GENIUS FORUMS

Something that in the past I've always felt was stupid was Socrates' argument about the immortality of the soul, but I realized today that it's actually a very profound argument that Plato probably misunderstood, and I'm here to tell you about it.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html

Soc. Then begin again, and answer me, What, according to you and your friend Gorgias, is the definition of virtue?

Men. O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and enchanted, and am at my wits' end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those who come near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you; and though I have been delivered of an infinite variety of speeches about virtue before now, and to many persons-and very good ones they were, as I thought-at this moment I cannot even say what virtue is. And I think that. you are very wise in not voyaging and going away from home, for if you did in other places as do in Athens, you would be cast into prison as a magician.

Soc. You are a rogue, Meno, and had all but caught me.

Men. What do you mean, Socrates?

Soc. I can tell why you made a simile about me.

Men. Why?

Soc. In order that I might make another simile about you. For I know that all pretty young gentlemen like to have pretty similes made about them-as well they may-but I shall not return the compliment. As to my being a torpedo, if the torpedo is torpid as well as the cause of torpidity in others, then indeed I am a torpedo, but not otherwise; for I perplex others, not because I am clear, but because I am utterly perplexed myself. And now I know not what virtue is, and you seem to be in the same case, although you did once perhaps know before you touched me. However, I have no objection to join with you in the enquiry.

Men. And how will you enquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of enquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?

Soc. I know, Meno, what you mean; but just see what a tiresome dispute you are introducing. You argue that man cannot enquire either about that which he knows, or about that which he does not know; for if he knows, he has no need to enquire; and if not, he cannot; for he does not know the, very subject about which he is to enquire.

Men. Well, Socrates, and is not the argument sound?

Soc. I think not.

Men. Why not?

Soc. I will tell you why: I have heard from certain wise men and women who spoke of things divine that-

Men. What did they say?

Soc. They spoke of a glorious truth, as I conceive.

Men. What was it? and who were they?

Soc. Some of them were priests and priestesses, who had studied how they might be able to give a reason of their profession: there, have been poets also, who spoke of these things by inspiration, like Pindar, and many others who were inspired. And they say-mark, now, and see whether their words are true-they say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness. "For in the ninth year Persephone sends the souls of those from whom she has received the penalty of ancient crime back again from beneath into the light of the sun above, and these are they who become noble kings and mighty men and great in wisdom and are called saintly heroes in after ages." The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, rand having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection -all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection. And therefore we ought not to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility of enquiry: for it will make us idle; and is sweet only to the sluggard; but the other saying will make us active and inquisitive. In that confiding, I will gladly enquire with you into the nature of virtue.

Men. Yes, Socrates; but what do you mean by saying that we do not learn, and that what we call learning is only a process of recollection? Can you teach me how this is?

Soc. I told you, Meno, just now that you were a rogue, and now you ask whether I can teach you, when I am saying that there is no teaching, but only recollection; and thus you imagine that you will involve me in a contradiction.

The soul being immortal is what I want to demonstrate. The line about the soul being reborn many times is false, because the soul is immortal, it can't die, so it can't be born either. The part the says "having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all" is untrue, but it's close to being true.

Socrates and Meno are discussing virtue, and Socrates is trying to get Meno to define virtue. Meno replied with a list of virtues, which doesn't answer the question of what virtue actually is. The same type of problem exists in a roundabout way in the statement: "having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all". We do have knowledge of all things that exist because we have knowledge of existence itself. If we didn't, nothing would exist, at least for us, so it's necessarily the case that we have this knowledge.

This knowledge of existence constitutes our "immortal soul". Birth is an existence and death is an existence, so existence must be a lower abstraction that birth and death are built on, otherwise birth and death wouldn't exist. Looking at it another way, existence can't be subject to birth and death because that would mean after the death of existence, something could be born yet the birth wouldn't exist, which doesn't make sense. So knowledge of existence transcends knowledge of birth and death.

Now, onto the idea of recollection. I want to demonstrate that this is a valid idea, without the idea of a personal soul being reborn and experiencing different things in order to recollect. The recollection occurs with respect to the knowledge of existence, which we forget.

So, what is existence? That's the key upon which this demonstration rests. What is the fundamental essence that runs through all the particulars of existence? It's the law of identity, A=A. So later in the dialog, when Socrates is teaching the boy about the square of a square, he really is recollecting, but it's not about something he learned in a past life (unless you want to take "past life" in a poetical sense). He's recollecting about A=A. Specifically, he's recollecting that the area of a rectangle ('A') is ('=') the length times the width ('A') and there is no other way to do it. If you calculate it another way, then you're not calculating the area.

This is another way to view the immortality of the soul, although it's a bit more abstract, but the concept of "area" has a unique identity that can't be changed in any way. If you try to change it, like the boy unwittingly tried to do, then you end up with something that is not the area, but something else with a different identity. So "area" has a timeless nature about it, and our knowledge of timeless things like this is what constitutes the immortal part of our consciousness (soul). It goes back to our knowledge of existence. This knowledge is what everything we experience is built on at the most fundamental level and spirituality is a matter of recollecting this at all times.

Matt

I enjoyed the dialogue between Socratres and Meno.

------------------------------------------

But what you yourself said in your post, isnt very clear. I really don't understand what you are talking about. But I would like to.

Something you said:

"We do have knowledge of all things that exist because we have knowledge of existence itself"

In order for me to understand you, I feel it is this comment that needs to be gone into with a little more depth. This particular comment of yours not only seems to be the foundation of your thought, but it also appears to be a terrible assumption.

however, I encourage you to prove me wrong, or teach me - - however you want to put it.

Cory Patrick wrote:Matt

I enjoyed the dialogue between Socratres and Meno.

Yeah, I like that one, too.

But what you yourself said in your post, isnt very clear. I really don't understand what you are talking about. But I would like to.

I'm just screwing around, really, but I'd be happy to discuss it. I deliberately left a lot of holes in it, because I was trying to keep it short.

Something you said:

"We do have knowledge of all things that exist because we have knowledge of existence itself"

In order for me to understand you, I feel it is this comment that needs to be gone into with a little more depth. This particular comment of yours not only seems to be the foundation of your thought, but it also appears to be a terrible assumption.

however, I encourage you to prove me wrong, or teach me - - however you want to put it.

I can teach you about what I think, but that's about it.

What I meant by that was, we have a knowledge of all things; we have a particular knowledge about them, and that is the basis of their existence. In other words, if we know of an object, we not only know of its existence, but we know what that existence consists of. That's all.

I'll try to illustrate the significance of this. Say, we're astronomers and one day we looked at some stellar photographs and discovered a new planet in our solar system, which we dub Planet XI. Right then and there we have two pieces of knowledge about it. We know that Planet XI exists, and we know that it's different from any other planet, Pluto, etc.. Ok, let's say we send a probe to the planet to gather more information. The probe gets there and takes a picture, and when we look at the picture we find something really strange. The planet is actually two planetary sized objects that somehow became conjoined and orbit the sun together, connected-like. Now we have a decision to make. Does "Planet XI" refer to both of the objects, or do we name the two objects separately? It's our choice. Existence is the creation of our minds, so it's up to us as to what constitutes the existence of Planet XI.

So, my point is that this knowledge is very fundamental, yet it's also very powerful in determining the way in which we interpret reality, and that's what I was attempting to discuss. I don't know how much you know about it, so if I'm overexplaining, just ignore it. I tend to explain things too much, I think. I didn't get much sleep last night, either, so if this post makes no sense, I'll have to try again later.

Matt:

the soul is immortal, it can't die, so it can't be born either.

So knowledge of existence transcends knowledge of birth and death.

Very well stated.

It is like arguing for the 'existence' of God. If God is the ground of being or being in and of itself, to position for his existence is to prove he does not exist.
It would be more accurate to say "God does not exist but he is certainly real and experienced".

The soul itself transcends the existence of birth and death indeed. Experiential knowledge of this awareness is freedom from fear.

Beingof1 wrote:Matt:

the soul is immortal, it can't die, so it can't be born either.

So knowledge of existence transcends knowledge of birth and death.

Very well stated.

Thanks, Be. I'm kind of thinking I should rewrite it.

It is like arguing for the 'existence' of God. If God is the ground of being or being in and of itself, to position for his existence is to prove he does not exist.
It would be more accurate to say "God does not exist but he is certainly real and experienced".

Yeah, exactly.

The soul itself transcends the existence of birth and death indeed. Experiential knowledge of this awareness is freedom from fear.

It would seem so. So, what method(s) does one use to arrive at this experiencial knowledge? How does one make the leap? Inquiring minds want to know.

A wise man once wrote;

We can't really free ourselves from any cause, but we can change the effect it has by introducing causes of our own, so we gain freedom from it in the sense of getting rid of the undesirable effect.

The opponent to this understanding has many tricks of illusion. Its goal or purpose is for you to worship the self that was created by you. The self - created self is selfish pride and ambitous beyond imagination. It steals and devours worship and life itself. It craves to be thought of as wise and good and claims to have power to immortalize.
It is interested in making the self into more of what it is. It will attempt to block any surrendering of the many sundered parts back into the light of purity. This would result in a less fragmented entity and our experience less of any thing that might contain the remnants of limitation. The self is better off being without definition less we lessen it even with our grandest ideas of what it should, could or would be and creating even the smallest distance between us and experiential truth.

It has been said to be many names - Mara, Satan, ego etc. It has only three weapons and only three.

1- Pride, the deadly sin that most men fall prey to and to a lesser extent woman. Our opponent seeks the same as purity seeks it just uses different methods when confined as its fundamental belief is mortality. It seeks immortality through fame and sometimes living by proxy through children. It seeks immortality by the only means it can when limited by finite life.To recreate others in its own image.

2- Money; it clings to things because it believes that preservation of existence is the primary reason for being. If it accumulates enough wealth and possessions it can insulate itself from random events of misfortune or in other words, security. Its belief that death can be deferred by the accumulation of the best of everything the world has to offer. This belief is based in the fear of hunger, disease, and old age.

3- Sensations or stimulation; it lies about what your heart truly desires to preserve itself. It offers the sensations of the body as an alternative to contemplating the issues of mortality. It is a form of misdirection and keeps itself on a perpetual merry - go - round of new physical stimulation. It can use drugs, sex, or adrenalin, it really doesn`t matter as long as we never have to contemplate our true being. Your heart desires innocent bliss - it offers temporary tantalizing stimulation.

The way to the way lies between the words, especially the ones in your mind. We have to begin with a frame of reference as the first step in our evolving into purity. A common misconception is that we must extinguish all desire, this is misleading as not even the Buddha taught this idea, he taught that we must replace fallen desire with pure desire.

Most have a voice speaking in their minds that pretends to be themselves, this is almost always a parent/sibling phantom that applies pressure to conform. The reward that is offered is acceptance and salvation in a fallen state. This voice pretends to be who you are, it was never you. It is the voice that continually speaks of acceptance and reward/punishment.

The freedom comes from surrender. You must delve deep within your self and always use the tool of forgiveness - as the one who is willing to forgive without condition is free to love(agape) and experience innocent abandon. To be in an experience of so much caring energy that it cannot be contained and must be released from itself and permeate everything in the awareness.

This is an intimidating and deeply serious task. It requires forgiveness as the key that unlocks the door to the joy in your heart and the knowledge of experiencing beyond mortality.You are a vast being with almost limitless memory and experience and so it is a monumental undertaking.

You must begin by forgiving yourself, all the skeletons in every closet. You must delve deep within your self and always use the tool of forgiveness. This takes time and discipline as well as deep comittment. Every memory and all past experience you must liberate yourself from. When you have forgiven yourself the last item on the list of self loathing and guilt - you begin to expand it outward.

Mother, father, sister, brother, friend, and foe must eventually be freed from your own mind. If unforgiveness for another human being still exists in your heart and mind - then this person controls your heart and mind and you are a prisoner and a slave. You will continue to seek acceptance until you have none left to forgive.

It is amazing how that the moment you forgive someone you care deeply at the same time. Not in attachment but in liberty of nonattachment.

The last person on the list to forgive would be God, the universe or ultimate reality - whatever. It or he must be forgiven, as the experiences of a seeming random universe can still control your mind and life itself is experienced as punishment.

When there remains nothing and none left to forgive, forgiveness itself is discarded and has outlived its purpose. It is freedom from external conformity of all types. You are not in fear of any desire or thought as you are unshackled to care. This is freedom and wholeness.

You no longer have to entertain any fantasy of being somewhere or someone else as the present moment is filled to the brim with wonder and expectation as it rekindles its own fascination as if learning is brand new.

Matt Gregory wrote:

I can teach you about what I think, but that's about it.

What I meant by that was, we have a knowledge of all things; we have a particular knowledge about them - - and that is the basis of their existence.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Ah, I think I see where you’re going. It’s a very interesting place. I think we need to understand what the relationship is between ‘experience’ and objectivity. You are emphasizing the relationship between the discovery of a form in relationship to the ‘naming/labeling of that form, are you not? You also seem to be emphasizing that unless we categorize/label and name what we see then what we see has no basis for existing. I suppose what your saying is, ‘without subjective information explaining an object, we cannot experience that object’.

However, before an object has a subjective basis established, must we not observe that object ‘without’ knowledge of it? Is it not true to say that the only way an object can come to have a subjective basis, is by means of observing that very object without any subjective information?

Therefore, knowledge is not the basis of an objects existence. Perhaps knowledge is the basis of misunderstanding experience? And what about ‘understanding’? Would understanding then be experience-less?

We have made very detailed maps of the earth, but that doesn’t mean that our maps of the earth are the very basis of the earth’s existence. However, perhaps dividing up the earth into all of these names and parts has been one of the fundamental factors contributing to the phenomenon of war?

Perhaps knowledge is the basis for all of our delusions and stupidity?

Does "Planet XI" refer to both of the objects, or do we name the two objects separately? It's our choice. Existence is the creation of our minds, so it's up to us as to what constitutes the existence of Planet XI.

Often, or almost always, we give a name for the parts comprising a whole that we also name. For example: Someone decided to try and understand the basis of ‘water’. He narrowed water down to a ‘water molecule’. So there is the name ‘water’ and there is the name ‘molecule’. So is a ‘water molecule’ the very ‘basis’ of ‘waters’ existence? It might ‘seem’ that way at first. But then we discover a ‘water molecule’ is based on three distinct atoms. Do we settle for the label ‘water molecule’, or do we instead, name each individual part comprising a water molecule? The answer is, we do both. We differentiate molecules from atoms, or better, some of us realize that molecules ‘are’ atoms. We also realize that some atoms are different from other atoms. Do we individually name each type of atom or do we just settle for the label ‘atoms’? Again, we do both. The ‘basis’ of water then ‘appears’ to be created by our knowledge that water is comprised of 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. However, our knowledge is one thing and the fact of the matter is another. We realize, upon closer examination, that oxygen, rather than just an atom, is just as much a ‘chemical element’ consisting of eight protons, eight neutrons and eight electrons. How deep does this hole go down?

What I’m getting at is this: Knowledge is not the ‘basis’ of existence, however it is the basis of a particular quality of ‘appearance’. However, perhaps you equate existence with ‘appearances’?

That's interesting, Be. I'll have to think about that for awhile. I think we do have a lot of guilt. I have a lot of guilt anyway. Stupid guilt that makes no sense and won't go away.

Cory Patrick wrote:

MG: What I meant by that was, we have a knowledge of all things; we have a particular knowledge about them - - and that is the basis of their existence.


-----------------------------------------------------------

CP: Ah, I think I see where you’re going. It’s a very interesting place.
I think we need to understand what the relationship is between ‘experience’ and objectivity.

Yeah, my view is that we have to look inward first, to understand what's going on inside us subjectively and account for it, before we can begin to understand reality as a whole.

You are emphasizing the relationship between the discovery of a form in relationship to the ‘naming/labeling of that form, are you not? You also seem to be emphasizing that unless we categorize/label and name what we see then what we see has no basis for existing.

Well, I was using the name as more of a handle to the concept. The creation of the concept is what I was talking about.

I suppose what your saying is, ‘without subjective information explaining an object, we cannot experience that object’.

I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective information". All information has some subjectivity about it (it's in a person's head) and objectivity about it (otherwise it's not information, it's a fantasy unrelated to actuality).

However, before an object has a subjective basis established, must we not observe that object ‘without’ knowledge of it? Is it not true to say that the only way an object can come to have a subjective basis, is by means of observing that very object without any subjective information?

Well, if we aren't aware of the existence of an object, then it hasn't been observed, so this information can't be separated from the act of observation.

MG: Does "Planet XI" refer to both of the objects, or do we name the two objects separately? It's our choice. Existence is the creation of our minds, so it's up to us as to what constitutes the existence of Planet XI.


CP: Often, or almost always, we give a name for the parts comprising a whole that we also name. For example: Someone decided to try and understand the basis of ‘water’. He narrowed water down to a ‘water molecule’. So there is the name ‘water’ and there is the name ‘molecule’. So is a ‘water molecule’ the very ‘basis’ of ‘waters’ existence? It might ‘seem’ that way at first. But then we discover a ‘water molecule’ is based on three distinct atoms. Do we settle for the label ‘water molecule’, or do we instead, name each individual part comprising a water molecule? The answer is, we do both. We differentiate molecules from atoms, or better, some of us realize that molecules ‘are’ atoms. We also realize that some atoms are different from other atoms. Do we individually name each type of atom or do we just settle for the label ‘atoms’? Again, we do both. The ‘basis’ of water then ‘appears’ to be created by our knowledge that water is comprised of 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. However, our knowledge is one thing and the fact of the matter is another. We realize, upon closer examination, that oxygen, rather than just an atom, is just as much a ‘chemical element’ consisting of eight protons, eight neutrons and eight electrons. How deep does this hole go down?

It goes down endlessly, because there is no limit to what our minds can bring into existence. We can split a thing up into an endless number of parts, for example. This means that no matter how small the particles we find get, we can never know that we won't find anything smaller.

What I’m getting at is this: Knowledge is not the ‘basis’ of existence, however it is the basis of a particular quality of ‘appearance’. However, perhaps you equate existence with ‘appearances’?

Yeah, unless you have a better suggestion.

Cory wrote:

I suppose what your saying is, ‘without subjective information explaining an object, we cannot experience that object’.

Matt Replied:

I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective information". All information has some subjectivity about it (it's in a person's head) and objectivity about it (otherwise it's not information, it's a fantasy unrelated to actuality).

Yes, ‘subjective information’ is a redundant term. It’s just like saying; ‘wet water’. I will refrain from saying such a needless phrase again.

Cory wrote:
However, before an object has a subjective basis established, must we not observe that object ‘without’ knowledge of it? Is it not true to say that the only way an object can come to have a subjective basis, is by means of observing that very object without any information about it?

Matt Replied:

Well, if we aren't aware of the existence of an object, then it hasn't been observed, so this information can't be separated from the act of observation.

Ah, but I am making a distinction between having conceptual knowledge of a movement(or object), and being ‘aware’ of a movement(object). Isnt bringing a concept into being like the artist who paints nature? The artist has to draw a concept/blueprint of what he is seeing. To draw a concept, must you first have no concept? One does not know what one is seeing. One can only draw a crude blue print of it, and call it a name. Once the process is finished and we now have a concept of what we have become aware of doesn’t mean we really understand what we are aware of and have information about. Although we have gained the ability to foresee the implications of a circumstance, we 'ultimately' remain unknowing, even though we, to a degree, have come to know.

Matt wrote:

It (the microcosm) goes down endlessly, because there is no limit to what our minds can bring into existence.

Doesn’t it go down endlessly in spite of our minds? Our minds can peak down and draw up concepts and maps, but I don’t think our minds are brining anything into existence except for maps of that which exists independently from our thoughts. No?

Matt wrote:

We can split a thing up into an endless number of parts, for example. This means that no matter how small the particles we find get, we can never know that we won't find anything smaller.

Agreed.

Cory wrote:

What I’m getting at is this: Knowledge is not the ‘basis’ of existence, however it is the basis of a particular quality of ‘appearance’. However, perhaps you equate existence with ‘appearances’?

Matt replied:

Yeah, unless you have a better suggestion.

Well, my impression of non-existence would be the act of confusing concepts/abstractions with actuality. To exist is to perhaps understand that concepts, no matter how sophisticated are not real and have no value without the actuality. Could one say actuality has no value without concepts? Concepts can be very accurate and scientific, or they can be very Christian or Buddhist giving me a means to believe in my personal immortality. However, either/or, living in concepts is living in concepts. Sophisticated or unsophisticated, that fact is, by means of my precious concepts, my consciousness has become severely divided from actuality. What state is there besides the state of ‘self and other’? Can there be an ending of the division between self and other? And would that be the end of interpreting reality through a filter of concepts? This is not something I am preaching, but just something I am exploring and testing out. At this stage of the game I am….. ….well, it’s still just a game. Eventually I would like to be confident and certain, but for now I just ask questions and make suggestions that I don’t completely understand.


Anyway, how does all this relate to a ‘soul’ and immortality? Are you suggesting we each have personal souls? Or are you suggesting something else? Personally, I dont see a soul. however, there was a time in my life where I fancied the idea. I just figure one has more character if they can live without hope of continuity. Some sort of transformation of form and entrance into another world would be nice. I'd go for it. Oddly, I know people who would prefer oblivion.

Cory wrote:

MG: Well, if we aren't aware of the existence of an object, then it hasn't been observed, so this information can't be separated from the act of observation.

CP: Ah, but I am making a distinction between having conceptual knowledge of a movement(or object), and being ‘aware’ of a movement(object). Isnt bringing a concept into being like the artist who paints nature? The artist has to draw a concept/blueprint of what he is seeing. To draw a concept, must you first have no concept? One does not know what one is seeing. One can only draw a crude blue print of it, and call it a name. Once the process is finished and we now have a concept of what we have become aware of doesn’t mean we really understand what we are aware of and have information about. Although we have gained the ability to foresee the implications of a circumstance, we 'ultimately' remain unknowing, even though we, to a degree, have come to know.

I think this is where the crux of this discussion lies and I think if I can successfully explain this, then you'll see where I'm coming from.

The way I look at a concept, it's a very simple thing, like an individual brushstroke of an artist. Concepts come to us instantaneously because a concept is just identity, which is the simplest thing in the universe. Identity is just the information that differentiates it from other things. We can glance at a cup and know what the boundaries of the cup are. That ability is highly developed in us. We might have trouble finding certain things, but that's a different issue. Identity itself is not difficult once the object has been found.

When we pursue empirical knowledge, we do it by using these identities in combination by forming relations between them. With empirical knowledge, many related concepts (as in, spacially close or whatever) are often considered to be the same thing for verbal convenience, but logically they're all unique. Take, for example, the difference between a machine and its parts. It's common to say that the parts compose the machine, and that when they are put together they are the machine, but logically speaking the machine and its parts are completely different things. They have unique identities, but they are related by the concept of "composition" (another identity, by the way). In other words, we can distinguish between the parts and the machine in that once you know exactly what the parts are and exactly what the machine is, it's impossible to confuse the two with each other. They're logically different things. If you're a distributor of this machine, you could tell your technician, "hey we need to order all the parts for this machine", and he would know to order the individual parts instead of an assembled machine. He would be able to easily differentiate between the two, because the difference between the parts and the machine is clear in his mind (if he knows what the fuck he's doing).

So, looking at the world in this way, it can be seen that we already live in a world of concepts, and even though the physical world doesn't fit exactly within our black and white concepts, we manipulate our concepts to better fit the physical world. So, the grayness of uncertainty is built solely on a world composed of either/or constructs.

Let me try and elucidate this point. "It will either rain tomorrow or it won't." Black and white statement. You could object and say, "Well, if there isn't enough rain falling to get wet, then it's not rain, it's just a sprinkle." So, now you've taken the original black and white statement and made it gray. But if you look at it, what you've done is taken the identity "rain" and split it in two, making another black and white statement such that if it's raining (according to the first definition of rain), it will either be raining (according to the second definition) or sprinkling. So here there are two black and white statements being used in conjunction. There's either water falling from the sky or there's not, and if there is, then it's either a lot or a little. You could continue breaking it up until you have 10,000 different categories of rain if you want. You could make the categories overlap, you can do whatever you want.

So that's how we create fuzzy logic and stuff like that. When our minds are truly gray, then what that means is that we're not fully conscious. Black and white, either/or thinking, the ability to clearly identify things by placing well-known boundaries on them, is what consciousness is. You can connect as many concepts together as you want, and make arbitrarily complex constructs out of them, but this is always done with the fundamental unit of thought: identity. Ultimately, that's all knowledge is.

Now, I don't want to leave you with the impression that I'm advocating that we should engage in mental gymnastics in order to convert everything into black and white statements. That's not necessary. I just wanted to point out that we can't escape the either/or nature of existence that tells us a thing either exists or it doesn't.

More later...

(edited)

Matt Gregory wrote,

So that's how we create fuzzy logic and stuff like that. When our minds are truly gray, then what that means is that we're not fully conscious. Black and white, either/or thinking, the ability to clearly identify things by placing well-known boundaries on them, is what consciousness is. You can connect as many concepts together as you want, and make arbitrarily complex constructs out of them, but this is always done with the fundamental unit of thought: identity. Ultimately, that's all knowledge is.

I think it's important to be able to be able to distinguish one thing from another, however, I don't see it as particular challenging. I think the human race has far more trouble with understanding how duality does not exist. Pleasure and pain for instance are very easy to distinguish from one another. However, it requires a rare level of inquiry, consciousness and passion to see the indivisiblity of pleasure and pain. They are really one thing. So being fully conscious involves both being able to make distinctions between manifestations (step 1) and then being able to see the illusion of distinction (step 2).

Ultimately a water molecule 'is' atoms, and atoms 'are' charged particles, infinity.......To survive against the elements we must be able to communicate and navigate therefore we must distinguish manifestations from eachother by using symbols, however, it requires far more sophistication and consciousness to see the non-existence of particular things. Ultimately pleasure 'is' pain. Ultimately arrogance 'is' humiliation. Utimately there are no division and boundaries. Man creates boundaries with thought in order to function practically (and just as often irrationally).

However, 'thought' is ultimately a hindrance to total realization. Realization is not an act of reason. Once there is total realization, thought(reason) can be used wisely and skillfully.


I'm still looking foward to hearing about how all of this relates to immortality and soul.

I posted this yesterday, but it got deleted:

Cory wrote:

MG: It (the microcosm) goes down endlessly, because there is no limit to what our minds can bring into existence.

CP: Doesn’t it go down endlessly in spite of our minds? Our minds can peak down and draw up concepts and maps, but I don’t think our minds are brining anything into existence except for maps of that which exists independently from our thoughts. No?

Well, "existence" is a logical concept (as in, a thing either exists or it doesn't), so, although we can't make something appear to our senses with our minds, we literally bring things into existence by differentiating a thing from the rest of the universe. That's what existence is: differentiation of things. So when we discover something new, all we've really done is found a new way to slice up reality.

So, when I said:

We can split a thing up into an endless number of parts, for example. This means that no matter how small the particles we find get, we can never know that we won't find anything smaller.

that was kind of misleading because we can always conceive of something smaller if we want just by defining it. It just might not be useful. We could take the smallest known particle and say it's composed of a left half and a right half or something.

Well, my impression of non-existence would be the act of confusing concepts/abstractions with actuality. To exist is to perhaps understand that concepts, no matter how sophisticated are not real and have no value without the actuality. Could one say actuality has no value without concepts? Concepts can be very accurate and scientific, or they can be very Christian or Buddhist giving me a means to believe in my personal immortality. However, either/or, living in concepts is living in concepts.

I think I covered this in the last post.

Sophisticated or unsophisticated, that fact is, by means of my precious concepts, my consciousness has become severely divided from actuality. What state is there besides the state of ‘self and other’? Can there be an ending of the division between self and other? And would that be the end of interpreting reality through a filter of concepts?

No, we're "trapped" in concepts. Conceptualizing is the natural function of the mind and we use them to act in the world and survive. The problem isn't concept themselves, it's false concepts that make us unaware of ultimate reality. So, the concepts of "self" and "other" aren't really where the problem lies, it's the belief that these concepts refer to things that are real, things that are a reality apart from true ultimate reality. Once the deluded mind thinks this then it goes downhill from there, drawing conclusions from them that can only be false, like the ideas of gain and loss. What "self" and "other" really are are conceptual boundaries placed on ultimate reality, and ultimate reality can't gain or lose anything.

This is not something I am preaching, but just something I am exploring and testing out. At this stage of the game I am….. ….well, it’s still just a game. Eventually I would like to be confident and certain, but for now I just ask questions and make suggestions that I don’t completely understand.

Well, I think you should stimulate your mind in whatever way you see fit.

Anyway, how does all this relate to a ‘soul’ and immortality? Are you suggesting we each have personal souls? Or are you suggesting something else? Personally, I dont see a soul. however, there was a time in my life where I fancied the idea. I just figure one has more character if they can live without hope of continuity. Some sort of transformation of form and entrance into another world would be nice. I'd go for it.

By "soul" you mean like a ghost that flies up into heaven when we die? No, I don't believe in that. I think of our "soul" as being our consciousness of truth and truth is beyond time (it encompasses time within it). So, the more highly developed our soul becomes, the more we are conscious of this timelessness, so the less delusions of birth and death affect us.

Matt Gregory wrote:Cory wrote:

The way I look at a concept, it's a very simple thing, like an individual brushstroke of an artist. Concepts come to us instantaneously because a concept is just identity, which is the simplest thing in the universe. Identity is just the information that differentiates it from other things. We can glance at a cup and know what the boundaries of the cup are. That ability is highly developed in us. We might have trouble finding certain things, but that's a different issue. Identity itself is not difficult once the object has been found.

The time it takes to form a conception is irrelevant. The purpose of science, and philosophy, and to a certain extent all human actions and even life is the definitions of our concepts. It may be argued that all concepts are definitions, and at a minimum -a classification of a finite nature, yet we have concepts of an infinite nature like God, eternity, existence, and space without any percievable finite qualities, and nothing that can be compared to them by way of classification. You might say that an identity is not only what one object is, but what it is like, and what it is not like, and not.

When we pursue empirical knowledge, we do it by using these identities in combination by forming relations between them. With empirical knowledge, many related concepts (as in, spacially close or whatever) are often considered to be the same thing for verbal convenience, but logically they're all unique.

I'll bet here that you mean to say: discovering relationships between them, by way of classification.

You can connect as many concepts together as you want, and make arbitrarily complex constructs out of them, but this is always done with the fundamental unit of thought: identity. Ultimately, that's all knowledge is.

All knowledge is by way of accurate definitions which also results in reliably accurate identities. All words are identities, and all signs, and all numbers. Not all things are identities unless unknown, or wrongly identified as an identity. We have identities such as existence, or the cosmos without the slightest sense of what we are refering to. Science and philosophy are continually at work refining identities whether considered as realities or ideas. I must argue with your use of arbitrary in this context. People combine identities as they are perceived, or as they are useful, only. In my opinion.

Cory wrote:

MG: So that's how we create fuzzy logic and stuff like that. When our minds are truly gray, then what that means is that we're not fully conscious. Black and white, either/or thinking, the ability to clearly identify things by placing well-known boundaries on them, is what consciousness is. You can connect as many concepts together as you want, and make arbitrarily complex constructs out of them, but this is always done with the fundamental unit of thought: identity. Ultimately, that's all knowledge is.

CP: I think it's important to be able to be able to distinguish one thing from another, however, I don't see it as particular challenging.

It isn't, yet hardly anyone does it on a consistent basis due to their emotional attachments and all-around hatred of truth.

I think the human race has far more trouble with understanding how duality does not exist. Pleasure and pain for instance are very easy to distinguish from one another. However, it requires a rare level of inquiry, consciousness and passion to see the indivisiblity of pleasure and pain. They are really one thing.

No, they're definitely not one thing. They're different by definition. Trying to unite them after you've defined them is like denying you were in the cookie jar with the cookie in your hand.

So being fully conscious involves both being able to make distinctions between manifestations (step 1) and then being able to see the illusion of distinction (step 2).

This can be done all at once, it doesn't need to be broken down into steps. Making distinctions doesn't have to be done deludedly.

However, 'thought' is ultimately a hindrance to total realization.

What can we do with this thought then? If all thought is a hindrance, then this thought is a hindrance and thus defeats itself. You're going to have to look a little deeper than that.

Realization is not an act of reason.

Right, reason has no power to act. However, reason is necessary to orient oneself on the path. Without it, all can't do much more than wander around aimlessly. You don't want to abandon your intelligence, you want to develop it.

Once there is total realization, thought(reason) can be used wisely and skillfully.

Agreed, but you have to reason skillfully in order to become enlightened in the first place, so this statement is basically a non-starter.

propellerbeanie wrote:MG: The way I look at a concept, it's a very simple thing, like an individual brushstroke of an artist. Concepts come to us instantaneously because a concept is just identity, which is the simplest thing in the universe. Identity is just the information that differentiates it from other things. We can glance at a cup and know what the boundaries of the cup are. That ability is highly developed in us. We might have trouble finding certain things, but that's a different issue. Identity itself is not difficult once the object has been found.

PB: The time it takes to form a conception is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant on a scientific level, but subjectively it's relevant. There's a decisive moment in which a thing is fully identified, before which it hasn't been identified at all.

The purpose of science, and philosophy, and to a certain extent all human actions and even life is the definitions of our concepts.

It makes no difference where our concepts come from with respect to the point I was making.

It may be argued that all concepts are definitions, and at a minimum -a classification of a finite nature, yet we have concepts of an infinite nature like God, eternity, existence, and space without any percievable finite qualities, and nothing that can be compared to them by way of classification.

If they couldn't be compared to anything, then you wouldn't be able to make this statement, since saying they have any property at all involves comparison.

You might say that an identity is not only what one object is, but what it is like, and what it is not like, and not.

No, you've misunderstood what I was saying about identity. Once you start forming conclusions about it, you've departed from the essence of it.

MG: When we pursue empirical knowledge, we do it by using these identities in combination by forming relations between them. With empirical knowledge, many related concepts (as in, spacially close or whatever) are often considered to be the same thing for verbal convenience, but logically they're all unique.

PB: I'll bet here that you mean to say: discovering relationships between them, by way of classification.

I don't know, there's no verb in that sentence, so it's hard to tell what you're saying.

MG: You can connect as many concepts together as you want, and make arbitrarily complex constructs out of them, but this is always done with the fundamental unit of thought: identity. Ultimately, that's all knowledge is.

PB: All knowledge is by way of accurate definitions which also results in reliably accurate identities. All words are identities, and all signs, and all numbers. Not all things are identities unless unknown

All things are identities, known or unknown.

or wrongly identified as an identity.

Impossible. Anything identified is an identity by definition. There's no identity apart from what consciousness creates.

We have identities such as existence, or the cosmos without the slightest sense of what we are refering to.

If we didn't have any sense of what these words refer to, then these words wouldn't exist.

Science and philosophy are continually at work refining identities whether considered as realities or ideas. I must argue with your use of arbitrary in this context. People combine identities as they are perceived, or as they are useful, only. In my opinion.

I didn't say definitions were arbitrary, I said the complexity of their use is arbitrary to point out that that's not what I'm talking about. I don't know if I made that clear, but that was the intent.

Matt,

CP: Anyway, how does all this relate to a ‘soul’ and immortality? Are you suggesting we each have personal souls? Or are you suggesting something else? Personally, I don’t see a soul. However, there was a time in my life where I fancied the idea. I just figure one has more character if they can live without hope of continuity. Some sort of transformation of form and entrance into another world would be nice. I'd go for it.

MG: By "soul" you mean like a ghost that flies up into heaven when we die? No, I don't believe in that.

CP: Nor do I.

MG: I think of our "soul" as being our consciousness of truth and truth is beyond time (it encompasses time within it).

It sounds like your saying this ‘immortal, timeless consciousness is not dependent upon one’s brain. So are you saying that, (by means of ones brain), one can develop ones ‘soul’ in this life (a relationship between the time and timelessness, mortality and immortality – and then at death, if one has sufficiently developed ones ability to 'accurately' make distinctions, then there is an unconditional release from the clutches of the brain? This unconditional release from the brain is a state of deathlessness and birthlessness? If ones brain has had only very tiny, vague and confused moments of illumination within ones life span, then will ones brain experience the manifestations of life and thus of death as very real and distinct, and will one thus be born again as a confused baby with a soul developed to a particularly low or high degree depending on the intensity of ones inquiry in a previous life?

Of course this is a classic explanation of reincarnation, one which I suspect most people on this form will reject (on a merely opinionated and theoretical basis?) I neither accept or reject. I don't care one way or the other at this point, I just want the truth.

What is the relationship between this timeless/immortal consciousness and the Brain? Is memory/thought contained within the brain cells? Or is the brain as a whole kind of like a radio receiver, and thus 'thought' being akin to the waves that exist in a field-wave-like manner?

Here, this is from the Shurangama Sutra. I can't think of any better way to explain it.

Then King Prasenajit rose and said to the Buddha, "In the past, when I had not yet received the teachings of the Buddha, I met Katyayana and Vairatiputra, both of whom said that this body is annihilated after death, and that this is Nirvana. Now, although I have met the Buddha, I still have doubts about their words. How much I wish to be enlightened to the ways and means to perceive and realize the true mind, thereby proving that it transcends production and extinction! All those who have outflows also wish to be instructed on this subject."

The Buddha said to the great King, "Now I ask you, as it is now is your physical body like Vajra, indestructible and living forever? Or does it change and go bad?"

"World Honored One, this body of mine will keep changing until it eventually becomes extinct."

The Buddha said, "Great King, you have not yet become extinct. How do you know you will become extinct?"

"World Honored One, although my impermanent, changing, and decaying body has not yet become extinct, I observe it now, and every passing thought fades away. Each new one fails to remain, but gradually perishes like fire turning to ashes. This perishing without cease convinces me that this body will eventually become completely extinct."

The Buddha said, "So it is."

"Great King, at your present age you are already old and declining. How do your appearance and complexion compare to when you were a youth?"

"World Honored One, in the past when I was young my skin was moist and shining. When I reached the prime of life, my blood and breath were full. But now in my declining years, as I race into old age, my form is withered and wizened and my spirit dull. My hair is white and my face is in wrinkles and I haven’t much time remaining. How can I be compared to how I was when I was full of life?"

The Buddha said, "Great King, your appearance should not decline so suddenly."

The King said, "World Honored One, the changes has been a hidden transformation of which I honestly have not been aware. I have come to this gradually through the passing of winters and summers.

"How did it happen? In my twenties, I was still young, but my features had aged since the time I was ten. My thirties were a further decline from my twenties, and now at sixty-two I look back on my fifties as hale and hearty.

"World Honored One, I am contemplating these hidden transformations. Although the changes wrought by this process of dying are evident through the decades, I might consider them further in finer detail: these changes do not occur just in periods of twelve years; there are actually changes year by year. Not only are there yearly changes, there are also monthly transformations. Nor does it stop at monthly transformations; there are also differences day by day. Examining them closely, I find that Kshana by Kshana, thought after thought, they never stop."

"And so I know my body will keep changing until it is extinct."

The Buddha told the great King, "By watching the ceaseless changes of these transformations, you awaken and know of your extinction, but do you also know that at the time of extinction there is something in your body which does not become extinct?"

King Prasenajit put his palms together and exclaimed, "I really do not know."

The Buddha said, "I will now show you the nature which is not produced and not extinguished."

"Great King, how old were you when you saw the waters of the Ganges?"

The King said, "When I was three years old my compassionate mother led me to visit the Goddess Jiva. We passed a river, and at the time I knew it was the waters of the Ganges."

The Buddha said, "Great King, you have said that when you were twenty you had deteriorated from when you were ten. Day by day, month by month, year by year until you have reached sixty, in thought after thought there has been change. Yet when you saw the Ganges River at the age of three, how was it different from when you were thirteen?"

The king said, "It was no difference from when I was three, and even now when I am sixty-two it is still no difference."

The Buddha said, "Now you are mournful that your hair is white and your face is wrinkled. In the same way that your face is definitely more wrinkled than it was in your youth, has the seeing with which you look at the Ganges aged, so that it is old now but was young when you looked at the river as a child in the past?"

The King said, "No, World Honored One."

The Buddha said, "Great King, you face is in wrinkles, but the essential nature of your seeing has not yet wrinkled. What wrinkles are subject to change. What does not wrinkle does not change."

"What changes will become extinct, but what does not change is fundamentally free of production and extinction. How can it be subject to your birth and death? Furthermore, why brings up what Maskari Goshaliputra and the others say: that after the death of this body there is total extinction?"

The King heard these words, believed them, and realized that when the life of this body is finished, there will be rebirth. He and the entire great assembly were greatly delighted at having obtained what they had never had before.

This "seeing" they're talking about is A=A. The Buddha taught the king something about truth, yet he didn't really teach the king anything he didn't already know, so it's very much like recollection. That's the only point I was trying to make in the original post.