WOF: Three or four things that Are on my mind.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Go back and read the first bit of my first post on this thread... good, now that we are in agreement, let's continue.

Why is it looking for short-answer conclusions? It's the central question to reality:

Why is there something instead of nothing at all?

The time-frame is irrelevant. In a linear universe one action is preceeded by another: cause--->effect

If we live in a linear universe there must be an original cause. Otherwise the universe cannot be linear. Right?

Actually, causal theory does not require an original cause. It merely anticipates an effect from a cause. Each cause must have a cause. It does not imply one original cause, and it never will. It only anticipates a cause before that cause.

Your reasoning is in itself flawed. You say, all causes have causes. There must be an original cause. Well, in order for there to be an original cause, and in order for it to qualify has a cause, your own position on the issue demands a cause before the original cause, or else this does not qualify as an original cause. But an original cause that has been caused? Cannot be. You substitute, instead, an original cause that has not been caused....and therefore is not a cause. The entire logic of this line of questioning is self-contradictory. You question infinite causation, yet offer up as an alternative an infinite being. It's two methods of describing one thing, only you're giving a chain of causation (hence, of being) a personality, and demanding it to be the "big cheese," thereby putting something unecessary into a logical formulation of causation.

This is why it is short answer reasoning. You've cut out the substance of causual theory, the very definition of it, then used it against its own functional compatability.

As for string theory.....it's too complicated for a web board, and it isn't my bread and butter (I'm studying it, but I don't understand it on a skilled level). I can't think of a way to simplify it, but I'll give it a shot. The fabric of existence, on a very magnified microscopic, subatomic scale, consists of little vibrating threads, which are spread through the 11 or so dimensions of existence. They can interact, stretch, etc., but they're tiny things that atoms are made of. They can stretch into circular "branes".....

Nevermind...it can't be done shorthand. I'll leave it to the pros. Go buy a string theory book. I'm still working my brain around it...

Look, I hate to say that we're describing the same thing, because one side uses psychology and emotion, and the other reasons from what's at hand without "adding" superfluous supernatural beings into the equation.

But we are describing the same thing. The universe is one thing. It is all things. In the Taoist sense, it is one and the myriad. It is all things, it is one thing. It is all energy, it is all matter. It is the vast enormity of space and time, and it is the monkey flinging poo at the other monkey. It is also the poo. Thanks to E=MC2, we know that energy and mass are the same thing. Since all matter has mass, we know we can turn matter (substance) into energy, and energy into substance. The quantities of energy and mass/matter in the universe never increases or decreases. It all moves in cycles. Very Yin and Yang.

Modern day spiritualists will therefore say: religion described this same type of thing for thousands of years, so this evidence strengthens their conclusions.

Wrong. I only agree on a secular level (such as secular buddhism or taoism....which does exist). Spiritualized and supernatural religion, however, described something roughly similar, but then peopled the heavens with larger-than-life people who represented traits of nature and existence.....Zeus, Yahweh/Allah/Christ, and (to quote Grizzly Man) "little Hindu floaty thingies...." hahaha....

It's not the same thing. One does not require the anthropocentric personification of universal traits. One does.

Think more of the Tao te Ching and Shaolin Chan Buddhism (Bodhidharma): The way (Taoist) or true being (SCB) is the nature of the self without thought and reflection. Hence, Zen meditation. What is this natural being? It is natural being....that which is instinctual. What is instinctual? It is our animalistic tendencies. The unlearned behaviors. But learning behaviors is natural for humans.

This non-discursive, non-linear method of thinking (I'm still not sure I get what that even means, because it doesn't make much sense [and sounds like the quantum non-locality jargon that was picked up by postmodern sophists]) is unnatural, and is a byproduct of retrospect. This is the world of the mind, where the mind becomes the point of projection, and man is the measure. The moment you begin to meditate or clear your mind (hell, we're all martial artists, and this is relevant to us all), you silence that voice, and dispel the point of projection world of the mind. No longer is man the measure. There is the world, and your stillness with it. The mind controls us. We can't help it. Evolution engineered us that way for survival. The very reason we drill our forms repeatedly is to make the motions natural. Can we do this? Yes, our minds can be reprogrammed to make certain motions instinctual. This is an element of control, for a short while. but after so many rounds of a form, you cease to think. Your form has become your instinct. But it did so by deviating from "natural being".

Think about yourself biologically. When I'm sick, I think, I (my body, spirit, etc.) is sick.l This sickness isn't "me", though. It is a defect in one of the billions of organisms that comprises my body. I have red and white blood cells, platelets, and organs, to name a few. They all have a function. But say, evolution (interited traits) by way of genetic mutation leaves me with sickle cell anemia....my red blood cells act in a way that is contrary to my well-being....well, I (my conciousness) isn't sick. My red blood cells malfunction. Everything else might work perfectly, but if one part in the cogs and gears of my body blows out, I can die or get very ill. Those red blood cells aren't even "mine." My mind works that way, because the mind is the consummate conscious faculty of the human body. "I" have no say whatsoever in what my cells do. I can regulate my breathing by holding my breath, sure. But when I pass out, what happens? The lungs start working again. I cannot stop my heart. I can hold my bladder, but sooner or later it's going to flush itself regardless of my will.

What is "I" or "me"?

It is the thing, the sanity, "the team spirit", if you will, required by a team of small organisms and collected tissues that work together for mutual benefit. Even so, however, the body is not harmonious. Oftentimes, the body works against itself to derive benifit from certain actions. But "my" body heals itself. "My" body keeps itself functioning. "My" body supplies my brain and heart with oxygen and blood--both things necessary for conscious power. The "me" in this equation doesn't mean much. "I" am merely responsible for keeping the entire mechanism safe on a macroscopic scale, so that it doesn't get devoured by another "team" of microscopic organisms somewhere else on earth.

I don't know where I'm going with this, at this point, because I'm tired and I want to go to bed. I'll finish this weekend.

[Crushing Fist]

Actually, causal theory does not require an original cause. It merely anticipates an effect from a cause. Each cause must have a cause. It does not imply one original cause, and it never will. It only anticipates a cause before that cause.

There seems to be a miscommunication here. I agree with this, and it is the reason I say that a linear universe makes no sense. That is exactly the point I was getting at which you just made. Whatever can be pointed as an "original cause" must itself be caused by something preceeding it ... in a linear universe.

Your reasoning is in itself flawed. You say, all causes have causes. There must be an original cause. Well, in order for there to be an original cause, and in order for it to qualify has a cause, your own position on the issue demands a cause before the original cause, or else this does not qualify as an original cause. But an original cause that has been caused? Cannot be.

This is my point, if a rather long and twisted way to say it. I'll boil it down a little more into:

A linear universe is incompatible with causal theory.

I don't doubt causal relationships, so I must doubt the linear nature of reality.

You substitute, instead, an original cause that has not been caused....and therefore is not a cause. The entire logic of this line of questioning is self-contradictory. You question infinite causation, yet offer up as an alternative an infinite being. It's two methods of describing one thing, only you're giving a chain of causation (hence, of being) a personality, and demanding it to be the "big cheese," thereby putting something unecessary into a logical formulation of causation.

"I" do? Or are you speaking generally? I have clearly identified myself as an atheist here. The closest thing to a "God" I can imagine, or be interested in, is Azathoth.

As for string theory.....it's too complicated for a web board, and it isn't my bread and butter (I'm studying it, but I don't understand it on a skilled level). I can't think of a way to simplify it, but I'll give it a shot. The fabric of existence, on a very magnified microscopic, subatomic scale, consists of little vibrating threads, which are spread through the 11 or so dimensions of existence. They can interact, stretch, etc., but they're tiny things that atoms are made of. They can stretch into circular "branes".....

Sounds a little too close to "Prime Matter" for me ::cough cough changing subject to EE cough cough::

Also, that doesn't look like any linear universe I've seen.

Look, I hate to say that we're describing the same thing, because one side uses psychology and emotion, and the other reasons from what's at hand without "adding" superfluous supernatural beings into the equation.

That's an odd thing to hate. Especially since I'm on the same side of that fence as you.

But we are describing the same thing. The universe is one thing. It is all things. In the Taoist sense, it is one and the myriad. It is all things, it is one thing. It is all energy, it is all matter. It is the vast enormity of space and time, and it is the monkey flinging poo at the other monkey. It is also the poo. Thanks to E=MC2, we know that energy and mass are the same thing. Since all matter has mass, we know we can turn matter (substance) into energy, and energy into substance. The quantities of energy and mass/matter in the universe never increases or decreases. It all moves in cycles. Very Yin and Yang.

Oh did you just say 'cycles'. Sorry I got lost in that twisted mass of thoughts up there

Yes... cycles.

Now we are getting focused.

Modern day spiritualists will therefore say: religion described this same type of thing for thousands of years, so this evidence strengthens their conclusions.

Wrong. I only agree on a secular level (such as secular buddhism or taoism....which does exist). Spiritualized and supernatural religion, however, described something roughly similar, but then peopled the heavens with larger-than-life people who represented traits of nature and existence.....Zeus, Yahweh/Allah/Christ, and (to quote Grizzly Man) "little Hindu floaty thingies...." hahaha....

It's not the same thing. One does not require the anthropocentric personification of universal traits. One does.

I take it you are not much of one for poetry?

Think more of the Tao te Ching and Shaolin Chan Buddhism (Bodhidharma): The way (Taoist) or true being (SCB) is the nature of the self without thought and reflection. Hence, Zen meditation. What is this natural being? It is natural being....that which is instinctual. What is instinctual? It is our animalistic tendencies. The unlearned behaviors. But learning behaviors is natural for humans.

Learning behaviors is natural for every animal with a somewhat developed nervous system. Thinking about them, worrying over them, developing a sense of personal identity about them (ego) these are the things which make us "human" for better or worse. What the taoist and zen monks were saying is that these type of thoughts interfere with the clarity of perception, with being here now.

Learning behaviors is hindered by the internal dialogue. Shut off the voice... look... listen... observe. (how many times have I said something similar to a white belt!) When you are engaged in doing something you aren't thinking about it with dialogue.

This non-discursive, non-linear method of thinking (I'm still not sure I get what that even means, because it doesn't make much sense [and sounds like the quantum non-locality jargon that was picked up by postmodern sophists]) is unnatural, and is a byproduct of retrospect. This is the world of the mind, where the mind becomes the point of projection, and man is the measure. The moment you begin to meditate or clear your mind (hell, we're all martial artists, and this is relevant to us all), you silence that voice, and dispel the point of projection world of the mind. No longer is man the measure. There is the world, and your stillness with it. The mind controls us. We can't help it. Evolution engineered us that way for survival. The very reason we drill our forms repeatedly is to make the motions natural. Can we do this? Yes, our minds can be reprogrammed to make certain motions instinctual. This is an element of control, for a short while. but after so many rounds of a form, you cease to think. Your form has become your instinct. But it did so by deviating from "natural being".

Your natural being is to learn through repetition. That is natural.

I think you are wrong about the mind controlling us, but perhaps we merely differ in semantics. First we would have say what we mean by "mind" and "us",what is "us" that is seperate from "mind"

IMO, that which is controling "us" is not the mind, "we are" the mind.

The "mind" is the plaything of the body.

Think about yourself biologically. When I'm sick, I think, I (my body, spirit, etc.) is sick.l This sickness isn't "me", though. It is a defect in one of the billions of organisms that comprises my body. I have red and white blood cells, platelets, and organs, to name a few. They all have a function. But say, evolution (interited traits) by way of genetic mutation leaves me with sickle cell anemia....my red blood cells act in a way that is contrary to my well-being....well, I (my conciousness) isn't sick. My red blood cells malfunction. Everything else might work perfectly, but if one part in the cogs and gears of my body blows out, I can die or get very ill. Those red blood cells aren't even "mine." My mind works that way, because the mind is the consummate conscious faculty of the human body. "I" have no say whatsoever in what my cells do. I can regulate my breathing by holding my breath, sure. But when I pass out, what happens? The lungs start working again. I cannot stop my heart. I can hold my bladder, but sooner or later it's going to flush itself regardless of my will.

I think you might be surprised at the level of control the "mind" (will) can exert over the body, given enough time and training. When you excercise, have you ever continued on through the pain, despite your body screaming at you? You may not be able to stop your heart, but is is fairly easy to learn to control it's rate, especially given a good feedback loop. The same goes for body temperature, even the electrical resistance of the skin... bio-feedback loops do wonders for learning more detailed internal control. ::cough cough ho tien chi cough cough::

Basically, we are highly advanced bacteria living in a symbiotic colony that has developed a sense of "individuality in order to better suit the needs of the group.

We are legion.

What is "I" or "me"?

It is the thing, the sanity, "the team spirit", if you will, required by a team of small organisms and collected tissues that work together for mutual benefit. Even so, however, the body is not harmonious. Oftentimes, the body works against itself to derive benifit from certain actions. But "my" body heals itself. "My" body keeps itself functioning. "My" body supplies my brain and heart with oxygen and blood--both things necessary for conscious power. The "me" in this equation doesn't mean much. "I" am merely responsible for keeping the entire mechanism safe on a macroscopic scale, so that it doesn't get devoured by another "team" of microscopic organisms somewhere else on earth.

The mind is the plaything of the body.

We are legion.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Wierdo.....

[Shaolin Wookie]

There seems to be a miscommunication here. I agree with this, and it is the reason I say that a linear universe makes no sense. .

It was late that night, and I was exhausted. I thought I was actually replying to Scott Brown.

My bad.

[Shaolin Wookie]

That is very true. The debaters are usually too entrenched in their own ideas, but some in the "crowd" may be on the fence or just new to the subject. It's better to get both sides, and go from there, than to only get one view.

Those who take part in the argument get the opportunity to refine there ideas, having other people challenge you is a great way to improve your own position. I want people to find the holes in my argument.
If you can't defend you position well enough then, you might change it, but mostly people default to the, 'cause I said so' rational.
o

Exactly, but we shouldn't just argue to strengthen and entrench ourselves in a position. Hell, Scott's got me thinking over a couple of issues on his terms right now. Arguing isn't about winning...that's a debate. Arguing is learning by questioning.

Anyways, I'm reading these two books right now: Cosilience, and Endless Universe. The former is about unifying humanities and sciences (don't know much about it, but it was obviously poignant enough for Stephen Jay Gould to write a book contrary to it), and the latter is about using superstring theory to describe a universe that was caused by another universe, implying timelessness, etc.

Anyways, there was a quote at the beginning of Consilience (Edward O. Wilson) I dog-eared, because it reminded me of what we're talking about:

"Such, I believe, is the source of the Ionian Enchantment: Preferring a search for objective reality over revelation is another way of satisfying religious hunger. It is an endeavor almost as old as civilization and intertwined with traditional religion, but it follows a very different course--a stoic's creed, an acquired taste, a guidebook to adventure plotted across rough terrain. It aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by liberation of the human mind. Its central tenet, as Einstein knew, is the unification of knowledge. When we have unified enough certain knowledge, we will understand who we are and why we are here.

"If those committed to the quest fail, they will be forgiven. When lost, they will find another way. The moral imperative of humanism is the endeavor alone, whether successful or not, provided the effort is honorable and failure memorable. The ancient Greeks expressed the idea in a myth of vaulting ambition. Daedalus escapes from Crete with his son Icarus on wings he has fashioned from feathers and wax. Ignoring the warnings of his father, Icarus flies toward the sun, whereupon his wings come apart and he falls into the sea. That is the end of Icarus in the myth. But we are left to wonder: Was he just a foolish boy? Did he pay the price for hubris, for pride in sight of the gods? I like to think that on the contrary his daring represents a saving human grace. And so the great astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar could pay tribute to the spirit of his mentor, Sir Arthur Eddington, by saying: Let us see how high we can fly before the sun melts the wax in our wings."

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

Arguing isn't about winning...that's a debate. Arguing is learning by questioning.

I agree whole-heartedly, which is why I appreciate your continued participation in this discussion!

Actually, causal theory does not require an original cause. It merely anticipates an effect from a cause. Each cause must have a cause. It does not imply one original cause, and it never will. It only anticipates a cause before that cause.
There must be an original cause. Well, in order for there to be an original cause, and in order for it to qualify has a cause, …the issue demands a cause before the original cause, or else this does not qualify as an original cause.

But an original cause that has been caused? Cannot be. You substitute, instead, an original cause that has not been caused....and therefore is not a cause. The entire logic of this line of questioning is self-contradictory. You question infinite causation, yet offer up as an alternative an infinite being. It's two methods of describing one thing, only you're giving a chain of causation (hence, of being) a personality, and demanding it to be the "big cheese," thereby putting something unecessary into a logical formulation of causation.

In regards to causal theory, this only applies to a linear universe. We don’t actually know if the universe is linear of not. It may appear linear, but it is possible this view is incorrect and some physicists have postulated this. I contend that the universe “appears” linear because of the manner in which our minds are conditioned to perceive in the material universe, but that is for another discussion.

The original cause may cause itself, hence the name “Self-Existent One". How this would be accomplished is a mystery.

I will elaborate now on a comment from my previous post:

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

So:

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.

2) There must be “Something” that perceives in order to perceive that which is perceivable.

3) The “Something” that perceives we call Mind.

4) Everything that is perceivable, then, is perceived by Mind.

5) Since Mind perceives and what exists must be perceivable, Mind must exists and is perceivable.

6) What is it that perceives Mind? Since it is Mind that perceives, it is Mind that perceives Mind.

7) But where did this “Mind that perceives Mind” come from? It was either created or it was not created. If “Mind that perceives Mind” was created, whatever it was that created it either exists or it doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist, how can it create that which does exist? How can we say it created anything since it doesn’t exist? Therefore, we must conclude that, that which created “Mind that perceives Mind” exists!

8) Since whatever created “Mind that perceives Mind” exists, it must be perceivable. Since it is perceivable there must be a Mind that perceives it!

9) If that which created “Mind that perceives Mind” exists, what is it that perceives it? Remember, in order for something to exist it must be perceivable and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it! So what perceives that which created “Mind that perceives Mind”?

10) Since it is Mind that perceives and since that which created “Mind that perceives Mind” must be perceived, it must be perceived by Mind.

11) We must conclude one of two things, there is an infinite regression of “Somethings” that create “Minds that perceive Mind” and that each of these “Somethings” are perceived by co-existing Mind (For without a Mind to perceive it, it couldn’t exist), or that the creator of “Mind that perceives Mind” perceives itself and this perception of itself is what creates itself; it is a “Self-Existent Mind”!

12) Therefore the only conclusion we may come to is there is simply ONE “Mind that perceives Mind” and it creates itself through its perception of itself! That is, it is an act of Mind perceiving Mind that creates Mind! Mind and perception of Mind are mutually arising; each is a product of the other. Mind is the essence, the substance, the body, and knowledge of itself, perception, is its action. Mind creates Mind out of itself by perceiving itself!

13) Since Mind creates Mind and nothing exists without Mind, everything is a creation of Mind. Therefore it isn’t the Mind that is the plaything of the Body; it is the Body that is the plaything of the Mind! The body holds receptors that transfer information about the material world to the Mind. Without Mind to do the perceiving the material world does not exist. This is because if there is nothing to perceive phenomena, phenomena cannot be demonstrated to exist. If phenomena cannot be demonstrated to exist, they in essence, do not exist. For phenomena to exist they must affect Mind, if phenomena do not affect mind, they cannot exist. Therefore, Mind is the creator of all things that exist.

This non-discursive, non-linear method of thinking (I'm still not sure I get what that even means, because it doesn't make much sense [and sounds like the quantum non-locality jargon that was picked up by postmodern sophists]) is unnatural, and is a byproduct of retrospect.

You do not understand it because it is apparently a new concept to you and you have not yet tried to understand it. If you do not try to experience it directly it is unlikely you will understand it. Although it does occur spontaneously, few people understand what has occurred or even recognize it. It is a direct experience. It is not something that can be argued, reasoned, or measured. You either understand it or you don’t? Just as happiness must be directly experienced in order to understand, non-discursive thought must be directly apprehended. Just as you will never understand the taste of an orange unless you eat one, you will never understand non-discursive thought until you experience it and recognize the experience.

It is possible you have had a similar experience and have not recognized it as non-discursive thought. It depends upon the quality of your artistic experience. Creative individuals such as poets, musicians, artists, etc. experience non-discursive thought when a creative inspiration occurs. It is the translation of inspiration into its physical expression that is the mind translating non-discursive thought into discursive thought. Non-discursive thought is intangible, discursive thought is tangible. Words are discursive, images are discursive, etc.

The next time you experience a creative inspiration try to reflect and observe how this inspiration was originally apprehended. It begins as a non-formed, that is, formless, “feeling”, NOT emotion, in the mind. This “feeling” is a creative knowing that you want to express. It does not occur in a linear manner as words or images. It must be translated into linear/discursive form by the mind.

When an artist is inspired, but is having difficulty expressing it, it is because his mind is having difficulty translating a formless thought (feeling) into a discursive (material) expression. Once you are able to perceive non-discursive thought in a creative endeavor, then with introspective practice you will discover that all your thoughts originate as non-discursive thought.

Because we are so accustomed to translating our non-discursive thoughts into discursive thoughts during our daily lives we do not notice the process. It is because we have been conditioned since birth to translate formless thought into discursive thought that it occurs seamlessly and this is what makes it difficult to experience directly. We must re-condition our mind to introspect into itself and observe the process directly. This takes practice.

The non-discursive mind is discussed quite well in D.T. Suzuki’s book, “The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind”.

[Shaolin Wookie]

These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.[/color]

Actually, this statement is false.(, friggin' Epimenides) I constantly probe into things that we would consider unreasonable. If we only stand in the foosteps of our forebears, we'd never strike out on a path that might prove a fantastic shorcut. Anyways, in college I was working out an elaborate theory about a shrinking universe, as opposed to a constantly expanding one. If everything in the universe were in fact collapsing, it would appear that things were moving away from each other, according to the dictates of relativity. This was nothing more than a thought experiment I created (not a particularly good one). I discussed it with my Advanced Physics professor, not as something academic, but as an thought experiment, to see if it could be justified, and he pointed me to a paper someone had already written on this subject. It was called a Theory of Shrinkage. I really don't consider it much of a theory (it was mostly to kill some time and exercise brain cells), but it's fun to reason outside the lines--and someone had done it already on a much, much larger scale. Sometimes great insights into the nature of the universe are done this way.....like imagining we're riding a light wave from a prominent clocktower, and imagining what we'd see....wink wink.... You'll probably wind up wrong, but you might just learn something by mucking about. It helped me understand some of the more difficult concepts in relativity.

As for non-discursive thinking, is this the kind of perception by way of intuition lauded by some Neo-Platonists, or their religious peers in gnosticism? If so, it's kind of like Zen, in that you have to be in the present with the thought pattern, and it is therefore self defeating. You can't say that you're experiencing god, for arguing this internally is a method of identification and justification, both of which are attributes of discursive thinking, right? I think this is what you mean by the orange-tasting. You have to experience it to know it. But your mind is reacting to a stimulus, prompted by nerves and sense, and therefore you must perceive by way of reason and order. What happens when you experience something new? You relate it to other things already perceived. There are many fruits and meats, sounds and sights, that I have yet to experience. But when I experience them, I identify them: are they sweet or sour? Loud or soft? Sharp or flat? Bright or dark?

Nobody can remember the first five or so years of life. Perhaps the most important reason for this is that one has no notions of what life is like, or has parallels for experience by way of reference. One is building up a bank of information by which one with judge the rest of life's experiences. By the time one has the ability to cross-reference certain types of data, one can begin to record what is germane to identity and self-preservation, because one has established the minimum requirements for self-identity and self-preservation. One of these requirements is the ability to fend for oneself, on a most basic level. I really don't see how you or I can defend non-discursive thought after the establishment of identity. Everything is now subject to self. Meaning, of course, you can't tap into my non-discursive thought; there were some sects of gnosticism and neo-platonism that actually thought everyone shared consciousness in this non-discursive realm. A statement actually discursive in nature. Knowledge of others, of self, is implicit in this experience.

If so, you're describing the Tao. The tao cannot be spoken. Therefore it has no place in any argument, and you can't use it at all intellectually or reasonably. You can't cite it as evidence for god. You can only experience it. And it is a dumb (meaning, silent, not stupid) experience. It is, in fact, nothing, in the discursive (objective) world, and even in the non-discursive one.

There are numerous examples available to demonstrate scientists are affected by this limitation as well. Subjects they consider closed, thinking they are fully understood, are examples of closed mindedness that affects their ability to explore beyond what they consider reasonable.

I will not concede this point (said with a great deal of irony, as it were). "Scientists" (those who seek knowledge, and know things) are never closeminded. They stand on the shoulders of their forebears so that they might see just a little ****her. Closeminded scientists do not know much. They only know things already known. This might describe students, and some teachers, but rarely practitioners. It's why there's so few successful practitioners, and why we ought to really appreciate them all the more. I had a mentor in the Physics dept. at UGA (before dropping my third major to graduate on time [late, actually] and because I'd used all the money the Hope Scholarship was willing to grant) that willingly admitted he had many identities all throughout parallel universes, all copies of himself, infinitely varied, infinitely arranged, whihc perceive everything in every manner it can be perceived.

Closeminded, my ass.

In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.

Alright.

What is this God you experience in itself?
What is God?
What is itself?
What is this experience?
Can you experience God without using discursive thought to identify it?
Can you experience God without using a language to describe it?
If you know this God in the experience, how do you know which one you're experiencing?
Couldn't it be Zeus, Satan, or yourself, perhaps?
How do you define experience?

If you can answer any of these questions, you have not perceived god non-discursively.......

Or more importantly, you have imposed discursive preconceptions onto non-discursive experiences. Therefore, you have not expeirenced or perceived god. You have hijacked non-discursive experience for theistic ends and means, jumping on the old gnostic/neo-platonic bandwagon which was abandoned for this same reason.

You cannot experience God non-discursively. You can only perceive (i.e. be the pawn of certain stimuli). This is not god. It is, as a matter of course, nothing.

It's actually Zen.

I return you to the example of happiness and the orange. The description is NOT the thing itself. A description of the experience does not GIVE you the experience. A description is merely an inadequate indication of what the direct experience is LIKE not what it IS! .

You've experienced what God is through non-discursive experience. You've described what god is like using discursive language. But God is something established discursively. You've experienced nothing except perception, but you've tagged god onto it unneccesarily, and actually deified perception (hence, your senses and your consciousness).

I understand. I am constantly blown away by the power and absolute genius of the mind's framework.

God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!

Still self-defeating.

Since the mind’s function is thought, thought will occur; we just do not know how thought would be manifested. Once discursive thought occurs there is subject and object and the mind is free to create its own world of separate phenomena.

LEt's say I've never eaten an orange (using your argument). I decide to get direct experience of this orange. Unfortunately, I've just come from the dentist, and a shot of novacaine has numbed my mouth entirely. Not only that, but my tongue's taste receptors were damaged long ago, and I can't taste anything. My sense of smell was damaged as well during an apartment fire several years back. I cannot feel anything in my mouth, tounge, teeth, flesh, food, I cannot taste, and I cannot smell. The only indication that I can have that I have eaten anything is by feeling the orange with my hands to note an increase in its absence, or by seeing its slow disappearance. Now, I put this orange into my mouth. I don't taste it or feel it. I chew, but I can't feel myself chewing, because I can't feel the muscles moving. I can verify I've chewed it by the fact I don't choke, and I feel it slide easily down my throat (where senses come back into the equation). According to non-discursive notions of direct experience, I've experienced nothing, and I have not stored up any direct knowledge of the action at hand. I have no reference whatsoever to justify this experience. I cannot describe it. I don't know the experience. I don't even know what it's like.

Now lets assume I'm paralyzed completely, and can't feel anything. I'm also blind. You chop off my leg silently. I'll never know it's gone.

Sense perception determines everything we know. A human born in the wild with little or no contact with other humans has no theology. Discursive thought gives us the ability to think abstractly, by reasoning our way from structure to less structure. But non-discursive thought is predicated upon discursive thinking--hence your ability to remember and recall and describe these experiences of god, as opposed to the young child you cannot remember being. Once the self has developed ( a thing which our mind renders inevitable), non-discursive thinking is null and void, except as small reprieves from thought.

Hence, Zen.

Theology and non-discursive thought actually seem mutually exclusive to me.

[Shaolin Wookie]

You do not understand it because it is apparently a new concept to you and you have not yet tried to understand it. If you do not try to experience it directly it is unlikely you will understand it.

Actually, I understand it, but I've never heard it described using that particular pairing of words.

I've experienced it. I've experienced the experience of experiencing it. I used different words to describe it, and so did others.

Why do I have to try to understand this non-discursive thinking? Isn't this self-defeating? If I must try, I impose will on something that is supposed to be without the taint of self.

You're now just describing psychological conditioning. I can condition myself to think the way that you're thinking. My mind is my own canvas. I can paint whatever picture I like.

[Shaolin Wookie]

The next time you experience a creative inspiration try to reflect and observe how this inspiration was originally apprehended. It begins as a non-formed, that is, formless, “feeling”, NOT emotion, in the mind. This “feeling” is a creative knowing that you want to express. It does not occur in a linear manner as words or images. It must be translated into linear/discursive form by the mind.

When an artist is inspired, but is having difficulty expressing it, it is because his mind is having difficulty translating a formless thought (feeling) into a discursive (material) expression. Once you are able to perceive non-discursive thought in a creative endeavor, then with introspective practice you will discover that all your thoughts originate as non-discursive thought. .

I am curious to know if you are an artist or a poet. I'm an artist. I am also curious to know if the person who may have suggested his sentiment was an artist or a poet.

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Some artists and poets might. Inspiration isn't something plucked out of thin air. It's the result of direct experience, which triggers memory, which triggers a creative response. Artists with dick in experience are usually very poor ones. Just as martial artists with now contact experience for technique application are generally very poor ones.

[Scott R. Brown]

I wrote:

These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.

Actually, this statement is false.

No, this is not false it is actually pretty well established.

This principle is a bit difficult to grasp if one is not familiar with it. I will try to explain it in more detail.

We each have a perspective from which we view the world. This perspective is a type of filter that is created by what we accept as “truth” about reality. As an example, some Christians accept the Bible as the “literal” inerrant word of God (Many Muslims believe the same about the Quran.). This acceptance creates a filter through which all phenomena will be filtered. All experiences are measured against these foundational principles that are accepted as true about reality and this measurement influences the interpretation of the phenomenon. When information occurs that conflicts with a preconception the mind/ego will do one of three things:

1) Deny or Ignore the conflicting information is real or has occurred,
2) Redefine/Re-interpret the conflicting information in order to allow it to be artificially conformed to the pre-existing world-view/reality-view,
3) Re-evaluate their pre-existing world-view and change it in order to integrate the new information.

You, I and everyone are afflicted with this same characteristic of mind. We have a perspective with which we view reality. This reality is founded upon what we accept as “true” about reality. While we may try to be open-minded to ideas that conflict with our personal perspective, this “open-mindedness” is itself a preconceived notion and influences how we interpret reality. Even the practice of objectivity occurs from a preconceived notion that all experience is more accurately interpreted through objectivity. Since this view/belief/perspective of objectivity occurs within our minds as the interpretative function of stimuli/phenomena it filters what we perceive according to our ability to apply the principle.

One of the flaws of objectivity is that it does not fully inform us concerning any phenomenon. This is because phenomena are experienced subjectively first. Subjectivity is the mental interpretation of experience and any phenomenon that is “seemingly” experienced strictly from the objective perspective is only a partial experience of the phenomenon. It filters out experiences that it determines are false or inconsequential and thereby limits the totality of the experience. Objectivity only permits us to experience a phenomenon partially. If we only experience a partial aspect of a phenomenon how can we say we have a full understanding of its reality? We cannot, all we can say is we experience a part of its objective reality. We may only say it is part of its objective reality because we cannot know what we are not allowing ourselves to perceive concerning it because perceptions are filtered by the mind.

In truth objectivity is merely a specific aspect of subjectivity. There is really no such thing as absolute objectivity, for all life is perception and all perceptions are experienced and all experiences are known by our interpretation of them and this interpretation occurs in the mind and the mind is interprets experience according to its preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter the perception according to its inherent limits. Anyone who thinks they are completely objective about anything are fooling themselves and demonstrating their inherent subjective nature by not being able to perceive their own subjectivity. Their preconceived notion about their own objectivity filters all their perceptions in a subjective sense and does not allow them to recognize the inherent subjective nature of their mind and all perceptions.

The Rorschach ink blots are a good example of how the mind filters its reality from preconceived notions. Rorschach ink blots are black ink blots on a white background. Each blot occurs “seemingly” without a context; (Although in my experience they are all bilaterally symmetrical which is a context.) What the observer perceives in the blots occurs in the mind and is projective upon the blots. There is no inherent recognizable morphological structural context in the blots. The mind projects structure onto the relatively chaotic blots in order to make sense out of them. This sense occurs from preconceive notions that occur within the mind.

I will use a personal experience as another example: On one occasion I was driving at night on a dark and secluded road. I saw a brown “something” moving across the road in my headlights. I believed I was seeing a deer that had just been hit by the car just in front of me. As I passed the object I realized it was a brown paper bag. At first I observed the object without a complete context so my mind projected its “best” assessment of what it was and I thought I was observing a floundering deer. As I approached closer I was able to perceive more detail and discerned the object was in fact a brown paper bag. It is immaterial what the object actually was in this example; the point of the example is to demonstrate how the mind will project onto objects from its preconceived notions according to a context.

A third example is when we lose something in our home. We often spend quite some time looking for the item and cannot find it. We will look here and there and everywhere and cannot find the object. After some time passes we may once again look in some of the places we have already looked and the object is found in one of these places in plain view. It is not that the object wasn’t there the first time we looked, the object was ALWAYS there and we looked right at it, but our mind did not allow us to perceive it. A condition of mind influenced us to not perceive what was openly apparent. This is subjectivity in action.

Nobody can remember the first five or so years of life.

This is not true. I have close to a dozen memories, all of them prior to age 5 and many of them from ages 1 ½ to 2 ½ years of age. Two of them involve moral judgments and at least two of them involved reasoning to accomplish a goal.

1) About age 1 ½, I played hide and seek with my Aunt on the boardwalk in Santa Barbara, I was hiding behind the palm trees.

2) Between 1 ½ and 2 ½ walked with my mother to the corner store. It was very small, about ¼ the size or smaller than a traditionally sized 7-11. We were at the checkout and there was a box on the outside of the checkout with a small tootsie roll in it. I remember standing there thinking, “It is in a box clearly meant to be thrown away. Is it stealing if I take the tootsie roll?” to me the tootsie roll would be thrown out anyway, but it might be construed as stealing anyway to I determined it was best not to take it.

3) I remember the day we went to get my mom and my little brother from the hospital when he was born. I was standing on the back seat of the car and looking over the front seat. My mother was sitting in-between my father who was driving and my grandmother on the far right. My brother is two years, 3 months and 3 days younger than me. That made me just over 2 years of age.

4) I remember when my mother took my little brother to show him to a man I didn’t know who was working at the local Standard gas station; I still remember the red flying horse! I wondered why she was showing my brother to this man who was large and balding with blonde hair. It did not seem appropriate to me and there seemed to be an unknown connection between the two. When I was in my mid-thirties my grandmother told me my mother had a brief affair when I was very young. It was at that point that I realize that she had taken my brother to show him to his father. My brother looks nothing like myself or my sister and he does look like the man whose characteristics I remember to this day.

5) Etc. that is enough to demonstrate your assertion is incorrect. Each of these events occurred much closer to age 2 than age 5. These are not events discussed by my family and therefore could not have been transmitted to me later. Two of them I mentioned involved moral judgments arrived at through reasoning.

[Scott R. Brown]

As for non-discursive thinking, is this the kind of perception by way of intuition lauded by some Neo-Platonists, or their religious peers in gnosticism? If so, it's kind of like Zen, in that you have to be in the present with the thought pattern, and it is therefore self defeating. You can't say that you're experiencing god, for arguing this internally is a method of identification and justification, both of which are attributes of discursive thinking, right? I think this is what you mean by the orange-tasting. You have to experience it to know it. But your mind is reacting to a stimulus, prompted by nerves and sense, and therefore you must perceive by way of reason and order. What happens when you experience something new? You relate it to other things already perceived. There are many fruits and meats, sounds and sights, that I have yet to experience. But when I experience them, I identify them: are they sweet or sour? Loud or soft? Sharp or flat? Bright or dark?

No, this is not intuition. Intuition is a perception that predicts some occurrence in the future. Non-discursive thought occurs prior to discursive thought and is not necessarily involved in any form of precognition. It is closer to “direct perception of thought” as opposed to “direct perception of material experience without discursive comment occurring” in the mind. Discursive thought occurs when we think with words and when we attempt to communicate experiences with others. But inherently we think originally without words, this non-discursive thought I termed the “Fog of Knowing” when I was in my teens. I have just recently begun to refer to it as non-discursive thought.

I am not trying to formulate any argument here to demonstrate it occurs. It does occur and I have experienced it as well as many other individuals. To those with the direct experience there is no need for argument. There is no argument because arguing is like trying to argue for the taste of an orange. There can be no argument. There are only those who have tasted oranges, who know what it tastes like, and there are those who have not tasted an orange, who do not know what it tastes like. Those who haven’t tasted an orange may argue all they like, but they do not know what they are talking about because they have not had the direct experience; they will change their opinion only when they have the direct experience for themselves. For those who have had the experience of non-discursive thought there are only useful expedients used to try to point others to the direct experience. The argument is not the thing itself; it is an attempt to point others towards experiencing the phenomenon for themselves. It is saying what is it “like” and where to look to find it, not what it is!

Yes, the experience is described according to a context, but the description is about what it is LIKE and what it is NOT LIKE, not what it IS. To know what it IS one must experience it directly. The experience is differentiated by what it is contrasted with that is true, but so is all experience. If there were nothing to contrast with there could be no experiences. This is the inherent nature of existence. It is my contention that Many did not “come from” ONE in a linear progression, but that ONE and Many are mutually arising and occur “at once, together, at the same time”, but that is for another discussion.

When tasting an orange it is true the mind is responding to material stimuli, but the perception and interpretation of the stimuli occurs within the mind. It is immaterial whether the stimulus occurs strictly within the mind or via material stimuli, all perception occurs within the mind.

Interpretation of direct experience occurs by way of “reason and order” with is a function of mind. Reason and order are inherent characteristics of mind and there is no separation inherently between the mind and its functions. The separation is an artificial construct that occurs for a specific purpose according to a context, but it is not the essence of mind.

I really don't see how you or I can defend non-discursive thought after the establishment of identity. Everything is now subject to self. Meaning, of course, you can't tap into my non-discursive thought; there were some sects of gnosticism and neo-platonism that actually thought everyone shared consciousness in this non-discursive realm. A statement actually discursive in nature. Knowledge of others, of self, is implicit in this experience.

Non-discursive thought is an inherent quality of mind. We only occasionally refer to it as “occurring” because we must use discursive thought to describe what “occurs” prior to discursive thought and actually there is no “prior to” either. When using discursive thought to communicate non-discursive phenomena it creates confusion and this is the problem with discursive thought. It is also why Ch’an Masters will use actions to demonstrate principles at times.

Non-discursive thought does not occur prior to identity; it is the foundation upon which identity is established. The non-discursive mind is “identity of being” that has not been defined according to a context. In this sense it is somewhat unlimited in potential. This unlimited potential then under goes limitation according to the environment the identity must conform too. There are limitations to intelligence, bodily genetics, learning environment, etc. These limitations form an artificial identity we refer to generally as the ego. The ego is nothing more than an artificial construct “founded upon”/”springing from”/”manifested by” the non-discursive mind. There is no inherent separation between them. The separation is an artificial perception from the perspective of the limited ego, but is an illusion from the perspective of the non-discursive mind. It is a form of pretend, just as an actor may play a part in a drama, yet always inherently remains the actor. One of the qualities of a good actor is their ability to lose themselves within a specific role. If an actor were to lose themselves completely within a role to the extent they cannot separate themselves from it, they would not recognize their actual identity as who they are. This is what happens to humans and their attachment to a transient and artificially constructed ego. They confuse the role they are playing with their inherent identity when in truth, the role they are playing (the ego) is just a game of mind.

If so, you're describing the Tao. The tao cannot be spoken. Therefore it has no place in any argument, and you can't use it at all intellectually or reasonably. You can't cite it as evidence for god. You can only experience it. And it is a dumb (meaning, silent, not stupid) experience. It is, in fact, nothing, in the discursive (objective) world, and even in the non-discursive one.

Tao cannot be comprehensively defined, but it may be pointed too. We know it discursively through its effects upon the material world. If there were no effects to apprehend we could know nothing of it at all. Since we do perceive patterns of phenomena we call “Principles of Tao” we infer its existence and then seek to find methods whereby we may demonstrate its existence for ourselves through directly experience.

It is not evidence of God, it is God in his non-discursive manifestation, which is NOT the defined God of man, but an unlimited being that is self-existent.

I wrote:

There are numerous examples available to demonstrate scientists are affected by this limitation as well. Subjects they consider closed, thinking they are fully understood, are examples of closed mindedness that affects their ability to explore beyond what they consider reasonable.

I will not concede this point (said with a great deal of irony, as it were). "Scientists" (those who seek knowledge, and know things) are never closeminded. They stand on the shoulders of their forebears so that they might see just a little ****her. Closeminded scientists do not know much…

I think I have argued against this view above. The attitude of “not being closed-minded” programs the mind to try to sustain this view. This is one of the qualities of ego. Preconceived attitudes cause the ego to perceive according to the attitude, the attitude becomes a standard against which perceptions are measured and this is a filter regardless of how much we want to pretend it isn’t. Every attitude programs the mind to filter perceptions. Even the attitude of not wanting to be closed-minded and preferring to be open-minded is mental programming that influences the interpretation of perceptions. It cannot be avoided. It is an inherent quality of the discursive mind. The only way to avoid this is to directly experience according to the non-discursive mind with interpretation of the experience. Once we try to communicate or reflect upon the experience it becomes subject to filtering/discursive thought. This filtering is a subjective quality of mind/ego. There is nothing wrong with discursive thought. It exists and is useful according to its proper context, but there are some forms of knowing for which the discursive mind is not suited. It is when the discursive mind seeks to judge/evaluate/critique what is beyond its “proper context”/ability that it falls into error!

I have run out of time. I will have to respond to the rest of your comments later. Hopefully sometime tomorrow morning. I will answer the question in your last post first thought.

I have not had time to review or edit any of this so I will resever the right to clarify confusing statements at a later date.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I wrote:

These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.



No, this is not false it is actually pretty well established.

This principle is a bit difficult to grasp if one is not familiar with it. I will try to explain it in more detail.

We each have a perspective from which we view the world. This perspective is a type of filter that is created by what we accept as “truth” about reality. As an example, some Christians accept the Bible as the “literal” inerrant word of God (Many Muslims believe the same about the Quran.). This acceptance creates a filter through which all phenomena will be filtered. All experiences are measured against these foundational principles that are accepted as true about reality and this measurement influences the interpretation of the phenomenon. When information occurs that conflicts with a preconception the mind/ego will do one of three things:

1) Deny or Ignore the conflicting information is real or has occurred,
2) Redefine/Re-interpret the conflicting information in order to allow it to be artificially conformed to the pre-existing world-view/reality-view,
3) Re-evaluate their pre-existing world-view and change it in order to integrate the new information.

You, I and everyone are afflicted with this same characteristic of mind. We have a perspective with which we view reality. This reality is founded upon what we accept as “true” about reality. While we may try to be open-minded to ideas that conflict with our personal perspective, this “open-mindedness” is itself a preconceived notion and influences how we interpret reality. Even the practice of objectivity occurs from a preconceived notion that all experience is more accurately interpreted through objectivity. Since this view/belief/perspective of objectivity occurs within our minds as the interpretative function of stimuli/phenomena it filters what we perceive according to our ability to apply the principle.

One of the flaws of objectivity is that it does not fully inform us concerning any phenomenon. This is because phenomena are experienced subjectively first. Subjectivity is the mental interpretation of experience and any phenomenon that is “seemingly” experienced strictly from the objective perspective is only a partial experience of the phenomenon. It filters out experiences that it determines are false or inconsequential and thereby limits the totality of the experience. Objectivity only permits us to experience a phenomenon partially. If we only experience a partial aspect of a phenomenon how can we say we have a full understanding of its reality? We cannot, all we can say is we experience a part of its objective reality. We may only say it is part of its objective reality because we cannot know what we are not allowing ourselves to perceive concerning it because perceptions are filtered by the mind.

In truth objectivity is merely a specific aspect of subjectivity. There is really no such thing as absolute objectivity, for all life is perception and all perceptions are experienced and all experiences are known by our interpretation of them and this interpretation occurs in the mind and the mind is interprets experience according to its preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter the perception according to its inherent limits. Anyone who thinks they are completely objective about anything are fooling themselves and demonstrating their inherent subjective nature by not being able to perceive their own subjectivity. Their preconceived notion about their own objectivity filters all their perceptions in a subjective sense and does not allow them to recognize the inherent subjective nature of their mind and all perceptions.

The Rorschach ink blots are a good example of how the mind filters its reality from preconceived notions. Rorschach ink blots are black ink blots on a white background. Each blot occurs “seemingly” without a context; (Although in my experience they are all bilaterally symmetrical which is a context.) What the observer perceives in the blots occurs in the mind and is projective upon the blots. There is no inherent recognizable morphological structural context in the blots. The mind projects structure onto the relatively chaotic blots in order to make sense out of them. This sense occurs from preconceive notions that occur within the mind.

I will use a personal experience as another example: On one occasion I was driving at night on a dark and secluded road. I saw a brown “something” moving across the road in my headlights. I believed I was seeing a deer that had just been hit by the car just in front of me. As I passed the object I realized it was a brown paper bag. At first I observed the object without a complete context so my mind projected its “best” assessment of what it was and I thought I was observing a floundering deer. As I approached closer I was able to perceive more detail and discerned the object was in fact a brown paper bag. It is immaterial what the object actually was in this example; the point of the example is to demonstrate how the mind will project onto objects from its preconceived notions according to a context.

A third example is when we lose something in our home. We often spend quite some time looking for the item and cannot find it. We will look here and there and everywhere and cannot find the object. After some time passes we may once again look in some of the places we have already looked and the object is found in one of these places in plain view. It is not that the object wasn’t there the first time we looked, the object was ALWAYS there and we looked right at it, but our mind did not allow us to perceive it. A condition of mind influenced us to not perceive what was openly apparent. This is subjectivity in action.




This is not true. I have close to a dozen memories, all of them prior to age 5 and many of them from ages 1 ½ to 2 ½ years of age. Two of them involve moral judgments and at least two of them involved reasoning to accomplish a goal.

1) About age 1 ½, I played hide and seek with my Aunt on the boardwalk in Santa Barbara, I was hiding behind the palm trees.

2) Between 1 ½ and 2 ½ walked with my mother to the corner store. It was very small, about ¼ the size or smaller than a traditionally sized 7-11. We were at the checkout and there was a box on the outside of the checkout with a small tootsie roll in it. I remember standing there thinking, “It is in a box clearly meant to be thrown away. Is it stealing if I take the tootsie roll?” to me the tootsie roll would be thrown out anyway, but it might be construed as stealing anyway to I determined it was best not to take it.

3) I remember the day we went to get my mom and my little brother from the hospital when he was born. I was standing on the back seat of the car and looking over the front seat. My mother was sitting in-between my father who was driving and my grandmother on the far right. My brother is two years, 3 months and 3 days younger than me. That made me just over 2 years of age.

4) I remember when my mother took my little brother to show him to a man I didn’t know who was working at the local Standard gas station; I still remember the red flying horse! I wondered why she was showing my brother to this man who was large and balding with blonde hair. It did not seem appropriate to me and there seemed to be an unknown connection between the two. When I was in my mid-thirties my grandmother told me my mother had a brief affair when I was very young. It was at that point that I realize that she had taken my brother to show him to his father. My brother looks nothing like myself or my sister and he does look like the man whose characteristics I remember to this day.

5) Etc. that is enough to demonstrate your assertion is incorrect. Each of these events occurred much closer to age 2 than age 5. These are not events discussed by my family and therefore could not have been transmitted to me later. Two of them I mentioned involved moral judgments arrived at through reasoning.

I agree with all of this in your post, but don't see how it strengthens your argument. Please elaborate. And I would only state I should have said you don't remember much of what you experienced those first 5 years of your life by way of self-identity. After all, we pick up speech with amazing speed, and retain it rather remarkably. I, too, when I think about it, can remember several instances of things only I would know I did between the ages of 2-5 (5 being perhaps too high a number). But you certainly know nothing of that instant you came wriggling from the womb, or those first six months, at the very least.

[Scott R. Brown]

I am curious to know if you are an artist or a poet. I'm an artist. I am also curious to know if the person who may have suggested his sentiment was an artist or a poet.

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Some artists and poets might. Inspiration isn't something plucked out of thin air. It's the result of direct experience, which triggers memory, which triggers a creative response. Artists with dick in experience are usually very poor ones. Just as martial artists with now contact experience for technique application are generally very poor ones.

In my younger days I wrote a great deal of poetry. The process I used conformed to my assertion as does the experience of many other artists.

The Greek sense of Muse is nothing more than non-discursive thought. It is knowledge that comes from who knows where and provides inspiration.

I would disagree that inspiration is not plucked out of thin air. To me that is exactly where it originates, as a metaphorical illustration that is. To be sure it involves the interaction of the discursive mind. After all that is what art is in many cases, it is the non-discursive condition being communicated in a discursive manner.

I start with a general sense of structure to what I want to communicate. That would be the context, so perhaps I want to use roses to communicate a feeling or idea. I hold this thought/idea/attitude within my mind and wait for the unconscious inspiration to occur. Once I get the "Fog of Knowing" in my mind, the struggle is to conform the knowing to my preconceive structure. Sometimes the knowing will not confine to the structure in a manner I had anticipated and I must modify my original intent/structure. When this occurs often a unique and more meaningful artistic achievement results.

This is also how I write during discussions like ours. I do not hold all this information in my mind. I set the general idea or concept in my mind and take what comes out inspirationally. It is likely this occurs for you and most others here too, it is just you do not recognize it. You do not recognize it because you have not perceived it directly yet.

One of my purposes in participating in these types of discussions is to challenge the preconceived views of others in a manner that allows them to transcend limited perceptions and conclusions about their reality.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Yes, the experience is described according to a context, but the description is about what it is LIKE and what it is NOT LIKE, not what it IS. To know what it IS one must experience it directly. The experience is differentiated by what it is contrasted with that is true, but so is all experience. If there were nothing to contrast with there could be no experiences. .

Perhaps this is why I do not understand how you can hold this position, and why I think it is untenable. The very nature of the human comprehension of the world, and the only comprehension we can have of it, is through subjective interpretation. I will often, in my daily routine, think that I experience something objectively. This saves my mind time so that it can focus on other tasks, kind of like jotting down a note in shorthand. I don't necessarily experience objectively. I experience subjectively.

One way to demonstrate this is with a simple elementary particle analogy, which has been on the chopping block in particle physics for a long time: that of the wave/particle duality. By now, everyone has accepted that these particles act as waves and particles. Not everyone will agree that they are both. But they are only one or the other when perceived. The measuring device does not determine the outcome. It only measures the outcome it is suited to measure. We do not know how to track a particle with a phosphor screen that is suited to measuring a wave. But that wave is one aspect of a dually-existent particle. In fact, one measurement seems to exclude the other. But the other measurement excludes this one. Technically, objectively, it's just one thing. But it can be measured in two ways. But it only behaves, once perceived, as one thing....I've lost track of what I was saying.........

Okay. I can perceive a photon as a particle or a wave. I can never perceive the photon. I only know its manifestation. Objectivity, the photon, is the reconciliation of subjective interpretations--the particle or wave. In classical physics, objectivity is the standard. It's why Einstein and Bohm we're such rabid classicists. But according to complementarity (props to my sigs), objectivity is just an interpretation that canvasses several subjective judgments. There are plenty of theories (multi universes, etc.) that support the subjective-only universe.

The weak heel in their stance is that they rely on machines to aid in these measurements, and it may just be (and probably is, IMO) that they don't have the technology to do so.

Even so, interpreting data will always be subjective. But if you have enough subjective information, you can pinpoint what something is, and what something isn't. This gives you a picture of what is objectively there by telling you what you don't have command of subjectively. Once you have enough subjective information, you have objectivity---the very quest of knowledge and science. It will always be subjective, for it was information obtained indivualized increments, but the totality of hte information is indeed objective.

You can only know god by knowing what he is, and what he isn't, both valuations based solely on experience and perception, unless you concdede that god is just the totality of mass and energy (which at temperatures approaching absolute zero are pretty much the same thing), and is just another word for objective existence. Then god is just a poor word choice, because it carries other connotations, and all qualities of god outside of this objective "ideal" (if you will) are a matter of emotional content.

All sentience is excess baggage, and all attributes attributed (redundant, I know) to god are thereby......in excess.

It seems you fall into that trap, that you point out the nature of god as that of existence itself. Objective existence, which can only be interpreted subjectively, but is in fact there. But the moment you've made your point, all of your excess interpretation turns from what is, or likely is, to what you would wish it could be. It seems that the demonstration of god's existence pigeonholes it into such narrow confines and parameters of perception and existence, that any elaboration is in fact talking from one's ass, to put it candidly, and actually bears no resemblance to the thing being described.

If I can train my mind to think non-discursively and therefore prove or disprove the existence of god directly, outline them shortly step-by-step, and will willingly take them to see if it is in fact true.

[Crushing Fist]

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

This is the fundamental error from which most metaphysical philosophy begins.

The error is that for us to know something exists it must be perceivable, but that is not an intrinsic requirement of existence.

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.

This is the first error.

. . . and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it!

This is the second error, and perhaps the greater one, that which leads to a backwards conclusion. The idea is that without a mind to observe it, the universe could not "exist". This is quite the reverse of reality. If we consider the matter rationally, it is the mind which is last to appear on the scene, not first.

Since Mind creates Mind and nothing exists without Mind, everything is a creation of Mind. Therefore it isn’t the Mind that is the plaything of the Body; it is the Body that is the plaything of the Mind!

The only thing that can be proven is that Mind creates Mind's impression's of things, not those things themselves. Those impressions are extinguished with Mind, not the actual things. This error is so fundamental that it undermines the entire metaphysical train of thought. Unless we can perceive or observe in some way Mind that is self-existent, without body, this cannot be taken as "truth". Extraordinary claims and so forth.

To my knowledge, no mind has yet been detected which is not part of, and in fact created by, a physical body. Physical bodies are known which have nothing that can honestly be called "Mind" but not the reverse.

To say otherwise is pure sophistry.

It is not something that can be argued, reasoned, or measured. You either understand it or you don’t?

Here I will have to dispute your definition for existence. Instead of being "perceivable" in order for something to be known to exist, it must be measurable. Anything can be perceived, real or otherwise. Perception is a very poor indicator of reality.

I will leave you with a quote:

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” - Friedrich Nietzsche