EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:54 am
As to eastern alchemy, which do you mean? Taoist? Byzantine? Western medieval? Arab? Are you aware of the traditions of the liberal and mechanical arts?
Not quite certain at the moment as to which one I'd be looking for, and/or at. Just more familiar with modern chemistry, and I'm curious where some of the foundational thoughts for it came from. I'm slightly aware of the difference between liberal, and mechanical. Mechanical would seem to be similar to Newton's work. In that there was the belief that it was all predicated upon "mechanistic" concepts that are "external",..., but I'm probably stumbling in the dark more than I need to. Thus I guess, I'll say not really.
EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:53 am
This has caused me a lot of headache processing it through the raven's paradox. Our theory of identity isn't currently strong enough to hold up to it. However, it is a simple thing to calculate once you learn the basic definitions and math involved in the old text (most anyone can). Just isn't explainable why we can explain all phenomena in such a manner, and not identify how we are doing so. I have it easier in that I studies western works too, as well as from India and the Arab world, as well as a general background in philosophy, but it breaks my ass off half the time explaining how I'm thinking it. Happens fast, quick.
That's the direction you would look towards for our more advanced works, but more modern of course, I stick to old works just cause I like to. Most modern works aren't no so easy to slide into it though.
You sort of lost me at this part, and I had to look up the Raven's Paradox. Just some quick thoughts on the Raven's paradox though, from the way I understand it, it is like having two classes of objects, but they're not related. And inferences are made. Like all raven's are black because apples are green. It doesn't seem like there's much correlation to that thought process, but let's step aside for an instance.
You said earlier that it's like seeing patterns in Reality (Which is open for debate as to what it is), and then deducing/inducing a larger pattern from it. Is this not like the Google "dream bot" (I think it's called Deepdream) which looks for patterns, and emphasizes them in order to process what they are logically? Human sight, as far as I know, works by processing "edges", so if there is no "concrete edges in reality". They're really just platonic forms in our mind as to what certain things should, and shouldn't look like. Let's say that the universe is a cloud of energy/mass, and that there's atoms everywhere! (This is how a chemist is taught to see "reality"). That a solid table, is mostly empty space, because the atomic content of it is so small compared to the volume that it physically takes up.
Running with this, let's assume that the entire universe is a quintessential "ooze/cloud/medium", and that we're but amalgams of various parts of that "ooze". What we call matter/energy...etc. Is still part of the ooze, it's just different based upon our perceptions/forms we've used.
Couldn't there be a possible explanation, for "this" by simply stating/demarcating that the boundaries of our "information spheres" are dependent upon ourselves? Kinda like, if you're cognitive bubble is only so big, and every time you expand it. You integrate some thoughts from someone else, but when you do so. It's like plasmids being exchanged by bacteria, or like overlapping venn diagrams? You don't get the full picture, only the parts that you can understand, and what they can condense/share.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:42 pm
Plato's Rock wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:07 am
What that nihilism is a self-contradiction? Is that potentially troubling to Buddhists? I don't see how that'd apply to a whole class of people (maybe a few), so.... *shrug*.
He's quipping about Nirvana, Plato's Rock.
It's defined as the cessation of samsara
(essentially, of suffering) through the cessation of being. Westerners imagine it's a kind of Buddhist "heaven," but actually, it's nothingness.
Their goal is nothingness...hence, Nihilism.
Welcome to the madhouse.
Ah, okay. I think it's dependent upon one's definition of what Nirvana is, and what cessation of Samsara is. To me, I thought nirvana was the cessation of the internal conflict with self between parts of the psyche. To achieve a state of internal calm/bliss that isn't so discordant, and easily perturbed. And, I thought Nihilism was a western interpretation of Buddhism, so in a sort of "lay thought". It would seem like putting the "cart before the horse". Ie; Buddhists can't be Nihilist because they're precursors to the Nihilist thought process. To me nihilism is a construct of the Western World built upon Christianity, and interpretations of Buddhism.
That a Buddhist is striving for non-attachment, kinda like a stoic, but then we get into a potential argument about what it means to be "being".
Also, I don't think "Nothingness" always correlates to "Nihilism". One can find extreme meaning, and value in notions of "Nothingness". It's like saying that "Nothing has meaning", First case (and the often assumed one) is; There's no inherent value to this system. Second case of, "Nothing has meaning"; literally, Nothing has a meaning. That of being a void, a negation,...a "no-thing". Ex; How easy would it be to do math if there was no concept of "zero"? You have to remember that concept too was invented/constructed over time. There is no innate knowledge of "Zero" as far as I know.