GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic: ...what lies beyond the causal conception of reality. We're taking it beyond the point where the causal web explains things, to what explains the causal web itself.

Diebert: No, you are talking about things beyond causality. Anything beyond causality necessarily gives rise to more causality since a logical contrast is created between "causality" and "what's beyond it". The link you've just forged is causality again! One needs causality to be able to go "beyond" it and now a "beyond" is there to explain the "causal web". And then we need to take it beyond the beyond and explain what explains causality. Such hall of mirrors is purely self-created once you can see what you're doing.

Diebert[cont]: Just to make it clear: any "beyond" forms causal linkage as it implies relation between a "here" and "further than here", and "explaining" is just another way of describing causation and "taking anything anywhere" certainly remains part of the causal web, whatever one might find out.

Minor correction: "beyond the causal conception of reality" should have read "beyond the house philosophy's causal conception of reality".

As to the substance of your writing, I grant that you have recognised a dilemma, but what you have failed to recognise is that this is a dilemma that raises fatal problems for the framework of the house philosophy. To flesh out the full dilemma: the infinite causal web, and the very system of causality that supports that infinite causal web, can only be explained - given the house philosophy's presuppositions - by recourse to an external cause. This external cause, however, once integrated with (in other words, once considered in conjunction with) the causal web and the system of causality that it was introduced to explain, creates a new (still infinite) causal system with a further need for explanation, which necessitates the introduction of a further external cause, which again once integrated with the causal web and system of causality that it was introduced to explain, creates another new (and also still infinite) causal system with a further need for explanation, etc.

This continues ad infinitum, such that an infinite number of external causes must be introduced - but notice that we started with an infinite causal web, and thus we have solved nothing, we have merely returned to the original problem.

This is a dilemma that occurs within the context of the definitional framework of the house philosophy, and that cannot be solved within that framework. The only recourse for the house philosophers is denial: "It's not a problem - the infinite causal web JUST IS." Aside from the inadequacy of this bald assertion as a legitimate answer to the sorts of questions that can be raised - namely the one that I've been raising in this thread - notice that if things can JUST BE, then the strict causal determinism asserted by the house philosophy (a thing is caused by that which it is not, etc) is totally undermined. So either way, this dilemma breaks things for you guys.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's all by the way how these things are defined, which is what makes it so absolute.

Hahaha, OK then, Diebert, you are hereby defined as a wombat from Katmandu. And that's absolute - you said it yourself. ;-)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But please do challenge it! With all your heart and mind. But the hardest part is to know when to concede.

Indeed, as you are amply demonstrating.

Laird: my mind is clear when I post here

Dennis: Your mind is it?

Erm, yes - my mind is mine by definition. If you mean in the sense of ownership rather than identity, and want to suggest that my mind in fact belongs to God or some other entity, then I'm open to that possibility, but be aware that I don't mean the impersonal "God" of this forum.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Are you claiming authorship?

Am I claiming authorship of my posts to this forum? Yes. If you want to suggest that God or some other entity is working through me, and I am merely the repeating station, then I'm open to that possibility, but be aware that I don't mean the impersonal "God" of this forum.

guest_of_logic wrote:...we have merely returned to the original problem.

This is a dilemma that occurs within the context of the definitional framework of the house philosophy, and that cannot be solved within that framework.

It's not clear to me why there's suddenly a we, or why there has to be a problem or something in need to be solved in terms of some existential philosophy. The problem needs to be explored before answers are being denied. In fact, in every true solution question and answer both become dissolved properly, that is: they fall apart only after a certain process.

"It's not a problem - the infinite causal web JUST IS." Aside from the inadequacy of this bald assertion as a legitimate answer to the sorts of questions that can be raised

How could any question, any reasoning, being naturally fully, infinitely caused, ever demonstrate inadequacy of the infinite causal web? Of course there's no such thing somewhere like a causal web and as such it's no answer to anything else out there. This is understood.

notice that if things can JUST BE, then the strict causal determinism asserted by the house philosophy (a thing is caused by that which it is not, etc) is totally undermined.

They are as they are, which means they are at least not not in that very same instance of being anything determinable.

Hahaha, OK then, Diebert, you are hereby defined as a wombat from Katmandu. And that's absolute - you said it yourself. ;-)

It's only absolute because of how they would be defined: "true by definition". It just means the same as a tautology, a statement that is necessarily true, under any condition ones discernment can find itself in. There are many conditions in which a wombat will cease being a wombat just as there are conditions where I'd be indistinguishable from a wombat. But it's not just because someone defines it as such. If it's not true by definition, it can only become relatively true by arriving at a provisional conclusion through other means.

A very long time ago,

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Thanks for your reasonable responses, and apologies for the very belated reply - I never intended to do such a "hit and run", but after I posted I was travelling for a while without internet.

Quite a bit's happened since then and this thread's already going in circles so I'll try not flog the horse and just make a couple of quick points.

David, you talk about "immersion in non-duality". My question is whether this is something that can be achieved through an "epiphany" (a one-off event, so to speak); or whether it is something that must be constantly realised, in an ongoing, reflective process of rational thought. You make it quite clear that you don't think it is beyond the limits of reason, so I'm wondering whether it's something that needs to be actively contemplated. I guess this is partly coming back to the rocket booster analogy discussed earlier. Would you suggest that one constantly stay on the rocket, if that makes sense?

I also don't quite understand how your position on the immersion differs to Nat's on "direct awareness" - based on your discussion in that other thread. Specifically (I hope you don't mind me bringing your quote over here, but that thread derailed even more than this one):

David Quinn wrote:what I don't understand is how you reconcile the truth that the Tao isn't a thing, that it isn't a "what", that it can "never be departed from" - which I know you recognize and agree with, at least on the surface - with the idea of pushing things aside in order to become more "directly aware".

Are you not making the same reconciliation when you talk about abandoning the mental chatter (e.g. of dualistic thoughts) in order to grasp the absolute? What am I missing?

Finally,

prince wrote:If so, you might want to work on your capacity to discern who is right and who isn't. If you think 'both sides' are equally valid/true, then you don't really know what you are reading.

That's a rather peculiar strawman - nowhere did I claim to find truth in either side of the discussion. Irrespective of the in/validity of a particular position, one can still be prompted along interesting and potentially fruitful lines of inquiry.

prince wrote:I suggest you read previous threads and the archive

Given that my time to explore the forum is somewhat limited, can you point me to a few good places to start?


Jonathan

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I mean, I could look at an object on my table and ask myself, "Why is that a cup and not, say, a banana?" And then, after reasoning that the cup is there due to cause and effect, I could continue to ask - like a madman - "But why? Why has cause and effect delivered a cup and not something else?"

And when you admit that you don't have an answer to that question, then you are no longer justified in going on to describe your own philosophy as "ultimate" truth.

It's like admitting that I don't know the answer to, "what colour is justice?"

You're creating a false question out of a category error.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The object is a cup because it isn't something else. It isn't a banana because it is a cup. It is on my table because it isn't anywhere else.

In other words, "it just is": how now can you justify labelling that answer a "parody" of your actual position? It's spot on.

We are talking about the very nature of existence here. Existence, by its very nature, is always one thing and not another. A cup exists as a cup and not, say, as a banana. So, as I mentioned ealier, if we take your question away from the realm of the absurd and boil it down to its real essence, it reads, "Why is there is existence? or "Why is there anything at all?"

By contrast, the absurdity that you keep wanting to drag us all into is that of questioning why existence is existence and things along those lines. "How can you guys claim to know the ultimate truth when you don't even know why existence is existence!"

Asking, "Why is there existence", is certainly a valid question, which can be fully resolved by the individual when he immerses himself in non-duality, fills his mind with its living understanding and makes peace with God. But asking, "Why is existence existence?" is absurd and meaningless. And to keep asking it over and over is insanity.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There is no significance to existence. God doesn't care about what exists and what doesn't. To Him, existence is like a casual after-thought, a trivial by-product of his own Nature, something barely noticeable. There is nothing riding on any outcome whatsoever.

Grand assumption and devious equivocation.

Pure logic and an infinite vista!

(And also to the point, as I think your question is prompted, at root, by the emotional belief that things are meaningful and happen for a reason, which in turn is driven by the narcissistic belief that, in the eyes of God, your own existence is significant and meaningful.)

guest_of_logic wrote:To flesh out the full dilemma: the infinite causal web, and the very system of causality that supports that infinite causal web, can only be explained - given the house philosophy's presuppositions - by recourse to an external cause. This external cause, however, once integrated with (in other words, once considered in conjunction with) the causal web and the system of causality that it was introduced to explain, creates a new (still infinite) causal system with a further need for explanation, which necessitates the introduction of a further external cause, which again once integrated with the causal web and system of causality that it was introduced to explain, creates another new (and also still infinite) causal system with a further need for explanation, etc.

This continues ad infinitum, such that an infinite number of external causes must be introduced - but notice that we started with an infinite causal web, and thus we have solved nothing, we have merely returned to the original problem.

In other words ....

House logic:

Explanation requires external cause.
There can be no external cause to infinite causality.
Therefore, infinite causality can admit of no explanation.

The truth is recognized and accepted, and the issue is resolved. Time to move on.

Laird logic:

Explanation requires external cause.
There can be no external cause to infinite causality.
I still demand an explanation for infinite causality nevertheless.
I demand the impossible.
The house philosophy can't give me the impossible.
Therefore, there is a serious flaw in the house philosophy.

The truth is denied because it doesn't fit in with Laird's emotional desires. Swirling around and around in stagnant waters is continued.

-

House logic:

Explanation requires external cause.
There can be no external cause to infinite causality.
Therefore, infinite causality can admit of no explanation.

The truth is recognized and accepted, and the issue is resolved. Time to move on.

Laird logic:

Explanation requires external cause.
There can be no external cause to infinite causality.
I still demand an explanation for infinite causality nevertheless.
I demand the impossible.
The house philosophy can't give me the impossible.
Therefore, there is a serious flaw in the house philosophy.

The truth is denied because it doesn't fit in with Laird's emotional desires. Swirling around and around in stagnant waters is continued.




and so....if there was an external explaination to infinite causality...then how is THAT external explaination explained....and it is an infinite explaination...which explains why the infinite is infinite........THE END (just kidding)

evinco wrote: David, you talk about "immersion in non-duality". My question is whether this is something that can be achieved through an "epiphany" (a one-off event, so to speak); or whether it is something that must be constantly realised, in an ongoing, reflective process of rational thought. You make it quite clear that you don't think it is beyond the limits of reason, so I'm wondering whether it's something that needs to be actively contemplated. I guess this is partly coming back to the rocket booster analogy discussed earlier. Would you suggest that one constantly stay on the rocket, if that makes sense?

If we think of the "rocket" as being the passionate desire to clear away all delusions, to pierce the veil of maya and understand/experience the nature of reality, then yes, the more you stay on the rocket, the better. And staying on it for sustained periods of time without interruption is vastly more effective than hopping on and off it intermittently.

It is like trying to start a fire with a magnifying glass. If you keep the glass focused and still the flame begins to emerge quite rapidly. But if you keep moving it and pulling it away, then nothing much is going to happen at all.

During the rocket stage, you can experience a variety of epiphanies - anything from deep insights into the universality of cause and effect, to mystical, Hindu like experiences of oceanic consciousness, to disconcernting experiences of reality as a void, and many others besides. These are all valuable, interesting insights into various aspects of reality, but they don't constitute enlightenment itself.

Enlightenment is a sustained and permanent change in one's being, brought about by the complete dissolving of maya (the core delusion of objective existence). It is like being trapped in a cave and you have been spending years trying to dig your way out and finally, after much effort, you start hearing noises and feeling vibrations nearby ("epiphanies"), which prompts you to redouble your efforts in the belief that you are getting close to success. And then just as you think you're about to break free and experience the joys of the outer world, the whole cave collapses, as does the mountain, and the earth, and indeed the entire universe. The whole thing is suddenly seen to be an illusion. And then you are suddenly back in the world, utterly free, completely devoid of any further desire to break out. You're no longer taken in by any of it.

So, to finish up this rambling, my advice to you is to stay on the rocket as long as you can and drive it forwards as intensely as you can, and when the time is ripe, the rocket will disappear of its own accord.

evinco wrote:I also don't quite understand how your position on the immersion differs to Nat's on "direct awareness" - based on your discussion in that other thread. Specifically (I hope you don't mind me bringing your quote over here, but that thread derailed even more than this one):

David Quinn wrote:what I don't understand is how you reconcile the truth that the Tao isn't a thing, that it isn't a "what", that it can "never be departed from" - which I know you recognize and agree with, at least on the surface - with the idea of pushing things aside in order to become more "directly aware".

Are you not making the same reconciliation when you talk about abandoning the mental chatter (e.g. of dualistic thoughts) in order to grasp the absolute? What am I missing?

In both cases, Nat and I are referring to dualistic activity. The path to enlightenment is dualistic by its very nature. An activity has to be perfomed for the sake of a spiritual goal.

Where we differ is in the nature of this activity. It can either be directed towards putting an end to all duality or it can be used to strengthen an attachment to a particular branch of duality. Both are dualistic activities, but the end goals are very different.

The problem with Nat is that he continues to conceive of the Tao in a dualistic manner. I know that he claims he doesn't, but his actions speak louder than his words. It is implicit in the way he affirms the need to take one's focus away from one particular area in life (e.g. thought) in order to become more "directly aware" of other areas. But for one who understands the Tao non-dualistically, the very idea of becoming more "directly aware" of anything at all is nonsensical. In the end, there is nothing to become more aware of, nothing that needs to be brought into greater focus, nothing that needs to be uncovered, nothing that needs to be rejected. It is that very desire to tune into "direct awareness", a desire that is always egotistical in nature, which must be abandoned.

-

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:How could any question, any reasoning, being naturally fully, infinitely caused, ever demonstrate inadequacy of the infinite causal web?

How could any so-called philosopher demonstrate its adequacy?

Laird: Hahaha, OK then, Diebert, you are hereby defined as a wombat from Katmandu. And that's absolute - you said it yourself. ;-)

Diebert: It's only absolute because of how they would be defined: "true by definition". It just means the same as a tautology, a statement that is necessarily true, under any condition ones discernment can find itself in. There are many conditions in which a wombat will cease being a wombat just as there are conditions where I'd be indistinguishable from a wombat. But it's not just because someone defines it as such. If it's not true by definition, it can only become relatively true by arriving at a provisional conclusion through other means.

The mortality or contingency of the object of a definition has no bearing on the truth of that definition, nor on the "necessity" of that truth. There is no categorical difference between the whimsical definition that I advanced and those employed by the house philosophy. Neither of the two "of necessity" better reflect reality. This "true by definition" that you apply to your privileged definitions (those of the house philosophy) is as such a nonsense - but not only because it falsely distinguishes them, also because this is a misuse of the term: the term isn't applied to definitions, it's applied to statements based on definitions. Even then (for statements based on definitions), to say that such a statement is "true by definition" is not to say that it necessarily reflects anything truthful about reality: I could define a squasicle as a blue-coloured type of square circle, and a secsicle as a red-coloured type of square circle, and then say that it is "true by definition" that a squasicle is of the same type as a secsicle though coloured differently, but this says nothing truthful about reality.

Do you get the point? There is nothing special about definitions, including those of the house philosophy, when it comes to the truth about reality: they say nothing necessarily true about reality - you can construct definitional systems that are as divorced from reality as Kramer was from Kramer, and the definitional system of the house philosophy has no innate or unique claim to inerrancy with respect to reality.

David: I mean, I could look at an object on my table and ask myself, "Why is that a cup and not, say, a banana?" And then, after reasoning that the cup is there due to cause and effect, I could continue to ask - like a madman - "But why? Why has cause and effect delivered a cup and not something else?"

guest_of_logic: And when you admit that you don't have an answer to that question, then you are no longer justified in going on to describe your own philosophy as "ultimate" truth.

David: It's like admitting that I don't know the answer to, "what colour is justice?"

David[cont]: You're creating a false question out of a category error.

I left the full context in so that it's plain to those who do know how to recognise a category error that you don't.

David: The object is a cup because it isn't something else. It isn't a banana because it is a cup. It is on my table because it isn't anywhere else.

guest_of_logic: In other words, "it just is": how now can you justify labelling that answer a "parody" of your actual position? It's spot on.

David: We are talking about the very nature of existence here. Existence, by its very nature, is always one thing and not another. A cup exists as a cup and not, say, as a banana.

I don't see any refutation there of the aptness of the phrase "it just is" as your answer.

David Quinn wrote:So, as I mentioned ealier, if we take your question away from the realm of the absurd and boil it down to its real essence, it reads, "Why is there is existence? or "Why is there anything at all?"

Those questions are definitely significant, even though they aren't the question I started with.

David Quinn wrote:By contrast, the absurdity that you keep wanting to drag us all into is that of questioning why existence is existence and things along those lines. "How can you guys claim to know the ultimate truth when you don't even know why existence is existence!"

That's not a fair phrasing of my question. A fair phrasing would be, "How can you guys claim to know the ultimate truth when you can't even explain why existence has the character, properties and structure that it has?"

David Quinn wrote:Asking, "Why is there existence", is certainly a valid question, which can be fully resolved by the individual when he immerses himself in non-duality, fills his mind with its living understanding and makes peace with God.

Again, you're big on grand-sounding imagery but utterly lacking in substance. I put it to you in an earlier post and I'll put it to you again in the same words:

You've said that the question can be resolved by "immersion in non-duality" - great, so presumably you're "immersed in non-duality" and have resolved the question: so then share that resolution with us, for pity's sake.

David Quinn wrote:House logic:

Explanation requires external cause.
There can be no external cause to infinite causality.
Therefore, infinite causality can admit of no explanation.

The truth is recognized and accepted, and the issue is resolved. Time to move on.

Laird logic:

Explanation requires external cause.
There can be no external cause to infinite causality.
I still demand an explanation for infinite causality nevertheless.
I demand the impossible.
The house philosophy can't give me the impossible.
Therefore, there is a serious flaw in the house philosophy.

The truth is denied because it doesn't fit in with Laird's emotional desires.

Typical blindness. You missed a key premise: that which exists and has properties requires explanation. This is implied in the tenets of your philosophy, namely in the tenet that a thing is caused by all of that which is not it: in other words, that no thing is the way that it is in and of its own right - there is an explanation for its nature outside of itself. Now, this principle ought to apply to the Totality, but you guys play tricks with definitions to get around this. You define a thing to be finite and existent, and the Totality to be infinite and not existent, such that the Totality is not a thing, and by definition does not require explanation - but see here, this "by definition" goes back to what I wrote to Diebert above: a definition in and of itself doesn't necessarily say anything truthful about reality. You can play any kinds of games that you like with definitions, and at the end of it you might actually end up obstructing truth, as you guys do here, by subverting a reasonable principle through an unreasonable definition.

So I don't grant you your definitional trickery: I maintain the premise, as supported by your "thingness" tenet, that that which exists and has properties requires explanation, and I maintain that from the definition of the Totality as "everything", it follows that it does, regardless of its infinite nature, exist, at least in the sense of the aforementioned premise. So now let's look at the logic:

1. Any set of premises that results in contradiction is not part of ultimate truth (premise).
2. That which exists and has properties requires an explanation (premise).
3. That which requires an explanation has an explanation (premise).
4. The Totality exists and has properties (premise).
5. The Totality has an explanation (from 2, 3 and 4).
6. An explanation requires external cause (premise).
7. The Totality has no external cause (premise).
8. The Totality has no explanation (from 6 and 7).
9. The set of premises {2, 3, 4, 6 and 7} results in contradiction (5 contradicts 8).
10. The set of premises {2, 3, 4, 6 and 7} is not part of ultimate truth (from 1 and 9).

The premises in that set are either explicitly affirmed by the house philosophy or are entailed by it when stripping away games of definitional trickery, from which we can conclude that the house philosophy is not ultimate truth, not to mention that contradictions do indicate a "serious flaw in the house philosophy".

Laird, part of your brain is not functioning. The idea that there can be something external to the Totality (a cause/explanation) is so silly that a 10 year old could grasp the error. Think about it!

The Totality does not "exist" in the way contingent things exist. That premise is faulty. The Totality is non-contingent by definition and of logical necessity. Hell, even Aquinas knew there must be a non-contingent Reality. Pity he also thought there must be angels, but that's Catholics for you.

You require that the Totality have a cause or at least an explanation - but how can you not see that this makes zero sense, given that any such cause or explanation is necessarily part of the aforementioned Totality and therefore not a cause or explanation at all?

There's a certain comical poignancy to witnessing Laird's Ego stamping it's feet, putting it's fingers in it's ears and shouting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!!" when confronted with the awful notion that existence Just Is.

Hey Laird, take a glance out the window, there might be a double rainbow for you to weep over...or even a Triple Rainbow!!

guest_of_logic wrote:There is nothing special about definitions, including those of the house philosophy, when it comes to the truth about reality: they say nothing necessarily true about reality - you can construct definitional systems that are as divorced from reality as Kramer was from Kramer, and the definitional system of the house philosophy has no innate or unique claim to inerrancy with respect to reality.

This is complete bullcrap. There are, in fact, definitions, definitional truths and logical necessities that can be assigned to Reality. Reality is, therefore a Totality necessarily is. That Totality cannot have a cause or explanation - of logical necessity -for the reasons that have been outlined for you multiple times. This is so by dint of the meaning of the term itself and also by dint of the fact that a Totality is logically necessary.

To ask for an explanantion or cause for the Totality is a bit like asking why black has no colour.

I'll give it one more go and then that'll do me.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David: I mean, I could look at an object on my table and ask myself, "Why is that a cup and not, say, a banana?" And then, after reasoning that the cup is there due to cause and effect, I could continue to ask - like a madman - "But why? Why has cause and effect delivered a cup and not something else?"

guest_of_logic: And when you admit that you don't have an answer to that question, then you are no longer justified in going on to describe your own philosophy as "ultimate" truth.

David: It's like admitting that I don't know the answer to, "what colour is justice?"

David[cont]: You're creating a false question out of a category error.

I left the full context in so that it's plain to those who do know how to recognise a category error that you don't.

I'm glad you did. The category error lies in your demanding an answer to a question that admits of no answer (just as "what colour is justice?" admits of no answer).

guest_of_logic wrote:

David: The object is a cup because it isn't something else. It isn't a banana because it is a cup. It is on my table because it isn't anywhere else.

guest_of_logic: In other words, "it just is": how now can you justify labelling that answer a "parody" of your actual position? It's spot on.

David: We are talking about the very nature of existence here. Existence, by its very nature, is always one thing and not another. A cup exists as a cup and not, say, as a banana.

I don't see any refutation there of the aptness of the phrase "it just is" as your answer.

It's more fundamental than simply affirming "it just is". It goes into the very core of A=A and thus into the very core of existence itself. Indeed, one cannot go any further than this.

The problem is, you're treating this as just another metaphysical issue, whereas in reality it is something which goes to the basis of all metaphysics, and all thought.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:By contrast, the absurdity that you keep wanting to drag us all into is that of questioning why existence is existence and things along those lines. "How can you guys claim to know the ultimate truth when you don't even know why existence is existence!"

That's not a fair phrasing of my question. A fair phrasing would be, "How can you guys claim to know the ultimate truth when you can't even explain why existence has the character, properties and structure that it has?"

I don't know what you mean by "existence" is in this instance. Is this some sort of nebulous thingy which hovers over and above the actual objects of this world?

If we are talking about the character, properties and structure of objects and events in the world, then that is all explainable in terms of cause and affect. If we are talking about the the character, properties and structure of the Totality as a whole, then that is all explainable in terms of logic.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Asking, "Why is there existence", is certainly a valid question, which can be fully resolved by the individual when he immerses himself in non-duality, fills his mind with its living understanding and makes peace with God.

Again, you're big on grand-sounding imagery but utterly lacking in substance. I put it to you in an earlier post and I'll put it to you again in the same words:

You've said that the question can be resolved by "immersion in non-duality" - great, so presumably you're "immersed in non-duality" and have resolved the question: so then share that resolution with us, for pity's sake.

I already have. The "grand-sounding imagery", as you put it, isn't really grand-sounding imagery, nor is it lacking in substance. It is simple, direct talk about the nature of God. I can't help it if you can't see where I am pointing to with these sorts of comments.

It's the same reason why you aren't able to grasp the comedy underpinning this forum, even though others here can. How can one explain a riddle to a person who completely lacks the sense of humour to grasp it? It's not possible.

I had thought for a moment that you had made some progress a few days ago when you started to speculate that there may actually be a joke to get. But no, the light seems to have gone out again on that one and we are back to lifeless old Laird again.

Perhaps Lao Tzu can do a better job of it:

• The Tao begot one.
  One begot two.
  Two begot three.
  And three begot the ten thousand things.

This piece of genius slices right to the heart of the issue we have been discussing, but you do need to be awake to see it.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:House logic:

Explanation requires external cause.
There can be no external cause to infinite causality.
Therefore, infinite causality can admit of no explanation.

The truth is recognized and accepted, and the issue is resolved. Time to move on.

Laird logic:

Explanation requires external cause.
There can be no external cause to infinite causality.
I still demand an explanation for infinite causality nevertheless.
I demand the impossible.
The house philosophy can't give me the impossible.
Therefore, there is a serious flaw in the house philosophy.

The truth is denied because it doesn't fit in with Laird's emotional desires.

Typical blindness. You missed a key premise: that which exists and has properties requires explanation. This is implied in the tenets of your philosophy, namely in the tenet that a thing is caused by all of that which is not it: in other words, that no thing is the way that it is in and of its own right - there is an explanation for its nature outside of itself. Now, this principle ought to apply to the Totality, but you guys play tricks with definitions to get around this. You define a thing to be finite and existent, and the Totality to be infinite and not existent, such that the Totality is not a thing, and by definition does not require explanation - but see here, this "by definition" goes back to what I wrote to Diebert above: a definition in and of itself doesn't necessarily say anything truthful about reality. You can play any kinds of games that you like with definitions, and at the end of it you might actually end up obstructing truth, as you guys do here, by subverting a reasonable principle through an unreasonable definition.

There is no trickery involved. It is simply a case of recognizing what the Totality is and what it isn't, and deducing conclusions from this. There is nothing else happening here.

You're tying yourself up in knots by insisting that "the principle ought to apply to the Totality", when, logically, it can't be applied to it. Your desire for things to be a certain way is clashing with the reality of the situation. And so the conflict you're having is not really with us, but with God Himself.

Still, I give you credit for your persistence. It's quite admirable, if not a little undignified, the way you keep knocking yourself against the wall over and over again and not giving up.

-

laird:

Erm, yes - my mind is mine by definition

If I am caused and contingent.
In what way is 'my mind' possible except as a false claim.

Laird, please, tho' scepticism has value, to have it as a fixed way of being, to attach to it, be entrenched in that way, actually holds you away from a conversation.
Because I'm caused/contingent there are only possibilities opening out before me as my pattern cuts a swathe thru the matrix, best I be open to possibility than it's opposite of 'fixed way of being'.

A wisdom conversation requires the possibility of Listening, a kind of Listening one brings to a new love, where the eager senses strain to absorb even the subtlest nuance radiating from the new love.
The love of Wisdom.

please bring that Listening to this:

the only way it is possible to feel separate is by thinking it so.

PS. the use of pronouns looks dodgy but they're only used conventionally.Perhaps a language pattern may arise to reflect the truth.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:How could any question, any reasoning, being naturally fully, infinitely caused, ever demonstrate inadequacy of the infinite causal web?

How could any so-called philosopher demonstrate its adequacy?

Adequate compared to what? It's beyond comparison but demonstrated by everything - that there's something happening at all.

the term [true by definition] isn't applied to definitions, it's applied to statements based on definitions.

Actually "true by definition" does not hold for any statement with premises. It only holds for axioms and tautological statements (like the one recently mentioned here: "the fit survive"). It's true many pointless true statements can be made but they tend to be a more flowery version of A=A or 1+1=2. It says nothing about the multiplied forms of reality, it just reflects the singular nature of it. And this singular nature is only of importance to reflect upon for those already inclined toward the unifying process of wisdom. For others it has nothing of value to offer of since their treasures lie scattered elsewhere.

Dan Rowden wrote:Laird, part of your brain is not functioning. The idea that there can be something external to the Totality (a cause/explanation) is so silly that a 10 year old could grasp the error. Think about it!

It's like you share the liar's paradox - "This sentence is false" - with me and say to me, "See, here is a sentence which is false by definition", and I say to you, "Erm, you do realise that it contradicts itself, right?" and you say, "Laird, part of your brain is not functioning. The idea that the sentence could be other than false when it plainly declares itself to be false is so silly that a 10 year old could grasp the error. Think about it!"

You're only looking at one side of the story. You're not recognising the contradiction.

Dan Rowden wrote:There are, in fact, definitions, definitional truths and logical necessities that can be assigned to Reality. Reality is, therefore a Totality necessarily is. That Totality cannot have a cause or explanation - of logical necessity -for the reasons that have been outlined for you multiple times. This is so by dint of the meaning of the term itself and also by dint of the fact that a Totality is logically necessary.

None of your definitions are "necessary" - they reflect a specific view of reality based on causality and part-whole relationships. That this view of reality is an accurate one is a matter of belief, not of necessary truth.

Dan Rowden wrote:To ask for an explanantion or cause for the Totality is a bit like asking why black has no colour.

To deny an explanation for the Totality is to undermine and create an ad hoc exception to your fundamentally causal philosophy in which nothing can have an "inherent" existence. But that's just using your own philosophy: coming at it more broadly, to deny an explanation for the Totality is a bit like asserting creation ex nihilo - all of the structure and complexity of reality "from" nothing.

Don't get me wrong, though - I'm pointing all along to an unresolved (unresolvable?) dilemma, as I've outlined in my past few posts. I'm not advancing a solution.

David Quinn wrote:It's more fundamental than simply affirming "it just is". It goes into the very core of A=A and thus into the very core of existence itself. Indeed, one cannot go any further than this.

The problem is, you're treating this as just another metaphysical issue, whereas in reality it is something which goes to the basis of all metaphysics, and all thought.

This quote doesn't disappoint, David, with its grand allusions to profundity contrasted against its confused lack of substance.

David: By contrast, the absurdity that you keep wanting to drag us all into is that of questioning why existence is existence and things along those lines. "How can you guys claim to know the ultimate truth when you don't even know why existence is existence!"

guest_of_logic: That's not a fair phrasing of my question. A fair phrasing would be, "How can you guys claim to know the ultimate truth when you can't even explain why existence has the character, properties and structure that it has?"

David: I don't know what you mean by "existence" is in this instance. Is this some sort of nebulous thingy which hovers over and above the actual objects of this world?

Well, as far as I recall, you introduced the word. I assumed you were using it as a synonym for Totality.

David Quinn wrote:If we are talking about the character, properties and structure of objects and events in the world, then that is all explainable in terms of cause and affect. If we are talking about the the character, properties and structure of the Totality as a whole, then that is all explainable in terms of logic.

We're talking about the Totality as consisting of all character, properties and structure of all objects and events in the world taken as one - "the causal web" as I've been referring to it (i.e. as a synonym for the Totality but more indicative of the sense in which I'm viewing the Totality) - and noting that there are other possible structures for that causal web, and that, given the supposedly uncaused nature of the causal web, the explanation for why it has the structure that it has and not one of the other possibilities is missing from your philosophy.

David: Asking, "Why is there existence", is certainly a valid question, which can be fully resolved by the individual when he immerses himself in non-duality, fills his mind with its living understanding and makes peace with God.

guest_of_logic: Again, you're big on grand-sounding imagery but utterly lacking in substance. I put it to you in an earlier post and I'll put it to you again in the same words:

guest_of_logic[cont]: You've said that the question can be resolved by "immersion in non-duality" - great, so presumably you're "immersed in non-duality" and have resolved the question: so then share that resolution with us, for pity's sake.

David: I already have. The "grand-sounding imagery", as you put it, isn't really grand-sounding imagery, nor is it lacking in substance. It is simple, direct talk about the nature of God. I can't help it if you can't see where I am pointing to with these sorts of comments.

David, you claim to have a wholly logical philosophy, but instead of answering the question with clear reasoning, you resort to allusive and ambiguous language like "immersion in non-duality". The lack of substance is your lack of clear reasoning. This is a fundamental question - vague poetic language doesn't cut it.

David Quinn wrote:I had thought for a moment that you had made some progress a few days ago when you started to speculate that there may actually be a joke to get.

I speculated that the entire forum and everything that happens in it is a self-satire. Are you willing to go that far? Because if you'd rather simply stick with the position that the self-satire is limited to the self-aggrandising statements on your website and the like, then, indeed, my sense of humour fails me. There's an old saying, "Many a true word is spoken in jest", and we can adjust it for this scenario to, "Many a true attitude is revealed in jest" - that attitude being of course your unjustified self-estimation of your high philosophical worth. It's too close to what you really think for me to find it funny.

David Quinn wrote:There is no trickery involved. It is simply a case of recognizing what the Totality is and what it isn't, and deducing conclusions from this. There is nothing else happening here.

You've constructed a system of definitions which impose a view on reality that isn't consistent. The trickery is in how you've constructed the definitions to hide the inconsistency.

David Quinn wrote:You're tying yourself up in knots by insisting that "the principle ought to apply to the Totality", when, logically, it can't be applied to it. Your desire for things to be a certain way is clashing with the reality of the situation. And so the conflict you're having is not really with us, but with God Himself.

That "ought" indicated not my desire for things to be a certain way, but your obligation, as a supposed man of Truth, to recognise the way things are.

David Quinn wrote:Still, I give you credit for your persistence. It's quite admirable, if not a little undignified, the way you keep knocking yourself against the wall over and over again and not giving up.

When one is confronted with entrenched geocentrism, one persists in pointing out the inconsistencies in the orbits of the planets.

Dennis Mahar wrote:A wisdom conversation requires the possibility of Listening, a kind of Listening one brings to a new love, where the eager senses strain to absorb even the subtlest nuance radiating from the new love.
The love of Wisdom.

please bring that Listening to this:

the only way it is possible to feel separate is by thinking it so.

Dennis, please bring your own love of Listening to this conversation and hear that I've already considered the perspective that you're preaching at me, and that it has only limited value to me. I find an agency-based perspective more fruitful.

guest_of_logic wrote:Skip,

I won't respond to your post point by point this time - instead I want to comment on something that I noticed in it. In response to my question as to whether there is anything that you can know absolutely and positively, you wrote, "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!" Then, later, you spoke of discarding various beliefs: "There is no room for keeping bullshit around when all you want to know is what's NOT bullshit." According to your earlier statement, though, the only "non-bullshit" that you can know absolutely is "the nature of what [you] experience", which is pretty limited.

Yeah, I discipline myself to always admit when I know facts with absolute certainty, and also admit when I don't. That's a limiting process, I suppose.

If you were to truly jettison everything that you didn't know absolutely and positively then you would be left with so little that you would be unable to function in the world...

True, but I only truly jettison everything that I don't know absolutely and positively regarding the search for the absolute. I still have emotions and scientific models I use all the time. It's just that those things don't have anything to do with absolute, logical facts.

but I say this not expecting it to be news to you, more to point out that you seem to make somewhat contradictory statements, and to emphasise the point that beliefs are practically unavoidable, which you acknowledged yourself in this statement: "Everywhere we go we are carrying around a self-image the [sic] 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."

Right, I'm not a straight robot, so I have stuff like that going on, but at the same time I can also make distinctions between what I can absolutely know and what I can't. And making those distinctions accurately, of course, means putting values and beliefs aside long enough to see unbiased facts.

I don't accept that stark dichotomy (faith versus conscious, provisional guess). I think that the reality of belief is more nuanced than that. Nor do I accept that faith is "the definition of irrationality" and "just making shit up". There's an aspect of faith that anti-religious people tend to ignore: that aspect is something like the maintaining of respect for a promise. For example, in a disaster your friend might tell you that he's going for help and promises that he won't give up until he finds that help - you might then say, "I have faith in my friend", meaning that you believe that your friend will honour his promise.

I guess I don't see any nuances to belief. Either you know something to be a fact, or you don't. For example, you don't actually know with 100% certainty that the friend will help. Any number of things outside your control could influence the situation otherwise, regardless of how steadfast and helpful his intentions might be for you. Maybe he gets hit by a car, for example.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as unconditional trust or love. 'I trust him a lot' actually means 'there's probably a 95% chance or greater that he will stick to his word'. But that is never 100%. You just never know.

This is one aspect of religious faith: faith that the promises recorded in the scriptures will be honoured, and that God's word (or the words of sages, prophets, etc) can be trusted. Now we can argue about the basis for believing that those scriptures actually are holy, or inspired, but that's in part an empirical matter, and needn't reduce to "irrationality" or "just making shit up".

You can't trust and have faith in someone to tell you what the facts are when you haven't come to them yourself. That would be, in fact, irrationally making shit up. It doesn't matter if what they say turns out to be right. The fact is you don't know, and facts are what philosophy is about.

Religious faith operates by a fundamentally different paradigm to the one which you're advocating, because it assumes that there are some things that can't be arrived at through logic alone, yet that are important and relevant. You seem to have missed a problem with your approach: what if, in your haste to jettison everything that you can't know for sure, you throw the baby out with the bathwater?

What's important and relevant to me regarding what I can absolutely know are logical facts. I don't care about anything else because nothing else convinces me like logical facts do. I want to know what I can absolutely know, so anything that I don't doesn't qualify. And that's that.

Being emotionally balanced is no small thing either. But that is about attitude, it's not about facts. I'm talking about facts, this being a philosophy forum an all. :)

No man can speak of totality or a definition of a definition defining anything when there is no totality of logic to define causation, incidents within the arc of living, nor ending to totality If one could explain TOTALLITY then what need is there for logic or reasoning?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:If we are talking about the character, properties and structure of objects and events in the world, then that is all explainable in terms of cause and affect. If we are talking about the the character, properties and structure of the Totality as a whole, then that is all explainable in terms of logic.

We're talking about the Totality as consisting of all character, properties and structure of all objects and events in the world taken as one - "the causal web" as I've been referring to it (i.e. as a synonym for the Totality but more indicative of the sense in which I'm viewing the Totality) - and noting that there are other possible structures for that causal web, and that, given the supposedly uncaused nature of the causal web, the explanation for why it has the structure that it has and not one of the other possibilities is missing from your philosophy.

Again, your question only makes sense if the infinite causal web is treated as a finite entity, allowing room for the required explanation. That is to say, it can only make sense if we engage in double-think. A platform of nonsense is needed to give your question meaning.

It's fascinating that you can't see this.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote: I had thought for a moment that you had made some progress a few days ago when you started to speculate that there may actually be a joke to get.

I speculated that the entire forum and everything that happens in it is a self-satire. Are you willing to go that far? Because if you'd rather simply stick with the position that the self-satire is limited to the self-aggrandising statements on your website and the like, then, indeed, my sense of humour fails me. There's an old saying, "Many a true word is spoken in jest", and we can adjust it for this scenario to, "Many a true attitude is revealed in jest" - that attitude being of course your unjustified self-estimation of your high philosophical worth. It's too close to what you really think for me to find it funny.

Not even close, my fine friend. There are a number of dialectical revolutions and layers of irony that you personally would need to pass through before you could start to pick up on it.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Talk to you another time.

-

jufa wrote:No man can speak of totality or a definition of a definition defining anything when there is no totality of logic to define causation, incidents within the arc of living, nor ending to totality If one could explain TOTALLITY then what need is there for logic or reasoning?

You're doing it again. Making absolutist statements about how absolutism is impossible.


.

All Laird has to do is relate two simple definitions....

• An explanation seeks the causes for something.

• The Totality includes all causes.

Laird can do it. He uses that skill in programming.

A: attribute 1 (the explanation: the causes for something).
B: attribute 2 (absolutely all causes in one big lot).


There's no contradiction in this reasoning. A is a part of B. It is impossible for any A to be found apart from B. It is impossible to find any A for B.


.

Laird:

Dennis, please bring your own love of Listening to this conversation and hear that I've already considered the perspective that you're preaching at me, and that it has only limited value to me. I find an agency-based perspective more fruitful.

I find an agency-based perspective thrilling as well. I just love to see you guys go at it. It's a bit out of my league at this point but I could pick it up.
How I like to come at it is by looking at forms of conversation and ways of being in a conversation and in the Chunk of A is A I experience, I access wonderful pleasure in that ordinary, everyday world.
My crime is probably 'preachy' and probably unskilled in explanation and probably foolish for knocking on your door anyway, but I will not cop 'limited value'.

This trick you have of turning a person's words around and flinging them back as an insult designed to diminish.
Perhaps that too is a crime.
My cognitions have completed me. I'm not 'needy' for apology if there was one forthcoming. I just wanted to mention it.
love to you Laird. I'll keep out of your way.

Dennis Mahar wrote:My crime is probably 'preachy' and probably unskilled in explanation and probably foolish for knocking on your door anyway, but I will not cop 'limited value'.

This trick you have of turning a person's words around and flinging them back as an insult designed to diminish.
Perhaps that too is a crime.

Dennis, this isn't an apology as such, but it is a clarification that I used the term "limited value" in the context of what the no-separation perspective means to me specifically: I'm perfectly open to the possibility of it holding great value to you or others, since we all have different temperaments, goals and personalities, and I wouldn't deny you that value.

As far as insults through diminishment go, you might want to explore the house philosophy and the dynamics of this forum a little more before deciding who's diminishing and insulting whom, taking particular note of the house philosophy's attitude towards women, and to the steady flow of condescending judgements upon others, particularly upon forum dissenters, and particularly coming from David's keyboard.

Thanks for the kind words and calm, sincere approach. Peace.

Kelly Jones wrote:

jufa wrote:No man can speak of totality or a definition of a definition defining anything when there is no totality of logic to define causation, incidents within the arc of living, nor ending to totality If one could explain TOTALLITY then what need is there for logic or reasoning?

You're doing it again. Making absolutist statements about how absolutism is impossible.


.

If my statement is incorrect, give me an absolute statement telling us what Totality is. You cannot do this, and until you can do this, it is absolutely impossible for you to define anything absolutely, with the exception that you are absolutely alive.

Never give power to anytehing a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote: it is absolutely impossible for you to define anything absolutely, with the exception that you are absolutely alive.

Good one!

So can we absolutely define to be absolutely alive? Then the question comes: what does "alive" mean here? And before one knows it, absolute realities are being addressed! Argh!

Very pleased to experience your graciousness, thankyou.
To get at the QRS woman thing you have to contextualise it. It's hard to catch but once grasped makes perfect sense.
The context is 'in order to do Philosophy'

Philosophy is an extraordinary conversation set against a background of the ordinary conversations in the world. A thing apart. It's rarefied atmosphere.
It's being in the grandstand watching the play and the players on the court. The concerns of the players on the court are not the concerns of the Philosopher.
A Philosopher is a detective, he sees footprints, makes deductions, 'nails' the killer.
Poirot's 'little grey cells' troubled him mightily when infused by mood and distraction. It's Listening without mood, agenda, prejudice.

A Philosopher makes of himself a 'clearing'...in the fullness of time the concerns of the players on the court are empty and meaningless...a 'clearing' in which the underlying principles of the World can present themselves. A Philosopher has one eye on the court and one eye on eternity.

What the philosopher finds astonishes and shocks the 'cultural pattern' of the day. The cultural pattern of the day can't afford to recognise philosophers because the shock is too hard.

You can't do philosophy with axes to grind.
You can't do philosophy with an agenda to protect things that seem important to you. Things have to be exposed.

The 'cultural pattern' has tried to make you into a nice little boy or nice little girl and promised you a lolly. It's given you a Story to live from that serves the interests of the cultural pattern itself.
Those swallowed up in the cultural pattern are primarily concerned with looking good, most endeavours undertaken are focused on the body, painting it, piercing it, tattooing it, tanning it, clothing it, feeding it, warming it, cooling it, sculpting it, ad infinitum

A Philosopher doesn't live inside the cultural pattern looking out. A philosopher lives outside the cultural pattern looking in and looking beyond.

Anyway the QRS woman thing has a context from my understanding:
A policy recommendation in order to do philosophy based on sound reasoning.

That's roughly how I get it, Laird. Can you get a sense of it in that way, that the QRS woman thing may be pointing the way for the little boy and girl to experience freedom.