GENIUS FORUMS

Samsara has never arisen or began, therefore it can have no ending.

This doesn't follow. Just because something has never arisen or began, it doesn't mean, unless it simply doesn't exist, that it cannot end. Something that always was does not necessarily have to always be.

Nirvana is not nothingness/oblivion, nothingness is a state dependent on being devoid of somethingness..

I don't think nothingness has to be the opposite of somethingness. It can be another kind of something, the backdrop on which something manifests itself, the hole that makes the doughnut possible, the absence I perceive when my date stands me up. I think this is how Sartre describes it.

For there is no one there to experience the temporary and dependent state of non-chaoticness and or “Peace”

It's true that when an Asian philosopher becomes entirely one with the whole, there is no distinction between the self and the whole of everything. It is the goal of meditation to reach this state and act reflexively, not reflectively. An athlete who is in the zone, automatically doing what he or she must do, has reached this state.

If we can get back to my philosophy, I agree with the state of flux idea to a certain extent. It's the same process of becoming as existentialists talk about. However, the existentialists, although authenticity is important for them too, do not try to eliminate self and craving to eliminate suffering, as Buddha advocated. They accept the absurdity of life and still choose projects to accomplish and thereby create purpose for their being. I prefer this, a sort of getting involved with life, making the most out of life, rather than what I see as a withdrawal from life because it is delusional and filled with suffering. Still, I only agree with the existentialists to a certain extent. It is not all existence before essence. I still think there is an essence of humanness which is permanent and universal and pre-existent. There are conditions of existence for the flourishing survival of humans in groups, natural rights, and I think rational egoism is a good thing, even if it would be condemned by Buddhists. The freedom of the existential relativism and subjectivism is within the parameters which are objective. That's why it is a Neo-Objectivism.

bis bald,

Nick

You don't know what you believe, you are just spouting a load of unrelated crap into a hodge-podge of drivel. People like you come through here all the time.

NickOtani wrote:It's true that when an Asian philosopher becomes entirely one with the whole, there is no distinction between the self and the whole of everything.

Do you know this for sure, or is it just what you have read?

It is the goal of meditation to reach this state and act reflexively, not reflectively. An athlete who is in the zone, automatically doing what he or she must do, has reached this state.

Yet they haven't reached a state of enlightenment. How do you explain that?

However, the existentialists, although authenticity is important for them too, do not try to eliminate self and craving to eliminate suffering, as Buddha advocated. They accept the absurdity of life and still choose projects to accomplish and thereby create purpose for their being. I prefer this, a sort of getting involved with life, making the most out of life, rather than what I see as a withdrawl from life because it is delusional and filled with suffering.

Do you think the Buddha didn't set himself any purpose? Do you think there was no purpose to his teachings?

I think rational egoism is a good thing

"Rational egoism" is a contradiction in terms. The ego is a product of irrationality, and spawns further irrationality.

You don't know what you believe, you are just spouting a load of unrelated crap into a hodge-podge of drivel. People like you come through here all the time.

Fine, pick something specific and prove how crapy it is. Support your sweeping condemnation. Perhaps I'll learn something from you. Or, perhaps you'll reveal yourself not to be much of a genius, just an ignorant flamer who hides behind insults but doesn't know $hit about philosophy or debate. I meet people like that on the internet all the time.

Do you know this for sure, or is it just what you have read?

I've admitted that I am not a Buddhist. I have read about Buddhism and been around Asian philosophies all of my life. My last name is Otani, a Japanese name, and I have taken Judo for more than thirty years. I think I understand some of the concepts of Buddhism, but I am an outsider. I cannot know Buddhism as a Buddhist would. Still, I think I can talk about it as well as anybody who is not a Buddhist, just as I can talk about various Christian religions from the perspective of an atheist. If this isn't good enough for you, so be it. It is not my life's goal to prove to you that I understand Buddhism.

"Rational egoism" is a contradiction in terms. The ego is a product of irrationality, and spawns further irrationality.

Can you support this proposition? Show me how rational egoism is not rational. Can you do so rationally? Are you trapped by a Buddhist dogma that denies the existence of self? Who is it that holds such a view?

bis bald,

Nick

This doesn't follow. Just because something has never arisen or began, it doesn't mean, unless it simply doesn't exist, that it cannot end. Something that always was does not necessarily have to always be

It’s pretty simple logic. If something has never come into existence, it certainly can not come to an end.

I don't think nothingness has to be the opposite of somethingness. It can be another kind of something, the backdrop on which something manifests itself, the hole that makes the doughnut possible, the absence I perceive when my date stands me up. I think this is how Sartre describes it.

Regardless it is still a thing.
A concept, an object with illusory borders.
A thing by it’s very definition cannot manifest itself, it is entirely dependent on something else for its existence.
So this backdrop of nothingness would have had to exist prior to the self manifestation of somethingness.
But if this is accurate... What was there nothing of, prior to the self manifestation of somethingness?
And if it something could self manifest, why would it need to be projected onto nothingness, couldn’t it just manifest independent of nothingness?

It's true that when an Asian philosopher becomes entirely one with the whole, there is no distinction between the self and the whole of everything. It is the goal of meditation to reach this state and act reflexively, not reflectively. An athlete who is in the zone, automatically doing what he or she must do, has reached this state.

And where exactly was this Asian before his Philosophical breakthrough? Outside of the whole of everything?

If we can get back to my philosophy, I agree with the state of flux idea to a certain extent. It's the same process of becoming as existentialists talk about. However, the existentialists, although authenticity is important for them too, do not try to eliminate self and craving to eliminate suffering, as Buddha advocated.

The Buddha advocated understanding things as they truly are, truthfully and free of delusion. His teachings have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating the self, or running from life.

I still think there is an essence of humanness which is permanent and universal and pre-existent.

What is this essence?

NickOtani wrote:

Do you know this for sure, or is it just what you have read?

I've admitted that I am not a Buddhist. I have read about Buddhism and been around Asian philosophies all of my life. My last name is Otani, a Japanese name, and I have taken Judo for more than thirty years. I think I understand some of the concepts of Buddhism.

Thinking you do is not good enough. Your understanding about Buddhism is close to zero.

I've never met anyone who has studied Judo who understands the basic concepts of Buddhism.

I cannot know Buddhism as a Buddhist would.

Yes you can. Understanding Buddhism doesn't depend on labeling yourself a Buddhist.

Still, I think I can talk about it as well as anybody who is not a Buddhist

I have no idea what you mean by "Buddhist". Is a Buddhist someone who calls themselves a Buddhist?

The Buddha himself wouldn't have called himself a Buddhist. But I don't think you can talk about Buddhism as well as the Buddha can.

. . . just as I can talk about various Christian religions from the perspective of an atheist.

You can talk about them, but you may not know anything about them. On the other hand, you might. The proof is in the pudding.

If this isn't good enough for you, so be it. It is not my life's goal to prove to you that I understand Buddhism.

If you don't understand Buddhism, then you wouldn't be able to even if you wanted to.

"Rational egoism" is a contradiction in terms. The ego is a product of irrationality, and spawns further irrationality.

Can you support this proposition? Show me how rational egoism is not rational.

As I have said, "rational egoism" is meaningless, since it is a contradiction in terms. But it can be demonstrated how the ego itself is an irrational construct.

The self is not an irrational construct, but the ego is.

ello nickotani

you are good!

It’s pretty simple logic. If something has never come into existence, it certainly can not come to an end.

If something has never come into existence, it could be for two reasons: 1. It has always been. 2. It doesn't exist.

If it has always been, there is nothing yet to say it cannot end, not be, in the future.

If it does not exist, even as a concept, it cannot have a referent. "It does not exist," is either a contradiction or meaningless statement. It says there exists something which does not exist.

And where exactly was this Asian before his Philosophical breakthrough? Outside of the whole of everything?

Yes. The Asian, who could be a she, may be under the so-called western delusion that he or she is independent of everything else. It's the dualism of us being in one place, here, while everything else is "out there." Many Asians, as well as many non-Asians, try to eliminate this dualism by eliminating the self, the ego, the subject, the thing for itself. The want to be, like the customer said to the hotdog vender, one with everything.

The Buddha advocated understanding things as they truly are, truthfully and free of delusion. His teachings have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating the self, or running from life.

The goal of the Buddha is to eliminate suffering, which is life, by eliminating craving. The goal of the existentialist is to accept suffering, anguish and despair, and put meaning into life. To me, this seems like the Buddhist is withdrawing while the existentialist is going forward, embracing life and overcoming obsticles to flourish, to make something out of nothing.

What is this essence?

Humans are, essentially, rational creatures, the only living things that manipulate symbols in a structured form. They are the subjects in the subject object dichotomy. They are not entirely one with everything. They are distinct in kind, not just degree.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick: I still think there is an essence of humanness which is permanant and universal and pre-existent.

Humans are, essentially, rational creatures, the only living things that manipulate symbols in a structured form. They are the subjects in the subject object dichotomy. They are not entirely one with everything. They are distinct in kind, not just degree.

I get the essence you are pointing to, and that they are not entirely one with everything, so is everything else not one with any other thing, otherwise one wouldn’t be differentiating any thing at all, but I would like to know about the rest of your first statement. I mean about the ‘permanent, universal and specially the pre-existent’ part.

Nick: The freedom of the existential relativism and subjectivism is within the parameters which are objective. That's why it is a Neo-Objectivism.

Could you please elaborate a bit on freedom, and within what parameters?

Hello Nick,

Just to clarify something - you wrote:

Aristotle posited the prime mover as a first cause, an uncaused causer. But there seems to be only one of these in his world view.

Actually that is at least debatable, at most, quite false. Aristotle posited an ultimate "prime mover" if you will (which, when analysed looks and sounds a whole lot like Nature), but he also had others in his metaphysical shema - possibly 47 or 55 of them, in fact. This is, in part, because he knew little about the physics of motion (or much of anything empirical).

Secondly, with regard to demonstrating the irrationality of the notion of ego (herein defined as the concept of an inherently existent self) you may wish to read this by one of our board moderators; just apply the ideas expressed to the notion of self and the delusional nature of the construct "ego" ought become apparent.

Cause and Effect


Dan Rowden

I get the essence you are pointing to, and that they are not entirely one with everything, so is everything else not one with any other thing, otherwise one wouldn’t be differentiating any thing at all, but I would like to know about the rest of your first statement. I mean about the ‘permanent, universal and specially the pre-existent’ part.

Many things do change, but some things are permanent. I think the essence to which I was pointing is permanent and universal. The humans at the time of The Epic of Gilgamish are as recognizable as humans of today. They may have learned some things and gone through a few industrial and political revolutions but didn't evolve into something else. They had feelings and moral dilemmas just as we have today. Also, humans in other parts of the world are not more or less human than humans in western cultures. To believe otherwise is somehow racist or ethnocentric. And, finally, conditions of existence for the flourishing survival of humans are also universal, and they would be here even if humans were not, just as gravity would exist even if nothing falls. This makes them pre-existent.

Could you please elaborate a bit on freedom, and within what parameters?

The existential model allows for freedom of humans to participate in the creation of their nature, their essence. In the paragraph just above, I said that there is a permanent, fixed nature for humans, but it is not as complete and fixed as the natures of non-human things. The nature of trees is complete and fixed. They can only do what their natures require. Humans, however, are still in a process of creating their natures, even if some aspects of their natures are fixed. It is the humans who are the subjects. All that is not human is object. Humans have categorized them as such. Humans cannot objectify themselves, although they try, because they cannot turn their eyes back in on themselves to observe what is observing. They are like the yardstick which measures other things but cannot measure itself.

The linguistic ability of humans allows them to think on a conceptual level and form concepts never before formed. This is a creative aspect of human language. It allows humans the freedom to invent things which lead to industrial revolutions and advances in technology which don't seem to happen among non-human creatures.

Since humans are these unique creatures who require reason and the freedom to use it, morality applies to them. It doesn't apply to trees and things which have no choice about what they do. However, if there are no limits on freedom, there can also be no morality, no oughts, no prescription. Morality only works if there are certain things one ought to do and one has the freedom to do them.

Rights are a moral term, and natural rights apply to humans. They are the conditions of existence for the flourishing survival of humans in groups. I think humans ought to have the freedom to whatever they want to promote and protect their own flourishing survival within the parameters of allowing other humans that same right.

This is a general principle, something like the golden rule or categorical imperative. It is the libertarian ideal, that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they do not step on other people's toes. Yes, this isn't real specific. There are shades of gray, and we need procedures and law degrees and such to sort through exactly where some toes end and others begin, but obvious injustices are self-evident. It's not wrong to condemn Hitler. There are moral goods and evils which are well on one side or the other of the wide fuzzy line.

Secondly, with regard to demonstrating the irrationality of the notion of ego (herein defined as the concept of an inherently existent self) you may wish to read this by one of our board moderators; just apply the ideas expressed to the notion of self and the delusional nature of the construct "ego" ought become apparent.

I looked over the first part of that article on cause and effect and see that the author seems to have adopted the mechanistic model which runs on cause and effect and results in determinism leading back to a determiner. I am simply calling humans, through the existential model, the determiners. Dennett is as materialist and mechanistic as one can get, but he posits a self as different centers in the body at different times, depending on the situation. It is a sort of chief executive of operations for the body. I have argued before with those who claimed the self is an illusion but that thinking goes on. I say that as running indicates the existence of a runner, as walking indicates the existence of a walker, thinking indicates the existence of a thinker. The thinker is what I call the self.

bis bald,

Nick

NickOtani wrote:

I looked over the first part of that article on cause and effect and see that the author seems to have adopted the mechanistic model which runs on cause and effect and results in determinism leading back to a determiner.

As the author of this "article", I can tell you that your interpretation couldn't be more wrong. There is no determiner. Nor, in the end, is there any such thing as cause and effect - but that's really a matter for deeper thinkers to thrash over.

Dennett is as materialist and mechanistic as one can get, but he posits a self as different centers in the body at different times, depending on the situation.

If that is what he is proposing, then he is certainly not "as materialist and mechanistic as one can get". For the true mechanist, all "selves" can be broken down into their mechanistic causal forces. Nothing remains at all.

It is a sort of chief executive of operations for the body. I have argued before with those who claimed the self is an illusion but that thinking goes on. I say that as running indicates the existence of a runner, as walking indicates the existence of a walker, thinking indicates the existence of a thinker. The thinker is what I call the self.

Does a computer need a "self" to perform its computations? Does the weather need a "self" to regulate the earth's climactic patterns?

The fact that there is raining, doesn't mean that there is a rainer.

Your desire for the existence of a self is based on wishful thinking.


-

NickOtani wrote:

Basically, Objectivism is a lot like Realism in that it is assumed that reality exists independent of the perceiver. It is discovered rather than created, and it exists pretty much as it is perceived,

If by "reality" you mean the Absolute/Ultimate Reality, then I would agree with you that reality exists independently of the observer.

If, however, you simply mean the empirical world which we observe through our senses, then the idea that reality can exist independently of an observer is wishful thinking.

No empirical world has ever been discovered independently of an observer, nor can such a world ever be discovered. For wherever there is discovery, there is automatically an observer.

... and it exists pretty much as it is perceived,

It exists exactly as it is perceived. For the perceived world is the only world there is. There isn't a second world existing like a ghost behind the perceived world.

Now, my philosophy is Neo-Objectivism. I try to combine the best of Objectivism with the best of Existentialism to keep the best of two worlds while off-setting the weaknesses of each.

If you mean that you are trying to realize subjectively what is absolutely true in life, you might have something there. That is real wisdom. It sounds to me, however, that you are simply trying to mash two different fantasies together.

So, there are certain facts about reality and human existence which are objective, universal, as true for one person as for another, but we also have freedom within those objective parameters to forge our own paths, to create ourselves and reality.

Agreed. And one of these objective facts is that there is no such thing as an objective empirical world "out there" beyond the mind.

Take care not to get sucked in by your own imagination.

-

NickOtani: This looks like you adopt a mechanistic model which runs on cause and effect and results in determinism. It doesn't explain what the first cause is. If things are determined, there must either be a determiner or infinite regress, if there is order in nature. Aristotle posited the prime mover as a first cause, an uncaused causer.

Kevin: There cannot be a "first cause", since all things are caused. Unless, of course, you draw a line in the sand at some point and specify "This shall be known, for practical purposes, as the first cause." Somebody else might of course draw their line in the sand somewhere else.

I’d just like to state my view on the first cause issue. I don’t like how some here do not tackle the first cause – for me it is not enough to say there is no first cause because all things are caused.

The concept of a first cause is a little illogical because infinite regression logically shows that the whole set of all causes must be circular in fashion, that is, the first cause must always be occurring and must not only be the first cause but the same as all other subsequent causes. Not that the word “subsequent” really applies - when speaking of the totality, any cause could be considered the first cause.

IMO, there are one or two prime movers. To be honest I’m not sure - there may be two separate prime movers that interact or one prime mover with two opposite attributes. Whatever the case, if one of these attributes exists then the other opposite is automatically caused to exist to the same degree of force.

I view the totality of consisting of two elements only – expansive and contractive forces (think of an infinite cone shape – the large end symbolises the Expansionary force and the small end the Contracting Force). The first cause, and all causes, and all things, movement, whatever, is the reaction between these two core forces. Only in this way can Space itself exist – it is the interaction of these forces that creates dimensions, and with the creation of dimensions, relative forces are created and things becomes possible because within the spectrum of relativity there are points of existence that are close to half expansion/half contraction and balance becomes possible. Finiteness is where this balance is observable, as in all things with properties. Observable properties are merely multiple spatial layers of near balance.

The universe continuously expands because these two forces are the only possible thing that could be classed as infinite. The physical universe itself is only infinite as a flowing process but ‘as any form’ it is always finite. The two forces are the cause of the physical universe and must exist in pure form outside of “space”, they must be unrelated to dimensions, to physical-ness, while still having the properties we can conceptualise of a being expanding or contracting. Unlike the universe, The Totality includes these non-spatial forces and is therefore infinite.

What then causes the expansionary force to expand, and the contracting force to contract, what is the prior cause for these concepts, what created them?

I cannot fully answer this, but at least my line in the sand is at a more practical logical level than says Kevin’s above. Imo, my theory allows one to say “close enough, it doesn’t really matter if I cannot explain how a force continually expands or contracts without being caused by something external to it. It is easier for me to just think “well that is what it does, and there is nothing physical in which this theory is not represented”.

I think the answer lies in the impossibility of nothingness or emptiness. It is simply impossible for nothingness to exist anywhere within the totality (and there can be nothing outside the totality). Empty space even devoid of light, gravity, energy and things is certainly not nothingness, because it is possible to place something in it – it has dimensions. If it were truly nothingness it would have no size relationships with anything else, meaning it could not exist side by side with what was not nothingness, such nothingness could not even exist outside the physical universe as it would have an effect on the universe and thus not be nothing.

Because we are not nothing, we know something must exist, but science to date has been unable to define its form. Buddhists (and Kevin and David) fall short by cognitively altering this unknown into the concept of emptiness – it is essentially a non answer to “what is existence”. Buddhists place a conceptual mirror in front of the question, so it always bounces back.

If anything exists at all in the now, then by default existence of some sort must always have existed. The totality must have always existed. This being the case, and seeing nothingness cannot exist, then the totality must be self-causing. Now something cannot be self-causing if it is made of parts, if it is reducible in some fashion, as that would logically indicate it was caused by other things. Nor can something be infinite if it was not self-causing – finite essentially equates to caused by other things and no thing of matter can be infinite otherwise the universe would consist only of the thing and nothing else. Really infinity must be limited to forces that can exist side by side within the same spatial domain or forces where one creates the other.

It would be reasonable to think that the contracting force represents nothingness, seeing as it is an inwards drawing force, a force that tries to make bigness into smallness - but even this is a delusion. It is a rational delusion that occurs because of the primeval needs/desires of life to place more value on bigger things than smaller things. Brush aside the effects of our personal relationships to the universe however, and all valuing would become irrational – for instance it would be impossible for an omniscient god to value one thing over another, and viewed by such a god the contracting force would not be categorised as nothingness – it would merely be a form of existence.

The totality is completely full and has no empty portions. This does not mean it is full of “things”, but it can nonetheless be full of forces.

Essentially the thought of things being made of base units of something solid (as in irreducible) and unchanging just does not logically compute, be it QM strings or the ether or whatever. There is no absolute solidity within the universe, be it a quark or a black hole. Solidity is relative to the relationship of our consciousness with time. Even if such base units of matter existed they would be caused to form by something else, something which was not a base unit, something not solid.

There is a form of solidity that does exist however and it relates to the impossibility of two infinite forces becoming one force. If something is infinite then it cannot mix with anything else. It can appear to mix but in the end it doesn’t. It is a bit like a spoonful of oil placed in a glass full of water and shaken. The oil droplets will become segmented and appear mixed, but it does not form new molecules of oil-water, when the movement caused by the shaking completely stops, the oil will separate from the water. This means there is an impenetrable barrier between the two things – where they meet “solidness” arises as each is completely blocked from fusing with the other.

So it is to for The Totality. The universe is just like the shaken mixture – but its core elements are the Expanding and the Contracting forces. Essentially everything is made of the same stuff.

These two forces are infinite, so this means they are infinitely coming into contact and creating barriers where they meet. This meeting place between two infinities is what creates finiteness. They are opposites so they cannot interface 100% infinitely. The expanding force is like a huge bath and the contracting force is like a small plughole – where they meet the fastest movement is caused (and it causes spiral movement effects - which is important whether one looks at atoms, planets or galaxies).

Note that things that have the most mass are things full of very rapid movement. While space also is full of rapid movement because of light and other radiations, as matter can be converted to energy, things with mass have many, many more times the movement contained within them than space does. Things have gravity, essentially gravity is the contracting force, which is considered infinite (it never decreases in power). We also don’t really know what it is, which is another obvious sign that it not of a finite nature – it is no surprise to me that as finite beings we can never grok that which is infinite.

If the Expansionary force was suddenly removed from any “thing” it would immediately collapse into a single ‘dot’ (a singularity) or if the Contracting Force was removed it would enlarge space (expand the universe). This is because “things” only exist where the two forces are in equilibrium to some extent. All the properties of things come from the relationship between the parts in balance inside the thing and the totality of the thing in question, together with interferences to these balances from what is external to the thing. If anything causes destruction of these balances then the contracting force and expanding force will be separated until they have a chance to form a new balance. An atomic bomb is splitting the contracting force and the expanding force across a huge number of uranium atoms, the contracting force more or less disappears into some other atoms (except it is probably also a starter catalyst for the mushroom shape of the cloud) and the expansionary force is let loose pushing everything outward and causing destruction.

Anyway that's enough. I think folks are a bit sick of me pushing this theory around here, but it annoys me that others don't get it.

If something has never come into existence, it could be for two reasons: 1. It has always been. 2. It doesn't exist.

If it has always been, there is nothing yet to say it cannot end, not be, in the future.

If it does not exist, even as a concept, it cannot have a referent. "It does not exist," is either a contradiction or meaningless statement. It says there exists something which does not exist.

So then with these options.... If Samsara has always been, how can Nirvana be the cessation of something that has always been?

The goal of the Buddha is to eliminate suffering, which is life, by eliminating craving.

The non-doing of any evil,
the performance of what's skillful,
the cleansing of one's own mind:
this is the teaching of the Awakened. [Dhp 183]


You keep stating that the Buddha claimed that Life is suffering, and advocated running from Life.
While this is a popular opinion, it is based in blinding ignorance.

The view that all life is suffering is that of the average and deluded surface dwellers. The Four Noble Truths are meant to show an example of Causality and Dependent Origination, the path leading to the cessation of suffering, not the abhorring of Life.

The first truth is the Noble Truth of Stress, craving and attachment are the cause of suffering. Not Life.

The goal of the existentialist is to accept suffering, anguish and despair, and put meaning into life. To me, this seems like the buddhist is withdrawing while the existentialist is going forward, embracing life and overcoming osticles to flourish, to make something out of nothing.

Going forward where?

Humans are, essentially, rational creatures, the only living things that manipulate symbols in a structured form. They are the subjects in the subject object dichotomy. They are not entirely one with everything. They are distinct in kind, not just degree.

Humans by their very nature are irrational and are nothing more than subjectless objects.
I agree that they are not entirely one with everything, because there is no “one”
One is condtioned and dependent and Totality is boundless and with out cause.

As the author of this "article", I can tell you that your interpretation couldn't be more wrong. There is no determiner. Nor, in the end, is there any such thing as cause and effect - but that's really a matter for deeper thinkers to thrash over.

You did say, "... Moreover, these causes and conditions were themselves produced by the causes and conditions of the moment before that, and so on back ad infinitum. This is the creative principle of Nature. Sometimes I call it God, the creator of all things. At other times I call it Tao, the never-ending flow of the Universe./Others have called it Brahman, or Reality, or the Infinite. Lao Tzu, in the Tao Te Ching, called it the "constancy of nature":"

I interpreted that this loosely qualifies as a determiner.

No empirical world has ever been discovered independently of an observer, nor can such a world ever be discovered. For wherever there is discovery, there is automatically an observer.

Is that like "wherever there is raining there is a rainer,"? You sound almost like Berkeley. If it exists but nobody is there to observe it, it must be observed by God. Are you sure you are not thinking wishfully?

It exists exactly as it is perceived. For the perceived world is the only world there is. There isn't a second world existing like a ghost behind the perceived world.

But we don't perceive some things without assistance, and our senses sometimes fool us. Does the milk stop existing when we close the refrigerator door? Is a pencil actually split when we see it in a glass of water?

If you mean that you are trying to realize subjectively what is absolutely true in life, you might have something there. That is real wisdom. It sounds to me, however, that you are simply trying to mash two different fantasies together.

No, I'm trying to keep the freedom that comes from being a prime mover, a subject who participates in the creation of his or her nature, while also keeping intact the universal nature of humans and nature.

Agreed. And one of these objective facts is that there is no such thing as an objective empirical world "out there" beyond the mind.

If you look at a telephone pole and can't change it, with your mind, into a teacup, then it is objective, not something created by your mind but discovered by it.

IMO, there are one or two prime movers. To be honest I’m not sure - there may be two separate prime movers that interact or one prime mover with two opposite attributes. Whatever the case, if one of these attributes exists then the other opposite is automatically caused to exist to the same degree of force.

IMO, humans are prime movers. They have a unique ability to create concepts, with their linguist structure, never before existing. This gives them the freedom to cause things without having been caused to cause them. They can make baseless choices. They can forge new paths rather than following old ones.

So then with these options.... If Samsara has always been, how can Nirvana be the cessation of something that has always been?

Remember, I'm not the one who says something which always was cannot at some point cease to be.

Going forward where?

Wherever they freely choose.

Humans by their very nature are irrational and are nothing more than subjectless objects.

No, sometimes, perhaps more often than not, humans choose to be irrational, but they have the linguistic ability to be rational. It's their ability to volitionally manipulate symbols in a structured form that qualifies them as rational creatures, not their consistent rational decisions.

One is condtioned and dependent and Totality is boundless and with out cause.

Are you conditioned to think this way?

bis bald,

Nick

Remember, I'm not the one who says something which always was cannot at some point cease to be.

If it has always been, there is nothing yet to say it cannot end, not be, in the future.

To assume that something has always been, is to imply the existence of a thing without a cause.
But this is a complete contradiction to the definition of a thing/object/concept.
But disregarding that fact for a moment... This causeless thing would then have to exist independent of anything else.
If it exists entirely of its own accord, what then could cause this thing to change it’s state into one of non being?
What could cause this causeless thing to end?

Whereever they freely choose.

Freely choose? So the chooser is not only free to choose, but is the creator of it’s own choices?

Is there free will with out the presence of choice?

No, sometimes, perhaps more often than not, humans choose to be irrational, but they have the linguistic ability to be rational. It's their ability to volitionally manipulate symbols in a structured form that qualifies them as rational creatures, not their consistent rational decisions.

So can a human choose to be rational without the use and manipulation of structured forms?

Is there volition with out the presence of consciousness?

Are you conditioned to think this way?

In the mundane sense, yes.

To assume that something has always been, is to imply the existence of a thing without a cause.
But this is a complete contradiction to the definition of a thing/object/concept.
But disregarding that fact for a moment... This causeless thing would then have to exist independent of anything else.
If it exists entirely of its own accord, what then could cause this thing to change it’s state into one of non being?
What could cause this causeless thing to end?

I can think of examples in mathematics of series without a beginning but with an end. The set of negative integers has no beginning, but it does have an end. It is only an assumption, also that everything has a cause or that anything exists without a cause. If it does, however, there is nothing inherent in the definition which says it must always be.

Freely choose? So the chooser is not only free to choose, but is the creator of it’s own choices?

Is there free will with out the presence of choice?

If there is no possibility of choice, there can be no freedom. However, there can be a possibility that humans are not free not to be free, since not choosing is also a choice.

So can a human choose to be rational without the use and manipulation of structured forms?

Is there volition with out the presence of consciousness?

No, it is this structured language that allows humans the ability to be creative. It is conceptual consciousness. Non-human creature are automatically rational in that they do what their natures require, but they have no choice. They are conditioned. Humans are also conditioned to some extent, but we have an ability to deviate from conditioning or be creative in our responses to stimuli. We can also act without stimuli. We can forge our own path where none existed before.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick wrote:

Many things do change, but some things are permanent. I think the essence to which I was pointing is permanent and universal.

I think it will take you some time to actually communicate with people here. The first thing to be clarified is definitions. “Things” include all mental attributes such as thoughts and ideas. Keeping that in mind, how permanent do you think is the essence of Humanness say before we came into the picture?

The humans at the time of The Epic of Gilgimish are as recognizable as humans of today. They may have learned some things and gone through a few industrial and political revolutions but didn't evolve into something else.

Sure, we may have not evolved much, physically, since Gilgamesh, but I do not agree that we have not progressed as far as mental evolution is concerned. Is not the development of mental capabilities an extension of evolution towards better survival?

They had feelings and moral dilemmas just as we have today. Also, humans in other parts of the world are not more or less human than humans in western cultures. To believe otherwise is somehow racist or ethnocentric.

Yes, feelings and moral dilemmas still exist today but they are not the same as it was then. Feelings are controlled through the mental makeup of an individual or group who come to an agreement on any particular morality dictated by the times and environment they live in.

And, finally, conditions of existence for the flourishing survival of humans are also universal, and they would be here even if humans were not, just as gravity would exist even if nothing falls. This makes them pre-existent.

I agree that there has always been the potential to any and all things that exist, but that does not mean and Humanness pre-existed humans, as your initial statement suggests. However, no body could deny that the potential never existed.

The existential model allows for freedom of humans to participate in the creation of their nature, their essence. In the paragraph just above, I said that there is a permanent, fixed nature for humans, but it is not as complete and fixed as the natures of non-human things. The nature of trees is complete and fixed. They can only do what their natures require.

So it seems, but they too are mutating all the time, ask a biologist. In my opinion, the tragedy is that we have hardly reached kindergarten since we stood upright, and at every step we think that we are at the prime of thoughtfulness.

Humans, however, are still in a process of creating their natures, even if some aspects of their natures are fixed.

I consider that as simple mental evolution, nothing more.

It is the humans who are the subjects. All that is not human is object. Humans have categorized them as such.

Sure, but how would a dog “categorize” us? Although it might not conceptualize through verbal mental thoughts, but it does move out of the way or react when we approach. Does it not experience the difference?

Humans cannot objectify themselves, although they try, because they cannot turn their eyes back in on themselves to observe what is observing. They are like the yardstick which measures other things but cannot measure itself.

What if I said that a yard stick could measure itself given the chance to self-define the measure. The measure would be what it is self-defined as, and no-thing else. What is observing could well be a physical entity capable of processing sensual data.

The linguistic ability of humans allows them to think on a conceptual level and form concepts never before formed.

No-thing was ever before formed, that does not make new concepts any more special as far as totality of existence is concerned. Otherwise, it seems to be the most beneficial aspect that helps survival, among other side effects.

This is a creative aspect of human language. It allows humans the freedom to invent things which lead to industrial revolutions and advances in technology which don't seem to happen among non-human creatures.

Of course, and how did we reach such a stage? Quite simply evolution preferred developing the brain rather than providing an extra internal-heating-system to keep warm since the entity it had created discovered fire and logically used it. Just like the river, evolution finds the most obvious course, it does not plan, and today it has developed to the extant that we have all the byproducts of that initially ignited logic, namely, industrial revolution and advanced technology. And, I’m sure you would agree that we have not even scratched the surface in that regard.

Since humans are these unique creatures who require reason and the freedom to use it, morality applies to them. It doesn't apply to trees and things which have no choice about what they do. However, if there are no limits on freedom, there can also be no morality, no oughts, no prescription. Morality only works if there are certain things one ought to do and one has the freedom to do them.

I do not disagree to what you say here but this is an entirely different subject based on mutually agreed social or moral behavior, and the same applies to the rest of your post.

In your response to NOX you mentiooned:

Humans are also conditioned to some extent, but we have an abity to deviate from conditioning or be creative in our responses to stimuli. We can also act without stimuli. We can forge our own path where none existed before.

Yes we can forge our own path, and fortunately speak about it, but so do those numerous roots of a thousand year old tree, but unfortunately they cannot speak about it. Yes, in my opinion we do have "free-will" which does work internally as far as the human-thing is concerned, but I think ultimately you will find that it is tied down to causes, and yet nothing is cumulatively determined further than an immediate individual effect.

I just noticed something else you mentioned:

It is conceptual consciousness.

I know that as Logi-consciousness, namely that unlike other conscious things, we are logically aware of existence including our own.

I can think of examples in mathematics of series without a beginning but with an end. The set of negative intergers has no beginning, but it does have an end. It is only an assumption, also that everything has a cause or that anything exists without a cause. If it does, however, there is nothing inherent in the definition which says it must always be.

Do these series and negative integers exist independently of natural numbers?

If there is no possibility of choice, there can be no freedom. However, there can be a possibility that humans are not free not to be free, since not choosing is also a choice.

Choice and non-choice, implies restriction and illusion.
If one is presented with the choice of A or B, it must either choose or not choose, but it can not disregard the choices and manifest it’s own option of C.
Also if it must either choose or not choose it is restricted and still must contend with the options presented, just as you affirm here...


me : So can a human choose to be rational without the use and manipulation of structured forms?

you: No, it is this structured language that allows humans the ability to be creative.

And here....you: If there is no possibility of choice, there can be no freedom. However, there can be a possibility that humans are not free not to be free, since not choosing is also a choice.

You confirm that there are mandatory restrictions upon choice, which conveniently and quite effectively eliminates the concept of Free.

It is conceptual consciousness. Non-human creature are automatically rational in that they do what their natures require, but they have no choice. They are conditioned. Humans are also conditioned to some extent, but we have an abity to deviate from conditioning or be creative in our responses to stimuli. We can also act without stimuli. We can forge our own path where none existed before.

Now if we focus on Will and or Volition, we see that it is dependent on consciousness and is therefore conditioned by its causes and must act, or not act, in accordance with it’s supporting constituents, which again, eliminates the possibility of Free and action without stimuli.

I think it will take you some time to actually communicate with people here. The first thing to be clarified is definitions. “Things” include all mental attributes such as thoughts and ideas. Keeping that in mind, how permanent do you think is the essence of Humanness say before we came into the picture?

Existentialists refer to things-in-themselves, fixed objects other than humans, and things for themselves, humans, the subjects. They picked this up from people like Kant and Hegel.

Plato and Aristotle would think humanness is a form or concept that preexists man. Existentialists and Buddhists think of humanness as something in the process of becoming, like everything else. I think some aspects of humanness could have evolved but then is now universal and fixed, since man first evolved and until man evolves into something else. Conditions for the existence of humans, however, were around before humans, just as conditions for sound exist before anything is around to hear it.

Sure, we may have not evolved much, physically, since Gilgamesh, but I do not agree that we have not progressed as far as mental evolution is concerned. Is not the development of mental capabilities an extension of evolution towards better survival?

I think humans are distinct from other animals, not just more developed, and I think we are not more or less human from time to time or location to location.

Yes, feelings and moral dilemmas still exist today but they are not the same as it was then. Feelings are controlled through the mental makeup of an individual or group who come to an agreement on any particular morality dictated by the times and environment they live in.

I don’t think morality is dictated by groups or times. If humans are still human, then that which promotes and protects their existence is still good, and that which threatens and destroys it is still evil. Morality based on human survival transcends groups and changing definitions.

Sure, but how would a dog “categorize” us? Although it might not conceptualize through verbal mental thoughts, but it does move out of the way or react when we approach. Does it not experience the difference?

I think dogs experience us on a perceptual level, not a conceptual level, and they are bound by their fixed natures to do what dogs do, even though some can be trained to resist their natural reflexes.

Yes we can forge our own path, and fortunately speak about it, but so do those numerous roots of a thousand year old tree, but unfortunately they cannot speak about it. Yes, in my opinion we do have "free-will" which does work internally as far as the human-thing is concerned, but I think ultimately you will find that it is tied down to causes, and yet nothing is cumulatively determined further than an immediate individual effect.

I think the roots of the tree are bound by their nature to seek the available nutrients in the soil, as far as they are able. The have no choice about this.

Bis bald,

Nick

Choice and non-choice, implies restriction and illusion.
If one is presented with the choice of A or B, it must either choose or not choose, but it can not disregard the choices and manifest it’s own option of C.
Also if it must either choose or not choose it is restricted and still must contend with the options presented, just as you affirm here...

If we really get into the kind of choices there are, there are about five. There is the positive-negative choice, if we just keep things two a choice between two options. It would be irrational to choose the negative, but people are free to do so. Then, there are the positive-positive or negative-negative, which are really more of choices because there is nothing complelling one to go either way. Finally, there is a baseless choice such as when one is standing in an open field, with no paths, and one must forge one's own. There is no reason to go one way anymore than the other. There is simply not enough to predict consequences and weigh options. One must just choose and bring about consequences for which he or she is truely responsible.

You confirm that there are mandatory restrictions upon choice, which conveniently and quite effectively eliminates the concept of Free.

There can be freedom within parameters. Total freedom would eliminate prescription as surely as no freedom.

bis bald,

Nick

NickOtani wrote:

N: I looked over the first part of that article on cause and effect and see that the author seems to have adopted the mechanistic model which runs on cause and effect and results in determinism leading back to a determiner.

DQ: As the author of this "article", I can tell you that your interpretation couldn't be more wrong. There is no determiner. Nor, in the end, is there any such thing as cause and effect - but that's really a matter for deeper thinkers to thrash over.

N: You did say, "... Moreover, these causes and conditions were themselves produced by the causes and conditions of the moment before that, and so on back ad infinitum. This is the creative principle of Nature. Sometimes I call it God, the creator of all things. At other times I call it Tao, the never-ending flow of the Universe./Others have called it Brahman, or Reality, or the Infinite. Lao Tzu, in the Tao Te Ching, called it the "constancy of nature":"

I interpreted that this loosely qualifies as a determiner.

The process of cause and effect is itself the determiner of all things. This is very different from saying that the causal process leads back to a determiner.

There aren't two seperate things here - the causal process and the determiner. The causal process is the determiner.

DQ: No empirical world has ever been discovered independently of an observer, nor can such a world ever be discovered. For wherever there is discovery, there is automatically an observer.

N: Is that like "wherever there is raining there is a rainer,"? You sound almost like Berkeley. If it exists but nobody is there to observe it, it must be observed by God. Are you sure you are not thinking wishfully?

You need to stop slotting everything you read into those rigid academic categories which you've obviously picked up from your textbooks. It creates too many gaps in your perception. It stops you from really listening to what the other person is saying.

My point here has no connection to Berkely. I'm simply stating the logical truth that no one has ever discovered a world which is independent of an observer. If you want to challenge this, then please provide some actual evidence, preferably in the shape of an observer-less world that you have personally discovered.

DQ: It exists exactly as it is perceived. For the perceived world is the only world there is. There isn't a second world existing like a ghost behind the perceived world.

N: But we don't perceive some things without assistance, and our senses sometimes fool us. Does the milk stop existing when we close the refrigerator door?

Of course, provided that you also stop imagining its existence or non-existence after the door has been closed.

Nothing can exist in the absence of consciousness. To exist is to present an appearance, and to present an appearance is to be reliant on an observer.

Is a pencil actually split when we see it in a glass of water?

There is only one way to find out - namely, take it out of the water and observe what's there.

I'm trying to keep the freedom that comes from being a prime mover, a subject who participates in the creation of his or her nature, while also keeping intact the universal nature of humans and nature.

So in other words, you're not interested in truth?

DQ: Agreed. And one of these objective facts is that there is no such thing as an objective empirical world "out there" beyond the mind.

N: If you look at a telephone pole and can't change it, with your mind, into a teacup, then it is objective, not something created by your mind but discovered by it.

If that is your criteria, then there can be nothing subjective at all. Everything would be purely objective. You have completely eliminated the subjective self.

Are you able to change your own thoughts into a cup of tea?

Your thinking on these issues is still very materialistic and shallow. You're not as removed from Ayn Rand's worldview as you perhaps believe.

-

NickOtani wrote:

If something has never come into existence, it could be for two reasons: 1. It has always been. 2. It doesn't exist.

If it has always been, there is nothing yet to say it cannot end, not be, in the future.

If it does not exist, even as a concept, it cannot have a referent. "It does not exist," is either a contradiction or meaningless statement. It says there exists something which does not exist.

There is a third option, which describes Nature's situation. There has never been a time in the past in which Nature (i.e. the totality of all there is) has come into existence. Because of this, it can never do the opposite and go out of existence again. It is permanently beyond both existence and non-existence.

Although Nature comprises the totality of all there is, it is not any one thing in particular. It can never be frozen into a particular shape or form. It can never degenerate into the lowly status of a created thing. Although it is the principle behind all created things, it itself is not a created thing. Because of this, it is unborn and therefore beyond death.

-