Btw, Jehova's witnesses who came to my door had no idea what agnosticism is, so YES, I HAD SOMETHING TO TEACH THEM!!! And YES, IN PHILOSOPHY I HAVE "SOMETHING" TO TEACH TWO CHEMISTS I KNOW... And as for Amuuuurican public education... Oh, well... not even gonna try... [Phew... There, that's better now....] Still ?
I am trying at the moment but it's hard to lose weight at my age, with constant injuries that plague my efforts to restart my sport activities... other than drinking...
He started this thread but unable to fathom , where the discussion is going, what the discussion is all about or what is being discussed and how to counter a point of view etc. and occasionally trying to distract others by making illogical arguments like 'comparing apple with pear' or quoting some mystical thought etc.
When you talk about your idea of 'I am' the "self", to what do you refer? This is a repeated question from me to which you the adherent of mystic belief, deliberately ignored many times, here it is again. Is it this body of flesh and bone? If so, the body is constantly changing, molecules being added and subtracted. Few people would say that the amputation of your limb would amount to the destruction of yourself, so there must be something else you mean by I AM / "self" that persists through this. So is it your mind? your memories and tastes and fears and hopes and attitudes. Well, these are constantly changing, too. The question, again is, where does one draw the line? Small changes seem to be incorporated into the idea of the self . I'm still myself if I wake up tomorrow morning and no longer like sweets or don't like this serious discussion with you people here in MDL then am I still me?. Larger changes are not so easily done, however, such as in the cases where massive head trauma results in sudden, complete changes of personality, or total amnesia. Then am I still me if this body receives a blow to the head and wakes up, unable to ever regain/ recall my name, my history, my experiences to this point? If not, where did "me"/ I'm go? But to what really does one refer by the words "I am" "me" and "self"? Can you picture the "self"? Describe "I" with any words whatsoever? All of the things I can describe about myself are things about this body and this mind, things that change constantly.
I'm sorry Mr Gorski, perhaps you didn't get me , I mean the portable version of Gorski... to carry everywhere for problem solving.... find answers for any question.........
You got it right with the first sentence, but you're wrong on the second regarding me. I don't think I'm right. I AM right. I don't need to have a theory about what I say, I live it. @sid_16: I told you that science which is a product of the mind and thus cannot define nor comprehend the self which is beyond the mind. "knowledge" refers to SELF-knowledge which is the TRUE knowledge, not the false, theoretical knowledge which is made up by the mind to cover its own limitation. Unless you step out of the mind, you will not grasp it. It is not magical at all, it is humanity's pure state - everyone can access it, IF you wish to do so.
You came up to a definitive conclusion without a process, as I was saying all along, well done Houdini. Your post made the whole thread fun, we are having a discussion with a madman.
--------------------------- Do you remember just few post back you're seeking scientific proof but when asked for the same to your claim you leave it to beyond...........to some metaphysical/mystical realm ? You have no idea, what you're saying. How can you define knowledge as SELF-knowledge which is the TRUE knowledge and let us know what is "SELF-knowledge" and how is it true? The problem I have is that you haven’t completed the first step of establishing this is a real distinction 'mind and self'. That will, however, still be my personal mental experience, not something different from my normal thought processes.
I did get you, it's just a wee bit of weird sense of humour of mine that is the problem here (working on my "portability" at the moment... )...
Of course. gorski, this discussion won't change anything...forever sometimes , though...lol..... Still @ work.... will reply more detailed when I am at home ...
Matter : ego. Problem: Speech, the illusionary character of it (ego) and the fact that one who has an ego would never be able to recognize 'a person' that has no ego. Approach: Pure mind observation, experiments, no study, no theory, no teaching, awareness only. Just an invitation to evaluate... 'I am Yen'. Let's evaluate this. What happens in the mind when saying this? There must be Yen already (an idea of it) to identify my-Self. Or in other words to assign 'I' to the idea of Yen. This idea of Yen is a bunch of thoughts. Let's now check if 'Yen, the idea of Yen' is real. When I disassemble this idea of Yen using this simple mind game: http://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/4066-Disassemble-yourself-you%92ll-find-no-I-no-core! The illusionary character reveals. Yen does not exist per se. This idea I call here ego. To identify one-Self with this idea is the power that keeps the ego alive. This is also the power that seemingly makes one able to recognize another person's ego. The only thing that one recognizes is the own ego, because the mechanism of self identification with an idea of oneself is still working. Assuming the 'other one' has this idea also. I think. Let's evaluate this premise (to finally refer on topic) I am asking for awareness, nothing more...(no teaching here....) I say now: Thinking is no action, no event. Thinking doesn't make use of time. Speech implies to think is a verb. A matter IN time. OK, let's make an experiment. Think of what you are and try to determinate the time how long it took. Determinate its start and its end. When has your idea of yourself started and when it has stopped? You may take a timer, lol... Or think about 'a table' an image. Can you recognize it as an process, as an event IN time? Thoughts are appearing either unconsciously or there are no thoughts. One believes that there is conscious thinking. 'I think'. When one now focuses the awareness on the emergence, the source of the thought, then one is turning the awareness to the process which creates thoughts. That means one focuses the awareness of thinking itself. So thinking cannot happen. When trying to move the thought into consciousness, there will be no thought and no thoughts. One cannot think and be aware of thought at the same time. So we can say: Either there had been a thought or there had be no thought. There is no third alternative. If there were no thoughts then there was to thinking. So one could not have been aware of thinking. And if there were thoughts then they came unnoticed. This means nobody can be aware of common thinking, no matter if there had been thoughts or not. So a thought is always that what had been thought already. It is always foretime. Before we think 'table' there is no image, no idea of a table we could turn towards. If there would be that image / idea already then it would be there without to have thought about, that inconsistence is obvious. So the image / idea of the table arises only with the thought of a table. But it has then eluded already again and has become the past... What has happened is over, it is past and cannot be moved to the present. A died wife for instance cannot be moved to the present (of life), a thought that has been over cannot be moved to the present ( of thinking). The wife had been there, had been presently, but the thought of her never had been presently, that's the difference. That is the difference between the thought and the wife who has died. OK. Before we can have a thought, this thought cannot be there already. So there is nothing we could focus on it...when we think a thought then the thought has been thought already, it becomes the past.. Either way there is no present thought we could have focus on it. And since one cannot one cannot stop to think about something. Try it! Stop to think about the table, now! Did it work? lol...Say in your mind I stop to think about the table! Got it? So do you think? Or are there rather thoughts moving through your consciousness? I think is no valid premise and the approach has failed from the very beginning. To think is no event in time, to think is nothing one could be aware of presently. To think is actually no verb. The thought is actually everything that has been thought already. Nobody can have an idea of something presently. So the ego is an idea that exists in the past. But that what one really IS lives at present. 'I am' IS presently, 'I think' not. That what exists in the past only cannot conclude the present. The misidentification of one-self with thoughts of an 'I'-idea = ego is a identification what never can be lived. It is past already.. Or in other words, when one is self identified with the ego one hunts something what never can be reached....wasting 'time'.... So 'I am' is living presently. 'I am Yen' is hunting something that ever will be past already. This is no study, no teaching. It requires a calm mind and awareness to read this mechanism (illusion). It is no good no bad, no right no wrong. It's either you can or you cannot. If your head should explode then I am sorry. It's the ego who doesn't like to be recognized as that what it really is: An illusion of the past. It's an appeal to your curiosity to do that experiment, no teaching. SOCRATE can read that mechanism I can also. Some friends can most cannot. No intention of an ego here no German attribute, lol.... it's quite the opposite: read the mechanism of the ego, dis-identify your-self from what you can never live. BE, NOW! And if one 'thinks' that all is BS. Then one assigns the idea of BS to it. When doing that it will be also an matter of the past. And hence never 'real'. It's an attribute of the ego which is also past. That is the point why I classify 'my' knowledge as it is. An idea that can be existent in the past only, and so it gets just another importance. "knowledge" refers to SELF-knowledge which is the TRUE knowledge, not the false, theoretical knowledge which is made up by the mind to cover its own limitation." This statement gets its sense if one has got what I wrote....and one needs to experiment, to test, to evaluate, not to read, not to study it only...(mind)...or just skip it, lol....
I am with Hume on this one. I can't seem to find the point at which we can distinguish the "I" by any unchanging, static characteristics. However, from a pragmatic perspective, I find that our experiences and genetically derived personalities make us who we are. It really breaks down into the philosophy of the mind and how we want to define the mind.............. Are you Yen sir, referring to what is most commonly known as perception? in my opinion, perception is everything, yet perception is unique to each individual...Are you also saying that reality is only within the (human) mind? However, what about the minds of the animals, the minds of plant life (if possible)? And are you saying that all the minds of every living being on this planet alone are singular? Please understand these are valid and sincere questions, as I've for say 6/7 months tried to understand your philosophy---but admit when your posts get longer than 2000 words, I lose interest fast.. (not in you, but in my inability to understand your ideas)...
You are going right back to the tree falling thread and "nothing is real, everything is in the mind" bit.
I try to reply soon. It is really hard without using many words, but I try. It are experiences I have got during my exercises of 'mind watching' techniques....this is the only point where I can state I 'know' something about.... As I was teached about Einstein and got that everything is relative.....I wanted to know where this relativity is happening....and I wanted to know if one can observe the thoughts to come to 'insight'....later then I recognized...it's a matter of meditation also.....
Here is a really nice bit about a part of it: http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=0745633099 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Identity: Conversations with Benedetto Vecchi.-a0140790680 http://www.culturewars.org.uk/index.php/article/the_trouble_with_being_human_these_days/ Can't find the file online, a freeby, that is, sorry...