Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

Elo

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "Make this post available under..." before submitting.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "Make this post available under..." before submitting.

Arational is independent of reasoning and understanding. It is what it is, any map is not the arational.

Are you advocating cartesian dualism?

That's a logical conclusion, a map. You haven't seen your own neurons and even if you could in this very moment, you couldn't be the neurons which you are seeing.

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.

I don't understand again, I mean that language is a map, all communication, every letter, every word, it's a human projection. I t ' s a h u m a n p r o j e c t i o n a n d n o t t t r u e .

You seem to have an understanding of what's true is 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.

But what's the different between "is x" and "references to x" it's just a shortcut to say "is x"?

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?

Are you advocating cartesian dualism?

Sounds to me more like the Vedantic monism of self-is-all, to me.

0reguru10y

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).