Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
What sort of principles carry the most weight to you, and at what point will it take for you to forsake them to prevent catastrophe? And what does it take for you to see them?

Obviously this is a nuanced topic, because on the extreme end of "rightly" principled, you have the example of Socrates dying so as to not forsake himself and placate to others. But then there are cases of not so rightly principled people ending up putting a lot of others' lives at stake (certain dictators and what not) and cases of even putting their own lives at stake. But then again with limited context it's difficult to say if it was right or not.

Personally, I can't say I know so of myself, so maybe someone else's answer will give me more insight about myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
If you would have asked this to me about eight months ago, or even worse, one year and a half ago, or even fucking worse, two years ago, i would have come with giant lists of strong principles. (Un)Fortunately, i had to abandon most if not all of them in the light of that they were either blatantly unjustified or they were so strong they precluded me of too many things. The funny thing is, most of them were entirely self-imposed. No one was forcing me into them.

Sometimes i think back at the old times. And it's scary, because i often can't remember what i was thinking. It's astonishing, i actually forgot what the principles were and/or what the reasons for those principles were. I can't come up with anything right now, i'll get back if i think of something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,000 Posts
What sort of principles carry the most weight to you, and at what point will it take for you to forsake them to prevent catastrophe? And what does it take for you to see them?
Not an INTP.

1. Self preservation while maintaining personal ethics.

2. Internal and external catastrophe of self - already present. Forsaking myself internally will lead from forsaking others internally to external which would cause catastrophe externally. Until I've found the right way to not forsake either side or at the very least to be in equal balance, there resides great conflict.

3. I see myself in them as I see them within myself; I am not myself without them.

I continue on in fantasy. i.e. this is an internal view but from an unbiased third person perspective it would be a bunch of bullshit.

So really, I have no answer because if I did it would already be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sava Saevus

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,860 Posts
If I realize my principles don't align with reality, I consider them unrealistic and therefore irrational. Since rationality (and not becoming blinded to the truth due to ego) are probably my priority principles, sometimes giving up unrealistic principles satisfies this one. Easier said than done, obviously, and I used to be a lot more stubborn about "compromising" and "settling".

For example -- I guess the catastrophe scenario I most commonly imagine is one where society collapses into a black hole of corruption and crime. People murdering each other etc. If I had to murder in self-defense, I would not be morally opposed to that. "Never murder anyone, ever" doesn't seem like a reasonable principle. I think humans have built-in self-defense instincts which can involve hurting/killing others and I don't think I'm a good enough person to have transcended those instincts. Whereas "don't murder innocent people" does seem reasonable, so I wouldn't be violating any principles in this scenario.

Although ideally, in that situation I would probably try to find some more protected area away from the madness, where I can then sanely attempt to help resolve the madness. lol.

Basically, I struggle to ascribe to any principles which I don't think I'd be able to actually live in a worst-case scenario (that would make me a hypocrite, which could be worse). Catastrophe situations are the ones that test peoples' true nature, regardless of what they claim they believe right and wrong are.

As others have mentioned, I've had to discard a lot of my principles, due to them being unreasonable, dogmatic, ego-based, etc.

(This reminds me of the "Stages of Moral Development" theories, haha.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,279 Posts
You don't really know until you have been there. There were times where I stuck with principle and calmly accepted whatever comes at me. Never had to pit my life against it though.

Found this to be a great allegory of taking a tough principle vs perceived reality choice:

Seneca said:
‘You are unfortunate in my judgment, for you have never been unfortunate. You have passed through life with no antagonist to face you; no one will know what you were capable of, not even you yourself.’
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
I embraced amorality years ago. All principles essentially break down to appeals to emotion. When push comes to shove, you're going to break them if the right set of circumstances present themselves.

Mind you, that doesn't mean you go around stealing and murdering or what have you, because we still live in a world of consequence, cause and effect. Add some fluidity to your life, it has a dramatic and profound effect.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I embraced amorality years ago. All principles essentially break down to appeals to emotion.
I would need more proof of this. The example of Socrates does not to me seem like an appeal to emotion, he was appealing to letting all of the open ended deductions he's made of everything not be meaningless. "Meaning" doesn't have to be emotional, is "matter" emotional? It's subjective, but that doesn't mean it isn't more constant and therefore more valid than what is considered objective. The most objective state someone can be in is instaneous and fleeting, and even then it is filtered by way of limited sensory perception. Great video by the way.

Found this to be a great allegory of taking a tough principle vs perceived reality choice:
ok, I really need to watch this series. And yes I totally agree, this video really exemplifies the conflict I described, I'm going to have to watch it a few times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
I would like to take this moment to underline the significance of the principle of "greater love hath no man than this: to lay down one's life for a friend." And everyone is a friend and a neighbor. The way you can tell the good ones is that they will not deviate from good though they die friendless and alone. You ask a seperate question as well about the efficacy of such deeds, but that is the wrong question, because it doesn't matter. The goal is not to control the outcome, because the outcome may be the same regardless of your actions. Instead it is about who you are.

The quote in your signature underscores this, so I know you have seen its significance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
I would need more proof of this. The example of Socrates does not to me seem like an appeal to emotion, he was appealing to letting all of the open ended deductions he's made of everything not be meaningless. "Meaning" doesn't have to be emotional, is "matter" emotional? It's subjective, but that doesn't mean it isn't more constant and therefore more valid than what is considered objective. The most objective state someone can be in is instaneous and fleeting, and even then it is filtered by way of limited sensory perception. Great video by the way.
Principles are about attachment to an ideal, however realistic that ideal is has no bearing on the situation. With attachment comes emotion. If one is not attached to it, how can it be a principle? It would be just a statement. Quite a lot can be gleaned from how a person reacts to a statement. The fact is, all of the things the majority of our species takes for granted as the pillars of modern thought and society are nothing more than thoughts or ideas.

Those who are against murder in all its various forms but are for the death penalty are a very good example. They think killing is bad but, why, pray tell, is it bad? It's bad because they ended someone's life. Was it really bad that they ended someone's life? Of course it was; all life is sacred. So, all life is sacred but you wish to engage in hypocritical conduct and do what this man did to another? Well, he's bad. I'm sorry, but you haven't really told me why he's bad because if you think all life is sacred then I suggest you stop existing because you killed however many millions of bacteria this morning and the chicken who laid your breakfast is locked up in a cage somewhere. Oh, they're not human; they don't count. But you said all life was sacred. I'm narrowing my definition. So, all human life is sacred? Yes, except him. Why him, though? Because he's bad. Why is he bad? Because he made me feel something I didn't want to feel. You don't want to feel bad, so you create ideals to which there is always exception in order to maintain some sort of order in your mind and society? I don't know. Maybe?

All principles point towards this sort of dialogue. I can't seem to think of anything that wouldn't lead to a similar emotional conversation. It might take a little longer, but they will all get there eventually.

The only reason anyone does anything is because they think they will feel better in doing so.

What you said about being in objective state I would agree with. It's a place of no-mind. Much like what is taught in Zen and other traditions. The lynchpin is the mind, the thing that has ideas and speaks and reads, and it is what attaches. If you're about to be killed and the perpetrator is coming towards you and there is a loaded gun within arms reach of you and you value your life, the chances are you won't think about it but pick up the firearm and shoot the person coming towards you.

Principles, morals, and ethics exist for those who have mind. No-mind doesn't require such things as it holds nothing sacred. It exists as a rock exists. It just is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Principles are about attachment to an ideal, however realistic that ideal is has no bearing on the situation. With attachment comes emotion. If one is not attached to it, how can it be a principle? It would be just a statement. Quite a lot can be gleaned from how a person reacts to a statement. The fact is, all of the things the majority of our species takes for granted as the pillars of modern thought and society are nothing more than thoughts or ideas.

Those who are against murder in all its various forms but are for the death penalty are a very good example. They think killing is bad but, why, pray tell, is it bad? It's bad because they ended someone's life. Was it really bad that they ended someone's life? Of course it was; all life is sacred. So, all life is sacred but you wish to engage in hypocritical conduct and do what this man did to another? Well, he's bad. I'm sorry, but you haven't really told me why he's bad because if you think all life is sacred then I suggest you stop existing because you killed however many millions of bacteria this morning and the chicken who laid your breakfast is locked up in a cage somewhere. Oh, they're not human; they don't count. But you said all life was sacred. I'm narrowing my definition. So, all human life is sacred? Yes, except him. Why him, though? Because he's bad. Why is he bad? Because he made me feel something I didn't want to feel. You don't want to feel bad, so you create ideals to which there is always exception in order to maintain some sort of order in your mind and society? I don't know. Maybe?

All principles point towards this sort of dialogue. I can't seem to think of anything that wouldn't lead to a similar emotional conversation. It might take a little longer, but they will all get there eventually.

The only reason anyone does anything is because they think they will feel better in doing so.

What you said about being in objective state I would agree with. It's a place of no-mind. Much like what is taught in Zen and other traditions. The lynchpin is the mind, the thing that has ideas and speaks and reads, and it is what attaches. If you're about to be killed and the perpetrator is coming towards you and there is a loaded gun within arms reach of you and you value your life, the chances are you won't think about it but pick up the firearm and shoot the person coming towards you.

Principles, morals, and ethics exist for those who have mind. No-mind doesn't require such things as it holds nothing sacred. It exists as a rock exists. It just is.
When I refer to principles and ideals, I don't refer to the "attachment" to the ideals. Recognizing the validity of something doesn't have to be emotional does it? That is not to say all emotion is bad either, so long as it synchronizes with what is reasonable. Your example of the death penalty was one that did not. I think it is immoral to not be a vegetarian (which I am not by the way) in the same way I think it is immoral to kill human beings in the same way it is immoral to kill anything in the same way I allow my own life to continue to exist. Not because I want it to exist, just because it has, and I didn't have the choice in this matter. But then you come to the issue of only being able to maintain your own life through the death of these other things one way or the other. That is emotional, that is base instinct, but the principle stands apart from my own actions and unavoidable feelings in this case. Everyone has these cases, so I know what you mean. But then there are cases where you actually have the choice to recognize the right from the wrong (unemotionally if need be) and decide to hold to them. I suppose the additional clause in my original post was that it needed to "carry the most weight" could seem to be also emotional, but what I meant was that because they carried the most weight they also seemed to "matter" more than anything else (quotations on matter intentional). And what does it take to reach a breaking point, to as Tezcatlipoca put it, abandon who you are, or were?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
Recognizing that they are principles and ideals indicates that they are inherently emotional. Principles only exist because humans think them up. To say that they are unemotional is incorrect. A statement like the five plus four is nine is unemotional. Saying that murder is wrong is emotional. The first is a statement of fact whereas the second is a statement of opinion. Right and wrong only exist because someone or a group of someones says decree so. Unfortunately, we usually adhere to the the concept of consensus truth, which is fallacious in a of itself.

Validity, as you've indicated, is predicated upon recognizing a similar emotional response to something, ideal, principle, or otherwise. Invalidity is the recognition of an unlike emotional response. Generally speaking, those who agree with the pro-choice assertion in regards to abortion have a negative emotional reaction to those who are anti-choice and vice versa. Neither opinion or action is inherently wrong or right, but have fun telling them that.

The part you mention about things mattering more or carrying more weight sound to me as if there is a system that defines, based on points or hierarchy, a great deal of relativism. Ideals aren't usually relative; they have a sort of absolute to them, but that's contradictory to what I laid out in my last post. Most people have no idea that their principles fall apart under the slightest of stresses.

To abandon who you are implies you have a set of principles and ideals and, as I've set forth above, these only exist in the mind. If they aren't held to begin with, who is there to abandon, to change? If one can abandon oneself, does that not seem odd as it indicates there are two instead of one, subject and object?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
Recognizing that they are principles and ideals indicates that they are inherently emotional. Principles only exist because humans think them up. To say that they are unemotional is incorrect. A statement like the five plus four is nine is unemotional. Saying that murder is wrong is emotional. The first is a statement of fact whereas the second is a statement of opinion. Right and wrong only exist because someone or a group of someones says decree so. Unfortunately, we usually adhere to the the concept of consensus truth, which is fallacious in a of itself.
So say there are things that can be entirely unemotional like facts (attributes that stand apart from the perceiver), and things that matter to a human being that have emotion attached, and also have the property of being an idealization. How do you tell the two completely apart? math deals with numbers, which are idealizations of symmetry in all of its possible manifestations, but it at least is synthetic... this gets into Kant territory. Everything that passes into the mind is "emotional", or tainted by our own biases. If you wanted principles to be more "factual", you would make them synthetic (that is, judgements where no analysis of the subject will produce the predicate) based on your own state. I say "own state" because that's the one thing someone can witness more accurately than anything else. I suppose you could call this emotion, but seeing as we can't be aware of the act in the synthesis in emotion, I wouldn't go so far to say that. Instead, if you analyze everything according to your own state based on synthetic logic, and call that a principle, I would say that's as objective as an individual - being in fact an individual - can get.

Validity, as you've indicated, is predicated upon recognizing a similar emotional response to something, ideal, principle, or otherwise. Invalidity is the recognition of an unlike emotional response. Generally speaking, those who agree with the pro-choice assertion in regards to abortion have a negative emotional reaction to those who are anti-choice and vice versa. Neither opinion or action is inherently wrong or right, but have fun telling them that.
Yeah I suppose, but I believe by way of observed sythetic logic derived from "self-state" one can be said more objectively (by shared consensus... yeah it's not perfect still. Not absolutely more) correct than the other.

The part you mention about things mattering more or carrying more weight sound to me as if there is a system that defines, based on points or hierarchy, a great deal of relativism. Ideals aren't usually relative; they have a sort of absolute to them, but that's contradictory to what I laid out in my last post. Most people have no idea that their principles fall apart under the slightest of stresses.
Such ideals I refer to can be extracted from this relativism. If you want to call that an emotional bias.... like I said as long as it's synthetic, it's as good as it can get.

To abandon who you are implies you have a set of principles and ideals and, as I've set forth above, these only exist in the mind. If they aren't held to begin with, who is there to abandon, to change? If one can abandon oneself, does that not seem odd as it indicates there are two instead of one, subject and object?
Well consciousness is recursive in many ways, so this is not surprising. And besides, why wouldn't this very notion, to abandon principles itself be regarded as a principle, and so then by your definition of principle, emotionally? Perhaps it begins as a principle, but later removes itself?

The quick point is, there is a way of acknowledging that there are attributes to principles that are more objective and more subjective, and I suppose through extreme riguour the point can be made that it is never entirely one or the other.

*And I say extreme because in practice with people at large it seems it is not a matter of this subtle distinction, but more due to incompetence and impatience.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
So say there are things that can be entirely unemotional like facts (attributes that stand apart from the perceiver), and things that matter to a human being that have emotion attached, and also have the property of being an idealization. How do you tell the two completely apart? math deals with numbers, which are idealizations of symmetry in all of its possible manifestations, but it at least is synthetic... this gets into Kant territory. Everything that passes into the mind is "emotional", or tainted by our own biases. If you wanted principles to be more "factual", you would make them synthetic (that is, judgements where no analysis of the subject will produce the predicate) based on your own state. I say "own state" because that's the one thing someone can witness more accurately than anything else. I suppose you could call this emotion, but seeing as we can't be aware of the act in the synthesis in emotion, I wouldn't go so far to say that. Instead, if you analyze everything according to your own state based on synthetic logic, and call that a principle, I would say that's as objective as an individual - being in fact an individual - can get.

Yeah I suppose, but I believe by way of observed sythetic logic derived from "self-state" one can be said more objectively (by shared consensus... yeah it's not perfect still. Not absolutely more) correct than the other.

Such ideals I refer to can be extracted from this relativism. If you want to call that an emotional bias.... like I said as long as it's synthetic, it's as good as it can get.

Well consciousness is recursive in many ways, so this is not surprising. And besides, why wouldn't this very notion, to abandon principles itself be regarded as a principle, and so then by your definition of principle, emotionally? Perhaps it begins as a principle, but later removes itself?

The quick point is, there is a way of acknowledging that there are attributes to principles that are more objective and more subjective, and I suppose through extreme riguour the point can be made that it is never entirely one or the other.

*And I say extreme because in practice with people at large it seems it is not a matter of this subtle distinction, but more due to incompetence and impatience.
An unemotional fact is an axiomatic truth. It exists without human intervention. As you said, math is a synthetic. I shouldn't have used five plus four equals nine, previously, but something more akin to tree qua tree. Math is also an ideal. Go tell a mathematician that math isn't real and there's a pretty good chance you'll start an argument. Not that that can't be done with a lot of things, but I've made my point. The tree exists. Math exists only as a construct as does logic, philosophy, science, the laws of physics, et cetera. That's not to say the forces of nature wouldn't exist without us, but the laws would not. We try to make these things as objective as possible, but that doesn't mean they aren't emotionally charged principles or ideals. Trying to minimize subjectivity, as you say make things synthetic, seems to result in pseudo-objectivity. Bias exists as a property of mind. No mind, no bias. Stop for a minute and look around your room without thinking, if you can. Notice how there's no bias towards anything. Things just exist. It is pure objectivity. Select an object and think about it (this is your "own state"). The internal dialogue is wholly subjective. Analysis is subjective even if it is based on agreed upon rules and premises of a synthetic system of logic or what have you. No-mind partakes of an objective experience and mind makes it a subjective one.

A principle to abandon principles is still a subject idealization. An instantaneous drop of principles is not a principle at all. In order to have a principle to abandon principles a subjective bias is required. It's like in Zen when students are seeking or called the seeker. The seeker is the principle to abandon principles. Abandoned principles would be termed loosely as enlightenment. This may be a little paradoxical or confusing, but the seeking results in a greater adherence to wanting enlightenment. Wanting enlightenment pushes it further away. To literally stop seeking, not just the thought or motive to stop seeking, results in enlightenment, momentary or otherwise. Not wanting or knowing about enlightenment at all is like thinking all your principles and idealizations are purely objective truth. You're lost in kind of a dream or delusion. To not chase enlightenment, but to allow it, would be akin to abandoning the principle of abandoning principles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
An unemotional fact is an axiomatic truth. It exists without human intervention. As you said, math is a synthetic. I shouldn't have used five plus four equals nine, previously, but something more akin to tree qua tree. Math is also an ideal. Go tell a mathematician that math isn't real and there's a pretty good chance you'll start an argument. Not that that can't be done with a lot of things, but I've made my point. The tree exists. Math exists only as a construct as does logic, philosophy, science, the laws of physics, et cetera. That's not to say the forces of nature wouldn't exist without us, but the laws would not. We try to make these things as objective as possible, but that doesn't mean they aren't emotionally charged principles or ideals. Trying to minimize subjectivity, as you say make things synthetic, seems to result in pseudo-objectivity. Bias exists as a property of mind. No mind, no bias. Stop for a minute and look around your room without thinking, if you can. Notice how there's no bias towards anything. Things just exist. It is pure objectivity. Select an object and think about it (this is your "own state"). The internal dialogue is wholly subjective. Analysis is subjective even if it is based on agreed upon rules and premises of a synthetic system of logic or what have you. No-mind partakes of an objective experience and mind makes it a subjective one.
:laughing: Yeah I know what you mean, and I agree, but only by belief. It is my opinion that objective reality beyond my conscious filter exists, but it is impossible to prove independently of self.

And about the state of mind in observation of the environment, I've definitely done this, I think about this all of the time. You are talking about an objective perception, but perception isn't exactly objective, even if you are experiencing the generation of the 3d world in the mind and nothing else. It's a very limited substitute for the actual, why wouldn't this be pseudo-objective? It seems like to act as if it was would be a dellusion. A convenient dellusion, but a dellusion nonetheless. What seems to me to be the most untainted is the state of one's own consciousness moment by moment. That instantaneous moment you experience of yourself between its cause and effect.



A principle to abandon principles is still a subject idealization. An instantaneous drop of principles is not a principle at all. In order to have a principle to abandon principles a subjective bias is required. It's like in Zen when students are seeking or called the seeker. The seeker is the principle to abandon principles. Abandoned principles would be termed loosely as enlightenment. This may be a little paradoxical or confusing, but the seeking results in a greater adherence to wanting enlightenment. Wanting enlightenment pushes it further away. To literally stop seeking, not just the thought or motive to stop seeking, results in enlightenment, momentary or otherwise. Not wanting or knowing about enlightenment at all is like thinking all your principles and idealizations are purely objective truth. You're lost in kind of a dream or delusion. To not chase enlightenment, but to allow it, would be akin to abandoning the principle of abandoning principles.
So.... it's a welcomed but not sought state of mind that may or may not be a dellusion? I'm not sure I understand the last few sentences. Even though logic is a construct of a human ideal (although some may argue this) It's hard to imagine any state of perception would best logic. And it's hard to believe any state of perception of something other than one's instantaneous self wouldn't be on some level a dellusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
@Doktorin Zylinder This will be the third time I posted this video, but I find it to be profound, and very relevant to this discussion. It fills in the blanks for why I'm wary of the conclusions Zen can come to. To forgo all attachments would seem to forgo all understanding and comprehension by the way ideasthesia operates. As the video puts it "the senses don't exist on seperate islands".

But the discussion seemed to veer in different directions, let me try to clarify the points made:
- I first attempted to argue the importance of principle through its potential "objectivity", for which you say is impossible due to attachment, and I conceded this.
- But then I insisted relativism through some synthetic logic can be achieved, but then you insist the important thing is to let go of attachments altogether.
- I thought this to be impossible, because the generation of what one may consider objective is in fact "subjectified" by the observation and creation of it.
- then I argued the most objective one could be is in an "I think therefore I am" state, where you are literally observing your own observing. - This leads me to believe that principles are not only important, they are everything. Albeit, some are more justified than others, through a form of synthetic logic.

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
:laughing: Yeah I know what you mean, and I agree, but only by belief. It is my opinion that objective reality beyond my conscious filter exists, but it is impossible to prove independently of self.

And about the state of mind in observation of the environment, I've definitely done this, I think about this all of the time. You are talking about an objective perception, but perception isn't exactly objective, even if you are experiencing the generation of the 3d world in the mind and nothing else. It's a very limited substitute for the actual, why wouldn't this be pseudo-objective? It seems like to act as if it was would be a dellusion. A convenient dellusion, but a dellusion nonetheless. What seems to me to be the most untainted is the state of one's own consciousness moment by moment. That instantaneous moment you experience of yourself between its cause and effect.

So.... it's a welcomed but not sought state of mind that may or may not be a dellusion? I'm not sure I understand the last few sentences. Even though logic is a construct of a human ideal (although some may argue this) It's hard to imagine any state of perception would best logic. And it's hard to believe any state of perception of something other than one's instantaneous self wouldn't be on some level a dellusion.
@Doktorin Zylinder This will be the third time I posted this video, but I find it to be profound, and very relevant to this discussion. It fills in the blanks for why I'm wary of the conclusions Zen can come to. To forgo all attachments would seem to forgo all understanding and comprehension by the way ideasthesia operates. As the video puts it "the senses don't exist on seperate islands".

But the discussion seemed to veer in different directions, let me try to clarify the points made:
- I first attempted to argue the importance of principle through its potential "objectivity", for which you say is impossible due to attachment, and I conceded this.
- But then I insisted relativism through some synthetic logic can be achieved, but then you insist the important thing is to let go of attachments altogether.
- I thought this to be impossible, because the generation of what one may consider objective is in fact "subjectified" by the observation and creation of it.
- then I argued the most objective one could be is in an "I think therefore I am" state, where you are literally observing your own observing. - This leads me to believe that principles are not only important, they are everything. Albeit, some are more justified than others, through a form of synthetic logic.
The perception of the world as I laid out as being objective without thought is, as you say, still subjective, but it is probably as objective as we'll ever be able to ever get. The belief of a separate and objective world is just that, a belief. Unless you are lucid, being able to identify a dream from a reality is impossible, as are people society deems crazy or delusional. We don't know if this is a dream or if we're dreaming inside a dream (no Inception comments, please) or if we are test subjects in something akin to Putnam's Brain in a Vat. The fact is, that deep down, we know absolutely nothing and points to a very solipsistic existence.

Think of yourself walking on one side of a mobius strip. The platform is ultimately a single phase of existence, but does not seem to be so from the perspective of being on one side. The side on which you are walking we'll call metaphysics and the side that is opposite you, discerned through the contrasting experience of not being there, we'll call epistemology. Your continued walking finds you on the opposite of the strip where you thought epistemology was. You haven't actually switched sides at all, but only changed perspectives. When subjected to certain experiences it can be realized that metaphysics and epistemology are indeed one.

Now, extend the above analogy to the universe. Think of the exterior world as one side of the strip and your mind as the other. All things that we think are physically tangible are in the universe are one side of the strip and all things that are intangible and a product of the mind are the other side of the strip, but it's all indistinguishable given the right perspective. In Zen, we have a koan, which is a saying to stop thought, and you've probably heard it, about if there is no one around to hear a tree fall in the woods, does it make a sound? Using our synthetic logic and knowledge of science, the compression of air as an object moves or impacts another creating vibrations throughout a medium resulting in a noise to those with the appropriate anatomy to hear. If you are deprived of all senses, does the same tree make a sound? No, of course, not. This is where, ideasthesia comes in. Being on the autism spectrum myself and in a place where synethesia is very prevalent, I've delved into this subject before.

Is the underlying fabric of the universe a form of consciousness and intelligence that maintains reality for those who are experiencing it? Could we be part of this fundamental ooze? That would make a lot of sense, especially when looking into associations that aren't cultured and span time and species as seen in your video above. It would also make a really good explanation of quantum entanglement, but that's another discussion altogether (and I'm not having it here). The mind may just be a piece of the universal one running in a sandbox program. It seems quite plausible as the mind is illusive and may be using the brain as a user interface of sorts with the body and what we have come to know as reality considering there are people with only half brains or odd brains that function perfectly in comparison to those with what we would think of as typical. Being an aspie has taught me that I am not like neurotypicals. It would seem that my user interface isn't normal, but that doesn't mean my mind isn't par or better. My brain isn't normal when seen on brain scans but all that does is alter my user interface and perspective on reality.

I heard something years ago about what enlightenment is. Ultimately, it's ineffable, but that doesn't mean people haven't tried to explain it and the definitions end up being paradoxical or nonsensical, but I'll try anyway. My recollection was about how when one becomes enlightened, reality presents itself to itself. One discovers that one is one with reality and all is simplistically and ultimately one. It opens the sandbox, in a matter of speaking. You are reality as well as the interface. That's what I was getting at when I was discussing a state of thoughtlessness, of no-mind. It's all about perspective. There was another little snippet about how death isn't a finite end, but just a change of perspective, a forced opening of the sandbox and the interface shut down. Enlightenment is just the opening of the sandbox before the interface shutdown. Either way, you eventually get back to the ooze.

There are some things science will never prove, not because they are untrue but because they are unprovable from our current time-space perspective.

As for your comment about "I think, therefore I am," I will disagree. As I said previously, thought induces a more-subjective experience. Observing the Observer is like watching the Watcher. If the Watcher is thinking, having an opinion, or anything other than watching, then it's not the Watcher; it is the watched. Thinking does not denote existence. I observe therefore I perceive would be a better saying.

Hopefully, I just didn't make your ears bleed or your brain hurt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
My recollection was about how when one becomes enlightened, reality presents itself to itself. One discovers that one is one with reality and all is simplistically and ultimately one. It opens the sandbox, in a matter of speaking. You are reality as well as the interface.
I think our opinions were ultimately this mobius strip you described, because I definitely agree with this statement based on my own experience.

But this part not so much:

As for your comment about "I think, therefore I am," I will disagree. As I said previously, thought induces a more-subjective experience. Observing the Observer is like watching the Watcher. If the Watcher is thinking, having an opinion, or anything other than watching, then it's not the Watcher; it is the watched. Thinking does not denote existence. I observe therefore I perceive would be a better saying.
Althought it is much clearer to me now what I think you mean. I think this can possibly diminish the value of "thinking" as a lesser of perception (Ti vs. Ni perhaps?) even though they are subtle manifestations of the same process. The point is individuality (some factor of subjectivity) should matter more than being a watcher. Or at least I like to begin from this end of thinking about it. I say matter more because it would mean allowing yourself significance in the grand scheme of things at all, to which you realize you are universe in some philosophy-of-Berkeley sense. Or you could approach this revelation from the standpoint that all subjectivity and all attachment is meaningless and so are you, so throw it out and know you are universe and nothing more and find your significance in this in the Zen sense. To take the point further, what if this subjective ability to recursively watch ourselves is the primary state of consciousness that makes us human? Who is to say animal species are not "Watchers" continuously? Perhaps it may be more appropriate to call human consciousness an error in evolutionary perceptual programming.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
Althought it is much clearer to me now what I think you mean. I think this can possibly diminish the value of "thinking" as a lesser of perception (Ti vs. Ni perhaps?) even though they are subtle manifestations of the same process. The point is individuality (some factor of subjectivity) should matter more than being a watcher. Or at least I like to begin from this end of thinking about it. I say matter more because it would mean allowing yourself significance in the grand scheme of things at all, to which you realize you are universe in some philosophy-of-Berkeley sense. Or you could approach this revelation from the standpoint that all subjectivity and all attachment is meaningless and so are you, so throw it out and know you are universe and nothing more and find your significance in this in the Zen sense. To take the point further, what if this subjective ability to recursively watch ourselves is the primary state of consciousness that makes us human? Who is to say animal species are not "Watchers" continuously? Perhaps it may be more appropriate to call human consciousness an error in evolutionary perceptual programming.
That whole paragraph was rife with egoic attachment. You're still attached to a principle: significance. Laying out that you think something should matter more is an ideal that leads to significance. I get it; people want to feel loved and that they have a purpose and matter in one form or another, but it's still an ideal and an emotional attachment. If the average person doesn't have this hope, it can lead to depression. You're trying to use "thinking" as a fulcrum to elevate humanity and individuality to a place where it can give you comfort. Animals may, indeed, be watchers, or at least the ones who aren't around humans too much, but what may make us human may be the ability to experience and to think outside the watcher. It creates a hell of a lot of problems, though. It brings to mind another koan: a sword stays sharpest when kept in its sheath. We may be the only ones who are able to dissolve the sandbox on our own accord and that's what elevates us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 · (Edited)
That whole paragraph was rife with egoic attachment. You're still attached to a principle: significance. Laying out that you think something should matter more is an ideal that leads to significance. I get it; people want to feel loved and that they have a purpose and matter in one form or another, but it's still an ideal and an emotional attachment. If the average person doesn't have this hope, it can lead to depression. You're trying to use "thinking" as a fulcrum to elevate humanity and individuality to a place where it can give you comfort. Animals may, indeed, be watchers, or at least the ones who aren't around humans too much, but what may make us human may be the ability to experience and to think outside the watcher. It creates a hell of a lot of problems, though. It brings to mind another koan: a sword stays sharpest when kept in its sheath. We may be the only ones who are able to dissolve the sandbox on our own accord and that's what elevates us.
Yeah I can see how there is ego in it, but I'm not trying to describe it as dysfunctional, or associate it too strongly with other understandings of the word. It's a matter of why exist at all. If you're telling me that one is nothing more than a grain of sand in the wind that has no purpose other than observe itself that is universe, and there is no point, then why exist? That mindset is also maintained by ego, but just like singularites contain paradox's in the same way one needs to understand to be a Watcher, why can't ego be given the same attribute? That is, an awareness of one's ego leads to an understanding of the universe divorced of ego?
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top