Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

truth
Rufio, a Japanese zen master once told me that he too feels a sense of ego (he was not in my judgement "in denial"), but he added that he "sees through" it: he knows the feeling for what it is, just a feeling. It has, I suspect, the same, of similar, ontological status for him of images on a movie screen.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

Frankly, I don't agree with this analysis, but, for our purposes, let's say that you're correct. Yet any conclusions, based upon an acceptance of the existence of the subject, cannot deny that existence. Or, at least, no such conclusion can be logically based on that premise.

Any acceptance of a subject is acceptance of a subject-as-object. And that subject-as-object is not denied as an appearance.

Quote:

Y'know, twyvel, you almost had me there, until you came up with this statement. The notion of a "provisional self" is complete nonsense, both in dualistic and non-dualistic terms. Dualism cannot be based on a "provisional self," since that calls into question dualistic evidence (e.g. sense perceptions, ideas).

Quote:

On the other hand, non-dualism cannot abide the notion of a "provisional self," since non-dualism posits the non-existence of the self. Anyone acting on the basis that they are, even provisionally, a "self" would thus be laboring under a delusion.

Quote:

Simply put, consciousness cannot observe that which it is.

Quote:
How do you know that?

0 Replies

fresco wrote;

Quote:

As or "schizophrenia" you indeed characterize the apocryphal "doctor" who comes to such a diagnosis because he cannot identify with the rationale of his patient. However I might simply counter with the Laingian definition of "schizophrenia" (a sane response to an insane situation) as being a more apt description of non-dualists.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Quote:

Twyvel, what do you mean by a "provisional self" exactly?

JLNobody has given a decent reply. It is basically that which you take yourself to be. And in reference to the post to joefromchicago

0 Replies

So you admit that it exists then...? You're losing me in your mad dashes across the floor here.

0 Replies

Yes it exists as illusion, a shadow, a ghost, a fiction.

0 Replies

And yet there's something real about it that makes everyone understand it the same way.

0 Replies

truth
Rufio, what are you saying? If everyone understands the sense of self in the same way, what does that imply for you? By the way, if you saw it in the same way that Twyvel, Focus and I see it, we would not be having this discussion with you.

0 Replies

Well, as I understand it, you see it like this - that's it's something that people perceive but it's not part of any empirical reality, right? However, for some inexplicable reason, everyone sees it the same way. It's like language. Empirically, spoken language is just a string of random sounds, but we interpret it as words. The words aren't based empiricially, and they are only perceived. Are we good so far?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Yes it exists as illusion, a shadow, a ghost, a fiction.

Guesswork on your part -- and nothing more!

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Well, Joe, I see you remain gay.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

JLNobody wrote:

But I'm sure the three of us would not know what to do without you.

You'll have to find out, since I am simply exhausted by this constant go-around with the non-dualist troika.

Let me summarize my position for one final time:

1. Non-dualism cannot be proved by means of dualistic evidence, since non-dualism rejects the reality of dualism. Hence, the only kind of evidence that could support the non-dualist position is non-dualist evidence. 2. The only kind of non-dualist evidence is "experiential," derived from "personal" insight. Yet there is no way to distinguish a non-dualistic "insight" or "perspective" from a mere delusion. 3. As such, non-dualism cannot be proved. More to the point, non-dualism cannot even formulate a [i]method[/i] of acceptable proof. Any attempt to demonstrate the "truth" of non-dualism, therefore, is a futile exercise. 4. Consequently, non-dualism can only be accepted as a matter of [i]belief[/i]. In other words, non-dualism is a metaphysical system.

And with that, I will end my participation in the whole non-dualism debate.

Honestly, I have no problems with non-dualism as a belief system, just as I am largely indifferent to Christianity, Islam, Mithraism, devil worship, Polynesian cargo cults, and Unitarianism. On the other hand, I have a big problem with people who contend that non-dualism can be demonstrated by means other than faith, since, as I have sketched out above, I am convinced that such means are completely unsuited to the task.

Furthermore, I am getting pretty tired of seeing practically every thread on this particular board devolving into a sterile debate over non-dualism. The non-dualist trinity (for the three are as one) have effectively hijacked several threads, including this one, and I, for one, am not eager to see this trend continue. I also recognize that I bear a share of the responsibility for this, and thus I am moved to seek atonement.

As a result, I will endeavor to avoid any more debates concerning non-dualism. I encourage those who are genuine believers to participate in their own threads (I suggest the Religion and Spirituality board as the appropriate forum), but I also encourage them to refrain from making what are essentially gratuitous comments regarding non-dualism in discussions where the subject matter presupposes the existence of a dualistic universe. In other words, I will refrain from disturbing the amen corner of non-dualism if they would likewise refrain from poaching in the preserve of dualism.

0 Replies

!
Joe, fair enough. I too have had some concern about "hijacking" topics as you put it. I DO think a nice thread in the spirituality section would be very appropriate. But sometimes in philosophical and even scientific speculative threads, it can be very frustrating to just stand by and watch otherwise intelligent discourse rest on the false assumptions of dualism-- which, by the way, is not a belief or faith system, nor a proposition to be "proven" (gasp! I don't know how many times I've stressed that). It's a personal discovery available only to those who actually seek it. It is VERY easy to resist; indeed, it is the NORMAL thing to do so, i.e., engage experience dualistically. You say that nondualism, as a perspective, cannot be distinguished from a delusion. That I've conceded. But note that we have also stressed that when one realizes the nondualistic nature of accurate perception the delusion of dualism becomes very apparent. How do YOU demonstrate (or "prove") that dualism is not a delusion?
By the way, my straight-gay frolic was concerned only with form, not content. It would have worked just as well for my communicative purposes if I reversed the terms (e.g., I see you remain straight).
In any case, it's been a great run. Thanks.

0 Replies

Re: !

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, fair enough. I too have had some concern about "hijacking" topics as you put it. I DO think a nice thread on the spirituality section would be very appropriate. But sometimes in philosophical and even scientific speculative threads, it can be very frustrating to just stand by and watch otherwise intelligent discourse rest on the false assumptions of dualism. Which, by the way, is not a belief or faith system, nor a proposition to be "proven" (gasp! I don't know how many times I've stressed that). It's a personal discovery available only to those who actually seek it.

I understand what you are attempting to say here, JL, but I truly have to call your attention to the fact that...

...I cannot tell you how many times Christians arguing in this forum and others have told me "The people who KNOW GOD, know it through personal discovery which is available only to those who actually seek GOD!

I reject their contention as circular and self-serving.

With all the respect in the world, JL, your argument must be rejected on the same account.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, I agree that to one speaking from the dualistic perspective, the Christian's and my statements would seem similar, if not identical. But, from my perspective, I see a world of difference.
BTW, I said two seemingly contradictory things to Joe, (1) that nondualism is not something requiring proof, and (2) that it is frustrating to see scientific speculation rest on the false assumption of dualism. This would commit me to a position of asserting that science is addressing a nondualistic universe. THAT, it would appear, I might be challenged to prove. But my insistence on the fact of a nondualistic universe is a corollary, an entailment, of my private nondualistic experience--my awareness of the delusion of the subject-object split. I admit that this entailment amounts to a metaphysical assumption (as Joe will be happy to hear me confess) about a fundamental feature of reality, but that is something TOO general to prove or falsify experimentally or even logically. It encompasses EVERYTHING, not just some aspect of the whole. Fresco and Twyvel, I suspect, are far more willing (and able) to argue for the reasonableness of the nondualism thesis. Alan Watts made a career of demonstrating the absurdity of dualism, but, while intriguing, his colorful arguments never generated in me the nondualistic perspective itself. It came, I believe, only from meditation, from the persistant, careful, examination of immediate experience, not from ideas about it (although many of the intriguing ideas in mystical literature DID motivate my persistence, no doubt). Christians do not believe in God because they have seen Him. They believe in Him because they believe in Him.

0 Replies

My two cents worth in this summary is to point out that Joe wants to play the game according to the traditional rules of "proof and evidence" which already assumes an "objective reality". Any quantum physicist would fall about at that one. When we (the unholy trinity) tend to point out that such a condition is also artificially restrictive in general debate we are placed in the "catch all camp" of "metaphysical believers". Therefore I reject the accusation of hijack because I believe ( :wink: ) we are the ones who are opening up the topic and letting in that some light.

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, Very Happy

0 Replies

Re: !

JLNobody wrote:

But sometimes in philosophical and even scientific speculative threads, it can be very frustrating to just stand by and watch otherwise intelligent discourse rest on the false assumptions of dualism...

Yet I urge you to try.

Look at it this way: let's say we had a thread regarding Roman Catholic doctrine (e.g. an inquiry about the theological underpinnings of confession or clerical celibacy) and some fundamentalist Protestant, who "found it very frustrating to just stand by and watch otherwise intelligent discourse rest on the false assumptions of Papism," jumped in with posts saying that "doctrinal disputes don't matter, because all Catholics are following a false religion and are doomed to hell."

Now, I suppose there would be some who would say that such posts would be "on-topic" because, let's face it, they're right, Catholics are following a false religion and they're all going to hell.* I, on the other hand, would regard them as irrelevant diversions from the subject matter under discussion. People can certainly debate the merits of a proposition, even if the proposition itself is, according to some, completely fallacious.

I am reminded of a panel discussion I once saw on C-SPAN. The panel was debating the merits of various possible supreme court nominees. After the panelists presented their opinions, the audience was allowed to ask questions. One person asked the moderator who he thought would be a good nominee, and the moderator replied: "I don't think there should be a supreme court, so I have no opinion." Now, the question that immediately popped into my head was: "if you don't believe there should be a supreme court, then what the hell are you doing moderating a panel discussion on supreme court nominees?" Admittedly, the existence of the supreme court is a worthy topic for discussion, but it is largely irrelevant to the issue of what makes a good supreme court justice.

In the same sense, non-dualists who insert themselves into a discussion -- the topic of which presupposes the validity of dualism -- are injecting an irrelevant issue into the debate. If, for instance, I want to talk about altruism, don't tell me that altruism isn't possible because the self doesn't exist. If I want to discuss capitalism, don't tell me that capitalism rests on the false premise that there is something called the "self." I assume that the self exists: if I didn't, I wouldn't even bother addressing the question. And if I'm in error, and doomed to some non-dualist version of hell for my disbelief, then kindly allow me to perpetuate my error in peace. In return, I won't bother you and your cohorts as you spin the prayer wheels of non-dualism in some other thread.

*Of course, I'm being facetious here -- I don't think all Catholics are going to hell.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Yes it exists as illusion, a shadow, a ghost, a fiction.

Quote:
Guesswork on your part -- and nothing more!

Yes, I know this is your position.

But I think it is based on a refusal to notice the obvious; that consciousness cannot be observed, or observe itself, which is NOT

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

Yet I urge you to try.

The vast, vast majority of the threads and posts on this forum are an expression of dualist beliefs. Nondualists are small in number, i.e. One, Smile

..

And declaring hijacking of which you are a willing participate in is hypocritical in the least. You have no feet to stand on here.

This is pretty much an abandoned thread, and if a few fresh growths on disserted highways is a threat to the status qua then so be it.

0 Replies

JLNobody

I truly hate to discuss this particular subject with you, JL, because I agree so strongly with so much else that you contribute to this forum, I feel almost traitorous in doing so. But, it is the subject at hand -- and think there are lessons to be learned from this discourseso I gotta.

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, I agree that to one speaking from the dualistic perspective, the Christian's and my statements would seem similar, if not identical. But, from my perspective, I see a world of difference.

I am sure you do -- and quite frankly, I would expect nothing else.

I can think of several Christians I've debated over the years, who, if I were to offer the same assessment of comparability between their positions and yours, would respond just as you did.

They, too, would see a world of difference between the two -- although they would see the divergence from a perspective from radically different from yours.

As far as they would be concerned -- THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED GOD -- just as you and Twyvel claim to have experienced the things you two claim to have experienced.

MY GUESS (and I acknowledge it to be a guess): They have not experience what they claim to have experienced and you and Twyvel have not experienced what you two claim to have experienced.

But since I can only guess -- and since it admittedly is a guess based on absolutely no first hand knowledge...

...I would like to ask you the questions I ask of each and every Christian who gives me that "I have experienced God" argument:

How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

How do you know you are not being delusional when you are supposedly having these "experiences?"

With the Christians I also ask: You tell me I can experience what you experience if only I would sincerely ask God to allow me the experience. In fact, you tell me I can only experience it if I do so. But can you not see that doing so is to set one's self up for delusion - can you not see that doing so almost guarantees delusion?

So I ask you: You tell me I can experience what you experience if only I would seek it. And you tell me I can only experience it if I do so. But can you not see that doing so is to set one's self up for delusion - can you not see that doing so almost guarantees delusion?

Quote:

Christians do not believe in God because they have seen Him. They believe in Him because they believe in Him.

Well even if I agree with that (and I do!) the fact remains that many Christian, despite the fact that every indication is that they have NOT seen God, CLAIM they believe in God because they HAVE experienced God directly...

...just as you are claiming you have experienced non-dualism directly.

From my perspective, and said with all due respect, there is not enough difference between what Christians do to arrive at their "beliefs" from what you and Twyvel do to arrive at your "beliefs" ... to truly consider it a difference.

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know