GENIUS FORUMS

Laird wrote:And what of the cause of a universe which engulfs time as a property of itself, meaningless outside of that universe? (by "universe" here I do not necessarily mean "everything", merely "our self-contained bubble of space-time with its associated laws of physics").

The bubble you are speaking of doesn't engulf all time, although it may have its own "local time" for practical purposes.

the world is made of "God stuff"

Certainly, that's how I've defined it.

I define God to be the answer to the ultimate paradox of reality

So you're defiining God to be something you don't know, and don't even know if it could exist?

That seems pointless to me, other than for entertainment purposes, or to give the ego a sense of hope. Is that how you're using it?

Unless you define what you mean by "love" this is meaningless to the reader also.

. . . so here I go again with more clues

You seem to be trying to give yourself clues more than anything. That is, you're trying to convince yourself, but the methods you are using aren't even slightly convincing to others.

Kevin Solway wrote:For example, when a mass-murderer is torturing and killing his victims out of hatred, is he unconsciously expressing love?

I have already explained how this can be viewed as part of the evolution of love: it is the embodiment of the realisation that the self-satisfied enforcement of pain on other people is merely harmful to one's self;

I can also view it as an orange, or as a sea-cucumber.

It doesn't matter what it can be viewed as. What matters is what it really is.

Such violence and ignorance can give rise to a lot more violence and ignorance than anything else.

and this realisation permeates all those who come into contact with it, spurring them on to the opposite and more loving path.

There's no evidence for this. Although it gives hope to the ego to believe that it's true.

The problem is that you're defiining "love" in such a way, that so far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. So when you talk about "love" you're talking about nothing.

The enlightened person is the consciousness of God. Jesus was both God and man.

I like that way of looking at things.

Since your idea of God is entirely different to mine, my meaning is entirely different to what you are understanding.

When it is said that "God is Good" it really means that God, being Infinite, is beyond good and evil.

Laird: what of the cause of a universe which engulfs time as a property of itself, meaningless outside of that universe? (by "universe" here I do not necessarily mean "everything", merely "our self-contained bubble of space-time with its associated laws of physics").

Kevin: The bubble you are speaking of doesn't engulf all time, although it may have its own "local time" for practical purposes.

[laughs out loud]: Kev, just how much frustration do you intend to impart unto me!?? For the *second* time you avoid the question, which I will *again* restate: how does causality operate outside of time?

Laird: the world is made of "God stuff"

Kevin: Certainly, that's how I've defined it.

Thank you for relieving me of my frustration in this instance.

Laird: I define God to be the answer to the ultimate paradox of reality

Kevin: So you're defiining God to be something you don't know, and don't even know if it could exist?

Yes.

Kevin Solway wrote:That seems pointless to me, other than for entertainment purposes, or to give the ego a sense of hope. Is that how you're using it?

It's not so much a sense of hope, but a sense of a sense in which we might finally find explanation.

Kevin: For example, when a mass-murderer is torturing and killing his victims out of hatred, is he unconsciously expressing love?

Laird: I have already explained how this can be viewed as part of the evolution of love: it is the embodiment of the realisation that the self-satisfied enforcement of pain on other people is merely harmful to one's self;

Kevin: I can also view it as an orange, or as a sea-cucumber.

It doesn't matter what it can be viewed as. What matters is what it really is.

Such violence and ignorance can give rise to a lot more violence and ignorance than anything else.

But the ultimate question is: does it? Do we see unlimited violence and serial killings? And the ultimate answer is: no, most of us learn the lesson from this "horrible" teaching.

Laird: and this realisation permeates all those who come into contact with it, spurring them on to the opposite and more loving path.

Kevin: There's no evidence for this. Although it gives hope to the ego to believe that it's true.

See above for evidence.

--
The trick is to realise that we are mostly unconscious of our consciousness. But that is all that it is: a trick. Consciousness remains regardless.

Laird wrote:how does causality operate outside of time?

I answered that in my last post. It happens in the way that the number three is caused by adding one to the number 2.

So you're defiining God to be something you don't know, and don't even know if it could exist?

Yes.

But you've been talking about it as though you know what it is and know that it exists. So your words above do not match with your actions.

Such violence and ignorance can give rise to a lot more violence and ignorance than anything else.

But the ultimate question is: does it? Do we see unlimited violence and serial killings? And the ultimate answer is: no, most of us learn the lesson from this "horrible" teaching.

No, people generally don't learn anything. That's why, when you look at history, you see the same patterns repeated again and again. Do you think the fundamentalists of the current day have learned from the mistakes of the fundamentalists of the past? No, they haven't learned a thing. Have the religious moderates of the current day learned anything from the mistakes of the religious moderates of past? No. They've learned nothing.

Have the general population of the current day learned anything from our environmental destruction and overpopulation of the past? No, we've learned nothing. Have the philosophers of today learned anything from the mistakes of the philosophers of the past? Again, they've learned nothing.

The reason there's not more war and violence now than there was in the past is that you can have too much of a good thing. People only enjoy a certain amount of war and violence, and beyond that it wears a bit thin.

Laird, you need to study history, and travel overseas a bit, to get a dose of reality.

K:  It’s not a matter of east vs west.  Hakuin’s exhortations are as religious and as lively as Kierkegaard’s upbuilding discourses.
 
P:  I am not familiar with any eastern religious thought, although I know enough to recognize the influence it has on various comments people make here.  I studied a small bit in my philo class and it does seem quite different in approach.  There is a man that I have spoken of before on here that I had to research a little in order to write a paper…he is Hindu and has written a paper or book that attempts to close the gaps on eastern and western thought, which I intend to read.
 
I did not mean it as criticism, by any stretch, I am just unknowledgeable about it, but enough so that if I argue with you, I find myself on unbalanced ground.  It is, yet, another perspective I intend to research more, but first Aquinas and Kierkegaard.
 
K: This reminds me of Dan’s tip, “No philosopher ever got away with merely being intelligent.  You have to be immoral first and foremost.  All the great thinkers were thoroughly sordid.”
 
P:  Until you know the worst, you cannot know the best…makes sense to me.  As far as the monastic issue, you are just more reserved than most…like David seems to be…more introspective, pensive and careful about words chosen…in a different world, in a way.  Again, not criticism….just observation…and perhaps it is the eastern influence that lends itself to the perception.
 
You guys live in Australia , and I have learned that philosophy is taught in the lower grades in school in this country, which is not usual for the States…or at least from where I live…philosophy is a required course in college.  I attended Catholic private schools, so of course, the only philosophy that would be taught would be Catholicism and was the only source of my knowledge until a few years ago.  When in college, I opted for Logic rather than any other philosophy course, and only one was required…so there you go, I’m rather new at it.
 
K:  There’s much to be said for a video version of the Reasoning show.  It wouldn’t be hard, but the files would be much bigger. 
 
P:  I haven’t had the opportunity to listen to this, but even in video, it is not the same as face to face.  However, I am better at writing than verbal expression…so whatever opinion you hold of me, this is the better part.
 
 Kelly to Laird:  You’ve made an error of identity.   If God is everything, then God cannot be something that can know, because all the things that cannot know are excluded from everything.  Everything does not have any nature, not consciousness, not unconsciousness.  These are things included in everything.
 
One can know the nature of the Absolute, but not all the countless ways it can be divided.  There is causality in time, and there is logical causality…
 
P:  If one can know the nature of the Absolute, then by your definition, the Absolute is not everything. Is this true for you? I realize this is another thread topic, but I am curious.  I may have been misunderstanding you for quite a long time, which may account for my confusion in discussions we’ve had in the past. I will revisit the old threads, reread, and think about them for awhile and get back later on one day because I don't think we ever finished the discussion anyhow...

Kevin:  You are dreaming.  I once stayed at a nunnery, and explained to one of the nuns that the personal God they were praying to didn’t really exist.  The nun had never thought about this before, and said, “So…if God doesn’t exist…then who are we praying to?”  Oh so masculine!
 
P:  First of all, the beginning of that sentence set theology aside. 
 
Second, I do not know what order you stayed with, but regardless of her answer, it does not denigrate the things they have accomplished.  The nuns of today are not the same as the nuns when I grew up, and I think some of that changed with the feminist movement.  If you had admonished a nun back when I remember them, prior to 1975 or so, they would have scolded you for being so insolent. 
 
Third, I personally was around two different orders until age 17.  I will be more than happy to research and bring to light some of the things they have done, if you wish.  Perhaps, I do not understand the masculine and feminine as we discussed it…I had no problems until you applied them to gender.  
 
Finally, I do not wish to get into a war with you…you are entitled to your opinion on this issue, I just do not agree with it.  Almost everything you say is agreeable once you discuss how you come about it, but your attitude of women is not understandable by me.  Reason being is that your opinion more than likely concerns the women with whom you have been surrounded in life, and because I know nothing of you in this regard or them for that matter, it is futile discussing women any longer…we have reached an impasse.  Agree to disagree…fair enough?
 
You have placed your life and thought out for public consumption, for that you are brave.  Frankly, I applaud your independence of women.  Kierkegaard made the same choice by calling off his engagement to Regina Schlegel, and it seems he made the better choice, albeit difficult. This same theme runs in the story of Martha and Mary...Mary choosing the better option.  It was also written in Encounters that Peter, his brother, while engaged had some reservations as well.
 
Paul writes in Corinthians that it is better for a man not to marry, but if one has inclinations towards women, that one should marry rather than sin, and more often than not, devote himself to a life of prayer.  To some are given one gift, and to others another.  For instance, you have been given a gift of understanding human nature to the point of wisdom, the truth in what you write lends me to know that you understand the fine line…for it is biting and palatable at the same time.
 
You write that one does not know God if one lies, cheats and lives in delusion but are any of us immune?  Even if not by action, surely by thought.  To me, this also includes lying by means in order to achieve a righteous or good end…which is equally as wrong.  Of course, there are numerous arguments to be had over this statement, but it is still rationalizing falsity. 
 
The bottom-line is this: If you cannot know mercy, how can you know justice?  If you cannot give mercy, how can you exact justice?  It is up to each one of us as individuals to suffer the consequences, whatever they may be, for our failures in judgment and right thinking by repentance through the ideal of mercy such that we can continue to live as willed by God towards the good.  Such an ideal was held by Jesus Christ, but not at the expense of righteousness…he exacted a judgment on them as he forgave them…go and sin no more – meaning, yes, you have sinned, yes, I know you have sinned, yes, it is wrong, but I do not condemn you, you have your freedom, do no more wrong.

So, how do we know that they went home and did no more wrong? Chances are they did, but were they more aware of their transgression because of the mercy shown them? It depends, doesn’t it? Some never learn, but in Laird’s case, he might. You are correct that the world is a nasty place and has been so for eons, nothing is new under the sun, but some may learn...they have to, and you must believe it so, or you wouldn’t be here.

Laird:

Leyla: So, what is the difference between such a truth [the certainty of one's own existence and experience] and things about which you are uncertain? That is, what proof is it that an individual accepts in gaining such a certainty that others do not, hence making it impossible to prove such a thing to them?

Laird (numerics inserted for cross-referencing): 1) I have trouble expressing this in words, but I will try. The personal proof is simply the undeniability of one's personal conscious perspective on the world. 2) It is one thing for me to take in sensory data, to perceive that Leyla appears to have abilities similar to my own and to (imperfectly) surmise that she is therefore likely to be a conscious being with her own perspective on the world, much like my own. 3) It is quite another, I imagine, to actually be in that "Leyla-perspective", which is beyond all surmising and rather is perfectly and incontrovertibly real.

1) OK.
2) So, your existence and experience--your personal, conscious perspective on the world--depends strictly on sensory data and not reason and, therefore, you can only guess (albeit within a good degree of accuracy) that other people have abilities and consciousness similar to your own.
3) Therefore, you would need to experience the sensory date of others before you could be absolutely certain that they exist in the same manner, with abilities and consciousness, as you.

You have a lot vested in sensory data. And I would agree that it is a useless way to go about proving anything to others. It is the stuff of which war and peace are made.

The thing with absolute truth and pure logic is that it removes postmodern dilemma of having to “be in that "Leyla-perspective’” from the equation, which is how it derives its certainty. Once you understand this, you don’t need “love” or “God” since you have no anxiety; you have reason.

And yet when I express my uncertainties with strength and confidence, I am criticised (by Kevin) for not revealing weakness in probability estimates.

[laughs]

So what exactly do you guys want from me?

Perhaps you could try balancing the conversation. I think you have been quite prepared to express the certain elements of your uncertainties without giving as much (if any) attention to the uncertain elements of it. I would have to review your posts before I could claim to be 100% certain of that. However, since I--as a result of engaging with you so far--have come to conclude that you are uncertain of most everything you say, I would say I am 99.99999% certain that this is the case.

How would it be possible to disprove this without being me (that “Leyla-perspective”)?

Laird: how does causality operate outside of time?

Kevin: I answered that in my last post. It happens in the way that the number three is caused by adding one to the number 2.

OK, perhaps my frustration was partially self-inflicted - I just didn't see the answer that I was looking for. ;-)

The answer that I would give is that outside of time the concept of causality becomes more like the concept of interdependence. But when I analyse this I realise that I'm equating "outside of time" to "within a single moment": I'm looking at a snapshot of the universe and using your idea that where there is a boundary there are two mutually dependent sides to that boundary. I really don't know how well this analogy holds - it could be that timelessness is something altogether different.

Kevin: So you're defiining God to be something you don't know, and don't even know if it could exist?

Laird: Yes.

Kevin: But you've been talking about it as though you know what it is and know that it exists. So your words above do not match with your actions.

I have a choice - I can go around whimpering "I'm not sure, I'm not sure" such that nobody will be particularly interested in anything that I have to say, or I can - despite my uncertainty - venture boldness and confidence in the beliefs that I find most plausible and useful, and make a real contribution to the conversation. Now that you know my position, is there really any need for me to preface each statement that I make with: "I'm not totally sure, but perhaps..."? Just know that it's perpetually implied.

Kevin: Such violence and ignorance can give rise to a lot more violence and ignorance than anything else.

Laird: But the ultimate question is: does it? Do we see unlimited violence and serial killings? And the ultimate answer is: no, most of us learn the lesson from this "horrible" teaching.

Kevin: No, people generally don't learn anything.

In the modern, civilised world, do we still practice slavery? Do we still lock up the mentally deranged in straightjackets?

The problem is not that people don't learn anything, but that we learn imperfectly. The lessons need to be constantly repeated. That is why:

Kevin Solway wrote:when you look at history, you see the same patterns repeated again and again.

It's not that we're failing to learn - now more than at any time if you are ill, there is a good chance that modern medicine can help you; now more than at any time if you wish to travel to another country, the opportunity is available - it's that unless we are careful we forget the lessons that we have already learnt. That's why your mission to preserve wisdom is noble. That's why schools and universities and good parents are noble.

Leyla, your annotations were quite accurate. I have just one comment:

Leyla Shen wrote:3) Therefore, you would need to experience the sensory date of others before you could be absolutely certain that they exist in the same manner, with abilities and consciousness, as you.

It's not so much sensory data as being-in-the-perspective-ness. By this I mean that I could be in the most perfect sensory deprivation tank that there is, have all thought stilled through some mind-numbing drug, and yet still *know* that I exist through the pure awareness of being in / coming from my perspective (just as I imagine would you through your Leyla-perspective).

Leyla Shen wrote:You have a lot vested in sensory data. [...] The thing with absolute truth and pure logic is that it removes postmodern dilemma of having to “be in that "Leyla-perspective’” from the equation, which is how it derives its certainty. Once you understand this [...] you have reason.

I infer that you know the path by which reason divorced from the senses can lead to absolute certainty (which is the - to me as-yet unsubstantiated - very basis of this forum). Show me this path and I will hail you my saviour; fail to enlighten me and you will reveal yourself as the temptress.

Leyla Shen wrote:Perhaps you could try balancing the conversation. I think you have been quite prepared to express the certain elements of your uncertainties without giving as much (if any) attention to the uncertain elements of it.

That Kevin has been drilling me about my uncertainty is evidence enough to me that I have put it out there. What do you mean by "balancing the conversation"? Do you mean to frankly and unequivocally state that almost everything that I say is provisional and uncertain? If so, then consider it said and let's move on.

Leyla Shen wrote:How would it be possible to disprove this without being me (that “Leyla-perspective”)?

I'm not sure what you are suggesting that we might want to disprove. If you mean your 99.99999% certainty estimate then we might use as evidence other statements that you have made to try to guess at your overall position. The thing is though that people - even the most devoted to reason - contain contradictions. We can never be 100% sure that all of the statements that you make are not somewhere in your mind contradicted by a contrary belief.

So how would it be possible?: it, as best I know, would not.

--
There is no reasoning. There is only association. Reasoning is associative.

Laird wrote:

So you're defiining God to be something you don't know, and don't even know if it could exist?

Yes

But you've been talking about it as though you know what it is and know that it exists. So your words above do not match with your actions.

I have a choice - I can go around whimpering "I'm not sure, I'm not sure" such that nobody will be particularly interested in anything that I have to say

And rightly so! - especially if you are saying things with confidence, but then saying that you aren't at all sure about what you are saying.

or I can - despite my uncertainty - venture boldness and confidence in the beliefs that I find most plausible and useful, and make a real contribution to the conversation.

There's another alternative, which is the honest approach. Instead of making bold statements about things of which you do not know, you can simply ask intelligent questions and see whether you can draw any useful conclusions from the answers.

Now that you know my position, is there really any need for me to preface each statement that I make with: "I'm not totally sure, but perhaps..."? Just know that it's perpetually implied.

You'd be better off framing your questions in the mode of "What if . . . ", as that way it would be less misleading.

In the modern, civilised world

That's a laugh.

do we still practice slavery? Do we still lock up the mentally deranged in straightjackets?

We do things equally bad.

What you are calling "civilization" is only a thin veneer.

The problem is not that people don't learn anything, but that we learn imperfectly.

As I say, I haven't seen evidence of that. What appears on the surface to be an advancement in civilization, is an illusion. At heart, people are the same animals they have always been. And in many respects, intellectually and spiritually, we are going backwards in great leaps and bounds.

Laird: I have a choice - I can go around whimpering "I'm not sure, I'm not sure" such that nobody will be particularly interested in anything that I have to say

Kevin: And rightly so! - especially if you are saying things with confidence, but then saying that you aren't at all sure about what you are saying.

The thing is Kev that as much as you critique my position, I have seen no evidence that I am any different to anyone else. I am not convinced that you have any greater hold on certitude than I, just that you proclaim it more loudly. Why should I be denied the right to confident expression that you covet for yourself merely because I recognise a common state of uncertainty that you wish to disaffirm?

Laird: or I can - despite my uncertainty - venture boldness and confidence in the beliefs that I find most plausible and useful, and make a real contribution to the conversation.

Kevin: There's another alternative, which is the honest approach. Instead of making bold statements about things of which you do not know, you can simply ask intelligent questions and see whether you can draw any useful conclusions from the answers.

I agree: that's a useful alternative and I do use it at times. Here's how making bold statements is not necessarily much different: when I state a strong position, I cause you to evaluate how strongly you identify with or revile it. In this way you undergo a sort of self-questioning that mirrors the explicit questioning that you suggest that I adopt. If you feel sufficiently differently to me, then it's possible that you will anyway express your contrary position (and on a forum like this where questions are directed generally, perhaps with not such a different probability than if I were to phrase it as a question). So these two forms are not so different after all.

The big difference is this: in explicit questioning I take a deferential position and in bold expression I take an assertive position. Because I view us as basically equally uncertain (although there will naturally be areas where we can teach each other things), there is a limit to the amount of deferential behaviour that I am willing to subject myself to. To put it in strong terms: I am not your disciple, nor am I anyone's disciple. I am nevertheless a disciple (in another respect, I am everyone's disciple).

I get the impression that you would be more gratified were I to adopt a more deferential position. Are you that lusty for new disciples?

Kevin Solway wrote:What you are calling "civilization" is only a thin veneer.

Perhaps so, yet it seems in many respects to be the best that we've ever had.

Kevin Solway wrote:And in many respects, intellectually and spiritually, we are going backwards in great leaps and bounds.

There seems today to be a huge human interest in spiritual matters - witness the size of the self-help, new age and spiritual sections of the average bookshop. Intellectually we are more diverse than ever - there is a practically unlimited expanse of areas from which a person can choose a specialisation, or to flit over trying to generalise knowledge from the many specialties.

Laird wrote:I have seen no evidence that I am any different to anyone else.

That's not true. Not everyone here believes they are as uncertain as you are about everything.

For example, I myself am 100% certain that I know what God is - since I have defined what the word refers to - and what God's properties are. So that is fundamentally different to your position, which is not knowing what the properties of God are, nor whether such a thing can exist.

I am not convinced that you have any greater hold on certitude than I, just that you proclaim it more loudly.

I really am certain. I don't just proclaim it.

Why should I be denied the right to confident expression that you covet for yourself merely because I recognise a common state of uncertainty that you wish to disaffirm?

Regarding uncertainty, you can really only speak for yourself. You yourself are uncertain. But then how certain are you of that? 60% certain?

Whether other people are correct in their certainty is another matter. Yet some people have certainty, and you don't. So that is a significant difference.

when I state a strong position, I cause you to evaluate how strongly you identify with or revile it. In this way you undergo a sort of self-questioning that mirrors the explicit questioning that you suggest that I adopt.

No, it doesn't really. It just makes me think that you're contradicting yourself. It makes me think that you're speaking with a false authority about things that you have no knowledge of.

The big difference is this: in explicit questioning I take a deferential position and in bold expression I take an assertive position.

The problem is, you can't take an assertive position without being contradictory. It is extremely foolish to be assertive about things you do not know, and it wastes other people's time. It is also arrogant for you to think that from your position of uncertainty (darkness) you can guide people to the light.

Because I view us as basically equally uncertain

Since there are countless things I am absolutely certain of (eg, "God"), and there is virtually nothing you are certain of, I don't see how we can be equally certain.

I am not your disciple, nor am I anyone's disciple.

You don't have to be someone's disciple to simply speak honestly and make others fully aware of your uncertainty about everything you say.

I get the impression that you would be more gratified were I to adopt a more deferential position. Are you that lusty for new disciples?

I just like to see people play a straight bat, and have a consistent position.

As I say, if you are uncertain of everything, then it would help to know just how uncertain you are. For example, how uncertain are you that everyone is equally uncertain? Are you 10% uncertain? 40% uncertain?

Kevin Solway wrote:What you are calling "civilization" is only a thin veneer.

Perhaps so, yet it seems in many respects to be the best that we've ever had.

For some people it is. For many, it is not.

Kevin Solway wrote:And in many respects, intellectually and spiritually, we are going backwards in great leaps and bounds.

There seems today to be a huge human interest in spiritual matters - witness the size of the self-help, new age and spiritual sections of the average bookshop.

That's what I mean about "going backwards". I don't consider any of that to be remotely spiritual. It is just tripe.

Intellectually we are more diverse than ever - there is a practically unlimited expanse of areas from which a person can choose a specialisation, or to flit over trying to generalise knowledge from the many specialties.

A few people have this luxury.

Laird:

It's not so much sensory data as being-in-the-perspective-ness. By this I mean that I could be in the most perfect sensory deprivation tank that there is, have all thought stilled through some mind-numbing drug, and yet still *know* that I exist through the pure awareness of being in / coming from my perspective (just as I imagine would you through your Leyla-perspective).

But surely the in-perspectiveness of being in the most perfect sensory deprivaton tank with all thought stilled through some mind-numbing drug is purely that perspectiveness. What could be “Leyla” or “Laird” about it? Can you try and explain what you mean by *know*, especially if you have had all thought stilled? Is there no connection between knowledge, things, identification, differentiation and thinking?

I infer that you know the path by which reason divorced from the senses can lead to absolute certainty (which is the - to me as-yet unsubstantiated - very basis of this forum).

Nightmare. One cannot divorce reason from anything, since that is the road to uncertainty.

That Kevin has been drilling me about my uncertainty is evidence enough to me that I have put it out there. What do you mean by "balancing the conversation"? Do you mean to frankly and unequivocally state that almost everything that I say is provisional and uncertain? If so, then consider it said and let's move on.

No. I mean proactively discuss (not simply state) the aspects of your certainties that are uncertain more than the other way around.

Where and why does your notion of God fail, for example.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting that we might want to disprove. If you mean your 99.99999% certainty estimate then we might use as evidence other statements that you have made to try to guess at your overall position. The thing is though that people - even the most devoted to reason - contain contradictions. We can never be 100% sure that all of the statements that you make are not somewhere in your mind contradicted by a contrary belief.

The ghost in the machine, eh? Like notions of the soul or the unconscious…

At least you have voiced an absolute certainty here (bolded). How does this sit with your idea that the claim of absolute certainty is unsubstantiated? If you apply it to what you have just said, then you might just as well not have bothered to make such a statement as the bolded one because it means that in all your glorious uncertainty, you are absolutely certain that everyone and everything is absolutely uncertain. Really, I just can’t take such a thing seriously.

passthrough wrote:Kelly: It’s not a matter of east vs west. Hakuin’s exhortations are as religious and as lively as Kierkegaard’s upbuilding discourses.

Passthrough: I am not familiar with any eastern religious thought, although I know enough to recognize the influence it has on various comments people make here.

David Quinn has compiled an excellent range on his website. It is well worth checking it out, also because it looks good.

As far as the monastic issue, you are just more reserved than most…like David seems to be…more introspective, pensive and careful about words chosen…in a different world, in a way. Again, not criticism….just observation…and perhaps it is the eastern influence that lends itself to the perception.

There are many factors. Growing up in a family where one was verbally and physically abused for "talking back" is one. Liking my thoughts clear and simple before I express them is another.

You guys live in Australia , and I have learned that philosophy is taught in the lower grades in school in this country,

False. I very much doubt philosophy is taught in any mainstream school - except perhaps this "school".

I'd say children might be learning a subject called philosophy, which teaches the history of human inventions, technology, scientific discoveries, politics/geography, social customs, and a bit of religion thrown in. Pretty much the same as mainstream philosophy - ie. not.

Genius and philosophy are not Australian. They are not racial things, in the usual use of the word "race".

Kelly: One can know the nature of the Absolute, but not all the countless ways it can be divided. There is causality in time, and there is logical causality…

I did not write the last sentence. I believe that is Kevin's.

passthrough: If one can know the nature of the Absolute, then by your definition, the Absolute is not everything. Is this true for you?

No. The knowledge or consciousness of the nature of the Absolute is not the same as the Absolute.

I realize this is another thread topic, but I am curious. I may have been misunderstanding you for quite a long time, which may account for my confusion in discussions we’ve had in the past. I will revisit the old threads, reread, and think about them for awhile and get back later on one day because I don't think we ever finished the discussion anyhow...

This is true. I am not always capable of completing a discussion at a particular time. Our discussion ended because I had to deal with conflicts with Truth in myself first, before expressing anything further to others. This is usually why I stop communicating on the forum.

I have not forgotten our discussion about God, and the meanings of Jesus's output (if my memory serves me right). I am not going to follow it up presently, but it will probably arise again later.


-

 
 



L:  You seem to want to come to a conclusion, so I’ll try to not raise too many more perplexities…
 
P:  As long as you have perplexities with what I am saying, by all means continue on…what I meant by a logical conclusion is that…where we either agree OR agree to disagree.  I just need to some time to rest my brain from debate, so I’m focusing on bringing this to a conclusion, and then reading for awhile.
 
L:  How does causality operate outside of time?
 
P: I shall defer to our more knowledgeable physics/philosopher for a better answer.  We touched on this subject a little in our textbook reading…it was on-line, so any type of lecture was between the professor and myself via e-mails, which is not conducive to covering all territories of philosophy.  What I did pick up from the textbook was that some see time as illusory.  In some ways, if you look at it from outside looking in, time, as we see it, is irrelevant when comparing it to the notion of infinity.  Time on the inside is relevant to us for the purpose of creating order out of events…but is time something that really matters to the Creator?
 
L:  And so then must the world be made of “God stuff.”  The world too must then be spiritual. And yet choosing the world – being equally made of “God stuff” – must be the same as choosing God’s goodness.
 
P: No.  This goes to another argument later in the post which may tie this all together, however, I will answer here first>>>>>
 
There is the physical (body) that is finite, and the spiritual (soul) that is infinite.  The “God stuff” is this spiritual for the physical passes away.  If you choose the physical over the spiritual, you will pass away.  Matt Gregory had a really good explanation regarding questions I posed on Kant and his noumenal/phenomenal world regarding a painting in a museum that may be somewhat relevant.  You might like to read it.
 
L:  This comes back to the question that I asked before – what are the effects of your decisions?  And your answer seems to be: God counters bad decisions.
 
P:  Well, it sounds kind of strange put this way, but why don’t we attach a word to it…I am given awareness of what I have done OR not done.  Strictly ethical but non-theistic people could state that it is just my own personal conscience, but I believe it to be God.
 
L:  It seems that we could also say that any and every choice is God, because God being first cause, all things are made of “God stuff.”  Free will might be an illusion from a personal perspective but from God’s perspective it might be real.  I’m equally open to the possibility that personal free will is the most intrinsic component of reality.
 
P:  God doesn’t have a perspective, he just IS.  Let’s visit the story of Adam and Eve (NOTE: I am not a Bible literalist, I am merely using the story because it has some relevant elements to this discussion)  Adam and Eve are in this fabulous place where all their needs are met and they are fully conscious of God.  But Eve is tempted by the world.  In this light, we are given all of our needs, but being given this gift of reason, the ability to know good from evil, unlike animals and other living or unliving items in nature, she wanted to make herself god…she chose the physical over the spiritual.  REASON is what God created within us…it is not his perspective but a gift that raises us above all other things.  Reason is our catalyst to choose.  If we choose how Eve chose, we are choosing to deify that which is finite.  If we choose the spiritual, we deify that which is infinite.  What is finite is transient and passes away with time, so it is illusory, thus making the choice illusory.  All things are inherently good, it is what we do with them that makes them not good…and those not good things are illusory, finite and lead to death.  That one was tough…I hope I made sense.
 
L:  I know that we’re supposed to be concluding things but I’m curious to know what properties you ascribe to the soul – memory? Emotion? Capacity for thought?
 
P:  We do not have to conclude anything, so please do not concern yourself there…some conversations and discussions have a natural end, we will go to that end.
 
The properties of the soul – reason and God’s connection to us as beings.  The physical body is a machine, the soul is life…essence.  Not emotion.  Memory…that may be a part body part soul type of thing…I’ll have to think on that one a bit because memory fades and becomes impeded by age, and yet, memory is a function of conscience – a reminder to consider when making choices. 
 
L:  If God is all things, then how can you fail to choose God?  As the saying goes: all roads lead to Rome .  So it seems that indeed the choice is illusory, unless you want to start believing in the Devil’s evil, in which case there is a genuine choice – but let’s not tread that path.
 
P:  Let’s tread that path.  There is no Devil, therefore there is no Devil’s evil.  The snake in the garden is the world, the finite world.  Eve chose the finite world….NOT GOD.  If you choose the world over God, you have NO spiritual life, therefore you become finite, you die and that is the end.  The infinite is infinite…look at it this way, if you place side by side all finite lives over time for infinity what do you see?  Pass and repass.  What remains the same?  God…the spiritual is infinite and remains the same.   It is a mix of realism and idealism, where realism may win the battle over a person, but idealism wins the war.
 
L:  Would you accept this phrasing?: God expects us to do our best but to believe that whatever level we achieve God will find a way to make it perfect anyway?
 
P:  My husband, who came out of almost 25 years of silence on this subject, engaged me in conversation based on Bill O’Reilley’s news story regarding Richard Dawkins v Kurt Cameron.  I wished I could have stayed up for the Nightline event, but it is past my bedtime and I don’t have a way to record it. I’m sure a transcript will show up on the Internet in due course.   Anyhow, not that I believe Dawkins theories nor have I studied any,  but Cameron was using philosophical ideas that I had in Intro to Philo to argue against an Oxford professor…what’s up with that?  Even I could argue against Cameron on those issues he brought up.  Anyhow, my husband said something that was interesting – that is, God does not play favorites.
 
I would hope that God has mercy as well as justice, for one cannot be without the other…but he also showed through Jesus Christ what he expects.  Did Jesus Christ throw the stone at the adulteress?  No…but what did he ask her to do?  Go and SIN NO MORE.
 
L: I am very curious to know what those experiences have been but I respect your desire to keep matters impersonal.
 
P: Thank you, but they are most likely nothing more than you have been through yourself based on what I’ve read.  Look to those to know what I am talking about.
 
L: I’m still not sure exactly what you think it means to “accept God as the absolute truth” - still don’t have any idea of the practical consequences beyond what you’ve described as God countering us in which the choice is illusory: It has no practical consequences.
 
P:  I am not sure I am getting what you are seeking.  I wish I could define this, but I think that another member, whose name escapes me and who hasn’t been on in awhile, called it the dark abyss.  Imagine a force that exists that can control all of matter setting into motion the world as we know it and without it the world would be nothing at all…the cohesion of this world is the will of God…how can you define something like that?  It’s like matter (and BTW I am no physicist) in its various stages, the denser the matter the more strong the attraction of electrons.  So what if God is the force that causes this attraction?  Further, you are only here by virtue of his causing the attraction?  What if you became consumed with what he caused rather than the Causer himself?  We are nothing but dust swirled together, what gives us differentiation from all other things is that God gave us his essence…and that is what we focus on to understand.
 
It all boils down to this: God is all things, but you cannot make things God.  The infinite encompasses the finite, but the finite is not the Infinite.  You cannot choose the finite over the infinite, so like God, you must transcend this idea of the finite being all there is…it is temporary.   I suppose the practical consequences that I am speaking about are those of the Holy Spirit, in Christian terms…The essence of God working through that part of you, the soul, to gain this awareness of what he is. 
 
I wish I could make this easier but I am trying to resolve these things myself, so my logic may be completely flawed, my ideas rubbish and theories full of holes, but it is the gray….I cannot declare a theory as an absolute, but God IS.  We are told that God wants us to know, serve and love him…so, I’m working on it the best way I know how….but to say that X is what God is must be prefaced with: “in my opinion”.  In life experience, I have come to know that part of his will is for me to live rather than die.  Another thing he expects of me is to love people with the type of love he gives, which I have only just begun to realize the scope and difficulty that brings.  It is the same type of love Jesus Christ offered that adulteress…as my husband said: God does not play favorites, as Kevin said: the sun rises and falls on the good and the bad, and as Kierkegaard said: you have to choose.  And if you feel you are facing an abyss, welcome to my world.
 
L:  The One is splintered.  How else might it know itself?  …the unlimited timelessness of God simultaneously requires a limited temporal environment for meaningful self-realization.  In other words, perhaps because God needs us as much as we need God.  It’s one possibility anyway.
 
P:  I have often thought of this myself.  What is the purpose of having automatons that do as you program them to do?  The thing that gets me stuck here is attributing to God the notion of need, it’s anthropomorphic…but if Jesus Christ said to know me is to know God, we can only look to Jesus Christ to see if that fits reasonably well.  I’m not sure Jesus Christ needed anything for every need he had was fulfilled by God…it would seem it would then be our need to affiliate to him…otherwise are we a failed Divine experiment?  So we are back to the eternal question: what is the purpose of life…which is answered with to know, love and serve God…perhaps the meaning is simply that – TO LIVE IN HIM…as a manifestation of him in physical form.
 
L:  The only quibble that I have with that is the word “nothing.”  I don’t think that it’s good for anyone’s self-respect to think of themselves as “nothing,” and I think that self-respect is a requirement for respecting others, and that respecting others is a requirement for a peaceful, balanced, healthy world.
 
P:  When I say “nothing,” I mean that we are dust without the essence of God within us.  What is respected is the essence of God, the soul.  If God is all good, then by accepting him, we strive towards goodness.  Goodness in itself is what makes a peaceful, balanced and healthy world…it is not done by our own initiative…because, as we all know, we don’t always choose good. 
 
L:  My understanding of the ideas of masculinity and femininity preached by the rational infinitists comes mostly from personal discussions with Kev, who is my real-life neighbor.
 
P:  I hope you guys get along in real-life and avoid fisticuffs over religious theory.  It’s ok to be masculine, just not that masculine…no bloody noses or black eyes, goes against what it’s about.  ;-)  Based on your disdain with the theory, perhaps I do not understand it as well as I thought …although he and I discussed it at length and it did not seem as egregious as you make it out to be…that is, until he gets to the genderizing part, then he loses my support.
 
L:  You are at least making an impression on me (albeit that the impression was already formed) but alas I agree that you are unlikely to make a dent on the rational infinitists.

P:  Well, I’m not sure how to take that comment, but as for Kevin, it is not necessary for me to make a dent…he is explaining to me a different viewpoint.
 
L:  The thing is, it’s clear what the choice needs to be when you literally hear the voice of God.  And when you are bereft of such direct guidance, then which voice do you listen to?  Your conscience? Your rationality?  And if it is conscience and rationality, then both of those would tell me not to kill my son.  So God’s literal voice can conflict with the lesser guidance with which we are normally granted?  Or perhaps this is a symbolic rather than a literal story.
 
P:  Without a doubt symbolic…Laird, you are asking some mighty tough questions that I just cannot answer.  You do them all, you live…and while living, you act…depending on how aware you are of God, he counters these actions - here they use cause and effect…when you become wise, you think before you act…you learn to listen, to watch, to regard, to realize, to understand….it’s a process – and one that I surely have not perfected…

Kevin Solway wrote:For example, I myself am 100% certain that I know what God is - since I have defined what the word refers to - and what God's properties are. So that is fundamentally different to your position, which is not knowing what the properties of God are, nor whether such a thing can exist.

If you construct a personal definition of God as "everything that exists" then, sure, you can have a lot more confidence in it. I maintain though that your definition whilst reasonable doesn't go deep enough: that it leaves the taste of charred mystery in my mouth.

Once you accept mystery, then you are forced to accept uncertainty. You though seem to have an aversion to mystery - hence the burnt flavour.

Kevin Solway wrote:Whether other people are correct in their certainty is another matter.

And that is exactly my point. We can make a distinction between "the feeling of certainty" and "true certainty". The only true certainty that I know is that I exist and that I experience, and I prefer anyway to use the words "confident" or "assertive" rather than "certain" when I am talking about the *feeling* of certainty.

So...

Kevin Solway wrote:Yet some people have certainty, and you don't. So that is a significant difference.

...the difference is not so great: I too have confidence and at times a "feeling of certainty". What I maintain though is that no one has any greater claim on "true certainty" than me. And before you ask me how certain I am of this: I am of course uncertain. The very reason that I am interested in your ideas is that you claim to have found "absolute" certainty and such a balm to my uncertainty has a lot of appeal. Unfortunately, and despite paying close attention to your words, I have not as yet been able to duplicate this absolute certainty. Leyla too has intimated that she has a claim on absolute-certainty-through-reasoning, yet, on reading her latest post, she seems to have shrunk from the challenge of communicating it to me.

Kevin Solway wrote:It is extremely foolish to be assertive about things you do not know, and it wastes other people's time.

I am assertive about things that, whilst not being 100% certain of them, I am relatively confident in, or that I wish to assess by seeing how seriously other people take me when I assert them. I view this as useful and practical behaviour. The alternative is consistently wishy-washy language and lack of self-respect.

Kevin Solway wrote:It is also arrogant for you to think that from your position of uncertainty (darkness) you can guide people to the light.

Oh, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that I am only a guide - I am also guided. In our mutual uncertainty we inspire each other to brighter heights, mostly by placing confidence in the ideas that we find most beneficial.

Since there are countless things I am absolutely certain of (eg, "God"), and there is virtually nothing you are certain of, I don't see how we can be equally certain.

If I were to define God in the same way that you do then I would probably have as much certainty in the concept as you do.

I'm confident that in many ways we have equal feelings of certainty about many things (some of which we probably differ on). But as to true certainty, I have only your word that you possess it, and, despite trying, I have been unable to replicate it in myself.

Laird: I get the impression that you would be more gratified were I to adopt a more deferential position. Are you that lusty for new disciples?

Kevin: I just like to see people play a straight bat, and have a consistent position.

I'm probably a little more tolerant of inconsistency than you are although I admit that it troubles me and that I seek to avoid it where possible.

Kevin Solway wrote:As I say, if you are uncertain of everything, then it would help to know just how uncertain you are. For example, how uncertain are you that everyone is equally uncertain? Are you 10% uncertain? 40% uncertain?

I am roughly 75% certain that in terms of *true* certainty, everyone else is in the same boat that I am (albeit that there are some people who are more *confident* and *assertive* than I am). Part of the other 25% of me posits that life is one big game to teach me the lessons that everyone else learnt long ago (if this is the case, then now's the time to 'fess up and tell me what I'm missing...).

Kevin: What you are calling "civilization" is only a thin veneer.

Laird: Perhaps so, yet it seems in many respects to be the best that we've ever had.

Kevin: For some people it is. For many, it is not.

And for the majority?

Laird wrote: I maintain though that your definition whilst reasonable doesn't go deep enough

Deep enough for what? You haven't given a good explanation why you think it's not a good definition, and I think it's because you haven't clarified your thoughts on the matter.

that it leaves the taste of charred mystery in my mouth.

Well it's up to you alone to try and clarify for yourself why that is.

Once you accept mystery, then you are forced to accept uncertainty. You though seem to have an aversion to mystery - hence the burnt flavour.

I accept mystery, but I reject the particular mysteries you are proposing.

The only true certainty that I know is that I exist and that I experience

That's a start, at least.

What I maintain though is that no one has any greater claim on "true certainty" than me.

Then I think you are being extremely arrogant.

You are basically claiming that nobody has access to a form of knowledge higher than what you personally are aware of.

I have not as yet been able to duplicate this absolute certainty.

You previously said that you were absolutely certain that you exist and that you experience.

All my certainties are just like this.

Leyla too has intimated that she has a claim on absolute-certainty-through-reasoning, yet, on reading her latest post, she seems to have shrunk from the challenge of communicating it to me.

That's probably because you claim to be uncertain of everything you say, and yet rarely specify how uncertain you are.

It is extremely foolish to be assertive about things you do not know, and it wastes other people's time.

I am assertive about things that, whilst not being 100% certain of them, I am relatively confident in, or that I wish to assess by seeing how seriously other people take me when I assert them.

Then I think you should state that up-front, so that people know what they are getting involved in.

Generally speaking, people don't like being treated as lab-rats, or as the victims of a troll. They want to be treated as human beings.

I view this as useful and practical behaviour. The alternative is consistently wishy-washy language and lack of self-respect.

There's no reason you can't discuss things in a normal way, exploring different ideas and giving your reasons one way or the other.

Kevin Solway wrote:It is also arrogant for you to think that from your position of uncertainty (darkness) you can guide people to the light.

Oh, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that I am only a guide

You missed my point. It doesn't matter what else you are if you are a blind guide.

I am roughly 75% certain that in terms of *true* certainty, everyone else is in the same boat that I am

Well that's a very low percentage and basically means that you are groping in the dark. I think you should try to clarify the idea further before trying convert others to your position.

And for the majority?

For the majority it's difficult to say. The vast majority of the world are living in a condition of overcrowding, poverty, disease and war.

On the other hand, nearly the entire poplution is living in a condition of total ignorance and delusion.

Laird wrote:The only true certainty that I know is that I exist and that I experience

What else is there but existence and experience? Therefore, everything is fundamentally certain.

Laird: It's not so much sensory data as being-in-the-perspective-ness. By this I mean that I could be in the most perfect sensory deprivation tank that there is, have all thought stilled through some mind-numbing drug, and yet still *know* that I exist through the pure awareness of being in / coming from my perspective (just as I imagine would you through your Leyla-perspective).

Leyla: But surely the in-perspectiveness of being in the most perfect sensory deprivaton tank with all thought stilled through some mind-numbing drug is purely that perspectiveness. What could be “Leyla” or “Laird” about it? Can you try and explain what you mean by *know*, especially if you have had all thought stilled? Is there no connection between knowledge, things, identification, differentiation and thinking?

My take is that - as with true certainty and the feeling of certainty - we can divide consciousness up into two variations. "Intelligent consciousness" which is the ability to think that "I exist, I experience and I can affect things" and to explore the consequences of that realisation, and "pure consciousness" which is unadulterated awareness of self without any attendant thought. My goal when I meditate (which I don't do very often) is to attempt to reach the level of pure consciousness. I don't know whether it's possible but it's my goal anyway. So what I mean by "know" is to be in a state of pure consciousness. I hypothesise that there can be a state that is utterly still and disconnected from thinking but that is still a Laird-perspective or a Leyla-perspective. Perhaps the implication of this is that I believe in the concept of a soul. I think that I do.

Laird: I infer that you know the path by which reason divorced from the senses can lead to absolute certainty (which is the - to me as-yet unsubstantiated - very basis of this forum).

Leyla: Nightmare. One cannot divorce reason from anything, since that is the road to uncertainty.

So then how do you arrive at absolute certainty by balancing reason and the senses?

Leyla Shen wrote:Where and why does your notion of God fail, for example.

It fails in that it is an incomplete notion. I broadly paint God as "the answer to the paradox of existence" which is hardly an intimate description of God, is it? I entertain various ideas about how to brush in some details, but they are ultimately incomplete ideas. One of those ideas Nat and I discussed in the recent thread that Victor started titled "Human progress as Stratification of Being".

Laird: We can never be 100% sure that all of the statements that you make are not somewhere in your mind contradicted by a contrary belief.

Laird: At least you have voiced an absolute certainty here (bolded).

It might appear so, but you are forgetting that unless I'm talking about the basics, you can consider any statement that I make to be provisional.

Leyla Shen wrote:[Y]ou might just as well not have bothered to make such a statement as the bolded one because it means that in all your glorious uncertainty, you are absolutely certain that everyone and everything is absolutely uncertain. Really, I just can’t take such a thing seriously.

But I am not absolutely certain - you simply attributed that state to me. And anyway, what is the alternative - that we all have direct conduits to absolute truth, or at least that such a thing is possible?

So why might I bother to make any statement at all? Because the true glory is not in uncertainty, but in self-expression and in observing the self-expression of others: communication has inherent value.

Laird: The only true certainty that I know is that I exist and that I experience

Jason: What else is there but existence and experience?

There is also the nature and meaning of existence and experience.

Laird: I maintain though that your definition whilst reasonable doesn't go deep enough

Kevin: Deep enough for what? You haven't given a good explanation why you think it's not a good definition, and I think it's because you haven't clarified your thoughts on the matter.

I've given the best explanation that I know how over the course of our prolonged discussion towards the end of the thread "Human progress as Stratification of Being". To recap: no matter from which perspective I approach existence, I encounter a fundamental paradox of uncausedness. Your response is to completely ignore this paradox and proclaim: "it simply is". Well, OK, that's an answer of sorts, but it's not an explanation - if an explanation is even possible - from our perspective it might not be, in which case your answer is the best that we can achieve. I'd like to hold out for something more satisfying though, and to at least acknowledge the limitations of your position.

Laird: What I maintain though is that no one has any greater claim on "true certainty" than me.

Kevin: Then I think you are being extremely arrogant.

Does it help if I remind you that what I "maintain"ed is, as with any non-elementary statement that I make, uncertain? So that...

Kevin Solway wrote:You are basically claiming that nobody has access to a form of knowledge higher than what you personally are aware of.

...I am at most suggesting that I have not yet come across anyone who - if they have such knowledge - has been able to communicate it to me. I'm perfectly willing to accept that such people might exist, and even that I might have come into contact with them. I just don't have any persuasive evidence for it, which is why I am willing to "maintain" things as I did.

Kevin Solway wrote:You previously said that you were absolutely certain that you exist and that you experience.

All my certainties are just like this.

Oh, so you directly experience them?

Laird: I am assertive about things that, whilst not being 100% certain of them, I am relatively confident in, or that I wish to assess by seeing how seriously other people take me when I assert them.

Kevin: Then I think you should state that up-front, so that people know what they are getting involved in.

I don't generally see the need because I take it as given that we are all in the same situation.

Kevin Solway wrote:Generally speaking, people don't like being treated as lab-rats, or as the victims of a troll. They want to be treated as human beings.

I think that it's human to show a balanced mix of strength and vulnerability, assertion and deference. Perhaps you have found me not so balanced to start with because I wanted to introduce myself to this forum from a strong perspective so that people can get an idea of who I am before deciding whether to communicate with me.

Kevin: It is also arrogant for you to think that from your position of uncertainty (darkness) you can guide people to the light.

Laird: Oh, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that I am only a guide

Kevin: You missed my point. It doesn't matter what else you are if you are a blind guide.

Not blind, just not completely certain how to interpret my visions.

Laird: I am roughly 75% certain that in terms of *true* certainty, everyone else is in the same boat that I am

Kevin: Well that's a very low percentage and basically means that you are groping in the dark. I think you should try to clarify the idea further before trying convert others to your position.

I present to you the strongest position that I am comfortable with. Take from it that which strengthens your position, just as I will take from your position that which strengthens mine. We don't need to completely convert each other - partial conversion works fine.

Laird: And for the majority?

Kevin: For the majority it's difficult to say. The vast majority of the world are living in a condition of overcrowding, poverty, disease and war.

I was referring to the majority of the "modern, civilised" world.

Laird wrote:

Laird: The only true certainty that I know is that I exist and that I experience

Jason: What else is there but existence and experience?

There is also the nature and meaning of existence and experience.

If you didn't know what the nature and meaning of existence was, you wouldn't be able to say that you are certain that you exist, because you wouldn't know what "exist" means.

Meaning too comes out of experience.

Laird,

Laird: The only true certainty that I know is that I exist and that I experience

Jason: What else is there but existence and experience?

Laird:There is also the nature and meaning of existence and experience.

Those are also experiences.

In other words, the experience of "the nature and meaning of existence and experience."

If you don't believe me, tell me one thing that is not an experience.

Laird: The only true certainty that I know is that I exist and that I experience

Jason: What else is there but existence and experience?

Laird: There is also the nature and meaning of existence and experience.

Kevin Solway wrote:If you didn't know what the nature and meaning of existence was, you wouldn't be able to say that you are certain that you exist, because you wouldn't know what "exist" means.

There's a difference between being certain that I exist, and associating that knowledge with concepts and words and being certain that I can accurately communicate that certainty (I am very confident that I can effectively associate and communicate, but not 100% certain - more like 99.9%).

Jason wrote:Those are also experiences.

In other words, the experience of "the nature and meaning of existence and experience."

Yes they are, but are they certain experiences? There are many different experiences of the nature and meaning of existence - I am not certain that any particular one is it. If we put it in terms of right and wrong though rather than certainty then I am inclined to believe that all interpretations are right. Perhaps this is what you are getting at.

Where I relinquish hold on certitude is in the texture of experience. I am willing to claim as a certitude that I experience, less so what I experience (its texture). You might say: oh, but you experience a computer monitor in front of you right now - that is certain. OK, I'm willing to go so far as to say that I am certain that I experience a computer monitor. But I won't go so far as to say that I am certain that the computer monitor exists (I am very confident in it, but not certain - it could be a figment of my overworked imagination).

Jason wrote:If you don't believe me, tell me one thing that is not an experience.

A rock. I can experience it, but it seems highly likely to me that a rock has an independent existence even when I do not experience it.

Laird wrote:"it simply is". Well, OK, that's an answer of sorts, but it's not an explanation

It's not logically possible for there to be an explanation for the Infinite because there is nothing other than itself. This is a purely logical truth which you can either see or you can't. It can't be further explained.

to at least acknowledge the limitations of your position.

Truth is not a limitation, it's just truth.

All my certainties are just like this.

Oh, so you directly experience them?

Certainly.

I don't generally see the need because I take it as given that we are all in the same situation.

Then I think you will find that many people will not want to converse with you, because they don't see themselves as being in the same situation and it will feel to them that they are wasting their time and being disrespected.

I was referring to the majority of the "modern, civilised" world.

We all share the same world.