GENIUS FORUMS

David: It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

Skipair: I was under the impression that wise application of rationality/reason was the only way to get there. Maybe intuition is an "irrational" way to get there?

David: The wise application of reason is the only way to get there, but it can be helped along by intuitions and altered states.

David you're seriously flip-flopping on this issue. Just a few posts ago you claimed that possible insanity is not a problem because it doesn't really matter how you get to the final state, so it didn't necessarily matter whether that be by an insane or sane route, but now you tell Skipair that wise reasoning is the only way to get there. What gives? If reasoning is the only way to get there then the problem of being insane but not knowing it absolutely has significance to all your claims of truth, it can totally undermine the reasoning process.

Kevin Solway wrote:A sane person can know that he is himself sane, so he doesn't have any doubts about his sanity or his truths. And nor should he.

However, an insane person who thinks himself sane will also not have any doubts.

That's all there is to it, and nothing can be done about it.

So are you sane Kevin? If you reckon you are, how can you be certain you're not really just the insane guy who believes himself sane? You can't.

Kevin:it is self-evident to the majority of people that a thing is not what it is. That's why I call them insane.

Jason: So apparently self-evident truth isn't enough to guarantee absolute truth?

Kevin: Insane people think they are capable of judging what is self-evident truth, but really they are not.

Even your apparently self-evident truths like A=A are potentially not valid then. Your ability to make certain and absolute truth claims is crumbling.

Jason wrote:Your ability to make certain and absolute truth claims is crumbling.

Not at all. Anyone can make certain and absolute truth claims. The wise ones will be correct in their claims, while the foolish ones will be mistaken. No problem.

Just to backtrack here a bit:

Kevin Solway wrote:A sane person can know that he is himself sane, so he doesn't have any doubts about his sanity or his truths. And nor should he.

How can a sane person know without doubt that he is himself sane, given that an insane person can also apparently "know" without doubt that he is himself sane?

Wow so this is what your grand "certain" and "absolute" truth comes down to.

You can think of it this way: a wise person is like a computer that is functioning correctly, and an insane person is like a computer that is malfunctioning.

Both computers "think" they are functioning correctly, and continue doing what they do. But an intelligent user can make more sense out of the computer that is functioning correctly, and so that one is much more useful.

That's effectively the only difference between sages and fools, from the perspective of other people.

How can a sane person know that he is himself sane, given that an insane person can also apparently "know" that he is himself sane?

The insane person can't really know anything, but he believes that he knows.

Kevin: A sane person can know that he is himself sane, so he doesn't have any doubts about his sanity or his truths. And nor should he.

Jason: How can a sane person know that he is himself sane, given that an insane person can also apparently "know" that he is himself sane?

Kevin: The insane person can't really know anything, but he believes that he knows.

That doesn't answer my question. It looks evasive too.

How can a sane person know without doubt that he is himself sane, given that an insane person can also apparently "know" without doubt that he is himself sane?

One can only know anything by what eventuates, otherwise one is only remembering something. Even knowing what eventuates is a comparison between the past (memories) and the now (the thought in one's consciousness).

In both cases I think one can only know what their memories tell them. One's ego is just a set of memories, so if that ego tells them they are sane, they will be, to themselves at least. Where one has removed the impact of the ego, in relation to it not having strong emotional outcomes, then such people are more likely to be able to evaluate their state of sanity better. The evidence of the lack of an emotionally influenced ego, comes from the repeated experience of at least substantially non-emotional-reactions to what life brings. The more often this occurs the stronger one's sense of sanity will become.

I often feel a bit insane. My ego is stronger than it used to be and my judgement of what is sane is much stricter than before. Truth strengthens one's ego, because it strengthens the sense of certainty of the how of everything. If the emotional ego is like an inflated balloon, truth pricks this balloon and it deflates, however being life, the balloon is self-healing, the holes are repaired and the balloon inflates again, always a bit more leaky than the last time. Truth in those that have learnt not to desire an emotional ego, beats the ego into a flattened shape, like making a sword by heating it hammering it into shape repeatedly.

In expanding consciousness it cannot help but expand one's ego. There is a sense of greater-ness there as result. Truth can even eat away at that. Perhaps when it does the sense of mental fragility disappears, but until it does the emotional ego balloon inflates.

Jason wrote:

How can a sane person know that he is himself sane, given that an insane person can also apparently "know" that he is himself sane?

The insane person can't really know anything, but he believes that he knows.

That doesn't answer my question. It looks evasive too.

Sorry, I focussed on the last bit of the question rather than the first bit.

The sane person knows that he is sane by the same process that he knows anything at all - by confirming that A=A. That is, by confirming that a thing is indeed what it is.

When the sane person catches himself mis-identifying things, then he recognizes himself lapsing into insanity. For example, if something makes him upset, this is a sign that he has mis-identified something, and is losing his mind.

A totally insane person is unable to do this, but is unable to know it.

Jason wrote:

David: It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

Skipair: I was under the impression that wise application of rationality/reason was the only way to get there. Maybe intuition is an "irrational" way to get there?

David: The wise application of reason is the only way to get there, but it can be helped along by intuitions and altered states.

David you're seriously flip-flopping on this issue. Just a few posts ago you claimed that possible insanity is not a problem because it doesn't really matter how you get to the final state, so it didn't necessarily matter whether that be by an insane or sane route, but now you tell Skipair that wise reasoning is the only way to get there. What gives?

You've misunderstood me. I was focusing on the point that an enlightened person's wisdom is beyond the duality of true and false, and thus isn't affected by anything at all, not even the possibility (for the sake of argument) that logic is faulty or uncertain. It is a certainty which cuts more deeply than logic (and insanity).

It is like using a boat to cross to the other side. Once you reach the other side, you no longer have any use for the boat. You no longer have to rely on it. You can put it aside and move on. Logic is that boat.

If reasoning is the only way to get there then the problem of being insane but not knowing it absolutely has significance to all your claims of truth, it can totally undermine the reasoning process.

If a person reasons poorly, then he won't reach enlightenment. That's a guarantee. It would be like using a boat which is full of holes. But if he reasons wisely and fearlessly, then he gives himself every chance of getting there. That's basically all you can say about it.

-

Kevin wrote:

When the sane person catches himself mis-identifying things, then he recognizes himself lapsing into insanity. For example, if something makes him upset, this is a sign that he has mis-identified something, and is losing his mind.

This sounds wise. Could you elaborate, perhaps share an example of a common misidentification that makes one upset?

Carl G wrote:

Kevin wrote:When the sane person catches himself mis-identifying things, then he recognizes himself lapsing into insanity. For example, if something makes him upset, this is a sign that he has mis-identified something, and is losing his mind.

This sounds wise. Could you elaborate, perhaps share an example of a common misidentification that makes one upset?

If one gets upset because a thing is not as one expected, then one has misidentified it. One has projected onto the thing something that it is not.

For example, if one finds life either boring or exciting then one is projecting something onto reality that isn't really there. That is insanity.

For another example, it is common for people to get upset when those closest to them forget their birthday. This is a sign that they have misidentified those who have forgotten their birthday as people who give a toss about them, or about birthdays in general. This too is insanity.

...

Jason: David you're seriously flip-flopping on this issue. Just a few posts ago you claimed that possible insanity is not a problem because it doesn't really matter how you get to the final state, so it didn't necessarily matter whether that be by an insane or sane route, but now you tell Skipair that wise reasoning is the only way to get there. What gives?

David Quinn: You've misunderstood me. I was focusing on the point that an enlightened person's wisdom is beyond the duality of true and false, and thus isn't affected by anything at all, not even the possibility (for the sake of argument) that logic is faulty or uncertain. It is a certainty which cuts more deeply than logic (and insanity).

It is like using a boat to cross to the other side. Once you reach the other side, you no longer have any use for the boat. You no longer have to rely on it. You can put it aside and move on. Logic is that boat.

Ok, but focusing on the fact that the "boat" is left behind is useless as regards the insanity argument. If you use a faulty boat to make a crossing and subsequently leave that boat behind, that doesn't in any way make up for the fact that you landed on the wrong shore. No longer being reliant on the boat doesn't remove the problem, and neither does it prove the validity of the final shore.

Insane man on boat. Insane man not on boat anymore. Nothing has been gained here.

Jason: If reasoning is the only way to get there then the problem of being insane but not knowing it absolutely has significance to all your claims of truth, it can totally undermine the reasoning process.

David Quinn: If a person reasons poorly, then he won't reach enlightenment. That's a guarantee. It would be like using a boat which is full of holes. But if he reasons wisely and fearlessly, then he gives himself every chance of getting there. That's basically all you can say about it.

I've given you plenty of time and opportunity to tackle the main argument, but I've seen nothing significant.

It's very simple: you presume that you are sane, and you assume that you can reason wisely. It completely undermines your ability to claim absolute truths because there is always the chance you are really the insane man who thinks he is sane.

This discussion has dragged on and all I'm really asking is how you can distinguish for certain whether you are the sane man or the insane man. So far I've seen nothing, can you give me anything at all?

Jason: This discussion has dragged on and all I'm really asking is how you can distinguish for certain whether you are the sane man or the insane man. So far I've seen nothing, can you give me anything at all?

May be a sage develops an incredibly strong belief system, fully aware that since logic cannot be validated, I have no other option than believe in my line of reasoning and conclusions.

What relevance does sanity or insanity have? You either search for truth, and do it through observation and rational thought, or you don't. Irrespective of external judgement, of the perception of another subject, a mind that does not choose to search for truth, or is incapable of rational thought does not or cannot do these things. External input and output is irrelevant, as these are always ultimately superficial.

You can judge sanity or insanity in others only through this superficiality, so I see no fundamental relevance in this question. Attempting to judge it within yourself is equally irrelevant, as either your thinking process appears rational, or it does not appear to you at all.

Assumptions exist only as a word in vocabulary, for each individual has specific fundamental reasons for concluding what they conclude, even if they are not aware of the process or the conclusion itself. Whatever you think of yourself, sane/insane/undecided/indifferent, there are fundamental reasons for this. You say that you assume you are sane? I know that there are fundamental reasons and processes going on in your head that tell you you are sane.

You wish to know objectively? The closest thing to objectivity is the subjective interperation of the conclusions of billions of subjects. Objective truth, if such a thing exists, can still only ever be revealed in the internal workings of a subject.

In other words, it is up to you. You decide, tell me if you feel like it, and then I will make my own decision.

Sapius wrote:May be a sage develops an incredibly strong belief system, fully aware that since logic cannot be validated, I have no other option than believe in my of line reasoning and conclusions.

Logic can be validated in so far as the absolutely fundamental processes of the psyche and the inevitable conclusions that must be drawn from those. Belief in your line of reasoning is irrelevant, as you should be studying your line of reasoning for irrational, biological flaws.

In other words, it is up to you. You decide, tell me if you feel like it, and then I will make my own decision.

Steven, I think the problem here lies with the validation of logic on which decisions or conclusions are based on.

Sapius wrote:

In other words, it is up to you. You decide, tell me if you feel like it, and then I will make my own decision.

Steven, I think the problem here lies with the validation of logic on which decisions or conclusions are based on.

"I think, therefore something is" is that logical, refutable?

"If the Universe was not created, it must be eternal and without cause" is this logical, refutable?

Here is the difference as I see it. The first leads directly to an inescapable, unavoidable conclusion that cannot be negated no matter what else is ever understood or elaborated.

The second is obviously not the same. The second is infact the complete opposite, although it is a logical progression based on what is known. The first is pure reason, it absolutely must be so and it is arrived at directly from the experience of transcendental thought without requiring prior knowledge. The second is a logical progression based upon what we think we know. If experience and rational inquery informs us of another alternative it will negate the statement. We cannot rule out the possibility that we may conceive of an alternative, thus at its heart it is flawed, even if it is logical.

Is this mechanism of thought itself logical? It must be, for to consider it illogical is to leave us with the inconceivable, to leave us with nothing, no matter how many subjective opinions you can gather stating it is illogical to attempt to arrive at an objective consensus.

But these two statements are themselves logical, reasonable, for it is to be aware of the alternative and its implications, where the alternative aggregates all possible inconceivabilities under its mantle.

To paraphrase Kant, we are dealing with a mind and a species that has not validated its fundamental logics first, before it attempts to validate larger, subjective interpretations and conceptual analystic logics. "I think, therefore something is" is a logic so fundamental that it arises purely out of awareness of observation, of a mind with the capability to make sense of things, and it cannot be refuted with these minds.

If this fundamental logic is incorrect, the alternative is no illusion, no self, no something, no nothing. Our minds cannot comprehend the alternative given the fact we appear to perceive anything including our thoughts. There is nothing that can convince (my) mind that this logic is invalid. At the same time I can understand that anything more elaborate, especially that dealing with the external world can easilly be invalidated by my very being, and all that that implies.

What we have here is ultimately two logics. One kind of logic that the human mind cannot refute. The question as to whether it is valid or otherwise is irrelevant. The other is the kind of logic that appears logical in process and logical in its premise and conclusion, but that lacks the inherant validity of the first kind. This is the kind of logic that must be questioned consistently, questioned completely, questioned repeatedly, and even then one must remain aware of its potential invalidity.

I can conclude something is fact, but I cannot prove it is fact, therefore I cannot know that it is fact. This is another example of pure reason, and it is these pure conceptions and only these that the human mind should maintain adherance to.

To sum it up, when you are left only with the knowledge that to refute your process of thought would be to refute all your subjective perceptions, including your existence, then you know you can go no deeper. I mean all though, I do not mean some interperatations, some conclusions, some belief systems, I mean to absolutely and completely refute and destroy every single thing.

For example, refuting God by claiming God is a subjective projection of psychological fears onto a conceptual object that hides what you ignorant of, does not refute the entire premise of human thought. Refuting the claim that "I think, therefore something is" does refute the entire premise of human thought.

I do not fashion and direct your mind though, so ultimately it is up to you.

Jason wrote:

Jason: David you're seriously flip-flopping on this issue. Just a few posts ago you claimed that possible insanity is not a problem because it doesn't really matter how you get to the final state, so it didn't necessarily matter whether that be by an insane or sane route, but now you tell Skipair that wise reasoning is the only way to get there. What gives?

David Quinn: You've misunderstood me. I was focusing on the point that an enlightened person's wisdom is beyond the duality of true and false, and thus isn't affected by anything at all, not even the possibility (for the sake of argument) that logic is faulty or uncertain. It is a certainty which cuts more deeply than logic (and insanity).

It is like using a boat to cross to the other side. Once you reach the other side, you no longer have any use for the boat. You no longer have to rely on it. You can put it aside and move on. Logic is that boat.

Ok, but focusing on the fact that the "boat" is left behind is useless as regards the insanity argument. If you use a faulty boat to make a crossing and subsequently leave that boat behind, that doesn't in any way make up for the fact that you landed on the wrong shore. No longer being reliant on the boat doesn't remove the problem, and neither does it prove the validity of the final shore.

Insane man on boat. Insane man not on boat anymore. Nothing has been gained here.

If the boat takes you beyond the duality of true and false, sane and insane, real and unreal, etc, then it no longer becomes an issue for you. There is no you.

If, on the other hand, you are still battling for certainty and experiencing doubts, then it means you are still being taken in by duality. In that instance you have no choice but to utilize the tools of A=A and logic to work your way out of duality.

Is it insane to go beyond all duality? The issue has no meaning for the person who is beyond all duality.

Is it insane to value A=A and ensure that one's thinking conforms to it? The person stuck in duality has no choice about the matter. To reject A=A is to fall into the realm of incoherence and contradictory nonsense, where most people dwell.

-

David Quinn wrote: There is no you.

I keep seeing this all over the forum; these explicit words, not that the you is irrelevant, but that it does not exist.

And yet the idea of self would seem to be a fundamental necessity in biological life, gaining importance as biology becomes more complex. To deny self is to me to deny the existence of any creature after the evolution of the first primitive nervous systems.

Some may reach a stage where they reason that the self is irrelevant, understand how it is produced and understand how it works, but I do not see a single shred of reason as to why it should be denied. Self plays such an integral role in complex life, especially human beings, that the idea of self must be placed at the very centre of all inquery regarding their operation, composition, action/reaction/interaction, indeed their very reality. For some people, and I have no idea how widespread and prevailent, the idea of self or the experience of self utterly dwarfs the meaning and relevance of the biology. The illusion created by the mind is more real, more important than their bodies.

It has been my experience that denial of self hides a deeper denial of reality, and immersion into fantasy without substance. It has been my experience that denial of self and elaboration on unity and oneness is nothing more than the reinvention of God, to be blunt. Self is created by our biology. We are a part of a fundamental whole. These are self evident truths that need no further elaboration unless one is going to go deep into specific detail. Anything else, to me, is the destruction of rational thought and the self desired implication of the God concept onto the vaguarites of two areas of inquery ripe for merciless questioning.

When one attains enlightment and the obliteration of the self, what does one achieve? A self fulfilling prophecy of attaining all one could want by training ones self to imagine that they want for nothing and do not exist. Atleast that is the meaning to be derived from the previous conversation. How do we face the psychological difficulties of life? We can create a God that alleviates them, or train ourselves to think we have obliterated our desire for them.

And within all this, what place for truth? What place for truth irrespective of all personal bullshit? None, though I will admit that seeking truth is as much personal bullshit as the rest. I don't see how this is anything other than psychological drivel. Atleast a search for truth appeals to what our brains were created to do; to come to an understanding. If the deepest truth you can come up with is "I don't exist" then explain your presence on these forums.

Jason wrote:If you're actually insane but think that you're sane, how could you ever know

By being a Relativist or a Contextualist.

Steven wrote:I do not fashion and direct your mind though, so ultimately it is up to you.

Yes, I know it is up to me, because I am, however, many others aren’t, but their “there is no you” means ‘there is no inherent you”, and use is just for impact I think. In a sense that also means irrelevant. An explanation/discussion should be soon on its way. That is what this forum is here for.

I agree with most of what you say about existence. I mean the same as you do by 'existence', and prefer it against 'totality'.

Kevin,

Jason: How can a sane person know that he is himself sane, given that an insane person can also apparently "know" that he is himself sane?

Kevin Solway: The sane person knows that he is sane by the same process that he knows anything at all - by confirming that A=A. That is, by confirming that a thing is indeed what it is.

When the sane person catches himself mis-identifying things, then he recognizes himself lapsing into insanity. For example, if something makes him upset, this is a sign that he has mis-identified something, and is losing his mind.

A totally insane person is unable to do this, but is unable to know it.

All of what you've said above could be insane. I've said this over and over but it's apparently not getting through to you. There is still the initial assumption of sanity. Any methods which you imagine might validate your sanity are based on this initial assumption too, otherwise the sanity-validating methods themselves lose validity.

The fact that you have continued to propose ways that one's sanity can be proven, whilst seemingly not realizing that they have absolutely no effect on the core issue, makes it seem like you just don't get it.

You've said that an insane person can believe that he himself is sane. If you can't see, and honestly address, how this also applies to you and your own philosophy then I'm not sure there's much point continuing the discussion.

Kevin Solway wrote:The insane person can't really know anything, but he believes that he knows.

The only thing that the sane person can know is himself.

Kevin Solway wrote:The sane person knows that he is sane by the same process that he knows anything at all - by confirming that A=A. That is, by confirming that a thing is indeed what it is.

When the sane person catches himself mis-identifying things, then he recognizes himself lapsing into insanity. For example, if something makes him upset, this is a sign that he has mis-identified something, and is losing his mind.

A totally insane person is unable to do this, but is unable to know it.

The sane person cannot know that A=A for these are conceptions, with meaning, that may not relate to its apparent object in implication or meaning whatsoever. If you mean that he can validate that his conceptions are conceptions then say so, for to be partly wrong through ambiguity is to be wrong, and conceptions are all that one can validate. Not their meaning, content, or analysed conceptions, but only their existence and synthesised conceptions from the existence of conceptions themselves.

Sanity can therefore only be determined by the fact that a conception makes sense to the subject himself, irrespective of its identity. Mis-identity is irrelevant, for the entire process of validity is subjective.

Further spotting "errors" is correction, improvement, elaboration; a fundamental part of intellectual inquery. It is not evidence of insanity with your implication that the insane cannot know anything.

...

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote: Ok, but focusing on the fact that the "boat" is left behind is useless as regards the insanity argument. If you use a faulty boat to make a crossing and subsequently leave that boat behind, that doesn't in any way make up for the fact that you landed on the wrong shore. No longer being reliant on the boat doesn't remove the problem, and neither does it prove the validity of the final shore.

Insane man on boat. Insane man not on boat anymore. Nothing has been gained here.

If the boat takes you beyond the duality of true and false, sane and insane, real and unreal, etc, then it no longer becomes an issue for you. There is no you.

That could be so, but it says nothing about the truth or validity of such a state. It might be insane and irrational to think that moving beyond duality is ultimate truth. If I wanted to I could even take it to the level of arguing that you are so insane that you just incorrectly believe you are beyond the dualities you mentioned, when in reality you are not.

Also, as I have already said repeatedly, and you didn't reply to my last post which mentioned this, there may be dualistic knowledge that is absolute truth, say xtian fundamentalism, that you have rejected because of your insanity. You are still asserting that being beyond duality is superior to holding absolute dualistic views.

If, on the other hand, you are still battling for certainty and experiencing doubts, then it means you are still being taken in by duality. In that instance you have no choice but to utilize the tools of A=A and logic to work your way out of duality.

Is it insane to go beyond all duality? The issue has no meaning for the person who is beyond all duality.

Is it insane to value A=A and ensure that one's thinking conforms to it? The person stuck in duality has no choice about the matter. To reject A=A is to fall into the realm of incoherence and contradictory nonsense, where most people dwell.

Unless of course you are the one who is in the realm of incoherence and contradiction, but you simply don't realize it. Just like Kevin you have failed to make any ground in regard to the fundamental problem: that you could be insane and simply think yourself and your philosophy sane. It doesn't matter what you propose, holding to A=A, moving beyond duality, being rational etc etc, none of this actually overcomes the problem when it is understood properly, because anything your propose to overcome it or prove your sanity may itself be insanity.