morality, drugs, existence

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

the pathway of non duality leads to an eternal abyss of nothingness, in which anything goes, and ideas such as morality can become very skewed, if not completely vanish. with the absence of any morality, drug use can only become more common. is there any need to address issues such as heavy drug use? does existence have any meaning? the emptiness of non duality appears to prove categorically that the answer is no.

Begging the question. Why is it that non duality leads to an "eternal abyss of nothingness"? Is there a particular version of non dualism that you're against, or is it non dualism in general?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...The distinction in quality needed be done between Science and Philosophy is that Philosophy has a more sober aim...Philosophy is concerned with pattern shape and not with pattern overall size complexity... : ))

To be perfectly blunt, Science is a slave, an instrument for Philosophy, and not a goal in itself.

The way I see it, philosophy and science can, and ought to, work in tandem. It's a lot more organic, and less hierarchical. But that's my bent.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I gather then to explain why there's a Universe and how we're an important part there's a bigger set, mysterious because we're only a subset and not equipped to understand it

My own take, is that our language isn't yet well-developed enough to handle distinctions between the concrete and the abstract, much less the reality of the latter

However according to the principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, I'd supposes that while part of our problem is its complexity--almost an unavailability as you assert--part, as I maintain, is semantic. Granted its massive entanglements are almost unapproachable and may never be completely fathomed, as our knowledge expands we sense an inkling of its infinitude

We can dance around it

…….just as the apodictical existential pantheist senses no fundamental difference between a human brain entertaining thought, and the Universe itself constituting Her body with all the activity therein Her thinking

On the other hand, maybe I'm just fullovit. But thank you Fil for your attempt to clarify

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

No it is not...you just have to think about what is it that minds do all the time...which is precisely to explain complexity, to order, to justify, to comprehend. You cannot comprehend more complexity within you then the complexity you, your own system has...

I've wanted very much to stay out of this conversation, because I see a dance that I see all too often in the philosophy threads...one that leads nowhere and that seems to be danced primarily to say something that appears profound.

Let me ask you this, Fil...and referring back to the quote and previous comments you have made in their vein:

Are you saying that unless humans are able to "explain" or "justify" or "comprehend" something...

...that thing does not and cannot exist?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Not at all Frank, as you should well know from all my previous takes on this mater...I am saying that knowledge cannot ever be complete or certain. It aims to recognize pattern shapes not pattern overall size n complexity.

I am also saying that there is no way in hell, "God", the final set, is a mind...in fact the purpose of problem solving, that which minds do, implies your incompleteness. You only search when you lack not when you have it all...having it all would turn you into a mindless "stone".

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Not at all Frank, as you should well know from all my previous takes on this mater...I am saying that knowledge cannot ever be complete or certain.

Whew! Glad I was reading the earlier posts incorrectly, Fil.

I am in substantial agreement with what you wrote here...and I like your arguments for why you say so specifically that "...knowledge cannot ever be complete or certain. " I've always been of that opinion, but I've never seen the argument presented as you did.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am also saying that there is no way in hell, "God", the final set, is a mind...

Fil I don't see why not, depending on what's meant by "mind." If one means a function of the brain, why can't all the frantic activity be called Her thinking

That's not to take the dualistic stand with Her, Its, body (the Universe) one thing and Her mind (Its activity) another. Dualism is just another way particles and charges interact to make a pattern

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

I never disagreed that there are semantic problems when trying to recognize pattern shapes, that is, understandings...nonetheless that doesn't change the fact that a glass of water won't fit an equal glass of water within itself. All we have are better or worse representations of pattern shapes and never, never, the full pattern size complexity.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

But it can...I am speaking of SIZE here...thinking within the final set does not equate to the Final Set being at thinking...although thinking is beauty inside "Gods" nature, thinking is not an activity of "God" per se but within "God"...

I am just saying that thinking is an activity that requires incompleteness...
"God" as a whole is a bloody "stone" a place older, a damn very dead, very oblivious thing...think of maths for metaphor.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

What bothers me is the idea of discreet "sets" since nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. I see Her as the one single big happening, all the "sets" merely various patterns assumed by matter and charges roiling around in our brains and computers; intergalactic interactions and communication; and The Ultimate Her

Though I readily concede I, we, could be fullovit. My observations anyway aren't at all rigorously logical, they're intuition

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

We must distinguish two things here quantity and quality...I agree with your take regarding quality not quantity...Yes pattern shapes repeat endlessly think of fractals...we all have the same pattern shapes within ourselves, the Universe, "God", Being, whatever you want to call it, has as a whole, but we don't have the same size...the justification of motion, of purpose, of life itself as a journey being distinct of a complete dead stone, is precisely that being incomplete is good not bad...

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Yes I agree with you that both Science and Philosophy are intertwined...but the goal of Philosophy is wiser then the goal of Science could ever be...Philosophy is concerned with the precision of quality and not so much with the quality of precision...precision itself is a function, when it does not serve pattern shape comprehension, it serves nothing ! Translating, the purpose of knowledge is not to fully and accurately replicate the real, but rather to show, to reveal, its shape at our own scale.
(...pardon me my "appetite" for metaphors I deduce you dislike the style but I can't do better...)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Yes pattern shapes repeat endlessly….

Even the idea of pattern is a pattern. All there really is, is a whole lot of objects bouncing around in various fields

However I'd readily concede there's something deeper going on that we can hardly begin to form a pattern around

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

see what do you mean by existing, and not existing. those very concepts necessarily imply some primary existence or form of existence. and within this, things can exist or not exist

Quote:

Forgive me Car, not sure what you mean here, partly on the grammatical basis, maybe a typo, starting in the middle of a sentence

no, i just don't bother capitalising. and i didn't put a comma after see, ...what else doesn't make sense in that? i am asking what you mean by the words 'to exist', and 'to not exist'. the meaning of the words pretty much already implies the possibility of 'existence'. so language itself is a barrier to the concept of nothingness or non-existence.

Quote:

I merely maintain that if there's nothing else, which I do, then we are still said to exist.

yes, that MERE statement is what i am trying to argue against, but in vain because you are not understanding. you say that if there is nothing else but this, then 'we are still said to exist'. it seems to me you are just saying that because you are experiencing your own existence right now, that it must be a true and real existence. so you say that even if everything is one, the whole universe as well as your own personal consciousness is all one, that one still exists, because you are experiencing it now.

but i am questioning that 'existence' itself, because if it is looked at it without any presumptions of a primary reality or existence, it loses its own reality or existence. i am saying the present experience even, the experience of this moment, becomes a questionable illusory 'experience' because the very experiencer is dissolving into nothingness.

Quote:

I don't know about "infinitely"; while "ever expanding" seems a rash presumption. A given theory gains by new input but its volume diminishes by those abandoned or simplified. So many should remain about the same size while some even shrink or even disappear

you are just taking apart my sentences and proving them wrong, without even seeing the context at all. i said that all human theories will be infinitely expanding in complexity. you say no, theories are based on the input and output, blah blah. hahaha. what are you proving? simple evolutionary science supports what i am saying. intelligence in humanity is expanding, therefore ideas and theories are expanding. it is an open-ended, neverending spectrum that lies ahead in the future. arguing with this is pointless and i will not do it further haha.

Quote:

But it would help a lot, Car, if you could reduce your ideas to phraseology using everyday language in the usual grammatical order.

english is a language used by hundreds of different races and cultures of humans today. your idea that your way of speaking is 'everyday language' and 'usual grammatical order' is naive.

Quote:

My own view, for what it's wort, not very much hereabout, and I hope this doesn't make me a dualist, is that there's something we don't yet comprehend, that accounts for It All, partly from a present lack of adequate vocabulary. As we come closer and close to understanding It (maybe never entirely), some of us will call It (Her) God while others will staunchly maintain that It doesn't even exist

unfortunately yes, it makes you a dualist, but probably so is 99.99% of the population because i highly doubt anybody would agree with my definition of nonduality. so, consider me a crazy person, and take the normal definitions of nonduality if you want. i am only questioning further. you seemed to understand my points at first, but then it doesn't seem so anymore.

i disagree that there is something we don't yet comprehend which accounts for it all, but for lack of present vocabulary. my very point earlier was that of course theories will go on endlessly, but none of them are close to the 'truth' or 'nonduality', they only actually lead further away.

in my opinion, non duality 'happens' when the illusion of duality actually stops appearing in 'consciousness'. without duality in consciousness, its own existence becomes questionable. 'consciousness' understands that it only 'exists' when there is some content to be conscious of. when there is no content, there is nothingness. this experiential understanding leads to the complete dissolution of all concepts and ideas, which is where i am coming from when i started questioning morality, drug use, and existence itself.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

oh haha..fil.. i didn't even read any of your responses until now. i understand everything you have said about sets, systems, finality, knowledge, science and philosophy. and i agree with it all to a point. the point is that it still all remains within the field of human concepts. i admire that you have brought the concepts down to the absolute bare bones, just simple sets and systems. a system can only be explained by a higher system. it makes sense. but to me it is still made-up, human concepts, aimed at a better 'understanding' of this 'existence'.

philosophy is another science. thats all it is. the science of logic, language, opinion, and the mind itself.

since we all seem to rely on the basic experience of 'mind' as a sort of primary, true existence, let us look at the mind more closely. it is never the case that an individual has actual control over mind content. the mind is always in operation by itself, with no real volitional control over it. its intelligence has been learned over time by itself. when an individual makes a choice, they pick from options already present within the mind. they did not have control over creating those options, those options were available due to memories of past experiences or concepts. the whole process of cognition, intellectual judgment, and planning and executing action within the mind is actually a completely involuntary process. we experience the thoughts as words inside our head, and therefore we believe that we came up with these thoughts ourselves. but if you really look at your own mind, it is obvious that you have zero actual control over it. meditation can never control the mind. the act of meditation is caused by the uncontrollable mind seeking a way to control itself. this very seeking was uncontrollable, it happened by itself. the only 'control' possible over the mind is an awareness of its involuntary nature, and therefore a complete detachment from it. then action happens spontaneously instead of in response to certain thoughts in the mind. this is control OVER the mind, but actual control over action is impossible, because the very idea of action is an illusion. this is why everything is always spontaneous. because everything is just 'happening', as it is, without being real or existent except through the 'consciousness'.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

so language itself is a barrier to the concept of nothingness or non-existence.

….inasmuch as some of us, in using the term as a noun, subconsciously struggle with the implication that nothing is something after all; while others think of it as empty space; which of course is also wrong because nothingness doesn't include space; it doesn't include anything at all

OT and incidental but I'm betting ("speculating") that the idea of absolute nothingness entails some sort of paradox or contradiction, and that's why we exist. The puzzle remains, however, to explain how that big, heavy, black blob of the most uniform composition breaks up (with the BB) into electrons, positrons, protons, fields, etc. I'm guessing it does so by a form of evolution: So things today are the way they are because that's the only way they can evolve

Quote:

so you say that even if everything is one, the whole universe as well as your own personal consciousness is all one, that one still exists, because you are experiencing it now.

That seems pretty reasonable

Quote:

but i am questioning that 'existence' itself, because if it is looked at it without any presumptions of a primary reality or existence, it loses its own reality or existence

We're getting into a semantical area I for one can't handle. I'm sure what you're saying contains a certain profundity but your Average Clod (me) simply can;t handle a prop using fancy language that sounds contradictory

Quote:

you are just taking apart my sentences and proving them wrong, without even seeing the context at all.

Car, I don't recall proving anything

Quote:

blah blah. hahaha. what are you proving?

Proving nothing, unless by "proof" you mean "presumption" or better yet, "speculation"

some of us will call It (Her) God while others will staunchly maintain that It doesn't even exist

Quote:

unfortunately yes, it makes you a dualist,

No it doesn't, Her existence or non- simply reduced to semantics, patterns of behavior in the motion of atoms and fields in our heads; dualism included. The fact that we don't understand it doesn't make it some second kind of "substance"

Quote:

arguing with this is pointless

Pretty much. But thank you anyhow Car for trying to get through to this Averge Clod

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I'm sure what you're saying contains a certain profundity but your Average Clod (me) simply can;t handle a prop using fancy language that sounds contradictory

why would you think it is profound then? if you really see some profundity, it is because you do understand it but fail to accept or believe the understanding.

my point was that:
the certainty that most humans have that 'existence' is real is the proof of the experience of their own existence. if you look at the phenomenon of 'experience' closely, you notice that the experiencer is always the same, continuous and never changing, only the experience changes. so looking deeper and deeper into this 'experiencer' makes you realise that it doesn't actually exist at all other than some sort of illusory consciousness within a vast nothingness. this vast nothingness can be explained as god, something, nothing, whatever you want. but the very idea of 'existence' of anything becomes necessarily changed from this perspective.

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

oh haha..fil.. i didn't even read any of your responses until now. i understand everything you have said about sets, systems, finality, knowledge, science and philosophy. and i agree with it all to a point. the point is that it still all remains within the field of human concepts. i admire that you have brought the concepts down to the absolute bare bones, just simple sets and systems. a system can only be explained by a higher system. it makes sense. but to me it is still made-up, human concepts, aimed at a better 'understanding' of this 'existence'.

philosophy is another science. thats all it is. the science of logic, language, opinion, and the mind itself.

since we all seem to rely on the basic experience of 'mind' as a sort of primary, true existence, let us look at the mind more closely. it is never the case that an individual has actual control over mind content. the mind is always in operation by itself, with no real volitional control over it. its intelligence has been learned over time by itself. when an individual makes a choice, they pick from options already present within the mind. they did not have control over creating those options, those options were available due to memories of past experiences or concepts. the whole process of cognition, intellectual judgment, and planning and executing action within the mind is actually a completely involuntary process. we experience the thoughts as words inside our head, and therefore we believe that we came up with these thoughts ourselves. but if you really look at your own mind, it is obvious that you have zero actual control over it. meditation can never control the mind. the act of meditation is caused by the uncontrollable mind seeking a way to control itself. this very seeking was uncontrollable, it happened by itself. the only 'control' possible over the mind is an awareness of its involuntary nature, and therefore a complete detachment from it. then action happens spontaneously instead of in response to certain thoughts in the mind. this is control OVER the mind, but actual control over action is impossible, because the very idea of action is an illusion. this is why everything is always spontaneous. because everything is just 'happening', as it is, without being real or existent except through the 'consciousness'.

No such thing as spontaneous action. " Spontaneous" has scope within your perception of time passing by. In my opinion all time frames are now so using coinage as "spontaneous" or "caused" are processes in perception within time and not metaphysical insights about reality.

I agree the mind is not free n thus that choices are not acts of free will but natural conclusions within a logical frame of operations within a given set of information.That in turn changes nothing about my previous argument.
Minds are sub sets bound to incompleteness or uncertainty when trying to make judgements about the final nature of the world. Those very judgements are not spontaneous and are bound into the greater scheme of Reality for what it is throughout all time frames, minds are sub sets unfolding within a final set where space time itself is described n fixed with all its processes with all there is. In this context "Existence" can be reduced to the acknowledgement not of our experience as final but from our experience to the idea of a final place holder of all experiences. Existing is unity in Reality not its denial.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...by the way, Philosophy is not another Science but rather the reason for Science to have purpose...it is quite different.
(I am not attacking Science but clarifying what it means n its rightful place, for what is worth, I am an avid reader of science news on a daily basis.)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

No such thing as spontaneous action. " Spontaneous" has scope within your perception of time passing by. In my opinion all time frames are now so using coinage as "spontaneous" or "caused" are processes in perception within time and not metaphysical insights about reality.

if you want to deny certain words over others, that is your choice. the word spontaneous is defined by google's top result as a sudden impulse without an external stimulus. this implies that there is no specific point in time which can be said to have caused the spontaneous event. i agree that a 'caused' event does only fit in with time, but a spontaneous event, by definition, is beyond time.

i never claimed spontaneity to be a metaphysical insight into reality. my point is that there is no reality, and the whole idea of philosphy and metaphysics is just another human, mind-made concept, another science.

Quote:

Minds are sub sets bound to incompleteness or uncertainty when trying to make judgements about the final nature of the world.

why try to make judgments about the final nature of the world. this is coming from assumptions that a 'world' exists. my point is that, whatever 'mind' is, it can never be verified by anything other than itself. therefore, its own reality is questionable.

Quote:

Those very judgements are not spontaneous and are bound into the greater scheme of Reality for what it is throughout all time frames, minds are sub sets unfolding within a final set where space time itself is described n fixed with all its processes with all there is.

the judgments the mind makes are always spontaneous. the illusion comes from the concept of preference. preference is a feeling we have which differentiates between different things. but this process is also involuntary, even though it feels like it is voluntary. you can't actually control whether you like or dislike something, you can tell yourself various lies and try to change preference but it is essentially already as it is.
you are saying that the judgments of the mind are not spontaneous, but are 'bound into the greater scheme of Reality'. all i am saying is that this greater scheme is something your mind made up, nothing else. it is not verifiable. for all we know, the mind's judgments are in fact spontaneous.

you describe a 'final set where space time itself is described and fixed with all its processes with all there is'. this is a mind-made creation of yours, nothing more. why should there be a final set where space time is described and fixed? do you experience this final set? how is everything described, as you say? it seems to me you are just conceptualising some final set, and insisting on its 'Reality' as some ultimate truth. seems like mind-made conceptualising to me.

Quote:

In this context "Existence" can be reduced to the acknowledgement not of our experience as final but from our experience to the idea of a final place holder of all experiences. Existing is unity in Reality not its denial.

ok so you want to define existence as 'from our experience to the idea of a final place holder of all experiences'.
you are still taking 'experience' as a solid 'reality', and not questioning it. you are expanding the word existence to even more than just the current 'experience'. but i am questioning the experience itself. what is this 'reality' that the current experience seems to have. i am questioning that 'reality' itself, and saying perhaps it is just a vast nothingness, eternally at peace, and all this so-called 'reality' is an illusion which comes and goes. if it is just nothingness, then to even say anything 'exists' or has 'reality' is counter-intuitive.
also, if you look at 'experience' close enough, its reality comes and goes on a daily basis. every time you fall into deep sleep, there is a complete lack of experience. if there is any awareness or experience, it means you are not in complete deep sleep. so any time you do fall into deep sleep, you actually experience the nothingness. but that is a paradoxical statement, because nobody can experience the nothingness, it actually is nothingness.

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know