Food for Thought for both Theists and Atheists

Gisteron wrote: For some reason I smell an abundance of straw man fallacies along with a great false dichotomy at the start and a few non-sequiturs towards the end just to name the structural flaws of the contents of this piece. Fortunately however this is not something any user said in this thread yet so I can wait until someone comes along to reiterate and confirm some of the nonsense before responding. This will be fun

It was a nine minute summing up of IP Lesson 2. There was a lot of in-between explanation and elaboration that is missed in the video.

The point he is making is that we aren't some "thing" which comes into the universe from some existential "other-place", we are the process of the universe that has manifested into this particular shape. We are the universe. The error he identifies is that because we fail to see ourselves and everything else as the universe we see ourselves as I and others as Them, rather than ourselves as Universe and others as Universe.

So because of this misidentification of ourselves in relation to the other we think we are somehow two "separate" beings, but separate from what? The Universe? Separate in space and time perhaps, but if we're all universe then we must ultimately all be the same process. Failure to recognise this Oneness and unity behind everything makes us feel as though the "other" is hostile, because that isn't "me".

Please explain why

... we aren't some "thing" which comes into the universe from some existential "other-place", we are the process of the universe that has manifested into this particular shape.

therefore

We are the universe.

The error he identifies is that because we fail to see ourselves and everything else as the universe we see ourselves as I and others as Them, rather than ourselves as Universe and others as Universe.

That's not an error. That is, as it just so happens, exactly the reason why we do that.

So because of this misidentification of ourselves in relation to the other we think we are somehow two "separate" beings, but separate from what?

Each other, maybe. The fact that two sets are both subsets of the same superset doesn't mean that they are equivalent or equal. In fact, there is nothing dictating that there even needs to be an intersection of the two at all.

Separate in space and time perhaps, but if we're all universe then we must ultimately all be the same process.

What about separation in space and time is insufficient to qualify? What kind of separation would be good enough to qualify as any? Also, and I apologize for going all math on you, but equivalence with the universe does not imply equality with each other.

Failure to recognise this Oneness and unity behind everything makes us feel as though the "other" is hostile, because that isn't "me".

Who is this 'us' you speak of? I don't feel that way and I've yet to meet anyone who does. Nor, I might add, can I fathom a line of reasoning by which one could argue that from otherness follows hostility, but then that may just be my personal incredulity. If you know of a valid and sound argument that would make that case, please, let me know.

Gisteron wrote: Please explain why

... we aren't some "thing" which comes into the universe from some existential "other-place", we are the process of the universe that has manifested into this particular shape.

therefore

We are the universe.

The error he identifies is that because we fail to see ourselves and everything else as the universe we see ourselves as I and others as Them, rather than ourselves as Universe and others as Universe.

That's not an error. That is, as it just so happens, exactly the reason why we do that.

Assuming I am understanding your point correctly. What you have described requires there to be two sets, what Alan Watts is saying is that there is no such thing, there is the universe and only the universe. There is only one possible set ever. The trouble, as Watts would undoubtedly agree with me on, is that as the universe is a complex system and language is a system created within that system, when language tries to point to something outside of its system it becomes incredibly difficult. Why do you think it is that Eastern mystics have used the practice of meditation rather than speech writing to explain the nature of the universe? Because language and logic are self-constraining creations that try to impose an order onto something (the universe) that is far too nuanced to be imposed upon. That is why there are statements like "The Universe IS" and it gets let at that, or as Alan Watts often did:

"So what is the Universe?"
*Hits gong so sound rings out*
"And we won't give it a name."

If you'd like another example, please try to explain to me the experience of seeing the colour red. Language and logic cannot be used - at least not in their current form - to explain the experience of being a living being in the universe. They must therefore have limits, if they have limits then they must either be expanded such that their limits take into account what they currently do not, or there must be some other way of explaining what is beyond their ability to explain.

Gisteron wrote:

So because of this misidentification of ourselves in relation to the other we think we are somehow two "separate" beings, but separate from what?

Each other, maybe. The fact that two sets are both subsets of the same superset doesn't mean that they are equivalent or equal. In fact, there is nothing dictating that there even needs to be an intersection of the two at all.

Using your terms, the point he is trying to get people to realise is the existence of the superset.

Gisteron wrote:

Separate in space and time perhaps, but if we're all universe then we must ultimately all be the same process.

What about separation in space and time is insufficient to qualify? What kind of separation would be good enough to qualify as any? Also, and I apologize for going all math on you, but equivalence with the universe does not imply equality with each other.

The idea is not to say that everything is equal, everything is different as evidenced by the over abundance of stuff that is not identical.

Gisteron wrote:

Failure to recognise this Oneness and unity behind everything makes us feel as though the "other" is hostile, because that isn't "me".

Who is this 'us' you speak of? I don't feel that way and I've yet to meet anyone who does. Nor, I might add, can I fathom a line of reasoning by which one could argue that from otherness follows hostility, but then that may just be my personal incredulity. If you know of a valid and sound argument that would make that case, please, let me know.

The "us" was to the general "Us", further the "other" is the general "Other" as in "everything not I", how many people are afraid of death? But it is perhaps one of the only undoubtedly certain things that will ever happen to any and everything in the entire existence of ever. What about the vast environmental damage that humans have created in the world? 50% of all other species of animal on the planet have died since the 1970's. What the realisation of the superset, the fundamental relationship between one process (I) and the other processes (everything else), is understanding that everything is interrelated and connected, everything affects everything, and it is the arrogance of Man to think that Man is above this.

Language and Logic are both problematic, as evidenced by the 1000+ year old school of Ch'an Kung'an which has became the sublime practice of Zen's mind-boggling Koans.

Whether you view the individual as part or separate from the Superset "universe", so what? (not rudely, but politely asked)

What changed when you viewed yourself as part of the universal superset?

Does it open more doors than it closes?

A question, if I may ask: what are people's views on the Unifying Force and the Living Force? And which one is more important to you?

Russel's paradox does not require there to be two sets. The universal set is impossible by its very own definition. Transitivity is also a necessary condition for any equivalence relation. If you are going to say that x=y and that z=y, you must conclude that x=z. Because, however, x!=z, we therefore have to conclude that at x!=y or z!=y or both, and yet the opposite is what Watts and his camp claim, and yes, they do. They don't say it is a metaphor, they don't say it is an ethical precept or that it is a feeling they have. They make it a statement of fact about the nature of things and as such it is subject to epistemic analyses the most basic of which it already can't pass.

As for your rambling on about perception of colours or perception in general, for that matter: That is neither equivalent to the concept discussed nor relevant to the inquiry I posed that you happily quoted and just as happily went on to ignore, instead concentrating on a logical objection as your diving board into preaching.

People realize the existence of the superset and that is not "the point" at all. If it was, Watts and his camp would point out the existence of that superset rather than equate it with every subset of itself. That would serve the point and be less confusing. But confusion is their business, not communication.

The idea is not to say that everything is equal, everything is different as evidenced by the over abundance of stuff that is not identical.

Oh, come on now, seriously?

... we must ultimately all be the same process.

Now, what did I just say?

... confusion is their business, not communication.

Thanks for proving my point.

Also, when I quoted you saying that without the realization of "Oneness and unity between everything" "we" feel that the not-I things are hostile and asked you who you meant by "we", I actually asked you who you meant by "we"? You didn't say interdependance, you said oneness and unity. I would rather you speak for yourself when you say that we need to realize this in order to not think the not-I things are hostile. I am not part of the "we" who feel that way and I have yet to meet anyone who does. What your homily about the fear of death or a sample of the vertebrate population counts has to do with that feeling of hostility or with oneness and unity (or with anything else for that matter), is, I'm afraid, a total mystery. As I said, "confusion is their..."; oh, bugger...!

Anyone care to enlighten me on the nature of the differences between the Living Force and the Unifying Force?

Gisteron wrote: Russel's paradox does not require there to be two sets. The universal set is impossible by its very own definition. Transitivity is also a necessary condition for any equivalence relation. If you are going to say that x=y and that z=y, you must conclude that x=z. Because, however, x!=z, we therefore have to conclude that at x!=y or z!=y or both, and yet the opposite is what Watts and his camp claim, and yes, they do.

Probably because those rules exist in a hypothetical moment where no change exists, which is created and used to try and determine something which never stops changing..... you can clearly see that this should then really limit the application of those rules.

It's the best we can do but its not the full picture of reality, and when we are talking about human experience we are talking about perception of a system we do not have full command, which means we question the extent of accuracy and utility that might be available, and use different schools of thought to experiment. Logic works for us because its a valuable process to systematic thought, but I wouldn't extend it to limit curiosity to other methods.

Proteus wrote: Actually, he was stating two sides of a coin (the clay model and the fully automatic model), and then instead proposing the entire coin at once (that we are inherently a combination of both models, plus some).

Ah, I see now... that's what I get for tryin' to grasp deep stuffs while sleep-deprived lol Thanx!

Adder wrote: Probably because those rules exist in a hypothetical moment where no change exists, which is created and used to try and determine something which never stops changing..... you can clearly see that this should then really limit the application of those rules.

These rules don't 'exist' in any meaningful sense of the word. Transitivity is not a rule either, it is a property. And that equivalence relations have that property is also not a rule, but part of it's intensional definition. And no, there is no limitation to this. Equivalence relations are transitive in any and all circumstances and with no exceptions at any level. That's part of what "equivalence relation" means. In contraposition, relations that are not transitive are also never equivalence relations. No amount of change of a system over time can invalidate that definition, because intensional definitions are not subject to empirical falsification.

Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end, of course. But one cannot continue something one did not begin. If something contradicts reality, it is incredible. If something contradicts itself, it is impossible.