a non-physical thing
- Thread starter swarm
- Start date
Yes, I could say so.
-=-
Then you will not find the truth & you will probably never be truly happy.
Then you will not find the truth & you will probably never be truly happy.
How does that follow?
Agreed.
I suppose a lot comes down to the expectations we have about ourselves and what we expect we can do on our own.
I think there is also a lot of pride involved when one is colossally furious over mistakes and feels like giving up, isn't there? "I am so wonderful, I am so knowledgeable, I am so able, I should have been able to do this right in the first try!!!"
That right there is another tendency of wanting to lord it over material nature.
I suppose it's quite a blow to a person's (false) ego to have to rely on faith, and that this is why faith is/seems so problematic to many people.
This is an example how formal problems of epistemology go hand in hand with practical problems of pride/false ego.
Agreed, but I was thinking of a general dislike for anything systematic with clearly specified goals. There is this idea that in order to enjoy yourself, you must not "think too much", because as soon as you start to be systematic (and rational, cool-headed) about your activities, enjoyment fades.
A good example of that is how some women justify the use of contraceptives and not thinking about them, even though they know about the risks: "I don't think about the side-effects of the pill. If I would, I couldn't enjoy sex."
Many people also don't make New Year's resolutions or have life goals because they feel this would "take all the fun out of life".
But perhaps the above pertains more to enjoyment in the mode of ignorance. Enjoyment in the mode of passion seems to give plenty of room for a systematic approach (for example athletes who have their training painstakingly planned out to the smallest details, but still they say they are enjoying themselves, or professional musicians who practice their instruments and pieces extremely systematically, or epicurean gourmets).
Please clarify this for me:
Do you mean that recognizing that one is in illusion entails that one sees that material life has no scope (for true happiness, truly meaningful life), but at the same time, one cannot see what exactly the alternative to this would be -? That recognizing that one is in illusion comes in the form of a kind of generalized dissatisfaction with life and wanting to get out - while still feeling that there is some pleasure to be had in material things? ("I think living my life the way I have so far is going nowhere good, but this chocolate still tastes delicious.")
(In Buddhism, there is the term samvega: "the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle." It is sometimes said that without this feeling, one cannot really start on the Path.)
Yes, this is what I meant - that desire shapes perception.
I wanted to say something here, I suppose there was this pride thing again ...
I will need to read up on sva dharma and sanatana dharma.
What would be some ways for figuring out what is going wrong?
That is just it: I don't know what would be realistic to my nature and environment.
For example, I can't chant nowhere near 16 rounds daily yet, especially not in one sitting, that is for sure.
Oh. How simple.
Perhaps this is why I eventually couldn't continue with Buddhism. Namely, I took to Buddhism in order to become enlightened so as to be able to apply the advice given by Christians. Because the advice Christians have given me on how to come to knowledge of God struck me as so abstract and so impossible to act on, that I concluded that I would need to be enlightened to implement it (ie. be beyond any biases of aging, illness, death, anger, greed, delusion). But as time and my Buddhist practice progressed, I think I lost sight of that initial goal, and things just became too hard to stick with.
Who's the yogi bear now ...
That is interesting: that there are means to solidify desire into a decision. I had so far conflated desire and decision.
Even the Buddhists say that admirable friendship is the whole of the holy life.
More an "impersonal personalist", I suppose, as far as such a term can make any sense. The notion of personhood is quite abstract to me, but present. The notion that All is just impersonal involves too many repugnant conclusions for me to accept it; suffering just feels too real to say that it doesn't actually exist, that it is a mere illusion.
As I said: "An illusion has actual physicality (heat waves for example), its just that it has been mistaken for something other than what it is (thought to be water)."
When there is an illusion there is something actual which is being mistaken for something else. Without the desceptively close to water appearence of the heat waves, there is no illusion of water. But the illusion happens in the mind.
Because further information was gleened by say more closely examining what is happening. The illusion is dispelled in the mind by understanding what is actually being experienced.
A dellusion is a dellusion because you really believe it in spite of the lack of evidence, sound familiar yet? Does it sound like "faith?" Sure does to me.
That doesn't mean they are all equal in validity, or unverifiable, or must be accepted uncritically. Some "interpretations of reality" map extremely well and have extensive and public verification, like say, oh, science.
Others don't map to reality at all and lack any verification like say, oh, religion.
Monkeys are monkeys.
And yet I still can't levetate.
Belief doesn't create existence. It doesn't for you. It doesn't for me. It doesn't for us. No matter how hard you believe you are full, you will still die if you don't actually eat.
Actually its not as interesting as it seems once you get past the special pleading by the theists. You can't undeniably contradict any fantasy claim.
Prove there is no Qerg. Qerg is god's god.
Pattern storage and manipulation proved to be a handy survival trait.
I would say you have concepts of them, but those concepts lack actual referents. But I'm willing to consider some examples.
Because I have immediate and direct apprehension of myself and there is no contravening evidence. I further have supporting evidence from people such as yourself.
Authority? Immediate and direct apprehention is the "authority."
Having motives requires my existence, so what exactly would I be questioning and what are you suggesting is the motive of the nonexistent???
Immediate and direct apprehention of myself. Which, btw, is the most persuasive evidence available.
Boy can I.
Who thinks that?
Your posit results in a self denying proposition. You can only question your existence if you already exist.
I can see where that would make life confusing. Only unfounded assumptions are equivalent to faith.
Fundimentally, yes.
It is not an assumption, as detailed above, nor is it faith. I actuall am and can prove it to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of any reasonable person and even most unreasonable persons. Even when they are trying to pretend I don't exist it is pretty ease to show they actually know I exist. [bwahahaha!]
No. You might choose to believe, but I can't offer any reason which would satisfy a rational person.
You people always objectify me and treat me like I'm a magic wishing rock and there aren't consequences to your ego centric demands. Sheesh! Do you like the sky as it currently is? Did you even notice? How about now?
Says you since you decided to buy one of their computers.
You guys really groove on the authority thing don't you.
Most people base who is on their actual experience of them. Give it a try and see how it works.
It is awkard feeling to try and take up something you can't let go of.
No matter what you do or do not do you are already at the "helm." But sometimes is is hard to realize this or see it in action. Your perspective can be too close. The eye trying to see itself is a common analogy.
There are differing views on how to gain this perspective. Various mirrors, relying on others for guidence. Seeing what is left when "nothing" is left. Working towards various goals: peak experiences, selflessness, service... Altering your consciousness by various means to give a different perspective.
A lot depends on where the disconnect is.
The point of maya is that it is a seeming.
Seemings only trip you up when you don't find out. Errors remain problems only if you don't correct them. You don't "get out" there is no where else to go and you would just take the issue with you. I would say you more take it into account.
Perhaps there isn't anything in particular you "really want." Nothing wrong with that.
I know just what you mean. I've never connected with that sort of thinking. Luckily I've never really been bothered by not connecting with it. I manage to get done what needs doing and it frees me from a great deal of worry that seem to plague other people concerning not "achieving" their goals and desires.
The Buddhists always say start with who you are.
There are many differences which are presented as needed "fixing" which really are just differences. Since you are at least functional enough to have access to the internet and make coherent posts, I would say you don't really have much to worry about in terms of fixing.
It might be more productive to consider more which traits and skills you would like to improve, strengthen or just try out.
Just as an example I started out life very introspective. In a "fix" mind set that would be troubling and there would be things to fix my behavior so I wouldn't be that way.
But I enjoy being introspective. I just wanted to strengthen other traits I felt were being neglected without giving up what I already did well and enjoyed. So I took the approach of seeking internal balance. I investigated the traits of non introspective people and worked on things like spontaneity until I found a more pleasing point of balance.
Actually the way it works is that it is assumed that nothing can be accepted as existing before there is evidence of its existence.
So things for which there is no actual evidence do not exist until there is evidence for them which is preferrably replicable and verifiable.
The reason for this is people can inagine things with no effort what so ever an this resulted in a plethora of things later found to be non existant which polluted our understanding of reality. We've managed to get rid of the non existant unicorns and hopefully non existant gods will join them.
That is why you aren't happy then.
Teach your self to stop at "I don't know" and then do something else instead of carrying on into "I am not as happy as I think I could and should be."
Thinking is so easy you can always think you aren't as happy as you "could and should be." Actually being happy takes more effort and thinking about how you "aren't as happy as you could and should be" distracts you from actually being happy.
It will require a bit of mental discipline but its not too difficult. I take the following approach.
First I learn to recognize when I'm slipping into a self defeating loop like "I am not as happy as I think I could and should be."
Next, no matter how far in I am, I stop doing that and start doing something else. It really doesn't matter what but usually some thing which requires a lot of attention and focus is good. If I have something I'm working on often linking the two works well, or even just meditating for a moment until my mind is clear.
That's it, repeat as needed.
When first learning this trick that may seem like it is repeating every second. That's fine. Like any trick it takes a while to learn. Like anything practice will bring improvement.
For this particular one, I would practice smiling. Why not kill two birds with one stone?
Yes I know the objections those who don't practice smiling raise.
Practice smiles work those muscles, helping to strengthen them.
Practice smiling is silly and being silly makes most people smile for real.
My opinions about my own capabilities may be mistaken. But they are never hearsay.
I'm sorry you cannot be forthright about this LG.
If you don't offer anything else but your opinions, one can very easily be forthright .....
I presume you meant "can't?"
My actions do not cause you to be less than forthright. That is your choice.
Also I did ask you what exactly you were expecting on this forum, where we have no shared interaction except this forum. If you wish I could have another person, whom you also don't know, attest to my abilities. Would that make a difference to you? Some how I doubt it.
I have out lined where I am against what you put forth. Stop dragging your heels and continue, that is if you actually have any capacity to continue.
To Swarm
So you agree with me that there might be things in the world that might exist at this very moment, but we humans decide they don't just because we are not smart yet to figure out the way to prove their existence.
To keep this in perspective I want to tell you about the story of Dr. Semmelweiss, i have already mentioned this in other posts, i am not sure if you read it or not. If so, sorry for the repetition. He was a doctor who inadvertently discovered the puerperal fever. A disease that used to be the main cause of death of women who gave birth, this was 300 or 400 years ago. There were no microscopes invented yet, therefore bacteria were not discovered yet.
He noticed that women who gave birth in the hospitals were frequently having this condition, while women who gave birth at home were less likely to have it. He thought that there must be something on the hands of doctors that were transmittiing the condition from one patient to another at the hospitals. He insisted that doctors washed their hands after seen a patient.
The medical community back then laughed at him because they did not see anything in their hands and were refusing to wash their hands. To prove his point this doctor injected himself with material from the placenta of women who died with this condition and he also died with fever.
Doctors have been washing thier hands for at least a century before the microscope was invented and bacteria discovered. Saving thousands of lives this way.
So you agree with me that there might be things in the world that might exist at this very moment, but we humans decide they don't just because we are not smart yet to figure out the way to prove their existence.
To keep this in perspective I want to tell you about the story of Dr. Semmelweiss, i have already mentioned this in other posts, i am not sure if you read it or not. If so, sorry for the repetition. He was a doctor who inadvertently discovered the puerperal fever. A disease that used to be the main cause of death of women who gave birth, this was 300 or 400 years ago. There were no microscopes invented yet, therefore bacteria were not discovered yet.
He noticed that women who gave birth in the hospitals were frequently having this condition, while women who gave birth at home were less likely to have it. He thought that there must be something on the hands of doctors that were transmittiing the condition from one patient to another at the hospitals. He insisted that doctors washed their hands after seen a patient.
The medical community back then laughed at him because they did not see anything in their hands and were refusing to wash their hands. To prove his point this doctor injected himself with material from the placenta of women who died with this condition and he also died with fever.
Doctors have been washing thier hands for at least a century before the microscope was invented and bacteria discovered. Saving thousands of lives this way.
Absolutely incorrect. Evidence is always some kind of community accessible set of repeatable experiences. You can have many correct beliefs that you cannot produce enough evidence for to get your experience/interpretation accepted by the community. With your definition faith, delusion and a whole set of rational beliefs will all get lumped together. What is practical for some journal to accept as acceptably supported should never be confused with the limits of rational belief. As if everything outside that set is delusion or faith.
Of course other people's beliefs do not have to be accepted by you. Was he really saying this? That you had to accept their belief? I cannot see where you got that impression.
No, you can't. I could prove that the Beatles exist and are playing together by producing four guys who look about right. IOW I could give people an experience. Same with you. Someone who looks like you did last year could show up again, but this is no evidence it is the same person. And given that you are a materialist and all the matter has changed, well, it ain't that other you.
You are halllucinating a forest here. You have created a group 'you people'.
Please tell us which group of people you meant here that Wes belongs to.
Oh, OK. I thought it was a strange remark. thanks for the clarification.
To the particular mind - it was water, then it wasn't. In the case of a phenomenon that can't be further researched, what of the physical referrent? Was something there? If so, what was it? Was it just imagined?
The point is: it's all in the mind; observational distance nullifies your claim of a referrent.
To me it's also fair to argue that there's no end to the cycle you establish with your "gleenage". It's water, but water is molecules, molecules are atoms, blah blah blah. Where does the reality begin because all the illusions have been washed away? The only substantive argument to the contrary as far as I can tell is that which you elude to below: practicality.
Further, once you settle on "this is reality", don't you seriously risk missing important shit? I mean, it was apparently "reality" for a very long time that leaches cure people of stuff that they don't. It's 'reality' for god folks that god is the source of 'reality', blah blah blah.
Faith is also when you believe something on weak evidence or even strong but not entirely conclusive evidence. As skepticism can be applied rationally to any belief, it's a matter of degree as I see it. With any firm belief lies a smidgen of faith, even if one is too egotistical to see it. It's beautiful though, if you can see it.
To whom? Of course they are not. To a god-person, the validity of the bible might be unquestionable - whereas to you or I - it seems obviously flawed. You and I agree that it's invalid, some god-people agree to the contrary. We can continue to congratulate each other on our impressive wit and the god-folks can continue to pray for our obviously hell-bound souls.
You seem to think your sense of validity applies to everything. It doesn't, except to you.
Others don't map to reality as you see it, sure. Does that mean reality is as you see it? What about someone who disagrees? They must be confused eh, maybe stupid?
Complicated apes.
So levitation is impossible? Are you sure you're trying hard enough?
Agreed, but irrelevant. Belief is part of existence. If belief leads to starvation and death, then the instance of belief ends and there's nothing to left to discuss.
Uhm, you're telling me what is and isn't interesting and then claiming I'm confused? Check yourself? Of course you can't undeniably contradict any fantasy claim, but most are far less powerful than the notion of god, which makes it of particular interest to me. Obviously it's not interesting to you though since you wouldn't spend any time discussing it at all. *clear throat*
I have no need to prove such a thing. If you believe it, you have to deal with the consequences.
Survival? Why? Why should survival matter?
I'm not sure exactly what you're requesting. I said that I have concepts that lack referrents, you said the same thing and then said you'd consider examples of something you already agreed with.
I tentatively believe you exist, yes. Immediate and direct apprehension is sweet and stuff, but it's not always reliable - illusions and delusions and such.
No I don't think there is any authority whatsoever besides reality itself, excepting of course that which is granted - or that which is forced.
Verification of lacking fantasies. You are of course, utterly insane and your apprehension is meaningless to anyone who isn't you. Even when you think it's valid, as others validate you - it's just part of your insanity, telling you what you need to hear to maintain itself.
Indeed, unless of course it's wrong - like you tell the god folks they are.
Lol. Please convince kim jong il or however you spell his name that you exist. You might be able to do so, but odds are it'd be the last thing you ever did. I doubt it's worth it.
Who thinks that?
Your mom.
It's not "self-denying", it's realization of self. You could exist and not be "self" like a rock, or your mom. Lol.
I suppose we'll have to disagree, as I think your comprehension is seriously lacking here and I'm sure likewise.
Thanks for extending a little credit. I'll keep that in mind.
Yes so you say. You really only have to prove it to you and let the chips fall where they may. Of course I suppose you're not even obliged to do that much. Whether or not you exist is irrelevant to everyone but you, unless they choose to make it relevant or you choose to impose yourself on them.
That depends on circumstance a little more heavily than you imply. If you're locked in a cave with no form of communication I think you might find it more challenging.
So how is it exactly that rationality is absolutely established? If you say it is so, does that make it so?
The purple clouds and majesty - nice touch. Thanks. Oh by the way about those virgins...
Built it myself thanks. I DID buy their components and do stuff with them.
"you guys"? Do you think I'm like, in cahoots with someone - or do you simply mean those poor, confused people "like me"? And no, but you seem to often offer decrees that sweep humanity - establishing your own direct apprehension of reality as the authority - so to me it seems like you're kind of into the authority thing yourself actually. I simply asked why I should buy what it is you're selling when IMO, it's somewhat simplistic and doesn't really model what I know as reality quite right. It does fine with most apparently mechanical aspects of what seems real, but that doesn't cover the entirety of existence as far as I can tell.
Most people base who is on their actual experience of them. Give it a try and see how it works.
Fantastic idea. I'll mark it down in my date book.
Of course, that's not really true unless you consider media "actual". I have no actual experience of you, nor you I. It's virtual.
The reason I seem so confused is that I'm a personality simulator developed and the university of Missouri for deployment on the internets back in 2001.
01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01110100 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01101011 01101001 01100011 01101011 01100001 01110011 01110011 00101110
No
I mean that if all you offer are your opinions, one can forthrightly state that you are simply offering hearsay
Your actions determine the validity of your argument
regardless of the topic of discussion, forums are usually characterized by the discussion of existing bodies of work and personalities in the field and the philosophical issues that surround knowledge.
You can't even state your epistemological stance so there's no substance to drag anything
:shrug: