I don't understand...

[geniuine]

There is no reality in the absence of the mind.

if all minds were absent from the earth, would the earth still exist in our universe? Basically if all members of our species destroyed themselves, would the earth continue going of in the absence of minds? Of course it would ...

If reality is something that only a conscious mind experiences, then where there is no mind, there is no reality. That's what I meant.

Perhaps seeking out new and exciting experiences and living life to the fullest!?

What sort of experiences are you talking about?

Exciting experiences!=) ...The kind of experiences that occur when a person is more extroverted as opposed to being introverted. In other words, living life as it is, instead of trying to change it...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

That's right, perceptions don't just cause themselves.

You said "no" to hallucinations existing outside the perception of the schizophrenic. Do those perceptions cause themselves?

And, how is actuality related to cause and effect?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Genuine,

Exciting experiences!=) ...The kind of experiences that occur when a person is more extroverted as opposed to being introverted. In other words, living life as it is, instead of trying to change it...

You mean like your birthday or something? Perhaps you could allow yourself to feel excitement for the possibility of your birthday wishes coming true…. ; ) seriously though, excitement as extroverted behavior!…. Seems like pretty greedy behavior to me…

A true extrovert is someone that when they speak, they have something truly intelligent to say. And they don't need excitement to feel as though their life is exciting if that makes any sense. For instance: the enlightened mind is content with walking along the side of a river, that is enjoyable enough for him, while the greedy man wants to ride the rapids… basically, the pursuit of excitement is responsible for many careless accidents, stupid judgments and ultimately unwise behaviors.

[geniuine]

You mean like your birthday or something? Perhaps you could allow yourself to feel excitement for the possibility of your birthday wishes coming true…. ; ) seriously though, excitement as extroverted behavior!…. Seems like pretty greedy behavior to me…

A true extrovert is someone that when they speak, they have something truly intelligent to say. And they don't need excitement to feel as though their life is exciting if that makes any sense. For instance: the enlightened mind is content with walking along the side of a river, that is enjoyable enough for him, while the greedy man wants to ride the rapids… basically, the pursuit of excitement is responsible for many careless accidents, stupid judgments and ultimately unwise behaviors.

What are you going on about?

That's right, perceptions don't just cause themselves.

You said "no" to hallucinations existing outside the perception of the schizophrenic. Do those perceptions cause themselves?

Show me. You'll have to be a little more clear...

And, how is actuality related to cause and effect?

How is actuality not related to cause and effect?

[geniuine]

I'll eventually post something of greater value.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Genuine,

What are you going on about?

I’m trying to point out that you don’t make any sense. You have it backwards, people who live for excitement are constantly trying to change the way reality feels to them, they are not satisfied with ‘what is’, their egos are restless, as they need more and more.

A rational philosopher socializes in the highest form because when he speaks, he doesn’t want to constantly steal emotional energy from another person, he speaks from a different order, as he simply wants to point them in the direction of truth.

The ego is a thief, it constantly wants more emotional pleasure for itself, and it does so at the expense of other people. And that is what modern society calls extroverted socializing.

[geniuine]

Your mind changed the original and intended meaning of my post, into something different. You thought that you understood, but you really didn't. I suspect this is due to your restless ego.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Show me. You'll have to be a little more clear.

me: "does the hallucination exist outside of the perception of the schizophrenic?"
you: "No."
me: "Does the glass break outside of the perception of the person who dropped it?"
you: "Yes."
me: "If either of those last two questions are answered "yes", then there is something other than perception involved. There is an outside that needs to be accounted for."
you: "That's right, perceptions don't just cause themselves. "

Something other than perception is only implied when you answer yes. The reason you gave for why you answered yes to one is that perceptions don't just cause themselves. This means that by answering no to other other, you were saying the opposite: a hallucination, by not existing outside of the perception of the schizophrenic, causes itself.

Phrased this way, I am not sure if you would still answer no to the first question, so I asked if you were going to accept the consequences of that belief. Is that clear enough?

How is actuality not related to cause and effect?

That was already suggested by my question. If you think cause and effect are identical, say so. That is a possible relationship between the two.

[geniuine]

Is that clear enough?

Unfortunately, it isn't. Either I'm a little thick or your purposefully rephrasing the same thing over and over again (could be a both). I told you that I didn't understand your original question. I can't offer much of a response, if I don't understand what kind of a response you require.

Nevertheless, I'll give it a shot. Please keep in mind that I don't have all the answers. I'm here to learn from those whom are more fortunate.

me: "does the hallucination exist outside of the perception of the schizophrenic?"
you: "No."
me: "Does the glass break outside of the perception of the person who dropped it?"
you: "Yes."

The difference there, is that, the hallucination is something false, while the glass (assuming that it's not a hallucination) is something true.

me: "If either of those last two questions are answered "yes", then there is something other than perception involved. There is an outside that needs to be accounted for."
you: "That's right, perceptions don't just cause themselves. "

Perceptions are caused (obviously), so they require some kind of an outside - something other then themselves.

This means that by answering no to the other, you were saying the opposite: a hallucination, by not existing outside of the perception of the schizophrenic, causes itself.

I think I see what your saying, but it doesn't make complete sense to me.

A hallucination is a type of perception, but it's a faulty type of perception, in that, it doesn't represent reality (in it's pure form, if you will) as it is, to those whomever aren't ill or to that same person (when recovered).

Phrased this way, I am not sure if you would still answer no to the first question, so I asked if you were going to accept the consequences of that belief.

Ahhh... Oh, but I think it has to do with how we look at something like a hallucination. It does have outside causes, but I meant that whatever it represents isn't what actually is, even though, it does have actual causes outside of itself. Yeah, so, there's clearly a difference between cause and effect. My answer would still be "no" - biologically, the hallucination is happening, but whatever the hallucination produces, isn't actually happening.

Btw, you haven't been answering my questions. Why?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

First things first...

Btw, you haven't been answering my questions. Why?

Look at your last three questions before this one:

1. You asked "can you please elaborate?", to which I elaborated further.
2. You asked "how's that for consistency?", to which I probed deeper into whether or not you were being consistent.
3. You asked "how is actuality not related to cause and effect?" to which I replied that you were just restating the question that I had just asked you.

Otherwise, every time you said I needed to be more clear, which is indirectly a question, I restated my message. And, well, I'm answering this question. So, I don't believe that there is a single question you have asked me that I have not answered completely.

I can't offer much of a response, if I don't understand what kind of a response you require.

I don't require any particular response. I am seeing what your beliefs are, and they are turning out to be somewhat what I expected. I apologize that you have not been able to see the reasons for my questions, because I was not certain about your beliefs until just this post.

You are a realist, and the problem you are suffering from in the first post is scepticism.

A realist, in the sense that I am using it here, is one who believes in the existence of things, which have some unperceived form outside of our perceptions. Scepticism is the natural consequence of realism taken to its extreme: quite simply, things exist in reality, our perceptions cannot be trusted to show this true nature of things, and therefore all of our perceptions must not be trusted at all.

An idealist, the opposite position, would argue that once you take away all your perceptions, there is indeed "nothing left" (your words), hence your concern. A die-hard realist usually disagrees with idealism because it's so counter-intuitive, whereas a die-hard idealist will not be a realist because of prejudices against scepticism.

And yes, philosophy has been around long enough that someone has already gotten so goddamn frustrated with this very problem that he wrote a long book about it, creating a third alternative. If you are in the mood for heavy lifting, Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason illustrates something he calls transcendental idealism. In a nutshell, he changes the focus of the debate from things (do things exist?), to the subject (what is necessary for experience?).

(Nietzsche compared Kant to a cow chewing cud.)

[geniuine]

Trevor, up to now, this discussion has been disappointing. I'd like to change this.

I don't believe that there is a single question you have asked me that I have not answered completely.

You: how are things divided?
Me: senses and perceptions?

This is the other side of the coin; if the above sentence is what happens when dealing with truth, this is what happens when dealing with things that must be understood.

I still don't know what you meant by that. What is this "duality of thought" that you were referring to?

If you want to understand why a glass breaks on a floor, but also want to understand truth, you will need to reconcile yourself with these two facets of thought.

Again...???

How do the people that don't see the sauce (hallucination) determine that they're right and not the ones that are hallucinating?

?

Your answers (if you are providing answers) seem deceptive and it seems like your afraid to state your beliefs for fear of being judged.

I am seeing what your beliefs are, and they are turning out to be somewhat what I expected

I'd like us to discuss our beliefs, so that I can improve my own.

I apologize that you have not been able to see the reasons for my questions, because I was not certain about your beliefs until just this post.

No need to apologize, let's just try and have an actual discussion. Possible?

I didn't particularly like your line of questions, because they appeared "loaded". First off, my beliefs are all over the place and almost seem to change depending on the context. I'd like to fix this and this is precisely why I'm here. Also, I need help with my thinking.

A realist, in the sense that I am using it here, is one who believes in the existence of things, which have some unperceived form outside of our perceptions. Skepticism is the natural consequence of realism taken to its extreme: quite simply, things exist in reality, our perceptions cannot be trusted to show this true nature of things, and therefore all of our perceptions must not be trusted at all.

An idealist, the opposite position, would argue that once you take away all your perceptions, there is indeed "nothing left" (your words), hence your concern. A die-hard realist usually disagrees with idealism because it's so counter-intuitive, whereas a die-hard idealist will not be a realist because of prejudices against skepticism.

I don't particularly like labels.

Since you presumably know of my beliefs, what are the differences when you compare my beliefs to your own?

[geniuine]

Trevor,

Take a look at a small solid object in the room you're in (computer mouse, etc). That small object is what I call real. It's there and there's nothing you can do about it, unless of course you look away or start to hallucinate. Now, close your eyes and visualize that object (an induced hallucination). It appears as real as the real thing (doesn't it?). You can sense it in the same way that you've sensed the authentic object; through touch, etc... Yet, it is what I call not-real. Do you agree? How are your beliefs different from this?

Note: real and existence, aren't necessarily the same thing. How would you define these two words?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Trevor, up to now, this discussion has been disappointing. I'd like to change this.

You're disappointed that I was able to get to the root of your beliefs? What do you want, a parade and fireworks?

You: how are things divided?
Me: senses and perceptions?

That sounded like you were guessing, not asking a question. A question usually begins with a word like how, or what, or why.

I still don't know what you meant by that. What is this "duality of thought" that you were referring to?

Ryan was the one who brought it up. To understand it, you would need to be more familiar with the concepts involved. It is one of the more obscure thoughts in his post (the fourth one in this thread). If you don't get the rest of the post, it goes without saying you will not get that part. Based on what I can tell, his post stops making sense to you when he says "in a sense, things are undivided".

Your answers (if you are providing answers) seem deceptive and it seems like your afraid to state your beliefs for fear of being judged.

I'm not providing answers. As I said already, more than once, I'm establishing what your beliefs are. You are the one who came into this forum concerned about something, and I'm working under the assumption that you are still worried about what you said at the beginning of this thread.

No need to apologize, let's just try and have an actual discussion. Possible?

If you want to discuss something different, or you've gotten over your problem, then start a different thread. I'm not going to be distracted from resolving a problem because you feel uncomfortable with the dynamic of the discussion.

First off, my beliefs are all over the place and almost seem to change depending on the context. I'd like to fix this and this is precisely why I'm here. Also, I need help with my thinking.

You are a pretty consistent realist. All of your beliefs make sense in this context, but that's partially because it's so general a description.

I don't particularly like labels.

This is a ridiculous thing to say in this context. This isn't name-calling. You hold one of a very limited selection of possibilities to be true. Therefore, saying you are the appropriate -ism is worthwhile and relevant.

Since you presumably know of my beliefs

It's hardly a magical thing for someone to break down beliefs to their core. It's a major part of philosophy, and becomes humdrum in all but the most exceptional cases.

what are the differences when you compare my beliefs to your own?

I'm not a realist. I do not believe in the independent existence of things.

As far as things exist, it is because they exist as appearances. To exist is to present an appearance. To exist is also synonymous with being part of the Totality. What does not appear cannot be said to exist, as it is either the Totality itself or nothing whatsoever. (Neither the whole pie nor no piece of the pie is a piece of the pie.)

More differences:

Take a look at a small solid object in the room you're in (computer mouse, etc). That small object is what I call real.

Only as far as the object is an appearance and nothing else is it real.

It's there and there's nothing you can do about it, unless of course you look away or start to hallucinate.

The experience is caused both by the subject and by the part of the Totality which can neither be named nor described, because nothing else can be known of it other than it is necessary for experience.

Therefore, this sentence of yours is appealing to something of which it is impossible to know anything of. You cannot be certain that there is nothing you can do about it, for instance, because that would be describing a feature of the part of the Totality of which nothing can be known except that it, in tandem with the subject, causes experience.

You are saying something you can't possibly know for certain.

It appears as real as the real thing (doesn't it?).

There is no way for the subject to tell the difference.

You can sense it in the same way that you've sensed the authentic object; through touch, etc... Yet, it is what I call not-real.

It is perfectly real. People who hallucinate really hallucinate, just as a person who sees the colour brown really sees the colour brown.

Note: real and existence, aren't necessarily the same thing. How would you define these two words?

Reality and Existence are synonyms with Being. To be is to be real, which is to exist. This is the common accepted definition. Metaphysics, the study of Reality, is also called the study of Being.

[geniuine]

You're disappointed that I was able to get to the root of your beliefs?

No, because I gladly told you my beliefs. Another belief of mine is that I believe that beliefs should be discussed and inspected - you have yet to prove yourself as useful in this regard.

What do you want, a parade and fireworks?

It would definitely add some excitement into my life!

That sounded like you were guessing, not asking a question. A question usually begins with a word like how, or what, or why.

...And here I thought that the "?" gave it all away!

Ryan was the one who brought it up. To understand it, you would need to be more familiar with the concepts involved. It is one of the more obscure thoughts in his post (the fourth one in this thread). If you don't get the rest of the post, it goes without saying you will not get that part. Based on what I can tell, his post stops making sense to you when he says "in a sense, things are undivided".

Actually, I did understand how things can be seen as undivided. I just wanted to hear your/his explanation for it. You carried on with his line of thought, so I thought you knew what you were talking about. Would you like to give it another shot?

I'm not providing answers. As I said already, more than once, I'm establishing what your beliefs are. You are the one who came into this forum concerned about something, and I'm working under the assumption that you are still worried about what you said at the beginning of this thread.

I get it! Your my knight in shining armor!

If you want to discuss something different, or you've gotten over your problem, then start a different thread. I'm not going to be distracted from resolving a problem because you feel uncomfortable with the dynamic of the discussion.

I'm actually enjoying this discussion. You're the closest thing to a friend that I've had this year. I encourage you to work your magic!

You are a pretty consistent realist. All of your beliefs make sense in this context, but that's partially because it's so general a description.

I guess the next step would be to ask me some specific questions?

This is a ridiculous thing to say in this context. This isn't name-calling. You hold one of a very limited selection of possibilities to be true. Therefore, saying you are the appropriate -ism is worthwhile and relevant.

Right. I don't know what you meant, there, at the end. We have yet to fully explore my beliefs... Behold, a journey of journeys awaits us!

It's hardly a magical thing for someone to break down beliefs to their core. It's a major part of philosophy, and becomes humdrum in all but the most exceptional cases.

I have faith in you.

I'm not a realist. I do not believe in the independent existence of things.

Duh! I thought you understood my beliefs! (tsk tsk)

As far as things exist, it is because they exist as appearances.

Your computer mouse is an appearance and this appearance is a real appearance of a computer peripheral. You can go on to say how there's nothing besides the appearance, but how would you prove this?

To exist is to present an appearance. To exist is also synonymous with being part of the Totality.

Didn't you get that from someone else's philosophy? Yes, we know that it's logical and convenient, but do you have any original material of your own?

What does not appear cannot be said to exist, as it is either the Totality itself or nothing whatsoever.

Is a magnetic force an appearance? Would you say that there is definitely a force there - one that you cannot see? It's essentially the same thing with appearances, in that, appearances are caused, there is something behind the appearances which causes them and that something is unknown to us.

(Neither the whole pie nor no piece of the pie is a piece of the pie.)

The whole pie is made up of pieces.

You cannot be certain that there is nothing you can do about it, for instance, because that would be describing a feature of the part of the Totality of which nothing can be known except that it, in tandem with the subject, causes experience.

Well, we can experiment and try and see if you can do something about it. Maybe, eventually, after concentrating hard enough, it'll burst into flames... That cannot ultimately be dis-proven according to certainty.

You are saying something you can't possibly know for certain.

How do you know? Just because YOU can't know, doesn't mean that I don't know - your making the same assumption that you're accusing me of... You see? (Hippocratic?)

There is no way for the subject to tell the difference.

This is something which I've touched on earlier. Guess we have something else in common. Looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship!

It is perfectly real. People who hallucinate really hallucinate, just as a person who sees the colour brown really sees the colour brown.

Yes, that's right. Also, there's a clear difference between someone who hallucinates and that of someone who does not.

Reality and Existence are synonyms with Being. To be is to be real, which is to exist. This is the common accepted definition. Metaphysics, the study of Reality, is also called the study of Being.

The totality is the only thing that actually exists? In a way that's saying that the pie exists, but the pieces do not. It seems strange.

Question: how do I ask a question that does not produce an obvious response which I'm not already aware of...?

Can you please elaborate?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Actually, I did understand how things can be seen as undivided. I just wanted to hear your/his explanation for it. You carried on with his line of thought, so I thought you knew what you were talking about. Would you like to give it another shot?

All things exist in relation to other things.

I get it! Your my knight in shining armor!

More like measuring tape.

I guess the next step would be to ask me some specific questions?

I can't think of any reason to ask questions that I can figure out your most likely answer to without asking. Which only leaves one line of questioning, that you may have had just enough time to think about to give a better answer to this time. Can you be more specific about your problem in the first post? What is concerning you, and why is it concerning you?

We have yet to fully explore my beliefs... Behold, a journey of journeys awaits us!

If The Hobbit didn't have any details, and stuck to the core message, it would have been very short.

You can go on to say how there's nothing besides the appearance, but how would you prove this?

Things exist by virtue of being appearances. There can be no things without appearances.

Didn't you get that from someone else's philosophy? Yes, we know that it's logical and convenient, but do you have any original material of your own?

Originality is not important in the basics. I can call an argument an appeal to novelty and would have totally stolen the idea of that fallacy from someone else. It doesn't affect its applicability one bit.

Is a magnetic force an appearance?

The magnetic force is nothing other than its appearances. Field theory does not require that one assume fields really exist for its predictions to work. Predictive power is not identical with truth.

Maybe, eventually, after concentrating hard enough, it'll burst into flames... That cannot ultimately be dis-proven according to certainty.

Well, when dealing with ultimate reality, it is helpful to just stick to what is absolutely certain. Once what is absolutely certain is established, then all other mental work is significantly easier: a scientist who knows what's certain, and so doesn't try to get certainty from his theories, is more effective than one who is trying to discover the truth of reality through empirical methods.

How do you know?

Because you were stating something that relied entirely on empirical data. Once you understand the natures of both empiricism and certainty, you know that nothing empirical can ever be perfectly certain.

Also, there's a clear difference between someone who hallucinates and that of someone who does not.

The difference is entirely based on observation.

The totality is the only thing that actually exists?

The Totality (Existence) does not exist. This is not a moral statement about Existence, but is based on the definition. To exist is to be part of Existence.

Appearances are part of Existence, so they exist. They do not, however, exist independently. It does not make much sense to speak of a thing existing by itself, of actually being there. It is appearance through and through, and that is the only way that it exists.

Question: how do I ask a question that does not produce an obvious response which I'm not already aware of...?

Philosophy is, by and large, speaking clearly about the obvious. There is great power in speaking about the obvious: it is the difference between a enlightened civilization, capable of science; and primitive, shamanic cultures.

If you want me to talk about something that isn't obvious, you could quiz me on movies I've never watched, with the provisos that research is not permitted and "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer.

[geniuine]

All things exist in relation to other things.

So it's true to say that the reason you exist as you do, is (for one) because of someone getting killed in another country. It could not be any other way. That's messed up, but it's a valid realization, is it not?

So, how was that obscure?

More like measuring tape.

Am I supposed to pretend like I know exactly what that means?

I can't think of any reason to ask questions that I can figure out your most likely answer to without asking.

When I do have an answer, I also have a contradiction or something which starts to give me reasons for why I shouldn't post that which I've been thinking about. Also, experience has confirmed that people won't understand or they'll get the wrong idea, so I ask questions and try to adopt the other person's belief system, which takes time, especially with people whom aren't so open. no matter how you look at it, it's hiding, fear of being exposed, etc...

Can you be more specific about your problem in the first post? What is concerning you, and why is it concerning you?

There was no problem with the first post. It was perfect (to me). Initially, I registered and started off by writing something which turned out to be completely ridiculous. After reconsidering, I "backspaced" the whole post and wrote my hopeless feelings at the time.

I made a second thread about this problem. It's mainly about me thinking about something and this leads to all sorts of tangents, etc... By the end, it just seems like incoherent gibberish.

Things exist by virtue of being appearances. There can be no things without appearances.

I get that. One of the ways I think about appearances, is by picturing a display. Now that display or whatever has been presented is not all there is, there are hidden things which support it, such as, the different types of causes (causes: if it's a picture - the person who painted it, the beginning of time, the surface that it's painted on, our brain relating data into the said presentation, etc etc etc... Also, it's valid to say that everything which isn't it, is it's cause...). These things are appearances, but you cannot see them or be aware of them when your looking at the picture. The appearances aren't there.

Originality is not important in the basics.

I fear that I'm stuck learning and relearning the basics.

It doesn't affect its applicability one bit.

Sure. Same holds true for someone who just copies someone, word for word, and uses it as their own thoughts. Next, there's the question of the listener. You may be totally oblivious to what you're saying, but the other one may make sense of it by projecting their own meaning onto what's being said.

Ex, Both people learn from the same sources, one of them understands while the other does not. How can the one that understands explain it to the one that doesn't by using the source of all this confusion. It doesn't seem likely. Moreover, the one who understands must have translated it into something which is other then the source, if not, then I'd wonder about whether or not he understood the material in the first place.

The magnetic force is nothing other than its appearances. Field theory does not require that one assume fields really exist for its predictions to work. Predictive power is not identical with truth.

It's true that a proven prediction, under the appropriate circumstances, should remain consistent with its output. In other words, the same causes, produce the same effects. This cannot be dis-proven.

I don't see how the magnetic force has an appearance. It's more like the lack of an appearance. It's like the invisible man wearing a suit! The lack of an appearance being an appearance just doesn't make sense.

Well, when dealing with ultimate reality, it is helpful to just stick to what is absolutely certain.

Here's another issue: everything (absolutely everything) if explained properly is an absolute truth. I mean, you could explain how a cup is not a cup and then you can explain how the cup is a cup and it'll be absolutely true depending on your explanation. It's mind baffling!

Once what is absolutely certain is established, then all other mental work is significantly easier: a scientist who knows what's certain, and so doesn't try to get certainty from his theories, is more effective than one who is trying to discover the truth of reality through empirical methods.

I'd like to focus exclusively on absolute truths and build from there. You see, I'm confused. Whatever. Where does one start?

Because you were stating something that relied entirely on empirical data. Once you understand the natures of both empiricism and certainty, you know that nothing empirical can ever be perfectly certain.

That which is observed empirically is logical and true.

The difference is entirely based on observation.

Both require observation. They cancel each other out.

The Totality (Existence) does not exist. This is not a moral statement about Existence, but is based on the definition. To exist is to be part of Existence.

Does a concept not exist? The "outside" is still the inside of our minds. So, tell me, how is a concept (a type of hallucination) different from something we observe externally?

Appearances are part of Existence, so they exist. They do not, however, exist independently. It does not make much sense to speak of a thing existing by itself, of actually being there. It is appearance through and through, and that is the only way that it exists.

Good. Everything (totality) exists! Essentially, you're implying that the forest doesn't exist, but the trees do... the forest is the representation of the trees as one entity - how does it not exist as I've defined it?

Philosophy is, by and large, speaking clearly about the obvious.

Pretend: we're all traveling on a path towards the destination in question. now, what's the point of stopping and counting all the little pebbles that make up the path?

...Maybe the point is to consider why one is on the path. Maybe the point (the reason for the journey) is to "be". Maybe the whole point of looking at the path is to wonder where one is going. To get a clue that there really is no destination. The,, after that, the next step, after one has realized this, is to discontinue one's counting, because there's no more purpose for the counting. There's no use for it now. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

There is great power in speaking about the obvious: it is the difference between a enlightened civilization, capable of science; and primitive, shamanic cultures.

Is it to manipulate others for one's entertainment?

If you want me to talk about something that isn't obvious, you could quiz me on movies I've never watched, with the provisos that research is not permitted and "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer.

Maybe we have seen the same movies. In any case, there are benefits to discussing good movies with someone who hasn't seen them...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

That's messed up, but it's a valid realization, is it not?

Certainly.

So, how was that obscure?

I underestimated you. I interpreted your confusion as bewilderment, rather than checking that I know what I'm talking about. It's significantly more frustrating when I think you have no clue what is going on. Sometimes we get total buffoons in here.

Am I supposed to pretend like I know exactly what that means?

No, it's a cynical inside joke that only I am capable of understanding.

When I do have an answer, I also have a contradiction or something which starts to give me reasons for why I shouldn't post that which I've been thinking about.

That's a good habit.

One of the ways I think about appearances, is by picturing a display. Now that display or whatever has been presented is not all there is, there are hidden things which support it, such as, the different types of causes

I don't consider a cause to be a thing. A thing is not a relationship. Depending on the context, a thing is either an appearance, or an object that exists outside of perception. It is the latter type of thing that I find incredulous. It is precisely because it exists outside of perception that nothing substantial can be said of it. Even calling it an object presupposes too much: all that can be known is there is a causal relationship between it and perception.

I fear that I'm stuck learning and relearning the basics.

Notice the word "perfection" in the header of this forum? There is no way to achieve perfection until the basics are perfected.

Same holds true for someone who just copies someone, word for word, and uses it as their own thoughts.

Cogito ergo sum. I just came up with that. I forget what it means, though.

How can the one that understands explain it to the one that doesn't by using the source of all this confusion. It doesn't seem likely.

In the above case, "to exist is to present an appearance", I had just explained it to a friend of mine. It is laziness on my part not to want to explain it again, immediately after explaining it.

I don't see how the magnetic force has an appearance.

The appearance of the magnetic force is the movement of iron filings, or the movement of the pointer on the measuring device.

everything (absolutely everything) if explained properly is an absolute truth.

It's too late in the evening to argue against trivialism. I'm quite exhausted.

I'd like to focus exclusively on absolute truths and build from there. You see, I'm confused. Whatever. Where does one start?

Self-identity is as good a place as any. It is true that whatever is, is. A=A.

Logical syllogisms, the principle of non-contradiction, analytic (definitional) truths.

Okay, I'm yawning and I have company over. I'll finish this tomorrow.

[Shahrazad]

Trevor,

No, it's a cynical inside joke that only I am capable of understanding.

I thought I understood it, but now I have my doubts.

.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Sher,

I thought I understood it, but now I have my doubts.

I realized there are two meanings to that phrase, but only after geniuine brought it up. You probably got my intended meaning, but it could also mean that this is a dick-measuring contest.


geniuine,

Everything (totality) exists! Essentially, you're implying that the forest doesn't exist, but the trees do.

Not quite. I'm saying that the forest is not a portion of the forest. It's the whole thing.

There's no use for it now. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

It is more common that someone will have developed habits by the time they reach enlightenment, and they will have no motive to change their ways. They will thus continue to enlighten others because their momentum is the same.

Is it to manipulate others for one's entertainment?

That is a feature of power: one can change others. But, power is also power over the self, and it is self-mastery that I think important.


That leaves trivialism, the belief that every belief and its contradiction is true. The problem with disproving it is that there are limited ways to disprove it from within. Only through the belief that it is significant to call something false can one refuse the belief system. I don't have many options here, unless there is some fact of the world that you don't believe.

[Ataraxia]

As far as things exist, it is because they exist as appearances. To exist is to present an appearance. To exist is also synonymous with being part of the Totality. What does not appear cannot be said to exist, as it is either the Totality itself or nothing whatsoever.

It's a fair enough definition of existence.But I wonder how one treats abstract nouns in this worldview.

I imagine you would agree that,say 'socialism' exists,or 'happiness',or 'art' ;while not strictly appearance we can experience them.

If that's so and lets say i don't recognize 'evil' in the way say a Chrisitan thinks of it;as an abstract noun.But rather I just consider it as an adjective,then 'evil' doesn't really exist.

Fair?

[Kevin Solway]

If that's so and lets say i don't recognize 'evil' in the way say a Chrisitan thinks of it;as an abstract noun.But rather I just consider it as an adjective,then 'evil' doesn't really exist.

If it's something that can be distinguished from something else, then it exists.

[geniuine]

It's significantly more frustrating when I think you have no clue what is going on.

I'm genuinely making an honest attempt at figuring it out (hence the name and posts). I've read parts of "Wisdom of the Infinite" (by David Quinn) and it's very interesting, but I'd rather not fool myself into thinking that I truly understand it without making an effort at validating the material for myself (I mean, I found myself nodding as I read through his work, but that's not enough!). I feel like I almost need to become the mind that discovered such truths.

No, it's a cynical inside joke that only I am capable of understanding.

Are you cynical?

That's a good habit.

It's a form of learning.

I don't consider a cause to be a thing.

Is that because everything is as one and there are no causes?

A thing is not a relationship.

I could say that things are a relationship of atoms> Or, that things exist because of the relationship they have with other things (oneness).

Depending on the context, a thing is either an appearance, or an object that exists outside of perception. It is the latter type of thing that I find incredulous.

Ah-ha! Absolute truths don't depend on a context. Meaning, they must be true in every context.

It is precisely because it exists outside of perception that nothing substantial can be said of it.

So, should we just forget about it? I thought, one of the goals of philosophy was to understand such phenomenon.

Even calling it an object presupposes too much: all that can be known is there is a causal relationship between it and perception.

...It's a force and a force cannot be an object (an appearance)... Ah, so therefore the magnetic force isn't an appearance as you've stated in the past.

Notice the word "perfection" in the header of this forum? There is no way to achieve perfection until the basics are perfected.

It's perfectly fine as the ultimate achievement, but... So, are all the great philosophers grappling with the basics?

Cogito ergo sum. I just came up with that. I forget what it means, though.

Haha, very funny! It means: "I think, therefore I am" (in Latin).

"to exist is to present an appearance"

I could also say: existence = appearance

The appearance of the magnetic force is the movement of iron filings, or the movement of the pointer on the measuring device.

I think we've spotted our contradiction!

I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote this:
quote from previous post: everything (absolutely everything) if explained properly is an absolute truth. Absolute truth means something different then just proving a random truth...Huh?

Self-identity is as good a place as any. It is true that whatever is, is. A=A.
Logical syllogisms, the principle of non-contradiction, analytic (definitional) truths.

Can we discuss all of that PLEASE?

Not quite. I'm saying that the forest is not a portion of the forest. It's the whole thing.

The portion of the forest is still the forest. It has all the qualities that the rest of the forest or that the forest as a whole has.

It is more common that someone will have developed habits by the time they reach enlightenment, and they will have no motive to change their ways. They will thus continue to enlighten others because their momentum is the same.

I'm presuming that these habits (in question) are attachments (Sorta like a fashion model on a diet? (inside joke, but I'm sure you get it...)? Is enlightenment something that can be switched on and off? Are there degrees, like in karate?

That is a feature of power: one can change others. But, power is also power over the self, and it is self-mastery that I think important.

If you know yourself, then you know everyone else... I heard that some people don't perceive a separation between themselves and another - the other is still them, but in another form or appearance.

That leaves trivialism, the belief that every belief and its contradiction is true. The problem with disproving it is that there are limited ways to disprove it from within. Only through the belief that it is significant to call something false can one refuse the belief system. I don't have many options here, unless there is some fact of the world that you don't believe.

I just read that it's something (trivialism) that's advocated by the religion Discordianism. This seems to undermine the purpose of philosophy. It's like saying or arguing that logic maybe false. Again, ...?

PS. I think I don't understand what the basics are...

[Ataraxia]

If that's so and lets say i don't recognize 'evil' in the way say a Chrisitan thinks of it;as an abstract noun.But rather I just consider it as an adjective,then 'evil' doesn't really exist.

If it's something that can be distinguished from something else, then it exists.

Ok,thats nice and parsimonious.

In that case,I can't distinguish evil as a something, so then to me it doesn't exist.At best the idea of evil(as a thing-itself)to other people exists, but not to me.

Therefore 'Evil' is of the same order as 'Abrahamic God'

[Kevin Solway]

In that case,I can't distinguish evil as a something, so then to me it doesn't exist.

To me, evil is synonymous with ignorance.

The devil himself is only evil because he doesn't know better and because of an unfortunate formation.

[Ataraxia]

In that case,I can't distinguish evil as a something, so then to me it doesn't exist.

To me, evil is synonymous with ignorance.
.

It's pretty poetic though isn't it.We are ignorant on all manner of subjects,through no fault of our own.Do other lifeforms exist on other planets? etc. the list is endless.

Ignorance seems a perfectly adequate word for what it describes,I agree ignorance exists.Though I can't very well argue with you that evil and ignorance are synomynous,I don't believe evil exists. :-D