morality, drugs, existence

Quote:

@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Once again...a mishmash of gruel not fit consumption. Learn to show some respect for your thoughts...then maybe others will show respect for them.

i am teaching you not to respect anything. i don't want your respect.

Quote:
For you to be suggesting that I am the one doing the "believing" is something out of science fiction.

you believe in reality. i believe nothing. simple

Quote:
I do not do any "believing."

you believe reality.

Quote:
The belief system at work here is yours...and you don't seem to have the spine to own up to it...which is the reason you walk all around it in posts when it suits you.

i believe nothing.

Quote:
Hey, it doesn't make you a bad guy. It does make you unreliable, though.

i don't exist.

Quote:
You (supposedly) acknowledge that you have no idea if reality exists or not...yet you constantly assert it does not. You (supposedly) acknowledge that you have no idea if truth exists or not...yet you constantly assert it does not.

i 'assert' that it does not 'absolutely'. i also assert that my assertions are not assertions. i acknowledge that i have no idea about anything, nor does anybody else, nor does anyone exist, in my opinion. i have given plenty of experiential proof as to why i opine this way.

Quote:
If ever the expression "Discussing with him is like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling" ever applies...it applies to you, CM.

'if ever the expression', thanks for the english.

Quote:
Try picking out one single thing...and offering it in a non-rambling, coherent paragraph or two...and stick with it rather than taking the other side the moment it is challenged...

i never pick anything. i just read through your drivel and then respond individually to each of your pointless comments.

Quote:
...and I will gladly discuss it with you.

congrats. i have nothing to discuss with you.

Quote:
Or you could try discussing this thing with Fresco.

we have nothing to discuss. he just seems to jump in when i am too slow and the idiocy of your comments shines too bright for him to resist.

Hey, Fresco....wadda ya say to all that?

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

we have nothing to discuss. he just seems to jump in when i am too slow and the idiocy of your comments shines too bright for him to resist.

Good point about the degree of establishment of non-duality as a well argued position. (My attention was recently directed to Derrida's analysis of aporia which further underscores the point ).

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
we have nothing to discuss. he just seems to jump in when i am too slow and the idiocy of your comments shines too bright for him to resist.

Good point about the degree of establishment of non-duality as a well argued position. (My attention was recently directed to Derrida's analysis of aporia which further underscores the point ).

Too bad. I would love to listen into a conversation between you two on this topic.

Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

yes non duality is certainly a well argued position in the world today, but frank seems to think i made it up on the spot!

but essentially this thread was questioning the ultimate itself, questioning what non duality really means, even though it can never actually be captured in words. but the actual meaning of non duality can be revealed with more and more clarity through words and concepts; that was the point of this thread.

it seems the evolutionary trend of the human intellect is directly toward accepting non duality as the ultimate 'truth', because the logic of it becomes exponentially greater the more the concept is investigated honestly.

obviously the evolutionary trend of intelligence is for more intelligence, and so no matter how long people like frank refuse to investigate honestly, they eventually will.

2 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

I think there two implications.

1. It leads to an understanding of what we call science as dualistic activity about limited human attempts at prediction and control rather than epistemological progress
2. Apparent successful control reinforces political anthropocentric chauvinism.

Regarding point 1, there are now movements to include non duality into cognitive science (see enaction theory) but they are being resisted by traditionalists.

I dont think non dualism will have any effect of the cognitive virus we call religion because it is beyond the intellectual capacities of most. It may indeed require something we might call evolution of intelligence before it becomes mainstream.t

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

yes non duality is certainly a well argued position in the world today, but frank seems to think i made it up on the spot!

Stop flattering yourself...and stop making stuff up.

We have been discussing non-duality in this forum for over a decade...and I have participated in most of those discussions. Your presentation of the arguments is pitiful compared with the arguments of most non-dualists (of which there are many) here in the forum.

Quote:

but essentially this thread was questioning the ultimate itself, questioning what non duality really means, even though it can never actually be captured in words. but the actual meaning of non duality can be revealed with more and more clarity through words and concepts; that was the point of this thread.

Oh...sorry I missed that. I thought the point was actually to show what a sloppy job some people can do with the issue. And I thought you were doing a bang up job of that.

it seems the evolutionary trend of the human intellect is directly toward accepting non duality as the ultimate 'truth', because the logic of it becomes exponentially greater the more the concept is investigated honestly.

Quote:

obviously the evolutionary trend of intelligence is for more intelligence, and so no matter how long people like frank refuse to investigate honestly, they eventually will.

I investigate honestly, CM...which is why the jury is still out for me. The people who are not investigating honestly are folk like you...who have reached a decision on something that is way too ambiguous yet to be decided.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

...you see Frank there are two ways of taking the non dualism route...mine n Fresco...mine reduces mind to nature while Fresco want to reduce nature to mind as if minds had no nature (no ground)...guess who will lose ?
(n loosing because it missed the obvious like all dumb ideas do) Mr. Green

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...you see Frank there are two ways of taking the non dualism route...mine n Fresco...mine reduces mind to nature while Fresco want to reduce nature to mind as if minds had no nature (no ground)...guess who will lose ?
(n loosing because it missed the obvious like all dumb ideas do)

There are probably MORE than two ways to go that route, Fil...and as I have mentioned in the past, for me the non-dualistic approach is a more appealing schema than alternatives. My opposition here is essentially limited to the proponents who present it the way Christians present theism or strong atheists present atheism. Anyone for whom the jury is not still out has skipped a step...and probably several steps.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't see how is it that anyone can doubt minds have nature and thus need have a ground...minds cannot create themselves Frank. There is nothing to debate on that area.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I don't see how is it that anyone can doubt minds have nature and thus need have a ground...minds cannot create themselves Frank. There is nothing to debate on that area.

Obviously I am not as sure as you that there are other minds out there than mine. Mine may be the only mind...and everything else may be an illusion of my mind.

Also, I am not as certain as you that minds cannot create themselves...or to be more exact, I am not certain this thing I refer to as "my mind" did not create itself.

So...I think there is plenty of room for debate on this point, Fil.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You see in order for something to create itself it needed exist in the first place, but if it existed in the first place then it need not create itself as it existed already...
The problem is not one of mind over mater or matter over mind...
...matter or no matter, minds need nature...my stance to be right needs not be grounded in classical materialism...it just needs sound logic to make a score.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You see in order for something to create itself it needed exist in the first place, but if it existed in the first place then it need not create itself as it existed already...
The problem is not one of mind over mater or matter over mind...
...matter or no matter, minds need nature...my stance to be right needs not be grounded in classical materialism...it just needs sound logic to make a score.

It does seem rather clean cut, Fil...but my recommendation would be to allow the jury to remain out.

If the logic you are following is actually logical...then no mind can possibly exist. But it certainly appear to me that at least one mind does. It may be that the one that does is eternal and has always existed.

Cannot reason it out myself (and almost conclude that is not something that can be reasoned)...but if you are content that you have...my congratulations.

0 Replies

The problem can be simplified to the following:

1 - A prime mover is a given and cannot be constructed or construct itself.

2 - Even in the alternative scenario of a looping infinite regress of causes, the extent of the loop itself, has a circumscribing finite nature of phenomena within the spacetime looping which establishes a given nature a priori which itself is timeless. Again in this scenario minds are bound to need a nature, or to counter the dualistic view, to be reduced to a given a priori nature which is not mind constructed. The very loop as a whole was not created.

Again in resume minds cannot construct themselves if they need to be a given to exist in the 1 place.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I already explain this in other threads with related matters when for instance I established "God" or "Multiverse" whatever you want or prefer to call it, cannot change its own nature...it is powerless to change its own loop. Its own loop its a given.

..."God" is powerless because the biggest Set is the Set out of options, its full...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...now, and to conclude, I ask you this Frank, can you think of something more mindless then running out of options ?
A non created system trapped on itself is as mindless as mathematics. Its a given.

0 Replies

You have too many answers for my comfort, Fil.

Obviously (to me) there is an answer to all this...although we humans may never be able to comprehend it or reason it out.

Whatever that answer IS...it IS. Whatever IS...IS.

I have NO idea at all what IS...and I cannot rule anything in or out.

You, apparently, are able to do so. You see a reasoning process whereby the conclusion to which you have come is unassailable.

I, personally, cannot assail it...but that does not mean that it is correct.

The exact nature of the one mind of which I am "aware" is not really known to me...and it may be quite different from the "I" or "me" that seems to be.

Not only am I unaware of what it (the mind) is...I am also unaware of when it came into being...or if it came into being. (It may always have existed...and it may have come into being just seconds ago (as I write this) complete with all the memories I suppose it has.

Not sure how you can be so sure of what you say you are sure of...but I cannot be...and Fil, I am the only thing whose existence I am sure of (sorta).

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You ought to take your famous sentence that whatever IS IS one step further in comprehension...it really means that whatever IS IS, timelessly...
And note please that I have not categorised the nature of "God"..I only establish a prime mover IS what it IS...it cannot create itself.
You see Frank...I have the full grasp of the sentence you yourself love to use...whatever IT is, IS !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You ought to take your famous sentence that whatever IS IS one step further in comprehension...it really means that whatever IS IS, timelessly...
And note please that I have not categorised the nature of "God"..I only establish a prime mover IS what it IS...it cannot create itself.
You see Frank...I have the full grasp of the sentence you yourself love to use...whatever IT is, IS !

Okay.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

One thing I have learned about the requirements of Philosophy alongside with some sound IQ is honesty in inquiry being more important then butt sucking politics in the Academic medium...
Philosophy is indeed one of those sciences that requires honest to God inquiry. Cheaters even if smart are out of the race. True Intelligence never loses focus on what matters n politics although it can land you in a pile of money and a great career with great titles and honours matters nothing to Philosophy.
(this is not aimed at you Frank, as I hope you noticed, but fits perfectly with the nut boat nothingness paraders)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Stop flattering yourself...and stop making stuff up.

We have been discussing non-duality in this forum for over a decade...and I have participated in most of those discussions. Your presentation of the arguments is pitiful compared with the arguments of most non-dualists (of which there are many) here in the forum.

what is 'non duality', to you, seeing as you have spent decades discussing it apparently.
to me, it is a concept originating in ancient india, as a fundamental truth explaining the entire existence. to me, the best way of understanding the concept is to read the works of pioneers in the field, not to discuss with so called 'non dualists' on these forums.
these discussions are more a way to try to understand these pioneers' works better. all the statements i made, including 'there is no truth/reality', are consistent with people like nisargadatta maharaj, who are definitely considered pioneers of the field. according to people like him, there is no way to 'present an argument' about this topic, it is always self evident as the negation of whatever 'exists'.

Quote:

Oh...sorry I missed that. I thought the point was actually to show what a sloppy job some people can do with the issue. And I thought you were doing a bang up job of that.

you're just upset because you have been so badly owned in our argument. keep trying.

Quote:

I investigate honestly, CM...which is why the jury is still out for me. The people who are not investigating honestly are folk like you...who have reached a decision on something that is way too ambiguous yet to be decided.

now you are using my arguments against me. i am the one saying nothing is certain, that i have made no decisions. this very thread was to enquire further into nonduality. i have said that every statement i make is subject to questioning, not necessarily true in any way.

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know