The Problem of Self

All I can tell you Frank is that the "self" is fragmentary and those who cannot see this are the ones who are "self-delusional". The "quality" of expeience which may follow such "glimpses" is very different from "the norm" and very difficult to trabsmit in words....How do I transmit say the simultaneous and non-judgemental observation of contradictory views within myself....simultaneous also with the vision that this inconsistency will mechanistically continue as a "normal coping mechanism" within myself and those around me.....a vision of sleepwalkers each with their own randomly changing agenda making occasional and ephemeral pacts with some fragmentary aspect of each other....and yet also to experience the compasion if this to be our mutual impoverished mental fate. ..

It sounds to me that you are declining to answer my question/

I don't blame you.

Frank,

The question of how anyone "knows" anything including whether they are sane or insane at time of writing has occupied the minds of philopsophers from time immemorial. Epistemology has multiple learned journals associated with it in which we can read a multiplexity of views including some akin to my own regarding "prediction".

The problem with your "sloganizing of the problem" is that you have as yet shown absolutely no intention of getting into that learned epistemological debate....you actually seem to think you KNOW what "know" means! Ironic isn't it ! This is why when you ask your automatic question "how do you know that" you are rightly accused of setting up a straw man, or worse you are brushed aside like an obnoxious infant who delights in pestering with a puerile infinite regress.

Let me try... a metaphor.

Say, a wave in ocean starts out to search what the ocean is and concludes by assessing all evidence it can grasp that it can't prove it either ways. It concludes that "I don't know"... An honest and sensible position. But is it possible that this "I" part, a sense of wave being the separate from the ocean, is the grandest of all illusions?

Actually I don't know is a constructive position, but the risk of ever sticking with "I" don't know is that one could end up putting up with a bigger delusion.

Possibly the wave can start out with the same goal and from that same sensible position "I don't know" and when it senses what the ocean is, it ceases to see itself separate from the ocean while remaining a wave.

... An insight could threaten all the intellectual positions and the very pursuits of "I" as well as "knowing"

bluesky

Aspects of your metaphor have definite merit.
A living organism can certainly be envisaged as a temporary "structure" which persists in a changing flux of matter. Capra in fact extends the analogy as you do to "cognition". The transcendent move is to see (know) that neither the "structure" nor "the flux" has meaning (significance) except with respect to each other....a nondualistic interpretation.

Instead of losing your cool, Fresco...

...how about trying to tackle the question.

If you suppose you are in touch with some greater understanding of the nature of REALITY and of existence...

...how do you know you are not deluding yourself?


I suspect I will never get a reasonable answer to that...but it should be getting obvious that you are more interested in shooting off your mouth than dealing with the issue.

Maybe all this debate is happening because what one call the "self" is meant in a different sense or meaning than what another call the "self"?

Anyways, I also don't know, in the sense that Frank is talking about. When in doubt, I trust my common sense and the Golden Rule (Confucian style ).

Ray,

Writers on "self" have observed that "common sense" rarely encapsulates and in fact obscures its major properties.

For example, much of the time the self is engaged in internal imaginary conversations ...perhaps in anticipation of impending meetings. Such conversations usually never happen implying a complete waste of energy and lack of attention to potentially important external events.

We "know" all this from experience but do not seem able to control it. The knowledge could lead to a re- examination of "priorities", or to an appreciation of our "culturally programmed striving", but we are usually unwilling to rock the boat because that wouldn't be "common sense" would it !

Frank, Fresco may have erred in assigning to you the claim that others are deluding themselves. You HAVE only asked us to consider if we are deluding outselves. But it is unfortunate that you use this to cover your evasion of the truth in what he HAS said.
By the way, you say that you do not know the nature of existence and reality. But from the so-called mystical perspective you are the only expert on YOUR existence and experienced reality. Think about this without confounding this kind of concrete "realization" with intellectual or theoretical "knowledge" ABOUT "existence" and "reality" as abstract objects of an ego's thought.
Ego says, Cogito ergo sufro.

Precisely ! All "knowledge" is to some extent "deck stacking" as Frank would call it because general or particular language decks are the only vehicles of coherence we have.ie, "Knowledge" is "what works" with respect to paradigmatic segmentation of "reality". We can only communicate salient issues by multiple cross references using this imperfect tool in conjunction with selective attention. It is this truism which Frank does not seem to understand having reverted on past threads to the single "naive realists" demand for "objective evidence". His "stack" has stuck together with age !

The truth has a habit of revealing itself...

Agatha Christie


Comment:
The supposition that we cannot know only creates a vacuum that leaves the debate open for speculation. Speculation is the tossed up into the ethereal and the ethereal speaks back to us. It is like quarks is physical science... We cannot see them and we cannot measure them or observe them but we can poke them and measure the effects of their interactions and the energy patterns they display and demonstrate.

Thus over years of prodding and probing these "unknowable" quarks we there is suddenly a picture that emerges of their character and nature. We still cannot see them and one may even still argue in light of this fact that they do not exist. If it were not for the pioneers that believed in the quarks in the face of skepticism, the quarks would still today... be unknown. But now today quarks are accepted by most physical scientists as fact.

It is the act of looking into the unknown and even though we cannot see it we can believe in the existence of an energy that we can probe and provoke and witness the energy that ensues. If we did not believe in this energy we would not have the conviction to peruse and study it. We would climb up in our shell and live the life of a defeatist.

We then over time can know the presence of this unknown "thing" scientifically because the effects are measurably precise and accurate. When we provoke God, God acts in a predictable manner. These means are observable and are rich in purposeful understanding and spiritual insight into God's nature.

Though we may never gaze into the "face" of God we can still understand God's character and personality. What other purpose do eyes and ears and the other senses have but to fill the brain with knowledge and to come to a knowledge of the truth. Otherwise these facilities are only vanity in an expanse of utter darkness. These senses evolved out of our keen desire to know the unknown and to love the unseeable.

Ya see, guys, Rex agrees with you both.

Incredible!

Belief systems competing with one another...and absolute stone-headedness in refusing to come to grips with the truth...even when offered up on a silver platter.

Play your games, Fresco. You, too, JL.

You two and Rex continue to suppose you possess some special knowledge about what is going on here...that it is something anyone can obtain if only he/she would open his/her mind...that acknowledging our lack of true understanding of the overall picture is somehow second rate.

I enjoy laughter...and you people are providing it.

My, my, my....how very difficult life is for you believers.

Rex.

When you compare "scientists believing in quarks" with you "believing in God" I think this is a good example of what Wittgenstein calls "language going on holiday". Frank of course has joined you on vacation...its easier than working.

A linguistic joke springs to mind.

...the guy who goes into a chinese restaurant and tips a bowl of noodles over the waiters head. "Thats for Pearl Harbour !" he says...."but I'm Chinese not Japanese !" says the waiter...."Chinese, Japanese. Burmese...they're all the same to me!

...the next day the waiter finds out that his assailant is a Mr Greenberg who eats at the Jewish Deli next door....he spots him having a bowl of soup, rushes in and tips it on his head...."thats for the Titanic !" he says..."Iceberg, Goldberg, Greenberg...they're all the same to me!"

(Apologies if you've heard it before)

How is asking the epistemological basis for one's assertions "setting up a straw man?"

Thats the point Joe, he's not ! On previous threads when I define what I mean by "know" (as a degree of confidence about predicted interactions) Frank rejects it on "naive realist" grounds as "lacking objective evidence". Yet he also claims he doesn't "know what reality is" implying he cannot define what constitutes such "evidence".

All past or present academics know that is easy to attack "established systems". Students of even limited ability can easily criticize Freud or Keynes etc etc by reference to their limitations. The exercise becomes boring once it is mastered. The better student is able to rise above this level of "ankle nipping" to a synthesis of past and present paradigms within his field. The word "guess" has about as much place in "epistemological enquiry" as "a dog bite" has on "a medical course".

Frank:

How about right here:

Not only are you accusing them of "stone-headed" self-delusion, but you also claim to know the "truth"( going against everything I've ever heard from you) and that you are offering it up on "a silver platter." I'm not trying to be an ass, but not only have we strayed from the original topic by a large margin, but we've also degenerated into insults,
fresco:
and condescension,
Frank:
where we should be debating the point like reasonable adults. Now, I love hearing people's theories on things, but not their pettiness. You're both better than that.

Taliesin181

(Not so much insults as "thrust and parry". If you check out the Frank Apisa/Fresco/ JL Nobody/Joe Chicago threads you'll find a history of such skirmishes with even a few compliments being given.
NB "Naive Realism" is a technical term)

Fresco: Thanks for responding. I understand that, for the most part, you guys have a grudging respect for one another, but I think that, since this is a debate forum, certain levels of decorum and respect should be in place. Again, thanks for responding.

Having an idealistic belief in God is a way of proving God. God is an energy just like the quarks are and follows the exact same rules of inspection.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Luke 4:32
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.


Luke 10:9
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Acts1:18
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Acts4:33
And with great powergave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 13:1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Romans 16:25
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,


1Corinthians 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1 Corinthians 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 4:19
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.


1 Corinthians 4:20
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

2 Corinthians 4:7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

Ephesians 1:19
And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

Ephesians 6:10
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

Comment:
These are only a few scriptures containing the word power from the new testament.

The underlying greek words behind the english word "power" in the Holy Bible are Energemata(energy) and Dunimis(where we get the word dynamite) and Exergitzo (exercised power). So we see the Bible talks about potential and kinetic powers demonstrated thorough God.

Energy is a measurable commodity and can be scientifically observed and quantized. The mind functions on energy as does the physical universe. We may measure the energy from the universe but scientists cannot tell you where it all comes from. They trace it back in time to the beginning of time an event horizon that there is only speculation as to what came before.

Well there most certainly had to be something come before it is the simplist of all logic that substance cannot spontaneously come out of absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks so is missing a few marbles and needs a screw or two tightened.

This IS the power of creation and the power that we have that animates the soul and draws us near to the eternal force that has no beginning or end. This is God. It does not take a giant leap of faith to recognize "power/energy". We may not understand it's inner working every time we flick a switch and turn on a light but we do not doubt it's ability or existence. This is the core of self and the purpose of existence.


PS I may not have spelled the Greek words correctly I spelled them from memory.

I don't know of everything that you and Frank have discussed in previous threads. I have previously expressed my dissatisfaction with Frank's claims of knowledge. I'm still not entirely sure how his questions regarding your claims of knowledge constitute a "straw man," but perhaps if I pay closer attention to this thread I'll see.

I would just add, fresco that I have also expressed my dissatisfaction with your claims of knowledge within the context of your non-dualist belief system. So I don't know how you can attack Frank's failure to define what constitutes evidence when your own epistemology is similarly deficient.


And yet you use the word "predict" in yours. What's the difference?