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

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

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

Please excuse the questions again - but if 'you cannot know the true nature of reality'...and you don't take guesses at it...what is left for you to work on?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

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.

If you say so...I will accept this for now. I will acknowledge that I feel my comment to you was on the mark...but since you are saying things are otherwise, we will leave it be.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I am not as disposed as you to call upon them as authorities on these questions…but prefer to work on them myself.
Please excuse the questions again - but if 'you cannot know the true nature of reality'...and you don't take guesses at it...what is left for you to work on?

How many times must I repeat that I AM NOT SAYING ONE CANNOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY. We have discussed this at length, Vikorr!

How would I possibly know that everyone CANNOT know it?

I KNOW that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I SUSPECT nobody here knows it either...

...but I ask questions to see if I am wrong about this.

So far, I have not had any response to suggest that I ought change my suspicion.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I do not feel that theoretical knowleldge of the "true nature of reality" is an actual or existential problem. Everyone feels he's awake (in reality) rather than asleep (in fantasy). So for him being in reality is not a "problem". Even when we are dreaming our dream presuppose that we are awake--until the alarm clock goes off.
When we argue about Reality we are concerned about a purely theoretical issue.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

How many times must I repeat that I AM NOT SAYING ONE CANNOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY. We have discussed this at length, Vikorr!

How would I possibly know that everyone CANNOT know it?

I KNOW that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I SUSPECT nobody here knows it either...

Ah, Frank,

When I said 'but if you cannot know the true reality of nature, and you don't take guesses at it'...is it not obvious that I am using 'you' to refer to 'you, Frank'...because this is what you have said, see the quote below.

Quote:

I KNOW that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence

So we are in agreement, and the question still stands.

-------------------------------------------

I find it unfathomable that you are so questioning in your stance and think it normal vs when someone questions your own stance...you read into it ulterior motives that are not there.

You've done this several times now, and I can only say that if you stuck to not knowing the true nature of reality (reality includes other people, and their motives, and feelings)...things would be a lot smoother.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

That should be :

Quote:

I find it unfathomable that you are so questioning of others in your stance and think it normal vs when someone questions your own stance...you read into it ulterior motives that are not there.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Your reference to waking and sleeping is indeed a key semantic backcloth associated our usage of the word "reality". Various movements have extrapolated from that to "higher states of consciousness" beyond mere "wakefulness". But it an entirely different matter to argue for an ultimate level or state. That level might be described as "god-like" by some vis-a-vis an external reality, or "nirvana" by others vis-a-vis a holistic reality. The problem is that the word "reality" does not travel well beyond its parochial scenario of the alarm clock. The arguments here tend to arise when respondents attempt to take the word on such excursions (or as Wittgenstein said "indulge in language on holiday").

Elsewhere I have explained the proposition of ultimate states as being driven by our psychological desire for "closure against the void of apparent insignificance". The theists "solve" this one way by claiming "significance as being created in the image of God", and the Buddhists solve it another by accepting the insignificance (aka illusion) of "self" within a "holistic unity". Either way, the proposition of such states is psychologically functional rather than philosophically ontological. I suggest that they have no value or currency beyond their personal utility to the proposer within the flux of social interaction.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Footnotes
1. With respect to "levels of consciousness" I should perhaps have added that the experiential claim is that these are qualitative steps equivalent in degree to that of "waking from sleep".
2. By "social transactions" I include internal ones involving self1 with self2.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I do not feel that theoretical knowleldge of the "true nature of reality" is an actual or existential problem. Everyone feels he's awake (in reality) rather than asleep (in fantasy). So for him being in reality is not a "problem". Even when we are dreaming our dream presuppose that we are awake--until the alarm clock goes off.
When we argue about Reality we are concerned about a purely theoretical issue.

That is something I do not know. I know I feel that I am...but I am unable to think of any way to be sure you even exist...let alone determine how you actually feel.

But apparently you, if you exist, feel you can do that.

Amazing.

And you have the gall to lecture me on the term "naive realist."

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
How many times must I repeat that I AM NOT SAYING ONE CANNOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY. We have discussed this at length, Vikorr!

How would I possibly know that everyone CANNOT know it?

I KNOW that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I SUSPECT nobody here knows it either...

Ah, Frank,

When I said 'but if you cannot know the true reality of nature, and you don't take guesses at it'...is it not obvious that I am using 'you' to refer to 'you, Frank'...because this is what you have said, see the quote below.

Quote:
I KNOW that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence

So we are in agreement, and the question still stands.

Respectfully, Vikorr...we are NOT.

You keep assuming that because I say that I do not know...it means I cannot know. I have no idea if I can or cannot know...which is why I keep asking questions and having this discussion. Which essentially is what you were asking me about.

Quote:

I find it unfathomable that you are so questioning in your stance and think it normal vs when someone questions your own stance...you read into it ulterior motives that are not there.

You've done this several times now, and I can only say that if you stuck to not knowing the true nature of reality (reality includes other people, and their motives, and feelings)...things would be a lot smoother.

Give me an example of what you are talking about. You are making this absurdly confusing when it does not have to be.

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

DO YOU?

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The theists "solve" this one way by claiming "significance as being created in the image of God", and the Buddhists solve it another by accepting the insignificance (aka illusion) of "self" within a "holistic unity". Either way, the proposition of such states is psychologically functional rather than philosophically ontological. I suggest that they have no value or currency beyond their personal utility to the proposer within the flux of social interaction.

Well said. I have 2 questions.

1. This states two options, 'image of God', and the illusion of self. Are there other options?

2. Is there not a value to the proposer for their own satisfaction of knowledge? I think there is much more importance to the conclusion than mere social interaction.

With that in mind, there is a real desire on the part of humans to find some reason for significance or being. That desire has been met, real or not, in many ways throughout the world.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

1. This states two options, 'image of God', and the illusion of self. Are there other options?

I cannot think of any other solutions to counter "fear of the void".

Quote:

2. Is there not a value to the proposer for their own satisfaction of knowledge? I think there is much more importance to the conclusion than mere social interaction.

Well here I think we need to investigate the term "knowledge". IMO it is not about a lay concept of "facts" since unless we are naive realists, facts are constructions (Latin facere-to make). "Knowledge" like "truth" is perhaps more safely construed as "what works" (philosophical pragmatism) and that is context specific, context being specified by observing participants sharing a perceptual set and common language. Thus "knowledge of God" can validly be claimed by consenting theists..."knowledge of ego-lessness" by consenting meditators...etc. since these dispositions inform (provide the semantic background) for their discourse about subsequent actions, thoughts and raison d'etre

Now those who think "scientific knowledge" is somehow in a different (superior) category to other "knowledge" should bear in mind Kuhn's work on "scientific paradigms" which explores the complex nature of the social network involved in the categorization and progress of "science". We should not be blinded by the recent apparent "success" of science (i.e it seems to work) because solutions to sub problems can generate unforeseen larger problems. At the end of the day, "success" is evaluated socially, not merely empirically, even if solutions to sub-problems can bring fame and personal satisfaction.

I do not challenge that "a desire for significance" is a motivating force. There are both evolutionary and psychological factors which seem to be operating there. I would re-iterate, however, that attempts at "ego-lessness" seem to arise predominantly to "see through" such motivation. The Christian variation of this called "selflessness", which for some translates as "serving God by helping others", differs from "ego-lessness" in that an ultimate purpose for existence has been specified.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I cannot think of any other solutions to counter "fear of the void".

Interesting way to express lack of significance.
Does acceptance of the void provide avoidance of fear?

( I'm not sure what the fact that avoidance contains void indicates.)
I know I could look it up.

Quote:

I would re-iterate, however, that attempts at "ego-lessness" seem to arise predominantly to "see through" such motivation.

I would agree but add that this vision helps one avoid the 'suffering' caused by the ego driven actions.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

Does acceptance of the void provide avoidance of fear?

If we take "the void" to be characterized by Shakespeare's
.. "life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"....
then avoidance would be futile. The "fear" is that Shakespeare might be right.
Shakespeare needed only to add the word "pain" to that list for your comment about the avoidance of suffering to make sense.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Macbeth, not Shakespeare, otherwise he also wanted to Kill all the lawyers.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Respectfully, Vikorr...we are NOT.

Frank - we cannot not be in agreement - I have pretty much said word for word what you say you believe...I substituted 'I' (which is what you use when you are talking about yourself) for 'you' (which is what I have to use when talking about you')...so we are in agreement.

If you don't like the word 'cannot' - replace it with with 'don't' (the question then becomes : if 'you don't know the true nature of reality'...and you don't take guesses at it...what is left for you to work on?.)

So question still stands...as it is in red.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Respectfully, Vikorr...we are NOT.

Frank - we cannot not be in agreement - I have pretty much said word for word what you say you believe...I substituted 'I' (which is what you use when you are talking about yourself) for 'you' (which is what I have to use when talking about you')...so we are in agreement.

If you don't like the word 'cannot' - replace it with with 'don't' (the question then becomes : if 'you don't know the true nature of reality'...and you don't take guesses at it...what is left for you to work on?.)

So question still stands...as it is in red.

I've already answered that question, Vikorr. And for you to suggest that "I do not know the true nature of REALITY" is the same as "I cannot know the true nature of REALITY"...makes no sense whatever. They are worlds apart...saying two different things.

Not sure what you problem is, but it is something you really ought to deal with.

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

I am not saying I cannot know...nor that others cannot know...so I am discussing the issue with as many people as possible in hopes of discovering someone who actually does KNOW the true nature...rather than simply asserting that he/she knows it.

Do you know the true nature of the REALITY of existence, Vikorr?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

vikorr wrote:

I find it unfathomable that you are so questioning in your stance and think it normal vs when someone questions your own stance...you read into it ulterior motives that are not there.

You've done this several times now, and I can only say that if you stuck to not knowing the true nature of reality (reality includes other people, and their motives, and feelings)...things would be a lot smoother.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Give me an example of what you are talking about. You are making this absurdly confusing when it does not have to be.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Which is why I keep asking questions and having this discussion http://able2know.org/topic/220485-39#post-5447038

Frank Apisa wrote:

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. http://able2know.org/topic/220485-38#post-5446230

These are from the last 2 pages Frank.

I say you ask a lot of questions...you say you ask a lot of questions

I say you see ulterior motives that aren't there...you say you see ulterior motives.

There is nothing confusing about that...you say it yourself. So perhaps you'd like to clarify what you find confusing.

Btw, I've noticed that I go to a great deal of trouble to answer your questions, yet you almost inevitable avoid actually answering mine (responding isn't answering)

Fair is fair Frank - why not put some effort into answering my questions.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

vikorr wrote:
I find it unfathomable that you are so questioning in your stance and think it normal vs when someone questions your own stance...you read into it ulterior motives that are not there.

You've done this several times now, and I can only say that if you stuck to not knowing the true nature of reality (reality includes other people, and their motives, and feelings)...things would be a lot smoother.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Give me an example of what you are talking about. You are making this absurdly confusing when it does not have to be.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Which is why I keep asking questions and having this discussion http://able2know.org/topic/220485-39#post-5447038

Frank Apisa wrote:
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. http://able2know.org/topic/220485-38#post-5446230

These are from the last 2 pages Frank.

I say you ask a lot of questions...you say you ask a lot of questions

I say you see ulterior motives that aren't there...you say you see ulterior motives.

There is nothing confusing about that...you say it yourself. So perhaps you'd like to clarify what you find confusing.

Btw, I've noticed that I go to a great deal of trouble to answer your questions, yet you almost inevitable avoid actually answering mine (responding isn't answering)

Fair is fair Frank - why not put some effort into answering my questions.

Give me a specific question. I will answer it fully.

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