GENIUS FORUMS

encode_decode wrote:Indeed. It is kind of freaky I think. I also think science strips a way at us more than just the ability to think beyond it. I noticed a whole bunch of questions I can answer without the help of science, and these answers are more important to me than all of science put together.

David Quinn wrote:What is an example?

How I should be thinking is the primary example. Science does not give me the best method for thinking. Is everything as it seems is the question I always ask myself when reading scientific literature. Scientific literature claims this is how it seems a lot of the time. The only way I need to think is the scientific way. I may as well just believe it if a scientist says so.

But actually I do not need a set of blinkers - I need to think in a way that brings truths to the surface not partial truths otherwise I can not expand my mind to think outside what science has to offer.

Do I need to compete with others to achieve great understanding in life? No - But the education system seems to think so.
Do I need an ego to be happy? No - But it sure seems like it if one were to take notice of the general populace.
Do I need to spend thirty years stressing out over a mortgage on a house? No - But the banks and real estate agents seem to have everyone convinced as such.
Do I need to tell lies to get what I want? No - I only want to be able to eat everyday if I can not have anything else.
Do I need to be doing things like society would have me believe? like the image of how to be the perfect spouse, parent and person - No I don't - for a start I am who I am.
Do I need to intimidate people to have respect? No - I respect me.

I have a whole bunch of questions like this - It is not science that I need to answer these questions. I find Psychology to be one of the worst offenders as it is "forever" changing and labeling certain problems that don't even exist. Even neuroscience makes bold claims that another scientist comes along and dismisses. AI researchers do not really seem to have any idea what they are doing - I have only ever seen two works in AI that impress me - the rest are no better than the browser we are using from my perspective.

What I mean by a closed system is: Some church - to me science has become more like a church - science has become promiscuous and adulterous metaphorically speaking. The stupid thing about it is I can see the value of science and all it has to offer - I can discern the things in science that could benefit us and the things that are a waste of time and effort. David I could keep going on and on but I see no benefit to it.

To know that things are not right in the world I only have to have my mind working "properly".

Ultimately though - nothing is as it seems- you could be a p-zombie before all I know.

@ Russell Parr - That clears things up in my head - I appreciate that.

Russell Parr wrote:Now, the ego isn't bad in itself. It is a necessary part of our being. But as far as perspective goes, it is severely limited. To be enlightened is to have the ability to see through one's ego, to put it in its proper place within the greater, or ultimate, perspective.

I don't know about the ego so much Russell - I would need further proof of its value - I don't even really experience "awe". I could have a couple of faculties missing.

encode_decode wrote:

Russell Parr wrote:Now, the ego isn't bad in itself. It is a necessary part of our being. But as far as perspective goes, it is severely limited. To be enlightened is to have the ability to see through one's ego, to put it in its proper place within the greater, or ultimate, perspective.

I don't know about the ego so much Russell - I would need further proof of its value - I don't even really experience "awe". I could have a couple of faculties missing.

Good point. When it comes to the pursuit of enlightenment, you are quite right; the ego is is more or less useless. It is the enemy, after all. Then again, you actually need a bit of ego to sustain the desire to remain persistent in the effort to attain enlightenment. A bit of a paradox, if you will.

The main reason for what I said in the quote is because I find that, for those on the path, myself including, it is possible to unnecessarily demonize the ego to the point of making it hard to live with oneself. This is dangerous, and can lead to nihilism. Instead, one's focus should be on obtaining and maintaining the enlightened perspective, in order to override the influences of the ego, rather than totally rid oneself of it. Eventually the ego becomes more like a quiet passenger, allowing the logical mind to be the driver.

encode_decode wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

encode_decode wrote:Indeed. It is kind of freaky I think. I also think science strips a way at us more than just the ability to think beyond it. I noticed a whole bunch of questions I can answer without the help of science, and these answers are more important to me than all of science put together.

What is an example?

How I should be thinking is the primary example. Science does not give me the best method for thinking. Is everything as it seems is the question I always ask myself when reading scientific literature. Scientific literature claims this is how it seems a lot of the time. The only way I need to think is the scientific way. I may as well just believe it if a scientist says so.

But actually I do not need a set of blinkers - I need to think in a way that brings truths to the surface not partial truths otherwise I can not expand my mind to think outside what science has to offer.

Do I need to compete with others to achieve great understanding in life? No - But the education system seems to think so.
Do I need an ego to be happy? No - But it sure seems like it if one were to take notice of the general populace.
Do I need to spend thirty years stressing out over a mortgage on a house? No - But the banks and real estate agents seem to have everyone convinced as such.
Do I need to tell lies to get what I want? No - I only want to be able to eat everyday if I can not have anything else.
Do I need to be doing things like society would have me believe? like the image of how to be the perfect spouse, parent and person - No I don't - for a start I am who I am.
Do I need to intimidate people to have respect? No - I respect me.

I have a whole bunch of questions like this - It is not science that I need to answer these questions.

Ok, I understand where you are coming from. You are more interested in the larger issue of how to live ethically in line with your highest values, and yes, this is fundamentally a philosophic issue, not a scientific one. But it is not an either/or situation here. Science is a tool that can be helpful in many different ways and so it would be foolish of us to reject what it has to say out of hand.

I’m not saying you are doing this. I’m just making a general point here. My own personal issue with science is not so much the actual practice of science itself, or the theories it produces, but rather the way that society as a whole misunderstands its nature and the role it plays. People are either over-rating the importance of science (e.g. "the scientific method is the only valid method of acquiring knowledge", "science will one day uncover the theory of everything", "science is probing the mind of God") or they are falsely belittling it (e.g. "science undermines the mystery of life", "scientific theorizing is no more rational than religious belief", "climate change is a liberal conspiracy", "evolutionary theory is a hoax", "vaccines lead to autism", etc). In other words, I am against delusional thinking on the subject, as I am on all subjects.

One thing that modern science does do, and this relates to the point you make, is that it tends to reinforce the complicated, superficial modes of thinking that we are all conditioned with, as well as the banal, emotion-driven values which overwhelm modern society. In other words, it has contributed to the feminization of society. But again, this is not really due to the practice of science itself, but rather to the way science is misunderstood by various sections of society - or to put it more succinctly, to most people's contempt for truth.

encode_decode wrote: I find Psychology to be one of the worst offenders as it is "forever" changing and labeling certain problems that don't even exist. Even neuroscience makes bold claims that another scientist comes along and dismisses. AI researchers do not really seem to have any idea what they are doing - I have only ever seen two works in AI that impress me - the rest are no better than the browser we are using from my perspective.

The fact that scientific knowledge changes and evolves over time is actually one of its core strengths. Unlike religious belief, scientists are willing to abandon their theories when the evidence demands it. In this way, our understanding of the empirical world becomes more detailed and refined over time.

Of course, this changeability is also its core weakness when it comes to philosophic truths and understanding ultimate reality. Because science only ever deals with theories that are provisional and subject to change, it lacks the capacity to reach a final understanding on anything.

The key is knowing how to take an interest in science without becoming too attached to whatever theories happen to be in fashion.

encode_decode wrote:Ultimately though - nothing is as it seems- you could be a p-zombie before all I know.

Well, my mind has apparently turned to mush, so you might be onto something there .....

Russell Parr wrote:Not to speak for Dan,

In this instance it was a useful elaboration and explication of my point. Saved me the time :)

I find your answer regarding science to contain a more balanced perspective, as opposed to the one sided perspective that I offered, which came from the question asked: What is an example? As you are already aware from your comment: I’m not saying you are doing this. You would also notice the extended part of the example not being related to science so much as the different aspects of our world; education system, general populace, banks, real estate, myself and society with a "lead out" to contain "among others". I have a whole other perspective on science that deals with it in a more pragmatic way. I indeed also have a counteractive side to the disdain that I hold for science and it is one of admiration. I also find the pragmatic perspective kept in check by the disdain and admiration.

While I am happy enough to discuss conspiracies with another reasonable minded person such as yourself or anyone else on the forum with a reasonable mind, I find conspiracies in general to be boring, not well thought out, easy to detect, and damaging to mans mindset(providing the man in question has a balanced set of attitudes to begin with).

David Quinn wrote:One thing that modern science does do, and this relates to the point you make, is that it tends to reinforce the complicated, superficial modes of thinking that we are all conditioned with, as well as the banal, emotion-driven values which overwhelm modern society. In other words, it has contributed to the feminization of society. But again, this is not really due to the practice of science itself, but rather to the way science is misunderstood by various sections of society - or to put it more succinctly, to most people's contempt for truth.

To give a "perspective on science" example, yes. Here in lies a facet of my darker perspective regarding science to which there is a lighter perspective.

David Quinn wrote:The fact that scientific knowledge changes and evolves over time is actually one of its core strengths. Unlike religious belief, scientists are willing to abandon their theories when the evidence demands it. In this way, our understanding of the empirical world becomes more detailed and refined over time.

Of course, this changeability is also its core weakness when it comes to philosophic truths and understanding ultimate reality. Because science only ever deals with theories that are provisional and subject to change, it lacks the capacity to reach a final understanding on anything.

The key is knowing how to take an interest in science without becoming too attached to whatever theories happen to be in fashion.

Religious belief=closed system! Indeed you are correct in stating that science's strength is also its weakness and when not treated appropriately: the person who is doing this is entering a closed system - not to get too hung up on closed systems.

Have no fear, cocoa is here - I already maintain a strong neutrality when it comes to science and this fair-mindedness stems from my need to question both sides of each argument in life.

I doubt I am on to much regarding p-zombies :) I just wanted to throw that in but I am sure you already know this.

Good.

Great.

Lao Tzu wrote: "In cultivating your mind, know how to dive in the hidden deeps."

Translated by John C. H. Wu, 1961 - From Ch. 8

I just wanna backup to chapter one before I move on, and ask the remaining questions that you mention in the section called 'The Will to Unconsciousness' at paragraph one.

• Why isn't it taught in schools?
  
  Why aren't the great thinkers preaching it?
  
  Why have I never heard about it before?

Just to refresh our minds I will quote the first question and answer:

David Quinn wrote:

encode_decode wrote: 'Your' mentioned question: It all sounds too simple and convenient for my liking. If cause and effect is the ultimate answer to everything, then why doesn't everybody subscribe to it?

There are two main reasons: (a) We are all taught - by society, by our family, by the education system, etc - to habitually think in a complicated, superficial manner and to avoid actually understanding anything, and (b) whenever an individual does manage to break his conditioning and streamlines his mind and starts to probe the simplicity of a great truth like cause and effect, he intuitively perceives the threat it poses to his comfortable life as a normal human being.

Or to put it another way, the lives of almost everyone in the world are filled with strong attachments of one sort or another, attachments that they instinctively want to protect, and thus there is little incentive for anyone to pursue lines of thought that are profound and far-reaching.

I am now more interested in the remaining answers than ever given our recent dialog.

encode_decode wrote:Why isn't it taught in schools?

From society’s point of view, the purpose of school is not to develop wise, deep-thinking, iconoclastic thinkers, but conscientious workers who obediently endorse its conventional beliefs and values. So even if, by chance, there were teachers who comprehended the significance of cause and affect and wanted to teach it to their students, they would quickly find themselves at odds with the committees and boards who run the education system.

Cause and effect is a useless concept as far as society is concerned. It doesn’t provide any detailed information about the world, you cannot use it to make specific predictions, it doesn’t put food on the table, it doesn't create jobs, it doesn’t generate any wealth, it doesn't help anyone pick up chicks. So what good is it?

encode_decode wrote:Why aren't the great thinkers preaching it?

Some have preached it. Thinkers such as the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Lin-Chi, Chuang Tzu, and Nietzsche have given it their attention. But they are very much in the minority. As a rule, it is too simple (and therefore too uninteresting) for academic thinkers, too void of content for scientific thinkers, too cold and impersonal for religious thinkers, and too intangible for everyone else.

encode_decode wrote:Why have I never heard about it before?

If we take the reasons already mentioned in this thread and add them together, it pretty much explains why no one hears about it.

David: Cause and effect is a useless concept as far as society is concerned. It doesn’t provide any detailed information about the world, you cannot use it to make specific predictions, it doesn’t put food on the table, it doesn't create jobs, it doesn’t generate any wealth, it doesn't help anyone pick up chicks. So what good is it?

When considering cause and effect as a model for the infinite, it is responsible for everything, is it not? Including 'any detailed information about the world', putting food on the table, creating jobs and generating wealth and helping anyone pick up chicks. For that matter, the thought 'society' is also caused. What is important to realize about this truth is that the caused thought 'society' is an effect, and being an effect, has no causal power that would allow it to consider cause and effect. In other words, any consideration of cause and effect is happening not by society, but by the causality 'itself.' Which means any question about its value is also happening by the causality.

Let's call the causality God for a moment. The causation of logic/insight/intuition gives us (God) the knowledge that there are not two Gods (two selves, two thinkers). Which means God causes ignorance of himself. As does God cause wisdom of himself. Which makes 'human' (to include the category of human society) as individual thinker of God/the causality (or not) the illusion. Which of course is God's illusion.

Turns out the illusion/delusion of 'two' befuddles even its maker. :-) Herein lies the key to God making things right with God.

David Quinn wrote:Well, my mind has apparently turned to mush, so you might be onto something there .....

I wouldn't go that far. I personally find your contributions to this thread utterly brilliant and inspiring. Except for the claims that climate change conspiracies and vaccination caused autism are falsehoods. For me, the jury is still out on those. But now I'm just nit-picking :)

Thank you David, Dan, Russell and Pam :)

David Quinn wrote:There is a particular class of logical truth, specifically in the realm of philosophy, which is very meaningful as far as the empirical world is concerned, and yet whose validity is solely garnered by the sheer logic underpinning them and not on any empirical evidence.

What would you call this class of logical truth?

David Quinn wrote:Although these logical truths do not, and cannot, conflict with what is observed empirically, neither do they rely on any particular pieces of empirical evidence for their support.

In this case you would expect that the empirical realm has little to offer these truths.

David Quinn wrote:They are transcendent truths, as it were. They are necessarily true in all possible worlds (and therefore necessarily true in the empirical world that we perceive through our senses) and cannot be falsified in any manner.

It sounds like these transcendent truths could be useful for uncovering answers to questions both in the empirical realm and hypothetical realm.

David Quinn wrote:A simple example that anyone can understand is the truth that all things in the Universe are finite.

This sounds reasonable if the universe is the totality of everything.

David Quinn wrote:By finite, I specifically mean "falling short of constituting the totality of all there is".

Such as our planet, countries and people.

David Quinn wrote:It is utterly beyond the scope of science to deal with. Yet the sheer logic underpinning it dictates that it is 100% true and necessarily applicable to everything in existence.

Do you think there are partial truths?

David Quinn wrote:This is a very important issue and I will be addressing it in more detail later in the book. If a person cannot enter the logical realm and perceive the sheer omniscience of philosophical truth, then he has no chances at all of becoming enlightened.

I hope you don't let me skip over this part of the book.


So this all builds up to "The Logical Proof of Cause and Effect" which is the next section of chapter two.

Russell Parr wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Well, my mind has apparently turned to mush, so you might be onto something there .....

I wouldn't go that far. I personally find your contributions to this thread utterly brilliant and inspiring. Except for the claims that climate change conspiracies and vaccination caused autism are falsehoods. For me, the jury is still out on those. But now I'm just nit-picking :)

It's good to hear that you haven't been too traumatized by the other thread.

In more ways than one, causation unites us all. :)

Pam Seeback wrote:

David: Cause and effect is a useless concept as far as society is concerned. It doesn’t provide any detailed information about the world, you cannot use it to make specific predictions, it doesn’t put food on the table, it doesn't create jobs, it doesn’t generate any wealth, it doesn't help anyone pick up chicks. So what good is it?

When considering cause and effect as a model for the infinite, it is responsible for everything, is it not? Including 'any detailed information about the world', putting food on the table, creating jobs and generating wealth and helping anyone pick up chicks. For that matter, the thought 'society' is also caused.

That’s right. It is responsible for it all. If people were actually interested in transforming society into a wise culture, then the concept of cause and effect would be incredibly useful. But as you say, their apathy towards wisdom is itself a product of cause and effect.

Pam Seeback wrote:What is important to realize about this truth is that the caused thought 'society' is an effect, and being an effect, has no causal power that would allow it to consider cause and effect. In other words, any consideration of cause and effect is happening not by society, but by the causality 'itself.' Which means any question about its value is also happening by the causality.

Let's call the causality God for a moment. The causation of logic/insight/intuition gives us (God) the knowledge that there are not two Gods (two selves, two thinkers). Which means God causes ignorance of himself. As does God cause wisdom of himself. Which makes 'human' (to include the category of human society) as individual thinker of God/the causality (or not) the illusion. Which of course is God's illusion.

Yes, everything that happens is God’s illusion. It is all God at play. People being violent and nasty towards one another is his play. The spiritual path is his play. Leaving ignorance and entering enlightenment is his play. Realizing that everything is his play is his play.

Pam Seeback wrote:Turns out the illusion/delusion of 'two' befuddles even its maker. :-) Herein lies the key to God making things right with God.

We can’t really say that God is befuddling himself, for that would imply that he seeks to become wise and is bungling it. In reality, God doesn’t care if he is wise or deluded. If he happens to become wise, he gains nothing from it. If he remains deluded, he is not diminished by it. This is his great wisdom.

encode_decode wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There is a particular class of logical truth, specifically in the realm of philosophy, which is very meaningful as far as the empirical world is concerned, and yet whose validity is solely garnered by the sheer logic underpinning them and not on any empirical evidence.

What would you call this class of logical truth?

“Philosophic truth" is as good a label as any.

encode_decode wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Although these logical truths do not, and cannot, conflict with what is observed empirically, neither do they rely on any particular pieces of empirical evidence for their support.

In this case you would expect that the empirical realm has little to offer these truths.

Yes, in a sense. It is utterly impossible for anything to arise that could overturn these philosophic truths. At the same time, everything that we experience authenticates them.

encode_decode wrote:

David Quinn wrote:They are transcendent truths, as it were. They are necessarily true in all possible worlds (and therefore necessarily true in the empirical world that we perceive through our senses) and cannot be falsified in any manner.

It sounds like these transcendent truths could be useful for uncovering answers to questions both in the empirical realm and hypothetical realm.

They can uncover any logical facts about things in the empirical and hypothetical realms.

For example, we can’t use philosophic logic, on its own, to predict what colour a particular flower might be, but we can use it to predict that the flower will be limited in scope and distinguishable from the rest of the Universe, that it will be causally created, that it will lack inherent existence, etc.

encode_decode wrote:

David Quinn wrote:A simple example that anyone can understand is the truth that all things in the Universe are finite.

This sounds reasonable if the universe is the totality of everything.

David Quinn wrote:By finite, I specifically mean "falling short of constituting the totality of all there is".

Such as our planet, countries and people.

That’s right, anything that can be distinguished. Thoughts, feelings, time, space, Gods, electrons, galaxies, mystical states - anything at all.

encode_decode wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It is utterly beyond the scope of science to deal with. Yet the sheer logic underpinning it dictates that it is 100% true and necessarily applicable to everything in existence.

Do you think there are partial truths?

If by “partial truth”, you mean something that is only somewhat true, then this falls into the realm of empirical theories and generalizations. For example, it is somewhat true that men are taller than women. It is not 100% true that all men are taller than all women.

As you can see, the standards of what constitutes a 100% logical truth are infinitely high.

David Quinn wrote:"Philosophic truth" is as good a label as any.

I agree. I don't see any point to over complicate the matter.

David Quinn wrote:Yes, in a sense. It is utterly impossible for anything to arise that could overturn these philosophic truths. At the same time, everything that we experience authenticates them.

I am glad you see it as "in a sense". If something did arise that could overturn these philosophic truths then the philosophic truth would not be a truth. Empirical evidence is evidence when it authenticates the philosophic truths.

David Quinn wrote:They can uncover any logical facts about things in the empirical and hypothetical realms.

For example, we can’t use philosophic logic, on its own, to predict what colour a particular flower might be, but we can use it to predict that the flower will be limited in scope and distinguishable from the rest of the Universe, that it will be causally created, that it will lack inherent existence, etc.

I find this response to be very insightful in that is could be applied to anything in life be it empirical or hypothetical or indeed what ever other device the human mind can invent.

David Quinn wrote:That’s right, anything that can be distinguished. Thoughts, feelings, time, space, Gods, electrons, galaxies, mystical states - anything at all.

I am happy to know that I am on the right path with at least one thing :)

David Quinn wrote:If by “partial truth”, you mean something that is only somewhat true, then this falls into the realm of empirical theories and generalizations. For example, it is somewhat true that men are taller than women. It is not 100% true that all men are taller than all women.

As you can see, the standards of what constitutes a 100% logical truth are infinitely high.

Your example is a real gift to those seeking enlightenment and how easy it is for one to close their eyes to the very things around them. I really like the way that you put the last sentence - it is like saying "never close your eyes to a truth - always seek further proof to make the truth even more truthful" and the standards should remain infinitely high.

encode_decode: I find this response to be very insightful in that is could be applied to anything in life be it empirical or hypothetical or indeed what ever other device the human mind can invent.

It is not true that the human mind invents (causes) things. Why? 'Human mind' is an effect, a thought, and being an effect, a thought, has no causal power.

'Invention' is one of those concepts that fuels the concept 'ego', which, like 'human mind' is also an effect, and being an effect, has no causal power. Conditioning to 'being human' (tell me how can one BE human) rather than being given the truth of 'being the causality' (having the power to cause, BEcause) is why the screw-up of confusing effects with cause happens, aka ignorance.

In a nutshell, the conditioning (belief) that human being causes things is wrong view or wrong thinking.

Pam Seeback wrote:

encode_decode: I find this response to be very insightful in that is could be applied to anything in life be it empirical or hypothetical or indeed what ever other device the human mind can invent.

It is not true that the human mind invents (causes) things. Why? 'Human mind' is an effect, a thought, and being an effect, a thought, has no causal power.

The same logic would hold for all forces of production, all processing, not really producing anything while being defined to mean exactly that! Mind you, cause and effect both are expressions of causality. If the human mind would be seen as merely effect, we would be raising a spectre of some set of causes as its origination. But that set is not really limited and as such also the effect cannot be limited -- that is, the mind would exist as well in some causal relation to yet other effects. So it does appear to have causal power, like everything else; causality being the primary power, as nature of cause and effect.

Pam Seeback wrote:It is not true that the human mind invents (causes) things. Why? 'Human mind' is an effect, a thought, and being an effect, a thought, has no causal power.

'Invention' is one of those concepts that fuels the concept 'ego', which, like 'human mind' is also an effect, and being an effect, has no causal power. Conditioning to 'being human' (tell me how can one BE human) rather than being given the truth of 'being the causality' (having the power to cause, BEcause) is why the screw-up of confusing effects with cause happens, aka ignorance.

In a nutshell, the conditioning (belief) that human being causes things is wrong view or wrong thinking.

There is a famous Zen story which applies here:

• Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.

Something caused the following discourse and I am not certain it was the ego.

This might sound sarcastic and please I do not want it to come across this way. Just to be illustrative I want to make a pointless statement: I wonder where the English language came from.

You will notice a few additions to the following quotes; added for the purpose of clarity and inspired by Pam.

Pam wrote:It is not true that the human mind invents (causes) things.

Diebert wrote:The same logic would hold for all forces of production (causation), all processing, not really producing (causing) anything while being defined to mean exactly that!

Diebert wrote:So it (the human mind) does appear to have causal power, like everything else; causality being the primary power, as nature of cause and effect.

Getting statistical I ran a quick scan over the thread called: Statement about Solway and Trump

• create: appears 63 times in some form on the first 11 pages
  invent: appears 13 times in some form on the first 21 pages
  design: appears 12 times in some form on the first 14 pages

Clarification on the usage of "some form" . . . take this to mean as in the following example of word and conjugated pairs:

• create : creating
  invent : inventing
  design : designing

and nouns:

• creation, invention

Footnote: I am aware of the causality behind the English language - so no need for an explanation here.

Perhaps you could debate the following instead :)
The word "explain" is also a type of production. The word "explanation" is what is produced by the act of "explaining" (conjugation). Even to conjugate . . .

It is apparent we would 'be' 'caused' to run into a lot of problems through the usage of English. Maybe we should all learn Chinese . . . Ok Ok now I am just being facetious about it - but language is a funny thing like that - I would say language is yin yang but it would only be a guess that has been caused here.

I am with the Zen

• Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.

But in saying all of this - I know exactly what you[Pam, Diebert, David] are saying and I am pretty certain it relates back to the ego - interesting though - I would debate whether I arrived at that through flawless logic.

Lao Tzu wrote:SINCERE words are not sweet,
Sweet words are not sincere.
Good men are not argumentative,
The argumentative are not good.
The wise are not erudite,
The erudite are not wise.

The Sage does not take to hoarding.
The more he lives for others, the fuller is his life.
The more he gives, the more he abounds.

The Way of Heaven is to benefit, not to harm.
The Way of the Sage is to do his duty, not to strive with anyone.

Translated by John C. H. Wu, 1961

Now I humbly concede.

Disclaimer: Any illusion of sarcasm here is best replaced with humor instead. Any perception of ego on me is best viewed as curiosity and consideration.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Pam Seeback wrote:

encode_decode: I find this response to be very insightful in that is could be applied to anything in life be it empirical or hypothetical or indeed what ever other device the human mind can invent.

It is not true that the human mind invents (causes) things. Why? 'Human mind' is an effect, a thought, and being an effect, a thought, has no causal power.

The same logic would hold for all forces of production, all processing, not really producing anything while being defined to mean exactly that! Mind you, cause and effect both are expressions of causality. If the human mind would be seen as merely effect, we would be raising a spectre of some set of causes as its origination. But that set is not really limited and as such also the effect cannot be limited -- that is, the mind would exist as well in some causal relation to yet other effects. So it does appear to have causal power, like everything else; causality being the primary power, as nature of cause and effect.

Assigning dual powers (a primary, implying a secondary) to the infinite is illogical. The Buddha concluded this under the Bodhi tree and sent Mara packing, as did Jesus in the wilderness with Satan.

Clarity comes with the single eye.

Returning to add that even if it were true that the human mind contained causal-effective powers they could not be separated so as to reason cause. Which is why reasoning is assumptive, not objective. The Trump thread is a good example of the mess that occurs when reasoning assumes cause (objectivity).

Pam Seeback wrote:Assigning dual powers (a primary, implying a secondary) to the infinite is illogical. The Buddha concluded this under the Bodhi tree and sent Mara packing, as did Jesus in the wilderness with Satan.

Returning to add that even if it were true that the human mind contained causal-effective powers they could not be separated so as to reason cause. Which is why reasoning is assumptive, not objective. The Trump thread is a good example of the mess that occurs when reasoning assumes cause (objectivity).

So it is true now again then that the human mind invents/causes things? Or at least causing a mess when assuming so!

Do you really think it's impossible to separate to some degree causal-effective powers of the mind? For example I could reason out that my mind highly likely cannot cause unicorns to appear to others just by thinking of them. And I can reason out that I could reflect on a decision or action and do generally better than I'd do without giving it any thought. Common sense is not assumptive, it's just harder to put in defined rules or write a textbook on it compared to a bunch of descriptive truths.

The wise can and will reason out things to a higher, purer degree than the ones who remain ignorant of their own nature and that of the world they experience. And yet, every action is necessarily limited by circumstance: here the presence and quality of ones knowledge, the capacity of ones imagination and conceptual powers, the presence of emotional blinders or particular personality limits: that's all understood. But those limits appearing in a discussion do not create doubt but on the contrary, to those "with ears" it will all provide just deeper insights into nearly everything. It's unstoppable.

David Quinn wrote:

Pam Seeback wrote:It is not true that the human mind invents (causes) things. Why? 'Human mind' is an effect, a thought, and being an effect, a thought, has no causal power.

'Invention' is one of those concepts that fuels the concept 'ego', which, like 'human mind' is also an effect, and being an effect, has no causal power. Conditioning to 'being human' (tell me how can one BE human) rather than being given the truth of 'being the causality' (having the power to cause, BEcause) is why the screw-up of confusing effects with cause happens, aka ignorance.

In a nutshell, the conditioning (belief) that human being causes things is wrong view or wrong thinking.

There is a famous Zen story which applies here:

• Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.

Coming to the realization that distinctions and consciousness are inseparable is not about realization of causal power. I (the causality) caused the mountain, the mountain did not cause me.

Pam Seeback wrote:Which is why reasoning is assumptive, not objective.

Is this statement an assumptive or an objective truth? Is it relative or absolute? Is it inherently true, or a product of causality?

To be able to say that a tree is not a tree separate from what is not a tree is to concurrently say that a tree is a tree.