20
   

Has Anyone Since Buddha Reached Nirvana, Really?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 05:21 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I am trying to tell you something very simple Frank, the act of guessing onto itself is real. When you claim we are guessing you already said something SUBSTANTIAL about the nature of reality.


If I have not suggested that I know the true nature of the REALITY of existence, Fil...I have not contradicted what I have said.

I will acknowledge that just as Earth, wind, fire, and keyboards appear to exist...so too do guesses. Whether they are the REALITY or are part of an illusion which is the REALITY...I do not know.

"The act of guessing"...just like the act of me supposedly thinking...or the act of you and Frank Apisa having a discussion...MAY BE an illusion.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 11:49 am
@Frank Apisa,
Let me make the point a bit more clear then:
That you do not know is in itself an objective positive statement that represents something substantial about reality.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 12:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Let me make the point a bit more clear then:
That you do not know is in itself an objective positive statement that represents something substantial about reality.


I have never said I cannot make a substantive statement about reality, Fil.

One substantive...VERY SUBSTANTIVE...statement I can make about reality is:

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.



So I am not sure of your point.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 12:37 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Oh but surely you must know what is my point, annoying as it may be, you just confirmed you know something substantive about reality.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 01:00 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Oh but surely you must know what is my point, annoying as it may be, you just confirmed you know something substantive about reality.


No, I didn't, Fil.

I said I could make a substantive statement about reality...that I do not know what it is.

That is different from saying that I know something substantive about reality.

Not sure what you are up to here, Fil

Are you just looking for an argument for the sake of argument...or is there a point you are actually trying, rather unsuccessfully, to make.

Do you know what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is?

I said I did not...

...and you seem to be challenging that.

But I do not know what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is.

And all I did when I said I could say something substantive about it...was to repeat that thought using other words.

So what is your point?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 01:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Do you want to double on the idea that blind guesses might be a blind guess ? Its redundant thinking. Blind guesses are objective statements about states of affairs on our human minds.

When you say you do not know. You are saying, talking, expressing, a fact of existence, a REAL one. Itself a part of reality, through you, your own situation while existing and not knowing. Which is contradictory since you already know something, that is, that you do not know...
Aren't you familiar with "ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" from Socrates ?
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 01:32 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Do you want to double on the idea that blind guesses might be a blind guess ? Its redundant thinking. Blind guesses are objective statements about states of affairs on our human minds.


Blind guesses are blind guesses.

Quote:



When you say you do not know. You are saying, talking, expressing, a fact of existence, a REAL one. Itself a part of reality, through you, your own situation while existing and not knowing. Which is contradictory since you already know something, that is, that you do not know...
Aren't you familiar with "ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" from Socrates ?


Quote something I have said exactly as I said it...and tell me your problem with it...and I will discuss it with you.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 02:23 pm
@Frank Apisa,
It has been done. Deal with it !
Learn some maths I am not talking just tautologies here. Stating a blind guess is something, cannot mean blind guessing, is itself, guessed. You cannot guess guesses you can DO guesses ! The fact that you DO guesses says something about what you do. Just as the fact that you KNOW you do guesses says something about WHAT you KNOW !
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 02:31 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

It has been done. Deal with it !
Learn some maths I am not talking just tautologies here. Stating a blind guess is something, cannot mean blind guessing, is itself, guessed. You cannot guess guesses you can DO guesses ! The fact that you DO guesses says something about what you do. Just as the fact that you KNOW you do guesses says something about WHAT you KNOW !


I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Do you?

If you do not...what in hell is your problem with me acknowledging that I do not?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 02:34 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Well if you don't want to answer to what I just said, say so, don't stall...it is not polite... and I have been nothing but your friend around the forum...in fact I often think your stubborn insisting on this issue has some valid merit to sober some people. But this is besides the specific point at hand right now.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 02:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Well if you don't want to answer to what I just said, say so, don't stall...it is not polite... and I have been nothing but your friend around the forum...in fact I often think your stubborn insisting on this issue has some valid merit to sober some people. But this is besides the specific point at hand right now.


I have answered damn near every question you have asked, Fil.

I have asked you two questions...and I have asked them probably a half dozen times each...

...and you have not answered them.

Let me take the primary one...and ask it one more time.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Do you?

The second one, of course, is:

If you also do not know...what is your problem with me acknowledging that I do not know?

Since I have answered so many of your questions...and you have not answered mine, why don't you answer mine...and then start making charges that I am not being polite to you.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 03:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I can give you an honest shot at answering that question like a human being which is more then you will probably get all around the forum.

I do know the nature of reality but I cannot speak about it.
Knowledge on reality cannot be reported just experienced.
Hence the very common natural urge of saying what it is it is !
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 03:20 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I think the problem of defining "what is is" based on objectivity or subjectivity is based on nuance that changes and used inconsistently.
swingtrade2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 03:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am either the body/mind writing this or I am prior for this activity is being experienced. There are not two of me, so what stand to take? Got to be prior. And what power in witnessing? And the little leap is: witnessing but no witness. Reality cannot be an object.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 03:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I can give you an honest shot at answering that question like a human being which is more then you will probably get all around the forum.

I do know the nature of reality but I cannot speak about it.
Knowledge on reality cannot be reported just experienced.
Hence the very common natural urge of saying what it is it is !


I'll think that over a bit...rather than comment on it right now, Fil.

I can say that I do not know the true nature of REALITY. Everything I think I know (and, yes, there are things I think I know)...may be delusional...or an illusion.

Something does seem to be going on here...but what it is mystifies me. It is the most compelling puzzle I've ever considered. I love thinking about it...and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on it with me.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 03:33 pm
@swingtrade2,
swingtrade2 wrote:

I am either the body/mind writing this or I am prior for this activity is being experienced. There are not two of me, so what stand to take? Got to be prior. And what power in witnessing? And the little leap is: witnessing but no witness. Reality cannot be an object.


Nah nah...not that fast..just hold on your horses for a second..."witnessing" has the illusive problem of time accounting for what it intends to mean...

Imagine you are seeing a movie at a theatre where the main character looking philosophical circumspectly states with certainty... I am witnessing the world...

...While I can conceded he is not lying, I will also bluntly state that my knowledge of what witnessing really is has not improved. That character has no free will and while he witnesses whatever that means he is no different from a rock in the sky for all his witnessing power...
swingtrade2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 03:36 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Continuing to take what you are as an object. Don't you have to be condition - less to experience a condition? You don't think. Thought is experienced.
'I take my stand prior to all. I am the primal ground.' Nissargadatta.
Existence is trapped in object.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 03:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
My point Frank is that even illusions, if real illusions indeed, are still objects of reality, if you experience them. Note that I am not attempting to validate or explain experiencing has a bed rock like Fresco does...just saying that whatever it is you experience, illusion or not, such experience is just as much a part of reality as anything else. If I were to be a radical philosopher, which I am not, I don't have the stomach or energy for it, I would say that all experience is valid. What we call "illusion" because not totally disconnected from the whole might just refer to a very narrow connective point for pov, that transforms perspective to a very particular almost not shareable form of knowledge.

Say you and only you in the world have a blue pair of glasses while everyone else has an orange one...well guess what, both your and their experiences of the world are valid experiences, after all, I am setting the rules for this world, both your glasses and everybody else's glasses exist and are part of the main world along with people... but guess who will be deemed eluded ? yep, you with your blue pair of glasses...

What I am attempting to speak about is that bottle necked pov entrances with very little connections dots twist povs so very much that they become socially not shareable... but given how data is processed through those bottle necked connectors, twisted data, still represents, is, valid data about everything else. It could even be reversed untwisted. Information there is not false no doubts.

This is very hard to explain I don't know if I was clear enough.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2015 04:21 pm
@swingtrade2,
Very interesting.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2015 11:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
That is very clear. Points of view need be standardized (conventionalized) for the sake of communication and coordinated social interaction. The person with a blue POV is likely to be a radical philosopher like Nietzsche or a locked-away psychotic. But I agree that although they are not sharing conventional reality with the majority orange POVers they are still in touch with reality. I guess this means that Reality is more complex than we care to admit; it accomodates everything, infintely plural.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/17/2024 at 11:33:34