Reality

And once again, the Disciples of Fresco choose to ignore what I wrote.

I hope everyone else appreciated the irony as much as I did when twyvel complained about the effrontery of Frank and Terry actually agreeing with each other. Really, twyvel, that was too funny!

The only thing that could have made it better would have been if the other members of the non-dualistic amen corner, fresco and JLN, had submitted their obligatory "oooh, twyvel, you're so profound" follow-up posts. That would have been priceless!

Joe,

Could you give me a list of threads you have started ?

Regards fresco.

fresco: Why do you ask?

fresco, All you need to do to find the list of threads by any member is by going to that member's profile.

I want to see if you have contributed any original thoughts of your own or whether you are stuck at the level of spectator/critic.

(c.i. Tried that but I could only get posts not threads started)

fresco: I don't know how many threads I have started: it's more than ten and less than fifty. I would need to scroll through the archived discussions to find out just how many, and I have no desire to expend even a minimal amount of effort in such a task. If you're that curious, I suggest you do it yourself.

I know that I started the altruism thread on this particular board: I'm sure you remember it, as it was hijacked by the non-dualists. In light of that rather disappointing experience, I am reluctant to start any more threads in this forum.

As for whether or not I have contributed any original thoughts, either as original poster or as a "spectator," I'll leave that to others to decide.

truth
Terry, I keep getting cut off from my server, so I'll answer your question about the universality of belief in brute facts and dualism very briefly and expand later. Functionality is not proof of epistemological validity very briefly and expand later.
Oh, you do not give us reasons for not believing our ideas; you give us reasons for not trying to understand us.

JLN, from what you've said, I guess that it is not possible for me to understand non-dualism without experiencing it, and it would take years of meditation to get to that point. I have truly made an effort to comprehend your posts but fresco strikes me as a fraud and twyvel as an evangelist who has never actually had a non-dual experience.

I have given you the reasons why I suspect that the non-dualistic viewpoint does not reflect reality: it can only be experienced subjectively by those who have strong motivation to achieve that state (but the same can be said for theism), it defies common sense and logic (but so does QM), and it does not provide us with any useful information or explanation of the brutish universe that human beings commonly perceive.

I look forward to your expansion on these points, although I have to wonder how a non-dualist can possibly get "cut off" from his server. Perhaps the separation is just an illusion?

Joe,

The key issue regarding your clash with JLN, Twyvel and myself is one of mode of argument not content. You, presumably with the training on an attorney favour traditional "logical rhetoric" whereas we stress the limitations of such a style, and are prepared to stick our necks out into what you define as the "metaphysical". But surely most of the interesting issues in philosophy ARE beyond the scope of ordinary logic. When for example you ask "Is genuine altruism possible" you as a lawyer, already know that there is no ultimate answer at the rhetorical level because of an infinite regress of semantic definition. You have made a living from the selective manipulation of "facts" but you are then reluctant to move on from there, i.e. their nebulous nature, and investigate the relationship between semantics and logic which transparently cannot be answered by logic per se.

The three of us are similar in our rejection of "the cult of objective facts", NOT in the content matter but in the common attempt to seek transcendent vantage point, where "logic", "self" and even "existence" are all fair game for investigation. We are agreed that there is a certain "quality of perception" which accompanies such attempts which by analogy might be something like the feeling that astronauts get when they observe the Earth from space, and it is this experience which we allude to between ourselves, and which others may discount as "illusory". Our answer to the critics is that we do not appear to be unique in this position, on the contrary, with many "experts in the field" displaying there own version of a "metalogical" paradigm. Accusations that such authors are "confused" or are "merely guessing" simply indicate the lack of understanding on the part of the accusers regarding the level of argument atttempted, the transient and subjective nature of all "knowledge", and psychological and social forces involved in the resistance to paradigm shifts.

Metaphysics is logical, fresco, if it is nothing else. If you have another method for discovering truth, please reveal it.

bm

What?

Rufio,

(bm=bookmark)

I cannot answer your "question" which has nothing to do with my response to Joe. Please refer to threads on which "truth" has been discussed.

Terry,

At the risk that you are unwilling to read "fraudulent" communications I offer it any way in good faith.

You may be under a misapprehension of what medition is about, There ARE "prescribed methods" but it is important to distinguish between method and "end state". Here are some Krishnamurti thoughts on the matter which embody his rejection of "motivation".

<< It is a most extraordinary thing to know what meditation is - not how to meditate, not the system, not the practice, but the content of meditation. To be in the meditative mood and to go into that meditation requires a very generous mind, a mind that has no border, a mind that is not caught in the process of time. A mind that has not committed itself to anything.( NB including attempts to reach "transcendence" !)

Meditation . . . it's something that comes naturally . . . it is the total emptiness of the brain. It's the emptiness that is essential, not what's in the emptiness.

When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.>>

One of the "insights" that K says follows from such a meditative state is that because we are dualist thinkers WE are responsible for "the brutish reality" we are faced with.

Fresco, why are we dualistic thinkers, if the universe is not really dualistic?

"I" did not create the reality in which I find myself. Would those of you who are responsible please stop thinking such brutal thoughts of war, disease, destruction and abuse of children - immediately? Thank you.

........comments from the past........

in reference Fresco's post of 3 Feb

the phenominization of this "wholeness" is all around us - as vaccum is 'banned' wherever it seeks to occur, by anything that can fill the potential cavity; and the interactivity of particles reacts like signals in an animal brain to any form of sensory input, without access to 'choice'.

...reading on; more comments to follow......

Hmmm; having waded through to date, two thoughts arise (can't for the life of me describe the process by which they did, though);

first, could dualism be described simply as the 'analogizing of reality'; and non-dualism as 'the experiencing of reality' (or should that be 'eternity'?)

and second, i can't help commenting that this discussion hauls me back (kicking and screaming) to the old god/belief/religion discussions at aBuzz.
Which i noted were totally 'angels dancing on the head of a pin'.

there is a similarity here; except, the 'angels' are fascinating, and the 'dancing' is brilliant, and most, most, entertaining!

BoGoWo

A refreshingly neutral stance !

I take dualism to be at the essence of your polarity slogan. (A child asked me last week why the planets didn't "fall down" and I was aware that my answer wasn't that far from what I've been trying to say to the dualists. The only difference was that he seemed to understand !)

I admit that there is an element of "spirituality" in a non dualist view with the evocation of "selflessness". However I do not think it quite extends to "counting angels" !