Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

[Imadrongo]

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.

Logic requires concepts/models to work on, it is useless without them.

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.

I don't think we can stop ourselves from being fooled by them short of perhaps a lobotomy. When you increase in consciousness you are simply looking at a larger model of the world. If you only saw "cars" and "houses" and "computers" you would have a relatively low level of understanding and consciousness. Then when you study science you start viewing life in various chemical cycles, energy transfers, etc, which is a higher model. You may see life through economic models or scientific models or religious models or whatever, but the point is that you are always seeing it in some type of model, even if your model deems all other models to be delusional. There is no "seeing through models" because all that you can see when looking through them is more models.

[average]

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.

I said the same thing since I joined this forum, and everyone just automatically disagreed.

What you will realize at the end of your spiritual path, is that it is also another fiction.
There is nothing to achieve, no delusion to overcome and no wisdom to attach to.

The deepest spiritual problem the individual faces --- is that there are is such problem.



+

[Jamesh]

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.

This is the point where David and co, become insane. They've reached the summit of the logic-of-reality rollercoaster and plunge down into the depths of fundamentalistic nothingness.

Cauality will never be a fiction. It is fiction only in a linear sense. In a non-linear sense, there is no fiction.

Alex:

Right, Kevin, and there you have it: bad poetry. As time passes, this is what I am beginning to conclude. It may come down to whether the life we live, and the way we live it, is circumscribed and held back by 'bad poetry', or if we have the good taste to take in only the very best of the best, and to 'submit' to it, to let it work on us like leaven. It has to do with what forces and potencies we allow to guide and animate our imagination! I like Dan, of course, but that was the most base and the most wretched---the most vulgar---poem that has come my way recently. If it were a drink I'd have to wash my mouth out. As idea and image, please give my consciousness some time to recover. Anyone, with the slightest interest, could have done infinitely better. Plagiarism is no crime for you, not if you consider that what the world doesn't need right now is low-brow pseudo-poetry. Am I supposed to thank you for having tossed it at me like some offal? Was that poem written for a human woman...of for his favorite mule? Upon hearing it, did she grab reflexively at her throat and then choke on her vomit? Is she dead now? Is this how you guys get even with 'Woman'? You do the world cruel disservice. Just as that is not even 5th rate sentiment (or idea), in a similar way all the ideas you guys express about life are...crappy. Trite. Brutally stupid. I say this with love in my heart, and because (though you don't think it is true) I actually want to help you. Don't publish anything! Don't put anything out into the world until you have run it by someone competent to critique it! I am really serious here, none of this is a joke. I am going to take the day off and try to forget what you did to me today. Everyone take care, Bye.

Not Alex, but Alexandra, imo.


Laird

Laird you need to start thinking about humanities future. It cannot possibly have any future with the sort of ideas you have. Look at where evolution of the successful kind must lead us. All the things humans do, that you think positively of, must change into something else. Let us begin this process before our inhumanity dressed up as humanity, destroys us all.

It is actually LOVE that created nuclear weapons. A love for what the series of inventors that lead to these weapons were most attached to.

But collectively we are yet young thinkers, little kiddies in the playground of reason. To survive, then what evolves from us must gradually become more and more godly. To be godlike means to not be subject to an emotional ego, where such an ego might be detrimental

Ego's perhaps can still be ok for entertainment reasons, providing one can rationally assess that exercising one's will to power will do no evolutionary harm to the development of godliness. One does need an ego to be prompted into any form of action.

[ahh I've just realised how closely related a life forms Will to Power is to the concept of entertainment. In fact perhaps a Will to Power at the higher Maslow diagram levels, is simply a will for entertainment - entertainment just meaning that which provides positive feelings.

This para is just a henid concept, that needs more development]

[Laird]

Kevin,

Your post was petty, manipulative and dishonest. Furthermore you failed to acknowledge a single point that I made and attempted to find fault with every small thing that I said ... perhaps you feel backed into a corner?

Laird: Until now you have tacitly accepted that you are modelling

Kevin: Definitely not. "Modeling" is something done by scientists, but since we are philosophers we don't do modeling.

You use language to describe reality; you have some unique things to say about reality: most certainly you are modelling and you don't fool me for a second when you deny it.

Laird: You model reality as a Totality

Kevin: Completely wrong. You are talking about "a Totality" as though there is more than one Totality, or as though there can be something other than the Totality, but you are wrong on both counts - of logical necessity.

So if you like, substitute the word "the" for "a". Got any disagreement other than the petty? And does this petty disagreement truly make me "completely" wrong?

Laird: that contains all causes but that is itself uncaused.

Kevin: That too is a logical necessity, and not a model. A model is only an approximation but these logical statements are absolutely and necessarily perfect.

No, Kevin, it's a model. As I've been repeating to David: logic cannot confirm for you that your model accurately reflects reality; it can only confirm that to date no inconsistencies have been found. And as I've explained, this model is not even consistent: it contains the paradox of uncausedness.

Laird: You model reality as a Totality that stretches infinitely in both temporal directions and in all spatial directions.

Kevin: You have a very short memory. The Totality necessarily includes time and space, by definition, and therefore it doesn't exist in time, and doesn't stretch in any directions.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. Where did I say that the Totality does not include time and space? More pettiness I suspect, simply so that you can say "you don't understand and you're wrong".

Laird: You model reality as entirely deterministic.

Kevin: That things are caused is a logical and necessary truth, and not a model.

How patently ridiculous. Quantum mechanics puts up a very different model which is more supportable than determinism because it actually has been observed through experiment to concur with reality. Really what your argument amounts to is this: I observe that causes exist, therefore all things are caused. A spectacular non sequiter if ever there was one.

It's like me pointing at the moon with my finger and you saying, "But that's just a finger". You're not interested in the moon.

No, it's like you drawing a picture of the moon and me saying, "Hang on, how do you know that there are dragons on the moon?" and you replying "Because it's logically necessary".

Laird: 1. The contradiction of an infinite past.

Kevin: The Totality doesn't exist in time, as explained above and many times previously, but you can try and refute something else if you like.

Phrase it however you like, Kev, but ultimately you believe that the past is infinite. That's all that I'm picking a problem with.

This contradiction can be demonstrated through a syllogism:
a. The universe extends infinitely back in time.
b. The past is characterised by the fact that the "marker of time" (present moment) has moved over it at some previous point in time.
c. It is impossible to reach an infinity, only to approach it.
d. From (c): the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.
e. (b) and (d) are in contradiction.

You say, "it is possible to approach infinity".

But this is obviously false, since no matter how far you go you can never be any closer to infinity. I don't think you've thought at all about what infinity is.

You've clearly forgotten your calculus. You don't remember "in the limit as x approaches infinity", do you?

Laird: the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.

Kevin: There can be no "most infinite early point". That's what "infinite" means. So you are talking about nonsensical, nonexistent things.

I didn't phrase that as well as I could have but it's testament to your petty need to find fault with absolutely everything that I wrote in that post that you quibble. Let me rephrase it as "the marker of time has never been at the earliest infinity" then.

In addition, the present has indeed been all points in the past, by definition.

Indeed, that was (b) in the syllogism. Unfortunately for you it is contradicted by (d) in the syllogism, but you're on a mission to ignore every point that I make and find fault with everything that I say so of course you're not going to acknowledge that.

. . . uncaused Totality:

And yet we can put a name to it, so clearly it has boundaries of some sort

It has no boundaries to itself, but its parts have boundaries (by definition). For that reason we can contrast it to its parts. Hence in-finite, or "not finite".

In fact it has boundaries in that it is limited to three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.

Laird: 3. The article of faith: that determinism trumps quantum mechanics:

Kevin: Logic trumps anything.

Uh, no. Reality trumps everything.

Laird: The best evidence and theories of quantum mechanics point to the fact that some events simply cannot be predicted whatsoever

Kevin: Whether things can be predicted or not has got nothing at all to do with determinism.

It has absolutely everything to do with it. And there's your problem. If you can't see that, then you have no hope of understanding what's wrong with your position. Determinism is based on the predicate that any particular event is completely predictable (fully "caused" in your terminology) given sufficient information.

Many things are caused but unpredictable, like the throw of a dice, the weather, etc. There is absolutely no way I can predict what the weather will be tomorrow, or what the result of a dice throw will be, as single events, no matter what information I have access to.

Since you believe in determinism, then theoretically with all of the information in the universe (and probably with a lot less) the weather and the result of the dice throw could be predicted. This is in stark contrast to a quantum event, which - no matter how much information you have access to - simply cannot be predicted. Hence quantum mechanics overrules determinism.

Laird: Some such explanation might turn up at some point in the future, but at the present it seems very unlikely

Kevin: People have arrogantly been saying exactly what you have just said for thousands of years. Some people believed the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, while others believed they were personally created by God. And they all believed they had reached the end point of knowledge, just as you do now (or at least, you think it is "very likely").

"And they all believed they had reached the end point of knowledge". Sounds like a pretty good description of yourself. The only difference is that you do it in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.

[Kevin Solway]

You use language to describe reality

Since you are unenlightened, it means that you don't know what reality is, and therefore you don't know whether we are using language to describe it. You are just pulling things out of the air.

Regarding the Totality, let's rephrase what you said:

You model reality as the Totality

What you say above is wrong because "reality" and "the Totality" are both one and the same thing. They are just different words pointing to the same thing. One does not model the other.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. Where did I say that the Totality does not include time and space?

You said that "it stretches infinitely in both temporal directions and in all spatial directions." This means that you don't understand what it means that it includes time and space. Since the Totality includes times and space, the Totality doesn't exist in time and space, and therefore it doesn't stretch in any directions.

Regarding infinite time, let me give you a demonstration of how silly your argument is. And let's see if you can spot the problem with it.

I will prove that "one second ago" never happened, and can never have happened.

Split the last second into an infinite number of parts. Each part will be a finite amount of time. Now begin marching, one step at a time, through each of the infinite parts of the last second, in the direction of "one second ago". You will never reach one second ago.

Wow! So one second ago can never have happened!

[P.S. You could also imagine taking a first step of half a second, and each step thereafter half the distance of your last step. You get the same result]

Reality trumps everything.

This would only be the case if it were so. (ie, if A=A).

Determinism is based on the predicate that any particular event is completely predictable

You don't understand determinism. Determinism is about causation, not prediction. It is only those who reject causation that characterize determinism in the way you do.

Many things are caused but unpredictable, like the throw of a dice, the weather, etc. There is absolutely no way I can predict what the weather will be tomorrow, or what the result of a dice throw will be, as single events, no matter what information I have access to.

Since you believe in determinism, then theoretically with all of the information in the universe (and probably with a lot less) the weather and the result of the dice throw could be predicted. This is in stark contrast to a quantum event, which - no matter how much information you have access to - simply cannot be predicted. Hence quantum mechanics overrules determinism.

What you say here is just scripted words.

I have already explained that not even the throw of a dice can be predicted with certainty, no matter how much information you have - let alone quantum events.

God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

"And they all believed they had reached the end point of knowledge". Sounds like a pretty good description of yourself.

The difference is that they all had beliefs about the empirical world, whereas our certainties are purely philosophical and logical in nature, and are independent of empirical uncertainties. What was true for the Buddha two and half thousand years ago is equally true today, and will always be true.

[Carl G]

Kevin wrote,

Since you are unenlightened, it means that you don't know what reality is, and therefore you don't know whether we are using language to describe it. You are just pulling things out of the air.

Laird,

He who is unenlightened should be most humble in the presence of one who is enlightened. The proper stance is to to be quiet and not voice one's one unenlightened opinions, but instead listen very carefully, and absorb deeply what is being said.

And that goes for everyone here. Respectful questions are all that is appropriate from our mouths.

[Alex Jacob]

[Jamesh, one of the things about dealing with people who are cartoonish and unreal, is oddly that you become cartoonish and unreal dealing with them. But you can play within cartoonishness and unreality through the medium of humor. Y'all know by now that I do not take any part of what you-all do or say with any seriousness, I regard you as children and not very bright children at that. Peasants. Country bumpkins with pretensions toward 'intellect'. You-all represent an almost ridiculously easy target if the truth be told---there is no challenge here---because you believe the little comedy you have spent so much time preparing for, with such zeal. If you weren't outright dolts you might be somewhat charming and I could feel a little sympathy for your plight, yet as it is one picks you up, slams you against the wall, punctures your balloons and smashes your toys, mercillessly. Only a fool would confuse a role in a third-rate farce with a genuine drama, or with a genuine and valuable exchange of ideas, and if you were such a player, your 15 minutes of fame would take place all in melodramatic notes. And then you'd be shot at dawn smoking your last cigarette. It is going to take some time for the growing-up processes I have initiated to take effect, but rest assured I have taken steps, through the medium of the invisible---that which you cannot ever register---to bring change to souls lost in dead-end alleys of pure stupidity and nonsense. I will not give up on you, I will not!]

[Kevin Solway]

Respectful questions are all that is appropriate from our mouths.

In Laird's case, some sort of questions, in the first place, would be a good thing. Everything Laird rails against are only phantoms.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Laird,

He who is unenlightened should be most humble in the presence of one who is enlightened. The proper stance is to to be quiet and not voice one's one unenlightened opinions, but instead listen very carefully, and absorb deeply what is being said.

And that goes for everyone here. Respectful questions are all that is appropriate from our mouths.

Oh good grief. Well, at least now I know that this wasn't just used on me because I'm female, and others can know that being Australian doesn't give a ticket into their "little club" as it has been called. This must just be the generic cry of someone whose "living deity" is being shown as a mere mortal.

Respectful questions are all that is appropriate from our mouths.

In Laird's case, some sort of questions, in the first place, would be a good thing. Everything Laird rails against are only phantoms.

Nice deflecting of the deity delusion of one of your followers (not).

[maestro]

I will prove that "one second ago" never happened, and can never have happened.

Split the last second into an infinite number of parts. Each part will be a finite amount of time. Now begin marching, one step at a time, through each of the infinite parts of the last second, in the direction of "one second ago". You will never reach one second ago.

Wow! So one second ago can never have happened!

[P.S. You could also imagine taking a first step of half a second, and each step thereafter half the distance of your last step. You get the same result]

Kevin what is the sum of the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4+....
It seems that you will say that the sum cannot be some finite quantity since we are always adding something.
However this series sums up to 2.
If you do not believe me try summing it up with a calculator, you (partial) sum will never exceed two.

[Dave Toast]

Kevin: Split the last second into an infinite number of parts. Each part will be a finite amount of time. Now begin marching, one step at a time, through each of the infinite parts of the last second, in the direction of "one second ago". You will never reach one second ago.

Zeno's paradoxes were solved by converging infinite series Kevin.

Edit: beat me to it!

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin what is the sum of the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4+....

This question doesn't relate to the argument I gave.

In my example, when you are stepping back, one step at a time, the series is never infinite, but always finite.

That is, instead of being 1+1/2+1/4+....

it is only 1/2 or 1/2+1/4, or whatever point you have reached. That is, it is always a finite series. You can't convince our walker that he has made infinite steps when he knows he has only made a finite number of them. It would be a lie to tell him so.

The infinite series is an ideal he can never attain and will always be infinitely far from attaining, even if he walked forever.

A sensible person, instead of walking in ever decreasing steps, forever, would of course stride across to the "back one second" in a single stride. Likewise with understanding the concept of an infinite past. It's not necessary to place an infinite number of hurdles between oneself and the past. Rather, one can take an infinite stride to encompass the whole lot of them.

[maestro]

The infinite series is an ideal he can never attain and will always be infinitely far from attaining, even if he walked forever.

Since he has to cover only one second it will not take him forever but only one second to finish the infinite series.

[Laird]

Laird: You use language to describe reality

Kevin: Since you are unenlightened, it means that you don't know what reality is, and therefore you don't know whether we are using language to describe it. You are just pulling things out of the air.

Jeez, this unenlightenment business really is a pretty big drag - according to you I'm so confused that I don't even know when people are talking to me about reality. Ha! What a crock.

[pettiness snipped]

Regarding infinite time, let me give you a demonstration of how silly your argument is. And let's see if you can spot the problem with it.

I will prove that "one second ago" never happened, and can never have happened.

Split the last second into an infinite number of parts. Each part will be a finite amount of time.

Actually each part will be infinitesimally small - a point.

Now begin marching, one step at a time, through each of the infinite parts of the last second, in the direction of "one second ago". You will never reach one second ago.

The problem with this is that it's not how time works. You are modelling time as an infinite number of points and suggesting that we can "march" over a single point at a time. Consider though that the nature of a point is that it does not cover any distance - it is infinitesimally small. So to march over a single point is to not move at all. What you're really instructing then is that we "stay in the same spot whilst pretending to flow with time". Wrong! Time flows, it doesn't stand still. Again, you're constructing a model, and again the model is flawed.

Wow! So one second ago can never have happened!

If you stick with the constraints of time - that it actually flows rather than standing still - then this ridiculous proof of yours cannot hold.

[P.S. You could also imagine taking a first step of half a second, and each step thereafter half the distance of your last step. You get the same result]

Similar problem - time doesn't flow in half-by-half-by-half increments, constantly diminishing its rate of flow: rather it flows at a constant rate (ignoring any subtleties of relativity theory with which I'm not all that well acquainted). Again your model is flawed.

Laird: Determinism is based on the predicate that any particular event is completely predictable

Kevin: You don't understand determinism. Determinism is about causation, not prediction. It is only those who reject causation that characterize determinism in the way you do.

You can talk about it in either terms. You can either say that determinism is the notion that every event is completely caused with no random elements or you can say that determinism is the notion that given ultimate information every event can be perfectly predicted. Same difference.

I have already explained that not even the throw of a dice can be predicted with certainty, no matter how much information you have

You have certainly not explained that, you have merely asserted it. And in the quote immediately below, you contradict it.

God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

Right, well then we agree. God has access to perfect information and can accurately predict future events: such is a good description of determinism. But what you fail to acknowledge is that, given best scientific knowledge of the day - and such knowledge as seems unlikely to be overturned anytime soon - even this poetic God cannot predict a single quantum event.

Laird: "And they all believed they had reached the end point of knowledge". Sounds like a pretty good description of yourself.

Kevin: The difference is that they all had beliefs about the empirical world, whereas our certainties are purely philosophical and logical in nature, and are independent of empirical uncertainties. What was true for the Buddha two and half thousand years ago is equally true today, and will always be true.

So then put your money where your mouth is: prove philosophically and logically that the ultimate randomness of quantum mechanics is actually hiding a truly deterministic mechanism.

[Laird]

Laird,

He who is unenlightened should be most humble in the presence of one who is enlightened. The proper stance is to to be quiet and not voice one's one unenlightened opinions, but instead listen very carefully, and absorb deeply what is being said.

And that goes for everyone here. Respectful questions are all that is appropriate from our mouths.

Carl,

Indeed you are correct and I have seen the error of my ways: I have now lit the incense and bowed down at the shrine of Kev. Clearly this man can never be wrong and should never be challenged.

[Ataraxia]

Laird,

He who is unenlightened should be most humble in the presence of one who is enlightened. The proper stance is to to be quiet and not voice one's one unenlightened opinions, but instead listen very carefully, and absorb deeply what is being said.

And that goes for everyone here. Respectful questions are all that is appropriate from our mouths.

Carl,

Indeed you are correct and I have seen the error of my ways: I have now lit the incense and bowed down at the shrine of Kev. Clearly this man can never be wrong and should never be challenged.

Indeed Laird.I don't think it would be prudent to kill off the Socratic method just yet.

[Laird]

Laird you need to start thinking about humanities future. It cannot possibly have any future with the sort of ideas you have.

I do think about humanity's future, and I do believe that the holistic integration of reason, emotion and love in each individual is a pretty good way forward.

It is actually LOVE that created nuclear weapons. A love for what the series of inventors that lead to these weapons were most attached to.

Regardless of what created nuclear weapons, the problem was (is) a world of competing selfish entities. We need to evolve past our nationalistic tendencies. By that I don't mean that we shouldn't enjoy the culture of our country of residence, but that we shouldn't attempt to dominate other nations in the pursuit of our own interests. We need to start thinking more and more seriously about world government - expanding the role of the UN and delegating more of our self-interest as nations to a democratic world body, most particularly in the area of disagreement and war.

To be godlike means to not be subject to an emotional ego, where such an ego might be detrimental

I would agree if you rephrased that as "not be wholly driven by an emotional ego". As I've tried to argue, emotion can work hand-in-hand with reason, and they can put us in touch with our human values, reminding us of what the whole point of being a human/god is all about.

[Alex Jacob]

And THIS is better than a job...better than a girld friend? For this you ask that I give up all the gilded shopping malls? Now I understand why QRS never have enough to pay the rent...

;-)

[David Quinn]

Laird,

He who is unenlightened should be most humble in the presence of one who is enlightened. The proper stance is to to be quiet and not voice one's one unenlightened opinions, but instead listen very carefully, and absorb deeply what is being said.

And that goes for everyone here. Respectful questions are all that is appropriate from our mouths.

Carl,

Indeed you are correct and I have seen the error of my ways: I have now lit the incense and bowed down at the shrine of Kev. Clearly this man can never be wrong and should never be challenged.

Indeed Laird.I don't think it would be prudent to kill off the Socratic method just yet.

Is that what it is? It is not that Kevin or myself object to be challenged and criticized, it is just that quality of these challenges from Laird are so poor. It is very evident to Kevin and myself that Laird has no understanding whatsoever of where we are coming from, which means that his challenges are so ill-directed. When I accused him of arrogance and a lack of humility, I wasn't referring to his desire to challenge us, but rather to his unwillingness to put in the effort to understand the philosophy that is being presented.

He might say that he understands the philosophy, but he doesn't. All he sees is that his own values and beliefs are being threatened, and he is reacting accordingly by lashing out blindly. I also think it has become a bit personal because Laird lives next door to Kevin, and so the tension he feels towards Kevin is always there, simmering. I dare say he feels intimidated by Kevin and feels a need to get his own back, so to speak, via the forum.

-

[clyde]

It is very evident to Kevin and myself that Laird has no understanding whatsoever of where we are coming from, which means that his challenges are so ill-directed.

Do tell, where are you and Kevin coming from?

[David Quinn]

It is very evident to Kevin and myself that Laird has no understanding whatsoever of where we are coming from, which means that his challenges are so ill-directed.

Do tell, where are you and Kevin coming from?

From a forbidding place infinitely near you.

Clyde: 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?

DQ: Absolutely.

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

Different things can be false for different reasons. For example, 1+1=3 can be regarded as false on the basis that 1+1 is defined to equal 2. However, 1+1=2 can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

-

[Laird]

I dare say he [Laird] feels intimidated by Kevin and feels a need to get his own back, so to speak, via the forum.

Nah, David, I'm not intimidated by Kev, although I'm not such a quick thinker on my feet so in person I often let slide things that I disagree with merely because I can't quite - in the moment - put my finger on why I disagree. In other words, if Kevin wants to know what I really think then he'd do better to judge by my writings to the forum than by our in-person conversations, where he might interpret silence or non-responsiveness as tacit agreement, whereas it's often a mixture of disagreement-without-quite-knowing-why and non-confrontational behaviour for the sake of friendship: I don't particularly want to be in a constant argument with my friends. That's not to say that my silences are always thus motivated - sometimes it's simply that I can't think of anything interesting to respond with.

[David Quinn]

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.

Logic requires concepts/models to work on, it is useless without them.

As I say, the models are already out there. Models of a finite Universe, for example, models of an objective Universe, models of God, models of the self, models of life and death, etc.

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.

I don't think we can stop ourselves from being fooled by them short of perhaps a lobotomy. When you increase in consciousness you are simply looking at a larger model of the world. If you only saw "cars" and "houses" and "computers" you would have a relatively low level of understanding and consciousness. Then when you study science you start viewing life in various chemical cycles, energy transfers, etc, which is a higher model. You may see life through economic models or scientific models or religious models or whatever, but the point is that you are always seeing it in some type of model, even if your model deems all other models to be delusional. There is no "seeing through models" because all that you can see when looking through them is more models.

How to explain a subtle point that is so difficult to explain? When a person develops philosophically and spiritually, he reaches a point where he no longer seeks any truth or mental sustenance in any form at all - whether it a model, a concept, a physical entity, a feeling, an emotion, whatever. Such a person no longer cares, inwardly, whether he is modeling or not modeling. He is 100% free of the modeling process, even when his mind is engaged in modeling. His wisdom is not dependent on the validity of any particular model.

-

[clyde]

It is very evident to Kevin and myself that Laird has no understanding whatsoever of where we are coming from, which means that his challenges are so ill-directed.

Do tell, where are you and Kevin coming from?

From a forbidding place infinitely near you.
-

I'm sorry to hear that you believe you are in a hostile place.
Since you're near, join me, reality is welcoming.

[clyde]

Clyde: 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?

DQ: Absolutely.

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

Different things can be false for different reasons. For example, 1+1=3 can be regarded as false on the basis that 1+1 is defined to equal 2. However, 1+1=2 can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

There you go again, using (by your definition) false concepts ("false" and "Nature").
Will you stop?