Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:41 amReality = ALL things.
You think that "ONENESS" represent all things but actually it is only a transcendental illusion within your thinking.
You ignored what is going on inside your brain which is part of "ALL things."
That is why I made the suggestion below which gave an overview of reality.
1. NO, there is
no thinker.
2.
Thinking there is a thinker is the illusion.
3.
The thinker is an appearance along side the thought.
Reality doesn't think it is...IT IS
Reality doesn't have to think about being. It is being.
This above expression is typical of your immature thinking.
You keep conflating and contradicting yourself glaringly without being aware of it.
In one sentence 'there is no thinker' [1] in another you write ' thinking' [2] 'the thinker ..' [3]
Contradicting assertions are very common within Eastern Philosophy, but they are always supported by the explanation there are two different perspectives and senses.
E.g. the Taoist's Wu Wei , i.e. '
action without action' which is seemingly contradicting on the surface but beyond that statement there are two perspectives.
You just cannot jumped in and declared 'there is no thinker' [3] with blinded confidence.
To get to the truth of it, you need to break it down into the following perspectives;
- 1. Common Sense Perspective
Within the common sense perspective, it would be stupid to insist, there is no thinker and thinking by a human being who has a name and a personal identity.
2. Scientific Perspective
Science deals with GENERIC human being.
Science can confirm there is thinking and a thinker in terms of mental processes by a generic human beings.
But Science also tell us the thinker is also a bundle of atoms, electrons & protons, quarks, etc. and thinking is the movements of those particles.
So it is not wrong for me to say that there is no thinking and a thinker but rather there is merely movements within a bundle of particles. But it would be very stupid to insist that is the only truth.
This is what Carroll [& others] proposed there is the macro and the micro. It is critical we qualify the context of our statements and not conflate them.
3. Philosophical Perspective
This is about knowledge re thinking and thinker [thinking self] leverage on the above knowledge and perspectives.
As I had highlighted there are two main perspectives, i.e. ontology and epistemology.
Ontology [Philosophical Realism] as in your case, postulate there is something more permanent to thinking and the thinker extending to the Absolute, Oneness, God and the likes.
My stance is the opposite, i.e. Philosophical Anti-Realism leveraged the psychology of the generic human being.
Thus when I assert 'You think that "ONENESS" represent all things.." that 'you' I referred to is based on the common sense, general and scientific basis, not the philosophical basis.
But you twisted it to the philosophical and insist there is no thinker and then subsequently contradict and mess up your own views with thinking and thinker. In this case, you are conflating and contradicting which is very immature philosophical thinking.
Rightly you should qualify by stating something like,
"
based on my philosophical view [not common sense nor basic science] there is no thinker."
But note that 'philosophical view' of yours is based on thinking and you as the thinker as a matter of fact.
I am insisting your philosophical view [Absolute, God, Oneness, exists] is an emerging illusion just like how a Schizo 'experienced' and think he was God or spoken to God. Difference is your illusion is more refined than the experience of the Schizo.
