Fundamental Assumptions

[Jason]

I was skimming through Commentary on the Larkin Debate and I came across this interesting exchange:

David Quinn: How do you demonstrate that you're not an irrational human being with a warped understanding of formal logic?

Victor Danilchenko: You don't, you can't -- and you have no choice but to assume that that is not the case. it's a necessary presupposition, the assumption that you have apply syntactic transformations correctly. It's possible thatyou are insane and cannot do so, nor can perceive your insanity because it's consistent; but if you cannot perceive your insanity, then by definition you cannot perceive your insanity -- you cannot raitonally think your way out of it, because you lack rrational facilities. You have no choice but to assume your thinking sound on a certain fundamental level, just as you have no choice but to breathe.

I find Victor's response striking. Doesn't the knowledge of making such a very fundamental assumption effect(and perhaps undermine), in a very profound and troubling way, just about every philosophical, scientific, moral, political, mathematical etc etc etc thought and belief you've ever had? It's as if your entire corpus of knowledge and thought is hanging precariously by a single thread. In fact you can't even be sure there is a supporting thread at all, you might really be in free-fall. Wouldn't any further philosophy, maybe even life itself, become a charade, a game?

I don't mean to misrepresent you Victor but what I've described does seem, to me, to be a possible and maybe even reasonable outcome of this fundamental assumption. I'd like to know what effects you think this assumption has and how you deal with this problem, assuming you see it as problem at all. I'd also like to hear other's views on this issue, especially David, Dan and Kevin's.

[Pincho Paxton]

I find Victor's response striking. Doesn't the knowledge of making such a very fundamental assumption effect(and perhaps undermine), in a very profound and troubling way, just about every philosophical, scientific, moral, political, mathematical etc etc etc thought and belief you've ever had? It's as if your entire corpus of knowledge and thought is hanging precariously by a single thread. In fact you can't even be sure there is a supporting thread at all, you might really be in free-fall. Wouldn't any further philosophy, maybe even life itself, become a charade, a game?

You argue his point, and yet agree with him at the same time. What you have done here is bow your head down to accept someone elses oppinion because they made a good argument. However, even the best arguments can be wrong, even if you can't break the argument at all. An inkling that something is wrong is enough to store something with doubt attatched to it. So store his response, but keep it open ready for new information to arrive. It appears to me that Victor's argument is from the point of view of the madman. The point of view of the genius is that they are sane, and their information is good. Their sanity is open for discussion, and cannot easily be proved. Windows XP works, but it is bugged, and even if we all have our own bugs, we still believe that we have not yet crashed. Information should be good most of the time, and we should accept it, but attach some doubt to it at the same time.

[DHodges]

Doesn't the knowledge of making such a very fundamental assumption effect(and perhaps undermine), in a very profound and troubling way, just about every philosophical, scientific, moral, political, mathematical etc etc etc thought and belief you've ever had? It's as if your entire corpus of knowledge and thought is hanging precariously by a single thread. In fact you can't even be sure there is a supporting thread at all, you might really be in free-fall.

This just underlines the importance of constant vigilance, of looking for any contradictions in your thought, of being relentlessly rational to the best of your ability.

Rationality is not something you should assume about yourself, but something you are continuously testing; everyone has moments of irrationality.

Try not to believe in things.

[David Quinn]

I was skimming through Commentary on the Larkin Debate and I came across this interesting exchange:

David Quinn: How do you demonstrate that you're not an irrational human being with a warped understanding of formal logic?

Victor Danilchenko: You don't, you can't -- and you have no choice but to assume that that is not the case. it's a necessary presupposition, the assumption that you have apply syntactic transformations correctly. It's possible thatyou are insane and cannot do so, nor can perceive your insanity because it's consistent; but if you cannot perceive your insanity, then by definition you cannot perceive your insanity -- you cannot raitonally think your way out of it, because you lack rrational facilities. You have no choice but to assume your thinking sound on a certain fundamental level, just as you have no choice but to breathe.

I find Victor's response striking. Doesn't the knowledge of making such a very fundamental assumption effect(and perhaps undermine), in a very profound and troubling way, just about every philosophical, scientific, moral, political, mathematical etc etc etc thought and belief you've ever had? It's as if your entire corpus of knowledge and thought is hanging precariously by a single thread. In fact you can't even be sure there is a supporting thread at all, you might really be in free-fall. Wouldn't any further philosophy, maybe even life itself, become a charade, a game?

What happens when you use knowledge and concepts to reach a realm in which you no longer depend on any concepts, points of view, or forms at all?

Free-fall is our natural state.

-

[truth_justice]

I find Victor's response striking. Doesn't the knowledge of making such a very fundamental assumption effect(and perhaps undermine), in a very profound and troubling way, just about every philosophical, scientific, moral, political, mathematical etc etc etc thought and belief you've ever had? It's as if your entire corpus of knowledge and thought is hanging precariously by a single thread. In fact you can't even be sure there is a supporting thread at all, you might really be in free-fall. Wouldn't any further philosophy, maybe even life itself, become a charade, a game?

There is really no issue here. Your ability to acquire beliefs still remains even when all of your beliefs are lost or undermined. Yet this case is no different then if you were *thinking out of the box*. Just let box=belief-system. In other words, you elevate above your beliefs - which if you can do is absolutely wonderful. I claim this to be necessary to find truth - for then you are not acquiring beliefs due to other beliefs but beliefs directly from the root of your nature, and therefore nature itself.

Getting out of your mind takes a whole new meaning now, doesn't it? So does *connecting* or becoming one with nature!

What worries me isn't the lack of beliefs, but rather the number of false beliefs, believed to be true.

[Jason]

Doesn't the knowledge of making such a very fundamental assumption effect(and perhaps undermine), in a very profound and troubling way, just about every philosophical, scientific, moral, political, mathematical etc etc etc thought and belief you've ever had? It's as if your entire corpus of knowledge and thought is hanging precariously by a single thread. In fact you can't even be sure there is a supporting thread at all, you might really be in free-fall.

This just underlines the importance of constant vigilance, of looking for any contradictions in your thought, of being relentlessly rational to the best of your ability.

Rationality is not something you should assume about yourself, but something you are continuously testing; everyone has moments of irrationality.

Try not to believe in things.

If you were actually insane then what you wrote above may itself not be in any way sane or reasonable, therefore I don't think you've really addressed the fundamental problem.

[Jason]

What happens when you use knowledge and concepts to reach a realm in which you no longer depend on any concepts, points of view, or forms at all?

Free-fall is our natural state.

Your initial use of knowledge and concepts is still a possible problem, a possible irrational/insane act. Any destination you reach from that initial act, including the one you described, may thus also be irrational/insane. Even if your initial use of knowledge and concepts was rational it's possible your destination does not rationally follow from them, you just irrationally think it does. It may actually be sane to rely on concepts, points of view and forms, but in your insanity you've eschewed them. Perhaps even the belief that you experience a state not dependent on concepts, points of view, or forms is just a madman's hallucination too.

[GrimNexus]

victor's whole response is based on this:
"but if you cannot perceive your insanity, then by definition you cannot perceive your insanity"
all he's saying is: A = A

[David Quinn]

What happens when you use knowledge and concepts to reach a realm in which you no longer depend on any concepts, points of view, or forms at all?

Free-fall is our natural state.

Your initial use of knowledge and concepts is still a possible problem, a possible irrational/insane act. Any destination you reach from that initial act, including the one you described, may thus also be irrational/insane. Even if your initial use of knowledge and concepts was rational it's possible your destination does not rationally follow from them, you just irrationally think it does. It may actually be sane to rely on concepts, points of view and forms, but in your insanity you've eschewed them. Perhaps even the belief that you experience a state not dependent on concepts, points of view, or forms is just a madman's hallucination too.

None of this matters once you reach that place. It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

Once there, you are no longer affirming any particular point of view or state of mind, and so the whole basis of whether you being rational or irrational, or sane or insane, certain or uncertain, etc, no longer applies. You are simply taking in whatever Nature throws at you, neither accepting nor rejecting any of it.

-

[Jason]

Your initial use of knowledge and concepts is still a possible problem, a possible irrational/insane act. Any destination you reach from that initial act, including the one you described, may thus also be irrational/insane. Even if your initial use of knowledge and concepts was rational it's possible your destination does not rationally follow from them, you just irrationally think it does. It may actually be sane to rely on concepts, points of view and forms, but in your insanity you've eschewed them. Perhaps even the belief that you experience a state not dependent on concepts, points of view, or forms is just a madman's hallucination too.

None of this matters once you reach that place. It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

That's what you think. But is that thinking sane?

Once there, you are no longer affirming any particular point of view or state of mind, and so the whole basis of whether you being rational or irrational, or sane or insane, certain or uncertain, etc, no longer applies. You are simply taking in whatever Nature throws at you, neither accepting nor rejecting any of it.

My last post already addressed this. Neither affirming or denying any particular view or state of mind may itself be irrational. Say, for example, the xtian fundies way is the rational and sane one, then not affirming a literal interpretation of the Bible is irrational and insane. Do you affirm xtian fundamentalist ideas?

[David Quinn]

Your initial use of knowledge and concepts is still a possible problem, a possible irrational/insane act. Any destination you reach from that initial act, including the one you described, may thus also be irrational/insane. Even if your initial use of knowledge and concepts was rational it's possible your destination does not rationally follow from them, you just irrationally think it does. It may actually be sane to rely on concepts, points of view and forms, but in your insanity you've eschewed them. Perhaps even the belief that you experience a state not dependent on concepts, points of view, or forms is just a madman's hallucination too.

None of this matters once you reach that place. It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

That's what you think. But is that thinking sane?

It accords with A=A.

Once there, you are no longer affirming any particular point of view or state of mind, and so the whole basis of whether you being rational or irrational, or sane or insane, certain or uncertain, etc, no longer applies. You are simply taking in whatever Nature throws at you, neither accepting nor rejecting any of it.

My last post already addressed this. Neither affirming or denying any particular view or state of mind may itself be irrational. Say, for example, the xtian fundies way is the rational and sane one, then not affirming a literal interpretation of the Bible is irrational and insane. Do you affirm xtian fundamentalist ideas?

We're back into A=A territory again. Christian fundamentalism is irrational because it violates A=A.

-

[skipair]

David,

It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

I was under the impression that wise application of rationality/reason was the only way to get there. Maybe intuition is an "irrational" way to get there? I've had small experiences throughout my life where I've gotten a feeling or sense of something that cannot really be put into a rational sentence, but seem to point to something profound.

For example, the other night I was thinking very hard about causation, and then the moment I turned it on to myself I felt my "bottom drop out" so there was nothing holding me up, but I automatically "caught myself" from falling, and couldn't get back there afterward. It was really more a feeling than anything else, not exactly rational...is this the kind of thing you're talking about?

[David Quinn]

David,

It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

I was under the impression that wise application of rationality/reason was the only way to get there. Maybe intuition is an "irrational" way to get there?

The wise application of reason is the only way to get there, but it can be helped along by intuitions and altered states. As you become more rational and advance closer to enlightenment, your intuitions and altered states will reflect this development and will be more rational in their content. They will contain fewer elements of imagination and delusion and they will reflect reality more clearly.

I've had small experiences throughout my life where I've gotten a feeling or sense of something that cannot really be put into a rational sentence, but seem to point to something profound.

For example, the other night I was thinking very hard about causation, and then the moment I turned it on to myself I felt my "bottom drop out" so there was nothing holding me up, but I automatically "caught myself" from falling, and couldn't get back there afterward. It was really more a feeling than anything else, not exactly rational...is this the kind of thing you're talking about?

It sounds like you experienced a minor altered state that contained some insight and some delusion. The actual experience of "falling" is the deluded part and ultimately insignificant. The valuable part was gaining concrete experience of the flimsiness of the self's boundaries. That's how I read it, anyway. You'll have to tell me if this doesn't resonate with you.

Altered states at the beginning stages can be quite dramatic because the mind is still hard and fixed in its habitual delusions and breaking out of this can be momentous. But as you develop, the mind starts to become increasingly more flexible and the boundary between ordinary consciousness and (wise) altered states starts to diminish. You can slip in and out of them more easily and less dramatically. Eventually, you stop thinking about altered states altogether.

-

[Jason]

None of this matters once you reach that place. It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

That's what you think. But is that thinking sane?

It accords with A=A.

The desire to conform to A=A might be the product of an insane mind. I can just keep throwing the insane argument at anything you propose. Obviously it becomes tedious, but how would you propose extricating oneself from such a possibility? There are people who you'd label insane, whose views violate A=A, yet who are convinced that they have absolute truth too. If you're actually insane but think that you're sane, how could you ever know, and how could you ever escape? A=A or suchness does seem self-evident to me, but is that enough? Even apparently self-evident things could be tainted by insanity. To some it's self-evident that Jesus turned water into wine and Moses parted the Red Sea.

[Kevin Solway]

If you're actually insane but think that you're sane, how could you ever know

You could never know.

and how could you ever escape?

Only if something caused you to start thinking logically.

Just like if your computer freezes and and can no longer function, you can often fix it up by pressing the restart button. The "helping hand of God".

A=A or suchness does seem self-evident to me, but is that enough?

Only if you apply it to everything, and are not irrational in any area of your life.

Even apparently self-evident things could be tainted by insanity. To some it's self-evident that Jesus turned water into wine and Moses parted the Red Sea.

Yes, it is self-evident to the majority of people that a thing is not what it is. That's why I call them insane.

[David Quinn]

Jason,

DQ: None of this matters once you reach that place. It doesn't really matter if the means by which you reach it are irrational or not. As long as it gets you there, that is all that counts.

Jason: That's what you think. But is that thinking sane?

DQ: It accords with A=A.

Jason: The desire to conform to A=A might be the product of an insane mind. I can just keep throwing the insane argument at anything you propose. Obviously it becomes tedious, but how would you propose extricating oneself from such a possibility? There are people who you'd label insane, whose views violate A=A, yet who are convinced that they have absolute truth too. If you're actually insane but think that you're sane, how could you ever know, and how could you ever escape? A=A or suchness does seem self-evident to me, but is that enough? Even apparently self-evident things could be tainted by insanity. To some it's self-evident that Jesus turned water into wine and Moses parted the Red Sea.

These issues only arise when you're not in that place I spoke of. When you are in that place, then even the affirmation of A=A is no longer necessary. You have transcended everything - even the need to affirm A=A; even the need to think that you are in a particular place. The very idea of being in a particular place loses all meaning.

But when you are not in that place, you are suddenly looking for certainties. You are being taken in by duality and looking for solid ground in some kind of dualistic haven. When this happens, you have no choice but to rely on logic and A=A to get you back in that transcendent place.

Certainty and uncertainty, sanity and insanity - these are phantom issues which only arise to the degree that you are being taken in by the phantom of duality.

-

[Jamesh]

Certainty and uncertainty, sanity and insanity - these are phantom issues which only arise to the degree that you are being taken in by the phantom of duality.

Duality is no phantom. Non-duality is the phantom.

I think you are obsessed with snuffing out dualism because you want to be one with God, and God in you mind is a "one" that is not even a unity, not even a Totality, but is just what it is.

You've probably read and respected too much of what, that idiot, Kierkegaard says.

[David Quinn]

Certainty and uncertainty, sanity and insanity - these are phantom issues which only arise to the degree that you are being taken in by the phantom of duality.

Duality is no phantom. Non-duality is the phantom.

I think you are obsessed with snuffing out dualism because you want to be one with God, and God in you mind is a "one" that is not even a unity, not even a Totality, but is just what it is.

You've probably read and respected too much of what, that idiot, Kierkegaard says.

Duality isn't a phantom if you can recognize and accept it for what it is. The problem arises when we seek truth and certainty in a particular dualistic realm. That is when duality becomes a phantom.

-

[Jamesh]

The problem arises when we seek truth and certainty in a particular dualistic realm. That is when duality becomes a phantom.

I accept this. Any particular dualistic realm is relative to any other logical dualistic realm that is outside the scope of the particular duality being thought of. No singular dualistic theory stands alone. So to ascertain the true-est context any particular dualistic conceptualisation must be placed within a "larger" or even a 90/180 degree dualistic conception in which each dualistic set again becomes dualistically linked to another dualistic set.

There is a oneness in everything we conceptualise in the manner in which all dualistic conceptions link together in this manner. Just as no thing stands alone, nor do our conceptualisations, and it requires ultimate truths to link them together (which is something that folks like Victor don't get, they think just adding enough dualistic conceptions together will provide a holistic understanding of reality).

[Jason]

If you're actually insane but think that you're sane, how could you ever know

You could never know.

Well then you might be insane, doesn't that potentially undermine your claims to absolute truth?

Even apparently self-evident things could be tainted by insanity. To some it's self-evident that Jesus turned water into wine and Moses parted the Red Sea.

Yes, it is self-evident to the majority of people that a thing is not what it is. That's why I call them insane.

So apparently self-evident truth isn't enough to guarantee absolute truth? What is then? For example, what other than self-evidence does A=A have to make it valid?

[Kevin Solway]

If you're actually insane but think that you're sane, how could you ever know

You could never know.

Well then you might be insane, doesn't that potentially undermine your claims to absolute truth?

A sane person can know that he is himself sane, so he doesn't have any doubts about his sanity or his truths. And nor should he.

However, an insane person who thinks himself sane will also not have any doubts.

That's all there is to it, and nothing can be done about it.

it is self-evident to the majority of people that a thing is not what it is. That's why I call them insane.

So apparently self-evident truth isn't enough to guarantee absolute truth?

Insane people think they are capable of judging what is self-evident truth, but really they are not.

[Jason]

One could take those responses as somewhat deflective Kevin. Do you reckon you could give me a simple "yes" or "no" to the two questions I posed?

[Kevin Solway]

So, no to the first one.

So apparently self-evident truth isn't enough to guarantee absolute truth?

And no to this one too.

It is enough, provided that the person is capable of recognizing self-evident truth, and that they apply it wisely.

[DHodges]

A sane person can know that he is himself sane, so he doesn't have any doubts about his sanity or his truths. And nor should he.

It seems to me a sane person should be constantly on guard against irrationality, since it is so easy to fall into. Everyone seems to have their own particular blind spots they need to watch out for. He should be constantly doubting and testing.

However, an insane person who thinks himself sane will also not have any doubts.

That's all there is to it, and nothing can be done about it.

Yes, that person is screwed.

[Jason]

The desire to conform to A=A might be the product of an insane mind. I can just keep throwing the insane argument at anything you propose. Obviously it becomes tedious, but how would you propose extricating oneself from such a possibility? There are people who you'd label insane, whose views violate A=A, yet who are convinced that they have absolute truth too. If you're actually insane but think that you're sane, how could you ever know, and how could you ever escape? A=A or suchness does seem self-evident to me, but is that enough? Even apparently self-evident things could be tainted by insanity. To some it's self-evident that Jesus turned water into wine and Moses parted the Red Sea.

These issues only arise when you're not in that place I spoke of. When you are in that place, then even the affirmation of A=A is no longer necessary. You have transcended everything - even the need to affirm A=A; even the need to think that you are in a particular place. The very idea of being in a particular place loses all meaning.

But when you are not in that place, you are suddenly looking for certainties. You are being taken in by duality and looking for solid ground in some kind of dualistic haven. When this happens, you have no choice but to rely on logic and A=A to get you back in that transcendent place.

Certainty and uncertainty, sanity and insanity - these are phantom issues which only arise to the degree that you are being taken in by the phantom of duality.

I still don't think you've defeated the insanity argument. You originally described "a realm in which you no longer depend on any concepts, points of view, or forms at all". You've said that entering into such a realm overcomes the insanity problem because by no longer being dependent on concepts, points of view and forms you remove dependency on the things that may be tainted by insanity, and so remove the problem.

But as I've already said more than once, that doesn't deal with the possibility that there are in fact sane and rational dualistic points of view and concepts. The problem being that your insanity will not allow you to access or realize these absolute dualistic concepts. Sane people may realize that xtian fundamentalism is the sane and absolute point of view.

So if there are rational, sane and absolute dualistic points of view and concepts, then entering into a state that is not dependent on these is actually irrational and insane, even though it may have no dependence on any concepts or points of view whatsoever. Your argument simply does not overcome this problem.