Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:16 am It is my direct experience of things.

I recommend taking some time to investigate "your" experience - not just ruminate over it - it might be time well spent.
Caution: 100% honesty is required to investigate properly and figure out what is real and what is only imagined / thought into existence.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:16 am "Can you prove that it doesn't?"
Can you prove that it does?"

No
But thats the point - there is no proof for anything without relying on established ideas and beliefs (maybe "science"?).
I am only suggesting to go back to the basics - to direct experience before thought interprets it - and see what you find... if its in line with your current belief system, fine - if not... maybe its time to adapt?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:16 am No. Before thinking, I was a bundle of instinct. In thinking I 'became' and 'am'.

So, you are saying that you are a thought? That thought created you?
Aren't you more than that? You don't cease to exist when there is no thought, right?
You aren't reverting to an animal existence that is only driven by instinct when there is no thought either, or are you?
Maybe there is another form of intelligence present... something that sees/observes thought (and also the state of no-thought)?

Have you ever, over the years, had the feeling that you haven't changed at all? That everything around you, your body, your thoughts and beliefs have changed, but deep inside you are the same? That no matter how old you get, no matter how many things life throws at you, you are still the same, wondering how time could pass so fast, how it could have happened that suddenly you are perceived as old (I have no idea how old you are, but I can tell from my own experience you don't even have to be very old to be seen as old by the young )

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:01 am Dualism is inescapable.

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:04 am I disagree.
Dualism is created once you, maybe at the age of 2-3, realise "I am", this "I am" soon grows to "I am such and such" etc etc
Before (and also after) the emergence of conceptual thought the non-dual is primary - duality is simply a conceptual overlay, but the non-dual never leaves or vanishes. Its always there, it only becomes "invisible" to you, because you now see everything from a skewed perspective, the perspective of the mind (and the mind only knows duality). Step out of the mind - and I assure you this is possible - and you are immediately back where you started - in non-dual reality.

Alex W, seeing how the mind is basically the living arena in which the “I am” wields and experiences its personal thoughts and dreams, then please describe what the “I am” would be doing if it could step outside of this essential aspect of its makeup?

And please don’t simply suggest that it would then be experiencing “nonduality,” for that would be an utterly meaningless reply.

No, I want you to give (as best you can) a logical and visualizable description of the literal setting and context in which an “I am” could function minus the duality of conceptual thought.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:10 am I want you to give (as best you can) a logical and visualizable description of the literal setting and context in which an “I am” could function minus the duality of conceptual thought

The "I am" is the start, the root of duality - all further concepts are built on the concept of "I am".
The "I am" automatically creates the possibility of its opposite, the "I am not".
The "I am" cannot exit duality - it also doesn't experience duality (or non-duality) - only You can experience anything (to be more precise: you actually ARE experience / awareness / reality).

The "I am" is as close to the absolute as "you" can get - when the "I am" goes the "I am not" goes with it, what remains is... well... no thing... reality, Self, I, you name it...

By the way: The "I am" doesn't create "personal thoughts and dreams", it "collects" them and attaches itself to them.
This is how it grows from the impersonal "I am" to "I am such and such"; it doesn't do this out of its own volition (it has none) but via conditioning.

"I recommend taking some time to investigate "your" experience"

I'm an old hand when it comes to self-interrogation. I know 'me' well.

#

"maybe its time to adapt?"

Nah, I'm good.

#

"So, you are saying that you are a thought?"

No, I'm sayin' I'm the thinkin': see the difference?

#

"You don't cease to exist when there is no thought, right?"

I cease to exist when there's no thinkin'. I am a brain of particular and peculiar complexity in a body of particular and peculiar complexity moving in and interacting with 'the world'. My locus is my brain, I am the action of my brain (in my body, in the world). If the action of my brain is impaired or terminated, I'm impaired or terminated.

#

"Have you ever, over the years, had the feeling that you haven't changed at all?"

You describe 'self-consciousness', the coherent, on-going experience of 'self', of 'i', the diamond-hard core upon which experiences accrete, giving the impression of change (which isn't change at all, but 'complexifying').

#

"I have no idea how old you are"

I'm 56 (with all the associated disintegrations [but none of the commonly associated angst]).

-----

Anyway: back on topic...

There is 'me' and there is 'apple'. Both exist. Both exist independent of one another.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:37 am No, I'm sayin' I'm the thinkin': see the difference?

Not really... Thinking being a chain of thoughts? A process that you, as the thinker, are in charge of?
If you are, can you choose what to think next? Can you always think happy thoughts?

Try it, you'll find that no, actually you can't - why?
Because there is no thinker in charge of thinking (of what thought to think next)... there is actually no such entity to be found...
All you will ever find is one thought, and another one... and... another one...

Yeah, i'm gonna cut you some slack here, Alex. I don't know you and I'm tired in my head.

Will say this, though: you ain't the teacher, and I ain't the student, so quit lecturin'.

More tomorrow.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:02 am Yeah, i'm gonna cut you some slack here, Alex. I don't know you and I'm tired in my head.

Will say this, though: you ain't the teacher, and I ain't the student, so quit lecturin'.

More tomorrow.

I have no intention to lecture, sorry if it comes across like that... just trying to clarify my point of view.
Anyway, good night...

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:29 am The "I am" is the start, the root of duality - all further concepts are built on the concept of "I am".
The "I am" automatically creates the possibility of its opposite, the "I am not".
The "I am" cannot exit duality...

Earlier, you stated the following:

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:04 am Step out of the mind - and I assure you this is possible - and you are immediately back where you started - in non-dual reality.

What is the “you” you are referring to?

Stop beating around the bush with vague assertions and describe the ontological features of the “you” of which you assure us can step outside of the mind.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:59 am What is the “you” you are referring to?

Stepping outside of the mind is a figure of speech - you are never inside the mind in the first place - its always only thought referencing more thought (this state can be called "being inside the mind" as there is an identification with the thinker/doer - but there really is no one inside - no thinker, just thoughts...). Duality is only in the mind - its no place else. So you really don't step from duality into non-duality - the dual side of things is illusory/mind-made in the first place.

It also means to occupy the position of the observer, the one that sees the mind/thought, but is not affected by it.
Stepping outside of the mind is a shift, a change of perspective where one is not anymore the thinker and doer but the eternal witness/observer (if there has to be any identification at all).
It is this observing quality that appears when the step out of the mind happens - it also becomes obvious that this observer has always been there, that it has just been covered by layers and layers of constant thinking, by the conceptual "you".
Also, the "witness" is not doing anything, it doesn't really witness, its rather that "witnessing/observing/aware-ing" is its very nature (not only with thought but all experience). There is no separation between the observer and the observed - they are one.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:59 am Stop beating around the bush with vague assertions

I am trying to express this as good as I can... hope it is clearer now?

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:04 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:01 am Dualism is inescapable.

I disagree.
Dualism is created once you, maybe at the age of 2-3, realise "I am", this "I am" soon grows to "I am such and such" etc etc

And it eventually stops when you figure that the "I am so and so..." is you just trying to define yourself. You can't define yourself!

I am TimeSeeker. Nice to meet you.

Duality is the map/territory distinction. Do you recognise that when I say "USA is south of Canada" I are referring to a map. In my head.

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:04 am Step out of the mind - and I assure you this is possible - and you are immediately back where you started - in non-dual reality.

Oh. This should be interesting! Demonstrate/explain to us how you 'step out of the mind'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:19 pm Veritas,

"My point is, "Object/things interdependent with the human conditions" as the major premise [main set] overrides the independent object/things [subset]."

Yeah, I know that's your point (one you haven't supported) and I know 'why' that's your point (cuz you wanna exterminate god parasites).

Me: I say reality (on the particular scale you and me inhabit) is nuthin' but independent entities that interact. I've explained my reasoning as clearly as my non-philosophical head allows. I think my reasoning is solid.

I'm still waitin' to hear yours.

I'll borrow TimeSeeker's image for this point;



If I include different smaller circles like '"henry quirk" and 'apple'.
They will appear independent of each other but note they are interdependent [connected] in terms of the main set Universe.
Therefore in this case, interdependent overrides independent.

Example;
If each twin in a mother's womb can open their eyes, they will see the other twin is independent of itself. But the reality they are interdependent on the mother and in certain sense of each other.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:11 am I am TimeSeeker. Nice to meet you.

Hi Time Seeker, nice meeting you too.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:11 am Duality is the map/territory distinction. Do you recognise that when I say "USA is south of Canada" I are referring to a map. In my head.

Agree.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:11 am This should be interesting! Demonstrate/explain to us how you 'step out of the mind'.

Haha... As I just wrote in the post before yours:
Stepping outside of the mind is a figure of speech - you are never inside the mind in the first place - its always only thought referencing more thought (this state can be called "being inside the mind" as there is an identification with the thinker/doer - but there really is no one inside - no thinker, just thoughts...).
Duality is only in the mind - its no place else. So you really don't step from duality into non-duality - the dual side of things is illusory/mind-made in the first place.

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:51 am Stepping outside of the mind is a figure of speech - you are never inside the mind in the first place

Well. That's one perspective. Another is: my "mind" (an emergent property of my brain) is the only place where 'I' exist.
But it's a complicated system. Take out any vital part (heart?) and there is no 'I' left. I am not one to chop&change things I don't understand.

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:51 am - its always only thought referencing more thought (this state can be called "being inside the mind" as there is an identification with the thinker/doer - but there really is no one inside - no thinker, just thoughts...).

Well. There is the body. And the brain. There are no thoughts - just brains doing stuff.

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:51 am Duality is only in the mind - its no place else. So you really don't step from duality into non-duality - the dual side of things is illusory/mind-made in the first place.

And yet - all of us, humans, operate from and through "minds"

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:59 am There are no thoughts - just brains doing stuff

I would call the stuff brains are doing "thoughts"... anyway, just another label...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:59 am And yet - all of us, humans, operate from and through "minds"

What a miracle it is

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:18 am I would call the stuff brains are doing "thoughts"... anyway, just another label...

I would call it computation. The label matters in that we have no "theory of thought". But we have a "theory of computation".
And so if I wanted to talk about my "thoughts" it's much easier when you have useful nomenclature

My brain processes information.

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:18 am What a miracle it is

It's not a miracle. It's a puzzle

Our knowledge is incomplete, so we don't know how it all works yet.