Musings, Critiques.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Sorry about all the hypothetical questions.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

for me it was actually the opposite of boring and meaningless, it was an ecstatic experience in which I clearly and consciously witnessed my dreams forming and fading, while being able to manipulate them, if anything, it was one of the most significant events in the expansion of my general awareness.

That's great although I wonder if it also could have tricked you into a few wrong conclusions about what is was what you were experiencing. I'm trying to focus on this possibility. If it's a dead end we'll find out soon enough.

It is my belief that all sensual formations, including that of the brain and body, exist only in those sensual experiences.... that the mind exists independent of body and is not a cause of the body.

It's a belief which can be tested, should be tested, and this is the right place for it. At least if you submit to logical, reasonable discourse.

That the logic we have attached to try and justify these things as being real and physical things is completely false, shallow, and illusory.

Logic does not attach to anything. The justifications come out of certain desires and needs (for things to possess realness and consistency).

See how opposing this view is to one that says consciousness is a result of an external world?

I'm beyond both views. Can you imagine that?

Am I playing the rebel? How can one be a rebel on a forum?

Were you describing someone else a while ago when you wrote: "Rebellious in thinking and in nature. Telling the teacher he's wrong."

Or are you just writing whatever feels "right" so you can always "be right"?

Diebert, I am writing these ideas in only a few sentences, they are 'sloppy' because I am not intending to prove my points or detail them, I am only stating them simply, you have to do the rest if you want to understand where I am coming from, I think i have made my meaning and beliefs clear enough, which ones have been too sloppy for you not to have grasped my meaning?

It's just that I'm advising you to be less sloppy and more thorough. It's the key to growth, the key to pruning. Sorry for just passing on my own wisdom. You can dish out wisdom but not receive it?

My reply is that I have thought deeply, why would you assume to know how deeply I've thought about what I am saying? How could you know? It can't be because of my lack of detail, as I obviously have not tried to include detail, again, could it be because you disagree with my views? If you didn't disagree, would you have still made that comment?

True, I cannot really know if you're not a fully realized Buddha behind the keyboard. But I follow certain principles when weighing the wisdom someone offers. And if that wisdom includes the statement "logic is false" then I know, intuitively and experimentally, that I'm talking with someone who needs to learn a lot still. Take that or leave it!

We are almost the same being, feeling the same emotions and thinking even many of the same thoughts, end the opposition please, I hate wasting time.

I've learned a great deal from some of the fascinating and intuitive things you've said. Don't get me wrong but I return in kind with something you can use to improve. You don't have to accept it but at least carry it around, dice and slice it over time, revisit and ponder until it's out of your system. That would be great.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Diebert

I know exactly what I was experiencing, the same stuff of dreams, just in a clearer state, which most would consider not very special or significant, I consider dreams very special and significant.

How can it be tested? This is the one thing I really want to know, how do you test if it only exists while being observed?

Yes, that is what I mean, our minds need to create a stable belief system, this is the reason many accept things as if they are rational when they are not.


What is your view diebert? Only tell me if you are going to explain it simply, I will understand what your meaning is.

Dennis asked what brought about my realizations, if I had to pick one trait it would be rebelling from the average day to day beliefs. That doesn't mean I rebel against everything, I'm not looking for things to disagree with. I'm fine with receiving wisdom and your probably right, I'm just lazy I guess.

Language is provisional, it does not have real meaning, it is only used to transfer understandings from one mind to another, the understanding I was transferring is that logic (specifically the logic people have attached to the deeper understandings of life, the universe, matter) is shallow, it leads nowhere, it ends up at guesses within about three questions, do you know what I mean? "Logic is false" is probably a contradictory statement, but again, you know exactly what I mean.

Our conversation isn't going to go very well because most of these concepts regarding our experiences just can't be explained properly in words, or I'm just not good enough to express them, your going to have to do your best to bear with me. We all still need to learn a lot, but I'm not so far behind as you might think, we should devise some kind of test or set of questions that perfectly deduces how far along the path one is, if they are still caught in specifics, or still repeating "I have to clear my mind, I have to clear my mind", to determine what level people are on.

I will definitely ponder what you've got.. start with your underlying view? I want to know where your coming from that isn't either "external world" or "consciousness world".

[Alex T. Jacob]

Seeker wrote: It is my belief that all sensual formations, including that of the brain and body, exist only in those sensual experiences.... that the mind exists independent of body and is not a cause of the body.

That the logic we have attached to try and justify these things as being real and physical things is completely false, shallow, and illusory.

Are you saying that [you understand that] through some completely outrageous 'trick' of perception (perhaps someone would label it 'maya') we become convinced that we exist solely in what you describe as 'the sensual world', and live our lives in this 'mistaken perception'? It would seem that: 'Therefor': to become aware of that fact, or this condition, is a definite form of 'special knowledge' that [from the look of it] few attain to. But if this is the case [if this is 'true']: is it not actually a form of folly to speak about it unless through some allusion of language one could trigger 'special knowledge' in another person? But if 'logical language' is not the tool, what language is?

Also, and based on some of your thoughts about dream reality and such, it would seem to be within the realm of possibilities that one could consciously alter the facts of the real world in a way similar to building and dissolving a dream: a compelling notion. There was a compelling idea in a long-ago published book on yoga which described some special yoga master---the 'avatar of avatars'---who had 'mastered the material incarnation' and was no longer subject to it. And he had a 'siddhi' which was that he could keep any specific thought from arising in the mind of another (someone in proximity to him I assume). The idea was compelling to me at the time because I thought it very possible that through some vast 'trick' by which we all are enchanted, we 'assemble' this very realm of being and activity in which, in dream-drama, we play out our roles.

And if such a thing is true, and if it is NOT logic that can avail us of [this class of] awareness and knowledge, then what can?

At the same time, even if one did suspect that the whole created world were a trick, an illusion, a fog to be seen through (transcended?), there is also another possibility: to know what one knows and to fulfill the role [of incarnation] knowing that one will---soon enough---be back on the other side.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

And if such a thing is true, and if it is NOT logic that can avail us of [this class of] awareness and knowledge, then what can?

At the same time, even if one did suspect that the whole created world were a trick, an illusion, a fog to be seen through (transcended?), there is also another possibility: to know what one knows and to fulfill the role [of incarnation] knowing that one will---soon enough---be back on the other side.

I believe it to be true, that we are witnesses to the creations of consciousness, which are complex and convincing, and exist only as formless witnesses to these sensual experiences( That there is no physical body interpreting data and transferring it to my brain for me to experience)

Yes, it is not the rational mind that would bring about this belief, rather it is a natural consequence of staring into my own existence for too long.

To me it seems we already know the truth, that we are only uncovering it once again, ( or have some kind of instinctual drive to find it out of curiosity) so if I am correct, then, deep down, you already know what I'm saying to be true.

To bring about this class of awareness, one would have to focus on how dream-like this reality is. ( most assume the opposite, dreams are just reality-like)

A few examples:

1.Think about space, if you hadn't known it early, if it had been closed off from you, and then you were to look into the sky, you would say "am I dreaming?" and it would appear as illogical as a dream, just as all things are illogical, it is only our minds that rationalize them because they must. ( and we rationalize things very very poorly )

2. You are in a dream, you walk into a room where every piece of furniture is now on the roof, for some reason, your mind is satisfied with this and doesn't find it odd .

You are awake in real life, you walk into a room where every piece of furniture is now on the roof, you automatically assume it is a prank everyone has played on you, and have thus already rationalized it, you continue o. ( Your mind requires this rationalization, which is based purely on assumptions and shallow understandings)

3. You are in a dream and there is a door, you question, what is behind this door? When you open it there will be an answer, where it is nothing or something,... lets say you find a room full of chocolate, you ask, where did the chocolate come from?

Instantly charlie from the chocolate factory, who wasn't there before, is behind you and he says he put it there, you are then satisfied.

Let's say you aren't satisfied, and you keep asking, where did charlie come from? Where did what makes up charlie come from? His mother, matter, molecules, atoms, quarks, no idea.


In other words, why ask a question, if you are not going to keep asking? If an answer naturally leads to another question, not asking that question is ignorance, it is to accept something which does not make sense. If you were to continue asking these questions, at all times, you would find always that they lead to irrational, unconvincing, and shallow understandings. (purely because your mind must have this belief system)


If one is realistic with the extent of their ignorance, they would see truly, that nothing is known, nothing is rational, besides the one thing you know: you are experiencing the senses, and they are showing all sorts of crazy things which do not make sense to you (except for if you have spent enough time so that your mind rationalizes them based on other crazy sensual experiences which do not make sense to you)


If you keep following the question "From where did this originate", for any item or idea or concept, you will find always that they originated from sense experience, which is a miraculous and mysterious event you simply opened your eyes too, you just woke up here (even the belief that something exists outside of sense experience came from irrational sense experience)



So alex, deep down, do you already know what I'm saying to be true? That your existence is dream-like and illusory, and that thought is the only thing interfering with the obviousness of this?

Probably not, but I am not concerned, it is our different experiences that have brought about different beliefs.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Seeker wrote: So alex, deep down, do you already know what I'm saying to be true? That your existence is dream-like and illusory, and that thought is the only thing interfering with the obviousness of this?

Existence is certainly dream-like, if only because our subjectivity, imagination, hopes, longings and also delirium/madness always impinge on our experience here. And also because, at the most ultimate point, we seem never to quite get to the 'real meaning' of the whole experience we are having. It is very much of a problem.

It seems to me that 'your' belief (which is in no sense new or original, mind you), represents a particular pole within ontological possibilities. It has been with us for a long time. And no matter what it always recurs. It is curious and perhaps instructive to note the ways that the same basic idea morphs and is expressed in myriads of different ways. I am a little concerned for the Belief for a similar reason I am concerned with a System of Belief which finds ways to deny the 'inherency' of what we are living. You must admit it is a little problematic to assert that the 'very real real' that we are forced to live might be or is in fact 'an unreal real', and it gets ever weirder when you propose (as you must) a 'more real real'. It leads to all sorts of bizarre problems.

What interests me 'more' than the specific assertion---which I do not find all that practical as an assertion, though it is compelling---is the issue of hermeneutics: the fact that we sense there are domains of 'special knowledge' hidden from the multitudes that we can get access to. There is a long history of knowledge of this sort. The Gnostic 'special knowledge' for which you have to 'sacrifice everything' to know. Ancient Egyptian magic. All the mystery schools of the Pagan world. The insider's 'special knowledge' of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The bizarre 'special teachings' of the old Toltec seers (Castaneda). The yoga schools (Yogananda for example) represents a whole hermeneutic about the 'real' nature of this existence, and the Bhagavad Gita according to one branch of yogic-hermeneutics is a map for reversing the process of incarnation into this 'dream'. I think that in a very real sense the GF house philosophy is another attempt at devising a 'map', an escape route, but essentially a kind of 'special knowledge' for 'special people' who see and understand 'truth', who know what's up, who have decided not to squander their incarnation in senseless trivialities.

So, in the end everyone in one way or another, needs to access a certain amount of 'special knowledge'---even the ones who we might think of as 'deluded'. They are still operating within their epistemological system, whatever it is. Although I would never answer such a straight-up question [Do you think this existence is ultimately unreal?], I am still very interested in the outcome of that answer because it seems to me the life we live is the only Answer we can offer. To wit: what do you/does one do with that awareness? How does it influence what you do in the time you are 'here'? If there is a 'more real real', who is in charge of it? Who is setting this all up? And let us suppose that you came face to face with the Author of the charade and you could speak truthfully. What would such knowledge impel you to do? You are alive now. What are you doing?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Existence is certainly dream-like, if only because our subjectivity, imagination, hopes, longings and also delirium/madness always impinge on our experience here. And also because, at the most ultimate point, we seem never to quite get to the 'real meaning' of the whole experience we are having. It is very much of a problem.

It seems to me that 'your' belief (which is in no sense new or original, mind you), represents a particular pole within ontological possibilities. It has been with us for a long time. And no matter what it always recurs. It is curious and perhaps instructive to note the ways that the same basic idea morphs and is expressed in myriads of different ways. I am a little concerned for the Belief for a similar reason I am concerned with a System of Belief which finds ways to deny the 'inherency' of what we are living. You must admit it is a little problematic to assert that the 'very real real' that we are forced to live might be or is in fact 'an unreal real', and it gets ever weirder when you propose (as you must) a 'more real real'. It leads to all sorts of bizarre problems.
...
Although I would never answer such a straight-up question [Do you think this existence is ultimately unreal?], I am still very interested in the outcome of that answer because it seems to me the life we live is the only Answer we can offer. To wit: what do you/does one do with that awareness? How does it influence what you do in the time you are 'here'? If there is a 'more real real', who is in charge of it? Who is setting this all up? And let us suppose that you came face to face with the Author of the charade and you could speak truthfully. What would such knowledge impel you to do? You are alive now. What are you doing?

I am aware this is not a new concept, but in terms of the special knowledge you were referring too, it becomes new when understood.

Meaning.. you could have heard this idea 100 times, and on the 101st time it enters your mind as this special knowledge, which you understand and become aware of, which you can 'see', then it is a new concept to you, not the same as the other 100 concepts you heard.

And no, I do not propose a more real existence, and I am not stating this existence is "not real", it is as real as it can get, I believe, that doesn't make it any less of an illusion or any less of a dream like world. It is these illusions that define what is real.

"what are you doing?"
In my opinion, I am wasting my time, just as you are wasting your time. We don't know what we ought to be doing, what wouldn't be a waste of time ( if there is such a thing)

Lets say we discerned that this was a "less real" world and there is some other "more real" existence, then what we ought to be doing is trying to somehow break from this and move on to that, possibly through meditation and detachment.

If we discerned this was "as real as it gets", all we can experience, then I say what we ought to be doing is making the most of it, doing whatever brings about the most contentment, even if that means feeding our desires.

What are you doing Alex?

The "author" you are referring too I know nothing of, although I do believe that the expressions we are witnessing are expressions of this "unknown", that they have a cause. We are looking into the creations of consciousness(thought, sense), we are not producing them, the author is whatever is producing them, the dreamer, the higher consciousness of which we are the minds eyes, and although this sounds an even more ordinary and unoriginal concept, I assign this author complete divinity, the creator and source of all that is known. Nothing can be known about this cause except for what we see of its manifestations.

[Alex T. Jacob]

But one might also say, or propose, that in actual fact and in truth, this 'knowledge' that arises when one internalizes this subjunctive truth, is really not so new at all; not so useful; not so relevant. If only because it has been done a million times before. After a while, one actually tires of all the acrobatics that arise from it. One wonders what that's all about.

"What are you doing?"

Looking into the Irrealis Mood!

Example: 'I suggested that he see the world is unreal'.

And then a whole series of recommendations, admonitions and possibilities arise from this. Once you have established the 'unreal possibility', it is almost unreal what may come of it!

I know very well the general idea you are speaking about. I am pretty sure there are others here who not only know it but have *experienced* the possibility of it. It is certainly interesting to look into it, to imagine what it might mean, to speculate about it. And it is also possible to 'critique' it. See, I tend to think that when we find our selves in a mire, a situation in which we are constrained and cannot move or when our movement is so inhibited that it is not movement but a parody of movement, that we tend to go a little crazy. Even if you were to see your 'understanding' as representing a cutting edge of metaphysics, I do not think you could separate your own position and condition from that of the Modern Condition.

The narrator in Robert Musil's novel The Man Without Qualities describes his house that 'had something blurred about it, like a double exposed photograph'. Faced with the prospect of redecorating it, he feels paralyzed by the infinite possibilities that yawn open before him. Free to choose any style 'from the Assyrian to Cubism',

'he was in a familiar state ... of incoherent ideas spreading outward without a center, so characteristic of the present, and whose strange arithmetic adds up to a random proliferation of numbers without forming a unit. Finally he dreamed up only impracticable rooms, revolving rooms, kaleidoscopic rooms, adjustable scenery for the soul, and his ideas grew steadily more devoid of content.'

I am interested by your declaration that you feel you are 'wasting your time', but perhaps for other reasons than you might assume. It is my feeling that we are all (and especially, ESPECIALLY on this forum), people who are dealing with terrible issue of being mired. This 'mire' has many different forms, I have noticed. It starts I think from an essential and irremediable discomfort with one's own physical self. It moves into other territories such as: separation and 'exile' from self but without the self-consciousness that this is the dominant state or 'fact' that one is living. Because it is a painful state, solutions are sought for, but these solutions often seem to be 'desperate measures', and desperate measures are not self-controlled measures.

In the Idea-Realm, and for people who for various reasons have become 'separated' from their feeling mode, one is thrust out into a sort of Outer Space of inquiry ... and thought-processes get more and more labyrinthian. Some people literally get lost in the Labyrinth and mental tools are no longer useful. And sometimes those 'mental tools', with all the metallic associations, turn into cutting wheels that further dissect the Self. And at some final point, as perhaps the only means to resolve the unresolvable conflict of impossible ideation, one uses a sort of 'Zen Leap' which, really, has no meaning and not much use except that it maintains a form of integrity of the self.

The long and the short of it, as I see it, is that we are dealing with acutely modern problems through resort to ancient metaphysical 'solutions' but that there is really NO ESCAPE! And so, in this modernity, we arrive at the concept of No Exit. We are here, I am stuck with you and you with me.

...what we ought to be doing is trying to somehow break from this and move on to that, possibly through meditation and detachment.

This is an example of the Irrealis Mood! You have established a hypothetical, a level of irreality, and are making propositions on that basis! I don't point this out to be critical of you (we all engage in these things semi-consciously or unconsciously). And this is where I think we have to stop and think. But it is more than 'think', it is to take stock of ourselves at a very fundamental level, and we don't know how to do this. We grope in the dark!

But you have come to a place where some special people have some special knowledge and unselfishly wish to reveal it to you. You hardly even need to ask! so desirous are they to offer up their Dharma to you. Although we don't 'believe' in Fate, still we might (as an aesthetical declaration!) 'thank our lucky stars' that we are fortunate enough to hear the dharma elucidated so clearly.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I know very well the general idea you are speaking about. I am pretty sure there are others here who not only know it but have *experienced* the possibility of it. It is certainly interesting to look into it, to imagine what it might mean, to speculate about it. And it is also possible to 'critique' it. See, I tend to think that when we find our selves in a mire, a situation in which we are constrained and cannot move or when our movement is so inhibited that it is not movement but a parody of movement, that we tend to go a little crazy. Even if you were to see your 'understanding' as representing a cutting edge of metaphysics, I do not think you could separate your own position and condition from that of the Modern Condition.

The narrator in Robert Musil's novel The Man Without Qualities describes his house that 'had something blurred about it, like a double exposed photograph'. Faced with the prospect of redecorating it, he feels paralyzed by the infinite possibilities that yawn open before him. Free to choose any style 'from the Assyrian to Cubism',

'he was in a familiar state ... of incoherent ideas spreading outward without a center, so characteristic of the present, and whose strange arithmetic adds up to a random proliferation of numbers without forming a unit. Finally he dreamed up only impracticable rooms, revolving rooms, kaleidoscopic rooms, adjustable scenery for the soul, and his ideas grew steadily more devoid of content.'

I am interested by your declaration that you feel you are 'wasting your time', but perhaps for other reasons than you might assume. It is my feeling that we are all (and especially, ESPECIALLY on this forum), people who are dealing with terrible issue of being mired. This 'mire' has many different forms, I have noticed. It starts I think from an essential and irremediable discomfort with one's own physical self. It moves into other territories such as: separation and 'exile' from self but without the self-consciousness that this is the dominant state or 'fact' that one is living. Because it is a painful state, solutions are sought for, but these solutions often seem to be 'desperate measures', and desperate measures are not self-controlled measures.

In the Idea-Realm, and for people who for various reasons have become 'separated' from their feeling mode, one is thrust out into a sort of Outer Space of inquiry ... and thought-processes get more and more labyrinthian. Some people literally get lost in the Labyrinth and mental tools are no longer useful. And sometimes those 'mental tools', with all the metallic associations, turn into cutting wheels that further dissect the Self. And at some final point, as perhaps the only means to resolve the unresolvable conflict of impossible ideation, one uses a sort of 'Zen Leap' which, really, has no meaning and not much use except that it maintains a form of integrity of the self.

The long and the short of it, as I see it, is that we are dealing with acutely modern problems through resort to ancient metaphysical 'solutions' but that there is really NO ESCAPE! And so, in this modernity, we arrive at the concept of No Exit. We are here, I am stuck with you and you with me.

...what we ought to be doing is trying to somehow break from this and move on to that, possibly through meditation and detachment.

This is an example of the Irrealis Mood! You have established a hypothetical, a level of irreality, and are making propositions on that basis! I don't point this out to be critical of you (we all engage in these things semi-consciously or unconsciously). And this is where I think we have to stop and think. But it is more than 'think', it is to take stock of ourselves at a very fundamental level, and we don't know how to do this. We grope in the dark!

But you have come to a place where some special people have some special knowledge and unselfishly wish to reveal it to you. You hardly even need to ask! so desirous are they to offer up their Dharma to you. Although we don't 'believe' in Fate, still we might (as an aesthetical declaration!) 'thank our lucky stars' that we are fortunate enough to hear the dharma elucidated so clearly.

What I said in that quote was:

"Lets say we discerned that this was a "less real" world and there is some other "more real" existence, then what we ought to be doing is trying to somehow break from this and move on to that, possibly through meditation and detachment."

I did not make that assumption, it is one of the possibilities, I was only saying what might be inferred if it were true, I am not sure which way it goes, in my honest opinion I don't think anything can change but sense experience.


Yes we are stuck here, and we are especially wasting time on this forum, it leads nowhere and the communication is very slow( for my taste, as I have a lot of free time on my hands and nothing to do but think), which is why I have been trying to propose a collaborative group of intelligent people, working together to achieve whatever the members wish to achieve, whether it be wisdom, money, help with girls, life situations,etc. Doing this in an open chat like skype, rather than a forum allows for a much more open and useful discussion, it also helps to eradicate some of that mire you were talking about. The only people in the group would be ones that agree to have strict cooperation, meaning no attitudes of opposition as we find so frequently on GF. This is for taking action instead of endless, and in my opinion almost pointless, discussion. You must be intelligent enough to realize how essential having a hive mind is? Anyone can join if they are recommended as intelligent or wise. Interested? Or are you like everyone else and need some kind of elaborate reasoning before agreeing to such a thing.


I did not mean "what are you doing right now?", I mean't, "what are you doing?".

For me, I am wasting my time, passing it, doing one thing or another, all of which does not bring about any kind of significant progression, in fact, all of it only leads to another day of passing the time. I can't think of many things that are worth more than momentary mental satisfaction, and so I am in a state of trying to figure out how to best use my time and energy, as I work for quality and know I can produce something of quality, if I knew of something worth producing! Hopefully as a group we can find something we all agree is worthwhile, even if we decide our agenda is to give in to the things of this world and live in a mansion on the beaches of Fiji filled with models.

What are you doing?

Alex, all of your writing is either critical analysis or very detailed.... I say it is impossible to state one's own beliefs and opinions while writing in such a way. For me to understand anything of what is going on in your mind, you would have to be clear on your agenda, what are you trying to figure out or achieve?

[Alex T. Jacob]

Seeker wrote: Alex, all of your writing is either critical analysis or very detailed.... I say it is impossible to state one's own beliefs and opinions while writing in such a way. For me to understand anything of what is going on in your mind, you would have to be clear on your agenda, what are you trying to figure out or achieve?

At a very deep level I think each one of us is part-and-parcel of the supreme being. I think that 'reality' is an invention and we are participants in it, unwilling but very deserving participants. I think that there is an infinity of experience of beings like us who pop up within the creation, and I think that the ultimate goal of all lessons of living is a kind of spirituality, a way that we handle ourselves in relation to our incarnation and to our condition. I think flesh reality (in fragile bodies of flesh and blood) is a rather difficult and tragic sort of existence. I suppose there might be other forms of 'body'. I think that we might move from one plane of existence to another. I think we are associated with actual conscious persons who 'oversee' our incarnation. They are similar to our parents except they are unconditioned by this flesh-reality. I think that every person has one basic thing they are working on and sometimes the whole purpose of an existence is to 'get' one rather simple message. I think we are all very willful creatures and that we are constrained by 'reality' to the exact degree that we are willful. I think that life is often understood in processes of revision when one is looking back over what one has done and lived. I tend to believe that there is very much such a thing as 'grace' and that the best things that we have and enjoy have not been earned but given. I think that we control our life and our destiny from an invisible center inside ourselves and that we somehow choose a great deal of what happens to us. I think we 'keep ourselves in check'. I think that it is often our own will that gets in the way of our learning and that one of the most important 'acts' of any person is to ask for help. Pathetic, perhaps, but true. I think that the smallest acts, the things we don't think have much value, actually have the most value and that forward progress in life, through lives, occurs as a result of these 'small things'.

On other levels, I think that many of us are 'tied up in knots'. (I mean many people in this realm of existence more than people in this Internet space). I think that untying knots is a strange, mercurial activity. As we untie knots so are knots untied in us. We are usually our own worst enemy. For those so inclined (and not all are) the domain to work in is the domain of 'thinking'. The conceptual world. It seems to be our fate to deal with all this. So, it is not (as you seem to think) all wasted energy and vanity. People who get strong in dealing with ideas and concepts fall naturally into positions of leadership. He who defines, controls, significantly.

I did not make that assumption, it is one of the possibilities, I was only saying what might be inferred if it were true, I am not sure which way it goes, in my honest opinion I don't think anything can change but sense experience.

In what way might sense experience change?

I did not mean "what are you doing right now?", I meant, "what are you doing?".

Actually, the answer I gave was in answer more to your second question! I think many people live their lives in the 'irrealis mood' when it might be better to live in the 'realis mood'. If we are really here it seems we should really try to BE here. To really BE here requires trust, but who or what is one to trust? Faithful people have a certain advantage over faithless people, even if our 'divine symbols' are all in disarray. I have often thought that 'we have to maintain conceptual pathways to the divine understructure' even when we have exploded the validity of our symbolizations of divinity. It is very much of a problem. In my own case, I am fighting to discover and uncover both the language-path and the soul-path to my sense of the divine without falling into romantic or sentimental traps. It ain't easy, bro.

Dennis wrote: I think Alex has kinda nailed it. Your metaphysic is a product.

I didn't 'nail' anything. The way I see it is like this: we organize perception and attempt a 'model' that makes logical or intuitional sense. The model is only ever a model. But the ones that we come up with in our sincerity are the ones we tend to stay with. You use models too---especially you! And you also have a 'product'---you especially!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Wrote a whole comment, a long one, clicked submit, I wasn't logged in...


Now what on earth could that be trying to tell me?

(Don't write long comments on forums, your wasting your fucking time!)

why did I just think that? Why did I write it?

...
(After writing that above, I decided to click back a few times, low and behold, my comment was still there, ready to submit, that is some real cosmic riddling, my reply was:)

At a very deep level I think each one of us is part-and-parcel of the supreme being. I think that 'reality' is an invention and we are participants in it, unwilling but very deserving participants. I think that there is an infinity of experience of beings like us who pop up within the creation, and I think that the ultimate goal of all lessons of living is a kind of spirituality, a way that we handle ourselves in relation to our incarnation and to our condition. I think flesh reality (in fragile bodies of flesh and blood) is a rather difficult and tragic sort of existence. I suppose there might be other forms of 'body'. I think that we might move from one plane of existence to another. I think we are associated with actual conscious persons who 'oversee' our incarnation. They are similar to our parents except they are unconditioned by this flesh-reality. I think that every person has one basic thing they are working on and sometimes the whole purpose of an existence is to 'get' one rather simple message. I think we are all very willful creatures and that we are constrained by 'reality' to the exact degree that we are willful. I think that life is often understood in processes of revision when one is looking back over what one has done and lived. I tend to believe that there is very much such a thing as 'grace' and that the best things that we have and enjoy have not been earned but given. I think that we control our life and our destiny from an invisible center inside ourselves and that we somehow choose a great deal of what happens to us. I think we 'keep ourselves in check'. I think that it is often our own will that gets in the way of our learning and that one of the most important 'acts' of any person is to ask for help. Pathetic, perhaps, but true. I think that the smallest acts, the things we don't think have much value, actually have the most value and that forward progress in life, through lives, occurs as a result of these 'small things'.

On other levels, I think that many of us are 'tied up in knots'. (I mean many people in this realm of existence more than people in this Internet space). I think that untying knots is a strange, mercurial activity. As we untie knots so are knots untied in us. We are usually our own worst enemy. For those so inclined (and not all are) the domain to work in is the domain of 'thinking'. The conceptual world. It seems to be our fate to deal with all this. So, it is not (as you seem to think) all wasted energy and vanity. People who get strong in dealing with ideas and concepts fall naturally into positions of leadership. He who defines, controls, significantly.

I did not make that assumption, it is one of the possibilities, I was only saying what might be inferred if it were true, I am not sure which way it goes, in my honest opinion I don't think anything can change but sense experience.

In what way might sense experience change?

For any of the previous readers like brad or dennis, that is exactly what I meant by honesty of opinion ^ If you can do this, then we will progress.


I agree with most of what you said, I think we are witnessing the manifestations of this supreme being, the expressions of its consciousness. (that the reason we have what we call consciousness is because beings of consciousness and life were imagined by it) What most don't realize about our consciousness is that it is more like a movie or film of sensation we didn't make, we are formless and are defined moment-to-moment by this stream of feeling, like the minds eye looking into a dream.

"I think that we control our life and our destiny from an invisible center inside ourselves and that we somehow choose a great deal of what happens to us."

I know exactly the feeling you are talking about, and agree completely, to the point that it seems I am witnessing my reality alter based on my thoughts or feelings. ( as if we are told how to avoid future suffering, but don't always listen)

I read something from ancient Sanskrit that said something like "Lessons will be repeated to you until you learn them" < Very accurate.

Once you realize the divinity of all our thoughts and experiences, the lessons become clear, its as if we are being spoken to by our sensual experiences, even by our own thoughts. For example, you have a feeling you shouldn't do something, and your instinct is yelling at you, "Maybe you should avoid this, you know you should avoid this", but through our ignorance, we ignore our own thoughts, (which seem to be the closest thing to the voice of god we could ever know) and then are subject to great suffering, this being part of the lesson ( the lessons agenda's seem to be to end suffering and to gain truth)

Yeah tied up in knots,

"Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity.

Be like the Tao."

The domain of thinking holds many answers when the voice is loud and clear, all the truthful and important ones being the ones that you can't make sense of or explain.

"In what way might sense experience change?"

Death, dreams, this world, mental formations, thoughts, rebirth, these are all only the experiences changing, I am aware they are only experiences. The buddha tried to explain this once I think, what he was getting at is that all of it is an illusion of these changing experiences.

Movement is an illusion of changing senses, death is an illusion of changing senses, knowledge is an illusion of changing senses, rebirth into higher existence would be an illusion of changing senses, all of this exists only in sensory experience.

"And it is impossible that any one can explain the passing out of one
existence, and the entering into a new existence, or the growth,
increase, and development of consciousness, independent of
corporeality, feeling, perception, and mental formations."

I do not believe we are interpreting external data...we are being shown these connected and complex illusions, there is no external physical world in which we are trying to make sense of.

And due to this, there is nothing worth doing in a world of consciousness but to remove suffering.

I would only be feeling that I am wasting my time for a reason.... when you give someone a good piece of advice, one that brightens them up a bit and seems to have helped them avoid/ get over suffering, you feel like you are not wasting your time, you feel good.

When you help anyone you feel this, like you've done what you were put in that room to do.

I struggle because I see the struggles of the people around me, I imagine looking from their perspective in their situation, even if they are only momentarily staring at the ground with a bleak expression, I notice, and I know exactly what they feel at that moment.

The reason I feel like I'm wasting my time is because I have extraordinary potential to help, why? because I know a great secret: everyone is thinking and feeling almost exactly what I am thinking and feeling, so I am aware of what they need to hear, what they need to understand. I am also aware how vital it is, (every new day they are getting caught in arguments, stresses, hurts, they don't have to be)

If a child was hurting in the room, you would help, if you could help 2 over 1, you would help 2... you can help millions, maybe the whole world, I'm going to be feeling that I'm wasting my time until I have tried to do this to the best of my ability, why have your intelligence if you are going to waste it? Why let ignorant people who are breeding ignorant messages be revered every day, but have your intelligent thoughts over looked?

I might be the only person you know that is aware of their potential, we can effect millions of lives quickly and easily within a few days using the internet and the genius outside the box way of thinking that we have access to, but people, especially people with the most potential, seem to be afraid of that potential. I can't do it alone, hence the group chat idea, to which you didn't respond? -.- ( It can be used to attain anything, just at a speed multiplied by however many members there are)

[guest_of_logic]

Apology in advance: this post is as long and potentially boring as it is because many of these admittedly very simple ideas have been running around in my mind for a long time, and I've taken this opportunity to express them in writing as much to clarify them personally as for the benefit of others.

If you had been completely awake, and within minutes of closing your eyes, with complete awareness of your experiences, been able to manifest whatever came to mind, and see it clear as day light, ( even be burnt and shocked into awake mode by pointing fire you just created at yourself), and then to consciously watch that vision of fire or passing trees on a train fade from pure real day light to the blackness of closed eyes again, you might have opinions more similar to mine. ( you can take those experiences as fact for consideration, as I could consciously choose what to literally see and touch, witnessing the arising and passing away of this inner vision)

What you describe is compatible with my understanding of transitioning between different realities though: you use the word "fade", which suggests a transition. In any case, I've also mentioned the possibility that different realities can intersect, even if one of those intersecting realities is only experienced by a single person, so your experience would be compatible with my views even if your eyes had been open. It does sound like a very powerful experience though!

Eventually I had to accept the reasonable belief that other people exist, simply because no one was willing to entertain the notion(that their perspective was the only one in existence) for long enough to allow me to reflect ideas or figure out how to test it cooperatively.

For the same reason that I was forced to accept that reasonable belief (based on what would be false reasoning if solipsism were correct), with no evidence or proof, is the same reason you have accepted the reasonable belief of an external reality. Although this is an even trickier situation, because we are assuming the existence of other shared perspectives that correspond with our own, and then using that assumption(which has massive implications on the issue) to influence our belief or not belief in an external reality.

Sometimes it seems obvious that the reasonable beliefs are the correct ones.

Then other times, when I am in a state of skepticism and doubt, I realize how unreasonable the reasonable is, that I can't yet know and shouldn't assume.

So tricky.

You sound like someone who might have even doubted that you know what it means to know...

I mean, there's the generally accepted notion that knowledge is "justified true belief", but for this to describe genuine knowledge, ought we not to know that the justification is sound, in which case, isn't the notion circular? So, then we might say, "But wait, in the very questioning of whether we know what it means to know, we assume the meaning(fulness) of the concept whose meaning we're questioning!", which might lead us to hypothesise: "Knowing is simply a primitive notion, one that can only be described circularly, but that is nevertheless grounded in its primitiveness: we know (primitively) what it means to know because both knowings are (primitively) grounded".

We might say that. But do we really know that it's true? ;-) (Is our collectively-determined meaning of "knowing" really grounded (and sound and consistent) in the first place? And how would we establish (know!) that it is grounded (and sound and consistent), when what it means to have established - come to know - something is the very thing we are trying to establish - come to know - in the first place!? There's that circularity again...

And then we might rejoin ourselves, "But these doubts themselves are totally unfounded. The answers to these questions are simple: 'Yes, knowing just is grounded and we simply know this primitively such that the circularity is irrelevant - there can be no doubt of this, and to doubt that we know, and that we know what it means to know, is to fall prey to madness'". And the internal battle between skepticism and certainty might rage on...)

See, I know (but do I really?!) that a person can tangle himself or herself up in nightmarish knots of endless, seemingly inescapable confusion by thinking along extremely skeptical lines if they're not careful. It's quite dangerous for a person's sanity really, especially if they're taking drugs at the same time. But then, this is a forum for dangerous (compulsive?!) thinkers.

More responsively, I was wondering what sort of test might confirm metaphysical solipsism, and the best I could come up with was this: spending all of your time and energy attempting to control other people through your will alone (rather than through your words and actions), and succeeding all (or most) of the time, could suggest that other people are not truly independent of you, but are part of your (singular) consciousness. The problem is that there are alternative explanations: that you simply have (developed) an irresistible will, or that you are the god of this realm who has forgotten his true nature but retains his power, or that everybody you encounter recognises (perhaps subconsciously) what you are trying to prove, and decides (again, perhaps subconsciously, or perhaps as part of a conspiracy against you, or to teach you a lesson, or for any number of other reasons), to support you in that proof, etc.

(As an aside: wouldn't it be weird if you tried this with another person, and both of you experienced success (in controlling one another)?)

So, yes, I do think that an undoubtable proof of metaphysical solipsism is impossible, which is another way of saying that I don't think that we can truly know whether or not metaphysical solipsism is true, again, acknowledging that what it actually means to "know" is hard to define in the first place. Suppose that we define "to know" (allowing ourselves the benefit of circularity for now) as "to mentally ascribe truth to a proposition, for it to be impossible for that proposition to be false, and to know both that it is impossible for the proposition to be false, and why it is impossible for the proposition to be false". This, we might call "absolute" knowledge, where the sense of "absolute" being used out of those I listed earlier in this thread is the fourth, the sense of "uncontestable". We might then suggest that one way to know the impossibility of a proposition being false is for its negation to entail a contradiction.

We might suggest this because it is generally accepted as a sound principle in standard logic that if a proposition's negation entails a contradiction, then the proposition is a logical truth. For example, in the (sadly, too simplistic to be of much help in demonstrating this principle) case of this forum's beloved proposition, A=A, its negation is A!=A, which is a contradiction, so that by this principle, the original, A=A, is a "logical" or "necessary" truth, also known (at least on this forum) as an "absolute" truth. A more helpful example, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) article on logical truth, is the proposition, "If death is bad only if life is good, and death is bad, then life is good". We might formalise this, substituting "D" for "death is bad" and "L" for "life is good", and where "→" means "implies", "∧" means "and" (conjunction), "∨" means "or" (disjunction) and "¬" means "not" (negation), as ((D → L) ∧ D) → L. When we take the negation of this formalisation, we have ¬(((D → L) ∧ D) → L), which by recognised logical substitutions (which you can look up) we can transform into:

Code: Select all

¬(L ∨ ¬((D → L) ∧ D))  [by the rule that A → B is equivalent to B ∨ ¬A]
¬L ∧ (D → L) ∧ D  [by De Morgan's Law]
¬L ∧ (L ∨ ¬D) ∧ D  [again by the rule that A → B is equivalent to B ∨ ¬A]
(¬L ∧ D) ∧ (L ∨ ¬D)  [grouping terms]
¬(L ∨ ¬D) ∧ (L ∨ ¬D)  [again by De Morgan's Law]
¬A ∧ A  [introducing A and setting it equal to L ∨ ¬D, to make the contradiction more explicit]

Thus, the negation of the original proposition entails a contradiction, meaning that the original proposition is a logical/necessary truth ("absolute", if you like).

On that SEP page too is the clarification (see the first paragraph under the heading) that logical truths are generally considered to be those that are true due solely to their form. In other words, it is because we can perform the above formalisation, substituting symbols for words, and because it is impossible for the formalisation itself to be false, that this is a "logical" truth. I believe, but won't attempt to demonstrate, that this is due to the formalisation being tautological. In other words, it tells us nothing about the empirical world, only about logical forms.

The interesting thing here for me is again related to knowing: how it is that we "know" that these propositions can be formalised, and how it is that we "know" the logical rules by which we can manipulate them. In particular, I wonder whether these are contingent or necessary phenomena: whether we know them only because God chose to structure reality that way, or whether there was no other way in which reality could have been structured. This ties in with your suggestion, SeekerOfWisdom, to the effect that logic is contrived (if I understand you correctly). We seem, in any case, to be unable to explain clearly how it is that we "know" logic other than that it "works". The best, it seems to me, that we can do is to say, again, that our knowledge of logic is simply primitive and grounded, and that it "works" - or something like that. This, again, depending on your inclination, can be subjected to doubt, and still the battle between skepticism and certainty might rage on...

In any case, there are other types of truth that we might also want (if only because that's the way the terms are defined on this forum) to describe as "absolute" (and even, unconventionally, "logical") truths, but that are impossible to be false not because their form is tautological, but because their meaning is tautological. David provides an example in chapter two of WOTI: the truth that "all things in the Universe are finite". In this he is attempting to provide a truth that tells us "something meaningful about the empirical world" in a way that the "all bachelors are unmarried" truth does not, and, while in a way he's right, it seems to be for a different reason than he seems to think, because, in another way, this truth is exactly as meaningless with respect to the empirical world as is the "bachelor" truth, and for exactly the same reason: it is true by definition only. David defines a "thing" to be finite, and it is only because of this definition that it is "absolutely" (or, unconventionally, "logically") true that "all things in the Universe are finite" - in other words, what David's saying in that truth is that "all instances in the Universe of that which I have defined to be finite are [i.e. because I have defined them to be] finite".

The way in which David is right, though (that his truth tells us something meaningful about the empirical world), is that it implies the following assertion: "there is a Universe (the whole of all that is) which contains (can be divided into) finite entities (of that which is less than the whole)". I will return to this truth, and the question of whether it should be considered "absolute", in a moment, but first I want to point out that there seems to be another class of "absolute" truths: those which are impossible to be false not for any logical or definitional reason, but because, as I suggested might be true of the very notion of "knowing", they are primitively grounded. These are the truths of experience: it seems impossible to doubt the fact of our experience - we might doubt the implications of our experience, but the fact that we are experiencing, and the nature of, our experiences themselves seems undoubtable.

I would contend, as I imagine you would too, SeekerOfWisdom, that the only meaningful (i.e. non-tautological) "absolute knowledge" in the world is the knowledge of our experience(s), and possibly the most simple of abstractions of/from that knowledge. From experiential knowledge, we infer conceptual knowledge that is more or less abstract, and we build tentative models of reality, or, as I suggested in a previous post, we construct, compare and privilege different hypotheses about reality - essentially the scientific method, privileging the hypothesis that best explains the nature of our experiences (more specifically in the modern scientific method: the hypothesis that most accurately predicts (especially future) observations).

There are two things there: inferring abstractions and comparing hypotheses. Only at the most basic level can abstractions be inferred without need to compare with alternative abstractions (hypotheses), and this is the level at which David's earlier truth applies: that there is a Universe (the whole of all that is) which contains (can be divided into) finite entities (of that which is less than the whole). We might doubt that we know this only a little more readily than we might doubt that we know logic itself, because it is so basically inferred from our experience. I'm not strongly critical of accepting a truth this fundamentally connected to experience as "absolute" - "absolute" in the sense of it being impossible (given our experience) for it to be false, with the qualification that the "wholeness" and "dividing" are conceptual, and say more about our ability to conceptually structure our experience at a basic level than about any (putative) external world. As you, SeekerOfWisdom, point out, that an external world exists at all can be doubted.

One of the problems I have with the house philosophy is that its advocates contend (or at least imply) that they have inferred abstractions beyond this one that also have no competing hypotheses - or at least that have only competing hypotheses that are logically inconsistent - and that equally deserve to be recognised as "absolute" (uncontestable) knowledge - abstractions such as causal determinism... but this post is not the place in which to cover that ground (again).

So, the question really is: how should we choose (privilege) an hypothesis about reality? I can think of two ways. The first is by choosing the hypothesis with the least risk. In particular, I'm thinking of the hypothesis that other people exist versus the hypothesis of metaphysical solipsism: in choosing solipsism, we might be tempted to treat other people as if they didn't really exist and didn't really matter, and thereby risk doing real harm to them (in the case that we are wrong about solipsism) - and so, to avoid the risk of doing real harm, we might choose the hypothesis that other people exist. The second way of choosing an hypothesis is to choose the most elegant one, where elegance involves simplicity and accuracy. To include "simplicity" as a criterion is a bit of a judgement call, because we don't really know that the best explanations are the simplest, but experience seems to bear it out (but is that experience really the simplified tip of a complicated iceberg?! And still skepticism battles certainty...). "Accuracy" is also hard to judge because it's often possible to modify the hypothesis in some way to deal with inaccuracies. This is where the "simplicity" criterion is useful, because modified hypotheses tend to become more complicated.

In any case, metaphysical solipsism is odd in the way that it postulates only the self, yet that each of us is not wholly in control of reality. It's only in a weak sense that the reality that we experience could be said to be "part of" our self, then, isn't it? It could only be in the weak sense of incorporation, not of control - of being a part of us like our digestive system is, unamenable to our conscious control. This could even be seen as refuting metaphysical solipsism, in the sense (speaking personally) that given my lack of control over aspects of my experience, I can't really say that those aspects are "me" - apparently there are parts of reality that I don't control, and that are in some sense "external" to me.

Anyhow, the thread has moved on a lot since I started composing this reply. Other than affirming that I see things fairly similarly to you and Alex with respect to life lessons from divinity, I'll just comment on one way in which I might not:

Once you realize the divinity of all our thoughts and experiences, the lessons become clear, its as if we are being spoken to by our sensual experiences, even by our own thoughts.

I have to add a warning here based on my own experiences: that not only are there divine (sources of) thoughts, but there are also unholy (sources of) thoughts. You've probably seen that image of an angel whispering in one ear and a devil in the other - I think that that's more or less an accurate image, although I think it also depends on a person's spiritual development as to how strong each of the voices is, and how compelling.

By the way, I admire your desire to help in the world. I feel similarly, although (partly for reasons I've alluded to already) I've become mired. I'd be happy to share ideas though. There are a lot of things that I would be doing if I could pull together the drive.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Apology in advance: this post is as long and potentially boring as it is because many of these admittedly very simple ideas have been running around in my mind for a long time, and I've taken this opportunity to express them in writing as much to clarify them personally as for the benefit of others.

If you had been completely awake, and within minutes of closing your eyes, with complete awareness of your experiences, been able to manifest whatever came to mind, and see it clear as day light, ( even be burnt and shocked into awake mode by pointing fire you just created at yourself), and then to consciously watch that vision of fire or passing trees on a train fade from pure real day light to the blackness of closed eyes again, you might have opinions more similar to mine. ( you can take those experiences as fact for consideration, as I could consciously choose what to literally see and touch, witnessing the arising and passing away of this inner vision)

What you describe is compatible with my understanding of transitioning between different realities though: you use the word "fade", which suggests a transition. In any case, I've also mentioned the possibility that different realities can intersect, even if one of those intersecting realities is only experienced by a single person, so your experience would be compatible with my views even if your eyes had been open. It does sound like a very powerful experience though!

Eventually I had to accept the reasonable belief that other people exist, simply because no one was willing to entertain the notion(that their perspective was the only one in existence) for long enough to allow me to reflect ideas or figure out how to test it cooperatively.

For the same reason that I was forced to accept that reasonable belief (based on what would be false reasoning if solipsism were correct), with no evidence or proof, is the same reason you have accepted the reasonable belief of an external reality. Although this is an even trickier situation, because we are assuming the existence of other shared perspectives that correspond with our own, and then using that assumption(which has massive implications on the issue) to influence our belief or not belief in an external reality.

Sometimes it seems obvious that the reasonable beliefs are the correct ones.

Then other times, when I am in a state of skepticism and doubt, I realize how unreasonable the reasonable is, that I can't yet know and shouldn't assume.

So tricky.

You sound like someone who might have even doubted that you know what it means to know...

I mean, there's the generally accepted notion that knowledge is "justified true belief", but for this to describe genuine knowledge, ought we not to know that the justification is sound, in which case, isn't the notion circular? So, then we might say, "But wait, in the very questioning of whether we know what it means to know, we assume the meaning(fulness) of the concept whose meaning we're questioning!", which might lead us to hypothesise: "Knowing is simply a primitive notion, one that can only be described circularly, but that is nevertheless grounded in its primitiveness: we know (primitively) what it means to know because both knowings are (primitively) grounded".

We might say that. But do we really know that it's true? ;-) (Is our collectively-determined meaning of "knowing" really grounded (and sound and consistent) in the first place? And how would we establish (know!) that it is grounded (and sound and consistent), when what it means to have established - come to know - something is the very thing we are trying to establish - come to know - in the first place!? There's that circularity again...

And then we might rejoin ourselves, "But these doubts themselves are totally unfounded. The answers to these questions are simple: 'Yes, knowing just is grounded and we simply know this primitively such that the circularity is irrelevant - there can be no doubt of this, and to doubt that we know, and that we know what it means to know, is to fall prey to madness'". And the internal battle between skepticism and certainty might rage on...)

See, I know (but do I really?!) that a person can tangle himself or herself up in nightmarish knots of endless, seemingly inescapable confusion by thinking along extremely skeptical lines if they're not careful. It's quite dangerous for a person's sanity really, especially if they're taking drugs at the same time. But then, this is a forum for dangerous (compulsive?!) thinkers.

More responsively, I was wondering what sort of test might confirm metaphysical solipsism, and the best I could come up with was this: spending all of your time and energy attempting to control other people through your will alone (rather than through your words and actions), and succeeding all (or most) of the time, could suggest that other people are not truly independent of you, but are part of your (singular) consciousness. The problem is that there are alternative explanations: that you simply have (developed) an irresistible will, or that you are the god of this realm who has forgotten his true nature but retains his power, or that everybody you encounter recognises (perhaps subconsciously) what you are trying to prove, and decides (again, perhaps subconsciously, or perhaps as part of a conspiracy against you, or to teach you a lesson, or for any number of other reasons), to support you in that proof, etc.

(As an aside: wouldn't it be weird if you tried this with another person, and both of you experienced success (in controlling one another)?)

So, yes, I do think that an undoubtable proof of metaphysical solipsism is impossible, which is another way of saying that I don't think that we can truly know whether or not metaphysical solipsism is true, again, acknowledging that what it actually means to "know" is hard to define in the first place. Suppose that we define "to know" (allowing ourselves the benefit of circularity for now) as "to mentally ascribe truth to a proposition, for it to be impossible for that proposition to be false, and to know both that it is impossible for the proposition to be false, and why it is impossible for the proposition to be false". This, we might call "absolute" knowledge, where the sense of "absolute" being used out of those I listed earlier in this thread is the fourth, the sense of "uncontestable". We might then suggest that one way to know the impossibility of a proposition being false is for its negation to entail a contradiction.

We might suggest this because it is generally accepted as a sound principle in standard logic that if a proposition's negation entails a contradiction, then the proposition is a logical truth. For example, in the (sadly, too simplistic to be of much help in demonstrating this principle) case of this forum's beloved proposition, A=A, its negation is A!=A, which is a contradiction, so that by this principle, the original, A=A, is a "logical" or "necessary" truth, also known (at least on this forum) as an "absolute" truth. A more helpful example, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) article on logical truth, is the proposition, "If death is bad only if life is good, and death is bad, then life is good". We might formalise this, substituting "D" for "death is bad" and "L" for "life is good", and where "→" means "implies", "∧" means "and" (conjunction), "∨" means "or" (disjunction) and "¬" means "not" (negation), as ((D → L) ∧ D) → L. When we take the negation of this formalisation, we have ¬(((D → L) ∧ D) → L), which by recognised logical substitutions (which you can look up) we can transform into:

Code: Select all

¬(L ∨ ¬((D → L) ∧ D))  [by the rule that A → B is equivalent to B ∨ ¬A]
¬L ∧ (D → L) ∧ D  [by De Morgan's Law]
¬L ∧ (L ∨ ¬D) ∧ D  [again by the rule that A → B is equivalent to B ∨ ¬A]
(¬L ∧ D) ∧ (L ∨ ¬D)  [grouping terms]
¬(L ∨ ¬D) ∧ (L ∨ ¬D)  [again by De Morgan's Law]
¬A ∧ A  [introducing A and setting it equal to L ∨ ¬D, to make the contradiction more explicit]

Thus, the negation of the original proposition entails a contradiction, meaning that the original proposition is a logical/necessary truth ("absolute", if you like).

On that SEP page too is the clarification (see the first paragraph under the heading) that logical truths are generally considered to be those that are true due solely to their form. In other words, it is because we can perform the above formalisation, substituting symbols for words, and because it is impossible for the formalisation itself to be false, that this is a "logical" truth. I believe, but won't attempt to demonstrate, that this is due to the formalisation being tautological. In other words, it tells us nothing about the empirical world, only about logical forms.

The interesting thing here for me is again related to knowing: how it is that we "know" that these propositions can be formalised, and how it is that we "know" the logical rules by which we can manipulate them. In particular, I wonder whether these are contingent or necessary phenomena: whether we know them only because God chose to structure reality that way, or whether there was no other way in which reality could have been structured. This ties in with your suggestion, SeekerOfWisdom, to the effect that logic is contrived (if I understand you correctly). We seem, in any case, to be unable to explain clearly how it is that we "know" logic other than that it "works". The best, it seems to me, that we can do is to say, again, that our knowledge of logic is simply primitive and grounded, and that it "works" - or something like that. This, again, depending on your inclination, can be subjected to doubt, and still the battle between skepticism and certainty might rage on...

In any case, there are other types of truth that we might also want (if only because that's the way the terms are defined on this forum) to describe as "absolute" (and even, unconventionally, "logical") truths, but that are impossible to be false not because their form is tautological, but because their meaning is tautological. David provides an example in chapter two of WOTI: the truth that "all things in the Universe are finite". In this he is attempting to provide a truth that tells us "something meaningful about the empirical world" in a way that the "all bachelors are unmarried" truth does not, and, while in a way he's right, it seems to be for a different reason than he seems to think, because, in another way, this truth is exactly as meaningless with respect to the empirical world as is the "bachelor" truth, and for exactly the same reason: it is true by definition only. David defines a "thing" to be finite, and it is only because of this definition that it is "absolutely" (or, unconventionally, "logically") true that "all things in the Universe are finite" - in other words, what David's saying in that truth is that "all instances in the Universe of that which I have defined to be finite are [i.e. because I have defined them to be] finite".

The way in which David is right, though (that his truth tells us something meaningful about the empirical world), is that it implies the following assertion: "there is a Universe (the whole of all that is) which contains (can be divided into) finite entities (of that which is less than the whole)". I will return to this truth, and the question of whether it should be considered "absolute", in a moment, but first I want to point out that there seems to be another class of "absolute" truths: those which are impossible to be false not for any logical or definitional reason, but because, as I suggested might be true of the very notion of "knowing", they are primitively grounded. These are the truths of experience: it seems impossible to doubt the fact of our experience - we might doubt the implications of our experience, but the fact that we are experiencing, and the nature of, our experiences themselves seems undoubtable.

I would contend, as I imagine you would too, SeekerOfWisdom, that the only meaningful (i.e. non-tautological) "absolute knowledge" in the world is the knowledge of our experience(s), and possibly the most simple of abstractions of/from that knowledge. From experiential knowledge, we infer conceptual knowledge that is more or less abstract, and we build tentative models of reality, or, as I suggested in a previous post, we construct, compare and privilege different hypotheses about reality - essentially the scientific method, privileging the hypothesis that best explains the nature of our experiences (more specifically in the modern scientific method: the hypothesis that most accurately predicts (especially future) observations).

There are two things there: inferring abstractions and comparing hypotheses. Only at the most basic level can abstractions be inferred without need to compare with alternative abstractions (hypotheses), and this is the level at which David's earlier truth applies: that there is a Universe (the whole of all that is) which contains (can be divided into) finite entities (of that which is less than the whole). We might doubt that we know this only a little more readily than we might doubt that we know logic itself, because it is so basically inferred from our experience. I'm not strongly critical of accepting a truth this fundamentally connected to experience as "absolute" - "absolute" in the sense of it being impossible (given our experience) for it to be false, with the qualification that the "wholeness" and "dividing" are conceptual, and say more about our ability to conceptually structure our experience at a basic level than about any (putative) external world. As you, SeekerOfWisdom, point out, that an external world exists at all can be doubted.

One of the problems I have with the house philosophy is that its advocates contend (or at least imply) that they have inferred abstractions beyond this one that also have no competing hypotheses - or at least that have only competing hypotheses that are logically inconsistent - and that equally deserve to be recognised as "absolute" (uncontestable) knowledge - abstractions such as causal determinism... but this post is not the place in which to cover that ground (again).

So, the question really is: how should we choose (privilege) an hypothesis about reality? I can think of two ways. The first is by choosing the hypothesis with the least risk. In particular, I'm thinking of the hypothesis that other people exist versus the hypothesis of metaphysical solipsism: in choosing solipsism, we might be tempted to treat other people as if they didn't really exist and didn't really matter, and thereby risk doing real harm to them (in the case that we are wrong about solipsism) - and so, to avoid the risk of doing real harm, we might choose the hypothesis that other people exist. The second way of choosing an hypothesis is to choose the most elegant one, where elegance involves simplicity and accuracy. To include "simplicity" as a criterion is a bit of a judgement call, because we don't really know that the best explanations are the simplest, but experience seems to bear it out (but is that experience really the simplified tip of a complicated iceberg?! And still skepticism battles certainty...). "Accuracy" is also hard to judge because it's often possible to modify the hypothesis in some way to deal with inaccuracies. This is where the "simplicity" criterion is useful, because modified hypotheses tend to become more complicated.

In any case, metaphysical solipsism is odd in the way that it postulates only the self, yet that each of us is not wholly in control of reality. It's only in a weak sense that the reality that we experience could be said to be "part of" our self, then, isn't it? It could only be in the weak sense of incorporation, not of control - of being a part of us like our digestive system is, unamenable to our conscious control. This could even be seen as refuting metaphysical solipsism, in the sense (speaking personally) that given my lack of control over aspects of my experience, I can't really say that those aspects are "me" - apparently there are parts of reality that I don't control, and that are in some sense "external" to me.

Anyhow, the thread has moved on a lot since I started composing this reply. Other than affirming that I see things fairly similarly to you and Alex with respect to life lessons from divinity, I'll just comment on one way in which I might not:

Once you realize the divinity of all our thoughts and experiences, the lessons become clear, its as if we are being spoken to by our sensual experiences, even by our own thoughts.

I have to add a warning here based on my own experiences: that not only are there divine (sources of) thoughts, but there are also unholy (sources of) thoughts. You've probably seen that image of an angel whispering in one ear and a devil in the other - I think that that's more or less an accurate image, although I think it also depends on a person's spiritual development as to how strong each of the voices is, and how compelling.

By the way, I admire your desire to help in the world. I feel similarly, although (partly for reasons I've alluded to already) I've become mired. I'd be happy to share ideas though. There are a lot of things that I would be doing if I could pull together the drive.

First, get Skype, because I'm forming an IM group of strictly high level people, and as you have recognized in "if I could pull together the drive", we are lazy and almost incapable as individuals. I believe that forming this is one of the most essential things we can do, that it is more than essential, that it is inescapably the most important thing any of us can do, and that until we have done it, we are only passing and wasting our time, taking no action.

On your very long section on knowing:

"You sound like someone who might have even doubted that you know what it means to know..."

Yes I have, and I understand what it means to doubt knowing, as you clearly understand, which is one of the main reasons I say....through not-knowing, I have learned it is important to avoid complexity and length, for next time haha.

There are only certain things that can be known, (as you said, such as the known fact that there is the experience of "this") and I believe David's assertion to be based on certain factors he does not know, and is hence not absolute.

All logical deductions are inconsistent, (the only deductions that are not inconsistent are the ones based on direct experience, the things self-evident from direct experience) if not simply because language, and language based thought, is inconsistent.

"the best I could come up with was this: spending all of your time and energy attempting to control other people through your will alone (rather than through your words and actions), and succeeding all (or most) of the time, could suggest that other people are not truly independent of you"

Guest, I was going to try and explain this, but I decided to tell a story of experiences:

I had this same thought as you about a year ago, upon testing it, (trying to make things happen simply by visualizing it, expecting it to happen, repeating it, visualizing scenarios that would occur if it did happen, etc)

My results: It undoubtedly works. ( Every single day you see the effects of this, in every way, it is just impossible for most to accept due to its implications)

My inference: This does not directly point at the notion of individual solipsism (That it is only your dream and others exist only in your seeing of them)

Instead, this also works if the whole world is subject to this, that our thoughts are so interconnected that sensual experience alters for one and for all. (this would be necessary if we were to believe in a dream that we are all part of, a kind of divine matrix rather than an external world we are effecting)

So, why did I leave behind the individual notion of solipsism, for a second notion, that is based on logical deduction ( which is most definitely circular) ?

I was afraid. I had no other choice. Confronted by the constant "alien" dream view of reality, ( which I still experience, although now I have a belief in the perspectives of others also experiencing this), it felt as if I was capable of breaking from here completely, as if my world was going to fall away if I looked any deeper into it. The same feeling you have when you realize you are dreaming and it frightens you and you feel it being ripped from your very soul.
My choices were to continue with this detachment, and even pursue further detachment in order to see what might happen, if anything, or stay, and upon staying, simply accept that other people are, for lack of other options.

I have accepted the middle ground, that experience is real for us all, and that it is miraculously connected in such a way we could never understand it logically. It is good to know you have a similar understanding as me and Alex, as I believe we will all come to the same conclusions if we ask the right questions. ( I do not believe truth on this subject to be a matter of perspective, there is only one truth)

Accepting the existence of other perspectives returns one to common beliefs as you can once again bounce your ideas off of others (without this ability, confirming anything would be impossible, everything would amount to the hallucinations of a lone mad man)

The distinction between divine experience and its counter part, the devil whispering in the ear, has been made only by your distinction of what is "good" and what is "bad", divinity isn't necessarily good and you can't try and understand its will. It would torture you as easily as it would worship you. The lessons seem to indicate goodness but that is just a circular assumption again.

You can share those ideas and hopefully we can start taking action using group IM.

[guest_of_logic]

I've just sent you a PM, SeekerOfWisdom.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I've just replied

[David Quinn]

There are only certain things that can be known, (as you said, such as the known fact that there is the experience of "this") and I believe David's assertion to be based on certain factors he does not know, and is hence not absolute.

Are you basing this conclusion on what I have actually stated in WOTI? Or on Laird's (guest_of_logic's) representation of what I have stated? The two are not the same.

All logical deductions are inconsistent, (the only deductions that are not inconsistent are the ones based on direct experience, the things self-evident from direct experience) if not simply because language, and language based thought, is inconsistent.

The knowledge that surrrounds "direct experience, the things self-evident from direct experience" is itself logical in nature and based on particular definitions. In other words, one comes to understand the impossibility of refuting the existence of each moment-by-moment experience by defining what "experience" is and making logical deductions about it.

You need to look more deeply into this matter. All knowledge is ultimately logical in nature.

The interesting thing here for me is again related to knowing: how it is that we "know" that these propositions can be formalised, and how it is that we "know" the logical rules by which we can manipulate them. In particular, I wonder whether these are contingent or necessary phenomena: whether we know them only because God chose to structure reality that way, or whether there was no other way in which reality could have been structured. This ties in with your suggestion, SeekerOfWisdom, to the effect that logic is contrived (if I understand you correctly). We seem, in any case, to be unable to explain clearly how it is that we "know" logic other than that it "works". The best, it seems to me, that we can do is to say, again, that our knowledge of logic is simply primitive and grounded, and that it "works" - or something like that.

Nonsense. We can extract that core element of logic (A=A) and discern its essential dynamics and irrefutability. A logical truth is irrefutable to the degree that it conforms to A=A. In turn, A=A itself expresses the irrefutability of direct experience (A).

In any case, there are other types of truth that we might also want (if only because that's the way the terms are defined on this forum) to describe as "absolute" (and even, unconventionally, "logical") truths, but that are impossible to be false not because their form is tautological, but because their meaning is tautological. David provides an example in chapter two of WOTI: the truth that "all things in the Universe are finite". In this he is attempting to provide a truth that tells us "something meaningful about the empirical world" in a way that the "all bachelors are unmarried" truth does not, and, while in a way he's right, it seems to be for a different reason than he seems to think, because, in another way, this truth is exactly as meaningless with respect to the empirical world as is the "bachelor" truth, and for exactly the same reason: it is true by definition only. David defines a "thing" to be finite, and it is only because of this definition that it is "absolutely" (or, unconventionally, "logically") true that "all things in the Universe are finite" - in other words, what David's saying in that truth is that "all instances in the Universe of that which I have defined to be finite are [i.e. because I have defined them to be] finite".

Yes, it involves a creative act. But all knowledge and all truths involve a similar creative act. Even the truth that direct experience is undeniable involves the creative act of defining what direct experience is. If you're looking for truths that don't involve this creative act, then forget it. They don't exist.

It all hinges on the clarity of one's mind and the quality of one's thinking. If a person is able to fully master his ability to define/create and deduce, then he can uncover all sorts of interesting truths about the Universe that are impossible to refute. If, on the other hand, he is a slave to his emotions and desires, then he has no chance of discovering anything at all. He will remain trapped in his own biases and fruitless speculations.

While the truth that "all things are finite" has the same logical form as "all bachelors are unmarried", the content differs - and that is what makes all the difference.

The way in which David is right, though (that his truth tells us something meaningful about the empirical world), is that it implies the following assertion: "there is a Universe (the whole of all that is) which contains (can be divided into) finite entities (of that which is less than the whole)".

Importantly, it also implies that there is no other Universe besides. In other words, the strength of the logic is such that nothing can ever be left out.

I will return to this truth, and the question of whether it should be considered "absolute", in a moment, but first I want to point out that there seems to be another class of "absolute" truths: those which are impossible to be false not for any logical or definitional reason, but because, as I suggested might be true of the very notion of "knowing", they are primitively grounded. These are the truths of experience: it seems impossible to doubt the fact of our experience - we might doubt the implications of our experience, but the fact that we are experiencing, and the nature of, our experiences themselves seems undoubtable.

This is not a different class of truth. It is identical to all other truths in that it is entirely logical in nature.

One of the problems I have with the house philosophy is that its advocates contend (or at least imply) that they have inferred abstractions beyond this one that also have no competing hypotheses - or at least that have only competing hypotheses that are logically inconsistent - and that equally deserve to be recognised as "absolute" (uncontestable) knowledge - abstractions such as causal determinism... but this post is not the place in which to cover that ground (again).

At root, the problem you have with the "house philosophy" - that is to say, with the philosophy of the sages, with wisdom - is that it demolishes the duality of good and evil, in which your whole psychology is steeped.

So, the question really is: how should we choose (privilege) an hypothesis about reality? I can think of two ways. The first is by choosing the hypothesis with the least risk. In particular, I'm thinking of the hypothesis that other people exist versus the hypothesis of metaphysical solipsism: in choosing solipsism, we might be tempted to treat other people as if they didn't really exist and didn't really matter, and thereby risk doing real harm to them (in the case that we are wrong about solipsism) - and so, to avoid the risk of doing real harm, we might choose the hypothesis that other people exist. The second way of choosing an hypothesis is to choose the most elegant one, where elegance involves simplicity and accuracy. To include "simplicity" as a criterion is a bit of a judgement call, because we don't really know that the best explanations are the simplest, but experience seems to bear it out (but is that experience really the simplified tip of a complicated iceberg?! And still skepticism battles certainty...). "Accuracy" is also hard to judge because it's often possible to modify the hypothesis in some way to deal with inaccuracies. This is where the "simplicity" criterion is useful, because modified hypotheses tend to become more complicated.

Or alternatively, we can just develop a clear mind and follow the logic that takes us to the root of all things.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

As I have pointed out David, the logical deductions made that are not self-evident, are actually based on circular reasoning, on assuming to know things, these logical deductions are more like assumptions and opinions, rather than certainties.

What I am saying is that all logical deductions that aren't self evident, for example, the belief an in external world outside of sense experience, are assumed, they are not infact logical deductions, but are "illogical" deductions based on faulty logic. T

As you and Laird both pointed out, some of the only logical deductions which are logical, which aren't subject to these same problems of not-knowing, are the ones that are "impossible to refute" such as our "moment-by-moment experience" which is clear and undeniable.

Outside of some of these simple certainties, all logical deductions are inconsistent or illogical, they are closer to opinions.



Admittedly I was basing it on Laird's representation, but since I believe almost all complex logical deductions to be illogical, based on circular reasoning and faulty understandings, such as to do with the finite or infinite nature of the universe, to be founded on opinions and guesses... on language that doesn't really mean anything besides the understandings it brings about in other peoples minds.

You seem to respect the sages, I believe some of the most important quotes to remember from them are on Not-knowing:

"Thinking you know is a disease, first realize you are sick, and then move toward health" - Lao Tzu

"Not-knowing is true knowledge" - Lao Tzu

" Naming(labelling, language) is the origin of all particular things."(these particulars being a faulty understanding of the bigger picture) - Lao tzu

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance" - Confucius

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that i know nothing"- Socrates



What the people above were trying to explain is one of the most important understandings, which I am sure you have heard before, but have you been keeping it in mind?

I find that a lot of people forget the importance of this, and move quickly back into either dogma, or complicated language-based thought processes which eventually lead to completely illogical deductions.

If you have kept this in mind during your writing in WOTI regarding the finite nature or infinite nature of the universe, then I apologize for implying that you hadn't, at the moment I am just finding it hard to think of a way one could logically deduce this kind of information without first making some of these unfounded assumptions, but I will take a look for myself.

[Dennis Mahar]

There are causes for suffering.

deductive reasoning opened that up.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Where did I say it wasn't usable?

There is a difference, any piece of technology required deductive reasoning.

I am referring to deductive reasoning in relation to what is unknown, what exists outside of what we are seeing, the fundamental how and whys of it. This is understood without using the rational mind.

[Dennis Mahar]

Quinn's already said something like,

wherever, whenever there's even the slightest puff of wind and the tiniest leaf scurrying before that breeze,
Logic applies.

Infinite means not a thing.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Logic is a word,

whenever there is the slightest breeze,

Flowing and uncontrolled thoughts based on unknown sense experience applies.

Am I the only realist in existence?

Your thoughts could just as easily be telling you your a frog when your a human, there is no strict logic as life is an ever changing dream.

The false logical deductions people have made have lead to massive delusions, you know nothing but these experiences.

Am I the only realist in existence? Why do we all keep talking about things we have no clue about? Realize you don't know, it is these same logical deductions that have lead to false beliefs, such as the belief in some kind of external world we are interpreting with our physical bodies.

Here's a kick in the ass for this ordinary logical way of thinking you have put on the pedastool,

If I ripped out your eyes you could still see as clearly as day light. < fact

If I cut open your brain, you would just revert to seeing something else < belief, I think it is one you share.

Am I the only realist in existence?

Tell me how I can explain the extent of my witness to you without getting insulted for doing it? Does it have to be private?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"thinking you know(basic logical deductions that people have turned into dogma and delusion) is a defect, first realize that you are sick, then you can move toward health"
-Lao Tzu


If you are going to ignore me, don't ignore him ^

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You once asked me if I thought I had the trade secrets Dennis, to be honest, I think I'm the one of the few with them.

Not pretending to know, not basing the fundamentals of what I know on the experiences of others. I'm 18, I was a 15/20 marks average student for written expression when I left year 12, I'm not much better than average now, but if you are able to look past that, you might be able to believe me when I say that it is very blatant that most of the people here have not yet been able to go through the complete breaking from delusion, the eradication of pre-conceived notions, to look at what is for what it is.

"Few are those that see with their own eyes."

[David Quinn]

As I have pointed out David, the logical deductions made that are not self-evident, are actually based on circular reasoning, on assuming to know things, these logical deductions are more like assumptions and opinions, rather than certainties.

What I am saying is that all logical deductions that aren't self evident, for example, the belief an in external world outside of sense experience, are assumed, they are not infact logical deductions, but are "illogical" deductions based on faulty logic.

I can’t argue with that. It is true that faulty reasonings need to be rejected.

“Self-evident” essentially means "logically irrefutable". As such, your point above really reads, “All logical deductions that aren’t logically irrefutable are illogical”. And that is perfectly true. Your thinking here is seamless, circular, inarguable.

As you and Laird both pointed out, some of the only logical deductions which are logical, which aren't subject to these same problems of not-knowing, are the ones that are "impossible to refute" such as our "moment-by-moment experience" which is clear and undeniable.

Outside of some of these simple certainties, all logical deductions are inconsistent or illogical, they are closer to opinions.

Yes, the key to good reasoning, and the uncovering of absolute truth, is the elimination of all assumptions.

Admittedly I was basing it on Laird's representation, but since I believe almost all complex logical deductions to be illogical, based on circular reasoning and faulty understandings, such as to do with the finite or infinite nature of the universe, to be founded on opinions and guesses... on language that doesn't really mean anything besides the understandings it brings about in other peoples minds.

Is this merely your opinion? Or is it the result of your logical reasoning?

Be honest!

You seem to respect the sages, I believe some of the most important quotes to remember from them are on Not-knowing:

"Thinking you know is a disease, first realize you are sick, and then move toward health" - Lao Tzu

"Not-knowing is true knowledge" - Lao Tzu

" Naming(labelling, language) is the origin of all particular things."(these particulars being a faulty understanding of the bigger picture) - Lao tzu

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance" - Confucius

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that i know nothing"- Socrates

What the people above were trying to explain is one of the most important understandings, which I am sure you have heard before, but have you been keeping it in mind?

I am fully conscious of what it means and always keep it in mind. But to be honest, I don't think you really understand it yourself. These sayings refer to a very profound truth, one that points to the formlessness of reality. Reality cannot be known (in the normal sense) because it doesn't have any form. There is literally nothing to know. He who knows this knows everything.

These sayings are NOT telling us to abandon concepts or rationality. That is a common delusion.

Am I the only realist in existence?

You are a young person with some insight who vastly overrates his achievements. Your insight is more or less on the right track, but it is still very naive and undeveloped. You really need to extend it beyond its druggie roots and ground it in far more authentic foundations.

In other words, if you want to progress into real wisdom, stop believing in your own drug-induced hype and begin to think about things more deeply and more seriously.

"Thinking you know is a disease, first realize you are sick, and then move toward health" - Lao Tzu

Your thoughts could just as easily be telling you your a frog when your a human, there is no strict logic as life is an ever changing dream.

Here is an example of your naive, undeveloped thinking. You are here using “strict logic” to conclude that because life is an everchanging dream there is no strict logic. Being mired in such self-contradictory thinking is not a sign of wisdom.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

David

Not telling us to abandon concepts or rationality?

"A good scientist has freed himself of concepts"

When they are talking about not-knowing they are talking about realizing you don't know.

For example, "energy" means this to you ( imagining some electricity or an associated sense experience), when you say "wave" what you actually get from that is (imagine a wave or wavy line).

Not-knowing is literally about realizing you don't know....well almost anything, that your knowledge is shallow and limited, based on sensory illusion, manifestations.

Except ofcourse for those fundamental things that are self-evident, such as, I can see with my eyes closed, there is seeing.

It is much more about realizing that the you have only assumed most of the knowledge you have to be true, that you are pretending to know what you don't know about.

That is vs " one that points to the formlessness of reality. Reality cannot be known (in the normal sense) because it doesn't have any form"

"Real knowledge is to realize the extent of ones own ignorance"
-confucius

Sounds a lot like Lao Tzu's one, but maybe Confucius was talking about the formlessness of reality here too?

(not that Lao Tzu doesn't talk about formlessness)


It looks like you are attempting to degrade what I'm saying by use of insults, nice.

You are trying to twist my clear meanings based on the use of my language. "language is provisional". What don't you get about that one? Stop nagging about specific sentences, and talk philosophically about the meanings.

Are we not allowed to talk about how "thoughts weaken the mind", while thinking? Or are we being too self-contradictory here also? You really have made a bad attempt at devaluing my opinion. You can end any mockery now, I think you'll find that most of the people on here, probably including me and you, have reached very similar views and conclusions, but still get caught up thinking we are disagreeing when we aren't.

Your thoughts COULD be telling you your something your not and you would believe it, life IS an ever changing dream, it is made of the same "stuff" of dream, dreams can show you any illogical experience and you'll act like nothings gone amiss, our waking state is very similar in this respect.

There is no "strict logic" or ( basis of logic to compare what is logical and illogical), because what could be logical in infinite and endlessly changing manifestations? Which as you say are formless, anything can be seen, no matter how opposing it is to the logical conclusions we have made now.

A better description, one thing leads to another but they can lead anywhere, from gravity to floating, from visibile to invisible, anything can happen in this dream, almost all of the logical deductions people have made based on their particular sense experiences are faulty... simply because they are based on particular sense experiences/manifestations, when there is an endless range of such experiences, and hence an endless range of logical deductions, each as logical as the last. (except for some self-evident things of course)