SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

logical bob wrote:

Destroyer wrote:I have a pretty robust argument to the effect that Real existence is the property of God. Good luck with countering that one.

Can you link me to it?

I can most certainly PM it to you, if you like. It will be the same one that I recently forwarded to a number of prominent physicists/cosmologists.

I would like one as well.

Yours is in the mail, SoS.

If anyone actually receives destroyers evidence, can they inform the rest of us whether it actually supports what he claims?

I received it.

It makes a few.......assumptions.

Edit: Sorry, Thomas, to answer your specific question........no.

His first assumption was that you'd be interested.

jamest wrote:His first assumption was that you'd be interested.

? I am very much interested, presuming he actually can present evidence for his assertions.
I just see no good reason why it should be through PM, rather than in public.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:His first assumption was that you'd be interested.

? I am very much interested, presuming he actually can present evidence for his assertions.
I just see no good reason why it should be through PM, rather than in public.

You're in it for the lulz, not for the robe.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:His first assumption was that you'd be interested.

? I am very much interested, presuming he actually can present evidence for his assertions.
I just see no good reason why it should be through PM, rather than in public.

You're in it for the lulz, not for the robe.

I am in it to challenge my own beliefs. And I'd greatly appreciate if you'd stop trying to speak for me James.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:His first assumption was that you'd be interested.

? I am very much interested, presuming he actually can present evidence for his assertions.
I just see no good reason why it should be through PM, rather than in public.

You're in it for the lulz, not for the robe.

I am in it to challenge my own beliefs. And I'd greatly appreciate if you'd stop trying to speak for me James.

Why not, you might say something daft.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
? I am very much interested, presuming he actually can present evidence for his assertions.
I just see no good reason why it should be through PM, rather than in public.

You're in it for the lulz, not for the robe.

I am in it to challenge my own beliefs. And I'd greatly appreciate if you'd stop trying to speak for me James.

Why not, you might say something daft.

I'm serious James, I don't appreciate it when people attribute positions to me I have not claimed.

You've never laughed at theists? I have!!! Some of them are bonkers. I might even be bonkers myself.

jamest wrote:You've never laughed at theists? I have!!! Some of them are bonkers. I might even be bonkers myself.

This does not address my point.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:You've never laughed at theists? I have!!! Some of them are bonkers. I might even be bonkers myself.

This does not address my point.

Okay boss.

jamest wrote:You've never laughed at theists? I have!!! Some of them are bonkers. I might even be bonkers myself.

Actually, on a serious note, I do understand how/why theists in general are treated with disdain. As I said, most of them/us are completely bonkers and irrational. I wasn't joking when I said that I generally laugh at theists. Still, as long as you keep one eye/ear open just in case a reasonable one enters the fray, all's well and good.

jamest wrote:

jamest wrote:You've never laughed at theists? I have!!! Some of them are bonkers. I might even be bonkers myself.

Actually, on a serious note, I do understand how/why theists in general are treated with disdain.
As I said, most of them/us are completely bonkers and irrational. I wasn't joking when I said that I generally laugh at theists. Still, as long as you keep one eye/ear open just in case a reasonable one enters the fray, all's well and good.

I try to keep my scorn limited to claims/ideas, regardless of the people who make them.

logical bob wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:...this leads to confusion when an interlocutor attempts to apply logic to non-duality pointings.

Word.

This isn't to say logic and reason are useless, as I am sure you are aware.
Logic is useful, for example when dealing with physical and abstract things and their properties. It is also useful for attacking ideas claiming to speak of non-duality. I am pointing out that confusion will arise if descriptions of non-duality - which it is alleged has no definable properties and does not exist in the way the physical world exists as finite things - are expected to work in the same way as descriptions applicable to existent things with definable properties.

logical bob wrote:Or to look at that differently, be honest when you're writing poetry. It would be crass of me to suggest that all forms of discourse should be able to stand up to logical scrutiny and you're perfectly entitled to describe your spiritual experiences in whatever form you choose.

Yes and no.
Yes, I am presenting a piece of descriptive writing which is representative and limited in its accuracy somewhat akin to the work of a poet.
No, in that
1. its a description of reality, not spiritual experiences. Any such experiences are evidence in support of the model of reality but not as a primary subject of the material. Of course a description of reality must account for such experiences and explain the how and why of them.
2. It is bound by accuracy much more than poetry, far less able to freely expound fantasy.

The problem arises when you decide to come to a philosophy forum in the hope of telling people truths about how the world is. If you do that while saying that logic is not equal to the task you have to ask yourself how, in the ensuing discussion, we are to distinguish between good contributions and bad. If I say your claims about non-duality are false because mackerel then on what grounds will you object? If I blatantly contradict myself in my response to you, then what? Logic isn't some arbitrary requirement of the narrow minded, it's an expression of the way we all conduct ourselves when successfully communicating with other people. If logic doesn't suffice for your investigation then neither does language and neither does thought. I suspect you wouldn't dispute that. But then what are we thinking or talking about? Perhaps we should just write koans at each other.

Obviously, I'd say your argument 'mackerel' is an unreasonable counter to my position, and neither you nor I would give it much credit.
As I have stated many times, all available tools are required in the enquiry into reality. I have not said logic, reason, observation, experience or any other tool can be dropped. But what I do also say, and assert strongly, is that none alone is enough, a synthesis of all available tools provides a result greater than the sum of the parts. I do not expect to be free of criticism by logic or reason, and attempt (oft times poorly) to meet the requirements of both - but none of this contradicts the fact that confusion is likely if expecting descriptions of non-duality to meet the normal standards of logic without contradiction.

It may help to highlight a distinction here between
1. descriptions of non-duality - these will be partial hence incomplete and inaccurate, due to the use of language developed for handling things.
and
2. ideas pointing to non-duality - these will be much more effective when following reason, logic and experience.

All I'm saying is bear in mind which domain of discourse you're currently trying to operate in.

Point is valid enough, thank you for the good advice.

Intelligent religious folk have, since forever, been trying to justify their spiritual lives so that they don't feel embarrassed in rational company. Medieval monks kept on producing proofs of the existence of God. In an age where atheism would get you burnt at the stake, who were they talking to? Themselves, because revealed religion didn't sit well with the Greek philosophy they had learned to revere.

The monks were, of course, trying to bridge the three way dis-connect between
1. the subjective certainty brought by mystical experience and faith
with
2. the logic and reasoning which was currently 'cutting edge'.
and
3. the incompatibility of 1. and 2. with the practical reality of daily living.

This is still an issue into the information age we find ourselves in.
The solution to the age old dilemma you touch upon above is addressed in philosophical mysticism; the synthesis of thought, feeling and action. Briefly this entails correct metaphysical thinking, understanding mystical experience and active daily life with freedom from suffering, each of which I have spoken of at length.

Transcend logic as much as you like, but give that shit up. Embrace the fact that what you preach is a stumbling block unto the Jews and unto the Greeks foolishness.

What I preach collects the value from both the Jews and Greeks, while rejecting their foolishness. I doubt I'll be giving up studying it any time soon, although I am less inclined to preach it.

Little Idiot wrote:...
The monks were, of course, trying to bridge the three way dis-connect between
1. the subjective certainty brought by mystical experience and faith
with
2. the logic and reasoning which was currently 'cutting edge'.
and
3. the incompatibility of 1. and 2. with the practical reality of daily living.

This is still an issue into the information age we find ourselves in.

Transcend logic as much as you like, but give that shit up. Embrace the fact that what you preach is a stumbling block unto the Jews and unto the Greeks foolishness.

What I preach collects the value from both the Jews and Greeks, while rejecting their foolishness. I doubt I'll be giving up studying it any time soon, although I am less inclined to preach it.

Not so much an issue these days for the informed. The physical provides much salve to soothe the gap. We have a lot of research on religious experiences, beliefs, the interaction of emotion and reason, and mathematical knowledge of complexity to fully support the health giving effects of ego reduction and spiritual practice. It's all atoms all the way down. It integrates into a peaceful whole where we can finally rest ourselves from the imaginative manufacture of the Spook. Turns out by assuming just physics with the extra sauce fully explains our plight and salvation.

Now isn't that great news for the likes of you? You can quit expounding mysticism and finally get down to practicing.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:...
The monks were, of course, trying to bridge the three way dis-connect between
1. the subjective certainty brought by mystical experience and faith
with
2. the logic and reasoning which was currently 'cutting edge'.
and
3. the incompatibility of 1. and 2. with the practical reality of daily living.

This is still an issue into the information age we find ourselves in.

Transcend logic as much as you like, but give that shit up. Embrace the fact that what you preach is a stumbling block unto the Jews and unto the Greeks foolishness.

What I preach collects the value from both the Jews and Greeks, while rejecting their foolishness. I doubt I'll be giving up studying it any time soon, although I am less inclined to preach it.

Not so much an issue these days for the informed. The physical provides much salve to soothe the gap. We have a lot of research on religious experiences, beliefs, the interaction of emotion and reason, and mathematical knowledge of complexity to fully support the health giving effects of ego reduction and spiritual practice. It's all atoms all the way down. It integrates into a peaceful whole where we can finally rest ourselves from the imaginative manufacture of the Spook. Turns out by assuming just physics with the extra sauce fully explains our plight and salvation.

Nice try, but science doesn't say its atoms all the way down.

Now isn't that great news for the likes of you? You can quit expounding mysticism and finally get down to practicing.

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:...
The monks were, of course, trying to bridge the three way dis-connect between
1. the subjective certainty brought by mystical experience and faith
with
2. the logic and reasoning which was currently 'cutting edge'.
and
3. the incompatibility of 1. and 2. with the practical reality of daily living.

This is still an issue into the information age we find ourselves in.

Transcend logic as much as you like, but give that shit up. Embrace the fact that what you preach is a stumbling block unto the Jews and unto the Greeks foolishness.

What I preach collects the value from both the Jews and Greeks, while rejecting their foolishness. I doubt I'll be giving up studying it any time soon, although I am less inclined to preach it.

Not so much an issue these days for the informed. The physical provides much salve to soothe the gap. We have a lot of research on religious experiences, beliefs, the interaction of emotion and reason, and mathematical knowledge of complexity to fully support the health giving effects of ego reduction and spiritual practice. It's all atoms all the way down. It integrates into a peaceful whole where we can finally rest ourselves from the imaginative manufacture of the Spook. Turns out by assuming just physics with the extra sauce fully explains our plight and salvation.

Nice try, but science doesn't say its atoms all the way down.

Now isn't that great news for the likes of you? You can quit expounding mysticism and finally get down to practicing.

Oh shit! I forgot about quantum wooicles and gappicles.

I think you've all lost the particular and the contingent. I think you're all Hegel.

SpeedOfSound wrote:The physical provides much salve to soothe the gap.

This sounds like a cross between a visit to the orthodontist and communion with Olodumare. Will you be having gold or porcelain crowns? Or just the robe and sandals?