Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dostf · 03-31-2002, 09:30 AM

john page:

The truth (i.e. existence of) one's self is detected like any other truth, as I said earlier in the thread

jp)

I am still not entirely sure what you mean to express by this statement. Is it that we observe(detect) this self as "similar" among people and therefore is true or a truism that self exists??

Yes, I meant the latter. Prime example, god. It seems we all have an inbuilt sense of the concept of god, irrespective of claims for the existence of god. I suggest this common abstract feature of human beings (i.e. god) is an evolutionary useful mass psychosis that enabled mass action beyond intimate family groups. Hence civilizations. If atheists need a challenge, it is to rationalize and explain to others how they believe. I believe societies that do this will be more successful through freer thought and thus control over reality.(jp)

Very good statement!!- except for the "control of reality assertion" I suggest this statement in of itself is the basis for another long conversation!! (not that that is necesarily bad)

I'm still a little lost as to what you think is "past" the traits? An individual soul? A normal or typical human being?(jp)

"past" these traits is what i define as "human" (without "self" attributes") (a wholeness with no name, no face, no picure)-yet it does have a name face picure) it is your "beloved".It is "truth".
Such a human is certainly not typical!
-certainly NOT a "soul" that to me represents a false religious belief.

However, if added to an understanding of how a human being operates we can determine how our differences as individuals enable us to discover who and what we are (as individuals).(jp)

Sorry again i am not clear on exactly what you wish to express by this statement. Could you elaborate or clarify by example?

John Page · 03-31-2002, 12:26 PM

FYI Just before I post I select all the text in the posting, edit|copy. If the posting fails I can just use edit|paste after bringing up the message box again.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
john page:
The truth (i.e. existence of) one's self is detected like any other truth, as I said earlier in the thread

jp)

I am still not entirely sure what you mean to express by this statement. Is it that we observe(detect) this self as "similar" among people and therefore is true or a truism that self exists??

A. The existence of self is a subjective truth (to oneself, as are all truths). It comes about by comparison with what is "not us".

B. That others (seem) to experience the same sense of "self", we can relate to or through this phenomenon. This is why in one of my other postings I refer to a common internal reality as distinct from a common external reality.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
Very good statement!!- except for the "control of reality assertion" I suggest this statement in of itself is the basis for another long conversation!! (not that that is necesarily bad)

If, through your better understanding of reality, you can make crops grow where other can do so only poorly then you have superior control over your (physical) reality. There are numerous other examples from history, such as warfare technology, medecine etc. Freedom to think is freedom to better understand. I did not intend to suggest that we have any control over our reality in some mysterious way.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
"past" these traits is what i define as "human" (without "self" attributes") (a wholeness with no name, no face, no picure)-yet it does have a name face picure) it is your "beloved".It is "truth".
Such a human is certainly not typical!

I'm confused. Human without "self" attributes - I think this would be contradictory. The nameless, faceless stuff is a little Judaistic for me.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
However, if added to an understanding of how a human being operates we can determine how our differences as individuals enable us to discover who and what we are (as individuals).(jp)

Sorry again i am not clear on exactly what you wish to express by this statement. Could you elaborate or clarify by example?

Analogy with a car. If we can find out how cars work, generically, that helps us understand each type of car and individual car, their strengths and weaknesses etc. that amount to their "character" or "individuality."

Cheers!

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

dostf · 03-31-2002, 07:05 PM

john page:

well i was formulating my reply to your latest post and again got wiped out!! With only a few sentences left! It seems when i hit the back icon to refer to your statement for reference, occasionally some advertising pop up hijacks the process and wipes out my reply. Any idea why this is happenning? As i don't have the "courage" to write it all over again this evening i will try again tomorrow-sorry about that.

John Page · 03-31-2002, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
....i was formulating my reply to your latest post and again got wiped out!!

That's annoying. Try opening two instances of your browser, use one to review previous posts and the other to formulate your message. (The board doesn't mind you being logged in twice.) The ads are likely coming from your ISP - I don't get any.

Look forward to your post. Cheers!

jpbrooks · 04-01-2002, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
[QB]

(my first attempt at a reply to your post was zapped by my computer after over 1 hour of thought and typing so i'm trying again!)

Isn't it frustrating when that happens?

Quote:

The way that "love" and "friendship" allows us to get past the "self" still seems vague. Can you explain how the process works in more detail?(jpb)

dos:
Sure. Let's say you and I come together for a conversation. We are both interested in finding out what is true. We both are reasonable and relatively "openminded". Of course we both have our own ideas of what is true. For example I might state that the truth can be found in the bible. You then reasonably and logically proceed to show me the inconsistencies and "debatable" passages in that text. As your argument is reasonable, I am forced to reevaluate my version of "truth". Furthermore, as you are educating me (without any benefit to yourself), an affection begins for that person-you in this case. (Note this is a recprical relationship as we both are "educating" the other, depending on our own "expertise".) This affection leads to friendship over time, and eventually love. Love is the mechanism to "pass" self. It shifts our focus from our(self) to that other human we love. Again even in ordinary biological love we get a taste of this. When you are with that other you love, you only think of them when you are together. You don't notice "time", "space", physical sensations, etc. They are what exists for you. Your(self) does not exist here. When love of truth is the base of this friendship, this same sort of process occurs, only "truth" that is not"you""self" lives. This truth has no name, face, or picture,-yet it at the same time it does and it is that person you love. Does this make things at least somewhat clearer?

Yes. Thanks.
But now the question that arises is why couldn't the other "person" that you form such a relationship with be an aspect of your personality, a personification of some part or aspect of nature or the universe, or even an assumed supernatural being like a god? Wouldn't any of these entities be an adequate substitute for a human person for the above purpose?

Quote:

But we can't avoid having bodies. Without bodies, we can have no means of existing in the physical material world. So wouldn't recognizing that fact be part of what characterizes sanity?(jpb)

yes and no- I recently gave some thoughts about this to john page a little earlier in this thread.
Yes we have a physical body that exists from one perspective.
From another perspective who "owns" this body?, can you see blue as red? or control your blood flow, or make your organs work they way you. wish? If you would truly be the "owner" you could do what you like as you are in command. Mind always must separate and define in order to regulate our world. While certainly useful in one regard, it perpetuates the "we (self) exist" falsity. Truth is a wholeness without name, picture, face- at the same time it does, the one you love.

That's the point. Recognizing and taking advantage of its usefulness seems to be one aspect of what it means to be psychologically whole or "sane".

Quote:

But again, our experiences of individuality seem real and difficult to escape from. If they are not real, why does it take so much effort to overcome the "illusion" that they are real?(jpb)

dos:
It is this "seemingly real" aspect that is very difficult. To lose our(self) is to feel as though we are going to die. I assert "self" will do anything to perpetuate its own existence as the alternative is "death". What will happen to "me"? This is a living and really not expressable.

Well if "you" are no longer "you", isn't that the same as "you" being dead?

Quote:

I agree on this point. Incorporating the idea that the conceptual boundaries that we create to define "self" are all artificial, into our everyday unavoidably individualistic lives, would take a great deal of ingenuity on our part.(jpb)

dos:
Again, yes and no. There is no need for fasting, prayer, or any "rituals" of any sort done over a lifetime as was tried in the past(and failed). "love" is "quicker" than even thought.
However to live this "all the time" is very difficult as per the previous paragraph detailing the "selfs" "will to exist".

That's what I meant. It is difficult to live it out in everyday life circumstances because it is contrary to our ordinary everyday experiences.

Quote:

I hope this answer was not to long, as i tried to be as succinct as i could without sacrificing meaning.

No, it wasn't too long. And I do now understand (at least, I think I do) your position a little better now.

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

dostf · 04-01-2002, 04:25 PM

john page: well lets try again!!

A. The existence of self is a subjective truth (to oneself, as are all truths). It comes about by comparison with what is "not us".(jp)

What you are saying here is we observe what is "not us" compare it to what "is us" and from that draw the conclusion or (relative truth) that self exists?
Yes one might draw this conclusion. Again i assert the mind always will attempt to define, compare, and categorize in an effort to comprehend. It concludes "self" exists as it seems to differ from other things it knows. That is, all attributes mind observes taken together, compose this "self". which is "me". I agree certainly subjective-and i would assert not "true". That is to say that does not define the human being.

B. That others (seem) to experience the same sense of "self", we can relate to or through this phenomenon. This is why in one of my other postings I refer to a common internal reality as distinct from a common external reality.

B. I would fully agree we all have a sense of self and always relate through it. This is a problem of the human condition as it is now and responsible for many "misunderstandings" between us to put it mildly. (My attributes are "christian" yours are "muslim"- I am "black" you are "white" and so on and so on-results?.....

Your last sentence refers to a "common external reality" What is this -envirornment?

If, through your better understanding of reality..
....(physical reality) (jp)

I think my difficulty here was the word "reality", which i understand as different from "physical envirornment" which i would be more comfortable inserting in your explanation.

I'm confused. Human without "self" attributes - I think this would be contradictory. The nameless, faceless stuff is a little Judaistic for me. (jp)

This is the heart of the matter. We define ourselves by this"self"(being the sum of our definable attributes). yet we share many of these (attributes) with animals yet are not animals. Human is not that. A human who "passes" self, does not define themselves by those attributes. That is they are not "owned" by them. If you(jp) were born to my parents and in my envirornment, "you" would be "dostf"- and vice versa. Attributes which taken together are "self" are interchangeable. That i assert is not what a human being IS.

The nameless, faceless stuff is a little Judaistic for me. (jp)

I apologize if i conveyed this impression to you! I certainly DO NOT "believe" or support any religious ideology of any kind-as they are not reasonable-among other myriad difficulties i have with them.

The idea here is a human that "passes" self does not "own" these attributes. That is ex. you call me dostf, but i am not that-yet that is my name. I do not say this is "my" face -yet it is my face.(or put another way) you see me and by my physical appearance(attribute) state "there is dostf". YOU are defining me-but that is not what i am. I know this is "tricky" and difficult to write! Is this at all clear? If not I will try again.

Analogy...

Ok, but what is the conclusion or implications of your assertion?

Sidenote-your (1+1) post.....
I would suggest mathematics are a human endeavour. An effort of the mind to in some way comprehend "truth". Any "truths" that can be argued successfully in mathematics, science, etc. are still only a "part" of "human truth". Also, these "partial Truths" are always in some way refutable, as they are a product of "mind", and therefore not "complete".

Now if this doesn't post!!! ............

John Page · 04-01-2002, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
What you are saying here is we observe what is "not us" compare it to what "is us" and from that draw the conclusion or (relative truth) that self exists?

Not that the self "exists" just "what is self", this is just simple awareness. Self awareness comes later (I'm not an expert but around age 2 typically for human progeny). Later we learn the "rules" of adult behavior and become more aware of our relationship to our environment. Eventually we become conscious of our own consciousness ("I think therefore I am"). I painted a very simple theory of how the identity of a perceived object is created. This theory could be used to illustrate what might be happening as we compound and aggregate our concepts of reality, including our sense of our volitional self. I don't see that "self" needs to be any more complex than the internal identity "onesself".

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
Yes one might draw this conclusion. Again i assert the mind always will attempt to define, compare, and categorize in an effort to comprehend. It concludes "self" exists as it seems to differ from other things it knows. That is, all attributes mind observes taken together, compose this "self". which is "me". I agree certainly subjective-and i would assert not "true". That is to say that does not define the human being.

Agreed, the "real self" is somewhat illusory and, depending on ones own internal image, delusory!

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
Posted by John Page: "B. That others (seem) to experience the same sense of "self", we can relate to or through this phenomenon. This is why in one of my other postings I refer to a common internal reality as distinct from a common external reality."

B. I would fully agree we all have a sense of self and always relate through it. This is a problem of the human condition as it is now and responsible for many "misunderstandings" between us to put it mildly. (My attributes are "christian" yours are "muslim"- I am "black" you are "white" and so on and so on-results?.....

Your last sentence refers to a "common external reality" What is this -envirornment?

Agreed, lots of room for miscommunications and misunderstandings, especially as language is highly contextual and people use cultural references.

Common external reality, yes, physical environment. Internal reality = mind, the abstract.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
If, through your better understanding of reality..
....(physical reality) (jp)

I think my difficulty here was the word "reality", which i understand as different from "physical envirornment" which i would be more comfortable inserting in your explanation.

No problem here.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
This is the heart of the matter. We define ourselves by this"self"(being the sum of our definable attributes). yet we share many of these (attributes) with animals yet are not animals. Human is not that. A human who "passes" self, does not define themselves by those attributes. That is they are not "owned" by them. If you(jp) were born to my parents and in my envirornment, "you" would be "dostf"- and vice versa. Attributes which taken together are "self" are interchangeable. That i assert is not what a human being IS.

The idea here is a human that "passes" self does not "own" these attributes. That is ex. you call me dostf, but i am not that-yet that is my name. I do not say this is "my" face -yet it is my face.(or put another way) you see me and by my physical appearance(attribute) state "there is dostf". YOU are defining me-but that is not what i am. I know this is "tricky" and difficult to write! Is this at all clear? If not I will try again.

Changing the name label doesn't change what you are. Self is embedded within and develops as the individual develops. You are not the dostf you used to be! Aside from this, and as you point out, the subjective concept of self is not necessarily how you are perceived. Your point has reminded me of a case of surgery, split-brain surgery if I remember correctly, where the subject's wife observed that despite the differences in behavior "it was still him, underneath".

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
Sidenote-your (1+1) post.....
I would suggest mathematics are a human endeavour. An effort of the mind to in some way comprehend "truth". Any "truths" that can be argued successfully in mathematics, science, etc. are still only a "part" of "human truth". Also, these "partial Truths" are always in some way refutable, as they are a product of "mind", and therefore not "complete".

Agreed, its not as though geometry was written in the sands of Greece, just waiting to be read!

I hope my post makes sense (many interruptions).

Cheers!

dostf · 04-01-2002, 07:37 PM

jp brooks:

Yes. Thanks.
But now the question that arises is why couldn't the other "person" that you form such a relationship with be an aspect of your personality, a personification of some part or aspect of nature or the universe, or even an assumed supernatural being like a god? Wouldn't any of these entities be an adequate substitute for a human person for the above purpose?(jpB)

human-there is no substitute(small joke)

No, only human to human can form this kind of relationship.
"aspect of personality"- no the idea is get "past" our perspective personalities. We each have one, but i am not interested in your "personality"(not entirely so, but for emphasis on the following point)- i want truth. I assert that truth is "you" that is not "you".

Nature or universe-they cannot love you back.
Sidenote- This goes also for so called past "religious icons". Christians for example may state "jesus loves them", but they will never look him in the eyes and know if he loves them back.

supernatural being-god- incorrect human explanations of their experiences/ ie. they do not exist.
I could state further on any of these but this may not be of interest to you, so i leave it.

That's the point. Recognizing and taking advantage of its usefulness seems to be one aspect of what it means to be psychologically whole or "sane".(jpb)

Yes ,useful in the sense it(mind) helps us live "normally". (perform functions needed to survive,participate,"live" in our given society.
No, with regards to realizing "truth".

Well if "you" are no longer "you", isn't that the same as "you" being dead?(jpb)

Again yes and no.
By "you" i am referring to the idea that "self" is "me", and this is how we mistakenly define ourselves. If this notion is "passed"(by living it) "your" idea of what is "you" no longer exists. ie. you would not define you by attributes. In this sense "you" has died"

No, you would not be "dead" in physiological terms.

That's what I meant. It is difficult to live it out in everyday life circumstances because it is contrary to our ordinary everyday experiences.(jpb)

There is much that could be said here but i will try to keep it reasonable.

Yes it is difficult-but i assert not impossible.

Certainly our "ordinary everyday experiences" are not so depending on each of us. That is to say, what may be ordinary for you may not be ordinary for me. This depends on our "perception" of that "event".(ex.) What may be an irratant to you may not be so for me, and vice versa.
Your("self"), depending on its collected attributes, decides what is "ordinary" or not. Our"self" is limited and defines our life through its (part) perspective. To be "free" of our(self) even for a moment is to be free of this limited perspective.

Again in short, i assert this living is only contrary to what we might describe as "ordinary everyday experiences" because of "self".

Again, i hope i have been resonably clear! If not tell me, and i'll try again again, in fact ask anything you like!

endnote- i saw you have posted on "kim's" truth form and i hope to read it soon and maybe post. But time constaints!! (as I'm sure you know!)

jpbrooks · 04-02-2002, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
[QB]

No, only human to human can form this kind of relationship.

"aspect of personality"- no the idea is get "past" our perspective personalities. We each have one, but i am not interested in your "personality"(not entirely so, but for emphasis on the following point)- i want truth. I assert that truth is "you" that is not "you".

Nature or universe-they cannot love you back.
Sidenote- This goes also for so called past "religious icons". Christians for example may state "jesus loves them", but they will never look him in the eyes and know if he loves them back.

supernatural being-god- incorrect human explanations of their experiences/ ie. they do not exist.

But I thought your point was that communication and "love" with another "person" were the important characteristics of a relationship that enables us to get past "self". The entities that I mentioned above are held, by those who personify them as distinct ("conscious") entities, to be capable of entering into a "love" relationship and communicating with humans. So, if "love" and communication with another "person" are really the important things about a relationship between persons, why exclude the personified entities that I mentioned?

Quote:

jp:
That's the point. Recognizing and taking advantage of its usefulness seems to be one aspect of what it means to be psychologically whole or "sane".(jpb)

dos:
Yes ,useful in the sense it(mind) helps us live "normally". (perform functions needed to survive,participate,"live" in our given society.

No, with regards to realizing "truth".

I completely agree.
So we must incorporate both approaches into our lives.

Quote:

jp:
Well if "you" are no longer "you", isn't that the same as "you" being dead?(jpb)

dos:
Again yes and no.
By "you" i am referring to the idea that "self" is "me", and this is how we mistakenly define ourselves. If this notion is "passed"(by living it) "your" idea of what is "you" no longer exists. ie. you would not define you by attributes. In this sense "you" has died"

No, you would not be "dead" in physiological terms.

Understood.

Quote:

jp:
That's what I meant. It is difficult to live it out in everyday life circumstances because it is contrary to our ordinary everyday experiences.(jpb)

dos:
There is much that could be said here but i will try to keep it reasonable.

Yes it is difficult-but i assert not impossible.

Certainly our "ordinary everyday experiences" are not so depending on each of us. That is to say, what may be ordinary for you may not be ordinary for me. This depends on our "perception" of that "event".(ex.) What may be an irratant to you may not be so for me, and vice versa.

Your("self"), depending on its collected attributes, decides what is "ordinary" or not. Our"self" is limited and defines our life through its (part) perspective. To be "free" of our(self) even for a moment is to be free of this limited perspective.

Again in short, i assert this living is only contrary to what we might describe as "ordinary everyday experiences" because of "self".

Again, i hope i have been resonably clear! If not tell me, and i'll try again again, in fact ask anything you like!

Yes, I think I understand what you are saying. My point, in saying that it is contrary to our ordinary everyday experiences, was that the "realization", that "self" is a (social) construct and has only "intersubjective" reality, is an "insight" that we arrive at only after we have made an assessment of things. It is not something that we start out in life already understanding as a part of our everyday experiences. Our "unreflective" experiences seem to "tell" us that "self" is (objectively) real.

Quote:

endnote- i saw you have posted on "kim's" truth form and i hope to read it soon and maybe post. But time constaints!! (as I'm sure you know!)

Time constraints are frustrating.
I'm glad that Kim and LinuxPup raised that issue. Discussing the issue may allow confusion about it to be cleared up (hopefully).

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

LinuxPup · 04-02-2002, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Yes, I meant the latter. Prime example, god. It seems we all have an inbuilt sense of the concept of god, irrespective of claims for the existence of god. I suggest this common abstract feature of human beings (i.e. god) is an evolutionary useful mass psychosis that enabled mass action beyond intimate family groups. Hence civilizations. If atheists need a challenge, it is to rationalize and explain to others how they believe. I believe societies that do this will be more successful through freer thought and thus control over reality.

I don't know if this would make societies more sucessful, as people in general are often given to emotion rather than reason in an argument, but I certainly encourage theists to give the reasons why they believe, just as atheists ought to give reasons why they believe too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2002, 09:30 AM	#41
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	john page: The truth (i.e. existence of) one's self is detected like any other truth, as I said earlier in the thread jp) I am still not entirely sure what you mean to express by this statement. Is it that we observe(detect) this self as "similar" among people and therefore is true or a truism that self exists?? Yes, I meant the latter. Prime example, god. It seems we all have an inbuilt sense of the concept of god, irrespective of claims for the existence of god. I suggest this common abstract feature of human beings (i.e. god) is an evolutionary useful mass psychosis that enabled mass action beyond intimate family groups. Hence civilizations. If atheists need a challenge, it is to rationalize and explain to others how they believe. I believe societies that do this will be more successful through freer thought and thus control over reality.(jp) Very good statement!!- except for the "control of reality assertion" I suggest this statement in of itself is the basis for another long conversation!! (not that that is necesarily bad) I'm still a little lost as to what you think is "past" the traits? An individual soul? A normal or typical human being?(jp) "past" these traits is what i define as "human" (without "self" attributes") (a wholeness with no name, no face, no picure)-yet it does have a name face picure) it is your "beloved".It is "truth". Such a human is certainly not typical! -certainly NOT a "soul" that to me represents a false religious belief. However, if added to an understanding of how a human being operates we can determine how our differences as individuals enable us to discover who and what we are (as individuals).(jp) Sorry again i am not clear on exactly what you wish to express by this statement. Could you elaborate or clarify by example?

03-31-2002, 07:05 PM	#43
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	john page: well i was formulating my reply to your latest post and again got wiped out!! With only a few sentences left! It seems when i hit the back icon to refer to your statement for reference, occasionally some advertising pop up hijacks the process and wipes out my reply. Any idea why this is happenning? As i don't have the "courage" to write it all over again this evening i will try again tomorrow-sorry about that.

04-01-2002, 04:25 PM	#46
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	john page: well lets try again!! A. The existence of self is a subjective truth (to oneself, as are all truths). It comes about by comparison with what is "not us".(jp) What you are saying here is we observe what is "not us" compare it to what "is us" and from that draw the conclusion or (relative truth) that self exists? Yes one might draw this conclusion. Again i assert the mind always will attempt to define, compare, and categorize in an effort to comprehend. It concludes "self" exists as it seems to differ from other things it knows. That is, all attributes mind observes taken together, compose this "self". which is "me". I agree certainly subjective-and i would assert not "true". That is to say that does not define the human being. B. That others (seem) to experience the same sense of "self", we can relate to or through this phenomenon. This is why in one of my other postings I refer to a common internal reality as distinct from a common external reality. B. I would fully agree we all have a sense of self and always relate through it. This is a problem of the human condition as it is now and responsible for many "misunderstandings" between us to put it mildly. (My attributes are "christian" yours are "muslim"- I am "black" you are "white" and so on and so on-results?..... Your last sentence refers to a "common external reality" What is this -envirornment? If, through your better understanding of reality.. ....(physical reality) (jp) I think my difficulty here was the word "reality", which i understand as different from "physical envirornment" which i would be more comfortable inserting in your explanation. I'm confused. Human without "self" attributes - I think this would be contradictory. The nameless, faceless stuff is a little Judaistic for me. (jp) This is the heart of the matter. We define ourselves by this"self"(being the sum of our definable attributes). yet we share many of these (attributes) with animals yet are not animals. Human is not that. A human who "passes" self, does not define themselves by those attributes. That is they are not "owned" by them. If you(jp) were born to my parents and in my envirornment, "you" would be "dostf"- and vice versa. Attributes which taken together are "self" are interchangeable. That i assert is not what a human being IS. The nameless, faceless stuff is a little Judaistic for me. (jp) I apologize if i conveyed this impression to you! I certainly DO NOT "believe" or support any religious ideology of any kind-as they are not reasonable-among other myriad difficulties i have with them. The idea here is a human that "passes" self does not "own" these attributes. That is ex. you call me dostf, but i am not that-yet that is my name. I do not say this is "my" face -yet it is my face.(or put another way) you see me and by my physical appearance(attribute) state "there is dostf". YOU are defining me-but that is not what i am. I know this is "tricky" and difficult to write! Is this at all clear? If not I will try again. Analogy... Ok, but what is the conclusion or implications of your assertion? Sidenote-your (1+1) post..... I would suggest mathematics are a human endeavour. An effort of the mind to in some way comprehend "truth". Any "truths" that can be argued successfully in mathematics, science, etc. are still only a "part" of "human truth". Also, these "partial Truths" are always in some way refutable, as they are a product of "mind", and therefore not "complete". Now if this doesn't post!!! ............

04-01-2002, 07:37 PM	#48
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	jp brooks: Yes. Thanks. But now the question that arises is why couldn't the other "person" that you form such a relationship with be an aspect of your personality, a personification of some part or aspect of nature or the universe, or even an assumed supernatural being like a god? Wouldn't any of these entities be an adequate substitute for a human person for the above purpose?(jpB) human-there is no substitute(small joke) No, only human to human can form this kind of relationship. "aspect of personality"- no the idea is get "past" our perspective personalities. We each have one, but i am not interested in your "personality"(not entirely so, but for emphasis on the following point)- i want truth. I assert that truth is "you" that is not "you". Nature or universe-they cannot love you back. Sidenote- This goes also for so called past "religious icons". Christians for example may state "jesus loves them", but they will never look him in the eyes and know if he loves them back. supernatural being-god- incorrect human explanations of their experiences/ ie. they do not exist. I could state further on any of these but this may not be of interest to you, so i leave it. That's the point. Recognizing and taking advantage of its usefulness seems to be one aspect of what it means to be psychologically whole or "sane".(jpb) Yes ,useful in the sense it(mind) helps us live "normally". (perform functions needed to survive,participate,"live" in our given society. No, with regards to realizing "truth". Well if "you" are no longer "you", isn't that the same as "you" being dead?(jpb) Again yes and no. By "you" i am referring to the idea that "self" is "me", and this is how we mistakenly define ourselves. If this notion is "passed"(by living it) "your" idea of what is "you" no longer exists. ie. you would not define you by attributes. In this sense "you" has died" No, you would not be "dead" in physiological terms. That's what I meant. It is difficult to live it out in everyday life circumstances because it is contrary to our ordinary everyday experiences.(jpb) There is much that could be said here but i will try to keep it reasonable. Yes it is difficult-but i assert not impossible. Certainly our "ordinary everyday experiences" are not so depending on each of us. That is to say, what may be ordinary for you may not be ordinary for me. This depends on our "perception" of that "event".(ex.) What may be an irratant to you may not be so for me, and vice versa. Your("self"), depending on its collected attributes, decides what is "ordinary" or not. Our"self" is limited and defines our life through its (part) perspective. To be "free" of our(self) even for a moment is to be free of this limited perspective. Again in short, i assert this living is only contrary to what we might describe as "ordinary everyday experiences" because of "self". Again, i hope i have been resonably clear! If not tell me, and i'll try again again, in fact ask anything you like! endnote- i saw you have posted on "kim's" truth form and i hope to read it soon and maybe post. But time constaints!! (as I'm sure you know!)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.