39
   

Destroy My Belief System, Please!

 
 
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 03:40 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
But present them as guesses...or at very least, do not present them as truths being revealed.


Just another aspect of your disingenuous attitude. Sure science uses guess work but it doesn't stop on the guesses. It takes another step to disprove the guess or to prove it with evidence and/or mathematics. So you are being dishonest if you claim science only has guesses and nothing more. Either that or you are willfully ignorant. Take your pick I guess.. (pun intended)
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 05:16 am
@JLNobody,
Quote:
I should not be so aggressive in my presentation of my worldview--it's not something I wish to "defend" only to share.

don't you worry about that, you're one of the most civil out here.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 05:46 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But present them as guesses...or at very least, do not present them as truths being revealed.


Just another aspect of your disingenuous attitude. Sure science uses guess work but it doesn't stop on the guesses. It takes another step to disprove the guess or to prove it with evidence and/or mathematics. So you are being dishonest if you claim science only has guesses and nothing more. Either that or you are willfully ignorant. Take your pick I guess.. (pun intended)


The question of whether or not there is a self...which was the subject being discussed...

...is a BLIND GUESS.

If you want to think it is science at work...especially "pure science"...do so.

But if someone laughs at you for doing it, understand they are not the one being willfully ignorant; the person they are laughing at is.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 05:49 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I should not be so aggressive in my presentation of my worldview--it's not something I wish to "defend" only to share.

don't you worry about that, you're one of the most civil out here.


I did not suggest to JL that he not present his guesses about the existence or non-existence of self because he was being uncivil.

JL is civil.

But he often presents his guesses as though they have to be the facts...the truth.

All he has to do to make the presentation logical, is to qualify his guesses...as possibilities.
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
The question of whether or not there is a self...which was the subject being discussed...

...is a BLIND GUESS.


It is no one's fault beside your own that you only see it as a guess.

The problem is, where ever there is attachment to the self, the person will ultimately deny and resist any attempt to shed light on the fact that there is no self that can be found. It is part of the self's attempt to solidify itself. It desperately WANTS it to be true.

This is the whole premise of buddhism and what the Buddha mentioned on many occasions. In fact he even warned against discussing it because people who are bound to the self will suffer any time you tell them, the self does not exist. The Buddha's point is to avoid placing a mindset where the result is suffering even if it is a mental one.

The aspect can not be shown. It has to be personally explored. I can't provide any evidence that the self does not exist. You must investigate it yourself. If you refuse to, that is not my problem that you don't understand it.

I gave you a few thought experiments. But they obviously were overlooked. So how about I make it a little more simplistic.

Let's just deal with the eye. If you were born blind and never saw anything. Later you were having a discussion with someone who was talking about the color red. You have never experienced the color red and NO amount of their explaining to you would ever get you to the point of actualizing what it is to experience the color red. That person talking about the color red could stand there a billion years describing the color to you and you would be NO WHERE closer to the experience.

This is why the self can not be explained away using evidence. It must be experienced directly. It has to be personally investigated. Not I nor anyone can prove it to you. Only you can experience it for yourself that what has been said is true.

Until then you are like a blind man insisting that the person who can see provide evidence that the color red exists.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:17 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The question of whether or not there is a self...which was the subject being discussed...

...is a BLIND GUESS.


It is no one's fault beside your own that you only see it as a guess.


The only reason I see it as a guess...is because it is a guess.


Quote:
The problem is, where ever there is attachment to the self, the person will ultimately deny and resist any attempt to shed light on the fact that there is no self that can be found. It is part of the self's attempt to solidify itself. It desperately WANTS it to be true.

This is the whole premise of buddhism and what the Buddha mentioned on many occasions. In fact he even warned against discussing it because people who are bound to the self will suffer any time you tell them, the self does not exist. The Buddha's point is to avoid placing a mindset where the result is suffering even if it is a mental one.

The aspect can not be shown. It has to be personally explored. I can't provide any evidence that the self does not exist. You must investigate it yourself. If you refuse to, that is not my problem that you don't understand it.

I gave you a few thought experiments. But they obviously were overlooked. So how about I make it a little more simplistic.

Let's just deal with the eye. If you were born blind and never saw anything. Later you were having a discussion with someone who was talking about the color red. You have never experienced the color red and NO amount of their explaining to you would ever get you to the point of actualizing what it is to experience the color red. That person talking about the color red could stand there a billion years describing the color to you and you would be NO WHERE closer to the experience.

This is why the self can not be explained away using evidence. It must be experienced directly. It has to be personally investigated. Not I nor anyone can prove it to you. Only you can experience it for yourself that what has been said is true.

Until then you are like a blind man insisting that the person who can see provide evidence that the color red exists.


Yeah...Catholics do this same thing with transubstantiation...and the explanation of the trinity.

It is a belief system, Krumple.

But continue to discuss it. You tend to help me show that it is. Wink
Krumple
 
  3  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:37 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The question of whether or not there is a self...which was the subject being discussed...

...is a BLIND GUESS.


It is no one's fault beside your own that you only see it as a guess.


The only reason I see it as a guess...is because it is a guess.


Quote:
The problem is, where ever there is attachment to the self, the person will ultimately deny and resist any attempt to shed light on the fact that there is no self that can be found. It is part of the self's attempt to solidify itself. It desperately WANTS it to be true.

This is the whole premise of buddhism and what the Buddha mentioned on many occasions. In fact he even warned against discussing it because people who are bound to the self will suffer any time you tell them, the self does not exist. The Buddha's point is to avoid placing a mindset where the result is suffering even if it is a mental one.

The aspect can not be shown. It has to be personally explored. I can't provide any evidence that the self does not exist. You must investigate it yourself. If you refuse to, that is not my problem that you don't understand it.

I gave you a few thought experiments. But they obviously were overlooked. So how about I make it a little more simplistic.

Let's just deal with the eye. If you were born blind and never saw anything. Later you were having a discussion with someone who was talking about the color red. You have never experienced the color red and NO amount of their explaining to you would ever get you to the point of actualizing what it is to experience the color red. That person talking about the color red could stand there a billion years describing the color to you and you would be NO WHERE closer to the experience.

This is why the self can not be explained away using evidence. It must be experienced directly. It has to be personally investigated. Not I nor anyone can prove it to you. Only you can experience it for yourself that what has been said is true.

Until then you are like a blind man insisting that the person who can see provide evidence that the color red exists.


Yeah...Catholics do this same thing with transubstantiation...and the explanation of the trinity.

It is a belief system, Krumple.

But continue to discuss it. You tend to help me show that it is. Wink


I have examined catholicism and there is no transcendental wisdom to be obtained in any of it's teachings. It doesn't lead to the end of suffering, in fact it only compounds it.

Actually I haven't be completely honest. Part of the point was to use the self as an attempt to gain some insight. But the reality is there is a self but it is not static, it is not a substance that remains the same. It constantly changes from moment to moment. In fact you can't compare it from one moment to the next because it changes constantly.

It is like water in a stream, a river, a lake, an ocean or in a cup. The water never remains static. In fact not even the molecules remain static. But the problem is when the concept of the self arises they assume it to be a static being. You are not the same person you were at age five. In fact you can't even compare you now with you then. You are almost completely different in every way. In fact you can't even compare you yesterday to you today. You might think you can but even these two are different.

It is the illusion created through memory that confuses you into assuming the self is a real substantial entity that is living out a life. Nope. You are just a water molecule flowing down a stream, into a river, into a lake, and into the ocean.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:43 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The question of whether or not there is a self...which was the subject being discussed...

...is a BLIND GUESS.


It is no one's fault beside your own that you only see it as a guess.


The only reason I see it as a guess...is because it is a guess.


Quote:
The problem is, where ever there is attachment to the self, the person will ultimately deny and resist any attempt to shed light on the fact that there is no self that can be found. It is part of the self's attempt to solidify itself. It desperately WANTS it to be true.

This is the whole premise of buddhism and what the Buddha mentioned on many occasions. In fact he even warned against discussing it because people who are bound to the self will suffer any time you tell them, the self does not exist. The Buddha's point is to avoid placing a mindset where the result is suffering even if it is a mental one.

The aspect can not be shown. It has to be personally explored. I can't provide any evidence that the self does not exist. You must investigate it yourself. If you refuse to, that is not my problem that you don't understand it.

I gave you a few thought experiments. But they obviously were overlooked. So how about I make it a little more simplistic.

Let's just deal with the eye. If you were born blind and never saw anything. Later you were having a discussion with someone who was talking about the color red. You have never experienced the color red and NO amount of their explaining to you would ever get you to the point of actualizing what it is to experience the color red. That person talking about the color red could stand there a billion years describing the color to you and you would be NO WHERE closer to the experience.

This is why the self can not be explained away using evidence. It must be experienced directly. It has to be personally investigated. Not I nor anyone can prove it to you. Only you can experience it for yourself that what has been said is true.

Until then you are like a blind man insisting that the person who can see provide evidence that the color red exists.


Yeah...Catholics do this same thing with transubstantiation...and the explanation of the trinity.

It is a belief system, Krumple.

But continue to discuss it. You tend to help me show that it is. Wink


I have examined catholicism and there is no transcendental wisdom to be obtained in any of it's teachings. It doesn't lead to the end of suffering, in fact it only compounds it.

Actually I haven't be completely honest. Part of the point was to use the self as an attempt to gain some insight. But the reality is there is a self but it is not static, it is not a substance that remains the same. It constantly changes from moment to moment. In fact you can't compare it from one moment to the next because it changes constantly.

It is like water in a stream, a river, a lake, an ocean or in a cup. The water never remains static. In fact not even the molecules remain static. But the problem is when the concept of the self arises they assume it to be a static being. You are not the same person you were at age five. In fact you can't even compare you now with you then. You are almost completely different in every way. In fact you can't even compare you yesterday to you today. You might think you can but even these two are different.

It is the illusion created through memory that confuses you into assuming the self is a real substantial entity that is living out a life. Nope. You are just a water molecule flowing down a stream, into a river, into a lake, and into the ocean.



Whatever!

I find it amusing that Christians think they have the reasonable and logical answers to "What is the REALITY?"

I find it amusing that atheists think they have the reasonable and logical answers to "What is the REALITY?"

I find it every bit as amusing that Buddhists think they have the reasonable and logical answers to "What is the REALITY?"

Personally, I think the best guess is that the true nature of the REALITY is beyond the abilities of humans to grasp.

Your guesses about self are interesting...and they are among the many that I have considered over the years.

0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  4  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 09:05 am
My belief system. You're born. You don't ask to be. You live, which is a struggle more often than not. You try not to be an asshole if you can help it and accept the fact that you fail at that. A LOT. You accept the fact that no one really knows a damn thing for sure and no one knows for sure if we find out after death, so you take your pleasures where you can, making a sincere effort not to hurt anyone else and try to leave the world livable for your children and heirs.
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 12:45 pm
@Krumple,
Bingo, Krumple. From my perspective at least you have hit the bulleye a number of times in this thread. Permit me some elaborations: the "I" (our "sense of self?) is an ever-changing process not a fixed substance. But we feel it as a solid homuculus-like being within us looking out on the world of objects through eyes that are more like little windows (or interfaces between subject(ive) and objects). It is a conventional way that we have been conditioned to use in countless ways--a fundamental/metaphysical element of our worldview.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 01:02 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Bingo, Krumple. From my perspective at least you have hit the bulleye a number of times in this thread. Permit me some elaborations: the "I" (our "sense of self?) is an ever-changing process not a fixed substance. But we feel it as a solid homuculus-like being within us looking out on the world of objects through eyes that are more like little windows (or interfaces between subject(ive) and objects). It is a conventional way that we have been conditioned to use in countless ways--a fundamental/metaphysical element of our worldview.


Once again you are doing it, JL.

How do you KNOW any of that?

Are you saying it cannot possibly be wrong?

JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 02:29 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Would it appease you to receive from me a blanket acknowledgement that I cannot KNOW for certain that I have a hold on absolute truth? Well, you have it. Moreoever, I provisionally hold that there is no good reason to believe in "absolute truth," only interpretations, some falsifiable hypotheses, some hueristic assumptions, some less-than-conscious presuppositions.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 02:53 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Would it appease you to receive from me a blanket acknowledgement that I cannot KNOW for certain that I have a hold on absolute truth? Well, you have it. Moreoever, I provisionally hold that there is no good reason to believe in "absolute truth," only interpretations, some falsifiable hypotheses, some hueristic assumptions, some less-than-conscious presuppositions.


Then why do you continue to express guesses as though you are revealing truths, JL?

Is there a self?

Your answer should be "I DO NOT KNOW...IT IS POSSIBLE THERE IS A SELF...AND IT IS POSSIBLE THERE IS NOT."

Anything other than that is a guess...and by now you should be expressing your guesses in a way that acknowledges they are guesses.

Or so it seems to me.

If you don't...WHICH IS YOUR RIGHT...I will call it to your attention.
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:19 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You ask me "Is there a self?" You might have phrased it "What is the nature of the widespread sense of self? That would be a very extensive conversation, not one I would like to have. But to play it safe with you I would answer to "Is there a self?" Not one that I can find when I look intently and honestly for it (i.e., meditation). I DO however assume its existence in my everyday life just as you do.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:19 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You ask me "Is there a self?" You might have phrased it "What is the nature of the widespread sense of self? That would be a very extensive conversation, not one I would like to have. But to play it safe with you I would answer to "Is there a self?" Not one that I can find when I look intently and honestly for it (i.e., meditation). I DO however assume its existence in my everyday life just as you do.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:12 pm
I suppose I need to read all this to figure you all out.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Everything is a guess according to you. Boring and inaccurate...
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:19 pm
@JLNobody,
Quote:
I DO however assume its existence in my everyday life just as you do.

And therefore, for all intent and purposes, you believe in your self. You just suspend that belief when you meditate.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:26 pm
@Olivier5,
But Frank persists in knowing he is right about most things discussed on a2k.

He values his guesses more than facts as seen by most people on a2k.

He doesn't value privacy laws under the Constitution, and continues to insist he is right.

Here's a cut and paste from another forum.
Quote:
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
"Spying is not a pretty thing...but it has been deemed necessary by society since Biblical times."


It has only been deemed necessary by tyrants based on history.

Frank doesn't understand why privacy is important.

Just type why privacy is important to society on any search engine.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2014 08:00 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
I'm with you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/30/2020 at 04:29:33