GENIUS FORUMS

samadhi wrote:

maestro wrote:If everything is already done and you are merely an artifact, then there should remain no conflict no regrets, what is happening is the only way it could have happened, there is no will either it is only the all that acts. Nothing is rejected either, everything is what it could be and nothing could be better or worse.

Right. This was my argument in the debate and rejected by David and Kevin.

We embrace all things as the will of God, and then we try to eliminate ignorance, and we say it is better to be wise than foolish. However, being wise is not inherently better than being foolish. It is only "better" because of the values we are caused to have.

samadhi wrote:This was my argument in the debate

If that was what you were trying to communicate — and there's no evidence that it was — then you did the worst job of it I have ever seen.

and rejected by David and Kevin

Our words are evidence for the opposite of what you say.

Kevin wrote:

"We embrace all things as the will of God, and then we try to eliminate ignorance, and we say it is better to be wise than foolish. However, being wise is not inherently better than being foolish. It is only "better" because of the values we are caused to have."

It is interesting that in Vaishnavism (Indian philosophy, Vishnu-worshipping), that they draw a distinction between Krishna's 'internal' and 'external' energy. They use that division to explain the phenomenal world in which we find ourselves, and they say that though this phenomenal world was set in motion by God (Krishna), it operates 'independently', according to its own laws that are extremely strict and unforgiving. But they also say that in this 'external energy' (the material world as we know it), consciousness arises in living beings and that this consciousness takes place in a 'marginal' zone, a borderland between the external material energy and the internal spiritual energy of God. Only in the higher life forms, specifically in humans, do we have the choice to move toward the 'internal' energy or to get more and more involved with and dependent on the 'external' energy, or Maya, 'that which is not'.

The view provides a cosmological map that is expressed in mythical terms, but is regarded as a 'true' diagram of the real universe in which we live. So, we have the choice: to find the way to move toward the 'internal' source, or to remain in the thrall of the external force, bound to 'life' but also bound to death. In the Vaishnava cosmology, the 'internal' energy is the realm of God and redemption and immortality, and the 'external' energy the realm of the demi-gods and the frightening, possessive demons. (Which the heroic Krishna is always overcoming).

In what Kevin has written above I see the same basic pattern of understanding, and I am supposing it is a similar pattern as is expressed in many refined metaphysics.

The grand difference, as I see it, is in what sort of behavior constitutes 'wisdom', what truly is 'wisdom' in the face of the harsh conditions we find ourselves in. If any view we might formulate about our condition, or how we arrived here, and what we are doing here, and what we are supposed to do here, can only be expressed as a mythological story, an allusion to a 'truth' perceived by the soul, there is no reason why we can't use a fuller mythological or cosmological 'story' to convey that core message.

On another level, the view expressed by Kevin et al is often so dry and sterile it is hard to be attracted to it. And yet it is not without a mythological underpinning.

Alex wrote:

So, we have the choice: to find the way to move toward the 'internal' source, or to remain in the thrall of the external force...

But, according to "Kevin et al" we actually have no choices, for everything is what we are caused to believe and do. There is no freedom of movement; all is already set to happen and has happened in the Ultimate Oneness. It is futile and delusional for we puppets to think in terms other than destiny and fate. That we even possess self-hood is an illusion.

brokenhead: What causes wills to exist as opposed to not exist?
Kevin Solway: What causes trees to exist as opposed to not exist? The question is essentially the same in the sense that a whole complex of factors causes them.

You are negating a person's will as the ultimate cause of anything. This is where we fundamentally disagree. A person is comparable to a tree in some ways, but you can never convince me they are the same in every way as far as causation goes.

If you think of causation to be a flow as that of a river, a thing that is not fixed will be swept along with the flow. A person can choose to swim against it. He may be a fool, or he may be a hero (Schindler, for example, who deliberately appeared to be going with the flow but who in reality went against it at his own peril.)

If you are emotionally attached to thinking about the past, or the future, you will not be properly aware of the present. (And, as a matter of fact, you won't be properly aware of the past or future either)

I wasn't speaking of emotions in the slightest. You are avoiding my question.

The wise thing to do would depend on circumstances.

I knew you would throw in extra details.

I agree with you that a wise person does not attempt to make his will the ultimate cause of things, as disaster is the common result. But to say that it cannot be is patently false.

When I see some local tragedy in the news, I know it is only a matter of time before people around the event, or the press covering it, begin to point fingers. I am the first one to be disgusted at this and think, don't these people know that some things just happen and cannot be forseen? An example would be a homeowner who throws a party, and during the evening his back terrace collapses and someone is killed. To make someone criminally responsible for something like this preposterous, unless he partially sawed through the beams supporting the terrace. Yet the circus of blame will be played out for many months in the press. But what if he did saw through the support beams? What if he did it on a lark and stood to gain nothing? Wise or foolish, how can you say external causes were ultimately to blame for this tragedy? You simply cannot say human will can never be the ultimate cause for anything.

Alex Jacob wrote:On another level, the view expressed by Kevin et al is often so dry and sterile it is hard to be attracted to it. And yet it is not without a mythological underpinning.

For God's sake, don't encourage them, Alex!!!

Kevin Solway wrote:We embrace all things as the will of God, and then we try to eliminate ignorance, and we say it is better to be wise than foolish. However, being wise is not inherently better than being foolish. It is only "better" because of the values we are caused to have.

Then it would be possible to change your mind about your views, Kevin? Could I cause you, in theory, to accept the fact that human will can be the ultimate cause of an effect (more correctly, an unending chain of effects)? You are saying your values are not inherently "better" than mine. I see that as some kind of chink in the armour, an opening against which I might use some leverage to get you to see things differently, that is, as they really are. Why, this is wonderful news! I think I'll step up my posting! And start sending you PMs all over the place!!! How does that sound, Kevin?

brokenhead wrote:You simply cannot say human will can never be the ultimate cause for anything.

Actually, according to QSR philosophy the self is responsible for causing the entire rest of the universe to be as it is. They don't like to focus on this fact though, because it makes the self appear very powerful and thus undermines their agenda of eliminating the self. That's why they almost always frame it the other way around - that the self is caused to be as it is by the rest of the universe.

brokenhead wrote:Then it would be possible to change your mind about your views, Kevin? Could I cause you, in theory, to accept the fact that human will can be the ultimate cause of an effect (more correctly, an unending chain of effects)? You are saying your values are not inherently "better" than mine.

Like I said earlier, Kevin has merely been caused to believe he is wise. Plenty of delusional fools are in this position.

According to QRS there is no self and no will (any will would be at least partially free, by definition, and thereby not completely at the effect of external cause). With no self and no will, of course there can be no responsibility.

Kevin is caused to be both wise and enlightened, by his definition of wise and enlightened. Whether or not he is those things in any objective sense, or if it is actually possible, is unknown and possibly unknowable.

To make Kevin's view viable, all one needs to do is modify it an eensy-weensy bit, and I am wondering if he'd be comfortable with that.

It seems to me---viewing it as I do from the magnificent heights that I inhabit---that the general view that all is caused, which is pretty obviously a spin-off (no pun intended) of the basic doctrine of materialistic determinism, is sound, at least as viewed from our perspective. It is a view that can serve us. But, when we arrive at biological entities that start to possess 'consciousness' we are beginning to enter a different domain.
I just got back from an 'Outlet Mall' out here in Colorado where I happen to be at this moment, and so I could see that the living entities that congregate there seem pretty controlled, pretty directed, pretty determined, and it induces fatalism to see them this way when other roads are open to them. It is actually a very, very strange thing to witness, and one of the most peculiar things is that there is no one there who 'returns your gaze'; no one 'eye' that responds to your 'eye' looking in on them, you are in fact in another world, an unreal world, perhaps an underworld? (It reminds me of being amidst a herd of steer).

So, we refer to that world as 'unconscious' and posit something else: consciousness. If we even can talk about some others as being 'unconscious' that immediately indicates 2 things: one that becoming (more) conscious exists as a possibility, and two that we are still on a continuum. Where does that road lead?

Anyway, the small modification is just to say that at the point of 'consciousness' different avenues begin to open up, and a living entity has a different relationship to causation. Determinism still runs the show, it seems, but this entity has at least some flickering of possibilities, some options, and it is precisely here that life becomes interesting, curious, compelling and rewarding.

Now, one very curious thing is to ask if there are actions, activities, occurrences (say, things that we can perform, carry out, set in motion) that alter or modify causation? Does the 'fact of physics' that a butterfly moving its wings somewhere has dramatic effect somewhere else be applied to this weird stuff 'consciousness' of which we partake?

Also, is the domain where we exist under the effective control of entities that block the beating of butterfly wings of awareness? (So to speak). Are we back again---as we always seem to be---with the core dichotomy between demonic and angelic entities?

Finally, is there some way I might 'beat my wings of consciousness' and somehow have there show up at my door some really hot chicks willing to submit to my will?

Alex wrote:

To make Kevin's view viable, all one needs to do is modify it an eensy-weensy bit, and I am wondering if he'd be comfortable with that.

It seems to me---viewing it as I do from the magnificent heights that I inhabit-

That would be Mars, if you think Kevin would agree to change any of his views at all.

Anyway, the small modification is just to say that at the point of 'consciousness' different avenues begin to open up, and a living entity has a different relationship to causation. Determinism still runs the show, it seems, but this entity has at least some flickering of possibilities, some options,

You are talking about the beginnings of will, the gateway to freedom and self-determination, and, sorry, that does not fly here. Interestingly this is part of the Gurdjieff teaching, that consciousness can help free us from an entirely mechanical existence. But at GF we believe in complete mechanicalness, that is, I am affected by external causes to do everything I do.

Finally, is there some way I might 'beat my wings of consciousness' and somehow have there show up at my door some really hot chicks willing to submit to my will?

Ugh, why would you call for that sort of trouble? Oh, right. Caused to.

brokenhead wrote:You are negating a person's will as the ultimate cause of anything.

That's right, since a person's will necessarily has a cause beyond itself.

A person is comparable to a tree in some ways, but you can never convince me they are the same in every way as far as causation goes.

They are the same in the sense that both are entirely caused by things beyond themselves, but they are different in certain characteristics. The tree is better at some things and a human is better at others.

A person can choose to swim against it.

If he does so it will have been because he was caused to do so. Heroes have no choice but to be heroes — that's just the way they are made. They are not heroes from their own estimation, since, from their perspective, they are only doing what comes natural.

If you are emotionally attached to thinking about the past, or the future, you will not be properly aware of the present. (And, as a matter of fact, you won't be properly aware of the past or future either)

I wasn't speaking of emotions in the slightest. You are avoiding my question.

Your point was about being aware of the present moment while thinking of the past. I was saying how this isn't a problem, so long as there is no delusional thinking, such as emotional attachment.

Wise or foolish, how can you say external causes were ultimately to blame for this tragedy?

There are always external causes, and necessarily so. But that doesn't mean that people should be "blamed" and punished because of it. In the case of the decking which collapsed, perhaps it was constructed by the house owner, and didn't meet with local council approval? Perhaps it was built with inappropriate timber or poor design. Or perhaps it collapsed for some reason that could not be easily foreseen — eg, aliens in outer space directed a ray beam at the supporting members, causing it to collapse.

Being aware of causation should not go along with things such as "blaming" (when it has emotional, or deluded content).

You simply cannot say human will can never be the ultimate cause for anything.

Since I know that all things are caused by that which is external to themselves, I can say that the human will is not the ultimate cause for anything. God alone (the All) is the ultimate cause for all things.

Then it would be possible to change your mind about your views, Kevin?

Certainly. Someone could remove my brain and replace it with another one. That would probably change my mind somewhat.

Could I cause you, in theory, to accept the fact that human will can be the ultimate cause of an effect (more correctly, an unending chain of effects)?

To do that you would have to convince me that our will, or some aspect of it, could arise completely without cause. Since I know that all things have a cause, you would have a job doing that.

You are saying your values are not inherently "better" than mine.

Good values are only "better" from the perspective of sane people.

There's no law of the Universe that says that rationality and truth are the be all and end all, and that we must value them.

"God alone (the All) is the ultimate cause for all things".

And ultimately, of course, that is 'true', certainly because it is logical.

But many people who have looked into the matter have discovered (through meditation, or psychedelic use, or in epiphany, or dream, or perhaps through something written) that at a certain point we can participate in the doing of this so-called 'All'. Logically, we are mere agents in an over-arching event which we can little understand, but we can begin to participate when we modify our behavior or our attitudes.

Possibly a more fruitful way to approach this stalemate is to ask what Kevin et al gains from this rigid view? If it is true that any idea is a mere approximation, an allusion to a certain 'truth', and always incomplete, it seems we have to be careful just how far we go in believing (in an absolute sense) our own axioms. And what is the value of believing that we have a certain limited freedom, and yet a very important freedom?

Nevertheless, though I may agree that 'ultimately' all that happens is caused by the All, nevertheless locally, as an element in my own myth of life, I think it is more empowering to believe that I am a free agent and that I have choices that I can make, and that I will make, that will hinder of help my progress through this world created by The All.

Most likely, the view that I have is more Western than Eastern, and it places focus and responsibility on the individual for his own 'self-realization'.

Kevin Solway wrote:Since I know that all things are caused by that which is external to themselves, I can say that the human will is not the ultimate cause for anything. God alone (the All) is the ultimate cause for all things.

According to your own philosophy Kevin, causes can only exist between finite "things". Therefore, the All, not being a thing and not being finite, cannot be the cause of any thing.

Alex Jacob wrote:Nevertheless, though I may agree that 'ultimately' all that happens is caused by the All, nevertheless locally, as an element in my own myth of life, I think it is more empowering to believe that I am a free agent and that I have choices that I can make, and that I will make, that will hinder of help my progress through this world created by The All.

If the All is absolutely everything, then you are a part of the All. That would mean that your eyes are the All's eyes, that your hands are the All's hands, and that your will is the All's will. It would also mean that the All didn't create the world, rather, the All is the world.

Jason wrote:According to your own philosophy Kevin, causes can only exist between finite "things". Therefore, the All, not being a thing and not being finite, cannot be the cause of any thing.

Yes, you're right.

To say that God (the All) causes something is just a figure of speech.

For example, if I say that God caused a thing, it means only that it was caused by the rest of the Universe. But strictly speaking, as you say, God is the entire Universe and is therefore beyond cause and effect, beyond time and change.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jason wrote:According to your own philosophy Kevin, causes can only exist between finite "things". Therefore, the All, not being a thing and not being finite, cannot be the cause of any thing.

Yes, you're right.

To say that God (the All) causes something is just a figure of speech.

A "figure of speech" which you used to argue against and mislead Brokenhead with.

Kevin Solway wrote:For example, if I say that God caused a thing, it means only that it was caused by the rest of the Universe. But strictly speaking, as you say, God is the entire Universe and is therefore beyond cause and effect, beyond time and change.

Call me a pedant, but when I'm talking about matters relating to the fundamental nature of the Universe I like to keep the meanings of important words like "God" and "All" consistent between sentences.

I think we should take another look at what you originally said to Brokenhead:

Kevin Solway wrote:Since I know that all things are caused by that which is external to themselves, I can say that the human will is not the ultimate cause for anything.

So all things are caused by that which is external to them. A human(and their will) is external to the entire rest of the Universe. Human - rest of Universe. Therefore, a human's will is the cause of the entire rest of the Universe.

Your sentence above is thus a contradiction, false and (arguably intentionally)misleading.

Jason wrote:

Since I know that all things are caused by that which is external to themselves, I can say that the human will is not the ultimate cause for anything.

So all things are caused by that which is external to them.

Yes, that is a logical necessity.

A human (and their will) is external to the entire rest of the universe. Human - rest of universe. Therefore, a human's will is the cause of the entire rest of the universe.

Your reasoning cannot be faulted.

And if God were literally "the rest of the Universe" then that would mean that God was caused — and therefore couldn't be God. Fortunately, God isn't literally "the rest of the Universe", otherwise we would find ourselves in error.

No finite thing is the "ultimate cause" because no finite thing is always "the rest of the universe", whereas God always is. The human will, for example, is only "the rest of the Universe" with respect to that which is not itself. But it is not "the rest of the Universe" with respect to, say, a tree — whereas God is. God can only be always "the rest of the Universe" because God is the All.

Jason wrote:

"If the All is absolutely everything, then you are a part of the All. That would mean that your eyes are the All's eyes, that your hands are the All's hands, and that your will is the All's will. It would also mean that the All didn't create the world, rather, the All is the world."

I like your poem best of all, or best of All, as the case may be.

However, as an aside, or as an excuse, I personally don't think that the nature of existence, the fact of it or the meaning of it, can be approached or solved 'logically'. This logic, it seems to me (according to my feeble mind) is a technique occuring as a mental game within 'thought systems', and has to limit itself to those systems.

It seems to me that things exist, the existence of anything, EXISTENCE, is a matter beyond the domain of the mind. All these definitions point back at that central fact it seems to me.

Who do you think 'solves' the issue of the Fact of Existence? Who 'knows' that?

A video actually on-topic: Royksopp - Remind Me

Alex Jacob wrote:However, as an aside, or as an excuse, I personally don't think that the nature of existence, the fact of it or the meaning of it, can be approached or solved 'logically'. This logic, it seems to me (according to my feeble mind) is a technique occuring as a mental game within 'thought systems', and has to limit itself to those systems.

It seems to me that things exist, the existence of anything, EXISTENCE, is a matter beyond the domain of the mind. All these definitions point back at that central fact it seems to me.

I think it's pretty simple really. Logic is a limited part of existence, mind is a limited part of existence, thought systems are a limited part of existence. But existence itself is not a limited part - existence is the whole. Existence is everything; unlimited.

The problem being, the part can't capture the whole, you can't fit the unlimited into the limited. Everything is everything, but as soon as you try to make it some-thing it's no longer every-thing.

No answer, no understanding, no explanation, no system, no map can perfectly capture the whole. The only absolutely perfect 'explanation' or 'map' of existence is - existence itself.

Who do you think 'solves' the issue of the Fact of Existence? Who 'knows' that?

I'm not sure that matters. The primary concern, for me, is simply that the solution appears.

My solution to the question "What is existence and what is its nature?":

"This!"
[Jason raises his arms out horizontally to his sides, turning his head side to side, looking around at everything, motioning at everything, but pointing to no particular specific thing.]

Kevin, I think I get what you're trying to say, took me a few reads though. It's confusing that you cycle the definitions of "God" and "All" between meaning "infinite" one moment, and "finite" the next.

Jason wrote:I think it's pretty simple really. Logic is a limited part of existence, mind is a limited part of existence, thought systems are a limited part of existence. But existence itself is not a limited part - existence is the whole. Existence is everything; unlimited.

The problem being, the part can't capture the whole, you can't fit the unlimited into the limited. Everything is everything, but as soon as you try to make it some-thing it's no longer every-thing.

No answer, no understanding, no explanation, no system, no map can perfectly capture the whole. The only absolutely perfect 'explanation' or 'map' of existence is - existence itself.

This is all true. The difficulty in talking to Kevin (or David or Dan) is that they rely on logic and so never seem to yield this point. If they did, the raison d'etre of this website falls into question.

How do we get them to see that the rational man does not limit himself to pure logic because pure logic itself is limited? This does not imply you have to contravene logic, but merely recognize rationally that it cannot answer your deepest questions.