In the Beginning...

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Metazoan wrote:Hi ..nameless..,

Having fun baiting the realists, eh? ;-)

Watch out when they reach for their ice-picks.
The messenger always dies!
..nameless.. wrote:... Could I have avoided not reading it (yet?)? *__-
From my perspective, it isn't possible to avoid anything. Anything that is possible, is. Anything that is not possible, isn't.

There simply isn't any room left for free will.
That's how I see it, just asking you your Perspective.
That seems to me to be the only scientifically and philosophically defensable theory. 'Free-will' exists as a notion/thought that we had no option but to perceive! (Religiously, 'belief' in 'free-will' is the 'sin' of Pride!)
My question was aimed at working out how you thought it all got off the ground. If I take what you say as given, it does hold together but it does seem to presuppose thought/consciousness rather than predict thought/consciousness.
True. I often repeat the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics "Consciousness is the ground of all being!"
I use this 'interpretation' among many, is that this one, alone, converges with the 'findings' of various divergent fields of inquiry.
Also, many folks can relate to something said by 'science' as opposed to the collected experiences of millennia of mystics. There are many constipated minds!
All that said, the evidence of 'Consciousness' seems Universal. What is perceived to exist (everything that exists), that is not Consciously perceived by a Conscious Perspective (us)?
There is no evidence to the contrary.
Where does the thought/consciousness come from?

Bad question! (slaps nose with newspaper!)
All 'thoughts' of 'comming from' exist within/as Consciousness. All 'thoughts' are grounded in Consciousness.
Consciousness has no context, whereby it can be defined/described.
Everything that Consciousness perceives has context.
That is why it can 'be' (exist/perceived), rather than not 'be' (not exist, not perceived).
All 'whowhatwherewhenwhy' exist as thought, a 'subset' (unit of perception, a 'moment', a 'percept'), a feature that has context, of the 'Complete Set' (Consciousness/ God/ 'Self!'!/ Nature/ the Universe... whatever works for ya), which is non-contextual.
All propositions/truths are falsifiable in that all are contextual.
Truth is not falsifiable!
No context.

"The complete Universe (Truth/Reality/existence/Mind/God/Self/Tao/Brahman..… or any feature perceived herein) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

So, I'd bet a dollar on Copenhagen, since there seems to be no viable alternative, and connect the dots from Here. So far, they all fit together so nicely, simply... a true ToA!
I once thought I had come up with a ToE, mainly due to it starting from absolutely nothing and ending up with me.
If by "me' you refer to 'Self!'! The 'Self!' of which the egoic/thought (ego is thought) construct of 'self' is but one feature of the all inclusive 'Self!'!
All Knowledge is 'Self!' Knowledge!
On closer examination I realised that that was only the tiniest part of what may be possible and was staggered to see just how monumentally huge 'everything' is.
Well, a bigger 'everything' perceived then 'yesterday'.
Nevertheless I am now content that I have some idea how I got here.

Are they related? Being 'content', and having "some idea how I got here"?
..nameless.. wrote:I 'derived' it from my own perceptions, experiences, practices, disciplines from many "disparate areas of experience";
The thing that would worry me here is that sounds very much like the definition of empirical.

If we define 'empirical' as that which is perceived.
That is how we all Know. That is the only way to Know, Conscious perception.
'Knowledge' is "that which is perceived!"
If that fits into your understanding of 'empirical' then that works for me.
I do understand that the common definition is something different and obsolete.
That would suggest the absence of a theory and then the difficulty of getting around the problem of correlation not proving causation.
Causality is also no longer what it once was. 'Cause and effect' is a crude way of saying "two mutually arising features (Perspectives) of the same event!"
There is no 'causation', there is no 'time' (other than as a 'thought').
Not anything is ever 'created', nor can be!
That which Is, is 'perceived'!
Without a reason for there to be consciousness why does consciousness exist?
One feature of Consciousness is 'thought'.
In/as 'thought' exists 'reason'.
How does consciousness exist without being perceived?
That is what 'existence' is!
Existence is a moment of 'Self!' Knowledge!
All us little (Planck sized!!) Perspectives uniquely perceiving that feature of the One Reality toward which we are 'pointed'.
Reality is a synchrony of moments of 'Self! Knowledge'!
Now!
('Time', the notions of linearity and motion, exists, along with the egoic 'self' construct, as 'thought'.)
If I take consciousness for granted then all's well and I don't need anything else to explain my existence.

If you ever find any evidence of 'not' Consciousness, I'm all ears.
But, it won't happen.
It is not possible! *__-
But unless consciousness has some intrinsic reason for existing, then I start with nothing and nothing ever exists.
As i said, there are many 'reasons' for consciousness. lots of Perpectives. The 'Ultimate Reason' is the sum-total of all the 'reasons' that are reasoned (perceived by Perspectives). All together, they remain perceived (Consciously! *__- ) features (among many) of the One Reality.
That is the bit I have failed to grasp from what you have said.

In my view consciousness needs an explanation or your theory cannot be complete.
This theory accounts for all 'explanations', is all inclusive, Universally!
An initial look at your reasoning would appear to force you to deny the possibility of examining consciousness but I am missing why that reasoning is required.

Never deny the examination of anything, this is philosophy fer Dog's sake!
I follow all the neuro and bio and silicon and philosophic and physics and noetic and most of the cutting edge of the study of Consciousness.
The ToE still holds true, and the predictive power, so far, is 100%!
There is yet to be a 'breakthrough' of Knowledge to refute what I offer. All is accounted for, so far.
Personally, I have consciousness pinned out on a dissecting table like a dead frog. Unfortunately again I disastrously underestimated how big it was and now I kinda wish I hadn't started. My point is that you may wish to review your ideas on the effability of consciousness.
You seem to be well on the way to finding out for yourself!
Keep disecting your mist, every bit that you can catch! *__-
Love to follow your progress!
The end result is, of course, clearly predicted in the ToE!
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

I realise that I'll be as welcome as a wet-fart but this kind of nonsense cannot be allowed to go unchallenged upon a philosophy forum.
..nameless.. wrote:...
All propositions/truths are falsifiable in that all are contextual. ...
No, the tautological propositions cannot be falsified as they are not contextual because they do not apply to reality or the world. The contradictory propositions cannot be "falsified" as they are always false. Now it might be true that they are always false but that is a different matter. There is no such thing as "propositions/truths". If I assume you mean 'truths' then you are right there are no such things or states of affairs called 'truths' so there are no propositions about them that can be true or false. It would be like asking "Is 'true' true", "Is 'true' false", etc. If I assume you mean 'propositions' then see the beginning of this paragraph. If I assume you mean 'propositions that are true' then I assume you mean the contingent propositions and it is the case that they can go between being true and false because of context but if we knew that we had ALL the context then they wouldn't as that's why they are called the contingent propositions and we'd know which ones were the true ones, as thats how we have true and false, by knowing what is true. Now some could argue that this is not 'knowing' but then I'd think this is why epistemology occurs and think it also points to those who wish for absolutes in their life, lots of luck with that, but you can have them if you wish, they are called tautologies but they don't apply to real life.

Even a 'God' cannot fuck with Logic but 'it' may well be able to tell which amongst all of ours are the true contingent propositions, as applied to the states of affairs they describe, but 'it' wouldn't be able to tell which of 'its' were. Although this is just an opinion but I'd like to hear an argument against it.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

..nameless.. wrote:...
If you ever find any evidence of 'not' Consciousness, I'm all ears.
But, it won't happen.
It is not possible! *__-
Rocks, doors, pens, keyboards, paper, bottles, jars, cars, planes, sticks, dvds......

Are you seriously claiming that if Life was extinguished from this planet the planet would disappear? That the Sun would go out?
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Arising_uk wrote:
..nameless.. wrote:...
All propositions/truths are falsifiable in that all are contextual. ...
No, the tautological propositions cannot be falsified

When I spoke, I was totally unaware of definitions of 'tautology' as 'redundancy' of a statement. Live and learn.
Please, educate me.

So we are speaking of the same thing;

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tautology
tautology (countable and uncountable; plural tautologies)

1) (uncountable) redundant use of words

It is tautology to say, "Forward Planning".

2) (countable) An expression that features tautology.

The expression "raze to the ground" is a tautology, since the word "raze" includes the notion "to the ground".

3) (countable, logic) A statement that is true for all values of its variables

Given a Boolean A, "A OR (NOT A)" is a tautology.
A logical statement which is neither a tautology nor a contradiction is a contingency.
A tautology can be verified by constructing a truth tree for its negation: if all of the leaf nodes of such truth tree end in X's, then the original (pre-negated) formula is a tautology.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/t.htm#taug
tautology

Logical truth. A statement which is necessarily true because, by virtue of its logical form, it cannot be used to make a false assertion.

Example: "If neither John nor Betty is here, then John is not here."

Yes, obviously true, in this case, and cannot be 'falsifiable'! I'm willing to conceed this point.
One for you.
After all, everything is true!
You'll never get an argument from me by claiming anything as 'true'.
It is all True! (tautology that is very Real!)
as they are not contextual because they do not apply to reality or the world.
Nonsense!
Find me that definition.
Everything is a feature of Reality!
Perhaps you can link me to your definition?
There is no such thing as "propositions/truths"
.
I propose that there is!
So, you proposing that there are no 'propositions' (as a 'truth') is refuted!
they are called tautologies but they don't apply to real life.
Existence/Reality (redundant tautology) doesn't apply to "real life" (as opposed to 'false life' I guess)?
Even a 'God' cannot fuck with Logic
'God' doesn't have to, quantum mechanics has thoroughly stricken the foundation/pedestal of your God Logic.
Your basic laws of identity are gone!
I'm not interested in going into this again. It is just a guaranteed argument, and that is not why I am here.

It is inconsequential. Perhaps you can correct my statement above regarding tautologies, perhaps not. Whether or not a 'tautology' is falsifiable, is irrelevent to the ToE that I offer.
It is a non issue.

Truth/Reality is not falsifiable, and they ARE Reality/the 'world'! There is not anything that has nothing to do with Reality/existence!
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Arising_uk wrote:
..nameless.. wrote:...
If you ever find any evidence of 'not' Consciousness, I'm all ears.
But, it won't happen.
It is not possible! *__-
Rocks, doors, pens, keyboards, paper, bottles, jars, cars, planes, sticks, dvds......
Rocks exist as they are Consciously perceived. They do not necessarily need to be Conscious to exist, just Consciously perceived, though all there is is Consciousness. There is no evidence otherwise. You cannot prove a negative.
Are you seriously claiming that if Life was extinguished from this planet the planet would disappear? That the Sun would go out?
Gee, did I say that?
I am seriously claiming that everything that exists is perceived. That everything perceived exists.
That my definition of "Life' is Consciousness.
In which case, whether your limited facilities can perceive that or not is irrelevant!
The better our 'scientific eyes' (or intuitional eyes...), the more 'life' that we find where none was expected.
Not anything exists that is not perceived Now!
Always happy for evidence otherwise. You sarcastic and emotional response doesn't quite quality as a refutal!
Evidence would, if it were possible, which it is not.
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Nikolai »

Hi Arising,
Arising_uk wrote:Even a 'God' cannot fuck with Logic but 'it' may well be able to tell which amongst all of ours are the true contingent propositions...Although this is just an opinion but I'd like to hear an argument against it.
There is an argument against this and the argument holds that God can and does play with logic, like a toy bauble tossed about in his hand. When a person is thinking or behaving logically one might say that they are under a spell cast from Olympus, blinded and deluded...and a source of great amusement to the Gods!

The logical argument depends entirely on the strength of it's premise, or its axiom. It depends on that statement of fact that is assumed to be true and from which subsequent deductions are made. The thing is, the person who makes the argument is rarely aware that the axiom is in itself unproven. The axiom is something that must be assumed, that is, taken on faith.

The person who has so proudly made the logical argument must be in a state of denial about their axiom because the axiom, which makes their argument possible, is actually blindly assumed and is therefore in itself quite illogical.

As I said, the person is rarely aware of this situation. If they were they could not make the argument with any real conviction. They would have to say that they "believe" something to be the case, and could not claim a purely logical validity. But we are rarely aware of the true nature of the logical argument and so we persist under that spell, cast on us from Olympian heights. And then in our hubris we think,as you suggest, that it is the Gods that must obey logic!

To be logical is to be illogical. The two go together hand in hand - or something like siamese twins. You cannot make a logical argument without first sticking dogmatically to an illogical axiom.

Now all this is so surprising that the example of a simple syllogism will probably help.

All men our mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

The starting premise seems to be so robust that the subsequent conclusions seems infallible. But we must remember that the opening premise depends on how we arbitrarily define man. Were we to define 'man' in terms of his indestructable molecules, atoms, electrons we might reasonably make our premise 'All men are immortal' - which would entail the conclusion that Socrates is immortal.

Logical argument can therefore reveal that Socrates is both mortal and immortal - a most illogical contradiction.

The important point is that a premise is always an empirical interpretation of reality, expressed in terms that are quite subject to revision. A word such as 'man' does not have a necessary definition. Any syllogism therefore has its equal and opposite syllogism, with equal and opposite premises. Which of these alternatives is true? It depends on the spell that has been cast on us. (For a better, more succinct account of this argument see the OP in: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3421

The logical argument is never the true argument because it is always equally false. Logic is the language that we use in order to communicate the prejudiced version of events we subscribe to. And a logical argument is only convincing to the extent that our interlocutor is under the same blind prejudice as ourselves.

There is no truth. There are only opinions, based on arbitrary assumptions, that are then expressed in the language of logic. A logical deduction is an illusion, a parlour trick which can only work if we are willing to start by looking the other way.

So, to some up, the logical argument depends on the blind adherence to a perfectly equivocal starting position. And is therefore both true and false. Do you see the logic in this?

Best wishes, Nikolai
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

..nameless.. wrote:...
One for you.
I don't understand it as a points scoring game.
After all, everything is true!
You'll never get an argument from me by claiming anything as 'true'.
It is all True! (tautology that is very Real!)
Whats the "It" in this statement?

But since you now understand why a logical tautology is true take a look at the logical contradictions and understand why everything is not true.
Find me that definition.
Everything is a feature of Reality!
Perhaps you can link me to your definition?
Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 4.461, 4.4611, 4.462, 4.463.

Everything may be a feature of "Reality" but you'd have to say what you describe by reality before I could fully agree.
...So, you proposing that there are no 'propositions' (as a 'truth') is refuted!
I agree there are true propositions but "as a 'truth'"? What do you mean by this? 'Truth' is not a thing in the sense of buses.
Existence/Reality (redundant tautology) doesn't apply to "real life" (as opposed to 'false life' I guess)?
More as opposed to imaginary life. But tautologies don't refer to anything in the sense of referring to things.
'God' doesn't have to, quantum mechanics has thoroughly stricken the foundation/pedestal of your God Logic.
You keep mistaking the words that some quantum physicists are using to try and model the maths for the actual theories.
Your basic laws of identity are gone!
You think they don't identify everything as particles?
I'm not interested in going into this again. It is just a guaranteed argument, and that is not why I am here.
Its not an argument at all. Why are you here?
It is inconsequential. Perhaps you can correct my statement above regarding tautologies, perhaps not. Whether or not a 'tautology' is falsifiable, is irrelevent to the ToE that I offer. It is a non issue.
If you have a TOE what predictions can you make that would confirm what you say or what experiments or observations can you propose that would make your TOE false if they could be carried out? Apart from the obvious one that the contradictions show that everything is not true(if this is your TOE that is).
Truth/Reality is not falsifiable, and they ARE Reality/the 'world'! There is not anything that has nothing to do with Reality/existence!
And this if what I've asked you before, what levels or classes of existence do you have in your reality as you surely must have, otherwise you'll be having unicorns existing in the same way as big red buses. Not a sensible way to proceed in the world.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

..nameless.. wrote:Rocks exist as they are Consciously perceived. They do not necessarily need to be Conscious to exist, just Consciously perceived, though all there is is Consciousness. There is no evidence otherwise. You cannot prove a negative.
True but I'd like you to confirm that you think the Earth and the rocks did not exist until a consciousness perceived them.
Gee, did I say that?
"Rocks exist as they are Consciously perceived."
I am seriously claiming that everything that exists is perceived. That everything perceived exists.
I agree with the latter but the former shows a breathtaking hubris. Although I still think you will need levels of existence or do you think unicorns exist in the same way buses do?
That my definition of "Life' is Consciousness.
Not much argument from me but I take it that you don't mean self-consciousness?
In which case, whether your limited facilities can perceive that or not is irrelevant!
Well, maybe to you.
The better our 'scientific eyes' (or intuitional eyes...), the more 'life' that we find where none was expected.
Glad you scare-quote the 'scientific' as I'd have to wonder about the or and the "intuitional".
Not anything exists that is not perceived Now!
So following from this you'd say that the galaxies that we discover now did not actually exist in the sense of really being before?
Always happy for evidence otherwise. You sarcastic and emotional response doesn't quite quality as a refutal!
you are hearing sarcasm where it does not exist. I think the emotional responses are yours.
Evidence would, if it were possible, which it is not.
What would be evidence for you?
Last edited by Arising_uk on Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

Hey ho Nikolai,
Nikolai wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:Even a 'God' cannot fuck with Logic but 'it' may well be able to tell which amongst all of ours are the true contingent propositions...Although this is just an opinion but I'd like to hear an argument against it.
There is an argument against this and the argument holds that God can and does play with logic, like a toy bauble tossed about in his hand. When a person is thinking or behaving logically one might say that they are under a spell cast from Olympus, blinded and deluded...and a source of great amusement to the Gods!
You've cut out the bit that was actually my point and then argued what I already agreed with? But with a lot more poesy. Re-read the bit you cut.
So, to some up, the logical argument depends on the blind adherence to a perfectly equivocal starting position. And is therefore both true and false. Do you see the logic in this?
Of course! As it is the point of Logic, i.e. if you have true statements then you can deduce true conclusions. But its true that from false statements you can also derive true conclusions but you can also derive false ones. Which you can't do if you start with true ones. But no-one is saying that you can find the truth of contingent axioms from Logic, that involves epistemology about what makes something true or not and so far the Newtonian metaphysicians are winning this one hands-down.

We've already had this discussion about your idea that its all 'faith' and nothing is true or false or its both true and false. I agree that you can call the truth of the contingent axioms 'faith' if you like but I'll point out to you again that your arrival upon this notion has been due to you ignoring the senses and inter-subjective agreement. Hence you practice techniques that actually promote 'mind' and 'self' as pre-eminent even tho' you claim not, as what you do is ignore that the body is before 'mind' and the techniques you do are designed to reduce or ignore what the senses give us. It does not even matter if the external world is all a sim as its still an external world that the body senses report and the rest of us notice that, whereas you, like nameless it appears, wish to make it all dependent upon yourself, hubris.
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Arising_uk wrote:
..nameless.. wrote:Rocks exist as they are Consciously perceived. They do not necessarily need to be Conscious to exist, just Consciously perceived, though all there is is Consciousness. There is no evidence otherwise. You cannot prove a negative.
True but I'd like you to confirm that you think the Earth and the rocks did not exist until a consciousness perceived them.
Until I find any evidence otherwise, I'm willing to tentatively confirm that.
All evidence supports it, none to refute... yeah, I'll stand by that.
I am seriously claiming that everything that exists is perceived. That everything perceived exists.
I agree with the latter but the former shows a breathtaking hubris. Although I still think you will need levels of existence or do you think unicorns exist in the same way buses do?
Everything exists!
It is very simple!
Busses exist, thoughts exist, 'memories' exist, 'imagination' exists, 'flying pigs' exist as 'thoughts'! All Perspectives can only perceive that which exists!

I find such schizophrenic fragmentation of that which is One to be... counter-productive, devolutional.
That is why Greek 'philosophy' has borne such horrific fruits! "We're RIGHT! And 'they' are WRONG! Evil! Kill the 'ragheads, Xtians, savages...!!"! Wherever you have a 'them' you have this sapiens horror! Convert to the 'true' religion or die! "Convert to MY BELIEFS (like your belief in 'logic') or suffer!

We seem to be going in circles.
I offered food for thought, for what it's worth, and every bite offered is spewn back into my face.
I'm not trying you argue and convert you, I am just offering 'this' Perspective, and working way too hard at being understood. Live and learn.
You cannot accept, even hypothetically, the fundamentals that I offer. Thats fine, but I see no point in going around and around about it.
Think and believe as you must.
Like shouting down a well, I'm out of words.
No more arguing.
good night
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Nikolai »

Hi Arising,
Arising_uk wrote:But its true that from false statements you can also derive true conclusions but you can also derive false ones.
I'm not sure if I'm being pedantic, but actually you aren't in a position to say even this. We aren't able to comment on what we can derive because there is no justifiable reason to think there is a true statement. All conclusions become neither true nor false if the very practice of axiomatic deduction is in doubt.
Arising_uk wrote:But no-one is saying that you can find the truth of contingent axioms from Logic, that involves epistemology about what makes something true or not and so far the Newtonian metaphysicians are winning this one hands-down.
Well, yes, although they aren't actually winning - they just think they are. But then everyone else seems to think they are too!
Arising_uk wrote:I agree that you can call the truth of the contingent axioms 'faith' if you like but I'll point out to you again that your arrival upon this notion has been due to you ignoring the senses and inter-subjective agreement.
Yes, we have discussed this before! From the perspective I am arguing from, there is no senses and there is no inter-subjectivity. Such notions are illusions that have no grounding in neither experience nor logic. Information does not reach us via the senses and agreement with another is agreement with yourself.

Can I just stress that I am not claiming that this perspective is the truth. What I am claiming is that it is a perspective as equally valid as your own. One might say that I fall into error because I ignore the senses, and one can also say that I ignore them rightly because they are an illusion.

I know where you are coming from. What you espouse is what 99.9% of human beings espouse and I once too espoused. But then I saw through it. I saw that it was only half the story. I'm not dismissing what you say; I'm saying that you have more to learn on the subject. I know where you are coming from and accept it, now I would like you to add more to it.
Arising_uk wrote:Hence you practice techniques that actually promote 'mind' and 'self' as pre-eminent even tho' you claim not, as what you do is ignore that the body is before 'mind' and the techniques you do are designed to reduce or ignore what the senses give us.
What I promote as preeminent is neither mind nor self. What I have seen is that mind is not 'before body' nor vice versa. What I have seen is that mind and body are precisely and exactly the same thing - a thing which therefore cannot be either mind or body as commonly conceived.

What shall I call it, this thing I have seen? I could choose a nonsense word like 'chaerius'. Or I could choose a familiar word like 'Mind' or 'Self', give them a capital letter, and hope that you are capable of making the necessary extension of meaning.

Both ways are fraught with danger. To the nonsense word you might add an idiosyncratic meaning of your own, to the familiar word you might fail to extend its meaning and fall into error by thinking I mean something I don't.

The Jews thought it best to never give it a name. But then people just took this supposed emptiness, turned it into a mental concept, and filled it with their own notions, as if it were a word

The simple truth is: if you knew what that thing is I have seen - you would recognise that I am talking about it with only the slightest effort on my behalf.
Arising_uk wrote:It does not even matter if the external world is all a sim as its still an external world that the body senses report and the rest of us notice that, whereas you, like nameless it appears, wish to make it all dependent upon yourself, hubris.
Nobody has said anything about the world being a simulation. The world is the world. But when you see that the body doesn't sense anything but is, itself, just another sensation, as are thoughts, as are rocks, trees and sticks - when you see this, then you will know what I say.

And when everything is a sensation - when your hand and the pine in your garden are made equal in this way, then you will see that there is no sensation because there is no subject here to do the sensing. A heartbeat is no different to a bird song. When you see that there is no subject, then there is no object either, and then you will have harmonised the fundamental division of the 'human condition'. What ensues is the reason why critical philosophical thought and holy, devout spiritual striving are one and the same path.

We generally think we are separate individual selves. I'm not saying that things don't sometimes seem that way. I am saying that sometimes we see that we are not separate. When this latter perspective strikes you in a forceful and lively fashion then you can never think of yourself as an individual with as much conviction. What was once a truth is now an opinion, or a perspective, therefore those who stick dogmatically to it, as you do, are now seen as believers.

I know you don't think that you are a believer when it comes to the reality of your body. You think that you are a knower. But to me it is apparent that you are a believer because to me there are two possible opinions and you passionately stick to only one of them. Why do you stick so passionately? Because to you there is only one convincing view. In other words, the other view hasn't struck you in a lively and forceful fashion.

What can you do to be struck in this fashion? What are the techniques?

Well for me it was philosophy and meditation. But I can't offer you any promises because I see many who engage in the same activities (although few have both hobbies) and they haven't been struck as I have and die without being thus struck.

So although I always hear you asking for techniques, I personally think it is dishonest to start offering them. But your intelligence and obvious interest in the subject are the best possible grounds.

Best wishes, Nikolai
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Nikolai »

Hi nameless,
..nameless.. wrote:You cannot accept, even hypothetically, the fundamentals that I offer. Thats fine, but I see no point in going around and around about it.
Think and believe as you must.
Like shouting down a well, I'm out of words.
No more arguing.
good night
Well I think you've done a very good job. More from the Tao Te Ching, ch. 9:
Care about people's approval
and you will be their prisoner,
Do your work, then step back.
The only path to serenity.
Best wishes, Nikolai
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

..nameless.. wrote:Until I find any evidence otherwise, I'm willing to tentatively confirm that.
All evidence supports it, none to refute... yeah, I'll stand by that.
So you are willing to quote QM but doubt the findings of the geologists? You think that if life was extinguished upon this planet the earth would disappear? The Sun would go out? :roll:
Everything exists!
It is very simple!
Busses exist, thoughts exist, 'memories' exist, 'imagination' exists, 'flying pigs' exist as 'thoughts'! All Perspectives can only perceive that which exists!
I don't disagree with the latter but you'd have to explain what makes the difference between the type of existence of buses and the other things you mention. Otherwise you have to say that 'flying pigs' are as real as buses?
I find such schizophrenic fragmentation of that which is One to be... counter-productive, devolutional.
That is why Greek 'philosophy' has borne such horrific fruits! "We're RIGHT! And 'they' are WRONG! Evil! Kill the 'ragheads, Xtians, savages...!!"! Wherever you have a 'them' you have this sapiens horror! Convert to the 'true' religion or die! "Convert to MY BELIEFS (like your belief in 'logic') or suffer!
What a pessimist you are. Ever thought there is no 'One' that you talk about? That the reason why there is an Other is because you are a one and the world is actually made of matter and other things?

The idea of Logic and its Laws have been discovered in every culture, the Indian and Chinese traditions discovered such a thing, in fact anywhere where reason has been Logic has been realised.

The rest of your rant appears to be some anti-christian stance and I think you should look more to the Romans than the Greeks for this.
We seem to be going in circles.
I offered food for thought, for what it's worth, and every bite offered is spewn back into my face.
I think you with the circles and find you a very emotional character. No-one is 'spewing' into your face, its a philosophy forum and you should expect your thoughts to be questioned. that you find it so offensive lends me to think you should be upon some dip-shot 'new age' forum where they'll accept such stuff with no comment.
I'm not trying you argue and convert you, I am just offering 'this' Perspective, and working way too hard at being understood. Live and learn.
Maybe because what you say makes little sense?
You cannot accept, even hypothetically, the fundamentals that I offer. Thats fine, but I see no point in going around and around about it.
What fundamentals? I've agreed where I can but otherwise I find your thoughts confused about many things, not least about philosophy, logic and physics.
Think and believe as you must.
no must about it, I think and believe as I choose and I choose, in general, upon reason and logic.
Like shouting down a well, I'm out of words.
What echo do you hear?
No more arguing.
good night
Like I've said, your prerogative.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

Nikolai wrote:I'm not sure if I'm being pedantic, but actually you aren't in a position to say even this. We aren't able to comment on what we can derive because there is no justifiable reason to think there is a true statement. All conclusions become neither true nor false if the very practice of axiomatic deduction is in doubt.
There's no doubt about the method of axiomatic deduction. Its how we arrive at truth thats the issue, which is why Epistemology is now more important.
Well, yes, although they aren't actually winning - they just think they are. But then everyone else seems to think they are too!
Given that there was no change for quite a few thousand years and within a few hundred the difference is immense, I'll stick with the Newtonians having the upper-hand with respect to metaphysics.
Yes, we have discussed this before! From the perspective I am arguing from, there is no senses and there is no inter-subjectivity. Such notions are illusions that have no grounding in neither experience nor logic. Information does not reach us via the senses and agreement with another is agreement with yourself.

Can I just stress that I am not claiming that this perspective is the truth. What I am claiming is that it is a perspective as equally valid as your own. One might say that I fall into error because I ignore the senses, and one can also say that I ignore them rightly because they are an illusion.
Given what you've said how can you even have a perspective then? I pretty much agree that what you and nameless do is agree amongst yourselves and only when its what you wish to hear.

That there are senses and inter-subjectivity is pretty much the experience and its a logical conclusion from the experience we have. That you practice ignoring ones senses and others pretty much guarantees that you would think it all an illusion and that only you exist in reality.

I know where you are coming from. What you espouse is what 99.9% of human beings espouse and I once too espoused. But then I saw through it. I saw that it was only half the story. I'm not dismissing what you say; I'm saying that you have more to learn on the subject. I know where you are coming from and accept it, now I would like you to add more to it.
:lol: I started from where you are now and then in latter life found philosophy and logic.
What I promote as preeminent is neither mind nor self. What I have seen is that mind is not 'before body' nor vice versa. What I have seen is that mind and body are precisely and exactly the same thing - a thing which therefore cannot be either mind or body as commonly conceived.
Which is why I call it bodymind as its not dualism nor idealism. But you ignore human developmental if you think that body does not come before 'mind'.
What shall I call it, this thing I have seen? I could choose a nonsense word like 'chaerius'. Or I could choose a familiar word like 'Mind' or 'Self', give them a capital letter, and hope that you are capable of making the necessary extension of meaning.
Try thinking of it as the structure that exists if you remove its causes, i.e. the percepts of the senses. Given what you've said you can not have any "necessary extension of meaning"?
Both ways are fraught with danger. To the nonsense word you might add an idiosyncratic meaning of your own, to the familiar word you might fail to extend its meaning and fall into error by thinking I mean something I don't.
Given you say there is no 'self' nor 'mind' nor 'true' nor 'false', I pretty much doubt you can make any meaning at all.
The Jews thought it best to never give it a name. But then people just took this supposed emptiness, turned it into a mental concept, and filled it with their own notions, as if it were a word
Oh! You believe in a 'God'?
The simple truth is: if you knew what that thing is I have seen - you would recognise that I am talking about it with only the slightest effort on my behalf.
After all you've said you then say "The simple truth is"! :roll:

You are saying that you think there is a 'God'.
Nobody has said anything about the world being a simulation. The world is the world. But when you see that the body doesn't sense anything but is, itself, just another sensation, as are thoughts, as are rocks, trees and sticks - when you see this, then you will know what I say.
Only if I needed like you and Berkeley to have a greater consciousness to allow me to reconnect back to the world. The Body is the ground for your idealism.
And when everything is a sensation - when your hand and the pine in your garden are made equal in this way, then you will see that there is no sensation because there is no subject here to do the sensing. A heartbeat is no different to a bird song. When you see that there is no subject, then there is no object either, and then you will have harmonised the fundamental division of the 'human condition'. What ensues is the reason why critical philosophical thought and holy, devout spiritual striving are one and the same path.
You'd like Huxleys, "The Perennial Philosophy" I think. I think you make-up this 'human-condition' to satisfy some other need and ironically enough that it is an example of existential angst.
We generally think we are separate individual selves. I'm not saying that things don't sometimes seem that way. I am saying that sometimes we see that we are not separate. When this latter perspective strikes you in a forceful and lively fashion then you can never think of yourself as an individual with as much conviction. What was once a truth is now an opinion, or a perspective, therefore those who stick dogmatically to it, as you do, are now seen as believers.
And there we have it! You categorising just as you say those you criticise do. Have you watched birth? Become a parent? As if you have then I'm amazed you do not understand that we are separate beings by definition. Do I think we have to have Others and Language to define Self and 'Mind', of course but to leap to 'God' or a greater 'consciousness' appears to fundamentally ignore what we are. its like Darwin was never born.
I know you don't think that you are a believer when it comes to the reality of your body. You think that you are a knower. But to me it is apparent that you are a believer because to me there are two possible opinions and you passionately stick to only one of them. Why do you stick so passionately? Because to you there is only one convincing view. In other words, the other view hasn't struck you in a lively and forceful fashion.
But it did for most of my youth, it is that you cannot reconnect to the world and reality from where you are that I looked for other viewpoints. I think you should try the martial arts for another way to experience mindfulness.
What can you do to be struck in this fashion? What are the techniques?

Well for me it was philosophy and meditation. But I can't offer you any promises because I see many who engage in the same activities (although few have both hobbies) and they haven't been struck as I have and die without being thus struck.
Why do you think that is? Me, I like moving meditation and NC NLP for the 'human condition'.
So although I always hear you asking for techniques, I personally think it is dishonest to start offering them. But your intelligence and obvious interest in the subject are the best possible grounds.
I think it only dishonest if what you offer does not work the way you say it will.
Best wishes, Nikolai
Yours as ever.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

Nikolai wrote:Hi nameless,
..nameless.. wrote:You cannot accept, even hypothetically, the fundamentals that I offer. Thats fine, but I see no point in going around and around about it.
Think and believe as you must.
Like shouting down a well, I'm out of words.
No more arguing.
good night
Well I think you've done a very good job. More from the Tao Te Ching, ch. 9:
Care about people's approval
and you will be their prisoner,
Do your work, then step back.
The only path to serenity.
Best wishes, Nikolai
And yet I appear to be the more serene than he?
Post Reply