Jason's opinion about Reality

[Kelly Jones]

From an email correspondence, with Jason, that he agrees to transferring to this forum:

I have already realized the most fundamental understanding of reality. I have largely completed my search for truth. I view my task now as integrating that understanding into my life at every moment, whatever I may be doing, including inventing or discussing inventing.

Also, my fundamental understanding of reality differs considerably from QSR, it doesn't include a necessity to remove attachment, or a belief in self or
the belief in the inherent existence of things.

Can you clarify what you mean by "things are just as they are" --- which is your "most fundamental understanding of reality" ?

And also, does this understanding mean that things exist inherently ?

-

[Jason]

Kelly,

Kelly: From an email correspondence, with Jason, that he agrees to transferring to this forum:

Jason: I have already realized the most fundamental understanding of reality. I have largely completed my search for truth. I view my task now as integrating that understanding into my life at every moment, whatever I may be doing, including inventing or discussing inventing.

Also, my fundamental understanding of reality differs considerably from QSR, it doesn't include a necessity to remove attachment, or a belief in self or
the belief in the inherent existence of things.

K: Can you clarify what you mean by "things are just as they are" --- which is your "most fundamental understanding of reality" ?

Hmmm, that might be kind of hard, given that the way I expressed it, "things are just as they are", is extremely straightforwad already. I'm also not that confident in expressing these things, I think I tend to overlay superfluous junk on top of the exceedingly direct realization/understanding, and complicate and misrepresent it. Also, I'm often not that happy with my attempts at expressing myself in writing in general....but...I'll give it a try.

Reality? This is it. It's right in front of your eyes.

It's like a cosmic joke. A lot of philosophy and the search for ultimate reality is like asking the question "Where is the Universe?" What do you think you're missing in the ultimate sense? If you find some answer to hang onto, do you think that answer or understanding will place you in a "realer" reality?

But this joke doesn't appear to be obvious to many people, it's necessary for them to find this understanding through a realization. It seems like we start off without this problem, without this cosmic joke, but then we spend our formative years twisting our minds into all sorts of contorted and torturous shapes, until some even go so far as to ask these ultimate "Why?" questions. Do you think "Why" adds anything to reality, ultimately? Do you think you can add or remove from reality? Hah!

We start from the position of existence, reality, being everywhere and everywhen, in front of our very eyes every moment of everyday of our entire lives, and yet some of us still somehow exclaim "Why? What? How?". Even then somehow not realizing that "Why? What? How?" is nothing more than just another piece of reality.

Perhaps a few proverbs are in order:

"If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not understand: things are just as they are."
- Zen proverb

"Before enlightenment, I chopped wood and carried water.
After enlightenment, I chopped wood and carried water." - Zen proverb

"Learning Zen is a phenomenon of gold and dung.
Before you understand it, it's like gold; after you understand it, it's like dung." - Zen proverb

"Since it is all too clear
It takes time to grasp it.
When you understand that it's foolish to look for fire with fire,
The meal is already cooked." - Wu-men

"Searching for reality. Oh the irony!
Searching for *real* reality. Oh the absurdity!" - Jason

(note: It's only fair of me to say that it's possible I'm interpreting the meaning of these quotes differently to how they were originally intended, but so be it.)

K: And also, does this understanding mean that things exist inherently ?

No, the understanding doesn't affirm that things inherently exist, nor does it affirm that they don't inherently exist. It also doesn't either affirm or deny that the self is illusory.

Having said that however, in one sense it could be said that the understanding affirms simply what is, whatever that may happen to be. So, if I think the self is illusory then: I think the self is illusory. But actually, personally, I currently think the self is real therefore: I currently think the self is real. Huzzah!

[Kelly Jones]

Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable, Jason ?

[Jason]

Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable, Jason ?

<Jason smacks Kelly on the head with his Zen staff>

I was gonna leave it at that, but that probably wouldn't be very productive, so I'll risk it and say:

I believe change is a part of Ultimate Reality. But try not to get hung up on that answer.

[Kelly Jones]

Do you believe it is the nature of Ultimate Reality to change ?

[keenobserver]

Jason: I have already realized the most fundamental understanding of reality. I have largely completed my search for truth. I view my task now as integrating that understanding into my life at every moment, whatever I may be doing, including inventing or discussing inventing.

I dont get it- so sometimes there is Jason-integrated and sometimes Jason-not-integrated, can you explain the difference with an example?

"If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not understand: things are just as they are."
- Zen proverb

Merely suggests that the vision and not the view is the discriminating factor.
You cant both "understand" and not understand, its two different minds eyes.

[Jason]

Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable, Jason ?

You are "using reality to search for reality."

Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

That you ask the question you do, makes it seem that you are missing my point. That's why the Zen staff came out before. I'm not trying to duck your question, but as long as you don't understand my point, what are you going to do with any answer I give you? Except grab a hold of it in the belief you've managed to find some privileged part of reality?

If reality is just what it is, would me saying "Ultimate Reality is changeable." or "Ultimate Reality is not changeable." add or take away from it?

[Kelly Jones]

Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no:

Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

If reality is just what it is,

"Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose. It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

would me saying "Ultimate Reality is changeable." or "Ultimate Reality is not changeable." add or take away from it?

Because Ultimate Reality is not anything in particular, it can manifest as quadrillions of years of deluded thinking.

-

[Jason]

Jason: Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

Kelly: Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no:

Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness.

Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

J: If reality is just what it is,

K: "Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose.

To me, it doesn't refer to boundaries or some purpose, it just means that reality is simply what is. There is no hidden ultimate reality. This is it at every moment. Welcome to reality, you never really left.

K: It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

Given that you say that it is neither shape-shifting or static, why do you continue to want me to agree that it is either changeable or changeless?

[Kelly Jones]

Jason: Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

Kelly: Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no: Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

Jason: Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness. Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

It's a very simple question, and simple reasoning can answer it.

Here, try this:

When a "thing" is fundamentally unchangeable, that means it cannot change because it isn't dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that no finite thing is independent, therefore only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable.

When a "thing" is fundamentally changeable, that means it can change, because it is dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that Ultimate Reality is not finite, we can conclude that it is not in its nature to be fundamentally changeable.

J: If reality is just what it is,

K: "Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose.

J: To me, it doesn't refer to boundaries or some purpose, it just means that reality is simply what is. There is no hidden ultimate reality. This is it at every moment. Welcome to reality, you never really left.

Are you saying that, since delusion is possible, it is the same as, and as logical as, enlightenment ?

Or are you saying that, if the attitude arises that things do inherently exist, this is distinctly an illogical attitude?

K: It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

J: Given that you say that it is neither shape-shifting or static, why do you continue to want me to agree that it is either changeable or changeless?

If things are always changing, then the Totality doesn't change. If things are always moving, then the Totality doesn't move.

I'm trying to find out how far your reasoning has gone. Whether there is something "cool" which is stopping you from going all the way.

-

[Jivano]

Hi Kelly,

thanks for the funny dialogue - a nice joke it is.

[Kelly Jones]

Hi Jivano,

You might want to stick "www" in the website link on your profile page.

What do you find humourous about my post?

-

[Jason]

Jason: Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

Kelly: Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no: Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

J: Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness. Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

K: It's a very simple question, and simple reasoning can answer it.

Here, try this:

When a "thing" is fundamentally unchangeable, that means it cannot change because it isn't dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that no finite thing is independent, therefore only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable.

When a "thing" is fundamentally changeable, that means it can change, because it is dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that Ultimate Reality is not finite, we can conclude that it is not in its nature to be fundamentally changeable.

What you've written above seems to be the result of getting caught up in thinking that ultimate reality is something in particular. You're being overly intellectual and specific, thinking you've captured reality in your little thought-model of it. You're confusing your ideas about reality for reality itself. Arguing over whether Ultimate Reality is changeable or not misses the point completely.

J: If reality is just what it is,

K: "Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose.

J: To me, it doesn't refer to boundaries or some purpose, it just means that reality is simply what is. There is no hidden ultimate reality. This is it at every moment. Welcome to reality, you never really left.

K: Are you saying that, since delusion is possible, it is the same as, and as logical as, enlightenment ?

No.

K: Or are you saying that, if the attitude arises that things do inherently exist, this is distinctly an illogical attitude?

No. And I don't think that a belief in inherently existing things is ultimately deluded. Neither the belief that things inherently exist, nor the belief that things do not inherently exist, is relevant to understanding the nature of reality.

K: It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

J: Given that you say that it is neither shape-shifting or static, why do you continue to want me to agree that it is either changeable or changeless?

K: If things are always changing, then the Totality doesn't change. If things are always moving, then the Totality doesn't move.

I'm trying to find out how far your reasoning has gone. Whether there is something "cool" which is stopping you from going all the way.

Are you actually listening to what I'm saying? Or are you mainly just interested in trying to propogate your beliefs?

[Kelly Jones]

Jason,

I'm trying to work out your reasoning. For one, how you can be passionately interested in inventing "cool" devices. For another, why you haven't come to non-attachment as the natural consequence of understanding the nature of Reality.

Jason: Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

Kelly: Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no: Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

J: Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness. Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

K: It's a very simple question, and simple reasoning can answer it.

Here, try this:

When a "thing" is fundamentally unchangeable, that means it cannot change because it isn't dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that no finite thing is independent, therefore only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable.

When a "thing" is fundamentally changeable, that means it can change, because it is dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that Ultimate Reality is not finite, we can conclude that it is not in its nature to be fundamentally changeable.

What you've written above seems to be the result of getting caught up in thinking that ultimate reality is something in particular. You're being overly intellectual and specific, thinking you've captured reality in your little thought-model of it. You're confusing your ideas about reality for reality itself. Arguing over whether Ultimate Reality is changeable or not misses the point completely.

What little thought-model have I attempted to capture Reality in?

Please present some reasoning.

J: If reality is just what it is,

K: "Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose.

J: To me, it doesn't refer to boundaries or some purpose, it just means that reality is simply what is. There is no hidden ultimate reality. This is it at every moment. Welcome to reality, you never really left.

K: Are you saying that, since delusion is possible, it is the same as, and as logical as, enlightenment ?

J: No.

What do you define delusion as?

K: Or are you saying that, if the attitude arises that things do inherently exist, this is distinctly an illogical attitude?

J: No. And I don't think that a belief in inherently existing things is ultimately deluded. Neither the belief that things inherently exist, nor the belief that things do not inherently exist, is relevant to understanding the nature of reality.

You said earlier that "things are what they are". Does this mean you believe that, if the belief arises that things intrinsically exist, therefore they really do? But if this belief doesn't appear, therefore they don't?

K: It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

J: Given that you say that it is neither shape-shifting or static, why do you continue to want me to agree that it is either changeable or changeless?

K: If things are always changing, then the Totality doesn't change. If things are always moving, then the Totality doesn't move.

I'm trying to find out how far your reasoning has gone. Whether there is something "cool" which is stopping you from going all the way.

J: Are you actually listening to what I'm saying? Or are you mainly just interested in trying to propogate your beliefs?

As far as I know, what you're saying falls short of a correct intellectual understanding of Reality. I am interested in trying to propagate rational beliefs.

-

[Jivano]

Hi Kelly

You might want to stick "www" in the website link on your profile page.

Actually, the website is working without the "www." - that's just a little device
to provoke awareness now and then. You are welcome ;)

what do you find humourous about my post?

For me the whole dialogue is pretty much like a Mr.Bean - situation.

I think, that's because it's very basement is aslope:

• opinion and reality are of totally different realms,
  thus any "opinion about reality" must be like catching butterflies
  in bear traps or baking pancakes out of snow.
  The moment one thinks, one got it, it's gone again already.
• speaking about someone else' opinion about reality, you create
  a lot of opinions about opinions about ... about ... reality, don't you
  think so? Finally you end up with a pan and a fire made out of snow, too.
  The moment you are ready to eat your cakes, you will probably have
  become a snowman yourself.

That's my picture about that dialogue - regardless of who said what. :)

Greetings
Jivano

[Kelly Jones]

Actually, the website is working without the "www." - that's just a little device to provoke awareness now and then. You are welcome ;)

Yes, it is now. Don't know why it wasn't working last night.

K: what do you find humourous about my post?

J: I think, that's because it's very basement is aslope:

[*]opinion and reality are of totally different realms,
thus any "opinion about reality" must be like catching butterflies
in bear traps or baking pancakes out of snow.
The moment one thinks, one got it, it's gone again already.

So is this an accurate or inaccurate opinion of reality?

[*]speaking about someone else' opinion about reality, you create
a lot of opinions about opinions about ... about ... reality, don't you
think so? Finally you end up with a pan and a fire made out of snow, too.
The moment you are ready to eat your cakes, you will probably have
become a snowman yourself.

No, my opinions reflect Reality, by and large. By criticising opinions that don't reflect Reality, I'm necessarily having an opinion that reflects Reality.


-

[Jamesh]

Kelly

When a "thing" is fundamentally unchangeable, that means it cannot change because it isn't dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that no finite thing is independent, therefore only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable.

When a "thing" is fundamentally changeable, that means it can change, because it is dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that Ultimate Reality is not finite, we can conclude that it is not in its nature to be fundamentally changeable.

That is not what I conclude. Rather in order for things to be changeable, then ultimate reality must also be changeable. Without some form of change at the fundamental level no thing could arise. Ultimate reality is causal reality, and the nature of causes are that they change without changing their essence. The manner in which Causes change is by continuously being what they are. Expansion expands leading to more expansionary power, contraction contracts leading to more contracting power. In the Ultimate Void this change is not expressed. The void is infinite so it has no dimensions, no size, no boundary to prevent it from changing. One can however say that the contracting causal force resides inside of the expansionary force - except this is not in a dimensional sense, merely a causal sense- one surrounds the other causally.

The expression of this continuous causal change occurs by transferral of causal growth into the finite world. This action is not a form of growth into nothingness, but it is the void in its dualistic form growing inside itself, which allows for the realm of infinite finite existence between an infinite causal exosphere of expansion and an infinite causal nucleus of contraction. While at any time the physical universe is finite (not all there ultimately is), it is infinite in the sense that TO ANY OBSERVOR it will continuously get larger and larger (as the expansionary force expands), as the finite parts within get smaller and smaller (as the contractionary force contracts). This is an illusion however, as believe it or not even the physical world is ultimately non-dimensional – we are only ever seeing common versus non-common relativities that cause the appearance of dimensions.

Sure, I have uncertainties about just how accurate what I’ve said above is, but it is better than saying the logical untruth that Ultimate Reality is not fundamentally changeable. It has to be be changeable in one way (it entire nature is change) and not changeable in another (its process of change never changes).

[Kelly Jones]

in order for things to be changeable, then ultimate reality must also be changeable. Without some form of change at the fundamental level no thing could arise.

A core essence of change, creates a static part outside the core. So then there would be no changing appearances. Which is not the case.

The logical reasoning behind the unchangeableness of Reality is that it doesn't have any nature --- any relativity.

What is constructed as change is really "our minds moving" --- our purposes. Our fundamental belief about Reality. I'm not saying Reality appears as a static thing, when our fundamental belief about Reality comes from the stillness of a Truth-oriented purpose, rather I'm saying the unchanging boundlessness of Reality then appears.

The manner in which Causes change is by continuously being what they are.

There are no non-continuing "external" causes by which to measure continuation of "internal" causes.

In the Ultimate Void this change is not expressed. The void is infinite so it has no dimensions, no size, no boundary to prevent it from changing.

Ach, you're pulling my leg now. Thar she blows --- the Great Contradiction.

One can however say that the contracting causal force resides inside of the expansionary force - except this is not in a dimensional sense, merely a causal sense- one surrounds the other causally.

Sire, I have no need of such a hypothesis.

The expression of this continuous causal change occurs by transferral of causal growth into the finite world. This action is not a form of growth into nothingness, but it is the void in its dualistic form growing inside itself, which allows for the realm of infinite finite existence between an infinite causal exosphere of expansion and an infinite causal nucleus of contraction. While at any time the physical universe is finite (not all there ultimately is), it is infinite in the sense that TO ANY OBSERVOR it will continuously get larger and larger (as the expansionary force expands), as the finite parts within get smaller and smaller (as the contractionary force contracts). This is an illusion however, as believe it or not even the physical world is ultimately non-dimensional – we are only ever seeing common versus non-common relativities that cause the appearance of dimensions.

Sure, I have uncertainties about just how accurate what I’ve said above is, but it is better than saying the logical untruth that Ultimate Reality is not fundamentally changeable. It has to be be changeable in one way (it entire nature is change) and not changeable in another (its process of change never changes).

Expansion and contraction require an unmoving perspective of time and space. Guess where that perspective resides?

-

[Jivano]

Good morning, Kelly,

So is this an accurate or inaccurate opinion of reality?

Yes, probably that's what it is: accurate or inaccurate.

But which one cannot be decided without comparing it to the reality in question.
Plus a comparing instance independent of opinion and reality.
Plus a predetermined procedure and scale of values how accuracy is to be measured.
And as all components are part of reality itself, you end up in something
like an alife, endlessly moving and selfcontradicting Gordian knot, which you try
to solve with a rope in your hand.

That's because you try to approach the question from the wrong side; you start with opinions, IMO.
But the first step should be to grasp the reality, about which the opinions are expressed.
In the case of this discussion-thread it would mean to grasp reality - or if you prefer that view -
to grasp your own reality first. Then you would have a standpoint from which you could decide,
wether the opinions are accurate or inaccurate, wether you speak about the same thing at all,
where you and Jason have different experiences of reality or perhaps experienced different
sub-sets of reality. etc. Then mutual understanding would happen, and the cyclone of opinions
would just become a game, a merry-go-round to enjoy and where one is able to jump in or step
out any moment - or watch it joyfully from the outside, as Jason seems to do.

... my opinions reflect Reality, by and large.
By criticising opinions that don't reflect Reality,
I'm necessarily having an opinion that reflects Reality.

This is a self-reference, which boils down to:
"I am right, because I criticize everything which is wrong."
But if one doesn't grasp his own reality first, one has only opinions about.


"Not the wave is moving the ocean. The ocean is moving the wave."
Opinions are part of reality and not vice versa.




Greetings
Jivano

[Jason]

Kelly: Jason,

I'm trying to work out your reasoning. For one, how you can be passionately interested in inventing "cool" devices.

I'm also interested in inventing wicked, radical, sick, mad, hot, neato and swell devices. Cowabunga.

K: For another, why you haven't come to non-attachment as the natural consequence of understanding the nature of Reality.

Do you agree with most of QSR's philosophy?

Jason: Is ultimate reality this? Is ultimate reality that? What do you think these questions are?

K: Since these questions are your way of pointing out that Ultimate Reality can be correctly identified, I'd like you to follow up on that belief, and answer with a straight yes or no: Do you believe Ultimate Reality is fundamentally changeable ?

J: Kelly this is becoming pointless, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at. I've told you from the start: Ultimate Reality is simply things just as they are. Suchness. Isness. Giving you an answer to that question isn't going to prove anything. It doesn't matter if I answer "yes" or "no", reality is still just reality. Any answer I give, will itself, be just another facet of reality. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

K: It's a very simple question, and simple reasoning can answer it.

Here, try this:

When a "thing" is fundamentally unchangeable, that means it cannot change because it isn't dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that no finite thing is independent, therefore only the Infinite can be fundamentally unchangeable.

When a "thing" is fundamentally changeable, that means it can change, because it is dependent on whatever it is not, to be itself. Since we know that Ultimate Reality is not finite, we can conclude that it is not in its nature to be fundamentally changeable.

J: What you've written above seems to be the result of getting caught up in thinking that ultimate reality is something in particular. You're being overly intellectual and specific, thinking you've captured reality in your little thought-model of it. You're confusing your ideas about reality for reality itself. Arguing over whether Ultimate Reality is changeable or not misses the point completely.


K: What little thought-model have I attempted to capture Reality in?

Please present some reasoning.

You made a model in which reality is unchangeable.

J: If reality is just what it is,

K: "Things are just what they are" is the same as saying, boundaries are created based on purpose.

J: To me, it doesn't refer to boundaries or some purpose, it just means that reality is simply what is. There is no hidden ultimate reality. This is it at every moment. Welcome to reality, you never really left.

K: Are you saying that, since delusion is possible, it is the same as, and as logical as, enlightenment ?

J: No.

K: What do you define delusion as?

I actually don't use the term "delusion" much naturally. I really only tend to bring it out if the person I'm speaking with uses it - tends to make communication a little easier that way perhaps. A more natural way for me to describe these things would be something like "understanding the nature of reality" vs "not understanding the nature of reality." Bit of a mouthful I suppose. To answer your question: delusion is not realizing/understanding that ultimate reality is simply things just as they are.

K: Or are you saying that, if the attitude arises that things do inherently exist, this is distinctly an illogical attitude?

J: No. And I don't think that a belief in inherently existing things is ultimately deluded. Neither the belief that things inherently exist, nor the belief that things do not inherently exist, is relevant to understanding the nature of reality.

K: You said earlier that "things are what they are". Does this mean you believe that, if the belief arises that things intrinsically exist, therefore they really do? But if this belief doesn't appear, therefore they don't?

No neither. It means that if I have the belief that things inherently exist then: I have the belief that things inherently exist. On the other hand, if I have the belief that things don't inherently exist then: I have the belief that things don't inherently exist.

I'm describing things just as they are, rather than trying to say reality is something specific. I'm just saying: if you have either of these particular beliefs then you have those particular beliefs. That's just what happens, that's just what is.

Notice the way you frame you're question with the "really"? You seem to be essentially asking something like "What is really the case, which one of those beliefs really reflects reality?" You're trying to specify reality, capture it, limit it, and say that only certain things or states are really reality.

K: It's a conclusion after realising that the Absolute is not a particular thing: that Reality is not actually anything, neither shape-shifting, nor static.

J: Given that you say that it is neither shape-shifting or static, why do you continue to want me to agree that it is either changeable or changeless?

K: If things are always changing, then the Totality doesn't change. If things are always moving, then the Totality doesn't move.

I'm trying to find out how far your reasoning has gone. Whether there is something "cool" which is stopping you from going all the way.

J: Are you actually listening to what I'm saying? Or are you mainly just interested in trying to propogate your beliefs?

K: As far as I know, what you're saying falls short of a correct intellectual understanding of Reality. I am interested in trying to propagate rational beliefs.

Ok, that seems like a good honest answer and I appreciate that. You've managed to do a good job here, thanks and congratulations, you've helped inspire me to futher integrate and investigate my understanding. Today I was seriously agitated and flustered by prolonged wrestling with negation, affirmation, negation of negation, and every other permutation: "Not this. Not that. But also not 'not this'. But also not 'not that'."-types of thoughts turning through my mind. Perhaps something like "neti neti" I suppose. I was hyperventilating a little bit at times it was getting to me that much. It hasn't been this intense in months, and you had something to do with that.

Something else I thought today, not for the first time:

Philosophy is the denial of what is.

If I look honestly at myself: I desired bliss and an end to suffering, and I managed to (con?)fuse this with my search for apparent "truth" and "ultimate reality". I wanted "real" reality to be something specific, I wanted it to be different to the suffering reality I experienced currently. That's (at least partly)why I decided that ultimate reality must be something other than simply what is, because what is, is often suffering, so ultimate reality must be other than that, right?

Philosophy as I had practiced it in the past was about trying to find out what reality really was. Could there be anything more silly or absurd? Reality is what is of course! So my searching for an answer was what reality really was. My philosophical doubting and uncertainty was also what reality really was. I was using reality to search for reality. Silly boy!

Now, knowing that reality is simply what is - is what reality really is! Shazam!

[Kelly Jones]

K: what do you find humourous about my post?

J: I think, that's because it's very basement is aslope:

[*]opinion and reality are of totally different realms,
thus any "opinion about reality" must be like catching butterflies
in bear traps or baking pancakes out of snow.
The moment one thinks, one got it, it's gone again already.

K: So is this an accurate or inaccurate opinion of reality?

Yes, probably that's what it is: accurate or inaccurate.

Come off the guru antics. You were obviously stating your opinion about Reality. Even in the unlikely chance you were playing devil's advocate, the underlying belief is held as accurate.

But which one cannot be decided without comparing it to the reality in question.
Plus a comparing instance independent of opinion and reality.
Plus a predetermined procedure and scale of values how accuracy is to be measured.

This is one package that occurs in the first moment of reasoning about Ultimate Truth. Reasoning verifies itself when creating the object of reasoning (making a definition), and so long as the definition is also verified as rational, no other comparisons are needed.

And as all components are part of reality itself, you end up in something
like an alife, endlessly moving and selfcontradicting Gordian knot, which you try
to solve with a rope in your hand.

What self-contradictions?

That's because you try to approach the question from the wrong side; you start with opinions, IMO.
But the first step should be to grasp the reality, about which the opinions are expressed.
In the case of this discussion-thread it would mean to grasp reality - or if you prefer that view -
to grasp your own reality first. Then you would have a standpoint from which you could decide,
wether the opinions are accurate or inaccurate, wether you speak about the same thing at all,
where you and Jason have different experiences of reality or perhaps experienced different
sub-sets of reality. etc. Then mutual understanding would happen, and the cyclone of opinions
would just become a game, a merry-go-round to enjoy and where one is able to jump in or step
out any moment - or watch it joyfully from the outside, as Jason seems to do.

My approach begins with orienting to Ultimate Truth, then reasoning about whether a statement demonstrates the same orientation. I don't aim to play games. If a statement seems false, then I'll challenge it.

K: ... my opinions reflect Reality, by and large. By criticising opinions that don't reflect Reality, I'm necessarily having an opinion that reflects Reality.

J: This is a self-reference, which boils down to:
"I am right, because I criticize everything which is wrong."
But if one doesn't grasp his own reality first, one has only opinions about.

I don't think you see the internal contradiction here. Grasping one's own reality first, as if that is ultimately reliable, is the same as believing one is right per se.

"Not the wave is moving the ocean. The ocean is moving the wave."
Opinions are part of reality and not vice versa.

You obviously believe opinions reflect reality. So what's your point?

-

[Jivano]

Come off the guru antics. You were obviously stating your opinion about Reality.
Even in the unlikely chance you were playing devil's advocate, the underlying belief is held as accurate.

No, i am NOT stating opinions about reality. I am part of reality, as you are.
And my statements are reactions and answers to your statements.
If you negate to be part of something, which you cannot controll by reasoning,
you are creating the problems for yourself.
Don't blame me for your misunderstandings.

This is one package that occurs in the first moment of reasoning about Ultimate Truth.

reasoning about X is not equal to X

What self-contradictions?

The part cannot define the whole.
You cannot define something which you are a part of.

My approach begins with orienting to Ultimate Truth,

This is not possible, without BEING ultimate truth (to use your wording).
But when you be it, you would probably not argue about opinions, but
(perhaps) speak about experiences - which is a totally different human
dimension.

I don't aim to play games. If a statement seems false, then I'll challenge it.

But my point is it, that from an epistemological standpoint your methodology
to determine what is true and what is false is already false in itself.
You try to eat soup with a fork and get angry, if I point at that situation.

I don't think you see the internal contradiction here.
Grasping one's own reality first, as if that is ultimately reliable,
is the same as believing one is right per se.

Yes, you are right. You can accuse anybody to believe only
in reality. But then the same is true for you, too, and one
could say, that you have only opinions without contact to reality.

This dillema cannot be solved by reasoning, because the
decision wether something is felt (or "experienced" as I'd call it)
as right or wrong is not part of the human reasoning.

Hence it's only a contradiction, if one limits oneself to the realm of
reasoning - which is only part of human reality.

You obviously believe opinions reflect reality.
So what's your point?

I am real. And thinking is a tool to play with imaginary, unreal things.
While opinions are not even alife thoughts, but frozen, fixed recordings
of thoughts.

Hence by concentrating on opinions you go farther away from reality.
And with opinions "about reality" you deceive yourself about that situation.

That's a pity in my eyes and a waste of your intelligence.
Intelligence is much more than just thinking and opinions.


Jivano

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And thinking is a tool to play with imaginary, that is unreal things.
While opinions are not even alife thoughts, but frozen, fixed recordings
of thoughts.

To believe there's a real difference between opinion and any other experience or sensation, being it pleasure, pain, beauty or revulsion, is ignorance. Reality won't be found in sensations either, not even the sensation of being; sweet dreams are made of this.

[Jivano]

To believe there's a real difference between opinion and any other experience or sensation, being it pleasure, pain, beauty or revulsion, is ignorance. Reality won't be found in sensations either, not even the sensation of being; sweet dreams are made of this.

And you dream, that this statement of yours has any other significance than fullfulling you in your sleep?

Either we are both ignorant or we both have the capacity (howsoever it's happening) to see -
even if that would only be the recognition that we sleep and dream.

Pull your straw.

[Kelly Jones]

Jivano,

The Genius Forum is for rational discussion. I don't suppose you read the Welcome, or checked out the associated websites?

Frankly, I think you're insane.

I am part of reality, as you are.

The part cannot define the whole.

You cannot define something which you are a part of.

-