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

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Interesting that he associates guts with
"self integrity". the chief impediment to understanding .

"Self integrity is the chief impediment to understanding"...is your guess, but it MAY BE WRONG.

Try to grow some integrity...try to show some spine.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

REALITY MAY NOT be what I am experiencing right now.

One second,

Is it that you are not experiencing reality (which would be really ...err...odd), or that what you are experiencing - you may be interpreting incorrectly....

...or are you saying that your eyes aren't seeing what is before, your ears aren't hearing sounds, etc?

....or something else?

1 Reply

this is one of those threads that could bring bring people together, but provides the fodder, via superficial controversy, that drive participants apart. it's also one of those threads that inadvertently pits the skeptics against the mystics.

i know that i am making myself a target of invective but: practically speaking, how are those two perspectives adversarial? they seem like perspectives that, while unable to understand one another, could work together. i don't give a **** about your convictions about reality or the reality of your conventions...

it seems to me that skeptics' and mystics' "goals" are aligned. they both question the idea that "knowing" something is the same thing as its being true, that our perception of the world is the same thing as "grasping" it, that there is a disparity between our understanding and the results of our utilization of our environment.

tell me...if each of you are right, and it makes no difference, what difference does the argument make?

3 Replies

@Razzleg,

What difference does any argument in this forum make?

And yet, probably, the question leads down the wrong path. I think a better question would be : 'what difference does your belief make in your life'.

The answer to both sides may have several similarities.

-------------------------------------------------
Invective in response to your post, would probably be in response to your aggressive tone (eg. 'I don't give a **** about your convictions')...an odd tone to take before demanding answers to your questions.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
REALITY MAY NOT be what I am experiencing right now.
One second,

Is it that you are not experiencing reality (which would be really ...err...odd), or that what you are experiencing - you may be interpreting incorrectly....

...or are you saying that your eyes aren't seeing what is before, your ears aren't hearing sounds, etc?

....or something else?

Vikorr...

...it is possible that what I perceive to be reality (the stuff I sense) IS NOT REALITY at all. And the REALITY MAY BE totally independent of anything any human can perceive--whether the human can explain or describe it or not.

Even casual discussions by humans of what REALLY IS...may be much closer to what an earthworm considers reality than any of us wants to suppose.

You have decided that I am wrong...and apparently you are determined to say anything that will minimize or mock what I have been suggesting.

Fine. If that serves some purpose for you...please continue to do so. You may also continue to leave charges of hypocrisy and lying out here...if that aids in whatever the personal purpose is.

But the bottom line is that I do not know what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is...not in any reasonable sense of the word "know"...and I have the strength of character and personal integrity to acknowledge that.

Some people here are pretending they can define both "the REALITY" and "know" in a way that allows them to assert they do know.

I am having some fun discussing that.

Are you also?

2 Replies

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

this is one of those threads that could bring bring people together, but provides the fodder, via superficial controversy, that drive participants apart. it's also one of those threads that inadvertently pits the skeptics against the mystics.

i know that i am making myself a target of invective but: practically speaking, how are those two perspectives adversarial? they seem like perspectives that, while unable to understand one another, could work together. i don't give a **** about your convictions about reality or the reality of your conventions...

it seems to me that skeptics' and mystics' "goals" are aligned. they both question the idea that "knowing" something is the same thing as its being true, that our perception of the world is the same thing as "grasping" it, that there is a disparity between our understanding and the results of our utilization of our environment.

tell me...if each of you are right, and it makes no difference, what difference does the argument make?

I'll attempt to answer that, Razz...although I acknowledge I will only be able to give you a taste of the essence of the answer. I'll do it by asking you a question:

What difference does your argument here make?

Whatever you have come up with....ours...is about the same.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Some people here are pretending they can define both "the REALITY" and "know" in a way that allows them to assert they do know.

You signally fail to include "their" deconstruction (not redefinition) of themselves, since this is the bit you cannot understand.

1 Reply

The basic differences here have been discussed and debated for hundreds of years. A simple google of 'nature of reality' reveals similar discussions by the most revered philosophers. Epistemology, the question of what 'know' means is also open for debate. I think that is the root question in this thread. I doubt we will answer those questions here. I do find value in reading some posts here. Also, I suppose there is some entertainment. At times the debate gets a bit heated, that is to be expected. Disrespect flares up also. That's just normal human behavior. I try to ignore it.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Some people here are pretending they can define both "the REALITY" and "know" in a way that allows them to assert they do know.

You signally fail to include "their" deconstruction (not redefinition) of themselves, since this is the bit you cannot understand.

You fail to acknowledge that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that humans may not KNOW what the REALITY is...

...without regard to whether or not you "deconstruct" or "redefine" or "have the maturity and integrity to acknowledge your limitations...

...or not.

You, Fresco, apparently assume humans can deal reasonably with the question at hand. I am unwilling to make that "leap of faith."

Stick with it. As the other Frank points out...there often is some entertainment in reading the nonsense...and I have an especially well developed sense of humor.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

The basic differences here have been discussed and debated for hundreds of years. A simple google of 'nature of reality' reveals similar discussions by the most revered philosophers. Epistemology, the question of what 'know' means is also open for debate. I think that is the root question in this thread. I doubt we will answer those questions here. I do find value in reading some posts here. Also, I suppose there is some entertainment. At times the debate gets a bit heated, that is to be expected. Disrespect flares up also. That's just normal human behavior. I try to ignore it.

These things have been debated throughout the years, Frank...and by people with credentials and qualifications to do so.

Here in A2K...there are people who assert they have the correct answer to what is.

That is the part that provides entertainment for me.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You, Fresco, apparently assume humans can deal reasonably with the question at hand.

The question at hand is about Buddhism in particular and meditational practices in general, NOT the word "reality". Of course some can deal with it, and some such as you, obviously cannot, largely because they have vested interests in not doing so.

Had you, for example admitted to indulging in such practices and given reasons for rejecting the general findings agreed amongst meditators regarding ineffable states of perception and understanding, then you might have a case.

As it stands you have nothing to say. Nobody but you uses the terms "correct" and "incorrect". The turgid repetition of the mantra "Frank doesn't know and everybody else is guessing" which itself simplistically assumes a right/wrong dichotomy can be applied, hardly qualifies as "dealing reasonably with the question".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
You, Fresco, apparently assume humans can deal reasonably with the question at hand.

The question at hand is about Buddhism in particular and meditational practices in general, NOT the word "reality". Of course some can deal with it, and some such as you, obviously cannot, largely because they have vested interests in not doing so.

Had you, for example admitted to indulging in such practices and given reasons for rejecting the general findings agreed amongst meditators regarding ineffable states of perception and understanding, then you might have a case.

As it stands you have nothing to say. Nobody but you uses the terms "correct" and "incorrect". The turgid repetition of the mantra "Frank doesn't know and everybody else is guessing" which itself simplistically assumes a right/wrong dichotomy can be applied, hardly qualifies as "dealing reasonably with the question".

I have plenty to say, Fresco...and I say it with a great deal more clarity and purpose than you do with your posts.

There is no ""Frank doesn't know and everybody else is guessing"...that is your way of avoiding what I actually say.

I personally do not know the true nature of REALITY.

If you think you do...tell us what it is rather than pretending that you can classify the question as absurd...while at the same time pretending you you have some insights into REALITY that are simply not available to people you consider dummies...such as myself.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The question about "reality" is absurd because the word is never used in everyday exchanges as an ontological entity. It is used when people disagree (internally or externally) about "what is the case" and is resolved by contextual negotiation. Modern philosophers of language (post Logical Positivism) concur that words are NOT representational of ontological entitird, but get their meaning from the context of usage. "Dummies" would indeed have trouble understanding that counter intuitive idea, as indeed they also would in understanding the mediational attempt and claims for success in transcending such everyday contexts which assign such meaning.

The fact that some philosophers historically cared to dabble in a hypothetical state they might call "reality" (or what Kant called noumena) has largely been superceded by those who realize the impossibility of access to such a proposed state. And scientists are quite happy to avoid any noumenal references to "reality of entities" being content with "elegance"," utility" or "what works" within a particular explanatory paradigm, subject of course to perpetual revision.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fresco, some of your wording in this last post of yours illustrates the problem I have with your position.

Quote:

The fact that some philosophers historically cared to dabble in a hypothetical state they might call "reality" (or what Kant called noumena)…

Why do you assert that REALITY is a hypothetical state?

It MAY NOT BE hypothetical at all…and MAY BE totally independent of what Fresco chooses to suppose about it.

Quote:

…has largely been superceded by those who realize the impossibility of access to such a proposed state.

This constant appeal to authority, even couched as cleverly as this one is…is preposterous. If EVERY philosopher alive were to subscribe to the position that “access to such a proposed state” as REALITY is IMPOSSIBLE…that would not make it impossible.

They, it appears, do not know access is impossible…and neither, it appears, do you. You and they do not even have access to all sentient beings that MAY exist…and do not know the capabilities of these other possible beings.

Many sentient beings MAY have access to truths you cannot even imagine, Fresco…and so too MAY whatever comes after the evolution of Homo Sapiens completes.

Quote:

And scientists are quite happy to avoid any references to "reality of entities" being content with "elegance"," utility" or "what works" within a particular explanatory paradigm, subject of course to perpetual revision.

Fine. Some are. Some aren’t.

I am not as disposed as you to call upon them as authorities on these questions…but prefer to work on them myself.

There is nothing absurd about questions anent REALITY, Fresco...except in your mind when it suits your purposes.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Come to think of it, Fresco...that last post of yours was one of your better ones.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don't intend wasting any more of my time taking the (circus) horse to water. If you don't understand your naive realistic assumptions encapsulated in your use of "be" in your phrase " it may not be hypothetical."
then you are not even going to get as far as the trough.

You don't have a clue about who said what in the developmental arena of ontological ideas except for what I and others have told you, and you attempt justify that ignorance by the catch-all clause "appeals to authority".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I don't intend wasting any more of my time taking the (circus) horse to water. If you don't understand your naive realistic assumptions encapsulated in your use of "be" in your phrase " it may not be hypothetical."
then you are not even going to get as far as the trough.

You don't have a clue about who said what in the developmental arena of ontological ideas except for what I and others have told you, and you attempt justify that ignorance by the catch-all clause "appeals to authority".

Nobody in A2K is more guilty of misuse of appeals to authority than you, Fresco. I'm not the only poster to point that out to you.

It doesn't make you a bad guy.

Your personality is another thing, though.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You have decided that I am wrong...and apparently you are determined to say anything that will minimize or mock what I have been suggesting.

Err, Frank, you should perhaps go back and read where I said 'there is much merit in Franks viewpoint' (but not in the extreme version of it - which is the part I disagree with)

The reason I asked questions seeking clarification is that you seemed to be using a different definition of 'experience' than Fresco. Fresco appears to be using 'directly experiencing reality' - which is obvious...while you appear to be using 'experiencing my interpreted version of reality' ...which while also obvious if you look at intent - isn't the pure meaning of 'experiencing'. Ie. You and Fresco are talking about two different things when you use the word 'experience'.

I thought you might pick up on that from the questions.

I'm not sure how asking questions seeking clarification mocks or minimises you or your position.

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