Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2321602 -

Holy moly, man.  :smile:

so was my reasoning appropriate about the Koan on the tree?

Only the self-grasping mind.
You're very certain on the theory of illusions.  well, i guess this world, and everything in the universe is illusive.  Every darn theoretical physics theory out there is most likely a cause of  self-grasping minds then? ~_^

yu're asserting the recognition of a fundamental representation of reality based on a very tenable system and your own analysis/experience. 

However, the "body" does not inherently exist is quite ahem cold, analytical periscopic view.  I don't recognize what you say.  I may recognize what you apphrehend as false (your examples previously) but it doesn't mean it is.  As I mentioned before, its "apologetic contradiction" of a perfectionist unless you're not using the precise words in your explanations or I didn't see your clause of "my personal theories are working progress."  How can it be false if the person doesn't have your unique awareness, self-realizations, and knowledge? you don't detect an aberration when you use "false"?

if there is a fundamental, I love the love of expression in ALL Life.  the beauty of existence in its infinite capacity to create and evolve.

tata

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Keyannki]
    #2323542 -

>> Every darn theoretical physics theory out there is most likely a cause of self-grasping minds then?

Or a symptom, yes. Almost any scientific discovery can be slotted into the interconnected view with only some minor adjustments. Western people, who dominate theoretical physics and most of the advanced sciences, typically abide within heavily divided views. As a result, their theories and discoveries are coloured with this outlook. We can see this by observing the level of competitiveness and selfishness in our capitalist social order. Because we have such a self-centred worldview, we have built a society which thrives on gathering matieral things for the self, and the self's closest companions and protectors. The way we handle our resources and assign hierarchy to a heavily populated society is coloured by our self-grasping view.


>> However, the "body" does not inherently exist is quite ahem cold, analytical periscopic view.

It may appear this way to someone who cherishes and is attached to the body. To those who see no value to such attachment, it does not act as an obstruction to an understanding of the idea which was being presented through the example of the body's dependent-related unfolding. The view I am presenting is the Buddhist view. It is being presented because a number of individuals have requested that it be presented. There is no clause stating that these are my personal theories and are working progress because these are not my personal theories. They are a careful articulation of views which have been handed down to me through a lineage of Buddhist teachings.

I'm sorry if you see this view as cold, analytical, periscopic. It is not intended as such.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2332527 -

"Form is dependent upon mere imputation by conception because apart from the imputation by conception there is no form to be found at all."

Form is not based on impuation. Impuation is based on form. 

Okay, lets just ignore everything i said before. Just forget it. I read your response, but im not going to get into it all. And i really don't need to, because im really only challenging a couple main premises.

The main thing im challenging, is the premise that the existence of an object is based on impuation. I challenge this because it ignores the fact that we recieve input that is unadulterated by our mind.

The mind recieving unadulterated input is important in determining whether an object exists without imputation or not. Because if it does exist, then imputation does not assign existence to an object. It only assigns a convient symbol to a phenomina in the field of perception. If it does'nt exist, then the input must be coming from the mind and thusly, not external. If it is not external, then we can say the mind is what assigns official existence to an object.

Now, it can be said that we do recieve unadulterated input, but that we do not perceive it's true nature, or that "imputation" is the only thing that distinguishes the existence of objects. Now, i suppose this could be said, but it could'nt officially be proven or deduced- even if we see that every phenomina is dependent on other phenomina. This is because there'd be no offical way to establish credibility to our perceptions. (this is bad for me, considering I already have a slight solipsist problem.)

The main crossroad (i think.), between your position and mine, is when,.......Well here, answer me this:

Look at your keyboard.
Is the perception of your 'keyboard' only an impuation?
Or is it a perception that is not of your mind's doing, that you then impute with your mind?

:stoned:


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: David_Scape]
    #2334011 -

A major part of all imputation by conception is the assumption of seperateness. Because we are able to impute conceptualizations upon phenomenon, we are able to continuously apprehend phenomenon as seperate, discretely unfolding.

When we glance downward at our keyboard, we are first informed that there is a discretely existing object beneath our fingers. We are then immediately informed that this discretely existing object is designated as "keyboard". Finally, we apprehend these two experiences as truth, and assume the keyboard to be a discretely unfolding phenomenon, the existence of which is occuring inherently, from it's own side, independent of mind. This is how we experience reality.


>> Look at your keyboard. Is the perception of your 'keyboard' only an impuation? Or is it a perception that is not of your mind's doing, that you then impute with your mind?

Implicit in this question is that "keyboard" is an imputation upon a discretely unfolding phenomenon. While it is agreed that "keyboard" is a mere imputation, it is not agreed that this is a mere imputation upon a discretely unfolding phenomenon. However, the presence of a discretely unfolding phenomenon is required before we can begin imputing a concept such as "keyboard." This is because our conceptualizations require a basis of imputation. Contemplating this, we can discover how our imputations continuously support our experience of discretely unfolding phenomenon, and our experience of discretely unfolding phenomenon continuously provides bases for our imputations.

Disregarding the name we have chosen for it, how is it that our keyboard exists as a discretely unfolding phenomenon?

Your suggestion as I understand it has been that an object exists discretely, but our experience of that object remains pervaded by our imputations. If we were to remove the imputations, we would discover the true nature of the object, a discretely unfolding phenomenon. My response to this suggestion has been that if we are to remove all of our imputations, such as "keyboard", "plastic", "rectangle", "grey", and so forth, we would discover that we are no longer able to apprehend the object as distinct. The reason for this is has to do with two elements of our mistaken awareness:

1) The assumption of the inherent existence of mere imputations
2) The assumption of discretely unfolding phenomenon

These two elements of mistaken awareness are mutually dependent upon one another. If one were removed from the equation of our experience, the other must cease its function. If we stop our experience of discretely unfolding phenomenon, the basis for our imputations disappears. In the same way, if we stop our experience of mere imputations, the parameters which define phenomenon as distinct suddenly vanish. Because this is true, if we are to select an object and gradually remove the imputations from our experience of that object, it would gradually become more difficult to continue viewing the object as a discretely unfolding phenomenon.

Take the example of the keyboard. If we discard the imputation of keyboard, we must fall back upon another imputation such as plastic. Now, we are expericing a grey piece of plastic. If we discard the imputation of grey, we might fall back upon the imputation of bumpy. This is a bumpy piece of plastic. However, we are still relying upon our imputations. We can throw out bumpy, since "bumpy" is an entirely subjective experience. Understanding that plastic is a dependent-related phenomenon, we know that it too is a categorization of our minds. We can throw out the imputation of plastic. Now all we have left is a rectangle. If we discard the imputation of rectangle, how are we able to distinguish this object from another object, such as our mouse? Here, it becomes impossible to continue our invesitgation.

Apart from imputation, there is no experience of seperateness, and therefore there is no form to be found at all.

The mistaken awareness of discretely unfolding phenomenon directly supports the mistaken awareness of inherently existent imputations upon those phenomenon. We cannot impute an object without first apprehending it as distinct, because there must be a basis for our imputation. By the same token, the mistaken awareness of inherently existent imputations directly supports the mistaken awareness of discretely unfolding phenomenon. So long as we continue designating objects by their functions, size, shape, appearance and other ultimately meaningless attributes, we will continue to experience all phenomenon as distinct.

It is not possible to discover the underlying nature of a distinct object by discarding our imputations. If we discard our imputations, the distinctiveness of that object begins to break down.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2334310 -

I've been following this thread all the while... it is very interesting. I haven't really contributed because there isn't much I can say...

But I agree with Ped. All there is, is energy. Energy flowing. All of this stuff around us, these walls, this keyboard, the Earth.. isn't it all just energy?

Like Ped says, where do we draw the line? Is it a keyboard? Is it plastic? How far are you going to reduce it to find the "truth"?

All I've found is that there are forms of energy, at different levels. It flows, everything is always changing, and it is all of the same. From our extremely limited perspective, this energy has stabilized and we have solid objects and set rules for our existance...

Well, time is dependant on the perspective as well. All of what we can see when we look into space, what we label as our "universe" has happened in the equivalent of a second from a higher, more encompassing viewpoint. This "vein of energy" that we are in could at any moment flow back into another one, which would totally change everything...

I would be willing to bet that I have universes within my own body, and that our stars are just subatomic particles composing a different "universe"... as above, so below, etc... an infinity existing within an infinity.

I no longer see space as existing. It is just our limited perspective from within that gives us the illusion of space. All of this is within one single point of energy, and is just subdivisions... and the subdivisions aren't actually there.

This is why I haven't contributed, I find it as being more of an image type thing.. very visual. I find it impossible to put into words because it involves shifts in perspective that communication cannot provide for.. only experience.

Anyways, thanks to everyone who has contributed. I really appreciate it! :laugh:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2334324 -

I just (yesterday) picked up the new book by Brian Greene, "The Fabric of the Cosmos". He is the same author as The Elegant Universe, an excellent book on String theory and quantum physics, for any who have read it.

His new book is about existence, the nature if spacetime, and related concepts...so when I get it finished you can expect some more posts by me in this thread :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
    #2334388 -

Thank you for the references, trendal.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: fireworks_god]
    #2335377 -

"But I agree with Ped. All there is, is energy."

I always wonder if it is possible for there to be an absense of energy, like an absolute, true "nothing?"


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Strumpling]
    #2340544 -

Hi goodfellas

I am new to this forum, but have read your philosphical inquiries with great interest. Our common experiences with consciousness-altering substances is no doubt very helpful when pertaining to such explorations (perhaps mainly because a change in consciousness gives another frame of reference from where to measure reality). There are lots of interesting issues at hand here but I will just take up the tread where it ended and comment on Strumplings question:

>>I always wonder if it is possible for there to be an absense of energy, like an absolute, true "nothing?"

As has been stated in previous contributions; there is really nothing that is separate from anything else. Reality is painted with dotted lines, due to our choice of cathegorization. 'Nothingness' can not be separate from 'being', and if nothingness cannot be separate it is no longer nothingness. There is nothing that is separate from anything else, I stated, well there you have it! If there is something that is separate from anything else, it is nothing :smirk: But then of course if it were separate from us we would never have anything to do with it.


Hegel taught in his dialectical approach that every idea pursued to its end becomes its opposite. If we were to look at a fundamental concept like 'existence', the idea of existence would, when explored, eventually lead to the idea of non-existence. Then we would have a paradox since existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive concepts. But in a dialectical approach a seeming paradox can be united at a higher level. In this case the higher level of the static being and non-being is becoming. So we see that enfolded within the notion of being is becoming, and so it all begins...


--------------------
There are no differences between men and gods,
one blends softly causal into the other.
-Frank Herbert, Dune.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: The_Visionaire]
    #2340773 -

Indeed,

"Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form is not other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness."


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2341674 -

Or a symptom, yes.  Almost any scientific discovery can be slotted into the interconnected view with only some minor adjustments.  Western people, who dominate theoretical physics and most of the advanced sciences, typically abide within heavily divided views.  As a result, their theories and discoveries are coloured with this outlook.  We can see this by observing the level of competitiveness and selfishness in our capitalist social order.  Because we have such a self-centred worldview, we have built a society which thrives on gathering matieral things for the self, and the self's closest companions and protectors.  The way we handle our resources and assign hierarchy to a heavily populated society is coloured by our self-grasping view.

I would agree there is division. theoretical physicists' main goal is illumination by a discourse of distinction in their theories by conceptualization.  the degree is beyond average people's understanding.  ie: loop quantum gravity - spacetime continuum is a mass of a network of nodes spinning

whether it is self-grasping, I beg to differ.  I do like the concepts' congruency with "space being an illusion."

It may appear this way to someone who cherishes and is attached to the body.  To those who see no value to such attachment, it does not act as an obstruction to an understanding of the idea which was being presented through the example of the body's dependent-related unfolding.  The view I am presenting is the Buddhist view.  It is being presented because a number of individuals have requested that it be presented.  There is no clause stating that these are my personal theories and are working progress because these are not my personal theories.  They are a careful articulation of views which have been handed down to me through a lineage of Buddhist teachings.


Roger that.  I'll cut to the chase.  I don't normally respond unless I have to.  I was compelled to come into this thread.  I guess my radar saw a huge blip before. :laugh:

Aight, Ped-san.  the short and sweet.  What you're using is Spirit Relativity's conditional form to comprehend the emptiness of all forms of existence. The condition is illusionism.  True Spirit Relativity has no other conditions (isms) but is to observe the interdependency of expression of *All* forms of existence, unconditionally.  A fundamental by itself.  when you use another one, operating precedently, you express dualness.

Why? for one, the laws of Numerology assert the no. 2 is the expression of duality.

the nearer you resonate to SR, the needless of the conditions and the mass and density of your consciousness becomes more light. 

Everything has a mass and density.  :cool:

there you go.  I gave away too much already.  I'm off into the wilderness, again.

Edited by Keyannki (02/16/04 02:41 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Keyannki]
    #2345027 -

>> What you're using is Spirit Relativity's conditional form to comprehend the emptiness of all forms of existence. The condition is illusionism. True Spirit Relativity has no other conditions (isms) but is to observe the interdependency of expression of *All* forms of existence, unconditionally. A fundamental by itself. when you use another one, operating precedently, you express dualness.

I'm not familiar with "Spirit Relativity." The interdependence of phenomenon is being used in these articulations to demonstrate that form as we apprehend it does not exist inherently. There is no intent from my side to convey the emptiness of all forms of existence. Rather, the emptiness of inherent existence of form is being demonstrated. These two views serve as examples for eachother and are not ultimately dualistic.

It is extremely difficult to express a unified view to ordinary dualistic individuals such as ourselves. Dualism pervades even the most subtle aspects of our experience.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2377891 -

I submit to ped, and i thank you!

And at the risk of sounding cheesy, this thread is responsible for a very very important turning point in my life. I thank you :heart: , and everyone who participated in it!  :sun:



[Sorry to bring this thread up again, but after finding out, I could'nt get myself to post again without expressing it.]


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Edited by David_Scape (02/26/04 02:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2378325 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: ]
    #2378597 -

Eagerly awaiting, my friend!  :smile:


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2380115 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2433102 -

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2434019 -

Ped writes:

An objective reality must be an unchanging reality. Since there is no unchanging reality, there is no objective reality. Reality is entirely subjective.

????

Could you please explain the chain of reasoning leading to this conclusion?

A star is real. It exists whether there is a consciousness around to perceive it or not. Yet that star is in constant flux -- it changes constantly.

The fact that motion exists doesn't mean that existence is subjective.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Phred]
    #2434040 -

Oops. Upon reading further down the thread, I see that Skorpivo was here before me.

As Skorpivo points out, this is a battle between two fundamentally opposed views of reality: the "primacy of consciousness" vs the "primacy of existence".

Since the "primacy of consciousness" supposition inevitably reduces back to solipsism, it is logically irrefutable. Logic and observation are null concepts to a solipsist.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Phred]
    #2434378 -

We can carry out an investigation to pinpoint the actual location of the star. We should be able to accomplish this by removing that which is not the star. Let's look at helium first. Is helium the same as the star? Of course it is not. We can discard helium, because helium is not a star. Since hydrogen atoms are not stars, we can discard them as well. Now lets look at the convection shell. If the convection shell were somehow floating through space on it's own, that surely wouldn't be a star either. What's left? The core surely cannot be considered a star all by itself. A photosphere is not a star, so we can discard that along with the corona, which is also not a star.

If each of the star's parts were of the same nature of a star, then we would have a great many stars in one location. This is obviously nonsense. Since each of the star's constituents are not of the same nature of a star, we should be able to remove those consituents and discover the inherent nature of the star. What we discover, however, is that no such inherent nature can be found. This is because a star exists in dependence upon parts. At present, we perceive a star as though it possessed it's own inherent nature. No inherent nature can be found anywhere except within the assumptions of an imputing conciousness.

When stars are born, they aggregate from clouds of gas which have collapsed under there own gravity. The collapse is halted by internal pressure at the newly forming the core of the star. During the collapse, the potential energy of infalling hydrogen atoms is converted to kinetic energy, heating the core. As the temperature goes up, the pressure goes up to stop the collapse. A balance is found in this way which persists for ten or so million years, before finally exhausting it's heat energy, dropping pressure, and completing it's initial collapse. A star is perhaps the best example of a dependent-related phenomenon, because it is difficult to pinpoint a moment in time when the star came into existence. At which moment was there only a cloud of gas, and what occured independently of mind that changed "gas cloud" to "star"?

Where is the star's inherent nature?

A star cannot exist as a "star" without a conciousness present to assign it such categorization. If a star were to exist independently of the imputing conciousness, it must have an absolute beginning, and it must have an absolute end, both spatially and temporally. It is difficult to pinpoint these locations becase it is only the categorizing mind which decides upon such distinctions.

If this were untrue, and the star existed completely independent of our imputations, it must follow that the star possesses fixed spatial boundries, and no temporal origination nor cessation. Therefore, part of the criteria for assigning an object true inherent existence is it's permanent, unchanging state. Since no objects exist this way, no objects exist inherently, independently, and from their own side.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Edited by Ped (03/15/04 11:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* pre-existance
( 1 2 all )		 fearfect 2,282 31 07/30/04 09:03 PM
by 777
* A big reason why aliens DO exist!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 Ego Death 15,702 181 08/06/03 10:53 AM
by Azmodeus
* it seems therefore, that God does not exist. whiterastahippie 1,880 12 11/11/11 02:01 AM
by thefloodbehind
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Anonymous 22,475 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* God Exists
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Zahid 12,428 113 03/18/03 03:57 PM
by falcon
* Death & Time don't exist. Where God comes from...
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Shroomalicious 9,589 69 12/18/02 06:30 PM
by Strumpling
* Dose God exist? Take a look around.
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Bavet 7,461 67 02/06/03 10:46 AM
by Strumpling
* Are you a slave to a God that doesn't exist?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Larrythescaryrex 8,030 42 07/30/02 04:00 PM
by Larrythescaryrex

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
22,147 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 17 queries.