55 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

ChloeB, on 18 April 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....artin_Heidegger

First off, I'd ask what you think "being" is?  I see consistently,  people show up here and go on God and how God doesn't exist, no evidence for such, but is this difficulty with understanding what being is a contributing factor to understanding what God is?  And as Heidegger suggests we are so preoccupied with what "exists" and forgotten the question of the "ground of being", and as I bolded above the investigations have been focused on entities but a more authentic search would be for what underlies all entities and allows them to show up in the first place...........doesn't that sound more like what a God would be?  Yet we make and insist to look for God as an entity, a being, but not the source of being or the ground of being.  Is that the mistake we make in any kind of attempt at a discussion about God?

From a Buddhist point of view the only thing which exists is the Prime Substance.

It is made out of being and non-being combined together into a state called non-duality. When the non-dual state collapses you end up with the reality we see which is the being and everything else which has been excluded which is non-being.

If you know about Quantum Mechanics the being is our reality, the non-being is the excluded multiverse and if you bring them back together you get a wavefunction which is the same as the Prime Substance.

[ChloeB]

Beany, on 18 April 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Thinking of God as an entity is limiting. What you call God I call Spirit, but my term is limiting, too. Back to informed intelligence! I sense or feel something huge, that's everywhere, permeating everything, that keeps the ball rolling, and is benign. As my ideas & perceptions shift, my understanding of it changes, but I may never fully understand it, which is OK.

It is very limiting, but yes I liked the way you put that when I told you before.  Did I say it wrong, intelligent energy?  Informed intelligence.  I quoted this before, I just like it a lot, and that Max Planck, Nobel Prize winner, regarded as founder of quantum theory says this, well you have to give it some serious consideration:

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

And that intelligence he speaks of, could that be that observer of our thoughts?  That force brings matter into existence and is the ground of all being, but that is first, then comes existence, but it brings things into existence, this intelligent energy.  I think that might be what Being is, what God is, even if we try to avoid that term "God" but I think that's the trap and the pitfall of the does God exist debates and this idea that God creates, we have this idea of an entity fashioning clay into humans and waving magic wands in the sky and making planets, but that requires that God "exist" as well and that is why we always end up with that...."well what created God?"  These imo are all wrong ways of looking at it to me.  A better way is how you described it, how Max Planck describes it.  A creator is an entity, an entity already in existence, but that seems wrong to me......but there is in infinity, behind existence and time and space that underlies all things, Being, that consciousness, but when we try to look at it "doing" anything, such as the "act of creating" then we paint ourselves back into that corner.

Edited by ChloeB, 18 April 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[Leonardo]

ChloeB, on 18 April 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Well if we are using being as an entity, which is what Heidegger was saying the problem is, then my dog is a being, but I like where you're going with this.  I would say my dog has a self, that is what he is, himself, his personality and ability to feel and have emotions is his self, but what he doesn't have is that observer of his thoughts, as we've said that awareness of his self, and that we might say is what Being is, which some might argue is something separate from self.

Well, we have to consider the different usages of 'being'. One use of "being" is as a synonym for "entity", so your dog is a being, in that sense.

But 'being' (sometimes capitalised - "Being"), such as when used as an abbreviation for the phrase "state of being", suggests something more along the lines of self-awareness/self-consciousness.

Edited by Leonardo, 18 April 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[ChloeB]

Mr Right Wing, on 18 April 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

From a Buddhist point of view the only thing which exists is the Prime Substance.

It is made out of being and non-being combined together into a state called non-duality. When the non-dual state collapses you end up with the reality we see which is the being and everything else which has been excluded which is non-being.

If you know about Quantum Mechanics the being is our reality, the non-being is the excluded multiverse and if you bring them back together you get a wavefunction which is the same as the Prime Substance.

Could we say that Prime Substance is the ground of all being as we are talking about here?  I'm trying to think about what you said about wave function being the same as prime substance.  We'd save wave function is just a realm of possibilities, right?  When it collapses, then one of those possibilities becomes reality, correct?  And the multiverse is all the infinite excluded possibilities that our reality didn't collapse on, right?  I'm just trying to sort this out in my brain.  But they say for it to collapse, someone has to observe it right?  So is that the consciousness Max Planck is talking about?  We might have to get away from this word being, I'm afraid it's causing more confusion than clarification.

Edited by ChloeB, 18 April 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[ChloeB]

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Well, we have to consider the different usages of 'being'. One use of "being" is as a synonym for "entity", so your dog is a being, in that sense.

But 'being' (sometimes capitalised - "Being"), such as when used as an abbreviation for the phrase "state of being", suggests something more along the lines of self-awareness/self-consciousness.

And that Being and our "self" now seem like two things, the self and whatever it is that is watching that self and is aware it, as I said now seem separate, that might be what the fall of man was all about.

[eight bits]

I'll put in a word for your black Lab.

Quote

Once I even caught him standing up on his hind legs, front paws on the bathroom counter like a short hairy man staring at that strange dog in his bathroom! So anyway, my dog, he's clueless that is him,

It seems to me that he's correct. It isn't him. It is his reflection in a mirror.

Quote

he lacks self-awareness

Or, in the alternative, he has self-awareness, and finds it remarkable that this other dog mimics his movements, while other dogs cannot. It is as if his private movement intentions can be read and acted upon by this other dog as rapidly as he can do it himself.

What he lacks is an understanding of reflected light. Or, perhaps he wonders why, if the mirror exchanges left and right, it doesn't exchange up and down. Maybe what you're looking at is him doing experiments, about something you could simply tell him if only he spoke English.

[Leonardo]

ChloeB, on 18 April 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

And that Being and our "self" now seem like two things, the self and whatever it is that is watching that self and is aware it, as I said now seem separate, that might be what the fall of man was all about.

I'm not sure one can separate the two so easily. I know you are arguing this partly based on your appreciation that your dog has a 'self', but does it?

If your dog is not self-aware, then how can we say it has a self to be aware of?

Your dog is an entity, but I would argue that we cannot state it is a 'self'.

Our self, and our awareness of that self, would seem to be not separate as you propose, but our awareness (self-awareness) is actually dependent on the existence of the self. In this, the entire world/universe outside the Mind is our 'mirror'.

Edited by Leonardo, 18 April 2012 - 03:15 PM.

[ChloeB]

eight bits, on 18 April 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

I'll put in a word for your black Lab.


It seems to me that he's correct. It isn't him. It is his reflection in a mirror.


Or, in the alternative, he has self-awareness, and finds it remarkable that this other dog mimics his movements, while other dogs cannot. It is as if his private movement intentions can be read and acted upon by this other dog as rapidly as he can do it himself.

What he lacks is an understanding of reflected light. Or, perhaps he wonders why, if the mirror exchanges left and right, it doesn't exchange up and down. Maybe what you're looking at is him doing experiments, about something you could simply tell him if only he spoke English.

Knight says thank you for speaking on his behalf, Mr Bits!  Okay, that's true, it isn't him, but he doesn't understand it's his reflection of him, but you know what though?  He does seem to learn something about it though, much to my dismay because I get such a giggle out of his goofy self and his hair has even got spiky, indicating that he's getting protective or defensive thinking it's another dog, but then he "learns" something as I said and he loses interest and he doesn't do it anymore really.  I haven't seen a short hairy little man in the bathroom in a long time.  I don't know if he's just desensitized to it or what actually went on in his head, but I don't think he's realized it's his reflection or an image of him in a sense.  It kind of seems like he just lost interest, lol, but he may have been his own experiment and through trial and error at growling has proven to himself he won't provoke a reaction from that dog in the mirror so it's not worth his concern or worry anymore.

Edited by ChloeB, 18 April 2012 - 03:29 PM.

[ChloeB]

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

I'm not sure one can separate the two so easily. I know you are arguing this partly based on your appreciation that your dog has a 'self', but does it?

If your dog is not self-aware, then how can we say it has a self to be aware of?

Your dog is an entity, but I would argue that we cannot state it is a 'self'.

Our self, and our awareness of that self, would seem to be not separate as you propose, but our awareness (self-awareness) is actually dependent on the existence of the self. In this, the entire world/universe outside the Mind is our 'mirror'.

I don't know, Leo.  Mr Miyagi made a thread once about what is self and it was as confusing and hard as this.  I guess when I just keep it simple and think of self, like my dog, self is just what he is, the whole of all of him, and he's all that and so am I, we're the same there, but where we differ is that I am aware of that self, aware of the whole of all of me (he will chase his own tail, lol)  So yes, I guess I'm stating self is the entity we are, why would you argue that?  I mean I guess we could say my awareness is just part of my self and there's just a little more to my "self" than my dog, that I have just have a little more advanced cognitive abilities.

Edited by ChloeB, 18 April 2012 - 03:27 PM.

[Leonardo]

ChloeB, on 18 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Knight says thank you for speaking on his behalf, Mr Bits!  Okay, that's true, it isn't him, but he doesn't understand it's his reflection of him, but you know what though?  He does seem to learn something about it though, much to my dismay because I get such a giggle out of his goofy self and his hair has even got spiky, indicating that he's getting protective or defensive thinking it's another dog, but then he "learns" something as I said and he loses interest and he doesn't do it anymore really.  I haven't seen a short hairy little man in the bathroom in a long time.  I don't know if he's just desensitized to it or what actually went on in his head, but I don't think he's realized it's his reflection or an image of him in a sense.  It kind of seems like he just lost interest, lol, but he may have been his own experiment and through trial and error at growling has proven to himself he won't provoke a reaction from that dog in the mirror so it's not worth his concern or worry anymore.

You're thinking like a human, Chloe.  

A dog doesn't think like a human, and a dog's vision is not comparable to a human's vision when considering the relative importance of the senses. Your dog cannot smell another dog, and it cannot hear another dog. After the initial visual encounter (in the mirror) the dog is able to determine the 'other dog' is no threat - as it has no smell and no growl.

You're probably right that it has no recognisance of the 'other dog' as a reflection, but without all those other sensory clues, it has no importance to Knight as a possible threat or interloper.

Quote

I don't know, Leo. Mr Miyagi made a thread once about what is self and it was as confusing and hard as this. I guess when I just keep it simple and think of self, like my dog, self is just what he is, the whole of all of him, and he's all that and so am I, we're the same there, but where we differ is that I am aware of that self, aware of the whole of all of me (he will chase his own tail, lol) So yes, I guess I'm stating self is the entity we are, why would you argue that? I mean I guess we could say my awareness is just part of my self and there's just a little more to my "self" than my dog, that I have just have a little more advanced cognitive abilities.

Referring back to what Heidegger said about the "true being"...

Quote

He also says that our manipulation of reality is often harmful and hides our true being as essentially limited participants, not masters, of the world which we discover.

So, Heidegger promotes our "true being" as limited participants of the world we discover (entities), and discards our manipulation of that world as "hiding" this fact.

Is he right?

I would argue that manipulation of the world is one indication of, one aspect of, self-awareness, true being. The realities we create for ourselves suggest this is so.

Edited by Leonardo, 18 April 2012 - 03:50 PM.

[StarMountainKid]

ChloeB said:

It's still hard to say what to just "be" is though isn't it? I mean in my head it's not really, but I guess what Jugoso said, when you shut down on the mind chatter is that what you would say is to just be?

And that Being and our "self" now seem like two things, the self and whatever it is that is watching that self and is aware it, as I said now seem separate, that might be what the fall of man was all about.

Beany said:

Do our bodies just sort of carry around or move around parts of the physical environment, temporarily rearranging it for a time?

Leonardo said:

Our self, and our awareness of that self, would seem to be not separate as you propose, but our awareness (self-awareness) is actually dependent on the existence of the self. In this, the entire world/universe outside the Mind is our 'mirror'.

  

Is being dependent on the self?  Is there a self at all, or is it an artificial construct of the mind? Who is aware of this self? Can the self be aware of itself? If our awareness is dependent on the existence of the self, what happens when the self disappears from our consciousness?

Have we ever had an occasion when we loose our sense of ourselves?  I've had the experience, for instance, watching a movie where for a period of time all there is is the movie, there is no separate me watching the movie. I think in this kind of experience our true being is realized. In Zen this may be called is-ness. Everything just is without separation. We loose our particular perspective, but we are not lost. In this we stand on the solid ground of true reality.

When The Buddha was challenged as to the legitimacy of his enlightenment, he reached down and put a finger to the ground around him. Then all the gods, angels and devils bowed to his authenticity. He had found solid ground to stand on.

The self is only awareness being aware of its particular perspective of the environment around it.  When we are purposefully defining everything relative to this particular perspective, we are inventing an environment that is artificial, and not the true being of our environment, nor the true being of our particular perspective.

Can we eliminate the duality of the observer and the observed? Can we separate the dancer from the dance? I think this kid of selfless awareness is useful for us.

"The true nature of reality is invisible, and cannot be understood by the rational mind," some Ch'an master said. We need our rational mind, but we also need a deeper understanding than rationally can provide.

This is my perception, anyway.

[Leonardo]

StarMountainKid, on 18 April 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Is being dependent on the self?  Is there a self at all, or is it an artificial construct of the mind? Who is aware of this self? Can the self be aware of itself? If our awareness is dependent on the existence of the self, what happens when the self disappears from our consciousness?

When you lose your sense of self, when you cannot see your self mirrored in the world around you, you are still a being - in the "entity" sense of the world. Like Chloe's labrador, there is still the sensory experience of the world.

But you cannot be a being in the sense of being "you".

Quote

Have we ever had an occasion when we loose our sense of ourselves?  I've had the experience, for instance, watching a movie where for a period of time all there is is the movie, there is no separate me watching the movie. I think in this kind of experience our true being is realized. In Zen this may be called is-ness. Everything just is without separation. We loose our particular perspective, but we are not lost. In this we stand on the solid ground of true reality.

When The Buddha was challenged as to the legitimacy of his enlightenment, he reached down and put a finger to the ground around him. Then all the gods, angels and devils bowed to his authenticity. He had found solid ground to stand on.

Perhaps Buddha's enlightenment was not the 'loss of self' you believe it to be. If Buddha lost his sense of self, then how could Buddha have been aware of the enlightenment of that self?

It is my opinion that much of what is written about Buddha in Buddhism (or commentary on Buddhism) is mythology. Mainly written by people searching for something without realising it is right there, behind their eyes.

Edited by Leonardo, 18 April 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[ChloeB]

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

You're thinking like a human, Chloe.  

A dog doesn't think like a human, and a dog's vision is not comparable to a human's vision when considering the relative importance of the senses. Your dog cannot smell another dog, and it cannot hear another dog. After the initial visual encounter (in the mirror) the dog is able to determine the 'other dog' is no threat - as it has no smell and no growl.

You're probably right that it has no recognisance of the 'other dog' as a reflection, but without all those other sensory clues, it has no importance to Knight as a possible threat or interloper.

LOL, yes, I hear that smell is sort of an important thing to dogs!  D'oh!  Oh yes, I am guilty as charged. I even speak for that dog in a totally different Scooby Doo voice.  I am always thinking of him as human, but that makes sense as to why he stopped doing it.

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Referring back to what Heidegger said about the "true being"...



So, Heidegger promotes our "true being" as limited participants of the world we discover (entities), and discards our manipulation of that world as "hiding" this fact.

Is he right?

I would argue that manipulation of the world is one indication of, one aspect of, self-awareness, true being. The realities we create for ourselves suggest this is so.

That was confusing to me how they put that.  So what I'm understanding is that the true being is what discovers and what manipulates is hiding it.  That to me is like how people are talking about to just be, like SMK said to just be- that's discovering and kind of accepting of what "is" but the not true being part is the part trying to manipulate that and convince ourselves that we are any more than that.  Manipulation of the world, well can't any being do such a thing, one that is not self-aware, true being?  I can provide Knight examples if necessary, lol, but you know what I'm saying, they can do interact with the physical world, reality, but we've agreed they lack true being, right?

It sounds like he's saying the true being is that watcher part of ourself, the limited participant and more discoverer and the "the doer" part of us, the one that manipulates reality, interacts with reality is not the true being.

Edited by ChloeB, 18 April 2012 - 04:40 PM.

[Leonardo]

ChloeB, on 18 April 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

That was confusing to me how they put that.  So what I'm understanding is that the true being is what discovers and what manipulates is hiding it.  That to me is like how people are talking about to just be, like SMK said to just be- that's discovering and kind of accepting of what "is" but the not true being part is the part trying to manipulate that and convince ourselves that we are any more than that.  Manipulation of the world, well can't any being do such a thing, one that is not self-aware, true being?  I can provide Knight examples if necessary, lol, but you know what I'm saying, they can do interact with the physical world, reality, but we've agreed they lack true being, right?

It sounds like he's saying the true being is that watcher part of ourself, the limited participant and more discoverer and the "the doer" part of us, the one that manipulates reality, interacts with reality is not the true being.

Sorry, my fault because I wasn't very clear in writing what you quoted. I should have said "mental manipulation", not just manipulation. I hope that makes it a bit clearer.

[StarMountainKid]

Leonardo said:

Perhaps Buddha's enlightenment was not the 'loss of self' you believe it to be. If Buddha lost his sense of self, then how could Buddha have been aware of the enlightenment of that self?

Perhaps we have different definitions of "self". I would define "self" as one's experience, memory, knowledge and one's awareness of these personal aspects, and one's reflections on and use of these mental quantities.

This is what I meant by "loss of self". One's awareness remains when these aspects of mind are recognized as a hindrance to a clear understanding of being.

I don't think one's "self" is enlightened, enlightenment is the recognition that these features of the mind are superficial, and that there is a deeper more fundamental intuitive sense of one's being.