GENIUS FORUMS

Jason,

To be honest, I've really only really skimmed this conversation so if this question is redundant I'm sorry: sanity and insanity have been mentioned by you numerous times. Can you tell me what constitutes "insanity" in the context of your point here?

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I can only do so when I'm in the right frame of mind.

I understand, you can always take your time, James.

If you've lost interest since, no problems.

Not at all, but give me some time to go through your "mind" so to speak :D
It’s not so easy to actually see the big picture as another sees, and I might be a little busy for a day or two.

Dan Rowden wrote:Jason,

To be honest, I've really only really skimmed this conversation so if this question is redundant I'm sorry: sanity and insanity have been mentioned by you numerous times. Can you tell me what constitutes "insanity" in the context of your point here?

Dan, for the bulk of my argument so far, it means falling victim to flawed reasoning and yet also being unaware of having fallen victim to said flawed reasoning.

Ok, what does "flawed reasoning" look like?

Bajakakabookeeboo. Ok seriously now. From the perspective of my argument you can't certainly identify what is flawed reasoning and what is valid reasoning. Flawed reasoning is just that which doesn't lead to actual truth(even though it may appear to), but you can't specifically identify it or when you engage in it, hence the problem.

Jason wrote:Bajakakabookeeboo. Ok seriously now. From the perspective of my argument you can't certainly identify what is flawed reasoning and what is valid reasoning. Flawed reasoning is just that which doesn't lead to actual truth(even though it may appear to), but you can't specifically identify it or when you engage in it, hence the problem.

You can't a priori know if your own reasoning is flawed, but there is a good chance that, if you continue to probe, you will find contradictions that arise because of that reasoning. No guarantees - but that's the best you can do.

Only the insane never doubt their own sanity.

This is the importance of metaphysics, the most basic questions about the nature of reality - if you get that wrong, everything you build on that most basic understanding will also be flawed.

by bert on Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:13 pm

sapius

Using logic and reason is of course the tool through which one can realize the truth about existence.

but existence is alogical to any logic we know,so it is irrational to attempt to rationalise,except in cases of our own prejudices which inform our mentation.

but existence is alogical to any logic we know, so it is irrational to attempt to rationalise, except in cases of our own prejudices which inform our mentation.

That sounds like a post-modernists viewpoint to me.

It's completely meaningless to assert that existence is "alogical". I mean, what? What could that possibly mean! It can't refer to anything experienced because logic is built out of the very fundaments of experience.

Only the insane never doubt their own sanity.

I'm sure one can go insane by overly doubting their sanity.

James, I read your post quite a few times but overall it seems to be so very intertwined with philosophical/scientific terms/thoughts, that it’s quite confusing for me. It seems like everything is being mashed together to achieve a single theory of all. However, I might be mistaken since I don’t seem to see your big picture.

So I think the only thing to do is take it one bit at a time. So allow me to question and clear up certain things.

I see your point and it is valid.
Still, my nature is that of an observer, and as I can see a type of pseudo wholeness in things, I think it is still OK to think of it as the same kind of pseudo whole. Just a "whole" by definition "all that is, infinity itself, the Set of all sets" rather than being a physical whole of incalculably possible finitely infinite parts.

Firstly, I am not looking at it as “physical” per say, but a state of relativity, in and of parts - boundaries, wherein physicality itself is but a relative term, but relativity itself (“dualisticality” [that word is missing from the dictionary] which essentially IS existence, for without it there is absolutely nothing] and that itself is all that there is, and not that there is nothing beyond “IT”, but there is literally NO beyond at all, so it can’t be thought of as a “whole” in whatever sense. I’m talking of Duasticality itself, and that cannot be considered as a “whole”, for a thought of “whole” necessarily needs a part to think of it, hence duality prevails however. Now some non-duality necessarily relies on duality being there, but not the other way around since existence (dualisticality) already IS. Non-duality could create nothing, but duality facilitates and supports logical reasoning and their conclusions, whatever the conclusions may be, irrelevant of them being rational or irrational, including a claim of realizing a profound truth such as non-duality, emptiness, nothingness, or the likes.

And secondly, I have no real issues with such a pseudo whole or say whole, or even Totality, but what fallows. It leads to believing in some sort of hidden or underlying non-duality from which All “things” arise, giving non-duality some sort of an Absolute Godly presence, which is an egoistical absurdity, or to say the least, wishful thinking according to me.

I've also previously pondered about the illogicalness of "totalising infinity". It doesn't make sense to do so, however it is not so much that the phrase "the totality" does not apply, but that it only applies when taken as a logical concept at its face value. At face value it is an undeniable truth that there must be "all that is". Only when one questions the meaning of "all" as it relates to the addition of individual things does the concept become less applicable. There is still "the whole of that which is bound by pre-existing causes".

And a “whole” does not imply or relate to the addition of individual things?

I do understand “the totality” as a logical concept, but there is a difference. ‘All’ does not specify a number, but does imply more than one thing, where addition of the All is not necessarily required; whereas the “whole”, (or Totality) necessarily implies totaling up of things, or even if one says a “one-ness”, which necessary requires an intricate explanation since Totality is said not to be a “thing”; but then so is ‘friendship’ not a “thing” for example, or say any _______–ness, ______-ship; (I would like to know how they are “things”; by what definition?); by even implying a ‘whole’ to that which has no boundaries one is deviating from the all too famous quote – “by definition” – already, because that implies a boundary of some kind. Otherwise it is but a matter of strong imaginative belief, which I have no objection to.


Even ‘ALL THINGS are “bound” by causes’ does not necessarily make all things a lump of Whole; the clumping up of things is what we can abstractly achieve, of that which we already experience as it is - divisions. It is not that WE are dividing up anything really; we simply experience them so and are capable of naming THEM, and then abstractly adding (or sub-dividing) it up to arrive at some absolute non-duality. Basically, we can’t do without hanging on to some sort of a “Godly”, Absolute presence.

Say even if we see causality as that which “binds” all things, hence the sense of a “whole”, then the “whole” should necessarily have pre-existing causes by definition, and then that would surely have pre-pre-existing causes too, ad infinitum; and causes require motion, which means time, but causes mean absolutely nothing on that level, since time itself does not apply on the level of “whole” you are talking about, hence any flow or causes or being “bound” means nothing. Time and causes have relative values, while time + causes itself, would have no external point of relativity that they may be considered to have causes when thought of as a “whole”. We can surely conceptualize it as a “whole” or even a pseudo whole, because by nature we cannot be or think without boundaries, hence find it convenient for the sake of communication, but the infiniteness we are talking about (on the level of ‘All that there IS’) cannot be bound in any sense. In fact, not even the word infinity could be applied because that logically binds it to a sense of flow – hence time, which doesn’t really apply at all on that level, nor do causes itself, because that calls for a numerical infiniteness.

Evidently we are simply able to abstractly stand “outside” of this “whole” and think of it so, while still remaining in and of divisions, thinking that we have realized something that is “beyond” such duality, and call it non-duality for example. A profound realization!

There is something in nature that causes a reversal of causal form when an extreme is approached. I read somewhere recently that science is pointing to a sort of gravitational reversal as the universe expanded and is expanding. Reversal is not quite the right word.

How about ‘collapse’?

S: Regarding the “part” of one’s self that observes; that "part" IS consciousness itself and IS the Self itself. It isn't a "part".

J: It is a "part" within the context of where it can manifest, the environment, the earth and so on.
In saying the above you are arguing the case for non-duality.

Of course, consciousness is a part in that sense. I may have misunderstood, but I am not arguing for it. Lets see where I went wrong.

You said…

That concept however is just a memory, seeing as consciousness is just observation, [good observation] the part of themselves that observes, that part of one's self [the "part" that observes?], is a non-duality whenever it manifests, but it can only manifest in dualistic concert with that which is not-consciousness, which is everything else.

Firstly, which concept isn't just a memory? Now could you tell me what you consider as SELF, and what you mean by “that part of one’s self” above? Do you mean ‘consciousness is a part of one’s self? That is what I thought you meant.

With the use of the word IS means you are referencing consciousness as a form of non-duality. In referencing it in this fashion you are seeing the total and not at the same time recognising the parts that create the totality that is the experience of consciousness.

I can’t see how that follows; consciousness itself cannot be unless there is something other than that to be conscious of, be it multitude of other things or just one. So how is consciousness itself a form of some non-duality?

Duality is meaningless without non-duality. Each opposite dualistic component would have no relationship to the other without their union into a non-duality. A, B = A, B whereas A + B = A and B and C(A+B).

So you call the ‘relationship’ - non-duality. How does the sensing of something other than what I am necessarily translate into a union? Are you saying that abstraction is non-duality? That consciousness is non-duality since that is the connection between any two other things? That causality is non-duality since it is that which connects two things?

Poetically speaking, consciousness actually manifests through the lens of the contracting force. Why? Well consciousness requires the steady creation of vacancy. Consciousness needs to be empty in order to be filled.

I can’t understand or even imagine what an “empty” consciousness would be like, hence a large part of your theory doesn’t make sense to me. I guess my sense of poetry is failing me here.

Consciousness has a dualistic existence between emptiness and fullness. Consciousness is a kind of central nucleus of the body, but just like the nucleus of an atom it must attract In-to-Itself, in order to exist. In order to attract in, means the contracting force is more dominant in the physical territory that human consciousness resides.

I’m really lost here.

bert wrote:by bert on Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:13 pm

sapius

Using logic and reason is of course the tool through which one can realize the truth about existence.

but existence is alogical to any logic we know,so it is irrational to attempt to rationalise,except in cases of our own prejudices which inform our mentation.

Hey! As long as you have reasoned it for yourself, I have no complains. Good luck to you, Bert. :)

Dan Rowden wrote:It's completely meaningless to assert that existence is "alogical". I mean, what? What could that possibly mean! It can't refer to anything experienced because logic is built out of the very fundaments of experience.

alogical to any 'logic' we know...
in our relation to Cosmos, if significance is measured by our increative ability than we are of no greater worth than the capable-of-undergoing-many-changes-at-will. Nature permits no interrogation; our techniques merely imitate, and only if so allowed. deceiver do not furher deceive yourself.

Jamesh wrote:

but existence is alogical to any logic we know, so it is irrational to attempt to rationalise, except in cases of our own prejudices which inform our mentation.

That sounds like a post-modernists viewpoint to me.

fine. maybe ask a post-modernist..

oh yes, I forgot.

by bert on Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:58 pm

Jehu wrote:

Iolaus wrote:

This is not saying everything that exists does exist. Rather it is a nondual, beyond being and nonbeing statement that reminds us that existence has no opposite.

It is true that existence (being) has no complement, for if it did, then being and non-being would need to complete one another in some higher universe of discourse; of which there is none. Existence, on the other hand, may be partitioned into two interdependent and complementary aspects; that which has a necessary existence (is absolute), and that which has only a contingent existence (is relative). Therefore, it may be rightfully asserted that all things necessarily exist, albeit they may not all partake of the same mode of existence.

if all phenomena are commingling unabsoluteness and are Absoluteness manifest, then it is surprising that we manufacture our ego that is neither-either but a weirder autism? yet none remember having desired existence... but incontestable we have Ego, the only certainty we know. mean by 'Ego', our individuality as distinct and seperate from all else.

Truth is aborning and levels our necessities of direction(general or specialized).the function of truth is coherence, it indirectly forms our beliefs and values. we are all specimens of self-evident truth,i.e. audient and endemic as the intermediacy of pure Ego(informing agent) and empirical Ego(conative), conscience being the nexus(emotional value): all knowledge is of one thing through another.

There needs to be a distinction between two groups of "insane" people. One group, the insane in the thread starter, are those whose reality far differs from that of everybody else. The second group are those who don't yet have a grasp of their Truth and so are essentially walking on egg shells. It is possible for some of those in the first group to be very wise and simply choose not to live in the same world we do. You may not know about those because they will have no need to ramble on to those who will not understand. The second group is obviously everybody else with varying degrees of wisdom. In a sense, insanity slowly recedes as growth occurs. The point isn't to completely abolish this kind of insanity, but to transform it so that it is useful. The purpose of insanity, or the forgetfulness of infinite wisdom, is growth! And the purpose of growth is fun, although it isn't always fun immediately. Growth is a process, and things need to be let go in their own time.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jason wrote:anything your propose to overcome it or prove your sanity may itself be insanity.

There's no way that an individual can verify for certain that he is himself sane, yet when a sane person verifies his own sanity, he is correct in his assessment.

The sane man's verification of his sanity is no better than the insane man's verification of his sanity.

One just happens to have guessed correctly?