Cory…
Sapius: Yes, the desire to ‘know more’ is in part born out of what one has come to know, but the more essential part is that one is NOT satisfied, logically, with what one has come to know.
Cory: Yes, so can we agree that this dissatisfaction is a form of suffering, and that we are driven by the pain of limitation?
I don’t know... I would say that we are driven due to dissatisfaction itself, not the 'pain of limitations' as such.
Dissatisfaction emerges from the need to know, to understand logically, which is quite natural, albeit all are not that dissatisfied and hence not passionate enough to go all the way, and each has his own goal according to his own reasoning and causal exposures.
If one is not satisfied in a conclusion is because he has thought over that conclusion and does not accept it, and hence wants to know the truth. Now how does this natural ‘wanting to know’ be considered as a form of suffering? It is simply a drive to Know the Truth.
You also seem to equate ‘sufferings’ to ‘passion’, and I like them to mean exactly what they mean. I could cut and paste the dictionary meanings of each but I wonder how that would help.
Sapius: Now this drive exists in any and all things, but what that drive is directed to depends on an individual ‘thing’ also. A physicist is not any different than a philosopher as far as the drive itself is concerned.
Cory: 'As far as the drive is concerned' - I'll admit the philsopher and the physicist are both driven by discontent, anxiety, an uncomfortable feeling of limitation.
However, the quality and intensity of the discontent is of course different.
Sure! The “quality†and the “intensity†is different, but that does not mean that a physicist thinks of HIS “quality†and “intensity†of being any inferior than that of a philosopher. So a real thinker, who looks at things from an absolute unbiased view point, detaching himself from his false-ego based thinking, meaning; standing â€outside†of his shoes, will not assume HIS own thinking as having some sort of superiority, for he is absolutely aware of the nature of causality and how HIS thinking comes about, so as do OTHERS. So in that sense, who or what is superior or inferior?
In my opinion, slinging shit at each other is foolishness, be it ANY ‘either/or’ situation, for either standpoint can be defended only when standing in ones own shoes, and Truth, or Existence, does not have any shoes at all, and all one needs is to see it from
that perspective.
Sapius: The physicist is as earnest in searching the “truth†as is a philosopher.
Cory: Well, I wouldnt go that far. They are functioning in the same way, however, the quality of the philosophers discontent has greater heart, there is greater social interest comprising the philosopher.
If you notice, I placed ‘truth’ in inverted commas, meaning, “truth†is what one Values as Truth according to ones own conclusions, and emphasizing strongly that MY conclusions are ‘superior’ in any way is still standing in ones own shoes; speaking from a false-ego perspective. Which I do not consider ‘wrong’ as such, but neither is it Absolute in the face of Reality, which includes ALL that there is, that’s all.
The physicist isnt really interested in understanding humanity or himself. I would say that this implies his discontent is more feeble and small.
And what exactly is a physicist interested in? How is the ‘understanding of humanity’ not involved before he finds solutions for the betterment of humanity? Only that our definition of 'understanding humanity' is different.
I would rather hear Michio Kaku saying how feeble his ‘discontent’ is, or was that of Einstein? In a way, he will produce more solutions to “sufferings†than a philosopher ever could, because a philosopher will firstly spend his entire life trying to EXPLAIN what he actually means by “sufferingsâ€, which the Buddha himself found in death, disease and old age, and finally realized that they are here to stay, because Existence simply IS.
Cory: I would say that there is existence. Each particular thing comprising existence does not inherently exists, but what always remains is a sense of existing and a sense of responsibility.
So, does the ‘sense of existing and a sense of responsibility’ exists inherently?
I say that the biggest challenge humanity faces is developing and knowing what good character is, and understanding why a certain character is good.
Good, I agree, but I do not consider MY conclusions to be of any superior VALUE than that of a physicist, for then I would be saying that MY causal conditions are superior than HIS, which I see as absolutely impossible, because on that level, MY conclusions are absolutely connected and dependant on his causal conditions, as his are on mine, in and of the NOW.
Cory: Humanity generally hates truth, therefore, in order to seek and become that which humanity hates I would say requires a love, passion for truth and a hatred for the false and cowardly.
Sapius: No, humanity actually loves truth, only that each individuals “truth†is defined differently.
Cory: No, humanity loves rationalizations, consensus, security, predicatability. Those things are not neccesarily truth, but are merely a desire for pleasantness.
Humans love pleasantness.
Who or what isn’t looking for pleasantness? Isn’t any conclusion reached, irrelevant of what it is, give a sense of satisfaction, pleasantness, because one considers HIS conclusions to be the TRUTH, irrelevant of it not being so according to another? Ask a priest, a rabbi, a mullah, if he does not consider his conclusions to be the Truth. Similarly, ask the Buddha and you will get the same answer.
Sapius: Everyone creates his own circle of “values†and hence “truths†accordingly.
Cory: But they are not truths. They are merely values. These people with their shoddy values are confused.
The point is, that that is YOUR opinion according to YOUR conclusions, which I may even agree to, but that does not mean you have an Absolute External Objective Confirmation as such, it is only a matter of degree, for nothing lies beyond Duality, and duality shall always remain a relative one. Even an Absolute Truth cannot be Confirmed by any-thing other than one owns relative perspective in and of existence, so how Absolute is it?
Cory: Some people don’t desire greater truths because they, due to genetics and environment, are easily contented with meager explanations that they don’t know are meager.
Sapius: If ONLY that part was absolutely true, then one cannot hold responsible or give credit to the ones that do not know nor to the ones that know.
Cory: Yes, exactly. It is not a bad persons fault that they are bad. And a good person is good because he is lucky. That is why I say hatred is often healthy to treat as something to not be supressed but to be expressed, and it is for some people a requiste for being good, however, one should not hate anyone in particular, ones hatred should simply be for a certain quality of being.
Well, it may well work in the initial stages, but once you really understand the nature of existence, cause and effect, then the sense of ‘hatred’ subsides and eventually disappears even for a ‘certain quality of being’, for what “quality†is not causally created? So what is it that one could or should ‘hate’ as such?
Sapius: Other than genetics and environment, the essence, or particular attributes of an individual thing also exists.
Cory: Can you prove it? Tell me more about this essence, tell me about these particular attributes....
Sure I can… here… read this…
CORY: Just because everything is determined, doesnt mean we don't live, discuss, explore. Just because i am determined to know that which I do not know now, doesnt mean I should'nt follow through with my curiousities.
Need I say more? Who or what is reasoning above?
Sapius: Does the process of causality NOT bring forth an individual “thing†in and of any given moment of causality?
Cory: I really can't quite picture what your getting at.
You are pushing to believe that the fate of an individual depends on more than just heredity and environment?
I don't know, you'll have to give me some clear examples from real life.
Sure, for example YOU and ME, unless you believe we have no reality beyond each others “mindâ€. Are WE one and the same thing? Or, because of causally connected infinite causes WE are one and the same THING? Does causality render OUR individuality redundant? I have my own environment and you yours, and we are a part of each others environment, but for any reasoned and logical communication to take place there must necessarily be a YOU as much as there has to be an I.
Cory: The ones who desire greater truths are often those who, due to genetics and environment, want greatness and conquest.
Sapius: It would then stand to reason that the ones that DO NOT desire greater truths do so also due to genetics and environment, but yet want greatness and conquest.
Cory: Yes, all humans are driven by the desire for superiority, greatness, conquest. There is just a spectrum of values.
And once you Realize just that, what do you make of “values†itself then? What values can you give or hold values to in and of Values itself? Mind you, that does not mean one stops valuing all together, simply that he is aware of what values actually are, and is in a better position to use them according to his own logical understandings of values itself.
Cory: I would say the truth stands on its own, it does not depend on un-truth.
Really? Give me one Truth where you, a non-inherent thing, is not involved? Even causality “depends†on “it†being sensed.
Cory: Much like the sun does not depend on the object casting the shadow,
Yes, the sun does not depend on the Objects that caste a shadow, but it depends on the intensity of its brilliance, and the object on which the shadow falls, and the distance at which the object itself is.
the truth does not need untruth to be perfect.
I don’t see how any-thing could stand without that which is not
it being around, and that includes ‘perfection’. Existence includes both aspects of any opposites, and existence itself is neither perfect nor imperfect. It cannot be thought of in such terms.
Cory: Humans are indeed imperfect and that is because they have errected objects within their minds creating shadows. We can do better.
I surely agree to that, and I too hope that we do better.
Cory: The totality, unlike its constituents has no form, boundaries, and frontiers, it is not a fixed limited object and thus cannot fill and thus create empty space.
Therefore truth goes beyond isolation, time, and becoming
Sapius: Hence isn’t “totality†BUT infinite forms?
Cory: There would be no form, because form requires space/time to contain it.
I would take such thinking as ‘erecting objects within ones mind creating shadows’. So in your opinion space/time is ‘contained’ as the scientist claim it to be?
Hence that which lies beyond “space/timeâ€, containment, or Duality, is Truth and Reality?
Well… good luck then. In MY opinion, what lies “beyond†could only be conjecture; All that there IS, is right HERE and NOW, and there is no elusive Reality or Truth beyond that.
Sapius: It is just to be understood and realized, and even then the “I†still remains an I - but is now without any quotation marks.
Cory: What do the quotation marks represent?
You can say the attachments to a false-ego, in which I initially believed that I exist, then I logically deduced that an “I†is illusory, and when further deduced, one realizes that it was always the I battling it self, and the I becomes as REAL as any-THING else in and of any given moment of causality, absolutely, hence I literally exist, so do all other things, otherwise I wouldn't be able to detect or define THEM.
Cory: I see what you mean here, and I agree. The illusion is real, however, each thing has no inherent existence of its own.
Hey, when and where do I fail to express that things do not exist
permanently that you have to necessarily remind me of that? Yes, things are non-permanent, yes they are dependant; don’t you know by now that I know that? All I want to show is that THAT does not take away the THINGNESS of any thing that necessarily has to EXIST, how ever temporarily that it may be for ANYTHING to be actually happening.
If the illusion is REAL, then how un-real is your experience of it? The illusion is NOT an ILLUSION as in having NO REALITY. In other words, the “Illusion†is all that there is and NOTHING lies under it that can be considered as TRUTH or Reality other than the experience of what you are already actually experiencing.
Cory: Just because he has a pictorial representation of the sea, doesnt negate the fact that the sea doesnt 'inherently' exist.
Sure, nor does that mean that the SEA does not exist as and when it does.
Cory: As you might have heard, the word isnt the thing. The signifier is not the signified.
Yes I have, but I understand it differently, because I also know that that does not mean that the MEANING, which the words represents, do not exist, otherwise that sentence itself would mean nothing!
Cory: Again sapius, "inherently" is the word we are stressing. Sure, the illusion is real - but the sea, like the wave - doesnt inherently exist.
So why did you then give me an example of waves as being more illusionary than the sea? So what the hell underlies causality other than what is detected as causality by you and me by sensing the change in and of other things?
Sapius: So what the hell is it that “underlies†ANY-THING at all?
I am told, emptiness, void, etc., etc.
I am told, emptiness, void, etc., etc. Which in my opinion, at this stage of understanding, is a mistake
Cory: Sure, it seems superflous to me too. I always thought (for the past 2 years) that everything, the totality is really just one big, undiscernable mass of energy which has no center - and thus could be regarded as a void, just nowhereness, nothingness.
What I’m trying to say is that one cannot and should not think of totality as ONE big whatever. IT cannot be considered as an IT in the first place because one cannot total up infinite forms and say that there is such a thing as “totality†as such itself. So where does that leave the “thus†or the regarding of “IT†as something else? Be it what ever!
Cory: Sapius, do you believe that a 'center' actually exists? Doesnt a center imply 2 seperate points? Does a center not imply space?
I’m not sure how this ‘center’ point came up, but I believe I KNOW that a “center†is an absolute impossibility as far as existence goes, which is quite difficult even to imagine hence arise all the problems of “totaling†up things and still saying that I am not mathematically or mentally totaling up any THING.
Cory: But what I have difficulty with is character. The problem of comprimise, of pleasing people, of helping people, of getting along in a way that helps humanity lift itself out of its ugly state.
How does the way one has adopted to “help†OTHERS really matter? Is it not a result of ones own conclusions? Wouldn’t one have to come to a conclusion as to WHAT IS an “ugly†state in the first palace? Say ‘femininity’ for example, which IS a very UGLY state to be in according to quite a few here. I may agree to all its philosophical descriptions, but why should I hate or call it “ugly†if I know what it is and opt to be otherwise? If I detest it, I necessarily do not understand IT, and hence am afraid of it.
Sapius: What I say is not for those who believe that nothing lies beyond the “mindâ€; that is kindergarten stuff, atleast for me, for what is MIND itself, actually, but a causal process?
Cory: I don't understand what you are saying here.
(I am still on the road so to speak, so I will get back soon, and please pardon me if there are any mistakes.)
For now…
Cory: However, I would prefer there to be consciousness beyond the brain. I would prefer to be transformed in a higher state of intelligence at death.
To talk any further one has to agree on the definitions of quite a few words in there. For example: ‘consciousness’, ‘beyond the brain’, ‘â€higher†state’, ‘intelligence’, and ‘death’. In which each word is a subject in itself.
Until then, then…
