Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, you say that I might more easily convince others of the realilty of my "belief" in non-dualism if I stopped citing [the authority] of mystics. I wonder if my reference to mystics were eliminated you'd stop characterizing my perspective as a "belief."

Only if you stopped basing your perspective on faith.

JLNobody wrote:

Let me explain why I cite mystics. It's because at base non-dualism IS a mystical perspective.

At last! Something upon which we can both wholeheartedly agree!

0 Replies

But Joe, are you agreeing that you have "had" such an experience ?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

But Joe, are you agreeing that you have "had" such an experience ?

JLN: This is a good example to illustrate the advantages of directly quoting the post to which one is responding. In this instance, I have absolutely no clue what fresco is talking about. A quotation from one of my previous posts would have provided the necessary context, but none was provided. I don't recall implying, or even hinting, that I had any sort of experience, let alone "such" an experience. Perhaps if fresco would be so kind as to explain the vague reference, I could reply.

0 Replies

Response number 2 to this post of Frank's

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Twyvel wrote:
Yes, JLNobody there is neither illusion or non-illusion.

"illusion" is just a concept and concepts are void. The perceptual/observable world is not >made< of anything; it is neither, illusory stuff, mind stuff, mental stuff, consciousness stuff, dream stuff or whatever, it's insubstantial, lacks substance-ness, it is not composed of anything. Percepts as concepts are empty, they are in essence nothing minus the concept nothing. There is no mind, no consciousness, no rationality, no objects, no subjects, no manifest no unmanifest etc. Apart from (void) concepts there is no ?'things'.

Existence is conceptual. And what is that?

If there is no ?'one' to awaken can ?'awaken ?' be said to be an ?'experience'?

What I meant by "Whatever is, >is< and >is not<..is that whatever >IS< is not because whatever IS is sububstance-less; there's nothing there even when it IS, accept a concept which is also nothing. (unless one is a material believer and imagines a thing called 'matter' existing apart from mind).

I like your ?'continuous process of changing', i.e. A is not Abecause the second A arrives too late to be the first.

Quote:

I know how unkind this next comment will sound, but, since I consider them to be a blight on the planet, I have made a commitment to comment on belief systems about REALITY no matter where I encounter them

If you could just step out of this non-person you suppose you are, Twyvel, and take an open-minded look at some of this nonsense you write, you probably would start laughing with gusto immediately after throwing up.

As I have noted before you sometimes have a tendency to "protest" rather then debate or provide counter arguments, or in fact any argument at all. You did not address as single point made in the post being referred to. You pass it all off as nonsense with nothing to back up your statements, and then move on to further slander. Now this may be out of a lack of interest on your part, I don't know, but it seems to be a habit of yours.

In my above post and NOW I am saying that all we know by definition are "concepts"; ideas, mental images, thoughts, etc., and these ?'concepts' are void.

Consider the question "What is a concept"?.(or as Wittgenstein asked, "What is a word"?)

In which we are not looking for a dictionary definition..

Rather we are asking what actually is a ?'concept'. What is an idea?

The answer is we simply don't know. And it's not only that ?'we' don't know, it's that the ?'we' creates a tautology because it to is a concept. Meaning words are tautological because they are definitions of other words.

Take for example the actual perceived color ?'red'. We know this ?'red' as a perception or a concept in the mind. So lets say we are looking at the color ?'red', and we ask,
What is it?
We can reply with, It's color, pigment, light etc.but the question still remains, What is it? What is the experience of ?'red'?

What actually is ?'there'?

When ?'red' is being observed, what is being observed?

At this point our language and thoughts fail us because no matter what we say it is, That's not it. It is as clear as day that the ?'observing of red' is something other then we can think or imagine it to be.

We cannot know what ?'red' is apart from language or thought but can we grasp or intuit or somehow apprehend ?'red' ?

I think the answer is no. We haven't got a clue what ?'red' is. We stop at ?'red' lights and bleed red etc. but they are established ?'meanings' assigned to the percept not the percept itself.

What is ?'red' And where is ?'red?

If we take any'thing' or precept, including the word ?'we' and all its references, we end up in the same situation. We live in a dream world of language and thought in which there is a sense of knowing but that ?'knowing' is only appearance, especially considering that that which knows is an unknown.

If all ?'we' know are concepts and we don't know what a concept is what the hell do we know, especially if ?'we' are also concepts?

That was my point, concepts are ?'void'. Call it what you want but at least back up what you say with something more then the word, ?'nonsense'., which is a pseudo response, (in reference to one of JLNobody's comments). Otherwise you are just ?'protesting' and nothing more.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

twyvel wrote:

Your comments are beliefs based in your own material-dualist belief system, which you make ever effort to put forward through your direct/indirect statements about nondualism (and other issues).

Quote:
That is absolute bullshit.

Quote:

Quote:
If you want to point out and debunk ?'belief systems' start at HOME.

Quote:
I have no belief system. There are times when I make guesses -- which I attempt to clearly describe as guesses. If I ever put something down that obviously is a guess, but which I fail to label as one, please call it to my attention, Twyvel--and I will quickly identify it as a guess.

You, on the other hand, will not do that. You post as though you are sharing some great truth -- when the evidence clearly indicates that the best guess that can be made about your supposed truths is that they are merely the product of a belief system.

I do not know if dualism or non-dualism prevails.

Do you?

Quote:

In order to say I think X is false it has to be considered to be false in relation to something else,.which is a point you fail to grasp..so it seems.

Quote:
I have no idea of what the hell you are saying here -- but if you want to put it into a coherent form, I'll be happy to respond.

Quote:

In order to say,"I think nondualism is false", it is considered to be false in relation to dualism. Get it? We never get to that point with you and joefromchicago though; i.e. what's so right about dualism that you blindly believe in it so dearly, even to the point of being close minded?,.

Quote:
I'm not really sure what it takes to finally get through the goddam concrete that seems to have taken residence in your head, Twyvel, but for the last three years, every time we've ever discussed this, I HAVE INDICATED TO YOU THAT I AM NOT SAYING I THINK NONDUALISM IS FALSE.

I HAVE NO GODDAM IDEA IF IT IS TRUE OR FALSE.

I DO NOT GODDAM KNOW.

Will someone -- ANYONE -- please interpret that for Twyvel, because I dare say that I have said it to him ten dozen times during the last three years -- and apparently he cannot grasp it.

I DO NOT **** KNOW IF DUALISM OR NONDUALISM PREVAILS -- AND I AM EVEN OPEN TO THE NOTION THAT IT IS NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION BETWEEN THOSE TWO ITEMS. IT IS, IN MY OPINION, POSSILE THAT REALITY IS SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO COMPREHEND THAT THE DUALISM/NONDUALISM CONTROVERSY COULD BE AKIN TO ANCIENTS ARGUING OVER WHETHER SAILING WEST FROM THE EUROPEAN MAINLAND WOULD LAND ONE IN INDIA, CHINA, OR THE COAST OF AFRICA.

THERE MAY BE OTHER ALTERNATIVES -- BUT I DO NOT GODDAM KNOW!

Quote:

Quote:
It is indeed you Frank that should acknowledge your Dualist Material Belief System as being the underpinning of all your comments.

Quote:
Wake up! Get real. Then we will discuss this further.

I understand clearly Frank. You and I have said thousands of times that, "I do not know". I am certainly not disputing that. But in absense of ?'knowing' we pretend, which is believing/imagining/ that there is ?'knowing' and/or believing/guessing and that there is a we/I/us that knows.

You/I/we/us have to (imagine) "know something", or have a belief system or a guess system of some kind in order to say anything about another belief systems or guess systems, or claims of ?'knowing". It has to be countered and compared to SOMETHING. We are ?'all' observing, perceiving, responding from some form of conditioning which is assumptions about the observed world and ?'self'.

If you did not have a belief system or guess system you would not be able to get out of bed in the morning and get through the day.

There are many levels of believing/guessing/assuming; i.e. being able to open a can of soup, to imagining the contents are free of contaminants, to assuming there is some ?'one' that makes assumptions etc. We all believe/guess in something, it's a necessity in a world in which there is an appearance of a ?'self' that has little or no knowledge about its ?'self' and the world it finds itself in.

The most prevalent belief system is subject?-object material dualism. fresco, JLNobody and myself are making an attempt and/or are trying to think and live >outside< this dualist belief system. (by ?'live' I mean, not spending 24-7 in dualism). To say it as lightly as possible, we have a ?'sense' an intuition, and some ?'knowing' based on self observation, recognition and personal insights, that the belief system of material dualism is a lie. And that ?'insight', position or perspective or whatever you want to call it, though whatever you ?'do' call it, it's NOT only belief, orients us towards an objective view of ?'self' and ?'other' and ?'world'.

And I am saying that your comments are suggestive/indicative of a stronger ?'identity' and adherence to dualism; that you (imagine) you are a ?'real' being is a derivative and a fundamental belief of the dualist belief system. It is a belief, a guess, and surprisingly the GUESS or BELIEF itself is what you/I/we are, ( I/we, in that we all hold that belief to some extent).

When you make comments, as you have done many of times such as,, "As far as I can tell there is not enough knowledge/evidence to claim" etc.. you are making it ?'from' dualism. Everyone believes in dualism at least provisionally but I think ?'you' believe in it a lot more then ?'we' do because our very position is the calling of dualism into question, yours is not. I see your challenges of our >calling into question the truth of dualism< as an indirect/direct support of dualism.

For example I have said many times that there is no observable ?'self.

And you have responded with something like, "That's ludicrous".

Here is what you have said most recently; in the quote at the top of this post:

" If you could just step out of this non-person you suppose you are, Twyvel, and take an open-minded look at some of this nonsense you write, you probably would start laughing with gusto immediately after throwing up.

This essentially amounts to saying that it is nonsense to claim there is no observable self, and of course you have said it a lot stronger then that in the past. There is of course nothing wrong with stating your view, but the point is, you are speaking from DUALISM; from the belief/guess that there is a ?'real', tangible, observable self, which is a dualist belief.

You are probably going to contend ?'now', after it has been pointed out, and after we have talked about the nature and possibility of a no-self and an unobserved observer, that you do not know if there is an observable (observing)self or not, which would be a significant shift in your position, though I doubt you will acknowledge it for the change that it is.

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, I have yet to completely digest all your points (I'm referring to your post before last), but let me jump the gun with the following: I do agree that concepts are empty or "void" (without physical substance). I can't for the life of me hold one in my hand. Concepts may "point" to the world of experiences--I can refer to red tomatos--but concepts only "tell" us about other concepts. Yes, language is about language. Every word makes sense only within a context/system of other words.
Regarding "red" or "red-ness," it's interesting how it seems to have become almost a convention to use "red" when we talk about immediate experience; the color red. I remember talking to a congenitally blind friend precisely about the experience of red-ness. It made no sense (literally) to him. He knows what the words, color and redness, "mean" within the context of language, but he has ABSOLUTELY no experiential grasp what I'm talking about; I cannot point him to the experience of redness with the word "red". At the same time, if you ask me what red "is" I can only present you with something like a tomato, while saying nothing. I could not do this with my blind friend.

0 Replies

Yes JLNobody there's something about ?'red', Surprised

The percept red; the experience of red, as a concept, as a mentally perceived ?'thing, does not exist in your friends world, at least not in the world >out there<; Some blind people ?'see' colors in their dreams. Does your friend live a a world with fewer concepts?

When you hand me the tomato, you have shown me (among other things) what red is, as a percept/concept, though I still don't know what a concept is, and neither did or do you. By 'know' I mean apart from experiencing what we call 'red', in the silence of the moment, is there something more to 'red' that is the knowing of it?. Or is there just the percept/concept 'red' that is not 'red', and is not a percept or a concept.

I agree with you when you say "language is about language. Every word makes sense only within a context/system of other words.".and would add we can apply the same statement to perceptions/observations as they all constitute "a" ?'language' of some kind.

We don't know what an observation is, or what the contents of an observation are, and of course it's only a dualist problem/paradox as all problems/paradox's are, but I do think it points the "voidness" of existence.

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, I just lost my response. Let me try again. When I TALK or THINK "about" the color red, I'm referring dualistically to a position on a pigment color wheel or a light spectrum or about a formal property of a tomato or some other "red thing". My blind friend can have some understanding of what I'm talking about at a purely conceptual level, but not the experience to which I'm referring. He has never had a functioning optical nerve, and can therefore not even imagine what I'm referring to at the perceptual level. Perceptually (regarding vision) he lives in a different world.
I'm fascinated by the fact that although he has no sense of color qua experience, someone overhearing us talking about the color of something might not know that he is CONGENITALLY blind. He uses the language, the surface meaning, of a sighted man, but without the inner meaning.

0 Replies

Joe,

I was being ironic.

For you to "agree" with JLN's classification could imply you had shared experience. The point is that JLN is using the term as I would, experientially, whereas you are using it as an alternative to "metaphysical" to emphasize its potential idiosyncratic aspects.

You are correct in pointing to YOUR context to provide YOUR meaning of "mystical" but you are therefore incorrect in saying that you "agree" with JLN. This is exactly the fallacy that Wittgenstein points out in his concept of "language games" and it highlights the folly as opposed to the "advantages" of selective quotation.
..................................................................................................
In an attempt to give you the flavour of a transcendental position I can tell you that as I write this I am aware of a "self" that tries to "score points" (as above) and that this self is likely to receive a similar level rejoinder. This "I" observes that "I" without "judgement" but with a curiosity regarding the energy expenditure. And which "I" sees this .......

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

I was being ironic.

Oh.

fresco wrote:

For you to "agree" with JLN's classification could imply you had shared experience.

Could -- but doesn't.

fresco wrote:

You are correct in pointing to YOUR context to provide YOUR meaning of "mystical" but you are therefore incorrect in saying that you "agree" with JLN. This is exactly the fallacy that Wittgenstein points out in his concept of "language games" and it highlights the folly as opposed to the "advantages" of selective quotation.

Fresco, I was being ironic.

fresco wrote:

In an attempt to give you the flavour of a transcendental position I can tell you that as I write this I am aware of a "self" that tries to "score points" (as above) and that this self is likely to receive a similar level rejoinder. This "I" observes that "I" without "judgement" but with a curiosity regarding the energy expenditure. And which "I" sees this .......

Must be tough to keep track of all those "I's" sometimes.

0 Replies

Twyvel

I have no animosity toward you -- I merely am pointing out that you are peddling a belief system here on the Internet -- and like most peddlers of belief systems, you often present it as though you KNOW it to be so.

What we live in MAY be an illusion of some kind. It also MAY be exactly what it seems to be to people in the street. It also MAY be something so different from either of these alternatives, that the REALITY of what it is cannot be comprehended -- whether by you or me or the non-dualistic whatever.

You have picked out one of these several possibilities and are peddling it as the truth. You seem unable to comprehend both the fact that you are doing it -- and the implications of the fact that you are.

Continue to do so. It apparently makes you complete (irony intended).

When I see the belief system being peddled -- I will share the observation.

Let's both live with that.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, no disrespect intended or anger expressed, but your characterization of Twyvel's advocacy as "peddling" is of the same level of discourse as calling it "bullshit." One could easily characterize your advocacy of agnosticism as "peddling" a belief system--one which I share to a large extent. But you carry it, the believe system, to the extreme, to the point of its losing its use-value. When you declare your iron law, that everyone is only making wild guesses, that appears to express a Doctrine of nihilism. I am not insisting that that would be wrong; I don't know. But it sure looks like a belief system to me.
Perhaps I am guilty of the same thing when I tell you that I am a "soft--passive--atheist" meaning that I do not hold to (as do "hard--activist-- theists) a doctrine of the Sacred Non-Existence of God, or a belief in and worship of a No-God, that I merely find the entire belief in a god or gods meaningless and so turn away from it. Maybe this is a tacit doctrine that I have not yet aciknowledged.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, no disrespect intended or anger expressed, but your characterization of Twyvel's advocacy as "peddling" is of the same level of discourse as calling it "bullshit."

It seems I am unable to post my true feelings regarding this issue without causing distress.

I am sharing what I feel -- and I will leave it at that.

Quote:

One could easily characterize your advocacy of agnosticism as "peddling" a belief system...

Well, I fail to see how.

Agnosticism is the acknowledgement of not knowing the answers to various Ultimate REALITY question -- and acknowledgeing that (I) do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess about those answers.

Not sure how that can be a belief system -- but it is a free country and you certainly have the right to consider it to be so.

Quote:

But you carry it, the believe system, to the extreme, to the point of its losing its use-value.

There is no belief system here -- and I am not carrying whatever it is to extremes.

Agnosticism has always gotten short shrift. Theists and atheists argue about which beliefs are correct -- and the agnostics are almost always on the outside looking in.

I've decided to give the agnostic position a more militant espousal.

Quote:

When you declare your iron law, that everyone is only making wild guesses, that appears to express a Doctrine of nihilism.

I do not advocate any iron law. I observe and share my observations. When it comes to questions about Ultimate REALITY I see theists making what I consider guesses; I see atheists making what I consider guesses; and now I see you, Fresco, and Twyvel making what I consider guesses.

And I share that.

We agree on so much else, JL, I don't see this as a big problem.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, obviously there is no conflict between US. We share too much for that. But there is a conflict between these particular ideas before us. I will acknowledge that you are not espousing a doctrine if you are merely saying that what you see is people guessing because they cannot show you that they are doing more than that. But even that remains a belief since you cannot show that they are--despite their inability to sway you-- guessing. You cannot know that they are not trying to express something that they have realized to be so. That's obviously a reference to the efforts of Fresco, Twyvel and myself to make public our private understandings. But if you are saying that people CANNOT, in the nature of things, do more than "merely guess" when it comes to the ultimate-like questions of God, Reality and Absolutism, then you are advancing a doctrine of equal metaphysical proportions.
I admit to the belief that those are problems that are irresolvable, primarily because they are false problems, the products of dualism at its non-pragmatic worst.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, obviously there is no conflict between US. We share too much for that. But there is a conflict between these particular ideas before us. I will acknowledge that you are not espousing a doctrine if you are merely saying that what you see is people guessing because they cannot show you that they are doing more than that. But even that remains a belief since you cannot show that they are--despite their inability to sway you-- guessing.

I am not saying that I KNOW they are guessing.

Most often I put that notion into words thusly: I guess that they are guessing.

In most recent post directed to you, I used the expression "...what I consider to be guesses."

It is not a belief -- it is acknowledged as a guess -- or as we say in the awareness expansion world "a consideration."

So I still reject the notion that I am espousing a belief system.

Quote:

You cannot know that they are not trying to express something that they have realized to be so.

Nor would I suggest that I know.

As I can do is to share that it appears to be belief about the unknown. I do not know that you guys are just talking about guesses -- but it sure as hell sounds like it -- and as I said at the very beginning of this discussion, it sounds very, very, very much like the things theists do with their beliefs.

Quote:

That's obviously a reference to the efforts of Fresco, Twyvel and myself to make public our private understandings.

No problem. I understand. Christians are constantly explaining to me how they KNOW there is a GOD -- and how they KNOW that the god described in the Bible is that GOD.

I'm very much aware of this kind of thing.

Quote:

But if you are saying that people CANNOT, in the nature of things, do more than "merely guess" when it comes to the ultimate-like questions of God, Reality and Absolutism, then you are advancing a doctrine of equal metaphysical proportions.

I not only am not saying that it CANNOT be known -- I have written pages of argument showing that anyone who suggests that it CANNOT be known is espousing a belief.

(Atheists who aver that there are no gods are an exception. That, in my opinion, cannot be known.)

I am merely saying that I do not know the nature of REALITY; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about it -- AND MY GUESS IS that everyone else on the planet is in the same position.

I simply can see no reason to suppose that you know some of the things you indicate that you know. I see you, Fresco, and Twyvel peddling a belief system.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, I have not yet finished reading your last post; I just want ask yo to look at the last paragraph that I just added to my last post.

0 Replies

truth
So, Frank, you are acknowledging that you are just guessing that they are guessing. Here we seem to have another infinite regress. You do not BELIEVE that they are guessing, you are guessing that they are guessing. And you are not believing that you are guessing that they are guessing, You are guessing that you are guessing that they are guessing, ad naseum. Laughing

But I AM half serious. I guess.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

So, Frank, you are acknowledging that you are just guessing that they are guessing. Here we seem to have another infinite regress. You do not BELIEVE that they are guessing, you are guessing that they are guessing. And you are not believing that you are guessing that they are guessing, You are guessing that you are guessing that they are guessing, ad naseum. But I AM half serious. I guess.

I have covered this quite extensively in several threads.

There is absolutely, positively no way that I can know for sure what you know or do not know.

The best I can do is to make a guess.

On questions of Ultimte Reality -- I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess.

On the question of whether or not YOU KNOW what the Ultimate REALITY is, however -- I feel I do have enough evidence to make a guess.

I really do not see this as playing a game, if that is what you are suggesting.

So that you don't think that I am just pulling your chain here, here are some germane quotes from earlier in this very thread:

On Dec. 19th, I wrote:

Quote:

I cannot know what you "know" and what you "do not know" -- but listening to your words gives me a pretty strong clue -- and Twyvel, most of your posts sound like someone wanting to deny the obvious.

On Dec. 21st, I wrote:

Quote:

I freely acknowledge that I do not KNOW what you know or do not know -- and I am pretty sure I have included that equivocation in just about every comment I've ever made on the issue.

On Jan. 19th, I wrote:

Quote:

...just want to go on record as saying that ONE OF THE POSSIBLE explanations of REALITY is that "ultimately there is no self to relate to objects."

My poblem is, and always has been, that it is being presented here as THE explanation of REALITY.

We simply do not know -- or at least, I DO NOT KNOW and I suspect neither do the other people participating here.

Fact is, it may be unknowable. (I do not know that either.)

I could probably come up with several dozen other examples if the needs be.

I have been very consistent on all this stuff, JL.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, just because your position is not air-tight, I do not deny its merits. But you said to Twyvel that "most of your posts SOUND LIKE someone wanting to deny the obvious." Now, if I or Fresco do not see him as trying to deny the obvious, don't you at least suspect that your "sound like" reflects "belief or perspective" at some level of awareness? I admit that our acceptance of his non-denial reflects our belief or perspective.

0 Replies

Perspective, yes. Guess, yes. Estimate, yes.

Belief --- NO!

Wanna discuss the difference.

I've got hundreds of posts on the issue.

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know