there is a fundamental reality

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Frank, I feel that I can resolve the impasse here with the suggestion that while there is something we choose to call "reality"...

We parted company right there, JL. I do not care what "we" choose to call it...there is a REALITY. It is what is.

You and Fresco simply cannot divorce yourself from what we know about REALITY and can express about REALITY...from the REALITY. You both seem to think humans are so important to REALITY...that it is what we humans consider it to be...RATHER THAN WHAT IT IS.

I think this derives from the non-duality thingy that you both feel so strongly about (although both of you seem to have abandoned using it in discussions)...and I do not know how to get you to detach long enough to see other options.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLN,

Isn't there an apocryphal story of the anthropologist explaining the Western view of astronomy to a native culture ?. They accepted all the mechanics of orbits and gravitation etc but could not accept that the speaker knew the names of the numerous objects he was describing !

There's something about that story which seems to relate to Frank's line in the sand, but I can't quite put my finger on it ! Smile

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

...you see Frank what needs to be sufficiently stressed out to some gentleman here is that if the word "IS"cannot ultimately be verified beyond "human comprehension", whatever human comprehension means, because immediately presupposes the opposite not just can but is true, the expression "IS NOT" similarly also can´t be verified in transcendental terms...and at very best the sophistry a "Human is a human" or a "human is/have the world" are no better then claiming the exact opposite...when contracting its all "us" I have no way of verifying what "us" intends to mean beyond my own perception...on the base of such argument there is n´t even an "us" to be debated once I cannot be the "other" such that I cannot know what can possibly mean or inform to be an "I" or to be an human...one thing although remains...experience ! and the World is the ground of experience !
That is whatever is qualitatively experiencing it is not just qualitatively experiencing itself up...I don´t go around saying well I am "I" and "I" only think about being "I"...I have a collection of different perceptions going on on which "mind" is yet just another one...whatever "I am" is the case to be it certainly belongs to the "world"...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the sophistry "all is mind" is self enclosed and there´s no way of verifying what such wording expression refers to because the argument is self circular...it is not informative ! I might just as well pick the word "onions" and place it at the end of any sentence while claiming "all is onions" !

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If there is a REALITY independent of what humans can perceive...it might very well be a fundamental REALITY.

The only thing we can know about reality is that it is an experience. Every single fact we have about anything comes from this experience and is relative to it. But REALITY is that experience, not potential phenomena that may or may not be part of that experience.

How do you define reality? I suspect our differences can identified in how we define the concept.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

The only thing we can know about reality is that it is an experience. Every single fact we have about anything comes from this experience and is relative to it. But REALITY is that experience, not potential phenomena that may or may not be part of that experience.

How do you define reality? I suspect our differences can identified in how we define the concept.

REALITY IS...what actually IS, whether we can know what it is or whether we can describe what it is. WHATEVER actually exists...IS what IS.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

In mathematics, Paul Cohen investigated the existence of "an infinity" proposed by Cantor, which had a size between the infinity of whole numbers and the larger infinity of decimals. he conclusively PROVED to the satisfaction of his peers that such an infinity both existed and did not exist ! Whether you accept mathematical objects as "real" or otherwise, this shows that you have no more understanding of the word "existence" than you do of "reality".

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

In mathematics, Paul Cohen investigated the existence of "an infinity" proposed by Cantor, which had a size between the infinity of whole numbers and the larger infinity of decimals. he conclusively PROVED to the satisfaction of his peers that such an infinity both existed and did not exist ! Whether you accept mathematical objects as "real" or otherwise, this shows that you have no more understanding of the word "existence" than you do of "reality".

well thats the problem

it seems that mathematical objects have more significance than do the physical objects , which is wrong way of thinking

physical objects are the backbone of any mathematical object(s) and any abstactions that mathematics can come up with

if you find this untrue then give me any example of a pure mathematical shape that was , and is not based on shapes , based in the fundamental reality

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

REALITY IS...what actually IS, whether we can know what it is or whether we can describe what it is. WHATEVER actually exists...IS what IS.

A very 'descartian' approach in asserting something that it is not possible to doubt. But as a definition it will not serve. It does not support the notion of some reality beyond our perception, since entertaining such a notion would require us to suspend a very important aspect of reality which we know definitely IS; consciousness.

Whatever consciousness is, it is a part of reality, and when you are supposing that there is reality beyond it or without it, you are ignoring something that definitely IS in favor of something that might be; something the conscious experience I define as reality allows us to imagine.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
REALITY IS...what actually IS, whether we can know what it is or whether we can describe what it is. WHATEVER actually exists...IS what IS.

A very 'descartian' approach in asserting something that it is not possible to doubt. But as a definition it will not serve. It does not support the notion of some reality beyond our perception, since entertaining such a notion would require us to suspend a very important aspect of reality which we know definitely IS; consciousness.

Whatever consciousness is, it is a part of reality, and when you are supposing that there is reality beyond it or without it, you are ignoring something that definitely IS in favor of something that might be; something the conscious experience I define as reality allows us to imagine.

yet consciousness is not perfect and thats the the thing we havn't grasped

the fundamental reality is what it is , nothing more nothing less

the fundamental reality is challenging us to understand it through consciousness

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

In mathematics, Paul Cohen investigated the existence of "an infinity" proposed by Cantor, which had a size between the infinity of whole numbers and the larger infinity of decimals. he conclusively PROVED to the satisfaction of his peers that such an infinity both existed and did not exist ! Whether you accept mathematical objects as "real" or otherwise, this shows that you have no more understanding of the word "existence" than you do of "reality".

\

If it does...or does not...or both does and does not...

...then that IS what IS.

Whatever it is...that is what it is.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I'm afraid that's so. Nevertheless, I might insist that we are all to a degree both right and wrong. To be obvious:no perspective is omnicompetent.
I think that despite his apparently incurable inability to grasp your relativist perspective, there is some truth in his absolutist/dualist assertion that "If there is a REALITY independent of what humans can perceive it might very well be [considered] a fundamental REALITY. " Why not? I think this may apply to everything including reality DEPENDENT on what humans can perceive: every manifestation of reality is without need of a more "fundamental" (supportive) , foundation behind, between, or below it.
And let me throw this in: This is a basic principal for mature meditation; every sensation, thought, or impulse is ultimately complete, without any need of interpretation, evaluation, revision, sublimation or justification.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

So according to that Frank, is it possible for "God" to both exist and not exist ? Evil or Very Mad

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

This is a basic principal for mature meditation; every sensation, thought, or impulse is ultimately complete, without any need of interpretation, evaluation, revision, sublimation or justification.

Yes. And that state lies beyond anything which can be described by the term "reality". It is qualitatively different in so far as time, space and objectivity no longer apply. The fundamentalists here are still speaking of "stuff" whether it be differentiated or not.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

So according to that Frank, is it possible for "God" to both exist and not exist ?

I have no idea. If it is...then it is. If it ain't...then it ain't.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, consider Buddhism. It advocates something like your non-attachment. No idea=no-mind. Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

My version regarded a country bumpkin who praised astronomy's sucess in discovering planets but added that he didn't know how they discovered their names.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I wrote

Quote:

So according to that Frank, is it possible for "God" to both exist and not exist ?

You replied

Quote:

I have no idea. If it is...then it is. If it ain't...then it ain't.

....so AN AGNOSTIC is .....

1. One who does not know whether God really exists OR not ?
2. One who does not know whether God really exists AND really does not exist ?
4.. One who does not really know what "God" is ?
5. One who does not really know what "existence" is?
6. One who does not really know what" know" is?
7. One who does not know what "really" is?
8. One who does not know what "is" is ?

How many shall we tick ? Laughing

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Your version is better..
... so the country bumpkin could not discern that his usage of the words "know" and "discovery" was naive ?

0 Replies

I think a post I made on another thread (Dharmic Religions) will clarify my general position. It regards the nature of nihilism and absolutism--pardon my appearance of religion aggression:

" I see a distinction between "positive nihilism" and "negative nihilism" that is inspired by my interpretation of Nietzsche and zen Buddhism.
Negative nihilism--what we usually mean by "nihilism"-- denotes the response of those who, upon realizing there is no absolute truth or metaphysical foundation for its establishment, fall into dispair, like children who have lost their parents.
Positive nihilism denotes the more mature individuals who, upon realizing that "God is dead", that absolutism has no foundation, either for metaphysical or moral truth (or as a basis for political authority), celebrate their inherent freedom. It is the realization that the meaningfulness (including desireable and undesirable meanings) of our life is our creation. It is inter-subjective in nature. Objective Reality is another matter. Before my daily meditation I bow (acknowledging) my inherent inability to conceptually grasp Ultimate Reality. But in my meditation I sometimes realize a fundamental dharmic truth: my one-ness with it. I AM that Ultimate Realtiy, no matter how mysterious it might be. Positive nihilists have out-grown the need for "parents" in the form of absolutes and dogmas. They have a "faith" that is free, energetic and expansive (like Nietzsche's Will to Power). They are spiritual grown-ups.

0 Replies

there is a fundamental reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know