Is Choice an Illusion?

[Ryan Rudolph]

This is an argument supporting the idea that choice is an illusion.

I'll use my own life as an exemplar.

1. I have been born male, which has granted certain benefits. I do not have to worry about menstrual cycles, emotional mood swings, or excessive feminist conditioning.

This was not my choice.

2. I was born with a certain disposition or natural inclination to be interested in philosophy, I was an intellectual from a young age.

Again, not my choice.

3. Bodily functions and psychological states are out of my control, I do not decide when I’m hungry, sleepy, sick, depressed, joyous, or exhausted.

These factors govern most of my daily behavior.

Again, not my choice.

4. My family, friends, professors are in my life against my will, I’m pretty much stuck with them. And if I abandon someone, it is only because I cannot tolerate their personality. The suffering that leads me to such action is also not a personal choice.

Based on this evidence, the idea of personal control, will and choice are an illusion. We are not in control.

If you can counter this argument, be my guest. Odds are you’ll fall flat on your face though. Truth always prevails I’m afraid.

And you see, this pretentiousness above, that wasn’t my choice either. I’m conditioned to be an arrogant bastard.

And for all you nay sayers out there, I have a riddle for you.

Riddle me this, riddle me that, if the speaker is deluded, how does one expose him as the donkey’s prat?

Good luck…

[David Quinn]

I made a similar point in Wisdom of the Infinite:

The Gradual Shrinking of Our Will

So how much freedom and control do we as human beings really have? Do we have any at all? Let’s examine it:

To begin with, we had no say over the fact that we were born at all. We were just flung into existence without anyone consulting us in the matter. We also had no say over what type of world we were flung into, nor the properties and laws it should have. All of it was decided in our absence.

The question of precisely when and where we were to be born, and what kind of culture we were to be born into, was also never brought to our attention beforehand. No one ever sought our advice in these matters. We could have just as easily been born on the other side of the world, in a primitive backwater, than the spot where we finally did emerge. It was a pure lottery that we didn’t.

We were never consulted over the choice of our parents, nor over the teachers and elders who were to eventually shape our lives. Anyone could have been there for us. We might have been pushed in any direction. I could have just as easily spent my entire adult life in mental institutions due to damage caused by abusive parents or teachers. Again, it was pure chance that I didn't.

No one ever asked us what physical features we would like to have, nor what our genetic make-up should be, nor what sex we would like to develop into, nor even what kind of personality traits we would like to possess. All of these things were imposed upon us from without. Plato used to thank the gods that he was born a Greek and not a foreigner, and a man and not a woman. In doing so, he was simply acknowledging the fact that he had no say in these matters at all.

We cannot suddenly fly up into the air of our own accord and perform a number of summersaults and aerial cartwheels before soaring off to the nearest treetop. Nor can we turn invisible, or suddenly expand to thirty feet in size, or go through walls as though they were not there. We cannot suddenly transform ourselves into a horse, or a bird, or a fish, or a super-intelligent alien. We cannot bend our arms at the places where there are no joints.

Our likes and dislikes are not really our likes and dislikes at all. Every single one of them was built into our system long before we had a chance to veto them. Any control that we think we might have over our tastes is an illusion. In whatever area in life, whether it be in food, art, men, women, humour, music or philosophy, we just like what we like and dislike what we dislike - end of story.

Mentally, we cannot think at the rate of a million thoughts per second, or understand every detail of the universe in a single flash, or create objects out of thin air. We are entirely limited by the way our mind functions. We cannot change the nature of deductive logic, or gain empirical information about the world without using our senses in some way. We are entirely bound by the fundamentals of logic, consciousness and existence.

So where exactly, in the light of all this, is our precious free will? The more we look into the matter, the less real it seems! And if we were to take this process to the very end and examine all of the billions of causes which shape every decision that is made, we would see that what we call "our will" is entirely a chimera, an illusion concocted by our minds.

Whenever we make a decision, no matter how minor and insignificant it may seem, all of the various aspects described above come into play. Our likes and dislikes, for example, always play a huge part in determining our choices. Our genetic make-up and upbringing also play significant roles. Our moods and whims, themselves causally created by our genetics and experiences, also play their part. Even our inability to turn invisible or fly unaided to treetops has an influence on our decisions. All of these factors, plus countless more, combine to determine each and every one of choices precisely. In the end, there is no room for us to manoeuvre at all. It has all been determined from the outset.

Keeping in mind, of course, that there was never any "outset"...........

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Interesting old Quinny boy…

Now, how do you fit causality into the fact that we are conditioned and there is no choice.

Are you using causality to basically illustrate that the striving of the will is futile and illusionary.

Or are you illustrating that causality has some sort of deeper significance? And if so, what would that be?

I agree that it is a useful tool to aid in the destruction of the will, but other than that…..I just dont know.

Is this all you and Solway are pointing to with causality? What else is there to point to?

I dont see anything left there.

[David Quinn]

cosmic prostitute wrote:

Interesting old Quinny boy…

Now, how do you fit causality into the fact that we are conditioned and there is no choice.

Are you using causality to basically illustrate that the striving of the will is futile and illusionary.

Or are you illustrating that causality has some sort of deeper significance? And if so, what would that be?

Causality definitely does have a deeper significance, as it is the core process out of which everything is created.

However, the fact that causality governs all things doesn't make the striving of the will futile. Our will still remains very real; it can still remain a powerful force in our lives. However, what becoming causally-aware does is enable us to peceive that our will is entirely composed of Nature's causality, that it isn't really "our" will at all. Willing still occurs, but it is really just Nature unfolding in a causal manner.

So what is illusory is not the existence of the will as such, but rather the idea that the will is "free", that the mind "initiates" choices and decisions. That never happens.

I agree that it is a useful tool to aid in the destruction of the will, but other than that…..I just dont know.

Is this all you and Solway are pointing to with causality? What else is there to point to?

I dont see anything left there.

You don't see causality as the root principle of all existence? You don't see that it points directly to the beginninglessness and endlessness of all things? You don't see that it points to the hidden sameness of all things? You don't see it as the key to unlocking the secret of God?

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Ol' Quinny Boy wrote:

You don't see causality as the root principle of all existence? You don't see that it points directly to the beginninglessness and endlessness of all things? You don't see that it points to the hidden sameness of all things? You don't see it as the key to unlocking the secret of God?

Here’s what I see.

Action is caused by thought.
Thought is memory.
Memory is experience.
Experience is the result of action.

causal connection: yes.

An addiction to experience will result in fear/anxiety, so thought can be fear.

Since experience is limited, accumulating experience will not lead one to the timeless. Basically being a slave to experience is being a slave to causality.

One can substitute the word experience for any of the other above words and the statement will still make sense.

ie: being a slave to thought will lead one astray.
being a slave to fear will lead one astray.
being a slave to memory will lead one astray.
being a slave to action will lead one astray.

these are all casusally connected, this appears to be your hidden sameness.

A mind caught in that cycle of causality will not find the timeless. A man liberated from that causal process has a mind that no longer operates in time.

This man has a chance. A hope.

Perhaps you agree? Did I leave something out? Do you wish to expand?

[David Quinn]

cp wrote:

Action is caused by thought.
Thought is memory.
Memory is experience.
Experience is the result of action.

causal connection: yes.

An addiction to experience will result in fear/anxiety, so thought can be fear.

Since experience is limited, accumulating experience will not lead one to the timeless. Basically being a slave to experience is being a slave to causality.

We are always a slave to causality, no matter what. Causality dictates everything that we do and we have no choice but to obey it. We can, however, stop ourselves from being fooled by the forms that causality happens to throw up. In that sense, we can rise above it.

A Zen dialogue:

Student: Is an awakened man still subject to the law of cause and effect?

Master: He does not obscure it.

One can substitute the word experience for any of the other above words and the statement will still make sense.

ie: being a slave to thought will lead one astray.
being a slave to fear will lead one astray.
being a slave to memory will lead one astray.
being a slave to action will lead one astray.

these are all casusally connected, this appears to be your hidden sameness.

I was refering to something different - namely, that behind all the diversity of everything that happens in the world, everything unfolds in the same way. The same basic process is at work, whether it be in the cloud changing, the subatomic particle forming, the star exploding, the cell dividing, the brain thinking, the stock market collapsing, or whatever it may be. It is the same fundamental process of causality in action.

A person is a step closer to enlightenment when he can perceive this identical process in all things.

In any case, your formula above is a bit too simplistic to be all that helpful. For example, a person who is a slave to truthful thinking is not being led astray, as he is being carried ever closer to the Truth.

A mind caught in that cycle of causality will not find the timeless. A man liberated from that causal process has a mind that no longer operates in time.

This man has a chance. A hope.

Yes, provided he enters another kind of causality in which truthful thoughts beget truthful actions and vice versa.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

The Big Q wrote:

In any case, your formula above is a bit too simplistic to be all that helpful. For example, a person who is a slave to truthful thinking is not being led astray, as he is being carried ever closer to the Truth.

notice I’m using the word slave here. Slave implies a neurotic pattern. Suppose I neurotically rehearse in my brain the importance of having a clear mind, do you see the absurdity of it? And this is what happens.

Truthful thinking can be rooted in insecurity even though the thought is a true fact because behind that true fact is insecurity.

Insecurity – true fact (fantasy) – neurosis.

So therefore I may delude myself in thinking I’m being carried closer to the truth, when in actuality I’m being carried into a deep pit of confusion.

truthful thinking is tricky business.

Quinn wrote:

Yes, provided he enters another kind of causality in which truthful thoughts beget truthful actions and vice versa.

Truthful action is tricky business as well. For instance: A sage values aloneness or solitude simply because he sees the conflict that arises when in the company of other human beings that lack wisdom. He stays away precisely because he doesn’t want to CAUSE suffering.

Therefore, non-action is of the highest value in this world. Everyone else is acting compulsively/habitually/instinctively, and this is where the source of the conflict arises.

A sage doesn’t listen to his thoughts. and this is why he abides in uncertainty so he is able to perceive the tangled weave of thoughts as they arise. Having knowledge can stifle this mediation process.

[Kevin Solway]

Just to interject a few ideas . . .

Insecurity – true fact (fantasy) – neurosis

Insecurity is itself a fantasy, so . . .

a fantasy minus another fantasy leaves you with a fantasy.

So therefore I may delude myself in thinking I’m being carried closer to the truth, when in actuality I’m being carried into a deep pit of confusion.

The more true ideas you have, the less chance you will be led into a pit of confusion.

But having only one true idea isn't terribly constructive, unless it's a big idea.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Truthful action is tricky business as well. For instance: A sage values aloneness or solitude simply because he sees the conflict that arises when in the company of other human beings that lack wisdom.

Not really. A sage is alone, by default, because nobody is interested being with him. People do not value his presence and regard him as a waste of space.

However, an aspiring sage might want to temporarily shelter themselves from troubling experiences until such time as they have sorted their own mind out.

He stays away precisely because he doesn’t want to CAUSE suffering.

He doesn't mind causing suffering if it will do some good. The kind of suffering a sage causes often does good. But because he causes suffering he will normally end up alone, as has been noted.

Therefore, non-action is of the highest value in this world. Everyone else is acting compulsively/habitually/instinctively, and this is where the source of the conflict arises.

A sage doesn’t listen to his thoughts.

A sage doesn't have deluded, confused, compulsive thoughts, so he does in fact listen to his thoughts, and is in no danger of being misled. Since his thoughts are pure and true he can be certain about things that he should be certan of, and uncertain about things he should be uncertain of.

[N0X23]

Kevin

A sage doesn't have deluded, confused, compulsive thoughts, so he does in fact listen to his thoughts, and is in no danger of being misled. Since his thoughts are pure and true he can be certain about things that he should be certan of, and uncertain about things he should be uncertain of.

And how does he judge the fact that he does not suffer from deluded, confused, compulsive thoughts?
What does he use as a litmus? His own thoughts?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Solway wrote

Since his thoughts are pure and true he can be certain about things

I'm skeptical of this statement Solway, its a strong assertion. But dispel my skepticism if you feel so inclined...

what are some pure thoughts that the sage can be certain of?

This idea of pure thought is fascinating. Kant introduced the idea of pure reason, perhaps you could provide a framework for this idea of pure thought, so we can have something to work with here.

[David Quinn]

cp wrote:

DQ: In any case, your formula above is a bit too simplistic to be all that helpful. For example, a person who is a slave to truthful thinking is not being led astray, as he is being carried ever closer to the Truth.

cp: notice I’m using the word slave here. Slave implies a neurotic pattern. Suppose I neurotically rehearse in my brain the importance of having a clear mind, do you see the absurdity of it? And this is what happens.

Truthful thinking can be rooted in insecurity even though the thought is a true fact because behind that true fact is insecurity.

Anyone who is ignorant of Reality will be insecure simply because he still ignorantly identifies with his ego. And so any attempt to attain the security of Truth will always be motivated, in part at least, by insecurity.

If you want to call this search for enlightenment and Truth a "neurosis", that's up to you. But it sounds like a blanket dismissal to me, without any care on your part to ascertain whether the seeker is doing it intelligently or not.

It seems that you have been influenced by the modern Western interpretation of eastern philosophy which opines that we are already enlightened and that any search for it is inherently false from the outset. But in my view, that is a shallow interpretation which doesn't really articulate the reality facing the student. For the truth is, hardly anybody in the world is enlightened, and thus, if a person does want to become enlightened, he has to take steps to bring this about. In other words, he has to act.

The trick to becoming enlightened is knowing how to search for it without falling into error, and that can only be done when a person has a perfect intellectual understanding of Reality. Without this understanding, he will either go around in circles chasing mirages and false dawns, or he will stop searching altogether, deludedly try to rest in the moment and try to convince himself that his deluded, ignorant consciousness is an expression of enlightenment.

So therefore I may delude myself in thinking I’m being carried closer to the truth, when in actuality I’m being carried into a deep pit of confusion.

truthful thinking is tricky business.

It's not as tricky as you're trying to make it. Yes, a lot of people do become more confused and ignorant when they try to search for enlightenment. There's no denying that. But it's very different for the person who is fortunate enough to find the right path.

Once a person enters the right path, a kind of positive feedback loop is created. Initially, everything he does is full of guess work, but as he starts to attain, through sheer chance, a modicum of rationality and clarity, it increasingly becomes easier for him to expose the delusion in his mind. This, in turn, causes him to become even more clear-minded and rational, and so it goes on. Before you know it, the feedback loop is humming along nicely.

And so, like a smartbomb zeroing in on its target, the truthful person advancing down the right path ends up making a conscious bee-line to Truth. And once there, he is unmistakenly enlightened, and he knows it.

DQ: Yes, provided he enters another kind of causality in which truthful thoughts beget truthful actions and vice versa.

cp: Truthful action is tricky business as well. For instance: A sage values aloneness or solitude simply because he sees the conflict that arises when in the company of other human beings that lack wisdom. He stays away precisely because he doesn’t want to CAUSE suffering.

Therefore, non-action is of the highest value in this world. Everyone else is acting compulsively/habitually/instinctively, and this is where the source of the conflict arises.

Even when a sage is alone, he is still acting and conflicting with the world. He continues to breathe. for example, which causes the carbon dioxide in his lungs to collide with the other gases in the atmosphere. His daily eating habits require him to kill and consume other living things. His immune system is constantly at war with bacteria and viruses in the environment. And so on. Thus, the idea that a sage ceases to engage in action (habitual/instinctive/compulsive or otherwise) is clearly nonsense.

The idea of non-action, as propounded by Lao Tzu and other wise men, has nothing to do with avoiding society, sitting like a statue and having a blank mind, as you seem to think. Hakuin, the famous Zen Master, used to mockingly call this "doing Zen down a dark hole". Rather, the idea of non-action refers to the way in each action of the enlightened sage transparently reflects the Truth. The sage is never in conflict with the Truth, either in thought or deed, and this is essentially because he no longer has a self which can "act".

This is his non-action. His mind no longer grapples egotistically with the nature of Reality. His conceptualizings no longer violently block out Reality. Every portion of his consciousness is fully grounded in the Truth. It is his infinite nature which perfoms his every action, not his self. His self has long since disappeared and can no longer get in the way.

A sage doesn’t listen to his thoughts. and this is why he abides in uncertainty so he is able to perceive the tangled weave of thoughts as they arise. Having knowledge can stifle this mediation process.

What do you hope to find down that dark hole?

what are some pure thoughts that the sage can be certain of?

This idea of pure thought is fascinating. Kant introduced the idea of pure reason, perhaps you could provide a framework for this idea of pure thought, so we can have something to work with here.

Pure thought arises when the mind is no longer overrun by unnecessary thoughts, desires, fears, concerns, etc. It is logical thought at it simplest and most direct, fully grounded in the nature of Reality, with nothing distorting it. In effect, one becomes Spock-like.

-

[Kevin Solway]

And how does he judge the fact that he does not suffer from deluded, confused, compulsive thoughts?
What does he use as a litmus? His own thoughts?

Well he can't think with anyone else's thoughts can he? He must thnk with his own thoughts.

If his thinking is true, then his judgements will be true, and if his thinking isn't true then he isn't a sage, even though he might mistakenly believe he is.

[Kevin Solway]

what are some pure thoughts that the sage can be certain of?

Many of the things that are discussed on forum: the fact that A=A, that fact that he experiences things, that all things have causes, etc.

This idea of pure thought is fascinating. Kant introduced the idea of pure reason, perhaps you could provide a framework for this idea of pure thought, so we can have something to work with here.

The "framework" is essentially A=A. The law of identity. Nothing complicated. No framework at all really. Once a framework is introduced that usually means the loss of purety and truth - the loss of direct perception.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn wrote:

Even when a sage is alone, he is still acting and conflicting with the world. He continues to breathe. for example, which causes the carbon dioxide in his lungs to collide with the other gases in the atmosphere. His daily eating habits require him to kill and consume other living things. His immune system is constantly at war with bacteria and viruses in the environment. And so on. Thus, the idea that a sage ceases to engage in action (habitual/instinctive/compulsive or otherwise) is clearly nonsense

Yes, but my point is that there is no doer. My father habitually smokes cigarettes, watches vulgar war movies, compulsively talks about the good old days, etc… he thinks there is a doer. The doer is an illusion. That is all I am saying. My immune system functioning isn’t an act of will, or air filtering through the lungs, I rarely eat meat, so killing isn’t a huge conflict in my life. All I am saying is that when the doer dies, so does much of the conflict in ones life

Quinn wrote:

In effect, one becomes Spock-like.

Quite right… (the prostitute tilts his head up just right to allow the light to sparkle off his chin.)

[Ryan Rudolph]

The Prostitute wrote:

Truthful action is tricky business as well. For instance: A sage values aloneness or solitude simply because he sees the conflict that arises when in the company of other human beings that lack wisdom.

Solway wrote afterwards:

Not really. A sage is alone, by default, because nobody is interested being with him. People do not value his presence and regard him as a waste of space.

Solway also wrote:

a sage doesn't have deluded, confused, compulsive thoughts, so he does in fact listen to his thoughts, and is in no danger of being misled. Since his thoughts are pure and true he can be certain about things that he should be certan of, and uncertain about things he should be uncertain of.

Spock hovers over these two mortals, examining their behavior. A flash of insight enters his mind. “It’s quite unfortunate really, these two mortals can’t seem to agree on anything, they both attempt to assert superiority by outdoing the other. Yes, poor chaps indeed, Solway: an unfortunate specimen, and this prostitute fellow, very confused. He doesn’t seem to know what he is, somedays he tries to be a prostitute, other days he imitates Star Trek characters. What an absurd little man!

Tragically, these two carbon based life forms are unable to perceive the fact that they are both saying the exact same thing here, but they think the other is wrong, and that they are right.

Many ideas can be correct related to these things, there isn’t always one simple answer.

This is the limitation of logic when it is venerated. Logic is a limited instrument, it isn’t always capable of capturing the entirety of the thing.

Any statement is always going to have holes that can be expanded on…

These two chaps need to see the fact that they are both very small in the eyes of greater intelligences. This is a humbling fact indeed. However they maybe incapable of seeing that especially if they believe that they have reached the principle of their growth, and that they are not susceptible to deluded perspectives, thoughts and all the rest.

To assert confidence in such a way is a dangerous game, a dangerous game indeed. A common trick of the guru.

Yes, even an omnipotent fellow like myself will even admit to the occasional folly once and awhile. I’ll confess: Sometimes wires get crossed, electronics malfunction, and next thing you know I’m in the hollow deck with Deanna Troi engaging the process you mortals call “copulation.”

These is a common error of the seeker of truth. There is no complete ending of the self. The self goes, and that intelligence comes, and the self comes back. If you study Jiddu Krishnamurti, UG krishnamurti, Jesus, and others. These men were not completely free from the self. There is evidence of folly and erroneous statements right up until death. Therefore if there is still a self present at times, one is still susceptible to deluded thoughts, fears, neurotic behaviors, fantasies for power and all the rest.

Sorry boys, there isn’t a finish line that you have already reached, it doesn’t work like that I’m afraid. Nice try though.

Your friend: Spock

[DHodges]

This is the limitation of logic when it is venerated. Logic is a limited instrument, it isn’t always capable of capturing the entirety of the thing.

Do you think there is some other process, that allows you to capture more? Do you mean, in general, sensory inputs? Certainly, if you are reasoning about a particular thing, it helps to have information about that thing.

I’ll confess: Sometimes wires get crossed, electronics malfunction, and next thing you know I’m in the hollow deck with Deanna Troi engaging the process you mortals call “copulation.”

I hate when that happens.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges wrote:

Do you think there is some other process, that allows you to capture more? Do you mean, in general, sensory inputs? Certainly, if you are reasoning about a particular thing, it helps to have information about that thing.

Perhaps the highest instrument one has is simply “clear observation.” Unfortunately, what happens is when we observe something, logic comes in afterwards, and attempts to understand what it has just observed, but more times than not, logic confuses, and distorts the observed thing, and we actually don’t comprehend the totality of it, we don’t see it in it complete essence.

I suspect that one must observe, and then suspend judgement, logic, and everything, and remain in a state of unknowing until that “total understanding” occurs, but it will definitely not be an act of will by you, it will come on its own.

This is the problem I have with logic, sometimes logic is a strong act of will, and there is usually a motive behind that act. And that is what one needs to be careful of. Any action born of motive is unwhole besides basic necessity.

[David Quinn]

Logic is only limited to the degree that we are attached to things. Attachments are like gravitational attractors in the mind which draw all the surrounding lines of thought into them, thereby distorting the mind and preventing it from exercising its reasoning powers freely.

For example, cosmic_prostitute, you display a powerful attachment to the idea that logic is limited, and that there is "no finish line". There is a lot of irony in this, as it is the very attachment to this view which generates the current limitations upon your own logic, thus drawing you into self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, the very belief in the limitations of logic is itself limiting the scope of your own logical powers.

Indeed, you display a regular habit of emotionally rejecting logic wholesale whenever a rational discussion reaches a certain point.

The Spock-parody post you wrote above in response to Kevin is a case in point. Here you make no attempt to continue the discussion rationally. You clearly want to bow out of the logical process altogether. So you invoke a "get-out clause" which hinges on the idea that logic will always be limited. There is, you are effectively saying to Kevin, no point in continuing this discussion, or indeed in having a rational discussion about anything at all, since "logic will always be limited".

This is similar to the get-out clause that Christians use for the same purpose. In their case, they invoke the "mystery of God". Or if they are speaking with an athiest who insists upon engaging them in rational discussion, they invoke the idea that the atheist is a "heathen inspired by the devil". The aim is always the same - to put an immediate end to the conversation and to nullify the logical process altogether. That way, their irrational attachment to God and the Bible can be preserved.

This is always the way. Anyone who claimes that logic is limited in its ability to discern truth will always be acting out self-interest. It is the attempt to shield their hidden attachments from the cold, impersonal gaze of logic.

What makes a great philosopher so special is that his lack of attachment to things ensures that his logical gaze is entirely free to go wherever it pleases, and that he has nothing to fear from it.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn wrote:

Indeed, you display a regular habit of emotionally rejecting logic wholesale whenever a rational discussion reaches a certain point.

This is because logic cannot take one into the irrational realm of the infinite. Life is not rational, but we try to explain it logically using the intellect, and we become incredibly confused.

Quinn wrote:

What makes a great philosopher so special

The great special philosopher is a myth. There is nothing there to become. Logic is used to become something, but what is there to become?

You can continue to refine the intellect more and more, but that eternal intelligence is beyond the intellect totally.

The intellect is logic; the intellect is knowledge; the intellect is knowing; and this is precisely why it is so limited.

Quinn wrote:

you display a powerful attachment to the idea that logic is limited,

No, I see the fact that logic is limited. What if I told you that I suspect that you have an attachment to logic. Would it be ironic if the quality you accuse me of having, you actually have yourself?

You are in veneration of the power of the intellect. You think the intellect can reveal god. I see that it cannot. When the intellect slows down all its busy work, all its logical nonsense, then that irrational godly intelligence bursts its presence into the brain and body.

God is irrational Quinn, not rational. You have it backwards, but do you have the humility to perceive errors in the psyche?

This humility is what separates a mediocre man from a religious man.

The humble man is always open to the possibility of being incorrect/deluded – all the time.

However there is incredible suffering in seeing one is incorrect, are you willing to suffer?

[Jason]

Quinn wrote:

Indeed, you display a regular habit of emotionally rejecting logic wholesale whenever a rational discussion reaches a certain point.

This is because logic cannot take one into the irrational realm of the infinite.

"Infinite" means without limit, so how can it be limited to being just an irrational realm?

Life is not rational, but we try to explain it logically using the intellect, and we become incredibly confused.

Isnt using the intellect to logically explain life, part of life too? My life has contained both rationality and irrationality. To me, it would be a denial, and inaccurate to assert that one or the other were not part of life.

Quinn wrote:

What makes a great philosopher so special

The great special philosopher is a myth. There is nothing there to become. Logic is used to become something, but what is there to become?

You can continue to refine the intellect more and more, but that eternal intelligence is beyond the intellect totally.

The intellect is logic; the intellect is knowledge; the intellect is knowing; and this is precisely why it is so limited.

Likewise, the irrational is not rational, which is precisely why it is limited too.

The humble man is always open to the possibility of being incorrect/deluded – all the time.

Something that has interested me for quite a while: what happens when doubt turns back on itself? When you doubt doubt.

However there is incredible suffering in seeing one is incorrect, are you willing to suffer?

If you were really always open to being incorrect, why would you suffer upon finding incorrectness? Afterall, you would always be open to the possibility that you were incorrect in thinking you were incorrect. You could never know if you really were incorrect.

[N0X23]

Hey Cosmic...
While I agree that Ug’s words can be very influential, your tepid impression of his provocative script and prose is rather transparent. ;)

[Ryan Rudolph]

N0X23 wrote:

Hey Cosmic...
While I agree that Ug’s words can be very influential, your tepid impression of his provocative script and prose is rather transparent. ;)

UG’s entire writing style was heavily influenced by Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Jiddu Krishnamurti’ writing style was heavily influenced by Buddhism, the theosophy society, Aldous Huxley and so on.

There is nothing original in the world, when it comes to language we steal from others.

I steal what I see clearly is the most efficient, concise way to convey the truth.

There is no desire to develop a unique writing style, the motivation there is the desire for distinction/vanity.

Others have already created concise, lean, efficient bodies of language to steal from. Why would I waste energy to try to repeat the process? That would be stupid, inefficient and a waste of energy.

You won’t see me steal the language of Sartre, Derrida, Camus, and most European and American Philosophers because there language is overly complicated when it doesn’t have to be.

So yes, you’ve made an accurate observation. The sage is an arrogant thief.

Jason wrote:

Isnt using the intellect to logically explain life, part of life too?

No, the type of systematic logic I am refering to here is part of death.

Jason wrote:

Likewise, the irrational is not rational, which is precisely why it is limited too.

I suspect you are using logic here to justify the use of your own logic.

Jason wrote:

Something that has interested me for quite a while: what happens when doubt turns back on itself? When you doubt doubt.

I don’t understand you here.

Jason wrote:

If you were really always open to being incorrect, why would you suffer upon finding incorrectness? Afterall, you would always be open to the possibility that you were incorrect in thinking you were incorrect. You could never know if you really were incorrect.

This is the problem I have with logic, it misinterprets feeling, but there raw feeling in life. Life is raw feeling. When one is deluded, and realizes that this is the case, there is incredible humiliation. Humiliation is the stair-case for the aspiring sage to walk. It is a painful road, very few are willing to admit folly. They would rather delude themselves into thinking they are correct to prevent the pain.

Logic circumvents these psychological truths, and it doesn’t make any sense in the process.

[Jason]

J: Isnt using the intellect to logically explain life, part of life too?

CP: No, its part of death, its part of a frightened ego that is afraid to die. All you can do with logic is accumulate knowledge which isn’t going to get you anywhere. You end up behaving like a computer, repeating, repeating over and over.

Your idea of what constitutes life seems rather limited. How do you define "life"?

J:Likewise, the irrational is not rational, which is precisely why it is limited too.

CP: You don’t have a direct relationship with the irrational, if you did, you wouldn’t say such a thing. You are using logic here to justify the use of your own logic.

Maybe we just have different ideas of what "irrational" means? I'm not even sure I really understand your ideas yet. What do you mean by irrational, and does it exclude rationality or logic?

J:If you were really always open to being incorrect, why would you suffer upon finding incorrectness? Afterall, you would always be open to the possibility that you were incorrect in thinking you were incorrect. You could never know if you really were incorrect.

CP:This is the problem I have with logic, it is divorced from feeling, but there is feeling in life. Life is feeling.

Life is many things. Feeling can certainly part of life, but logic can be part of it too. You seem to be in denial about the multi-faceted reality of life.

I don't think logic is necessarily divorced from feeling, but rather, different than feeling. Feeling can cause logical thought in me, and logic can cause feeling in me, so they can interact and overlap, they are not always divorced.

CP: When one is deluded, and realizes that this is the case, there is incredible humiliation. Humiliation is the stair-case for the aspiring sage to walk. It is a painful road, very few are willing to admit folly. They would rather delude themselves into thinking they are correct to prevent the pain.

Logic circumvents these psychological truths, and it doesn’t make any sense in the process.

The use of logic and rationality can cause a lot of pain, humiliation and show a person their delusions and errors too.

CP, if there is always the possibility that you could be deluded, you might be unwittingly spreadinging delusion to other people with what you write here. Isn't that a problem? Why should anyone listen to someone who admits they could be deluded? And why would you, knowing of this possible delusion, attempt to spread your ideas?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason wrote:

How do you define "life"?

The context of the word life is used as a metaphor for a clear untainted mind, Like a clear glass of water.

Jason wrote:

What do you mean by irrational, and does it exclude rationality or logic?

All I’m trying to say is that the intellect is limited, it should not be primary, the irrational should be primary. People worship logic, in other words, they worship their own ego. They worship the continuity of the self. My only point is that you will never find the timeless mind with logic, it is a faulty instrument.

Jason wrote:

You seem to be in denial about the multi-faceted reality of life.

I'm suggesting that there is no mult-faceted reality. its much simpler than that.

Jason wrote:

I don't think logic is necessarily divorced from feeling, but rather, different than feeling. Feeling can cause logical thought in me, and logic can cause feeling in me, so they can interact and overlap, they are not always divorced.

I didn’t mean say that logic is divorced from feeling, what I am trying to convey is that logic distorts the whole thing.

Emotional discontent is the fact, and intelligence is determined by how the individual responses to that emotional discontent. One can cultivate a logical persona and claim to be god, but they are actually running away from god, that is still the activity of the self. The key is to remain with emotional discontent without escape. Logical explanations of reality are an escape from that nagging discontent.

Nonaction is of the highest intelligence. A logical explanation is a big action.


Jason wrote:

CP, if there is always the possibility that you could be deluded, you might be unwittingly spreadinging delusion to other people with what you write here. Isn't that a problem? Why should anyone listen to someone who admits they could be deluded? And why would you, knowing of this possible delusion, attempt to spread your ideas?

My point with that prior statement is that clarity is not a fixed thing. You can be rooted in psychological clarity one moment, but fantasizing about being a powerful guru the next. There is no constancy. This is why there needs to be constant attention to the activity in ones mind, that is what true mediation is.

Logic cannot help one to mediate, it only gets in the way. The entertainment derived from a logical intellect is completely different from that timeless presence that can possess the individual.

So if one is in veneration of the activity of the intellect, they may appear incredibly sane, rational, however they have never found the irrational timeless because they are too busy thinking.

If you are constantly thinking all the time. What is the root motive behind all the activity of the intellect? Is it fear? Is that entire activity the ego?

How far can one take this negation business? To negate oneself is completely irrational.

We are constantly trying to construct, or create what we are using the intellect. I'm suggesting the opposite approach, can there be a total destruction of what we are? and if we are destroyed, what is created?

This destructive process is not a logical thing, it is beyond the intellect, beyond the self.

there is no "I" consciousness that is in control of this process.

Plato was in complete veneration of abstraction and logic, while Socrates and Diogenes were both rooted in the irrational, and they seen Plato as foolish.

When I say the word irrational, it is the same as unknowing emptiness.

Plato was striving for a knowing fullness, in other words he was accumulating knowledge, ideas, concepts and abstractions.

Socrates and Diogenes negated everything, there was only an unknowing emptiness.

One is the truth, one is not.

Kierkegaard talked about the leap of faith, which he even called irrational. Do you think Plato took the leap, or did Socrates and Diogenes take the leap?

[David Quinn]

cosmic_prostitute,

Your views on logic are depressingly conventional and limited. You are merely echoing the mythology of our age, which is centered around an unshakeable attachment to the blisses of unconsciousness and irrationaility.

The Truth is certainly beyond rationality, but it is also beyond irrationality as well. Thus, immersing oneself in irrationality cannot take us there, because irrationality essentially means incoherent thought-processes, sloppy reasoning, vague beliefs, fuzzy half-thoughts, unconscious emotionalism, etc - in other words, insipid mental traits which are incapable of taking anyone anywhere.

What logic can do is take us to the very brink of Truth, from which we can make the leap of faith. Only in that sense is the Truth beyond logic.

Or rather, logic can take us to the threshold of Truth and then it can reveal that the threshold is not really there, which results in enlightenment. So really, even the leap of faith involves an act of logic.

DQ: Indeed, you display a regular habit of emotionally rejecting logic wholesale whenever a rational discussion reaches a certain point.

cp: This is because logic cannot take one into the irrational realm of the infinite. Life is not rational, but we try to explain it logically using the intellect, and we become incredibly confused.

Again, you are speaking from your own limited understanding and experience of logic.

If a person becomes confused by logic, it is because there are a number of unchallenged attachments inside him that are conflicting with one another. Thus, whenever he tries to reach a logical conclusion in a philosophical area, a mix of conflicting, unresolved issues immediately spit back at him.

This isn't logic's fault. Rather, it is his own inability to address the things that bind him and stop him from becoming free. The blame lays with the flaws in his own character, not with logic.

I can assure you that the person who is free of all attachments and who allows his logic to roam freely without hesitation or fear, never experiences confusion. His mind is crystal clear and openly transparent to the Truth. From where can confusion arise?

DQ: What makes a great philosopher so special

cp: The great special philosopher is a myth. There is nothing there to become. Logic is used to become something, but what is there to become?

Logic can be used in other ways too. For example, it can be used to clear away what we are not, leaving exposed our true nature.

But a lot of people fear this because they are deeply attached to certain things in the "what we are not" category, and hence it is in their interests to deride logic and repeatedly talk about how limited it is.

You can continue to refine the intellect more and more, but that eternal intelligence is beyond the intellect totally.

"Refining the intellect" is what academics do. Aspiring sages, on the other hand, use logic as a broad broom to sweep all the refuse away. The two tasks are entirely different.

I also question your "eternal intelligence". Does it really have anything to do with the wisdom of the Infinite? Or does it have more to do with altered states of consciousness, which merely rekindle our own past infant awareness and provoke a breakdown of adult-consciousness in general?

In my experience, a lot of people mistake altered states of cosnciousness for an experience of God. The annals of history is littered with this kind of thing. Entire mystical traditions have been generated out of this mistake. These altered states can certainly seem timeless and holy, but it is an illusion. It is an illusion borne out of the reawakening of infant consciousness.

The path to enlightenment also leads us away from the rigid structures of adult-consciousness, but in the opposite direction to infant consciousness. One transcends adult-consciousness through heightened rationality and clarity of insight, rather than through trying to put an end to one's higher faculties and resting in an animal-type consciousness.

The intellect is logic; the intellect is knowledge; the intellect is knowing; and this is precisely why it is so limited.

And yet, my own knowing, borne out of intellectual activity, is limitless.

DQ: you display a powerful attachment to the idea that logic is limited,

cp: No, I see the fact that logic is limited.

You're only seeing what you want to see. First you depict logic in a limited way (e.g. as a means to construct "something", or as a means to "refine the intellect") and then you seamlessly reach the intended conclusion, using the dreaded logical process no less.

If I were to define a spaceship as a children's tricycle, then I would naturally reach the conclusioin, using logic, that space ships can never fly up into outer space.

What if I told you that I suspect that you have an attachment to logic. Would it be ironic if the quality you accuse me of having, you actually have yourself?

I do have an attachment to logic, yes. This is because I value Truth, and thus the vehicle which can take us there.

You are in veneration of the power of the intellect. You think the intellect can reveal god. I see that it cannot. When the intellect slows down all its busy work, all its logical nonsense, then that irrational godly intelligence bursts its presence into the brain and body.

Again, this is the pre-conscious state of infant consciousness that you are talking about here, not God.

I agree with you that in order to re-experience infant consciousness, one has to find a way to disable the intellect, or least find a way to shunt the mind out of its normal habitual processes which adults unwittingly immerse themselves in. This can be achieved through drugs, or through sudden shocking incidents, such as a near-death experience, or, as you say, through certain kinds of meditational techniques.

God is irrational Quinn, not rational.

Your conception of God is irrational, and therefore meaningless.

You are incredibly close to the truth, you abide at its boundary, but do you have the humility to perceive errors in the psyche?

I'm sorry, but I am a million miles away from what you call truth.

This humility is what separates a mediocre man from a religious man.

The humble man is always open to the possibility of being incorrect/deluded – all the time.

Naturally, but what does this have to do with the issue of logic and Truth? A person can be either humble or arrogant, regardless of whether he values logic or not. Of course, if he were to fully submit to the authority of logic and allow it to wipe away everything that he holds dear, then that would be an expression of true humility.

Sadly, most people are far too attached to things to allow their logic the freedom to do this. Instead, they arrogantly puff themselves up and lord it over logic for being so "limited''. It's as though they are laughing over how easily they can tame it.

When god’s nectar touches the body Quinn, it will literally rip your body into two. It is an irrational force, logic will never find that thing, ever…. ever…..

The observer is the observed. When this is totally realized, there will be an intense mutation of the psyche, this process is not controlled by the intellect.

Altered states. Been there, done that.

The intellect is subordinate to this irrational force. You are under the assumption that the intellect is primary and in control.

On the contrary, I know that Nature is in primary and in control. It is one of the great timeless truths which logic can uncover.

A quote from Zen Buddhism:

Student: Is there anything in the world more marvellous than the forces of
Nature?

Master: There is - the power of comprehending those natural forces.

This is why no one in their right mind wants enlightenment, everything you are dies Quinn, all your knowledge, your causality worship, your veneration of logic, essentially the ‘You’ dies.

My true nature does not die. The valuing of logic - and the understanding of great truths, such as causality - are like a bridge to the "other shore", wherein our true nature lies. Once we reach this other shore, we can happily discard the bridge. But not before then.


-