Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

[Kevin Solway]

you communicate using words which represent concepts

For a wise person, words don't represent concepts, but they are pointers to the real world. It's like I'm pointing at the moon and you're saying, "That finger is pointing at a concept". You don't want to look at the moon.

[Kevin Solway]

It cannot be totaled at all!

Sure it can!

You just have to add two things together: yourself + everything else.

[Ataraxia]

'QSR philosophy', or David's WOTI are definately models.

Once someone says anything definative over and above "Everything=Everything/Totality" it necessarily becomes a model by definition.

[clyde]

Zen is the madman yelling “If you wanta tell me that the stars are not words, then stop calling them stars!” Jack Kerouac

Kevin; Yes, I understand that you’re not pointing at a concept, but you are pointing, and pointing with words is using concepts.

[Ataraxia]

you communicate using words which represent concepts

For a wise person, words don't represent concepts, but they are pointers to the real world. It's like I'm pointing at the moon and you're saying, "That finger is pointing at a concept". You don't want to look at the moon.

In this analogy,your philosophy/concepts ARE the finger.What you are pointing at,with your philosophy -the 'moon'-represents the truth(hopefully).

[David Quinn]

Modeling is an attempt to create a conceptual approximation of reality. Philosophy is the practice of using logical reasoning to point the mind to the nature of reality itself, which is beyond all models. This is achieved by undermining the basis of all models, as well as undermining the instinctive human desire to create models in the first place.

Models are what the ego finds its sustenance in. By attacking the basis of all models you attack the very foundations of the ego itself.

However, people are very attached to their models and actively resist having them dismantled. Hence, their constant desire to limit the scope of logic and reason.

-

[Kevin Solway]

pointing with words is using concepts.

It doesn't matter what you use to point, whether it be a pointing finger, words, or whatever. What matters is what is being pointed at.

[David Quinn]

Laird: No matter how you use definitions, concepts and reason, you are ultimately engaged in a process of modelling reality.

David: No. Reality can only be found when all models are dismantled, so that is how I employ my concepts and reasoning. I am a destroyer of models, not a creator of them. I hack everything down until there is nothing left. Only then does reality have a chance to shine through.

Unbelievable. Until now you have tacitly accepted that you are modelling, but when the argument starts to take a turn that you don't like, suddenly you reject that you are modelling.

No, that is a delusion on your part. You've lazily concluded without any real investigation that what I do is modeling.

Absolutely you are engaged in a modelling process. You model reality as a Totality that contains all causes but that is itself uncaused. You model reality as a Totality that stretches infinitely in both temporal directions and in all spatial directions. You model reality as entirely deterministic. You model reality as a set of interdependent causes such that there is no inherent existence, merely the interactions of causality. You conclude from this model that everything is empty including the self, and you further conclude from this model that all emotions are deluded.

None of these things are models. They are attacks upon models. They don't have any truth in and of themselves, they are simply spotlights on the deluded and contradictory nature of certain kinds of models.

For example, one can expose contradictions inherent in the model that Reality is a limited or finite entity via the use of logical reasoning.

Laird: A valid use of logic in modelling is to disprove a model by discovering contradictions. Thus, we can be confident that the model in which the world contains a married bachelor is a false one. Logic cannot, however, be used to prove a model in an ultimate sense: all that we can hope for is to know that so far we have not discovered any inconsistencies.

David: That's right. Becoming enlightened has nothing to do attaching oneself to a particular model.

Laird: I don't know what in the world you think that sentence has to do with what I wrote, but in any case if it's what you truly believe then you'd better retract your book because "Wisdom of the Infinite" is wholescale modelling.

If you read through it to the end and understand it properly, you will see that it is the complete opposite of modeling. It systematically tears down the very basis of all models, leaving nothing left - apart from Reality itself, which is beyond all models.

I even stated in the introduction that none of my statements in the book should be regarded as absolute truths, but rather as stepping stones to an even greater realization. To wit:

It is important that the reader approach this material in the right frame of mind. The truths that I will be presenting in the following chapters should not be viewed as final resting places or fixed positions to grasp tightly with one’s mind or ego. Think of them, rather, as stepping stones to even greater realizations. Although these truths are important to know in their own right, one should never lose sight of the main prize, which is the full and complete understanding of Ultimate Reality. Don't ever settle for meagre crumbs.

-

[Ataraxia]

pointing with words is using concepts.

It doesn't matter what you use to point, whether it be a pointing finger, words, or whatever. What matters is what is being pointed at.

Well thats true.But it doesn't negate the fact that in the act of pointing,in your case ,you use concepts.

[Imadrongo]

David,

You are the one trying to model the "Totality" itself. Logic is your modeling tool, and it itself is just a model. Everything we have is a model, except the empirical world, reality -- that which you "point to" with your words.

Good luck using models to remove all models. Without models you wouldn't be conscious, and yet you paradoxically want to remove all models and heighten your consciousness. :rolleyes:

Furthermore you can't provide any reasons why anyone would want to get rid of all models. Models are useful for us.

As per thread title, yes, you are "denying life" by wishing to remove all models.

[clyde]

Modeling is an attempt to create a conceptual approximation of reality.

Generally true, though some models are not conceptual (e.g. - a map).

Philosophy is the practice of using logical reasoning to point the mind to the nature of reality itself, which is beyond all models.

Not true as stated, as philosophy is a broad human enterprise comprising many facets, including aesthetics,epistemology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, etc.

[clyde]

It is important that the reader approach this material in the right frame of mind. The truths that I will be presenting in the following chapters should not be viewed as final resting places or fixed positions to grasp tightly with one’s mind or ego. Think of them, rather, as stepping stones to even greater realizations. Although these truths are important to know in their own right, one should never lose sight of the main prize, which is the full and complete understanding of Ultimate Reality. Don't ever settle for meagre crumbs.

David; It seems silly to deny your obvious use of concepts and without need. There is nothing inherently flawed with using concepts to point to reality, we do it all the time and its been done for the purpose you desire (to point to 'Ultimate Reality') for ages. The traditional metaphor is "using a thorn to remove a thorn". Relax. Admitting that you use concepts is no different that admitting you use tools. The problem, if there is a problem (besides denial) is the improper use of concepts or mistaking concepts and models for reality.

[David Quinn]

David,

You are the one trying to model the "Totality" itself. Logic is your modeling tool, and it itself is just a model. Everything we have is a model, except the empirical world, reality -- that which you "point to" with your words.

Logic itself isn't a model. It is simply the exploration of identity. It looks at particular models and determines whether identity within the model is being violated or not. So when I philosophize, I don't attempt to create any models. What I do is use logic to address the models that are already out there.

Good luck using models to remove all models. Without models you wouldn't be conscious, and yet you paradoxically want to remove all models and heighten your consciousness. :rolleyes:

Furthermore you can't provide any reasons why anyone would want to get rid of all models. Models are useful for us.

As per thread title, yes, you are "denying life" by wishing to remove all models.

You're right in saying that we can't get rid of models altogether, for they are essential to consciousness. But we can stop ourselves from being fooled by them. When a person is no longer deceived by his own modeling processes, not even for an instant, it is only then that he is consciously immersed in Reality.

And you're also correct in saying that creating models has practical benefits, such as in scientific theorizing, planning for the future, etc. So I'm certainly not advocating that we put a stop to modeling altogether (which is impossible in any case), only that we should gain total mastery of the modeling process and cease being fooled by it.

-

[Kevin Solway]

pointing with words is using concepts.

It doesn't matter what you use to point, whether it be a pointing finger, words, or whatever. What matters is what is being pointed at.

Well thats true.But it doesn't negate the fact that in the act of pointing, in your case, you use concepts.

Let's say I point at the moon with my finger. What "concepts" am I using?

Likewise if I use the word "moon" - which is no different to pointing with my finger.

[David Quinn]

It is important that the reader approach this material in the right frame of mind. The truths that I will be presenting in the following chapters should not be viewed as final resting places or fixed positions to grasp tightly with one’s mind or ego. Think of them, rather, as stepping stones to even greater realizations. Although these truths are important to know in their own right, one should never lose sight of the main prize, which is the full and complete understanding of Ultimate Reality. Don't ever settle for meagre crumbs.

David; It seems silly to deny your obvious use of concepts and without need. There is nothing inherently flawed with using concepts to point to reality, we do it all the time and its been done for the purpose you desire (to point to 'Ultimate Reality') for ages. The traditional metaphor is "using a thorn to remove a thorn". Relax. Admitting that you use concepts is no different that admitting you use tools. The problem, if there is a problem (besides denial) is the improper use of concepts or mistaking concepts and models for reality.

Yes, it is obviously true that I make use of concepts. It's a question of whether I use them to create new models or attack old ones. We all inherit models during the course of our upbringing, which can be challenged and dismantled though the use of logic. One doesn't have to invent new models in order to do this - although it can aid the process, if done wisely - one can simply address the models that are already there.

When a person starts embarking on serious philosophy, he still has the natural inclination to try and capture Reality with his models and concepts. This is the stage when people try to create metaphysical systems to explain the world - Spinoza, for example, was at such a stage. But as a person develops and becomes wiser and more intuitively aware of the nature of Reality, he ceases that kind of activity and instead systematically dismantles all metaphysical modeling. Here, he is motivated to clear away all the dead junk which is obstructing his awareness of Reality.

-

[Ataraxia]

Let's say I point at the moon with my finger. What "concepts" am I using?

The concept used is :"Ataraxia,look up there"

Likewise if I use the word "moon" - which is no different to pointing with my finger.

Again this is drawing my attention to a "something"

It doesn't matter whether you call it a "finger" or a "stepping stone" or a "non-absolute truth leading to the final prize" or a "breaking down of other models" or "words" they are concepts.

The 'moon' in your analogy is the "final prize","truth","real world" or "Ultimate Reality"

Denial that you and David are pointing,and further more doing it using concepts is an exercise in futility.

[clyde]

Kevin; The act of pointing to the moon with your finger does involve concepts and shared understandings from the one who points and from the one the pointer is communicating. Afterall, if I presented my raised middle-finger to you, you would not look to the sky to see what I was pointing to; you would understand that I was insulting you. In other circumstances, if I extend my index finger, you might look in the direction of my finger, but not feel insulted. How is this? Because we share concepts and understandings.

[clyde]

Yes, it is obviously true that I make use of concepts.

Do you agree that concepts are models?

But as a person develops and becomes wiser and more intuitively aware of the nature of Reality, he ceases that kind of activity and instead systematically dismantles all metaphysical modeling. Here, he is motivated to clear away all the dead junk which is obstructing his awareness of Reality.

But you do present a metaphysical model in your writings.

[David Quinn]

Yes, it is obviously true that I make use of concepts.

Do you agree that concepts are models?

To me, concepts are pointers. The concept "tree" is a pointer to physical trees. If a person tries to string concepts together to create some kind of explanation or model of the world, then he would be engaging in modeling.

But as a person develops and becomes wiser and more intuitively aware of the nature of Reality, he ceases that kind of activity and instead systematically dismantles all metaphysical modeling. Here, he is motivated to clear away all the dead junk which is obstructing his awareness of Reality.

But you do present a metaphysical model in your writings.

What's an example?

-

[clyde]

David;

If you and I talk about trees, then we each have a concept (and/or model) of a tree. You seem to suggest that models are composed of concepts and that concepts point while models explain. I am not opposed to some working distinction between concepts (which are necessarily mental) and models (which may be mental or physical).

You asked for an example of your metaphysical modeling from your writings. As Laird noted in a previous post, you present several notions, including causality, impermanence, etc. While these may point to an 'Ultimate Reality', they are, nonetheless, concepts which purport to represent reality; i.e., a model.

[average]

Do the concepts of enlightenment and totality point to something real or something imagined?

And how can you tell the difference?

[David Quinn]

David;

If you and I talk about trees, then we each have a concept (and/or model) of a tree. You seem to suggest that models are composed of concepts and that concepts point while models explain. I am not opposed to some working distinction between concepts (which are necessarily mental) and models (which may be mental or physical).

You asked for an example of your metaphysical modeling from your writings. As Laird noted in a previous post, you present several notions, including causality, impermanence, etc. While these may point to an 'Ultimate Reality', they are, nonetheless, concepts which purport to represent reality; i.e., a model.

No. They are concepts which help point the mind to reality; they're not designed to represent or mimic it. The affirmation of causality, for example, is really an affirmation of the impossibility of non-causality. Non-causality is pure fiction; by eliminating that fiction, we eliminate one of the mental barriers which prevent us from realizing Reality directly with our own minds.

Causality is also a fiction, a deeper fiction, and also needs to be abandoned, this time by realizing that beginnings and ends are fictitious. And so it goes on. Overall, the spiritual path is a step-by-step process which sees one fiction after another being abandoned until there are none left.

-

[clyde]

David;

Actually, they (causality, impermanence, etc.) seem (even by your definition) to be models, explaining reality, rather than concepts which point to a thing or process.

But if I understand your last paragraph, you are now presenting that they (causality, impermanence, etc.) are also "fictions", untrue! Is this what you mean?

[David Quinn]

Absolutely.

-

[clyde]

Absolutely! Then no more posts from you on the (false) concepts of Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection - or - enlightenment, right?