Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Karl Henning]

We're all one, so can I borrow 50 dollars? I promise we'll pay it back.

I've become a Buddhist and now everyone's my brother, but none of them ever write.
The late, great Peter Bergman

[AnotherSpin]

We're all one, so can I borrow 50 dollars? I promise we'll pay it back.

Ah yes, the old "we're all one, so spot me fifty" routine. If we're all one, then technically you already have the fifty, and somehow still want more.

[Florestan]

Ah yes, the old "we're all one, so spot me fifty" routine. If we're all one, then technically you already have the fifty, and somehow still want more.

If we're all one, then there's neither we nor I nor you nor he nor she nor they, so technically nobody has fifty bucks. 

[AnotherSpin]

The problem here, for me, is that these seem to be mere assertions. I see that you believe them, but I can't see any reason why anyone else should do so, especially when their own experience conflicts with them.

For example, you assert that what we call choice is really just the result of past habits and influences. That, presumably, includes your own choices. So when you choose to make these assertions, you are making choices that are based merely on your own past habits and influences. You haven't 'worked them out' in any rational way: you assert them because of your conditioning.

That seems to me to undermine the credibility of the entire idea, including your assertion that choices are merely the result of past habits and influences. These ideas undermine any possibility of rational discussion of the matter. A statement that no statements are truly rational must include the statement itself - so there's no reason to pay any attention to it.

I realise that you can respond by saying 'these are my choices, and I merely make them'. That's fine, but there's no point in rational discussion of them, is there?

All so-called rational conclusions are themselves conditioned. The belief that we arrive at views through reason is itself a habit, a story the mind tells after the fact. Reason may explain choices, but it does not originate them. We begin to see this when we look very closely at how decisions actually arise. They emerge on their own, shaped by mood, memory, and context, and only later does the mind package them into something that feels like deliberate thought.

The idea of being in control of our ideas is itself just another idea, floating downstream.

So do not look at arguments. Look at what is happening right now. Where do your thoughts come from? Where does attention come from? Who is watching all of this?

If that question feels empty or unproductive, that is perfectly fine. It is not an attempt to win. I am entirely at peace with the fact that you see things differently, and that this perspective suits you.

[Florestan]

All so-called rational conclusions are themselves conditioned. The belief that we arrive at views through reason is itself a habit, a story the mind tells after the fact. Reason may explain choices, but it does not originate them. We begin to see this when we look very closely at how decisions actually arise. They emerge on their own, shaped by mood, memory, and context, and only later does the mind package them into something that feels like deliberate thought.

The idea of being in control of our ideas is itself just another idea, floating downstream.

So do not look at arguments. Look at what is happening right now. Where do your thoughts come from? Where does attention come from? Who is watching all of this?

If that question feels empty or unproductive, that is perfectly fine. It is not an attempt to win. I am entirely at peace with the fact that you see things differently, and that this perspective suits you.

You proclaim urbi et orbi that you gave up philosophy for good, yet you do nothing but philosophize.

[drogulus]

    Allow me to resort.

    There are 2 kinds of philosophers.

    1) the kind that thinks there are 2 kinds of philosophers and....

     

    OK, let's start over.

    1) It's fun to have a mind and...

    2) Shit is fucked up and stuff.

    For reasons that I can't fathom it's Option 2 that is considered (heh!) profound, while the joy of discovery is not.

    Discovery is the highest form of freedom. Always be doing that or you're grounded for a week.

[Elgarian Redux]

All so-called rational conclusions are themselves conditioned. The belief that we arrive at views through reason is itself a habit, a story the mind tells after the fact.

That doesn't solve the problem, though. Here you are, having adopted a world view in which rational argument is invalidated, attempting to persuade me of something by what looks like an attempt at rational argument.

I accept you have a different world view. But it seems to be one which doesn't have any possible overlap with mine. All we can do is nod, and wish each other well on the journey. Perhaps that's enough.

 

[AnotherSpin]

That doesn't solve the problem, though. Here you are, having adopted a world view in which rational argument is invalidated, attempting to persuade me of something by what looks like an attempt at rational argument.

I accept you have a different world view. But it seems to be one which doesn't have any possible overlap with mine. All we can do is nod, and wish each other well on the journey. Perhaps that's enough.

 

I'm by no means trying to persuade you. For a number of reasons, I believe it's not possible. I've already gone much further than I ever meant to.

Wishing you good music

[Elgarian Redux]

Wishing you good music

Now you're talkin'. We can agree on that sentiment.

[drogulus]

If we're all one, then there's neither we nor I nor you nor he nor she nor they, so technically nobody has fifty bucks. 

     Thanks, so I'll technically borrow it from him.

[DavidW]

You proclaim urbi et orbi that you gave up philosophy for good, yet you do nothing but philosophize.

To be fair, his posts read more like the college freshman convos at 3 am after hitting the bong.

[drogulus]

To be fair, his posts read more like the college freshman convos at 3 am after hitting the bong.

     Is that where they decide what red looks like? 😵

[AnotherSpin]

To be fair, his posts read more like the college freshman convos at 3 am after hitting the bong.

How delightful to read about myself in the third person. It feels rather like reading an early draft of my biography. Rest assured, I am very much present and perfectly capable of responding on my own. That said, remarks of your sort barely merit attention, let alone concern

[Karl Henning]

An opening for a cross-post:

Groucho Marx: I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal.

[Iota]

An opening for a cross-post:

Groucho Marx: I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal.

Not true, he clearly didn't know about the Matrix ..  ; )

[Karl Henning]

Not true, he clearly didn't know about the Matrix ..  ; )

What Groucho didn't know didn't hurt him!

[Elgarian Redux]

How delightful to read about myself in the third person. It feels rather like reading an early draft of my biography. Rest assured, I am very much present and perfectly capable of responding on my own. That said, remarks of your sort barely merit attention, let alone concern

You once said that 'actions driven by personal will, by the so-called individual "I," are, alas, signs of conditioning rather than freedom.' So, thinking in those terms, I suppose DavidW would have made his comments not as a deliberate act of will, but as a result of his conditioning; and so would you, in your response. There's no room here for any feeling of annoyance by either party, because in your World view, David couldn't help what he posted, and neither could you.

You and I have had a perhaps frustrating discussion, but it was, I think, always considerate and polite. You would presumably say that we didn't get annoyed with each other because of our conditioning. I say it was because we chose to have a well-mannered and considerate discussion because ... well,  that's the best, most rational, most civilised way to do it.

[drogulus]

A page from a book is a pretty meager meal. I hope you at least have a glass of milk with that.

    You'll hear from my lawyer!     

[AnotherSpin]

You once said that 'actions driven by personal will, by the so-called individual "I," are, alas, signs of conditioning rather than freedom.' So, thinking in those terms, I suppose DavidW would have made his comments not as a deliberate act of will, but as a result of his conditioning; and so would you, in your response. There's no room here for any feeling of annoyance by either party, because in your World view, David couldn't help what he posted, and neither could you.

You and I have had a perhaps frustrating discussion, but it was, I think, always considerate and polite. You would presumably say that we didn't get annoyed with each other because of our conditioning. I say it was because we chose to have a well-mannered and considerate discussion because ... well,  that's the best, most rational, most civilised way to do it.

I wasn't frustrated in the slightest, quite the opposite, really.

I'm on a forum chatting with others, and naturally, I adapt my style to theirs a little. Of course, I'm not going to call the advaita police every time someone nearby insists they have free will or that they're truly the doer. After all, we're all just actors playing our parts in this play. Some people don't realize the difference between their role in the play and who they really are, but I do.

And yes, talking about people present in the third person is rather gauche, no matter how you see the world or your self.

[steve ridgway]

Well, the key question, as I see it, is this: ultimately, who am I? Am I merely a thing that moves through space, or am I the unmoving space itself? Am I inside the universe, or is the universe inside me?

A highly differentiated part of the universe with my own perspective, but as real as any other part.