The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Kunga »

Tomas wrote:If I didn't have a wife I'd insert a happy face...
no...you'd insert something big and hard...lol
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Every input to your view of the world is translated in the mind. Everyone knows that, it is not a clever philosophical debate. But the Genius forums have taken the translation of information, and turned it into the creation of information.

There is a big difference between...

TRANSLATION

and

CREATION

This is the problem with this site. The mind has to be built from a structure that uses physics. So CREATION of physics would be a paradox.

Mind = physics

world = physics

Therefore...

mind cannot = creation of physics.

Mind can only be equal to the translation of physics into colours, shapes, hot, cold, taste, smell, sound, and pain..... TRANSLATED.

Life is not therefore a dream state, it is a physically translated state. This means that there are real physics out there. The real physics are simple, and also include all of the information to create .. colours, shapes, hot, cold, taste, smell, sound, and pain.

We know that sound is a wave through the air. We can see the wave on the Ocean. We know that the wave on the Ocean is made from particles. It's the same as a blind person can feel a Braille book. So they can read words that are bumps. The bumps are TRANSLATED.

Life is a translation of physics.

The Genius knows the raw physics without the TRANSLATION.

I know the physics without the translation into the human senses. I know how the physics are produced. I know why the physics are produced. I know how the Universe happened. I know why it happened.

Two alternatives...

1/ This Universe is the real Universe.

2/ This Universe is a simulation of the real Universe.

Both options require the same physics. But one is outside of this Universe. There are no other alternatives. The most likely situation is that this is a simulation, and we are using Virtual Reality. But the physics outside of the Virtual Reality are identical the the physics inside the Virtual Reality. So either way, you have a real mind. The mind uses physics, and you can't ignore the physics of the mind.

Too many people on here have skipped past reality, and have made a mistake with the wording....

Creation, is not Translation.

We do not create the Universe in our minds, we translate the Universe in our minds.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Pincho Paxton wrote:Every input to your view of the world is translated in the mind.
Since you know everything, where does mind begin and end, specifically, definitively?
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Alex Jacob »

I thought of Steven Coyle today.
Ni ange, ni bête
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Leyla Shen »

Yes, I'm sure you have thought of him and many other young boys quite regularly.

Let's go, Alexis.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Alex asked me about Samsara. Obviously my notion of it is my interpretation of what I consider the saner aspects of Hindu/Buddhist philosophy in relation to that specific idea. But only the language is really borrowed. The basic concepts can be offered in all sorts of different ways; it's just that people have already done it effectively. Wiki offers the following:
In Hinduism, it is avidya, or ignorance, of one's true self that leads to ego-consciousness of the body and the phenomenal world. This grounds one in kāma (desire) and the perpetual chain of karma and reincarnation. Through egotism and desire one creates the causes for future becoming. The state of illusion that gives rise to this is known as Maya.

Within Buddhism, samsara is defined as the continual repetitive cycle of birth, death that arises from ordinary beings' grasping and fixating on a self and experiences. Samsara arises out of ignorance (avidya) and is characterized by dukkha (suffering, anxiety, dissatisfaction).
Just to briefly explain "Maya" - it has somewhat different meanings in different Hindu and Buddhist traditions, but the one that has real application for this discussion and the purpose of this board is the Mahayana one:
Wiki: ... people misunderstand themselves and their reality, when we could be free from this confusion. Under the influence of ignorance, we believe objects and persons to be independently real, existing apart from causes and conditions. We fail to perceive them as being empty of a real essence,...
In other words we see them as existing inherently and as separate and distinct entities. This also applies to our notion of self, which is pivotal to a discussion of Samsara and ego-cycles.

In Poison of the Heart, Kevin defines Samsara as:
Cyclic existence. The cycle of birth, death and rebirth. The realm of ignorance, as opposed to Nirvana.
Happiness is the transition from one form of suffering to another. Suffering is the transition from one form of happiness to another. Samsara is made of these transitions.
The Buddhist traditions that link Samsara with transmigration (re-incarnation) are not worth thinking about, so I'm not going to think about them. If you want to limit yourself to that sort of religious malarkey go join a Tibetan monastery ;)

All this and how it applies to everyday life is, to me, tantamount to self-explanatory. I've spoken before and actually fairly recently about how ego-grasping and the endless cycle of that arises, so I'm not going to repeat that. Samsara is simply a word for that dynamic and the associated "suffering". Everybody, the enlightened excepted, exists in this realm to varying degrees, depending on their level of consciousness and understanding. These dynamics arise from ignorance of the nature of self/other. Ego is essentially ignorance. People continually experience the duality of loss and gain, driven by the ego's false sense of separation. But how can loss and gain be experienced other than deludedly when you already are that which is lost or gained (yes I know the ontological argument for this is not herein laid out - that's been done so many times I ain't going there again)?

I'm sure if we stopped and looked at our lives, we'd be able to identify an endless array of examples of this dynamic unfolding; happening over and over. In fact we all should do that very thing because that's the best way to actually see Samsara for what it is - direct experience, as opposed to being told about it by someone. Hang on, I think I just described what actual philosophy is. Try it, you might hate it.

For some reason I'm reminded of something I said to Dave Hodges some moons ago:
David Hodges: You desire wisdom, but what is the motivation for wisdom? Isn't it because you want to avoid being a fool - because thinking of yourself as a fool would make you miserable? That you can not be happy if you think of yourself as being deluded?

Dan Rowden: All human endeavour begins as a flight from suffering of some kind or another. The pursuit of wisdom is no exception. So, yes, my desire for wisdom was a response to some kind of egotistical unhappiness. That is unavoidable. However, the unique thing about the path to wisdom is that it opens one's eyes to the true nature of one's psychology and one's suffering, which enables the individual to transcend the causes; namely, ego and ignorance. As one develops along this path, one gradually loses that egotistical motivation for wisdom and it becomes an expression of who you simply are. In short, you become a wholly rational being and a rational being seeks wisdom as naturally as a tree spreads its roots. You no longer do it because you think you'll find happiness in it; you do it because that's who and what you've become. One does not say, "If I breathe I will be happy." One merely breathes.

Such a person finally goes beyond the duality of happiness and suffering. He goes beyond ego driven desire. He transcends samsara.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Kunga »

Samsara is Nirvana

In Mahāyāna Buddhism, nirvana and samsara are said to be not different when viewed from the ultimate nature of the Dharmakaya. An individual can attain nirvana by following the Buddhist path. If they were ultimately different this would be impossible. Thus, the duality between nirvana and samsara is only accurate on the conventional level. Another way to arrive at this conclusion is through the analysis that all phenomena are empty of an essential identity, and therefore suffering is never inherent in any situation. Thus liberation from suffering and its causes is not a metaphysical shift of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Alex Jacob »

Dan wrote:Obviously my notion of it is my interpretation of what I consider the saner aspects of Hindu/Buddhist philosophy in relation to that specific idea.
My understanding is that you take the Buddhist understanding in its 'driest' sense---a strict, this-world 'materialism'. What is here is 'what is' and that's that. Is the Buddhism, with 'samsara' as one of its main guiding concepts, that you define, then, compatible with 'modern science'? If not, why not?

If I am not mistaken, you reject all or nearly all of the 'cosmological' aspects of Hindu beliefs and also their appearance in Buddhism. Is it possible to describe this refined Buddhist view in terms completely removed from Buddism? I mean the Sanskrit language-base. The underlying cosmology that is there in the language itself? Could you put it in strict 'materialistic' or 'scientific' terms? What would be gained by doing so, or lost?
All this and how it applies to everyday life is, to me, tantamount to self-explanatory.
My impression has often been that yes, seen and expressed in that way, the structure of view would point strongly to 'non-attachment' and a kind of quietism. But one of the questions I have and have always had is, okay, it is possible and even attractive for an individual to take on this view (toward self and phenomena) and to act from that perspective (act wisely in the sense you define), but what about larger communities? Municipalities? States? I am curious about a Buddhist jurisprudence or statecraft. Does the question seem un-relevant to you? I am interested (I am deluded Dan and so I can have all sorts of strange 'interests' in my little sandpit...) in how the most, say, abstract or demanding spiritual systems yet exert influence on political and social systems.

How would you define such a---may I use the word neo-Buddhism without appearing to mock?---refined Buddism and apply it to the raising of a family? To raising and educating kids? It has seemed to me that the spiritual views and understandings you seek to live by are strictly for individuals living apart. Do you see it differently?
Everybody, the enlightened excepted, exists in this realm to varying degrees, depending on their level of consciousness and understanding.
In order for me to understand the depth of this 'problem of ignorance' you would have to almost provide a percentage of 'the world', or a state, or a city, or a community. Because it seems to me that if your view is that 99.9999% of the whole world is ignorant and caught in maya- and samsara-webs, that there is likely only a tiny number of practitioners (the realized) of the philosophical system. That would lead to a fairly pessimistic situation. If that is true, then the practitioners would likely have almost nothing to do with the affairs of the world. They wouldn't have businesses or participate economically. They wouldn't have public positions, etc.
I'm sure if we stopped and looked at our lives, we'd be able to identify an endless array of examples of this dynamic unfolding; happening over and over. In fact we all should do that very thing because that's the best way to actually see Samsara for what it is - direct experience, as opposed to being told about it by someone.
But wouldn't it come to pass that a given person, practicing the philosophy, would only be able to mitigate in a limited degree the built-in tendency to blunder and mistake that such a pessimistic view of reality predicts? People might 'internalize' the realizations that arise from seeing straight, but once they ventured into 'the world' the world would capture them, over-power them and befuddle all their 'noble' efforts. (A side-question that we're all thinking on but afraid to ask is: What would we do with Leyla's pussy?)
Ni ange, ni bête
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Leyla Shen »

(A side-question that we're all thinking on but afraid to ask is: What would we do with Leyla's pussy?)
I think we all know you've solved that little self-conceived problem in your own way, darling...
Between Suicides
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:Samsara is Nirvana

In Mahāyāna Buddhism, nirvana and samsara are said to be not different when viewed from the ultimate nature of the Dharmakaya. An individual can attain nirvana by following the Buddhist path. If they were ultimately different this would be impossible. Thus, the duality between nirvana and samsara is only accurate on the conventional level. Another way to arrive at this conclusion is through the analysis that all phenomena are empty of an essential identity, and therefore suffering is never inherent in any situation. Thus liberation from suffering and its causes is not a metaphysical shift of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
Just out of curiosity, why did you post that and how did you think it would be helpful?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:Such a person finally goes beyond the duality of happiness and suffering. He goes beyond ego driven desire. He transcends samsara.
After I read that, [above]....I thought one would also have to transcend Nirvana...then I looked up Nirvana [since you also quoted Wiki]
Also, I have understood this [samsara/nirvana] as being a duality.
Also, it makes logical sense, that once nirvana/samsara is understood for what it is [duality], the Enlightend do away with
adversions.....
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Alex Jacob wrote:(A side-question that we're all thinking on but afraid to ask is: What would we do with Leyla's pussy?)
Obviously feed it Whiskas and put a bell round its neck so it's not a danger to local wildlife. Isn't that what every responsible person does with their pussy?

The rest of your post in good time...
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Such a person finally goes beyond the duality of happiness and suffering. He goes beyond ego driven desire. He transcends samsara.
After I read that, [above]....I thought one would also have to transcend Nirvana...then I looked up Nirvana [since you also quoted Wiki]
Also, I have understood this [samsara/nirvana] as being a duality.
Also, it makes logical sense, that once nirvana/samsara is understood for what it is [duality], the Enlightend do away with
adversions.....
Samsara and Nirvana refer to the same reality (there's only one of course) but as viewed by the ignorant and the enlightened respectively. But at this point in the discussion it isn't really helpful to introduce that level of analysis.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Alex Jacob wrote: You have said that what I write is bullshit, but what specifically is bullshit? Can you give one example of something that you are certain is thorough bullshit?

You clearly have no idea what it means to attempt a clear representation of ultimate reality through language. To actually say something that is true, something that accurately reflects the universe or consciousness, rather than to throw out hundreds of opinions.

Your opinions on the first post of this thread:
Alex Jacob wrote: each one of us holds and lives in accord with a 'metaphysical dream', our imagined world, our imagined understanding of the world, the Cosmos---Being.
Here you clearly state that you are under the impression you are only able to portray or identify with personal imaginations of existence.

Already admitting you are only describing your personal attachment to certain imaginations, rather than attempting to communicate lasting truth. (That which isn't only true for you)

Why is this bullshit you ask? And how does other conversation differ?

It isn't true, how could you know what each of us 'lives in accord with' ? You only know that you have an imagined understanding of the world and cling to it.

Conversation about topics such as emptiness is not a reflection of certain conceptual clinging, it is a reflection using language to communicate the fundamental nature of conscious experience.

Alex Jacob wrote: I would assert that we have no choice but to define a 'metaphysical dream', and to live in accord with it.
Here you make the personal assertion that you believe everyone else has no choice but to live in accord with a dream of how things are, because that's what you do.

I would assert that there is the possibility of overcoming such narrow views, that one can accurately reflect the nature of our existence.
Alex Jacob wrote: The notion of 'direct view' of 'reality' with no modifiers within imagination seems flatly false and also *impossible*.
You have clearly made the same mistake here based on your own lack of awareness. It seems as if you are clinging to the delusion that there is an external inherently existing reality, perhaps one that we only see a reflection of and hence cannot experience directly.

A 'direct view' of reality is very possible. There need not be any 'modifiers within imagination'. Experience of the mind (which can be rightly described as 'imagined') is being 'directly view'ed at this very moment.

To give a few examples of reflections of the true nature of ultimate reality that are not bullshit, that are not based on conceptual attachment, that do not fade: (Btw truth has value, bullshit doesn't (maybe to you))

- All appearances/formations are transient, constantly changing.
- Consciousness is experienced as the universe. All references to objects, people, places, concepts, are references to appearances of consciousness. (Varying appearances can be differentiated and described in various ways, some examples: thought, sensation, mental formations)
- Attachment to particular concepts leads to delusion. (You should take note of this one, some examples of delusion caused by conceptual attachment: The idea of death or the end, which creates anxiety and fear. A delusion which cannot exist without another major one that you have not yet grasped; the attachment to a 'belief' in an inherently exiting world/self.)
- Realization of emptiness is the realization of the delusion of an inherently existing world.
- Experience of the body, or an individual and continued ego, is made up of transient appearances in consciousness, one valuable inference is that experience of the body or ego is not necessary for continued consciousness. ( This may help toward lessening clinging to false imaginations)
- Non-attachment through awareness of emptiness lessens the natural identification with certain appearances such as pleasure and pain, moving one toward overcoming suffering.
- The actions and thoughts of 'self' are also dependently originated and are not under any individuals 'control'. It is very possible for one to reside in awareness of these appearances as they arise and fade, this is part of non-attachment.

One description of reality which holds lasting truth, (but is closer to a metaphor rather than literal), was also similarly described thousands of years ago: The world is like a wavering image of the mind, a passing vision or dream. This truth was also communicated through lines such as "There is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself".

Fuck I spoke to Alex, apologies for being a hypocrite.

jk, 'hypocrite' is a term used by people that are not aware of transience. Years ago thou was just a small babe!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Alex Jacob wrote:
Dan wrote:Obviously my notion of it is my interpretation of what I consider the saner aspects of Hindu/Buddhist philosophy in relation to that specific idea.
My understanding is that you take the Buddhist understanding in its 'driest' sense---a strict, this-world 'materialism'. What is here is 'what is' and that's that. Is the Buddhism, with 'samsara' as one of its main guiding concepts, that you define, then, compatible with 'modern science'? If not, why not?
It's not incompatible in any way that I can see, but neither is it strictly "scientific". I'm not interested in any ideas that don't have a demonstrable relationship to the world, either empirically or conceptually (logically/philosophically). But then it has to be noted that this whole area deals, in large measure, with psychology, and psychology remains the least empirical of the "sciences". This is one of the reasons that direct personal inquiry, genuine introspective thought and analysis is so vital. That said, I don't see anything in "science" that would or potentially could disabuse me of the idea.
If I am not mistaken, you reject all or nearly all of the 'cosmological' aspects of Hindu beliefs and also their appearance in Buddhism.
Well, of course! Wouldn't any sane person do so?
Is it possible to describe this refined Buddhist view in terms completely removed from Buddism? I mean the Sanskrit language-base. The underlying cosmology that is there in the language itself? Could you put it in strict 'materialistic' or 'scientific' terms? What would be gained by doing so, or lost?
Sure, the whole thing can be expressed in a completely different lexicon, a more modern one, if you like, a more "western" one. In fact I've done it plenty of times. I find it useful on occasion because the whole linguistic and philosophical/religious history of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions is so labyrinthine that it can be overwhelming trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. But then there are people like you who love to lose themselves in a maze.
All this and how it applies to everyday life is, to me, tantamount to self-explanatory.
My impression has often been that yes, seen and expressed in that way, the structure of view would point strongly to 'non-attachment' and a kind of quietism. But one of the questions I have and have always had is, okay, it is possible and even attractive for an individual to take on this view (toward self and phenomena) and to act from that perspective (act wisely in the sense you define), but what about larger communities? Municipalities? States?
Ok, firstly, and importantly, non-attachment is not a "view" one adopts; it is not a psychological posture. If you're doing that then you're not doing non-attachment, you're simply employing some psychological technique or other so as to avoid shit you don't like. Non-attachment is a state of being that comes as a direct consequence of the transcendence of ego and the accompanying ignorance etc etc. As for the broader world and the place therein for such a person, I have to say: First the Kingdom of God. Getting involved in the world, beyond that which is practically necessary for life, is just folly if one is doing it from a place of ignorance and delusion. If one has managed to get past that, how they engage the world, as we see it today, is entirely a matter for them. I don't really have any socio-political "theories" or agendas. Whilst I'm very much a Leftist, politically, for me the exigency of making people more aware and conscious just leaves all those other considerations in its wake. Any socio-political system will be a bunch of crap, more or less, if contrived from a framework underpinned by delusion.
I am curious about a Buddhist jurisprudence or statecraft. Does the question seem un-relevant to you?
Pretty much. It's too theoretical at this time to be worth thinking about.
I am interested (I am deluded Dan and so I can have all sorts of strange 'interests' in my little sandpit...) in how the most, say, abstract or demanding spiritual systems yet exert influence on political and social systems.

How would you define such a---may I use the word neo-Buddhism without appearing to mock?---refined Buddism and apply it to the raising of a family? To raising and educating kids? It has seemed to me that the spiritual views and understandings you seek to live by are strictly for individuals living apart. Do you see it differently?
Well, there are two considerations here, two types of people. The ignorant, who wish and strive not to be, and those that have attained such a goal. In the case of the former, the goal is all-encompassing. There is no consideration of family and other mundane facts of existence. Such questions are mostly irrelevant. In the case of the latter - it's up to them what they do. It's hard to imagine the exigency of wisdom I mentioned earlier would not be high on their agenda and so largely dictate the conduct of their lives but ultimately wisdom does not necessitate the adoption of any particular values or goals. I think it, and the process of gaining it, tends to make certain values more likely but it doesn't hard-wire anything. A wise person needn't automatically give a crap about the world, frankly. That said, the purpose of promulgating consciousness may manifest as a movement to influence things such as education. It depends on what judgement is made about the logistics of achieving such a thing, and there are no obvious or hard and fast rules about that. All that can be said of that, in general, and without fear of contradiction, is that it's fuckin' difficult given the state and complexity of the world.
Everybody, the enlightened excepted, exists in this realm to varying degrees, depending on their level of consciousness and understanding.
In order for me to understand the depth of this 'problem of ignorance' you would have to almost provide a percentage of 'the world', or a state, or a city, or a community. Because it seems to me that if your view is that 99.9999% of the whole world is ignorant and caught in maya- and samsara-webs, that there is likely only a tiny number of practitioners (the realized) of the philosophical system. That would lead to a fairly pessimistic situation.
Well, pessimism and optimism are two sides of the same delusional coin, but yeah, I'll grant your use of pessimism here. However, pessimism is not defeatism. But when things don't look good it's simply realistic to say so.
If that is true, then the practitioners would likely have almost nothing to do with the affairs of the world. They wouldn't have businesses or participate economically. They wouldn't have public positions, etc.
No, they ought not, because what would they base such engagement and opinions on? Opinion? The road to hell and all that ... Now, if where you're heading with this is something alone the lines of - "Where would society be and how would it function if everyone started to adopt this view?" let me circumvent that by saying that society is fluid. Should that miracle occur, two things would happen, the Pope would be alerted, and society would evolve to accommodate it.
I'm sure if we stopped and looked at our lives, we'd be able to identify an endless array of examples of this dynamic unfolding; happening over and over. In fact we all should do that very thing because that's the best way to actually see Samsara for what it is - direct experience, as opposed to being told about it by someone.
But wouldn't it come to pass that a given person, practicing the philosophy,
There is no "philosophy" to be "practiced" here. Stop saying that shit!
would only be able to mitigate in a limited degree the built-in tendency to blunder and mistake that such a pessimistic view of reality predicts? People might 'internalize' the realizations that arise from seeing straight, but once they ventured into 'the world' the world would capture them, over-power them and befuddle all their 'noble' efforts.
Blunders and mistakes only matter if your ego is working overtime. Sensible people know they're inevitable. Motive matters. As for the force of the world, yes, such people are very much salmon swimming against the current, but they understand this if they've made any progress at all and will accommodate it it and not be perturbed by it. Sure, that response requires a fairly decent level of attainment, and till then it sucks heartily that the world is generally not interested in sanity, but there's basically two choices: dive into the world and suck up the never-ending insanity, or dive into the path to wisdom and suck that up knowing there's at least a light at the end of that particular tunnel - if you devote yourself to it fully.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Alex Jacob »

I would gather that you, Dan, might accept some of what John writes as true, but that you would disagree---possibly strongly---with other parts and would be forced to call them 'deluded'. His notion (if I understand it rightly and I am not at all sure I do) that death and dying are illusions in a mind that has existence outside or beyond the frame of the body, etc. that notion alone seems to me to dovetail into a huge aspect of Hindu and also Buddhist mysticism. The two of you come from a similar view structure and both assert those views as absolutely true (true enough to hammer on a deluded worldling such as myself) which is distressing to a wee sandboxer like myself.

If there is a contradiction here, there is indeed a problem. Because if one of you is 'deluded', both may be. It opens to the possibility of 'errors of perception' or 'errors of interpretation'. Curious what you'd have to say about that.

BTW I was thinking along similar lines re: Leyla's pussy. However I imagined it as perhaps being stuck up in a tree. In which case it seemed the best strategy would be to open a tin of kippersnacks and leave it there at the trunk, in the moonlight perhaps, and in this way tempt it to come down. In its own time of course. Like so much in life, time and patience work miracles.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Alex Jacob »

If it is not a 'philosophy' and not a 'religion' and not a 'science' then how else except as Absolute Truth (a term I cannot in honesty use) should one call it? When I refer to *it* how shall I? The Way? Help me out here...
Ni ange, ni bête
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Leyla Shen »

My pussy has always been a feature of this forum – with bells on. Yours is the feral one, lurking in the shadows and preying on the natural environment.

Dan, that’s two strikes of ambiguity I’ve graciously allowed you. One more, and you’re out.
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Alex Jacob wrote: might accept some of what John writes as true, but that you would disagree---possibly strongly---with other parts and would be forced to call them 'deluded'. His notion (if I understand it rightly and I am not at all sure I do) that death and dying are illusions in a mind that has existence outside or beyond the frame of the body, etc.

You don't understand it rightly, your problem is here: "outside or beyond the frame of the body".

The 'frame of the body' is an appearance, instead of the mind existing outside the body, it is that the body exists only of the mind- only as an experience of consciousness.

Answer me honestly, have you ever heard of, felt, seen, conceptualized, known, or been able to hint toward, anything that wasn't an experience of consciousness?


And if we disagreed on anything it would be either in description or via a big fuck up. There is only one truth, and there isn't really anything to 'disagree' on about it. You experience the same truth of reality as we do, probably just with more attachment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote:My pussy has always been a feature of this forum – with bells on. Yours is the feral one, lurking in the shadows and preying on the natural environment.

lol, does anyone actually know Leyla is attractive at all? Or is it all a result of a philosophy forums greatest fantasy? may as well be honest, the concept of a hot philosopher girl is hard not to cling to.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Leyla Shen wrote:Dan, that’s two strikes of ambiguity I’ve graciously allowed you. One more, and you’re out.
Well, when it comes to pussies I'm quite dyslexic, so you can understand my error.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Alex Jacob wrote:I would gather that you, Dan, might accept some of what John writes as true, but that you would disagree---possibly strongly---with other parts and would be forced to call them 'deluded'.
That's hard to say at this time. I see John as a literary neophyte. i.e. he's pretty new at trying to express his understanding in text and he's got a way to go to be really effective at it, or indeed in properly delineating arguments. But he's getting better. I'm not prepared to make a judgement, overall, as to how much I agree or disagree with him. I think he relies on scripts sometimes, but that's a symptom of the inexperience of expressing his mind. In the end I don't see why the comparison is necessary or useful. I'm speaking to you. Concentrate on what I'm saying. I see this post as typically tangential.
His notion (if I understand it rightly and I am not at all sure I do) that death and dying are illusions in a mind that has existence outside or beyond the frame of the body, etc. that notion alone seems to me to dovetail into a huge aspect of Hindu and also Buddhist mysticism.
He can address that perception of his thought himself. I don't think that's what he's saying, however. Death and dying are illusions, in part, for the same reason that being born (beginning) is an illusion.
The two of you come from a similar view structure and both assert those views as absolutely true (true enough to hammer on a deluded worldling such as myself) which is distressing to a wee sandboxer like myself.
I suggest you try and get through a 24 hour period without feeling wounded or set upon by something. You might find it interesting. You'll certainly find it different.
If there is a contradiction here, there is indeed a problem.
If there is, and I'm not prepared to say there is, there would indeed be a problem. i.e. John would be wrong.
Because if one of you is 'deluded', both may be.
I will not grant you that option for obvious reasons.
It opens to the possibility of 'errors of perception' or 'errors of interpretation'. Curious what you'd have to say about that.
That possibility necessarily exists for you, and reasonably so. I have no basis from which to deny it to you.[/quote]
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Dan Rowden »

Alex Jacob wrote:If it is not a 'philosophy' and not a 'religion' and not a 'science' then how else except as Absolute Truth (a term I cannot in honesty use) should one call it? When I refer to *it* how shall I? The Way? Help me out here...
"Philosophy" is closest, but it's the way you employ it that is misleading. My "philosophy" amounts to little more than applying reason to the basic questions of existence. There's no "system" to be adhered to or followed beyond that. Certainly I advocate and argue for specific metaphysical, ontological, epistemological and scatological principles, for shitting fuck's sake, but that doesn't amount to a "system" as such. If "think about stuff till there's no more thinking that can be done" is a "philosophical system", then ok, fine, call it that if you must. However, call it religious and I'll come down on you like a ton of bricks because that will be deserved.
User avatar
Robert
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:52 am
Location: The Shire

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by Robert »

Haven't we been here before? And by we, I mean either Dan or David having this exact conversation with Alex? It's almost become an annual event at this point it seems to me. I predict a few more pages of back and forth, Alex will get upset umpteen times, and it'll end in his announcement of a temporary retreat from the forum, by which we can all set our watches to his return in five months time.

I suppose there are worse things we could be doing.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Metaphysical Dream of the World

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I was just reading Dan. I think, even with my literary neophytesy, I could get more laughs with much less effort than Solway put into Poison's introduction. Don't tell me no one skipped parts?

I'd like to know why you think I've been attempting to portray ideas, or to do it with any kind of effort. If it does look that way you should think of it as a deception. I know of no good ideas. No claims being made about holding knowledge over here. Maybe one day if an image of the mind feels like reflecting awareness for noobs, a description of their own conceptual attachment and lack of awareness may arise in their experience. That would be nice for them. Hope it isn't rushed.
Locked