GENIUS FORUMS

Okay. When you say that the future is certain because it is an appearance (in the here and now), what does it have to do with the process of making predictions?

Aren't you, in making this point, conceiving of the future as a kind of empty boxy, utterly devoid of content? And in doing so, aren't you doing away with the process of prediction altogether? After all, if you acknowledge no contents in the future, then there is essentially nothing to predict.

What value does conceiving of the future in this way, divorced from content and predictions, have for you?

-

.

Jason: It's not obscure to me, it's very clear. It's clear to you too, correct?

People often make predictions of the future, and make mistakes whilst doing so. These predictions fall into the realm of appearances; they are an appearance, as such.

- They might hold their predictions to be certain representations of future events, ignorant of the fact they are necessarily uncertain. In such cases an appearance occurs of "the future" along with the notion of it being a certain representation of a future event.

- They might 'live' those predictions, they might mistakenly get tangled up in the visions and respond emotionally to what is a mere foretelling of an event or events. In such instances an appearance occurs of "the future" along with the notion of it 'being' the future (to which they react).

- They might think there is a future somehow residing objectively beyond their present experience, as if they somehow have insight into what has it's own real existence. In such cases they will likely have an emotional involvement similar to the previous point.

.

(We are departing here, quite a distance from what is considered the consensus "normal" conventional reality perspective. So communicating using words that are usually accepted as being defined in reference to this conventional perspective can be tricky. What I'm saying is: my words may be liable to misinterpretation. Just keep that in mind. I have read your Wisdom of the Infinite and the majority of it agrees with what I have found also, only a few but very key points depart from my views. Truth is I consider myself to be lowering my philosophical perspective for you, just as you did previously for Pye.)

DQ: Okay. When you say that the future is certain because it is an appearance (in the here and now), what does it have to do with the process of making predictions?

(Misinterpretation alert: It's incorrect to say that appearances are "in the here and now", in the sense that the here and now, is an appearance also. Appearances are not "in" anything, other than perhaps non-finite/duality reality. But I assume you are using the term "in the here and now" as a way to contrast with the conventional perspective that there is an empirical present which the empirical future is beyond.)

Ok to answer your question: the future being certain and being an appearance, means that the process of making predictions is also an appearance.(little anectdote: I have suggested to mathematicians that there are only two real probabilities: 1 and 0. Something either is, or it isn't. Of course they disagreed.)

DQ: Aren't you, in making this point, conceiving of the future as a kind of empty boxy, utterly devoid of content? And in doing so, aren't you doing away with the process of prediction altogether? After all, if you acknowledge no contents in the future, then there is essentially nothing to predict.

No I do not conceive of the future as an empty box, it has contents. I just understand that the future and it's contents are entirely appearance. There is nothing to predict only in the sense that prediction cannot relate to something beyond appearance.

DQ:What value does conceiving of the future in this way, divorced from content and predictions, have for you?

Well being a certainty and truth seeker, conceiving of the future in this way has value to me as being a more certain and correct way to perceive reality.

Jason you are too strung out and hung up on the details and irrelevant minutiae, at the expense of the bigger picture. Do you want to be another Nick Otani?

prince wrote:Jason you are too strung out and hung up on the details and irrelevant minutiae, at the expense of the bigger picture. Do you want to be another Nick Otani?

It's nothing like that prince. Read what I said at the top of the previous post, in brackets. David and me have already had several misunderstandings based on what perspective we are looking at things from or what exact definition we are using for words and terms. I don't like adding disclaimers and stuff, hopefully I can stop that once David understands where I am coming from a bit better. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understood.

ksolway wrote:Yes, I went on to say that ultimately the surfer identifies with the wave. At this stage having faith in God means having faith in yourself, which is the whole.

So was your initial post about being pushed around by the wave, motivated by a desire to contrast against the conventional view that the surfer is the one who does the steering? Initially negating the coventional limited viewpoint with the opposing limited viewpoint, followed by trancendending the limited viewpoints altogether?

But you wrote this:

"To me, it feels like surfing on huge wave, but not knowing where you are surfing to - and it doesn't matter since you can't do anything about it anyway. Sure you make choices, but it is the wave that pushes you into those choices, and determines their outcome."

"To me, it feels like.." This sounds like a personal description of your experience of reality. Yet it is putting the emphasis on the wave being in control, and you being out of control. If you are using limited points of view simply for teaching purposes, for negating limited points of view, that's one thing. But describing your own experience of reality in such a way either means you are incorrectly describing how you really experience reality(and I think misleading people), or else you are actually experiencing your life with the feeling that the wave is in control. Which is it?

Jason wrote:

It's incorrect to say that appearances are "in the here and now", in the sense that the here and now, is an appearance also. Appearances are not "in" anything, other than perhaps non-finite/duality reality. But I assume you are using the term "in the here and now" as a way to contrast with the conventional perspective that there is an empirical present which the empirical future is beyond.)

I see no reason not to simply say appearances are "the now" -- naturally, that comprises all notions and extrapolations of time: past, present, future.

Jason wrote:

ksolway wrote:Yes, I went on to say that ultimately the surfer identifies with the wave. At this stage having faith in God means having faith in yourself, which is the whole.

So was your initial post about being pushed around by the wave, motivated by a desire to contrast against the conventional view that the surfer is the one who does the steering?

More or less.

But you wrote this:

"To me, it feels like surfing on huge wave, but not knowing where you are surfing to - and it doesn't matter since you can't do anything about it anyway. Sure you make choices, but it is the wave that pushes you into those choices, and determines their outcome."

"To me, it feels like.." This sounds like a personal description of your experience of reality.

Yes, everyone goes through this experience as they gradually comprehend reality.

Yet it is putting the emphasis on the wave being in control, and you being out of control. If you are using limited points of view simply for teaching purposes, for negating limited points of view, that's one thing. But describing your own experience of reality in such a way either means you are incorrectly describing how you really experience reality(and I think misleading people), or else you are actually experiencing your life with the feeling that the wave is in control. Which is it?

It is possible to describe being pushed around by the wave even from the absolute perspective, since there is no difference between the absolute the dualistic. It could also be said that the surfer steers his own way, without falling into error.

Jason: This sounds like a personal description of your experience of reality.

Ksolway: Yes, everyone goes through this experience as they gradually comprehend reality.

You mean the specific experience that it is the wave not the surfer in control? Do you experience that currently? I thought you'd be beyond that. I am beyond asserting that either only the wave or only the surfer is in control, yet I never experienced the feeling that the wave was in control.

Ksolway: It is possible to describe being pushed around by the wave even from the absolute perspective, since there is no difference between the absolute the dualistic. It could also be said that the surfer steers his own way, without falling into error.

Agreed.

Jason wrote:

DQ: Okay. When you say that the future is certain because it is an appearance (in the here and now), what does it have to do with the process of making predictions?

J: (Misinterpretation alert: It's incorrect to say that appearances are "in the here and now", in the sense that the here and now, is an appearance also. Appearances are not "in" anything, other than perhaps non-finite/duality reality. But I assume you are using the term "in the here and now" as a way to contrast with the conventional perspective that there is an empirical present which the empirical future is beyond.)

It is true that the perception that appearances occur in the here and now is also an appearance, but it is also a truth which defines our very existence as conscious beings. An appearance, by its very nature, is something arises momentarily and falls away again. (I know you're itching to reduce this into an appearance and dismiss it, but I urge you to hear me out).

Our life is comprised of appearances succeeding one another, each one replacing the next. It is only in the here and now that an appearance comes into being. Next moment, it is gone again. (I know this is an appearance as well, but again, hear me out.)

The perception that all appearances are momentary entities which exist in the here and now is definitely an appearance. I am in 100% agreement with you here. But nonetheless, it is also an appearance which expresses truth.

Just because it is true that all things are appearances, it doesn't mean that all appearances are the same, or that none are capable of expressing truth.

Ok to answer your question: the future being certain and being an appearance, means that the process of making predictions is also an appearance.

And as Rhett points out, unpredictable phenomena and making mistakes in prediction are also appearances.

Reducing everything to appearances doesn't really resolve anything, as far as this issue of concerned. A person can experience the appearance of predicting that it is going to rain all day tomorrow, and then, the next day, when it is sunny instead, he can experience the appearance of his being wrong in yesterday's prediction. Yes, it's all appearances, but despite this he still manages to make a false prediction about an unpredictable future phenomenon.

You seem to be making the mistake of reducing everything down to a restricted array of appearances, and in the process, you are blocking out other kinds of appearances, such as the appearance of unpredictable phenemona and making mistakes in prediction.

DQ: Aren't you, in making this point, conceiving of the future as a kind of empty boxy, utterly devoid of content? And in doing so, aren't you doing away with the process of prediction altogether? After all, if you acknowledge no contents in the future, then there is essentially nothing to predict.

J: No I do not conceive of the future as an empty box, it has contents. I just understand that the future and it's contents are entirely appearance. There is nothing to predict only in the sense that prediction cannot relate to something beyond appearance.

It cannot relate to anything beyond appearance in a general sense, I agree. Nothing is ever beyond appearances. But it can, and does, relate to things beyond a specific individual's experience of appearance in the here and now. By definition, whatever happens in the future is not making an appearance in the here and now. That is what makes future events so uncertain and unpredictable.

-

Jason: There is nothing to predict only in the sense that prediction cannot relate to something beyond appearance.

David: It cannot relate to anything beyond appearance in a general sense, I agree. Nothing is ever beyond appearances. But it can, and does, relate to things beyond a specific individual's experience of appearance in the here and now.

This I agree with, David. However...

David: By definition, whatever happens in the future is not making an appearance in the here and now. That is what makes future events so uncertain and unpredictable.

I think this is only a partially correct expression. What makes (causes) future events to be uncertain and unpredictable is The Totality -- not the fact that they have not appeared in the here and now, by definition. I can predict that I will have a cup of tea in the next ten minutes and know with a high degree of certainty (although not 100%) that that will occur. Course, if Nature decides to crack open the ground beneath me, then -- no tea.

Fair enough. My point was that you can only be certain that you'll have that cup of tea when you actually have it. Before then, it is uncertain. Just the fact that it hasn't yet occured makes it uncertain, as we only have a limited say in what will occur.

But you're right. It is primarily because the Totality is infinitely complex that predictions are so hard to make.

-

David wrote:

But you're right. It is primarily because the Totality is infinitely complex that predictions are so hard to make.

Long way back around to this. Thanks for the cup of tea, Leyla.

Leyla wrote:

I see no reason not to simply say appearances are "the now" -- naturally, that comprises all notions and extrapolations of time: past, present, future.

Yep. Eternity: right in front of one's face. always.

David wrote:

Can I ask, then, what is it that attracts you to his [Dostoevsky] work in the first place? Is it because he tends to write about desperate characters who live on the fringe of society? Is it his sparkling writing style? His weird psychological explorations? That's more or less why I like him.

It is all that he sees, and that he writes it as seeing, for our seeing, too (if one has "eyes" for it).

D: What is a lesser-known work of his that you would recommend?

The novel mentioned above (The Devils). Also, the first novel he wrote before imprisonment - Poor Folks. It's shorter ;)

D: It basically states that any phenomena which appears to exist is recognizable and has its own identity.

And this shall, necessarily, include a "self."

D: As for his "Zennishness", that is everywhere. For example, the way he kept claiming that philosophy is the noblest and greatest of all pursuits, and yet there he was, the philosopher and the family he neglected living in the most abject poverty.

Sounds like irony to me.

D: Another example is his famous quip that he understood nothing at all. That is very Zennish, comparable to the Buddha's assertion that he had attained nothing when he became enlightened.

And this is well-functioning paradox.

We must have very different ideas of Zen, to save for another time.

I have to hit the road again, but leave with this current musing: I am wondering how those of you who consider yourself 'enlightened' to this or that degree handle your disgust. I have had such long passages of serenity, moving amongst the things - seeing them for what they are - that in short periods of time disgust me: television, money-talk, fame-talk, looks-consciousness, thoughtlessness, shallowness, and all the basic[ally] disgusting attributes to society. Let's add misogyny as a disgust-mode, too, for those of you who relate to it.

How does an 'enlightened' person handle their disgust? When I counter my long passages of serenity amongst the masses against these short periods that rise up of thick disgust (I'm in one right now) - I am forced to conclude that the former state of serenity -- seeing these things for what they are without having to feel disgust for them -- is by far my better mode.

In addition to how an enlightened person handles their disgust, I would like to ask if it is necessary at all.

Pye wrote:

Thanks for the cup of tea, Leyla.

No worries.

How does an 'enlightened' person handle their disgust?

The same way you learned to see things the way they are without being disgusted, I would imagine. Do you have any idea how you did that? Or, do you mean you can only see things that don't disgust you as they really are?

I tend to call the handling thought and introspection, myself.

Enlightened folk do not feel disgust.

Pye wrote:

DQ: But you're right. It is primarily because the Totality is infinitely complex that predictions are so hard to make.

P: Long way back around to this. Thanks for the cup of tea, Leyla.

Of course, there are some things which can be predicted with 100% certainty. For example, we can know for sure that every phenomenon we experience in the future will be an appearance, finite in extent, causally created and lacking inherent existence.

DQ: As for his "Zennishness", that is everywhere. For example, the way he kept claiming that philosophy is the noblest and greatest of all pursuits, and yet there he was, the philosopher and the family he neglected living in the most abject poverty.

P: Sounds like irony to me.

For the detached academic who has no intention of pursuing the philosophic path, it may seem like irony. But for anyone who seriously contemplates devoting their entire lives to enlightenment, it is a full-blooded koan.

DQ: Another example is his famous quip that he understood nothing at all. That is very Zennish, comparable to the Buddha's assertion that he had attained nothing when he became enlightened.

P: And this is well-functioning paradox.

I have no idea what you mean by this. In what way does a paradox function well? To what end?

We must have very different ideas of Zen, to save for another time.

We can describe a Zen koan as a well-functioning paradox which is designed to force the thinker's mind into greater insight - or in rare cases, into enlightenment itself.

As with all koans, it is only through enlightenment that Socrates' paradox can be resolved - for it is only then one understands the lack of "thingness" in reality.

Unfortunately, most people these days grossly misinterpret the paradox to mean that Socrates was a kind of proto-postmodernist who believed that everything is uncertain. Yes, it is comical, I know, but the bland academic postmodernist truly believes that Socrates was one of them.

How does an 'enlightened' person handle their disgust?

Disgust (of falseness) can be a good thing, because it can motivate you to distance yourself as far as possible from the falseness of the world and drive you intensely to seek truth. Disgust of falseness is, in effect, an expression of love of truth.

We can only transcend this disgust of falseness by transcending our love of truth, and this can only happen when we become fully conscious of the lack of inherent existence of all things.

Of course, another way to get rid of the disgust is to cease valuing truth altogether and sink back into ordinary worldly life. That is, by becoming unconscious again. A very popular path, that one. It disgusts me just thinking about it.

-

Jason wrote:

No I do not conceive of the future as an empty box, it has contents. I just understand that the future and it's contents are entirely appearance. There is nothing to predict only in the sense that prediction cannot relate to something beyond appearance.

Just asking. If, there is nothing beyond appearances that they can be related to, then how does that invalidate our experiences of “internally” flowing appearances? In other words, according to the same logic, cause and effect is also rendered invalid since it is that which gives us the sense of flow. Is that what you are saying? That nothing is "happening"? Or that 'happening' is also an appearance, and since it cannot relate to anything "beyond" it, nothing can be considered to be happening?

I mean, sure, there is nothing one can relate to beyond appearances, because that is all that we have, but would that mean our experiences of appearances, in whatever form or flow, does not constitute Reality in any sense?

If we have logically concluded that appearances are all that we have, how logical is it to say that there is nothing to predict? Well, nothing to predict related to what? What is there beyond appearances? That we cannot predict with 100% surety because of the complexity of the Totality and our own limitations, is quite understandable, though.

DQ: My point was that you can only be certain that you'll have that cup of tea when you actually have it.

Well, yes -- and a valid (ha! in the true sense of the word, that is) point it is. So applied logic is never 100% certain in its predictions because of the Totality. Pure logic, no?

DQ: You're going to get a lot of scratching of heads if you say to people that the future is entirely predictable because it is an appearance. It is a very obscure point, to say the least.

Jason: It's not obscure to me, it's very clear. It's clear to you too, correct? I was addressing it to you...

Rhett: People often make predictions of the future, and make mistakes whilst doing so. These predictions fall into the realm of appearances; they are an appearance, as such.

- They might hold their predictions to be certain representations of future events, ignorant of the fact they are necessarily uncertain. In such cases an appearance occurs of "the future" along with the notion of it being a certain representation of a future event.

- They might 'live' those predictions, they might mistakenly get tangled up in the visions and respond emotionally to what is a mere foretelling of an event or events. In such instances an appearance occurs of "the future" along with the notion of it 'being' the future (to which they react).

- They might think there is a future somehow residing objectively beyond their present experience, as if they somehow have insight into what has it's own real existence. In such cases they will likely have an emotional involvement similar to the previous point.

A very insightful post, Rhett. I think that just about covers the basis of every possible mental disorder. And to it, the common "solution" is drugs.

What a revolution there would be in the field of human psychology if the substance of this were properly understood.

It is primarily because the Totality is infinitely complex that predictions are so hard to make.

Actaully I think the totality is quite simple, but to conscious beings that require appearances, the interconnectedness of things is not.

Also appearances are more than simply appearances, they are patterns of likenesses of force within a sea of competing forces. Nothing can give an appearance without having something within its nature that can affect the observer, and this nature must be the nature of both it and the observer or other "thing" being forced to change in some manner.

Jamesh wrote: Also appearances are more than simply appearances, they are patterns of likenesses of force within a sea of competing forces. Nothing can give an appearance without having something within its nature that can affect the observer, and this nature must be the nature of both it and the observer or other "thing" being forced to change in some manner.

That sounds like a load of bullpucky to me. patterns and forces don't have any effect on an appearance.

What is an "appearance"? this word has been used a lot in this thread, but it doesnt seem to be defined.

prince wrote:

Jamesh wrote: Also appearances are more than simply appearances, they are patterns of likenesses of force within a sea of competing forces. Nothing can give an appearance without having something within its nature that can affect the observer, and this nature must be the nature of both it and the observer or other "thing" being forced to change in some manner.

That sounds like a load of bullpucky to me.

I agree.

"Appearances are more than simply appearances" doesn't mean anything. It's the same as saying "A is not A".

Appearances are things that occur to the mind.

Anything that can be named is an appearance.

Rhett wrote:

People often make predictions of the future, and make mistakes whilst doing so.

Yes they do.

These predictions fall into the realm of appearances; they are an appearance, as such.

Sure.

- They might hold their predictions to be certain representations of future events, ignorant of the fact they are necessarily uncertain.

Well, they are necessarily uncertain from the point of view that it is impossible to “know” all causes involved, but however uncertain predictions may be, there is certain certainty dictated by logic and memory. For example, what does logic and memory tell you when Leyla waits for ten minutes, and eventually has her tea without the ground splitting beneath her? Or for the umpteen times she has had tea without any major calamity occurring?

In such cases an appearance occurs of "the future" along with the notion of it being a certain representation of a future event.

Similarly there is a notion of past, agreed, but how do we arrive at such “notions” if not through cause and effect? And would calling it a “notion” falsify its own comparative reality?

- They might 'live' those predictions, they might mistakenly get tangled up in the visions and respond emotionally to what is a mere foretelling of an event or events.

What has emotions got to do with actually drinking tea in the "here and now"?

In such instances an appearance occurs of "the future" along with the notion of it 'being' the future (to which they react).

“Living” a certain prediction is what tells me that there is certain amount of certainty in a necessarily uncertain Totality.

They might think there is a future somehow residing objectively beyond their present experience, as if they somehow have insight into what has it's own real existence.

What do you mean by “residing” and “real” in this context? I think that is a mixture of two differet point of views.

In such cases they will likely have an emotional involvement similar to the previous point.

Are you saying that the notion of cause and effect is a result of emotional involvement? As I see it, without the notion of cause and effect, and the fact that it has to necessarily be dynamic, there would be no notion of past present and future, and without either, one cannot even think. It is the flow which makes any thing possible at all, which when logically deduced give rise to all “notions” as such, because backed by memory logic can go back and forth, but calling it a notion would not falsify cause and effect.

Within the realm of appearances, which is all that we have, one cannot even identify them as such without first understanding the notion of motion. Does notion mean actually no motion? And if there is nothing without, then what are we talking about?

This might be a stupid line of questioning, but I too would like to understand it, please bear with me.

David Quinn wrote:

Disgust (of falseness) can be a good thing, because it can motivate you to distance yourself as far as possible from the falseness of the world and drive you intensely to seek truth. Disgust of falseness is, in effect, an expression of love of truth.

Yes, in a sense, it is. I, too, think there can be a fine line. But there is a difference. One involved with the love of truth is involved with the truth directly as opposed to he who is involved with a love of truth through a disgust of falseness. The latter would be religiously and exclusively involved with the promotion and expression of truth as disgust of falseness.

I think you are right, this is a crucial -- and the “final” -- point on the path. The point where one lets go of the last remnants of ego. The point where not even the smallest fraction of ego is vested in truth. The point where not even truth itself separates him from everyone else.

We can only transcend this disgust of falseness by transcending our love of truth, and this can only happen when we become fully conscious of the lack of inherent existence of all things.

Agreed.

Of course, another way to get rid of the disgust is to cease valuing truth altogether and sink back into ordinary worldly life. That is, by becoming unconscious again. A very popular path, that one.

This person never valued truth directly, David. They may have glimpsed it for a moment somewhere along the line but they -- due to ego -- only valued disgust of falseness without getting anywhere near enough to truth. What they have actually done is ceased valuing the disgust -- and thereby any connection to truth. It means that the ego was yet in a greater, more powerful position than the ability to actively seek and discern truth via truthful doctrine and discipline.

Prince: patterns and forces don't have any effect on an appearance.

Only because they ARE the experience of the appearance.

Kevin: "Appearances are more than simply appearances" doesn't mean anything.

Rather than not meaning anything, maybe it just doesn’t add anything that one can use to the discussion. My view is just that your A is different to mine.

It's the same as saying "A is not A".

No it isn’t. It is still A=A. But A=A only applies to beings. To a rock A=A (or the manner in which the rock interfaces with the universe) would need to be described differently. Although a rock cannot experience an appearance, it can experience external forces interacting with its own forces. A rock is still a thing even without an observer, because its existence is not the same as everything else. All things have existence but only an observer is capable of limiting its existence to name it "Rock". I define existence as form with the ability to be affected and to affect, not as a human defined appearance.

A=A is the effect of the process of conscious-beings-experiencing the universe. Competing patterns of forces are the cause of this process. The phrase “Competing patterns of forces” is far more realistic than A=A, because it is not limited to what conscious beings can experience. A=A is only useful to show to people that it is your particular pattern of existence that defines what a thing is, not the thing itself.

Appearances are things that occur to the mind. Anything that can be named is an appearance.

Yes this is true. However, I would say that appearances are anything that appears to the conscious mind. What about "appearances" (read experiences) where there is no conscious thought of that appearance.

For instance: You are asleep, a bed bug bites you and you scratch yourself. Obviously an experience has occurred in the mind, subconsciously the mind computes that a scratch is needed, but there is no conceptualised A=A in play here, there is no naming or identification, there is just action as a result of a force coming into the domain of what your body recognises as part of itself. The bed bug bites you and changes you. In addition you change the bed bug, even if it gets no sustenance from you, the mere act of biting will cause it to lose a few atoms from its snout.

I guess one could say that the experience of the bed bug to your subconscious is still an appearance because you are likely to have encountered insects before and thus have a memory stored in your brain which instructs the body to scratch when bitten. But what if you were only two months old and had never been bitten by any insect before, if instincts caused you to scratch rather than memory, could the bed-bug biting while asleep be considered an appearance.

David wrote:

Disgust (of falseness) can be a good thing, because it can motivate you to distance yourself as far as possible from the falseness of the world and drive you intensely to seek truth. Disgust of falseness is, in effect, an expression of love of truth.

Leyla wrote:

Yes, in a sense, it is. I, too, think there can be a fine line. But there is a difference. One involved with the love of truth is involved with the truth directly as opposed to he who is involved with a love of truth through a disgust of falseness. The latter would be religiously and exclusively involved with the promotion and expression of truth as disgust of falseness.

Wouldn’t both be “religiously and exclusively involved with the promotion and expression of truth as disgust of falseness”?

Sue

DQ: It is true that the perception that appearances occur in the here and now is also an appearance, but it is also a truth which defines our very existence as conscious beings. An appearance, by its very nature, is something arises momentarily and falls away again. (I know you're itching to reduce this into an appearance and dismiss it, but I urge you to hear me out). Our life is comprised of appearances succeeding one another, each one replacing the next. It is only in the here and now that an appearance comes into being. Next moment, it is gone again. (I know this is an appearance as well, but again, hear me out.)

How could one know of something that has yet to appear, or something that no longer appears, ie. momentary appearance? It's contradictory, you cannot know of something that has no appearance. I disagree that appearance is momentary by it's very nature, the only inherent nature I attribute to appearance is finiteness: it is not Infinite/Everything.

DQ:A person can experience the appearance of predicting that it is going to rain all day tomorrow, and then, the next day, when it is sunny instead, he can experience the appearance of his being wrong in yesterday's prediction. Yes, it's all appearances, but despite this he still manages to make a false prediction about an unpredictable future phenomenon.

You seem to be mixing some empirical reality views with the higher perspective that all is appearance. Either rain is a sensual appearance to that person, or it is not. There is no uncertainty.

DQ:You seem to be making the mistake of reducing everything down to a restricted array of appearances, and in the process, you are blocking out other kinds of appearances, such as the appearance of unpredictable phenemona and making mistakes in prediction.

At the start of this post you asked me to to hold back on reducing some things to appearance. Now you suggest I am restricting the array of possible appearances. What do you want? I am not restricting things to a reduced array of appearances. I agree that "unpredicatable phenomenon" and "mistakes in prediction" are appearances also.

J: There is nothing to predict only in the sense that prediction cannot relate to something beyond appearance.

DQ: It cannot relate to anything beyond appearance in a general sense, I agree. Nothing is ever beyond appearances. But it can, and does, relate to things beyond a specific individual's experience of appearance in the here and now.

Your initial declaration "NOTHING is ever beyond appearances", followed by "things beyond a specific individual's experience of appearances" leads to contradiction.

DQ: By definition, whatever happens in the future is not making an appearance in the here and now. That is what makes future events so uncertain and unpredictable.

What does not make an appearance in the here and now, is not uncertain: it is non-existent. There is a difference.

The uncertainty you seem to be speaking of here is the one that is created when one suspends certainty and enters into the faith-based perspective of an empirical reality. My goal, and I assume yours too, is to remove uncertainties. That is what moving into the perspective of all-is-appearance achieves.