8
   

morality, drugs, existence

 
 
carnaticmystery
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 12:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
lol, you seriously make no sense with your pointless arguments. you spend a million paragraphs trying to repeat the same false argument. spontaneity requires time, but events don't. you say the organization of discrete events need not assume time is of a primary order. and then you ask me can you demonstrate how motion, process, can occur without time? i am not the one who is denying time or space or anything, its you. clinging to certain paradigms of perspective just to prove your own intelligence (or lack thereof).

i never said time is of primary order. i said time is a concept, which does not conflict with spontaneity. unless you can demonstrate how an event can occur without time you have no chance of making a point. your eternal ensemble bs doesn't prove anything haha. just as you say spontaneity requires an origin point in time, i can say an event also requires the same. then you say 'ohhh no what if we don't assume time as a primary order? then events are possible without time. in an eternal ensemble." so i can say the exact same thing, about spontaneity. idiotic beyond belief you are.

Quote:
In order for reality to be an illusion, it requires the assumption, the illusion of reality, is itself real, a REAL ILLUSION, in which case illusion becomes itself the ground of reality. You as millions of others in this world fail to abstractly grasp the subtle trickery your pseudo argument puts you in. In resume you sir are an arrogant ignorant making a fool of yourself in a public space. Thankfully you cannot erase the record of your nonsense so it can be witnessed by any reader of this thread.

THIS IS NOT TRUE you stupid, stupid person. you cannot even grasp the most simple of all concepts, if you believe your first sentence there. in order for reality to be an illusion, it DOES NOT REQUIRE the illusion to be real at all. this is so stupid it is beyond belief. you are only falling back on 'the illusion itself becomes the ground of reality', because you are simply ASSUMING there is a reality. you are basically saying:
"ok there is definitely a reality. now i want to question it. what if its all an illusion? oh well doesn't matter, because then that illusion is the reality."
seriously, i never thought it was possible that someone could actually be this stupid.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 02:59 am
Quote:
LIAR PARADOX

In philosophy and logic, the liar paradox or liar's paradox (pseudomenon in Ancient Greek) is the statement "this sentence is false." Trying to assign to this statement a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction (see paradox).

If "this sentence is false" is true, then the sentence is false, which is a contradiction. Conversely, if "this sentence is false" is false, then the sentence is true, which is also a contradiction.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 03:29 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
if the statement "reality is an illusion" is true, then illusions are true.
If the term "reality" refers to anything which is true, and if illusions are true, then illusions are real. Which again, as in the absolute form rebounds to the conclusion that reality cannot be an illusion, as (a true) illusion assigned to reality itself, would be the denial of reality, which is paradoxical as any true illusion must by definition pertain to the realm of the real.

What can be said that is not paradoxical is that reality can contain true illusions, but never that reality itself is an illusion, as such statement lacks internal consistency.

carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 06:41 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
congratulations, you know some elementary philosophy...lol. you again are too bound by words and their definitions. you don't seem to understand that words were created by humans to convey concepts, ideas in the mind.
Quote:
If the term "reality" refers to anything which is true, and if illusions are true, then illusions are real.

the term 'reality' is supposed to refer to something 'true'. but in my opinion, there is no reality or truth other than the self-defined words created by humans. and that the very existence of humans and the universe is only a 'potential' existence; it cannot be considered absolutely real except by presupposition.

so if you want to just live with words, then you can always find a way to contradict what i am saying. it doesn't bother me, what i am saying still makes sense, or else you definitely wouldn't have bothered to reply so many times.

i am not saying the statement 'reality is an illusion' is true. i am saying there is no true statements, there is no truth, there is no reality, there is only nothingness which can't be defined as such, but nothingness is probably the best word to use. i am saying the very idea that there is a reality or existence comes from consciousness, which is an experience. the absence of this conscious experience is the nothingness i am talking about, and through its absence the 'reality' of nothingness can be seen. this 'reality' cannot even be defined as a reality because it is the opposite of a reality, a complete absence. could also be described as a complete presence also, because the very ideas of presence and absence only have meaning with a basic presumption of a reality to be present or absent from.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 06:51 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

i am not saying the statement 'reality is an illusion' is true. i am saying there is no true statements, there is no truth, there is no reality, there is only nothingness which can't be defined as such, but nothingness is probably the best word to use. i am saying the very idea that there is a reality or existence comes from consciousness, which is an experience. the absence of this conscious experience is the nothingness i am talking about, and through its absence the 'reality' of nothingness can be seen. this 'reality' cannot even be defined as a reality because it is the opposite of a reality, a complete absence. could also be described as a complete presence also, because the very ideas of presence and absence only have meaning with a basic presumption of a reality to be present or absent from.


I see that you are saying all those things, CM...but you are using words to say them.

And essentially, you are asserting things...simply asserting them.

In part, you wrote:

Quote:
i am saying there is no true statements, there is no truth


Seems sorta like writing, "This statement is false."

Where ya gonna go with that? How can anyone deal with it?

Talk about this for just a bit...bring me up to speed on what you are trying to propose in this comment.

Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 07:08 am
Fil said:- "@RF- Absence of proof is no proof of absence"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but can that be proven?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 08:14 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Yes it can. It is proven every time when you learn something which you previously didn't know.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 08:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
Note Frank that the expression "there is no true statements" is itself a statement...of course if no statement can be true then it follows that "there is no true statements" can't be true either...

...you see there is nothing more common more mundane then stupid stupid people calling stupid those who they can't understand...so my advise is to ignore as I just did.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 08:49 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Note Frank that the expression "there is no true statements" is itself a statement...of course if no statement can be true then it follows that "there is no true statements" can't be true either...


Yeah, Fil...that was my point with the "This statement is false" mention.

I'm interested in CM's answer to my question though. I'll stick with this for a bit. I've been following the thread for a while.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Nov, 2013 09:45 am
Fil said:- "@RF- Absence of proof is no proof of absence"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RF said: "Ah but can that be proven?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fil said:-"Yes it can. It is proven every time when you learn something which you previously didn't know"

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

But how do we define "proof"?
Hey I'm beginning to like these philosophical "round and round the mulberry bush" discussions..Smile

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub3/morris.jpg
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2013 05:40 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I see that you are saying all those things, CM...but you are using words to say them.

And essentially, you are asserting things...simply asserting them.


i am using words because words are the only form of communication available. i am not 'asserting' anything i say, everything i say is a questionable statement made of words which are of course open to interpretation. even if i do appear to be 'asserting' things, the very content of what i am saying denies that i am trying to assert anything. if you consider it to be an assertion, that 'nothing exists', then that is your interpretation. to me, it is a statement with a conceptual meaning. the possible meaning of 'nothing exists' is different from the one who says it or the words themselves.
Quote:
Seems sorta like writing, "This statement is false."

Where ya gonna go with that? How can anyone deal with it?


the ideas of truth and falsehood are concepts, if you stick within them then you will only see paradoxes. of course 'this statement is false' is an obvious paradox, because it can't be true or false without a verbal paradox.

when i say 'there is no truth', i am only talking about from the absolute perspective. of course, there are many truths that occur within the perspective of consciousness. consciousness is the process by which truth and falsehood becomes possible, because you assume what you are conscious of is truth. i am questioning that consciousness itself.

you ask where am i going with it? how can anyone deal with it? my answer is i have no idea. but it is not really a question of how to deal with anything, because there is nothing to deal with.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2013 07:50 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
I see that you are saying all those things, CM...but you are using words to say them.

And essentially, you are asserting things...simply asserting them.


i am using words because words are the only form of communication available. i am not 'asserting' anything i say, everything i say is a questionable statement made of words which are of course open to interpretation. even if i do appear to be 'asserting' things, the very content of what i am saying denies that i am trying to assert anything. if you consider it to be an assertion, that 'nothing exists', then that is your interpretation. to me, it is a statement with a conceptual meaning. the possible meaning of 'nothing exists' is different from the one who says it or the words themselves.
Quote:
Seems sorta like writing, "This statement is false."

Where ya gonna go with that? How can anyone deal with it?


the ideas of truth and falsehood are concepts, if you stick within them then you will only see paradoxes. of course 'this statement is false' is an obvious paradox, because it can't be true or false without a verbal paradox.

when i say 'there is no truth', i am only talking about from the absolute perspective. of course, there are many truths that occur within the perspective of consciousness. consciousness is the process by which truth and falsehood becomes possible, because you assume what you are conscious of is truth. i am questioning that consciousness itself.

you ask where am i going with it? how can anyone deal with it? my answer is i have no idea. but it is not really a question of how to deal with anything, because there is nothing to deal with.



You wrote:
Quote:
i am saying there is no true statements, there is no truth


That is, as I noted in my last post...an assertion, despite your denials. (Which sounds like a nerd attempt to satirize Abbott and Costello's "Who's On First.")

And the inherent contradiction stands. It IS like saying, "This statement is false!"
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2013 11:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
i am sorry you don't understand the meaning of 'assertion'. to assert something means to be sure that it is true. because i am not, i am not asserting, only speculating. it is very sad that you don't understand the basics of the english language.
the 'inherent contradiction' is that you think that if i say 'there is no truth', that that statement itself must be true, therefore contradictory. this is a lazy perspective. the statement 'there is no truth' means that even though certain statements may be 'true', it is a limited truth which is meaningless, biased, and not absolutely true. i could change it to 'there is no absolute truth'. if this statement is true, it does not contradict itself. because a 'true statement' is completely different to the absolute truth i am talking about, which doesn't exist.

you should ignore me like fil. it is funny that people comment on my thread, and then threaten to ignore me hahaha. why would i possibly care you are the ones trespassing on my property! happy to see you go.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 06:32 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

i am sorry you don't understand the meaning of 'assertion'. to assert something means to be sure that it is true. because i am not, i am not asserting, only speculating. it is very sad that you don't understand the basics of the english language.


Actually, it seems I am more proficient at English than you.

To "assert" something does not mean to be sure it is true...it may simply be a belief (guess). Are you saying that people who assert there is a GOD...know that there is a GOD? And are you also saying that people who assert there are no gods...know there are no gods?

C'mon!

Quote:
the 'inherent contradiction' is that you think that if i say 'there is no truth', that that statement itself must be true, therefore contradictory. this is a lazy perspective. the statement 'there is no truth' means that even though certain statements may be 'true', it is a limited truth which is meaningless, biased, and not absolutely true. i could change it to 'there is no absolute truth'. if this statement is true, it does not contradict itself. because a 'true statement' is completely different to the absolute truth i am talking about, which doesn't exist.


Stop. You should not be desperate enough to get into nonsense like this yet. I've only just started on you. You should build up all that anger slowly.

In any case, your comment "i am saying there is no true statements, there is no truth" either is not true...or if "true" it is not true.

Either way...it is a contradictory statement.

In discussions of this sort, CM...when you are shown to be wrong...as I have shown you to be wrong...the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake and move on.

Give it a try. It won't hurt.

Quote:
you should ignore me like fil. it is funny that people comment on my thread, and then threaten to ignore me hahaha. why would i possibly care you are the ones trespassing on my property! happy to see you go.


I would never ignore you, CM...you are interesting...and you amuse. And this is not your property. Good to be in this discussion with you. Hope it continues for a long time. Wink
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 09:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
when you are shown to be wrong...as I have shown you to be wrong...the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake and move on.

Give it a try. It won't hurt.


How would you know. Certainly not from experience.

Your method when proven wrong is to ignore it and just keep hammering your phrases until you believe them yourself.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 10:08 am
@carnaticmystery,
Sorry, I have not yet replied to,,,

Quote:
because if everything is one, then to even assert that the one exists is counter-intuitive. how can the one exist; in relation to what else? anything else is also part of the one. therefore, its very existence is questionable. and even if we accept that this one exists, how could it possibly have a point? you say that science is proving that there is a correlation between particle movement and evolution, that the universe may have been designed to support evolution. but the very ideas of particles, movement, and evolution, are simply theories posed by humans who have been observing this 'universe'. seeing as the whole thing is working as one unitary movement, one can come up with infinite definitions for phenomena such as evolution, particle theories etc. however the fundamental truth is that absolutely nothing actually exists beyond this One ineffable 'thing' which we could call god, existence, reality etc. and when the truth of this fact really hits home hard deep inside your consciousness, it really does throw all concepts such as morality out the window.


Your understanding of the transient nature of concepts, including "existence" is in accordance with my own. But my understanding of "non-duality" as a transcendent position is that the appearance of separate "things" and "selves" is an illusion but pragmatic for the transactions of everyday life. Thus "morality" is about "living with self as part of the whole". (To harm "another" is equivalent to harming "self"). But contrary to "throwing morality out of the window" your pantheist interpretation of "the whole" as "God" reinforces the traditional (moral) stance of "God as love". It is only by taking a reductionist/materialist view of "the whole" that you can argue for nihilism with respect to non-duality. In that respect, life would indeed be "A tale told by an idiot....."(Hamlet). The interesting question is whether "consciousness" is prior to "substance" in holistic terms. I suggest that it is to the extent that it would be perverse of us to think we were communicating here if it were not.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 10:29 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
when you are shown to be wrong...as I have shown you to be wrong...the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake and move on.

Give it a try. It won't hurt.


How would you know. Certainly not from experience.


Actually it is. On several occasions I have been shown to be wrong...and I acknowledge my mistakes without trying to gloss them over.

Truly...give it a try. It won't hurt.

Quote:
Your method when proven wrong is to ignore it and just keep hammering your phrases until you believe them yourself.


I do not do "believing." And when proven wrong...I simply acknowledge that I was wrong.

Give it a try. It won't hurt.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 09:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Actually, it seems I am more proficient at English than you.

To "assert" something does not mean to be sure it is true...it may simply be a belief (guess). Are you saying that people who assert there is a GOD...know that there is a GOD? And are you also saying that people who assert there are no gods...know there are no gods?

assert
əˈsəːt/Submit
verb
1.
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully

thats from google. don't try and play word games with me haha. you know what i meant. i was not 'asserting' anything because if there was any confidence or forcefulness, you interpreted it, not me. i was not asserting, you interpreted asserting.
Quote:
Stop. You should not be desperate enough to get into nonsense like this yet. I've only just started on you. You should build up all that anger slowly.

In any case, your comment "i am saying there is no true statements, there is no truth" either is not true...or if "true" it is not true.

Either way...it is a contradictory statement.

In discussions of this sort, CM...when you are shown to be wrong...as I have shown you to be wrong...the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake and move on.

Give it a try. It won't hurt.

i can only thank the other commenters for sticking up for me before i had a chance to defend myself against this ridiculous paragraph. please tell me what is nonsensical about what i wrote. where is the desperation and anger? haha you have very naive understandings of desperation and anger if you believe thats what i am showing now.

all you are trying to prove is one point: if i said 'there is no truth', this is a contradiction according to you. therefore everything i have said is nullified. okay. if this is the intellectual level where your brain says i give up, then accept it and move on to the next thread about 'what colour you get when you mix blue and yellow', that should be more down your alley.

if, however, you can find one brain cell in there that wants to go a bit further with the inquiry "is there a truth?", then you would understand what i am speculating about an 'absolute truth' which may or may not exist, and this question of its existence destroys all other simpler questions and concepts, including basic ideas of truth and falsehood which you are clinging to.

now about the being wrong part. i think i am wrong about everything. right from the start of this thread to now, what i am saying is changing and evolving as what i think changes. by itself. that is my whole point.

so if you think the 'ethical thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake', then here you go sir. i acknowledge that in your limited understanding of the phrase 'there is no truth', you saw a verbal paradox. i apologise for causing this misunderstanding in you. i tried to get you to see the context in which i meant the phrase, which eliminates the paradox. but you are unable to understand. so very sorry sir.

there we go i gave it a try! it didn't hurt at all you were right, thanks.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 09:59 pm
@fresco,
thank you so much for a decent reply, as opposed to fil and frank. what you have written is the exact type of thing i wrote this thread to discuss. people who actually UNDERSTAND what i am saying. instead of people who simply can't, and therefore get threatened intellectually and start attacking me and finding single phrases to dissect and prove wrong. okkkkk sorry for venting that but it is refreshing to get a real response.

with the first part of what you wrote, i see what you mean about it being more pragmatic for everyday life. but there is a point when 'everyday' life stops existing as such, and therefore the very idea of separate things and selves stops appearing. morality is about living in a 'good' way, and the idea of good and bad only exists in duality.
Quote:
It is only by taking a reductionist/materialist view of "the whole" that you can argue for nihilism with respect to non-duality. In that respect, life would indeed be "A tale told by an idiot....."(Hamlet).

the ideas of reductionism/materialism/nihilism are all concepts. so are spirituality/god/enlightenment/bliss/all positive concepts. i am not saying any of them are completely illusory, i am just saying they are all the same. the problem of reality vs illusion is itself something which can never be resolved.

nonduality is nihilism as much as it is enlightenment.

the question you raise at the end, is consciousness prior to substance? it depends how you define consciousness. if you are talking about the refined, intelligent human consciousness we have, then obviously not, it evolved from millions of years of brain evolution. but if you are talking about the most basic, primitive aspect of consciousness, the flicker of awareness in which all conscious activity happens, then i would probably say yes. that is the essential point i am making in this whole thread.

all humans have awareness as their primary experience. it is all encompassing, nothing in a human's experience can ever fall outside this 'awareness'. therefore, to examine reality, the only way is to examine awareness. in doing so, it becomes obvious that it is an 'eternal abyss of nothingness', which is the phrase i came up with right at the start of my thread. if you define this nothingness as bliss or enlightenment, then you are subtly creating duality again.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2013 10:04 pm
@carnaticmystery,
i know i am defining it as 'nothingness', which is equally a dualistic concept, but i have acknowledged already that this is also a pointless definition, just like all others. but the best way to TRY and define it is to be as neutral as possible. 'nothing' could be interpreted as negative just because it is 'no thing', a lack, an emptiness. but i don't know how else to define it with words.
 

Related Topics

Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
umm, why are my testicles moving? - Question by soccopuppet
Is this because of boredom or drugs? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
The idiotic 'war on drugs' - Discussion by gungasnake
Can any illegal drug be good for someone? - Discussion by secondchance
Take a Little Trip - Discussion by cjhsa
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2022 at 12:25:45