Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What I'm observing about Buddhism is that it's more about how any individual seeks personal enlightenment rather than to be active in helping others. One would think that words like "compassion" is more than a one-to-one connection to others, but to help pursue it through advocacy and action for equal treatment against those who are discriminated against. Maybe, I'm reading too much into how Buddhism works, but from personal observation of the Buddhists I know, they are not active in helping others - outside the church - no more so than others.

ci, Enlightenment helps the person who attains it and along the path to that and when the path is completed one 'explains' to those who ask 'how' they can do the same thing. Compassion can be done by 'all' unselfish people and should be done by Buddhists as part of the group of unselfish people but only the Buddha's teachings teach how to put an end to suffering in the particular way the Buddha explained.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
But it still covers some of the subjects being discussed like philosophy and buddhism.

Yes, well of course that's perfectly okay. I had hoped though that the main theme might get a little more attention

dale, just ask about or share your thoughts about the 'main theme' and I will give it (and I'm sure other too) my attention and where appropriate my responses to them.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re:
Quote:
JLNobody (Post 5260560)
JLN wrote:
there may be at least two forms of "knowledge", those notions logically deduced from (unproven/unprovable) axioms and insights emerging from immediate (but, I suppose, not completely raw) experience.

I think what you are referring to is taking deduction axiomatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
And taking induction axiomatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

They both in a sense look at things from seemingly polar opposite positions.
Deduction takes simple rules and extrapolates toward information that is more complex.
Induction takes complex phenomena and attempts to derive simpler rules.

It seems at least intuitive that if both "guesses" lead to agreements. Maybe be they are a bit better than "just guesses".

I agree. IF both "guesses" lead to agreement, MAYBE they are a bit better than "just guesses."

Truly I do< Matt.

But, on complex questions about REALITY, it seem more likely to me that it may be indicate that some of the deduction and induction has been fudged. It seem more likely to me that "an end" was sought...and the deduction and induction was contrived to achieve that end.

I wonder...could you give an example of both inductive and deductive avenues leading to "there is no self"..."there are no gods"..."there is a soul"..."existence is eternal and infinite."

Let's see if we can any clear route...or if there is a bit of fudge in the way.

This is important.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, on the question of 'reality' I take the position that it has no characteristics whatsoever. Then if someone can show me it does have one or more characteristics then I'll accept that' reality' has one or more characteristics.

What's wrong with my position, in your opinion?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5261304)
Frank, on the question of 'reality' I take the position that it has no characteristics whatsoever. Then if someone can show me it does have one or more characteristics then I'll accept that' reality' has one or more characteristics.

What's wrong with my position, in your opinion?

Nothing wrong with it at all, igm.

Strong atheists do this all the time. They assert (take the position) that there are no gods...and demand that theists produce a god to refute their position.

Nice work, if you can get it...so to speak.

Weak atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists recognize the inherent "problem" with this...and refuse to offer a counter contention.

In any case, I suspect you are so wedded to the notion that REALITY has no characteristics...that no matter what I suggest MAY BE a characteristic of REALITY, you will simply discarded as invalid.

If that is not the case...let me offer the fact that this cyber-conversation is taking place as a characteristic of REALITY.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let me offer the fact that this cyber-conversation is taking place as a characteristic of REALITY.

How do you know that 'as a fact', please elaborate to make your assertion clearer?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5261335)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Let me offer the fact that this cyber-conversation is taking place as a characteristic of REALITY.

Quote:
How do you know that 'as a fact', please elaborate to make your assertion clearer?

How do I know that we are having a cyber-conversation here?

If we have to go that far...you are much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much too wedded to the notion that REALITY has no characteristics for any meaningful conversation (fact, or not fact) to take place.

3 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Are you implying that phenomena are not real phenomena ? Even if the "self" is just a "phenomena" is its substance any less real ?

Fil, please could you define what characteristics phenomena would have to have to be real and I'll tell you if I am implying that they are not real.

If the self is a phenomenon then it will of course follow from that. Would you say the self is a phenomenon that truly exists or is it some other kind of appearance - if that's possible?

No. What other criteria is there for the "realness" of phenomena other then their manifestation or as you put it appearance ? Please note that I am not categorizing their causes nor what they are other then they are real phenomena...I am placing the foundation on phenomena itself.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm,

I had some wood to chop and cut…and while doing so, I continued my thoughts started in my earlier response to you.

Even if the “conversation” is an illusion…and the participants (or participant) are illusions…the illusions are offered as possible characteristics of REALITY.

Since you are, in effect, asserting that they are not characteristics of REALITY (your assertion is that REALITY has no characteristics)…you bear the burden of showing that the conversation; the participants; the illusion of a conversation and the possibly illusionary participants…ARE NOT characteristics of REALITY.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do I know that we are having a cyber-conversation here?

Frank, how am I going to be able to know what you know? Your knowledge if you have knowledge is subjective.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Frank, how am I going to be able to know what you know? Your knowledge if you have knowledge is subjective.

You will never know what I know. Stop trying to deal with what I know. Deal with what I am saying.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

igm wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Are you implying that phenomena are not real phenomena ? Even if the "self" is just a "phenomena" is its substance any less real ?

Fil, please could you define what characteristics phenomena would have to have to be real and I'll tell you if I am implying that they are not real.

If the self is a phenomenon then it will of course follow from that. Would you say the self is a phenomenon that truly exists or is it some other kind of appearance - if that's possible?

No. What other criteria is there for the "realness" of phenomena other then their manifestation or as you put it appearance ? Please note that I am not categorizing their causes nor what they are other then they are real phenomena...I am placing the foundation on phenomena itself.

Fil, surely, you aren't saying phenomena are real because phenomena are real.. are you?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have no idea if there is or is not a soul

At risk of rep, Frank, and in an effort to get us back on track of the OP, whether the soul exists is like whether She does, depending on where you draw the line on that scale of abstraction

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank, how am I going to be able to know what you know? Your knowledge if you have knowledge is subjective.

You will never know what I know. Stop trying to deal with what I know. Deal with what I am saying.

This is what you're saying:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do I know that we are having a cyber-conversation here?

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

At the risk of repeating myself, Dale...

...the Buddha teaches (or at least I am told he teaches) that there IS NO SOUL.

Who care where any lines are drawn?

No qualifier will ever make that anything less than a guess...unless the qualifier is, "I am defining a soul as anything visible or invisible that does not exist."

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
I have no idea if there is or is not a soul
At risk of rep, Frank, and in an effort to get us back on track of the OP, whether the soul exists is like whether She does, depending on where you draw the line on that scale of abstraction

Dale, you've said this many times now... so, can you give a more detailed explanation of what you mean or is that not possible?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5261441)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank, how am I going to be able to know what you know? Your knowledge if you have knowledge is subjective.

You will never know what I know. Stop trying to deal with what I know. Deal with what I am saying.

This is what you're saying:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do I know that we are having a cyber-conversation here?

That was a repeat of your question...rephrased.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If we have to go that far...you are much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much too wedded to the notion that REALITY has no characteristics for any meaningful conversation (fact, or not fact) to take place.

Is it a notion or a peaceful open-minded state of mind?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Matt wrote:

It seems at least intuitive that if both "guesses" lead to agreements. Maybe be they are a bit better than "just guesses".

Frank A wrote:

I agree. IF both "guesses" lead to agreement, MAYBE they are a bit better than "just guesses."

Truly I do< Matt.

But, on complex questions about REALITY, it seem more likely to me that it may be indicate that some of the deduction and induction has been fudged. It seem more likely to me that "an end" was sought...and the deduction and induction was contrived to achieve that end.

I wonder...could you give an example of both inductive and deductive avenues leading to "there is no self"..."there are no gods"..."there is a soul"..."existence is eternal and infinite."

Let's see if we can any clear route...or if there is a bit of fudge in the way.

This is important.

I don't mean to dodge your question with regard to self and reality, but to answer that is something I don't claim to be able to do, and I suspect doing so would require much more time than A2K would allow.

I will, If you'll permit me, provide an example of the intuitive principle I eluded to however:

When looking at something in terms of evaluating its truth there are (at least) 2 different ways of looking at it.

1. Dualism.
One might say if this thing is "true" then it must be "not false", and conversely if this thing is "false" then it must be "not true".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

2. Non-dualism or Trans-dualism
One might say there are true things and there are false things but something does not have to be only one or the other. "True" does not necessarily mean "not False". "False" does not necessarily mean "not True".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle

Historically mathematics in general and number theory in particular took the dualist track. They accepted as their ASSUMPTION dualism. After many centuries of deduction they arrived at some paradoxes. The strongest (in my opinion) is demonstrated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. This proves that the dualism assumption leads to a proof of something like non-dualism or trans-dualism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Now historically science has taken the inductive track. Phenomena have been granted some validity (by assumption). They don't (at least anymore) make the assumption of the excluded middle in truth value. This has lead to models of reality (paradigms) that contain things like wave-particle duality (actually a non-duality).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Both paths have lead to a rejection of simple dualism.
But by making both (opposite) assumptions we have been lead to the same conclusion.
This (I think) is more profound than "a guess".

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Dale, you've said this many times now... so, can you give a more detailed explanation of what you mean or is that not possible?

Whether or not something exists depends upon where one draws the line on the scale of abstraction, with say a sidewalk at the concrete or left end and Her at the transcendental or right end (forgive puns)

0 Replies

Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know