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

@Frank Apisa,

http://imageshack.us/scaled/thumb/547/ux9x.jpg

Well done ! But in future don't talk to strangers.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Razz...if you do not find it interesting or productive...you should not give a ****.

I find it very interesting...and I think more is being accomplished here than seems at first blush.

i also find it interesting; possibly, unfortunately so. consider it productive? ... less so. what do you hope to accomplish by needling fresco? to make it clear, i disagree with both of you, but i don't think that two smart, adult men snarking at one another represents a productive exchange. perhaps you could inform me.

i appreciate your willing admission not to know things that a person could not know, but i sometimes question whether that position dissuades you from learning about things of which you were formerly ignorant. Kant was not agnostic...(hope that last sentence didn't seem like too much of a non sequitur.)

fresco wrote:

Your late entry as a spectator (a l'etranger) re-emphasizes the difference between social discourse towards common goals, and the divergence of non-contextual language ("on holiday"). In addition you make interesting comments about the significance or otherwise of modern communications to psychological "reality". But do not those comments mitigate against your last sentence ? Maybe you should consider that "the stranger" is still a social self which merely predicates its status negatively.

your Camus references are cute...still, they don't reassure me that you've actually read a book written by him, any more than your Heidegger references make me think you've read a book by him (your admonishments to Frank re: reading Camus' books was spectacularly amusing as a consequence, thank you).

i'm sorry that me and my non-contextual language are crashing your party. i am afraid that my observations were discursive, and seemingly "stranger"-like, but my concern is central. the idea that the "stranger", or the fringe, or the homeless expresses its status negatively, or "status quo", is a bourgeois fallacy. The fringe is the center, old boy. Perhaps social cliques that express their status "negatively" are the most audible.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

I read The Outsider and The Plague many years ago, and I audited the Berkeley course on Heidegger(45 hours of Dreyfus !)* a couple of years ago in preparation for a local paper I gave on Merleau-Ponty who uses Heidegger as a sub-text.

My suggestion to you was that your "why should I give a ****" is somewhat negated by your actual presence on the thread. The view, that "selves" are essentially ephemeral social products rather than consistent individual entities, is offered both as a meditational conclusion, (in line with this thread's central theme ) and as an explanation of your participation.
*(Available on Berkeley Website)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

This comes closer...but how does it differ from "I do not KNOW the true nature of REALITY."

It differs in certainty of 'I do not know the true nature of reality', the care factor involved in the 'I do not know the true nature of reality'...and it differs in the outcome in the discussion toward igm, JLN etc.

Quote:

Volorr...I HAVE. Many, many, many times.

I recall you applying it to your own thoughts, though not to others.

Razzleg wrote:

that for an argument to be fruitful, there needs to be a deep-seated common interest in play

I would say that both parties would need to participate meaningfully in problem solving for differences to be 'fruitfully resolved'....that may involved deep seated common interest, or it may not (it could involve just self interest, or a loss of interest in the problem <or similar> & a desire to have it resolved, etc)

Razzleg wrote:

it is painful to me to see smart people destroying their own potential through meaningless dissent with potential collaborators

You make an assumption regarding the meaninglessness of the discussion - it may be to you. For me, I understand the reasons why I've engaged in this conversation for so long, and it has meaning and potential usefulness in my perspective....it hasn't resulted in what I'd hoped to achieve...but that hasn't made the attempt or the actions meaningless.

What is interesting - the reason your post appears to have similarities to some of my first posts to Frank.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I assume that you prefer the term "guess" to describe your speculative efforts is because as far as you are concerned they have the mindlessness of a guess.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, I assume that you prefer the term "guess" to describe your speculative efforts is because as far as you are concerned they have the mindlessness of a guess.

When I make "speculative efforts", JL...I call them speculative efforts; when I make estimates...I call them estimates; when I hypothesize...I call it hypothesizing.

When I make guesses...just plain blind guesses...I call them guesses.

I try not to be "mindless" and I seldom am concerned about "mindlessness" in my comments, whether the comments are speculation, estimation, hypothesization...or just plain blind guessing. Yup...even my guesses are not really mindless as far as I am concerned. They are honest.

When I am talking about Ultimate Questions like, "Is there a GOD?" or "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"...

...I most definitely call my comments guesses, because that is what they are.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Actually you profess that virtually all beliefs and speculations are no more than guesses. Either that or I have been misreading you for years now.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Actually you profess that virtually all beliefs and speculations are no more than guesses. Either that or I have been misreading you for years now.

Actually, I suggest that virtually ALL "beliefs" about Ultimate Questions ARE guesses.

What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

Are there no gods?

Is what we call "the universe" actually an illusion?

Is the non-duality concept correct?

As far as I can see...any so-called "beliefs" about these questions ARE guesses.

I may be wrong...and I am willing to discuss that possibility with anyone.

Do you KNOW the answer to any of those questions?

Do you have non-ambiuous evidence to explain any guesses you make about them?

Do you call your guesses about these things...guesses?

As for "beliefs" or "speculations" others have outside the Ultimate Questions arena...I seldom comment on them. And if I do, I accept whatever word is used to describe the activity.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Is what we call "the universe" actually an illusion?

Surprisingly, astronomer Sir Patrick Moore hinted at the same thing some years ago in closing an episode of his long-running 'The Sky at Night' TV series.
He said something like- "I had a letter from someone asking me what I make of the existence of the universe, and my answer is: 'Does it really exist?' Goodnight"
As far as I know he never elaborated in following episodes.

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

If I were asked if the universe existed I would counter with this question "What is this Universe that may or may not exst?"
All I know is that I am part of the Universe and I have first hand evidence that I exist but I am not intellectually sure of what I am (or what you are).

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

If I were asked if the universe existed I would counter with this question "What is this Universe that may or may not exst?"
All I know is that I am part of the Universe and I have first hand evidence that I exist but I am not intellectually sure of what I am (or what you are).

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

If I were asked if the universe existed I would counter with this question "What is this Universe that may or may not exst?"
All I know is that I am part of the Universe and I have first hand evidence that I exist but I am not intellectually sure of what I am (or what you are).

But if you were to ask Romeo, or me, the question...and we responded with your retort, what information would that give you?

I (or what I consider "I") am sure that I (or what I consider "I") exist. I think...I sense...I reason...and all that kind of good stuff.

There certainly seems to be something here...and I have less trouble saying that I KNOW I exist than anything else.

You seem to be saying that same thing, but I have no way of knowing that you are not merely an illusion that "I" have created for myself...part of the greater illusion of a universe which "I" have also created for myself.

I may be the only thing that exists...and may be (probably purposefully) deluding myself that anything else does.

"Does the universe exist?" is probably just a small part of the total equation.

What is existence...or the more formally structured, "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?" is one hell of a cunundrum.

I enjoy discussing it...as you can tell.

1 Reply

Ah, if only we had an alien visitor to explain everything to us!
Hey wait a minute, perhaps we do have one!
Jesus said- "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world" (John 8:23)
"I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going." (John 8:14)
"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things,so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)
"I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (Matt 13:35)

So wouldn't it be illogical not to listen to him?
Hey Spock would you listen?
"Affirmative, i'm all ears"

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/Spock-vwj.jpg

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Ah, if only we had an alien visitor to explain everything to us!
Hey wait a minute, perhaps we do have one!
Jesus said- "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world" (John 8:23)
"I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going." (John 8:14)
"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things,so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)
"I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (Matt 13:35)

So wouldn't it be illogical not to listen to him?Hey Spock would you listen?
"Affirmative, i'm all ears"

Ummm...my usual question would apply to Jesus also.

Jesus...how do you know you are not deluding yourself when you say that you know where you come from (above!, yet) and where you are going?

But since he is not here...I cannot ask.

So the answer to your question for me would be: It would be completely illogical to accept his assertions as gospel. (Irony intended.)

0 Replies

Quote:

No absolute reality

In 1967, Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker proved mathematically that even for a single quantum object, where entanglement is not possible, the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the context. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it.html#.Ukbr8YasjKk

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Ummm...my usual question would apply to Jesus also.
Jesus...how do you know you are not deluding yourself when you say that you know where you come from (above!, yet) and where you are going?
But since he is not here...I cannot ask.
So the answer to your question for me would be: It would be completely illogical to accept his assertions as gospel. (Irony intended.)

Jesus bent the laws of physics ("miracles") which make him at least worth listening to.. Smile

Dawkins makes lots of assertions in his evolution books and we could therefore say he's deluded too. And he's gained many "disciples" so we could say they're being illogical to take his every word as gospel.. Smile

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
Ummm...my usual question would apply to Jesus also.
Jesus...how do you know you are not deluding yourself when you say that you know where you come from (above!, yet) and where you are going?
But since he is not here...I cannot ask.
So the answer to your question for me would be: It would be completely illogical to accept his assertions as gospel. (Irony intended.)

Jesus bent the laws of physics ("miracles") which make him at least worth listening to..
Dawkins makes lots of assertions in his evolution books and we could therefore say he's deluded too. And he's gained many "disciples" so we could say they're being illogical to take his every word as gospel..

Tell that to Fresco. He buys bridges!

0 Replies

http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/850/uikm.jpg

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Being a "Monist" I am by implication a thorough-going relativist (or co-and inter-relationist?). As such , Frank, it feels right for me to sugguest that the "I" in "I exist" is more a function of language (the imperious subjective-object split) than an actual empirical pointer. I cannot give a definitive logical proof that I am not a solipistic reality, but in my heart I "know" (what you call a possible delusion) that "my" reality includes you and everything else.
You also say that the question of the existence of the universe "is probably just a small part of the total equation." Perhaps so, but to me it is also an exclusively human phenomenon, a purely human query or concern.
Thanks to Fresco for the delicious link. Mathematical logic can be a source of both joy and pain.

1 Reply

Just to digress slightly and touch on our own personal perception of Truth and Reality:- Suppose we were blind golfers and we hit a hole in one, how could we be 100% sure we'd done it?
Sure, our family and friends out there with us would whoop and holler and slap our back, but to put it bluntly they might be lying!
There'd be NO EVIDENCE to conclusively prove we'd done it except their testimony, so should we believe them?
Same with Jesus, should we believe his friends and eyewitnesses who say he raised the dead and did other stuff that not even David Blaine can do?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15311187

PS- a keen golfer once asked Billy Graham if there are golf courses in heaven, to which BG replied "Yes, if you want them!"

4 Replies

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