GENIUS FORUMS

Solway, Quinn and others,

Isaac: But when it all comes down to it, what is the point of the idea of there being no real boundaries?

David Quinn: It allows us to see that there are no real beginnings and ends in Nature, other than what we imagine. It allows us to see the way in which nothing really exists. This is not insignificant knowledge.

Isaac: What might be some practical applications of such knowledge?

Kevin Solway: If everybody applied it, the end of war, the end of overpopulation, the end of pollution, the end of loneliness, the end of violence and emotion, etc.

So, you think we'd be better off not making value judgements? Better off not making moral decisions? Isn't that what all of this implies?

Jason wrote: Boundaries are in fact real, if they weren't we wouldn't be able to differentiate between things. But boundaries don't prevent interaction between things, as you erroneously believe. The error you are making is in believing that boundaries lead to separation between things. Boundaries actually denote differences between things, not separation. I'll use the example of a swimmer in a swimming pool to demonstrate.

A swimmer generally considers his skin to be the boundary of himself. Inside his skin is him, outside his skin is not-him. When he jumps into a pool, the water comes into intimate contact and connection with his skin, and therefore with him. There is no separation between the water and the swimmer whatsoever, and his every movement affects the water and vice versa. Yet the swimmer continues to exist, his skin still forms a boundary between him and the water.

How is this possible? Quite simply: difference. Differentiation. Separation is not the issue. The swimmer is different than the water, his boundary differentiates him from the water, it doesn't fundamentally separate him from the water. Some of the differences between swimmer and water include that the swimmer is in a different spatial location than the water, the swimmer is constructed of different forms of matter and the swimmer is a different colour.

The simple act of perceiving differentiation doesn't require us to go that extra step and project boundaries onto this perceived differentiation, or even worse, to believe that the "things" we have created via this boundary-projection are real.

The "things" we perceive in the empirical world are almost invariably a bundle of differentiations themselves. A tree is comprised of leaves, branches, trunk, bark, etc - all of them perceived differentiations. The differentiations within the tree are just as prevalent as those which occur outside it. And yet we decide to bunch together a set of these differentiations and call this collection a "tree", and reject all the other differentiations as being "not the tree".

There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root.

The important thing is to develop the flexibility of mind which can project and withdraw boundaries at will. Such a mind can perceive all of Nature as a seamless, boundary-less process, if it wants. Or it can project boundaries wherever it likes - it can project boundaries around the tree in the common way, or it can withdraw those boundaries and project them ten feet outside the tree, or at places inside the trunk and branches, or wherever. It can create and destroy "things" at will.

The ordinary, less-flexible mind has trouble doing this because it is too attached to the "things" it has subconsciously created and now perceives them as concrete entities which need to be preserved for the sake of emotional well-being. To challenge this would be to challenge the very foundations of its entire world.

-

Isaac wrote:Solway, Quinn and others,

Isaac: But when it all comes down to it, what is the point of the idea of there being no real boundaries?

David Quinn: It allows us to see that there are no real beginnings and ends in Nature, other than what we imagine. It allows us to see the way in which nothing really exists. This is not insignificant knowledge.

Isaac: What might be some practical applications of such knowledge?

Kevin Solway: If everybody applied it, the end of war, the end of overpopulation, the end of pollution, the end of loneliness, the end of violence and emotion, etc.

So, you think we'd be better off not making value judgements? Better off not making moral decisions? Isn't that what all of this implies?

It is more about making better judgments which reflect the truth and lead to saner outcomes.

-

David Quinn wrote:There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root.

I highly disagree. I would say, rather, that your drawing of boundaries within nothingness is arbitrary in your perception, and everything you are "caused" to do seems arbitrary. This is because there is no connection to the true will, so to speak, which is in harmony with everything.

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:Let's all jump into non-existence!

When David says that things don't exist, he is only speaking of the things that unenlightened people (scientists, women, etc) believe to exist.

I know what he means, and I know what you mean, and i will say it is a very accurate mental model. What I am saying is that it is only a mental model! , although it appears to be more. It appears to be an end, an absolute, but it is only a perception. It is accurate in that it is true that all is energy and all is a seamless unity, but it fails to recognize the feltness and the realness that linear logic leaves out. In this, the model is not necessary to be held to as it is only a representation of what is seen. Expansion of awareness involves releasing all mental models and cultivating a direct relationship with what is seen using whatever distinctions and definitions you associate with. You may use this model of nothingness, but realize that it is not complete and that the goal, so to speak, is to be able to use whatever mental model that fits the occasion.

Isaac wrote:So, you think we'd be better off not making value judgements? Better off not making moral decisions? Isn't that what all of this implies?

The question isn't whether or not to have judgments, but whether or not to make them absolute. If they are not absolute and they are simply your own personal guidelines for yourself, they actually disappear from your thoughts as you no longer concern yourself with them. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong or if anyone else has the same guidelines; they simply are, and by your choice you may continue with them. They are beliefs that form the basis of your perception, and as such they need not be compared with others or evaluated by some measure of moral truth or civility, which would be another belief.

divine focus wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root.

I highly disagree. I would say, rather, that your drawing of boundaries within nothingness is arbitrary in your perception, and everything you are "caused" to do seems arbitrary. This is because there is no connection to the true will, so to speak, which is in harmony with everything.

How does connecting to true will and harmonzing with everything make your values and goals non-arbitrary?

Nature itself doesn't care one way or the other how we behave. Nor does it care whether we harmonize with it or not. It has no preference for any particular state. It remains infinitely perfect and complete, no matter what happens.

-

Isaac wrote:So, you think we'd be better off not making value judgements? Better off not making moral decisions? Isn't that what all of this implies?

We can't avoid making value judgements. Even if we decide to not make any value judgements we are still making value judgements.

What we need to do is fully understand the nature of value judgements so that they are not misinformed.

David Quinn wrote:

divine focus wrote:I highly disagree. I would say, rather, that your drawing of boundaries within nothingness is arbitrary in your perception, and everything you are "caused" to do seems arbitrary. This is because there is no connection to the true will, so to speak, which is in harmony with everything.

How does connecting to true will and harmonzing with everything make your values and goals non-arbitrary?

Nature itself doesn't care one way or the other how we behave. Nor does it care whether we harmonize with it or not. It has no preference for any particular state. It remains infinitely perfect and complete, no matter what happens.

From a wider perspective, it is true that all is perfect whatever the case may be, but it is not because of arbitrariness. It is only perfect because it is all purposeful. Nature may not have a preference for any particular state, but you do, and it is for one of health. "Will" in this case is not the same as "nature" as you are seeing it, as nature is the horizontal everything, so to speak--oneness as a thing or space--while will is the vertical oneness of action. In connecting with this "one will," which will be unique to you and through you, you are in synchrony with all will and all action, meaning all energy.

All action has an intent, a reason for being, and this I cannot prove to you. Word accuracy fails in the vertical domain.

divine focus wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Nature itself doesn't care one way or the other how we behave. Nor does it care whether we harmonize with it or not. It has no preference for any particular state. It remains infinitely perfect and complete, no matter what happens.

From a wider perspective, it is true that all is perfect whatever the case may be, but it is not because of arbitrariness. It is only perfect because it is all purposeful. Nature may not have a preference for any particular state, but you do, and it is for one of health.
"Will" in this case is not the same as "nature" as you are seeing it, as nature is the horizontal everything, so to speak--oneness as a thing or space--while will is the vertical oneness of action. In connecting with this "one will," which will be unique to you and through you, you are in synchrony with all will and all action, meaning all energy.

All action has an intent, a reason for being, and this I cannot prove to you. Word accuracy fails in the vertical domain.

This is far too confusing to make any sense of.

-

David Quinn wrote: This is far too confusing to make any sense of.

Would you say that you are a thing or that you are action?

Both, in that my body/mind is a limited portion of Reality (a "thing") and in constant movement (an "action").

-

1. No physical boundaries exists (premise).
2. Boundaries exists (premise)
3. Non-physical boundaries exists (from 1&2)
4. Materialism is true (premise)
5. Since it is not the case that non-physical boundaries exists, all boundaries are physical (from 2&4) or no boundaries exists at all (1&4).
6. The latter is self-refuting, so all boundaries that exist are physical.

Isaac wrote:6. The latter is self-refuting, so all boundaries that exist are physical.

You can reach any conclusion you like based on false premises.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Isaac wrote:6. The latter is self-refuting, so all boundaries that exist are physical.

You can reach any conclusion you like based on false premises.

Which premise(es) exactly are you questioning?

Isaac wrote:Which premise(es) exactly are you questioning?

All of them. You would have to establish each one of them in turn, proving that they are absolutely true, before you could reach any useful conclusion based on them.

David Quinn wrote:There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root.

What about the boundary between cause and effect? Isn't that arbitrary?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Isaac wrote:Which premise(es) exactly are you questioning?

All of them. You would have to establish each one of them in turn, proving that they are absolutely true, before you could reach any useful conclusion based on them.

You have implicitly agreed to (1) and (2) in your assertion that boundaries exist, but that no physical boundaries exists. If so, I only have to establish materialism and the conclusion will necessarily follow. Do you agree?

Isaac wrote:You have implicitly agreed to (1) and (2) in your assertion that boundaries exist, but that no physical boundaries exists.

I will agree that boundaries exist, but the idea that "no physical boundaries exist" depends on the idea of what "physical" means.

I personally hold that the physical world is an illusion, which means that I probably won't agree with your premise about materialism. But it all depends on how we define things like "physical" and "material".

.



-Kevin-
I personally hold that the physical world is an illusion

-tomas-
Agreed.



.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Isaac wrote:You have implicitly agreed to (1) and (2) in your assertion that boundaries exist, but that no physical boundaries exists.

I will agree that boundaries exist, but the idea that "no physical boundaries exist" depends on the idea of what "physical" means.

I personally hold that the physical world is an illusion, which means that I probably won't agree with your premise about materialism. But it all depends on how we define things like "physical" and "material".

Kevin, personally is a solipsist. The whole cosmos (including his body and his parents'/ancestors' bodies) is 'all in his mind'... and god only knows how his mind operates without a physical brain.

Yes, I've been there in all night mental masturbation sessions with fellow sophomore philosophy majors bullshitting about Berkely, Hume, et.al. and the fascinating realm of "philosophical Idealism." But, it finally dawned on us that it was all bullshit, and, in actual fact there is an objective world/cosmos which science studies, and it is more than the grand total of all subjective fantasies ( of dis-embodied ephemeral beings, of course.)

Never-the-less, I have found this thread amusing and would like to contribute something about boundaries relevant to the subject of enlightenment and one of its primary 'co-relates', ego transcendence.
Since I've shared some of Wilber's insights lately... (We are not 'friends' but more like hostile master-debators... thanks Sue, or was it Elizabeth?... on the subject of enlightenment)... I recommend his book, "No Boundary."

Here is the up-front from Google on it:
"To put it plainly, to say that "ultimate reality is a unity of opposites" is actually to say that in ultimate reality there are no boundaries. Anywhere. ..."

The preface goes on to say:

"This book examines how we create a persistent alienation from ourselves, from others, and from the world by fracturing out present experience into different parts, separated by boundaries. We artificially split our awareness into compartments such as subject vs. object, life vs. death, mind vs. body, inside vs.. outside, reason vs. instinct ...

The result of such violence, although known by many other names, is simply unhappiness. Life becomes suffering, full of battles. But all our battles in our experience - our conflicts, anxieties, sufferings, and despairs - are created by the boundaries we misguidingly throw around our experience.

For the general reader, then, this book will provide a personal introduction to the major methods of growth and transformation--from egoic to humanistic to transpersonal--and will show how these approaches are related to each other."

Chew on that. I'm open to discuss it, if anyone has a relevant response.
mikiel

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root.

What about the boundary between cause and effect? Isn't that arbitrary?

Of course.

Cause and effect becomes a reality the moment we delineate Nature into "things". It is a conceptual glue which joins together what has been artificially sundered by us.

-

mikiel wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote: I will agree that boundaries exist, but the idea that "no physical boundaries exist" depends on the idea of what "physical" means.

I personally hold that the physical world is an illusion, which means that I probably won't agree with your premise about materialism. But it all depends on how we define things like "physical" and "material".

Kevin, personally is a solipsist.

There is nothing in what Kevin has said to suggest that he is a solipsist.

Not that you have an ego which jumps prematurely to conclusions, of course.

-

DQ: "There is nothing in what Kevin has said to suggest that he is a solipsist."

K: "that the physical world is an illusion" *is* solipsism.
Review even the surface of it (solipsism) and get back to me. Maybe you would look a little less stupid if you knew what solipsism is before offering your usual knee-jerk reaction...(a working definition of a "jerk.")

mikiel

A scientist thinks long and hard about performing an experiment and creating the perfect product seen in his mind. His logic, he thinks, is infallible. He performs the experiment, but something goes terribly wrong. There was an error in Logic, after all. ---- Are you saying that the end result that the formula *did* produce, regardless of how unintended, is an illusion?

Let's say that one of the Gnostic accounts is correct. An entity (not the True God) desired to create, by itself, a Perfect creation. Failing to include one little detail in the execution of the plan, a very imperfect creation (the world and muzzy mankind) resulted. Does that make the result an illusion?

Illusion: Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception. ---- I'm not the one with the illusion. The false God who believes this creation is 'perfect' is operating under an illusion. Supreme denial.

Religion, feeling it unwise to question 'God's' illusion, co-signs it and then sells the delusion - a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence - that this place was the design of a Pefect God for everso many mysterious reasons.

If every inquiry starts off with the faulty premise that it's the Real God behind the Curtain of Oz, then every endeavor is for naught. One can't find Absolute Truth if the starting point is false.

"You can't find Truth with logic unless you've already found Truth without it." Until Truth is invited into the equation, exactly how the equation is faulty across the board will never be discovered. Many break through the delusion, but few escape the umbrella of the Grand Illusion.

Can you imagine what would happen if a billion people suddenly Woke Up and stopped praying to, and feeding the Ego of, the Misguided God? If people woke up to the awareness that disease is caused by layers of buried toxic shame rising to the surface - and began dumping it overboard?

This place may start to shake, rattle 'n' roll from the fury of god-sized Pride being punctured - but I'd sure like to be around to see it.

pj

David Quinn wrote:Both, in that my body/mind is a limited portion of Reality (a "thing") and in constant movement (an "action").

Ok, so you are a thing that acts. The reason I asked was that without the perception of Reality as action that may appear as things, I could explain my post to you no further.

Would you agree that all is energy? And if so, is energy a thing? I ask this because it seems incongruous that the source of all movement is a thing.

mikiel wrote:"that the physical world is an illusion" *is* solipsism.

You have the naive academic tendency to think that entire philosophies can be accurately summed-up in a single sentences.

Academics commonly say things like, "Whereas Nietzsche holds that XYZ, Kierkegaard believed that ABC. But for Spinoza, GHI."

Life is more complicated than that.

I do believe there is an external world, but the "physical world", as people commonly believe in it (as an independent existence), is an illusion.