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

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5262404)
Frank, so you do not know if there is a 'self' but you know there is a self called Frank typing at the keyboard... ok Frank...

I corrected that to ease your worries on that account, igm. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY.

I DO NOT KNOW.

So...if there is a self...then the self is that which is at the keyboard.

In my original correction, I said, “Well...if it would make you feel any better, igm...I will answer: It appears to me that I am here at the keyboard, igm.”

Obviously if there is no self (one of the possibilities if this is all an illusion)...then this is just an illusion at the keyboard.

Do you not consider this fun???

You may be addressing questions to an illusion. You may be having a conversation with an illusion.

You have to consider it fun.

0 Replies

bemp. (I'm channeling Inspector Clouseau here.)

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

If you don’t know where ‘Frank’ i.e. the ‘self’ called ‘Frank’ is then how is that different from saying I know there is a God but I don’t know where he is?

Ig, Frank, that's the crux of it, isn't it. While I guess part of the problem to be semantic, I'd like to suggest still once more that my "degree of abstraction" plays a large part in the apparent impasse

http://able2know.org/topic/209050-1

For what it's worth (apparently not much hereabout) I can't see the idea of "location" of any pertinence since it's so far to the right of the body (which is of course 'way off to the left)

…while I see Her as All of It, almost to the extreme right

….which of course could be total nonsense so I'll understand fellas if you don't respond

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I think what I'm saying Frank is, 'A Frank in glass house shouldn't throw stones'. You are running on faith and hope just like those you appear to look down on.

Evidence:

Frank Apisa wrote:

But, JL...if a Christian were to argue: "If you would just pray to God to give you faith...and continue to do so until God grants you faith..."

...you would easily see the absurdity of such a claim.

Yes...you can talk yourself into anything if you put enough effort into it.

I am pretty sure if you were to "pray" enough and with sufficient dedication...at some point you would "begin to see the light." You would develop "faith that god exists and shines his light upon you and the rest of humanity."

Buddhists come to Buddhism expecting that if they meditate...they will become enlightened (or variations on that general theme.)

And lo and behold...they meditate...and it happens. And after"persistent and sincere" meditation..."truths" are revealed.

I do not know the nature of REALITY...and my guess is Buddhism is not going to tell me anything more valid about the truth of it than will Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Mooniism, or kindergarten.

I think you folk are well meaning...but you are kidding yourselves.

3 Replies

@igm,

More added to above post.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: igm (Post 5262408)
Quote:
If you don’t know where ‘Frank’ i.e. the ‘self’ called ‘Frank’ is then how is that different from saying I know there is a God but I don’t know where he is?

Ig, Frank, that's the crux of it, isn't it. While I guess part of the problem to be semantic, I'd like to suggest still once more that my "degree of abstraction" plays a large part in the apparent impasse

I suspect, Dale, that there may be a significant difference between "I do not know if there is a self "...and "I do not know where it is."

If there is a self...and if there is a self "me"...then that self probably is the thing typing this sentence. (That is not a "for sure.") There may be a “self”…and we simply may not be evolved enough to recognize and appreciate it…let alone locate it. A hundred years ago nobody had any real appreciation for the notion of other galaxies…but that did not mean they were not there.

If there is no self...then the question, "Where is the self" makes no sense.

I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A SELF OR NOT. I mentioned that in my very first post in this thread...which, as it turns out, was the first post anyone made.

I DO NOT KNOW.

Igm seems intent on interpreting that to mean that I am saying, "I know there is a self and I know where it is."

Not sure why...because that doesn't make sense to me either.

Quote:

For what it's worth (apparent not much hereabout) I can't see the idea of "location" of any pertinence since it's so far to the right of the body (which is of course 'way off to the left)

…while I see Her as All of It, almost to the extreme right

I think I covered a response to this up above.

Quote:

….which of course could be total nonsense so I'll understand fellas if you don't respond

Probably no nonsense being discussed here, but it is a difficult subject. I always appreciate your input.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5262426)
I think what I'm saying Frank is, 'A Frank in glass house shouldn't throw stones'. You are running on faith and hope just like those you appear to look down on.

I do not look down on you...or anyone else in this conversation. I try to be respectful and reasonably courteous to everyone. I acknowledge that at time certain people can get me on the edge...but to be honest, you have not been one of those people recently.

I disagree with the thrust of what you are saying. I am trying to discuss the disagreement in as reasonable a way as I can.

Your "glass house" comment appears to suggest that I have not been successful.

I apologize if I have come up short.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I apologize if I have come up short.

You came up short.

igm wrote:

Evidence:

Frank Apisa wrote:

But, JL...if a Christian were to argue: "If you would just pray to God to give you faith...and continue to do so until God grants you faith..."

...you would easily see the absurdity of such a claim.

Yes...you can talk yourself into anything if you put enough effort into it.

I am pretty sure if you were to "pray" enough and with sufficient dedication...at some point you would "begin to see the light." You would develop "faith that god exists and shines his light upon you and the rest of humanity."

Buddhists come to Buddhism expecting that if they meditate...they will become enlightened (or variations on that general theme.)

And lo and behold...they meditate...and it happens. And after"persistent and sincere" meditation..."truths" are revealed.

I do not know the nature of REALITY...and my guess is Buddhism is not going to tell me anything more valid about the truth of it than will Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Mooniism, or kindergarten.

I think you folk are well meaning...but you are kidding yourselves.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

You came up short.

And I apologized.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
You came up short.

And I apologized.

Apology accepted.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

...but that does not make your guesses non-guesses.

The dualism of Frank A:
All propositions are one of two categories: [guess] or [not guess].
Laughing

I only tease Frank. I think we all appreciate your fallibilism.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=PKkiy24LqBQ

Thank you so much Fil for pointing this video out to me.
I watched all of it last night. I was starting to feel pretty alone in my ontological speculations regarding reality. The discussion here was pretty great, though I felt like Seth was playing the role of the happy idiot during most of it. My views are most aligned with those of Jürgen. Fotini is probably (in this context) the most agnostic. She seems sharp as a tack and not swayed over-much by speculations.
Great talk over all. I feel less isolated now. Very Happy

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I always appreciate your input.

Why, thank you, Frank

Quote:

If there is no self...then the question, "Where is the self" makes no sense.

Of course that's true but the q whether there is one or if there is, whether it can be situated somewhere, depends on how you define the term or where you draw the (arbitrary) line on the scale of abstraction

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5262436)
Quote:

Quote:
I always appreciate your input.

Why, thank you, Frank

Quote:
Quote:
If there is no self...then the question, "Where is the self" makes no sense.

Of course that's true but the q whether there is one or if there is, whether it can be situated somewhere, depends on how you define the term or where you draw the (arbitrary) line on the scale of abstraction

Perhaps you are correct, but only perhaps.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Well I suspect Fotini is the kind of silent ambitious and high as is still has a name to build thus cannot afford big spender pop science folly all that much, while the big boys there could very much indulge themselves on whatever they feel like to say...anyways she played safe but guessing for guessing I'd say her coolish sharp looking dressing might hint of a more gay social willing mood hiding under the hood...all in all I thought the talk was generally very interesting.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yeah. I will try not to speculate too much about what's under the hood. She is very sharp. I don't really know the stature of any of the panelists. Seth just came off a little behind the 8 ball is all.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Thanks Fil very interesting... Here is the link to the talk that was mentioned in that video... there is a hint of Buddha's teaching on 'empty dependent origination', so, science and Buddhism - who'd have thought it!:

http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_hologram

http://www.amazon.ca/Holographic-Universe-Michael-Talbot/dp/0060922583

Today nearly everyone is familiar with holograms, three-dimensional images projected into space with the aid of a laser. Now, two of the world's most eminent thinkers -- University of London physicists David Bohm, a former protege of Einstein's and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, one of the architects of our modern understanding of the brain -- believe that the universe itself may be a giant hologram, quite literally a kind of image or construct created, at least in part, by the human mind.

The chapter Return to Dreamtime revisits Bohm's idea of the implicate and explicate order and compares it to Tibetan Buddhism, Zen and Hinduism. In the next one: The Future of the Holographic Idea, the author investigates holographic sound with reference to the physiologist Hugo Zuccarelli, and speculates on the implications for science of the holographic paradigm. Amongst them are new kinds of computers and puzzles in chemistry that might finally be solved. The model might be able to eventually explain telepathy, synchronicity, paranormal and mystical experiences. The text concludes with Talbot's view of mankind's evolutionay thrust towards a higher consciousness.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

science and Buddhism - who'd have thought it!

Lots of people think it.
There has been a huge trend in popular science books to link modern scientific paradigms to Buddhist and other esoteric enlightenment traditions. Very Happy

You might even like Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. A favorite of mine, but he uses a dialectic strategy very similar to the ones used traditionally by Buddhists teachers. A dialectic, like Socrates.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Perhaps you are correct, but only perhaps.

Once more, Frank, but my entire week…..

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Douglas Hofstadter

Is he related to Leonard?

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know