morality, drugs, existence

YO, CM...

...I want you to know that I read every word you wrote both to me and to Ding in these last several posts...

...and you are making even less sense than usual today.

I hope nothing is wrong. (Although I understand that in your universe there is no universe; no you; and nothing that could be wrong.)

I mean...I hope you are not under the weather or allowing the stress of this conversation to throw you off your game. (And I understand that in your universe there is no weather; stress; games; or conversations.)

Anyway…I particularly loved the post that included the following:

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
I'm honest enough to acknowledge that non-duality may not be so. You, and the other non-dualists here, seem to think that because you guess non-duality prevails...then non-duality prevails.

it is not a guess, it is the result of intuitive understanding of your own experience of consciousness, and the lack of 'absolute' reality to it.

Quote:
Me...I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

yes, you don't know, but you assume a 'reality of existence'.

Quote:
I am delighted you guys think you do.

In fact, I get a kick out of it.

non dualists don't pay any attention to thoughts, unlike dualists.

I am sure Fresco is delighted to have a guy offering such quality arguments on his side.

Oh...my sides hurt. Life just doesn't get any better than this! (Although golf seems out of the question for the next week. Weather and Honey-Do list call for me to be near the abode!)

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have found, however, that people like you just do not like comments that cast any question on your belief system at all..

There is no belief system, Frank.
What I don't like is people who try to ridicule my thoughts when it is clear from their posts that they haven't even understood them.

Did you miss the part where I said that, as I see it, dualism vs non-dualism is a matter of perspectives? They are conceptual descriptions we humans utilize to describe ways of thinking and understanding. Sometimes we deconstruct concepts to get a better understanding, and sometimes we take a perspective from which we can see the concept as a whole. It happens according to the contextual meaning of any given situation, and we relate to concepts dualistically and holistically all the time, and no single thing concept is dualistic or holistic in itself.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I have found, however, that people like you just do not like comments that cast any question on your belief system at all..

There is no belief system, Frank.

Yeah, Cyracuz...in your case there is a belief system in place.

Quote:

What I don't like is people who try to ridicule my thoughts when it is clear from their posts that they haven't even understood them.

Go back and take a look at our comments in this thread, Cyracuz…and you will find that any insults toward each other BEGAN with you insulting me. You try to demean and ridicule MY thoughts…not the other way around. (Although I am willing to acknowledge that I sometimes retaliate for stuff you’ve started.)

Quote:

Did you miss the part where I said that, as I see it, dualism vs non-dualism is a matter of perspectives? They are conceptual descriptions we humans utilize to describe ways of thinking and understanding. Sometimes we deconstruct concepts to get a better understanding, and sometimes we take a perspective from which we can see the concept as a whole. It happens according to the contextual meaning of any given situation, and we relate to concepts dualistically and holistically all the time, and no single thing concept is dualistic or holistic in itself.

A better question might be, “Did you miss the part where I said that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence…but that whatever IS…IS.”

Because Cyracuz…what I have said tells the story much more clearly and honestly that all those words you used.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

CM wrote

Quote:

non dualists don't pay any attention to thoughts, unlike dualists.

To which Frank responded.

Quote:

I am sure Fresco is delighted to have a guy offering such quality arguments on his side.

Which merely indicates that Frank has no conception of the experiential aspect to which CM refers. Suspension of normal thought is a preliminary to most meditational practices and that can lead to suspension of time in which the dynamics of argumentative discourse (internal or external) operate.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Yeah, Cyracuz...in your case there is a belief system in place.

And not in yours?

Quote:

A better question might be, “Did you miss the part where I said that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence…but that whatever IS…IS.”

You gotta be ******* kidding me...
Again you demonstrate that you have not the faintest idea of what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Because Cyracuz…what I have said tells the story much more clearly and honestly that all those words you used.

Which story is that? This should be good.

1 Reply

About this distinction "dualist" vs "non-dualist".... It sets things up so that we easily start thinking as people as either or.

Some people are right handed, others left handed. That does not mean that these people only have either the right or the left hand. They have two hands, and use both. Similarly, our understanding of any situation we find ourselves in is a mix of our minds working both dualistically and holistically.

About our brain it's said that the left half is the part that distinguishes one thing from another, while the right half is the part that understands everything as a whole. Both are involved in our daily functioning.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, Cyracuz...in your case there is a belief system in place.

And not in yours?

"I do not know" is NOT a belief system. Sorry you cannot grasp that.

Quote:

Quote:
A better question might be, “Did you miss the part where I said that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence…but that whatever IS…IS.”

You gotta be ******* kidding me...
Again you demonstrate that you have not the faintest idea of what I'm talking about.

Try to stay under control, Cyracuz...and see if you can extend your thinking just a bit.

I understand what you are talking about. You are trying to pretend you are saying approximately what I am saying...but that truly is not how you actually feel...so your attempts come up hollow.

Do you know what actually IS...in this universe? I do not.

Because I do not know...I acknowledge that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

If so...why not just acknowledge it without all the nonsense attached so that it can clearly be understood that you do not.

Now you and Fresco and CM can play all the games you want to with the words, but the essence of what I am attempting to communicate with this inadequate language of ours is pretty clear.

I do not know what is going on here...and any guesses I make about it are nothing but blind, silly guesses...so I stay away from them.

Quote:

Quote:
Because Cyracuz…what I have said tells the story much more clearly and honestly that all those words you used.

Which story is that? This should be good.

Open your mind, Cyracuz. You have all the information you need...and you have more than enough intellect to process it. Stop refusing to do so.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Never mind, Frank. I let you troll me again. My bad.

Enjoy your intellectual infancy. You certainly work hard to maintain it.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
And the paradox can be resolved if we understand the scope and the axiom used here.

no paradox can actually be resolved, or it isn't a true paradox.

Don't really know what you mean by a "true paradox". Real paradox? Well, in any event, a paradox is an statement that is contradictory and yet seemingly true. Once again, you have an idiosyncratic understanding of words, and paradox is one of them.

And there are many paradoxes that have been resolved. Russell's and Zeno's paradox have been resolved, at least in mathematical terms. We still call them paradoxes, but they also have a resolution. So this kind of stuff happens more often than you think.

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Nothing is.. nothing. And there's the claim that you should be claiming, but you're not.

if you want me to claim that, i can. i disagree that i 'should' be claiming that. i am claiming that all ideas of nothingness/reality/existence/is/is not are conceptual claims coming from a consciousness which is primarily always unsure of its own existence, and only secondarily is able to conceptualise.

I'm more interested in you hypothetico-deductive argument for arriving at the contradictory conclusion "whatever is...is not", and not so interested in your ideas. The ideas are secondary, but we can talk about those too if you'd like.

And nothingness, reality, existence, is, is not are not conceptual claims, but concepts. You can make conceptual claims about them, but they themselves are not conceptual claims. Conceptual claims are usually in the form of statements and arguments.

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
In any event, it doesn't lead to the problems that you think it leads to. So, nice try.

ok? did i say there was any problem? all i am saying is nothing is absolutely true, including "what is is". its not a problem.

"Nothing" cannot be absolutely true, or even true. It's not a statement. "Nothing exists" can be absolutely true, and, if you think about it, also true. But this is different from saying the noun "Nothing" is true. The former can be problematic, while the latter is not a wff (well formed formula).

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
What you should be doing:
Ax(x=n), where x is the set that contains n, which is trivial.

What you're trying to do:
Ax(x=n), where x is the set that contains all things, which is nonsense.

i am not trying to do anything, i am not trying to prove that "what is isn't". i am just explaining the questionable nature of "what is is".

Perfectly understandable, except you were trying to prove that "whatever is... is nothing" based upon the hypothesis that nothing has a referent in actual existence. Within the confines of your supposition, you did indeed attempt to prove that "whatever is... is not". Hell, you even said "therefore" to arrive at your conclusion. That's a clear indicator that you we're trying to prove something. Unless, as it seems to be with every word you use, you're using "therefore" in an idiosyncratic manner.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Never mind, Frank. I let you troll me again. My bad.

Enjoy your intellectual infancy. You certainly work hard to maintain it.

Keep it closed tightly then, Cyracuz. Make sure nothing seeps in accidentally.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Good luck getting through, Ding.

He has the makings of a thinking person...truly.

But it does look as though he wants to waste it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

..I want you to know that I read every word you wrote both to me and to Ding in these last several posts...

don't care

Quote:

...and you are making even less sense than usual today.

only to you

Quote:

I hope nothing is wrong. (Although I understand that in your universe there is no universe; no you; and nothing that could be wrong.)

I mean...I hope you are not under the weather or allowing the stress of this conversation to throw you off your game. (And I understand that in your universe there is no weather; stress; games; or conversations.)

what was the point of all of that? wasting soo much space to try some weird pointless insult..

Quote:

I am sure Fresco is delighted to have a guy offering such quality arguments on his side.

Oh...my sides hurt. Life just doesn't get any better than this! (Although golf seems out of the question for the next week. Weather and Honey-Do list call for me to be near the abode!)

wow, a COMPLETE post with absolutely nothing argument related. you are jokes.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

About this distinction "dualist" vs "non-dualist".... It sets things up so that we easily start thinking as people as either or.

Some people are right handed, others left handed. That does not mean that these people only have either the right or the left hand. They have two hands, and use both. Similarly, our understanding of any situation we find ourselves in is a mix of our minds working both dualistically and holistically.

About our brain it's said that the left half is the part that distinguishes one thing from another, while the right half is the part that understands everything as a whole. Both are involved in our daily functioning.

The analogy, I think, doesn't work here. Almost all philosophical positions negate, and hence oppose, some set of positions (the extreme case being a form of absolutism, which opposes every other position except itself). But this is not so for the left and right hands, or the left and right hemispheres of the brain. They work in tandem.

We should be careful here not to take recourse to a position that is based on perspective. Because, much like philosophical relativism, it's self-refuting. And here, the analogy still does not hold.

If non-dualism is true in one form or another, then so be it. Smile

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Good luck getting through, Ding.

Thanks.

Frank Apisa wrote:

He has the makings of a thinking person...truly.

As long as he can think correctly, I'm down with that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But it does look as though he wants to waste it.

So be it.

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
..I want you to know that I read every word you wrote both to me and to Ding in these last several posts...

don't care

Quote:
...and you are making even less sense than usual today.

only to you

Quote:
I hope nothing is wrong. (Although I understand that in your universe there is no universe; no you; and nothing that could be wrong.)

I mean...I hope you are not under the weather or allowing the stress of this conversation to throw you off your game. (And I understand that in your universe there is no weather; stress; games; or conversations.)

what was the point of all of that? wasting soo much space to try some weird pointless insult..

Quote:
I am sure Fresco is delighted to have a guy offering such quality arguments on his side.

Oh...my sides hurt. Life just doesn't get any better than this! (Although golf seems out of the question for the next week. Weather and Honey-Do list call for me to be near the abode!)

wow, a COMPLETE post with absolutely nothing argument related. you are jokes.

And yet you dissected every paragraph and sentence of it...and commented on everything I said!

Sometimes the joke is on you!

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

Don't really know what you mean by a "true paradox". Real paradox? Well, in any event, a paradox is an statement that is contradictory and yet seemingly true. Once again, you have an idiosyncratic understanding of words, and paradox is one of them.

idiosyncrasy implies normality which only exists subjectively. there are many who probably could have understood what i meant about paradoxes. i understand that in general, a paradox is something which at first seems impossible, but then may be resolved. my point is that once a paradox is 'resolved', it is no longer really a paradox anymore because there is no seeming impossibility anymore. so i just coined the term 'true paradox', meaning a paradox which can never be resolved, for example 'this statement is false'.

the statement "what is is" could be considered an obvious fact. if you consider the concept of 'nothingness', the statement could also be considered paradoxical. if you think you can resolve this paradox, then go ahead and prove it to me. i am saying i think it is a 'true paradox', or a statement which can never be regarded as absolutely true, or false.

Quote:

I'm more interested in you hypothetico-deductive argument for arriving at the contradictory conclusion "whatever is...is not", and not so interested in your ideas. The ideas are secondary, but we can talk about those too if you'd like.

i explained clearly that this is NOT my conclusion. i am not saying that 'whatever is is not'. i am questioning the concepts of "is" and "is not", as well as all other concepts.

Quote:

And nothingness, reality, existence, is, is not are not conceptual claims, but concepts. You can make conceptual claims about them, but they themselves are not conceptual claims. Conceptual claims are usually in the form of statements and arguments.

you wasted a paragraph to try and teach me the difference between a concept and a claim? read again, i said "ALL IDEAS" about nothingness/reality etc are conceptual claims. so the IDEAS are the claims, get it?

Quote:

"Nothing" cannot be absolutely true, or even true. It's not a statement. "Nothing exists" can be absolutely true, and, if you think about it, also true. But this is different from saying the noun "Nothing" is true. The former can be problematic, while the latter is not a wff (well formed formula).

oh my god. "nothing" doesn't have to be a statement on its own for the statement "nothing is absolutely true" to be considered. the statement is about absolute truth. are there any statements that are absolutely true? if not, then 'nothing is absolutely true'. if so, then something is absolutely true. please let me know if so.

Quote:

Perfectly understandable, except you were trying to prove that "whatever is... is nothing" based upon the hypothesis that nothing has a referent in actual existence.

i did not hypothesise that nothingness exists as an actual somethingness. i said the concept of nothingness creates a paradox in the "what is is" philosophy.

Quote:

Within the confines of your supposition, you did indeed attempt to prove that "whatever is... is not". Hell, you even said "therefore" to arrive at your conclusion. That's a clear indicator that you we're trying to prove something.

yes. i was trying to prove that the concepts of "is" and "is not" are questionable. i was saying that 'whatever is MAY not be'. not 'whatever is is not', proven categorically.

Quote:

Unless, as it seems to be with every word you use, you're using "therefore" in an idiosyncratic manner.

you love the word idiosyncrasy or something? the meaning of every word is ambiguous. in a thread specifically talking about reality/existence, it is obvious that certain key words will be defined differently by different people. to constantly label my usage of words as idiosyncratic only reveals your own need to prove your own understanding of words as correct/normal.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And yet you dissected every paragraph and sentence of it...and commented on everything I said!

Sometimes the joke is on you!

yes, as i always do. because there is a purpose to what i am doing. i am answering all responses to my thread. even idiotic, pointless ones like yours, where all i can do is point out how stupid they are.

you, on the other hand, started off trying to argue with me, then got crushed to a pulp and now you just spew out some personal insults about my 'delusions', 'absurdities', 'nonsense' blah blah. hahahaha.

sometimes the joke may be on me, but currently not so.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

They work in tandem.

This is my point. I would not call non-dualism or dualism philosophical positions. I would call them philosophical concepts.

Let me try to illustrate the point once more. If you were reporting on a football match, you would perhaps start off by explaining that there were two teams playing this match. In that context, the two teams are dualistic counterparts that form a whole; the game being played.

Then you might talk about each team, and then the whole that is a team will be divided into smaller components. You might distinguish between offensive and defensive players, who then are dualistic counterparts that form a whole.

And if we were having a conversation about this, and we both were avid football fans, we could jump between these perspectives from one sentence to another. Our mutual understanding as followers of the sport would be what enabled this more or less arbitrary jumping back and forth between 'conceptual levels' (match would be one conceptual level, team a level beneath, and players a level beneath that again).
If one of us had little or no knowledge of football, that jumping back and forth would be a lot more challenging, and we would not communicate as successfully.

I hope this illustrates the point I am trying to make, that debating the existence of non-duality or duality is about as futile as debating the existence of up or down.

Does a meter (the metric length value) exist? Or to phrase it like you did, is a meter true? I think that is a rather wrongheaded question to ask.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Good luck getting through, Ding.

every single thing you or ding has said has 'gotten through' to me fully. thats why i respond directly to every comment. what do you think, that i am 'asserting' things hasn't gotten through? that i use words idiosyncratically hasn't gotten through? that i am wrong about everything apparently? hahaha, everything gets through to me and you know it.

Quote:

He has the makings of a thinking person...truly.

everyone is a thinking person. you saying this just shows that you judge between 'thinking people' and 'non thinking people', probably considering yourself as one of the great 'thinking people'. and you 'truly' think i can be one too? wake up from your fantasy and realise you don't exist, fool.

Quote:

But it does look as though he wants to waste it.

exactly. waste everything. your idea that something has value and shouldn't be wasted is restricting your life a million-fold. at least let your last years have some excitement, and WASTE THEM.

every

1 Reply

CM wrote:

Quote:

idiosyncrasy implies normality which only exists subjectively.

Actually, there may be an objective "normality." It does not have to be subjective. (It may always be, but there is no way to know that for sure...although that does not stop you from asserting it as a fact upon which you base further argument.)

But you have to open your mind to acknowledge that.

Quote:

...the statement "what is is" could be considered an obvious fact.

It could be considered a tautology…and should, because that is what it is.

Quote:

are there any statements that are absolutely true?

Well, if there are not...then the statement "There are no true statements" must be false...which means...ahhh...no need to go over it again.

You are arguing the bizarre...and pretending it is simply the product of the superior mind you possess. Your posts are, for the most part, you reaching around with your arm to pat yourself on the back.

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know