goo.

And I can't wash off the stink, no matter how hard I scrub.

Hey Laird, you revolt me, taint me, contaminate me.

I hope you are proud of yourself you ignorant, blathering, ugly ass scrap of shit.

guest_of_logic wrote:The fundamental question that I'm posing, though, and that no one here seems to have any meaningful answer to - merely tautologies - is why it is that reality is as it is and not one of those imaginable ways.

Now listen you fucking stupid sack of crap; It is because it is.

Just like if I was to punch you in the face and break your nose, you would promptly realize this as a visceral truth.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:The only thing that is "suspect" is your inability to grasp such a simple point. Just the way you speak about it is laughable. I know you don't see the joke, but it's a doosy.

No joke - your "simple point" is lacking. Think about what you're saying: everything that exists - all of this complexity, structure and intricacy - does so for no reason whatsoever: it "just is". The entirety of the majesty of reality... and it "just is": and this bare-faced tautology is a core part of what you call "Ultimate Truth". What a massively limited "answer" to the big questions. It's bizarre to me that you guys can settle for something so obviously restricted, but then, the house philosophy as a whole is no stranger to massively restricted thinking.

Deaf to non-duality!

-

Ooooh, so that's what it's called when you refuse to wear blinkers.

guest_of_logic wrote:If the interconnectedness of all things is the Totality, as you seem to be defining it, then every time I see a thing, I'm seeing (a part of) the Totality.

That depends on which totality you're talking about. If you're talking about the intellectual one, then yes. You can see yourself and your awareness radius in the picture of the universe.

If you're talking about the present moment one, that'd be like saying you only see part of life. But, of course, every moment is all the life you'll ever get.

The fundamental question that I'm posing, though, and that no one here seems to have any meaningful answer to - merely tautologies - is why it is that reality is as it is and not one of those imaginable ways.

Yeah, aside from the causes, I still have no idea. Life is a bit bizarre and random, isn't it? :)

Oh, then I misunderstood you. So, you don't see any positive aspects to absolute knowledge - things that you can know positively?

The only thing I positively know is that I'm not guessing about the nature of what I experience, and if I am guessing, I know that I'm doing it!

Isn't your perspective on relationships (e.g. your views on women) part of what "grounds you in rationality"?

Not really. This is the difference between this forum and the worldly matters forum. Women are technically a worldly matter. If I never met a woman before, I'd be no less grounded in rationality. A person either understands the foundation, regardless of the business, politics and delusional traps that most people have to deal with at one point or another...or not.

My point is that you are only willing to take that risk because you actively believe that the risk is not great (i.e. you actively believe that the Christian system that promotes it is false). Don't try to tell me you'd take the risk of burning for eternity if you thought it was a legitimate risk, because I won't BELIEVE you. These "admissions" that you make simply indicate that your degree of belief against Christianity is not completely 100% - but it's still obviously very, very high.

I am willing to take the risk because I am GUESSING that the risk is not very high. I've seen nothing that indicates that it would be, other than the testimony of people who don't really seem to know what they're talking about. And that's not very convincing.

So yeah, I would probably put it at a .00000000132% chance that I am going to hell, based on the evidence that I've seen. But I don't believe or have faith that I'm not. That would be 0%.

And in the logical sense, since either I am sure about it or I'm not (and I'm not), it's actually 50/50.

Anyway, what is it with people on this forum and their desire to deny that they believe in anything, or to disavow the utility of belief?

Because there is in some people a FUCKING DRIVE toward FACT and cutting out ALL bullshit and guessing about anything whatsoever. There is a desire to be fucking SOLID, to know the foundation, and to have irrefutably definitive answers about what it's possible to know with absolute certainty. AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!! You have to want that.

Do you watch war movies? Like in 300 where the main dude is bellowing, THIS IS WHERE WE HOLD THEM!!!! THIS IS WHERE WE FIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS WHERE THEY DIE!!!

When applied to the intellect, it's more about that than it is a few diplomats sitting respectfully around a table, sharing ideas with each other.

Here's belief X: Do I know that with absolute certainty? No? FUCKING TEAR ITS HEAD OFF.

Here's belief Y: Do I know that with absolute certainty? No? JACKIE CHAN HIS ASS.

There is no room for keeping bullshit around when all you want to know is what's NOT bullshit.

It seems mostly to be linked with atheism: belief is seen as linked to faith in religious tenets, which are seen to be irrational, and thus faith is seen to be irrational, and thus belief, being linked to faith, is tainted.

Belief is either faith or it's a conscious, provisional guess. Do you understand this? Do you understand how faith is the definition of irrationality? Faith is just making shit up, perhaps because it feels good. If your goal is to feel good, then that's a good move. If your goal is to know what you're talking about by way of having logical reasons to your thoughts, then you will have guesses and not beliefs/faith. This has no root in atheism. The root is in logic, and religious tenets, among many other things, do turn out to not make much sense when you come from that root.

This position seems to me to be pretty irrational itself, because, as I've tried to explain in this thread, I don't see that belief can reasonably be avoided: particularly not in an actively lived life.

An actively lived life to me implies dealing with worldly matters and the practical and business aspects of staying alive and creating your life. This is extremely important, but it has nothing to do with what this forum is about. The only way they do have a role here is in pointing out that they in themselves do not have the key to what we can absolutely know.

If you want to talk worldly matters and not pure philosophy, you're right. Everywhere we go we are carrying around a self-image the defines the quality of experience we have with other people and determines the kind of benefits we get out of every situation. The self-image is 100% belief-based. If you believe you are the type of person who is capable of A,B,C, then you are and you will do those things. If you do not believe it, then you aren't and you will not. This is a choice that only you can make for yourself. This, along with your attitude about how you see the world, as a good place to be or otherwise, is the foundation of your emotional life.

These are attitudes and emotions. They are not facts. Facts are neither positive or negative. They just are what they are. When Alex comes on here and does his thing, if he is critiquing the forum he is doing it from the frame of attitude and the emotional approach to life. It is a beautiful thing to see the world as a fundamentally good place and to have the universe on your side.

To look around and see good things instead of bad things is a choice, and a good one if you want to be successful in dealing with people. But you do not choose facts. You are either honest and brave enough to look at them square in the face as they are, or you lower your eyes and retreat to your imagination and feelings.

The person who IS capable of seeing the FACT that the world is amoral still has attitudes, emotions and beliefs about his capabilities, but it is 100% for business reasons. It is not personal at all.

prince wrote:Laird's posts make me feel filthy. Like I've been doused with a big bucket of ignorance goo.

And I can't wash off the stink, no matter how hard I scrub.

Hey Laird, you revolt me, taint me, contaminate me.

I hope you are proud of yourself you ignorant, blathering, ugly ass scrap of shit.

This does not sound very enlightened.

cousinbasil wrote:

prince wrote:Laird's posts make me feel filthy. Like I've been doused with a big bucket of ignorance goo.

And I can't wash off the stink, no matter how hard I scrub.

Hey Laird, you revolt me, taint me, contaminate me.

I hope you are proud of yourself you ignorant, blathering, ugly ass scrap of shit.

This does not sound very enlightened.

Bucking for moderator status?

skipair wrote:An actively lived life to me implies dealing with worldly matters and the practical and business aspects of staying alive and creating your life. This is extremely important, but it has nothing to do with what this forum is about. The only way they do have a role here is in pointing out that they in themselves do not have the key to what we can absolutely know.

You might enjoy mathematics, then. That pursuit has little intrinsically to do with anything real. One can establish fact after fact, make one true statement after another and never be contradicted because one uses logic along the way. There is an inexhaustible supply of things one can absolutely know in mathematics. One can know and understand a calculus. That mathematical material corresponds in any way to physical reality is a bonus, yet it inexplicably seems to do so sometimes.

The self-image is 100% belief-based. If you believe you are the type of person who is capable of A,B,C, then you are and you will do those things. If you do not believe it, then you aren't and you will not.

Can't agree with this. Many people may fully believe they are capable of being CEO at the company where they work, yet logically they cannot all be. Likewise, one might believe that one is not the type of person capable of killing, say, and yet circumstances could force it.

Bucking for moderator status?

Merely making an observation, Tomas. The post in queston sounds as if it came from a mean-spirited second-grader rather than from an enlightened person. Why do you ask? Are observations frowned upon at GF?

guest_of_logic wrote:

No joke - your "simple point" is lacking. Think about what you're saying: everything that exists - all of this complexity, structure and intricacy - does so for no reason whatsoever: it "just is". The entirety of the majesty of reality... and it "just is": and this bare-faced tautology is a core part of what you call "Ultimate Truth". What a massively limited "answer" to the big questions. It's bizarre to me that you guys can settle for something so obviously restricted, but then, the house philosophy as a whole is no stranger to massively restricted thinking.

Deaf to non-duality!

Ooooh, so that's what it's called when you refuse to wear blinkers.

Not wearing blinkers doesn't mean much when you are a million miles from where the real action is.

A mouse being let loose from its cage is still no closer to walking on the moon.

To explain the matter again:

Your question (fearless and unblinkered as it is) basically boils down to: "Why is there anything at all?" or "Why is there duality in the first place?"

The resolving of this question resides in the understanding of, and immersion in, non-duality. For it is during such immersion that the core assumption the question makes is realized to be an illusion.

At the moment, you are still grasping at things in a crude, dualistic manner - for example, when you reduce to the house philosophy answer to "it just is". Your crude dualistic mindset reduces the answer to a parody and strips it of all significant meaning. It's no wonder that you find it unsatisfactory. I would find it unsatisfactory as well. But it is entirely a creation of your own mind and has nothing to do with us.

If you really want to resolve the issue, then you need to know how to abandon utterly everything, to open the gates of heaven and participate in the very first moment of creation, from which we never ever leave.

-

cousinbasil wrote:

Bucking for moderator status?

Merely making an observation, Tomas. The post in queston sounds as if it came from a mean-spirited second-grader rather than from an enlightened person. Why do you ask? Are observations frowned upon at GF?

Prince's behaviour can hardly be described as "enlightened", but he does express something very important - namely, a whole-hearted disgust for worldly mediocrity. It is out of such disgust that a passionate, all-consuming love of truth is born.

• "I love them which greatly scorn because they also greatly adore; they are arrows longing for the farther shore. " - Nietzsche.

This is why I have no problem with prince's outbursts, even though they are emotional and sometimes violent in nature. To me, they are like blasts of fresh air that sweep away the cobwebs in a stale and boring world.

-

DQ wrote:then you need to know how to abandon utterly everything

Utterly everything? What about the thing doing the abandoning?

That too.

-

Then when one does, there is no mountain, correct?

The "truth" that "the Totality is the way it is because it is the way that it is", is tautologically true only, and not a meaningful explanation.

Still not listening, and therefore still making the same old error.

Don't confuse the question "why have the contents of the Totality turned out to be specifically as they are?" with "how come the Totality is the Totality and not a part of the Totality?"

Don't confuse the contents (dualisms, this vs that, finite objects) with the whole.

I grant that a tautological truth is an a priori truth, but asserting the truth of the specific content of that tautology need not be: to assert the truth of the content of the tautology assumes that the truth of that content has been verified by some means, and in the case of the truth of the Totality being the specific way that it is, the means of verification is experiential - hence my reference to this as an a posteriori truth.

We are all giving you the reasoning behind the meaning for the Totality as empty of any finite characteristics. Again, the Totality is the Totality and not a part of the totality by definition. By definition, the Totality is not finite. By definition, the Totality is characterless and unchanging.

And, this is not an empirical theory. It's not verified by experience. It is wholly definitional. It's pure logic. There cannot be any experience that determines that the Totality is nondual. Any experience is finite in nature, and can never hope to encompass and present in completeness the nature of the whole. So it is pure logic - thinking - reasoning - that must reveal the nature of the Totality, and the truth that it is nondualistic.

Are you going to start thinking about this sometimes? Would make a pleasant change.



.

cousinbasil wrote:Then when one does, there is no mountain, correct?

None worth thinking about.

-

Laird,

you need to ask the question of why you are so concerned with a fantastic/mysterious explanation of why the totality is what it is. By saying, it just is, is a direct reference to the fact that some posters here are experiencing that fantastic reality moment by moment, from the depths of emptiness, where all mystery dies and is born again in every moment, and in such a reality, such a question loses all meaning and becomes pointless. Actually, the mystery of many of your questions loses all meaning when the brain touches that vast infinite emptiness.

Your questions are born out of confusion!

non-duality means the mysterious questions end because the mind touches that mystery moment to moment.

when you become the mystery, the mysterious questions end, and with it, goes the confusion.