GENIUS FORUMS

If the boundary between myself and nature is objectively real, how do I get in there?

Isaac wrote:But when it all comes down to it, what is the point of the idea of there being no real boundaries?

Is this just a word game or does it go somewhere significant?

The idea of no boundaries, along with causation, may be of help in the action of acceptance. This is only the case when a feeling of objectivity is cultivated, which provides a clarity of perception where nothing is hidden. Perception becomes complete in itself, as there is no longer an "outside of perception." There may be a "beyond what is known" to the mental process, but the "beyond" is included within perception through a different sense, and also is translatable into understanding through the action of direction.

Boundaries are actually real physically at the subatomic level, but they are not boundaries of things but boundaries of energy. Whether you consider that to be real or not is your choice, but for reasons of efficiency as well as value, you cannot think or see without them.

Isaac wrote:David Quinn,

You are saying that if it is in any way possible for a boundary can be crossed, then it's not a real boundary. By that definition, then, yes, there are no real boundaries.

But when it all comes down to it, what is the point of the idea of there being no real boundaries?

Is this just a word game or does it go somewhere significant?

It allows us to see that there are no real beginnings and ends in Nature, other than what we imagine. It allows us to see the way in which nothing really exists. This is not insignificant knowledge.

Isaac wrote:

David Quinn wrote:If the boundary between myself and the rest of Nature was objectively real, then I would not able to take advantage of the chair's mass and use it to support my body.

Ok, I'll admit, this has gone right over my head. I don't understand why the chair couldn't be used to support your weight if the boundaries were real.

The same reason why a needle wouldn't be able to pass through skin. There would no interaction possible between chair and body, and thus no way for the chair to exert a force on the body. Such interactions are only possible because the boundary between them isn't really there.

Believing in boundaries is simply a very crude form of thinking. It is like believing that love is good and hatred is bad, and that politicians are noble, and spiders are horrible - that sort of thing.

-

divine focus wrote:

Isaac wrote:But when it all comes down to it, what is the point of the idea of there being no real boundaries?

Is this just a word game or does it go somewhere significant?

The idea of no boundaries, along with causation, may be of help in the action of acceptance. This is only the case when a feeling of objectivity is cultivated, which provides a clarity of perception where nothing is hidden. Perception becomes complete in itself, as there is no longer an "outside of perception." There may be a "beyond what is known" to the mental process, but the "beyond" is included within perception through a different sense, and also is translatable into understanding through the action of direction.

Boundaries are actually real physically at the subatomic level, but they are not boundaries of things but boundaries of energy. Whether you consider that to be real or not is your choice, but for reasons of efficiency as well as value, you cannot think or see without them.

On the contrary, we would not be able to see or think with them. No existence would be possible if boundaries were real. No diversity of forms would be possible.

-

I've collected these quotes from David to highlight a serious and recurring error that he makes. As the following quotes show, he likes to push the idea that the self and boundaries are "only" and "merely" due to "perspective" and the "observer." His underlying aim is to make boundaries and the self look insubstantial and weak, because he desires to eliminate them:

David Quinn wrote:"And yet, at the same time, these contrasts are never anything more than appearance to us as an observer. The perspective that we create as observers is what allows these contrasts to come into being in the first place. They have no other reality outside of this."

"This illustrates the more general truth that the boundaries and contrasts we perceive directly in the world are appearances only. They are entities which only exist to an observer with a particular kind of perspective. Outside of this perspective, they have no existence at all."

"Its existence is merely apparent and sustained only by the adoption of a particular perspective. It doesn't exist in any shape or form outside of that perspective.

His error, of course, is that the self and boundaries are not "merely" and "only" due to "perspective" and an "observer." Their existence is actually due to a massive number of causes.

The self's existence is due(among many other things) to food and water and air, a mother and father, ancestors, evolution of prior species, the sun, the solar system and even the big bang. The existence of boundaries is due to configurations and collections of atoms, different frequencies and intensities of light, the earth and sun which supports this matter and energy, and so on right back to the big bang once again.

When we consider that the self and boundaries are actually dependent on a huge number and variety of other causes which stretch back to the beginning of time, they no longer look so insubstantial as David wants us to believe.

So next time David says of the self and boundaries:

"They are entities which only exist to an observer with a particular kind of perspective. Outside of this perspective, they have no existence at all."

you will know that what he really should be saying is:

"They are entities which only exist because of food, air, water, a mother and father, ancient ancestors, evolution, the earth, the atmosphere, the sun, gravity, matter, atoms, light, energy, the solar system, the galaxies, time, space, the universe, the laws of nature and the big bang. Outside of these things, they have no existence at all."

Read the first sentence again. Think what appearance entails.

Jason wrote:I've collected these quotes from David to highlight a serious and recurring error that he makes. As the following quotes show, he likes to push the idea that the self and boundaries are "only" and "merely" due to "perspective" and the "observer." His underlying aim is to make boundaries and the self look insubstantial and weak, because he desires to eliminate them:

David Quinn wrote:"And yet, at the same time, these contrasts are never anything more than appearance to us as an observer. The perspective that we create as observers is what allows these contrasts to come into being in the first place. They have no other reality outside of this."

"This illustrates the more general truth that the boundaries and contrasts we perceive directly in the world are appearances only. They are entities which only exist to an observer with a particular kind of perspective. Outside of this perspective, they have no existence at all."

"Its existence is merely apparent and sustained only by the adoption of a particular perspective. It doesn't exist in any shape or form outside of that perspective.

His error, of course, is that the self and boundaries are not "merely" and "only" due to "perspective" and an "observer." Their existence is actually due to a massive number of causes.

The self's existence is due(among many other things) to food and water and air, a mother and father, ancestors, evolution of prior species, the sun, the solar system and even the big bang. The existence of boundaries is due to configurations and collections of atoms, different frequencies and intensities of light, the earth and sun which supports this matter and energy, and so on right back to the big bang once again.

When we consider that the self and boundaries are actually dependent on a huge number and variety of other causes which stretch back to the beginning of time, they no longer look so insubstantial as David wants us to believe.

And yet the self, and boundaries generally, can change and disappear with the slightest movement of thought.

-

David Quinn wrote:And yet the self, and boundaries generally, can change and disappear with the slightest movement of thought.

My self doesn't disappear with the slightest movement of thought. If your self can disappear at the slightest movement of thought you must be severely psychologically unstable.

Jason wrote:My self doesn't disappear with the slightest movement of thought.

When you go into unconscious sleep your self ceases to exist — just as though you were never born. Consciousness is required for the existence of a self.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jason wrote:My self doesn't disappear with the slightest movement of thought.

When you go into unconscious sleep your self ceases to exist — just as though you were never born. Consciousness is required for the existence of a self.

No one said anything about complete loss of consciousness Kevin. David, very intentionally I might add, said that the self can "disappear with the slightest movement of thought"

Jason wrote:No one said anything about complete loss of consciousness Kevin. David, very intentionally I might add, said that the self can "disappear with the slightest movement of thought"

Going to sleep seems like a slight movement of thought to me.

Some people identify with their car: "You toucha my car, I smasha your face." Others identify with their body, and view their body as their own self, and will burst into tears if you tell them they are fat. But all this can be changed with a mere thought.

Kevin Solway wrote:But all this can be changed with a mere thought.

I've never had any "mere" thoughts. The problem is not that thoughts are "mere", it's that you hold them to be such.

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:But all this can be changed with a mere thought.

I've never had any "mere" thoughts. The problem is not that thoughts are "mere", it's that you hold them to be such.

Hmmmm...

To have and to hold, til death do us part.


.

David Quinn wrote:

Isaac wrote:David Quinn,

You are saying that if it is in any way possible for a boundary can be crossed, then it's not a real boundary. By that definition, then, yes, there are no real boundaries.

But when it all comes down to it, what is the point of the idea of there being no real boundaries?

Is this just a word game or does it go somewhere significant?

It allows us to see that there are no real beginnings and ends in Nature, other than what we imagine. It allows us to see the way in which nothing really exists. This is not insignificant knowledge.

What might be some practical applications of such knowledge?

Isaac wrote:What might be some practical applications of such knowledge?

If everybody applied it, the end of war, the end of overpopulation, the end of pollution, the end of loneliness, the end of violence and emotion, etc.

Kevin Solway wrote:...the end of war, the end of overpopulation, the end of pollution, the end of loneliness, the end of violence and emotion, etc.

Right, the end of things which don't really exist.

Yes, the end of things which apparently exist.

-

Let's all jump into non-existence!!

David Quinn wrote:

divine focus wrote:Boundaries are actually real physically at the subatomic level, but they are not boundaries of things but boundaries of energy. Whether you consider that to be real or not is your choice, but for reasons of efficiency as well as value, you cannot think or see without them.

On the contrary, we would not be able to see or think with them. No existence would be possible if boundaries were real. No diversity of forms would be possible.

I can see what you mean. This is why I say what you define as "real" is your choice, as it can be seen to be either way, depending. "Real" or "not real" are terms that depend on context.

David Quinn wrote:And yet the self, and boundaries generally, can change and disappear with the slightest movement of thought.

But you will notice it is not the thought that moves, but the attention. The thought is only a translation or clarification of where your attention is. What this means is that you can pay attention to thoughts as well as other things, and thought is not threatened. This is also to say that thoughts do not move your attention, although you may be giving much power or adherence to thought so as to give up your choice.

divine focus wrote:Let's all jump into non-existence!

When David says that things don't exist, he is only speaking of the things that unenlightened people (scientists, women, etc) believe to exist.

David,

David Quinn: If the boundary between myself and the rest of Nature was objectively real, then I would not able to take advantage of the chair's mass and use it to support my body.

Isaac: Ok, I'll admit, this has gone right over my head. I don't understand why the chair couldn't be used to support your weight if the boundaries were real.

David Quinn: The same reason why a needle wouldn't be able to pass through skin. There would no interaction possible between chair and body, and thus no way for the chair to exert a force on the body. Such interactions are only possible because the boundary between them isn't really there.

Boundaries are in fact real, if they weren't we wouldn't be able to differentiate between things. But boundaries don't prevent interaction between things, as you erroneously believe. The error you are making is in believing that boundaries lead to separation between things. Boundaries actually denote differences between things, not separation. I'll use the example of a swimmer in a swimming pool to demonstrate.

A swimmer generally considers his skin to be the boundary of himself. Inside his skin is him, outside his skin is not-him. When he jumps into a pool, the water comes into intimate contact and connection with his skin, and therefore with him. There is no separation between the water and the swimmer whatsoever, and his every movement affects the water and vice versa. Yet the swimmer continues to exist, his skin still forms a boundary between him and the water.

How is this possible? Quite simply: difference. Differentiation. Separation is not the issue. The swimmer is different than the water, his boundary differentiates him from the water, it doesn't fundamentally separate him from the water. Some of the differences between swimmer and water include that the swimmer is in a different spatial location than the water, the swimmer is constructed of different forms of matter and the swimmer is a different colour.

Well, gee, boundaries are the blood and guts of differentiation. Thanks for that Jason; I'm sure after all these years David will be delighted to have been educated as to this fact.

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:Let's all jump into non-existence!

When David says that things don't exist, he is only speaking of the things that unenlightened people (scientists, women, etc) believe to exist.

And making it seem like enlightenment is something to be avoided at all costs.

Kevin Solway wrote:Some people identify with their car: "You toucha my car, I smasha your face." Others identify with their body, and view their body as their own self, and will burst into tears if you tell them they are fat. But all this can be changed with a mere thought.

Ah, so you've seen my Uncle Anthony's new car, eh?

Stop with the mere thought nonsense, you are sounding like an guest on Oprah. Fat people are fat. The only mere thought that would change that would be "I'm getting my stomach stapled" or "I'm not eating for three years."

You are missing the point with saying people "identify" with their bodies. The truth is they are realizing that their bodies are theirs and not someone else's, and that they cannot leave their bodies and live.

The mere thought can only change anything if you have it, not if the fat person has it. It can keep them from crying, if your mere thought is "I simply won't tell them they are fat." What a concept! Kindness! Compassion! Try common sense: fat people already know they are fat. No need to make them cry.

brokenhead wrote:they cannot leave their bodies and live.

That doesn't mean that the body is identical with the "self". If your body was your own self, then if you lost the bottom half of your body in an accident, as some people do, you would only be left with half a self.

Fat people already know they are fat.

Most fat people are in denial, which is why they get even fatter.

Kevin wrote:Most fat people are in denial, which is why they get even fatter.

I think you may be partially correct here. Fat people are in denial when they are eating, which is, in fact, the time during which they are getting even fatter.

But you have to realize that even though the non-eating time is proportionately much less than with those of us who are not overweight, nonethless, during that "downtime" fat people do very much know they are fat. The difficulty in moving, the shortness of breath, the physical and psychological discomfort, the trouble when buying clothes, not to mention the stares and snide remarks... My guess is that any "denial" is overwhelmed by all these things.