GENIUS FORUMS

average wrote:

Cory wrote:
Doesn't it logically follow if there are manifestations, then there must be a totality of them?

The word you want is Set, not totality.

The problem was -> the jump of an opinion about a particular to one of a universal, in this case it was a baseless assumption.

So why is it ok to deduce that Socrates is mortal?

It is only ok to deduce that Socrates is mortal if we assume the first 2 premises are true. The conclusion is logically necessary.
But logic can't tell us if the first two premises are true.

Ok, so what statements can be 'verified' by a system of logic?

Depends which system of logic you are using. Honestly, in most cases, you can only verify trivial things....

And so is this conclusion of yours, that I fail at logic, based on a logical deduction?

I'm not really sure you understand what logic is.

So what has logic done for us? What has it told us about the world we live in? Nothing really, but it can lead us to certain conclusions once we make assumptions. And so can illogic and pure rhetoric and so can a predetermined mental bias. Neat.

So why use logic? Is there a logical reason or basis for it? No, there can be no logical reason to use this tool, any sort of reason to justify it would have to be circular, and logic isn't a fan of circular arguments, plus all its premises would always be assumptions anyway. Yawn.

I'm not saying its bad, or wrong, I like it and use it often, but it is only a little tool. =]

Logic is an important tool. However, due to intrinsic limitations, it cannot be used as a final arbiter of ultimate truth. I think that is the point.

That is because our observable reality is so small. We can make reasonable suppositions about it, but any attempt to extrapolate to the whole, leaves us with at best gross generalizations, such as "everything is caused (except, of course, the Totality itself) (which, arguably, is not a thing...).

Example of this is the issue of freewill. The argument for no freewill works on the local level, but does not allow for changes of rules at another level. Philosophy as I have become aware of it does not even allow for other levels of reality. It's all the same, reality, from one end to the other. That's how some people purport to know the Ultimate. The concept itself seems ridiculous to me. Hilarious, in fact. That's what I mean by useful tool but, because of intrinsic limitations, not final arbiter.

So, you're saying logic must be true, or nothing is. It is a belief with which I agree, that logic the base law of existence, so to speak.

Ahh David, you sound like a true believer.

I don't have as much blind faith in logic as you do -- although I do recognize its uses, however 1-dimensional and trivial they are.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Beyond logic? Into what? Illogic?

I can't believe you just accused David of delusions of grandeur, if this is the bullshit you are selling.

Until you actually reach the limits of logic, and then go beyond, you won't know how trivial it is.

David wrote:it is beyond the power of logical thought to generate the experience all by itself

David Quinn wrote:Carl: Logic is an important tool. However, due to intrinsic limitations, it cannot be used as a final arbiter of ultimate truth. I think that is the point.
David: Now that's very funny. I didn't realize you were such a comedian!

Carl: That is because our observable reality is so small. We can make reasonable suppositions about it, but any attempt to extrapolate to the whole, leaves us with at best gross generalizations, such as "everything is caused (except, of course, the Totality itself) (which, arguably, is not a thing...).

Example of this is the issue of freewill. The argument for no freewill works on the local level, but does not allow for changes of rules at another level. Philosophy as I have become aware of it does not even allow for other levels of reality. It's all the same, reality, from one end to the other. That's how some people purport to know the Ultimate. The concept itself seems ridiculous to me. Hilarious, in fact. That's what I mean by useful tool but, because of intrinsic limitations, not final arbiter.

David: The point you try to make here is undermined by a point you made earlier in the thread:

Carl: So, you're saying logic must be true, or nothing is. It is a belief with which I agree, that logic the base law of existence, so to speak.

David: If logic is the base law of existence (and it is certainly is), then the core logical truths of existence in the here and now will necessarily be the same for all things in existence, in all parts of Reality.

Carl G wrote:The issue is in perception, not in truth. If only a portion of reality is perceivable, then those perceptions are not provable as ultimate truth

The limitations of being in a human skin is mirthful stuff.

David: If logic is the base law of existence (and it is certainly is), then the core logical truths of existence in the here and now will necessarily be the same for all things in existence, in all parts of Reality.

Carl: The issue is in perception, not in truth. If only a portion of reality is perceivable, then those perceptions are not provable as ultimate truth. Per my example, it logically appears to us that free will is not possible. On one level of existence/experience it may not be. On another, it may be.

How can we suppose we have full understanding of the whole from our necessarily limited perspective ? Such a supposition would be more of that fabulous comedy, I'm saying.

David Quinn wrote:Carl: The limitations of being in a human skin is mirthful stuff.

David: Believe me, the lack of limitations of rational thought are even more humorous.

From the Zen tradition:

Student: Is there anything in the world more marvelous than the forces of Nature?

Master: There is - the power of comprehending those natural forces.

David: If logic is the base law of existence (and it is certainly is), then the core logical truths of existence in the here and now will necessarily be the same for all things in existence, in all parts of Reality.

Carl: The issue is in perception, not in truth. If only a portion of reality is perceivable, then those perceptions are not provable as ultimate truth. Per my example, it logically appears to us that free will is not possible. On one level of existence/experience it may not be. On another, it may be.

David: I don't know what you mean here. Since it is the case that all things are caused, then free will (in an ultimate sense) is an impossibility on all levels. What kind of level do you imagine could escape this?

Carl How can we suppose we have full understanding of the whole from our necessarily limited perspective ? Such a supposition would be more of that fabulous comedy, I'm saying.

David: We can't have full understanding of the whole in the sense of understanding every little empirical detail. But we can uncover the fundamentals which necessarily underpin all things within the whole.

If you can pierce what is right in front of you to the very root, such that you reach absolute rock-bottom territory, then it is akin to piercing the root of all things everywhere. That is the beauty of fundamental knowledge. It cannot be anything other than universal.

Okay, we are parrying here. You believe you have the power to comprehend the Ultimate, and I'm saying we don't.

David: If logic is the base law of existence (and it is certainly is), then the core logical truths of existence in the here and now will necessarily be the same for all things in existence, in all parts of Reality.

Carl: The issue is in perception, not in truth. If only a portion of reality is perceivable, then those perceptions are not provable as ultimate truth. Per my example, it logically appears to us that free will is not possible. On one level of existence/experience it may not be. On another, it may be.

David: I don't know what you mean here. Since it is the case that all things are caused, then free will (in an ultimate sense) is an impossibility on all levels. What kind of level do you imagine could escape this?

Carl: A practical level. Through consciousness.

Transcribed from "The Fourth Way, by P.D. Ouspensky:

"This sleep of man, and absence of unity in him, create another very important characteristic, and this is, the complete mechanicalness of man. Man in this state...is a machine controlled by external influences; he has no possibility to resist these external influences, and no possibility to distinguish them from one another, no possibility to study himself apart from these things. he sees himself always on the move, and he wills, that he can move according to his wish, and that he can go to the right or to the left. he cannot do this; if he moves to the right, that meas that could not move to the left. 'Will' is quite a wrong idea; it does not exist. Will can exist only in man who has one controlling 'I', but as long as he has many different wills; each 'I' has its own will, there can be no other 'I' or other will. But man can come to a state when he acquires a controlling 'I' and when he acquires will. He can reach this state only by developing consciousness."

Later on, he says:

"We must understand our situation. In men 1, 2, and 3 there is no control; practically everything in their life is controlled by accident. There are some things which are the result of their own actions, but they are all on the same level. Control begins on a different level, and it starts with ourselves: control of our reactions, states of consciousness, functions and so on. Then, little by little, we may come to some measure of control in the sense of avoiding one influence and approaching another. It is a very slow process."

David: If you can pierce what is right in front of you to the very root, such that you reach absolute rock-bottom territory, then it is akin to piercing the root of all things everywhere. That is the beauty of fundamental knowledge. It cannot be anything other than universal.

Carl: This strikes me as strictly belief. What is provable of it?

David Quinn wrote:Carl: Okay, we are parrying here. You believe you have the power to comprehend the Ultimate, and I'm saying we don't.
David: All you are doing here is needlessly undercutting any chance you might have of comprehending the Ultimate. And for what - a mere belief?!

The Ultimate is easy enough to comprehend, if you have the intelligence and desire.

But you'll never comprehend it if you are already convinced beforehand that it can never be comprehended.

David: I don't know what you mean here. Since it is the case that all things are caused, then free will (in an ultimate sense) is an impossibility on all levels. What kind of level do you imagine could escape this?

Carl: A practical level. Through consciousness.

Transcribed from "The Fourth Way," by P.D. Ouspensky: [clip]

David: He is talking about developing free will in a practical sense, not in an ultimate sense.

Yes, the wiser and more conscious a person becomes, the more control and freedom he gains over his own life. The less he becomes a victim of accident and unforeseen circumstances. And he no longer chase pipe-dreams or desires illusory forms of happiness. But never at any time, does he free himself from the causal flow of Nature itself.

David: If you can pierce what is right in front of you to the very root, such that you reach absolute rock-bottom territory, then it is akin to piercing the root of all things everywhere. That is the beauty of fundamental knowledge. It cannot be anything other than universal.

Carl: This strikes me as strictly belief. What is provable of it?

David: This is something that the individual has to experience and ascertain for himself.

It is a matter of freeing oneself from all the particulars of existence and diving into the fundamental sameness of everything, which can be accessed by immersing oneself in the reality of cause and effect.

DQ: The Ultimate is easy enough to comprehend, if you have the intelligence and desire.

Carl: This is a belief. How do you know what you easily comprehend is The Ultimate?

DQ: It is a matter of freeing oneself from all the particulars of existence and diving into the fundamental sameness of everything, which can be accessed by immersing oneself in the reality of cause and effect.

Carl: But this does not mean we have achieved an understanding of the Ultimate. We may be experiencing a local phenomenon. Or simply one aspect. Does a bank teller understand the bank, despite experiencing the handling of money?

David Quinn wrote:DQ: The Ultimate is easy enough to comprehend, if you have the intelligence and desire.

CG: This is a belief. How do you know what you easily comprehend is The Ultimate?

DQ: Because I realize that it is impossible to go any further. When a person breaks through into Emptiness, which is the true nature of all things, he finds that he cannot move away from it or beyond it without retreating back into the illusion of duality again.

He also finds that it cannot be contained within a belief. Instead, it is a direct and living realization that can be accessed by the mind. It can be experienced, but never grasped.

DQ: It is a matter of freeing oneself from all the particulars of existence and diving into the fundamental sameness of everything, which can be accessed by immersing oneself in the reality of cause and effect.

CG: But this does not mean we have achieved an understanding of the Ultimate. We may be experiencing a local phenomenon. Or simply one aspect. Does a bank teller understand the bank, despite experiencing the handling of money?

DQ: If he understands the empty nature of the money, then he also understands the empty nature of the bank as well.

This goes back to the point I made about how enlightenment doesn't mean understanding every empirical detail or scientific principle in the Universe, which is what your analogy is pointing towards.

Rather, it means understanding the fundamental reality which underlies all empirical details and principles.

DQ: The Ultimate is easy enough to comprehend, if you have the intelligence and desire.

CG: This is a belief. How do you know what you easily comprehend is The Ultimate?

DQ: Because I realize that it is impossible to go any further. When a person breaks through into Emptiness, which is the true nature of all things, he finds that he cannot move away from it or beyond it without retreating back into the illusion of duality again.

He also finds that it cannot be contained within a belief. Instead, it is a direct and living realization that can be accessed by the mind. It can be experienced, but never grasped.

CG: Seems to me Emptiness and duality are concepts, leading to beliefs. What is the proof for these being certainly Ultimate? Surely not logic, nor experience.

DQ: It is a matter of freeing oneself from all the particulars of existence and diving into the fundamental sameness of everything, which can be accessed by immersing oneself in the reality of cause and effect.

CG: But this does not mean we have achieved an understanding of the Ultimate. We may be experiencing a local phenomenon. Or simply one aspect. Does a bank teller understand the bank, despite experiencing the handling of money?

DQ: If he understands the empty nature of the money, then he also understands the empty nature of the bank as well.

This goes back to the point I made about how enlightenment doesn't mean understanding every empirical detail or scientific principle in the Universe, which is what your analogy is pointing towards.

CG: No, I'm saying an understanding of the local does not necessarily confer understanding of the whole.

DQ: Rather, it means understanding the fundamental reality which underlies all empirical details and principles.

CG: Which you say is easily knowable, a statement of which the truth, I'm saying, cannot be confirmed.

In other words, you may wander about in this Emptiness, believing it is Ultimate, without knowing what may be beyond it. What is that but extrapolation, based on supposition?

David Quinn wrote:average,

Until you actually reach the limits of logic, and then go beyond, you won't know how trivial it is.

Well, that's a very common, cliched thing to say nowadays. It is also how Christians justify their irrational beliefs - by saying, for example, that God is beyond logic. Unless you are more specific, I can't really tell what you mean by your statement.

We can say that the nature of Reality, which is what the enlightened mind experiences and enjoys, is beyond logic in the same way that any direct experience is beyond logic. For example, the direct experience of a flower is beyond logic in that it is beyond the power of logical thought to generate the experience all by itself. But at the same time, we are perfectly able to reason about the flower and draw all sorts of meaningful conclusions about it.

The nature of Reality is just like this.

-