I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, if you look intensely and openly at thought, you may actually see that it is based on dualism, on a structure of opposites and if you continue you may see that you are one with the world. By "the world" I refer to your experiences of sensations, thoughts, etc....that they are you, not something surrounding "you".
This whole approach of yours, that "reality" is something "out there" and you are "in here" is what I mean by dualism--Descartes' great disservice to Western culture. Moreoever, non-dualism provides at least an opening into the realization that because you are not separate from "reality" that you have direct access to "it", existentially and phenomenologically if not metaphysically and theoretically. You don't have to make "guesses" about its ontological status, just enjoy your direct experience of it--it is "you".

JL...if you "look intensely and openly" at the Bible, you will discover that there is a God who made the world from scratch; who adopted the ancient Hebrews as Its favored people; and who "gave up his only begotten son" for the salvation of humanity.

Stop looking intensely and openly...because that is the surest way to not look intensely and openly at anything.

I do not know what the true nature of REALITY is...and it may be so far away from the notions of duality and non-duality that neither of us can even fathom a reasonable way to examine it.

The truth may set you free.

Give it a shot.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Too dependent on verbal categories. I guess I am too.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The truth may set you free.

This is an incredibly problematic statement.

If we go back to scientific theories, which are, to use Frank's paradigm - guesses...will treating them as guesses set the scientists free? Or will it impede them?

It also suggests that JL's stance does not allow freedom....

....and what sort of freedom will this 'truth' allow?

I think most of human achievement is built on people using their 'guesses about reality'

We then come back to the value of 'guesses'

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Hi JL,

Is your view on reality new for you?

I understand what you are saying, and I think you are defining reality differently to what Frank is defining it.

Yours is the much less problematic way to view it. Though I do note that if you didn't add the (to paraphrase) 'this is my individual beings reality' to it (ie. the acknowledgement that what is real to you may not be real to another), then the belief itself could be problematic, and Franks version would be better.

I don't think Franks version is dualistic - it just says that what is out there just 'is', while what is 'in us' may not actually match what is out there. That doesn't separate the brain from the mind - that simply says the mind/brain can inaccurately interpret what we sense (literal sense, not feeling sense).

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I suppose "the truth" in this case refers to the function of liberation from illusion. Aside from its contributions to engineering and medicine (a kind of engineering) Science's greatest contribution is the methodology by which it liberates us by its falsification of superstition and fantasy.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Frank's--and virtually eveyone else's, including my--propostions about reality are tacitly dualistic. Dualism is reflected in his philosophy generally, mainly because it is built into the grammar of our language. At my best I struggle (rarely successfully) to describe the world as a unified process. This is a difficult topic which I'm glad you have pointed to. If we continue to examine it we will be taxed.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

One of the things that irritates me about philosophy is the amount of useless arguments that people come up with. It is my belief (Frank's 'guess') that everything (reality-wise) is essentially useful. Going on that belief , it therefore appears to me that anything that is not useful is likely to have errors.

In essence, it's another perspective on your 'everything is one' view (did I get that right?). In separating everything, there is the inevitable view that some things may be not be connected, and therefore useless.

...this by the way, isn't quite correct.
-------------------------------
I should by the way state that I find myself to be systems minded, likely hence the belief that everything is (and should be) useful.
-------------------------------

I have a question for you - is true balance dualistic, or monistic?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

By the way, vikorr, I'm not sure I define "reality" very much differently from the way that Frank does. We agree that Reality is whatever IS, i.e., whatever is the case. We cannot SAY what is the case because we cannot generate a verbal proposition that will encompass all phenomena, except to say that it IS. That sounds good to me even though IS denies ISn't, and since all things are continuously changing, i.e., UNbecoming or becoming what they are not, we might say of Reality that it is and isn't at the same time...and at a meta level Frank might say that that is "what is". Let's see how you or Frank can refine that bit of stuff.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

By the way, vikorr, I'm not sure I define "reality" very much differently from the way that Frank does. We agree that Reality is whatever IS, i.e., whatever is the case. We cannot SAY what is the case because we cannot generate a verbal proposition that will encompass all phenomena, except to say that it IS. That sounds good to me even though IS denies ISn't, and since all things are continuously changing, i.e., UNbecoming or becoming what they are not, we might say of Reality that it is and isn't at the same time...and at a meta level Frank might say that that is "what is". Let's see how you or Frank can refine that bit of stuff.

My major comment on this would be (as JL suspects) that if things are continuously changing…then that IS what IS.

But on a more important level, to suppose that “…since all things are continuously changing, i.e., Unbecoming or becoming what they are not…” is exactly the kind of thing that I am suggesting is a guess…a “belief” if you will about REALITY.

There is absolutely no way to KNOW with any degree of certainty that things are continuously changing…becoming and unbecoming. All of that may be an illusion…or some other manifestation of REALITY that se are not able even to suspect.

The most significant thing we can say about REALITY (and I am delighted that JL went out of his way to agree with this)…is that whatever IS…IS. Whatever is going on (if anything is going on) and whatever IS (if anything actually IS)…then that IS what IS.

If it is changing…that is what IS. If it is not changing…that is what IS.

I honestly do not know if everything is changing or not (I acknowledge that if it is illusionary, it is a VERY persistent illusion)…and I strongly suspect that JL doesn’t either.

I suggest, with all the respect in the world, that JL’s assertion on this specific…is a guess.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I insist that all is process. Everything is impermanent. If not, then all is illusion for that is the most obvious thing we see when we simply observe experience (pardon the redundancy). When buddhists say that all is illusory, they are referring, I think, not to direct or immediate experience, they are referring to our language-bound interpretations about the meaning of what we experience. Immediate or raw experience is neither true nor false; it is what we are (sentient beings); it is our very life experience. When we interpret it (as we must), when we cook it linguistically that's when life becomes more problematical (but philosophically meaningful, or cooked experience).

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I insist that all is process. Everything is impermanent.

Insist away, JL. I know someone who insisted that the Beatles would never make it as a musical group.

Quote:

If not, then all is illusion for that is the most obvious thing we see when we simply observe experience (pardon the redundancy). When buddhists say that all is illusory, they are referring, I think, not to direct or immediate experience, they are referring to our language-bound interpretations about the meaning of what we experience. Immediate or raw experience is neither true nor false; it is what we are (sentient beings); it is our very life experience. When we interpret it (as we must), when we cook it linguistically that's when life becomes more problematical (but philosophically meaningful, or cooked experience).

You are making a religion of this thing, JL.

I do not know what the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I suspect you do not either.

I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know.

You seem reluctant to acknowledge that...although to your credit, you do attempt to disguise your reluctance by making it seem that this reduces to problem with language.

Don't know what to say.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I know someone who insisted that the Beatles would never make it as a musical group.

You know that guy, and he told you that? I'd've kept schtum.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You say, Frank, that I am making this topic a matter of "religion". Thanks. I agree: Life taken seriously is religion. Just going to church to avoid social stigma is not religion.
You say that neither of us knows the true nature of the reality of existence. I agree that I have nothing to say theoretically about the metaphysical character of Ultimate Reality. But I do feel that because I am experiencing reality first hand I (and you) have a kind of raw or pure or precognitive awareness of its primordial nature. I (we) just don't know how to cook it.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

You say, Frank, that I am making this topic a matter of "religion". Thanks. I agree: Life taken seriously is religion. Just going to church to avoid social stigma is not religion.
You say that neither of us knows the true nature of the reality of existence. I agree that I have nothing to say theoretically about the metaphysical character of Ultimate Reality. But I do feel that because I am experiencing reality first hand I (and you) have a kind of raw or pure or precognitive awareness of its primordial nature. I (we) just don't know how to cook it.

Please think about what you have said in the highlighted commentary, JL.

Show me that YOU are experiencing REALITY first hand. In fact, just convince me that when you say you are experiencing REALITY first hand...you are doing something other than guessing at what REALITY actually IS...and suggesting (gratuitously) that you are experiencing it.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

The reason I asked ‘is true balance dualistic, or monistic’ is that it is both, and (arguably) neither. That it is both & neither at the same time is perspective of exactly the same thing, and so argument for either specific ‘conceptual answer’ (ie dualistic or monistic) is actually pointless. But people become attached to the label, and then based on the label, argue for that label, rather than what is.

I find that when you use ‘dualistic’ or ‘monistic’ you are actually defining reality. This is the same for any word that names a concept (eg. like unbecoming).

When you say you think Frank & you define reality much the same, I refer back to the labels you attach to the conceptualisations of reality to see if that is true.

Quote:

That sounds good to me even though IS denies ISn't, and since all things are continuously changing, i.e., UNbecoming or becoming what they are not, we might say of Reality that it is and isn't at the same time...and at a meta level Frank might say that that is "what is".

One of the tricks of language, is that the question asserts pressure on the direction of the answer – usually the answer follows the path given by the question. The same is true for assertions that people respond to when they try to join their answer to the assertion, and to varying degrees – the same is probably true for anything said by another.

One of the other tricks of language is that there can be multiple ways of describing a concept, and that they may be accurate, inaccurate, partly accurate, or unable to encompass the concept at all.

So being aware of those pitfalls, in answer, I could simply say ‘what is changes from moment to moment’. That doesn’t change what ‘is’ in a single given moment – that simply changes what ‘is’ the next moment. Even if I were to buy into the simultaneous ‘is/isn’t’…I would simply refer back to the question ‘is true balance dualistic or monistic' - this question isn't a question that actually needs to be answered, and in essence, doesn’t need a label.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, when I open my eyes and see something red, that experience of redness is "primordial" in the sense that I did not fabricate it. It is what it is and I see it as such regardless of my intentions. In addition, my seeing it as "redness" is an exposition of ME; I am that sensation or perception. What do you want me to prove?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, when I open my eyes and see something red, that experience of redness is "primordial" in the sense that I did not fabricate it. It is what it is and I see it as such regardless of my intentions. In addition, my seeing it as "redness" is an exposition of ME; I am that sensation or perception. What do you want me to prove?

I do not ask for proof of things regarding REALITY. I am willing to GUESS that is an impossibility.

I did not ask you for proof.

What I did ask was:

Show me that YOU are experiencing REALITY first hand. In fact, just convince me that when you say you are experiencing REALITY first hand...you are doing something other than guessing at what REALITY actually IS...and suggesting (gratuitously) that you are experiencing it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Show me that YOU are experiencing REALITY first hand. In fact, just convince me that when you say you are experiencing REALITY first hand...you are doing something other than guessing at what REALITY actually IS...and suggesting (gratuitously) that you are experiencing it.

Where between naieve realism and epistemological certainty do you wish JL to proceed?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Show me that YOU are experiencing REALITY first hand. In fact, just convince me that when you say you are experiencing REALITY first hand...you are doing something other than guessing at what REALITY actually IS...and suggesting (gratuitously) that you are experiencing it.
Where between naieve realism and epistemological certainty do you wish JL to proceed?

I want him to convince me that he is doing something other than guessing about the true nature of REALITY.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I want him to convince me that he is doing something other than guessing about the true nature of REALITY.

Am I right in saying the naïve realist is really just guessing?

'Cept he usually figures on guessing right.

1 Reply

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know