QUOTE

How can you ever be certain of this? The 'self' itself cannot contain knowledge of the non-existence of things utterly unrelated to it. It can only contain the speculative possibility, through an abstraction of opposites.

That is correct, You have to step outside of the self to experience the Self/self.
There is no other way to know other than from experience.
The rest is speculation.
But then humans have limited themselves and their worlds to the lesser experiences from the beginning of time. The world used to be flat, the moon was made of cheese and even now those that haven't been able to release themselves from the density of the outer 5 senses cannot comprehend anything beyond what they have experienced as being real.
It's easy to say I haven't experienced it so it can't be real. It's not the most intelligent perspective but it is socially acceptable amongst the gross reality of the ego and its relative to the senses structuring of reality in fear and suffering.
I would imagine for you it would be safe to say you have not experienced it. But to generalize the reality of life and possibilities to your own limitations and past experience is hardly truth for anyone even for yourself, especially if you can say Haven't experienced as opposed to can't experience.
Since you have taken the position of can't then as long as you hold that truth as they did with the flatness of the world, the inability to invent anything more like the patent office quoted and the million other can'ts then someone with a much bigger capacity for thoughts in possibilites will step forward to claim what you refuse to.
History is abundant with those that have gone before you with the experience and the teachings that draw those that are ripe to experience the infinite Self and that which underlies all things.
The world is full of those that can't step out of their limitations and it is they that constantly use the word can't and more often won't, because they can't yet quite fathom the world they live in and have not had enough of it to experience more than what they have seen. Can't is a choice to remain limited. Because you can't walk through a wall in this moment doesn't mean it isn't possible for you to do it. All it takes is the dropping of the reality that you can't and change it to I know I can at the deepest levels of the mind.
The historical texts are rich with the documention of these things. The lesser thinking limited minds call them miracles, fantasy and myths.
There are no limits to the human condition! No limits, no limits, no limits other than what is self imposed.

OK, let me try to answer this.

Me: "The 'self' itself cannot contain knowledge of the non-existence of things utterly unrelated to it."

Joe: "There is no other way to know other than from experience."

Me: If you are the self, then you cannot experience something utterly unrelated to it, because that experience would be a relation. You say that "the infinite Self underlies all things." You say you believe this because you have experienced it. However, as I said, things may exist that the self does not underlie, and which do not relate to you or the self. Your experience cannot verify the existence or non-existence of these things.

Joe: "It's easy to say I haven't experienced it so it can't be real."

I don't know if you're talking about me or Timothy and Dan here. If you're talking about me, I'm not saying that, I'm actually saying the exact opposite - that reality can and probably does extend beyond the bounds of our experience. If you're talking about Timothy and Dan, I agree - you can't state that infinities are impossible just because you can't comprehend them.

Joe: "The world is full of those that can't step out of their limitations and it is they that constantly use the word can't and more often won't, because they can't yet quite fathom the world they live in and have not had enough of it to experience more than what they have seen. Can't is a choice to remain limited. Because you can't walk through a wall in this moment doesn't mean it isn't possible for you to do it. All it takes is the dropping of the reality that you can't and change it to I know I can at the deepest levels of the mind."

Me: I think you may have completely misunderstood me. I'm not out to state what I can and can't do, except in very specific circumstances such as the example above. I believe it is completely possible that I may walk through a wall tomorrow. However, I'm not working on the assumption that I can walk through walls, because my experience so far makes me inclined to believe I can't. Remember, you are working on the basis of unlimited reincarnations whereas I am working on the basis of one life and that's it - therefore prioritising is more important to me. Oh, and a question - In your view, now that you have acheived enlightenment/union/the self, do you achieve moksha and stop reincarnating? If not, do you remain enlightened in your next life?

QUOTE

Me: If you are the self, then you cannot experience something utterly unrelated to it, because that experience would be a relation. You say that "the infinite Self underlies all things." You say you believe this because you have experienced it. However, as I said, things may exist that the self does not underlie, and which do not relate to you or the self. Your experience cannot verify the existence or non-existence of these things.

I'm going to throw some stuff in here that will relate to the other threads regarding the word "Consciousness' and also a comment to this statement.
The one basic element or thing that underlies everything ever created and the (seemingly) yet to be created has been called the un-named, the nameless, the Transcendant, the void, The Ascendant. It is forever still and does not move on its own volition. That which moves is God or Universal Mind or "Consciousness" It is the stillness but it is more, it is intelligent energy, it can't exist without its basic structure of no structure or infinite potential. That Transcendant infinite potential is in everything, not just some things, not just some experiences and not others it is in everything ever created and always in the unmanifest for it is the unmanifest.
Once you experience the unmanifest One and become aware of its presence the experience evolves but IT itself never changes. As you become familiar with it, it is noticable in all experiences and all things. The more the mind expands into consciousness its presence becomes even more available and present. Solidity in manifestation vaporizes into it as it is the essence of everything and every experience. The awareness is drawn automatically into the stillness, it is expansive and the senses are freed from their burden in carrying any thoughts of this that or the other, all judgments are lifted, dualistic tendancies to label good and evil, black and white, etc. dissolve back into the energy of pure unconditional love (Consciousness). This is called bliss although in definition it means an experience, but it is beyond all sensory experiences and it pervades the senses and their expeeriences.
This familiar isness as I said is in all things and all experiences. Wherever you go there you are, you find your Self, (Consciousness) in the ego and the lesser self, you cannot separate the two for they are the same energy.
Only when the self is separate, only when the self is unaware and out of Union with its Self are experiences separate and infinite in probability and the unknown.
Only when the experience of Union has not been achieved and stabilized does the ego sense, doubt, separate, and remain in fear.
To experience the manifest and the unmanifest at the same time is not impossible it is very possible and it is more normal than not to, for it is closer to the original state of the mind than to remain locked outside of the Self and the infinite stillness.
It is only an illusion that the self (ego) creates, the idea that it is separate from it, for it cannot ever be separate from it, ever, not in any experience, not in any state of awareness or state of consciousness.
Only the ego closes its eyes and says the world does not exist around me. It does this for so long it believes in it as a reality.

To answer your question about the cycle of Samsara (birth and rebirth) and the end of incarnation. Incarnation is always an available option. There are many who have achieved enlightenment and are here now to help others to achieve it now in this lifetime. Once the wheel of Samsara and Karma are broken there is no need to create any more experiences to understand the nature of the self and the Self they are United in the One and the self returns unto its Self.
What God creates to experience the nature of duality and the return to God Consciousness it is created in perfection and the Self never suffers in any separation from its Divinity, it all takes place in the blink of an eye, like a thought moving thru the mind an idea in eternity.
Once you wake up you experience all lifetimes as the same and the Self as enlightened. Time is only an idea of sequencing events or ideas. Past, present and future all exist in the now and the now is everpresent, The next now and the last now are just the now and all thoughts, ideas, actions, manifestations are but embers in the glowing fire of moving consciousness. The awareness is flexible enough to move in and about it or all at the same time. The manifestations of the world and lifetimes do not revolve around the awareness though they seem to in the waking state.

Joe: "Once you experience the unmanifest One and become aware of its presence the experience evolves but IT itself never changes. As you become familiar with it, it is noticable in all experiences and all things. "

Me: You're not actually putting up any opposition to the point I'm trying to make here. I'm trying to say that your knowledge is limited to your experience, that you cannot identify 'all experiences' with all things. I believe that a self does underlie everything you have ever experienced - however, I believe that that self underlies you only - I don't believe that I am part of it. However, it is natural for you to make the jump to believing it underlies all things because all things that you experience are you. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the truth - I'm not as sure of myself as you. However, it is the way I see things just now.

Joe: "Time is only an idea of sequencing events or ideas. Past, present and future all exist in the now and the now is everpresent"

Me: For once I agree with you. I think the way we instinctively view time is limited, and science as I understand it backs this up. (Not that I'm saying science provides truth - whatever that is - just that it throws up interesting ideas and correlations.)

QUOTE

I believe that a self does underlie everything you have ever experienced - however, I believe that that self underlies you only - I don't believe that I am part of it.

I am guessing that you mean some kind of 'subject' when you say 'self'?  now, why would this 'subject' be structurally connected to a world of apparently inert and mechanical matter? (i.e., the brain).  Cartesian duality is a common crutch here, dividing reality into two distinct worlds (object vs. subject) that just happen to 'be in touch' for no meaningful reason.  If this 'subject' is not really 'separate' (in the cartesian sense) from the 'inert  substrate', then is this 'subject' not really just an aspect of what ever the 'substrate' is also an aspect of? (namely, the subsubstrate or, as I might say, the nexus : , through which 'subject' and 'object' relate meaningfully)

if this is the case, then ..., well, I'll let Joey take it from here  ;D

8)

QUOTE

Me: You're not actually putting up any opposition to the point I'm trying to make here.

It is not my intent to oppose anything that is in life, only unite all things that are seemingly separate in others. It is my intent to allow you to see me as yourself.

QUOTE

I'm trying to say that your knowledge is limited to your experience,

Knowledge and experiences are not limited to me or you or anyone. These things are part of what is called the akasha, the universal mind that is omniscient. Only the ego that sees things separately and has not the belief or the experience of union and omniscience believes in separate selves and separate experiences. I understand that you have not had this experience yet. However knowledge is superfluous. It fits the moment as consciousness expands, the ego uses what it can to build its foundations in reality. As Consciousness expands further all foundations are torn down and rebuilt until the foundations cannot support the unlimited boundarilessness of Consciousness that is Omniscient.

QUOTE

that you cannot identify 'all experiences' with all things.

I can't or to the best of your knowledge you are unaware of my abilities and do not know, because you don't have that experience or ability?
Or..
The you meaning the ego, or the little self that is separate from the universal self?
If it is the latter you are right, that the self in separation cannot percieve anything other than the singular separate experiences of the past and what it projects into the future and present based on what is past and gone.

QUOTE

I believe that a self does underlie everything you have ever experienced - however, I believe that that self underlies you only - I don't believe that I am part of it. However, it is natural for you to make the jump to believing it underlies all things because all things that you experience are you. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the truth - I'm not as sure of myself as you. However, it is the way I see things just now.

Well at least we are getting closer to the beliefs that separate realities and your own personal experiences and any ideas about them.
There is so much more to see and experience why make any assumptions about what you do not know or have not experienced?
As I said there is only One and it expresses itself as the many. It is niether separate or different than its many parts, nor are you from any thought feeling or action you have ever experienced.
I am merely pointing the way beyond the language and foundations of your beliefs.
I am glad you are open but I would say habit limits even your ability to open up any more than your beliefs allow.
That habit of individuality is the one that is the trickiest.
The funny thing is Ego uses fear to keep you intact when the reality is there has never been anyone but you to begin with.
Once you expereince Union there is no one else but you in so many thoughts and ideas. The jump is not an assumption but actual experience. There is nothing that will be held from you if you wish to know it, no thought, no idea whether yours or anothers.
You may or may not want to know but what you will know is that the (S)elf underlies all of the (s)elves, and the pathway is the connecting link, the unmanifest absolute.

I give up. It is impossible to make any headway with you. All you do is state repeatedly why I am wrong using conclusions from a premise with which I disagree. You won't admit and don't seem even to conceptualise the possibility that this premise may be flawed or completely wrong. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

I ahve not read the whole thread here, but from the last few posts I would just like to make an oservence of mine. Take it or leave it, ok guys?

Is it possible to have more then one perspective on this topic? Is it possible that ther is not one right or wrong answer here?

That is all I have to add, and now I leave the discussion as quickly as I have entered!

Love,
Dara, girl of many perspectives and posibilities

Dara, I wish there was. However, either there is a universal self that underlies all things, or there isn't. If you start getting into paradoxes, discussion tends to break down.

QUOTE

either there is a universal self that underlies all things, or there isn't. If you start getting into paradoxes, discussion tends to break down.

So you admit the either/or possibility of either there is a universal self that underlies all things, or there isn't.   But isn't this reflecting your decision to see things as either black or white, and neglecting shades of gray?

For example, electrons are all identical particles, but in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, they can all be treated as a single super particle or single mode (it's called the many-body problem in physics).   If the self in each of us is identical, then isn't it reasonable to say that the selves in everyone can be treated as a single self, similar to the way that identical particles are treated as one in quantum physics?

Whether we say it's one self or many selves, it comes down to perspective.  I don't think it's an either/or situation.   Just like when you look at clouds, you can see faces or animals, or just about anything else, it's just a matter of perspective.    As another example, it's not a question of whether the universe is considered as a one or as a many, since our perspectives allow us to view it as both, and a little reflection should convince one that it's all these things and more.    Similarly, I think the same holds for the self and the question of whether there's one universal self or many selves.

QUOTE

I give up. It is impossible to make any headway with you.

This is a choice.
Belief is not required. The basic structure of the universe allows all options as Dara, Shawn and myself are pointing to.

The infinite essence of all things allows any structure to be built and maintained.
Is it or would it be the true structure, or truest structure?
No manifestation is permanent in its objective sense if the subjective is impermanent.
Everything changes except the One which is eternal and infinite.

Perhaps if you would get to the point of what you are trying to achieve here in this discussion.
What you seem to elude to is someone to agree with your point of view or another such as myself to allow for some wavering in my perspective or to admit there is a possibility that I am wrong, or that my perspective may have a flaw.

From my perspective only language and its interpretations has any limiting factors.
Although any manifestation will fall short of the containmnet of the absolute, within all is the absolute.
So it would be only a matter of perspective.
A child who is color blind may not see color but if the awareness is shifted and the vision is corrected which vision is the correct one? Is the colorless sight less than the color in what ever is behind the vision?

Enlightenment is the opening of the true heart to bring the color of the Greater Self into the vision and the experience. There is always more to see when the sight is seeking on the outside a reason or validation of truths.

You want me to admit my perspective is flawed? I can't do that for my perspective cannot waver without the initiation of some other truth which is stronger.  The one you are suggesting (and I had doubt once but doubt no more) is the reality of my past thoughts, that maybe this is not all there is. "This" would be the point of reference. My "This" is not the subjective/objective outer point of reference, that is right or wrong. This is That and That and That and it is not the outer covering but the inner essence of all things.
There is no separation from anything in this field of essence that permeates this and that.

YAAY, I agree with you Joe! It IS perspective, and my perspective is right to me, yours to you  and so on! If we can feel at ease with our own perspectives, we wont need others to agree with us to make ourselves feel validated in what we believe! I hope that makes sense, it does to me ;D

Love,
Dara

Sure makes sense to me.

You always were the smart one in the family.

The pretty one, too.

blubber joe anaconda?  have you been smokin' the wacky tobaccy again Joey?  :


just a minor point that you can't get yet

QUOTE

The infinite essence of all things allows any structure to be built and maintained.

neither is this 'essence' infinite nor can any structure be rendered of it.  however, this 'essence' is strong and many structures can be rendered.   perhaps one day you'll notice this, or perhaps not  


8)

If there is any wacky tobaccy hereabouts, for heaven's sake share it with the rest of us!  (*bursting into song, and singing...*)  

"Don't Bogart that joint, my friend,
Pass it over to me, to me..."

If you will give me a hit, I will give you some of my very good Merlot.

Oh dear... I see something which I should clarify: in my post above whereof I spoke of someone being smart and pretty, I meant my little sister Dara, NOT Joe, although he does seem a clever sort, nor have I seen what he looks like.  Right, then.  Now, where's the weed?

Here is a little song we used to sing in High School as:

"Weed
We need more WEED
cause we're all out of WEED
And we like to smoke WEED!"

All together now ;D :

Shawn

The either/or dilemma is only problemmatic so long as we maintain that true knowledge of reality is possible.  Indeed, it does seem inadequate, as does any systemmatic formulation of nature, to account without paradox for the facts of nature in this way.  The difficulty is getting from facts and values to truth and knowledge.  But once the grand correlation between truth and reality is abandoned, the either/or dilemma dissolves into a disagreement about definitions.  That is to say it becomes a moral, rather than epistemological question involving not which definitions are right, but which definitions are better.  The eithor/or dilemma changes, but it does not really go away.

I think that you would agree with at least this much, with the expection of perhaps that last sentence.  Where you and I mainly differ, it seems to me, is, in the first place, whether or not is it possible to meaningfully contend that any perspective (set of definitions) is better, or morally superior than any other set of definitions and in the second place, whether or not we should seek real reconciliation between diverging perspectives by means of some sort of synthesis (distinct from the acceptance of paradox).  Your position allows you to answer negatively to both of those questions; mine does not.  Seeing that there is a fundamental similarity between our two epistemologies and that insofar as we both oppose the reduction of morality to reason, I respect and affirm your position.  But on the grounds that, if I understand you correctly, you cannot meaningfully discriminate between any set of arbitrary definitions, I must oppose you.  Your philosophy while noble in intent does not allow room for yoy to say what people ought to do, and as such must be considered amoral, or at the most relativistic.  In many ways you epitomize the tenets of postmodernism.  I'm not sure if you are familiar with how remarkable the resemblance is, and subsequently how far you are in actuality from Spinoza.

QUOTE

  neither is this 'essence' infinite nor can any structure be rendered of it.   Â

what is your basis for making this claim?   What practical or pragmatic difference does it make whether you say the 'essence' is uncountably finite vs being infinite, or whether uncountably finite structures can be rendered in it vs. an infinite number of structures?     You're making a distinction between the finite and infinite, and while I'm personally inclined towards the infinite, I don't see what practical difference it makes whether you accept 'infinite' vs 'uncountably finite'.  

QUOTE

The either/or dilemma is only problemmatic so long as we maintain that true knowledge of reality is possible. Â

please define 'true knowledge' in this context.

QUOTE

Indeed, it does seem inadequate, as does any systematic formulation of nature, to account without paradox for the facts of nature in this way.

I disagree with this statement, insofar as the formulation of paradoxes in the first place often points to our ignorance of the relation between dichotomies or seemingly contradictory possibilities.     For example, would you consider the wave/particle duality in physics to be a paradox?     Or how about the one/many duality concerning monistic vs pluristic conceptions of nature?   Or how about the mind/brain duality?   The point is that, what seems to many people to be paradoxes, are merely reflective of people's ignorance regarding the "paradoxical" matters.   Reconciling paradoxes means understanding the partial validity consigned to each paradoxical position, and realizing that a deeper truth encompasses the paradox and renders it non-paradoxical except when viewed by those ignorant of the deeper truth.  

QUOTE

But once the grand correlation between truth and reality is abandoned, the either/or dilemma dissolves into a disagreement about definitions. Â

I don't personally acknowledge an either/or dilemma, since this amounts to seeing everything in black vs. white, which is overly simplistic and not very useful for understanding nature, to say the least.

QUOTE

The eithor/or dilemma changes, but it does not really go away.

again, I'm not sure who you're referring to, since in my last post, I was speaking against viewing things as either/or, but rather as viewing things in shades of gray, which includes seeing the partial validity consigned to multiple, seemingly paradoxical, perspectives of things, and to understand that a deeper understanding of things can take one beyond apparent paradoxes.

QUOTE

I think that you would agree with at least this much, with the expection of perhaps that last sentence.

No, I wouldn't.  It would seem that you've set up a straw man here, unintentionally no doubt, by misrepresenting my position, but that's ok.

QUOTE

Where you and I mainly differ, it seems to me, is, in the first place, whether or not is it possible to meaningfully contend that any perspective (set of definitions) is better, or morally superior than any other set of definitions and in the second place, whether or not we should seek real reconciliation between diverging perspectives by means of some sort of synthesis (distinct from the acceptance of paradox).  Your position allows you to answer negatively to both of those questions; mine does not.

I disagree with how you've characterized my position, since I would answer yes to both questions.   First off, I have said before that certain perspectives are better suited than others under certain circumstances, and that we should choose the perspective that we think is in our best interest under the particular circumstances.    Second, by realizing that diverging perspectives are simply different ways of interpreting the same sensory input, it follows that one evident type of synthesis occurs in the way that our brains construct these diverging perspectives to begin with.    Other types of synthesis are not ruled out.    But the main point here is that the acceptance of paradox is based on a deeper understanding concerning the apparently paradoxical positions, a deeper understanding that allows one to see beyond the paradox and to achieve such a synthesis.      As an almost trivial example, consider the one/many paradox concerning whether nature is composed of one or many.    This is no paradox since it is not an either/or dilemma.   Rather, the fact of the matter is that both "paradoxical" views contain some truth to them, but that a deeper truth underlies them both (namely, an understanding of the relation between the one and the many).

I think part of this misunderstanding on your part concerning my position is due to the way I put things in a previous post about being 'more accepting about paradoxes', or something to that effect.    What I should have said, if I was more careful to say what I actually meant, was about being 'more understanding about apparent paradoxes'.       'Apparent paradoxes' just appear like paradoxes to a great many people, but those who are more understanding of the deeper truth will see, not only the partial validity of both sides of the paradox, but also beyond the paradox, and to see the paradox for what it is, an illusion whose irreconciliation often is reflective of our ignorance concerning the 'paradoxical' matter under consideration.

QUOTE

Seeing that there is a fundamental similarity between our two epistemologies...

no, I don't believe we share similar epistemologies.    I believe your epistemology is rationalistic, objectivist, and tends to see everything in black vs white, whereas my epistemology, while it acknowledges the importance of rationalism, in particular with regard to science,  it also emphasizes the partial validities contained in multiple perspectives and worldviews, as well as the importance of direct experience, and particularly of mystical experience, for allowing us to directly experience 'truth' as opposed to merely describing it objectively.   Put another way, I think  you tend to see and describe truth from the 'outside' and  'objectively', which is fine for science which grants us a great deal of control over our environment, but science is certainly not the be all and end all of truth.  I'm not degrading science in any way here, but merely pointing out that it has limitations regarding what it can know.   The direct first-person experience of 'truth' falls outside the realm of science, because science is confined to speaking 'objectively' and in 'third-person'.   By confining yourself to 'objectivity' and 'third-person'  "truths", you limit yourself to merely talking about truth, but never experiencing 'truth' directly.  

QUOTE

But on the grounds that, if I understand you correctly, you cannot meaningfully discriminate between any set of arbitrary definitions, I must oppose you.

please show me where I made such a statement or inference, since I don't remember any such thing, and would be surprised if I had, depending on the context.    Just because I grant the partial validity of multiple different perspectives does not in any way imply that I cannot meaningfully discriminate between any set of arbitrary definitions.    Of course I maintain meaningful discriminations between definitions.   Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation in the first place because you would have no idea what I'm saying..... but I think you do.

QUOTE

Your philosophy while noble in intent does not allow room for yoy to say what people ought to do

thanks.  I'd like to think it rather noble too, but would disagree about it not telling people what they ought to do, since what I've said before, in line with Spinoza, is that people should seek what's in their best interest, and furthermore, that they should pragmatically employ the optimal perspective to put them in the proper mindset, in order to accomplish what they deem to be in their best interest.  

QUOTE

In many ways you epitomize the tenets of postmodernism.

no, not in the least.  Perhaps postpostmodernism, but even this is overly simplistic and inaccurate.  I know enough about postmodernism to know that 'that' is not what I'm about.     Simply acknowledging the partial validity contained in multiple perspectives and seeking to get beyond paradoxes through deeper understanding does not make me a postmodernist.    Show me one postmodernist who places such an emphasis on expanding consciousness, transcending ourselves, mystical experience, and in a realization of the universal Self.    You cannot, because such does not exist.  Hence, I am not a postmodernist.  

QUOTE

I'm not sure if you are familiar with how remarkable the resemblance is, and subsequently how far you are in actuality from Spinoza.

Spinoza is a remarkable mystic.   No doubt your statement above is based on your interpretation of him, but remember that there are multiple ways to interpret Spinoza, and that yours may be incorrect.   I would hope that yours is based on a first-hand understanding of his works, instead of through second-hand sources and commentators.  I assume it's through the former, and would request that if my assumption is correct, to please elaborate a bit more on your statement above.

Shawn

I don't have time to answer all of your comments immediately and it is unlikely, considering the nature of online discussion, that I will return to address them properly when I do have time, at least perhaps not in this discussion.  For that I apologize, but I will attempt to speak to the main body of your concerns at least generally.

First and I suppose most importantly, it is now clear to me that I have mischaracterized your position.  I hope that you will believe that this was an honest mistake and did not stem from a desire to demolish a self-constructed 'straw man' as it were.  The fact is, I am often rash and hasty in the conclusions I draw from assumed positions.  I stand by the arguments insofar as the premises are accurate, but where they are unfounded, I can only hope for leniency.  With that said, I feel that my position too, has suffered similar mistreatment.  This is to be expected seeing that I have done little to divulge what I affirm when in fact I do hold a position affirmatively.

It is difficult to say, at this point in the discussion, where the most beneficial course of progress might lie.  In previous posts, I have, with emphatic poignancy, championed the role of reason in the deliberation of justified belief, but to say that my epistemology is 'identical to the scientific method' is a non sequitur of the highest degree, although I must admit, arguments put forth in the spirit of the scientific method bear a striking resemblance to those of my own, and this point is one that I proudly acknowledge.

You asked me to define my use of 'true knowledge' with respect to the alleged dilemma of either/or.  This seems to be as good a place as any to resume, or more accurately re-begin, our inquiry.  My use of the phrase, in this sense, is that of the correspondence theory of truth--the idea that truth exists in the exact correlation of human knowledge to reality.  Knowledge in this sense is clear and distinct as Descartes would say, or analytic, as Kant would say, or objective as Rand would say.  Because truth describes in essense the objects of reality (rather than represents them as objects), any apparent paradox is evidence of the inadequacies of our definitions.  If the correct definitions are known and accepted, there can be no real paradox.  In my experience, to oppose what we have been calling the either/or dilemma is to oppose this theory of truth or a theory that subsumes it.  Either/or demands that when two assertions advocate opposing claims either one, or the other or neither can be considered truth according to the law of non-contradiction.  A can never equal not A.  Epistemologically, I disagree with this theory and based upon a misinterpretation of your response to seanf, I assumed you did as well.  But as best as I can tell, you do in fact hold the correspondence theory of truth to be accurate, at least in part.  To say that that paradox is illusory is to acknowledge the existence of truth in a metaphysical sense and the ability to know its essense, rationally or not.  I would argue that here, you and Joe agree, and even much of the scientific community.  But this should come as no surprise to anyone; this position this is common and very basic and to ascribe a novel importance to 'degrees of truth' in any perspective is nothing new and even more, it is irrelevent to our conversation, at least it is now.

Where most rationalists would disagree with you, and especially with Joe is the point where you equate this underlying truth of reality to God.  For the rationalist, truth stands alone and is in no need of theistic deification, let alone all of the questionable doctrines that often accompany it.  Spinoza who was at once both a rationalist and a mystic did something similar.  For Spinoza, the rational is real, that is, everything that does not violate the law of non-contradiction is necessarily real and existent.  Moreover, he mystically equated the totality of his rationally defined reality with God.  This earned him the label of an atheist by the traditional theists, as well as that of a mystic by the traditional rationalists.  On both points, Spinoza's theories were highly disputed--that the rational is real, and that the whole of reality can be called God.  It was in its own way, effective in resolving the Cartesian duality of mind and body, but as a whole fails miserably the test of Occam's razor, and poorly accounts for value in a world of rational fact.  Spinoza's philosophy has been characterized as more of a dream than a philosophy--a beautiful optimistic dream, but a dream nontheless.

It is always the dreams which inspire evolution in thinking and advancement in awareness. The things that break the old paradigms in belief.
God cannot be contained in a box therefore only experience can validate the presence.
It is unfortunate that those that have had a bad experience concerning the objective point of view of God, via the intellect and the direction of common opinion, still hold so tightly to their lack of experience as a rationale for disbelief or the reason to invalidate the reality of God, or anything for that matter.

The perpetual glass is half empty kind of thinking, that seems so intellectually correct, and yet so spiritually challenged.
[img]http://www.willrich.supanet.com/signtext/1.gif[/img]

QUOTE

what is your basis for making this claim?

'physical intuition'

QUOTE

What practical or pragmatic difference does it make whether you say the 'essence' is uncountably finite vs being infinite, or whether uncountably finite structures can be rendered in it vs. an infinite number of structures?     You're making a distinction between the finite and infinite, and while I'm personally inclined towards the infinite, I don't see what practical difference it makes whether you accept 'infinite' vs 'uncountably finite'.   Â

I'm afraid you lost me there.  I don't recall talking of 'uncountably finite' structures.  I am talking about a finite (countable) quantity of 'elements' that may exist at any given instant

I thought intuition was a psychic process, unless were talking about associated feelings in the physical body which is usually stress moving.

I read an interesting article on the idea that the term "I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach" was not just a feeling but that the abdomen contains a cluster of nerves not unlike those that connect the brain to the rest of the body.
A man had made a statement that he would not be buried without his head when facing decapitation, and at the time the actual event occured the body got up and walked towards the head and collapsed after retrieving it. There are other stories of similar events where the head being separated from the body, the body continues to function for several minutes without the connection of the brain, and not just flailing around but managing complex functions and seemingly with purpose and intent.
It gives an interesting perspective to the ideas around manifest reality and the source of perception and thought.
Is it the mind that thinks or does the body think on its own separate from the mind and what would be the source of either.
The neuropeptides that link the cells in the body transmit signals from one part of the body to another so the body is literally a thinking machine. Sad thoughts trigger a reaction throughout the body and can cause the body to break down into dis-ease.
Sad thoughts though are relative to beliefs, and can be overcome by greater thoughts to create health and well being. But again where do these thoughts come from?
My teacher used to jokingly say Paris, all thoughts come from "Paris."
They come from the conscious infinite and are translated through the filters of the brains habitual memories and stress. Drop below the stress or remove the stress from the body and the belief system and the mind functions with the innocense of a child. The day can be met with fresh anticipation fueled by desire and intent rather than limited by habits based on negative realities and fear.
Ya know more people die on monday morning than any other day because they hate to face another week of their lives based on the same feelings and realities that they create over and over again.
Life is what you think it is until the veil is lifted and then it is pure potential. Anything can be created and accomplished when the mind and body are not limited by negativity and fear of failure or lack of self worth.

QUOTE

I am talking about a finite (countable) quantity of 'elements' that may exist at any given instant

Now theres an interesting idea, to take potential and limit it to a specific quantity in relationship to.............?

I can concieve of this if the mind is locked into a specific paradigm and the thinking process is limited to the control that fear would keep it boxed in.
 For instance if the belief was that the world was flat then the further one was from the mainland the greater the fear and the possibility the belief would actually cause one to die from the fear and the belief that they were headed towards doom.
 Like self hypnosis, creating walls around the psyche in the form of beliefs.
The thing is science keeps finding that these walls are illusions only and that the mind is only limited by the ideas that keep the programs in place.
It is a common experience though, the experiences that these beliefs in limitation are real. It is difficult to take an expanded experience and transfer it from one to another when they can't see outside of the box.
Usually by some accident the mind experiences something greater than the limited paradigm and when this happens either fear causes the person to cling to the old paradigm for fear of anihilation or to boldly step out into unknown territory.

Humans are limited only by their own walls of structure built on beliefs. I've seen, touched, heard this so that is all there is.
Potential is infinite and even multidimensional, it is only the limited mind that separates one from another. Ego limits peception to one thing at a time in time and in form.

It puts potential in a rather small box.

Consciousness is multidimensional and not limited to form or the formless, it can exist in both and connect the two together. It is only our beliefs that take anything into limitation.

QUOTE

Now theres an interesting idea, to take potential and limit it to a specific quantity in relationship to.............?

I'm not limiting anything, I'm just reporting reality.  The limit is in the 'energy', which is not an infinite resource.  fantasies of infinite energy are nothing but crutches that can lead one to get high on 'enlightenment' dope

it's not much different than schmokin' weed


8)

Joe, an apology. I feel that I have, at least to an extent, misunderstood you. I still don't agree with you, but I feel our views are closer than I have previously thought. My belief is that possibility or 'phase space' is infinite, and that therefore everything that is possible will happen, without existence contradicting itself (the best example I can give is that although at some points in infinity God will exist, also there will be points where he/she/it does not, and therefore there will be no God pervading the entire phase space). I suppose you could call my view an infinity of finite things. This infinity is in some ways similar to your 'self,' although for me consciousness is something finite within it, not an aspect of the infinity itself. Please forgive incoherencies and difficulties with this view, as I am creating, exploring, and developing it even as I write - I will try to answer as best I can. Joe, I have got over my animosity towards you I think - you can be overbearing and arrogant in tone, but we all have faults, and I am interested in learning about your views, although, as I'm sure you are aware, I don't accept it as anything more than your truth.

Shawn, I agree that the identity between various selves allows us to see the universe as containing many selves or one. I just got wound up at Joe, that's all (who has, by the way, repeatedly maintained that there is only one truth). On the subject of truth, I agree with Joe that we are contained by the limits of language. I have many other thoughts and ideas tumbling through my brain, but to try and put them all down would just confuse me. Let's continue this discussion and we'll see what I come up with.

Another alternative to the correlation theory of truth is the dialectic view of truth.  After contemplating my response I think that Shawn may be more accurately described according to this theory.  While there are certain similarities and while they both rely upon the same fundamental presupposition that reality can be known in essense (a point which I dispute), they are certainly different.  In fact, Hegel, who developed the dialectic method more so than any other philosopher is uncannily similar to my understanding of Shawn's philosophy especially with respect to expanding consciousness and the synthesis of apparent contradictions into a fundamental statement of truth.  Just wanted to throw that in, before I am accused of ignoring it.

QUOTE

My belief is that possibility or 'phase space' is infinite, and that therefore everything that is possible will happen,

even if 'possibility space' were finite, everyting that is possible might still happen.  
and if 'possibility space' were infinite, then at no point could you state that all possibilities have yet happened (as there would always be more), thus your conclusion that all possibilities must happen can never be realized

and, perhaps the rational idea of 'infinite possibility' is nothing more than an emotionalism masquerading as rationality

Jeez loweez Dan, if your going to remain uncomitted and throw out all these possibilities how are you ever going to get anyone to take you seriously.[img]http://www.willrich.supanet.com/smileys/7.gif[/img]

QUOTE

how are you ever going to get anyone to take you seriously.

this is a very interesting statement, Joey.  It sounds like you are interested in getting people to take you seriously by virtue of pandering to their desires.  

I guess that I can never be taken seriously by your standards, as I appear to lack the selfish motive to seduce the masses with fiction


8)

You mean you appear to lack the ability to commit to anything other than common interest which would call anything outside that fiction.

QUOTE

You mean you appear to lack the ability to commit to anything other than common interest which would call anything outside that fiction

no, I mean that I lack the desire to accost the confused with fantasy in order to serve my own self-interest

QUOTE

Show me one postmodernist who places such an emphasis on expanding consciousness, transcending ourselves, mystical experience, and in a realization of the universal Self.    You cannot, because such does not exist.  Hence, I am not a postmodernist.

Postmodernists owe much of their ancestry to Hegel and it is not uncommon to see prevalent strains of Hegelian thought in their work.  Look at Friedrich Jameson for example.  While such philosophies do not emphasize the themes you mentioned to the exclusion of the other, perhaps more important aspects, such as deconstructionism, there are undeniable similarities.  In hindsight, I think you are right to disclaim the label of postmodernism, but I think if you looked closely, you might find the resemblance intrigueing.  Then again, you might not.

QUOTE

no, I mean that I lack the desire to accost the confused with fantasy in order to serve my own self-interest

That would be debateable for your own self interest is and has been reasoned and placed here on this board by accosting the presence of others that you think are less than you by your determination of their presence and inabilities.
I would gather your interest is to perpetuate your ideas or you wouldn't be here.

I think the reference to Hegel and his dialectic is rather intriguing, and is something I need to cogitate more on and familiarize myself more with.   Admittedly, Schopenhauer's disparaging treatment of Hegel sort of turned me off to his ideas, but in retrospect, this probably constituted a premature and unjustified dismissal of Hegel on my part.   Let me look into this a bit more and get back to you.

One point that is worth mentioning, where I differ markedly from Hegel, is my emphasis on 'state of mind' as underlying any sort of epistemology, and that epistemological methods which are considered valid or useful in one 'state of mind' can be rendered invalid, or meaningless, in another.   Ultimately, everything, including notions of 'truth' and epistemology, depend on state of mind.   Hegel's dialectical method appears suitable for certain states of mind, but not for others.   The ability to use his dialectic for getting beyond paradoxes, on the surface of it, looks similar to what I said above, but since its utility is confined to a certain subset of states of mind, states of mind that are largely associated with the philosophers of past, its general validity or usefulness can be called into question.  

All of mankind's thoughts are relative, and thus can be perceived to constitute the most insignificant reflection.   Hegel's system is not excluded from this assessment.  To the extent that he tried to formulate a closed system, and in particular, a thoroughly rationalistic system, he's doomed to failure.    Any notion of truth must be open, must be unbounded.   The elaborate systems of thought that man constructs can always be rendered meaningless, false, and useless in different states of mind.   Mankind has experienced but the tiniest subset of states of mind available to him.    When he enlarges his repertoire of states of mind, and in particular, when he begins to experience more transcendent states of consciousness, then the systems of thought constructed by philosophers and thinkers of the past become narrow-minded oversimplifications that ultimately dissolve into meaninglessness, or at best, are simply accepted as 'partially' or 'negligibly valid' within a much larger framework of truth that was not visible or accessible to philosophers and thinkers of past.

Hegel's system is a product of his states of mind.   If we transcend the states of mind available to him, or to any other, then we necessarily transcend their systems of thought and the 'truths' contained therein.   All truth is dependent on state of mind.    Even mankind's current notion of 'scientific truth'.


 

QUOTE

That would be debateable for your own self interest is and has been reasoned and placed here on this board by accosting the presence of others that you think are less than you by your determination of their presence and inabilities. I would gather your interest is to perpetuate your ideas or you wouldn't be here.

the key difference between us, Joey, is that you are stuck in a self-involved fantasy that promises free lunches while I am dealing with reality

Free lunch? nobody told me about the free lunch... Now I'm pissed!!!

that's amazing!   here you are, assuming a free lunch, and not even realizing it!  I guess ignorance really is bliss
;D

I'm amazed that you are amazed. Amazing!

(I'm amazed that you are amazed that)^n + I am amazed! {where n-> infinity}

 :P

8)

'fraid not..............
   :-*

Dan: "even if 'possibility space' were finite, everyting that is possible might still happen.  
and if 'possibility space' were infinite, then at no point could you state that all possibilities have yet happened (as there would always be more), thus your conclusion that all possibilities must happen can never be realized"

Me: There are two ideas here. If everything possible can happen in a finite possibility space, then possibility is finite. I do not believe this. The key to your next point (possibly - I'm still making this up as I go along) is where you say that "at no point could you state that all possibilities have yet happened." You assume that possibility space is bound by time. In my idea of it, there is no relationship between all the possibilities. I should have phrased it as all possibilities already have happened, are happening, and will happen - an infinity in every direction. That sounds pretentious, and i'm not sure it communicates what I mean, but I'm having trouble containing the ideas in my heads in words and sentences.

Dan: "perhaps the rational idea of 'infinite possibility' is nothing more than an emotionalism masquerading as rationality"

Me: Could you point out to me the bit in the rulebook where it says reality has to be rational?

QUOTE

If everything possible can happen in a finite possibility space, then possibility is finite. I do not believe this.

I guess it does kinda kill the dream, eh?    :'(

QUOTE

all possibilities already have happened, are happening, and will happen - an infinity in every direction. That sounds pretentious, and i'm not sure it communicates what I mean, but I'm having trouble containing the ideas in my heads in words and sentences. Â

I think this is commonly referred to as 'nonsense'.  You are trying to climb out of the box by assuming you are not in it.  You can try all you want, but I predict that you cannot escape.

I'm going to stoop to a 'joeism'; there is only Now, and the universe moves Now.  That's all there is to it.  The concept 'time' is derived from those two facts.  

If you assume that the universe is completely deterministic, you can think of the sum of the universe's track through phase-space as a superstructure.  This superstructure is your 'timeless' universe, however, it only exists in your mind as a 'theory'.  Reality is not a theory, it just is.  And What is, is Now.  (if you look honestly, you'll see your universe undergoing constant structural transformation in sequence rather than presenting a 'timeless' totality of its history and possibility)


8)

If all you want to do is sit in the back of the bus all your life then it looks as Dan describes it.
This is the no balls approach to life. Take the collective rationalism of the majority apply that as your truth and feel comfortable with the remote control in your hand and get fat and die as you watch the reality of  the rational majority.
A potato is still a potato whether glued to the couch or the world.

Actually Joe:

Believing in myths and faerie tales is the easy way out.  Accepting the existential dilemma takes more courage than some silly religion.  They say religion is the opium of the masses, not reason.  You live in bizarro-land!

What you don't believe in faries?
As for myths. The basic foundations of myths are long forgotten details based on actual people and events.
As for the existential dilemma. I can't see the use for remaining solid in the idea that reality is a dilemma.
You may think it heroic but it is closer to delusion than the reality of multidmensional aspects to the consciousness in form and possibility of the formless.

The statement religion is the opium of the masses is a statement made by someone that had an idea about religion and its affect on the unknowing followers of the purveyors of truth.
What I teach comes from actual experience, not popular beliefs in dilemmas as the reality of religion.
Religion in historical definition is a belief that is supported by a majority. Your religion of dilemma seems to be an opium to squash the subtle senses and possibilites, for the strength of believing in the unanswerable paradox and the preaching of imminent emptiness.
I don't prescribe to your religion of the emptiness dilemma and its dead end road to death, because I know it is the grand illusion of the ego. I also know by experience there is much more to life than the empty nothing dilemma.
You can call me as many names as you wish but I am not so inclined to lower myself to your level of attack and denigration to support your reality of following the beliefs of others that are steeped in the lack of experience of the greater aspects of human consciousness.  :-*

If all you want to do is sit in the shadow of the nuthouse all your life then it looks as Joe describes it.
This is the ball-licking approach to life. Reject the collection of rational knowledge used by the majority, apply 'alternative' ideas as your truth and feel giddy with the prospect of salvation in your hand and get stupid and die as you deny the validity of rational knowledge.
A potato is still a potato whether stuck in a lotus position or actively engaged in the fray

8)

You only do it if you can. :

QUOTE

What I teach comes from actual experience

Ok then.  Tell us about this "experience."  Don't throw in your conclusions, just describe to us the experience as you experienced it.  Don't leave out important details like, "I was hitting the pipe one day...and had vision...," that sort of thing.  They don't call em 'pipe dreams' for nothing.

Or can you not describe it in words?  LOL.

I speak from experience. If you cannot hear it then there is no point in trying to do it again. What would be the point? It would be like trying to talk louder to the foreigner hoping this time he might understand what I am saying even though he doesn't understand my language.
You haven't the ability to leave what you grasp onto to recieve anything else.

Why not try again?  Describe your experience.  That is a reasonable request.

Take everything you think you know, trash it and bring your awareness back to the point of your conscious mind at birth and we might have a beginning point of reference.
How's that. That's about as to the point as I can get without writing pages of history and adjectives to describe what can't be described.

Find it within yourself. That in itself is the best way to know what I experience. So far you've barely scratched the surface. Go deeper.