Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

We think very differently, then. I have no identification of you. I see words on a screen.

This discussion has not changed how I think at all. It is all a bunch of symbols relayed in front of me and none have stuck to me. Besides the memory of this discussion, it is like it never happened for me, unless the data in it affects a future action, but that is an effect on action, not my view of the world. My view changes from blank to sensory experience and back to blank. Each blank is as if nothing happened. I have no view per se because the content of my senses and mind are open to constant change without creating permanent conceptions. Ideas are not beliefs to me, but suggestions, entertainment, and stepping stones to action.

You don't need to have an identification of me. You've merely contributed to a cultural center of gravity: the center of gravity attributed to me.

This discussion has changed how you think. Every time we engage in language and communicate, we alter our psychic constitution. You do not have a full picture of your own mind, although you likely believe that you do. You're a Herclitean stream, not a Parmenidean unity. The singularity of your being isn't an essence, but an absence. "You" is a black hole around which all your sensory experiences and linguistic contributions circle.

 

[Vimana]

You don't need to have an identification of me. You've merely contributed to a cultural center of gravity: the center of gravity attributed to me.

This discussion has changed how you think. Every time we engage in language and communicate, we alter our psychic constitution. You do not have a full picture of your own mind, although you likely believe that you do. You're a Herclitean stream, not a Parmenidean unity. The singularity of your being isn't an essence, but an absence. "You" is a black hole around which all your sensory experiences and linguistic contributions circle.

I googled those terms, but don't have anything useful. Can you elaborate?

I agree that the core is a void of sorts. I'd say it's neither void nor space. The content of my thoughts and views changes all the time, but what of it? It's not me and does not sway me.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Don't fuck with EIn, bro. He's deep like the ocean

 

[Vimana]

I used to be annoyed by the language in Eastern philosophies in describing egoless, nonconceptual states, but this debate is really making it clear how hard it is to communicate nirvana, void, whatever. What I have, or rather don't have in my head is a result of months of work and attention. Same as describing a food isn't tasting it, describing a wordless, egoless state isn't the same as living in it. Nor is using one's arsenal of concepts and simulating it.

Over and over what is inside of me is not repeated back to me in words, because I am using concept to communicate a lack of concept (which isn't the same as conceptualization of a lack of concept) and it appears to be received in and interpreted by concepts. Conceptualization contains a semblance of what it is conceptualizing, but it is not the same, especially when it comes to lack of concept.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm reading what you write and interpreting the logic. This is language pal. Use it, and use it well; because no matter what you believe, this is what you are. You're nothing beyond what you are to others except for a shred of darkness thrashing in the void. If you want meaning, it's all around you; not inside you.

ok ok now I like this but I'm afraid in the same sense as a teen goth would ... please explain what you mean by this? lol

 

[Einherjar86]

I googled those terms, but don't have anything useful. Can you elaborate?

I agree that the core is a void of sorts. I'd say it's neither void nor space. The content of my thoughts and views changes all the time, but what of it? It's not me and does not sway me.

Heraclitus: "Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow."

Parmenides: "But since the limit is ultimate, it is complete from all directions, like the bulk of a well-rounded sphere, equally matched from the middle on all sides..."

The content of your thoughts and views are you, a majority part of you; and they do change what you are, so that "you" possess no essence. When you look within and discover unity, you project that unity; you don't discover it there, you imagine it there. We are all of us imagined selves. The time and effort you have put into meditation have not discovered your true self; they have merely contributed to its construction.

And I know, these are just my words, I have no knowledge of your mind; but I do have knowledge of culture, language, and narrative, and I know that selves are stories we tell ourselves. Before that, there is thought only insofar as thought implies a biological engagement with the world; but this engagement does not constitute self-awareness, and in fact has no place for a central self that can be aware of itself in any way.

"Thoughts - imperceptible mental events - are perfectly real, but our ability to apperceive ourselves thinking is linguistically mediated." (Brassier, "The Myth of the Given")

ok ok now I like this but I'm afraid in the same sense as a teen goth would ... please explain what you mean by this? lol

I mean that before thinking of ourselves as thinking beings - before making that self-referential step in evolution - we cannot think of ourselves as anything. The extreme form of this (the postmodern form) would be to say that we are not anything. Of course, that isn't a particularly realist notion; but it does get at something fundamentally important about knowledge.

There is no means of knowing oneself outside language and conceptualization, no matter how much meditation one pursues. The attainment of some pre-conscious state of unity is a myth of origins, a projection of a pristine stage of development before language sundered us from our minds. Mystics believe there is a subconscious layer, some kind of deep consciousness that can relinquish language and achieve a sense of unity with the body and thus result in greater knowledge. This is contradictory because language is a prerequisite for knowledge. There is no knowledge, and no awareness, without language.

So, as soon as we are able to speak, to communicate in language, and to become aware of ourselves, we have only done so through the mediation of a linguistic and conceptual apparatus. Prior to this moment, we are sentient meat.

 

[Vimana]

Look at a wall. Do you need to call it a wall to be aware of it? Say what you wish about a mental state you have not been in. It's like closing your eyes and saying light does not exist, or that a foreign country does not exist when you have not been there. I may as well say you have four penises and sleep in a jar.

 

[Dak]

A mental state of mentalstatelessness is a contradiction.

 

[Einherjar86]

Look at a wall. Do you need to call it a wall to be aware of it? Say what you wish about a mental state you have not been in.

Reread what you just wrote: "Look at a wall." Without the word for a wall, how can I be aware that I am ever looking at one?

"Wall" entails an entire history of social conditioning and meaning; without the knowledge of those conditions and that meaning, I can never be aware that I am looking at a wall.

 

[Vimana]

Reread what you just wrote: "Look at a wall." Without the word for a wall, how can I be aware that I am ever looking at one?

"Wall" entails an entire history of social conditioning and meaning; without the knowledge of those conditions and that meaning, I can never be aware that I am looking at a wall.

Because the wall is matter, light bounces off of it, and you have eyes.

Like I said before, words are a sensory experience like any other and just reference memories of collections of sensory experience.

 

[Vimana]

A mental state of mentalstatelessness is a contradiction.

Yes. Like I said before, describing something simpler than any sensory experience won't do it justice.

How many times do I have to say that what I'm attempting to describe will not be captured in concept or even known by you without you totally clearing your mind? You keep calling bullshit on meditation practices you have not done. You're not going to convince me I am not somewhere mentally that I am. Even if it sounds ridiculous to you, I'm there nonetheless. I don't feel I am able to convince you, but I find this debate fun anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

Because the wall is matter, light bounces off of it, and you have eyes.

Let's assume I have eyes (wouldn't want to accidentally offend any blind people).

I have various sensory perceptions of objects around me. This does not entail awareness. I encourage you to think harder about what "aware" means. To be aware of something means not only to perceive it in a sensory way, but to be able to conceive of its non-existence. I can be aware of a wall because I can be aware of the wall even during its absence, a capacity that does not derive from sensory perception (since, if the wall is absent, I have no opportunity to perceive it).

Animals can perceive objects in a sensory way, but very few animals possess awareness of objects. I am aware of my potential existence as a banana, as you suggested; but I do not perceive myself as a banana in a sensory way. I am aware of the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, but I have no sensory perception of it.

Awareness only derives from thought as a conceptual means of knowing the world. Thought certainly precedes language in the order of being; but language precedes thought in the order of knowing. Without language and concepts, we have no awareness of the world.

 

[Vimana]

Let's assume I have eyes (wouldn't want to accidentally offend any blind people).

I have various sensory perceptions of objects around me. This does not entail awareness. I encourage you to think harder about what "aware" means. To be aware of something means not only to perceive it in a sensory way, but to be able to conceive of its non-existence. I can be aware of a wall because I can be aware of the wall even during its absence, a capacity that does not derive from sensory perception (since, if the wall is absent, I have no opportunity to perceive it).

Animals can perceive objects in a sensory way, but very few animals possess awareness of objects. I am aware of my potential existence as a banana, as you suggested; but I do not perceive myself as a banana in a sensory way. I am aware of the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, but I have no sensory perception of it.

Awareness only derives from thought as a conceptual means of knowing the world. Thought certainly precedes language in the order of being; but language precedes thought in the order of knowing. Without language and concepts, we have no awareness of the world.

"Think harder about what it means to be aware." Backwards. Awareness is behind all. There is no specific cutoff from us and animals that I know of. It grows as I have experienced, so I can extrapolate animals have it, but on a lower level.

Awareness senses concept. Concept is not awareness. You appear to me to be seeking a conceptual answer because you do not seem to believe that awareness exists without concept. I, however, fill up my days with awareness without concept. Meditate like I have and separate yourself from concept and you'll see. Otherwise, it'll be this back and forth.

 

[Einherjar86]

What you speak of is like spirituality. I must take your word for it because you can't communicate it. That's fine, but then don't participate in intellectual discussions of this sort because you have nothing to offer. You're spewing pointless trivialities - "awareness senses concept" - but have no knowledge or understanding of the years of scientific and scholarly research that have gone into developing the strong claim that awareness succeeds sensory perception, that it entails reflexivity, that it enables us to think things which we do not perceive sensorily (a fact that you have offered no rebuttal to).

The point is, I don't want to meditate if it truly results in what you describe, because I want to be able to participate in discourse. I don't want to restrict myself to some perceived outer sphere of experience that cannot be conveyed in language. That is apathetic and worthless to me. It sounds childlike and escapist. Perhaps you possess some deeper sense of the world; but what good is it, since you can't tell any of us?

For what it's worth, I think your sense of "awareness without concept" is an illusion, although I think you believe it to be true. There is nothing there for you to give anyone. All you can do is beg people to go out on a limb for you. You're like a traveling evangelist: "Do as I do, and ye shall see the light." I have no contempt or hatred for such people; but when they try to correct my theories by asking me to believe, I get defensive.

 

[Vimana]

What you speak of is like spirituality. I must take your word for it because you can't communicate it. That's fine, but then don't participate in intellectual discussions of this sort because you have nothing to offer. You're spewing pointless trivialities - "awareness senses concept" - but have no knowledge or understanding of the years of scientific and scholarly research that have gone into developing the strong claim that awareness succeeds sensory perception, that it entails reflexivity, that it enables us to think things which we do not perceive sensorily (a fact that you have offered no rebuttal to).

The point is, I don't want to meditate if it truly results in what you describe, because I want to be able to participate in discourse. I don't want to restrict myself to some perceived outer sphere of experience that cannot be conveyed in language. That is apathetic and worthless to me. It sounds childlike and escapist. Perhaps you possess some deeper sense of the world; but what good is it, since you can't tell any of us?

For what it's worth, I think your sense of "awareness without concept" is an illusion, although I think you believe it to be true. There is nothing there for you to give anyone. All you can do is beg people to go out on a limb for you. You're like a traveling evangelist: "Do as I do, and ye shall see the light." I have no contempt or hatred for such people; but when they try to correct my theories by asking me to believe, I get defensive.

First off, I ask nothing of you. I don't want your faith. Second, you don't know what I've read. I've been an enthusiast of evopsych for years. I've read about neurology. Neurology is all association so far. For instance, no dnows how oxytocin "causes" love. It's also associated with hatred. No one knows how the neocortex does higher reasoning or how reptilian complex creates fear.

I have nothing to say on the process of how thought can find patterns the senses can't. It is another sensory process that chases infinite mystery. Each question answered creates a new one. I find that beautiful beyond measure, personally.

I propose detaching from concept to see the world through simply the senses without extrapolation or permanence.

I am far from apathetic. I feel many, many things. The feeling of my own skin carries a sensual vibe to me. The beating of my heart soothes me. I delight in the smiles of children and lovers holding hands. Every iota of my sensory experience and thought paints a dazzling morphing picture of a seemingly infinitely mysterious universe. I enjoy the nuances of different philosophies, the strange structure of mathematics. I live in constant fascination and love of the miracle of existence. Even some pain has a kind of pleasure for me. I wish every sentient being I sense to join in on the type of love I experience and break from the chains of rigid minds and fear. Every day this multiplies for me.

 

[Vimana]

What you speak of is like spirituality. I must take your word for it because you can't communicate it. That's fine, but then don't participate in intellectual discussions of this sort because you have nothing to offer. You're spewing pointless trivialities - "awareness senses concept" - but have no knowledge or understanding of the years of scientific and scholarly research that have gone into developing the strong claim that awareness succeeds sensory perception, that it entails reflexivity, that it enables us to think things which we do not perceive sensorily (a fact that you have offered no rebuttal to).

The point is, I don't want to meditate if it truly results in what you describe, because I want to be able to participate in discourse. I don't want to restrict myself to some perceived outer sphere of experience that cannot be conveyed in language. That is apathetic and worthless to me. It sounds childlike and escapist. Perhaps you possess some deeper sense of the world; but what good is it, since you can't tell any of us?

For what it's worth, I think your sense of "awareness without concept" is an illusion, although I think you believe it to be true. There is nothing there for you to give anyone. All you can do is beg people to go out on a limb for you. You're like a traveling evangelist: "Do as I do, and ye shall see the light." I have no contempt or hatred for such people; but when they try to correct my theories by asking me to believe, I get defensive.

First off, I ask nothing of you. I don't want your faith. Second, you don't know what I've read. I've been an enthusiast of evopsych for years. I've read about neurology. Neurology is all association so far. For instance, no dnows how oxytocin "causes" love. It's also associated with hatred. No one knows how the neocortex does higher reasoning or how reptilian complex creates fear.

I have nothing to say on the process of how thought can find patterns the senses can't. It is another sensory process that chases infinite mystery. Each question answered creates a new one. I find that beautiful beyond measure, personally.

I propose detaching from concept to see the world through simply the senses without extrapolation or permanence.

I am far from apathetic. I feel many, many things. The feeling of my own skin carries a sensual vibe to me. The beating of my heart soothes me. I delight in the smiles of children and lovers holding hands. Every iota of my sensory experience and thought paints a dazzling morphing picture of a seemingly infinitely mysterious universe. I enjoy the nuances of different philosophies, the strange structure of mathematics. I live in constant fascination and love of the miracle of existence. Even some pain has a kind of pleasure for me. I wish every sentient being I sense to join in on the type of love I experience and break from the chains of rigid minds and fear.

 

[The Butt]

Look at a wall. Do you need to call it a wall to be aware of it? Say what you wish about a mental state you have not been in. It's like closing your eyes and saying light does not exist, or that a foreign country does not exist when you have not been there. I may as well say you have four penises and sleep in a jar.

Getting high has fucked your brain, bro.

 

[Vimana]

As if words on a screen show you the state of my brain more than my lifetime of memories and experiences.

 

[Einherjar86]

First off, I ask nothing of you. I don't want your faith.

Meditate like I have and separate yourself from concept and you'll see. Otherwise, it'll be this back and forth.

You are asking something of me. You're asking me to meditate like you, otherwise I can't possibly understand what you're getting at.

If there's no way to communicate the knowledge you have attained, then your entire pursuit is apathetic because you're abandoning social cause and discussion for an expressionless inner sanctum. I don't care at this point what you've read or what you enjoy about philosophy. The entire argument that we have had up until this point continues to circle your self-indulgent fantasy of pure self and interior knowledge that I cannot hope to understand unless I meditate, "like you have."

If you're not asking anything of me, then stop saying there's no way for you to communicate what you're trying to say.

 

[Dak]

In all this circling, there has still not been any argument presented to explain anything I might experience in a meditative state (that satisfies Vimana's requests for personal action) as anything other than focusing on different sorts of inputs. Interpretation always-already precedes understanding. You (Vimana) interpret your experience as absence of input, but this interpretation must be based on something, and I am pressing for you to explain this basis.