GENIUS FORUMS

Jason,

DQ: We can can know that our minds create all meaning in the world (this is an obvious truth) and, at the same time, we can know Ultimate Reality.

J: I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that our minds create all meaning in the world.

DQ: How else can it be created?

J: It'd be nice if you would answer my original question. I'll answer yours: one theoretical scenario is that meaning is "embedded" in the external world.

I can't conceptualize what you are talking about. What do you mean by "meaning"?

To my mind, meaning is essentially a product of association. When the mind attaches a particular thought-process or feeling or a sense of importance to a particular phenomenon, "meaning" arises. It is fundamentally a mental process. Without a mind performing this association, there can be no meaning.

For example, some people attach meaning to the process of getting married and raising children. Other people fail to attach any meaning to this at all. It all depends on their mental disposition.

-

frank wrote:

DQ: Well, given that it is primarily delusion which is swamping our world with violence and environmental destruction, and putting our entire planet at risk, I would say that it is quite significant.

f: If it's your Meaning to 'fix it'...go ahead.

Well, thanks for that useless piece of advice, frank. I'm most grateful, I'm sure.

Tell me, you have children, don't you?

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:

DQ: We can can know that our minds create all meaning in the world (this is an obvious truth) and, at the same time, we can know Ultimate Reality.

J: I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that our minds create all meaning in the world.

DQ: How else can it be created?

J: It'd be nice if you would answer my original question. I'll answer yours: one theoretical scenario is that meaning is "embedded" in the external world.

DQ: I can't conceptualize what you are talking about. What do you mean by "meaning"?

To my mind, meaning is essentially a product of association. When the mind attaches a particular thought-process or feeling or a sense of importance to a particular phenomenon, "meaning" arises. It is fundamentally a mental process. Without a mind performing this association, there can be no meaning.

You say that meaning is "attached" to phenomena by the mind, in other words meaning is not objectively out there, but projected out onto the world by the mind.

I'm saying that one theoretical possibility is that meaning is objectively out there, and the mind just passively receives meaning which is embedded in the external world.

Again, I can't conceptualize this possibility. You would have to give me your definition of "meaning".

-

A further point ....

You say that meaning is "attached" to phenomena by the mind, in other words meaning is not objectively out there, but projected out onto the world by the mind.

No, I'm saying that meaning is the attachment between a mental state and a perceived phenonemon. This differs from merely saying that "meaning is attached to a phenomenon by the mind".

-

Jason wrote:I'm saying that one theoretical possibility is that meaning is objectively out there, and the mind just passively receives meaning which is embedded in the external world.

I think what you're saying - if I can butt in here - is that things exist inherently. That is, there is something about a chair that makes it a chair, and that exists independently of any mind thinking about it. That is, in a nutshell, the Platonic idea of essences.

DQ, I believe, has thought within an existential viewpoint (that essences exist only within the mind, if at all) that it is hard to even comprehend an essentialist viewpoint.

Essentialism is the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum from existentialism, and also from the concepts of dependent origination and emptiness (essence, or inherent meaning, being precisely what things are empty of).

If I have correctly stated DQ's viewpoint, I'm in a similar boat - I can't take essentialism seriously - but I did happen to study it formally in college, and I recognize that essentialism is the way that most people seem to actually see the world.

wiki

Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient.

leyla shen

What abstractions do you think fit biological females and males absolutely and are convenient (useful) abstractions for a thinker and why, sky?

In fact, what use do you have for abstractions period]

sky

i do not mean to offend anyone there is nothing of the personal in my attitude towards anyone here

nor will there be even though some members may choose to treat me like an empty minded barbie doll

in which case i will /may either decide you are an idiot and drop you off my radar or.......

sky

what is really being attempted to be postulated here

that all men are prime numbers and all women are not

one is not a prime number even though it has no factors (abstractions)

one is not a prime number nor a non prime (composite) number

one is its own factorial, and its own square and cube (and so on, as 1 × 1 × ... × 1 = 1)

one is most often used for representing 'true' as a Boolean datatype in computer science.

self realization is accomplished by one not he or she or this or that

ONE

david:

I'm saying that meaning is the attachment between a mental state and a perceived phenonemon.

Hey!...that's what I realised.

Do you think any meaning...for or against.. has you attached to the perceived phenomenon?

frank

frank wrote:

DQ: I'm saying that meaning is the attachment between a mental state and a perceived phenonemon.

f: Hey!...that's what I realised.

Do you think any meaning...for or against.. has you attached to the perceived phenomenon?

Well, if I were to become attached to a perceived phenomenon, then I would be undermining my own state of non-attachment and I would be turning my back on the highest wisdom which I find so meaningful. So, as a spiritual man who finds the highest wisdom meaningful, it is in my interests not to be attached to things.

In other words, any meaning that I experience in the world - whether it be in valuing masculinity, logic, and truth, or speaking against ignorance, femininty, women, etc - is a reflection of the meaning I find in the highest wisdom.

Tell me, do you find your own wife and children meaningful?

-

Dave Hodges wrote:

J: I'm saying that one theoretical possibility is that meaning is objectively out there, and the mind just passively receives meaning which is embedded in the external world.

DH: I think what you're saying - if I can butt in here - is that things exist inherently. That is, there is something about a chair that makes it a chair, and that exists independently of any mind thinking about it. That is, in a nutshell, the Platonic idea of essences.

DQ, I believe, has thought within an existential viewpoint (that essences exist only within the mind, if at all) that it is hard to even comprehend an essentialist viewpoint.

Essentialism is the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum from existentialism, and also from the concepts of dependent origination and emptiness (essence, or inherent meaning, being precisely what things are empty of).

If I have correctly stated DQ's viewpoint, I'm in a similar boat - I can't take essentialism seriously - but I did happen to study it formally in college, and I recognize that essentialism is the way that most people seem to actually see the world.

Perhaps what Jason is thinking of is that a particular phenomenon could be constructed in such a manner that it will necessarily trigger in people's brains the idea that it possesses meaning.

The trouble with this, however, is that it still depends on people's nervous systems and brains being structured and configured in a particular way. If they were structured and configured differently, then the idea may not arise at all. So already, we are back in the subjective realm again.

At the very most, meaning could only reside in a phenomenon in latent form. It would still have to be triggered into existence via the right causal conditions within the observer. A beautiful sunset, for example, might potentially possess more meaning than, say, a speck of dust on the floor, but would still depend on the observer to affirm this either way.

-

david:

Well, if I were to become attached to a perceived phenomenon, then I would be undermining my own state of non-attachment and I would be turning my back on the highest wisdom which I find so meaningful. So, as a spiritual man who finds the highest wisdom meaningful, it is in my interests not to be attached to things.

We attach to Ideas, People, Institutions, Things don't we?

We can attach to the Idea of Non-attachment....hahaha..it's Hilarious.

What we attach to is what has Meaning for us...'attracts' us...is that the right word...'attracts'.

Do you think Ideas/Observations can become so 'Solid' for us that they effectively become a kind of Weapon to use to beat up on Others...?

From a bundle of Ideas that 'fit' together a Story is constructed..or a 'Picture'...this becomes the Life we live in to..
Is it like that?

frank

Wow, frank. Honestly, words fail me. It's like talking to a tape recording. I don't know why anyone bothers anymore.

Really, you are the classic example of sheer insanity, which passes as being well-adjusted in our society.

Fucking hillarious, alright!

.

sky wrote:

...self realization is accomplished by one not he or she or this or that

ONE

That's one way to look at it, but you didn't answer my questions.

May I remind you that this is a philosophy forum and sometimes people will ask you what your thoughts are on things not usually a part of what you might consider your philosophy.

Naturally, it is up to you whether you address them. But a failure to address them falls short of the abstract ideals of both philosophy and genius.

[Edited colour for integrity]

.

frank,

DQ: Well, if I were to become attached to a perceived phenomenon, then I would be undermining my own state of non-attachment and I would be turning my back on the highest wisdom which I find so meaningful. So, as a spiritual man who finds the highest wisdom meaningful, it is in my interests not to be attached to things.

f: We attach to Ideas, People, Institutions, Things don't we?

Do you?

We can attach to the Idea of Non-attachment....hahaha..it's Hilarious.

One cannot suddenly become unattached to everything overnight. It takes many years of being strongly attached to the ideals of truth, non-attachment and wisdom, and allowing our attachments to fall away naturally.

In other words, becoming non-attached is a process of growth. It is not something that can be achieved by violently blocking everything out while hiding behind a wall of indifference, which is what you are currently doing.

People need to become attached to, and find meaning in, those things which help promote consciousness of Truth. Otherwise, they will just continue to swim about aimlessly in a state of delusion and self-deception.

What we attach to is what has Meaning for us...'attracts' us...is that the right word...'attracts'.

Do you think Ideas/Observations can become so 'Solid' for us that they effectively become a kind of Weapon to use to beat up on Others...?

You mean, ideas like "Empty and Meaningless", "Meaning-Makers", "Scripts", "Cults", and so on? I certainly do.

From a bundle of Ideas that 'fit' together a Story is constructed..or a 'Picture'...this becomes the Life we live in to..
Is it like that?

You mean, when people concoct a Story out of ideas like "everything is Empty and Meaningless" and "everyone is just following scripts"? Verily, it is like that in this instance.

Tell me, do you find meaning in your wife and children? What about the Story of Marriage and Family? You're big on that one, aren't you?

-

david:

One cannot suddenly become unattached to everything overnight. It takes many years of being strongly attached to the ideals of truth, non-attachment and wisdom, and allowing our attachments to fall away naturally.

OK, so you're Attached...you have some Meaning...you have a Picture.

In order to?

frank

Is there a point to this, frank?

-

david:

Is there a point to this, frank?

What you're recommending is like a recipe isn't it?

In order to..

get a payoff.

In order to get a payoff.

frank

And so?

-

david:

And so?

It's true then?

In order to get a payoff.

frank

Yes, one attempts to conquer ignorance in order to become enlightened. What's your point?

-

Just that:

Everything 'is in order to'....

get a payoff.

people often Satori on that.

Realise your Nature.

frank

...

frank

DQ: Yes, one attempts to conquer ignorance in order to become enlightened. What's your point?

f: Just that:

Everything 'is in order to'....

get a payoff.

people often Satori on that.

Realise your Nature.

Is that it? Oh, alright, thanks for that.

-

spiritual_emergency wrote:

DQ: Yes, one attempts to conquer ignorance in order to become enlightened.

SE: The question is... and then what?

It's probably helpful to any discussion on enlightenment to define precisely what we mean by that term. No doubt, that's already been done here somewhere, perhaps many times over.

I tend to see enlightenment in terms of stages that includes concepts such as awakening, consciousness, awareness... but complete enlightenment (according to my own terms) cannot be achieved as long as you have a body. I would agree that there have been some individuals who have been further along in those stages than others but I would also say that no human being has ever been fully enlightened because if they were, they wouldn't be here.

Do you imagine that when a person becomes fully enlightened he suddenly disappears into thin air? That would be a funny sight!

To my way of thinking, a person is "fully enlightened" when he perfectly understands the nature of Reality in an intellectual sense and can enter into the direct experience of it at will. Such a person has dispelled the core delusion of life (sometimes refered to as "maya") and can no longer slide back into a misunderstanding of his basic nature.

The fully-enlightened person can swim around in Buddha-nature no matter where he is. He doesn't have to disappear off the face of the planet in order to maintain his enlightenment, because it is the same wherever he goes. It is all Buddha-nature.

The fully-enlightened person is like the rest of us - he lives his life on this earth and then he dies, never to be seen again.

-

david:

one attempts to conquer ignorance in order to become enlightened.

ignorance=repulsion

In order to

enlightenment=attraction

Activity...chasing a payoff.

Actions originate from self-clinging. That clinging which produces actions also originates from imagination.

frank