GENIUS FORUMS

clyde wrote:How do you deal with that which is not conceptual?

I'd say the faculty that deals with that is called the imagination. This embodies all of our basic sensual experiencing and opining, while supplying creativity toward the higher faculties.

Out of the imagination grows reason, like homo sapiens grew out of the great apes. Reason can logically capture pieces of imagination and start comparing them and engaging in logic: the distinction between truth and false has been born.

Now the hardest and rarest part grows out of reason: a true understanding of the nature of reality itself, the divine grip on Life. And while this is ultimately beyond concept, the one on the road towards it cannot avoid having to face the abstract. Of course people avoid it all the time by redefining enlightenment and imagine their state of mind as being proof of having completed their journey - while not having really started yet.

Matt Gregory wrote:Living by fixed rules is a problem because rules are not intelligent. People are.

They have the potential, anyway.

Matt;

I agree. “Do no harm” is a guiding principle and we do not offer specific “do’s and don’ts”.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

.

clyde wrote:Rhett: The kind of people that resonate with the message are typically either (a) those too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives, that would drop it the moment their attachments come under threat, meaning it will do little or no good, or (b) the kind that could be engaging in wise harm, in which case it is doing their mind harm.

Clyde: If for those whom you deem “too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives” the effort does even a little good, that is good enough and worth the effort. And for those enlightened geniuses, I do not believe that promoting “do no harm” causes “their mind harm”. Are you suggesting that the minds of enlightened geniuses are so fragile that hearing or thinking “do no harm” causes them to suffer?

In regards to the shallow and duplicitous, motto's are regarded as with fashion, they come in and out, while their core psychology stays the same. If you want to chop a tree down, do you get a pair of tweezers and pluck out the fibres you can each day, only to see the tree keeps growing, and you're not sure if anything has been achieved? Or do you get a bulldozer?

As for those that could be engaging in wise harm, they needn't be already enlightened. Anyone that can reason can engage in wise harm (after all, the enlightened came from unenlightenment). And for them to instead be engaging in motto's is doing their reason harm. It only takes one step of reason to see the motto "do no harm" is flawed, so a gross denial and suppression of reason is required for it to be maintained aloft. Motto's by no means harm the mind of the enlightened.

Rhett: The kind of people that are actually doing the obvious forms of physical harm are typically the kind of people that are dullened to your message, or can see it's inapplicability to their circumstance. Therefore it will, by most reasonable accounts, do no good. It would just waste valuable mental energy.

Clyde: You raise a valid point regarding those who are actually and habitually doing physical harm to others. Our efforts may not change their behavior, but can you say with certainty that it may not? So you may not want to waste your “valuable mental energy” (What are you saving it for?), but perhaps others are willing to expend some energy, physical and mental, in the hope, vain though it may be, that the effort will be beneficial.

If you attack the tips they'll just regrow in another form. The tree is hell bent on it's survival.

.

.

Clyde wrote:“Do no harm” is a guiding principle and we do not offer specific “do’s and don’ts”.

It very much has the form of a specific don't.

How about a guiding principle like "Become Wisdom". Tell me why you won't swap to this fellows.

.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:How do you deal with that which is not conceptual?

I'd say the faculty that deals with that is called the imagination. This embodies all of our basic sensual experiencing and opining, while supplying creativity toward the higher faculties.

Out of the imagination grows reason, like homo sapiens grew out of the great apes. Reason can logically capture pieces of imagination and start comparing them and engaging in logic: the distinction between truth and false has been born.

Now the hardest and rarest part grows out of reason: a true understanding of the nature of reality itself, the divine grip on Life. And while this is ultimately beyond concept, the one on the road towards it cannot avoid having to face the abstract. Of course people avoid it all the time by redefining enlightenment and imagine their state of mind as being proof of having completed their journey - while not having really started yet.

Diebert;

Your use of the term imagination to include “basic sensual experiencing” (perception) seems unusual to me. A dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster) of “imagination” is “the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality”. Is it your experience that there is no perception without imagination; for example, is there no taste of sugar without some mental image?

You posit that “[o]ut of the imagination grows reason”. I do not know what set of causes and conditions are required for reason to arise.

Finally, you noted, reality is “ultimately beyond concept”. With this I agree. I do not believe that there is one path to that realization, nor can I state what another must experience along the way, other than to say that human beings experience suffering.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

clyde wrote:Rhett: The kind of people that resonate with the message are typically either (a) those too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives, that would drop it the moment their attachments come under threat, meaning it will do little or no good, or (b) the kind that could be engaging in wise harm, in which case it is doing their mind harm.

Clyde: If for those whom you deem “too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives” the effort does even a little good, that is good enough and worth the effort. And for those enlightened geniuses, I do not believe that promoting “do no harm” causes “their mind harm”. Are you suggesting that the minds of enlightened geniuses are so fragile that hearing or thinking “do no harm” causes them to suffer?

In regards to the shallow and duplicitous, motto's are regarded as with fashion, they come in and out, while their core psychology stays the same. If you want to chop a tree down, do you get a pair of tweezers and pluck out the fibres you can each day, only to see the tree keeps growing, and you're not sure if anything has been achieved? Or do you get a bulldozer?

As for those that could be engaging in wise harm, they needn't be already enlightened. Anyone that can reason can engage in wise harm (after all, the enlightened came from unenlightenment). And for them to instead be engaging in motto's is doing their reason harm. It only takes one step of reason to see the motto "do no harm" is flawed, so a gross denial and suppression of reason is required for it to be maintained aloft. Motto's by no means harm the mind of the enlightened.

Rhett;

As I wrote, I am satisfied if our effort does even a little good.

As for those who engage in “wise harm” (a term that David used and which I understand as the harm that results from actions done with wisdom and compassion), they are practicing “do no harm”.

The people I meet and speak to about “do no harm” understand it as a guiding principle; they take it personally, but they do not take it literally. But then, they are ordinary people, not enlightened geniuses.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

Rhett: The kind of people that are actually doing the obvious forms of physical harm are typically the kind of people that are dullened to your message, or can see it's inapplicability to their circumstance. Therefore it will, by most reasonable accounts, do no good. It would just waste valuable mental energy.

Clyde: You raise a valid point regarding those who are actually and habitually doing physical harm to others. Our efforts may not change their behavior, but can you say with certainty that it may not? So you may not want to waste your “valuable mental energy” (What are you saving it for?), but perhaps others are willing to expend some energy, physical and mental, in the hope, vain though it may be, that the effort will be beneficial.

If you attack the tips they'll just regrow in another form. The tree is hell bent on it's survival.

.

Rhett;

What is “the tree” that you seem “hell bent” to chop down, bulldoze, and attack?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

clyde wrote:Your use of the term imagination to include “basic sensual experiencing” (perception) seems unusual to me. A dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster) of “imagination” is “the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality”. Is it your experience that there is no perception without imagination; for example, is there no taste of sugar without some mental image?

You mean you cannot imagine how sugar would taste? You cannot imagine how something would feel like? What a poor imagination you have, stuck in moving pictures with no sound.

clyde wrote:You posit that “[o]ut of the imagination grows reason”. I do not know what set of causes and conditions are required for reason to arise.

Then for you it must seem like magic! Watch out for that rock, it might suddenly gain reasoning abilities and beat you with chess.

clyde wrote: I do not believe that there is one path to that realization, nor can I state what another must experience along the way, other than to say that human beings experience suffering.

There are a couple of things you could say about the path. For example would you agree that realization includes knowing fully the difference between truth and delusion? So would it be safe to say that humans should learn to discern between truth and delusions to at least stand a chance?

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

Clyde wrote:“Do no harm” is a guiding principle and we do not offer specific “do’s and don’ts”.

It very much has the form of a specific don't.

How about a guiding principle like "Become Wisdom". Tell me why you won't swap to this fellows.

.

Rhett;

I encourage you to promote “Become Wisdom”. We have not suggested that “do no harm” was the only way, but only a way among other noble paths. I prefer “do no harm” because, as I have written (reflections: http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ):

What attracts me to “do no harm” (in addition to my preference for the simple) is that it requires mindfulness and intention, that it has an obvious, unavoidable, and practical aspect that guides one’s actions which makes the world more pleasant, and that when it is rigorously examined offers profound insight into the nature of the world and self.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:Your use of the term imagination to include “basic sensual experiencing” (perception) seems unusual to me. A dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster) of “imagination” is “the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality”. Is it your experience that there is no perception without imagination; for example, is there no taste of sugar without some mental image?

You mean you cannot imagine how sugar would taste? You cannot imagine how something would feel like? What a poor imagination you have, stuck in moving pictures with no sound.

Diebert;

No, I did not write that I could not imagine such perceptions (e.g. – taste sugar); I asked you if you could have such perceptions without imagining them. Are you stuck in your imagination?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:You posit that “[o]ut of the imagination grows reason”. I do not know what set of causes and conditions are required for reason to arise.

Then for you it must seem like magic! Watch out for that rock, it might suddenly gain reasoning abilities and beat you with chess.

Diebert;

A plant grows out of the ground, but the ground is not the cause of the plant. And yes, it seems like magic to me!

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:I do not believe that there is one path to that realization, nor can I state what another must experience along the way, other than to say that human beings experience suffering.

There are a couple of things you could say about the path. For example would you agree that realization includes knowing fully the difference between truth and delusion? So would it be safe to say that humans should learn to discern between truth and delusions to at least stand a chance?

Diebert;

The opposite of truth is falseness, not delusion; so one may discern the difference between what is true and what is false.

Delusion is “a conception or image created by the imagination and having no objective reality” (Merriam-Webster). So I would state it this way: realization is the process of releasing one’s delusions until one clearly experiences reality.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

clyde wrote:I asked you if you could have such perceptions without imagining them.

Let me repeat myself in other words: the imagination is the mechanism through which perceptions arise. The imprint is the imaging and through memory becomes imagining.

A plant grows out of the ground, but the ground is not the cause of the plant. And yes, it seems like magic to me!

Still you wrote: "I do not know what set of causes and conditions are required for reason to arise". No matter how magical the feeling of looking at the 'plant' appears to you, a farmer needs to know quite a lot about the ground and everything else that is needed before anything can be harvested. The alternative is starvation so one better arrives at a set of causes that has chance of working!

The opposite of truth is falseness, not delusion; so one may discern the difference between what is true and what is false.

Delusion is “a conception or image created by the imagination and having no objective reality” (Merriam-Webster). So I would state it this way: realization is the process of releasing one’s delusions until one clearly experiences reality.

An image can never have some "objective reality", whatever some dictionary might claim. The only reality you can be certain of is the fact images do arise and that reason can deal with them in a truthful or false way. In the latter case one creates delusions, which might as well be described by confusing images with an objective reality ('truth').

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:I asked you if you could have such perceptions without imagining them.

Let me repeat myself in other words: the imagination is the mechanism through which perceptions arise. The imprint is the imaging and through memory becomes imagining.

Diebert;

That is an interesting view of imagination and perception. If, as you wrote, “the imagination is the mechanism through which perceptions arise,” do all living things have imagination, including one-celled animals and plants, all of whom exhibit perception as they respond to stimuli?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

A plant grows out of the ground, but the ground is not the cause of the plant. And yes, it seems like magic to me!

Still you wrote: "I do not know what set of causes and conditions are required for reason to arise". No matter how magical the feeling of looking at the 'plant' appears to you, a farmer needs to know quite a lot about the ground and everything else that is needed before anything can be harvested. The alternative is starvation so one better arrives at a set of causes that has chance of working!

While a farmer will work the ground, plant the seeds, water and tend the soil, what is the cause of the plant?

My point is that many conditions are necessary for plants or reason to arise. And if you examine this more closely, those necessary conditions have themselves conditions necessary for them to arise, and . . . Well, I think you will get the point.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

The opposite of truth is falseness, not delusion; so one may discern the difference between what is true and what is false.

Delusion is “a conception or image created by the imagination and having no objective reality” (Merriam-Webster). So I would state it this way: realization is the process of releasing one’s delusions until one clearly experiences reality.

An image can never have some "objective reality", whatever some dictionary might claim. The only reality you can be certain of is the fact images do arise and that reason can deal with them in a truthful or false way. In the latter case one creates delusions, which might as well be described by confusing images with an objective reality ('truth').

I do not think that the dictionary was claiming that an image could have “objective reality”, but simply stated that an image created by imagination had no “objective reality”.

Regardless, I’m confused by what you wrote. You stated, “An image can never have some "objective reality"”. If as you wrote “[t]he only reality you can be certain of is the fact images do arise”, then “the fact images do arise” is “objective reality”. If it is, then an image can have some “objective reality”. If it is not, then what “reality” is it?

Also, you have equated “objective reality” with ‘truth’. Is “a = b and b = c, then a = c” a ‘truth’ and is it an “objective reality”? I am sitting on a chair. Is the chair a ‘truth’ and is it an “objective reality”?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

free hugs: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4

.

clyde wrote:Rhett: The kind of people that resonate with the message are typically either (a) those too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives, that would drop it the moment their attachments come under threat, meaning it will do little or no good, or (b) the kind that could be engaging in wise harm, in which case it is doing their mind harm.

Clyde: If for those whom you deem “too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives” the effort does even a little good, that is good enough and worth the effort. And for those enlightened geniuses, I do not believe that promoting “do no harm” causes “their mind harm”. Are you suggesting that the minds of enlightened geniuses are so fragile that hearing or thinking “do no harm” causes them to suffer?

Rhett: In regards to the shallow and duplicitous, motto's are regarded as with fashion, they come in and out, while their core psychology stays the same. If you want to chop a tree down, do you get a pair of tweezers and pluck out the fibres you can each day, only to see the tree keeps growing, and you're not sure if anything has been achieved? Or do you get a bulldozer?

As for those that could be engaging in wise harm, they needn't be already enlightened. Anyone that can reason can engage in wise harm (after all, the enlightened came from unenlightenment). And for them to instead be engaging in motto's is doing their reason harm. It only takes one step of reason to see the motto "do no harm" is flawed, so a gross denial and suppression of reason is required for it to be maintained aloft. Motto's by no means harm the mind of the enlightened.

Clyde: As I wrote, I am satisfied if our effort does even a little good.

So if it also does bad, perhaps more bad than good, you don't care?

Your approach leaves you liable to being dismissed as having another aim from that which you profess. If your aim is to do good and you don't undertake to achieve it in the best possible way, then you must have another, more valued operative. Or could we say a fixation.

Clyde: As for those who engage in “wise harm” (a term that David used and which I understand as the harm that results from actions done with wisdom and compassion), they are practicing “do no harm”.

You're trying to stretch the term "do no harm" too far, it just doesn't work. If it is not analysed, it will do no good, because there will be no integration. And if it is analysed, it will be seen as lacking depth and a path that genuinely leads towards good.

Clyde: The people I meet and speak to about “do no harm” understand it as a guiding principle; they take it personally, but they do not take it literally. But then, they are ordinary people, not enlightened geniuses.

Most people think that steering people around the truth, and fortifying their attachments, is the way to avoid harming them. But this does in actual fact harm them. Doing no harm to ignorance is very harmful.


.

.

clyde wrote:Rhett: The kind of people that are actually doing the obvious forms of physical harm are typically the kind of people that are dullened to your message, or can see it's inapplicability to their circumstance. Therefore it will, by most reasonable accounts, do no good. It would just waste valuable mental energy.

Clyde: You raise a valid point regarding those who are actually and habitually doing physical harm to others. Our efforts may not change their behavior, but can you say with certainty that it may not? So you may not want to waste your “valuable mental energy” (What are you saving it for?), but perhaps others are willing to expend some energy, physical and mental, in the hope, vain though it may be, that the effort will be beneficial.

Rhet: If you attack the tips they'll just regrow in another form. The tree is hell bent on it's survival.

Clyde: What is “the tree” that you seem “hell bent” to chop down, bulldoze, and attack?

The tree in my example symbolises ignorance. I purposefully undertake to eradicate ignorance, by ripping out the roots. Clipping the tips or tweezing out fibres is a waste of valuable time.

.

.

clyde wrote:Clyde: “Do no harm” is a guiding principle and we do not offer specific “do’s and don’ts”.

Rhett: It very much has the form of a specific don't. How about a guiding principle like "Become Wisdom". Tell me why you won't swap to this fellows.

Clyde: I encourage you to promote “Become Wisdom”. We have not suggested that “do no harm” was the only way, but only a way among other noble paths. I prefer “do no harm” because, as I have written (reflections: http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ): What attracts me to “do no harm” (in addition to my preference for the simple) is that it requires mindfulness and intention, that it has an obvious, unavoidable, and practical aspect that guides one’s actions which makes the world more pleasant, and that when it is rigorously examined offers profound insight into the nature of the world and self.

My suggestion "Become Wisdom" would surely be acceptable to you as being simple and stimulating of mindfulness. Another would be "all things are finite and caused". However, a simple tag will never do much by itself, and understanding need go beyond most of them. Holding onto them too much can end up harming the mind, it can develop a kind of paralysis.

Could you possibly explain to me how you think your motto "offers profound insight into the nature of the world and self" ? I see no profound insights in your motto or associated information.


.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

clyde wrote:Rhett: The kind of people that resonate with the message are typically either (a) those too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives, that would drop it the moment their attachments come under threat, meaning it will do little or no good, or (b) the kind that could be engaging in wise harm, in which case it is doing their mind harm.

Clyde: If for those whom you deem “too shallow and duplicitous to integrate it into their lives” the effort does even a little good, that is good enough and worth the effort. And for those enlightened geniuses, I do not believe that promoting “do no harm” causes “their mind harm”. Are you suggesting that the minds of enlightened geniuses are so fragile that hearing or thinking “do no harm” causes them to suffer?

Rhett: In regards to the shallow and duplicitous, motto's are regarded as with fashion, they come in and out, while their core psychology stays the same. If you want to chop a tree down, do you get a pair of tweezers and pluck out the fibres you can each day, only to see the tree keeps growing, and you're not sure if anything has been achieved? Or do you get a bulldozer?

As for those that could be engaging in wise harm, they needn't be already enlightened. Anyone that can reason can engage in wise harm (after all, the enlightened came from unenlightenment). And for them to instead be engaging in motto's is doing their reason harm. It only takes one step of reason to see the motto "do no harm" is flawed, so a gross denial and suppression of reason is required for it to be maintained aloft. Motto's by no means harm the mind of the enlightened.

Clyde: As I wrote, I am satisfied if our effort does even a little good.

So if it also does bad, perhaps more bad than good, you don't care?

Your approach leaves you liable to being dismissed as having another aim from that which you profess. If your aim is to do good and you don't undertake to achieve it in the best possible way, then you must have another, more valued operative. Or could we say a fixation.

Rhett;

Of course I care about the consequences of my actions; that is the point of “do no harm”. I do believe that promoting “do no harm” does more good than bad (to use your terms); otherwise I would not promote it.

Regarding our aim, we clearly state our goal is to be a condition for a more hospitable world.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:

Clyde: As for those who engage in “wise harm” (a term that David used and which I understand as the harm that results from actions done with wisdom and compassion), they are practicing “do no harm”.

You're trying to stretch the term "do no harm" too far, it just doesn't work. If it is not analysed, it will do no good, because there will be no integration. And if it is analysed, it will be seen as lacking depth and a path that genuinely leads towards good.

I can understand that you think I’ve stretched “the term "do no harm" too far”. I suggest you read the “Do No Harm” web-site and particularly “reflections” ( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ), which are my contemplations on the phrase. When I analyze “do no harm” I reflect on the meaning and nature of suffering and harm, causation and conditions, interdependence and impermanence, and self and others. It is from that basis, not a literal interpretation, that I understand “do no harm”.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:

Clyde: The people I meet and speak to about “do no harm” understand it as a guiding principle; they take it personally, but they do not take it literally. But then, they are ordinary people, not enlightened geniuses.

Most people think that steering people around the truth, and fortifying their attachments, is the way to avoid harming them. But this does in actual fact harm them. Doing no harm to ignorance is very harmful.


.

I don’t know what most people think. Perhaps that is what you think. But you can’t cause harm or no harm to ignorance; ignorance can’t suffer – people do. If people are suffering due to ignorance, than one should dispel their ignorance – that is “do no harm” in practice.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

The tree in my example symbolises ignorance. I purposefully undertake to eradicate ignorance, by ripping out the roots. Clipping the tips or tweezing out fibres is a waste of valuable time.

.

Rhett;

What method(s) do you use to eradicate your ignorance? Have you succeeded in totally eradicating your ignorance?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Rhett Hamilton wrote:Could you possibly explain to me how you think your motto "offers profound insight into the nature of the world and self" ? I see no profound insights in your motto or associated information.

Rhett;

I agree that no simple slogan can possibly, in and of itself, answer all questions. So your question, as I understand it, is how does “do no harm” lead one to insights into the nature of reality?

Here is an overview how it works for me and may work for others who are so inclined: I begin by contemplating harm and asking what is harm. I understand harm as the suffering I cause. This leads me to ask what is suffering. Broadly, suffering is any sense or notion of discomfort or discontent. It also leads me to ask what are the causes and conditions necessary for suffering to arise. So I examine the nature of causes and conditions in order to understand how suffering arises and how I cause or create conditions for suffering to arise. As I examine the causes and conditions of suffering and harm, I see that harm arises due to attachments which arise due to ignorance. (Yes, here is ignorance, but it arises in context, not as some abstract state.) As I reflect on causes and conditions, I see that all things are inter-related, dependent on one another. I see that all things are impermanent, arising with conditions and passing away. As I realize this, my attachment to things (and concepts, even slogans) is released or at least relaxed. I also see that I am dependent on conditions and that I am impermanent. This also relaxes the hold of things. And I see that others have the same nature. In fact, we share this very nature with the universe. Now I understand that the harm I cause is my suffering, so I am motivated to lessen the suffering in the world by minimizing the harm I cause.

This is not new. I believe others here have similar views, perhaps expressed differently or with a different emphasis.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

clyde wrote:... do all living things have imagination, including one-celled animals and plants, all of whom exhibit perception as they respond to stimuli?

Only to the degree they have a certain amount or complexity of stimuli and memory to retain traces of them, creating the mirror-like effect needed to have an image arising (perception). But animals like dogs or apes certainly have imagination and actually live through it without much of reason involved.

clyde wrote:My point is that many conditions are necessary for plants or reason to arise.

But the number of these conditions do not appear to be random or unlimited. So like a farmer has only a few options to make sure his plants do not die on him, a wise man already knows the viable options to nurture reason. Because wisdom is before everything else self-knowledge. How could it remain a secret how his own reason works while still claiming to have self-knowledge?

clyde wrote:Regardless, I’m confused by what you wrote. You stated, “An image can never have some "objective reality"”. If as you wrote “[t]he only reality you can be certain of is the fact images do arise”, then “the fact images do arise” is “objective reality”. If it is, then an image can have some “objective reality”. If it is not, then what “reality” is it?

The truth that images do arise is not just another image. And even when such truth is expressed, imagined as it were, it becomes a new kind of image: a self-referential one. So it expresses consciousness and the unchanging reality which can be called the absolute.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:... do all living things have imagination, including one-celled animals and plants, all of whom exhibit perception as they respond to stimuli?

Only to the degree they have a certain amount or complexity of stimuli and memory to retain traces of them, creating the mirror-like effect needed to have an image arising (perception). But animals like dogs or apes certainly have imagination and actually live through it without much of reason involved.

Diebert;

You seem certain of how some animals experience the world and live. I’m not.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:My point is that many conditions are necessary for plants or reason to arise.

But the number of these conditions do not appear to be random or unlimited. So like a farmer has only a few options to make sure his plants do not die on him, a wise man already knows the viable options to nurture reason. Because wisdom is before everything else self-knowledge. How could it remain a secret how his own reason works while still claiming to have self-knowledge?

There was no implication of “random or unlimited” in my point above. But the farmer’s knowledge of conditions that benefit his plants is not self-knowledge, so I’m not certain how your point about a wise man applies. Nevertheless, if the wise nurture reason and reason makes one wise, this seems like circular logic to me.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:Regardless, I’m confused by what you wrote. You stated, “An image can never have some "objective reality"”. If as you wrote “[t]he only reality you can be certain of is the fact images do arise”, then “the fact images do arise” is “objective reality”. If it is, then an image can have some “objective reality”. If it is not, then what “reality” is it?

The truth that images do arise is not just another image. And even when such truth is expressed, imagined as it were, it becomes a new kind of image: a self-referential one. So it expresses consciousness and the unchanging reality which can be called the absolute.

Are you stating that a self-referential image is truth? that a self-referential image expresses consciousness? that a self-referential image expresses “the unchanging reality which can be called the absolute”? In what way(s) does a self-referential image express consciousness and the absolute?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

clyde wrote: There was no implication of “random or unlimited” in my point above. But the farmer’s knowledge of conditions that benefit his plants is not self-knowledge, so I’m not certain how your point about a wise man applies. Nevertheless, if the wise nurture reason and reason makes one wise, this seems like circular logic to me.

The start of this specific exchange was your phrase: "I do not know what set of causes and conditions are required for reason to arise" and when a paralel was drawn by me to the growth of a plant you said "it seems like magic to me!".

If a farmer wouldn't know what set of causes or conditions were required for his plants, he wouldn't be a real farmer. In a similar way I state that the wise man who doesn't know any set of causes and conditions for reason to arise wouldn't be much of a wise man. Because it would imply that this 'wise' man does not know what makes him wise or how to spread wisdom really. If anything could make it happen, why bother at all? No skill or focus needed.

clyde wrote:Are you stating that a self-referential image is truth? that a self-referential image expresses consciousness? that a self-referential image expresses “the unchanging reality which can be called the absolute”?

To the degree any image sheds light on its own nature, to that degree it expresses truth.

In what way(s) does a self-referential image express consciousness and the absolute?

Consciousness refers to itself, as well. If it wouldn't do that, how could one become aware of anything else?

Diebert;

Does the wise person know suffering? If so, what does the wise person understand of the nature of suffering?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde