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

@spendius,

There was free time for gardening back then...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Thank you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

razzleg wrote:
You write about truth, and yet always insist that you don't "know" anything.

I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE SAID THAT I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING. I know lots of things.

There are, however, things I do not know...and when those things are being discussed, I think it ethical to mention that I do not know them. If the matter being discussed, for instance, is the true nature of the REALITY of existence...I am going to mention that I do not know the true nature.

Fine...however, you often use your apparent ignorance as a point against an interlocutor's argument. However, rhetorically speaking, your declared ignorance is not an argument contradicting your opponent's position. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean that another does not. I appreciate your "ethical stance" for what it could be (and what, i think, you think it is); but it functions primarily as a rhetorical/conversational roadblock.

i have to admit...i've never witnessed you declaring any knowledge..: i'd love for you to provide an example of something you "know"...

Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree...I also THINK there is no findable absolute truth.

Well, I have not seen anyone here who claims there is a findable absolute truth.

But of course, you cannot be talking about me, because I do not do any kind of "believing."

I am someone who has often said that if there is NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH...then that would be the absolute truth.

The only reason I said that...is because IF THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH...THAT WOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Fact is...there is no absolute truth is an absurd statement to make.

Oh boy...no knowing and no believing, you've wrangled yourself into quite the mental corner...Here's a thing, what if "truth" was not an absolute term? You speak as if to know a "truth" was to know the "whole truth"; what if the appreciation of "a partial truth" addressed a component of ABSOLUTE REALITY. Even if that REALITY could not be known entirely, does that prevent it from being partially KNOWN...?

To put it another way:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well obviously, since YOU cannot see it...it cannot possibly exist!

Where are you guys coming from?

You claim to not know anything about ABSOLUTE REALITY; you claim that it might be unknowable...but what if it were knowable in parts. How do you know that no one else knows this? Knowing that you know that no one else knows anything contradicts your point.

i don't know everything, but i know enough to know that i know some things, and my knowledge about the things i know gives me enough confidence to suggest that even the things that i don't know seem within the reach of one's knowing, ABSOLUTE REALITY be damned...

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

razzleg wrote:
You write about truth, and yet always insist that you don't "know" anything.

I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE SAID THAT I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING. I know lots of things.

There are, however, things I do not know...and when those things are being discussed, I think it ethical to mention that I do not know them. If the matter being discussed, for instance, is the true nature of the REALITY of existence...I am going to mention that I do not know the true nature.

Fine...however, you often use your apparent ignorance as a point against an interlocutor's argument. However, rhetorically speaking, your declared ignorance is not an argument contradicting your opponent's position. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean that another does not. I appreciate your "ethical stance" for what it could be (and what, i think, you think it is); but it functions primarily as a rhetorical/conversational roadblock.

i have to admit...i've never witnessed you declaring any knowledge..: i'd love for you to provide an example of something you "know"...

Okay.

I KNOW I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. That is an example.

I KNOW lots of other things also...and your statement, "You write about truth, and yet always insist that you don't "know" anything"...is absolutely incorrect...a fabrication (straw man).

And I have NEVER, EVER used my declared ignorance as an argument contradicting an opponent's argument. EVER!

Not sure where you come up with this stuff...but it is pure fantasy on your part.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree...I also THINK there is no findable absolute truth.

Well, I have not seen anyone here who claims there is a findable absolute truth.

But of course, you cannot be talking about me, because I do not do any kind of "believing."

I am someone who has often said that if there is NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH...then that would be the absolute truth.

The only reason I said that...is because IF THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH...THAT WOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Fact is...there is no absolute truth is an absurd statement to make.

Oh boy...no knowing and no believing, you've wrangled yourself into quite the mental corner...Here's a thing, what if "truth" was not an absolute term? You speak as if to know a "truth" was to know the "whole truth"; what if the appreciation of "a partial truth" addressed a component of ABSOLUTE REALITY. Even if that REALITY could not be known entirely, does that prevent it from being partially KNOWN...?

To put it another way:

I have not wrangled my way into any mental corners here, Razzle.

If truth is not an absolute term...that would be the absolute REALITY. But that cannot be...because of the absurdity of the term. (By the way, "absolute" is something I am using because you guys are. Mostly I use "Ultimate REALITY.)

In any case...whatever is going on here in existence....IS WHAT IS GOING ON.

I defy you to create a hypothetical scenario in which whatever IS POSITED...IS NOT WHAT IS.

It cannot be done.

Whatever IS...IS...it IS the Ultimate REALITY.

In any case, Fresco argues against this argument better than you. He redefines words like "is" (for not other reason than to have his take prevail)...where you essentially are just saying that I am wrong.

I have never asserted that the absolute truth cannot be found...but I THINK...(suspect, guess, surmise) that it cannot. If you think it (or part of it) can...fine with me.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well obviously, since YOU cannot see it...it cannot possibly exist!

Where are you guys coming from?

You claim to not know anything about ABSOLUTE REALITY; you claim that it might be unknowable...but what if it were knowable in parts. How do you know that no one else knows this? Knowing that you know that no one else knows anything contradicts your point.

Where have I ever said that I know no one else knows. I SUSPECT (that for certain matters like the REALITY of existence) no one else knows...and I have seen no evidence that anyone else knows...but there is no way I can possibly KNOW that no one else knows. And to the best of my knowledge I have never asserted that no one else knows. (If I ever have, it was a mistake in phrasing...but I seriously doubt it has ever happened.) The Ultimate REALITY MAY BE unknowable...but how would I know that?

Quote:

i don't know everything, but i know enough to know that i know some things, and my knowledge about the things i know gives me enough confidence to suggest that even the things that i don't know seem within the reach of one's knowing, ABSOLUTE REALITY be damned...

I know some things also...LOTS OF THINGS. Not sure where you are getting the idea that I have asserted that I know nothing. I know (in any meaningful understanding of that word) that the name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa. I know that I am sitting at my desk in my den at this moment typing at the keyboard of my computer. I know all of existence MAY BE an illusion...and that my knowledge of the things I just said "I know" may be part of that illusion...but that using the expression "I know" makes sense in this discussion. I know where I live...I know I post on A2K.

Razz...you are building a straw man about my position...and arguing against that straw man.

Good luck with that.

0 Replies

Dualism stands while ego/self believes that the experience of dualism is the only experience which can exist. To the Buddha there is only consciousness. Dualism is a manifestation of consciousness, but it is still consciousness, not a separate form of existence.

Similarly self is a manifestation of consciousness, it does not exist outside of consciousness therefore it has no intrinsic existence.

This does not mean however that self is non-existent, but it does not exist outside of consciousness, because everything IS consciousness.

Does one consciousness added to itself = two consciousnesses? No, they are two thoughts within the same mind. Think of dualism as two thoughts within one mind, if you can hold those two thoughts simultaneously , then dualism stands, as you state.

3 Replies

@Doorsopen,

Those who lack consciousness is either in a coma or dead.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Those who lack consciousness is either in a coma or dead.

i would argue that there is no lack of consciousness in anything.

1 Reply

@Doorsopen,

Argue all you want; not interested.

0 Replies

@Doorsopen,

Interesting last paragraph.

0 Replies

@Doorsopen,

Here is what I would say.
Let us see if we agree.

The self is an illusion, the perception that things are separate.
Self is here, tree is there, separate and apart, that is an illusion.
Grass is here, frog is there, apart, that is an illusion.
Archer is one, arrow is one, bow is one, target is one, all separate, an illusion.
By seeing archer, arrow, bow, target, as one, we perceive reality as it is.
Credit to Eugen Herrigel (through his book) for opening this door to me many years ago.

~ ~
Add
No dualism in reality.

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

Here is what I would say.
Let us see if we agree.

The self is an illusion, the perception that things are separate.
Self is here, tree is there, separate and apart, that is an illusion.
Grass is here, frog is there, apart, that is an illusion.
Archer is one, arrow is one, bow is one, target is one, all separate, an illusion.
By seeing archer, arrow, bow, target, as one, we perceive reality as it is.
Credit to Eugen Herrigel (through his book) for opening this door to me many years ago.

~ ~
Add
No dualism in reality.

Very interesting completely blind guess about REALITY.

Thank you for sharing it.

It might even be so.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your blind guess is noted.

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

Your blind guess is noted.

What "blind guess" is that?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That my observation was a blind guess.
When one studies something for decades it can hardly be refereed to as a "Blind guess".
It may certainly be incorrect, but blind guess, hardly.
A well considered, well studied, contentiously observed issue can hardly be referred to as a blind guess.

~ ~ ~

blind guess

(blind guessing) The selection of an alternative for a selected-response item without using any knowledge or rational approach to the choice. The probability of choosing the correct response is at chance level. ...

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/home/keycomponents/glossary.html

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

That my observation was a blind guess.
When one studies something for decades it can hardly be refereed to as a "Blind guess".
It may certainly be incorrect, but blind guess, hardly.
A well considered, well studied, contentiously observed issue can hardly be referred to as a blind guess.

You wrote:

The self is an illusion

Are you telling me now that because of your "well considered, well studied, contentiously observed" activity...you can say this other than as a BLIND GUESS?

C'mon!

There are people here who claim that because of their well-considered, well-studied, contentiously observed activity...they can say with certainty THERE IS A GOD.

What do you think about that?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am a Theist, do you need to know more?

Quote:

Are you telling me now that because of your "well considered, well studied, contentiously observed" activity...you can say this other than as a BLIND GUESS?

Yes, it seems so, based on the traditional meaning of "blind guess".
I have applied knowledge, and rational, critical thinking.

blind guess
(blind guessing) The selection of an alternative for a selected-response item without using any knowledge or rational approach to the choice. The probability of choosing the correct response is at chance level. ...

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/home/keycomponents/glossary.html

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

I am a Theist, do you need to know more?

Quote:
Are you telling me now that because of your "well considered, well studied, contentiously observed" activity...you can say this other than as a BLIND GUESS?

Yes, it seems so, based on the traditional meaning of "blind guess".
I have applied knowledge, and rational, critical thinking.

blind guess
(blind guessing) The selection of an alternative for a selected-response item without using any knowledge or rational approach to the choice. The probability of choosing the correct response is at chance level. ...

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/home/keycomponents/glossary.html

Yeah...it has been my experience that most people who assert things like "There is no self"...have convinced themselves that they are operating in the mode of "applied knowledge and rational critical thinking."

Good for a laugh...but not much more.

I suggest, BHN...that you simply are making a blind guess. That the chances that the "non-dual" thingy you suppose is no more a product of applied knowledge and rational critical thinking than "there is a GOD"...or "there are no gods."

Let's talk about it.

Give me your very best indicator that there is no self. (Of course, it is going to have to be you giving it to me...here in this forum...all of which are going to work against you. But give it a try.)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Frank AI suggest, BHN...that you simply are making a blind guess.

Clearly you are an irrational person.
I have (twice) offered you a common meaning of "blind guess", and you do not object, or offer an alternative meaning.
Yet you insist, that what is not, is.
I'm not saying you are a danger to yourself or others, simply observing that you are clearly irrational.

Discussion with irrational persons can be entertaining, or so I have been told.
However, unless the two share the same non-rational understanding, it is like peeing in the wind.
That has to do with the weather, the meaning probably escapes you.

If you have an irrational belief in the self, I find it will not harm me.
Feel free to live your life as you will.

I am no evangelist.

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

Quote:
Frank AI suggest, BHN...that you simply are making a blind guess.
Clearly you are an irrational person.
I have (twice) offered you a common meaning of "blind guess", and you do not object, or offer an alternative meaning.
Yet you insist, that what is not, is.
I'm not saying you are a danger to yourself or others, simply observing that you are clearly irrational.

Discussion with irrational persons can be entertaining, or so I have been told.
However, unless the two share the same non-rational understanding, it is like peeing in the wind.
That has to do with the weather, the meaning probably escapes you.

If you have an irrational belief in the self, I find it will not harm me.
Feel free to live your life as you will.

I am no evangelist.

I am not irrational...nor do I have an irrational belief in self.

I have no idea if there is self...if there is no self...if the naive realist view of things is what actually prevails...or if the non-dualist approach is "the one."

I do not know.

There is nothing irrational about it.

There is nothing irrational about you making a blind guess on any of those things...but the fact that such a blind guess would not be irrational...does not make it any less a blind guess.

Stick with your guesses...they appear to be necessary to your peace of mind.

0 Replies

igm wrote:

The self or soul that a person believes they have, couldn't have come from the sperm or the ovum or the union of the two...so that is why there is no actual 'self' or 'soul' because the 'I' that is believed in, started out as someone else's sperm and ovum. The person (who apparently matures from this union of sperm and ovum) then comes to erroneously believe that they 'own' the body and mind and can will it to commit selfish acts in the name of this fictional self, soul, 'I' etc.

When this fictitious self or soul is believed in, then selfishness develops and in extreme cases, all the negative actions of this world are caused by believing this fiction, believing there really is an actual, 'I', 'me', 'self', 'soul'.

The tricky part is letting go of this dangerous belief, whilst still interacting and communicating with others for their benefit... to others, those who do, are indistinguishable from everyone else... but they are of course by definition unselfish.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know