morality, drugs, existence

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

yes. read that sentence again, and then look at how stupid your first paragraph is.

If you'd respect the flow of ideas of others and read a whole paragraph as a coherent unit instead of truncating in small bits and pieces, maybe you'd understand me better?

Quote:

what is is' is basically a sound statement, except that the word 'is', just like all words such as 'illusion' and 'reality' and 'existence', is simply another word with a conceptual meaning.

There's nothing wrong with conceptual meaning. It's the most interesting thing in fact.

Quote:

mind comes from a creator - man-made, disgustingly irrational assumption based on the idiocy that mind 'is' definitely something, and all things that 'exist' are 'created'. terrible, terrible assumption.

The idea of God disgusts you? BTW, that was Descartes' idea, not mine.

Quote:

i have already written a long post detailing the flaw in searle's understanding, if you couldn't understand it then oh well, keep deriving your understanding from him.

If you agree to relax a bit, yes, why not. Let me look it up...

Quote:

why should you be smart enough to invent all of this? why couldn't it have spontaneously appeared, like the big bang and all science suggests?

Why not indeed. All I am saying here is the world exists independently of me. Try and keep up will you?

Quote:

but what is nothingness/deep sleep/unconsciousness, in which we spend about one third of our entire life?

I don't know. Do you?

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

but he has already conceded it is a subjective phenomenon. to accept subjectivity as reality is not logical, the word reality generally implies objectivity.

Our minds or consciousness are real and can be treated as objects of our attention, even though they are essentially subjective in themselves. And we can make objective statements about consciousness. And this reality is confirmed by our daily experience, as you conceded. No problem there.

Quote:

when he claims that a conscious choice to raise an arm is explained biologically by neurons firing from the brain to the arm muscles, he fails to explain why or how the neurons fire. the conscious thought magically made them, but how?

Nobody knows how it's done, but it's done every day by we all, including you.

Quote:

with regard to descartes, his theories about the duality of body and mind are very outdated and all current science and even everything john searle was saying implies a DEFINITE connection between body and mind, between biology and consciousness.

That is exactly what I explained to you. But Descartes wrote a long time ago. His contribution was enormous.

Quote:

just actually consider the possibility, that it is just 'nothingness' which is aware of everything. that nothingness is capable of appearing as something (human consciousness), and believing itself to be the something, as opposed to nothingness. if this is true, then the somethingness must be temporary. and human consciousness is certainly temporary. so that supports the idea that it may be nothingness actually. the only proof against 'nothingness' is 'somethingness'. but both nothingness and somethingness appear to us as 'deep sleep' and 'consciousness'.

So because we sleep, the world is full of nothingness (whatever that is???)... That is hilarious stuff. You're a riot.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

you are not looking at life beyond your own ethics and morality, that is why you believe this way. once you actually see that they are a limitation on you, not some great perk of the special individual consciousness you have, you won't cling to them.

The problem I see there is that a fascist society could be built on such a philosophy. Already, slogans look 'reality = illusion' or Death = Life' sounded furiously Orwellian. Now you're in 'Good = Evil', or beyond good and evil... Where is this gona stop? Philosophy has political dimensions and applications. That was one of Popper's most fruitful idea. What do you think of democracy vs. dictatorship? Any preference?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The problem I see there is that a fascist society could be built on such a philosophy.

all the problems you see with my 'philosophy' are your own conceptions, and as such they do not actually conform with 'my philosophy', which is a complete lack of philosophy. a fascist society does not come from 'my philosophy', it comes from the philosophy that 'all my ideas are correct and everyone must conform to them'. that is a very different philosophy.

Quote:

Already, slogans look 'reality = illusion' or Death = Life' sounded furiously Orwellian. Now you're in 'Good = Evil', or beyond good and evil... Where is this gona stop?

it never stops, every single opposite you mentioned is actually a single process which is interpreted differently by different minds. none of those opposites are meant to be 'slogans', they are merely another perspective.

Quote:

Philosophy has political dimensions and applications. That was one of Popper's most fruitful idea. What do you think of democracy vs. dictatorship? Any preference?

yes, like you, i prefer democracy, due to my own social conditionings and environment. however, essentially any societal system, including dictatorship can work perfectly well if everybody is operating non dualistically. even anarchy will work perfectly well.

basically, from an absolute perspective, all of humanity is simply operating in anarchy. the entire existence of governments and authorities came from the anarchic freedom of humanity to do whatever they want, and govern in any way they want. if somebody powerful enough arises, he will dictate the whole world, nobody will be able to stop it.

so 'what i think' about democracy vs dictatorship is irrelevant. of course i can see the obvious limited concept that democracy is a fairer system than dictatorship as a generalisation.

but if 'democracy' is like USA where the banks choose who is president, then what is wrong with a 'dictatorship' which dictates that the entire world should be fed and sheltered?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

If you'd respect the flow of ideas of others and read a whole paragraph as a coherent unit instead of truncating in small bits and pieces, maybe you'd understand me better?

no i understood everything, you contradicted yourself in that paragraph.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with conceptual meaning. It's the most interesting thing in fact.

ok, it may be very interesting, but it is only a concept. conceived by a human mind. not necessarily referring to any reality.

Quote:

The idea of God disgusts you? BTW, that was Descartes' idea, not mine.

not at all, although yes some ideas of god do disgust me, mainly christian/islamic/jewish ideas. but what disgusted me is the simple LOGICAL flaw in assuming that existence must be created consciously. terrible logic.

Quote:

Why not indeed. All I am saying here is the world exists independently of me. Try and keep up will you?

i have certainly 'kept up' with that claim. it is nothing more than a claim from your mind, you have no evidence that any world exists independent of you. you see an apparent individuality to your own mind, but can never reach its actual boundaries. so any independent existence is an assumption on your part.

Quote:

but what is nothingness/deep sleep/unconsciousness, in which we spend about one third of our entire life?

Quote:

I don't know. Do you?

yes i do know. it is nothingness, the source of somethingness, because that is the only 'reality' of experience of all humanity. you can define it as reality, but if reality is an alternating reality/non-reality, then there is no point defining it as absolutely real.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Our minds or consciousness are real and can be treated as objects of our attention, even though they are essentially subjective in themselves.

this is your subjective opinion, and it is not based on any sound reasoning. to declare something is real does not make it real. treating your mind as an OBJECT of attention does not MAKE it an object, just because you defined it as such. it is never an object, because an object NECESSARILY needs to have boundaries and limits and be defineable in its entirety. the mind can never be an object as we define objects in the english language, unless you inaccurately define it as such.

Quote:

And we can make objective statements about consciousness. And this reality is confirmed by our daily experience, as you conceded. No problem there.

an objective statement about subjectivity is meaningless and still primarily subjective. daily experience is subjective and you choose to define it as real.

Quote:

when he claims that a conscious choice to raise an arm is explained biologically by neurons firing from the brain to the arm muscles, he fails to explain why or how the neurons fire. the conscious thought magically made them, but how?

Quote:

Nobody knows how it's done, but it's done every day by we all, including you.

i know how its done. the conscious thought is more primary, or more 'real', than the physical body appearance. so the conscious thought can easily affect the physical body and cause neurons to fire. however, the primary reality of conscious thought is also always questionable.

Quote:

So because we sleep, the world is full of nothingness (whatever that is???)... That is hilarious stuff. You're a riot.

actually no, because of quantum physics, the world is full of nothingness (all atoms are 99.99999% empty space). because of sleep, we can possibly logically understand the paradox that is nothingness.

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

i already told frank a thousand times,

That is part of your problem, CM.

You are "telling" others what the REALITY is.

And you are pretending nothing anyone else says makes any sense because of the words we use...while explaining why it doesn't make sense using the same words.

"Your philosophy" is, as I have suggested, half-baked.

The main thing "your philosophy" engenders in me is "when does he envision introducing the notion of disciples and priests?"

Everything you have introduced in this wordy "philosophy" of yours doesn't amount to as much as the notion attempting to be conveyed with the words "what IS...IS...

...and "what IS...is REALITY."

Olivier has fallen into the trap of haggling over the specifics. He'll never make a dent that way...even though he clearly sees the deficiencies of your thoughts on this issue.

Better to deal with the macro-concept...and the way you treat your thesis. That says more about the concepts than trying to work through your defenses.

...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

That is part of your problem, CM.

yes sir

Quote:

You are "telling" others what the REALITY is.

yes, because you told me you were enjoying it.

Quote:

And you are pretending nothing anyone else says makes any sense because of the words we use...while explaining why it doesn't make sense using the same words.

i never said nothing anybody says makes sense. it all makes perfect sense to me. i am so sorry you feel this way, and will try my best to make you realise that everything makes sense to me. of course i use words to make sense, i have nothing against words or sense.

Quote:

"Your philosophy" is, as I have suggested, half-baked.

in my opinion, i don't have a philosophy. but your suggestion is great, i must be wrong and have a half baked philosophy. i will try to keep baking.

Quote:

The main thing "your philosophy" engenders in me is "when does he envision introducing the notion of disciples and priests?"

i feel so sad that you think i have a philosophy and i don't. i don't know anything or care about any disciples or priests, but i am sure you will teach me everything.

Quote:

Everything you have introduced in this wordy "philosophy" of yours doesn't amount to as much as the notion attempting to be conveyed with the words "what IS...IS...

the notion attempting to be conveyed with "what is...is..." is a notion that implies the absolute reality of 'what is'. i do not think i have any philosophy, but because you are so great, i will accept your idea. if i have to have a philosophy, it is that 'there is no absolute reality, nor is there NOT an absolute reality.' if you cannot understand this, and how it differs from 'what is..is...', then i will assume that my philosophy is definitely wrong and yours is definitely right, because you are a much greater person than me.

Quote:

...and "what IS...is REALITY."

ok sir. i will accept your blind guess about reality, even though you specifically told me to stop blindly guessing about reality. i understand that you think that you are not blindly guessing, but you KNOW a reality that you experience and you KNOW that is the ultimate reality which can never be questioned. i realise that your KNOWLEDGE of this is far beyond anything i could possibly think about, so i will trust you. thanks again frank.

Quote:

Olivier has fallen into the trap of haggling over the specifics. He'll never make a dent that way...even though he clearly sees the deficiencies of your thoughts on this issue.

olivier is making many more dents into the possibility of non-existence than you are. he is able to grasp many more of my 'deluded' concepts than you. but of course, you are the great frank, who knows the ultimate reality is 'what is is'. so you wouldn't want to make dents into what 'is not'. 'what is' is enough for you.

Quote:

Better to deal with the macro-concept...and the way you treat your thesis. That says more about the concepts than trying to work through your defenses.

no idea what macro concept, what thesis, what concepts, or what defences you are talking about. but of course, you are the great frank, so i will 'add it to my meditations list'. hope you can realise what i mean by that.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

Ergo you're a fascist ****.

2 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

I got news for you: nothingness does not exist. It's the lamest of all concept. You worship a contradiction.

And now I am done with you and you useless, baseless, lack of philosophy. Live as a dead Nazi if you so wish.

2 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
You should be able to figure out the other mistake...

don't care enough to even look back

Quote:
but whether you do or you don't...

i won't

Quote:
I thought "meditation" the way you use it means freeing your mind of all thoughts. How can you add something to the list?

i don't 'use' meditation. meditation can mean freeing mind of all thoughts for many people. in my case, i used it to sarcastically imply a focused concentration on your grammatically wrong phrases so that i could understand their intended meaning. certainly there are buddhist meditations which are about focus and concentration. so no, you did not prove me wrong about meditation.
i can add anything to my list of meditation topics, and it does not at all defeat the point of meditation.

You replied to me but it wasn't my post... looks like something frank might say?

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
That is part of your problem, CM.

yes sir

Quote:
You are "telling" others what the REALITY is.

yes, because you told me you were enjoying it.

Ahhh, CM...you were telling others what the REALITY is....LONG, LONG before I told you I was enjoying it. That can easily be documented...by just reading the thread.

That comment of yours was just nonsense...and it fits in well with all your other comments...most of which seem to be nonsense also.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
You should be able to figure out the other mistake...

don't care enough to even look back

Quote:
but whether you do or you don't...

i won't

Quote:
I thought "meditation" the way you use it means freeing your mind of all thoughts. How can you add something to the list?

i don't 'use' meditation. meditation can mean freeing mind of all thoughts for many people. in my case, i used it to sarcastically imply a focused concentration on your grammatically wrong phrases so that i could understand their intended meaning. certainly there are buddhist meditations which are about focus and concentration. so no, you did not prove me wrong about meditation.
i can add anything to my list of meditation topics, and it does not at all defeat the point of meditation.

These weren't my comments; I'm the one below those quotes... laughing at the comments frank made.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
You should be able to figure out the other mistake...

don't care enough to even look back

Quote:
but whether you do or you don't...

i won't

Quote:
I thought "meditation" the way you use it means freeing your mind of all thoughts. How can you add something to the list?

i don't 'use' meditation. meditation can mean freeing mind of all thoughts for many people. in my case, i used it to sarcastically imply a focused concentration on your grammatically wrong phrases so that i could understand their intended meaning. certainly there are buddhist meditations which are about focus and concentration. so no, you did not prove me wrong about meditation.
i can add anything to my list of meditation topics, and it does not at all defeat the point of meditation.

These weren't my comments; I'm the one below those quotes... laughing at the comments frank made.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Ergo you're a fascist ****.

^

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I got news for you: nothingness does not exist. It's the lamest of all concept. You worship a contradiction.

And now I am done with you and you useless, baseless, lack of philosophy. Live as a dead Nazi if you so wish.

I still don't get why people choose to reify "nothing". It's fallacious. Period. And every attempt to do so will end in failure. Just look at Hegelian thought along with post-modern shenanigans.

3 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

Just look at Hegelian thought along with post-modern shenanigans.

Don't we have to look at such things. They are the natural outcome of a culture past its peak.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

I still don't get why people choose to reify "nothing". It's fallacious.

Hi Ding. With CM, anything goes. He's not very picky. Just any incoherent hodgepodge of vague paradoxes will do at the superficial level.

Deep down I suspect he is more sinister than his incoherent, bizarre surface betrays. He mixes 3 elements already present in Nazism: a profound disgust for the Judeo-Christian tradition, a fascination for Indian mysticism, and radical nihilism. Infectious mix.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

That mix only infects people who are ready to be infected.

I'm not sure though that carnie has been infected to the extent you suggest.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I'm not sure though that carnie has been infected to the extent you suggest.

Maybe I caricature him a bit too much and could be guilty of argumentum ad hitleram or whatever the Latin is. Smile

yet I do believe carnie's ideas are in the same general line of thoughts that gave us Hitler and Staline: a belief in radical philosophies that demean the person in favor of the group, for instance. His defense of democracy was rather tepid. I am also ticked-off by his contempt for the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition... As much as I sympathize and identify with Western anticlericalism, I still think that the respect for each and every human being, including the poorest, was a key "output" of that J-C-M tradition, in contrast with the gross inequalities that seem entirely justified and backed-up by religion in a country like India.

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know