GENIUS FORUMS

Jason asked:

1. Does the past cause the present?
2. Does the present cause the past?

The past is a term describing the way things used to be.

The way things used to be, doesn't exist anymore.

The past doesn't ever exist.

The present is a term describing the way things currently are.

The way things are is the only reality.

The present alone exists.

Things are always changing...what happens in the present soon becomes the past. What will happen, the future (which doesn't exist), soon becomes the present.

Things that exist now will seem to disappear. You may be with a friend, but that friend will leave and only remain in your memory.

Things that will exist later on, don't exist yet. When your friend comes back, the future becomes the present.

What causes reality...the present state of the universe?

Things are not all of reality, they're like pieces of a puzzle. If you take your friend as an example, your friend is not the rest of reality.

When your friend leaves, that thing changes. When that happens, numerous other things may change.

Does it mean that when your friend leaves, he changes the universe? Or when the universe changes, so does your friend?

Who knows the absolute truth of this?

Things appear and disappear to me.

When a thing appears, that is an effect.

When a thing disappears, that is an effect.

What causes these effects?

When I turn the faucet, water comes out of the sink. I can recognize turning the faucet as a cause as well as an effect, or just as an effect. It's up to me.

Being limited in my sight, I can't see the entire universe. I see a microscopic portion in comparison. In my microscopic portion there are numerous effects, and possible causes.

Wisdom of the Infinite says:

"Granted, we will never be able to uncover the precise causal linkages between things in an empirical sense, but nevertheless, what we can do is logically prove that causality is a reality which links all things together. We can do this by proving that it is logically impossible for anything to arise uncaused."

There are two points to the passage:

1. We can't know what exactly causes things to occur.
2. Nothing can arise uncaused.

What causes things to arise?

I don't know. Perhaps something else is occurring in the process of me turning a faucet and having water come out. I am in agreement with Wisdom of the Infinite because I say that we can't know what exactly causes things to occur.

I am certain of this uncertainty, however...

The way things used to be and the way things are (the past and the present) must cause the way things are.

Non-things don't exist, therefore only a thing can cause another thing.

When a thing causes another thing, the causing thing may appear or disappear because of its causing.

The way things will be is an unfolding of the way things used to be and the way things are. The future can't cause the present, only the past and future can.

So here's an answer to question 1:

"The past undoubtedly causes the present."

And here's an answer to question 2:

"The past, being non-existent, can't be caused because it doesn't exist."

Does that clear things up at all, Jason?

Sapius,

Wow! You got me Leyla! What can I say… What I said was full of contradictions. I feel so ashamed…

Blimey.

So many women, so little time.

Yeah… it was always about you, personally. I was deluded into thing that a person and his idea is one and the same thing. Apparently they are not.

Apparently, especially since you insist on ignoring my idea!

The more subtle point to my statement about you making this about “me” is precisely about that. You see, there’s a perfectly good argument there and you have rambled on continuously about this idea that Reality is a “thing” as if it were my idea when it had nothing to do with it; and despite my calling this to your attention, your "focus" remains so.

You are still doing it.

I mean, I might’ve found this last post quite funny, if you had also addressed the argument initially proposed.

Alas, I am the one doomed to remain something on the order of the incorrigible one sacrificed at the altar of mediocre morality for the sake of love:

So consider me gone, and wait for the next in line. I know, that wouldn’t bother you in the least.

.

Bo wrote:

Looks like your question is being examined. Pascal and I think Hegel posed your question and used it as proof for God.

Yeah? Care to provide more info in a nutshell for examination?

Leyla,

So many women, so little time.

Sure, I can see that too, Leyla. To me you are nothing more that a passing effect, like one passes wind, and SO AM I. Do I make myself clear? Do you actually think you can insult me with your femininity?

The more subtle point to my statement about you making this about “me” is precisely about that.

Please shut the third eye which in the first place senses subtleties in others statements as being all about you, when it never was. You have to stop interpreting each sentence on an open forum addressed to you as being all about you. You are quite obsessed about being yourself, since the principle of causality has not sunk into your psyche as yet, although you might carry it around like a banner. All this is also NOT about YOU, unless you think you ‘inherently’ exist. So please drop the pride.

You see, there’s a perfectly good argument there and you have rambled on continuously about this idea that Reality is a “thing” (WHAT? I say Reality is a "thing"? where did you get that?) as if it were my idea when it had nothing to do with it; and despite my calling this to your attention, your "focus" remains so.

No, there is no argument if you understand that point exactly, and that is, “RealitY”, or whatever you call it, is NOT a Thing, it cannot be, except an understanding, a realization, which is experienced just as that, a realization., which is also a Thing.

So, “Reality” may include ignorance (as such) but must exclude psychosis or delusions of grandeur not because “Reality encompasses even that (meaning, EVERY) thinking," but because “Reality bears no vengeance”?

How can “Reality” exclude ANYTHING when it literally IS ALL that there IS? What you say here is out of not understanding that point exactly. So where is the argument?

Earlier you mentione things like...

L: Well, you could say it is experienced through the mind, thought or through the faculty of logic. I don’t consider these abstractions or anything assigned them to be the same as the category of senses and things ascribed to experiencing, say, (eating) an apple.

L: It’s a category/conclusion based on the distinction between empirical data and pure logic.

My initial reaction to this was actually - Huh? How am I to respond to this? Since you are still stuck in categories and their distinctions when we were talking about “experiencing” Reality that excludes nothing, including those aspects, the aspect of distinctions and categorizing. How can you talk about compartmentalizing ‘empirical data’ and ‘pure logic’ when Reality is literally ALL? Compartmentalizing is a totally different issue.

Everything is centered in the Self, however I don’t consider being the only Self around, unless one thinks that the Self creates all else; I don’t see the difference in experiencing the realization of Reality, or experiencing eating an apple, as appearances, either of which is not a dream, although a mind could subcategorize it, and that act of subcategorizing is also Reality.

.(addition, spl.)

Talking of dreams.

Steven wrote:

Reality is in a blade of grass.

No, Reality is not IN a blade of grass, but is Reality.

It is one with the whole.

No, the blade of grass is what it is, and does not disappear due to conceptualizing otherwise. Although you may feel it so.

So, it is the whole.

No, there is no “whole”; Reality cannot be added up. Don’t ascribe limits to infinity.

To Diebert:
If you could begin to value flawless deduction, you would see that your mind is already the whole.

Valuing flawless deduction is not the same as using it, and that tells me, a ‘whole’ has no meaning when talking about Reality, or calling it Totality. Your Mind is not the whole, each and every point of infinite consciousness cannot be added up as a “whole” because of its infinite nature, although one could feel it so because of how one may conceptualize existence. You cannot be the “whole”, although it is a very good feeling and a useful tool in the initial stages before recognizing the Truth. Please start using flawless deduction now.

.

Sapius wrote:

]Talking of dreams.

Steven wrote:

Quote:
Reality is in a blade of grass.


No, Reality is not IN a blade of grass, but is Reality.

Look, everyone knows a blade of grass is in reality, but because reality is infinite, reality is in a blade of grass, it's absurd, it doesn't make sense, but there you have it, and I promise you I'm not to blame for it. It's as much itself as any other, particular, thing. Inherency kids.

:D

Oh, brother...

Sapius wrote:

Sure, I can see that too, Leyla. To me you are nothing more that a passing effect, like one passes wind, and SO AM I.

I already got that about you, Sapius -- a very long time ago. And I think your attempt to limit philosophy by continuing to push off your passing fart bullshit, is bullshit. How does a passing fart manifest as genius?

Do I make myself clear?

As clear as a fart.

Do you actually think you can insult me with your femininity?

Do you think I care?

Please shut the third eye which in the first place senses subtleties in others statements as being all about you, when it never was. You have to stop interpreting each sentence on an open forum addressed to you as being all about you.

Each sentence? I think your inability to accurately and objectively review the course of this discussion is clouding your…reasoning. When you ask me to reread something I have already read, you are not saying something about me? Was it someone else on this forum you feel didn’t get what you were saying?

You’re a fucking fundy pushing the same old idea you think nobody else understands but you -- you‘re convinced of it. That’s why you cannot assimilate what’s being said to you.

You are quite obsessed about being yourself, since the principle of causality has not sunk into your psyche as yet, although you might carry it around like a banner. All this is also NOT about YOU, unless you think you ‘inherently’ exist. So please drop the pride.

Well, I (a passing fart) did have an argument, which YOU (another passing fart) STILL have not addressed. And, it's still lingering.

Take in a deep breath.

No, there is no argument if you understand that point exactly, and that is, “RealitY”, or whatever you call it, is NOT a Thing, it cannot be, except an understanding, a realization, which is experienced just as that, a realization., which is also a Thing.

Are you completely insane, or what? There is a fart, but no argument. Uh-huh, OK. This is one hell of a fart, man.

But, I'll repeat my original argument, the realisation itself is not what I was referring to. You are the one insisting on making it so because of your "experience is all" fundamentalism. I, on the other hand, had something to say about experience and the distinction and characteristics of the human mind, which you are insisting I view only as experience and as the nature of Reality. You are saying there is no Reality beyond that of our own experiences; I am discerning the nature of those experiences -- and, for some "reason," you don't like it.

Let's go back to the beginning and where you seem to ultimately be going with what I am saying.

Tell me how this...:

L: The a priori one- and two-dimensions are logically necessary to the human experience of three- and four-dimensional objects, even though such objects -- 1 and 2D -- literally cannot be experienced as empirical objects (only as a priori, ie via pure logic).

...has anything to do with being a "mixed experience or character of or to some Reality in fairyland."

Do you mean to say that experiencing a physical object is precisely the same in every way as experiencing a thought? Give me more substance of thought than merely proclaiming "its all experience," which any old wanker can conclude. Address the argument itself, and directly, in other words.

Clear?

Leyla,

Do you mean to say that experiencing a physical object is precisely the same in every way as experiencing a thought?

Not unless you take “physical objects” to be more solid an appearance than thoughts. Are you saying that? Otherwise, there is no difference in that regard.

Leyla, actually you don’t make any sense to me in saying that, neither should it make to you. How can any thing be experienced if not through thoughts? Which does not mean only verbal thoughts. What one calls direct perception, which is what you seem to differentiate and point to, is necessarily a thought appearance, not simply an appearance, because you actually recognize it as such and not something else. A “thought” at the very basic instinctual intelligence, which operates without one actually realizing it, on the principal of recognizing A=A. Which is logic operating in its most basic form.

What is anything that appears to the mind, not an appearance first? As soon as anything appears, one experiences appearances. And that experience is what makes a self a self. One is nothing without experiencing that fundamental experience, which one calls a Self. From then on, one can hack all other experiences into as many bits and pieces one wants to. Hence experiencing is the most fundamental thing, hence, discovering something beyond experience can only be in a poetic sense, not logical.

Hence, anything discovered through “pure logic”, is necessarily an experience rather than just a discovery beyond experience. I cannot argue with its poetic expression though, because that is talking about the sinking of that realized experience into ones psyche.

BTW, I did stir up your feminine side with that passing wind thingy. I expected it. Now please grow up, and don’t let this comment actually bother you at all, as it did earlier which reflects in your detailed repeated use of unsavory language filled with presumably provocative accusations. And please don’t say I started it, because I meant it from a more philosophical point, not as an insult to either one of us, and you failed to recognize that.

Finally. I will address your last paragraph first, since I think it is most revealing and appropriate to do so. I understand that you will take it as "my femininity" but I point out, in fact, that this is the fundamental quality of a male that he so despises within himself and casts upon females -- unconsciously -- coming up with "Woman." Naturally, a female can never "win" an argument, therefore. Ironically, because men are yet too feminine and continue to perpetuate Her; to insist she is something existing inherently separate to themselves and embodied in a form they perceive to reflect their greatest weakness. Art.

Actually, I can't believe just how revealing this particular discussion has been.

BTW, I did stir up your feminine side with that passing wind thingy. I expected it.

Of course you did. Which is why it has taken you so long to finally address my point directly. Extraordinary, since there is actually no difference between what I originally posted but a marked difference in the quality of your reply and consideration of it.

Now please grow up, and don’t let this comment actually bother you at all, as it did earlier which reflects in your detailed repeated use of unsavory language filled with presumably provocative accusations.

I am not bothered, Sapius. You assume way too much, and incorrectly. (By the way, I grew up with three older brothers who got great pleasure out of farting really loudly and lighting their farts with cigarette lighters. I was completely fascinated when I saw my first such flame thrower. I thought your fart analogy was quite funny, therefore. I also think my continued use of it has been quite effective -- and funny!)

And please don’t say I started it, because I meant it from a more philosophical point, not as an insult to either one of us, and you failed to recognize that.

You did start “it.” And without it, and my subsequent addressing of "it" in the manner that I have, it seems you still would not have directly addressed my original comment.

I’ll get back to the rest of your post later.

Leyla:

Finally. I will address your last paragraph first, since I think it is most revealing and appropriate to do so. I understand that you will take it as "my femininity" but I point out, in fact, that this is the fundamental quality of a male that he so despises within himself and casts upon females -- unconsciously -- coming up with "Woman." Naturally, a female can never "win" an argument, therefore. Ironically, because men are yet too feminine and continue to perpetuate Her; to insist she is something existing inherently separate to themselves and embodied in a form they perceive to reflect their greatest weakness. Art.

Now you're talkin'.

It's a QRS flaw to declare forms as 'empty'..'meaningless'..'lacking inherency'..
and then pull a switcheroo by loading up 'Woman' with a package of perjorative meaning..
It's the most delicious Comedy available to the 'funny bone' since the Seinfeld Show folded...

Of course it's a Power Play...any self respecting politician knows an 'enemy' has to be invented to cause a Herd...

frank

Leyla wrote:

Sue: If you experience a realization of Truth, you, at that moment, are experiencing a realization of Truth. At the moment of this experience, you contrast the realization of Truth with what is not a realization of Truth. By doing so, your realization of Truth comes into existence. In the next moment you may experience a realization that the realization of Truth you had a moment ago was incorrect. By contrasting the past moment’s realization against your memories of what is true, and not-true, you have discarded the past realization and have replaced it with the present one. In the following moments, depending on how attached you are to understanding Truth, you could continue to contrast this new realization against memories of thoughts that you have already reasoned as truths, and non-truths, and in this way continue reasoning out whether or not this new realization is taking you closer to Truth, or further away from it.

That sounds dangerously close to post-modernism, Sue. How can you realise “Truth” only to realise it isn’t Truth a moment later?

Most people live in the past and the future. They ignore the fact that the thought they are having now is the only Reality there is. This is because we can never be sure that the past ever happened, or that there will be a future. This present thought is all we have.

If you are lucky enough to be caused to be conscious, you will also possess memory. Using this memory, you can contrast the thought that has arisen against what you already know. Above, I wrote of "one realization of Truth" being replaced by "another realization of Truth". This can happen when you doubt the validity of your original concept of Truth. For example: The thought arises that I exist, which fits perfectly into my concept that the Truth is: all things inherently exist. The next thought that arises is: nothing can exist independently from other things. Depending on how attached I was to my original idea of Truth, I could either ignore this new thought, or be open to it. Let’s say that I am blessed with an open mind and a keenness to understand everything with certainty. I judge this new thought to be more rational, because I see that all things are dependent on all other things for their existence. So, this thought is obviously taking me closer to understanding a Truth that is for everything and for all time.

I may have thought that the Truth I held before was complete and unflawed, but because this new thought has helped develop my reasoning skills, I am now able to see how unreasonable, incomplete and flawed my original idea of Truth really was. I now have a greater potential for understanding Truth than I did previously.

You can see how our attachments influence the way we interpret our thoughts. For example, the old concept of Truth was only workable whilst it fulfilled the need to protect the concept of the self, but now that this attachment has become weakened, the concept of the self can be examined more closely, and thereby deepen one's understanding.

Reality and Truth are one in the same thing. A concept of Truth or Reality is held by all people to varying degrees. What Truth, or Reality, or God, or Ideal, etc, that is held by a person depends on their attachments. For example, if a person is attached to finding a wife in his community; and the community happens to value Buddhist principles; all he need do to achieve his goal is to also hold this same value.

But; if you're attached to understanding Truth, having attachments to such things as, building a life for yourself through love and friendship, making and possessing wealth, acquiring success and status - becomes absurd and obsolete. Knowledge of Ultimate Truth must, by definition, satisfy completely your every desire.

Sue: So understanding Reality is perhaps a moment away; all you need do is open your mind to it. Once you’ve got a good, strong grip on your intellectual understanding of Reality, you can then begin to consider what is meant by the Tao.

Is Reality the intellectual understanding that there is only the Truth of each moment since one can realise Truth in one moment and realise in the next that that Truth was incorrect (a Lie)?

No, my point is that the thought allowing you to completely understand Reality can arise at any time. If you’ve done the ground work in preparation for this thought, such as sharpening your reasoning ability on other thoughts, as well as developing a mind that is open and flexible, you’ll be ready for it. After which, you can apply this understanding to everything.
-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh:

Above, I wrote of "one realization of Truth" being replaced by "another realization of Truth". This can happen when you doubt the validity of your original concept of Truth. For example: The thought arises that I exist, which fits perfectly into my concept that the Truth is: all things inherently exist. The next thought that arises is: nothing can exist independently from other things. Depending on how attached I was to my original idea of Truth, I could either ignore this new thought, or be open to it. Let’s say that I am blessed with an open mind and a keenness to understand everything with certainty. I judge this new thought to be more rational, because I see that all things are dependent on all other things for their existence. So, this thought is obviously taking me closer to understanding a Truth that is for everything and for all time.

What if your next thought was that your original idea of truth is not made less true by your new one?

suergaz,

Then you would be insane, and any further thinking would be a waste of time.
-
Sue

Then how would you ever be "understanding a Truth that is for everything and for all time."?

Sue wrote:

No, my point is that the thought allowing you to completely understand Reality can arise at any time.

Which is the same as saying, given the rest of your work, it arises always in the now by (the conscious individual) comprehending uncertain ideas/thoughts/conclusions of (and thus as) past and future as ideas/thoughts/conclusions in the form of knowledge/memory and thus as certainty NOW; that is, instead of as actualities independent of NOW (past) and potentialities dependent on it (future).

On that basis, that NOW thought that you refer to here -- the one that allows you to completely understand Reality -- can only ever arise NOW rather than “at any time,” if you are to be logically consistent, no?

Therefore, I find it pretty meaningless to state that one can realise "Truth" in one moment only to realise a "Truth" closer to Ultimate Truth in the next.

The closer to Truth one is, the more NOW they are.

But maybe it's just me!

Frankie

Now you're talkin'.

It's a QRS flaw to declare forms as 'empty'..'meaningless'..'lacking inherency'..
and then pull a switcheroo by loading up 'Woman' with a package of perjorative meaning..
It's the most delicious Comedy available to the 'funny bone' since the Seinfeld Show folded...

Of course it's a Power Play...any self respecting politician knows an 'enemy' has to be invented to cause a Herd...

Oh man, I'm laughing my ass off. Frank, I think I'm gonna just click on your name and find your posts. I don't want to miss any more of them!

--Someone said the past was unreal. Well, the whole thing is a mental construction. The past is a mental construction. Therefore, the past is as 'real' as the present.

Frank,

Of course it's a Power Play...any self respecting politician knows an 'enemy' has to be invented to cause a Herd...

I agree, but do you think it is possible for him not to know that, considering the ‘self respecting’ thing comes first?

And how can one know about self respect without respecting another first?

Leyla,

You assume way too much, and incorrectly.

May be, but couldn’t that be a possibility in your case too?

Finally. I will address your last paragraph first, since I think it is most revealing and appropriate to do so. I understand that you will take it as "my femininity"

No, not in this case.

but I point out, in fact, that this is the fundamental quality of a male that he so despises within himself and casts upon females…

May be, but I actually embrace it with all my logical reasoning’s, and use it accordingly. I’m a human, not a drifting dead piece of wood you know.

Naturally, a female can never "win" an argument, therefore. Ironically, because men are yet too feminine and continue to perpetuate Her; to insist she is something existing inherently separate to themselves and embodied in a form they perceive to reflect their greatest weakness. Art.

I know ‘femininity’ not to necessarily be an inherent property only of a woman, and neither is it necessarily a weakness in man. It depends on how you use it. If femininity is weakness in a man, then masculinity should be considered a weakness in a woman. I wonder why that is not so?

I’ll get back to the rest of your post later.

Sure.

Actually, I can't believe just how revealing this particular discussion has been.

Well, good for you then, but I expected it.

Trust me Leyla, as a person, I have nothing against you, nor ever had. You are surely relentless in your pursuit. What you physically are does not really matter to me, but that still remains a fact and a factor in fact. Which essentially is not necessarily a weakness.

But that is I.

.

Frank said:

It's a QRS flaw to declare forms as 'empty'..'meaningless'..'lacking inherency'..
and then pull a switcheroo by loading up 'Woman' with a package of perjorative meaning..

You misunderstand what empty means. Try thinking of it this way: a tennis ball in reality is like a wave in the sea. It comes forth with characteristics: neon green/yellow, fuzzy, says "Penn" on it, has strange stripes, it bounces, it smells funny, etc...

The characteristics and the name, "tennis ball", are a form. This form doesn't inherently exist because when you throw it in a fire, it pops and melts...then the tennis ball is no more. "Tennis ball" doesn't exist! The wave crashes into the rest of the water.

This is what emptiness is about. All forms lacking inherent existence.

It doesn't mean that because all forms are empty, they're all meaningless or not real. The way things come to be is real...when you're looking at a tennis ball, you are actually looking at a tennis ball. When you meet a woman, you are really meeting a woman. The mirage is real. It has meaning.

So when the form of a woman doesn't begin to understand any of this, and it always babbles about hot boys and shopping and money and misunderstood Christianity and how her hair isn't good enough, etc...it is very real and very meaningful. It isn't something the philosopher magically forgets about when he realizes the truth.

Of course, a philosopher who constantly whines and bitches about how bad women are is probably deluding himself with his own righteousness. In my view, men and women are BOTH fairly dumb...in an innocent way!

Take sports for instance. When I was driving home from work with my dad he turned on "The FAN radio" where people talked about players of various sports...I could have cared less. I have an enflamed passion for truth...so, while playing sports is fun and it's good to be competitive, I've moved on. Listening to nothing, or listening to "The FAN" is the same.

It's weird to hear guys gossip about sports players...it's almost just like girls gossipping about celebrities. I don't see much of a difference anymore.

Leyla Shen wrote:Bo wrote:

Looks like your question is being examined. Pascal and I think Hegel posed your question and used it as proof for God.

Yeah? Care to provide more info in a nutshell for examination?

Priori knowledge demonstrates that you are connected to reality in a way that is not commonly conscious. It seems to be at the subconscious level and not readily held in the mind as it is beyond concepts.

We get what is called flashes of insight. This experience is what has created the most startling breakthroughs in civilization.

Science creeps along with its tedious methodology and then bang; an individual receives a revelation, if you will, into nature that allows for progress in small amounts of time what was overlooked by years of plodding along with systems of binary logic.

It tells us that we are connected to the Totality in a more concrete way than is perceived through the senses.


Sue Hindmarsh:

Most people live in the past and the future. They ignore the fact that the thought they are having now is the only Reality there is.

Indeed; the constant unfolding that never ceases.

Reality and Truth are one in the same thing.

This is genius and wisdom.

Knowledge of Ultimate Truth must, by definition, satisfy completely your every desire.

Clearly the definition. Anything less; we could say would be delusion.

Good post Sue - and thank you.

Beingof1 wrote:

Have you noticed I address each and everything you say - while you skip right over half of my questions and post. Hmm

That isn’t exactly true, as I have answered quite a few of your questions, some in great detail – the Near-Death essay for example. But because the bulk of your writing has no point, it is impossible to respond to.

One thing that stands out in your posts is how shallow and paranoid you are. Before you go shouting ‘foul’ have a look at some of your “questions” and responses to me from your last post –

The proof is right here in this thread - I do not have to make a single supposition, its crystal clear for anyone to see. You have a problem with my experience and so it must be fantasy?

And I suppose it is true because you 'say so'. So far all I see of your thought is attachment to ideas, words and personalities.

Do you know how I know this? Its not just wishful thinking - its all in what you write. You do not actually engage me in discussion, in fact you avoid it at all cost. You do not respond to half my post and avoid all of my questions and do not ask me any questions.

You just make assumptions, suppositions, and conjecture because you know that if you actually talk to me you might end up believing I am for real. And this thought frightens you doesn`t it?

In our last conversation I answered every single question you posed with reason and logic in the entire thread - you know its true even if it is scary. Well here I am, if I do not "take thinking seriously" as you said, it should be very easy to shoot me down with logic - take your best shot.

If someone cannot seem to get the better hand in a discussion - its easy - just make something up and pretend like the other person actually said what you want them to say.

I have to admit - its easier than actually discussing issues because you can always be 'right and win'. And what is more important than being right and winning?

You will probably avoid this question to as you have yet to answer a single question of mine - perhaps you will answer your own?

Throwing a heap of emotion at someone isn’t the same thing as having a philosophic discussion with them. If it was emotion that had something to do with trying to understand Truth, I’d show more interest in it. But your emotion is all about protecting your ego, which is not something you can do when you take philosophy seriously. Philosophy is exploring the truth of everything, and the ego is part of everything.

-

The issue you raise below is a bit of a puzzle -

You quoted me as saying “an experience of reality” - where did I draw the distinction?

-because on this thread you have said quite a bit about "reality" in regard to your experience:

These were my experiences. What you choose to define your memories as is up to you. I can only call them memories of past experience of reality.

What appears in the mind is a creation of the mind and does not interdict reality. I repeat myself - I am quite capable of discerning my reality with clarity. That allows me to know what is truth as I do not deceive myself.

The implication here is that I had a mystical experience and somehow misconstrued this with reality. That has never, ever, happened to me.

I will not deny my reality as that would make me a liar and quite mad to make others feel OK and that the world is flat.

Sometimes the "experience" was just an experience; other times it is "reality". What's it to be: real, or something else?

-
Sue
-
My following post to you, deals with a few questions that were raised in your last post.

Beingof1 wrote:

Sue: His insight that the self is God can be used to begin thinking about the self’s casual relationship with the universe, which would then lead him to a deeper understanding of existence. But he is yet to begin thinking about any of these consequences.

What deeper understanding? What consequences? More blanket statements that mean nothing.

The insight that the self is God comes from seeing that everything in the universe is connected. In this way the self can be considered as being - everything (God).

This is a useful first step in understanding that things do not exist inherently, but depend on other things for their existence. This causal relationship between things means the self is also caused, and therefore has no other existence other than through those causes. A major consequence of understanding that the self does not exist inherently, is that you no longer take seriously your attachment to your past idea of ‘you’ as a separate entity. As a whim of God, you can’t fall in love, or hate anything, or worry about your future, or pine for your past. Because you can’t fall in love with what is you, or hate what is you, or worry about something you have no control over, or pine for something you can never know anything about for certain.

From this, you can continue on making more discoveries.

Watch - here is how you ask a specific question with substance and meaning to find out where a person is at.

Is there a reality beyond your experience?

No. This "reality beyond your experience" must still be part of your experience otherwise you'd have no knowledge of it.

Sue: Consciousness doesn’t end, as its causes continue on as other things. In the same way, consciousness has no beginning, as the causes creating it come from other things.

Really; what 'other' thing or things create consciousness? What does it become?

Consciousness arises due to its causes and falls away due it causes, but the causes neither have a beginning, nor an end. We cannot know all the causes which bring consciousness into existence, as we cannot know all the causes that end it. What we can be certain of is that consciousness, along with everything else, is caused, and that those causes are eternal.

Sue: It is through our senses that we know about radio waves, so your idea that they somehow “transcend the senses” is plainly incorrect.

You really need to think it through. It is not 'plainly incorrect'.

If you are on a desert island, do radio waves exist without a receptor? Do we know about consciousness through our senses?

Yes, we can only know consciousness, along with everything else, through our senses.

You are obviously trying to use radio waves as some sort of analogy to explain how consciousness works. You’ll have to spell it out further to make clear what you are trying to get at.

Sue: Your “agenda” is about distracting yourself with fantasies, whereas mine is about getting to the rock-bottom truth of all things.

Riiiight - is that why you avoid my questions and disregard the parts of my post you do not like?

How much do you know out of all there is to know? 10%, 5%, 1%? In the vast totality of all that is, do you think you may ever encounter an experience that may change your mind about how reality functions and what it is?

I know that I am caused to know that everything is caused. So, there is everything accounted for.

Each moment I am reborn in Reality. At no time am I separated from it. Each moment, depending on my causes, I am either deepening my understanding of Reality, or remaining ignorant of it. Either way, it is Reality’s doing, not mine.

Sue

Scott

Frank:It's a QRS flaw to declare forms as 'empty'..'meaningless'..'lacking inherency'..
and then pull a switcheroo by loading up 'Woman' with a package of perjorative meaning..

Scott: You misunderstand what empty means. Try thinking of it this way: a tennis ball in reality is like a wave in the sea. It comes forth with characteristics: neon green/yellow, fuzzy, says "Penn" on it, has strange stripes, it bounces, it smells funny, etc...

The characteristics and the name, "tennis ball", are a form. This form doesn't inherently exist because when you throw it in a fire, it pops and melts...then the tennis ball is no more. "Tennis ball" doesn't exist! The wave crashes into the rest of the water.

This is what emptiness is about. All forms lacking inherent existence.

Inherent existence is infinite existence. That a certain existence may cease does not change the infinity of what existed, the end of its existence is necessitated by its infinity.


Sue:

The insight that the self is God comes from seeing that everything in the universe is connected. In this way the self can be considered as being - everything (God).

The self is not everything. It is what it is. Infinite connection does not alter this.

This is a useful first step in understanding that things do not exist inherently, but depend on other things for their existence.

Things do exist inherently, because they depend on all else for existence.

This causal relationship between things means the self is also caused, and therefore has no other existence other than through those causes.

The self has existence through its causes, but also through its continued existence, its inherency, its infinity.

A major consequence of understanding that the self does not exist inherently, is that you no longer take seriously your attachment to your past idea of ‘you’ as a separate entity. As a whim of God, you can’t fall in love, or hate anything, or worry about your future, or pine for your past.

But you can still seem to, a difficulty which leaves one
ready to come to deeper understanding, namely that within the universe, within infinity, is the inherency of all existence.

Because you can’t fall in love with what is you, or hate what is you, or worry about something you have no control over, or pine for something you can never know anything about for certain.

Life without desiring is desolate. That all feeling becomes thought is something we understand only after having felt.

From this, you can continue on making more discoveries.

Well? :D

[laaaaaughs!]

zag: What if your next thought was that your original idea of truth is not made less true by your new one?

Sue: Then you would be insane, and any further thinking would be a waste of time.

Now, that's fucking hillarious!

Fair dinkum. Can't stop laffin'!

Sue: Above, I wrote of "one realization of Truth" being replaced by "another realization of Truth". This can happen when you doubt the validity of your original concept of Truth. For example: The thought arises that I exist, which fits perfectly into my concept that the Truth is: all things inherently exist. The next thought that arises is: nothing can exist independently from other things. Depending on how attached I was to my original idea of Truth, I could either ignore this new thought, or be open to it. Let’s say that I am blessed with an open mind and a keenness to understand everything with certainty. I judge this new thought to be more rational, because I see that all things are dependent on all other things for their existence. So, this thought is obviously taking me closer to understanding a Truth that is for everything and for all time.

suergaz:What if your next thought was that your original idea of truth is not made less true by your new one?

Sue:Then you would be insane, and any further thinking would be a waste of time.

suergaz:Then how would you ever be "understanding a Truth that is for everything and for all time."?

It may be just me, but I think it's funnier with that heavenly hell of a punchline which went unanswered.