Chapter 2
From Andrew Beckwith
Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:34 am:
Garbage. I believe that biology allowed me a certain path. This shows
you are seriously deficient in critical moral comprehension of why
human beings are constructed as they are. Death and dying are as
necessary to human evolution as birth itself.
I said I would
not mind living a century, and I mean it. By ANY objective standards
of human rationality this shows how asinine your statement of me
being suicidal is. And, I will repeat what I also said too. You know
NOTHING about Buddhist teachings. Buddhist teachings specifically
enjoins a seeker of Nirvana to escape the cycle of rebirth . Life is
held to be SUFFERING which a person has to work off via dealing with
Karma issues. Staying physically alive for a thousand years would
contravene the search for Nirvana big time.
And, when I said
I would actually look forward to death after a LONG life that is
merely me saying that I am looking forward to my evolution from a
corpreal existance to the next level. This is not suicidal thinking.
That you equate it with suicide is rediculous.
I hope you
realize that you shot yourself in the foot. Thanks for playing, bub.
You made my day.
Gday,
Andrew
Beckwith, PhD
From David Quinn
Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:35 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
You know NOTHING about Buddhist teachings. Buddhist teachings specifically enjoins a seeker of Nirvana to escape the cycle of rebirth . Life is held to be SUFFERING which a person has to work off via dealing with Karma issues. Staying physically alive for a thousand years would contravene the search for Nirvana big time. |
There is no law which states, either in the Buddhist teachings or
in Nature Herself, that we are condemned to live for no more than a
100 years or so. Even if we lived for a millions years, we still
wouldn't be contravening the cycle of life and death. It would just
be a longer cycle, that's all.
|
Quote: |
|
Staying physically alive for a thousand years would contravene the search for Nirvana big time. |
Granted, most people would only become even more entrenched in
their delusions in that span of time.
In my view, if a person
hasn't reached nirvana (i.e. realized Ultimate Reality) by the time
they are thirty, they probably never will. After 30, the brain's
pathways start to become too deeply-etched and hardened, such that it
becomes very difficult to initiate fundamental change.
|
Quote: |
|
And, when I said I would actually look forward to death after a LONG life that is merely me saying that I am looking forward to my evolution from a corpreal existance to the next level. This is not suicidal thinking. That you equate it with suicide is rediculous. |
Relax, I was just teasing you. You did seem to suggest that even
if you had the chance to live beyond a thousand years, you would
prefer to die because you would find life too unbearable (via
boredom). It's no big leap to equate this with a suicidal outlook.
Perhaps there are issues inside you that you're not properly
addressing . . . . .
From Dan Rowden
Thu Dec 25, 2003 2:10 am:
Andrew Beckwith wrote to David Quinn:
|
Quote: |
|
And, I will repeat what I also said too. You know NOTHING about Buddhist teachings. Buddhist teachings specifically enjoins a seeker of Nirvana to escape the cycle of rebirth . Life is held to be SUFFERING which a person has to work off via dealing with Karma issues. Staying physically alive for a thousand years would contravene the search for Nirvana big time. |
I have to say I find it entirely remarkable that you could say
this and yet accuse someone else of knowing nothing about Buddhism.
The physical duration of a person's life has nothing whatsoever
to do with the search for Nirvana.
Dan Rowden
From Andrew Beckwith
Thu Dec 25, 2003 4:50 am:
|
Quote: |
|
The physical duration of a person's life has nothing whatsoever to do with the search for Nirvana |
Deliberately tampering with mother nature so as to avoid the
normal birth-death cycle has EVERYTHING to do with Nirvana. Think it
over, please.
From David Quinn
Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:32 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
Deliberately tampering with mother nature so as to avoid the normal birth-death cycle has EVERYTHING to do with Nirvana. Think it over, please. |
I don't see the connection either. Care to elaborate?
What
about the use of medicines to ward off diseases and prolong life?
Does a person who visits the hospital to overcome a life-threatening
illness automatically cut himself off from Nirvana?
The life
expectancy for Weterners has almost doubled over the past century -
does this mean that we're all spiritually doomed?
From Kitten
Fri Dec 26, 2003 9:20 pm:
Allow me to quickly jump in here, despite the fact I have not read
the entire board I have read the last few posts. As a theologian by
choice, I think that one’s life span does not have an effect on
reaching Nirvana. Reason would be for several factors, one being that
many practicing monks recognize life to be a gift, not a burden.
Although samsara is seen as being a horrible trapped and locked
existence, it is life which allows one to recognize the cycle and the
ability to break it. Not only this but it seems you two are arguing
from a Hindu/Buddhist perspective rather than a fully Mahayana or
Theravada Buddhist point of view. Looking at it in this way a life
span does not matter as the idea is to reach Nirvana: once Nirvana is
attained life is meaningless and one passes from this world to the
next once ready, whenever that is, for whatever reason (one example
being Siddhartha’s reason for staying: teaching).
Being
alive for say one thousand years would not hamper reaching Nirvana,
it would simply imply you never reached it, or were not ready to
leave this world. The idea that a person may, over this time frame,
become impeded in the search for Nirvana is true, but this would be
so for a person unfamiliar entirely with the practice and beliefs
held by a Buddhist or Hindu. If a person had no idea of the
eight-fold path, nor the fact that material possessions bind you to
this existence, they would surely become more ensnared by their
Western lifestyle. In this light a person who knew of the teachings,
and indeed of the cycle of samsara, would not be impeded by a longer
life span at all, as they would be here out of necessity or choice.
From analog57
Fri Dec 26, 2003 9:50 pm:
David Quinn wrote:
|
|
|
In my view, if a person hasn't reached nirvana (i.e. realized Ultimate Reality) by the time they are thirty, they probably never will. After 30, the brain's pathways start to become too deeply-etched and hardened, such that it becomes very difficult to initiate fundamental change. |
Interesting... Some people here[myself included] appear to have a
type of stunted emotional growth, and I suspect that the neural
pathways for such people have more plasticity than the average
"emotionally mature" brain?
New neural connections
CAN be generated... Old dogs with young brains?
From David Quinn
Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:29 pm
analog57 wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: In my
view, if a person hasn't reached nirvana (i.e. realized Ultimate
Reality) by the time they are thirty, they probably never will.
After 30, the brain's pathways start to become too deeply-etched
and hardened, such that it becomes very difficult to initiate
fundamental change. |
I assume you're reasoning that people who stunt their emotional
growth - either through habitually supressing their emotional needs,
or simply because they have never had any interest in
emotional/feminine issues - free up their brains for intellectual
pursuit, which makes their minds more imaginitive and flexible and
thus more open to the possibilities of wisdom . . . . .?
While
this sounds okay in theory, in my experience nerdish people with high
IQs tend to clog up their neuronal pathways with thousands of useless
facts and over-complicated, trivial theories to such an extent such
that their minds rapidly lose their flexibility and sensitivity to
Reality. They generally also seem to be quite timid people and too
afraid to pursue line of thought that are dangerous and
unconventional. As a result of these things, they are usually no more
open to the possibility of becoming enlightened than the average
"emotionally mature" person.
|
Quote: |
|
New neural connections CAN be generated... Old dogs with young brains? |
Sure, but it still becomes more difficult as you get older. You
can't bend a fully-grown tree too much. It will just snap.
From David Quinn
Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:57 pm:
Kitten wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
Being alive for say one thousand years would not hamper reaching Nirvana, it would simply imply you never reached it, or were not ready to leave this world. |
Are you imagining that when a person realizes nirvana he
instantly disappears into thin air or gets beamed up into another
world? It doesn't happen like that. That's fairy-tales. Realizing
nirvana is simply perceiving and experiencing Nature without
delusion, which means that the enlightened person continues to live
on as a human being until he dies, just like everyone else. One of
the reasons why I would love to live a thousand years or more is
that, apart from wanting to see how society evolves and develops as
the years go by, it would mean spending many hundreds of years
enjoying nirvana.
|
Quote: |
|
The idea that a person may, over this time frame, become impeded in the search for Nirvana is true, but this would be so for a person unfamiliar entirely with the practice and beliefs held by a Buddhist or Hindu. |
You don't have to be a Buddhist or a Hinduist to experience
nirvana. In fact, I haven't yet met anyone from those
religions who has any real idea what nirvana means. The most
important spiritual practice of all is to think hard about the nature
of Reality. Nothing else really matters. This is far superior to
following the eightfold path of Buddhism or a set of Hindu rituals.
From analog57
Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:05 pm:
|
David Quinn wrote: |
|
I assume
you're reasoning that people who stunt their emotional growth -
either through habitually supressing their emotional needs, or
simply because they have never had any interest in
emotional/feminine issues - free up their brains for
intellectual pursuit, which makes their minds more imaginitive
and flexible and thus more open to the possibilities of wisdom .
. . . .? |
Interesting... that type of emotional growth is not exactly what
I was talking about, but beggars can't be choosers eh?
Your
experience appears to be limited? ...Nerds? ...What is the ultimate
truth? ...rocking chair philosophy? Can you define ..."Truth"?
"I THINK THEREFORE I EXIST"
TRUTH?
Or
a daemon could be feeding my brain with an illusion?
whatever
the case may be, there is a level where "the buck stops"...?
According to Berkeley, perception is consistent due to the
fact that a type of mental universal self consistency must apply to
the collective whole of individual perceptions. A type of universal
being? A type of superior intelligence[BEING] creates a world by the
sheer power of thought, in which every object becomes, for the
percipient, the collected results of many perceptions, or bits of
information. That is to say, sensory objects are compositions derived
from many perceptual experiences over a period of time, originating
from a universal compositional entity, or "BEING". These
perceptions are impressed upon each individual mind with order and
consistency. Since this universal "Self Awareness" must
sustain Creation at all times, everything is always perceived by this
self referring, self referential entity, ergo, total reality
continues "to exist", even though it may cease to be
experienced by any individual self aware perceiver
Your
rather quaint dismissal of people with hi IQs as being "nerds"
is a very weak argument at best. At worst, it displays your sheer
ignorance of the subject matter, that you claim to "know"...?
|
Quote: |
|
Analog:
New neural
connections CAN be generated... Old dogs with young brains?
|
Good analogy, there are exceptions though, rare as they may be...
From David Quinn
Sat Dec 27, 2003 7:21 pm:
analog57 wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
Can you define ..."Truth"? |
A truth (small t) is any conclusion that cannot be falsified by
either reason or empirical evidence. Truth (capital t) is the truth
about the nature of existence. I sometimes call it "Ultimate
Truth" in order to highlight the fact that it is the truth about
what is ultimate in Nature.
|
Quote: |
|
"I
THINK THEREFORE I EXIST" |
It depends on exactly what is meant by the phrase. It is open to
several interpretations. What do you mean by it?
|
Quote: |
|
According to Berkeley, perception is consistent due to the fact that a type of mental universal self consistency must apply to the collective whole of individual perceptions. A type of universal being? A type of superior intelligence[BEING] creates a world by the sheer power of thought, in which every object becomes, for the percipient, the collected results of many perceptions, or bits of information. That is to say, sensory objects are compositions derived from many perceptual experiences over a period of time, originating from a universal compositional entity, or "BEING". These perceptions are impressed upon each individual mind with order and consistency. Since this universal "Self Awareness" must sustain Creation at all times, everything is always perceived by this self referring, self referential entity, ergo, total reality continues "to exist", even though it may cease to be experienced by any individual self aware perceiver |
Is this what you believe?
|
Quote: |
|
Your rather quaint dismissal of people with hi IQs as being "nerds" is a very weak argument at best. At worst, it displays your sheer ignorance of the subject matter, that you claim to "know"...? |
I didn't know I was engaging in an argument. I was simply
responding to your description of some people on this forum (some of
whom describe themselves as "mega-geniuses") having stunted
emotional growth. That this conjures up the image of the nerd is only
natural.
So what were you thinking of, then?
From analog57
Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:17 pm:
|
|
|
Analog:
Can you define ..."Truth"? |
Sounds good, so, what is this ..."ultimate truth", in
your humble opinion?
Or are you giving a general definition
without identifying THE SINGULAR ULTIMATE TRUTH OF EXISTENCE?
|
|
|
Analog: I THINK THEREFORE I EXIST TRUTH? Or a daemon could be feeding my brain with an illusion? DQ: It depends on exactly what is meant by the phrase. It is open to several interpretations. What do you mean by it? |
Are you saying that we could choose what is truth?
To
make a choice, is to make a distinction YES/NO
That choice is
a type of "absolute" truth. At any one moment we are either
consciously or subconsciously making choices.
Reality Exists
T or F ?
|
|
|
Analog:
According to Berkeley, perception is consistent due to the fact
that a type of mental universal self consistency must apply to
the collective whole of individual perceptions. A type of
universal being? A type of superior intelligence[BEING] creates
a world by the sheer power of thought, in which every object
becomes, for the percipient, the collected results of many
perceptions, or bits of information. That is to say, sensory
objects are compositions derived from many perceptual
experiences over a period of time, originating from a universal
compositional entity, or "BEING". These perceptions
are impressed upon each individual mind with order and
consistency. Since this universal "Self Awareness"
must sustain Creation at all times, everything is always
perceived by this self referring, self referential entity, ergo,
total reality continues "to exist", even though it may
cease to be experienced by any individual self aware perceiver
|
It is a "conjecture"
|
|
|
Analog:
Your rather quaint dismissal of people with hi IQs as being
"nerds" is a very weak argument at best. At worst, it
displays your sheer ignorance of the subject matter, that you
claim to "know"...? |
The "nerd" label seems to display a superficial
understanding?
|
Quote: |
|
So what were you thinking of, then? |
It is similar to starvation, but the intellect is what is
starving...
From Kitten
Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:22 pm:
I certainly do not believe people disappear into thin air once
Nirvana is attained David! *laughs* You said that “realizing
nirvana is simply perceiving and experiencing Nature without
delusion, which means that the enlightened person continues to live
on as a human being until he dies, just like everyone else.”
Yes, this is true to the letter, and I never disagreed with this. Who
said that living to the extent of your natural life is not the same
as leaving this world and passing on next because you are ready?
I
define nirvana as the final emancipation of the soul from
transmigration, and consequently a virtuous enfranchisement from the
evils of worldly existence, as by annihilation or absorption (this
word being emphasized) into the divine. If one takes the more general
definition, as you seem to be doing, to be the ineffable ultimate in
which one has achieved impartial wisdom and compassion or the
emancipation from ignorance and the extinction of all attachment then
I can see what you are saying. This was the point I was attempting to
communicate, but failed in doing so—most probably due to the
effects of my insomnia.
I also agree that one need not be a
Buddhist or Hindu to enjoy Nirvana, although what I meant was they
probably would not refer to it as such, or have the same description,
or full comprehension, of this ecstasy then someone who did have full
knowledge of it from such a religion. You also said “The most
important spiritual practice of all is to think hard about the nature
of Reality. Nothing else really matters.” Which I do disagree
with as I feel that questioning the self is just as important as
questioning the reality you are surrounded by (taking into account
nature and other beings you come into contact here).
The idea
that has been brought forward of Berkley, to which I must quip this
is one of the reasons I still have problems finding true reality, or
a Universal Truth about it, if there is such a thing. Mainly I have
been diagnosed, among other things, as possibly having MPD. This in
itself throws many things into question, not to mention the
hallucinations I have had of people whom, as far as I could tell,
were real: I could touch them, converse normally, smell them, and
they had distinct personalities and traits. Thus, I can say with
sincerity that “these perceptions are impressed upon each
individual mind with order and consistency,” and that it
certainly brings into question whether there is a “self
referential entity,” or not.
David, you have said in
your last message: “I didn't know I was engaging in an
argument. I was simply responding to your description of some people
on this forum (some of whom describe themselves as "mega-geniuses")
having stunted emotional growth.” Two things: I’ve come
to accept that people on this site tend to take things a little too
personally sometimes, simply because these are passionate people who
love their values. And secondly…I hope I’m not one of
those people….
From Plato
Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:29 pm:
David, rigorous scientific thought is the only path to truth
that has been given to man because it is the only path that is
consistent with the nature of cognition. In this, I do not separate
philosophy from science, or rational inquiry from scientific inquiry
- these are all part of scientific synthesis. The most pertinent and
valuable object of philosophy is to develop a scientific method
consistent with the nature of cognition that can be used by cognition
to obtain a thought-image of reality. The ultimate goal that we
strive towards is to attain a thought-image of reality that is
perfect in all respects. Perfect knowledge is impossible, for
otherwise one would become equal with God; knowledge can, however, be
perfected. All of this does not mean, Dr. Beckwith, that we should
get emotional about this issue, and proceed to calmly address David's
many insightful comments.
It seems to me that your greatest
mistake, David, is claiming that science can only grant access to
provisional truths. You state that:
|
Quote: |
|
A simple example is the Buddhist truth that "nothing inherently exists". This is ultimately true because a thing necessarily depends on other things for its existence. A shadow, for example, depends on light, physical objects capable of casting a shadow, a surface capable of receiving a shadow, etc. Take any of these things away and the shadow disappears. Its existence is dependent upon the existence of these other things. It doesn't inherently exist. The same principle applies to everything else in Nature |
That which exists i.e. that which comprises reality is a set of
universal physical principles of which everything else is a causal
derivative. For example, the efficient existence of gravitation is
not dependent on the presence of mass-objects; the efficient
existence of least time is not dependent on the presence of light
rays. Thus, universal physical principles, or final causes, exist
absolutely. Furthermore, they are timeless, since all other existence
is contingent on their existence. For example, the principle of
negentropic growth which defines living organisms has always existed,
even though living organisms have not; cognition has always existed,
even though man has not, and so on. Since these exist absolutely and
eternally, their existence cannot be refuted by any means, empirical
or rational and therefore knowledge of universal physical principles
submits to your criterion of "ultimate truth". Now, David,
a well-developed scientific method, akin to that elaborated by Plato
and subsequent Platonic thinkers, allows one to obtain knowledge
of universal physical principles by means of Socratic hypothesizing.
At this moment we know of N universal physical principles.
All other provisional knowledge which science deals with can be
traced back to the knowledge of those principles. Most scientists
are simply not aware of this fact because they are not taught to
regard processes from a rigorous principled standpoint. This is not a
problem with science, this is a problem with scientific education,
and thus your assault on fundamentals of scientific inquiry is
misplaced. Science is not based on empirical or rational inquiry
alone, although these are subsumed in science. Science is based on
the human ability to hypothesize, which transcends logic and
sense-perception. Further points of clarification are required,
albeit of secondary importance:
|
Quote: |
|
Logical/definitional truths are timeless in the sense that they can never be falsified. For example, 1+1 will always equal 2, given the way we currently define these terms. It is not something that will become false over time. |
There is no such thing as a self-evident truth that is
divorced from knowledge of universal physical principles. It's,
as you say, a fairy tale. Definitional truths have no a priori truth
content, as one can create formal systems which are internally
consistent, yet inconsistent with reality. Inasmuch as truth-content
can be ascribed to them is if their formulation is made axiomatically
consistent with the underlying physical reality. Take the development
of calculus or the idea of a complex number. Neither can be deduced
from an earlier formal system. Sqrt(-1) exists as a solution to
algebraic equations, but in and out of itself it is meaningless
because it does not have any physical significance. Similarly, 1+1 =
2 is meaningless until you develop a notion of number. I urge you to
read some posts in the "Maths" section and kindly partake
in our humble discussion. You may find it quite, shall I say,
"enlightening".
Best wishes,
Sergei
From David Quinn
Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:55 pm:
Sergei wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
David, unfortunately you may have found yourself in the wrong place on this forum, as most of us here hold that rigorous scientific thought is the only path to truth that has been given to us. In this, we do not separate philosophy from science, or rational inquiry from scientific inquiry - these are all part of scientific synthesis. |
How have you established that the scientific method is the only
valid path to truth? I'm sure if you analyze it you will see that it
could not have been done through the scientific method itself, for
obvious reasons, which means that you would have had to have used
philosophic logic. This alone shows that when it comes to fundamental
issues, philosophic logic constitutes a higher court of appeal than
the scientific method.
I should also point out that the
practice of philosophic logic - the "philosophic method",
if you will - is very similar to the scientific method in many ways.
It too involves an open-ended process of testing assertions and
discarding those which don't stand up. Where it differs from the
scientific method is that the theories and assertions it tests are
logical in nature, as opposed to being empirical, and the evidence
used to test them is again logical in nature, as opposed to being
empirical.
|
Quote: |
|
The most pertinent and valuable object of philosophy is to develop a scientific method consistent with the nature of cognition what can be used by cognition to obtain a thought-image of reality. The ultimate goal that we strive towards is to attain a thought-image of reality that is perfect in all respects. |
In my view, this represents a bastardization of philosophy. While
it may be the goal of scientists to try and create perfect
models of reality, it isn't the goal of philosophers - or at least
genuine philosophers who are actually interested in understanding
reality. I realize that academic philosophers currently stand in awe
of science and try to mimic what they do, but in my eyes they have
long ago lost the plot. I spit on them. They do not deserve the lofty
title of "philosopher".
Philosophy is essentially a
destructive process, rather than a creative one. It uses reason to
expose and obliterate all forms of irrationality until there is
nothing left in the mind but pure pristine Reality in all its naked
glory. When the philosopher reaches this point he no longer tries to
model Reality in any way, or try to form perfect thought-images of
it. Quite the opposite, he abandons that sort of thing entirely and
simply perceives the nature of Reality directly, in each moment,
without the distorting prism of delusion.
|
Quote: |
|
It seems
to me that David's greatest mistake is claiming that science can
only grant access to provisional truths. He states that: |
I'm not sure that I follow. How can gravity exist without the
presence of mass-objects?
|
Quote: |
|
Since these exist absolutely, their existence cannot be refuted by any means, empirical or rational and therefore knowledge of universal physical principles submits to David's criterion of "universal truth". |
We have no way of knowing whether the physical world isn't an
illusion or a simulation of some kind. The entire universe, together
with its scientific principles and laws, could easily be a
virtually-created world, or a dream inside someone's head. This alone
makes all scientific theorizing provisional, together with all of its
principles and laws. Their reality as "absolute, universal
principles" is provisionally dependent upon the perceived world
not being a simulation of some kind.
|
Quote: |
|
DQ:
Logical/definitional truths are timeless in the sense that they
can never be falsified. For example, 1+1 will always equal 2,
given the way we currently define these terms. It is not
something that will become false over time. |
I come across this view all the time, but it's flawed in a number
of ways. Its main flaw is that of equating all categories of logical
truth with mathematical truths and/or "formal systems which are
internally consistent, yet inconsistent with reality". While
there are certainly any number of systems of thought that one could
devise which are internally consistent and yet inconsistent with
reality, it doesn't mean that all logical truths are of this
nature. In reality, mathematical truths and "internally
consistent/inconsistent with reality" truths constitute only a
subset of the entire range of logical truths.
Part of the
skill of being a decent philosopher is knowing how to create logical
truths that are both internally consistent and wholly
applicable to reality. A simple example is the truth that all things
are finite. By finite, I specifically mean "falling short of
constituting the totality of all there is". In other words, a
finite thing is bounded; it begins and ends; it doesn't extend
indefinitely in all directions to embrace the Totality. It is but the
work of a few seconds to see that all things are necessarily finite,
and that the logical truth "all things are finite"
necessarily applies to reality.
End of Chapter 2