GENIUS FORUMS

If we accept that everything is as it appears then how do we know if we are approaching truth in any way? Or that it is even possible to have rational reactions to things?

If we both look at an object and you see stick and I see snake you might pick it up while I might run in fear. Now, if it really is a stick, then I've just behaved irrationally. However if it is a snake, you have just behaved irrationally. So how do we know what reaction to have to this object if we disagree on its actual identity? Obviously there is some objective truth to the matter (if it is a stick it is not going to bite me regardless of how convinced I may be of it being a snake)

This goes back to the fact that we can never be absolutely certain about empirical questions. Still all we have work with when it comes to making decisions is appearances and memory of our past experiences with apperances. We can only make what we think to be the best decision in reaction to different appearances. Asking what the "absolute identity" of something is is a pointless question because no thing has an absolute identity, being that it doesn't inherently exist. Only our consciousness can give something an identity, which in turn means that things are exactly what they appear to be to our consciousness until we consciously decide otherwise.

Nick wrote:Only our consciousness can give something an identity, which in turn means that things are exactly what they appear to be to our consciousness until we consciously decide otherwise.

I disagree with the phraseology here.

Here is a more logical phrasing:

Things are not exactly what they appear to be, but rather, only appearances are exactly what they appear to be, but not things.

And appearances change, not when we 'consciously decide' otherwise, but when we involuntarily percieve that there is more or less to the picture then our previous notions accounted for.

If I define a tiny yellow wooden stick connected to a pink eraser by a piece of metal, as a pencil then it is indeed a pencil. It is what it is, or A=A. In other words until I percieve this object as something else it remains just that, a pencil. When something is appearing as something it is existing as that something.

When we percieve an object as something different from what we once believed it to be, and make the conscious decision to define it as something else, it doesn't change the fact that within the realm of our consciousness it at one time existed as something else. This is no way violates A=A.

Furtherly as soon as something appears, it simultaneously becomes a thing. To rephrase what I have said in the manner you choose needlessly complicates the point being made.

Nick Treklis wrote:If I define a tiny yellow wooden stick connected to a pink eraser by a piece of metal, as a pencil then it is indeed a pencil.

You are confusing the definition, or the representation of a thing, with the actual thing. The signifier(the definition, word, appearance) is not the signified.

Nick wrote: In other words until I percieve this object as something else it remains just that, a pencil.

To me, this is baloney. It doesnt matter what something is. What matters is it's function, it's utility. Upon discovering an appearance, if you havent made an effort to determine its function, its relationship to other appearances, then you are a fool to conclude that it is this thing, or that thing.

If we are not concerned with only function, then our concerns are just trivial nonesense. It doesnt matter whether or not we know what something is, what matters is what we percieve it do in relationshp to other appearances.

Nick wrote: When something is appearing as something it is existing as that something.

A useless conclusion. It doesnt matter. Investigate what the object of perception does functionaly, and then value or ignore the appearance and its relationship based on that.

Nick wrote: When we percieve an object as something different from what we once believed it to be, and make the conscious decision to define it as something else, it doesn't change the fact that within the realm of our consciousness it at one time existed as something else.

Absurd. If I am duped into believing a stick is a snake, but then suddenly see the stick as a stick, it does not follow that the stick was once a snake. The snake never existed. You can unwisely say that it existed in my mind, but no, the snake was just a 'thought'.

You are trying to say that the 'thought' is the thing. The signifier is not the signified - they are two different things.

Your logic is a violation of A=A.

Nick wrote: This is no way violates A=A.

Yes it does.

Nick wrote: Furtherly as soon as something appears, it simultaneously becomes a thing.

no, it becomes an appearance.


I don't think you realize the nature of definitions. They have only a pragmatic, utilitarian value and are not to be confused with the actual reality outside of the mind.

Reality can be known only as something that cannot be known.

I see that our disagreement stems from this one statment.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I don't think you realize the nature of definitions. They have only a pragmatic, utilitarian value and are not to be confused with the actual reality outside of the mind.

There is nothing outside of the mind/consciousness or whatever else you choose to call it. Things gain their identity from consciousness, without consciousness all that remains is the infinite in which things no longer exist.

Nick Treklis wrote:I see that our disagreement stems from this one statment.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I don't think you realize the nature of definitions. They have only a pragmatic, utilitarian value and are not to be confused with the actual reality outside of the mind.

There is nothing outside of the mind/consciousness or whatever else you choose to call it.

Yes, there is - there is the totality. But I don't believe that the totality is a thing. (you probably were trying to say this, but due to the limitations of words....)

When the mind is gone, there is no-thing, but there isnt 'nothing'.

There is an infinitely varied field of energy - - when a mind emerges in this infinite field, it percieves distinctions and differences which exist (how exactly we cannot say) apart from the mind. The mind becomes deluded into believing that things are real. Becoming enlightened is realizing that each manifestation defined as a thing, is really just a face, an expression of the totality. So there are no things, only appearances.

But a deluded mind believes in things, and is attatched to things.

Nick wrote: Things gain their identity from consciousness

Things are an illusion. Consciousness may create definitions, identities in order to survive efficiently, but the definitions, identities are not things, but merely a way for dealing with appearances.

without consciousness all that remains is the infinite in which things no longer exist.

Things never existed to begin with.

PS: I realize you, Sue, Kevin and others are driving at the same truth as me. I just think my alternative semantics, being a bit more refined, will enchance the enlightenment potentially occuring in the future. I'm thinking that the rate that 'humans become elightened per century' would become significantly decreased if it werent for my way of compensating for the limitations of the other G-forum descriptions of what is essential the same truth. They (the humans who are 1000 years, or even 5 minutes in the future reading this) are possibly nodding their heads in agreement right now.

Katy wrote:If we accept that everything is as it appears then how do we know if we are approaching truth in any way? Or that it is even possible to have rational reactions to things?

You dont, only wisdom reveals. The sage sees all.

Appearance is what is interpreted by the mind, not what actually is seen with the eyes. It is processed through memory, to gain its meaning. The unwise mind sees in glimpses, the wise sees it and allows it to pass through him, since it was never real in the first place.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Things never existed to begin with.

Things do indeed exist, although not inherently, because we identify and define them via consciousness. Without us identifying and defining our environment everything we do and say would be completely illogical and incoherent. Using a formula like A=A would be meaningless.

Here's an example,

If there were someone who percieved what we see as a snake to be a stick would you not tell them to avoid sticks, instead of arguing about some false absolute identity? Obviously if you were going to look out for the person you would advise them to avoid coming into close contact with any sticks because that stick might attack them. You see, each person's consciousness is a different world-view in which things are identified and defined by them. So according to someone elses consciousness sticks can bite and poison them instead of snakes. This does not violate A=A, it's just that A=A works only within one's own consciousness to make sense of empirical dilemas. You can't use A=A to compare your apperances to someone elses or your past lives with absolute certainty. A=A can only be applied to one moment at a time within one's consciousness.

Nick wrote:

You can't use A=A to compare your apperances to someone elses or your past lives with absolute certainty. A=A can only be applied to one moment at a time within one's consciousness.

This point interested me, and I began to ponder upon it…

Everything we know about the world and other people is known through our own consciousness. People, places, events and activities are only ever experienced by our own mind. And since we know that there is no way to exit out of our own mind to see if our ‘interpretation’ of these things is correct or not, we seemly just have to trust what comes to us through our consciousness.

Nick wrote:

Things gain their identity from consciousness.

This seems clearly true, for without consciousness, things have no identity. A thing comes into existence the moment our consciousness identifies it as a thing (separate from all other things). That means that things are nothing more or less than what our consciousness defines them to be.

Cory replied to Nick:

Things are an illusion. Consciousness may create definitions, identities in order to survive efficiently, but the definitions, identities are not things, but merely a way for dealing with appearances.

It is true that things are “an illusion” – that is, they have no inherent existence. But that doesn’t mean that they are not also real. Knowing that things are real - that they are, what they are - means that they cannot be made anything other than what they are.

“Definitions”, “identities”, “efficiently”, “dealing with”, and “appearances” are all things that our consciousness has defined. And clearly, as Nick wrote:

Without us identifying and defining our environment everything we do and say would be completely illogical and incoherent. Using a formula like A=A would be meaningless.

So where does this leave us? What’s the bottom line? Why do we need to understand this point about ‘things’?

Summing up what we know about our own reality:
-We have a consciousness that we can’t escape from.
-We can’t predict what will arise from it.
-We know that like all things, our consciousness is a thing that can never be other than what it appears to be.
-And knowing that a thing is nothing more or less than what it is, we need not add anything to it, nor subtract anything from it.
-We 'ourselves', other people, and the world, exist in our own minds.
-Each person has only their own reality to work with.

Cory wrote:

It doesnt matter what something is. What matters is it's function, it's utility.

A thing’s “utility” and “function” is part of what makes it a thing. The only way we understand the terms ‘utility’ and ‘function’ is in reference to things. This means that understanding what things are is of extreme importance. For they are the only tools we have to work with to understand everything.

So, the bottom line is that we do need to trust in our own mind to be able to see that the appearance of things are the only things we have to work with.

-
Sue

Nick wrote: Things do indeed exist, although not inherently, because we identify and define them via consciousness.

Just because I have definitions for organizing how reality appears to me, doesn’t mean that things exist.

You and Sue seem to be confusing definitions with the appearances that definitions describe.

Do you think that definitions and appearances are synonymous?

Nick wrote: Without us identifying and defining our environment everything we do and say would be completely illogical and incoherent.

I agree, I never said we shouldn’t identify and define the way our environment appears to us. If we value overcoming suffering, and delusion, then we should.

Another problem with your and Sue’s way of articulating truth, is that it undermines and makes meaningless the word delusion.

Sue and Nick, how do each of you define delusion?

Nick wrote:
Here's an example,

If there were someone who perceived what we see as a snake to be a stick would you not tell them to avoid sticks, instead of arguing about some false absolute identity?

I thought I already made it clear that I thought it was a sign of imbecility to argue over whether a thing is this or that. It doesn’t matter. What matters is who, as an individual, is less dysfunctional, surprised, confused, emotionally upset, angry, stumbling, crying, etc.

Nick wrote: You see, each person's consciousness is a different world-view in which things are identified and defined by them. So according to someone elses consciousness sticks can bite and poison them instead of snakes.

Yes, this is called delusion. Your way of thinking/articulating has rendered the word delusion meaningless.

Nick wrote: You can't use A=A to compare your apperances to someone elses or your past lives with absolute certainty. A=A can only be applied to one moment at a time within one's consciousness.

I think that you and Sue are failing to make distinctions where appropriate. The result is that you articulate truth in a way that can be and should be improved upon (IMO).

To give you an example of where you are failing:

A room contains a very high resolution LCD display screen that is built into one of the walls comprising the room. The screen is projecting a simulation of an aquarium with the all too familiar gold fish. You can't tell the difference. It appears that there is real fish and water behind the screen which appears to be glass.

Then suddenly, someone enters the room and swings a sledge hammer into the screen. You would expect to see water and fish spill out of the shattered glass, but instead you see sparks and a shadowy interior.

There are three factors that I think we should consider here:

1) Recognition of aquarium and gold fish from past experience

2) Your verbal/linguistical definition of aquarium and gold fish

3) The actuality behind the appearance of the aquarium and gold fish.

These three factors are all different parts of the totality. The processes that allow you to recognize present appearances with past experiences of appearances - are a different part of the totality - - likewise the processes that allow you to hold verbal/linguistical definitions of appearances are a different part of the totality.

And finally, the actuality of ‘the Aquarium and fish LCD screen’ is a part of the totality that is different from the mental processes that allow you to believe that the appearance of the aquarium is something other than what it really is.

You and Sue are violating A=A when you assert that things are as they appear. The way something appears and the way something really is are entirely different.

Have you ever heard of the psychological case study done by Oliver Sacks? Sacks studied a man who mistook his wife for a hat. His wife somehow appeared to him as a hat, and so he proceeded to try grabbing her head in an attempt to put her on his head. Of course he failed. He was deluded. Confusing how things appeared to him, with the actuality.

The intellect can know an appearance (a face of the totality), but it can't know the totality.

What is important is the functionality of ones relationship to how the environment appears.

One’s relationship can be relatively functional (calm, unsuprising) or it can be relatively dysfunctional (a confusing struggle, marked by suprise, shock and disppointment).

Katy,

If we accept that everything is as it appears then how do we know if we are approaching truth in any way? Or that it is even possible to have rational reactions to things?

I think the philosopher Hume made an accurate observation when he said that all ideas begin as impressions, either external (the appearances of things) or internal (feelings). It seems to me that truth can only exist in relation to these impressions, and can never be truly about some external objective reality, which we only suspect to exist in the first place due to the communication we share with others who we imagine to share a unified reality with. Certainly there probably is such an external reality, but we have no way of exiting our own perspective to have it impress upon us directly it's true nature.

Oddly enough, our language seems to lend itself to a third-person point-of-view from where we can talk of things as if they aren't all experienced directly by us, and subject to our natural subjective limitations, but such a god-like perspective is something of an artifact of language. While truth isn't entirely relative, there's no god-like way to approach it so as we can guarantee the objective accuracy of whatever claim or prediction we might happen to make. Of course, folks who aren't of my particular uber-skeptical nature find such things hard to swallow, given that it means one is never ensured sage-like wisdom, and must always admit that more remains unknown and unknowable then the opposite. Either way, though, to understand the world as it relates to you, is to understand the world as far as you'll ever need to know it.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Just because I have definitions for organizing how reality appears to me, doesn’t mean that things exist.

Whether you define your environment or not is irrelevant, all that matters is that you are making distinctions between different objects. This is fundamental to how consciousness works. So things do indeed exist, just not inherently.

Cory Duchesne wrote:You and Sue seem to be confusing definitions with the appearances that definitions describe.

Do you think that definitions and appearances are synonymous?

I'll try and make this as clear as possible, things appear to us and we identify them, simultaneously creating other things as we distinguish certain appearances from others. Then it is a purely logical follow up to begin defining these things based on how they function, act, and interact with other things.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Another problem with your and Sue’s way of articulating truth, is that it undermines and makes meaningless the word delusion.

Not at all, the problem is that your argument implies that there are superior delusions. It's like saying my invisible sixth toe is "more real" than your invisible sixth toe.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Sue and Nick, how do each of you define delusion?

When someone belives things inherently exist, or contain an absolute identity.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Yes, this is called delusion. Your way of thinking/articulating has rendered the word delusion meaningless.

See responses above.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think that you and Sue are failing to make distinctions where appropriate. The result is that you articulate truth in a way that can be and should be improved upon (IMO).

To give you an example of where you are failing:

A room contains a very high resolution LCD display screen that is built into one of the walls comprising the room. The screen is projecting a simulation of an aquarium with the all too familiar gold fish. You can't tell the difference. It appears that there is real fish and water behind the screen which appears to be glass.

Then suddenly, someone enters the room and swings a sledge hammer into the screen. You would expect to see water and fish spill out of the shattered glass, but instead you sparks and a shadowy interior.

There are three factors that I think we should consider here:

1) Recognition of aquarium and gold fish from past experience

2) Your verbal/linguistical definition of aquarium and gold fish

3) The actuality behind the appearance of the aquarium and gold fish.

These three factors are all different parts of the totality. The processes that allow you to recognize present appearances with past experiences of appearances - are a different part of the totality - - likewise the processes that allow you to hold verbal/linguistical definitions of appearances are a different part of the totality.

And finally, the actuality of ‘the Aquarium and fish LCD screen’ is a part of the totality that is different from the mental processes that allow you to believe that the appearance of the aquarium is something other than what it really is.

You and Sue are violating A=A when you assert that things are as they appear. The way something appears and the way something really is are entirely different.

Again your falling into the delusion that things some how have an absolute identity, when in fact nothing has an absolute identity except for the Totality. How can you logically argue that the way you experience things is the way things really are? What if one day you woke up and realized you were hallucinating your whole life and began to experince the world in an entirely different manner where things you were once familiar with had entirely different characteristics? This is a real possibility meaning all we can do is use A=A one moment at a time to identify and define the world around us.

Just because something changes properties unexpectedly does not violate A=A. If we look at something and call it a banana based on how it appears according to the definition, then it is a banana. Banana=Banana, A=A. Then if the banana all of a sudden exploded, thus altering it's appearance and seperating itself from its former defintion, it will now be identified as an exploding banana, with a different defintion. It is now Exploding Banana=Exploding Banana, and still A=A.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Have you ever heard of the psychological case study done by Oliver Sacks? Sacks studied a man who mistook his wife for a hat. His wife somehow appeared to him as a hat, and so he proceeded to try grabbing her head in an attempt to put her on his head. Of course he failed. He was deluded. Confusing how things appeared to him, with the actuality.

The intellect can know an appearance (a face of the totality), but it can't know the totality.

What is important is the functionality of ones relationship to how the environment appears.

One’s relationship can be relatively functional (calm, unsuprising) or it can be relatively dysfunctional (a confusing struggle, marked by suprise, shock and disppointment).

This problems is easily resolved in one remembers that things have no inherent existence, thus never falling into delusion. The real problem is that the man involved believed the hat had an absolute identity. If he rememberd these things had no inherent existence then he would have no problem adjusting his behavior to intereact with these things more appropriately. These instances are only a dilema for one who is still attached to appearances.

Sue wrote: Everything we know about the world and other people is known through our own consciousness.

Fine, but we don’t really know. It’s just a guess. Some guess more wisely than others due to a more refined, broad and open minded intellect.

Sue wrote: People, places, events and activities are only ever experienced by our own mind. And since we know that there is no way to exit out of our own mind to see if our ‘interpretation’ of these things is correct or not, we seemly just have to trust what comes to us through our consciousness.

Ha, trust. Yes, this is faith. Faith proves nothing. We can only go by appearances. It isn’t best to say that things are as they appear.

What’s best is to settle for the logic which goes no further than saying: an appearance is as it appears.

Nick: Things gain their identity from consciousness.


Sue: This seems clearly true, for without consciousness, things have no identity.

But a mere identity is not the thing. You are violating A=A by equating the appearance with the identity. You further violate A=A by equating the appearance, the identity, and the definition – with the actuality that is outside of the mind.

Sue wrote: A thing comes into existence the moment our consciousness identifies it as a thing (separate from all other things).

No. A mental construct comes into existence the moment our consciousness distinguishes one appearance from another.

Sue wrote: That means that things are nothing more or less than what our consciousness defines them to be.

No. Definitions are nothing more or less than what our consciousness defines them to be. As for the part of the totality that we are examining – it can’t be known by the intellect as it actually is.

Cory: Things are an illusion. Consciousness may create definitions, identities in order to survive efficiently, but the definitions, identities are not things, but merely a way for dealing with appearances.

Sue: It is true that things are “an illusion” – that is, they have no inherent existence. But that doesn’t mean that they are not also real.

The part of the totality that we are looking at is real – but we can’t know it. We can only observe how it appears and observe the functional relationship it has with other parts of the totality that we can observe in appearances.

Knowing that things are real - that they are, what they are - means that they cannot be made anything other than what they are.

Your definitions/your ideas that you have about the different appearances that appear to you as they do, can only be as they are. Appearances can only be as they appear.

Definitions can only be as they are defined. And the part of the totality that you are looking at can only be as it is.

These are three different aspects that need to be distinguished, they are not the same.

Cory: It doesnt matter what something is. What matters is it's function, it's utility.

A thing’s “utility” and “function” is part of what makes it a thing.

Well, if you agree to that, then your original assertion is wrong.

The original assertion being:

Things are as they appear.

For example: There was a man who mistook his wife for a hat. He reached for his wife in attempt to put her on his head. He failed. He became confused.

Just because his wife appeared to be a hat, doesn’t mean that the appearance of his wife as a hat functioned like a hat. If a thing is defined by its function, if an appearance doesn’t function in the way that it is defined to function, then the appearance is not the thing. This man who mistook his wife for a hat was deluded.

sue wrote: The only way we understand the terms ‘utility’ and ‘function’ is in reference to things.

You have it backwards. First investigate the functional relationship the appearance has to all of the other appearances you see.

Only then is it safe to define the thing as it appears to function.

Edit: disregard last paragraph

It should have been worded as so:

Only then is it safe to define the appearance as it appears to function.

sue wrote: This means that understanding what things are is of extreme importance.

No, it’s a secondary thing. Acknowledging the function of one appearance in relationship to others is of extreme importance. People often assent to appearances without looking more and more subtely into the way appearances appear to function. This is the essence of delusion.

sue wrote: So, the bottom line is that we do need to trust our own mind to be able to see that the appearance of things are the only things we have to work with.

No, the appearance of how an appearance is functioning with other appearances are all we have to work with.

Appearances are parts of a totality that exists apart from the consciousness that examines the given part of the totality.

Sue wrote:
“Definitions”, “identities”, “efficiently”, “dealing with”, and “appearances” are all things that our consciousness has defined.

No, definitions, identites, efficiency, etc, etc, these are mere appearances. They are guesses. They arent things. Definitions are definitions. Definitions are not the part of the totality that you are examining. Appearances are not the part of the totality that you are examining.

Now, this piques my interest.

Nick wrote:

There is nothing outside of the mind/consciousness or whatever else you choose to call it. Things gain their identity from consciousness, without consciousness all that remains is the infinite in which things no longer exist.

1. Since it is logically and empirically impossible for there to be causes without effects and vice versa, causality comprises the infinite and is thus composed of finite things
2. All finite things occur in the discriminating (conscious) mind as caused things
3. The unconscious mind cannot sufficiently discriminate between things ("things no longer exist") yet remains (unconsciously) subject to them (“all that remains is the infinite”)

.

Cory wrote:

One’s relationship can be relatively functional (calm, unsuprising) or it can be relatively dysfunctional (a confusing struggle, marked by suprise, shock and disppointment).

Jack the Ripper was apparently a very calm, composed individual.

:)

Leyla Shen wrote:1. Since it is logically and empirically impossible for there to be causes without effects and vice versa, causality comprises the infinite and is thus composed of finite things
2. All finite things occur in the discriminating (conscious) mind as caused things

Sounds about right.

Leyla Shen wrote:3. The unconscious mind cannot sufficiently discriminate between things ("things no longer exist") yet remains (unconsciously) subject to them (“all that remains is the infinite”).

I'm not sure what you mean by "unconscious mind", being that anything defined to be a mind neccessarily contains some amount of consciousness. It would be more accurate to substitute "unconscious mind", with "that which is unconscious".

Leyla Shen wrote:Cory wrote:

One’s relationship can be relatively functional (calm, unsuprising) or it can be relatively dysfunctional (a confusing struggle, marked by suprise, shock and disppointment).

Jack the Ripper was apparently a very calm, composed individual.

:)

As I've said in earlier threads:

A truly wise individual (the most good individual) is in many ways very similar to psychopath (the most evil individual)

The main factor differentiating them is that the masculinity and femininity of the wise men is great, whereas the masculinity and femininity of the pyschopath is more petty.

Other than that, they are profoundly similar.

Nick wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "unconscious mind", being that anything defined to be a mind neccessarily contains some amount of consciousness. It would be more accurate to substitute "unconscious mind", with "that which is unconscious"

3. That which is unconscious (contains no consciousness--not being mind) cannot sufficiently discriminate between things ("things no longer exist") yet remains (unconsciously) subject to them (“all that remains is the infinite”).

You think that is more accurate? Why?

.

Cory wrote:

As I've said in earlier threads:

A truly wise individual (the most good individual) is in many ways very similar to psychopath (the most evil individual)

The main factor differentiating them is that the masculinity and femininity of the wise men is great, whereas the masculinity and femininity of the pyschopath is more petty.

You have my apologies, Cory, for I have not retained all you have written on the subject.

Does this mean something along the lines of the wise and the psychopath have the same mas-fem ratio but in greater and lesser quantity respectively?

.

Cory: Just because I have definitions for organizing how reality appears to me, doesn’t mean that things exist.

Nick: Whether you define your environment or not is irrelevant, all that matters is that you are making distinctions between different objects.

What’s the difference? It’s the same thing. Defining my environment is a way of making distinctions between different appearances. But more importantly, one is mapping the functional relationships between the different appearances comprising the environment. One does this in order to benefit ones values which always have something to do with decreasing suffering in some way, either directly or indirectly.

Cory: You and Sue seem to be confusing definitions with the appearances that definitions describe. Do you think that definitions and appearances are synonymous?

Nick: I'll try and make this as clear as possible, things appear to us and we identify them

Ok, so what is the difference between a thing, and its appearance?

Furthermore I say: how the totality appears to us and how the totality really is are different to the degree that we are foolish.

The part of the totality that we are looking at can be dramatically different than how it appears.

For instance, if a man walking in the dessert exhausted without water, sees a mirage of an oasis, then it is reasonable to say that the way it really is, and the way it appears to be to him, are different.

Nick wrote: things appear to us and we identify them, simultaneously creating other things as we distinguish certain appearances from others.

We are not really creating things, we are creating definitions which are not the appearances that we are looking at, and the appearances we are looking at can be said to be a particular face of the totality, but not the actuality of the totality.

When we distinguish an appearance, we are looking at a part of the totality. We define the appearance based on what it appears to do in relationship to other appearances. We break reality up into things for the sake of convenience - - but the reality of things is an illusion.

Some illusions leave an individual appearing more wise in regards to how he goes about living.

Wise meaning: free from suffering, free from delusion.

Nick wrote: it is a purely logical follow up to begin defining these things based on how they function, act, and interact with other things.

This is what is important. Definitions, or conclusions about what a thing is should follow after we have determined how the distinct appearance appears to function, act and interact with other appearances that also seem as if they are independently separate.

Cory: Another problem with your and Sue’s way of articulating truth, is that it undermines and makes meaningless the word delusion.

Nick: Not at all, the problem is that your argument implies that there are superior delusions.

My argument implies that there is only a relatively superior approach to dealing with the challenge of environment when one has values. All I can say is that my way appears to be superior to me. There is only faith in my reasoning. And both faith and reason prove nothing. Perhaps I will suddenly ‘see’ that which I have hithero missed – and thus submit to the way that you and Sue are articulating.

Nick wrote: It's like saying my invisible sixth toe is "more real" than your invisible sixth toe.

IF we establish values, then some functional relationships to reality will appear to be more superior than others. Values are established based on faith only. If I value overcoming the apparent reality of suffering, of emotions, then one can only trust, have faith in an approach to reality that appears more superior at overcoming.

For instance, let us just say that on the one hand we have reality X which involves me believing that the best way to not suffer appears to be by conforming, hanging out, gambling, having sex and drinking alcohol habitually. Is this really the best way to not suffer?

On the other hand we have reality Y which involves me having faith in the more complicated, subtle and broad appearance that these activities will very likely lead only to financial troubles, poor health, mental sloth, dullness, boredom, misery, fear and confusion.

You see what I’m getting at?

Nick wrote: You are falling into the delusion that things some how have an absolute identity, when in fact nothing has an absolute identity except for the Totality.

How am I? All along I’ve been saying only this: that there is only the totality and the totality is not a thing. When you observe and distinguish an appearance, that appearance is merely a part of the totality, it is a part of that which is not a thing. Inherently, there is no superior way to define the appearances comprising the total appearance of environment, but if you have values (which can only be faith based), then there is the relative appearance of superior ways of interacting with the environment. This is why Kierkegaard wasn’t concerned with primarily what to know, but rather, he was concerned with how he must live, how he must act. His concerns were utilitarian, pragmatic. Why? Because that was the way that appeared to make the most sense to him, given his brain's intelligence, health, given his values, his faith.

Nick wrote: How can you logically argue that the way you experience things is the way things really are?

I am emphasizing that no one can know the way the totality really is. We can only have faith in the appearance that the way the totality is presented to our senses IS a particular way.

It appears that the more wise you are, the more you see the totality as it really is.

Foolish people see the totality as it is not, but rather, they see what appears most comforting and simple, rather than what is most real - -- or perhaps, if they have brain damage, then what they are seeing is quite a deviation away from the actuality as well.

Again, this is how it appears to me.

Nick wrote: What if one day you woke up and realized you were hallucinating your whole life and began to experience the world in an entirely different manner where things you were once familiar with had entirely different characteristics?

I would carry on the way I am functioning now. Carefully observing relationships between appearances and determining the best way to interact and function with the appearance of environment according to my values.

Nick wrote: all we can do is use A=A one moment at a time to identify and define the world around us.

This I am not refuting.

My problem is with statements such as: 'things' are as they appear.

The better way of putting it is:

Definitions are as they are defined.

Appearances are as they appear.

The totality is as it is.

The totality comes first, appearances second, and finally definitions. After that process is over, the definitions generally serve to block out further refinement of perception.

Cory: Have you ever heard of the psychological case study done by Oliver Sacks? Sacks studied a man who mistook his wife for a hat. His wife somehow appeared to him as a hat, and so he proceeded to try grabbing her head in an attempt to put her on his head. Of course he failed. He was deluded. Confusing how things appeared to him, with the actuality. The intellect can know an appearance (a face of the totality), but it can't know the totality. What is important is the functionality of ones relationship to how the environment appears. One’s relationship can be relatively functional (calm, unsuprising) or it can be relatively dysfunctional (a confusing struggle, marked by suprise, shock and disppointment).

Nick: This problem is easily resolved if one remembers that things have no inherent existence, thus never falling into delusion.

Judging by your response, I have a hard time believing that you are aware that the man who mistook his wife for a hat was a real person, that there has been real studies done on him.

I’m not just fabricating a thought experiment up here.

Schizophrenia and the various forms of brain damage that are concomitant with apparent gross delusions cannot be cured simply by believing things have no inherent existence.

Your apparent overestimation of this ‘things have no inherent existence’ belief seems to have you flirting with naïve and silly hubris. Well, that’s the way it appears to me.

Nick wrote: The real problem is that the man involved believed the hat had an absolute identity.

And so what role do you think the brain damage played then?

Nick wrote: If he rememberd these things had no inherent existence then he would have no problem adjusting his behavior to intereact with these things more appropriately.

Perhaps he might be able to adjust to his mental illness by learning that the way his environment appears to him and the way it really is are going to be occasionally quite different, but i'm not so arrogant and naive to think that it would be 'no problem' to adjust to his mental illness.

the following assertion appears quite wise: the totality is only in one way. The more we are in accord with this one way, the less confused and surprised we will be.

The man who mistook his wife for a hat and reached for her as if she were a hat - - his perception had deviated quite drastically away from how the totality really was. And the way the totality really is, we can never know absolutely, but the congruity, power, security and smooth-runningness of our life appears to be an indicator that our appearances and definitions are relatively close to how the totality really is. Some appear to be more lucky than others.

Nick wrote: These instances (having schizophrenia) are only a dilema for one who is still attached to appearances.

Being schitzophrenic is losing control of your mind. In some cases, without medical treatment, it doesn’t matter whether you know things do not inherently exist, or A=A - - -the fact is that your brain is not producing images that correspond to the way the totality actually is.

Becoming schizophrenic may in part be caused by being attached to certain appearances - - but would one allow themselves to be attached to certain appearances if ones perception of the totality was very close to how the totality really is? The closer ones perception is to the way the totality actually is, the more wise one is. So it appears.

Leyla Shen wrote:Cory wrote:

As I've said in earlier threads:

A truly wise individual (the most good individual) is in many ways very similar to psychopath (the most evil individual)

The main factor differentiating them is that the masculinity and femininity of the wise men is great, whereas the masculinity and femininity of the pyschopath is more petty.

You have my apologies, Cory, for I have not retained all you have written on the subject.

Does this mean something along the lines of the wise and the psychopath have the same mas-fem ratio but in greater and lesser quantity respectively?

That's the way it seems to me. Psychopaths live in a very, very abstract and alien mental world, very divorced from regular human emotions, and the emotions that they do value fuel a trajectory that is very destructive to ordinary human values.

The wise also live in a very abstract and alien mental world, very divorced from regular human emotions, and the emotions that they do value also fuel a trajectory that is very destructive to ordinary human values.

If the wise are in any way feminine, it is because they love truth, they love their ideals, they feel love after having a very philosohpical conversation, they love what they do, and what they do is relatively very masculine and destructive to regular human values.

If psychopaths are in any way feminine, it seems to be because they are very excited and pleasured by whatever violence and abuse that they fancy to inflict upon regular human values.

Both (the wise and the psychopath) are very detatched from ordinary human concerns due to their living in abnormally abstract and alien mental worlds.

Both are also hated/despised/feared by the general population.

Cory:

Both (the wise and the psychopath) are very detatched from ordinary human concerns due to their living in abnormally abstract and alien mental worlds.

Both are also hated/despised/feared by the general population.

I think that’s a reasonable observation, even if pivoted upon all that is ordinary: that is, “regular human values.” I think, however, the error in comparison lies in an implication that the psychopath has a sense of value derived from a truthful sense of self. It is here that I see no worth in drawing a comparison between the psychopath and the wise--the criminal and the genius.

One of my favourite psychopaths is the idea “Hannibal Lecter.” Here’s a guy who appears to see all people, not just women, as cows.

Some info follows intended to stimulate further dialogue on the matter of psychopaths, wise men and appearances v. truth, and which I intend to further comment upon.

Hamilton Albert Fish’s (the real-life model of Lecter) defence attorney’s closing argument went as follows:

In the course of human nature ten of you twelve men will die in full possession of your reason and memory. When that hour comes, when the blood begins to congeal and the breath to fail, when death snaps one by one the strings of life, when you look back to the past and forward to judgment, remember Albert Fish, that when he was helpless and defenseless and pleaded with you for his life, that you said, ‘Let him live,’ or ‘Let him die,’ and if you said ‘Let him die,’ may He who breathed into your nostrils the breath of life judge you more mercifully than you judged this maniac.

Hamilton Albert Fish (from his jail cell to Dr Fredric Wertham): "I have no particular desire to live. I have no particular desire to be killed. It is a matter of indifference to me. I do not think I am altogether right."

When Dr. Wertham asked if he meant that he was insane. Fish answered, "Not exactly...I never could understand myself."

From, at the least, an aptly named book: The Show of Violence.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Cory:

Both (the wise and the psychopath) are very detatched from ordinary human concerns due to their living in abnormally abstract and alien mental worlds.

Both are also hated/despised/feared by the general population.

I think that’s a reasonable observation, even if pivoted upon all that is ordinary: that is, “regular human values.”

What do you mean by "even if pivoted upon all that is ordinary: that is, regular human values?

I think, however, the error in comparison lies in an implication that the psychopath has a sense of value derived from a truthful sense of self. It is here I see no worth in drawing a comparison between the psychopath and the wise--the criminal and the genius.

Nor do I! You are in part correct of course.

But I don't know if my comparison was neccearily an error, because I wasnt implying what I guess you thought I was implying. The genius and the great criminal are simply two extremes - - both represent an attempt at a single-minded disregard for other peoples feelings, and the single-minded fixation creates detatchment in one, and non-attatchment in the other. Both achieve their ends by having an unusual propensity for introspection and living in super-human isolation and alienation. Both aspire for omniscience. societies produces both types of individuals very rarely and in similar quantities. But don't get me wrong, the two types of men are infinitely apart from each other. It's like the idea of the devil and the idea of God. Both are similar in the way they captivate peoples attention, both represent extremes, but one has psuedo omnipotence, while the other has genuine.

One of my favourite psychopaths is the idea “Hannibal Lecter.” Here’s a guy who appears to see all people, not just women, as cows.

I think the genius sees almost all men as cows (womanly) too.

Leyla Shen wrote:3. That which is unconscious (contains no consciousness--not being mind) cannot sufficiently discriminate between things ("things no longer exist") yet remains (unconsciously) subject to them (“all that remains is the infinite”).

You think that is more accurate? Why?

.

As I was implying earlier, the term "unconscious mind" is an oxymoron, since anything that qualifies as a mind neccessarily requires some amount of consciousness no matter how great or small.