Getting to know people?

[Dawid Dahl]

Hello, everyone! Thanks Bruce for inviting me.

 

I'm Dawid, from Sweden, with a passion for abstruse truth, pensive art, well-rounded morality, daring transhumanism, and integral cognition.

 

It would be awesome to get to know a few of you people here. (James, e, Bruce and Irmeli I am fortunate enough to know a little already, even back from the ol' Zaads days.) So I thought that perhaps the easiest way of making that happen would be to start with a premeditatedly terse - perhaps annoyingly so? - question! I'd really appreciate any answers, be they elaborate or concise, 0-tier or 4th-tier. So here goes:

 

Does God exist?

 

Kindly,

Dawid

 

:)

[Dawid Dahl]

(I'm sure e can offer a much more eloquent and helpful answer though, heh.)

[James Barrow]

Hey Dawid

This is old ground for us of course. But still fun to do. :-)

Dawid "It is logical consequence that something that is impermanent can't exist (by way of its own self-being)."

 

I agree, but the concept of "by the way of its own self being" , or "inherently" may not be the only way to look at a "thing". For example, can you say that something is impermanent and also that it still exists dependently? Just cos it's impermanent doesn't mean it's totally non existent, just cos it's impermanent doens't mean that it no longer makes sense to see it as a thing.

 

The tree exists dependent upon the seed,  the tree is not a rhino (remember him?), it is not utterly nothing, it is not the same as its immediate environment  (it doesn't turn to mud when it rains), it exhibits characteristics that human and other animals can regularly and reliably identify,..... why not call it a tree and admit that it exists dependently and that it will die and that it'll turn back to stardust at some point, and why not also admit that even this more flexible ontology that we might impute onto it is most likely inaccurate anyway? But it's not a rhino.

 

That's where I'm personally at at the moment regarding "things". At least in these discussions. In my daily life however, I still get lost in believing that a tree really is an inherently existing tree, or that a cow standing in front of my van when I'm doing 60 mph really is there, and I'm glad in those moments that I don't  ask "where is their cowness?" I just slam the brakes on. Which is damn good reaction to have.

 

So,  I don't really know why in this type of discussion there is this insistence on challenging a belief that stuff exists completely inherently, 100% from its own side. Most people on such forums don't believe this. Of course it could be that you're trying to be helpful again regarding the way we can still get lost in daily thingness and suffer as a consequence of our attachment?

 

Remember when you gave me the example of the pencil that you break in two? You said "Where is the pencil now? What happened to its "pencilness"?" And I said "Who the hell goes looking for pencilness?" Well nothing has changed on that point for me.

 

Interestingly,  when I do consider "thingness" more deeply, I experience a certain "lightening" of my attention regarding stuff I ordinarily get stuck on, in that sense I do find these discussions helpful. So thanks, even if I think that much of the  time you're creating a false argument about too rigid a concept of thingness that most people here don't share, at least during discussions like these.

 

But I stand to be corrected.... :-)

 

[Dawid Dahl]

"This is old ground for us of course. But still fun to do. :-)"

 

In some weird way, yes! :P

 

"For example, can you say that something is impermanent and also that it still exists dependently?"

 

That's the interesting thing. If one does the Madhyamika analysis thoroughly, it is realized that there are only two possible ways a thing can exist - either it exists by way of its own self-being, or it is empty (of self-being). There literally are no other alternatives. (And if it is empty it follows that the thing exists only as an imputed concept.)

 

"The tree exists dependent upon the seed,  the tree is not a rhino (remember him?), it is not utterly nothing, it is not the same as its immediate environment[...]"

 

The key word to highlight here is the word "it". As soon as one start using the word "it" (and doesn't admit that it is only used pragmatically), one has bought into the belief of inherent existence. What kind of existence do you have in mind when you used that word "it"? You must have had some idea of a readily identifiable tree, a tree which can be perceived by a human being. A tree which exists like that even though there is no one thinking about or looking at it; it exists there all by itself, in all its treeish-glory, which is constantly radiating into all directions, if someone only were to walk past! :O

 

"or that a cow standing in front of my van when I'm doing 60 mph really is there, and I'm glad in those moments that I don't  ask "where is their cowness?" I just slam the brakes on. Which is damn good reaction to have."

 

We all agree we are human beings, and accept it. It is our whole life. Without that identification, we are no one. Because of this ubiquitous agreement, there is no problem. Ethics, compassion, dualistic functionality, purpose - all valid.

 

"So,  I don't really know why in this type of discussion there is this insistence on challenging a belief that stuff exists completely inherently, 100% from its own side."

 

Because even though people say "Well, I don't believe things exists like that, it sounds too philosophical and weird, and doesn't have any relevance in my practical, every-day life" that is still the way we think about things. Or, you may actually not be thinking like that. It's a possibility. The way to check that out is to see if you ever feel unsatisfied, unhappy, bored, angry, jealous, envious, etc. If there were no belief in inherent existence, suffering couldn't arise, just like if there is no battery left in your phone, it doesn't work.

 

"Remember when you gave me the example of the pencil that you break in two? You said "Where is the pencil now? What happened to its "pencilness"?" And I said "Who the hell goes looking for pencilness?" Well nothing has changed on that point for me."

 

Say somebody was really, really, really fond of that pencil. And then somebody by accident dropped it from a skyscraper and it broke in two! Pencil destroyed. If the person believed in "pencilness", he would have been very sad. :( But if he didn't believe in "pencilness", it wouldn't be a big deal. :)

 

If you look at it from this perspective, it gets more down to earth and "real". At least for me.

 

Pax!

 

 

[e]

Dawid: What Truth?

The truth of impermanence aka emptiness.

(We thru talking about absolutes?)

--

James: Why is permanence the deciding factor for you in whether there are things?

It is not the deciding factor but one of them. Thankfully there are many inroads to begin to question the way we have been taught "things" are.

Thing: 1. an object, fact, affair, circumstance, or concept considered as being a separate entity

Re: separate entities. I don't believe in separate entities as separation is not plausible. If there were separation how would you know of a "things" existence? This does not mean “things”* don’t appear and disappear in all the ways we conceive of them in and as I/WE/ITs.

 

Re: being. You know what I think of ontology.

 

* thing(-in-itself). If we look closely (deconstruct) all constructed things disappear. We see that they are in fact insubstantial instead of the way we thought they were i.e. substantial. All things are thus seen as "things". "Things" are dependently arisen...dependent on conditions for their appearance and disappearance. Because every "thing" appears and disappears, our living reality is better described by verbs instead of nouns (things)...as every "thing" is in transition or changing. We more often than not turn a blind eye to this sea of change truth with dire consequences...our car gets scratched or wrecked and we get pissed off...the stock market crashes, our wealth cut in 2, we lose our job and we get angry at Wall Street bankers and capitalism...our body gets a disease and we are shocked and saddened. "I/We/Its" are all just passing thru.

[Dawid Dahl]

e: "The truth of impermanence aka emptiness."

 

Why is this a truth? What kind of authority do you have to make that assertion?

[e]

It is simply the authority of lived experience. There is nothing static in life. Can you proffer anything resembling absolute permanence I can investigate? If not then your experience is the same as mine.

[Dawid Dahl]

e: "Besides this truth is hidden in plain site."

"There is nothing static in life."

 

You disagree with me when I say that there is a truth which makes reality one way and not another way. (I.e. a truth of "non-chaos", let's say.) But if there wasn't such a truth, then there definitely could be static things in life, right? Because everything would happen chaotically and just willy-nilly. If there wasn't such a truth, some things could be static, and some could be empty. And you wouldn't be able to come to the conclusion that impermanence aka emptiness is indeed a valid thing to teach.

 

Can you see my meaning?

[e]

You disagree with me when I say that there is a truth which makes reality one way and not another way.

I guess it depends on what you imply when you say "a truth which makes reality ". We can look at Dependent Origination prescriptively or descriptively. That is we can interpret it in terms of causes or in terms of conditions. I prefer conditionality because then I don't get hung up philosophically on a first cause with an infinite regress (what caused the first cause?). If we just look at it as simple conditionality then we sidestep absolutism with the problems inherent with metaphysical belief (eg. an unobservable and improvable Absolute Dharmakaya). I hear you leaning towards an improvable absolute causal truth, right? Or do you see it the way I have simply described it? See the difference? This way the truth is not on anyone’s side or my personal relation to belief in an absolute unknown which I will conveniently use to claim a privileged access and justify slaughtering the non-believers. The truth I am proffering is simply a description of the way "things" are in line with experience and has nothing to do with a belief in an apriori metaphysical causal agent or agency. So truth does not make reality, truth (emptiness) is reality (form, feelings, perceptions, conceptions, etc.) and reality (form, etc.) is truth (emptiness).

 

[Dawid Dahl]

"I hear you leaning towards an improvable absolute causal truth, right?"

 

Well, I do say that there most definitely seems to be a truth (which isn't solely a concept) which conditions things to be one way and not, say, a random and infinite amount of ways at once...

 

"This way the truth is not on anyone’s side or my personal relation to belief in an absolute unknown which I will conveniently use to claim a privileged access and justify slaughtering the non-believers."

 

...That said, I don't claim to have any dualistic and private knowledge about the nature of this truth. For example, I don't claim to know whether the Universe is infinite, or whether there is some absolute first cause. (In fact, I don't even think it is feasible to claim to have any dualistic knowledge about such things, since this truth obviously ain't dualistic to begin with.) To me, such metaphysical speculation doesn't matter much, if any. The point is that regardless of metaphysical origins or fancy theories, I can, and do, directly observe right here and right now that "things" have a tendency to behave in one particular way and not in a chaotic, willy-nilly way. If this wasn't so, it wouldn't be possible to observe the emptiness of phenomena.

 

(Buddhists acknowledge this when they affirm that, logically speaking, things are not produced causelessly. Because if a thing was causeless, then anything could cause anything, which leads to absurd consequences. And this acknowledgement is simultaneously harmonious with the acknowledgement that things also aren't inherently produced from self or other.)

[e]

Imagine you could only see the world thru a missing slat in a wooden fence. Everytime a dog would walk by you would first see the nose and the last thing the tail. (If we are humble about our epistemelogical truth claims about our world, we recognize this metaphor aptly describes the way we stand in relation to the world with our limited senses i.e. we see only a limited range of the visible spectrum). Belief in causality would necissitate that one posit the nose caused the tail. The way I am describing experience does away with that delusional conceptual imputation. That is, when there is a nose there is a tail, when there is no nose there is no tail. That is all we can really be sure of. This way I avoid belief in a metaphysical causal agent or agency and a causality based in naive realism and my truth claim is 100% congrous with experience.

[Dawid Dahl]

"That is, when there is a nose there is a tail, when there is no nose there is no tail. That is all we can really be sure of. This way I avoid belief in a metaphysical causal agent or agency and a causality based in naive realism and my truth claim is 100% congrous with experience."

 

Yes, I agree. Would you say this different from what I'm saying?

 

I am merely observing right here and right now that it would be absurd to say, within our dualistic realm, that a "thing" is inherently causeless. (All while observing that a "thing" also is not inherently self-caused or inherently caused by something other than itself.) That's it. Not asserting the existence or non-existence of X or Y, not claiming that the universe is infinite or finite, etc.

[e]

Dawid, you are positing an Absolute Casual Agent for the manifest realm. I am saying EVERYTHING is conditionally-dependently-arisen...even your belief in an Absolute Casual Agent. :-)