The logic of the dharma- an invitation to debate

[Kashyapa]

Hello, everyone! For my first post, I would like to present a logical series of assertions and a conclusion. Time for a little fun with philosophy. Please reply with your thoughts according to the guidelines after my conclusion.

The assertions:
1. The universe exists. Without delving too deeply into existentialism, I believe that that the universe exists has been proven beyond a truly reasonable doubt.

2. Earth and everything on it is a part of the universe, being composed of the same elements and adhering to the same general rules of physics.

3. Human beings are capable of percieving and reacting to the universe and everything in it.

4. Due to the limitations of our biological brains and sense organs, we are not able to escape the human perspective in our dealings with the rest of the universe. We cannot percieve the universe as it "really" is; we can only percieve it according to the limitations to our intelligence, areas of sensory sensitivity (light wavelengths, sound frequency, etc), and experience.

5. There is no inherent meaning to anything in the universe beyond that which we attach to it. No process or object in the universe has inherent, unconditional meaning beyond that which our minds attach to it. Additionally, the universe is a dynamic, fluid, and non-static entity that is constantly in flux and undergoing change.

6. As humans, we view things in a highly dualistic manner. We regard things as good or bad, self or nonself, nature or non-nature, hot or cold, Christian or Pagan, etc etc etc.

7. Dualism is not valid for the reason given in #5. There is no inherent dualism to the universe. This means that there is no distinction between oneself and the rest of reality, no good and evil. As asserted above, the universe is independent of dualism, which makes humanity independent of dualism.

8. Dualism conditions suffering for humans. In particular, the notions of Good and Evil and Self and Nonself create the most problems. Think about it- war, violence, anger, jealousy, unhappiness, craving, arrogance, egotism, theft, elitism, dishonesty, abuse, megalomania, fanaticism, delusion- all are created by the notion of self and nonself.

9. As we are essentially independent of dualism, it is simply a state of mind. Therefore, it can be overcome.

Conclusion: Overcoming dualism would overcome the root cause of all human misery and suffering, as it is simply a state of mind that conditions that misery and suffering. Therefore, overcoming dualistic thought is the only hope for our species.

Admittedly, this is not original logic- the Buddha pieced it together quite a while back. This argument is at the heart of true, philosophical Buddhism and Zen, despite the nonsense of reincarnation and deism that has been added to it over the centuries. I believe that my argument is unassailable. I would like to invite the board to take their best crack at it, however. Please remain civil, calm, and couch your objections only in the strictist logic. I will not bother to reply to a hysterical, profane, illogical "You're wrong because I say so" argument. Please take it from here! I'm looking forward to it.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Conclusion: Overcoming dualism would overcome the root cause of all human misery and suffering, as it is simply a state of mind that conditions that misery and suffering. Therefore, overcoming dualistic thought is the only hope for our species.

Admittedly, this is not original logic- the Buddha pieced it together quite a while back. This argument is at the heart of true, philosophical Buddhism and Zen, despite the nonsense of reincarnation and deism that has been added to it over the centuries. I believe that my argument is unassailable. I would like to invite the board to take their best crack at it, however. Please remain civil, calm, and couch your objections only in the strictist logic. I will not bother to reply to a hysterical, profane, illogical "You're wrong because I say so" argument. Please take it from here! I'm looking forward to it.

I have no argument with any of this.
(kisses Kashyapa on the cheek)
Welcome to the Forum!

[Kashyapa]

Ooo. A kiss! :cool:

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
This argument is at the heart of true, philosophical Buddhism and Zen, despite the nonsense of reincarnation and deism that has been added to it over the centuries.

Do you mean "deism", or theism?

[Kashyapa]

I meant that Buddhism has had beliefs in deities, spirits, demons, lesser demigods, souls, reincarnation and what have you added to it, either as a remnant of indigenous religions (in the case of Tibet) or as a result of widespread societal beliefs at the time of the Buddha. These are incompatible with Buddhist philosophy's essentially agnostic stance.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
I meant that Buddhism has had beliefs in deities, spirits, demons, lesser demigods, souls, reincarnation and what have you added to it, either as a remnant of indigenous religions (in the case of Tibet) or as a result of widespread societal beliefs at the time of the Buddha. These are incompatible with Buddhist philosophy's essentially agnostic stance.

That's why I'm fond of Zen. It's uncluttered.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
I meant that Buddhism has had beliefs in deities, spirits, demons, lesser demigods, souls, reincarnation and what have you added to it, either as a remnant of indigenous religions (in the case of Tibet) or as a result of widespread societal beliefs at the time of the Buddha. These are incompatible with Buddhist philosophy's essentially agnostic stance.
Leaving aside the irrelevant & tacked-on demons etc, I'd say buddhism tends more towards metamind=metamatter="what-is" in a deistic sense rather than a spirit of agnosticism.

[Kashyapa]

Hmm, yes...but refer to my logic. How is that deistic? Perhaps I should clarify by saying I speak for Zen, not all of Buddhism.

[DanishDynamite]

Kashyapa:6. As humans, we view things in a highly dualistic manner. We regard things as good or bad, self or nonself, nature or non-nature, hot or cold, Christian or Pagan, etc etc etc. Viewing the world as either black or white is usually the prerogative of young people. With experience, much of the world becomes various shades of gray.

However, the ability to discriminate between self and non-self is too vital for survival to dismiss. Heck, even our cells have this ability.
7. Dualism is not valid for the reason given in #5. There is no inherent dualism to the universe. This means that there is no distinction between oneself and the rest of reality, no good and evil. As asserted above, the universe is independent of dualism, which makes humanity independent of dualism. No one is independent of making judgement calls. They are sometimes necessary.

And the distinction between self and non-self, as I said, remains.
9. As we are essentially independent of dualism, it is simply a state of mind. Therefore, it can be overcome. "Dualism" as you define it, seems to mean "opposites". These verifiably exist in our world. The charge of a proton is the opposite of that of an electron. They are "dualistic" with regard to charge. These properties are not just a state of mind and cannot be overcome.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Kashyapa


5. There is no inherent meaning to anything in the universe beyond that which we attach to it. No process or object in the universe has inherent, unconditional meaning beyond that which our minds attach to it. Additionally, the universe is a dynamic, fluid, and non-static entity that is constantly in flux and undergoing change.



We would logically have to be in a transcendent state of being beyond perception in that 'oneness' not to be perceiving distinctly and selectively.
I guess it's something worth shooting for but on any day I can't decide what I really want to eat without conflict.
Good luck on your path. I'm not that devoted.

[Kashyapa]

My assertion went beyond shades of gray- it actively refutes that either exist. Again, the universe IS- it is not black, white, or gray. Meanings of any kind are not relevant to the universe.

Self and nonself in the biological sense is indeed important. However, it is simply the interface between two processes. Cells recognize pathogens and reject them due to chemical reactions. I would submit that this is not proof of selfhood. Genes have evolved a structure, organization, and function that ensures their propagation to the next generation. This is nothing but a monumentally complex system of chemical reactions, biotic and abiotic, and does not posess any inherent duality.

Subatomic charges do indeed seem dualistic. However, I don't think that's the case. They are simply independent processes of energy and matter that respond to other processes in certain ways. They are only dualistic when we compare them. Therefore, again, dualism is simply a perception.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

5. There is no inherent meaning to anything in the universe beyond that which we attach to it. No process or object in the universe has inherent, unconditional meaning beyond that which our minds attach to it. Additionally, the universe is a dynamic, fluid, and non-static entity that is constantly in flux and undergoing change.

7. Dualism is not valid for the reason given in #5. There is no inherent dualism to the universe. This means that there is no distinction between oneself and the rest of reality, no good and evil. As asserted above, the universe is independent of dualism, which makes humanity independent of dualism.
I don't see how 7 follows from 5. To say that things have no inherent meaning (whatever your definition of meaning) is not to say that things are all one and the same. Perhaps you mean that we ought to treat things as one and the same.

~~ Paul

[Kashyapa]

Yeah, I know what you mean, justsaygnosis. Sometimes I need to take a vacation from thinking about it too. Just because it's logically true doesn't mean it's a hell of a challenge to wrap your mind around it.

[Kashyapa]

Precisely, Paul. Since things are one and the same, we should accept that they are and treat them as such. Humanity is not inherently dependent on dualism, so why pretend something that isn't? If things don't have any meaning, that means that they don't have inherently independent identities. Therefore, everything is simply part of the universe.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah, if that's your definition of meaning, then I don't think I agree. Everything doesn't look like one homogeneous soup to me. I see separate things. In fact, if absolutely everything was the same, I don't think *I* would see anything at all.

~~ Paul

[DanishDynamite]

Kashyapa: My assertion went beyond shades of gray- it actively refutes that either exist. Again, the universe IS- it is not black, white, or gray. Meanings of any kind are not relevant to the universe. Indeed, the Universe just IS. That doesn't mean there aren't absolute opposites. One obvious example is, of course, that claiming that the Universe ISN'T, is absolutely false.
Self and nonself in the biological sense is indeed important. However, it is simply the interface between two processes. Cells recognize pathogens and reject them due to chemical reactions. I would submit that this is not proof of selfhood. Genes have evolved a structure, organization, and function that ensures their propagation to the next generation. This is nothing but a monumentally complex system of chemical reactions, biotic and abiotic, and does not posess any inherent duality. While the ability of living bodies to distinguish between self and non-self may be complex, it is nevertheless real.
Subatomic charges do indeed seem dualistic. However, I don't think that's the case. They are simply independent processes of energy and matter that respond to other processes in certain ways. They are only dualistic when we compare them. Therefore, again, dualism is simply a perception. You say that "they are only dualistic when we compare them". True, but how else do you define your dualism if not by "having opposite properties"?

[Kashyapa]

Precisely proving my point. You see separate things. Are they separate things? Or are they simply clumps of matter in different shapes, doing different things?

It doesn't seem to me that a nondualistic mind wouldn't see anything at all- it would just see the universe, in all its myriad of different shapes and processes. However, I haven't reached that point- by a long long shot- and I can't speculate.

Edited for typo.

[Kashyapa]

DynamiteDanish:

I would tend to think that nothing can be provably absolute. The rules of logic prohibit this. You cannot prove something absolutely, only beyond a reasonable doubt.

You missed my point about biological self and nonself. It's just chemical reactions. There's no brain saying "that bacteria isn't me!" in the cell. Chemicals react, some electrons switch places, and that's it. There is no inherent value judgement in that. The overall effect is that a body rejects something that is not chemically compatible with it.

I will concede that on a chemical and subatomic level, there is a degree of dualism. Some chemicals react, some do not; some subatomic particles attract and some repel. However, this has nothing to do with judgements of meaning, identity and value by the human mind. That's where I was going with the no dualism argument.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Precisely proving my point. You see separate things. Are they separate things? Or are they simply slumps of matter in different shapes, doing different things?

It doesn't seem to me that a nondualistic mind wouldn't see anything at all- it would just see the universe, in all its myriad of different shapes and processes. However, I haven't reached that point- by a long long shot- and I can't speculate. Sorry, but I don't understand your point. You seemed to be saying that the Universe doesn't have any inherent opposites. It does. Exact opposite charges would exist, whether we were here to observe them or not.

[Kashyapa]

I think perhaps you misunderstood. I never said there are opposites in the universe. I asserted that there were no inherent identities, values, or meanings to the universe.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Hmm, yes...but refer to my logic. How is that deistic? Perhaps I should clarify by saying I speak for Zen, not all of Buddhism.
Most agree with your view, yet, from your signature "...seeing directly into the human mind; realizing our true nature, becoming Buddha"- Bodhidharma, the father of Zen", is "true nature" agnostic, or deistic? (Or perhaps the dichotomy is apparent rather than real?)

At least we can agree it is not atheistic. :)

[DanishDynamite]

Kashyapa:I would tend to think that nothing can be provably absolute. The rules of logic prohibit this. You cannot prove something absolutely, only beyond a reasonable doubt. In regard to the Universe, you are right. In regard to mathematics, you are wrong.
You missed my point about biological self and nonself. It's just chemical reactions. There's no brain saying "that bacteria isn't me!" in the cell. Chemicals react, some electrons switch places, and that's it. There is no inherent value judgement in that. The overall effect is that a body rejects something that is not chemically compatible with it. That's right. It rejects it, or it doesn't. The difference is self or non-self.
I will concede that on a chemical and subatomic level, there is a degree of dualism. Some chemicals react, some do not; some subatomic particles attract and some repel. However, this has nothing to do with judgements of meaning, identity and value by the human mind. That's where I was going with the no dualism argument. Fine. However, you said:

"There is no inherent dualism to the universe."

If you are now reducing your claim to "judgements of meaning, identity and value by the human mind", then I could basically agree. I think. Again, it depends on what exactly you mean.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
I think perhaps you misunderstood. I never said there are opposites in the universe. I asserted that there were no inherent identities, values, or meanings to the universe. I will agree that there is no inherent meaning to life, the universe and everything. However, I don't agree that there aren't inherent values. One example is the speed of light in a vacuum. This value is a constant throughout the Universe, as far as we know.

But perhaps you mean human values.

[aerosolben]

Well, it's clearly a twisted and perverse logic. The show has terrible writing, she's gratingly annoying, and Greg is just boring. I don't know why it didn't get cancelled right after the pilot.

[Kashyapa]

Danish-
I mean human values, not mathematical or physical ones. Sorry, I should have clarified that. I regard physics and mathematics to be essentially independent of the human mind. The dualisms I had in mind were more like the self vs the nonself where the self is a static, unchanging observer of the universe outside, or good and evil, or right and left, or whatever. In other words, the ones we assign to phenomena.

aerosolben-
Damn right. Buddhist non-violence be damned, I think that writer oughta be taken out and beaten with a herring.

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by hammegk

Most agree with your view, yet, from your signature "...seeing directly into the human mind; realizing our true nature, becoming Buddha"- Bodhidharma, the father of Zen", is "true nature" agnostic, or deistic? (Or perhaps the dichotomy is apparent rather than real?)

At least we can agree it is not atheistic. :)

I think Bodhidharma was referring to realizing the non-dualistic nature of the universe. At least that's how I took it. I think it's still leaving unanswered the question of God(s) or metaphysical/supernatural stuff. That "who knows" stance seems to me to be agnostic.

[asherah]

Originally posted by aerosolben
Well, it's clearly a twisted and perverse logic. The show has terrible writing, she's gratingly annoying, and Greg is just boring. I don't know why it didn't get cancelled right after the pilot.

Yeah and I heard Dharma is forming her own church of Scientology, no lie. But, come to think of it, a little auditing session with her probably wouldn't be all that bad.;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Danish-
I mean human values, not mathematical or physical ones. Sorry, I should have clarified that. I regard physics and mathematics to be essentially independent of the human mind.

Could you expand on this statement please? It doesn't sit too easily with the idea that the Universe simply is; surely the Universe simply is, whether or not we characterise it with physics and maths?

:confused:

[Kashyapa]

Good point. While the Universe indeed simply is, it seems to us that there are a set of rules or characteristic behaviors that govern how it works. (Most of it that is....that which is outside an event horizon of a black hole). Maths and physics are undoubtedly the work of the human mind (owing to the fact that they are incomplete and have in the past been wrong in some cases) but they are an attempt to codify the way we see the universe and its components behaving. Those behaviors and operations are what are independent of the human mind.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Kashyapa

4. Due to the limitations of our biological brains and sense organs, we are not able to escape the human perspective in our dealings with the rest of the universe. We cannot percieve the universe as it "really" is; we can only percieve it according to the limitations to our intelligence, areas of sensory sensitivity (light wavelengths, sound frequency, etc), and experience.

5. There is no inherent meaning to anything in the universe beyond that which we attach to it. No process or object in the universe has inherent, unconditional meaning beyond that which our minds attach to it. Additionally, the universe is a dynamic, fluid, and non-static entity that is constantly in flux and undergoing change.

6. As humans, we view things in a highly dualistic manner. We regard things as good or bad, self or nonself, nature or non-nature, hot or cold, Christian or Pagan, etc etc etc.

7. Dualism is not valid for the reason given in #5. There is no inherent dualism to the universe. This means that there is no distinction between oneself and the rest of reality, no good and evil. As asserted above, the universe is independent of dualism, which makes humanity independent of dualism.

8. Dualism conditions suffering for humans. In particular, the notions of Good and Evil and Self and Nonself create the most problems. Think about it- war, violence, anger, jealousy, unhappiness, craving, arrogance, egotism, theft, elitism, dishonesty, abuse, megalomania, fanaticism, delusion- all are created by the notion of self and nonself.

9. As we are essentially independent of dualism, it is simply a state of mind. Therefore, it can be overcome.


Your point in 9, that we are essentially independant of dualism, does not logically follow from your other points. In 4 you assert that "we are not able to escape the human perspective in our dealings with the rest of the universe." Quite true. Given this, "the true nature of the universe", as you try to set out in 5, cannot be known.

Further, the true nature of the universe is irrelevant to the human experience. Humans do not act on reality, they act on the perception of reality. Our perceptions are, as you say in 6, highly dualistic. Being able to distinguish between different shapes and forms of matter is essential to our survival.

When you say "the universe is independent of dualism, which makes humanity independent of dualism" you are simply incorrect. Humanity is dependant on dualism, as pointed out in your points 4 and 6. Whether or not the universe is actually, objectively (if that is possible to determine) dualistic makes no difference whatsoever to the role of dualism in humans.

[Kashyapa]

We are independent of dualism because it exists solely in our mind. Dualism is a choice on how to view the world, a habit drilled into us by culture and upbringing. Think about a baby- looking at the world fresh, no preconceptions, no dualistic ideas, just observing the world without values or identities. I do not accept the idea that dualism is somehow inherent in our minds. It is a choice, a delusion that we accept as the truth because we know no better. I simply advocate a more logical and accurate perception of reality. This, as I demonstrated, would erase much of what makes existence painful.

Of course we distinguish between different forms and shapes of matter. That's necessary for our survival, as you said, and completely accurately. Non- dualism is not nilhism. (Did I spell that right? Too early in the morning).

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
We are independent of dualism because it exists solely in our mind. Dualism is a choice on how to view the world, a habit drilled into us by culture and upbringing. Think about a baby- looking at the world fresh, no preconceptions, no dualistic ideas, just observing the world without values or identities. I do not accept the idea that dualism is somehow inherent in our minds. It is a choice, a delusion that we accept as the truth because we know no better. I simply advocate a more logical and accurate perception of reality. This, as I demonstrated, would erase much of what makes existence painful.

I disagree. I think that dualism is not a choice at all - rather, it is a necessary component of our perceptions. The baby sees everything fresh, as it has no frame of reference. Once the baby grows up, it gains more experience and more frame of reference, and starts separating things into categories - good/bad, hot/cold, and even self/non-self. This is a natural process - a baby raised by wolves would still have a sense of self/non-self and divide the world into categories - food/non-food, etc.

In fact, denying the self/non-self distinction essentially denies human consciousness - which is frequently described as possessing self awareness. Dualism is inherent in our minds as it is the only way to make sense out of our perceptions. And whether or not dualism exists solely in our minds (which I don't think has been shown) makes no difference as to whether humans are independant of it. If it exists in our minds, and exists in everyone's mind, then we are not independant of it. In fact, we depend on it in our day to day lives.

Why is your perception of reality either more logical or more accurate? I perceive ice to be cold and fire to be hot. I perceive you to be apart from me. How is dualism illogical? How is it inaccurate? How can we know that "No process or object in the universe has inherent, unconditional meaning beyond that which our minds attach to it."? Even if we did, how is it relevant? All that you are saying is that we attach meaning to things in the universe. How is not doing this a more logical way to live? You accept certain meanings we have attached to the universe - physics and math - why only these?

[Kiri]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite


And the distinction between self and non-self, as I said, remains.
"Dualism" as you define it, seems to mean "opposites". These verifiably exist in our world. The charge of a proton is the opposite of that of an electron. They are "dualistic" with regard to charge. These properties are not just a state of mind and cannot be overcome.

Yeah, but I don't think we're talking about science here. The dualism under discussion is more of the "us" vs. "them" variety,
i.e., dualistic IDEAS.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Danish-


aerosolben-
Damn right. Buddhist non-violence be damned, I think that writer oughta be taken out and beaten with a herring.

With a herring? It can't be done!

(Sorry, I'll behave now.)

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Good point. While the Universe indeed simply is, it seems to us that there are a set of rules or characteristic behaviors that govern how it works. (Most of it that is....that which is outside an event horizon of a black hole). Maths and physics are undoubtedly the work of the human mind (owing to the fact that they are incomplete and have in the past been wrong in some cases) but they are an attempt to codify the way we see the universe and its components behaving. Those behaviors and operations are what are independent of the human mind.

To once again borrow Joe Campbell's analogy: the Universe is the terrain, math and science are maps we invented to describe it. Es verdad?

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Thanz




When you say "the universe is independent of dualism, which makes humanity independent of dualism" you are simply incorrect. Humanity is dependant on dualism, as pointed out in your points 4 and 6. Whether or not the universe is actually, objectively (if that is possible to determine) dualistic makes no difference whatsoever to the role of dualism in humans.

Yes, but we don't NEED to be so dependant.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Non- dualism is not nilhism. (Did I spell that right? Too early in the morning).

"Nihilism", dear. :)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Kiri


Yes, but we don't NEED to be so dependant.

How so? If I truly do not see a distinction between self and nonself, If I don't know where I end and everything else begins, how do I survive?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kashyapa


I think Bodhidharma was referring to realizing the non-dualistic nature of the universe. At least that's how I took it. I think it's still leaving unanswered the question of God(s) or metaphysical/supernatural stuff. That "who knows" stance seems to me to be agnostic.

Agnosticism is acceptable I'd agree, but I lean the other way.

Dualism makes no sense, yet my most objective data point is my sentience *I*, and to me that implies deism rather than agnosticism. You however represent the (overwhelming) majority opinion.

Just my 2cts though .... :)

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Kiri


To once again borrow Joe Campbell's analogy: the Universe is the terrain, math and science are maps we invented to describe it. Es verdad?

Campbell's analogy is certainly a good way of describing it. Essentially, I believe that science and math and physics are quite similar to what you'd see without dualism; simple apprehension of what is and how it works. Good and evil, self and nonself, we make up out of whole cloth; our scientific theories attempt to honestly describe what is perceptible to us.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Good point. While the Universe indeed simply is, it seems to us that there are a set of rules or characteristic behaviors that govern how it works. (Most of it that is....that which is outside an event horizon of a black hole). Maths and physics are undoubtedly the work of the human mind (owing to the fact that they are incomplete and have in the past been wrong in some cases) but they are an attempt to codify the way we see the universe and its components behaving. Those behaviors and operations are what are independent of the human mind.

Originally posted by Kiri


To once again borrow Joe Campbell's analogy: the Universe is the terrain, math and science are maps we invented to describe it. Es verdad?

Exactly! :D

[Fade]

we can only percieve it according to the limitations to our intelligence, areas of sensory sensitivity (light wavelengths, sound frequency, etc), and experience.

I was ready to type up something quite long, but I will choose not to instead.

This point is absolutely wrong. Our sensory abilities are becoming increasingly large. Eventually, we'll be able to 'know' everything.

"You're wrong because I say so"

But you're entire argument is say so.

[Shroud of Akron]

i have to agree with Thanz, i believethat we need dualism to survive. if i cannot distinguish between what i perceive as good or bad, i might just do something that could end up killing myself. suffering would not end if we could let go of dualism, we just wouldn't realise that it is a bad thing.

[Kashyapa]

You're missing the point. When you simply accept things as they are, you are able to respond more effectively to life, not less! Say you're walking along and an earthquake hits. Terror grips you; you stop, glance wildly around, your mind rushing in a million directions at once. My family! My house! What about the place where I work? Oh, god, this is awful! The world will never be the same! AAAH! And then, a steel I-beam comes crashing down from the building you're standing near and splat, that's it. These are the reactions of a dualistically-conditioned mind. A nondualist mind would calmly assess, "the earth is moving. I may be in danger." It assesses where danger may come from, dodges the falling I-beam because it noticed the building was crumbling, and survives. Worrying in fear and terror about everything else is pointless. Those are problems that are immaterial to the here and now.
Or even a mundane example. Say somebody freaks out on you, screaming, calling you awful names and hurling invective. A dualist mind becomes frightened, angry, offended. The rest of the day is ruined. A nondualist mind accepts, forgives, and lets it wash off his back- perhaps he's worried about something, or he didn't sleep well. Just words, just sounds. Accept them calmly, don't judge them, just let them pass over and through. Go about the day and notice the bird singing in the tree and the giggle of a baby. Life hasn't been derailed by a hateful (and may I say, dualist) person. Just another transitory event.

Get it?

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Fade


I was ready to type up something quite long, but I will choose not to instead.

This point is absolutely wrong. Our sensory abilities are becoming increasingly large. Eventually, we'll be able to 'know' everything.



But you're entire argument is say so.

Know everything? How? We can't see atoms or the whole of the universe. Our sensory abilities are still limited to what we can percieve with our bodies. Ultimately, there's no way to get information into the brain except through the agency of senses and nerves and perceptions.

My entire argument is pointing out a series of truths that should be self-evident, leading to a conclusion that seems like the logical endpoint of my stream of assertions. If it's say-so, tell me why.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
You're missing the point. When you simply accept things as they are, you are able to respond more effectively to life, not less! Say you're walking along and an earthquake hits. Terror grips you; you stop, glance wildly around, your mind rushing in a million directions at once. My family! My house! What about the place where I work? Oh, god, this is awful! The world will never be the same! AAAH! And then, a steel I-beam comes crashing down from the building you're standing near and splat, that's it. These are the reactions of a dualistically-conditioned mind. A nondualist mind would calmly assess, "the earth is moving. I may be in danger." It assesses where danger may come from, dodges the falling I-beam because it noticed the building was crumbling, and survives. Worrying in fear and terror about everything else is pointless. Those are problems that are immaterial to the here and now.
Or even a mundane example. Say somebody freaks out on you, screaming, calling you awful names and hurling invective. A dualist mind becomes frightened, angry, offended. The rest of the day is ruined. A nondualist mind accepts, forgives, and lets it wash off his back- perhaps he's worried about something, or he didn't sleep well. Just words, just sounds. Accept them calmly, don't judge them, just let them pass over and through. Go about the day and notice the bird singing in the tree and the giggle of a baby. Life hasn't been derailed by a hateful (and may I say, dualist) person. Just another transitory event.

Get it?

How are either of your examples related in any way to being able to perceive the difference between self and non-self? It seems to me that you are just attributing negative reactions to "dualists" (although I'm not sure this is a correct term for what you seem to be arguing) without any connection between their reactions and a perception based mindset. One can be completely calm and have the instinct for self preservation kick in without giving up the self/non-self distinction.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Kashyapa

Think about it- war, violence, anger, jealousy, unhappiness, craving, arrogance, egotism, theft, elitism, dishonesty, abuse, megalomania, fanaticism, delusion- all are created by the notion of self and nonself.

I think that you are going to have to explain this statement. How exactly does the notion of self and nonself create these things? I think that you are making a logical error here - even if you say that the notion of self/nonself is necessary as a precondition to these things, it does not automatically follow that the notion creates or causes those things. I can have a notion of self and nonself and still harbour none of the emotions in your list.

I could just as easily create a list of positive attributes - love, friendship, hope, creativity, art, innovation, charity, happiness, freedom, individuality - that are "created by the concept of self/nonself".

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Thanz


How so? If I truly do not see a distinction between self and nonself, If I don't know where I end and everything else begins, how do I survive?

How is survival at issue? You are not separate from the universe; you survive (or not) by being involved in it's processes. YOU in fact are a process, not a discrete "thing". We're all ephemeral swirls of probabilities and dancing atomic fluff, just temporary orderings of matter and energy, and we pass into being and out again, along with everything else.

Survival? I recommend the cheeseburgers.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Fade


I was ready to type up something quite long, but I will choose not to instead.

This point is absolutely wrong. Our sensory abilities are becoming increasingly large. Eventually, we'll be able to 'know' everything.



Will we know what happened BEFORE the universe existed?
Will we know BOTH the position and speed of an electron?
Will we know WHY we and the rest of the universe exist?

There are limits to what we can know: some are physical, some are ontological.

[Kashyapa]

Thanz-
It's clear that you're purposefully not understanding me. It should be perfectly obvious that clinging to the self conditions suffering. Think about it. If there was no you to get angry and no other to get angry at, anger would be as unnecessary as snake's suspenders. If one simply accepts life as it comes, what is there to worry about? If one accepts pain as a transitory, ephemeral physical condition with no inherent negatives or positives beyond that which the irrelevant self attaches to it, how is pain a problem? If you remove that which is painful in life by rendering it irrelevant, all that is good about life can flower unfettered. You mention creativity as a good thing- and it is. Well, then, wouldn't creativity increase without inhibitions, worries, and fears to get in its way? Wouldn't love do the same, if you could love wholeheartedly without fear and reservation?

My examples dealt with clear and rational thinking. If you're plugged into life in the present moment, and recognize that everything is transitory and deviod of inherent meaning, you can react to life in peace and calm and mindfulness. It's a choice. The out-of-control man can bother you and offend you, or you can let it move over and through your consciousness and disappear as soon as he does.

Kiri's point about processes is true. Everything simply happens. We can either love it and reject it and wish to change it or wish to prolong it ad nauseaum, or we can simply accept it and deal with it in peace.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Kashyapa


Kiri's point about processes is true. Everything simply happens. We can either love it and reject it and wish to change it or wish to prolong it ad nauseaum, or we can simply accept it and deal with it in peace.

Arigato goziemash'ta, Kashyapa-san!
Hee hee... I'm Kiri the ZEN unicorn!

Nam'-myoho-renge-kyo...

[Fade]

Know everything? How?

In less than 500 years we went from ox carts to computers capable of making trillions of processes a second.

It's a fallacy to argue that only things which we directly perceive are "valid." What I see through a microscope is the same as what I see in front of my face. What my senses lack, my machines make up for.

We can't see atoms or the whole of the universe.

We can detect atoms, which is the same as seeing them. Eventually, probably, we'll see the rest of the universe as well.

sensory abilities are still limited to what we can percieve with our bodies.

Funny. The computer you are using to type that message is made up of parts thousands of times smaller than what would be detected with your eyes. Yet, we understand them (see them) well enough to put them in the proper order so that you can make the message in the first place.

Ultimately, there's no way to get information into the brain except through the agency of senses and nerves and perceptions.


You are making a damned large assumption here. We are only beginning to understand how information is sent throughout our bodies and minds. We can already use the perceptions we HAVE in order to see (or more accurately, perceive) things that we naturally can not. Is information gathered through this agency any less valid than that which I can touch and feel?

My entire argument is pointing out a series of truths

Truth in your opinion.

that should be self-evident,

Also in your opinion.

leading to a conclusion that seems like the logical endpoint of my stream of assertions. If it's say-so, tell me why.

It's say so by your own admittance. You assert, assert, assert. Nothing physical or evidential to back it up. Assert, assert, assert.

See, the biggest mistake that people in this world make is this: They assume that truth can be arrived at solely by thought processes. This isn't only untrue, it's dangerously untrue. We can interpret reality, and it's likely that we're either dead on or at least close enough to have a working model, but we can't simply invent it. That is what I see you doing. You work from one assumption, and wind up with another, with nothing to support it in between.

Be careful with "self evident" truths. They often are anything but.


And, also understand that I haven't disagreed with you entirely. It is your process which is flawed.

[Kashyapa]

This isn't say-so. This is know-so. Look at your own life. Are you truly happy and at peace? Or are you running riot, trying to escape the negative and chase the positive, fleeing and craving and dreaming and wishing that things weren't the way they are? Of course you are- it's part of the human condition. It IS self-evident- look at your own life and how it works, and you'll know it's true. Our minds are mad little monkeys, never at rest, always moving around and never satisfied. I don't need to give you evidence- you already have it. And you're right that the truth can't be arrived at by thinking- it can only be arrived at by mindfulness, awareness and insight without the encumbrance of our frantic mental narritives. And inventing reality is precisely our problem- we don't accept our experience for what it is, but rather endlessly distort and judge.

I don't think you're really disagreeing with anything I'm saying, but you're taking the discussion totally off topic by picking at semantics. This is the point: Information comes in from our senses. We attach judgements to what we percieve because we view things in a dualistic (or multiplistic) manner. We do not accept things as they are. This causes pain because we're always chasing what we would prefer the world to be like and fleeing that which is negative. Therefore, accepting things as they are without judgement and dualism would prevent pain. What's so hard to understand? Or do you just not want to?

[Dancing David]

Yeah Dharma!

Dualism arose at some point in human history, I think it would very hard to prove that it is an innate tendency of the human mind. The first I know that it was stated was by Zoroaster who started the whole good versus evil thing.

To even state that a baby would tend to divide the world into two is easily refuted by the statement of food, not food, good food, bad food. I personaly feel that dualism is inherent in western thought but not all thought.

As for the duality of electrical particles, we have positive and negative and nuetral, it is a trinity.

The speed of light is constant? I thought that it was an average that tended to the speed of light but there was research which showed light traveling faster than the 'speed of light' at times. This was of course over very small distances and times, over any relatively(hahaha) large space or time the speed averages out to a constant.

We think that math is universal because it is self consistant, but it may be selfconsistant because it is a closed system that refers to itself.

Everybody has made some great points and I really appreciate the fact that this hasn't descended into some flame war about the nature of truth.

I think a simple way to state the dharma is:
our perceptions are not reality. assumptions based upon our reality may be self consistant but they are not reality. while real they are not reality.

suffering is. suffering is percieved. there is a way to stop suffering.

Peace , love and lots of good food!
dancing david

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Fade

You are making a damned large assumption here. We are only beginning to understand how information is sent throughout our bodies and minds. We can already use the perceptions we HAVE in order to see (or more accurately, perceive) things that we naturally can not. Is information gathered through this agency any less valid than that which I can touch and feel?
.

Actualy the nueral pathways are fairly well understood as is the minor details of perception and memory, somewhat akin to the eighteenth century and chemistry, it is very likely that major breakthoughs in nuerochemestry will continue for another century.

And truely we can make testable hypothesis about the nature of reality that we can't percieve.

I can percieve light from a star. (Direct perception)
I can percieve sunlight reflected off a satelite.(Direct perception)

Unfortunately the label that I apply to the direct perception is a label. I can't really say what generated the light or what it reflected off of. I can make assumptions based upon the assumption of isotropy which lead me to believe I know what i am percieving, it is still belief.

I can make a theory which states a particular atom will generate a particular frequecy of light at a particular point in space and time. i can then use tools to measure the frequency of that light. I can then test to see if this theory is generaly held to be true.
However there may be other theories which lead to the same conclusions and testable outcomes.

The information is valid as a thought form that approximates the behavior of reality but it is still just a thought and therefore subject to human fallacy and error.

Fade: I find your comments valuable and insightful, Thank You!

Peace
dancing David

[Fade]

This isn't say-so. This is know-so.

You haven't submitted empirical evidence, nor pointed me in the direction to found it. So yes, this is say so.

Look at your own life. Are you truly happy and at peace?

Yep.

Or are you running riot, trying to escape the negative and chase the positive,

I accept that some things are out of my control. I accept that some things are going to go bad, no matter how many good thoughts I throw at them.

Of course you are- it's part of the human condition.

I am centered, self-assured, and happy.

It IS self-evident- look at your own life and how it works, and you'll know it's true. Our minds are mad little monkeys, never at rest, always moving around and never satisfied.

Well, my life is fairly well ordered. Unexpected things happen. I cope, I move on. Don't believe me? Ask my friends. I am a bundle of happiness 99% of the time, and annoyed the rest of the time.

I don't need to give you evidence- you already have it.

Didn't I already say that truth can't be arrived at through thought alone?

And you're right that the truth can't be arrived at by thinking- it can only be arrived at by mindfulness, awareness and insight without the encumbrance of our frantic mental narritives.

These "frantic mental narratives" are the source of insight. Without my mind going a thousand miles a minute, I wouldn't have been able to create for myself the life I live now. I can analyze something without getting caught up in it. I can understand pain without experiencing it. When it comes time to experience pain, I accept it and move through it.

And inventing reality is precisely our problem- we don't accept our experience for what it is, but rather endlessly distort and judge.


I am afraid there is no way to go about it but by doing this. You can't understand, know, or experience something without judging it. Our entire framework of knowledge relies on subjective inter-connections. It's all relative. When you have enough of these relations, a greater pattern emerges. That's knowledge. It all hinges on experience and interpretation.

I don't think you're really disagreeing with anything I'm saying, but you're taking the discussion totally off topic by picking at semantics.

I am saying that you give yourself far more credit than you ought too. You believe yourself to have some sort of ultimately insightful principle that, should we all accept it, we'll be happy and super forever and ever. I have seen this same dance a thousand times, and i'll see it ten thousand times more.

You can't know something just by thinking. That is not how reality works. I choose to operate within reality.

This is the point: Information comes in from our senses.

Correct in one sense. Information that we gather ultimately is brought to us by our senses, but our information gathering relies on things far greater than our senses alone.

We attach judgements to what we percieve because we view things in a dualistic (or multiplistic) manner.

Some do, some don't. You are making generalizations.

We do not accept things as they are.

If this were true you would have never come to this conclusion, or at least it would be suspect. How do you know this is the truth if we naturally look at things dualistically? How do you know that you aren't just dualistically looking at the problem and assigning values to it that don't exist?

Your logic defeats itself.

Thanks drive through.

[Kashyapa]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I would submit that you're deluding yourself when you say you're "happy 99% of the time". It's obvious that we're not going to change the other's mind. So be it. I do hope your approach brings you as much happiness and peace as mine does me.

Allow me to quote a movie. As Morpheus said in The Matrix:
"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy.
But when you're inside, you look around and what do you see?
Businessmen, Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters...the very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, these people arestill a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so innerred, so hopelessly
dependent on the system that they will that they will fight to
protect it."

And no, I don't have that memorized. :) But I do think it pertains.

[Kashyapa]

Just as an addendum to my last post- I didn't mean to insinuate that you were an enemy with that quote. I simply meant to say that you were most likely adhering out of a sort of addictive tendency to the way your life is now. I would submit that your life is not "all happiness". The suffering I refer to is all-pervasive and is not always obvious. Worrying about your monetary situation and job, conflicts with others, road rage, boredom, insecurity, grief, panic, wishing for things to be better, desiring that new car/TV/house/whatever- all of these represent the insidious displeasure and suffering in our lives. Even when you're happy, it's underlaid by the knowledge that s--t is going to happen sooner or later. Unless you do none of those things I mentioned, unless they're totally absent from your life- and I think that's a pretty fat chance- your life is not as free and peaceful as it could be. And since those things are what bog us down and make us unhappy, it seems worthwhile to strive for a state of being that those things are no longer relevant.

Think about it as analogous to anger. Some people are so out of control of their anger that they're liable to punch anyone who pisses them off. However, the rest of us, through realizing that that sort of thing has consequences both personal and societal, have developed the sort of control to avoid that. The same way with dualistic thought. Because dualism conditions suffering the same way as uncontrolled anger conditions negative consequences, it is therefore desirable to move beyond that way of thought to something more workable. I've thoroughly explained how dualistic thought conditions suffering in past posts, so I'll leave off discussing it now.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Thanz-
It's clear that you're purposefully not understanding me.

What are you talking about? What the heck is "purposefully not understanding"? I don't buy your theory as presented. It doesn't make sense. You have made big logical leaps. I am simple asking you to fill in the gaps, if you can.

It should be perfectly obvious that clinging to the self conditions suffering.

It isn't.

Think about it. If there was no you to get angry and no other to get angry at, anger would be as unnecessary as snake's suspenders.

If there was no me to feel love or others to love, love would be as unnecessary as snake's suspenders. This has nothing to do with suffering. self/nonself does not CAUSE suffering.

If one simply accepts life as it comes, what is there to worry about? If one accepts pain as a transitory, ephemeral physical condition with no inherent negatives or positives beyond that which the irrelevant self attaches to it, how is pain a problem?

Then why is your hypothetical non-dualist thinker moving out of the way of the steel girder that's about to fall on him? If pain is irrelevant, transitory, etc., there is no need to move. If there is no self, why move at all? why eat?

If you remove that which is painful in life by rendering it irrelevant, all that is good about life can flower unfettered. You mention creativity as a good thing- and it is. Well, then, wouldn't creativity increase without inhibitions, worries, and fears to get in its way? Wouldn't love do the same, if you could love wholeheartedly without fear and reservation?

And how is any of that related to the whether or not I can perceive the difference between self and nonself? You have not explained why you say that self/nonself has everything to do with "negative" emotions and nothing to do with "positive" emotions.

My examples dealt with clear and rational thinking. If you're plugged into life in the present moment, and recognize that everything is transitory and deviod of inherent meaning, you can react to life in peace and calm and mindfulness. It's a choice.

Why bother reacting at all, if that's the case? If there is no "you", there is no point to doing anything, experiencing anything, reacting to anything.

The out-of-control man can bother you and offend you, or you can let it move over and through your consciousness and disappear as soon as he does.

Again, this attitude has nothing to do with self/nonself.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Kashyapa


Because dualism conditions suffering the same way as uncontrolled anger conditions negative consequences, it is therefore desirable to move beyond that way of thought to something more workable. I've thoroughly explained how dualistic thought conditions suffering in past posts, so I'll leave off discussing it now.

No, you certainly have not thoroughly explained how dualistic thought conditions suffering. In fact, you have simply asserted that it does without actual explanation. What is it specifically about dualistic thought, or the concept of self/nonself, that conditions suffering? How does it CAUSE suffering, but not CAUSE positive emotions like love?

[Kashyapa]

This is not just about the self and nonself. This is about the mechanism by which we immediately judge things- positive and negative. We do not simply apprehend things as they are and react accordingly. When you see something that does not inherently have any attributes beyond simple existence and behavior, you immediately assign it values and attributes that are meaningful ONLY TO YOU. Instead of dealing with the world on our terms, we try to make it work on our terms, instead of just accepting the universe and our part in it. Because we have preconcieved notions about what is good and bad, what is righteous and what is evil, what is desirable and what is awful, etc, we force ourselves onto a little mental treadmill, avoiding what we think is bad and chasing what we think is bad. We wish we could drive a BMW instead of this crappy little Honda, we wish we got laid more often, we wish for more money, we wish for a bigger house. We let our attachments, aspirations, and dissatisfaction rule our lives. Instead of living right here in the present moment, serene and happy and unaffected by what happens, we live in the future and the past, thinking that someday it'll all come together and we'll be happy. The happiest man I ever met was a hermit, living in a tiny shanty on the banks of the Ganges river. He had nothing and needed nothing, worried not at all and accepted life with a light, clear mind. The ideas of future and past were ludicrous to him. He was the closest to a Buddha that I'll ever know.

Where the self comes into this is that we do not accept that there is really nothing that constitutes our self. The words aren't really there in English, but we regard the self as something static and timeless, unmindful of the fact that we (and everything else in the universe) are changing every moment. The body I inhabit now is slowly aging and arcing down towards death; what I regard as my personality is really just a set of reactions, ever changing and dynamic. When we become enmeshed in regarding the self as something static, combined with our obsession with the past and the future, our ability to simply live in the present moment is destroyed. We become bogged down in writing a narritive for our lives and forget that all we can affect is right now. There is a "me" in the sense that I am an organism, oriented towards survival. I do what is in my best interest, including eating and dodging steel beams. In that sense, humans have the same overall mission as a bacterium. But there is no island of stability in that "me". Everything is transitory. When an angry man screams at me, it'll be over soon. It'll be in the past. The anger and offense I feel back are again only transitory. Better then to not allow it to condition what will happen- to accept the event as transitory and move on. These things are simply events, again without any particular inherent meaning or timelessness.

There is a prayer that my father, a recovering alcoholic, uses daily. "God, please grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the strength to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." This is a very Buddhist sentiment, and taken to its logical extremity would result in the same enlightenment that Buddhism teaches. You cannot change the past; the future only in that you can modify how you will react to it.

I have to go, but I'll be back later to continue this idea. I think I've laid down enough for you to get a better idea.

[DanishDynamite]

Kashyapa:This is not just about the self and nonself. This is about the mechanism by which we immediately judge things- positive and negative. We do not simply apprehend things as they are and react accordingly. When you see something that does not inherently have any attributes beyond simple existence and behavior, you immediately assign it values and attributes that are meaningful ONLY TO YOU. Yes, each person evaluates the information available to him/her, and based on this information and his/her worldview, they perform their own value judgement of said information. So what?
Instead of dealing with the world on our terms, we try to make it work on our terms, instead of just accepting the universe and our part in it. [quote]Those individuals who just accepted the universe as it was, even if such acceptance was detrimental to their welfare, have died out. Evolution in action.
[quote]Because we have preconcieved notions about what is good and bad, what is righteous and what is evil, what is desirable and what is awful, etc, we force ourselves onto a little mental treadmill, avoiding what we think is bad and chasing what we think is bad. We wish we could drive a BMW instead of this crappy little Honda, we wish we got laid more often, we wish for more money, we wish for a bigger house. We let our attachments, aspirations, and dissatisfaction rule our lives. Yes, we each react to external circumstances in our own way. Unless the reaction is a hardwired reflex, our reaction is colored by our previous experience. This is usually a strength, i.e. learning by experience.
Instead of living right here in the present moment, serene and happy and unaffected by what happens, we live in the future and the past, thinking that someday it'll all come together and we'll be happy. The happiest man I ever met was a hermit, living in a tiny shanty on the banks of the Ganges river. He had nothing and needed nothing, worried not at all and accepted life with a light, clear mind. The ideas of future and past were ludicrous to him. He was the closest to a Buddha that I'll ever know. If "being perpetually happy" is what you want in life, you could take a daily dosis of Prozac. Personally, I have other interests.
Where the self comes into this is that we do not accept that there is really nothing that constitutes our self. The words aren't really there in English, but we regard the self as something static and timeless, unmindful of the fact that we (and everything else in the universe) are changing every moment. The body I inhabit now is slowly aging and arcing down towards death; what I regard as my personality is really just a set of reactions, ever changing and dynamic. When we become enmeshed in regarding the self as something static, combined with our obsession with the past and the future, our ability to simply live in the present moment is destroyed. We become bogged down in writing a narritive for our lives and forget that all we can affect is right now. There is a "me" in the sense that I am an organism, oriented towards survival. I do what is in my best interest, including eating and dodging steel beams. In that sense, humans have the same overall mission as a bacterium. But there is no island of stability in that "me". Everything is transitory. When an angry man screams at me, it'll be over soon. It'll be in the past. The anger and offense I feel back are again only transitory. Better then to not allow it to condition what will happen- to accept the event as transitory and move on. These things are simply events, again without any particular inherent meaning or timelessness. I have sympathy for Budhism, as far as I know about it. However, as I said before, happiness no questions asked, is not my ideal view of a good life. I want to know things, experience things, explore things. If this means I will be unhappy at times, so be it.
There is a prayer that my father, a recovering alcoholic, uses daily. "God, please grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the strength to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." This is a very Buddhist sentiment, and taken to its logical extremity would result in the same enlightenment that Buddhism teaches. You cannot change the past; the future only in that you can modify how you will react to it. I'm an atheist, so prayers have little meaning to me.

[Kashyapa]

Dynamite-
I mentioned the prayer simply as a well-written version of the idea I was trying to present. You could think of it as a mantra or a personal vow for all it matters.

It's not necessarily about being perpetually happy. It's about an enduring peace and a more healthful way of experiencing life. What you're saying is, essentially, analogous to a person who has a cold saying, "A sore throat and a little snot don't bother me. I wouldn't mind having this cold the rest of my life. I can work around it." To each his own, but I'd rather be well. You only live once- so why waste your only shot bogged down in meaningless s--t that only degrades your experience? Not my idea of really living life. When I die, as far as I can tell, it's blip, lights out. I would rather not look back on a life as a mindless drone getting molested by chance and his own delusions. Will I reach that enlightened state? Maybe so, maybe no, but at least I'll have given it a shot, instead of rolling over and letting life have its way with me. Prozac, booze, crack, religious dogma, etc are just cough drops for unhappiness- maybe they make you feel better for a moment, but pretty soon your throat hurts like hell again.

I don't think that knowledge and exploration and experience would be rendered impossible by this. To the contrary, I believe that our lives would be unimaginably more vibrant and interesting. I view our unhappiness and fruitless attempts to force our needs and views into life as an impediment to true experience. Each moment could be exciting and fascinating and wonderful if we wanted it to. As I said in my signature, chopping wood and carrying water- in other words, chores that we find boring and unpleasant- could hold all the wonder and mystery in the world if we wanted to see them that way.

To each his own, though. I'd rather confront existence than be a subject of it, but perhaps I just think differently.

[Kashyapa]

Another thought: an excerpt from the Matrix for your enjoyment.

Morpheus. You're living in a dreamworld, Neo. An elaborate fantasy that has been pulled over your eyes to shield you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like every other person you were born into bondage. Born into a prison you cannot see or taste or touch. A prison...for your mind.

and later:
Morph: What is the Matrix? Control. A computer generated dreamworld, designed to change a human being...into this. (Holds up a duracell.)
Neo: I- I don't believe it! It's not possible!
Morph: I didn't say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth.

Yes, it's just a movie, but it has some very nicely accurate allusions to Buddhist and Zen thought. Dynamite and Thanz, see my post just above if you haven't already.

[Thanz]

Kashyapa -

I don't see anything in your posts that would lead me to think that you are at all free of "dualistic thought". You are dividing things into good and bad camps as well, its just that you have a different conception of what is "good" and what is "bad".

For you, desiring a BMW instead of a Honda is "bad". Living free of material possessions is "good". Thinking about the past is "bad", living in the present is "good".

So, when the rude person yells at you, its not that you don't put it into the "good" or "bad" camp - you recognize it as negative, you just dson't let it bother you. That is not a rejection of dualistic thought, it is merely a relaxed attitude.

So, if I enjoy the finer things in life, and have to work hard to get them, that is fine for me. If you'd rather just relax and let life happen to you, fine. Go ahead. But don't presume that it would be better for everyone. You have not shown why dualistic thought conditions suffering - it doesn't. You haven't even shown that you are free of it in your postings.

[Kashyapa]

Well, of course I'm not free of it! Only a handful of people in history have been! At this point, I recognize the angry man as negative and choose to ignore him. If I were at the point you seem to expect me to be (unrealistically), it truly would have no effect on me whatsoever, and it wouldn't even be a choice. It would be completely natural. I'm still subject to dualistic thought- and while I regard it as undesirable now, I'm even trying to conquer that idea so it becomes merely irrelevant. Not positive, not negative, just completely without use or relevance.

Also, I've explained the dualistic thought/suffering thing as completely as I know how. By making value judgements, by trying to impose your desires and preferences and prejudice on a universe that is fundamentally unaffected and doesn't give a s__t, you're the king trying to order the tide not to come in. That seems to me to be the epitome of arrogant futility, a complete waste of time and energy and life. If it still makes no sense to you, you're clearly still oblivious to its thrall. Working hard for the better things in life- what a load. So you work your butt off, get the finer things in life, where are you gonna be? Still grasping, still wanting, still searching. It's never gonna stop, because there will still be things left undone, unfinished, thirsts left unquenched. YYou'll still be a slave to the future, knowing that sometime you'll make it all right and everything will be just peachy keen sometime soon. You're never going to be truly happy- you're going to sweat your ass off at work, flogging away for the almighty dollar, which you're going to exhange for more stuff, more crap that isn't going to truly enrich your life. The finer things in life are love, children, pretty views, discovering the world- not crap that has a price. If you make your peace and happiness dependent on external factors, you're just going to become a slave to those factors. It's only from within that anything real happens.

And yes- I do it too. I don't hold myself apart. I just see it for what it is, and it makes me want to puke. (Yes, another dualistic judgement) I feel like a rat in a cage, surrounded by a bunch of other rats, all running on our little wheels, going nowhere fast. The true meaning of the rat race. It's what characterizes the entire world culture- meaninglessly racing after more plastic happiness, more stimulation, more intoxication, more stuff that society says we need. A world of addicts, chasing after their next fix, the burning need that will never be satisfied.

Make whatever you want of what I'm saying. You'll make your own choice anyway. I've explained this as much as I care to. In the process, my logical discourse has become an emotional rant, but what the hell. Read this post thoroughly, read the one about the Matrix quotes and the one immediately before that. Really internalize it, see if there's anything that maybe holds true. If not, toss it away as useless, go back to your life and believe whatever you want to believe. Perhaps what I've said will mean something to somebody else.

[Kashyapa]

To see the world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower,
To hold eternity in the palm of your hand and infinity in an hour,
We are lead to believe a lie, when we see with, not through the eye, which was born in a night. to parish in a night,
When the soul slept in beams of light.

-William Blake

In a certain sense, Zen is feeling life instead of feeling something about life.- Alan Watts

If you do not get it from yourself where will you go for it?
-Zen saying

Happiness doesn't depend on who you are or what you have;
It depends solely upon what you think. -Dale Carnegie

Just some corroborating thoughts. See above for my response if you haven't already.

[Dancing David]

It seems the dharma may be getting muddied up here a bit.
I can not speak for all buddhists, I refer to Tich Nhat Hanh 'The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching' for those who want to know more.

The buddha stated that the self is an illusion and that most suffering is based upon attachment to self. Therefore if you detach from the concept of self then you will remove much suffering.

As for the happiness:sadness thing, it is inherent in the teachings of the buddha that happiness and sadness exist. The idea of detachment actually allows the human to experience the happiness more clearly and 'savor' it and to not allow the the sadness to create fear and anxiety that dominate our lifes.

I quote the buddha who sort of berated his beloved disciple when Ananda( soory i forget the spelling) wept for the buddha's impending death :

:Be ye lamps until yourselfs.

The dharma can be presented to human but they must evaluate it themselves to discover it's truth.

Peace to all, to Infinity and Beyond!
dancing david

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
I feel like a rat in a cage, surrounded by a bunch of other rats, all running on our little wheels, going nowhere fast. The true meaning of the rat race. It's what characterizes the entire world culture- meaninglessly racing after more plastic happiness, more stimulation, more intoxication, more stuff that society says we need. A world of addicts, chasing after their next fix, the burning need that will never be satisfied.


This is a pretty poetic and accurate description of the 'hungry ghosts' who are said to inhabit one of the six worlds, they drink but the fluid burns thier throats, they eat but the food peirces thei guts, etc. Howver I believe that the map of the six worlds does show the buddha offering the dharma to the Prititakas, I can't say that I remember any of them listening.

Peace bro,
dancing David

[Dancing David]

Thats:
Be ye lamps UNTO yourselfs!

As I always say start the day with a mistake, it keeps you young!

Peace
dancing david

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Dancing David

The buddha stated that the self is an illusion and that most suffering is based upon attachment to self. Therefore if you detach from the concept of self then you will remove much suffering.

the buddha may have stated this, but why is it true? What reasoning is there to back it up? I have seen nothing here connecting the self to suffering in a causal relationship.

As for the happiness:sadness thing, it is inherent in the teachings of the buddha that happiness and sadness exist. The idea of detachment actually allows the human to experience the happiness more clearly and 'savor' it and to not allow the the sadness to create fear and anxiety that dominate our lifes.

Why? Why would detachment allow you to experience more pleasure but less pain? Would it not reduce pleasure and pain in equal amounts?

[Kashyapa]

Dammit, Thanz, read what I've written. You're just repeating the same things no matter what is said. It's not just about the self, it's about the entirety of how we live our lives. We cling to absolutes like the self, like morality, like value judgements, and we let those absolutes rule our lives. Look above dancing david's comments and read what I have there.

You're a toaster- no matter what kind of bread you put in you toast it just the same. You're avoiding addressing the very concrete things I've written. Got an answer for those?

I apologize for my anger, but your argument style is frustrating. It's like a little kid saying "I know you are but what am I" to everything that's said to him. I mean no offense, naturally, but for crying out loud!

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
We are independent of dualism because it exists solely in our mind. Dualism is a choice on how to view the world, a habit drilled into us by culture and upbringing. Think about a baby- looking at the world fresh, no preconceptions, no dualistic ideas, just observing the world without values or identities. I do not accept the idea that dualism is somehow inherent in our minds.Pain: bad, hunger: bad, comfort: good, food: good. Baby's already "know" this (or, rather, "behave" in this way). I think it is quite a low level part of us. Our needs drive our choices (assuming we want to survive). We understand needs before we understand choices. Sometimes our needs drive us to competition (not enough food to go around, etc.).

It is a choice, a delusion that we accept as the truth because we know no better.It is a behavior selected for by nature due to the drive to survive.

In a "world of plenty" there may be less need for competition. But as long as I have needs/desires that are different from your needs/desires, there will be conflict.

[Kashyapa]

ChuckieR- There is no inherent good or bad in hunger. It is a sensation. It is a notice that the body needs more fuel. Pain: again, entirely subjective, a warning that action should be taken to repair or alleviate a situation that is causing damage. No inherent good or bad value to it- BEYOND THAT WHICH WE ATTACH TO IT. Food: just fuel. And it is never absolute. Information to be acted on is different than phenomena to be judged. I don't argue that we should embrace pain or hunger because they're meaningless and what does it matter if we experience them. I simply advocate the removal of the fear/dread/loathing that we attach to that which we call negative and the mindless desire/thirst/need that we have for what we think is positive. But read all the posts first, to get the best idea of what I'm saying.

Thanz- Your reply is above this.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
ChuckieR- There is no inherent good or bad in hunger. It is a sensation. It is a notice that the body needs more fuel. Pain: again, entirely subjective, a warning that action should be taken to repair or alleviate a situation that is causing damage. No inherent good or bad value to it- BEYOND THAT WHICH WE ATTACH TO IT. Food: just fuel. And it is never absolute. Information to be acted on is different than phenomena to be judged. I don't argue that we should embrace pain or hunger because they're meaningless and what does it matter if we experience them. I simply advocate the removal of the fear/dread/loathing that we attach to that which we call negative and the mindless desire/thirst/need that we have for what we think is positive. But read all the posts first, to get the best idea of what I'm saying.
The point I was trying to make is that we have needs that must be fulfilled in order to survive. Sure, if I am happy to die, then I can stop eating. In order to survive, I MUST eat, and this can lead to conflict. I totally agree that the terms and meanings of "good" and "bad" are completely artificial inventions of humans. But realizing this does not eliminate the conflict that arises from competing needs and desires.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
ChuckieR- There is no inherent good or bad in hunger. It is a sensation. It is a notice that the body needs more fuel. Pain: again, entirely subjective, a warning that action should be taken to repair or alleviate a situation that is causing damage. No inherent good or bad value to it- BEYOND THAT WHICH WE ATTACH TO IT. Food: just fuel. And it is never absolute. Information to be acted on is different than phenomena to be judged. I don't argue that we should embrace pain or hunger because they're meaningless and what does it matter if we experience them. I simply advocate the removal of the fear/dread/loathing that we attach to that which we call negative and the mindless desire/thirst/need that we have for what we think is positive. But read all the posts first, to get the best idea of what I'm saying.
The point I was trying to make is that we have needs that must be fulfilled in order to survive. Sure, if I am happy to die, then I can stop eating. In order to survive, I MUST eat, and this can lead to conflict. I totally agree that the terms and meanings of "good" and "bad" are completely artificial inventions of humans. But realizing this does not eliminate the conflict that arises from competing needs and desires.

[edited because I hit the wrong button too soon!]

[Kashyapa]

Granted. There is indeed a conflict that arises- one of the great truths of ecology. However, I think that this conflict can reach equilibrium with less suffering, more compassion, and while adhering to the ideas I've outlined earlier.

Thanks for your interesting post, and you're quite right.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Thanz


the buddha may have stated this, but why is it true? What reasoning is there to back it up? I have seen nothing here connecting the self to suffering in a causal relationship.

[B]

response from david

I don't believe that I stated it was true, just that this is the dharma as stated by the buddha. It is for each person who hears the buddha's teachings to decide if they are true for them or not.
I am barely myself, much less have I attained a state where I can say that i speak from enlightenment.

I ask you first, how is suffering not attached to the notion of the self? Can you explain how there could be suffering without a self that experiences it?

My weak explanation of the causal notion that attachment to self leads to suffering is as follows: (I apologise before hand , I am more a dog than a buddha, my words are false and you should doubt them)

Suffering falls into three categories:
The experience of the unpleasant.
The fear of the unpleasant.
The fear of the loss of the pleasurable.

In case one there is suffering that can not be mitigated, ie: the body hurts, is hungry or sick. These experiences are suffering. Pain reliever, food and medical treatment will aleviate them. Also in the first case are experiences which are percieved as suffering, a visit from the tax man, food that you don't like, etc.. Here is where attachment to the self becomes a causal link in suffering, I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to eat it, I don't like this weather. The stance of the buddha was that if you recognise that there really is just a perception of suffering then you can free yourself from it.
In case two the idea that one will suffer loss, pain or some such is directly tied to the idea that there is a 'me' which will suffer. If someone choses to recognise that this is just fear of loss, then there is a chance for freedom from that fear.
In the third case the argument is basicaly the same as the second: anticipation of suffering leads to suffering. If someone choses to say to themselves, this is just anticipation than they may chose to free themselves.
The buddha stated that the self is mistaken for five 'heaps', they are the body, the perceptions, the emotions, the thoughts and the conditioned attitudes. He maintained that there is no self in any of them. The statements, the body hungers, there is a perception of hunger, there is anger, there is an angry thought, there is a pattern of anger are keys to freeing a person from repeating acts which lead to further suffering.


Why? Why would detachment allow you to experience more pleasure but less pain? Would it not reduce pleasure and pain in equal amounts?

Why? Why do you ask, Does it bother you? Many people can not enjoy themselves because they constantly worry about what will happen next. Thier fear for them'selves' leads them to fret while they should be savoring. I guess I don't understand why the detachment from the illusion of self would lead to the lose of pleasure.
Can you explain the causal link to me there?
I think that you may mistake detachment from self as some sort of disassociation. the buddha recomended mindfulness, which is the process of living in the present. he did not recomend shutting out perceptions, just carefully examining the experiences around us, and trying to sort those that lead to suffering from those that don't.

Be ye a lamp unto yourself!

Hey, if you don't agree with the dharma, it don't bother me none. Find your own light and enjoy it!

Peace
dancing david

[Yahzi]

7. Dualism is not valid for the reason given in #5. There is no inherent dualism to the universe. This means that there is no distinction between oneself and the rest of reality, no good and evil. As asserted above, the universe is independent of dualism, which makes humanity independent of dualism.

Screeching halt.

There is inherent dualism to the universe. Here is not there, and there is not here. Space-time creates the dualistic (or don't we mean dialectic) conditions of here and not-here. Your non-differentiated universe existed - for an infestiminally brief time - but then it blew up and turned into stuff. Frankly, I like my stuff.

There are a huge number of natural dualities in the physical universe, like chirality, anti-matter, etc., but skimming the rest of the thread, I see you aren't particularly interested in facts.

[Kashyapa]

Ah, yes, but is there really "inherent dualism"? Antimatter simply is. It merely exists. We see it, we see matter, we draw the conclusion that they are opposites. In fact, they are merely states of existence that we decide are opposite. I can't stress it enough- any dualism is simply because we decide that it is so. Even the things that seem self-evidently opposite are just that- it is evident to our deluded selves that they are opposite. Even your here/not here argument is meaningless. Here is there before you can even think about it. Nothing is absolute- everything is in a constant state of dynamic change. Nothing has inherent identity- it simply posesses existence.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "not particularly interested in facts." Without any backup to that statement, I'm just going to assume that you're refuting my statements because you can't handle the truth. I laid out my argument clearly and cleanly, and I expect you to do the same if I'm going to take you seriously. I'm inclined not to right now. Who's avoiding facts now, o self-assured one?

[Yahzi]

In fact, they are merely states of existence that we decide are opposite
Erm, no. We don't decide they are opposites; they do. You can tell from the big flash when they annhiliate each other.

Nothing has inherent identity- it simply posesses existence.
You are simply playing with words here. Idenity is existance, and vice versa. Something can't exist without having an identity - if it wasn't something, then it would be nothing, and nothing doesn't exist. See - we can both do it!

I laid out my argument clearly and cleanly, and I expect you to do the same if I'm going to take you seriously.
Your argument fails at step 7. The universe does exhibit both identity and opposition.

Do you know what chirality is? The universe is right-handed. It favors right-handedness over left-handeness. Magnetic fields of force spin in a particular direction with regard to their axis. This is known as symmetry breaking and is a well documented feature of our universe.

[Fade]

I would submit that you're deluding yourself when you say you're "happy 99% of the time".

Okay, now we've moved from "making a lot of assumptions about the universe" to "making a lot of assumptions about your opponent."

Perhaps I can go out on a limb here and say that you are extremely unhappy with your life, so you invented a philosophy designed to make others unhappy so that we can share in it?

Of course I won't. That would be foolish. That would make me an ass.

I am happy because I understand the world as a complex, evolving thing, and I understand (more or less) my place in it. There is an "all pervasive" good attitude running through every single thing I do. People sometimes think I am -lying- or at least joking when I express any sort of feelings of unhappiness.

I submit that you don't know me at all. In all probability, you don't know people in general. However, you have your pretty eastern mysticism and no amount of counterexamples will ever convince you that not every human being folds neatly into the archetype that you happen to like the most.

All the proof I need is this:

Humans, as a -rule- will do things to make themselves more happy. This is one of the only facets of human nature which I would have trouble arguing against.

If there were a way to make everyone happy, eventually every culture would find it.

No culture that existed in a place with no contacts with eastern buddhists has developped the same peculiar self = unhappiness relationship, as far as I know.

If your truths were self evident, we'd all have arrived at them independantly. They haven't. So, obviously, they aren't.

[Kashyapa]

Oh, to hell with it. I'm tired of arguing with you all. You can believe what you want to believe, I'll believe what I want to believe. Hope it makes you happy and at peace. That's all I really want anyway. As long as people are happy and at peace, they can go about it anyway they want. Arguing with people just drags us down, and we all have better things to do than furiously post back and forth.

This will be my last post. Live, love, be happy. Do it however you see fit. That sort of thing is beyond dry academic logic anyhow, which I'm sort of belatedly realizing now. Best of all possible wishes to you all. Sorry it turned into an argument; I try to approach people in nothing but a spirit of peace and friendship. Oh well. Peace, and out.

[Shroud of Akron]

Kashyapa, did you really see it as an argument? i thought it was a debate. i enjoyed your original post and thought it a great topic of debate. you don't need to be turned off if we don't agree with you, all that is asked is that instead of telling us that we don't want to believe, give us the proof that you are right. the counter arguments to your thought were well thought out, and did not attack your character. all they did was to question your belief. i did not see any posts even remotely being critical of you until you stated,It's clear that you're purposefully not understanding me. It should be perfectly obvious that clinging to the self conditions suffering. if you argue using a logical fallacy, the JREF'rs will let you know it quickly.

[Kashyapa]

Yeah, but I realized that I was prostylestizing- something that I absolutely hate when it's done to me. It turned into "Me right, you wrong." In so doing, I violated my own code of ethics. I realized that I couldn't force people to see my way, and that each person has to realize what their truth is themselves. My truth is not necessarily your truth. My personal code of ethics calls for me to put as much positive energy into the world myself, avoid causing suffering of any kind, and pursue my own enlightenment. My "logical" ramblings were nothing different from those of Falwell or Swaggert, just with a different "truth" I was imposing on the world. As my signature suggests, the real truth is not in words or scriptures, not in subjugation and logic and argument, but in the human heart. I tried to present absolutes, dogmas, that I had the arrogance to presume would apply to everyone. In doing what I did, I rendered myself a hypocrite and a traitor to the same philosophy that I hold dear. So, no more. I'm going out to play with my dog and toss a frisbee around with my kids, talk with my neighbor, meditate for a while. That's my church, and my real religion is love. Forcing others to view your views is not love.

[Yahzi]

Fade
People sometimes think I am -lying- or at least joking when I express any sort of feelings of unhappiness.
Hey, I feel pretty special now. I can rile you up with my absolute (or more accurately objective) morality. I figure I must account for 50% of your 1% of unhappiness. :p

On the other hand, how unhappy can a man with llamas get? I wish I had a llama. :( But it would just drive the dogs nuts.

Kashyapa
Yeah, but I realized that I was prostylestizing-
I was gonna pick on ya some more, but this just took the fun out of it.

My truth is not necessarily your truth.
I disagree. I think there is only one truth, that everybody shares. One of the advantages of this view is that I get to prostylestize, and enjoy it. :D

[Fade]

Hey, I feel pretty special now. I can rile you up with my absolute (or more accurately objective) morality. I figure I must account for 50% of your 1% of unhappiness.

On the other hand, how unhappy can a man with llamas get? I wish I had a llama. But it would just drive the dogs nuts.

I DO NOT OWN LLAMAS. JOE IS A WONDERFUL ALPACA :mad: :mad: :mad:

And for the record, you are almost right. You make me angry because you have this infuriating ability to be sort of right, yet absolutely wrong all at the same time when it comes to morality!

And Kashyapa:

As I said before, I didn't disagree with everything you say. But, I feel it would be a bit hypocritical for me, as a skeptic, to accept things you say as truth (even if I agree with them) on the basis of them being unsupported. You were doing very well until you started making personal assumptions. That's the one thing, above all, that people need to learn in any sort of rational discussion. Do everything you can to keep it from getting personal.

You don't have to leave the forum. We could use a few more people like you.

[Kashyapa]

I won't leave the forum. I'll just be approaching it with a slightly different bent- i.e. not trying to convince everyone that I'm right and they're wrong.

There might be one truth, but as Zen says: it's a door that everyone has to go through on their own.

[Kashyapa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kashyapa
[B]I won't leave the forum. I'll just be approaching it with a slightly different bent- i.e. not trying to convince everyone that I'm right and they're wrong. (Except, you know, when they really are and I can prove it! :p )

There might be one truth, but as Zen says: it's a door that everyone has to go through on their own.

[Fade]

I won't leave the forum. I'll just be approaching it with a slightly different bent- i.e. not trying to convince everyone that I'm right and they're wrong.

Again, you can try to convince anyone you want! This is a free forum where you can exchange just about any idea you want.

The trick is to remember that there is almost nothing you can say that SOMEBODY won't disagree with and try to call you on. Even this statement!

[Dancing David]

Is there really an inherent Duality in the universe?
I think this would make a good thread.

There is matter and anti-matter, I agree.

I also happen to believe that we have cultural biasis to seeing things as one and one. I think that there is more than duality.

Take the here , not here. Doesn't not here cover a multitude of options?

I believe that there are opposites but there is much more than duality in the universe.

Peace
dancing David

[Dancing David]

Is there really an inherent Duality in the universe?
I think this would make a good thread.

There is matter and anti-matter, I agree.

I also happen to believe that we have cultural biasis to seeing things as one and one. I think that there is more than duality.

Take the here , not here. Doesn't not here cover a multitude of options?

I believe that there are opposites but there is much more than duality in the universe.

Peace
dancing David

[Yahzi]

Dancing David
Haha! Your dualistic posting would seem to be a pun, of sorts.

But the answer is yes. The here/not here is a reflection of the law of Negation. The three basic laws of logic that we have to assume are true before we can even speak or think coherently are:

Identity: A = A.
Negation: A != !A.
Exclusion: A = A or A != A.

The duality can be seen in the law of Negation, where a distinction is made between an entity and everything else (everything that is not that entity).

Many people make the mistake of thinking negation means opposite. They think that it means, "black does not equal white." That is not what it means. It means, "black does not equal non-black." So you see, there is black, and there is any and every other color. That makes an inherent dualistic position: your paint can be black, or it can be any other color. Those two positions (black or non-black) cover all the possiblities.

[Kashyapa]

Interesting thoughts. However, isn't the distinction still human? By that I mean, black is not necessarily black to anything but us. It is simply how our eyes and brains process a phenomenon that absorbs all colors or is devoid of color. Atoms simply operate mechanically, absorbing and reflecting whatever wavelengths they're structured to. A wavelength is just the energy content of an electromagnetic wave (wavicle, actually, but let's not get into that). Therefore, the real dualism is the presence or absence of a phenomena, but even that's sort of flawed because it depends on a localized viewpoint. Ayyy...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi
That makes an inherent dualistic position: your paint can be black, or it can be any other color. Those two positions (black or non-black) cover all the possiblities. [/B]

Unless, of course, what you wanted was one of the first cars that Ford produced. Then you didn't need any other colour. :)

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Thanz


Unless, of course, what you wanted was one of the first cars that Ford produced. Then you didn't need any other colour. :)

Yeah, and they didn't have those foo-foo names for colors then either- "coastal taupe metallic pearl effect" and that sort of flibbertigibbet.

[Fade]

It is simply how our eyes and brains process a phenomenon that absorbs all colors or is devoid of color.

I understand the concept, but it's just not right :)

What we call Black correlates to how a physical thing actually exists. We use the term Black to identify something that exists, so whatever your word/term/whatever for Black, it's Black.

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose.

[Kashyapa]

Sure. But taken literally, black is merely the absence of color. The absence of anything isn't something. Black is a convention we use to describe an absence of color. The color red is simply a barrage of wavicles with a similar average wavelength. That wavelength is not "red"- it is simply a wavelength, corresponding to an orbital in an excited atom, that when it hits our eyes it is percieved a certain way. A rose is merely a configuration of waveforms, which in and of themselves have no identity- they are processes that can be individually defined by their behavior. What if there is nothing observing to percieve black and give it a term? Is there "inherent" black or red? What if the red light is moving in a beam through space, and no being ever percieves it and it never hits anything that scatters it- is it really red then?

In other words, If a tree falls in the forest and there's noone around to see it, does it make a sound? This question we're trying to figure out could actually be used as a Zen koan- a sort of unanswerable, paradoxical question used as an instructive tool.

[Loki]

kashyapa,

What if there is nothing observing to percieve black and give it a term? Is there "inherent" black or red?
I think the point that Yahzi and Fade are making is that wavelengths exists, and the identity and negation holds true no matter whether humans exist to observe.

A simple (and rather poorly expressed - I'm, in a hurry!) example - the universe contains light of a given wavelength (let's give this specific wavelength that code name "gred"). A crystal difracts certain wavelengths of light. The laws of physics apply, and when "gred" light enters the crystal it will be defracted, whilst "not-gred" wavelengths will not. The distinction between "gred" and "non-gred" exists, and the universe behaves accordingly - most of the universe ignores this distinction, a few bits react to it. Even without humans, some parts of the universe can tell the difference between "gred" and "not-gred". From the "frame of reference" of the crystal, the distinction is real.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Kashyapa Sure. But taken literally, black is merely the absence of color.

Agree.

The absence of anything isn't something.

See here we get into splitting definitions. Take the word Hole.

A hole is, literally, nothing. You can't have something and have it be a hole. We use the word 'hole' to describe that absence. Same with vacuum. We use the term black to describe what happens when there is no light.

Black is a convention we use to describe an absence of color.

My dear, this is what ALL language is! We use language to take concepts, ideas, things, whatever and turn them into a form that we can quickly understand. My naming a thing "black" doesn't mean I am applying some sort of meaning to it, I am simply identifying a property! It would be very hard to go about our lives (actually it would be utterly impossible) without doing this. There would be no communication, no memory, no society, nothing.

The color red is simply a barrage of wavicles with a similar average wavelength.

Yes.

That wavelength is not "red"- it is simply a wavelength, corresponding to an orbital in an excited atom, that when it hits our eyes it is percieved a certain way.

Of course it's red! This isn't anything being added, this is a description. My name is Jonathan. When people want to talk to me, they say "hey Jonathan!" Jonathan, by itself, means nothing. However, it is how I choose to be called in order to necessitate communication between myself and others.

A rose is merely a configuration of waveforms,

Yes, it is. When these waveforms are in such a configuration, we describe them as a rose. A rose isn't a table, unless to you table means rose. This is central to the Axiom of Identity.

which in and of themselves have no identity-

Of course they have an identity. We simply use the convention of language to name that identity so that we can easily talk about it.

they are processes that can be individually defined by their behavior.

We are naming their behaviour, not giving them meaning. Now, if I were to say "A rose is beautiful" this would be applying some sort of extra meaning. It would be describing a characteristic the rose doesn't actually have, but I perceive it as having, because my emotions tell me so. However, it is still a rose, regardless of the name you give it.

What if there is nothing observing to percieve black and give it a term?

Irrelevant. We aren't ascribing meaning, we're describing.

Is there "inherent" black or red? What if the red light is moving in a beam through space, and no being ever percieves it and it never hits anything that scatters it- is it really red then?

Well, yes, in the case of light. Something doesn't need to be perceived to exist. There are countless entities moving through the universe which we have no name for. When we encounter them, we'll give them a name so that when we encounter one in the future we can tell it apart! Imagine if all of the sudden we stopped using nouns. Try to communicate -any- complex statement without a noun.


In other words, If a tree falls in the forest and there's noone around to see it, does it make a sound?

In the case of sound, no. Sound is an interpreted perception. Does that tree make the vibration necessary to make sound should somebody(or thing, or whatever) be there? Sure, the universe doesn't change when we're not observing it.

This question we're trying to figure out could actually be used as a Zen koan- a sort of unanswerable, paradoxical question used as an instructive tool.

This is because some try to over-philosophise.

[Kashyapa]

Well, if I see any of those over-philosophisers, I'll let them know. :D

I think my answer basically has to rest on the simple fact that humans, by necessity of their psychology, require labels for the world. We cannot objectively and with complete accuracy describe anything we experience. We describe and experience the universe from a limited viewpoint, and we must name things and describe them based on our limited viewpoint. That said, I do not think that anything can have any inherent value- there of course is to us, because we rely on those things to keep the narritave of selfhood going in our brains. Red is not inherently red- a colorblind friend of mine sees green as a very pale blue, so green is not inherently green for him. When we call a thing black, we are identifying a PERCEIVED property that is of necessity subjective. It may not be black in reality- it could be glowing like a torch in the infrared or ultraviolet, but unless we have some sort of detector, we are not able to know that, and simply regard it as black.

Since we don't and can't know what the universe "really" looks like, and we can't perceive from anything but a single localized viewpoint, the meaning we attach to the universe is inherently inaccurate. It's no less meaningful to us, though, because we cannot conceive of the universe any other way. However, this is getting way out into the realm of the theoretical and the bizarre.

[Dancing David]

Yahzi:
Thank You for your response. I am trying to see if I understand your statement about duality.

In essence your are defining a singularity (here/black) and then defining all other things as not-singularity and therefore a duality exists.

I still think that it a product of the singularity, I think that if we have the color 'gerd', that we can sate there is a duality by lumping together all other colrs as 'not-gerd'. And therefore there is a duality.

I may be slow to follow so please be patient. How is this inherent duality? Is it not a by product of looking at something as a singularity?

Thank You!

Peace
dancing David

[Yahzi]

Kashyapa
Red is not inherently red
Actually, it is. Even color-blind people can see red - if they are synthesiacs. Scientific American has an incredible article on snythesia wherein they describe a man who is colorblind, but associates the color red with the number 5. Thus, when he sees a written 5, he sees it in red - a color he cannot normally see. His eyes trigger the "red" flag for that particular shape, even though they don't trigger the red flag for red. He doesn't have enough cones or rods or whatever to see red, but his optic nerve can still carry the signal, and his brain can still interpret the color.

Freaky, huh?

Since we don't and can't know what the universe "really" looks like, and we can't perceive from anything but a single localized viewpoint, the meaning we attach to the universe is inherently inaccurate.
But that doesn't mean that there is no meaning. You are correct that in some sense we can never know green, only approximate it: but the fact remains that green exists in the universe, because there really is such a thing as a 550nm wavelength of light.

We can only approximate, but our approximations can be accurate to a startling degree.

The fact remains that magnetic fields follow the right hand rule, and not the left hand rule, and thus duality is inherent in the universe.

Dancing David
Is it not a by product of looking at something as a singularity?
Can't quite follow you here. But - the act of looking at something as a singularity creates a natural dualism. There is the singularity, and everything else. That's two things.

Loki
Exactly.

Fade
My name is Jonathan.
I thought it was Fade.

:confused:

Dude, you're confusing me.

:D

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi


Actually, it is. Even color-blind people can see red - if they are synthesiacs. Scientific American has an incredible article on snythesia wherein they describe a man who is colorblind, but associates the color red with the number 5. Thus, when he sees a written 5, he sees it in red - a color he cannot normally see. His eyes trigger the "red" flag for that particular shape, even though they don't trigger the red flag for red. He doesn't have enough cones or rods or whatever to see red, but his optic nerve can still carry the signal, and his brain can still interpret the color.

Freaky, huh?


This is quite freaky. My question is, how do they know this? How do they know that the colourblind person is seeing "red" 5's? What kind of test do they use? (I also wonder the number 5 - is there some sort of psycological reason? does it work with every 5? if the number was 500 or 15, would the 5 b in red but the rest grey? Is the article online? it seems fascinating)

I have often wondered if what I see as "red" is the same as what you see as "red". By that I mean, the colour in my mind that I see as "red" could easily be the colour I see as "green" in your head - but we would both still label it "red", as that is all we've ever called it. I am guessing that if they can do the kind of test you speak of, then what I have just said is probably wrong.

[Yahzi]

If he sees a 500, the whole number is in red, although it starts to fade towards the end.

I'm not sure how they determined that it was red, and not some other color he can't normally see. They might not be so sure on that.

But they are sure that he isn't faking in any way. Apparently synthesia with words and colors doesn't usually carry over to a foriegn lanuage. And the Roman numeral five (V) doesn't trigger it. Obviously there is some psychological significance to the shape of 5, but at the same time, this is not a psychological effect. That they proved beyond doubt.

Look at this grid:

5555555
5555255
5552525
5525252
5555555

Does anything leap out at you? Nope. It takes you a few seconds to identify the triangle.

Now look:

5555555
5555255
5552525
5525252
5555555

It's instant. The trick is, the first grid is instantly recognized by this guy, even though he can't see red! So the red is applied before the psychological! (they show another expierement in the magazine that clinches it).

I don't know if it's online, I'm a subscriber. But try checking the SciAm site.

[Thanz]

Interesting article, although the colourblind person seems to make up only a small portion of the article and they don't identify the colours he sees (he calls them "martian colours").

Here is a link:

Hearing colors, tasting shapes (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0003014B-9D06-1E8F-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2)

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Thanz


This is quite freaky. My question is, how do they know this? How do they know that the colourblind person is seeing "red" 5's? What kind of test do they use? (I also wonder the number 5 - is there some sort of psycological reason? does it work with every 5? if the number was 500 or 15, would the 5 b in red but the rest grey? Is the article online? it seems fascinating)

I have often wondered if what I see as "red" is the same as what you see as "red". By that I mean, the colour in my mind that I see as "red" could easily be the colour I see as "green" in your head - but we would both still label it "red", as that is all we've ever called it. I am guessing that if they can do the kind of test you speak of, then what I have just said is probably wrong.

This has occurred to me- what if my red to you is what i'd call blue? (Wow, a poet and I didn't know it!)

But everything is a singularity. A magnetic field is simply a magnetic field, and it behaves how it does due to factors of matter and physics. Any relation to other magnetic fields can only be observed by a sentient mind. Same way with subatomic particles- they may relate to each other, but only in our minds. The proton simply is what it is and interacts with other unique bits of matter based on its behavior. The duality to anything exists in comparison with another thing, which is only possible with a sentient mind that is capable of observing both, yes? It is inherently only existant.

Ha. This is fun!

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by Kashyapa


This has occurred to me- what if my red to you is what i'd call blue? (Wow, a poet and I didn't know it!)

But everything is a singularity. A magnetic field is simply a magnetic field, and it behaves how it does due to factors of matter and physics. Any relation to other magnetic fields can only be observed by a sentient mind. Same way with subatomic particles- they may relate to each other, but only in our minds. The proton simply is what it is and interacts with other unique bits of matter based on its behavior. The duality to anything exists in comparison with another thing, which is only possible with a sentient mind that is capable of observing both, yes? It is inherently only existant.

Ha. This is fun! that statement is dangerously close to the thinking of another poster that has disappeared (for the time being). it sounds like you are saying that nothing happens when there is nothing sentient around to observe it. physics happens whether we observe it or not, TLOP controls how the universe works, TLOP creates dualistic events, therefore the universe is dualistic! hehehe, now i sound like that other poster!!!:D

[Kashyapa]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
that statement is dangerously close to the thinking of another poster that has disappeared (for the time being). it sounds like you are saying that nothing happens when there is nothing sentient around to observe it. physics happens whether we observe it or not, TLOP controls how the universe works, TLOP creates dualistic events, therefore the universe is dualistic! hehehe, now i sound like that other poster!!!:D

Hey, that's not fair, you don't hear me talking of gravitrons, now do you?

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by Kashyapa


Hey, that's not fair, you don't hear me talking of gravitrons, now do you? hehehe, i just like to get a suckerpunch in there when i get the chance. besides, i admitted that i used "that other posters" type of logic at the end.

[Kashyapa]

:D

[Fade]

This has occurred to me- what if my red to you is what i'd call blue

I've stated this a few different ways, but you still aren't getting it.


It doesn't matter what you name something. The name is meaningless. I could call red Greblosuidobobobob and it wouldn't change the nature of what is red. Red is a very specific wavelength of light. That specific wavelength of light is what we call red. We aren't giving meaning to the light. We're labelling it.

This isn't even philosophy anymore, it's playing around with words.

[Kashyapa]

Yep. So do we agree that there is no inherent meaning (indentity, relationships, etc) to phenomena, beyond that which we attach to it? It seems like that's what we're getting at.

[Shroud of Akron]

we are not saying the same thing. you are saying that x could equal y depending on the perspective of the observer, and that it is only dependent on the identity the observer places on it. we are saying that x is always x no matter if it is observered or not. x always has it's value whether or not we give it one. a rose is a rose by any other name.

[Dancing David]

Yahzi and others:

Sorry I am slow, the inherent duality ascribed to in the posts so far seems to be a part of human logic more than inherent duality in the univerese. Yes there are aprticles and anti particles.
The here not here dichotomy seems to be a product human logic and semantics.
Please keep explaining I just don't see how that is inherent in the universe, of course human thoughts are part of the universe.
(Please understand I am not addressing the current color scenario)
Peace
dancing david