GENIUS FORUMS

Just one small...quip I guess it is. They say that the origin of the structure of the eye began from a photo-sensitive area in the cell that enabled it to sense either light or dark---black and white, if you will. It gave a definite evolutionary advantage. But what we know as the eye---the evolutionary outcome---is so vastly superior to a few sensitive, pigmented cells sensing black and white, that it boggles the mind. And by extension, we can build 'eyes' of all sorts that can 'see' all manner of things, and that too boggles the mind.

To my way of seeing (pardon the pun, but this post is sort of a pun...) it is not sufficient to reduce things to black and white, but to become increasingly aware of their complexity, dimension, their color. It opens up seeing to a far more vast landscape. Similarly, a mind that is not trapped into binary systems of thinking---black and white---is a more interesting mind. To see all the strange colors of the world, and the confusing array of life-forms, is different from being locked into 'black and white' vision, like a simple cell.

There are simply a whole range of hermeneutical tools available to approach religion, and a figure like Christ. Psychology, philology, history, comparative religion, art, faith, ethics, politics---who could put a limit on it?

Conceptual sophistication is like an advanced eye. With it we can 'see' more, conceive of more. Doesn't make it easier of course.

Brethren! Let us not evolve backward toward single cells with photo-sensitive pigmented spots! Let us expand out comprehension! Let us widen the scope of our seeing!

Hallelujah!

brokenhead wrote:Question to David or Kevin: What exactly do you mean when you use the word "spiritual"? Dan, I don't recall you using this term, but feel free to jump in.

Spiritual: consciously aligned with Truth.

I'm curious as to whether you think the corresponding noun to which this is an adjective has any inherent meaning, and if so, what that might be.

Words only ever have the meaning give them.

Dan Rowden wrote:

brokenhead wrote:Question to David or Kevin: What exactly do you mean when you use the word "spiritual"? Dan, I don't recall you using this term, but feel free to jump in.

Spiritual: consciously aligned with Truth.

I'm curious as to whether you think the corresponding noun to which this is an adjective has any inherent meaning, and if so, what that might be.

Words only ever have the meaning give them.

OK, Dan, thanks for replying. Your answer about the word "spiritual" is in keeping with the way I have seen it used at GF. But you are dancing around my real question. "Spiritual" is a word that you shouldn't use unless you have a concept of what a "spirit" is.

Diebert wrote:

"It was not meant in a literal sense. It's more the poet-child spirit, a romanticism which denies the real situation, the destruction of meaning or like Quinn wrote about the house burning down. Poets and drunks will always be there, expressing their age and rage. Once, Diebert was a poet too, climbing the heights and lows of his own volcanically active landscape."

Sometimes I feel that I am only too acutely aware of 'the real situation', and suffer for it. How about you?

On the other side of that---and that seems to take place as a result of exposure to ideas, to following the course of ideas---is the mysterious something that is always beckoning from beyond. It comes to me through omens, synchronicities, dreams. If I didn't have some 'maps' and diagrams given to me in dreams and other experiences of a mystical order, I'm not sure what would become of me, quite frankly. Well, I am not sure what is becoming of me anyway.

"That's already happening and it's exactly that age when the theologians, teachers and philosophers become boring, dull and predictable that the poets become bad, too."

It's funny. I live in a country well on the outskirts of 'modernity'. It is another time-frame, sometimes I see it as a quite different 'episteme'. (You know, like Gabriel Garcia Marquez and the idea of 'magical realism'). I visit certain used book stores and it is like visiting a sort of mausoleum. Well, any used book store is like that, but in this sense it is all foreign, all of it embedded in another language. It has given me a different glimpse of 'reality'. For example I had never before read a Catechism---a truly fascinating and terrible document!---but I found one the other day and have been looking through the ordered, numbered, answers to any question a man might have. But I also discovered Rabindrinath Tagore there among the carcasses of death. And Vladimir Korolenko. I found a dictionary of philosophy published by Herder whose definitions, oddly enough (it must be impregnated with some spiritual juice, some magic dust), keep a conceptual pathway open to the idea of the existence of God.

"Could you describe what you mean by 'life' and 'vitality'. Do you think people on this forum have a bad health, dull senses, depressive moods? Some might indeed have but I suspect with a lot it's quite the opposite. But I cannot know for sure."

My general sense is one of stiff agony.

Life and Vitality are in life itself. Many here seem to be defining an ascetic path, a renunciant's path. Like deep chestnut-colored begging bowl, bald heads, acrid incense---a decidedly sparse interior decoration scheme (I often feel loooooong winters here...) If one out of 2 is taking medication, are they taking it because they are too happy?

Do we step out of life, or do we step into life?

"Once understanding the problem we have created with meaninglessness in this age of communication, the problem with senselessness in the new age of personal, interconnected, emotive lives becomes obvious."

If I understand you, that is a foreboding question. It's sort of terribly true, though. I cannot say that I think I am really getting closer to anyone, though I keep my old friends. I am not sure even what intimacy means anymore. Maybe my only alternative is to...wander off into the Colombian-Brazilian jungle and take up shamanism and the use of tropical jungle drugs?

"It's hard to come to the heart of the matter with your posts at times. At the Reasoning show forum I just saw a clear, brilliant post of yours about women and seduction. But about the absolutes, logic and emotions it's not clear to me yet why you don't find much of interest here or where your exact disagreement lies. And why it would be run-of-the-mill or boring to you, considering all context."

Really, that post was more than anything a sort of channelling of Dan and David. I have been eating at this GF table for some months now, tossing bones left and right, lifting my leg now and again to fart, and that is what I burped up. Really, hats off to Dan and David (*claps*).

Logic as a means to navigate life always seemed...completely absurd. What are your thoughts on the matter?

brokenhead wrote:OK, Dan, thanks for replying. Your answer about the word "spiritual" is in keeping with the way I have seen it used at GF. But you are dancing around my real question. "Spiritual" is a word that you shouldn't use unless you have a concept of what a "spirit" is.

Spirit: consciousness aligned with Truth (wise consciousness).

Spiritual Man: person whose consciousness is aligned with Truth.

Spiritual Seeker: person attempting to align their consciousness with Truth.

Brokenhead,

Is it possible to have a cause without an effect? Absolutely not, because a cause without any effect means it's not causing anything, and therefore it is not a cause. So as you can see a cause also depends on it's effects in order to exist, meaning it is ultimately no less or great than the effect (e.g. finite), and certainly doesn't deserve the title of God no matter how insignificant the effects may be. Secondly a first cause implies that this cause was all there was before everything else came about, meaning this "first cause" was in fact The Totality of all there is at some point. A logical impossibility since I have proved above that a cause, no matter how extraordinary, is inherently finite, meaning it never has been, never will be, and is in no way shape or form infinite (not God). On top of that, any "first cause" you choose to describe will inherently contain finite properties that can be easily pointed out, which is why it's unfortunate you are too cowardly to describe what your god (first cause) is like.

brokenhead wrote: I am postulating a First Cause. It is logically consistent.

If you postulate God as first cause then you 'beg the question'.It is a logical fallacy.

If you can put your logical proof in syllogism form, and make it logically consistent from start to finish, you will have acheived what Aquinas couldn't, and anyone since(to my knowledge)

If you can acheive it,I reccomend you not hide under a bushel, but send it to the Vatican,a Sainthood could well be forthcoming.

petitio principii

On top of that, any "first cause" you choose to describe will inherently contain finite properties that can be easily pointed out, which is why it's unfortunate you are too cowardly to describe what your god (first cause) is like.

"Cowardly?" I think not. Rather I am paying attention to the admonishment: "Cast not your pearls before swine."

Ataraxia wrote:

brokenhead wrote: I am postulating a First Cause. It is logically consistent.

If you postulate God as first cause then you 'beg the question'.It is a logical fallacy.

If you can put your logical proof in syllogism form, and make it logically consistent from start to finish, you will have acheived what Aquinas couldn't, and anyone since(to my knowledge)

If you can acheive it,I reccomend you not hide under a bushel, but send it to the Vatican,a Sainthood could well be forthcoming.

What makes you think you are the most advanced form of consciousness in the Universe?

brokenhead wrote: What makes you think you are the most advanced form of consciousness in the Universe?

If that is indeed your argument, then you,as human, can postulate anything,or nothing.

It makes a mockery of all logic.Something I'm not going to entertain on a serious basis.

Ataraxia wrote:

brokenhead wrote: What makes you think you are the most advanced form of consciousness in the Universe?

If that is indeed your argument, then you,as human, can postulate anything,or nothing.

It makes a mockery of all logic.Something I'm not going to entertain on a serious basis.

Suit yourself.

ataraxia wrote:It makes a mockery of all logic.Something I'm not going to entertain on a serious basis.

In what way is mockery involved?

Alex,

Refreshing it has been imbibing your mercurial spirit, yes. I too am fond of dreaming, omens, cleansing windows of perception, and general mystical mayhem. Just yesterday, a strange something crept into my periphery. I discovered that allowing an active imagination to roam can produce some interesting effects. Check this. While projecting myself into a future social scenario, I was suddenly given a three word phrase: "Quiet as a Quesar." Thinking it a newborn star, I went to the web to see what causality had to say. Unknowingly, I landed on a D&D site! (lol!) Talk of magic missiles, races of celestial beings, strange powers, etc. captivated my attention. A world inside a world inside a world. And near dead on display of my latent character - in flashing neon rendering. Meaningful. A week prior, I awoke to a lightening crash, coupled with a visual in my mind's eye of a "magic missile" rocketing towards a large star (Quesar). Turns out Quesar's are immune to fire, lightening, and magic missile attacks...

Yeah! |-)

Alex Jacob wrote: On the other side of that---and that seems to take place as a result of exposure to ideas, to following the course of ideas---is the mysterious something that is always beckoning from beyond. It comes to me through omens, synchronicities, dreams. If I didn't have some 'maps' and diagrams given to me in dreams and other experiences of a mystical order, I'm not sure what would become of me, quite frankly. Well, I am not sure what is becoming of me anyway.

So what? What you describe is not as important as you think perhaps. It doesn't have to be, anyway.

I visit certain used book stores and it is like visiting a sort of mausoleum. Well, any used book store is like that, but in this sense it is all foreign, all of it embedded in another language. It has given me a different glimpse of 'reality'.

Sure, call it the Magician, or the Juggler, if you want to describe its placement.

My general sense is one of stiff agony.

Life and Vitality are in life itself.

As well is your 'stiff agony', as deeper rocky sediments under the fertile red mud.

If one out of 2 is taking medication, are they taking it because they are too happy?

Some seem to have a bigger problem with the manic side, indeed. But really, I think only a minority is on some kind of meds, probably not different than anywhere else as far as I can believe statistics and the people in my immediate surrounding. I suspect less if you count in (larger doses of) alcohol, pain killers, mild anti-depressants, tobacco and other stimulants.

Do we step out of life, or do we step into life?

The question remains: what do you see as life? Life is where your heart is in, your effort or your faith. So it differs immensely between one and the other person, it might even oppose ( example the Gnostics or like Jesus said: "let the dead bury the dead" - he was not being funny).

Really, that post was more than anything a sort of channelling of Dan and David. I have been eating at this GF table for some months now, tossing bones left and right, lifting my leg now and again to fart, and that is what I burped up. Really, hats off to Dan and David (*claps*).

So you absorb and make your own what you come across and fly with it to see if it sticks? Some kind of osmosis? It might become a problem though because what seems here as your refusal to make it into your belief or orientation prevents a consistent core to develop, an inner 'self' to arise that is nothing more than some consistency in idea and purpose. Your apparent lack of self, your freedom to roam between the wonders, your all-inclusiveness seems to point to an incredible feminine mindset underlying the brilliant demagoguery and large knowledge base.

This would explain why on the issue of women you're spot on (because as your deepest orientation it projects itself most easily outward) but on the issue of absolutes and asceticism there's this mysterious unwillingness to get to the finer, deeper underlying realities that give birth to these ideas. You reject its simplicity as too simple; too naked?

Logic as a means to navigate life always seemed...completely absurd. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Consistency is very much related to logic. Navigation asks for consistency in thought or method and continuous criticism to lay bare any error in way-making. It doesn't steer the currents, the weather or anything unexpected

On the other side of that---and that seems to take place as a result of exposure to ideas, to following the course of ideas---is the mysterious something that is always beckoning from beyond. It comes to me through omens, synchronicities, dreams.

This rings true, Alex. I tend to ignore the dreams, but omens and synchronicities do happen, and they tend to happen in clusters, it seems.

Diebert wrote:

"So you absorb and make your own what you come across and fly with it to see if it sticks? Some kind of osmosis? It might become a problem though because what seems here as your refusal to make it into your belief or orientation prevents a consistent core to develop, an inner 'self' to arise that is nothing more than some consistency in idea and purpose. Your apparent lack of self, your freedom to roam between the wonders, your all-inclusiveness seems to point to an incredible feminine mindset underlying the brilliant demagoguery and large knowledge base."

You can label as you wish: labels are extremely useful, I use them all the time. But I don't necessarily believe absolutely in my labels. You imply there is no core, no self and then you move in for the kill: all indicative of an 'incredible female mindset'. However, when I deflected your comments and pointed to the source in Dan and David, that was not all the story. So, in a sense, your conclusion jumps the gun. I came to this forum with my own ideas, and for very specific reasons which I described at the beginning. I have over the months read a considerable amount, including seminal feminist texts, and I have dedicated myself to a retrospective of myself, and an analysis of my own ideas and attitudes. No part of that was artificial or contrived, and I don't think it could be described as 'feminine'.

When I wrote what I wrote, I used rhetorical skill to make it convincing, and it seemed to have worked, in that sense 'it was successful'. But, what? Do you want me to sign it? To declare that it is my set doctrine? Well, I don't. It isn't.

You speak of a 'core self'---a very interesting subject. I describe the core self in this way: the core self is a magician, and the magician is a man. A man 'makes a circle' and from the strength of that circle invokes forces that are then 'handled', 'wielded'. There are all sorts of different things one can do with handled force, and our world is filled with people doing those things, just open the window and take a look: it is an endless parade of displays. But there is one problem with 'invoked force': more often than not the magician is 'captured' by the forces he invokes, and then it is not he who handles and wields, but he is is handled and wielded. In the 'world of ideas' there are all sorts of potencies that one can pick up, or let in. Ideas are just like 'spirits' and if one is not careful one can become captured. And then perhaps we'll see you: high on some horse with a jagged sky behind you, leading an army of the pliant on a 'sacred mission' to [fill in the blank]. Or you can convince them to buy your toothpaste.

Alchemical Idea
Idea

So, I turn the question---the j'accuse!'---back on you. Do you handle ideas as a 'man', as a 'magician', or are you handled by them?

Personally, I am involved with the subject because I am here, but only on my own terms.
___________________________________

Any time one makes an assertion one is limiting oneself, and to assert something is to exclude other things. In what you have written here I sense two thrusts: one is to corral me in such a way that I reveal myself to you, like I come out and reveal my doctrines. But I have already said that 'there is the page and what can be read between the lines' and then there is 'what never appears on any page'. The other is that you have (apparently) come to some completely concrete notions as to what is 'female mindset' and what is 'male mindset', and on that basis you are taking making decisions, making selections, and 'acting masculinely'.

However, I think you are forgetting something essential and that is that all thinking, all intellectual and spiritual activity involves 'gestation' and in the language of symbols you could simply never escape the meaning. In the diagrams of alchemy you always see the 2 luminaries, the sun and the moon, and then in the foreground there is the figure, with other symbols, who is dealing with the synthesis, in whom the process is carried out.

If you 'artificially' highlight only the masculine in yourself, I assert you are making a significant error and it will have to be compensated; it will call forth compensation.

"This would explain why on the issue of women you're spot on (because as your deepest orientation it projects itself most easily outward) but on the issue of absolutes and asceticism there's this mysterious unwillingness to get to the finer, deeper underlying realities that give birth to these ideas. You reject its simplicity as too simple; too naked?"

Too reductive, too conclusive, and too inclined to go marching into the world half-cocked. I say that men have dropped the ball and no one really knows what it is to 'be a man'. If the 'female' is indeed a potency that, broadly, is out of control, who will re-tame it, who will redirect it? How is that going to come about? If you have explored the issue and have come to your conclusions, I am all ears. But I have been listening here for months and what I hear--is too reductive, too conclusive, etc.

"Consistency is very much related to logic. Navigation asks for consistency in thought or method and continuous criticism to lay bare any error in way-making. It doesn't steer the currents, the weather or anything unexpected".

Logic functions with isolated systems, within mathematics, etc. I don't even have to think about it, to waste brain electricity on the subject: the living of life, the successful living of life, is not a logical activity.

The skills of navigation, if you want to pursue the analogy, and a good sailor, is a man deeply connected to all parts of himself, rational and intuitive. If not, you perish.

Hey, sailor!
Sailor salute!
High Seas

brokenhead wrote:

ataraxia wrote:It makes a mockery of all logic.Something I'm not going to entertain on a serious basis.

In what way is mockery involved?

Wittgenstein :

5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.

We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that there is not.For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is, if it could consider these limits from the other side also.

What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.
5.62
This remark provides a key to the question, to what extent solipsism is a truth.

In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but it shows itself.

That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which I understand) mean the limits of my world.
5.63
I am the world.

Alex Jacob wrote: If you have explored the issue and have come to your conclusions, I am all ears. But I have been listening here for months and what I hear--is too reductive, too conclusive, etc.

"Consistency is very much related to logic. Navigation asks for consistency in thought or method and continuous criticism to lay bare any error in way-making. It doesn't steer the currents, the weather or anything unexpected".

Logic functions with isolated systems, within mathematics, etc. I don't even have to think about it, to waste brain electricity on the subject: the living of life, the successful living of life, is not a logical activity.

The skills of navigation, if you want to pursue the analogy, and a good sailor, is a man deeply connected to all parts of himself, rational and intuitive. If not, you perish.

I would characterize your own conclusion here as "too reductive" and "too conclusive". It reduces logical activity to the level of parody and then dismisses it out of hand.

It is true that a "good sailor" is deeply connected to all parts of himself, rational and intuitive. One cannot be called a rational individual if one is disconnected from intuitive experiences and information, for such disconnection only serves to cripple the full-functioning of one's rationality. It would be like trying to formulate well-grounded scientific theories while refusing to examine large swathes of relevant data. It is a form of close-mindedness, and a long way from rationality.

On the other hand, if you become too attached to intuition and poetic experiences, and perceive logic as a threat to this intuitive well-spring, then you are in danger of becoming crippled in another way. This is because the ability to rationally process your intuitive experiences will be impaired, and you will not be able to make full use of them and turn them into springboards for further development. Instead, your relationship to these experiences will remain superficial and you will end up wasting your life going around and around in circles. You will flitter from book to book, religion to religion, philosophy to philosophy, squeezing a little bit from each, but not really plumbing the depths in any of them. This is because you have rejected the very vehicle which can enable you to leave where you are now and embark consciously in a particular direction.

The key thing about logic which separates it from every other human faculty, apart from its capacity to judge what is true, is its ability to push mental development beyond the realm of superficial aimlessness and direct it permanently into higher states of consciousness, each state involving a major paradigm shift. No other faculty can provide this. Intuition can randomly cast some light on certain areas and directions, but without the will to pursue the logical implications of these realizations, you will go nowhere.

So in a sense, logic is more than a compass which can direct us away from aimless circling and actually take us places. But it is also the key catalyst for authentic growth and mental development.

-

David Quinn wrote:
So in a sense, logic is more than a compass which can direct us away from aimless circling and actually take us places. But it is also the key catalyst for authentic growth and mental development.

-

Ludwig would be in complete agreement with you there David.I reckon he gets short shrift around here.An observation, rather than a criticism.

He is a great friend of Genius Forum,in my view.

You may be right. His later material, which repudiates his earlier, better-known material, is probably Genius-friendly. Unfortunately, most people tend to associate him with his earlier material, which happens to be postmodernist-friendly.

-

David Quinn wrote:You may be right. His later material, which repudiates his earlier, better-known material, is probably Genius-friendly. Unfortunately, most people tend to associate him with his earlier material, which happens to be postmodernist-friendly.

-

I find all his work has value.I suspect it is because I think in the same type manner as he does.Logical ,linear steps,like a computer program rather than abstractly which seem to be you-guy's real strength.

If nothing else,he was an absolute champion at semantics.

Not a spiritul genius,but a regular type genius nevertheless.

David wrote:

"On the other hand, if you become too attached to intuition and poetic experiences, and perceive logic as a threat to this intuitive well-spring, then you are in danger of becoming crippled in another way. This is because the ability to rationally process your intuitive experiences will be impaired, and you will not be able to make full use of them and turn them into springboards for further development. Instead, your relationship to these experiences will remain superficial and you will end up wasting your life going around and around in circles. You will flitter from book to book, religion to religion, philosophy to philosophy, squeezing a little bit from each, but not really plumbing the depths in any of them. This is because you have rejected the very vehicle which can enable you to leave where you are now and embark consciously in a particular direction."

Sounds good to me, by and large. No need at all to reject 'poetry' or 'intuition'. They are tools there to be accessed and used when required.

"The key thing about logic which separates it from every other human faculty, apart from its capacity to judge what is true, is its ability to push mental development beyond the realm of superficial aimlessness and direct it permanently into higher states of consciousness, each state involving a major paradigm shift. No other faculty can provide this. Intuition can randomly cast some light on certain areas and directions, but without the will to pursue the logical implications of these realizations, you will go nowhere. "

Logic, good sense, a practical bent, thoughtfulness, analytical capability. In math and other fields logic is the perfect and perhaps the only tool (aside from occasional intuitive hunches) that will get one anywhere. Can't sail in math without logic.

But logic alone, or perhaps logic over-emphasized, is not sufficient to navigate well in life. And in this sense, I am not so sure that 'logic' tells us, ultimately, 'what is true'. I have seen it too many times to disregard it.

And personally, perhaps in the final analysis, or at the last moment, or the most important moments, or in regard to the most crucial questions, and sometimes to the most important and relevant decisions that one makes, 'logic' as you seem to be defining it, and as you seem to use it, is not the most important 'skill'.

Again, that has been my personal experience, when I examine key moments.

But let's cut to the chase: the major reason I harp on this element in relation to you (plural) is because, often, your 'one-pointed focus' too quickly dismisses things that are, in my view, highly important. For example, you seem to interpret (though you call it an absolute truth and privilege it above all other possible truths) Christ as supporting exclusively your personal choices. For you, it seems, Christ represents unified focus toward the spiritual ideal, as you define it.

Thinking about it, musing over it, I decided that that is not at all how I saw it (and where does 'logic' come in? how will 'logic' help us to decide it?). I can't of course say that I am a Christian as, say, brokenhead says he is a Christian, but from the experiences of my own life, and from the lives of Christians I have known, the strongest and the most relevant part of the Christian message, the Jesusonian message and ethic, has most to do with a willingness to be with and experience, to remain in the presence of, the suffering of other people. Somehow to indicate to them through one's own presence that they are not alone.

It was Francois Mauriac who said of Christ: (I have it in Spanish) 'quien no solo vencio la muerte, sino tambien la soledad humana' (who didn't only overcome death, but also human loneliness). For you the major element you seem to extract is 'killing' one's relations with 'children, parents and wife' and...what? I never seem to catch what it is you propose to DO. How do you absolutists fill your days? How will you die? Seven tenths of all you guys ever talk about is little more than minutiae and jargon, the endless mincing of words, endless vain argments on the tiniest definitions. It is quite unimpressive from a grown-up perspective!

But no, of course, you are not seduced by fallacies like those I present, couched in 'poetry' and 'flittings from book to book'. You chaps know the score...

It is most likely that our essential 'spiritual purpose' is quite distinct. I personally feel that I know of the extremism---a misguided extremism---that you recommend and have staked so much on. But, I outgrew it. 'Life' clobbered me with other visions, other feelings and senses about life. So, I guess I would say there is not really a place to 'sail to', not in the over-arching moral sense, but rather a way of 'being with'.

But let's approach the issue logically...

That is the hurdle that I am having the most difficult time surmounting.

ataraxia, quoting Wittgenstein, wrote:5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.

We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that there is not.For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is, if it could consider these limits from the other side also.

What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.
5.62
This remark provides a key to the question, to what extent solipsism is a truth.

In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but it shows itself.

That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which I understand) mean the limits of my world.
5.63
I am the world.

ataraxia:

Your response means very little to me. I was asking you a question, and you pasted in someone else’s words.

I am quite serious that there is no mockery whatsoever involved. My question to you stands: What makes you think you are the highest form of consciousness in the Universe? This is not a slight in any fashion. I am asking you a very reasonable question.

We often look back at the historical notions of man’s place in the cosmos with a bit of a superiority complex. We know the earth is not the center of the cosmos. We know it is not even the center of the Solar System, the existence of which is an historically recent consensus. It absolutely baffles me that a rational mind can possibly believe that the earth is the only location in the vast Universe teeming with potential suns and therefore solar systems where life exists. To believe this is to fall into the same anthropocentric fallacious trap. Forget our squabbles about how life has arisen here. That is has can only mean it has elsewhere as well. We do not even need a shred of evidence for this to be a supremely reasonable assumption, in fact, the only one possible. We do not need crop circles to be the landing strips for the Chariots of the Gods. We do not require a positive result from the SETI people.

I look at it as an inevitable consequence of the law of large numbers. Even if our world is the result of an excruciatingly fortuitous combination of physical circumstances, just look up on a clear night and tell yourself that it cannot have happened elsewhere. And this is just for the development of life-forms as we know them. How can an open mind rule out the possibility of radically different life-forms arising in radically different physical circumstances?

If you will concede that there are other locations where life exists, you must also concede that if it indeed were a totally chance occurrence that life evolves at all, it must have happened at different times.

In fact, the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that there are not only other civilizations of sentient beings in the Universe, but ones that are much older and more evolved as well as newer ones, and therefore less evolved.

Which would make us not the highest form of consciousness in the Universe.

How is this a mockery of anything?

I understand the tendency of modern philosophy - all, philosophy, really - to consider logic the ultimate human tool. This view is necessary to the very act of philosophizing. Yet there is nothing substantiating the implicit assumption that human logic is a priori the highest form of logic that exists. Chimps can exhibit logic. Computers do. So we know of lower forms of logic. There is no evidence that either computers or chimps are aware that there exists a higher form of logic than their own. Why should we then assume ours is the highest form possible? And as soon as we relinquish that dearly-held assumption, we must conclude the reverse, that if there is a possibility of a higher form of logic, i.e., of consciousness, then it must also exist somewhere due to the vastness of Totality.

If we cannot think it, we cannot say it. I am saying this; therefore I have thought it.

I also am the world.

Your response means very little to me. I was asking you a question, and you pasted in someone else’s words.

Sir,may i remind of what you said.

Brokenhead: I am postulating a First Cause. It is logically consistent.

Logic is a human pursuit.I've shown you in human logic that it is not logical.It always begs the question.It is a logical fallacy.

My question to you stands: What makes you think you are the highest form of consciousness in the Universe This is not a slight in any fashion. I am asking you a very reasonable question.

You aren't asking me a relevant question.Furthermore you did it with a non-sequiter.

I don't remember saying we are the highest form of consciousness,I didn't.How would I know?

We often look back at the historical notions of man’s place in the cosmos with a bit of a superiority complex. We know the earth is not the center of the cosmos. We know it is not even the center of the Solar System, the existence of which is an historically recent consensus. It absolutely baffles me that a rational mind can possibly believe that the earth is the only location in the vast Universe teeming with potential suns and therefore solar systems where life exists. To believe this is to fall into the same anthropocentric fallacious trap. Forget our squabbles about how life has arisen here. That is has can only mean it has elsewhere as well. We do not even need a shred of evidence for this to be a supremely reasonable assumption, in fact, the only one possible. We do not need crop circles to be the landing strips for the Chariots of the Gods. We do not require a positive result from the SETI people.

Some of that is kind of interesting but it is a strawman argument.We are discussing whether you can logically say Abrahamic type God is first cause.You can't.

It's "turtles all the way down"

I look at it as an inevitable consequence of the law of large numbers. Even if our world is the result of an excruciatingly fortuitous combination of physical circumstances, just look up on a clear night and tell yourself that it cannot have happened elsewhere. And this is just for the development of life-forms as we know them. How can an open mind rule out the possibility of radically different life-forms arising in radically different physical circumstances?
If you will concede that there are other locations where life exists, you must also concede that if it indeed were a totally chance occurrence that life evolves at all, it must have happened at different times.

In fact, the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that there are not only other civilizations of sentient beings in the Universe, but ones that are much older and more evolved as well as newer ones, and therefore less evolved.

Which would make us not the highest form of consciousness in the Universe.

Yes,it is very reasonable to speculate that their are other lifeforms.

How is this a mockery of anything?

It's not mockery of 'anything',it is mockery of logic.

Speculation and a logical proof are not the same thing.Do i really have to point this out on a philosophy forum?

If we cannot think it, we cannot say it. I am saying this; therefore I have thought it.

The Wittgenstein reference is pointing to what can be said IN LOGIC.Not what can be said generally.Of course you can say anything generally speaking.It just isn't logic.

"I dreamt the other night I was a cat, thus I must've been a cat in a former life."There I said it.

If you don't have the regard for logic that others do,that is absolutely fine,there are a number of ways to think abstractly about 'everything'.It just isn't logic if you need speculations to support it.

If you don't have the regard for logic that others do,that is absolutely fine,there are a number of ways to think abstractly about 'everything'.It just isn't logic if you need speculations to support it.

I have a tremendous respect for logic. Maybe you mean the formal logic that is taught at a university? Precious few people have had the experience of being formally trained in logic. I am not interested in being caged or duped by formal thinking. I am interested in knowing what is.

There is no strawman here. If you concede there must be life elsewhere in the cosmos, does it not follow to want to know how it functions and what its purpose might be?