one of the most important questions : how do we know anything?average wrote:Is what exactly?
and why?
Sure, but I am not sure if I can express this correctly; That remains an ultimate challenge as long as one keeps considering that (trying to shape the mind) an ultimate challenge and tries to achieve THAT, while not realizing that the simple search of what is, is already immersed in and of what is. There is nothing to be actually achieved as far as intentionally shaping our mind goes; it is simply the small realizations that matter, which automatically shapes the mind.To come to grips with what is, to shape our minds in such a way it starts to reflect truth, god, tao or nature, is the ultimate challenge.
It's hard for me to understand why you create the disposition: intentionally vs automaticaly.Sapius wrote:That remains an ultimate challenge as long as one keeps considering that (trying to shape the mind) an ultimate challenge and tries to achieve THAT, while not realizing that the simple search of what is, is already immersed in and of what is.
There is nothing to be actually achieved as far as intentionally shaping our mind goes; it is simply the small realizations that matter, which automatically shapes the mind.
Anything you do or say is a reflection.I am actually at a loss of words in describing what reflecting truth, god, tao or nature, (or whatever one wants to express that living moment of the Now = what is), is as, or is.
The reflection cannot equal nature like a part doesn't equal the whole. This differentiation is important because it creates the first step to realize not all reflections are equal, and the ability to stray, to err, to suffer is created. This is how knowledge is possible and a way can be mastered. Wise-dom.Because what we assume as being the “reflection†of nature, IS nature itself, so what exactly can I really say about it reflecting… It is simply a matter of shift of perspectives, that turns one to be what is.
What I mean is, if I have a preconceived idea say about enlightenment, then I will intentionally try and work towards trying to mold my mind that would conform to that preconceived idea. On the other hand, being critical of all, including the idea of enlightenment, and questioning yourself about what the hell is all of existence all about, gradually and automatically ‘shapes the mind’ towards clarity, wisdom, understanding, realizations, etc,. etc.It's hard for me to understand why you create the disposition: intentionally vs automaticaly.
As far as what is is concerned, I mean the level of is-ness that I think we are talking about, what do you think is being "reflected" RIGHT NOW? Is it not nature? And what exactly is "nature" apart from what is being reflected?To come to grips with what is, to shape our minds in such a way it starts to reflect truth, god, tao or nature, is the ultimate challenge.
Reflection of what exsactly? I am saying that what we consider as reflection IS nature at work itself. For example, irrelevant of right wrong, good bad, enlightened deluded or absolutely any and all attributes that one can think of, all inclusive, IS together nature at work itself, and that is what makes everything what is, irrelevant of their comparatively opposite attributes.Anything you do or say is a reflection.
I’m a bit confused here. You mean to say that the whole is nature, and a part is not? Is a part (reflection), any part for that matter, not nature, unnatural? I think there is a category mistake somewhere in there, but I can’t pin point it somehow.The reflection cannot equal nature like a part doesn't equal the whole.
I agree as far as differentiations in itself is concerned, but I think one needs to be clear about what is being differentiated. As far as what is is concerned, no comparable attributes even apply on that level. Yes, not all reflections may be equal, but they are natural however. A part surely does not equal the whole, but “nature†is not apart from any-thing at all. If anything is, I would surely like to know. Are you equating nature to totality? And hence in that sense reflections as parts of totality but not totality itself? I’m not really sure here…This differentiation is important because it creates the first step to realize not all reflections are equal, and the ability to stray, to err, to suffer is created. This is how knowledge is possible and a way can be mastered. Wise-dom.
Okay, leaves the question if the questioning is intentional or automatic. Which is one of these shaping questions I suppose..Sapius wrote:On the other hand, being critical of all, including the idea of enlightenment, and questioning yourself about what the hell is all of existence all about, gradually and automatically ‘shapes the mind’ towards clarity, wisdom, understanding, realizations, etc,. etc.
The part doesn't equal nature. Partitioning is a function of our mind. The parts doesn't really exist, only in perception, the imagining, or: the imaging. The mind could be seen as part of nature but the moment you define it, it becomes image only. A reflection.Sapius wrote:I’m a bit confused here. You mean to say that the whole is nature, and a part is not? Is a part (reflection), any part for that matter, not nature, unnatural? I think there is a category mistake somewhere in there, but I can’t pin point it somehow.Diebert wrote:]The reflection cannot equal nature like a part doesn't equal the whole.
While it's true that there doesn't exist real separation between part and whole, one has to become aware that the moment you conceive of it, in thought or feeling, one separates it. One creates illusion but with that delusion also its counterpart knowledge is created, and possibly wisdom.A part surely does not equal the whole, but “nature†is not apart from any-thing at all. If anything is, I would surely like to know. Are you equating nature to totality? And hence in that sense reflections as parts of totality but not totality itself? I’m not really sure here…
Yes it is. And in my understanding, it is intentional because it is I who questions, and the fact that many do not question although they can, to the extent that you or I may do, shows individuality. And this individuality (separation, partition) has to be valid, otherwise truth and false is not valid.Okay, leaves the question if the questioning is intentional or automatic. Which is one of these shaping questions I suppose..
May be if you defined nature, I may come to see it as you do.The part doesn't equal nature.
Firstly, would you say that partitioning of a rock from grass is the function of a cow’s mind? And secondly, if partitioning is along the lines of imagining, then I should logically not waste my time over a discussion that depends on fictitious partitioning, isn’t it? Is this discussion happening between you and me or is it just our (still implies you and me) imagination? I find this last question meaningless if I take partitioning to be imaginary seriously. Am I talking to myself here? Am I the only conscious thing around? Is Diebert a creation of the partitioning that MY mind does? Is me and “my†mind two different things? Well, many such questions come to mind.Partitioning is a function of our mind. The parts doesn't really exist, only in perception, the imagining, or: the imaging.
Could you please elaborate on this?The mind could be seen as part of nature but the moment you define it, it becomes image only. A reflection.
I don’t think truth is born, but is discovered. However I agree, falsity is necessary to discover truth, and a reasoning consciousness is necessary to discover both. But that is a different subject matter I guess.Falsification becomes the prime function of the mind. And with this truth is also born.
So what if I walk backwards reading a newspaper and trip over a dog? What created that partitioning/separation?While it's true that there doesn't exist real separation between part and whole, one has to become aware that the moment you conceive of it, in thought or feeling, one separates it. One creates illusion but with that delusion also its counterpart knowledge is created, and possibly wisdom.
It cannot be said to be valid because valid/invalid would be just another form of truth/false. If you really want to stretch it then you could say that separation is true and false, like a coin having two sides. But the coin itself has an opposing non-coin side too, of course. Grin.Sapius wrote:And this individuality (separation, partition) has to be valid, otherwise truth and false is not valid.
Why would it be a waste because it's 'fictitious'? Or better: why would imagining always be fictitious? It's just the way we deal with everything around and inside us. We can only decide how true or false it is, not exactly how fictional or real it is. Because we could live in that computer simulation, remember? Or you're having a very long dream about being online.if partitioning is along the lines of imagining, then I should logically not waste my time over a discussion that depends on fictitious partitioning, isn’t it?
Why does it matter to you? It matters a bit how your brain happens to be wired at the moment. You can live in all sorts of states, some of which are like the questions you just asked. Not all of them could be good for survival, depending on circumstance too.Am I talking to myself here? Am I the only conscious thing around? Is Diebert a creation of the partitioning that MY mind does? Is me and “my†mind two different things? Well, many such questions come to mind.
Everything that is not the whole (A) can be called image because it's like a negative from A. The only ultimate thing we can say about anything at all is that it's not equal to the whole. So every identity, even the whole creates its shadow image. And through the image we can logically assume the original.Could you please elaborate on this?diebert wrote:The mind could be seen as part of nature but the moment you define it, it becomes image only. A reflection.
None of those "laws" seem to have anything to do with me imagining what a clock might look like in mirror. Yet I'm certainly thinking by doing so. Then again, I've always been something of a rule breaker.The answer to this question can be derived deductively, from the three laws that govern all thought:
It differs in that when I say that there is nothing that does not exist, I am asserting that all things partake of a real existence, although they are themselves not real. I am saying that reality: that which is real and which underlies the appearance of things, is a two-fold entity which is existentially monistic, but essentially pluralistic: its essence having only the appearance of existence. In other words, I am saying that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant; and that is that which we generally call nothing (empty space) that is the true reality: this ‘nothing’ being in actuality, the sphere of the cognizant awareness of the one true entity; all other being relative.You think that ontology is the most important aspect of philosophy, yet you immediately start in with epistemology and logic? Or--it seems from what you've said--you think that classical logic is the whole of epistemology. From Aristotle follows the single true take on ontological matters. Which, queerly enough, is ontological universalism. Yet, what exactly does it mean to say that everything exists? How does it differ from saying nothing exists? It really doesn't. Insofar as someone can be sincere in proposing either view (and there are ontological nihilists), they aren't expressing, predicting, or reporting different things. Everything exists and nothing exists.
This is not saying everything that exists does exist. Rather it is a nondual, beyond being and nonbeing statement that reminds us that existence has no opposite.Therefore: there is only being (what is), and naught else; that is to say, there is no non-being (what is not).
In other words, everything partakes of some manner of existence, and there is nothing which does not exist.
It is true that existence (being) has no complement, for if it did, then being and non-being would need to complete one another in some higher universe of discourse; of which there is none. Existence, on the other hand, may be partitioned into two interdependent and complementary aspects; that which has a necessary existence (is absolute), and that which has only a contingent existence (is relative). Therefore, it may be rightfully asserted that all things necessarily exist, albeit they may not all partake of the same mode of existence.This is not saying everything that exists does exist. Rather it is a nondual, beyond being and nonbeing statement that reminds us that existence has no opposite.
if all phenomena are commingling unabsoluteness and are Absoluteness manifest, then it is surprising that we manufacture our ego that is neither-either but a weirder autism? yet none remember having desired existence... but incontestable we have Ego, the only certainty we know. mean by 'Ego', our individuality as distinct and seperate from all else.Jehu wrote:Iolaus wrote:It is true that existence (being) has no complement, for if it did, then being and non-being would need to complete one another in some higher universe of discourse; of which there is none. Existence, on the other hand, may be partitioned into two interdependent and complementary aspects; that which has a necessary existence (is absolute), and that which has only a contingent existence (is relative). Therefore, it may be rightfully asserted that all things necessarily exist, albeit they may not all partake of the same mode of existence.This is not saying everything that exists does exist. Rather it is a nondual, beyond being and nonbeing statement that reminds us that existence has no opposite.
It is not surprising when one recognizes that the cognizant awareness that is exhibited by relative entities such as ourselves, is merely a fragment of the absolute whole, and as such, is cut off from the perfect knowledge of the whole, by a deficiency in its capacity to comprehend its true nature. As a consequence, we identify ourselves, not with the absolute which is our true origin and cause, but with the relative things that we perceive, and which we claim as our own: my mind, my body, my world, my needs, my goals, my memories, etc. But none of these things truly belong to us, for they, like ourselves, have only a relative existence, arising as they do, as a relationship between other things. Such things as these are not real, but merely appearances.if all phenomena are commingling unabsoluteness and are Absoluteness manifest, then it is surprising that we manufacture our ego that is neither-either but a weirder autism? yet none remember having desired existence... but incontestable we have Ego, the only certainty we know. mean by 'Ego', our individuality as distinct and seperate from all else.
Truth is aborning and levels our necessities of direction(general or specialized).the function of truth is coherence, it indirectly forms our beliefs and values. we are all specimens of self-evident truth,i.e. audient and endemic as the intermediacy of pure Ego(informing agent) and empirical Ego(conative), conscience being the nexus(emotional value): all knowledge is of one thing through another.Jehu wrote:bert wrote:It is not surprising when one recognizes that the cognizant awareness that is exhibited by relative entities such as ourselves, is merely a fragment of the absolute whole, and as such, is cut off from the perfect knowledge of the whole, by a deficiency in its capacity to comprehend its true nature. As a consequence, we identify ourselves, not with the absolute which is our true origin and cause, but with the relative things that we perceive, and which we claim as our own: my mind, my body, my world, my needs, my goals, my memories, etc. But none of these things truly belong to us, for they, like ourselves, have only a relative existence, arising as they do, as a relationship between other things. Such things as these are not real, but merely appearances.if all phenomena are commingling unabsoluteness and are Absoluteness manifest, then it is surprising that we manufacture our ego that is neither-either but a weirder autism? yet none remember having desired existence... but incontestable we have Ego, the only certainty we know. mean by 'Ego', our individuality as distinct and seperate from all else.
It's, "Do you know where you will spend eternity? "And the reason it's the most important question one can ask himself should be obvious because that's where all of us will be spending most of our time.average wrote:Is what exactly?
and why?
Exactly. So one cannot escape separation even if one reasons his way through understanding Oneness as such; it is impossible to say consciousness isn’t, which necessarily requires separated-ness to be.It cannot be said to be valid because valid/invalid would be just another form of truth/false. If you really want to stretch it then you could say that separation is true and false, like a coin having two sides. But the coin itself has an opposing non-coin side too, of course. Grin.
One of my queries was to be certain about where can I draw a line that would serve as a foundation to reasoning, and I found that to be “I amâ€. Now if “I†am a computer simulation, then I can throw out my reasoning because it is not “I†that logically does it, or, use it coherently and throw out highly improbable speculations. On the other hand, how would it really matter if I really were a simulation? As if “I†could be aware of it in any case. The moment I experience it as a simulation, then that too could be a simulation, ad infinitum. So the most coherent “I†that makes logical and coherent sense to me is the “I†that I am concerned with, until I experience otherwise, which would however still be coherently encompassed within my present “Iâ€, otherwise, there would be no coherently comprehensible “I†at all.Why would it be a waste because it's 'fictitious'? Or better: why would imagining always be fictitious? It's just the way we deal with everything around and inside us. We can only decide how true or false it is, not exactly how fictional or real it is. Because we could live in that computer simulation, remember? Or you're having a very long dream about being online.
It matters to me because, philosophically speaking, I am concerned about the “Iâ€, not the brain or the lungs, nor survival as such.Why does it matter to you? It matters a bit how your brain happens to be wired at the moment. You can live in all sorts of states, some of which are like the questions you just asked. Not all of them could be good for survival, depending on circumstance too.
Well, in my opinion there isn’t a whole at all, because there isn’t an end or any boundaries to such a whole that you are pointing to, which we logically (wishfully actually) assume.D: The mind could be seen as part of nature but the moment you define it, it becomes image only. A reflection.
S: Could you please elaborate on this?
D: Everything that is not the whole (A) can be called image because it's like a negative from A. The only ultimate thing we can say about anything at all is that it's not equal to the whole. So every identity, even the whole creates its shadow image. And through the image we can logically assume the original.
Separation is the case but instead of escaping, someone could be avoiding the truth of separation, the truth of identity, the truth of consciousness, etc. Which would lead to all kinds of false belief systems, assumptions, flowing out in unwise actions, perpetuating it even beyond ones own little sphere of influence.Sapius wrote: So one cannot escape separation even if one reasons his way through understanding Oneness as such; it is impossible to say consciousness isn’t, which necessarily requires separated-ness to be.
Yes, but just as one can identify with our body, or just our head, or our senses, feelings or thoughts, it has implications to understand how ones senses are caused, including a possible 'sense of self' (or 'I'). The moment one examines it, pure philosophically, it can be seen that this sense changes with its causes. There's no real sense of continuity apart from assumption. We can only speak of objects and subjects arising, in which each arising an 'I' or 'A' becomes defined. It's a matter of circumstance where the line is drawn, in itself part of causation and subject to change.It matters to me because, philosophically speaking, I am concerned about the “Iâ€, not the brain or the lungs, nor survival as such.
The assumption of a whole could be said to be an artifact, unavoidably arising out of the assumption of 'end' or 'no end', 'boundaries' or 'no boundaries'. You are effectively saying above: "in my opinion there isn't a whole at all, because the whole cannot be pointed to". But even now you're pointing out by using a negative (there is not a whole, there's no end, etc) so at the same time you really do point as well.Well, in my opinion there isn’t a whole at all, because there isn’t an end or any boundaries to such a whole that you are pointing to, which we logically (wishfully actually) assume.
