To Immanuel Can

[Immanuel Can]

Again, do the people who get enlightened see the world unchanging?

I can't tell you whether they are telling the truth about what they "see." It seems to me that they see the same things you and I do, but interpret them as maya.

But we could not say for sure.

No, all minds are the same to me. Every person to me has several minds.

So all minds are...? What do you mean by "the same"? You can't mean that they are the same Mind, parts of one big mind. And every person, you say, has several minds, not one?

Well, I don't. But even if others did, that would only make it more unlikely that you could say any minds are "the same."

By the same I mean they have the same properties.

Apparently not. Remember Einstein and the janitor?

I chose to come to this world and I sometimes suffer.

If you chose it, it's not suffering.

There is no problem of evil whatsoever in my worldview.

Well, there's no "evil" in that worldview, if I understand what you're saying; so the "problem" goes away, simply by the expedient of denying it's real existence.

But I am going to suggest that that's not the way you actually think it is. You say you do believe what you experience is "suffering," so you apparently do not believe you actually chose it...and the problem of evil then returns.

[bahman]

Again, do the people who get enlightened see the world unchanging?

I can't tell you whether they are telling the truth about what they "see." It seems to me that they see the same things you and I do, but interpret them as maya.

But we could not say for sure.

Ok, so you don't know for sure.

So all minds are...? What do you mean by "the same"? You can't mean that they are the same Mind, parts of one big mind. And every person, you say, has several minds, not one?

Well, I don't. But even if others did, that would only make it more unlikely that you could say any minds are "the same."

By the same I mean they have the same properties.

Apparently not. Remember Einstein and the janitor?

By mind, I mean an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. In this sense, my mind is similar to yours.

I chose to come to this world and I sometimes suffer.

If you chose it, it's not suffering.

So can I call it pain?

There is no problem of evil whatsoever in my worldview.

Well, there's no "evil" in that worldview, if I understand what you're saying; so the "problem" goes away, simply by the expedient of denying it's real existence.

But I am going to suggest that that's not the way you actually think it is. You say you do believe what you experience is "suffering," so you apparently do not believe you actually chose it...and the problem of evil then returns.

Pain is real and it exists. Evil to me is as fundamental as good. You cannot sometimes avoid it. Sometimes it is necessary. There is no problem with evil in my worldview.

[Immanuel Can]

Again, do the people who get enlightened see the world unchanging?

I can't tell you whether they are telling the truth about what they "see." It seems to me that they see the same things you and I do, but interpret them as maya.

But we could not say for sure.

Ok, so you don't know for sure.

One could not know without reading another's mind. Who knows what they "see"?

By mind, I mean an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. In this sense, my mind is similar to yours.

You mean just that it IS A mind, not that the minds is "the same" in any other respect, then.

So can I call it pain?

Sure.

Pain is real and it exists.

Okay: but pain and evil aren't the same. A woman giving birth has pain, but is delighted with the results. And athlete in training causes himself pain, but says it's worth it.

Evil to me is as fundamental as good.

Neither can exist in a worldview in which everything is "unconditional."

[bahman]

I can't tell you whether they are telling the truth about what they "see." It seems to me that they see the same things you and I do, but interpret them as maya.

But we could not say for sure.

Ok, so you don't know for sure.

One could not know without reading another's mind. Who knows what they "see"?

Ok.

By mind, I mean an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. In this sense, my mind is similar to yours.

You mean just that it IS A mind, not that the minds is "the same" in any other respect, then.

No I mean there are minds and they are similar.

So can I call it pain?

Sure.

Pain is real and it exists.

Okay: but pain and evil aren't the same. A woman giving birth has pain, but is delighted with the results. And athlete in training causes himself pain, but says it's worth it.

To me, pain is evil. What is evil to you? What is pain to you, good?

Evil to me is as fundamental as good.

Neither can exist in a worldview in which everything is "unconditional."

Of course, they can exist.

[Immanuel Can]

You mean just that it IS A mind, not that the minds is "the same" in any other respect, then.

No I mean there are minds and they are similar.

We keep going around and around on this one.

We can say that minds are "similar" only in that they are minds. In that sense, our minds and the mind of a dog or cat are "similar."

Their quality and quantity of intelligence are different, which is why we can only say they're "similar" but not "the same."

To me, pain is evil. What is evil to you? What is pain to you, good?

It depends. What is the pain on account of?

If a person hurts himself out of stupidity or clumsiness, that's regrettable pain. If a person agrees to undergo stress or pain on the way to some noble goal, then the overcoming of the stress and pain become part of the achievement itself.

It is because it hurts to climb mountains that it's a great thing to have climbed Everest. It's because it hurts to play football that it feels so good when you score. And as the old saying about artistic creation goes, "Writing is easy. You just sit down, open a vein and bleed."

Evil to me is as fundamental as good.

Neither can exist in a worldview in which everything is "unconditional."

Of course, they can exist.

They won't be identifiable as evil or as good. There will be no "right" or "wrong" to them happening. They will simply be the indifferent, contingent arrangements of an "unconditional" bargain you made beforehand.

Were you promised life wouldn't hurt, when (as you say) you agreed to be born? Of course not. If you had been, then your bargain would have been a conditional one. But you say it was "unconditional."

So you were not promised it would not hurt. And you accepted that all arrangements would be regarded by you as fair. That's "unconditional." So why are you lamenting suffering now? You had no promises that you would escape it, and you signed on for that.

[bahman]

You mean just that it IS A mind, not that the minds is "the same" in any other respect, then.

No I mean there are minds and they are similar.

We keep going around and around on this one.

We can say that minds are "similar" only in that they are minds. In that sense, our minds and the mind of a dog or cat are "similar."

Their quality and quantity of intelligence are different, which is why we can only say they're "similar" but not "the same."

A person is made of many minds in my view. The way that the minds are connected in the brain defines intelligence. Your view of mind is just different from mine.

To me, pain is evil. What is evil to you? What is pain to you, good?

It depends. What is the pain on account of?

If a person hurts himself out of stupidity or clumsiness, that's regrettable pain. If a person agrees to undergo stress or pain on the way to some noble goal, then the overcoming of the stress and pain become part of the achievement itself.

It is because it hurts to climb mountains that it's a great thing to have climbed Everest. It's because it hurts to play football that it feels so good when you score. And as the old saying about artistic creation goes, "Writing is easy. You just sit down, open a vein and bleed."

For me anything that hurts or causes pain is evil. They however could be right or wrong. So we are using different terminology.

Neither can exist in a worldview in which everything is "unconditional."

Of course, they can exist.

They won't be identifiable as evil or as good. There will be no "right" or "wrong" to them happening. They will simply be the indifferent, contingent arrangements of an "unconditional" bargain you made beforehand.

Were you promised life wouldn't hurt, when (as you say) you agreed to be born? Of course not. If you had been, then your bargain would have been a conditional one. But you say it was "unconditional."

So you were not promised it would not hurt. And you accepted that all arrangements would be regarded by you as fair. That's "unconditional." So why are you lamenting suffering now? You had no promises that you would escape it, and you signed on for that.

Again, I am experiencing good and evil given my definition of good and evil. Whatever I receive, good or evil is justified so it is right.

[Immanuel Can]

A person is made of many minds in my view.

I don't deny that that is your experience. You say you have many voices in your head, and I have no basis to doubt you.

But that is not my experience, nor, I suspect, the experience of most people. Most people claim to have but one voice in their heads.

For me anything that hurts or causes pain is evil.

That can't be right.

You agreed to at least the unconditional possibility of pain. So it cannot be evil. It's just what you bargained for.

Rather, what has to be the case for you is simply this:

Whatever I receive, good or evil is justified so it is right.

More correctly, neither is "good" or "evil" at all. Everything is equally "justified."

[bahman]

For me anything that hurts or causes pain is evil.

That can't be right.

You agreed to at least the unconditional possibility of pain. So it cannot be evil. It's just what you bargained for.

Rather, what has to be the case for you is simply this:

Whatever I receive, good or evil is justified so it is right.

More correctly, neither is "good" or "evil" at all. Everything is equally "justified."

As I mentioned good and evil exist in my worldview given my definition!

[Immanuel Can]

For me anything that hurts or causes pain is evil.

That can't be right.

You agreed to at least the unconditional possibility of pain. So it cannot be evil. It's just what you bargained for.

Rather, what has to be the case for you is simply this:

Whatever I receive, good or evil is justified so it is right.

More correctly, neither is "good" or "evil" at all. Everything is equally "justified."

As I mentioned good and evil exist in my worldview given my definition!

But not with any warrant, apparently. You can still use the terms, but they lack any specific meaning. Both "good" and "evil" are just "unconditionally" acceptable.

If that's not true, then your decision to be born was not "unconditional." Or else, you never made such a "decision" at all.

How do you want to slice it?

[bahman]

That can't be right.

You agreed to at least the unconditional possibility of pain. So it cannot be evil. It's just what you bargained for.

Rather, what has to be the case for you is simply this:

More correctly, neither is "good" or "evil" at all. Everything is equally "justified."

As I mentioned good and evil exist in my worldview given my definition!

But not with any warrant, apparently. You can still use the terms, but they lack any specific meaning. Both "good" and "evil" are just "unconditionally" acceptable.

What do you mean? We can use terms as we wish. We just must be clear about their meaning.

[Immanuel Can]

As I mentioned good and evil exist in my worldview given my definition!

But not with any warrant, apparently. You can still use the terms, but they lack any specific meaning. Both "good" and "evil" are just "unconditionally" acceptable.

What do you mean? We can use terms as we wish. We just must be clear about their meaning.

Not quite.

You're right that we can say any words we want. But it's different to talk about what we are justified in saying, given our worldview commitments. In other words, we can say things, but contradict ourselves.

So somebody who believes we voluntarily choose to be born, and do so unconditionally, can say the words, "I believe in suffering," or "I believe in evil." But that she can say them does not mean that she is rationally justified in saying them. For if she believes that her experience is genuinely one of 'suffering,' then she must also believe that it is not voluntary, not her choice, not "unconditional," but rather an experience of unjustified, unfair, un-asked-for pain.

But you do not believe anything that makes that possible. You say you came here voluntarily and unconditionally. That means that nothing qualifies as suffering, regarless of the words you may choose to say, because whatever you got, you asked for it. That's what "unconditionally" implies. It means that you never asked or expected not to experience pain. In fact, by agreeing to be born, you chose a route wherein that could happen.

[bahman]

But not with any warrant, apparently. You can still use the terms, but they lack any specific meaning. Both "good" and "evil" are just "unconditionally" acceptable.

What do you mean? We can use terms as we wish. We just must be clear about their meaning.

Not quite.

You're right that we can say any words we want. But it's different to talk about what we are justified in saying, given our worldview commitments. In other words, we can say things, but contradict ourselves.

So somebody who believes we voluntarily choose to be born, and do so unconditionally, can say the words, "I believe in suffering," or "I believe in evil." But that she can say them does not mean that she is rationally justified in saying them. For if she believes that her experience is genuinely one of 'suffering,' then she must also believe that it is not voluntary, not her choice, not "unconditional," but rather an experience of unjustified, unfair, un-asked-for pain.

But you do not believe anything that makes that possible. You say you came here voluntarily and unconditionally. That means that nothing qualifies as suffering, regarless of the words you may choose to say, because whatever you got, you asked for it. That's what "unconditionally" implies. It means that you never asked or expected not to experience pain. In fact, by agreeing to be born, you chose a route wherein that could happen.

You are confused because you are trying to apply your definition of good and evil to my worldview. To me, good is what you like and evil is what you dislike. As simple as that. Am I experiencing them? Of course. I receive what is necessary, good or evil. I didn't ask for certain good or evil. It was unconditional.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean? We can use terms as we wish. We just must be clear about their meaning.

Not quite.

You're right that we can say any words we want. But it's different to talk about what we are justified in saying, given our worldview commitments. In other words, we can say things, but contradict ourselves.

So somebody who believes we voluntarily choose to be born, and do so unconditionally, can say the words, "I believe in suffering," or "I believe in evil." But that she can say them does not mean that she is rationally justified in saying them. For if she believes that her experience is genuinely one of 'suffering,' then she must also believe that it is not voluntary, not her choice, not "unconditional," but rather an experience of unjustified, unfair, un-asked-for pain.

But you do not believe anything that makes that possible. You say you came here voluntarily and unconditionally. That means that nothing qualifies as suffering, regarless of the words you may choose to say, because whatever you got, you asked for it. That's what "unconditionally" implies. It means that you never asked or expected not to experience pain. In fact, by agreeing to be born, you chose a route wherein that could happen.

You are confused because you are trying to apply your definition of good and evil to my worldview.

No, you're mistaken, actually. I'm not looking at my worldview at all, but at yours.

What I'm trying to do is to understand how you can claim to believe that a) you voluntarily were born, on "unconditional" terms, and b) given that, you can have any concept of "suffering." The two just don't work together.

To me, good is what you like and evil is what you dislike.

Then you are not being "unconditional." And you are not recognizing that you volunteered for whatever was going to come. So you are not suffering; you are getting exactly the bargain you agreed upon.

[bahman]

Not quite.

You're right that we can say any words we want. But it's different to talk about what we are justified in saying, given our worldview commitments. In other words, we can say things, but contradict ourselves.

So somebody who believes we voluntarily choose to be born, and do so unconditionally, can say the words, "I believe in suffering," or "I believe in evil." But that she can say them does not mean that she is rationally justified in saying them. For if she believes that her experience is genuinely one of 'suffering,' then she must also believe that it is not voluntary, not her choice, not "unconditional," but rather an experience of unjustified, unfair, un-asked-for pain.

But you do not believe anything that makes that possible. You say you came here voluntarily and unconditionally. That means that nothing qualifies as suffering, regarless of the words you may choose to say, because whatever you got, you asked for it. That's what "unconditionally" implies. It means that you never asked or expected not to experience pain. In fact, by agreeing to be born, you chose a route wherein that could happen.

You are confused because you are trying to apply your definition of good and evil to my worldview.

No, you're mistaken, actually. I'm not looking at my worldview at all, but at yours.

What I'm trying to do is to understand how you can claim to believe that a) you voluntarily were born, on "unconditional" terms, and b) given that, you can have any concept of "suffering." The two just don't work together.

To me, good is what you like and evil is what you dislike.

Then you are not being "unconditional." And you are not recognizing that you volunteered for whatever was going to come. So you are not suffering; you are getting exactly the bargain you agreed upon.

I am afraid that there is no point in repeating myself. I cannot help you. Sorry.

[Immanuel Can]

You are confused because you are trying to apply your definition of good and evil to my worldview.

No, you're mistaken, actually. I'm not looking at my worldview at all, but at yours.

What I'm trying to do is to understand how you can claim to believe that a) you voluntarily were born, on "unconditional" terms, and b) given that, you can have any concept of "suffering." The two just don't work together.

To me, good is what you like and evil is what you dislike.

Then you are not being "unconditional." And you are not recognizing that you volunteered for whatever was going to come. So you are not suffering; you are getting exactly the bargain you agreed upon.

I am afraid that there is no point in repeating myself. I cannot help you. Sorry.

It's easy. All you have to do is explain it to me in the same words you use to explain it to yourself.