Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 07-17-2019, 05:16 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
The last line is what they are trying to say, yes. Like the guy I linked when he said you realize you are the tiger and you metaphorically kill it. Or that large paragraph I linked to about atoms and the like.

The more times that I read you analogy the less I'm convinced that it has anything to do with what it being said. It doesn't really disprove their point or what they are saying.
See, first, just answer the question. It’s a simple question; you should be able to answer it pretty quickly: if I have the steel key, as well as a steel coin (and a gold coin, and handful of sand), and I note that I’m happy to give you the key, how would you reply if I ask whether I should instead hand you the coin or the sand?

Answer that, and then discuss the relevance to their point. Tell me whether you’d shrug and say “oh, well, it’s all the same thing,” and then tell me whether you still think they’re right about how it’s all the same thing. Tell me if you’d be equally glad to get handed a coin or the sand or that key (with a response like “oh, hey, handing me the coin is handing me the key — and handing me the sand is handing me the coin and the key”); and, one moment later, then do the rest.

This isn’t me trying to task you with some long assignment; it should be the work of a moment: say you’re locked in that cell, and I can give you the key that’s in my right hand; or I can give you what’s in my left hand, be it a coin or some sand. Don’t tell me what occurs to you ‘the more times you read the analogy’; feel free to spend less time just putting a reply out there first. You can do this.
  #202  
Old 07-17-2019, 05:45 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
...or, okay, maybe you can’t. I don’t know you; after all, I’m not you.

Here’s my answer: if I’m hungry and thirsty and locked in that jail cell, and you offer me the steel key but then hand me the steel coin, I’d say, “this object you handed me isn’t that other object; it doesn’t matter what they’re each made of, and where they come from; I assure you, one isn’t the other. You may claim that stuff precedes or surrounds them; nevertheless, the coin isn’t the key.”

And if you apologize, and say you’ll now give me the key, and then you give me a handful of sand, I’d say, “okay, see, now you’re not even giving me something that’s made of steel! But, again, that’s irrelevant; regardless of what this handful of sand happens to be made of, it’s not the key; it’s also not the coin. Can you not tell the difference? I can tell the difference; I guess you’re not me.”

And if you gave me the key, I’d say . . . “oh, thank you ever so very much.”

Now, it’s possible to imagine somebody who — upon being given that coin or that handful of sand — wouldn’t react like me. Somebody who’d instead react to the coin or the sand by saying, “oh, thank you ever so very much; the coin is the key, just as the sand is the key, so it makes no difference! It’s all the same thing!”

If that’s how you’d reply, then we have much to discuss. But if you’d reply the way I would — by noting that, no, they’re different; it makes a difference; never you mind what they’re made of, or what precedes or surrounds them; one just isn’t the other, is all — then we don’t have much to discuss, since in that case we already agree that one thing isn’t another; maybe they’re made of the same stuff (like the steel key and the steel coin), maybe they’re not (like a gold coin and the handful of sand); but you’d grant that ONE ISN’T THE OTHER, and we’d be done.
  #203  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:04 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
What it means?

Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field. (Think of standing waves in a body of water.)

There are no discrete things or objects of solid substance; things as we perceive them are merely changing forms and patterns in nature (the universe) as a whole. You are not a small and lonely being lost in a foreign universe; you are a direct expression of the whole of the universe as it currently is; you (as everything else) is a brief movement in the dance of nature. You do not exist independent of the perceived outside; outside and inside are two sides of the same coin.

The seed is no different from the tree. They are the same thing viewed from different perspectives in time. Birth and death are really no different; waking life is really no different from dreamless sleep.

The nature of the human perspective is experience. This is why we say that we are the universe experiencing itself: A dark cloud is the universe clouding itself; the sun is the universe lighting itself; the rotating planet is the universe spinning itself.

The ocean waves; the planet rotates; the sun shines; the heart beats; the stomach digests; the brain thinks; the body acts. These events are no different in nature. The thinker of thoughts is the waver of oceans, not a little man behind the eyes of the body; the waver of the ocean is spontaneous, as is the thinker of thoughts. Nature is not being moved; nature flows without direction; nature is not concerened with tomorrow, for it is dancing today.

Look at a tree, see how it moves in the wind.

Notice your thoughts arising, even the thought "I am thinking."

Notice that the movement of the tree and the movement of thought are two expressions of the same thing.

Stop labeling the tree and yourself; notice that all separation is a consequence of the labeling process; allow all boundaries to dissolve.

Feel the swaying of the tree as much as you feel the arising thoughts and the other bodily sensations.

Feel intuitively that what you refer to as I is a form in the universe experiencing itself.
I wanted to requote that since it plays heavily into what I am trying to say.

My regular answer is that I would agree with you, but this has challenged that view.
  #204  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:07 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I wanted to requote that since it plays heavily into what I am trying to say.

My regular answer is that I would agree with you, but this has challenged that view.
Okay, it’s challenged your view.

But as long as you’d (a) note that the coin I gave you isn’t actually the key; and (b) patiently explain that, no, the handful of sand also isn’t the key, which is why it isn’t helping you escape confinement and slake thirst the way the key would — then your “regular answer” remains; you don’t really believe what they’re saying.

As long as one would spark a “thanks eversoverymuch” while the other would spark an “er, no, this one here isn’t that one there” — instead of either one provoking a reply like “it’s all the same thing; there are no discrete objects” — then while your view may have been challenged, it’s nevertheless still your view.

When you get to the point where you’d greet the coin the same way you’d greet the key or a handful of sand, then I could start trying to get you to come around to my view of the matter. But if you still view things my way, then what’s left for me to do? Tell you not to be convinced by them? You’re already not convinced by them! You heard their pitch, and mulled it over, and — well, the next time you set out to unlock something, I take it you (a) weren’t tempted to try a handful of sand, but instead (b) made sure to put a key rather than a coin in it? And, later, you placed a coin rather than a key or some sand in the slot of a vending machine or whatever?

And, to this day, you still keep getting it right with your regular answer?
  #205  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:22 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
TWOP why are you wasting your time with This? You will never ever ever get a straight answer.
  #206  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:37 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
TWOP why are you wasting your time with This? You will never ever ever get a straight answer.

He has no nearby windmills, and is unclear on how to "tilt".
  #207  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:56 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Okay, it’s challenged your view.

But as long as you’d (a) note that the coin I gave you isn’t actually the key; and (b) patiently explain that, no, the handful of sand also isn’t the key, which is why it isn’t helping you escape confinement and slake thirst the way the key would — then your “regular answer” remains; you don’t really believe what they’re saying.

As long as one would spark a “thanks eversoverymuch” while the other would spark an “er, no, this one here isn’t that one there” — instead of either one provoking a reply like “it’s all the same thing; there are no discrete objects” — then while your view may have been challenged, it’s nevertheless still your view.

When you get to the point where you’d greet the coin the same way you’d greet the key or a handful of sand, then I could start trying to get you to come around to my view of the matter. But if you still view things my way, then what’s left for me to do? Tell you not to be convinced by them? You’re already not convinced by them! You heard their pitch, and mulled it over, and — well, the next time you set out to unlock something, I take it you (a) weren’t tempted to try a handful of sand, but instead (b) made sure to put a key rather than a coin in it? And, later, you placed a coin rather than a key or some sand in the slot of a vending machine or whatever?

And, to this day, you still keep getting it right with your regular answer?
You are missing the point because right now it seems like their view of matter is right and you are still insisting things are separate and discrete when judging by their evidence and claims it's not.

This isn't about what I do or don't believe but trying to find out how you are "not" the universe. Because as it stands it seems as though I don't have the justification or knowledge to hold onto my old "materialistic" worldview. If atoms are not "Discrete units" then that really harms my understanding of things and I wanted to know if that was right or not.

You are targeting the wrong thing here. Because if there are no discrete units then everything is made of the same stuff and is fundamentally the same,which is what they say. Try to get at their argument since that is the problem I am having.
  #208  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:58 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
TWOP why are you wasting your time with This? You will never ever ever get a straight answer.
I can get a straight answer if people addressed what I linked.
  #209  
Old 07-18-2019, 03:49 PM
road_lobo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
You are missing the point because right now it seems like their view of matter is right and you are still insisting things are separate and discrete when judging by their evidence and claims it's not.

This isn't about what I do or don't believe but trying to find out how you are "not" the universe. Because as it stands it seems as though I don't have the justification or knowledge to hold onto my old "materialistic" worldview. If atoms are not "Discrete units" then that really harms my understanding of things and I wanted to know if that was right or not.

You are targeting the wrong thing here. Because if there are no discrete units then everything is made of the same stuff and is fundamentally the same,which is what they say. Try to get at their argument since that is the problem I am having.
You are aware atoms are "made" of quarks, right? Have you read about the particle zoo? All matter is fundamentally energy. This doesn't contradict materialism.

Here's a podcast where the self is discussed in terms of psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience. There's no woo.

You Are Not So Smart Podcast 004 – The Self – Bruce Hood
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=eUvaUy1n-JE

In this episode of the podcast, Bruce Hood talks about his book The Self Illusion and how ideas of materialism and dualism are being explored by modern science. Hood is the Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre in the Experimental Psychology Department at the University of Bristol.

Here's a transcript of the interview.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcr...m-episode-004/
  #210  
Old 07-18-2019, 04:56 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
You are missing the point because right now it seems like their view of matter is right and you are still insisting things are separate and discrete when judging by their evidence and claims it's not.
It’s not that I’m insisting on it...

Quote:
This isn't about what I do or don't believe but
...no; it is. It’s about what you believe and insist on and et cetera.

You’re the one telling me your regular answer would be to express your thanks if someone handed you the steel key; and that, if you got handed a coin instead of the key you were promised, you’d helpfully point out that, uh, no, this one right here isn’t actually the other one over there; and that, if you were then given the key, you’d say “oh, yes, that’s it, thanks” — but if you were instead given a handful of sand, you’d say “no, that’s still not it; that’s something else.”

If that’s not how you would reply — if you would accept the key or the coin or the sand with a cheerful “there are no discrete units and everything is made of the same stuff and is fundamentally the same” — then I can try to reason with you until you see things my way; maybe I’ll fail, but maybe I’ll succeed.

But if you already see things my way? If you’re already at a point where you can tell the difference between the key and the coin, and you’d act accordingly if folks offer you some sand? I’m not much on reasoning you out of a position you don’t hold; there’s little point in trying, if you already agree with me.
  #211  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:01 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
TWOP why are you wasting your time with This?
What’s the harm? He seems sincere, and it’s not like I mind replying.
  #212  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:13 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by road_lobo View Post
You are aware atoms are "made" of quarks, right? Have you read about the particle zoo? All matter is fundamentally energy. This doesn't contradict materialism.

Here's a podcast where the self is discussed in terms of psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience. There's no woo.

You Are Not So Smart Podcast 004 – The Self – Bruce Hood
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=eUvaUy1n-JE

In this episode of the podcast, Bruce Hood talks about his book The Self Illusion and how ideas of materialism and dualism are being explored by modern science. Hood is the Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre in the Experimental Psychology Department at the University of Bristol.

Here's a transcript of the interview.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcr...m-episode-004/
I'm not so sure about the atoms part really.

The transcript was fascinating, though if I am honest I don't grasp the implications beyond it. I get the pieces, but putting it together is weird. So if the self is an illusion then what? What does that mean for aspects of life?
  #213  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:34 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What’s the harm? He seems sincere, and it’s not like I mind replying.
It just seems like you're banging your head against the wall. But do what you want, as long as you realize he will never answer that question about the key, or any other question.
  #214  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:17 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
It just seems like you're banging your head against the wall. But do what you want, as long as you realize he will never answer that question about the key, or any other question.
Because I keep posting the paragraphs and replies explaining what they mean by it and people don't address it.

Like in the case of the Broward Meditation saying to throw away thoughts of a self, relationships, etc, because you are the universe. What appears to be birth and death is an illusion and just the rearrangement of form, especially since death isn't the destruction of matter. Nothing is "Born" just rearranged. That's what they get at too, and what they mean by "before you there was the universe". There is no independent existing you, and the notion of a self is an illusion (though I will say that his science behind it is refreshing compared to the usual proclamations about it).
  #215  
Old 07-19-2019, 04:03 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Because I keep posting the paragraphs and replies explaining what they mean by it and people don't address it.
I think you’re wrong; but I don’t think it matters. Look at what you just wrote: you keep posting the paragraphs, and people don’t address it. After all, I keep making mention of keys and coins — and your response, as far as I can tell, is that you’d thank someone for the key, but if given the coin you’d react differently (namely, you’d point out that the coin isn’t the key).

To be clear, I can drop the bit about keys and coins; say you’re thirsty, and you get offered a gold cup full of water, and you’re then handed a tin cup full of cyanide. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but: I’m guessing you’d react by noting that the tin cup full of cyanide isn’t the gold cup full of water; and that, since they’ll have such different effects on you, you’ll gladly drink the water but not the cyanide; and, if pressed, you’ll add that the tin cup isn’t made out of gold, and the gold cup isn’t made out of tin, and neither one is the other.

And if I’m right about that — if, this very month, you’ll make a point of only ever drinking stuff that doesn’t kill you, instead of pouring yourself a hot cup of poison and saying, “meh, it’s all the same” — then there’s nothing to address: you already know the answer, you don’t actually believe water in a gold cup is cyanide in a tin cup; you manage to tell the difference. (And if somebody else disagrees and does drink poison, well, that shows that you’re not him, are you?)

I think all of the above is a great argument that addresses the question. Maybe you disagree; if so, well, that shows that you’re not me, doesn’t it?
  #216  
Old 07-19-2019, 02:03 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I think you’re wrong; but I don’t think it matters. Look at what you just wrote: you keep posting the paragraphs, and people don’t address it. After all, I keep making mention of keys and coins — and your response, as far as I can tell, is that you’d thank someone for the key, but if given the coin you’d react differently (namely, you’d point out that the coin isn’t the key).

To be clear, I can drop the bit about keys and coins; say you’re thirsty, and you get offered a gold cup full of water, and you’re then handed a tin cup full of cyanide. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but: I’m guessing you’d react by noting that the tin cup full of cyanide isn’t the gold cup full of water; and that, since they’ll have such different effects on you, you’ll gladly drink the water but not the cyanide; and, if pressed, you’ll add that the tin cup isn’t made out of gold, and the gold cup isn’t made out of tin, and neither one is the other.

And if I’m right about that — if, this very month, you’ll make a point of only ever drinking stuff that doesn’t kill you, instead of pouring yourself a hot cup of poison and saying, “meh, it’s all the same” — then there’s nothing to address: you already know the answer, you don’t actually believe water in a gold cup is cyanide in a tin cup; you manage to tell the difference. (And if somebody else disagrees and does drink poison, well, that shows that you’re not him, are you?)

I think all of the above is a great argument that addresses the question. Maybe you disagree; if so, well, that shows that you’re not me, doesn’t it?
They would say it is all the same because there is no discrete essence to things, it's all fundamentally the universe which is something you keep missing the point on with your analogies (or stories). Like the Broward people said, birth and death are an illusion. You think you have a mother and father and you were born, but that is a trick,you have always been. It's even partly based on the law of conservation of matter (although that is problematic since no one addressed if atoms are solid or discrete units or not).

You keep addressing points that have nothing to do with any of this, and ignore the parts that cause the problem.
  #217  
Old 07-19-2019, 02:05 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Or like what some other one mentioned about being there at the formation of the universe (mostly because the atoms in our bodies are partly made from what was at the dawn of creation).
  #218  
Old 07-19-2019, 06:10 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
They would say it is all the same because there is no discrete essence to things, it's all fundamentally the universe which is something you keep missing the point on with your analogies (or stories).
Well, yes, they might say that. But the point of my analogies or stories is, what they actually do is drink the water in one cup while staying away from the poison in the other cup, as if they were different cups with different liquids in them. It’s easy enough for a guy to say there’s no discrete essence to things, but he still unlocks this or that door by reaching into his pocket for a key — and if he instead pulls out a coin, he soon realizes his mistake and swaps out the coin for a key; he doesn’t even try to use one as if it were the other; he knows better.

Quote:
You keep addressing points that have nothing to do with any of this, and ignore the parts that cause the problem.
That’s just it: why do folks who say these things keep acting as if it matters that they drink water from one cup or poison from another? Why do they say that stuff, only to act like a key and a coin are discrete objects, such that it matters whether one or the other is in hand?

I get why I act that way; it’s because I don’t believe those claims. But why do they act that way, unless they don’t believe those claims either? Oh, sure, they could claim that these are points that have nothing to do with this; but they’d be wrong, unless they can explain why their decisions and their actions (a) match mine, but (b) don’t actually fit what you say they’re saying.
  #219  
Old 07-20-2019, 02:53 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, yes, they might say that. But the point of my analogies or stories is, what they actually do is drink the water in one cup while staying away from the poison in the other cup, as if they were different cups with different liquids in them. It’s easy enough for a guy to say there’s no discrete essence to things, but he still unlocks this or that door by reaching into his pocket for a key — and if he instead pulls out a coin, he soon realizes his mistake and swaps out the coin for a key; he doesn’t even try to use one as if it were the other; he knows better.



That’s just it: why do folks who say these things keep acting as if it matters that they drink water from one cup or poison from another? Why do they say that stuff, only to act like a key and a coin are discrete objects, such that it matters whether one or the other is in hand?

I get why I act that way; it’s because I don’t believe those claims. But why do they act that way, unless they don’t believe those claims either? Oh, sure, they could claim that these are points that have nothing to do with this; but they’d be wrong, unless they can explain why their decisions and their actions (a) match mine, but (b) don’t actually fit what you say they’re saying.
Again I keep pointing back to what that paragraph I quoted said, you aren't getting the argument here. The point is what they are all ultimately made of, you aren't listening. It doesn't matter what "appears" to be so,since there is no discrete water or key, it's a result of something else. It doesn't exist on it's own. like if you break down a cracker you won't find any "crackerness" to it or essence. That's the point being made by them.

I keep asking you to address what they say not make up stories that have nothing to do with what they are saying.
  #220  
Old 07-20-2019, 03:10 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,693
There is no discrete Dunning or Kruger!
  #221  
Old 07-20-2019, 04:07 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Again I keep pointing back to what that paragraph I quoted said, you aren't getting the argument here. The point is what they are all ultimately made of, you aren't listening. It doesn't matter what "appears" to be so,since there is no discrete water or key, it's a result of something else. It doesn't exist on it's own. like if you break down a cracker you won't find any "crackerness" to it or essence. That's the point being made by them.
You’re glossing over the important part too quickly, there.

You say it doesn’t matter what “appears” to be so, since there is no discrete water or key. And that’s where I’m interrupting, to ask: if it doesn’t matter, then why the heck do they keep drinking the water and putting the key in the lock?

I get why I’m drinking water and putting keys in locks, and not the reverse; it’s because I think it matters. But I don’t get why someone who says that it doesn’t matter would act the same way — unless, well, they say it, but of course don’t actually mean it, since, hey, sometimes people say things without meaning them.

That’s the best way I know how “to address what they say”: by pointing out that, if they really did believe what you say, they wouldn’t act the way that I do; but, of course, they do act the way I do, because I’m, y’know, right.
  #222  
Old 07-25-2019, 01:44 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
You’re glossing over the important part too quickly, there.

You say it doesn’t matter what “appears” to be so, since there is no discrete water or key. And that’s where I’m interrupting, to ask: if it doesn’t matter, then why the heck do they keep drinking the water and putting the key in the lock?

I get why I’m drinking water and putting keys in locks, and not the reverse; it’s because I think it matters. But I don’t get why someone who says that it doesn’t matter would act the same way — unless, well, they say it, but of course don’t actually mean it, since, hey, sometimes people say things without meaning them.

That’s the best way I know how “to address what they say”: by pointing out that, if they really did believe what you say, they wouldn’t act the way that I do; but, of course, they do act the way I do, because I’m, y’know, right.
It's more like thinking in regards to death and the like.

Like in the case of people, there is no core or discrete essence to who we are as a person. Where we grow up tends to impact how we live and who we become. There isn't a "soul" or core aspect to us.

I keep asking you to address the paragraph I quoted but you fail to do so. I keep telling you that a key into a lock or water is irrelevant to the main point being made here, that (as far as I can tell) they liken the universe to an ocean and phenomenon as waves. In that what appears to be separate is really just one thing.
  #223  
Old 07-25-2019, 05:07 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
It's more like thinking in regards to death and the like.

Like in the case of people, there is no core or discrete essence to who we are as a person. Where we grow up tends to impact how we live and who we become. There isn't a "soul" or core aspect to us.

I keep asking you to address the paragraph I quoted but you fail to do so. I keep telling you that a key into a lock or water is irrelevant to the main point being made here, that (as far as I can tell) they liken the universe to an ocean and phenomenon as waves. In that what appears to be separate is really just one thing.
Yes, you keep telling me that it’s irrelevant; but, see, I still disagree.

Say a guy says “that what appears to be separate is really just one thing.” Say he elaborates: “It doesn't matter what "appears" to be so, since there is no discrete water or key”, he says. Maybe he’s right; but maybe he’s lying or mistaken.

Say I watch that guy for a while. Say, too, that he sure does act like what appears to be separate actually is separate: he routinely drinks water, as if it doesn’t just appear to be water but in fact is water; and he refuses to drink poison, as if (a) it appears to be poison instead of water, and (b) it truly is poison instead of water. I watch him, over and over, as he unlocks a door with a key; and, if he’s ever handed what appears to be a coin and not a key, he reacts as if it really is a coin and not a key: swapping it out for what, y’know, appears to be a key.

Now hold on a moment, I say to the guy. If you’re right, instead of being a liar or mistaken, then why do you act like what appears to be so *is* so? I get why I drink what appears to be water, and refuse what appears to be poison; but why the heck do *you* do that? And his reply might be “oh, you caught me; I didn’t really mean that silly thing I’d said; you can tell, because, see, I act sensibly.”

If that’s his reply, then the discussion is of course at an end.

So . . . is that his reply? Was he just lying or mistaken?
  #224  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:29 PM
Slow Moving Vehicle's Avatar
Slow Moving Vehicle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 4,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by the guy that has Machineforce all plexed up
...The nature of the human perspective is experience. This is why we say that we are the universe experiencing itself: A dark cloud is the universe clouding itself; the sun is the universe lighting itself; the rotating planet is the universe spinning itself....
... some woo-merchant on the internet posting mystical-sounding bullshit is the universe wanking itself...
  #225  
Old 07-28-2019, 07:29 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Yes, you keep telling me that it’s irrelevant; but, see, I still disagree.

Say a guy says “that what appears to be separate is really just one thing.” Say he elaborates: “It doesn't matter what "appears" to be so, since there is no discrete water or key”, he says. Maybe he’s right; but maybe he’s lying or mistaken.

Say I watch that guy for a while. Say, too, that he sure does act like what appears to be separate actually is separate: he routinely drinks water, as if it doesn’t just appear to be water but in fact is water; and he refuses to drink poison, as if (a) it appears to be poison instead of water, and (b) it truly is poison instead of water. I watch him, over and over, as he unlocks a door with a key; and, if he’s ever handed what appears to be a coin and not a key, he reacts as if it really is a coin and not a key: swapping it out for what, y’know, appears to be a key.

Now hold on a moment, I say to the guy. If you’re right, instead of being a liar or mistaken, then why do you act like what appears to be so *is* so? I get why I drink what appears to be water, and refuse what appears to be poison; but why the heck do *you* do that? And his reply might be “oh, you caught me; I didn’t really mean that silly thing I’d said; you can tell, because, see, I act sensibly.”

If that’s his reply, then the discussion is of course at an end.

So . . . is that his reply? Was he just lying or mistaken?
Quote:
What it means?

Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field. (Think of standing waves in a body of water.)

There are no discrete things or objects of solid substance; things as we perceive them are merely changing forms and patterns in nature (the universe) as a whole. You are not a small and lonely being lost in a foreign universe; you are a direct expression of the whole of the universe as it currently is; you (as everything else) is a brief movement in the dance of nature. You do not exist independent of the perceived outside; outside and inside are two sides of the same coin.

The seed is no different from the tree. They are the same thing viewed from different perspectives in time. Birth and death are really no different; waking life is really no different from dreamless sleep.

The nature of the human perspective is experience. This is why we say that we are the universe experiencing itself: A dark cloud is the universe clouding itself; the sun is the universe lighting itself; the rotating planet is the universe spinning itself.

The ocean waves; the planet rotates; the sun shines; the heart beats; the stomach digests; the brain thinks; the body acts. These events are no different in nature. The thinker of thoughts is the waver of oceans, not a little man behind the eyes of the body; the waver of the ocean is spontaneous, as is the thinker of thoughts. Nature is not being moved; nature flows without direction; nature is not concerened with tomorrow, for it is dancing today.

Look at a tree, see how it moves in the wind.

Notice your thoughts arising, even the thought "I am thinking."

Notice that the movement of the tree and the movement of thought are two expressions of the same thing.

Stop labeling the tree and yourself; notice that all separation is a consequence of the labeling process; allow all boundaries to dissolve.

Feel the swaying of the tree as much as you feel the arising thoughts and the other bodily sensations.

Feel intuitively that what you refer to as I is a form in the universe experiencing itself.
I feel I have to repost this to underscore the point being made.
  #226  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:03 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I feel I have to repost this to underscore the point being made.
...I don’t get it; I see no point worth mentioning.

I see a distinction without a difference.

The start: “Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field.” Uh, okay. So what? I’d drink water, and refuse poison, if their atoms were like unto discrete balls; I’d also drink water, and refuse poison, if their atoms were more like point-like excitations of a field.

I don’t care whether they’re discrete balls or point-like excitations.

Why would I care? Why should I?

It goes on: “There are no discrete things or objects of solid substance; things as we perceive them are merely changing forms and patterns in nature (the universe) as a whole.” If there were objects of solid substance that are discrete things, then I’d use a steel key to unlock a door and not use a gold coin in that attempt — but if there aren’t discrete-thing objects of solid substance, then I’d...

...wait, what would that mean? As far as I can tell, the folks who say this still act like steel keys are solid objects that unlock doors, and they still act like gold coins are solid objects that don’t unlock doors, as if those keys and those coins are discrete things (and as if doors are solid objects that need to be unlocked, because the people who say that There Are No Discrete Things Or Objects Of Solid Substance still act like physical barriers are solid-object obstacles that block their way).

Let me just stop here for a moment to touch base with you: those two points there, what difference do you think they’d make? If I disagreed with them, I’d (a) drink water and refuse poison while thinking they were different; and I’d (b) use a steel key instead of a gold coin when unlocking a door, thinking they were discrete solid objects. But if I agreed with them, I’d — act the same way?

Why would either of those points matter at all? Like, even a little bit?
  #227  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:52 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Because if either of those were true then it would mean that there is no you or me, that there is no "me" which means that there is no point in doing anything at all since there is no "doer" of the deed, it would all just be the same thing. To use their analogy it would just be the wave on the ocean.
  #228  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:01 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Because if either of those were true then it would mean that there is no you or me, that there is no "me" which means that there is no point in doing anything at all since there is no "doer" of the deed, it would all just be the same thing.
Why? I genuinely don’t get how you can think that follows.

I just said — right there, in the part you’re replying to — that I’d drink water, and refuse poison, if their atoms are discrete balls floating in space; and that I’d drink water, and refuse poison, if their atoms are point-like excitations of a field.

Either way, it’s as if they’re not “the same thing”.

If a steel key and a gold coin are “discrete things or objects of solid substance”, then it makes sense that a guy would use one but not the other to unlock a door. But if a guy (a) tells me that there are no discrete things or objects of solid substance, and he (b) still uses the key, but not the coin, to unlock a door?

Either way, he’s still acting as if they’re not “the same thing”.

Why? Why would he do that? You attribute these views to various people; why, then, do they still drink water and refuse poison? Why do they still use keys, and not coins, to unlock doors? Why don’t they just shrug and say “it’s all just the same thing” and promptly get it wrong? I can of course explain it by figuring they don’t actually believe what you say they do; but how the heck can you explain it?
  #229  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:47 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Well according to the paragraph I linked birth and death are not different from each other, they are two sides of the same coin. I mean I know on the macro level that steel is not gold, but again I think they are referring to the metaphor of the ocean and the wave.
  #230  
Old 08-08-2019, 12:49 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Well according to the paragraph I linked birth and death are not different from each other, they are two sides of the same coin. I mean I know on the macro level that steel is not gold, but again I think they are referring to the metaphor of the ocean and the wave.
Yeah, see, that’s sort of the whole thing, there: on one level, in a metaphorical sense, “it would all just be the same thing.” But on another level, there’s a literal sense in which folks who push that metaphor quickly grant that, heh, no, of course it’s not all the same thing: place a glass of water and a glass of poison before such a guy and he’ll say that, oh, hey, metaphorically they’re the same thing, but actually they’re quite different.

Wasting away behind bars, a guy who sneers at that metaphor will actually use a key to unlock the door. Wasting away behind bars, a guy who does a great job of talking up that metaphor will — still actually use a key to unlock the door; it’s just that he’ll do it while saying there’s a metaphorical sense in which the gold coin and the steel key aren’t different from each other (but adding that, yeah, okay, in another sense, they of course are different from each other, and he acts accordingly).

And that doesn’t seem like an especially interesting position.

You said this boils down to saying that “there is no you or me, that there is no "me" which means that there is no point in doing anything at all since there is no "doer" of the deed, it would all just be the same thing.” But make sure to note that the actual position, the uninteresting position, is this: in one sense, there is no ‘you’ or ‘me’; but in another sense, there is. In one sense, there’s no point in doing anything at all; but in another sense, there of course still is. In one sense, we can metaphorically say there’s no ‘doer’ of the deed and it’s all just the same thing; but in another sense, heh, no, of course none of that is actually true, can you even imagine?

That can be shrugged at.
  #231  
Old 08-12-2019, 05:19 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
There are no discrete things or objects of solid substance; things as we perceive them are merely changing forms and patterns in nature (the universe) as a whole. You are not a small and lonely being lost in a foreign universe; you are a direct expression of the whole of the universe as it currently is; you (as everything else) is a brief movement in the dance of nature. You do not exist independent of the perceived outside; outside and inside are two sides of the same coin.

The seed is no different from the tree. They are the same thing viewed from different perspectives in time. Birth and death are really no different; waking life is really no different from dreamless sleep.

The nature of the human perspective is experience. This is why we say that we are the universe experiencing itself: A dark cloud is the universe clouding itself; the sun is the universe lighting itself; the rotating planet is the universe spinning itself.

The ocean waves; the planet rotates; the sun shines; the heart beats; the stomach digests; the brain thinks; the body acts. These events are no different in nature. The thinker of thoughts is the waver of oceans, not a little man behind the eyes of the body; the waver of the ocean is spontaneous, as is the thinker of thoughts. Nature is not being moved; nature flows without direction; nature is not concerened with tomorrow, for it is dancing today.
The idea here is that since everything is just rearranging from already existing matter than you are the universe, that everything "we" see and experience is all just one big thing. Again this comes from what we know in that everything around us is just rearrangement of existing matter and that nothing exists independently of anything else. Like it is saying that there is no little man in our heads that is the thinker, it's all the same thing, IE the universe.

I need an address to that because according to such logic there is no difference from poison or water.
  #232  
Old 08-12-2019, 05:44 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
The idea here is that since everything is just rearranging from already existing matter than you are the universe, that everything "we" see and experience is all just one big thing. Again this comes from what we know in that everything around us is just rearrangement of existing matter and that nothing exists independently of anything else. Like it is saying that there is no little man in our heads that is the thinker, it's all the same thing, IE the universe.

I need an address to that because according to such logic there is no difference from poison or water.
But the people who you say use such logic do act like there’s a difference between poison and water. If you put a glass of each before a guy like that, he stops joking around and breaks off all There Is No Difference talk while getting it right. (And, again: if he’s locked behind bars, and asks you to hand him the steel key, and you instead give him a gold coin or a handful of sand, he’ll explain to you that, uh, no, see, you got that wrong; There Is A Difference.)

You say those are just rearrangements of existing matter. So what? If a guy says the water and the poison aren’t rearrangements of existing matter, I’ll opt for the water and not the poison while pointing out that There Is A Difference; but if a guy tells me the water and the poison are rearrangements of existing matter, I’ll — opt for the water and not the poison, and point out that There Is A Difference.

So what’s the relevance? If someone tells me the key and the coin and the sand are all rearrangements of existing matter, and so I hand him the coin or the sand when he’s locked behind bars, he’s not going to say “oh, yes, thank you; that’s correct, because, after all, There Is No Difference.”

He’ll say, “no, that’s wrong; give me the other one; There Is A Difference.”
  #233  
Old 08-15-2019, 09:57 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
I don't really know what they will say, but they would likely say they are already free since they are everything.

The idea being that there is no essence or soul or unchanging core to which there can be called a self, just brain activity that we take to be a unified self. If there is no core essence or you, then you must be the universe. The idea here being that there is no separate and atomized "you", just a body which is a collection of parts, which are also part, etc, etc.

You are on about the key and lock and missing the overall point being made by the paragraph, which says you are the key, the lock, everything, hence the "you are the universe".
  #234  
Old 08-16-2019, 05:47 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I don't really know what they will say, but they would likely say they are already free since they are everything.
You’re skipping the part about the poison.

Why don’t they say It Makes No Difference (or: I Am Everything) and drink poison instead of water? If you’re right, and they actually believed all of this, they’d have knocked back a nice tall glass of poison by now...

...but they haven’t. They talk like they would; but then they don’t?

How do you explain that? I know how I’d explain that; I’d say “that’s not what they actually believe; they believe there is a difference between a glass of poison and a glass of water, which explains why they haven’t all poisoned themselves yet.”

If you think they do believe this, then explain why they aren’t dead yet: shouldn’t they, upon looking at water and then at poison and then back at the water and back at the poison, shrug and say, “what’s the difference?”

How do they survive?

Quote:
You are on about the key and lock and missing the overall point being made by the paragraph, which says you are the key, the lock, everything, hence the "you are the universe".
You are on about what they say; I’m asking you to watch what they do. Watch one live his life for a while; what does he do when facing a locked door? I don’t care what he says; he’s free to say there’s no difference between a key and a coin and a handful of sand, people say all sorts of stuff without being right. What does he do?

Does he say “it makes no difference” and try using the coin? Does he say “it makes no difference” and try using the sand? Or does he, for some reason, use the key?

What does he do when given a choice between water and poison? Does he say that it makes no difference, and then drink the poison as readily as he would the water? Or does he, for some reason, drink the water?

If so: WHAT’S THAT REASON? If not: WHY ISN’T HE DEAD YET?
  #235  
Old 08-17-2019, 12:31 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
I don't know what they would choose, I can't really ask them that. What I am getting at is that the main point here is there being no separate and atomized "you" to point to.

https://medium.com/dharma-talk/does-...t-22a2c3c847bb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzvesGB_TI0

From the first link:

Quote:
“what I had was an inner solidity and security, that a was conveyed by what? The brain and all I’d learned to that point, but the brain has to deliver its knowledge to my body.”
This is also to explain what is meant by you are the universe, though probably better than the first two.:

https://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/w...on-do-i-exist/

Last edited by Machinaforce; 08-17-2019 at 12:32 PM.
  #236  
Old 08-18-2019, 12:48 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I don't know what they would choose, I can't really ask them that.
You don’t actually need to ask them. I mean, by all means, do, if you ever get the chance; but until then, just ask yourself this: the guy who makes these odd claims, what’s he living on? Is he routinely drinking water — or if you will, milk; and maybe the occasional cappuccino, with a little cinammon on top?

How has he not died yet? Each day that he sensibly drinks something nourishing, he’s choosing to drink that instead of drinking something else. How does he keep making the right choice? Why hasn’t he shrugged, and said It’s All The Same, and opted for a nice tall glass of poison even once? What prompts him, every time, for years or even decades, to act like there’s a difference?

He’s racked up the same win-loss record as me; I’ve done it by figuring that there’s a difference between water and poison; how has he done it? Again, yes, ask him, if you can; but if you can’t, then ask yourself: why does he act like I do?

It makes perfect sense if he thinks those are separate and distinguishable from each other, such that one is to be refused and the other one accepted. Does it make any sense if he doesn’t actually believe there’s a difference?

(Does he eat sand by the handful? Does he eat his own feces? Ask him when you can; but don’t you already suspect that, no, while he surely gets thousands of chances to err, he somehow keeps managing to conclude that a nice salad or whatever greatly differs from — and is preferable to — the alternatives he rules out?)
  #237  
Old 08-18-2019, 01:29 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
You don’t actually need to ask them. I mean, by all means, do, if you ever get the chance; but until then, just ask yourself this: the guy who makes these odd claims, what’s he living on? Is he routinely drinking water — or if you will, milk; and maybe the occasional cappuccino, with a little cinammon on top?

How has he not died yet? Each day that he sensibly drinks something nourishing, he’s choosing to drink that instead of drinking something else. How does he keep making the right choice? Why hasn’t he shrugged, and said It’s All The Same, and opted for a nice tall glass of poison even once? What prompts him, every time, for years or even decades, to act like there’s a difference?

He’s racked up the same win-loss record as me; I’ve done it by figuring that there’s a difference between water and poison; how has he done it? Again, yes, ask him, if you can; but if you can’t, then ask yourself: why does he act like I do?

It makes perfect sense if he thinks those are separate and distinguishable from each other, such that one is to be refused and the other one accepted. Does it make any sense if he doesn’t actually believe there’s a difference?

(Does he eat sand by the handful? Does he eat his own feces? Ask him when you can; but don’t you already suspect that, no, while he surely gets thousands of chances to err, he somehow keeps managing to conclude that a nice salad or whatever greatly differs from — and is preferable to — the alternatives he rules out?)
My fucking god dude, do you not get it? If Machinaforce was trapped in a cell, of course he would ask for the key. And then he would go back on his BS obsession, because he cannot think straight. You are embarrassing yourself by humoring him and also doing damage by enabling his mental illness.
  #238  
Old 08-18-2019, 11:05 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,639
In the light of day, that last post was intemperate. Apologies, TOWP, I shouldn't have let this thread get under my skin.
  #239  
Old 08-18-2019, 12:10 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
In the light of day, that last post was intemperate. Apologies, TOWP, I shouldn't have let this thread get under my skin.
Oh, no offense taken, whatsoever.
  #240  
Old 08-18-2019, 11:45 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
My fucking god dude, do you not get it? If Machinaforce was trapped in a cell, of course he would ask for the key. And then he would go back on his BS obsession, because he cannot think straight. You are embarrassing yourself by humoring him and also doing damage by enabling his mental illness.
More like not getting at the central part or looking at the last link that I posted.

The idea here is that what we take to be separate and independently existing entities are not so, but rather all made of the same fundamental materials. Nothing has an essence or exists in some sort of atomized way but is made up of parts. So what you think is some unified and unchanging whole is just a collection of parts. We don't exist separate from the universe, we are the universe (made up of the same things as all things), and there is no little man or soul riding around that we can call US. The poison and water analogy falls flat since the question is more about selfhood. If there is no separate and unchanging core to call you then it is all YOU.

That's what I understand their argument to be at least. Like I said, the last link I gave shows more about it.
  #241  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:56 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
We don't exist separate from the universe, we are the universe (made up of the same things as all things), and there is no little man or soul riding around that we can call US.
No, there is definitely a man and soul that we can call US that does not belong to others or is not shared.

If I, (Velocity,) get cancer, I have cancer. Not a bit of you, Machinaforce, is affected.
  #242  
Old 08-19-2019, 05:06 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
The idea here is that what we take to be separate and independently existing entities are not so, but rather all made of the same fundamental materials.
Yes, that’s the stated idea. And my reply is, if the guy stating that idea looks at a coin that’s made of gold atoms, and then at a key that’s made of iron atoms, and back at the gold coin and back at the iron key, and then uses the key instead of the coin in a lock — getting it right pretty much every time — then he’s still acting exactly like someone who takes them to be separate entities.

He acts like there’s a difference between them. He acts like it matters if he uses one or the other. He acts like neither of them is a handful of sand, which he doesn’t seem to believe is made of gold atoms or iron atoms.

Given the choice between drinking water or poison, I act like a guy who takes them to be separate and independent; I act like it makes a difference if I choose one or the other. And, near as I can tell, so does he, or he’d be dead by now.

Quote:
Nothing has an essence or exists in some sort of atomized way but is made up of parts. So what you think is some unified and unchanging whole is just a collection of parts. We don't exist separate from the universe, we are the universe (made up of the same things as all things), and there is no little man or soul riding around that we can call US. The poison and water analogy falls flat since the question is more about selfhood.
The poison-and-water “analogy” can’t fall flat, because it’s not an analogy.

You say: “The idea here is that what we take to be separate and independently existing entities are not so, but rather all made of the same fundamental materials.” I’m saying — not as an analogy, but directly on point — that a guy who disagrees would act like the iron key and the gold coin can be separated from each other and used independently from one another, just like he’ll take the water in one glass to be separate and independent from the poison in the other.

I’m then saying a guy who claims they’re not separate — well, also acts like he can tell the two apart, and acts like it makes a difference whether he chooses one or the other, and will ostentatiously separate them when they’re side-by-side so he can use one instead of the other: exactly as if they’re separable, and as if they can be used independently. He’ll drink the water while pushing away the poison, or put the key in the lock without touching the coin, and that’s not an analogy.

If you want to back away from the general claim and just make a specific one about people, then these would be analogies. But if we’re discussing the claim as it’s been stated? As far as I can tell, it’s already saying something about the iron key and the gold coin and the handful of sand. As far as I can tell, it’s saying something about a glass of water and a glass of poison. And so on.
  #243  
Old 08-21-2019, 01:46 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Yes, that’s the stated idea. And my reply is, if the guy stating that idea looks at a coin that’s made of gold atoms, and then at a key that’s made of iron atoms, and back at the gold coin and back at the iron key, and then uses the key instead of the coin in a lock — getting it right pretty much every time — then he’s still acting exactly like someone who takes them to be separate entities.

He acts like there’s a difference between them. He acts like it matters if he uses one or the other. He acts like neither of them is a handful of sand, which he doesn’t seem to believe is made of gold atoms or iron atoms.

Given the choice between drinking water or poison, I act like a guy who takes them to be separate and independent; I act like it makes a difference if I choose one or the other. And, near as I can tell, so does he, or he’d be dead by now.



The poison-and-water “analogy” can’t fall flat, because it’s not an analogy.

You say: “The idea here is that what we take to be separate and independently existing entities are not so, but rather all made of the same fundamental materials.” I’m saying — not as an analogy, but directly on point — that a guy who disagrees would act like the iron key and the gold coin can be separated from each other and used independently from one another, just like he’ll take the water in one glass to be separate and independent from the poison in the other.

I’m then saying a guy who claims they’re not separate — well, also acts like he can tell the two apart, and acts like it makes a difference whether he chooses one or the other, and will ostentatiously separate them when they’re side-by-side so he can use one instead of the other: exactly as if they’re separable, and as if they can be used independently. He’ll drink the water while pushing away the poison, or put the key in the lock without touching the coin, and that’s not an analogy.

If you want to back away from the general claim and just make a specific one about people, then these would be analogies. But if we’re discussing the claim as it’s been stated? As far as I can tell, it’s already saying something about the iron key and the gold coin and the handful of sand. As far as I can tell, it’s saying something about a glass of water and a glass of poison. And so on.
The claim here is being made about people, which is the one being made here: https://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/w...on-do-i-exist/

Which has more to do with the nature of a self and such, that is why the gold and key analogy fall flat.
  #244  
Old 08-21-2019, 05:44 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
The claim here is being made about people, which is the one being made here: https://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/w...on-do-i-exist/

Which has more to do with the nature of a self and such, that is why the gold and key analogy fall flat.
Now hold on a sec. You’ve mentioned a number of very silly general claims: the bit with the gold and the key isn’t an analogy, but is directly on point as a reply to those very silly general claims. If you want to drop those very silly general claims, and say you don’t take them seriously, and instead just discuss this whole thing about the nature of a self — well, that’s fine, but I’d like for it to be explicit.

You said ‘such appearances are just the illusion of separation but that fundamentally everything is made of the same basic elements.’ And ‘nothing exists independently of anything else because it depends on other things that preceded or surround it to exist’ and ‘I mean scientifically it seems like it makes sense since everything is made of the same atoms at the base level, everything contains the atoms present at the start of the universe. Then heavier elements formed and we have what we see today. So how is everything not the universe then?’

If you’re still curious about those, then I refer you to the gold coin and the iron key: not as analogies, but because they directly bear on those claims — which, again, are (a) very silly and (b) general. If you’re no longer curious about those very silly general claims, but only want to discuss The Nature Of A Self?

...yeah, okay: that link you provided says “Years ago, I was very certain that there was no self, and tried very hard to convince people that there was no self. I couldn’t see back then that this constant need to convince others, this sense that I was right and needed to wake others up, WAS the very self I was denying!” So, two things: one, if he’s right, then he used to believe there was no self — but then he realized there WAS one. (He puts it all in capitals, just like that.) And, two: if he’s wrong about lots of stuff, then I — wouldn’t be a bit surprised?
  #245  
Old 08-24-2019, 08:54 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Now hold on a sec. You’ve mentioned a number of very silly general claims: the bit with the gold and the key isn’t an analogy, but is directly on point as a reply to those very silly general claims. If you want to drop those very silly general claims, and say you don’t take them seriously, and instead just discuss this whole thing about the nature of a self — well, that’s fine, but I’d like for it to be explicit.

You said ‘such appearances are just the illusion of separation but that fundamentally everything is made of the same basic elements.’ And ‘nothing exists independently of anything else because it depends on other things that preceded or surround it to exist’ and ‘I mean scientifically it seems like it makes sense since everything is made of the same atoms at the base level, everything contains the atoms present at the start of the universe. Then heavier elements formed and we have what we see today. So how is everything not the universe then?’

If you’re still curious about those, then I refer you to the gold coin and the iron key: not as analogies, but because they directly bear on those claims — which, again, are (a) very silly and (b) general. If you’re no longer curious about those very silly general claims, but only want to discuss The Nature Of A Self?

...yeah, okay: that link you provided says “Years ago, I was very certain that there was no self, and tried very hard to convince people that there was no self. I couldn’t see back then that this constant need to convince others, this sense that I was right and needed to wake others up, WAS the very self I was denying!” So, two things: one, if he’s right, then he used to believe there was no self — but then he realized there WAS one. (He puts it all in capitals, just like that.) And, two: if he’s wrong about lots of stuff, then I — wouldn’t be a bit surprised?
What he’s saying is that the self he thought he was denying was the very one trying to say that there isn’t one and trying to convince people.

Just like here: http://anandbhatt.skyrock.com/328976...trawberry.html


Where he says that the story is meant to show the illusion of duality and that what we see as options is through our own delusions and that from the objective non human view there are no options.
  #246  
Old 08-24-2019, 09:16 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
What he’s saying is that the self he thought he was denying was the very one trying to say that there isn’t one and trying to convince people.

Just like here: http://anandbhatt.skyrock.com/328976...trawberry.html


Where he says that the story is meant to show the illusion of duality and that what we see as options is through our own delusions and that from the objective non human view there are no options.
So what?

If he’s right, then he (a) used to be certain that there was no self, but (b) later realized that he was wrong and there is a self — “the very self I was denying!”

Now, he may be wrong; maybe he’s lying or mistaken or whatever. But if he’s right, then there is a self, though he used to insist otherwise: a fact that doesn’t seem to bother me, and doesn’t much seem to interest me either. Still, like I was saying, it’s also possible that he’s just wrong about plenty of stuff; that wouldn’t surprise me, and it likewise wouldn’t strike me as terribly interesting.

Why would either possibility interest you? Again, maybe he’s right about there being a self, even though he used to deny it; but maybe he’s wrong about plenty of stuff, because — and stay with me, here — maybe he’s the kind of guy who just, y’know, gets plenty of stuff wrong. Either way: so what?
  #247  
Old 08-25-2019, 08:25 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
So what?

If he’s right, then he (a) used to be certain that there was no self, but (b) later realized that he was wrong and there is a self — “the very self I was denying!”

Now, he may be wrong; maybe he’s lying or mistaken or whatever. But if he’s right, then there is a self, though he used to insist otherwise: a fact that doesn’t seem to bother me, and doesn’t much seem to interest me either. Still, like I was saying, it’s also possible that he’s just wrong about plenty of stuff; that wouldn’t surprise me, and it likewise wouldn’t strike me as terribly interesting.

Why would either possibility interest you? Again, maybe he’s right about there being a self, even though he used to deny it; but maybe he’s wrong about plenty of stuff, because — and stay with me, here — maybe he’s the kind of guy who just, y’know, gets plenty of stuff wrong. Either way: so what?
Because the nature of selfhood is the main issue that I have here. If there is no "soul" or essence to a person or thing then "who" can it be said that I am talking to.

I'm trying my best to relegate all this stuff but it's more like a bunch of notions or intuition in my head, like I can picture it.

I know part of it is psychological in the self being an illusion (doesn't mean not real), that what we take to be a solid and unified form is really just a collection of parts that appear to be a whole. Or to put it another way a product of brain activity that gives the impression of a unified agent. Susan Blackmoore said that it's not like saying that humans don't exist, they do. It's more like the notion of some little man or agent riding around in the body.

And I guess part of that has to do with if there is no core then there is no "you" just a body. That part of that is this feeling that we are a separate and lonely agent acting in a world and independent of everything else, when in reality we are born of it and shaped by it, connected to it all. In that sense you are the universe.

I'm trying my best here but it's a lot of stuff that is pretty out of my depth.
  #248  
Old 08-25-2019, 08:53 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
That part of that is this feeling that we are a separate and lonely agent acting in a world and independent of everything else, when in reality we are born of it and shaped by it, connected to it all. In that sense you are the universe.
“In that sense”, you say.

Do you get that, in another sense, that’s not actually true? That being shaped by something doesn’t necessarily make it that thing? That, ‘in a sense’, one can in fact be connected to stuff without in fact being that stuff? And so on?
  #249  
Old 08-26-2019, 01:21 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
“In that sense”, you say.

Do you get that, in another sense, that’s not actually true? That being shaped by something doesn’t necessarily make it that thing? That, ‘in a sense’, one can in fact be connected to stuff without in fact being that stuff? And so on?
Well put another way:

Quote:
"[A]ccording to the Buddhist point of view, non-attachment is exactly the opposite of separation. You need two things in order to have attachment: the thing you’re attaching to, and the person who’s attaching. In non-attachment, on the other hand, there’s unity. There’s unity because there’s nothing to attach to. If you have unified with the whole universe, there’s nothing outside of you, so the notion of attachment becomes absurd. Who will attach to what?"
Quote:
It is important to note, though, that the Buddhist advice is not to detach from the people in your life or from your experiences, but rather to simply recognize the non-attachment that is inherent to begin with. This is a rather key difference between Buddhist and other religious philosophies. While other religions seek to achieve some state of grace through hard work and active repudiation, Buddhism teaches that we are inherently joyful and that it is simply a matter of surrendering and relinquishing our misguided habits and preconceptions so that we can experience the essential Buddahood that is within us all.

When we reject the illusion that we have a “self” that exists separately and independently from other people and phenomena, we suddenly recognize that there is no need to detach, because we have always been interconnected with all things at all times.
Quote:
To live in non-attachment means that we recognize there was never anything to attach or cling to in the first place. And for those who can truly recognize this, it is indeed a state of joyfulness.
  #250  
Old 08-26-2019, 03:20 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
The beginning of this also makes a mention of being the universe:

https://buddhaimonia.com/blog/let-go-find-peace
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017