Philosophy Now Forum

nsmeless,

I would like you to consider the fact that some of our misunderstandings with each other may, very well, be in our personal word usage. This always takes time to iron out, don’t you think? But perhaps in doing this we can both win.


First let me explain what finitude means to me, because I believe that a whole book could be written about existence and her many connotations. To me finitude rules over what the land of anything that comes and goes, and/or what is born and eventually dies. In other words finitude is time bound, as one of her aspects. (Space bound being another.)

Perhaps you can explain to me than, why you see ‘finite existence’ an oxymoron in some detail as I don’t believe that we will ever understand each other simply through the use of sound bytes.

Things or objects exist only temporarily (very Buddhist), and thoughts are merely, “mind objects.” (Also very Buddhist.)

An object being defined as, something separate from your self. Why is a thought an object? Because it can fade away without taking any part of yourself with it.)

The word ‘existence” is used very loosely these days. Originally, in ancient Greece, existence meant anything that was temporarily, and therefore not eternal. Finitude exists, but has no “essence” of its own. In other words, existence could borrow life temporarily, but was not the originator of Life or rather is not life itself, or Eternal Life the originator of all existent things.

This (above) might be a bit like how the Hindu’s put it. Brahma is the creator, but Brahman is the Eternal or Essential Self. Brahma (finite mind or finitude) is dreaming (AKA creating.)

So Brahman doesn’t merely exist.

Only to the human mind does finitude seem to be infinite because in the timeline finitude represents our personal life could be compared with a fruit fly.

In my way of thinking you are giving the human mind way too much power.

Some of us do not believe that consciousness is owned exclusively by the brain or small mind. Isn’t small mind more like a ‘consciousness of’ objects and thoughts (mind objects)? This small consciousness is dependent upon our physical well-being and so only temporary. If someone hits us really hard in the head, it is lost, at least temporarily.

I believe that your capitalizing Mind is indicative od Mind being more or other than brain mind. Conscious Perspective again makes me think that you are waxing rather Platonic in your word usage. Am I right in this?

Please don’t tell me that something is a ‘fallacy,’ this does me no good. Could you rather show me why it is fallacious? Than we can discuss it further.

I daresay that I have given my ideas some small amount of thought, just as I assume you have. So saying critical thought given to my ideas will prove them wrong is rather an empty assertion.

Lack of personal experience is no proof that something doesn’t exist. I have never actually been to Paris, yet I believe there is a possibility that Paris is actually there.

We are all in need of hypothesis within the land of brain mind. Most of what we believe we know is hypothetical. There are very few scientific laws, and even these are being slowly disproved.

Yes indeed, Eternity is timeless whether commonly accepted of not. True wisdom is not a common commodity. Not existence but Eternal Reality is timeless, or as some have said, “the Immediate Now, “ or Eternity would be “All at once,” or “Complete unto itself.”

Q: 'Time' is something that exists as memories/thoughts of some Perspectives, but not Universal.
The notion/belief of 'eternity' can only exist in those particular Perspectives that perceive existence 'linearly'.

I like what you have said above, if I understand you correctly. However I believe you are seeing Perspective (AKA Soul) as being eternal or transcendent of time. I do not. I see soul rather as borrowing life as well, and being temporary, albeit continuing for a longer span of time, perhaps multiple physical lives. I see Spirit or Ultimate Self as being transcendent of anything temporary.

I don’t believe that we can go to a dictionary to sum up mysticism. That would be a drastic over simplification of a subject that has been discussed for centuries.

Q: In Silence, Truth."

Yes, I can even manage to disagree with this. Truth as ubiquitous/omnipresent, or everywhere Present. So we need not be silent in order to find Truth.

S9

Subjectivity9 wrote:nsmeless,
I would like you to consider the fact that some of our misunderstandings with each other may, very well, be in our personal word usage. This always takes time to iron out, don’t you think? But perhaps in doing this we can both win.

Sure...

To me finitude rules over what the land of anything that comes and goes, and/or what is born and eventually dies.

No meaning detected.

In other words finitude is time bound, as one of her aspects. (Space bound being another.)

"Time bound"? "Space bound"?
No meaning detected.

Perhaps you can explain to me than, why you see ‘finite existence’ an oxymoron in some detail as I don’t believe that we will ever understand each other simply through the use of sound bytes.

Sure, simple, existence is finite, by definition, hence, "finite existence" would be an oxymoron.

Things or objects exist only temporarily (very Buddhist), and thoughts are merely, “mind objects.” (Also very Buddhist.)

An object being defined as, something separate from your self.

ob⋅ject [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt]
–noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
6. Optics. the thing of which a lens or mirror forms an image.
7. Grammar. (in many languages, as English) a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute representing by its syntactical position either the goal of the action of a verb or the goal of a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as ball in John hit the ball, Venice in He came to Venice, coin and her in He gave her a coin. Compare direct object, indirect object.
8. Computers. any item that can be individually selected or manipulated, as a picture, data file, or piece of text.
9. Metaphysics. something toward which a cognitive act is directed.

–verb (used without object) 10. to offer a reason or argument in opposition.
11. to express or feel disapproval, dislike, or distaste; be averse.
12. to refuse or attempt to refuse to permit some action, speech, etc.

–verb (used with object) 13. to state, claim, or cite in opposition; put forward in objection: Some persons objected that the proposed import duty would harm world trade.
14. Archaic. to bring forward or adduce in opposition.

As your definition is not in evidence in the distionary, is that your own personal definition?

Why is a thought an object? Because it can fade away without taking any part of yourself with it.

Nothing can come or go without the entire universe being different for it. Think 'Butterfly Effect".

The word ‘existence” is used very loosely these days. Originally, in ancient Greece, existence meant anything that was temporarily, and therefore not eternal.

Wow, finally the Greek philosophers got something correct.

Finitude exists, but has no “essence” of its own.

Meaningless.
Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.
"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".
"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."
Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"
Plato nodded.
"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.
Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

In other words, existence could borrow life temporarily, but was not the originator of Life or rather is not life itself, or Eternal Life the originator of all existent things.

No meaning detected.

This (above) might be a bit like how the Hindu’s put it. Brahma is the creator, but Brahman is the Eternal or Essential Self. Brahma (finite mind or finitude) is dreaming (AKA creating.)

So Brahman doesn’t merely exist.

I'm not discussing mythology. This is irrelevent.

Only to the human mind does finitude seem to be infinite because in the timeline finitude represents our personal life could be compared with a fruit fly.

Your "finitude" carries no meaning for me. You will either have to translate it into some real concept in my world or let it go. It means nothing to me. There is 'finite', which i understand. The dictionary merely points out that your 'finitude' is just a finite state; nothing more.

In my way of thinking you are giving the human mind way too much power.

The "human mind" is, as i translate the common usage, thoughts. And I give thoughts no "power". 'Thoughts' are perceived like everything else.

Some of us do not believe that consciousness is owned exclusively by the brain or small mind.

I never suggested anything of the sort.

Isn’t small mind more like a ‘consciousness of’ objects and thoughts (mind objects)?

I am unfamiliar with the meaning of "small mind".

This small consciousness is dependent upon our physical well-being and so only temporary.

I am unfamiliar with the meaning od "small consciousness". As far as I understand, there is only one Consciousness. There are no qualities, no quantities (like size), or features or limits to Consciousness. It is a monism, 'perfectly symmetrical'.

If someone hits us really hard in the head, it is lost, at least temporarily.

Not at all. It is we who, perhaps, are lost.

I believe that your capitalizing Mind is indicative od Mind being more or other than brain mind.

There is a 'difference' between the 'thoughts' (brain mind) found in the vicinity of a functioning brain and Mind, the Ground of 'thoughts'.

Conscious Perspective again makes me think that you are waxing rather Platonic in your word usage. Am I right in this?

Nothing Platonic as far as I know. Usually quite the opposite.

Please don’t tell me that something is a ‘fallacy,’ this does me no good. Could you rather show me why it is fallacious? Than we can discuss it further.

Fallacies in thought processes, illogic, poor thinking practices have been observed and enumerated. You can look up the various fallacies of thought on the met anf research for yourself why these thought processes are erroneous. We need not reinvent the wheel here. If something is an error of thought, the 'why's' can be found if interested. Poor and fruitless illogic, for one. It's like asking why you can't eat the rotten peanut. You can find answers all over, or you can eat it and find out. But the end result is that there will be no useful or fruitful outcome of such 'rotten' thought.

I daresay that I have given my ideas some small amount of thought, just as I assume you have. So saying critical thought given to my ideas will prove them wrong is rather an empty assertion.

"Some small amount of thought" is not equivalent to 'critical thought'.
If an idea, or a phrase or train of thought is predicated on a rotten bit of thinking it can be weeded and or repaired.
Saying that "everyone knows (something)" as an opening statement to an 'argument' is a fallacy. It is demonstrably false, and anything properly built on that falsehood will also be in ratio-logical error.

Lack of personal experience is no proof that something doesn’t exist.

I never claimed this. Why argue it?

We are all in need of hypothesis within the land of brain mind.

Oops, rather then "everybody knows", you are offering the same fallacy in your "We all...". It is an untrue statement unless the "we all" to whom you refer is you and your mom, which should be stated.

Most of what we believe we know is hypothetical.

Who's this 'we', again, for whom you speak?
I do not 'believe' that I 'know' anything.

There are very few scientific laws, and even these are being slowly disproved.

Agreed.

Yes indeed, Eternity is timeless whether commonly accepted of not.

Then a more appropriate and descriptive term would be 'timeless' (no time) rather than 'eternal' which implies lots o' time.

True wisdom is not a common commodity.

Not relevent.

Not existence but Eternal Reality is timeless,

'Existence' is all you can perceive, and it is 'timeless' other then in some folk's imagination.
I know of no 'eternal' anything. 'Eternal' implies temporal.
Can't have heads without the tails.

or as some have said, “the Immediate Now, “ or Eternity would be “All at once,” or “Complete unto itself.”

Now! is all there is. Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole Tapestry... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once." - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

Q: 'Time' is something that exists as memories/thoughts of some Perspectives, but not Universal.
The notion/belief of 'eternity' can only exist in those particular Perspectives that perceive existence 'linearly'.

I like what you have said above, if I understand you correctly. However I believe you are seeing Perspective (AKA Soul) as being eternal or transcendent of time.

Nope. Conscious Perspective is momentary (timeless). So is all of existence ever. They are one and the same. One moment = one percept.
Conscious Perspective is the Ground wherein 'time' is perceived.

I do not.

Neither do I.

I see Spirit or Ultimate Self as being transcendent of anything temporary.

If by 'spirit' you mean 'Consciousness', I'm inclined to agree. There actually is nothing 'temporary'. All 'things perceived' are done so 'timelessly', not 'temporally'.

I don’t believe that we can go to a dictionary to sum up mysticism.

Nah, it's a relatively simply defined word. The practices and data and results can get complicated, but I see no reason to redefine the word. The dictionary meanings of such simple terms facilitate communication immensely. No need to reinvent the wheel. If you find something beyond the definitions accepted, perhaps another word for it? 'Duality' can be replaced by 'context' to be nore accurate in accord with modern understanding, for instance.
Mysticism, metaphysics, ontology, all simple words easily defined, at least until some radcal new understanding renders them obsolete (like 'causality').

"In Silence, Truth."

Yes, I can even manage to disagree with this.

You are trying way too hard...
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Conscious Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Conscious Perspective!" - Book of Fudd (9:11)
You need not go out of your way to demonstrate the Universality of this Law. It has not been refuted yet.

Truth as ubiquitous/omnipresent, or everywhere Present. So we need not be silent in order to find Truth.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "Truth".
What you say is 'true' if you equate "Truth" with existence. You always 'find' more stuff/Truth.
On the other hand, "Truth" is never 'found', so we obviously are differing Perspectives of the matter.
"The Tao/Truth that can be found/spoken is not the Tao/Truth!" -Lao Tsu

These posts are getting a bit lengthy. Perhaps we can focus down to a specific question to examine at a time (on topic), the most interesting?

nsmeless wrote:I 'know' no such thing.

Okay, what do you perceive yourself as?

What is right! ('Who' is ego!) (or was Who on first??)

Whats 'ego', Freud's? Is this the same as mind or consciousness?

I am Conscious Perspective.

Fair enough. And what from your perspective do you conceive of your conscious to be?

What do you think you are, one body floating around in an 'external world' with other bodies floating around in their external worlds, everyone perceiving each other as 'external'??

Well they're walking mainly, but yes I think of myself as a self-conscious body in the world, along with lots of others like me and loads of conscious bodys as well.

Maybe you are a 'me' floating around inside a (-n external?) body, as in 'my' body? (Damned persistent Aristotelian ghosts!)

Unlikely in the sense I think you mean but true in a sense, given we have language.

Perhaps, as some do not perceive the 'connection', they imagine autonomy?

Depends what you mean by "autonomy"?

Thats the 'feeling', anyway...

What feeling? The one where you think mind is outside of being a body?

I am Conscious Perspective, by which the Universe exists as a 'unity', like a 'tapestry' of which 'this' body and 'that' body and this 'galaxy' and that 'hamburger' and this 'thought' and that 'dream' are integral features of the complete momentary (Now!) Tapestry (Big Bang) of Universe.

We may well be some of these things but the 'Universe' does not exist because of thought but because of body. That thought is being replaced by 'thinking' is a product of language I guess, but don't think this a necessarily bad thing.

And 'I' am the sum-total of all Conscious Perspectives of 'me'.

You'd have to explain more. Do you mean you have my 'conscious perspective' within you?

If i translate your question correctly, my response is;
All that live, and perhaps more, are Conscious Perspectives.
All that exists, exist as/in Consciousness/Mind.

Okay. So no difference in our cp compared to an ants? Rocks exist, are they cp?

Plural???

You don't recognise different beings?

Ok, thats fine, but it cannot be supported scientifically or philosophically, and this is a philosophy site.

It is and as such I think the phenomenological approach has been long ignored.

'Materialism' has been refuted/discredited/obsolete for so long...

So whilst I'm dubious about the claim that "'Materialism' has been refuted/discredited/obsolete for so long..." and especially dubious when you then use Science to support your metaphysic, I do think the idea of a metaphysical 'scientific' reductionism of 'mind' should be abandoned in philosophy, and think it probably largely has, at least in academia. As such I think it matters not whether we live in a supra-mind/simulation/perspectival...etc. As the phenomena is that I am a damagable body in a world, so I am. And I am amazed that others still want some 'connection' to others when the sheer fact of being a language user means there are others and I can perceive them.

Don't know what you mean.

Not to sure myself as these are newish thoughts. But I have a distinction between self-conscious and conscious when it comes to beings. Since I wish to not appeal to unperceivables I understand the 'self' as probably a construct of our communication ability, i.e. the sense of yourself as other than to yourself, i.e. myself, or something like this.

The ego perceives distinction between subject and object. Other than through the 'ego lens' there are no such distinctions.

Okay. Do you mean the sense of being that we have, i.e. we are the being that 'cares' about things or objects? Do you mean you do not recognise objects as such? What do you recognise them as?

All that can be perceived is Mind.
We directly perceive what is (including 'thoughts'), the ego is thoughts and beliefs about what is 'directly perceived', interpretations, which adds 'definition'.

So the 'ego' is two things, thoughts and beliefs? What are thoughts in your ideas? What is doing the 'directly perceiving'?

All that is perceived is 'Mind'; "your" body, "your" thoughts, ALL that is perceived...
There is no inherent distinctions to be drawn (but by ego, that which perceives 'subject'/'object' distinctions) between 'your" body and the Andromeda galaxy.

Apart from one being a small primate living a few million(?) light years from the other which is a vast mass of a hundred billion stars?

All are limited perceptions of Mind.

You think these ideas are limited?

It is ego that discerns 'subject/object' dichotomy.
Huh?

What dichotomy? In the 'mind'? That there are objects appears obvious?

'Language' (another perceived item/feature) is not necessary for the egoPerspective to perceive 'subject/object' distinction, nor is it necessary to form 'beliefs' about it.

So there is 'subject', 'objects' to perceive? We agree?

"To be raised" in conversation, perhaps, requires language...

Definitely I'd guess.

Oops, I meant Conscious Perspective.

Still not sure what you mean by this.

Than thats what you should have said;
"Some people 'know/believe' (according to the results of my polling of 4 or 5 people (myself included)) the following...
I repeat, "everybody knows..." is a fallacy when/wherever found (in the current context).

I stand corrected and abashed but guess the number to be more around a hundred.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. I cannot respond. I see no "avoidable fallacy".
"Physics works in Language"??

The idea that Physics does not work at the level of description of common languages, its 'spoken' in Mathematics which is a small subset of Symbolism and tested by experimentation upon the external world. So whether the physicists can make an understandable model in common language is neither here nor there as the Math works and the experiments and technologies prove them. It may well be the case that physics will never makes a model that can be explicable in common parlance, without paradox, as we are talking about the external world unperceivable to the body, unless aided by science. That the body perceives more than our current mindsets allow is true I think. And that Heideggers questions about 'thinking' and 'thoughts' still holds I think.

What's your 'problem' with language? Why capitalize it?

Because I'm unsure what 'language' refers too any more in philosophy.

It is just one more perceived feature of the UNI(one!)verse. Because you repeat your magic mantra "in the external world" (rather than support it scientifically or philosophically), don't make it more that a 'creation' of words and notions and feelings and beliefs.

Not too me. The universe appears to be pretty vast and full of objects. I appear to be an object that I can influence in a way that I cannot do with all the other objects, i.e. I think and it happens. This does not appear to be the case with the rest of the world. My guess is, like Berkeley, you'd have trouble with doors. I aslo think there might be some solipcism in your philosophy somewhere but admit I could be wrong there.

nsmeless,

Thank you for your lengthy answer, but on your suggestion I will reduce to a few points that I find most interesting. I have saved your post and perhaps we can get into what I didn’t answer some other time. (I actually did write quite a lengthy answer to you, but it became unweildly.)

The reason that I say finite existence even though I could easily have said just “finitude” is to aid others in understanding me. Communication after all is a two way street.

So that, even though it seems duplicitous to say ‘finite existence,’ I hope you can realize that from my point of view, way too many people smear existence right across Eternity erroneously or even include existence as being a part of Eternity. It is not.

As small a detail as this may seem to you, it is a major, even a pivotal, mistake in my way of seeing it; not to keep finitude and Eternity from bleeding into each other.

If the word finitude and the word existence were to mean the exact same thing within my paradigm, and they do, than they would not contradict each other, would they? Therefore they would not be an oxymoron.

Let me just say this, however, that Ultimate Truth and Meaning are synonymous. So if you are seeking any truth whatsoever, no matter how small or insignificant what you are seeking may seem to another, then you are in fact seeking Meaning, IMO.

Okay, so far so good. Your long, suffering dictionary, you, and I agree on what the dictionary said. But it/you have stopped short, or overlooked a very important point.

I am saying that all of these objects are temporary or impermanent. No, I am not alone in my definition. Just to name one very large group that agrees with me, the Buddhists do.

If you won’t accept objects are coming and going, then I bet you will except that they are changing. Objects change, and for all due purposes become unrecognizable as being what they previously were. So one might sat a dead goat isn't really a goat anymore. He is meat.

No body really knows what that darn butterfly of yours is up to, or if it in fact is actually makes any measurable effect on the stock market.

Thank you for this little tale about Diogenes. He was a profound fellow, head and shoulders above Plato. Often a lot is lost in the translation, this stuff being so doggoned subtle. But I believe that Diogenes may have been speaking about something deeper than just emptiness, as in the emptiness that is the opposite of fullness. He may very well have been speaking of an emptiness that is even empty of emptiness much as Nagarjuna, a great mind.

Advaitism, the largest branch of Hinduism, is not mythology. Very often the ancients personified very profound understandings in order to communicate this exceeding subtle knowledge.

If you give the human mind and her thoughts no power, what do you give power to, the soul? Who may I ask agrees with you? Fair is fair, you asked me.

One last thing, LaoTzu did not say in that quote that the Truth could not be found. He only said that it couldn't be spoken. IMO

S9

Arising_uk wrote:Whats 'ego', Freud's?

I find that ego equates to 'thought'.
Ego is a Perspective.
Ego is the Perspective that perceives 'subject/object' dualities.

Is this the same as mind or consciousness?

If, by 'mind' you refer to 'thoughts', then yes.
No, I'm not referring to Consciousness, nothing can be said about Consciousness, it is ineffable,

I am Conscious Perspective.

Fair enough. And what from your perspective do you conceive of your conscious to be?

I do not 'have' a consciousness, Consciousness 'has' me! *__-

“We do not possess an ''ego'', we are possessed by the idea of one.” -Wei Wu Wei

And 'I' am the sum-total of all Conscious Perspectives of 'me'.

You'd have to explain more. Do you mean you have my 'conscious perspective' within you?

All Perspectives are unique, by defiition.
There is but one Consciousness.
The same Consciousness that is the Conscious part of this Conscious Perspective is the same Conscious in that (you) Conscious Perspective.
Whatever becomes manifested to youPerspective is 'available' to this Perspective as we are one Consciousness. Think empathy.

If i translate your question correctly, my response is;
All that live, and perhaps more, are Conscious Perspectives.
All that exists, exist as/in Consciousness/Mind.

Okay. So no difference in our cp compared to an ants? Rocks exist, are they cp?

As I said, all Conscious Perspectives are unique. So they are all 'different' from one another. It is not a hierarchy.
What color could you remove from the Mona Lisa without altering the entire painting as a whole?

Plural???

You don't recognise different beings?

The referrence was to "consciousnesses", not 'beings'.

As the phenomena is that I am a damagable body in a world, so I am.

You are exactly as you perceive yourself, a feature of a world exactly as you perceive it to be (and so much more), from youPerspective.

Don't know what you mean.

Not to sure myself as these are newish thoughts. But I have a distinction between self-conscious and conscious when it comes to beings. Since I wish to not appeal to unperceivables I understand the 'self' as probably a construct of our communication ability, i.e. the sense of yourself as other than to yourself, i.e. myself, or something like this.

It is the ego that perceives a difference between 'subject' and 'object'. Without the perceptions of the egoPerspective, all perceived is seamlessly One; the traditional experience of 'enlightenment'. There is even talk, now, of 'scientific enlightenment'...
The perceptions of ego (fall from grace) is tantamount to peering through a 'grid' and believing that all those 'apparently' seperate 'bits' are actually 'seperate' bits.

The ego perceives distinction between subject and object. Other than through the 'ego lens' there are no such distinctions.

Okay. Do you mean the sense of being that we have, i.e. we are the being that 'cares' about things or objects?

The 'distinction' to which I refer, is the sense/thought that things are truly distinct from, and do not affect, other things that aren't somehow 'attached'.
QM has found that 'things' do affect other things, lightyears away, instantaneously!
Yet no one can see the connection that there must be, if still clinging to an obsolete paradigm.

Do you mean you do not recognise objects as such? What do you recognise them as?

Of course! Within a certain context, a hammer is a hammer and a duck is a duck and you use the hammer to fix the duck and life appears to keep on rolling...

All that can be perceived is Mind.
We directly perceive what is (including 'thoughts'), the ego is thoughts and beliefs about what is 'directly perceived', interpretations, which adds 'definition'.

So the 'ego' is two things, thoughts and beliefs?

'Beliefs', like so many 'structures' can appear within 'thoughts'. 'Beliefs are perceived by egoPerspective.

What are thoughts in your ideas?

I'd guess that thoughts are self apparent; the dialog/memories that are found in the vicinity of a functioning brain.
'Thoughts' are what we perceive as 'thoughts'.

What is doing the 'directly perceiving'?

Soul, Conscious Perspective.

All that is perceived is 'Mind'; "your" body, "your" thoughts, ALL that is perceived...
There is no inherent distinctions to be drawn (but by ego, that which perceives 'subject'/'object' distinctions) between 'your" body and the Andromeda galaxy.

Apart from one being a small primate living a few million(?) light years from the other which is a vast mass of a hundred billion stars?

Heh, and thats another valid Perspective.

All are limited perceptions of Mind.

You think these ideas are limited?

All that is perceived, all in the Universe/existence, is a limited perception. We cannot see the elephant from all Perspectives at once as 'we' (perceived selves) are the limited unique perspectives rather than the one Consciousness. Our very limitations are that which allow us to perceive (apparent) 'differentiation' from the 'undifferentiated potential' of Mind.

It is ego that discerns 'subject/object' dichotomy.
Huh?

What dichotomy? In the 'mind'? That there are objects appears obvious?

The dichotomy of an 'in here' and an 'out there', of a 'beauty' and an 'ugly', of a 'you are worthy of my love and compassion' and 'he/she is not', etc...

Is it 'perspective' thats giving you trouble?
Look up 'perspective' in the dictionary and consider every definition as applicable when I use the term. We are Conscious Perspectives.
The same Consciousness peeking through every eye (perspective) that beholds the elephant...

It may well be the case that physics will never makes a model that can be explicable in common parlance, without paradox,

'Reality' has always been 'greater' then the abilities of 'common parlance'. Science and philosophy do not 'dumb down' to accomodate to "common parlance". Yes, of course there are a few who attempt to translate, but that is not what the minds on the cutting edge hold as a constraint. "Common parlance" grows and transforms in accord with newly updated understandings of the Universe.

The universe appears to be pretty vast and full of objects.

Certainly no disagreement from here.

I appear to be an object that I can influence

Oops, a 'ghost' in the machine...
Logically, this sentence is devoid of meaning!

I think and it happens.

And somehow you think that the 'happening' is somehow (causally) connected to the 'thinking'? Is it magic? I see no strings...

See; Benjamin Libet & Free Won't

I aslo think there might be some solipcism in your philosophy somewhere but admit I could be wrong there.

Not at all.

Subjectivity9 wrote:So that, even though it seems duplicitous to say ‘finite existence,’ I hope you can realize that from my point of view, way too many people smear existence right across Eternity erroneously or even include existence as being a part of Eternity. It is not.

But if another perceives it as such, then is is exactly that, from that Perspective, and as such, a 'real' feature of Reality'complete Universe.
Everything is true.

As small a detail as this may seem to you, it is a major, even a pivotal, mistake in my way of seeing it; not to keep finitude and Eternity from bleeding into each other.

Just because Perspectives are unique, or quite apparently contradictory, they are both valid and true, in context.
Someone else being 'wrong' doesn't make you 'righter'.
Fom here, I haven't a clue as to your meaning, as i see nothing in my perceptions that can be likened to an 'eternal', so the notion is meaningless to me.

If the word finitude and the word existence were to mean the exact same thing within my paradigm, and they do, than they would not contradict each other, would they? Therefore they would not be an oxymoron.

Ok, they would now be redundant.

Let me just say this, however, that Ultimate Truth and Meaning are synonymous.

Ok, I guess that they are yours to define as you like.
I would ordinarily consider them to be diametric opposites; 'meaning' is in the eye of the beholder and (whatever you consider) "Ultimate Truth" (to be) wpuld, by definition, transcend those beholder eyes.

So if you are seeking any truth whatsoever, no matter how small or insignificant what you are seeking may seem to another, then you are in fact seeking Meaning, IMO.

I thought that folks that were "searching for Truth" could have no preconceived notions such as 'limitations' that you suggest. Truth is Truth. I'd rather use the term Reaity, if you refer Truth to existence/the complete Universe. Truth is a term that I find best left to 'believers'/religion.

I am saying that all of these objects are temporary or impermanent.

We probably arent disagreeing, but the word 'temp-o-rary' includes the 'temp' (and 'tempo') of 'temporal time' (yes, redundant) which is not a Universal feature. But for closure, here, I'm willing to go with veeeeeeeery temporary, so much so as to be completely 'time-less'.

No, I am not alone in my definition. Just to name one very large group that agrees with me, the Buddhists do.

Zing, zinggg, zinnnggggg!!! I am fallacy proof!! (Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority.)
There is much in Buddhist dogma that has poorly withstood the blinding light of modern science; the whole linear temporal appearance that supports the notions of karma and reincarnation, for instance. But thats another thread.

If you won’t accept objects are coming and going, then I bet you will except that they are changing.

Of course stuff comes and goes; the lowly quantum leaping electrons demonstrate that.
Nothing ever changes, everything is always different.

Objects change,

Like in a movie, the 'motion' is all Perspective. Every frame of film (or digits) is quite static; just like moments/percepts.

and for all due purposes become unrecognizable as being what they previously were. So one might sat a dead goat isn't really a goat anymore. He is meat.

Different perspectives in/as different moments. No 'moment' can change/be changed. All moments, ever, are like those quantumly discrete film frames. Nothing actually 'changes' other than Perspective.

No body really knows what that darn butterfly of yours is up to, or if it in fact is actually makes any measurable effect on the stock market.

Measurement instruments are always improving and as such find new stuff to measure. Perception = existence.
Not everything that exists is measurable.

Thank you for this little tale about Diogenes. He was a profound fellow, head and shoulders above Plato. Often a lot is lost in the translation, this stuff being so doggoned subtle. But I believe that Diogenes may have been speaking about something deeper than just emptiness, as in the emptiness that is the opposite of fullness. He may very well have been speaking of an emptiness that is even empty of emptiness much as Nagarjuna, a great mind.

The neat thing about these little stories is that we can see all sorts of different meanings at different times, depending, of course, on the 'eye of the beholder'! *__-
"Empty of emptiness" doesnt sound like it would hold up to much critical scrutiny; sounds more like cultspeak/religionspeak.

Advaitism, the largest branch of Hinduism, is not mythology.

I'm sorry, but I do not think this the time or place to debate the idiosynchrocies of Vedantic (Advaita is a branch) philosophies.

If you give the human mind and her thoughts no power, what do you give power to, the soul?

The human brain is perceived and thoughts are perceived. We perceive, 'we' are not the source.
'Power' is whatever you think it is. 'Power' goes to this computer so that it might function. The word 'power' has so many definitions, you would have to be much more precise for me to answer intelli-gently.
The 'Soul' is Conscious Perspective, perceiver of Mind. If there is such a thing as 'power' (and as it is perceived, it exists), 'we' perceive it, that we 'wield' it (are 'doers') is a vanity of egoPerspective. Of course, 'we' might have different definitions of 'we'...

Who may I ask agrees with you? Fair is fair, you asked me.

I will not be seduced into offering fallacies. You are seeking the fallacy of authority.
Throughout history, truth goes through three stages;
The first is it is met with ridicule. (messengers are demeaned and discounted)
Second it is met with hostility. (messengers are shot)
The third is that...
"everyone knew it all along"!

One last thing, LaoTzu did not say in that quote that the Truth could not be found. He only said that it couldn't be spoken. IMO

Gotta read between the lines; pull it all together from all disparate venues, contextualize, find where all the lines intersect, and vise versa.

Last card over, we don't 'find' the Truth, there is realization that we are Truth.
peace

nameless,

Perhaps many things appear to be true or untrue from altering perspectives, as you probably meant to say, because obviously everything isn’t true. For instance, a turtle isn’t a human being no matter how you look at it. But, I do think we have to be open to the whole idea, and its ramifications, that a more limited truth may very well be situational.

Q: “To everything there is a season.” Ecclesiastes

Yes, but perhaps labeling someone else’s ideas is a mistake in itself, better just to say your side of it, or even asking for a further explanation. Don’t your think? This is a little like “Women are from Venus, and men are from Mars.” Which gender is the right gender?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

You are not alone in your notion about Eternity. For many people this idea seems to come at them from out of left field and hit them right in the face like a banana cream pie.

But I would say to you, because millions of people over a number of centuries have based their lives on just such ideas, It would probably be advisable to at least take a look at it.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Sometimes redundancy has its uses.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Of course, it would be my decision to say what gives my life meaning, and even to define what meaning actually is. (At least for me.)

But, I believe that one truth or another pretty much gives everyone’s life it’s meaning. You might say no, it is love that gives my life meaning. But than, wouldn’t it be your ideas about what love is, and your ideas about whether you had love or not, what really gave your life it’s meaning? So it may very well be our personal truths that make our lives worth living, (AKA gives life it’s meaning.)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I do believe that Ultimate truth transcends individual translation. It is only a more limited truth, a brain truth that seems to be up for grabs.

You are bleeding limited truth into Ultimate Truth IMO. This is a little bit like what I spoke of earlier, concerning existence and Eternity. Ultimate Truth isn’t a jigsaw puzzle made up of a lot of little lesser truths finally all put back together.

Limited truths are more like an echo. An echo has no true essence of it’s own. It is temporary, and borrows its existence.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

It may be pretty much impossible to get completely away from preconception. We must however be flexible enough to realize that these preconceptions will probably (more than likely) change along the way.

“Reality” is good for me. Although you probably will admit that, when you finally realize this “Reality” (Realization, another word for this same thing), that it will also be True or True Reality.

I see religion as being someone believing without seeing, and/or being stubborn enough to sticking with what is merely comfortable. Obviously a seeker after “Reality” does neither of these, “In the best of all worlds.”

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I believe that time is merely a concept.

You know that some yogis believe that every inhalation is a birth and every exhalation is a death. Talk about very temporary.

Perhaps this is because our thoughts are very much tied up with our breathing, hence so many breathing exercises in yoga in order to control thoughts. (Pranayama)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

You are misunderstanding this fallacy. Look it up again, please.

You can refer to an authority, as long as it is a legitimate authority. I looked this one up in two separate books. It said that, you wouldn’t want to quote an authority outside of his discipline. In other words, you wouldn’t quote Einstein as an authority on health issues.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Nothing ever changes?

No, I believe it is, “Nothing is ever lost. It only changes.” (Even that is now in question.)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Are you now saying that there is no space? Of course Ultimately, this is also True. But in finitude, time and space are a given. Without change there would be no finitude, because finitude is a process not a thing.

Of course, Ultimately finitude is merely a misunderstanding of Eternity.

In my way of seeing this, we are speaking of two different dimensions, which cannot be nixed and matched.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

No moment is changed. It is perspective that of course changes. But this is only true from the eternal perspective. When speaking from within finitude there is a whole other way of seeing. Moments are time moments.

Eternity and finitude are like oil and water. No matter how much you mix and match them, they remain independent of each other in perspectives. Mixing them together only breeds confusion.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

You seem to have some ideas about what should and should not be discussed, or not, as philosophy. But let me just gently remind you that, metaphysics is a large branch of philosophy, and look around you, we are on a metaphysic thread.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Bhagavad Gita, “Know this, Arjuna. You are not the doer.”

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I am very good with metaphors, in fact excellent, if I must say so. See between the lines isn’t quite the same as adding your own lines. I mean this in a good way.

I am quite versed in Taoism. So we may disagree, but it won’t be because I am clueless.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Yes, We are Truth ultimately.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Peace to you too, my new found friend,

S9

Subjectivity9 wrote:nameless,

Perhaps many things appear to be true or untrue from altering perspectives, as you probably meant to say, because obviously everything isn’t true.

Actually, i say exactly as I mean to say.
Everything is true, in context. Simple and elegant.

For instance, a turtle isn’t a human being no matter how you look at it.

If some Conscious Perspective perceives that turtle to be human, then that is one feature of the turtle's definition. An elephant is not a hose, unless you are blind and feeling the trunk; not a tree trunk unless touching the leg. When all these perceptions are sum-totalled, the 'complete elephant' can be understood. All individual Perspectives are limited.

Yes, but perhaps labeling someone else’s ideas is a mistake in itself, better just to say your side of it, or even asking for a further explanation. Don’t your think? This is a little like “Women are from Venus, and men are from Mars.” Which gender is the right gender?

Are you referring to something that i said? It doesn't sound like it. If you offered 'context', perhaps?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

This is not 'context'.

But I would say to you, because millions of people over a number of centuries have based their lives on just such ideas, It would probably be advisable to at least take a look at it.

Since you do not include context, I'm going to have to take a generic guess that I have already 'looked' at those ideas.
Took a look. Millions of people think all sorts of crap, so? Another fallacy.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Sometimes redundancy has its uses.

I certainly cannot argue the truth of this, especially as you include no context.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Of course, it would be my decision to say what gives my life meaning, and even to define what meaning actually is. (At least for me.)

Yup.

But, I believe that one truth or another pretty much gives everyone’s life it’s meaning. You might say no, it is love that gives my life meaning. But than, wouldn’t it be your ideas about what love is, and your ideas about whether you had love or not, what really gave your life it’s meaning? So it may very well be our personal truths that make our lives worth living, (AKA gives life it’s meaning.)

Whatever, 'all meaning' is in the eye of the beholder.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I do believe that Ultimate truth transcends individual translation. It is only a more limited truth, a brain truth that seems to be up for grabs.

You are bleeding limited truth into Ultimate Truth IMO. This is a little bit like what I spoke of earlier, concerning existence and Eternity. Ultimate Truth isn’t a jigsaw puzzle made up of a lot of little lesser truths finally all put back together. Limited truths are more like an echo. An echo has no true essence of it’s own. It is temporary, and borrows its existence.

All depends on your definition of Truth.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

It may be pretty much impossible to get completely away from preconception. We must however be flexible enough to realize that these preconceptions will probably (more than likely) change along the way.

Did I say something about "preconceptions"? I can't find any reference/context within that string of percentage signs.

“Reality” is good for me. Although you probably will admit that, when you finally realize this “Reality” (Realization, another word for this same thing), that it will also be True or True Reality.

Don't know what you mean. "Reality" is all you have, that which is 'real' for you.

I believe that time is merely a concept.

In the eye of the beholder.

You know that some yogis believe that every inhalation is a birth and every exhalation is a death. Talk about very temporary.

There are all sorts of 'beliefs' that have meaning to the believers.
That particular one means nothing to me. Very poetic, perhaps.
Yoga is a means to transcend 'beliefs'/ego.

Perhaps this is because our thoughts are very much tied up with our breathing, hence so many breathing exercises in yoga in order to control thoughts. (Pranayama)

Not the way that I see it. Breath control relaxes the body so it doesnt distract from meditation. I do not see such ties between thoughts and breathing. Thoughts do not stop when breathing stops.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

You are misunderstanding this fallacy. Look it up again, please.

You can refer to an authority, as long as it is a legitimate authority. I looked this one up in two separate books. It said that, you wouldn’t want to quote an authority outside of his discipline. In other words, you wouldn’t quote Einstein as an authority on health issues.

Sorry, there is no exception for the 'quality' of the 'authority'. You, and your books are in error. Saying that the relativity equations are valid because Einstein was a genius and knew his stuff is a fallacy. It is up to me to critically examine those equations and come to my own conclusion.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam):
using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

Nowhere does it account for the 'quality' of the 'authority'.
The misunderstanding is yours.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Are you now saying that there is no space?

I don't know. I searched all through those percentage signs and found no quotes for reference.
A possible reply might be a repetition (redundancy can be useful?) of; EVERYTHING EXISTS, in context. If it is perceived, it exists. Anything that you can name, conceive, perceive, exists.

Of course Ultimately, this is also True. But in finitude, time and space are a given. Without change there would be no finitude, because finitude is a process not a thing.

'Processes' are illusory. Nothing can actually 'move' in spacetime.
Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
You earlier asked for someone who agrees, I feel free to offer these essays as I have problems and disagreements with all of them, yet there is evidence presented that can be found to 'elucidate' some of my statements here..

In my way of seeing this, we are speaking of two different dimensions, which cannot be nixed and matched.

A good theory is all inclusive.
Can the dimensions of 'length' and 'width' and 'height' be "mixed and matched"?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

No moment is changed. It is perspective that of course changes. But this is only true from the eternal perspective. When speaking from within finitude there is a whole other way of seeing. Moments are time moments.

Moments are percepts, a unit of perception.

Eternity and finitude are like oil and water. No matter how much you mix and match them, they remain independent of each other in perspectives. Mixing them together only breeds confusion.

Confusion arises with error. There is no evidence of an 'eternal', it remains no more than a 'belief'. There is no Perspective of an 'eternal/infinite'.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

You seem to have some ideas about what should and should not be discussed, or not, as philosophy. But let me just gently remind you that, metaphysics is a large branch of philosophy, and look around you, we are on a metaphysic thread.

I only eschew fallacy. I do not limit subject whatsoever. Philosophy, as I understand it, is critical thought and logic. Fallacr is considered error on critical thought/logic. Yes, I eschew erroneous thinking, and point it out for correction. I pick the fly from the pudding also.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Bhagavad Gita, “Know this, Arjuna. You are not the doer.”

I do not know what you are referring to, but I definitely agree that we are not 'doers' (other than as perceived by egoPerspective).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I am very good with metaphors, in fact excellent, if I must say so. See between the lines isn’t quite the same as adding your own lines. I mean this in a good way.

I also have poetic and editorial license.

I am quite versed in Taoism. So we may disagree, but it won’t be because I am clueless.

I never suggested that you are 'clueless'.
I happen to be very much in agreement with Taoist principles and understandings as seen HERE. (Sans the 'beliefs', of course.)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Yes, We are Truth ultimately.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Peace to you too, my new found friend,

S9

And unto you, peace.

Nameless,

You beat this idea of context to death and I still don’t get what you are getting at. Since everything is in one context or another, does that mean that absolutely nothing is ever wrong? Would it be okay for me to walk in front of a oncoming, speeding car because there is no such thing as an error, or an erroneous act? Would I not bleed?

Why would Conscious Perspective perceive a turtle to be human, is it foolish?

In your word usage, what is the difference between belief and perspective?

Have you practiced Pranayama? Are you a meditator, if so how long?

I find it very narrow minded that you use these fallacies like a whip, and will not even acknowledge two books on the subject of fallacy. Am I supposed to just let you be in charge, and take abuse? From now on you should sight your source for any fallacy or I will not take you seriously in this area.

A hallucination does not exist as what it represents. You might say that it is a hallucination, but the person having it perceives its contents as a truth, and this just isn’t the case. A drug addict in withdrawal may feel bugs crawling all over his body, but there are no bugs really.

You say that," if it is perceive, than it is true in context." But I must ask you, are there bugs, or are there not bugs? Or are you saying that there are bugs, and not bugs too on this poor fellow? Does that make sense to you?

I’m keeping this short to save on confusion.

S9

Subjectivity9 wrote:Nameless,

You beat this idea of context to death and I still don’t get what you are getting at. Since everything is in one context or another, does that mean that absolutely nothing is ever wrong?

Things are 'true' or 'false' or 'correct' or 'incorrect' depending on Perspective, which perceives context. When someone tells you what they perceive, it is easy to say "that's wrong" as there are many 'contexts' where it can be seen as such. I don't know if that approach is as fruitful all the time as it can be. Perhaps attempting to understand the context/Perspective wherein what he offered can be true, like a collaboration of the various perspectives surrounding the elephant for the 'complete picture', will be more fruitful to both, win/win. It's easy to find where the offered doesn't fit, but often that leaves a win(ego)/lose, or a lose/lose situation.

Why would Conscious Perspective perceive a turtle to be human, is it foolish?

One Conscious Perspective might perceive me as a 'demon', another as a 'saint'. They would both be correct, and incorrect, and both and neither, depending...
Some would perceive it as 'foolish', some would not, depending...
E-Prime seems to take this into account (and QM).

In your word usage, what is the difference between belief and perspective?

Such a short succinct question..
Pespective, as I use it, encompasses all dictionary definitions, for starters. We are/existence/the Universe perceived by Perspective.
Belief is an psychological/egoic 'certainty' (on a continuum) that a 'concept' (with no physical or logical 'evidence') is some sort of Universal Truth (to some extent). 'Beliefs' and 'critical thought' are diametrically oppositional (to a large extent, depending on the 'intensity' of each).

"Belief Systems contradict both science and ordinary "common sense." B.S. contradicts science, because it claims certitude and science can never achieve certitude: it can only say, "This model"-- or theory, or interpretation of the data-- "fits more of the facts known at this date than any rival model." We can never know if the model will fit the facts that might come to light in the next millennium or even in the next week." --Robert Anton Wilson (TSOG: The Thing That Ate The Constitution)

Have you practiced Pranayama? Are you a meditator, if so how long?

Yes.
'Time' does not exist, for me, in a Zen/meditational state.
Many decades... (that, in itself, 'proves' nothing, though...)

I find it very narrow minded that you use these fallacies like a whip, and will not even acknowledge two books on the subject of fallacy.

I'm sorry, but (no real apology is followed by a 'but', eh?) this is a philosophical site. We are doing philosophy. There is a logical constraint to what is philosophy (critical thought) and what is not. One of the ground rules is that we utilize 'logic'. Logic has it's own rules/definition. If something is patently illogical, by definition, I would reject that bit of 'illogic', or 'repair' it. It is accepted that in a logical/critical discussion, that something considered fallacious/logical error would be highlighted, if found, and deleted or corrected, if possible. I don't mean to 'whip' you (or anyone), but i can understand that it can feel like that at times. Doing 'philosophy' is a learned skill, and like all learned skills, it requires practice; losing bad habits (of thought), and practicing correct non-fallacious methods until new habits take precedence.
Cognitive 'fallacy'/'error' is not inherently 'wrong' or 'bad' or 'error', but in the (I am now loathe to use the word) 'context' of logic/math/science/philosophy, it can be perceived as such.
If something cannot be expressed without 'fallacy', that something 'fails' in such a context, and is 'refuted' and dismissed.
If one says that the moon is a dry desert because the vast majority of famous scientists for the last century and more have 'believed' it (or thunk it), that is a fallacy. How can that be demonstrated? Now science has shown that not to be the case. It was untrue, no matter who or how many thought or believed it. That is why the appeal to authority/population is considered insufficient to offer as a logical 'proof'.
I don't know what else to say. Religion is built on such an appeal to authority, the bible, for instance, or the pope, or whomever. And that works for the believers. In that 'c****xt' it is not considered 'error' of 'fallacy'.
Such is the definitional power of 'co****t'.

Am I supposed to just let you be in charge, and take abuse?

I have been enjoying our conversation and regret that you feel like that.

From now on you should sight your source for any fallacy or I will not take you seriously in this area.

Lists of cognitive fallacies are all over the net.
I will agree that there are instances where there is provision made for 'legitimate' authorities by some (as in my link) but I find that a violation of the spirit of the fallacy, to evaluate the evidence presented for oneself rather then depend on the evaluations/opinions of others. I realize that at times we have no choice but to accept, tentatively, the 'authority' of others, but in philosophy/logic I don't see that as the case.

A hallucination does not exist as what it represents.

It surely does for the individual perceiving it.

You might say that it is a hallucination, but the person having it perceives its contents as a truth,

See? Thats where 'co***xt' comes in. From the Perspective that does not perceive what the other one perceives, it can be called a 'hallucination' (usually egoically), but not from the Perspective that perceives it.
If there are two 'people' in existence looking at an animal, and one sees a horse and the other sees a pink unicorn, who is 'hallucinating'? Accordint to each ('con***t'), the other is hallucinating! Isn't this what Einstein was talking about in his theory of relativity? Con***t?! Rationally, they have no choice but to include both perceptions in/as a complete definition of what they perceive.

A drug addict in withdrawal may feel bugs crawling all over his body, but there are no bugs really.

'Really' according to who's definition/perceptions? What basis?
There certainly are in his perception of 'reality'.

You say that," if it is perceive, than it is true in context." But I must ask you, are there bugs, or are there not bugs?

The language of the question is faulty.
Please, see E-Prime.
There is no such 'one-size-fits-all' statement that is true.
QM has shown us the fallacy of such thinking as related to 'classical physics'. What is observed depends on ('c*****t') the moment of observation, the Conscious Perspective doing the observation/experiment, where it is happening; there are lots of variables (relativity).
Saying that something is this or that, is no longer useful language and represents an obsolete world-view, no longer representing the reality that has been found.

You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.
-Robert A. Wilson (Chaos and Beyond: The Best of Trajectories, 1994)

Or are you saying that there are bugs, and not bugs too on this poor fellow? Does that make sense to you?

Yes, there are bugs and there are no bugs.

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

How can this be true? Logic, critical thought, and quantum physics (Heisenberg. Schroedinger..) seem to think it is true.

In my estimation, no Perspective can be ignored or discounted, much to the chagrin of the ego that must be 'right' at the expense of others being 'wrong'...

Thanx for the conversation, S9.
I had/have no intent to cause you (or anyone) discomfort, but all 'blessing' (truth) is painful (at first).

Ok, on second thought, I'm not going to be browbeaten re: my use of 'context'.
This is a philosophy site and metaphysics is concerned with basic truths of Reality/existence/the Universe.
One truth/law of Reality is that 'context' is necessary for anything to exist.
As 'context' is a basic truth of existence/reality/the Universe that I have found (that replaces the poor ambiguous and controversal term of 'duality'), I will use the term as necessary, until someone logically or scientifically refutes it, or until it is generally understood and accepted to be a basic 'law' of existence.
I have no apologies to make on the subject.
peace

nameless,

I, too, have a background in Zen. I understand how Zen tries to break down old trends of thinking. But I don’t believe they meant for us to all go off into our own little worlds like a classic psychotic with no real correspondence between any of us. So if I were to say pass the salt, then you would simply pass the pepper, because in your world pepper was salt. That sounds like insanity to me.

In our present world there are many levels of existence, and they seem to each have intelligent rules that they live by. Each of these different levels/dimensions however do not necessarily shares these rules, helter-skelter, with all the other dimensions. What works really fine in one dimension may not do so in another dimension.

For instance in physics, a wave and a particle may be one or the other switching back and forth at different times. (The wave and particle duality) and even be affected into doing so by the viewer. But in this dimension you and I don’t switch back and forth so easily, you becoming me, and me becoming you, no matter who is looking at us.

I get the impression that you have been reading science and are switching these dimension and their specific rules back and forth like you are dealing cards. But I don’t think it works quite that way. We are not just particles and waves; we don’t shape shift or morph because of perspective.

We can’t just make things up and call it perspective. Talk about chaos.

I am a mystic and feel that I am right out there on the cutting edge when it comes to seeing the new and dropping the old, and I agree that that takes some courage like you have said. But we can’t just make thinks up.

If I am seeing things wrong then please show me where and/how, but don’t expect me to swallow anything you say whole.

I do believe that your heart is in the right place, that you believe what you are saying, and even that you are being generous in wanting to share. But please try to understand this, that sharing includes seeing what the other guy is saying too, and not merely pontificating no matter how right you believe yourself to be. I am sorry if this seems overly abrupt.

I do think all and all our conversation has been enjoyable for the most part, as well


S9

I added this to my previous post;
Ok, on second thought, I'm not going to be browbeaten re: my use of 'context'.
This is a philosophy site and metaphysics is concerned with basic truths of Reality/existence/the Universe.
One truth/law of Reality is that 'context' is necessary for anything to exist.
As 'context' is a basic truth of existence/reality/the Universe that I have found (that replaces the poor ambiguous and controversal term of 'duality'), I will use the term as necessary, until someone logically or scientifically refutes it, or until it is generally understood and accepted to be a basic 'law' of existence.
I have no apologies to make on the subject.

Subjectivity9 wrote:nameless,
I, too, have a background in Zen. I understand how Zen tries to break down old trends of thinking.

Boddhidarma, when asked what is Zen replied; "Anything done thoughtlessly."
Not 'alter' thinking, but the cessation thereof.

But I don’t believe they meant for us to all go off into our own little worlds like a classic psychotic with no real correspondence between any of us. So if I were to say pass the salt, then you would simply pass the pepper, because in your world pepper was salt. That sounds like insanity to me.

But, oddly, it's always the other person who is 'insane', 'deluded', 'illuded', 'crazy', stoopid, etc... always the 'other guy'. That's 'ego' for you...
If the other person perceives the salt to be pepper, I guess, rather then belittle him or dismiss her, you'll jest have to get the salt yourself.
"If you want a job done 'right', ....!"

In our present world there are many levels of existence, and they seem to each have intelligent rules that they live by.

That's debateable.
I only perceive one existence, perceived from many perspectives. One Universe, one Reality, one existence.

Each of these different levels/dimensions however do not necessarily shares these rules, helter-skelter, with all the other dimensions. What works really fine in one dimension may not do so in another dimension.

Yes, I think that's what I have been saying, everything is true, in context.

For instance in physics, a wave and a particle may be one or the other switching back and forth at different times.

Or both at the same time. Any apparent 'switching' is dependent on the measuring equipment used and what the Conscious Perspective is looking for, etc...

But in this dimension you and I don’t switch back and forth so easily, you becoming me, and me becoming you, no matter who is looking at us.

We are not speaking of different 'dimensions'.
I guess that also depends on what you mean (distinctions) by 'me' and 'you'. In a Zen state, there is no such distinction.

I get the impression that you have been reading science and are switching these dimension and their specific rules back and forth like you are dealing cards. But I don’t think it works quite that way. We are not just particles and waves; we don’t shape shift or morph because of perspective.

I've said so much about this that if you still don't get what I'm saying, perhaps we can PM?
You certainly do shapeshift relative to Perspective. One person sees you as handsome, another as ugly, one as fat, another as muscular, etc... All are true 'features' of any complete defiition of you. Your perceptions of yourself are but one feature of the complete whole that is not for you, as limited Perspective, to perceive.

We can’t just make things up and call it perspective. Talk about chaos.

I am not doing so.

...we can’t just make thinks up.

I don't know what you mean by "make things up".
Did Einstein 'make up" his theories of relativity?
Did Richard Feynman (an old bud from the hood) "make up" his celebrated Feynman diagrams?
Did Jules Verne 'make up' the submarine?
Did DaVinci "make up" his helicopter?
Did Shakespear "make up" Hamlet?
And all the other "maker uppers" like Edison, Tesla, Marconi, etc... etc... etc...
'Who' can't 'just' "make things up"?

If I am seeing things wrong then please show me where and/how, but don’t expect me to swallow anything you say whole.

I expect nothing.
I would be the last person to want you to 'believe' (rather than think) anything that I say.
I offer food for thought, for your own critically thoughtful cognitation.
After that thoughtful examination, after you fully understand what I am saying, what you do with it is none of my business. Capisce'?

I do believe that your heart is in the right place, that you believe what you are saying,

Perhaps you missed it when I observed that I have no beliefs. I have thoughts and probabilities, etc...
'Belief' is powerful stuff, and I seem to be devoid of such. Perhaps it's brain damage, or genetics, or whatever, but the fact remains...
I am honest and sincere in my discourse, I offer nothing that I do not consider the best of my understanding of the moment, honestly and as succinctly put as possible..

and even that you are being generous in wanting to share. But please try to understand this, that sharing includes seeing what the other guy is saying too, and not merely pontificating no matter how right you believe yourself to be. I am sorry if this seems overly abrupt.

Agreed, but first we each need to be fully understood, and then evaluated. Much question and response required before we know what we are 'arguing'. If I say something that disagrees with something that you hold as true, you make the attempt to understand the context in which it is true rather then in what context it is not. And the same with me. Where we are, and the nature of the conversation already places 'restrictions' on the context/content. We are determining 'truth/reality' within the limited context of science/philosophy/logic. If we were on a religious forum, i would not bring up logical fallacies, for instance.

nameless wrote:I find that ego equates to 'thought'. Ego is a Perspective. Ego is the Perspective that perceives 'subject/object' dualities.

If ego is thought then are there other thoughts? If so what are they? If there are none then the world is subject/object but I'm still unsure what you mean by "'subject/object' dualities"? As I understand the world to be as its perceived, i.e. space with objects, with me being one of them, albeit one that can manipulate the bodys representations of such a world as given by the body.

If, by 'mind' you refer to 'thoughts', then yes. No, I'm not referring to Consciousness, nothing can be said about Consciousness, it is ineffable,

I'm not sure what you mean by "thoughts" so I don't understand what you mean by mind nor how that relates to this Conscious Perspective.

I do not 'have' a consciousness, Consciousness 'has' me! *__-

I agree and its called being a body in an external world.

“We do not possess an ''ego'', we are possessed by the idea of one.” -Wei Wu Wei

Depends what he means I'd guess.

All Perspectives are unique, by defiition.

Agreed.

There is but one Consciousness.

Not if its based upon body-type and if you mean an experience of an external world that is. I also thought it was ineffable?

The same Consciousness that is the Conscious part of this Conscious Perspective is the same Conscious in that (you) Conscious Perspective.

Why would that be? My take is because we share the same body-type. Is the ant's consciouness the same as mine, or, my dogs?

Whatever becomes manifested to youPerspective is 'available' to this Perspective as we are one Consciousness. Think empathy.

One body-type and I'm always unsure about what 'empathy' is meant to refer to? The imagining of oneself in the same position as another? Feeling anothers 'pain'? Sympathizing with anothers plight?

All that live, and perhaps more, are Conscious Perspectives.

Agreed. Whats the more?

All that exists, exist as/in Consciousness/Mind.

Is that 'exist as or in'? Where does the existing rock come in? Do you think if all living things died the Earth would disappear?

As I said, all Conscious Perspectives are unique. So they are all 'different' from one another. It is not a hierarchy.
What color could you remove from the Mona Lisa without altering the entire painting as a whole?

If they are all unique then they could easily all be different with no unifying feature.

The referrence was to "consciousnesses", not 'beings'.

Again,I thought this was ineffable? But being is to be conscious I'd have thought?

You are exactly as you perceive yourself, a feature of a world exactly as you perceive it to be (and so much more), from youPerspective.

Whats the much more? But I agree that what I perceive is how it is.

It is the ego that perceives a difference between 'subject' and 'object'.

Where does this ego come from?

Without the perceptions of the egoPerspective, all perceived is seamlessly One; the traditional experience of 'enlightenment'. There is even talk, now, of 'scientific enlightenment'...

Is there?

Can you give any practical advice of how to have this 'enlightenment' phenomenon?

The perceptions of ego (fall from grace) is tantamount to peering through a 'grid' and believing that all those 'apparently' seperate 'bits' are actually 'seperate' bits.

Why are you walking around them if they are not?

The 'distinction' to which I refer, is the sense/thought that things are truly distinct from, and do not affect, other things that aren't somehow 'attached'.

What 'things'? Are you saying that there is no Space nor Objects?

QM has found that 'things' do affect other things, lightyears away, instantaneously!
Yet no one can see the connection that there must be, if still clinging to an obsolete paradigm.

Do you have an example of a lightyear quantum experiment? Are you allowed to use the idea of causation and things affecting things at a distance, given you are saying there are no 'things' nor 'distances'? At best such things would just point to us not understanding the mechanisms?

Of course! Within a certain context, a hammer is a hammer and a duck is a duck and you use the hammer to fix the duck and life appears to keep on rolling...

!?

'Beliefs', like so many 'structures' can appear within 'thoughts'. 'Beliefs are perceived by egoPerspective.

Still not sure what your 'thoughts' are, so cannot reply.

I'd guess that thoughts are self apparent; the dialog/memories that are found in the vicinity of a functioning brain.
'Thoughts' are what we perceive as 'thoughts'.

If they were "self apparent" then I'd guess you'd not be guessing and I'd not be asking. Are thoughts 'voices' to you? Although I agree in general with the idea that we do mostly think that 'thoughts' "are what we perceive as 'thoughts'".

Soul, Conscious Perspective.

And that being what? In my world the body does the 'perceiving' and provides consciouness, with its transforms providing the base for 'mind', depending upon what body you have gives different 'minds'.

All that is perceived, all in the Universe/existence, is a limited perception. We cannot see the elephant from all Perspectives at once as 'we' (perceived selves) are the limited unique perspectives rather than the one Consciousness. Our very limitations are that which allow us to perceive (apparent) 'differentiation' from the 'undifferentiated potential' of Mind.

But like you I could draw upon Physics, and a theory thats stood the test of time longer than QM is QED, which says that we do see 'all' the elephant as all light rays do reach the eye. Why we still can't 'see' the other side is a mystery too me? But I guess it'll be to do with the body's senses.

The dichotomy of an 'in here' and an 'out there', of a 'beauty' and an 'ugly', of a 'you are worthy of my love and compassion' and 'he/she is not', etc...

Not sure what you mean by an 'in-here'? Is this not your conscious perspective? He and she seems obviously a fact of the world. 'Worthy, love and compassion' appear to be anything but simple dichotomies?

Is it 'perspective' thats giving you trouble?
Look up 'perspective' in the dictionary and consider every definition as applicable when I use the term. We are Conscious Perspectives. The same Consciousness peeking through every eye (perspective) that beholds the elephant...

Or lots of different consciounesses looking and agreeing to call what they are looking at an 'elephant'.

'Reality' has always been 'greater' then the abilities of 'common parlance'.

How so? It is common language that frames all our understandings of reality.

Science and philosophy do not 'dumb down' to accomodate to "common parlance".

In my philosophical opinion this is exactly what Science does do, it 'dumbs down' common parlance into simple 'languages' like Mathematics. Philosophy does this with Logic but also goes the other way and has to 'complicate' common parlance by highly specific refinement of 'common' terms to avoid confusion in discussion.

Yes, of course there are a few who attempt to translate, but that is not what the minds on the cutting edge hold as a constraint. "Common parlance" grows and transforms in accord with newly updated understandings of the Universe.

I have no idea what you mean by "what the minds on the cutting edge hold as a constraint". That metaphors are created from the musings of scientists upon their findings is true. That its philosphically useful I doubt.

Oops, a 'ghost' in the machine...
Logically, this sentence is devoid of meaning!

Is it? How are you using a metaphor to describe it then? But my take is that phenomenologically its confirmed by the hands and arms and the legs.

And somehow you think that the 'happening' is somehow (causally) connected to the 'thinking'? Is it magic? I see no strings...

No, its called having a body in an external world but I think we differ in what we call 'thoughts' and 'thinking'. Wave your hand in front of your face and tell me you are not doing that.

See; Benjamin Libet & Free Won't

In general whilst I love findings like these, I tend to think they reflect just how little an understanding we have of the body/mind and as such do not lose much sleep about them. I'm always interested in whether they used trained subjects who could report what thoughts they did have before moving to pick up an object. I'd also be interested to hear about what they think the primer "In a minute I'm going to ask you too..." has on the experiment.

Not at all.

Because you think there are no individuals nor 'objects'?

nameless,

N: Metaphysics is concerned with basic truths of Reality/existence/the Universe.

S9: Some say that metaphysics is the apical growth of all religion. It is where you stop taking your information, on the Ultimate, in a second hand fashion (AKA from other people’s experience) and you begin to look directly for yourself.

(Apical growth meaning the top most and growing part of a plant.)


N: Bodhidharma, when asked what is Zen replied, "Anything done thoughtlessly."
Not 'alter' thinking, but the cessation thereof.

S9: Bodhidharma: “If you use your mind to study reality, you won't understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both.”


N: But, oddly, it's always the other person who is 'insane', 'deluded', 'illuded', 'crazy', stoopid, etc... always the 'other guy'.

S9: I didn’t say that you were insane. I said that some of your ideas struck me as unworkable in the real world, and therefore as being insane ideas.

Perhaps you should try for a little distance from your ideas, so that if should attack an idea, or a detail within an idea, you don’t think it is you being attacked.


N: If the other person perceives the salt to be pepper, I guess, rather then belittle him or dismiss her, you'll jest have to get the salt yourself.

S9: If you were living by yourself in this world, you could call salt anything you wanted to. But you are not living alone like some psychotic individual in his own little world. So some things simply have to be agreed upon, like which condiment to call the salt. It makes life easier.

I see this all through your conversation with me, this refusal to use another word or simply to explain in an understandable manner. It is frustrating.


N: I only perceive one existence, perceived from many perspectives. One Universe, one Reality, one existence.

S9: This once more is what I call mixing and matching. Ultimately there is only the “One,” what you call “Reality.” (Notice I am taking the trouble to start to learn how you use your words, so we can communicate.)

But for all practical purposes the mind breaks things up and gives each of them a name. This is how we are forced to live in this dualistic world of finitude, ‘as if’ there was more than one.


N: Yes, I think that's what I have been saying, everything is true, in context.

S9: Yes, but everything is not true necessarily when taken ‘out of context.’ So that if we use Einstein’s ideas, about space bending around large objects like a planet, in order to navigate our automobile, we are going to be in big trouble. It would be pure foolishness.

N: We are not speaking of different 'dimensions'.
I guess that also depends on what you mean (distinctions) by 'me' and 'you'. In a Zen state, there is no such distinction.

S9: Could you elucidate a bit further on this point you are making here, please? I don’t want to start reading things into this, because I don’t understand what you are saying.


N: I've said so much about this that if you still don't get what I'm saying, perhaps we can PM?

S9: Why would a personal message make it any easier? How about this idea? Say it differently.


N: You certainly do shape shift relative to Perspective.

S9: We may not agree on specific details like how fat someone is, or how fat must you be, to be fat. But, and this is important, I don’t morph into salt, become a condiment (or a pillar of salt like Lot’s wife), no matter what your perspective may be. Perspective just isn’t in charge, in quite that way.

N: I don't know what you mean by "make things up".
Did Einstein 'make up" his theories of relativity?

S9: No he did not. But, we don’t each one of us have our own ‘theory of relativity’ because of our individual perspective, either.

The way you speak of using perspective is more like ‘brain storming.’ Brainstorming is a good and useful tool when used correctly, but we can’t just go around living like that in our daily life.


N: I expect nothing.

S9: Give me a big old break. Of course, you expect things. You expect that the sun will rise tomorrow, don’t you? I know, of course, it is a matter of percentages, if it will or not, everything is. But, don’t tell me you don’t expect it to happen.

When you speak with others, you expect to some extent that they will understand you, or why bother?


N: Perhaps you missed it when I observed that I have no beliefs. I have thoughts and probabilities, etc...
'Belief' is powerful stuff, and I seem to be devoid of such.

S9: Don’t you believe that everything is true in context? Aren't those your words? Or, “Are you just blowing smoke?”

No I didn’t think that you were “blowing smoke, not for one minute. So, which is it?

N: We are determining 'truth/reality' within the limited context of science/philosophy/logic.

S9: You keep saying this. But, we are speaking about metaphysics and what we both believe is relevant to that conversation, so I cannot see any problem here.

We have to be a little flexable about what others believe to be relevant, or we will turn into the relevant police. ; ^ )

N: If we were on a religious forum, I would not bring up logical fallacies, for instance.

S9: Some people think that Buddhism is a religion, but I know that is has a big metaphysical portion of its self; it is also one of the greatest psychologies ever put forth. Buddhism is also a very good philosophy. So many disciplines have these multiple faces, and they bleed into each other.

If someone says that I cannot refer to religion on a metaphysical thread, I think, “HUH, are you kidding?” Religion and metaphysical are parts of the same tree.

Have a good day!

S9

Subjectivity9 wrote:

nameless wrote:Metaphysics is concerned with basic truths of Reality/existence/the Universe.

S9: Some say that metaphysics is the apical growth of all religion.
It is where you stop taking your information, on the Ultimate, in a second hand fashion (AKA from other people’s experience) and you begin to look directly for yourself.

At which point, perhaps, it is no longer religion?
The one common thread that I have found of all religion is 'beliefs'. Believers of a feather seem to flock together, bingo, religion.
So, i see 'religion' as a place of 'beliefs' not 'thoughts'. Beliefs are much more difficult (to near impossible) to change in the face of new data (beliefs actually deny and dismiss and run from any 'new data' that seems to threaten them (ego/emotional); beliefs must survive and procreate, like a virus...)

N: Bodhidharma, when asked what is Zen replied, "Anything done thoughtlessly."
Not 'alter' thinking, but the cessation thereof.

S9: Bodhidharma: “If you use your mind to study reality, you won't understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both.”

What is Jnana Yoga then? I think that this statement of his leaves much to be desired.

Perhaps you should try for a little distance from your ideas, so that if should attack an idea, or a detail within an idea, you don’t think it is you being attacked.

If this is in relation to my defence of 'context', there was someone else complaining the same thing.
My words are 'me'. Thought the words get attacked, at times, I do not get emotionally involved as I do not 'believe' the words and so do not identify with them in that way. Any idea is open to critical examination and thats fine with me. I love the feel of stretchmarks forming on the brain learning new reality.

I see this all through your conversation with me, this refusal to use another word

Perhaps there are no other words as suitable? If I insist on a particular word for something, i must have a good reason. That in itself aught to give you some inkling to my meanings.

or simply to explain in an understandable manner. It is frustrating.

The 'explain' part is my responsibility, aided by your thoughtful and incisive questions.
The 'understanding' is all yours, aided, perhaps, by my honest and sincere responses to your questions. The more you might ask on a particular subject, the more different ways I will nuance the same thing. Time is not relevent, always, in an understanding. Sometimes the light-bulb will pop on 20 or 30 years after the initial conversation. All i can do is plant the seeds.
I understand your frustration.

N: I only perceive one existence, perceived from many perspectives. One Universe, one Reality, one existence.

S9: This once more is what I call mixing and matching. Ultimately there is only the “One,” what you call “Reality.” (Notice I am taking the trouble to start to learn how you use your words, so we can communicate.)

Hahaha.. no i wasn't 'mixing and matching' three different things, I was saying the same thing three different ways for those who use different words for the same concept. It tells you that when I use the term Universe, that it has the same meaning as 'Reality' or 'existence'.
After all, if there is a monism, oneness, there can be nothing else 'beyond'.

N: Yes, I think that's what I have been saying, everything is true, in context.

S9: Yes, but everything is not true necessarily when taken ‘out of context.’

Yes!! You get it!!!

N: We are not speaking of different 'dimensions'.
I guess that also depends on what you mean (distinctions) by 'me' and 'you'. In a Zen state, there is no such distinction.

S9: Could you elucidate a bit further on this point you are making here, please? I don’t want to start reading things into this, because I don’t understand what you are saying.

Such an innocent question that can launch conflagrations of responses!
Before continuing, I need to caution clearly that whatever I am writing here is contextual in the sense that all words are 'dualistic' (a poor term, but perhaps, more understandable for some). A word means this, not that when used in conjunction with blah, blah, blah... Context is qualities, features...
That which is a monism has no 'context', a monism has no 'qualities' or 'features'. It is a perfect symmetry, unbounded, limitless, etc...
So we have that inherent linguistic problem and so reading between the lines becomes so much more necessary.
I would call the Zen state equivalent to the state of 'innocence' of religion, or the state of 'enlightenment/satori';
Satori = a state of being, occuring at the moment when the mind is free of thought; pure awareness; the body is active, sensitive, relaxed and the emotions are open and free; full attention on one's actions; meditating one's actions; there is no doer, no self conscious someone performing; there is no you doing it, in forgetting yourself, you become what you do, so your action is free, spontaneous, without ambition, inhibition, or fear.

It is thoughts/ego that differentiates between 'subject' and 'object'. A world of apparently different things, whereas in a state of 'innocence' or Zen satori all simply is, not is 'One', as that 'One' is a thought/egoic, and the Zen state is not.
That's why babies are considered 'innocent' as they have not yet developed 'ego'/thoughts. That is also why such 'innocence' can be regained later in life (has nothing to do with 'sex') classically understood as 'enlightenment'.

N: I've said so much about this that if you still don't get what I'm saying, perhaps we can PM?

S9: Why would a personal message make it any easier?

I was merely considering how we have monopolized the conversation and I think that we have strayed from the OP topic.

How about this idea? Say it differently.

I'd be happy to say it again a thousand different ways that, perhaps, one will arive along with understanding. I'm wondering if this is the place for that, though...

N: I don't know what you mean by "make things up".
Did Einstein 'make up" his theories of relativity?

S9: No he did not.

Ok, where did he steal it from? He has certainly been credited with 'making it up', but I am not going to digress further with silly semantic games..

The way you speak of using perspective is more like ‘brain storming.’ Brainstorming is a good and useful tool when used correctly, but we can’t just go around living like that in our daily life.

Don't know what you mean. We each live the unique reality that we perceive.

N: I expect nothing. You expect that the sun will rise tomorrow, don’t you?

S9: Give me a big old break. Of course, you expect things.

Ok, i can see youPerspective; it is different than this one. I don't 'expect' to live for another minute, I don't 'believe' that I will, yet i go about life as I must. Tomorrow happens or not, it's all fine. Take that as you like/must.

When you speak with others, you expect to some extent that they will understand you, or why bother?

We speak as we must. Whether or not you have any understanding is not my concern. You ask, I explain, you understand or not.. That is your business. Plenty of people walk off with no present understanding. Not my concern.
One reason (in the land of reasons/ego) is that well considered intelligent questioning, such as your's, finds me thinking critically, and re-thinking my words and concepts, 'honing' them, 'polishing' them, perhaps. Whether or not you 'understand' is irrelevent, in that scenario, other to the extent that you can ask thoughtful (Jnana) questions.

N: Perhaps you missed it when I observed that I have no beliefs. I have thoughts and probabilities, etc...
'Belief' is powerful stuff, and I seem to be devoid of such.

S9: Don’t you believe that everything is true in context?

No, I 'think' (rather than 'believe') that it is the best current theory available and might well be refuted tomorrow when I will have to re-think it. As of Now!, it holds tight and is all inclusive.

N: If we were on a religious forum, I would not bring up logical fallacies, for instance.

S9: Some people think that Buddhism is a religion,

If there are 'beliefs' involved in Buddhism, they have a good case to be made.

but I know that is has a big metaphysical portion of its self;

Don't 'all' religions have their mystics?

it is also one of the greatest psychologies ever put forth.

It has it's moments...

Buddhism is also a very good philosophy.

It has it's moments...

If someone says that I cannot refer to religion on a metaphysical thread, I think, “HUH, are you kidding?” Religion and metaphysical are parts of the same tree.

Please don't misquote me, I never said, nor would i, that you "cannot refer to religion on a metaphysical thread"! I said that one cannot use the 'illogic' of religion, the 'beliefs', as useful fodder for a philosophical (critical thought) conversation. You can "refer to religion" in a philosophical conversation, like in the philosophy of religion. But the topic of religion is discussed within the framework of philosophy.
'Philosophy' discussed within the framework of religion is simple, "I don't believe in philosophy, I deny/dismiss your 'evidence'; I believe in god/the bible, whatever..." Argument settled.

Have a good day!

And unto you, peace