GENIUS FORUMS

unwise wrote:

Mr. Quinn said: Imagine that you live in a society in which everyone is obsessed with dogs. Everyone grows up yearning for a nice dog and strives to spend their entire lives working in careers to ensure that the dog they own is comfortable and happy. Thousands of songs are written about dogs and the joys and sorrow of loving them; thousands of books and movies are solely about human and dog relationships. Society's laws are tailored towards the special protection of the dog; religious morals place the dog firmly in the centre of their concerns. People fall into deep grief, sometimes even kill themselves, whenever their dogs run off. It's all dogs, dogs, dogs, and little else.

You would probably think, with perfect justification, that such a society is completely mad.

unwise: Can dogs bear our children and provide the necessary foundation for the continuation of our very species? I thought you were the logic guy.

I'm sure we have the intellignce to organize the continuation of our species without all the ridiculous paraphernalia which currently surrounds it.

A technology develops in the future, women are probably going to become redundant. Artificial wombs will take care of the needs of gestation, while virtual reality technology and robotics will produce more perfect and more desirable versions of women to satisfy men's sexual urges.

Women are unwittingly sowing the seeds of their own future destruction. The way they try to entrance men by striving to emulate the ideal of the perfect woman, coupled with the sheer existence of their human imperfections and flaws, leaves them vulnerable to being superceded by superior models.

-

Here's what kills me about this forum: You speak of women as though they are a single entity - all the same. Certainly we have seen all sorts of women and men - and all sorts of different cultures. In Israel I understand the women walk around with AK-47s on the shoulder instead of a Gucci bag. I like women who are strapped.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Certainly most men are weaklings. I have often thought that women have a much greater tolerance for pain then men. I've watched men become total babies when they are hurt and in need. Men turn their new brides into mothers in about three years or less. Men are mostly total pussies. I've seen plenty of singular women walking alone. Women will live for years without men, but men need and cling to women who become their long, lost mommy.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I once dated a girl who cold cocked me with her fist - a big roundhouse right - and almost knocked me out. I didn't even see it coming. She caught me 'doing' another gal on the couch. That only endeared her to me. Shit, she was tough as nails. Now that was a woman to me. God bless you, Marlene.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Why hold up women as an example of weakness? Men are weak pussies if you ask me. Jesus Christ, how many men would consent to bearing a child?

I have to tell you in all humility that I thought the world was a complete disaster before I became enlightened. I felt like Schopenhauer or Camus. I was ready to crash my Porsche into a wall. I felt nothing but pain......

When I saw that I was, in fact, God - basking in non-time and space all alone in the universe - never having been born, never having moved or done anything at all......I had a surprising thought - the 'world' as we know it here with all its faults and ignorance and stinky shit and fear and challenge - was an incredible miracle - equal in every way to the ultimate vision.

Ever since then I didn't think enlightenment was a big deal or something that everybody has to care about. A normal life full of 'illusion' is equally amazing to me.

Nietzsche once wrote, with great insight, in Zarathustra:

"To the pure all things are pure" - thus say the people.
But I say unto you: "To the swine all things are swinish!"

Nietschke wrote there are no facts only interpretations....I guess he was interpreting..

For anyone who loves Truth and desperately desires to become enlightened, the problem of ignorance is a burning personal issue which simply has to be resolved. It has nothing to do wth being clever or impressing other people. It is something which is borne out of a deep inner need.

I know in my own case that I hated being ignorant and uncertain in my own mind. I hated that the idea that my mind could be misleading me with deluded thoughts. And when I heard that other people in the past had claimed to have become enlightened and fully understood the nature of Reality, I knew that I just had to have this. I couldn't stand the idea of being locked out of this supreme understanding. And so I searched for this enlightenment for many years with great intensity.

This is the sort of attitude you need if you want to become enlightened. You need to seek the Truth with the same intensity as a drowning man seeks air. And just as the desire to impress people with cleverness is the last thing on a drowning man's mind, so too the genuine seeker of enlightenment never gives that kind of thing a single thought.
David

I'm not saying an Act is wrong...I'm saying we each have an Act...
Enlightenment is surely having a full appraisal of our own Act...

A Role you have for yourself is Sage...or a Way of Being you are carefully putting together...

When you 'speak' or 'write' a post there is this transmission of sorts of 'an Old Wise Man' speaking from a lofty perch...a Man who has separated himself from the World...a feeling of 'gravitas' gets transmitted...a sense of profound criticism of the World...a sense of deep dissatisfaction with the World...a sense of Mission to 'fix' things...

I would have thought the World is perfect and 'fixing' is not required...it's doing it's own thing and what is the point of being upset about it...as if I could control anything anyway...a possibility is just to enjoy it..the many sensual pleasures of it...and the suffering, well that's the price of admission...

I really can't see there's anything to 'fix'..
I never thought there was a Murder Committed.

When you chide me (frank)...it's as tho' I was a pesky schoolboy...it's really funny...like you're my new Papa hehe..

It feels like when you sit to write a post you take time to summon the forces of 'Sage Energy'....arrange yourself in a certain way to make it appear you embody Wisdom...

There is definitely a feeling of Costume, Script, Action, Drama...and yes there is a sense of burning desire...

It has a ring of 'cleverness' to it.

Do you think recognising our Way of Being is important?

frank

unwise wrote:

DQ: All things are caused,
Nothing really begins or ends.
All things lack inherent existence.
The self is an illusion.
Nature (the totality of all there is) is without form
Nature is beyond life and death.

U: I'ts nice to have this list. I've been wanting this list for a while. It's odd that I do not have much trouble with this list - but have some different interpretations of it. I'll make a couple quick comments about it and come back to it later when I have time:

All things are caused,

--yes, this is also called karma. And, as long as you see that the cause of everything is psychological in the mind of the observer, than you have it.

You still haven't produced any real evidence, other than your own wishful thinking, that the world is a dream and that the cause of everything is our psychology.

Causality isn't confined to one specific form. It can express itself in countless different ways. Sometimes it is materialistic, as in billiard balls pushing each other around. Sometimes it is psychological, as in when a jealous person kills his lover for being unfaithful. Sometimes it is purely logical, as in the dynamics of mathematical or philosophical truths.

You don't realize it, but you are trapping yourself in a very limited mindset when you insist that everything is a dream and psychological in nature. In reality, the Universe is way beyond being a dream. In fact, it doesn't have any form at all. It is neither materialistic, nor dream-like, nor psychological, nor even spiritual. It simply what it is, in each moment

One cannot begin to understand Reality until one taps into this formlessness and can swim about in its immense freedom.

Nothing really begins or ends.

--yes, in reality, there are no 'things' and there is no time.

The trouble with this is that you still believe in the existence of certain "things", such as dream-worlds, consciousness and unconsciousness, the thingy which supposedly exists beyond the dream, and so on. These are all "things" which you currently believe to be real. You'll have to somehow find it within yourself to go beyond all things, without exception, if you truly want to become enlightened.

All things lack inherent existence.

--I say this all the time, except that the dream itself has existence. Or Prakriti and Purusha have existence.

"Except" ....? You can't go around saying that all things lack inherent existence, and then start making exceptions. People will just laugh at you.

Nature (the totality of all there is) is without form

--OK, but it takes on the appearance of form because it is dream.

The Totality would necessarily include the "thingy" which you try to exclude from the dream, don't you think?

Nature is beyond life and death.

--nature is the apparent dream state. What is behind the appearances is beyond life and death, yes.

This is a dualistic mentality which is still infinitely removed from the supreme enlightened consciousness that pierces through everything.

DQ: The truly enlightened person is able to discern the nature of Reality in all type of consciousness. He doesn't rely on contrived forms of consciousness, such as "pure consciousness", or indeed any kind of altered state of consciousness at all. He sees the concept of "pure consciousness" for the rubbish that it is.

U: This could be a problem in semantics. I do not know what others mean by 'pure consciousness.' I have my own definition. I live in the field of pure consciousness all the time now that I discovered it. I will call it 'transcendental aloneness.' That describes it quite well. The object of consciousness in 'transcendental aloneness' is 'I-am-ness' or BEING only. There are no other beings in the universe from this view, no thoughts, no time, no space, no knowledge, no person, no history, no other reality. All other forms of so-called reality are absorbed into a joke. I am in samadhi at all times. I am in it right now. This is my own definition of 'pure consciousness.' I've never even read it anywhere else as I have described it.

You say that you live in this "pure consciousness" all the time, where there are no things and thoughts, and yet here you are interacting with me on this forum via a computer .....

I think you have an active imagination which is taking hold of what little insight you have and spinning a giant fantasy-world for yourself. Only a few days ago you were sneering at "bums" and people on the dole because of your social conditioning. This is not the sign of a person who is in "samadhi all the time". And as I demonstrated above, your understanding of Reality is extremely undeveloped and riddled with contradictions and unresolved issues.

If I were to rate your understanding between 1 and 10, with "1" representing the average clod in the street and "10" representing the enlightened person, then you're probably around 2 at most. That's how unimpressed I am with your understanding. You really need to humble yourself and admit that you have still got a long way to go, otherwise I fear that one day you are going to fall fat on your face, which won't be pleasant.

-

Mr. Quinn said: A technology develops in the future, women are probably going to become redundant. Artificial wombs will take care of the needs of gestation, while virtual reality technology and robotics will produce more perfect and more desirable versions of women to satisfy men's sexual urges.

Now this is actually a very real possibility and an interesting thought experiment. Yes, we will be able to reproduce without much contact with each other. This is very interesting. Perhaps the Chinese will first experiment with such an idea. I would be very interested in the results.

My own observations, however, tell me that men without women around and women without men around are disturbed in some way - off balance. I think enlightenment brings out androgyny. - a perfect blending of male/female characteristics. This is what happened to me.

Pure 'maleness' and pure 'femaleness' is rather ugly and insane - don't you agree? Left alone, men become too serious and cold, and women become unstable and weak-minded. They both seem mad to me in their polarized condition.

unwise,

Here's what kills me about this forum: You speak of women as though they are a single entity - all the same.

And you know what kills me? You just spoke of everyone in the forum as though they were a single entity, and then your post continues on to chastise men as a single entity. I mean, it's not even just the fact that you complain about things that you yourself do that makes you sound like a clown, but you commit the crime you accuse others of in the same sentence that you make your accusations.

I have to ask: are you acting out a deliberate parody?

I've watched men become total babies when they are hurt and in need. Men turn their new brides into mothers in about three years or less. Men are mostly total pussies. I've seen plenty of singular women walking alone. Women will live for years without men, but men need and cling to women who become their long, lost mommy.

See, this is what I'm talking about. It's clownish, and entirely misses the point of attacking femininity. Instead of recognizing your attachment and destroying it, your knee-jerk reaction is, "you make fun of women, so I'm going to make fun of men."

Maybe your childishness is unintentional:

I have to tell you in all humility that I thought the world was a complete disaster before I became enlightened. I felt like Schopenhauer or Camus. I was ready to crash my Porsche into a wall. I felt nothing but pain......

When I saw that I was, in fact, God - basking in non-time and space all alone in the universe - never having been born, never having moved or done anything at all......

Because, you know, this sounds closer to the ravings of a lunatic than philosophy. Have you ever heard of depression-induced psychosis?

David:

1.All things are caused.
2.Nothing really begins or ends.
3.All things lack inherent existence.
4.The self is an illusion.
5.Nature (the totality of all there is) is without form
6.Nature is beyond life and death.

I am a genie, and I can only grant you 1, 5 and 6.

Unfortunately, you can't have 1, 5 and 6 without 2, 3, and 4. They are all logically connected.

For example, the reason why things lack inherent existence is because all things are caused. A thing's existence is always generated by other things. It is never in possession of its own existence.

-

frank wrote:

DQ: Nietzsche once wrote, with great insight, in Zarathustra:

"To the pure all things are pure" - thus say the people.
But I say unto you: "To the swine all things are swinish!"

f: Nietschke wrote there are no facts only interpretations....I guess he was interpreting..

Is that a fact?

A Role you have for yourself is Sage...or a Way of Being you are carefully putting together...

When you 'speak' or 'write' a post there is this transmission of sorts of 'an Old Wise Man' speaking from a lofty perch...a Man who has separated himself from the World...a feeling of 'gravitas' gets transmitted...a sense of profound criticism of the World...a sense of deep dissatisfaction with the World...a sense of Mission to 'fix' things...

I would have thought the World is perfect and 'fixing' is not required...it's doing it's own thing and what is the point of being upset about it...

When you become hungry, the world is still perfect, but this doesn't stop you from trying to fix the problem by eating food.

as if I could control anything anyway...a possibility is just to enjoy it..the many sensual pleasures of it...and the suffering, well that's the price of admission...

This is just you being attached to the pleasures of the unconscious life. Ever since you have been on this forum, you have been looking for any excuse not to do anything. You make it plain that you love being a spectator, and not a participant.

I really can't see there's anything to 'fix'..
I never thought there was a Murder Committed.

Your mental shutters are up.

It feels like when you sit to write a post you take time to summon the forces of 'Sage Energy'....arrange yourself in a certain way to make it appear you embody Wisdom...

There is definitely a feeling of Costume, Script, Action, Drama...and yes there is a sense of burning desire...

It has a ring of 'cleverness' to it.

Certainly, when one teaches, one has to be clever. This is because one is always dealing with the cunning schemes of other people's egos. One has to try and find ways to bypass these schemes and speak directly to the authentic part of them. This can involve using anything from pure reasonings, to humour, to praise, to direct confrontation.

For example, your ego likes to hide behind cartoon worlds and extravagant soap-operas, which is a sign that you have trouble dealing with reality more directly. If I want to speak to the reak frank who is in there somewhere, I have to somehow find a way to slip past these cartoon worlds, which isn't easy.

Do you think recognising our Way of Being is important?

That is what enlightenment is.

-

Unwise wrote:

My own observations, however, tell me that men without women around and women without men around are disturbed in some way - off balance.

Well, yes, if you were to suddenly remove all women from the world, most men would become disturbed and upset and angry. It would be like suddenly taking all heroin away from a junkie.

But if the junkie were to make the inner commitment to live without heroin and slowly adapt to a drug-free life, he would soon find that it is perfectly possible to lead a rich, fulfulling life without drugs.

I think enlightenment brings out androgyny. - a perfect blending of male/female characteristics. This is what happened to me.

A perfect blending of male and female characteristics is like a perfect blending of good and evil traits. It can never work. What usually happens is that the feminine takes over and subsumes the male qualities. The person involves becomes almost entirely feminine, and the male qualities turn into a mere simulation of these male qualities. One can see this is in women today, and increasingly in men as well.

Pure 'maleness' and pure 'femaleness' is rather ugly and insane - don't you agree? Left alone, men become too serious and cold, and women become unstable and weak-minded. They both seem mad to me in their polarized condition.

It depends on your perspective and your values, doesn't it. A pure male would be a perfect Buddha, entirely perfect and completely lacking in submission. I'm sure he would be a very jolly chap - although most people these days would probably regard him as serious and cold from their teenagerish, overly-emotional, petty-minded perspective.

-

David:
1.All things are caused.
2.Nothing really begins or ends.
3.All things lack inherent existence.
4.The self is an illusion.
5.Nature (the totality of all there is) is without form
6.Nature is beyond life and death.

suergaz:I am a genie, and I can only grant you 1, 5 and 6.

David:Unfortunately, you can't have 1, 5 and 6 without 2, 3, and 4. They are all logically connected.
For example, the reason why things lack inherent existence is because all things are caused. A thing's existence is always generated by other things. It is never in possession of its own existence.

Not so. That all things are caused does not validate a lack of inherent existence. Everything possesses its own existence even unconsciously. That a things existence is necessarily generated by other things does not negate this same things existence in itself.
-

suergez,

Not so. That all things are caused does not validate a lack
of inherent existence. Everything possesses its own existence even unconsciously. That a things existence is necessarily generated by other things does not negate this same things existence in itself.
-

If a thing's self-existence requires the existence of other things, then it does not have self-existence.

I removed the word "generate" to make David's point more clear. That all things are caused does not mean "all things were all caused at some point in the past and now only occassionally dip into the well of causality", but "all things were caused, are caused, and will continue to be caused, without exception, forever". Taken in this light, it should be "constant generation"; so, that a thing's existence is constantly (and necessarily) generated by other things means that it cannot exist in itself. Or that a thing cannot exist in itself means that a thing's existence is constantly (and necessarily) generated by other things. I presented that statement forward and backward to show that it's tautological.

That a things existence is necessarily generated by other things does not negate this same things existence in itself.

I agree with you Sewergas. People do in fact intuitively know they are real because of the presence of 'I Am' which is indeed real. The Self DOES have inherent existence - that is 'self' with a capital 'S.'


I just wanted to say that I appreciate Frank and Dave for providing me with such a good time. Thanks! You guys rock.

I had one other issue that I wanted to get resolved....

Doesn't 'cause and effect' imply 'objects' and 'time.' This is what I have a problem with because I do not believe in 'objects' and 'time.' I think they are illusions or dream stuff. How then can there be cause and effect?

mookestink:

If a thing's self-existence requires the existence of other things, then it does not have self-existence.

Non-sequiturs abound here! A things existence requires existence, nothing more. Existence is fundamentally 'inherent'.

unwise:

The Self DOES have inherent existence - that is 'self' with a capital 'S.'

Grammar has nothing to do with it.

It feels like when you sit to write a post you take time to summon the forces of 'Sage Energy'....arrange yourself in a certain way to make it appear you embody Wisdom...

There is definitely a feeling of Costume, Script, Action, Drama...and yes there is a sense of burning desire...

It has a ring of 'cleverness' to it.

Certainly, when one teaches, one has to be clever. This is because one is always dealing with the cunning schemes of other people's egos. One has to try and find ways to bypass these schemes and speak directly to the authentic part of them. This can involve using anything from pure reasonings, to humour, to praise, to direct confrontation.

Just like a Woman...hehe...he he

unsise: Here's what kills me about this forum: You speak of women as though they are a single entity - all the same.

(mookestink:) And you know what kills me? You just spoke of everyone in the forum as though they were a single entity, and then your post continues on to chastise men as a single entity. I mean, it's not even just the fact that you complain about things that you yourself do that makes you sound like a clown, but you commit the crime you accuse others of in the same sentence that you make your accusations.

Yes, very good. I've given you back your argument in the same form that you present it. But, really, if I were to rate these three groups - men, women, geniuses on the genius fourm......I think you could rank them like this:

MOST ALIKE - Genius Forum. This is true except for all obviously maverick, unaligned posters such as Frank and unwise.

MODERATELY ALIKE - Men. Crave mother. Desire to form groups such as Genius Forum. Need constant attention. Aspire to power such as 'head sage,' perfect master, captain, president, Grand Imperial Wizard etc.

MOST UNLIKE - Women. Will live with or without men. Have control of children. Regularly subjugate men. Most bisexual.

mookestink: If a thing's self-existence requires the existence of other things, then it does not have self-existence.

suergaz: Non-sequiturs abound here! A things existence requires existence, nothing more. Existence is fundamentally 'inherent'.

You are forgetting that you allowed David's first proposition "all things are caused", meaning that a thing's existence does not simply require existence, but also that it is causally related to everything else. So much for "nothing more". Causality reaches to the heart of Being: the existence of a thing places it in the context of the causally related framework of other things.

Of the rest of your post, I can hardly make sense of it. Existence is fundamentally inherent to what? To things? Or to nature? I would have to agree that it is fundamentally inherent to nature, but that would be trivial to the point of vacuousness. If you meant that existence is fundamentally inherent to things, well, that's the point of contention, isn't it? I believe that the traditional way of deciding this matter would be with reasons.

Why existence is not fundamentally inherent to things:
Reason: "Things" do not exist apart from linguistic convenience. A living ant, though quite clearly a thing, disintegrates into millions of molecules upon closer inspection. Each molecule, it should be noted, is also a "thing".

Anyway, about you calling that sentence of mine a "non sequitur", I'll let it slide on the ground that I notice it could interpreted it two ways: as a logical blunder (false implication), or as an extrapolation from the definition (if/then, as in programming). I meant the second one. I'll rewrite it more exactly:

A thing only has self-existence if it exists apart from all other things. All things are causally related, and therefore do not exist apart from other things. Therefore, nothing has self-existence.

You are forgetting that you allowed David's first proposition "all things are caused", meaning that a thing's existence does not simply require existence, but also that it is causally related to everything else. So much for "nothing more".

I forgot no such thing. A things inherent existence lies in its being causally tied to everything else! There is nothing more than everything.

Causality reaches to the heart of Being: the existence of a thing places it in the context of the causally related framework of other things

Which is why everything inherently exists.

Of the rest of your post, I can hardly make sense of it. Existence is fundamentally inherent to what? To things? Or to nature?

Both.

I would have to agree that it is fundamentally inherent to nature, but that would be trivial to the point of vacuousness.

But it is being suggested that all things lack inherent existence. Are you saying nature is not all things?

If you meant that existence is fundamentally inherent to things, well, that's the point of contention, isn't it? I believe that the traditional way of deciding this matter would be with reasons.

I have been nothing but reasonable! This will ultimately be seen even if it cannot right now. :D

Why existence is not fundamentally inherent to things:
Reason: "Things" do not exist apart from linguistic convenience. A living ant, though quite clearly a thing, disintegrates into millions of molecules upon closer inspection. Each molecule, it should be noted, is also a "thing".

Existence is fundamentally inherent to things, as things cannot help but be a part of all things.

Anyway, about you calling that sentence of mine a "non sequitur", I'll let it slide on the ground that I notice it could interpreted it two ways: as a logical blunder (false implication), or as an extrapolation from the definition (if/then, as in programming). I meant the second one. I'll rewrite it more exactly: A thing only has self-existence if it exists apart from all other things. All things are causally related, and therefore do not exist apart from other things. Therefore, nothing has self-existence.

By self-existence you mean inherent existence. We have established that nothing can exist apart from anything else, or to be clearer, we can't help but establish such. It cannot follow that nothing has self-existence when self is extant.

A things inherent existence lies in its being causally tied to everything else! There is nothing more than everything.

Yes, you have it, Sewergas. A very simple but profound statement. This is what I say - nothing in the dreamworld can be proven to exist alone, yet the dream itself must be real - a real dream. The world and its observer changes, but the categories of 'world' and 'observer' are real, eternal. A ghost my be in Joe's world, but not in Ed's world. Joe's ghost is just as 'real' as Ed's laptop. It is no 'illusion.'

suergaz,

suer's post1: A things existence requires existence, nothing more.

suer's post2: A things inherent existence lies in its being causally tied to everything else!

Wow. You spun 180 degrees in just two posts. What else might a thing's existence need, now that you are disagreeing with yourself?

me: I would have to agree that it is fundamentally inherent to nature, but that would be trivial to the point of vacuousness.

suergaz: But it is being suggested that all things lack inherent existence. Are you saying nature is not all things?

Not at all. I said that saying that which works out to 'nature exists' (or better yet, "All that exists, exists") is a trivial statement.

You seem to have this strange urge to take a statement like that and cut it up, when it is the end of the line (the infamous tautological A=A). "All that exists" designates the whole, but not necessarily the summation of parts. Simply because the whole necessarily exists does not mean that any particular part exists with the same necessity. You make the same mistake when you take "everything" and take it to mean "every thing".

Existence is fundamentally inherent to things, as things cannot help but be a part of all things.

This misses the point by a hairsbreadth, and shows me your mistake. You are commiting the fallacy of Petitio Principii (circular reasoning). You say "things have inherent existence because a thing must be a part of the whole". But what is being disputed is the very existence of things! You are assuming that things exist to prove that things exist.

Suergaz is being typically perverse in this issue for reasons of his own. Unless he is extremely thick, he must surely understand the point which is being made by Mookestink and myself about inherent existence. It isn't a difficult point to understand, after all. But for some reason he is choosing to ignore it and talk about something else entirely.

Yes, we could say that things "inherently exist" in the sense that they find their existence in the moment. For example, when we perceive a shadow on the ground, the very fact that we are perceiving it implies that it exists, and in that moment it can be said to "inherently exist". If it didn't inherently exist in this way, it wouldn't be able to exist at all and we wouldn't be able to perceive it.

Although this is true, it doesn't conflict with the more Buddhistic concept of inherent existence which is being expressed by Mookestink and myself. This is an entirely different issue. Even though things find their existence in the moment, and therefore can be said to "inherently exist" in this sense, they still lack inherent existence in the other sense.

Thus, Suergaz's stupidity in this issue doesn't lie in the fact that he is trying to assert a particular concept of inherent existence, but in the fact that he believes that, through it, he is undermining the Buddhist concept of inherent existence. In reality, it doesn't do anything of the kind.

-

unwise wrote:

mookestink: That a things existence is necessarily generated by other things does not negate this same things existence in itself.

u: I agree with you Sewergas. People do in fact intuitively know they are real because of the presence of 'I Am' which is indeed real. The Self DOES have inherent existence - that is 'self' with a capital 'S.'

This is only true if the word "Self" refers to the Totality. Only the Totality can be said to "inherently exist" by virtue of the fact that there is nothing other than the Totality by definition.

Everything within the Totality is, of course, an illusion - including the division you make between the world as a dream and the reality beyond it. These are both illusions.

I had one other issue that I wanted to get resolved....

Doesn't 'cause and effect' imply 'objects' and 'time.' This is what I have a problem with because I do not believe in 'objects' and 'time.' I think they are illusions or dream stuff. How then can there be cause and effect?

You still haven't provided any real evidence, apart from your own wishful thinking, that the world is a dream. I'm not going to address your question here until you provide this evidence.

-

mooke:

suergaz,
Quote:
suer's post1: A things existence requires existence, nothing more.

suer's post2: A things inherent existence lies in its being causally tied to everything else!

Wow. You spun 180 degrees in just two posts. What else might a thing's existence need, now that you are disagreeing with yourself?

I didn't spin at all. I am not disagreeing with myself. A things existence doesn't need to be anything other than it is as all existence is inherent. It cannot be anything but causally tied to all else.

mooke:

Quote:
mooke: I would have to agree that it is fundamentally inherent to nature, but that would be trivial to the point of vacuousness.

suergaz: But it is being suggested that all things lack inherent existence. Are you saying nature is not all things?

mookeNot at all. I said that saying that which works out to 'nature exists' (or better yet, "All that exists, exists") is a trivial statement.

I have not been saying that. My entire point has been that everything that exists, exists inherently.

Simply because the whole necessarily exists does not mean that any particular part exists with the same necessity.

That is where you err.

You make the same mistake when you take "everything" and take it to mean "every thing".

Again you are mistaken. "every thing" means "everything" You needn't be mistaken, I mean, are you afraid of eternity?

suergaz:
Existence is fundamentally inherent to things, as things cannot help but be a part of all things.

mooke:This misses the point by a hairsbreadth, and shows me your mistake. You are commiting the fallacy of Petitio Principii (circular reasoning). You say "things have inherent existence because a thing must be a part of the whole". But what is being disputed is the very existence of things! You are assuming that things exist to prove that things exist.

I think I will be forgiven my assumptions on this subject, in the mane of truth. I have nothing to prove. You however, in attempting to prove things do not exist, are up against everything. :D

Things exist, and all existence is inherent. To deny a things inherent existence is essentially denying its relation to all things.


David:

Suergaz is being typically perverse in this issue for reasons of his own. Unless he is extremely thick, he must surely understand the point which is being made by Mookestink and myself about inherent existence. It isn't a difficult point to understand, after all. But for some reason he is choosing to ignore it and talk about something else entirely.

Of course I understand your argument. It is why I am above it, completely. It is really about the meaning of the word 'inherent'. I appear to be the only one who understands it.

Yes, we could say that things "inherently exist" in the sense that they find their existence in the moment. For example, when we perceive a shadow on the ground, the very fact that we are perceiving it implies that it exists, and in that moment it can be said to "inherently exist". If it didn't inherently exist in this way, it wouldn't be able to exist at all and we wouldn't be able to perceive it.

Although this is true, it doesn't conflict with the more Buddhistic concept of inherent existence which is being expressed by Mookestink and myself. This is an entirely different issue. Even though things find their existence in the moment, and therefore can be said to "inherently exist" in this sense, they still lack inherent existence in the other sense.

Conceding the truth of my words will not persuade me to see truth in what you call the 'buddhistic perspective' you hold to. There is no 'other sense' when my persepective is understood in its entirety.

Thus, Suergaz's stupidity in this issue doesn't lie in the fact that he is trying to assert a particular concept of inherent existence, but in the fact that he believes that, through it, he is undermining the Buddhist concept of inherent existence. In reality, it doesn't do anything of the kind.

I have the truer meaning of the word 'inherent'. I wasn't trying to undermine anything outside of the lie that you have trouble letting go of ie. All things do not ineherently exist, and there really isn't much 'trying' about it.

David:

Only the Totality can be said to "inherently exist" by virtue of the fact that there is nothing other than the Totality by definition.

Everything within the Totality is, of course, an illusion...

You have said the totality, ie. all things inherently exist. Everything that comprises it cannot do otherwise but inherently exist. No part can be separated from the whole.

Shall we let this "issue" become one of individual command of language?

:D

...things have a potential for existence don't they?....things are 'waiting in the wings' to 'make an appearance' aren't they?...the appearance of a thing is dependant on prior causes 'happening' to usher in its appearance...correct?

for a shadow to appear a light source behind it has to be there PLUS an observer/experiencer...or an experiencer who makes an observation?...a set of eyes and a 'meaning making' mind...

There's some kind of stability or predictability about the appearance of things and the causes for their appearance...Science is delivering valuable information in that regard...

It's as tho' the Stage is Set...and 'conciousness' is 'planted' on the stage...

Shakespeare 'saw' the Stage and said 'we are but player's upon it...'

Socrates 'saw' the Stage and when asked 'what form ought a Man's Life take?...or how should a Man's conciousness be tailored to most successfully deal with Life on Stage...or Stagecraft....Socrates replied I don't know...

Sartre 'saw' the Stage and said 'it's all worked out and our only problem is 'how to live'....

OK, what's your Act?....

How do you fit in?
frank

Frank:

...things have a potential for existence don't they?....things are 'waiting in the wings' to 'make an appearance' aren't they?...the appearance of a thing is dependant on prior causes 'happening' to usher in its appearance...correct?

Things may have potential for more, for continued existence, yes,
but things do not wait to come into existence.

OK, what's your Act?....

How do you fit in?
frank

I am a demonstrator of the eternal recurrence. The 'how' of my fitting in is uncertain, even to me.