GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic wrote:I take your point re the "undercurrent of debate" in my posts, but I'm not really sure what the solution is because what could be perceived as "combativity" is for me a part of the making of my points in a way that is clear and direct enough for the other party to understand. Do you think that there's scope for me to continue to make clearly understood and direct points in a way that minimises conflict and the setting up of an adversarial situation?

I think adversarial situations are ok unless they are emotionally driven - out of revenge, pride, or whatever. I'm sure you could put lots of effort into being very polite and come across as a fundamentally caring person, but that is just the gloss of a salesman. Regardless of how you present yourself, there is the fundamental issue of whether our reasoning is deluded with emotions, because to the degree they are they'll be at best shallow, at worst false.

Sometimes I've found it to be the case, that the less deluded my reasoning is, the less I seem to be a fundamentally caring person to others.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:[A]ny "external reality" one cares to imagine or point to will always be an appearance

I accept that if one imagines or points to external reality, then there is what you call "an appearance" in one's mind. How do you go from there to proving that this appearance does not actually correspond to anything in external reality?

I'm not saying there isn't any such correspondence. It is obviously true that external reality does trigger what we experience in consciousness, but the manner in which it does so is beyond our imagination. It is a process of causality that we cannot track.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:[A] thing-in-itself is a contradiction in terms.

What do you mean by "thing-in-itself"? For the sake of argument, I am going to interpret it as "a component of reality that exists outside of the mind, and which might or might not cause a corresponding appearance within the mind when perceived through the senses". I see nothing contradictory about that.

To exist means to be in relation to other things. A thing cannot exist all by itself. Even a thing presumed to be dwelling in external reality cannot exist without its component parts, or the time and space which houses it. So a thing-in-itself cannot exist under any circumstance.

I also assert that an observer is required for the existence of objects, just as a reflecting surface is required for the existence of reflections. This is a case of taking the questioning of the thing-in-itself concept further and pushing it all the way.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I don't assert that nothing is beyond the mind. "Nothingness" is an appearance as well and therefore requires an observer. The hidden void is neither something nor nothing. It is unimaginable to us.

You have misunderstood what I mean by "nothing lies beyond the mind". You are interpreting as meaning "nothing-as-some-kind-of-entity lies beyond the mind", which is what allows you to posit that nothingness is an appearance (since it is some kind of entity). Actually, nothingness is the complete absence of appearances, and the complete lack of entities. The correct way to interpret "nothing lies beyond the mind" is: "no thing lies beyond the mind", or, in other words, "it is not the case that any thing(s) lie beyond the mind".

Yes, reality does extend beyond the mind, but in a manner that is not comprehensible to us.

I don't, however, expect you to agree with me, so for the purposes of argument let me rephrase "your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind" as 'your premise that there are no objects beyond the mind, or in other words that there is no world "out there" beyond the mind').

Given that rephrasing, please respond to (1) directly.

I have dealt with it directly. The cause of consciousness is real, but cannot be perceived or imagined by anyone or anything.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote: 2. Given the above, it must instead be the case that the set of all bubbles is arranged such that each bubble directly "touches" every other bubble, such that causes/messages can be sent directly between bubbles without passing through "external reality".

There are countless possible scenarios that could explain the appearance of bubbles being consistent and communicating with one another. For example, each bubble could be a virtual reality simulation housed in some kind of computer, all of them generated by the same core algorithms.

In that case, the computer that houses the bubbles would be an object that exists beyond the mind, contradicting your premise that there are no objects beyond the mind.

Indeed. I brought it up to illustrate that what you call the conventional view of external reality – i.e. the child’s natural view of things – is but one of countless possible explanations of what we consciously experience. The computer scenario is just as plausible as the conventional view.

As for my views on the matter, I have already given them to you. Something beyond the mind obviously causes what we consciously experience, but precisely what it is cannot be fathomed by us. As soon as we try to fathom it, we immediately turn it into an object of consciousness and begin to falsify it.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:We could speculate endlessly about how the bubbles are formed, but it would be a wasted exercise.

Hmm? I thought that it was your contention that the bubbles are formed by the hidden void. From WOTI:

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp.

and

[T]he hidden void [...] possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live.

This is another way of saying that consciousness has a cause (i.e. it doesn't arise out of nothing whatsoever), but the nature of this cause is beyond the reach of our minds to comprehend.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Reality is infinite in that it is the totality of all things and therefore unbounded. Nothing can ever exist beyond it. Whether this totality includes just one bubble of consciousness, or an infinite number of them, or none at all, is irrelevant.

That's unresponsive to my argument. Bubbles are finite, and presumably there are a finite number of them, therefore reality is not unbounded - it only "appears" to be to the mind.

Presumably trees are finite in number as well, but that says nothing one way or the other about the finitude or infinitude of reality.

The key point is the logic underpinning the concept of the totality. Being everything, it is unbounded by definition.

Furthermore, consider that the "totality of all things" refers to appearances within consciousness, and since there is at any one time a finite set of appearances in consciousness, we can't even conclude that within consciousness, reality is infinite.

The totality refers to utterly everything, including that which is inside consciousness and that which is beyond.

About the only way that we can conclude that reality is infinite (in your philosophy) is in the temporal sense: that it has eternally existed and will eternally exist.

More interestingly, it isn't even a thing to begin with.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:I don't understand why you are against clarity. You claim to be a highly logical thinker and to have understood reality through pure logic: good logic is very clear.

Pick up the Tao Te Ching and observe real clarity at work. Everything about it directly points to the nature of reality. Yet it doesn't have a glossary.

It's debatable whether the Tao Te Ching really is clear, but I don't care to get into that debate.

It is crystal clear and very logical.

The point that I do want to make is that you're comparing apples with oranges, because the Tao Te Ching doesn't claim to be a purely logical approach to the understanding of Ultimate Reality, and in that regard it doesn't make the set of interrelated claims that you guys make and which are dependent on clear, logical definitions - claims such as that no objects exist beyond the mind, and that the constructs of consciousness originate in a "hidden void", etc. If you are going to promote your approach as logical, then it should be clear. The Tao Te Ching, which does not claim to be logical, has no such duty.

The Tao Te Ching doesn't explicitly state that it is a logical text, but logic shines through its passages nonetheless. Back then, logic was held in much higher regard and no one thought it necessary to stress its value.

Being a spiritual text, its primary duty is to point to the nature of reality and the life of wisdom in the clearest possible manner, which I also consider to be my primary duty.

-

I've had enough of this disrespectful idiocy. I've said what I thought I needed to say about you and your behaviour, David, and I still stand by it, but I'm prepared to leave it at that. I'm going to try to make a fresh start with the discussion, I'd like you to do the same, hopefully we can turn it into something worthwhile. I'll start with the basics:

Do you agree that "consciousness in its entirety" is equivalent to "all appearances"?

David: [A]ny "external reality" one cares to imagine or point to will always be an appearance

guest_of_logic: I accept that if one imagines or points to external reality, then there is what you call "an appearance" in one's mind. How do you go from there to proving that this appearance does not actually correspond to anything in external reality?

David: I'm not saying there isn't any such correspondence. It is obviously true that external reality does trigger what we experience in consciousness, but the manner in which it does so is beyond our imagination. It is a process of causality that we cannot track.

You seem to be recanting what you wrote in WOTI:

WOTI wrote:[T]he reader needs to make a quantum leap in his perspective and abandon altogether the notion that there is a world "out there" beyond the mind. He needs to realize that any kind of world he cares to conceive of will necessarily be part of the construction.

and, of the hidden void, that:

WOTI wrote:it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live. To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything. Not even the hidden void itself can know anything more about it. For there is literally nothing more to know. As such, our understanding of what lies beyond consciousness is now complete

i.e. the second quote implies that the only thing that lies beyond consciousness is the hidden void.

Now you seem to be saying that there is a world "out there" beyond the mind after all, other than the hidden void (and other minds). Can you clarify this discrepancy?

David Quinn wrote:To exist means to be in relation to other things.

I disagree with that definition. To exist simply means to be.

David Quinn wrote:A thing cannot exist all by itself. Even a thing presumed to be dwelling in external reality cannot exist without its component parts, or the time and space which houses it. So a thing-in-itself cannot exist under any circumstance.

OK, that follows from your various definitions of "thing", "exist" and "boundary", but as to whether those definitions are sensible, and whether they reflect reality accurately is another question. It's one that I don't care to tackle in this post though.

David Quinn wrote:I also assert that an observer is required for the existence of objects, just as a reflecting surface is required for the existence of reflections.

I see, so according to you, objects and things and appearances are all within the mind, but they have causal sources beyond the mind.

David Quinn wrote:Yes, reality does extend beyond the mind, but in a manner that is not comprehensible to us.

Science seems to be doing a pretty good job of comprehending it. Of course, for all we know, our current scientific knowledge of reality beyond the mind is hopelessly inaccurate, but it seems that you are unjustified in declaring it as definitively such.

David Quinn wrote:The cause of consciousness is real, but cannot be perceived or imagined by anyone or anything.

Why can't the cause of consciousness be perceived or imagined?

Do you accept the possibility that the "cause of consciousness" could be as is conventionally believed: i.e. that there is an external reality in which consciousness evolved?

guest_of_logic: 2. Given the above, it must instead be the case that the set of all bubbles is arranged such that each bubble directly "touches" every other bubble, such that causes/messages can be sent directly between bubbles without passing through "external reality".

David: There are countless possible scenarios that could explain the appearance of bubbles being consistent and communicating with one another. For example, each bubble could be a virtual reality simulation housed in some kind of computer, all of them generated by the same core algorithms.

guest_of_logic: In that case, the computer that houses the bubbles would be an object that exists beyond the mind, contradicting your premise that there are no objects beyond the mind.

David: Indeed.

Good to see that you acknowledge that you are contradicting yourself.

David Quinn wrote:I brought it up to illustrate that what you call the conventional view of external reality – i.e. the child’s natural view of things – is but one of countless possible explanations of what we consciously experience.

But you deny the conventional view of external reality, and for the same reason (that there are no objects beyond the mind, and no world "out there") you should deny the scenario that you instead posited.

David Quinn wrote:The computer scenario is just as plausible as the conventional view.

I can only assume that you consider their mutual plausibility to be zero, since you deny that there are objects beyond the mind and that there is a world "out there".

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:We could speculate endlessly about how the bubbles are formed, but it would be a wasted exercise.

Hmm? I thought that it was your contention that the bubbles are formed by the hidden void. From WOTI:

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp.

and

[T]he hidden void [...] possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live.

This is another way of saying that consciousness has a cause (i.e. it doesn't arise out of nothing whatsoever), but the nature of this cause is beyond the reach of our minds to comprehend.

I see two problems with this view:
1. It implies that the reality which comprises the causes of consciousness is fundamentally distinct from consciousness itself, whereas if the conventional view is correct, then consciousness exists within those causes ("external reality").
2. It implies that we can determine nothing about this reality based on its effects on our consciousness, which denies the applicability and utility of science, whereas science has proved itself to be very good at discovering things about reality based on various effects.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Reality is infinite in that it is the totality of all things and therefore unbounded. Nothing can ever exist beyond it. Whether this totality includes just one bubble of consciousness, or an infinite number of them, or none at all, is irrelevant.

That's unresponsive to my argument. Bubbles are finite, and presumably there are a finite number of them, therefore reality is not unbounded - it only "appears" to be to the mind.

Presumably trees are finite in number as well, but that says nothing one way or the other about the finitude or infinitude of reality.

That's still not responsive to my argument, because trees don't comprise all that is, whereas to you, the bubbles of consciousness are all that is (plus the hidden void of course).

David Quinn wrote:The key point is the logic underpinning the concept of the totality. Being everything, it is unbounded by definition.

But by description, it is bounded (being a finite number of finite bubbles).

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:Furthermore, consider that the "totality of all things" refers to appearances within consciousness, and since there is at any one time a finite set of appearances in consciousness, we can't even conclude that within consciousness, reality is infinite.

The totality refers to utterly everything, including that which is inside consciousness and that which is beyond.

OK, but given that the only thing beyond consciousness is the hidden void, it would seem that for the totality to be infinite, then the hidden void must be infinite, because the finite number of finite bubbles of consciousness containing a finite set of appearances are not.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:About the only way that we can conclude that reality is infinite (in your philosophy) is in the temporal sense: that it has eternally existed and will eternally exist.

More interestingly, it isn't even a thing to begin with.

Only by your definition.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:The point that I do want to make is that you're comparing apples with oranges, because the Tao Te Ching doesn't claim to be a purely logical approach to the understanding of Ultimate Reality, and in that regard it doesn't make the set of interrelated claims that you guys make and which are dependent on clear, logical definitions - claims such as that no objects exist beyond the mind, and that the constructs of consciousness originate in a "hidden void", etc. If you are going to promote your approach as logical, then it should be clear. The Tao Te Ching, which does not claim to be logical, has no such duty.

The Tao Te Ching doesn't explicitly state that it is a logical text, but logic shines through its passages nonetheless. Back then, logic was held in much higher regard and no one thought it necessary to stress its value.

Whatever - like I said, I don't care to discuss whether the Tao Te Ching is clear, and I don't care to get into a discussion of how logical it is either. My point remains: you guys claim to have an understanding of reality that is based on pure logic, and if an understanding is purely logical then it can be expressed clearly. Why are you so opposed to such clarity of expression?

guest_of_logic wrote:

It is obviously true that external reality does trigger what we experience in consciousness, but the manner in which it does so is beyond our imagination. It is a process of causality that we cannot track.

You seem to be recanting what you wrote in WOTI:

[T]he reader needs to make a quantum leap in his perspective and abandon altogether the notion that there is a world "out there" beyond the mind. He needs to realize that any kind of world he cares to conceive of will necessarily be part of the construction.

and, of the hidden void, that:

It possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live. To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything. Not even the hidden void itself can know anything more about it. For there is literally nothing more to know. As such, our understanding of what lies beyond consciousness is now complete.

i.e. the second quote implies that the only thing that lies beyond consciousness is the hidden void.

Now you seem to be saying that there is a world "out there" beyond the mind after all, other than the hidden void (and other minds). Can you clarify this discrepancy?

The hidden void is the world out there beyond the mind, but it isn't the nothingness that you keep imagining it to be.

Think of it as unresolved existence, rather than nothingness. Consciousness is the final piece in the jigsaw that brings what we call "objects" into existence. Prior to that, there is only potentiality.

But again, don't take my words too literally here because I am already falsifying the issue by being forced to treat what lies beyond consciousness as an object of consciousness. What this potentiality beyond consciousness looks like (a meaningless question, of course), and how it operates to produce what we call conscious experience, is not something that can ever be known - by anyone or anything. It is an eternal mystery unto itself.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:To exist means to be in relation to other things.

I disagree with that definition. To exist simply means to be.

What does it mean to "be"?

To us, a mountain seems like a solid, immovable object. Yet to another observer, whose length of life is much longer than ours and whose mind operates at a much slower rate, the same mountain would seem like a fluid process that rises quickly and falls away again. So what is the mountain being - solid and unmovable, or fluid like water?

One person could stick his hot hand into a bucket of water and experience it as being cold. Another person could stick in his cold hand and experience the same water as hot. So what is the water being - cold or hot?

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I also assert that an observer is required for the existence of objects, just as a reflecting surface is required for the existence of reflections.

I see, so according to you, objects and things and appearances are all within the mind, but they have causal sources beyond the mind.

Yes, with the proviso that we are already distorting the matter with these concepts.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Yes, reality does extend beyond the mind, but in a manner that is not comprehensible to us.

Science seems to be doing a pretty good job of comprehending it. Of course, for all we know, our current scientific knowledge of reality beyond the mind is hopelessly inaccurate, but it seems that you are unjustified in declaring it as definitively such.

You're not really grasping the nature of the issue. Science never deals with what is beyond consciousness. Like us, it too can only deal with objects within consciousness. Electro-magnetic waves, for example, can only occur within consciousness and nowhere else.

Of course, for practical purposes, we can reduce our concept of consciousness to a subset of our entire field of consciousness and then pretend that the electro-magnetic waves that we observe are occurring beyond consciousness. But that is simply an artifice.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The cause of consciousness is real, but cannot be perceived or imagined by anyone or anything.

Why can't the cause of consciousness be perceived or imagined?

Because it is forever beyond consciousness by definition.. We can develop theories about how consciousness evolved and how its mechanics work, etc, but such activity always remains in the realm of consciousness and always deals with appearances that occur to consciousness.

Do you accept the possibility that the "cause of consciousness" could be as is conventionally believed: i.e. that there is an external reality in which consciousness evolved?

Not in the sense you mean. For things to be replicated in two different realms, the causal circumstances supporting them need to be replicated. The absence of consciousness in external reality makes such replication impossible.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I brought it up to illustrate that what you call the conventional view of external reality – i.e. the child’s natural view of things – is but one of countless possible explanations of what we consciously experience.

But you deny the conventional view of external reality, and for the same reason (that there are no objects beyond the mind, and no world "out there") you should deny the [computer] scenario that you instead posited.

I think of it as irrelevant to the fundamentals of the issue, yes.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:This is another way of saying that consciousness has a cause (i.e. it doesn't arise out of nothing whatsoever), but the nature of this cause is beyond the reach of our minds to comprehend.

I see two problems with this view:
1. It implies that the reality which comprises the causes of consciousness is fundamentally distinct from consciousness itself, whereas if the conventional view is correct, then consciousness exists within those causes ("external reality").

They are not fundamentally distinct, as they are all part of the one reality. The only difference is that our consciousness cannot go beyond itself and grasp what is really going on, due to the fact that the core material of consciousness - namely, forms - cannot be applied there. At least not without falsifying it.

2. It implies that we can determine nothing about this reality based on its effects on our consciousness, which denies the applicability and utility of science, whereas science has proved itself to be very good at discovering things about reality based on various effects.

Science can teach us a great deal, but it cannot do the impossible. It too is restricted by the limits of the mind.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Presumably trees are finite in number as well, but that says nothing one way or the other about the finitude or infinitude of reality.

That's still not responsive to my argument, because trees don't comprise all that is, whereas to you, the bubbles of consciousness are all that is (plus the hidden void of course).

The "plus the hidden void" bit rather undermines the head of steam you were building up there.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote: The Tao Te Ching doesn't explicitly state that it is a logical text, but logic shines through its passages nonetheless. Back then, logic was held in much higher regard and no one thought it necessary to stress its value.

Whatever - like I said, I don't care to discuss whether the Tao Te Ching is clear, and I don't care to get into a discussion of how logical it is either. My point remains: you guys claim to have an understanding of reality that is based on pure logic, and if an understanding is purely logical then it can be expressed clearly. Why are you so opposed to such clarity of expression?

Because the kind of clarity of expression you are seeking is a pipe-dream. Wisdom is not something that can be captured in an academic treatise with socially-sanctioned definitions. It is only found when one applies logic in a very personal way to basic concepts that one understands inwardly and directly.

An academic treatise tries to remove the inward, personal nature of understanding by fleshing things into words that everyone can understand and agree upon. The trouble is, such agreement is rarely reached because everyone has different ideas and subtle slants of understanding of these basic concepts ("existence", "reality", "truth", "cause", etc). As a result, academics spend their time endlessly quibbling over these concepts and definitions, going around and around in circles, in an attempt to reach agreement. And they wonder why people laugh at them.

A good spiritual text, like the Tao Te Ching or Huang Po's teachings, tries to stimulate the reader into resolving the issues for himself personally and does so with choice words designed to shock, provoke and inspire him to challenge his own delusions and understand ultimate reality for himself. The clarity of expression in this instance lies in how well it does this.

-

Jason wrote: Do you agree that "consciousness in its entirety" is equivalent to "all appearances"?

It depends on what you mean. You would have to flesh it out a bit.

What about the appearance of the Big Bang 15 billion years ago? Did it depend on consciousness or not?

-

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote: Do you agree that "consciousness in its entirety" is equivalent to "all appearances"?

It depends on what you mean. You would have to flesh it out a bit.

What about the appearance of the Big Bang 15 billion years ago? Did it depend on consciousness or not?

You understand I'm trying to explore your philosophy, right? I want to know if "consciousness in its entirety" is equivalent to "all appearances" in your philosophy.

I'm not keen on your use of the word "depend" above, as I had originally said "equivalent" to consciousness. The reason this rephrasing is potentially problematic, is that in terms of causality, your philosophy asserts that any particular thing depends on every thing else. So everything would depend on consciousness, but not everything is consciousness. I want to know what consciousness is, what it is equivalent to.

To answer your question, if the Big Bang is, as you described it, an appearance, and all appearances are within/equivalent to consciousness, then the Big Bag would indeed be within/equivalent to consciousness.

David: What this potentiality beyond consciousness looks like (a meaningless question, of course), and how it operates to produce what we call conscious experience, is not something that can ever be known - by anyone or anything. It is an eternal mystery unto itself.

That reminds me... do you mean close to this?

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote: Do you agree that "consciousness in its entirety" is equivalent to "all appearances"?

It depends on what you mean. You would have to flesh it out a bit.

What about the appearance of the Big Bang 15 billion years ago? Did it depend on consciousness or not?

You understand I'm trying to explore your philosophy, right? I want to know if "consciousness in its entirety" is equivalent to "all appearances" in your philosophy.

I would rather state it as, "Appearances can only occur within consciousness. There can be no appearances in the absence of consciousness."

I'm not keen on your use of the word "depend" above, as I had originally said "equivalent" to consciousness. The reason this rephrasing is potentially problematic, is that in terms of causality, your philosophy asserts that any particular thing depends on every thing else. So everything would depend on consciousness, but not everything is consciousness. I want to know what consciousness is, what it is equivalent to.

I'm not keen on "equivalent" because it is often useful to distinguish between consciousness and appearances.

An appearance is anything perceived by consciousness. Consciousness is what makes appearances possible.

So we can talk about "depend" in the sense that without consciousness appearances cannot occur. Appearances directly depend on consciousness in this hard sense.

To answer your question, if the Big Bang is, as you described it, an appearance, and all appearances are within/equivalent to consciousness, then the Big Bag would indeed be within/equivalent to consciousness.

Even though, presumably, there was no consciousness around back then?

-

Sapius wrote:

David: What this potentiality beyond consciousness looks like (a meaningless question, of course), and how it operates to produce what we call conscious experience, is not something that can ever be known - by anyone or anything. It is an eternal mystery unto itself.

That reminds me... do you mean close to this?

Not really. The guy sounds like he is reading third-hand mystical scripts on a large dose of valium. He might touch on the issues in this thread, but does so without any real insight or intelligence.

-

David, another question about your philosophy before I answer your previous response: does the entire collection of appearances, plus the hidden void, constitute the whole of the Totality?

David Quinn wrote:

Sapius wrote:

David: What this potentiality beyond consciousness looks like (a meaningless question, of course), and how it operates to produce what we call conscious experience, is not something that can ever be known - by anyone or anything. It is an eternal mystery unto itself.

That reminds me... do you mean close to this?

Not really. The guy sounds like he is reading third-hand mystical scripts on a large dose of valium. He might touch on the issues in this thread, but does so without any real insight or intelligence.

-

May be, but it seems he is pointing to an eternal mystery unto itself.

Jason wrote:David, another question about your philosophy before I answer your previous response: does the entire collection of appearances, plus the hidden void, constitute the whole of the Totality?

I'm reluctant to go down this path because it involves forcing me to commit to something which is too vague, given the way you are currently framing it.

Let me put it this way: Given that the Totality is utterly everything by definition, if the "hidden void" and the "entire collection of appearances" are conceived in such a way that together they embrace utterly everything there is, then yes, they would constitute the whole of the Totality.

-

David Quinn wrote:Let me put it this way: Given that the Totality is utterly everything by definition, if the "hidden void" and the "entire collection of appearances" are conceived in such a way that together they embrace utterly everything there is, then yes, they would constitute the whole of the Totality.

Do you conceive of them in this way?

When it suits me.

-

David Quinn wrote:When it suits me.

When does it suit you? And for what reasons does it suit you?

Jason wrote:When does it suit you?

When I'm reasoning about certain aspects of the nature of existence.

At other times, it doesn't suit me. For example, when I reason about cause and effect and treat the world as an objective entity. In this instance, consciousness becomes just another limited phenomenon among countless others, while the hidden void disappears.

And for what reasons does it suit you?

Because, logically, consciousness cannot be seperated from existence. So when one reasons about existence as a whole, one immediately has to take consciousness into account.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:When does it suit you?

When I'm reasoning about certain aspects of the nature of existence.

At other times, it doesn't suit me. For example, when I reason about cause and effect and treat the world as an objective entity. In this instance, consciousness becomes just another limited phenomenon among countless others, while the hidden void disappears.

What I'm trying to discuss here is your fundamental understanding of the nature of reality, not what your momentary trains of thought from one minute to the next can be. Near the very end of Wisdom of the Infinite you say that reality is composed of the realm of appearances and the realm of the hidden void. Is the Totality actually constituted of appearances and the hidden void, or is that just something you imagine to be true from time to time?

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:And for what reasons does it suit you?

Because, logically, consciousness cannot be seperated from existence. So when one reasons about existence as a whole, one immediately has to take consciousness into account.

Mustn't you also take into account appearances and the hidden void also, given this line of reasoning?

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:When does it suit you?

When I'm reasoning about certain aspects of the nature of existence.

At other times, it doesn't suit me. For example, when I reason about cause and effect and treat the world as an objective entity. In this instance, consciousness becomes just another limited phenomenon among countless others, while the hidden void disappears.

What I'm trying to discuss here is your fundamental understanding of the nature of reality, not what your momentary trains of thought from one minute to the next can be. Near the very end of Wisdom of the Infinite you say that reality is composed of the realm of appearances and the realm of the hidden void. Is the Totality actually constituted of appearances and the hidden void, or is that just something you imagine to be true from time to time?

It all depends on how I choose (or more accurately, how Nature chooses) to carve things up. Nothing really exists, apart from what is carved up in the moment.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:And for what reasons does it suit you?

Because, logically, consciousness cannot be seperated from existence. So when one reasons about existence as a whole, one immediately has to take consciousness into account.

Mustn't you also take into account appearances and the hidden void also, given this line of reasoning?

Yes. The hidden void is a logical consequence of affirming the existence of consciousness and its role in generating existence. So to the degree that one makes that affirmation, the hidden void becomes a logical reality that has to be dealt with. At the same time, existence becomes a matter of appearance.

-

Jason wrote:David, another question about your philosophy before I answer your previous response: does the entire collection of appearances, plus the hidden void, constitute the whole of the Totality?

Bloody good question, Jason. I was going to pose almost exactly the same question to David - the only significant difference was that I was going to make reference to consciousness(es) as the container of the collection of appearances.

A common saying comes to my mind: can you prove it correct by telling me what it is? (I know, I know - this little riddle is too trivial for you, but humour me)

I'm going to string together part of the resulting exchange that you had with David over the course of several posts:

Jason: David, another question about your philosophy before I answer your previous response: does the entire collection of appearances, plus the hidden void, constitute the whole of the Totality?

David: I'm reluctant to go down this path because it involves forcing me to commit to something which is too vague, given the way you are currently framing it.

David (continuing): Let me put it this way: Given that the Totality is utterly everything by definition, if the "hidden void" and the "entire collection of appearances" are conceived in such a way that together they embrace utterly everything there is, then yes, they would constitute the whole of the Totality.

Jason: Do you conceive of them in this way?

David: When it suits me.

Jason: When does it suit you?

David: When I'm reasoning about certain aspects of the nature of existence.

David (continuing): At other times, it doesn't suit me. For example, when I reason about cause and effect and treat the world as an objective entity. In this instance, consciousness becomes just another limited phenomenon among countless others, while the hidden void disappears.

Jason: What I'm trying to discuss here is your fundamental understanding of the nature of reality, not what your momentary trains of thought from one minute to the next can be. Near the very end of Wisdom of the Infinite you say that reality is composed of the realm of appearances and the realm of the hidden void. Is the Totality actually constituted of appearances and the hidden void, or is that just something you imagine to be true from time to time?

David: It all depends on how I choose (or more accurately, how Nature chooses) to carve things up. Nothing really exists, apart from what is carved up in the moment.

Well well well, can't you be quite the rampant, unabashed, non-commital post-modernist relativist when it suits you, David? You don't want to be "forced to commit"; you consider a specific description of the Totality to be true only "if" we conceive of it in that way, and only "when it suits you"; and as for whether that description is actually true: "it all depends". What happened to the fundamental importance of affirming absolute truth? What happened to the undeniable, proven, certainty of the logical truths of ultimate reality? You do completely understand all that there is to understand about ultimate reality, right? You're not trying to dodge, weave, duck and dive to avoid affirming your complete understanding, are you?

Mate, it's a pretty bloody simple, straightforward, legitimate and relevant question. Jason and I aren't interested in the nancy-boy, subjectivist, relativist, pussy-whipped post-modernist truth about it from whichever girly perspective and "carving up" happens to take anybody's whimsical and puncy fancy at any given time - we want to know the manly, fearless, courageous, blood-and-guts, go-for-glory absolute truth about it at all times: does the hidden void plus consciousness(es) - including the entirety of all appearances within consciousness(es) - constitute all of the Totality, and if not, then what else is there?

(I hope you don't mind me speaking for you there, Jason. Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Moving on to your last post to me, David:

David Quinn wrote:The hidden void is the world out there beyond the mind, but it isn't the nothingness that you keep imagining it to be.

Think of it as unresolved existence, rather than nothingness. Consciousness is the final piece in the jigsaw that brings what we call "objects" into existence. Prior to that, there is only potentiality.

OK, then I have a few questions. I understand that you maintain that the hidden void causes (or caused) consciousness. I want to know more about the hidden void, and its relationship with consciousness:
1. Is the hidden void also the direct cause of the appearances within consciousness? In other words, once consciousness has been created by the hidden void, do the appearances within consciousness then depend on further causes emanating from the hidden void (when I speak of emanating causes, I mean in the temporal sense in which effect follows cause in time)?
2. Just as the hidden void has an effect on consciousness (at least by creating it, and, depending on your answer to the first question, by directly causing the appearances within it), does consciousness, and in particular do the appearances within consciousness, have an effect on the hidden void (I'm using "effect" in the sense of temporal causality - i.e. that an event within consciousness causes a subsequent effect on the hidden void)?
3. Is the hidden void differentiated?

David Quinn wrote:What does it mean to "be"?

I've provided my provisional test for whether anything "exists" - which covers "be" given that to me "to exist" is "to be" - three times already in this thread, so please stop asking. Here, for the last time, it is again: "to exist is to possess properties or attributes".

David Quinn wrote:To us, a mountain seems like a solid, immovable object. Yet to another observer, whose length of life is much longer than ours and whose mind operates at a much slower rate, the same mountain would seem like a fluid process that rises quickly and falls away again. So what is the mountain being - solid and unmovable, or fluid like water?

One person could stick his hot hand into a bucket of water and experience it as being cold. Another person could stick in his cold hand and experience the same water as hot. So what is the water being - cold or hot?

Your questions are pretty much irrelevant. Regardless of which (subjective) perspective you take, the mountain/water nevertheless undeniably possess properties and attributes, which satisfies my test for their "existence", or "being".

David: I also assert that an observer is required for the existence of objects, just as a reflecting surface is required for the existence of reflections.

guest_of_logic: I see, so according to you, objects and things and appearances are all within the mind, but they have causal sources beyond the mind.

David: Yes, with the proviso that we are already distorting the matter with these concepts.

I see. So what are these causal sources beyond the mind (with a minimum of distortion, please)?

David: Yes, reality does extend beyond the mind, but in a manner that is not comprehensible to us.

guest_of_logic: Science seems to be doing a pretty good job of comprehending it. Of course, for all we know, our current scientific knowledge of reality beyond the mind is hopelessly inaccurate, but it seems that you are unjustified in declaring it as definitively such.

David: You're not really grasping the nature of the issue. Science never deals with what is beyond consciousness. Like us, it too can only deal with objects within consciousness. Electro-magnetic waves, for example, can only occur within consciousness and nowhere else.

If the reality beyond the mind has effects on the mind, then it can be scientifically studied.

David Quinn wrote:Of course, for practical purposes, we can reduce our concept of consciousness to a subset of our entire field of consciousness and then pretend that the electro-magnetic waves that we observe are occurring beyond consciousness. But that is simply an artifice.

How can you be so sure?

David: The cause of consciousness is real, but cannot be perceived or imagined by anyone or anything.

guest_of_logic: Why can't the cause of consciousness be perceived or imagined?

David: Because it is forever beyond consciousness by definition.. We can develop theories about how consciousness evolved and how its mechanics work, etc, but such activity always remains in the realm of consciousness and always deals with appearances that occur to consciousness.

As I wrote above, that which caused consciousness can be studied through the effects that it has (or had) on consciousness.

guest_of_logic: Do you accept the possibility that the "cause of consciousness" could be as is conventionally believed: i.e. that there is an external reality in which consciousness evolved?

David: Not in the sense you mean. For things to be replicated in two different realms, the causal circumstances supporting them need to be replicated. The absence of consciousness in external reality makes such replication impossible.

Ah, but they wouldn't be replicated. The "thing" in external reality would have a different nature (physical) to the corresponding "appearance" within consciousness (mental/qualia) - they would, however, be intimately related of course.

David: I brought it up to illustrate that what you call the conventional view of external reality – i.e. the child’s natural view of things – is but one of countless possible explanations of what we consciously experience.

guest_of_logic: But you deny the conventional view of external reality, and for the same reason (that there are no objects beyond the mind, and no world "out there") you should deny the [computer] scenario that you instead posited.

David: I think of it as irrelevant to the fundamentals of the issue, yes.

It's not just irrelevant, it's contradictory, but given that it's both irrelevant and contradictory, then why did you posit it as a legitimate alternative to the scenario that I canvassed, which didn't suffer from the problem of contradicting your premise that there are no objects beyond the mind?

David: Presumably trees are finite in number as well, but that says nothing one way or the other about the finitude or infinitude of reality.

guest_of_logic: That's still not responsive to my argument, because trees don't comprise all that is, whereas to you, the bubbles of consciousness are all that is (plus the hidden void of course).

David: The "plus the hidden void" bit rather undermines the head of steam you were building up there.

I see. I have no choice but to conclude that you maintain that the hidden void is infinite. Is that conclusion correct?

guest_of_logic: My point remains: you guys claim to have an understanding of reality that is based on pure logic, and if an understanding is purely logical then it can be expressed clearly. Why are you so opposed to such clarity of expression?

David: Because the kind of clarity of expression you are seeking is a pipe-dream. Wisdom is not something that can be captured in an academic treatise with socially-sanctioned definitions. It is only found when one applies logic in a very personal way to basic concepts that one understands inwardly and directly.

David (continued): An academic treatise tries to remove the inward, personal nature of understanding by fleshing things into words that everyone can understand and agree upon. The trouble is, such agreement is rarely reached because everyone has different ideas and subtle slants of understanding of these basic concepts ("existence", "reality", "truth", "cause", etc). As a result, academics spend their time endlessly quibbling over these concepts and definitions, going around and around in circles, in an attempt to reach agreement. And they wonder why people laugh at them.

I see. So then why not just clarify your definitions to the best extent possible? Shouldn't you aim for maximum clarity, even if perfect clarity is impossible?

David Quinn wrote:A good spiritual text, like the Tao Te Ching or Huang Po's teachings, tries to stimulate the reader into resolving the issues for himself personally and does so with choice words designed to shock, provoke and inspire him to challenge his own delusions and understand ultimate reality for himself. The clarity of expression in this instance lies in how well it does this.

So then what's the point of WOTI, which claims to be entirely logical and which doesn't use such techniques? If WOTI is a legitimate enterprise, despite the impossibility of perfectly understood definitions, then why not take the WOTI approach to the limit by refining and clarifying the definitions and their logical interrelationships as much as possible, as Dan seems willing to do?

guest_of_logic wrote:Well well well, can't you be quite the rampant, unabashed, non-commital post-modernist relativist when it suits you, David?

You're still misunderstanding the nature of absolute truth and what's involved in uncovering it.

A part of recognizing absolute truth involves recognizing the truth that all things are relative.

Wisdom doesn't negate relativity. It embraces it and follows its logical implications.

guest_of_logic wrote: You don't want to be "forced to commit"; you consider a specific description of the Totality to be true only "if" we conceive of it in that way, and only "when it suits you"; and as for whether that description is actually true: "it all depends". What happened to the fundamental importance of affirming absolute truth? What happened to the undeniable, proven, certainty of the logical truths of ultimate reality?

One of the logical truths about ultimate reality is that all things are relative. Another logical truth is that nothing really exists, apart from what is carved up in the moment.

Currently, you are unable to discern these truths or their significance, but maybe you will in the future. You're certainly bright enough.

You do completely understand all that there is to understand about ultimate reality, right? You're not trying to dodge, weave, duck and dive to avoid affirming your complete understanding, are you?

No, I'm giving it straight down the line.

As I wrote near the end of WOTI:

Another Look at the Totality

It should be clear from the analysis I have presented that the concept of the Totality does not really refer to the three-dimensional physical universe imagined by most people to objectively exist. Rather, it refers to the totality of all appearances experienced by consciousness. Included in this larger totality is indeed the three-dimensional physical universe, but it is only one of countless other appearances. There is not a single appearance which can lay claim to being ultimate or objective reality. Whether it be an appearance of the physical universe itself, or an appearance of an inner mystical realm, each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else. As soon as it ceases being perceived, it ceases to exist. Each appearance is but a charade of the moment and none of them ever reflect the true nature of Reality.

The Totality, then, is entirely formless. Or if you like, its form embraces the infinity of appearances. Or even more accurately, its form is whatever happens to be perceived in any given moment. In the moment that I conclude that the Totality is formless, or the infinity of appearances, it too is nothing more than a momentary perception on my part. To project anything more onto this perception, or to cling to it as though it were the final truth, would be to fall into delusion. In the end, the Totality is simply what it is in any given moment - end of story.

It's all very consistent.

guest_of_logic wrote:Mate, it's a pretty bloody simple, straightforward, legitimate and relevant question. Jason and I aren't interested in the nancy-boy, subjectivist, relativist, pussy-whipped post-modernist truth about it from whichever girly perspective and "carving up" happens to take anybody's whimsical and puncy fancy at any given time - we want to know the manly, fearless, courageous, blood-and-guts, go-for-glory absolute truth about it at all times: does the hidden void plus consciousness(es) - including the entirety of all appearances within consciousness(es) - constitute all of the Totality, and if not, then what else is there?

I've already answered that. It depends on how these things are conceived.

The Totality consists of utterly everything. How this "utterly everything" is carved up into "things" depends on what Nature chooses to carve up in any one moment - or to put it less poetically, what is caused to exist in any one moment.

It is impossible to be any more specific than this due to the fact that all things are relative, which in turn means that nothing really exists.

Jason asking me to commit to a specific carving up is akin to asking me to freeze what can never be frozen.

guest_of_logic wrote: I understand that you maintain that the hidden void causes (or caused) consciousness. I want to know more about the hidden void, and its relationship with consciousness:
1. Is the hidden void also the direct cause of the appearances within consciousness? In other words, once consciousness has been created by the hidden void, do the appearances within consciousness then depend on further causes emanating from the hidden void (when I speak of emanating causes, I mean in the temporal sense in which effect follows cause in time)?

The causes of any particular thing are infinite in number. If we trace them back far enough we will eventually reach the hidden void, beyond which we cannot go.

guest_of_logic wrote:2. Just as the hidden void has an effect on consciousness (at least by creating it, and, depending on your answer to the first question, by directly causing the appearances within it), does consciousness, and in particular do the appearances within consciousness, have an effect on the hidden void (I'm using "effect" in the sense of temporal causality - i.e. that an event within consciousness causes a subsequent effect on the hidden void)?

Undoubtedly.

3. Is the hidden void differentiated?

There is no answer to that because the hidden void is beyond our imagination. To employ terms like "differentiated" and "undifferentiated" is an attempt to couch it in terms that the imagination can understand and thus is self-defeating from the outset. In academia, they would call it a category error.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:To us, a mountain seems like a solid, immovable object. Yet to another observer, whose length of life is much longer than ours and whose mind operates at a much slower rate, the same mountain would seem like a fluid process that rises quickly and falls away again. So what is the mountain being - solid and unmovable, or fluid like water?

One person could stick his hot hand into a bucket of water and experience it as being cold. Another person could stick in his cold hand and experience the same water as hot. So what is the water being - cold or hot?

Your questions are pretty much irrelevant. Regardless of which (subjective) perspective you take, the mountain/water nevertheless undeniably possess properties and attributes, which satisfies my test for their "existence", or "being".

If an object's properties and attributes can change when the observer's perspective changes, then in what way can they be said to possess them?

guest_of_logic wrote:

David: I also assert that an observer is required for the existence of objects, just as a reflecting surface is required for the existence of reflections.

guest_of_logic: I see, so according to you, objects and things and appearances are all within the mind, but they have causal sources beyond the mind.

David: Yes, with the proviso that we are already distorting the matter with these concepts.

I see. So what are these causal sources beyond the mind (with a minimum of distortion, please)?

The hidden void.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Science never deals with what is beyond consciousness. Like us, it too can only deal with objects within consciousness. Electro-magnetic waves, for example, can only occur within consciousness and nowhere else.

If the reality beyond the mind has effects on the mind, then it can be scientifically studied.

Unfortunately, it can't in this instance. Science cannot apply theories to a realm in which specific forms are impossible to discern. The hidden void can only ever be known as a logical reality. It is a philosophical entity, not a scientific one.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Of course, for practical purposes, we can reduce our concept of consciousness to a subset of our entire field of consciousness and then pretend that the electro-magnetic waves that we observe are occurring beyond consciousness. But that is simply an artifice.

How can you be so sure?

Everything is an artifice, at bottom.

guest_of_logic wrote:

guest_of_logic: Do you accept the possibility that the "cause of consciousness" could be as is conventionally believed: i.e. that there is an external reality in which consciousness evolved?

David: Not in the sense you mean. For things to be replicated in two different realms, the causal circumstances supporting them need to be replicated. The absence of consciousness in external reality makes such replication impossible.

Ah, but they wouldn't be replicated. The "thing" in external reality would have a different nature (physical) to the corresponding "appearance" within consciousness (mental/qualia) - they would, however, be intimately related of course.

In this instance, the qualitative difference between consciousness and the absence of consciousness is too great to make such attempts at correspondence meaningful.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David: I brought it up to illustrate that what you call the conventional view of external reality – i.e. the child’s natural view of things – is but one of countless possible explanations of what we consciously experience.

guest_of_logic: But you deny the conventional view of external reality, and for the same reason (that there are no objects beyond the mind, and no world "out there") you should deny the [computer] scenario that you instead posited.
David: I think of it as irrelevant to the fundamentals of the issue, yes.

It's not just irrelevant, it's contradictory, but given that it's both irrelevant and contradictory, then why did you posit it as a legitimate alternative to the scenario that I canvassed, which didn't suffer from the problem of contradicting your premise that there are no objects beyond the mind?

To show you how flimsy and groundless the conventional view of external reality is.

If the conventional view were to state that "something or other is beyond the mind and creates what we experience, but we don't know what that something is", then that would begin to tally with what I think. But conventional people are rarely satisfied with that. They want an external reality that they are familiar with and can mentally grasp.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David: Presumably trees are finite in number as well, but that says nothing one way or the other about the finitude or infinitude of reality.

guest_of_logic: That's still not responsive to my argument, because trees don't comprise all that is, whereas to you, the bubbles of consciousness are all that is (plus the hidden void of course).

David: The "plus the hidden void" bit rather undermines the head of steam you were building up there.

I see. I have no choice but to conclude that you maintain that the hidden void is infinite. Is that conclusion correct?

The totality of all things is infinite - whether it be the hidden void plus whatever is left over, or a combination of other things.

guest_of_logic wrote:

guest_of_logic: My point remains: you guys claim to have an understanding of reality that is based on pure logic, and if an understanding is purely logical then it can be expressed clearly. Why are you so opposed to such clarity of expression?

David: Because the kind of clarity of expression you are seeking is a pipe-dream. Wisdom is not something that can be captured in an academic treatise with socially-sanctioned definitions. It is only found when one applies logic in a very personal way to basic concepts that one understands inwardly and directly.

David (continued): An academic treatise tries to remove the inward, personal nature of understanding by fleshing things into words that everyone can understand and agree upon. The trouble is, such agreement is rarely reached because everyone has different ideas and subtle slants of understanding of these basic concepts ("existence", "reality", "truth", "cause", etc). As a result, academics spend their time endlessly quibbling over these concepts and definitions, going around and around in circles, in an attempt to reach agreement. And they wonder why people laugh at them.

I see. So then why not just clarify your definitions to the best extent possible? Shouldn't you aim for maximum clarity, even if perfect clarity is impossible?

I do indeed aim for maximum clarity.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:A good spiritual text, like the Tao Te Ching or Huang Po's teachings, tries to stimulate the reader into resolving the issues for himself personally and does so with choice words designed to shock, provoke and inspire him to challenge his own delusions and understand ultimate reality for himself. The clarity of expression in this instance lies in how well it does this.

So then what's the point of WOTI, which claims to be entirely logical and which doesn't use such techniques?

To awaken people to the nature of reality, using logical thought to expose various conventional delusions.

If WOTI is a legitimate enterprise, despite the impossibility of perfectly understood definitions, then why not take the WOTI approach to the limit by refining and clarifying the definitions and their logical interrelationships as much as possible, as Dan seems willing to do?

Because Truth isn't found in the freezing of definitions and the conventional treatment of them, but in the flexibility of mind which can play with definitions at will.

-

guest_of_logic wrote:(I hope you don't mind me speaking for you there, Jason. Please correct me if I'm wrong)

I do mind. I don't like it.

guest,

Jason does mind. He doesn't like it. Sheesh, speaking for another person.

(I trust you don't mind me reinforcing what you said, Jason.)

Jason wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:(I hope you don't mind me speaking for you there, Jason. Please correct me if I'm wrong)

I do mind. I don't like it.

OK, sorry, I won't do it again. It was a bad idea in the first place and I shoulda known better.

Crap, I've done the wrong thing by two separate people in two separate threads now in the past 24 hours. Not having a good day.

David, thanks for the reply - I plan on responding.

Guest it was no big deal. It looks like that part of your post was meant to be humorous too which further diminishes my displeasure.

Reading your post, I imagined that perhaps we were in a street gang(a philosophical street gang!), and you were the gangleader(I didn't say this was a believable tale), and our gang had approached David(who was a member of a rival gang, the "Fatalists"), and you had begun verbally threatening him:

"(we) aren't interested in the nancy-boy, subjectivist, relativist, pussy-whipped post-modernist truth about it from whichever girly perspective and "carving up" happens to take anybody's whimsical and puncy fancy at any given time - we want to know the manly, fearless, courageous, blood-and-guts, go-for-glory absolute truth about it at all times"

I and the other gangmembers were expected to follow up every point you made with a forceful "Yeah!" But I muttered in a lone weak high pitched unsure voice "No...??" and everyone looked at me like "Whaaaa?"

Seriously, I generally don't mind people paraphrasing me or genuinely attempting to represent what they believe my thoughts are, but I don't think your post fell into either of those categories. Perhaps the most offensive misrepresentation was that I would never have mispelt "poncey" so horribly.

PS And where's my PM apology?! It's because I don't have a vagina, isn't it!??[Jason rushes off weeping with girly flailing arms]