The Reasoning Show - Miscellaneous Discussion

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Postby Jamesh » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:15 pm

Understanding formlessness means perceiving the "void" out of which everything springs.


What is the difference between your void and the big bang's singularity - both seem as insane as the other. In a general sense there is no difference.

Although one has to break one's attachment to their necessarily being a prior/intitial/starter/first cause at some stage, I think both you and Bg Bang beleivers do this far too early.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Postby Unidian » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:17 pm

There are a lot of big bang models which don't involve a singularity.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Postby David Quinn » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:36 pm

Nat,
DQ: Yes, that's the trick for gaining wisdom - using conceptual divisions to undermine all conceptual divisions. But it does have to be all of them, not just a select few.

Nat: How come that was wrong when I said it 200 times? :)

It's because I think you're not really serious about going all the way with it. There are still plenty of untouched areas in your mind, where plenty of conceptual divisions still exist and, judging by the thrust of your current philosophy, likely to continue existing for some time to come.

For example, you believe that Ultimate Reality is beyond the conceptualizing mind, which is based on a conceptual division between what is within the conceptualizing mind and what is beyond it.

Another example involves your emotional attachments to people, including your girlfriend, which you plainly don't want to examine. The fear of being alone, of being outside a relationship, involves all sorts of conceptual divisions.

Another example is your fear of being exposed and outcast from your society, which underpins your fear of having your name and picture on the internet. And so here is another cluster of conceptual divisions which are imprisoning your mind.

It is because you don't want to properly deal with these things that you are currently trying to undermine the role of the intellect and stop it from wandering into these out-of-bound areas.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Postby Unidian » Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:02 pm

For example, you believe that Ultimate Reality is beyond the conceptualizing mind, which is based on a conceptual division between what is within the conceptualizing mind and what is beyond it.


It's based on the proper use of language.

Another example involves your emotional attachments to people, including your girlfriend, which you plainly don't want to examine. The fear of being alone, of being outside a relationship, involves all sorts of conceptual divisions.


No, it involves love. But that's probably worse in you guys' view...

Another example is your fear of being exposed and outcast from your society, which underpins your fear of having your name and picture on the internet.


I have my name on the internet in several places. However, I don't care for my given name much, so I prefer a screen name. I don't currently have a picture online anywhere because I'm odd-looking, and beyond that, all the pictures I have are kind of silly.

It is because you don't want to properly deal with these things that you are currently trying to undermine the role of the intellect and stop it from wandering into these out-of-bound areas.


Where is it supposed to wander?

I've taken my intellect as far as it will go and discovered its limits. The ultimate nature of reality is conceptually inconceivable. It is experienced directly. Chop wood, carry water, etc, etc. I've made my view clear previously.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Postby Sapius » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:31 pm

David to Jason,

It's more than that. It is realizing that nothing really exists at all, apart from what (really) appears to (really) exist in the moment. Even objective existence, or the solid-looking physical world, is a part of this equation. Understanding formlessness means perceiving the "void" out of which everything springs. It involves a major subjective reorientation of the way we perceive the world.

Reorientation is all well and good, but essentially nothing springs from nothing or nothingness ("void"); that is impossible. Things spring from things; any other thought that claims otherwise does not and cannot “spring” from any thing other than from (if you talk about arising or springing from) some other caused THING. Hence making a though or concept of ‘nothingness’ a property of ‘thing-ness’ itself, and absolutely nothing lies beyond that.

David to Nat,

It's because I think you're not really serious about going all the way with it.

You could be right there, but do others really need your approval or seal of authenticity in such matters?

Your sense of seriousness, self-denial, or living off of eating bread and water, may not be considered as real seriousness by some. For example, I do not consider loosing self-respect in favor of “intellectually” abusing taxpayers’ money for the sake of spreading wisdom. Although I personally have nothing against it, but simply do not have any more respect for such a person than I would have for an “intellectually” smart beggar, who is no less a part of reality than either one of us is. But of course, one can choose to value chopping wood over carrying water; that’s his prerogative.
---------
Sapius
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:36 pm

Sapius wrote:David to Jason,

It's more than that. It is realizing that nothing really exists at all, ...
Understanding formlessness means perceiving the "void" out of which everything springs. It involves a major subjective reorientation of the way we perceive the world.


Reorientation is all well and good, but essentially nothing springs from nothing or nothingness ("void"); that is impossible.


Exactly. Nothing springs from nothingness, which is why nothing really exists at all.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Sapius » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:47 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Sapius wrote:David to Jason,

It's more than that. It is realizing that nothing really exists at all, ...
Understanding formlessness means perceiving the "void" out of which everything springs. It involves a major subjective reorientation of the way we perceive the world.


Reorientation is all well and good, but essentially nothing springs from nothing or nothingness ("void"); that is impossible.


Exactly. Nothing springs from nothingness, which is why nothing really exists at all.
.


Right..... so hence on I can safely ignore you, I take it. I have to simply get up and walk away once YOU start talking that is.
---------
Sapius
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:50 pm

What I would there be to notice what? What you is there, and why would you have to get up (from what) to go - where would be "away" if there is no here or there, really?
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Sapius » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:56 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:What I would there be to notice what?


You mean “what would there be at all to notice what at all”?

Exactly! So don’t waste your none-noticeable time noticing ME.

(Did you add the rest with 'edit'? However, that is a waste of time too.)
---------
Sapius
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:18 pm

Yes, I used edit to expound on the point further, but whether the result is more complete or merely redundant is a matter of opinion.

Sapius wrote:Exactly! So don’t waste your none-noticeable time noticing ME.


We are equally non-existent. On one level of reality, we are of the stuff that always was and always will be, but on another level of reality, we are at base nothing at all. We perceive what appears to be, which makes things seem real, and on an objective level can be treated as real - but what is or is not is subjective reality.

For example, on one level of reality, you appear to be more irritable than I have ever seen you before. On another level of reality, I can't see you at all - only what appears to be words typed from what appears to be your account. There are more levels of reality too, but I'll skip being redundant this time. ;)
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby David Quinn » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:18 pm

Nat,
DQ: For example, you believe that Ultimate Reality is beyond the conceptualizing mind, which is based on a conceptual division between what is within the conceptualizing mind and what is beyond it.

Nat: It's based on the proper use of language.

It's based on false logic. Ultimate Reality is just as much within the conceptualizing mind as it is beyond it. To confine Ultimate Reality to what is beyond the conceptualizing mind is to project limits onto it and turn it into a dualistic phenomenon.


I've taken my intellect as far as it will go and discovered its limits. The ultimate nature of reality is conceptually inconceivable. It is experienced directly. Chop wood, carry water, etc, etc. I've made my view clear previously.

I know you have. The problem is, it is incoherent.

If Ultimate Reality is truly beyond the conceptual mind, then it is also beyond the realm of direct experience. This is because direct experience is just as dualistic in nature as conceptualizing is. Both are limited in the same way.


DQ: Another example is your fear of being exposed and outcast from your society, which underpins your fear of having your name and picture on the internet.

Nat: I have my name on the internet in several places. However, I don't care for my given name much, so I prefer a screen name. I don't currently have a picture online anywhere because I'm odd-looking, and beyond that, all the pictures I have are kind of silly.

None of this should be a concern for a liberated being, such as yourself, who supposedly lives in "utmost freedom".


DQ: It is because you don't want to properly deal with these things that you are currently trying to undermine the role of the intellect and stop it from wandering into these out-of-bound areas.

Nat: Where is it supposed to wander?

Into those dangerous areas of your mind and character where your deepest attachments reside.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Postby Jamesh » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:30 pm

David:
It's more than that. It is realizing that nothing really exists at all, apart from what (really) appears to (really) exist in the moment. Even objective existence, or the solid-looking physical world, is a part of this equation. Understanding formlessness means perceiving the "void" out of which everything springs. It involves a major subjective reorientation of the way we perceive the world.


Human consciousness experiences reality through it's senses and creates values on what is experienced relative to the bodies and brains instructions. Values assigned to experiences create feelings and emotions, and by the action of these our consciousness knows it exists. Consciousness does not think, it feels thoughts. The task of thinking occurs in the brain, which is external to consciousness (if consciousness thought, then it would consciously be aware of the all the mental steps leading up to the creation of the language symbols and sight images used in thought).

Both the body and the minds memories, and present experiences are all external to consciousness. They are external because consciousness is not the individual parts that cause it to form, but the total pattern of the relevant parts. The causal patterns that form consciousness has some leeway in relation to the makeup of its causal parts, thus different forms of consciousness can arise, for example, different levels of animal consciousness, dream consciousness, alert consciousness, sleepy consciousness and so on [which infers consciousness levels are partially dependent on the levels of electromagnetic flow caused to flow through the frontal lobes].

Consciousness arises wholly from these external causes, and is entirely subject to these causes. As external causes create the values stored in one's brain, then these values are entirely objective to consciousness - it has no say in altering them so therefore they are not subjective to consciousness, but have been objectively determined by the configuration of the universe at any one moment of consciousness. They are not changeable, so they must be objective, at least in this dictionary sense "Belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events". At the same time they are entirely subjective as in "Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias". As no one can occupy the same spatial location at any one time, this means no one can have the exact same set of causal experiences that lead to our individual consciousnesses. This means our memories will be different and as memories are the most direct and prominent causal influence, what occurs in each of our consciousnesses will be different.

Consciousness, merely being an outcome of causal patterns, does not own anything, it has nothing on its own, it "holds" nothing. Thus it can be said to not exist as a physical cause, but to exist as a causal effect or outcome. On the other hand every causal part that creates the total pattern owns something, in the moment they hold causal power they own this power, it is what they are.

Unfortunately however, this last paragraph is not true.

If I describe something as a physical part, another thing, then each and all of those parts become of the same nature as consciousness, merely a totalised outcome of causal activity, and as that objective part then it holds nothing of its own, and the same applies to lower level parts that make up any part, til nothing is left to observe.

This is where certain philosophers find formlessness and some scientists find causal emptiness - they are at odds. IMO, neither sees the forest from the trees, philosophers need to realise that causes are a type of form, and scientists need to understand that causes are not effects, and thus not directly observable at the fundamental level.

While there is a void of no-thing-ness, there is no void of nothingness.

Both the combination of all or some of the parts of a thing and every part of that thing has causal form. Consciousness also holds this causal form as can readily be seen by the fact we act differently when awake than when asleep - if consciousness held no causal power then our causal effect on the rest of the universe would never vary in either state. As consciousness holds causal power then, like everything else, it must be a structural part of the brain (and I guess this is why people can be hypnotised, consciousness is turned off, leaving the rest of the brain running). The frontal lobes are the highest level sorter and merging agent of pre-thought processes, and the manner in which they perform this process is determined by the feelings that arise in consciousness. When our body is undergoing negative circumstances, including negative memories, this feeds into consciousness and may create negative thought processes.

If consciousness exists in this fashion, in that the causal outcome as a whole will cause different causal outcomes than the outcome if it were segregated parts, then things themselves also exist, as causal patterns, not solid objects.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Postby Sapius » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:44 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Yes, I used edit to expound on the point further, but whether the result is more complete or merely redundant is a matter of opinion.

Sapius wrote:Exactly! So don’t waste your none-noticeable time noticing ME.


We are equally non-existent. On one level of reality, we are of the stuff that always was and always will be, but on another level of reality, we are at base nothing at all. We perceive what appears to be, which makes things seem real, and on an objective level can be treated as real - but what is or is not is subjective reality.

For example, on one level of reality, you appear to be more irritable than I have ever seen you before. On another level of reality, I can't see you at all - only what appears to be words typed from what appears to be your account. There are more levels of reality too, but I'll skip being redundant this time. ;)
.


Now this makes much more logical sense to me as a whole. And I don't get irritated but am simply pointing out that how redundant it is to speak from the opposite "level" when one speaks from the other level. I’m simply pointing out a logical inconsistency, where if both aspects are kept in mind, things become absolutely real.

Hence, essentially, there aren’t any different levels if you are fully aware that although we say that things "appear" to be, that is the one and only means of considering one conscious; so how 'not-real' or "seem to be" are appearances? If 'appearances' are not real, what is? Void? Emptiness?

What is beyond “subjective reality” that one may consider more real or otherwise? So how unreal is subjectivity, and compared to what?


:) Please don't read my mood through my words. Being irritated is not my cup of tea; no matter what :)
---------
Sapius
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Postby Jamesh » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:46 pm

David or Dan, how do you explain differentiation in forms. At the fundamental level, what causes this to occur.

Differentiation is a fundamental aspect of reality, therefore if your truths of reality were complete, you would be able to explain this.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:48 am

Sapius wrote:Hence, essentially, there aren’t any different levels if you are fully aware that although we say that things "appear" to be, that is the one and only means of considering one conscious


Divisions are just constructs of convenience, in this case convenience of communication. An onion has layers, but no layer is the whole onion.

Sapius wrote: so how 'not-real' or "seem to be" are appearances?


They are equally real or unreal as Reality itself, but only as appearances.

Sapius wrote: If 'appearances' are not real, what is? Void? Emptiness?


The apparent paradox is in the subtlety of the language. To say that nothing is real is different from saying that really things are not real. The former negates reality, and the latter affirms unreality. Ultimate Reality is neither real nor unreal, so although both can be denied, neither can be affirmed on that level.

Sapius wrote: What is beyond “subjective reality” that one may consider more real or otherwise?


It could be said that the Whole is more real than any of the parts, but ultimately, the whole is non-dualistic so it is neither real nor unreal.

Sapius wrote: So how unreal is subjectivity, and compared to what?


Subjectivity is as real or unreal as any other thing, but a subjective perspective is as unreal as the quantity of perspectives that are not considered, compared to a subjective perspective that is as real as the quantity of perspectives that are considered.

And it is good that being irritated is not your cup of tea. Herbal is a much healthier variety. ;)
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Dan Rowden » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:23 am

Jamesh wrote:David or Dan, how do you explain differentiation in forms. At the fundamental level, what causes this to occur.


This is actually the same as asking "What is Reality". There is no fundamental cause of such a thing.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Postby Jamesh » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:05 pm

Jamesh wrote:
David or Dan, how do you explain differentiation in forms. At the fundamental level, what causes this to occur.


This is actually the same as asking "What is Reality". There is no fundamental cause of such a thing.


I find your response shallow and intellectually defeatist. Completely in the realm of FAITH.

It was the repsonse expected, because I know you don't know the answer. I am without doubt now that none of you three are enlightened.

One last try, What is the penultimate fundamental cause of differentiation?
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Postby Kevin Solway » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 pm

Jamesh wrote:David or Dan, how do you explain differentiation in forms. At the fundamental level, what causes this to occur.


Being able to differentiate forms gives us a better chance of passing on our genetic material to the next generation. That's why there is a differentiation of forms.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Postby Jamesh » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Being able to differentiate forms gives us a better chance of passing on our genetic material to the next generation. That's why there is a differentiation of forms.


One of the biggest loads of codswallop I have seen ever expressed by you.

Sure that is why we evolved the physical tools of measurement, but what you said offers zero reason for why in fact we can measure differentiation.

I can tell you straight up that differentiation logically must reside at the fundamental level.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Postby Sapius » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:48 pm

Elizabeth,

Ultimate Reality is neither real nor unreal, so although both can be denied, neither can be affirmed on that level.


On that level, I then say that “U”ltimate “R”eality is meaningless in its self.

It could be said that the Whole is more real than any of the parts, but ultimately, the whole is non-dualistic so it is neither real nor unreal.


‘Non-dualistic’ is an impossibility, except when conceptualizing such a thought; and that too necessarily needs consciousness to be around, which necessarily has to be dualistic in nature. So dualistic does not depend on non-dualistic (as in a conceptualized thought), but non-dualistic necessarily depends on dualistic. There is no way out of dualistic in any which way at its core. In other words - consciousness.

Hence it could be said, that parts itself is ultimately all that there is - infinitely - and no such thing as a whole at all - on that level.

An onion has layers, but no layer is the whole onion.


There is no onion at all - on that level.
---------
Sapius
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

The Nature of Knowledge

Postby Bondi » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:13 am

Sorry to interrupt with this post, I haven’t been around lately. I’ve listened to the first show, The Nature of Knowledge, so far. As long as a not-so-regular reader like me can conclude, it pretty much summarises everything that the Genius Mailing List /Genius Forum was/is on about throughout the years.

As it’s been said above, there’s a fundamental difference in the perspective of the participants. On one hand, I pretty much agree with Viktor—in methodology, as it were—that the hosts’ reasoning is sometimes inconsistent. One example: it is not very clear, Dan and David, how do you differentiate among Nature and Universe and Infinite, for instance. On the other hand, no matter how much I understand what Viktor is trying to convey, I do agree with you. Some words are philosophically very important, and are pretty much abused these days (they have been abused for centuries anyway). ‘Infinite’ (or infinity) is probably the most abused word. Viktor wants to state it as an example, but he can’t (or isn’t able to) see the difference between his mathematical concept of an “infininite” and the philosophical infinite. The mathematical concept is in no way should be called infinite. We can simply understand the underlying absurdity of that: if you call a line (as Viktor set it out) “infinite” just because it is endless in both of its directions, then what do you say when you make up two or more lines endless in both their directions? Obviously, they can’t be “infinite” as two or more “infinities” would necessarily set limit to each other, therefore they can’t be infinite. A line (or anything) is always limited by its own being. Viktor says that “black holes are infinite”—so then there are who knows how many “infinites” around us in the Universe? One could hardly say any more absurd thing than that!

To cut it short, that’s exactly why I agree with you. Reasoning means, in part at least, that one is careful enough with their using of words.

In regard to the technical details, I didn’t find the echo so disturbing—it is hard enough in itself to understand Viktor’s accent at some points! :)
User avatar
Bondi
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:56 pm
Location: Brum, U.K.

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:28 am

Bondi - no need for apology. We're all (loosely) on the same topic.


Sapius,
Sapius wrote:‘Non-dualistic’ is an impossibility, except when conceptualizing such a thought


I agree. And on the rest of your points as well, I think we're seeing things the same way.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Dan Rowden » Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:48 am

Jamesh wrote:
Jamesh wrote:
David or Dan, how do you explain differentiation in forms. At the fundamental level, what causes this to occur.


This is actually the same as asking "What is Reality". There is no fundamental cause of such a thing.


I find your response shallow and intellectually defeatist. Completely in the realm of FAITH.


Ok, fair enough. I found your question ignorant.

It was the repsonse expected, because I know you don't know the answer.


I gave you the answer.

One last try, What is the penultimate fundamental cause of differentiation?


Haha, what a phrase - "penultimate fundamental cause". Differentiation is what consciousness is. It is duality. Duality doesn't have a cause - it is causality.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Postby Sapius » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:34 pm

James,

At the fundamental level, what causes this (differentiation) to occur?


In my opinion - Will to be… a continuous blind strife… uninitiated perpetual motion…. which is interdependent on actions/reactions of forms itself… which causes an infinite shifting and swaying of balance from one extreme to another, where either extreme cannot hold long enough and halt, because active forms due to the will to be motion do not allow that to happen.

An infinite swaying of a self-generated will to be… aka. causality... which cannot help being otherwise since it cannot and does not have a beginning or an end… i.e. existence.

That’s my lame attempt at understanding existence… not explaining it as such.
---------
Sapius
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Postby Sapius » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:55 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Sapius,
Sapius wrote:‘Non-dualistic’ is an impossibility, except when conceptualizing such a thought


I agree. And on the rest of your points as well, I think we're seeing things the same way.
.


Well... fine then... but others who may not see it the same way, need not necessarily be "wrong" though... fundamentally speaking, it is for a self and self alone.

Ultimately… it is uniquely each to his own. Nothing that another should really get frustrated over… at least not I :)
---------
Sapius
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest