= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
reguru comments on Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (119)
Are you advocating cartesian dualism?
You confuse ontology and epistology. It might not be possible for me to prove that I'm made up of neurons but that doesn't mean that I'm not made up of neurons. You can't go from one to the other easily.
You seem to have an understanding of what's
trueis supposed to mean that you unquestioningly accept. A concept that you learned as a child and where you now get into trouble because it doesn't matches the complex reality. The problem is the concept that you have in your head.The fact that the concepts inside your head doesn't make sense doesn't mean that other people can't reason and don't mean something useful when they speak of truth.
References is a different concept than identity and "is". It's a concept that you currently don't seem to understand.
In computer programming it's different to store a pointer than to store a variable that contains it's own data. Can you follow the analogy in the realm of computers?
No, non-dualism where the territory is what you are and all maps are simply human projections. But by direct experience, not by writing of it, you, actually investigating yourself.
I don't know, but still is the neurons a map within the territory? With my claim that you are the territory, by direct experience of it yourself, (not objective, subjective).
True in relation to the arational. One small truth over the other is irrelvant to the larger picture, but within the picture they are. But it's only subjective experience, by the nature of this investigation.
That's a clarification, but regardless it is quite irrelevant to what we're discussing I think (or what I want to discuss).
It's relevant to the concept of what a reference happens to be. Of course if you are not interested in learning that or discussing it, than there's no reason to talk about it.
In dualism the maps in my head and what I am on a physical level are independent. In the physicalist view of the world the maps in our heads are dependent on neuron wiring patterns. You seem to argue that the dualist view is true. Otherwise you don't get your independence.
What makes you think I am arguing for the dualist view? Is it the overall impression or some certain statements?
I do write "subjective experience" and so forth to ease in and try and make this a bit more understandable. :D
You speak of an reality that's rationalist being independent from one that's arational. If they are truly independent you have at least a dualist view (and possible more categories).
What I mean is that you don't exist, but arational reality does and "you" is the entirety of reality. The body which you see is a part of arational reality. But you can only experience this yourself. Talking of it is the same thing, it is thinking (when what I am saying is that we should not think) because it's just creating maps upon maps. If you just look around, imagine this is arational reality. Then you name an object, that's a thought, which is a map. When thoughts are quiet and you are not labeling and you have given up the notion of "you" existing, you have merged.
Of course it requires you to do the work, and it's probably going to take a long time to give up the map of "you", I haven't done it myself.
You seem to be strongly attached to whether or not something exist and the binary classification of something either existing or not.
That suggests that I have a single map of "I". That doesn't happen to be the case. There might have been a time where my level of introspection was structured in a way where it's true but that's not the case today.
You argument resolves around you yourself having a wrong map that you haven't given up. As a practical matter it's questionable whether you are even at the moment on a course that leads in a direction of giving it up, but that would be a debate about spiritual guidance.
No, I think it's unlikely, however.
You aren't enlightened are you? It's unlikely that you aren't in the trap of the ego otherwise.
Of course, I am becoming more aware of it. I do think that I am on the course of giving it up, one can give it up at any moment, but it might just happen randomly.
My argument also revolves around placing you and others on the path.
What makes you think you're qualified to place others on specific paths?
People go on paths regardless what you do, the better you are at convincing the likelihood they venture on a specific path is higher, I think. I don't see why it's a question of qualification, that would be more from the paradigm of the ego I think.
Whether you want to use the binary enlightened/unenlightened distinction is up to you. I'm not a fan of binary classifications.
I'm just saying that you are making assumptions about me that are not true. You likely don't have preexisting categories for the state in which I happen to be when it comes to my relationship with the self.
Basically you are inspired by an idea and try to preach it to people who think differently and categorize other people on a path where they are less evolved than you are. In a Buddhist view, that would likely be seen as strong attachment to ego. From the way you are writting it appears like you don't have self awareness of that fact. The people I know who had samadi experiences are not like that but are generally more self aware of drives like that. They also generally aren't attached to binary classfication as much. It also seems that you don't have awareness of how that issue affects you.
It gives the impression that you think you have read a book and the task is simply about implementing the concepts through work. And maybe through spreeding the gospel. That's however not how it works. It's a typical approach for New Agey people and those often don't get very deep because they treat some knowledge as dogma with prevents letting go of concepts.
That said, I'm not seeking the end that the Buddhist seek. I'm also not saying that anybody should.
I like to use enlightened/unenlightened, because if you are enlightened you know. But you also might be tricking yourself that you are enlightened, thus cannot become something which you think you are. I think I have had a glimpse and some of it transitioned over. But then there is the ego, the monkey mind. Very close but still far away.
That's true, it's only assumptions. I assume you have ego because I have it, because I think a lot have it and here as well. It seems to be such a norm. But I don't know how to spot it outside of my own assumptions from experience. Maybe some MRI scans have seen this 'self'-hallucination.
In a discussion, isn't it possible when someone is making an assumption about you, that you reply it is not true? Is it the case you do not have an ego?
I might be dogmatic in thinking I am more aware of certain things, but that's just the order of whatever. It's a paradigm of the ego definitely, transcending it would be interesting.
It can also be the case it doesn't seem like many can even phantom to understand what I am communicating, or even are able to see everything from their perspective.
You have to see it from the perspective of ego, an ego lies. By spotting which text is from the ego and thus removing it, I have tricked myself in the process and strengthened my ego. There isn't a bad part of "I" "you" or anyone else, which is the ego, the whole thing is it. But I do become more aware of my unawareness, and tricking myself in the process. This is hard.
We go to those that are enlightened, they do not come to us. Nothing matters, everything is nothing. Binary classifications is such a non-issue. :)
I know.
That seems like a strawman.
Everything I have said is secular, but I think that you see the world through your own eyes.
Maybe it was because of the word "enlightened/unenlightened/enlightenment"?