Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:I'm glad someone understands Dontaskme. The more he writes the less I understand him so far. He seems to have views that are diametrically opposed to mine for the most part, though I can't always tell, because I'm often not sure just what he's saying.

I was pretty heavy into that kind of stuff at one time so I know where he's coming from. I see it now as a kind of escapism.

Terrapin Station wrote:I don't agree with that in the slightest. I have no idea why you'd believe something like that. Creatures certainly exist that do not have any beliefs or any consciousness at all. Humans could have turned out that way, too. And the world would exist whether there were any living things or not.

I absolutely agree with you Terrapin ...everything exists. There is just everything.

But what I'm talking about is SELF....humans believe they have a self ...some believe that self is separate from other human selves.

Animals and other life don't have the belief in a self.

What this means...is that life has no knowledge of itself. The knowledge of life comes from human language which is an interpretation of life, life is actually unaware of itself, what is aware of life is a human believing it has a self...this is known as self awareness....the life becomes self aware through knowledge...but this is illusion because no one is looking at life....life is known via knowledge, but no one is watching it.

It's there but no one is making it happen, no one is doing it, being it, or seeing it.

It is the happening, the done, the been, the seen.

Another question, sthitapragya.

Scientists don't know what energy is, so why do they believe it exists? Are they irrational?

Dontaskme wrote:But what I'm talking about is SELF....humans believe they have a self ...some believe that self is separate from other human selves.

I think it's clear that we do have selves and that they're distinct from other human selves though. Noting, of course, that selves are dynamic sets of mental phenomena.

Animals and other life don't have the belief in a self.

Humans are animals. Animals with brains pretty close to human brains more than likely have similar mental content, including the phenomena of a self.

What this means...is that life has no knowledge of itself.

That's a huge non sequitur though.

The knowledge of life comes from human language

Again, knowledge is justified true belief. A lot of our knowledge comes from empirical observations. It doesn't make much sense to say that "knowledge of life comes from human language," as if we're acquiring knowledge per se from outside of ourselves.

life is actually unaware of itself

That's just a complete random, bizarre thing to say. What would be the reason to believe something like that?

what is aware of life is a human believing it has a self...this is known as self awareness....the life becomes self aware through knowledge...but this is illusion because no one is looking at life....life is known via knowledge, but no one is watching it.

I'm not sure what you're saying there. That reads kind of gobbledy-gooky to me.

Terrapin,

From a strictly monistic and infinite-eternal POV, what Dam is saying is really quite logical and necessarily true. It also avoids the pitfalls and difficulties that accompany limited dualism (dualism being out of count because it is untenable). Quite clearly, however, that is not our current estate.

Reflex wrote:From a strictly monistic and infinite-eternal POV, what Dam is saying is really quite logical and necessarily true.

Well, just saying that doesn't make it so. You'd need to explain how something he's saying (just pick one thing for an example maybe) is "quite logical and necessarily true." Because it just seems like a bunch of non sequiturs and nonsense to me.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Reflex wrote:From a strictly monistic and infinite-eternal POV, what Dam is saying is really quite logical and necessarily true.

Well, just saying that doesn't make it so. You'd need to explain how something he's saying (just pick one thing for an example maybe) is "quite logical and necessarily true." Because it just seems like a bunch of non sequiturs and nonsense to me.

What we call our “self” is really nothing more than experience experienced through a body-generated structure of ideas, beliefs and memories with which we closely identify. And from our self-identified space-time perspective you're absolutely right: it is a bunch of non sequiturs and nonsense. It doesn't deal with the fact that, illusion or not, it hurts me when I stub my toe and not you. That's why I abandoned it; it doesn't explain anything.

Reflex wrote:What we call our “self” is really nothing more than experience experienced through a body-generated structure of ideas, beliefs and memories with which we closely identify.

That in no way implies that there isn't a self, however, or that selves are not unique to individuals, etc. So how does that make anything Dontaskme said logical or necessarily true (from under the umbrella of his views)?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Reflex wrote:What we call our “self” is really nothing more than experience experienced through a body-generated structure of ideas, beliefs and memories with which we closely identify.

That in no way implies that there isn't a self, however, or that selves are not unique to individuals, etc. So how does that make anything Dontaskme said logical or necessarily true (from under the umbrella of his views)?

Hey, I agree with you! I'm just saying that from a strictly monistic POV, Dam's point of view, what he's saying makes sense. It's linear logic with a base-line of absolute oneness without room for deviation or creativity of any kind. From under the umbrella of his view of absolute oneness, self cannot exist except as an illusion (which, as I said, begs the question).

I Am That: Dialogues of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is a PDF book that enthralled me in the beginning, but I eventually came to see as escapism. Maybe it will help you understand where he's coming from. Zen books like Ask the Awakened and All Else is Bondage might also help.

Like I said, I used to be pretty heavy into that kind of stuff. It was emotionally satisfying but intellectually empty.

Reflex wrote:Hey, I agree with you! I'm just saying that from a strictly monistic POV, Dam's point of view, what he's saying makes sense.

I'm asking you to explain how it makes sense from the perspective of that view, though.

It's linear logic with a base-line of absolute oneness without room for deviation or creativity of any kind. From under the umbrella of his view of absolute oneness, self cannot exist except as an illusion (which, as I said, begs the question).

Okay, explain how the logic work specifically from the perspective of that view. You're just saying it works. I don't buy that it does. So explain how it does, step by step (so that it's actually a logical argument).

I'm actually very much into Zen, by the way. I've been interested in it for over 40 years.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: No, I don't deny existence. No one in their right mind would. But why would you be certain that existence needs a source? Existence just IS. It doesn't seem to need a source. It might, but it might not. So why the certainty?

ROFLMAO!!! You just admitted to the veracity of the God-concept according to classical theism.

Do you seriously believe I am the only theist who said, "God does not exist, but is existence itself"?

Why are you laughing? No one has admitted the the "veracity of the god concept". THis failing of yours seems to "REFLECT" you generalised delusional state.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: But then why call it God? Existence is a perfectly good name for the phenomenon. And why give it spiritual and mystical overtones? Existence is. Dealt and done with. We can try and understand what it is. But why all the woooooooooo about it?
I am honestly puzzled at the need to call something God.
Wait. Maybe you consider existence to be self aware. If that is the case, then we come back to the same problem. Do you think existence is self aware? Or conscious?

It was enough to get you to admit God exists. I'll let you work out the details for yourself.

Clutching at straws.

Terrapin Station wrote:Okay, explain how the logic work specifically from the perspective of that view. You're just saying it works. I don't buy that it does. So explain how it does, step by step (so that it's actually a logical argument).

It's only logical under the umbrella of strict monism: 1+1=1 because there is no "2."

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Zen is the realization of "Not one; not two" so it's not quite the same, IMV, anyway.

Reflex wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Okay, explain how the logic work specifically from the perspective of that view. You're just saying it works. I don't buy that it does. So explain how it does, step by step (so that it's actually a logical argument).

It's only logical under the umbrella of strict monism: 1+1=1 because there is no "2."

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You're saying the the "monism" in question is that "'Everything' is one (numerical) thing"?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Okay, explain how the logic work specifically from the perspective of that view. You're just saying it works. I don't buy that it does. So explain how it does, step by step (so that it's actually a logical argument).

It's only logical under the umbrella of strict monism: 1+1=1 because there is no "2."

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You're saying the the "monism" in question is that "'Everything' is one (numerical) thing"?

Yeah, but a bit more than that. There's a strong emphasis on the one being the process of Ultimate Reality to the exclusion of fact. (Personally, I come somewhere down the middle.)