the bringer of enlightenment Kevin Solway (didn't Lucifer mean bringer of light?) wrote:For all you know, all other people could be frauds. So just assume that all other people are frauds,
minion Pye wrote:This is finally some true wisdom from you Kevin: timely, fluid, bright, for the exact moment; for the exact person; for the right reasons. It's the difference between teaching and teachings. The world's awash in the latter, and impoverished of the former.
In truth, we are constantly having a say over the behaviour of the furtherest galaxy, even at this very moment. For example, we are not, at this very moment, suddenly transforming ourselves into giant space-goats and dashing off faster than the speed of light in order to gobble the galaxy up. The very fact that we are not doing this allows the galaxy to continue existing. That is a pretty large influence in anyoneâ€™s book!
I gave extra consideration to Kevin's suggestion because you are often insightful Pye, but false is false. Perhaps you could expound on why you found the suggestion that I knowingly assume falseness to be an example of wisdom? I even gave credit for the likelihood that Kevin would know that I would balk at falseness, and explored multiple paths of what he could have meant other than a literal translation. I find none satisfactory. What do you see Pye?
Dan Rowden wrote:1. How does the content of Kevin's life reflect on the content of his ideas (given that a personal inability to manifest concepts doesn't necessarily speak against them)?
2. What difference does any conflict between the above make to your personal development?
3. On what grounds would you trust anything Kevin claims about his life anyway?
I was wondering if I am trying Kevin's patience with the Christianity-based allegory, and kind of suspect from Dan's responses that Dan may still have some leftover hang-ups from his Catholic upbringing that are preventing him from appreciating the literary device, but I thought you were removed enough that you could handle one little minion jab. It seems that David appreciated the humor, but a number of others seem to find hellacious humor too hot to handle.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:1. Without experiential validation that his ideas work, that is all they are is ideas.
You didn't answer one of my questions from the last post, and I'd really like you to, I think it could prove to be pivotal for this discussion,
I've only recently begun reading your book,it's very promising.However I'm loathe to progress to the 2nd chapter without logically proofing the 1st chapter to my own satisfaction first.
I have a problem with something contained in the The Furtherest Galaxy section which appears to me a logical leap.In truth, we are constantly having a say over the behaviour of the furtherest galaxy, even at this very moment. For example, we are not, at this very moment, suddenly transforming ourselves into giant space-goats and dashing off faster than the speed of light in order to gobble the galaxy up. The very fact that we are not doing this allows the galaxy to continue existing. That is a pretty large influence in anyoneâ€™s book!
This proof appears spurious to me.It's saying 'because we are not ,but hypothetically we could,therefore we are'
I'm wondering if you could expand on this logic or direct me to a thread where this has been explained or elaborated on.
David Quinn wrote:none of us are aware of all the causes which form us
DQ: I can mentally split up any object at will. Can't you?
Jason: Depends, for one thing I'm still not convinced that it can be proven beyond doubt that splitting of objects is done by the mind. Let me give you some examples why. Imagine a situation in which you hear a voice, but you can't locate the source of it, there appears to be no person or loudspeaker etc anywhere, but yet you continue to hear this voice. Now, could you say for certain that the voice was not simply a product of your imagination? That shows the difficulty in correctly differentiating between what originates in the mind and what doesn't.
Or another example: try to alter or remove a particular boundary that exists in your visual field, say the border that exists between the text and the background on your computer screen. Can you do it? Probably not. What does that say about boundaries? If you think that the ability for some boundaries to change, apparently by the power of mind, is proof that all boundaries are mind created, then what about counter-examples like this?
Another problem I see, and one which you seem to think you addressed, but I don't think you did, is the time aspect. Assuming for arguments sake that I did agree that the mind was responsible for creating bounaries. All I could really say for certain is: I have memories, which are inherently uncertain(alien implanted, drugs, memory lapse whatever), of mentally splitting up objects, and I could use that uncertain memory as a basis to make still more uncertain speculations that my mind could split objects up at some future date.
J: But if that is the type of proof you think is relevant I've got a humdinger for you:
"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical Jason being faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. The key point is that Jason has the capacity to be Superman at any time."
DQ:He does have that capacity, if the conditions are ripe.
J: Alright, what about this one(which is a very slightly modified version of what you originally wrote):
"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical observer not mentally breaking the thing into parts. The key point is that a thing does not have the capacity to be mentally split into parts at any time."
I mean if you reckon hypotheticals are enough proof, then this would seem just as viable as the alternative you offer.
J: If there is nothing but/beyond/behind direct appearances of the moment, then why use the words "project onto reality"? That gives the impression that there is something beyond that can be projected onto. It suggests that appearances and boundaries are less real, because they are projected over real reality.
DQ: It helps people break free of the idea that things inherently or objectively exist.
J: So this argument of yours about "projecting" boundaries onto reality is not actually truth, it's just a teaching method? A technique you use to mold peoples minds into the shape you want, despite the fact you know it is ultimately false? Isn't it kind of dishonest to try discuss truth on a philosophy forum knowingly using false ideas presented as truth?
DQ: The conflict you are seeing isn't really there.
J: Using something which is not fundamentally true to overcome delusion is like using a belief in the Easter Bunny to overcome belief in Santa Claus.
DQ: There is no such thing as truth, other than the overturning of delusion.
If there is no such thing as truth, then what is delusion?
DQ: For example, the truth that "boundaries are projected onto reality" gains its truth from the way it overturns the delusion that boundaries inherently exist within the fabric of a physical world imagined to be objectively existing.
J: You seem to be saying that truth is truth simply because it displaces current delusions, not because it accurately reflects reality.
DQ: This is how all teaching and all articulation of truth operates. The process of becoming enlightened is one of getting rid of successive delusions, each more subtle than the last, until there are none left. And when that finally happens, the concept of truth no longer has any meaning.
J: So why are you continually writing about truth on this forum if the concept of truth has no meaning?
You didn't answer one of my questions from the last post, and I'd really like you to, I think it could prove to be pivotal for this discussion, so here it is again:
DQ: Maybe we are at cross-purposes here. I agree with you that in a particular moment the boundaries that we experience form the bedrock of reality. But this doesn't conflict with idea that boundaries are imaginary projections.
J: Again, projected onto or over what?
DQ: none of us are aware of all the causes which form us
E: I agree that we can not know literally all of our causes, but I wish to submit that the more of our causes we are aware of, the more conscious we are - and a highly conscious person would know figuratively all of their own causes.
Users browsing this forum: Trevor Salyzyn, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests