Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Vimana]

I'm not asking. That wasn't a request. How about this: if you meditate and clear yourself of concept, you'll see. But you don't have to. I'm not commanding you.

There's no self-indulgence on my part, since I create no concept of self to compare to others.

The method of meditation is not mine anymore than I own having eyes or teeth.

I'm attempting to break what I perceive as attachment to concept as a means of understanding.

There's no way to communicate it, but I can communicate methods that lead to it. You have given what I perceive to be assumptions about the practice without trying it.

This inner sanctum, if adopted by the world, would lead to individuals that see no point in hurting one another and would spend every waking moment dazzled by existing. That is the core of consciousness, but you have not immersed yourself in it. That is of no inadequacy on your part. It is just something you happened to have not done.

I do not believe I am better than you or anyone. That word is meaningless to me.

 

[Vimana]

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.

The basis for it is the basis of all consciousness and experience. It is too simple to explain. I can only give procedures that point one's own way towards it. You experience it every waking moment of your life.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not asking. That wasn't a request. How about this: if you meditate and clear yourself of concept, you'll see. But you don't have to. I'm not commanding you.

It has nothing to do with command. You are establishing an ultimatum within the logic of the conversation that prohibits any progression.

This inner sanctum, if adopted by the world, would lead to individuals that see no point in hurting one another and would spend every waking moment dazzled by existing. That is the core of consciousness, but you have not immersed yourself in it. That is of no inadequacy on your part. It is just something you happened to have not done.

This just made my day. Keep rolling, Spicoli.

 

[Dak]

There is some significant neuroscience research on the processes and effects of meditation, and none offer any sort of evidence towards an absence of input. Rather, different areas of the brain are activated (and subsequently grow), as opposed to what is activated and stays a "normal" size in the non-meditating majority.

All you are doing is focusing on the inputs and creating positive feedbacks loops with those different areas, enhancing those areas of the brain, which provides further feedback into your non-meditative states. This isn't mystical, you haven't snuck up on the Thing Itself, etc. Of course, if you are inadvertently or unconsciously attached to some sort of dualism (which is what I suspect), I'm interested in an actual argument for it.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Spicoli

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course, if you are inadvertently or unconsciously attached to some sort of dualism (which is what I suspect), I'm interested in an actual argument for it.

You suspect that is what he's saying; or you believe that he is actually achieving some kind of dualism...?

 

[Dak]

You suspect that is what he's saying; or you believe that he is actually achieving some kind of dualism...?

I think he believes in some sort of dualism.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ah. Yes, I wasn't sure. I too would like to see an argument for it - beyond "words are symbols for memories" etc. etc.

 

[Vimana]

There is some significant neuroscience research on the processes and effects of meditation, and none offer any sort of evidence towards an absence of input. Rather, different areas of the brain are activated (and subsequently grow), as opposed to what is activated and stays a "normal" size in the non-meditating majority.

All you are doing is focusing on the inputs and creating positive feedbacks loops with those different areas, enhancing those areas of the brain, which provides further feedback into your non-meditative states. This isn't mystical, you haven't snuck up on the Thing Itself, etc. Of course, if you are inadvertently or unconsciously attached to some sort of dualism (which is what I suspect), I'm interested in an actual argument for it.

I'm not talking about neurology, though. I'm talking about consciousness. The state of nirvana is different from ideas of neurological models. A heightened state of brain activity could indeed be what is going on during nirvana, but it is brain activity, and nirvana is nirvana.

I'm not arguing any kind of duality. You're trying to put what I'm trying to convey into a concept, and it's not a concept. A tree is not the word for tree. Tree is a symbol. In nirvana, there is no duality, nonduality, or any idea.

And I don't think meditation is the only way to find nirvana, but it is what worked for me. Regardless, it is not a word. I won't describe it. You won't find it in concepts. You have to see it for yourself. You can't lose your virginity by watching porn.

I am not trying to communicate a concept, give ultimatums, or any of the concepts you guys respond to me with. I am not trying to convey an idea. Trying to find an answer or idea goes in the opposite direction of the axis that perceives all.

This going in a circle. But what a fun circle.

 

[Dak]

So in short: "Just gotta feel that feel brah"?

To be clear, I'm not knocking meditation. It has well documented positive effects. I just don't believe you've found a way outside yourself.

 

[Einherjar86]

I am not trying to communicate a concept, give ultimatums, or any of the concepts you guys respond to me with. I am not trying to convey an idea. Trying to find an answer or idea goes in the opposite direction of the axis that perceives all.

It doesn't matter what you're trying to do. You're doing these things even if you're not trying to. Welcome to the human race.

 

[Vimana]

To you, that's what I'm doing. It's different over here. You may as well be telling me I'm eating tacos right now, whether or not I'm trying to.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but inform you of something through a symbolic representation of it and giving symbolic representation of a way to it, or back into it, or to nowhere, all the same, really.

How can I convince you of nothing that can be convinced of that is inside of you already?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Vimana]

Hahaha. That's pretty much how I picture it. I'm waiting for everyone to just call me a fucking idiot and call it a day.

At which point, I'd respond in my predictable, "that's a story you've made in your heads" fashion.

When I started reading about advaita, Zen, Buddhism, and stuff, I was like, "oh, that's not too hard to explain. Why all the stupid fucking fruity poems and shit?" Then I got into the practices of finding nirvana, and now I have plenty of words, but they all miss the damn target.

To be fair, sometimes the thought "I have no words to describe all this, so it makes no sense" in reference to my life and experiences pops up, but it dissipates because it makes less sense than what's around it. There is a "this" that I'm saying makes no sense, and it's clear and wordless, so it does make sense. It's like looking at a glass of water and saying "I can't see this glass of water!"

 

[Einherjar86]

To you, that's what I'm doing. It's different over here. You may as well be telling me I'm eating tacos right now, whether or not I'm trying to.

There is a logic to your language (or an illogic), and that has nothing to do with what's in your head or in mine. It has nothing to do with individual psychology. Language can be read and interpreted scientifically, materially - this is what you don't seem to grasp. Language is not just reflection of interior experience. It operates objectively, socially, it has its own gravity. This is the effect of what happens when you engage in discourse. I don't care about what's in your head. You keep turning things around by saying "Might as well say..."; but you don't seem to grasp the fact that it doesn't matter.

Your intentions, your purposes, your personal beliefs, they have no purchase here.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but inform you of something through a symbolic representation of it and giving symbolic representation of a way to it, or back into it, or to nowhere, all the same, really.

How can I convince you of nothing that can be convinced of that is inside of you already?

That last sentence is hilarious.

I'm not sure if your ideas are "beyond language," or if you just can't write.

 

[Vimana]

There is a logic to your language (or an illogic), and that has nothing to do with what's in your head or in mine. It has nothing to do with individual psychology. Language can be read and interpreted scientifically, materially - this is what you don't seem to grasp. Language is not just reflection of interior experience. It operates objectively, socially, it has its own gravity. This is the effect of what happens when you engage in discourse. I don't care about what's in your head. You keep turning things around by saying "Might as well say..."; but you don't seem to grasp the fact that it doesn't matter.

Your intentions, your purposes, your personal beliefs, they have no purchase here.



That last sentence is hilarious.

I'm not sure if your ideas are "beyond language," or if you just can't write.

Logic is used in reference to the data at hand. Your logical deductions do not necessarily (and I flat-out say DON'T) lead you to what I'm attempting to convey because you don't seem to have experienced how much words are given meaning rather than giving meaning (which they do secondarily). How else was language created? It's not like it just came out of the air and some early hominids heard it, automatically got meaning from it, then continued using it.

Language is given gravity by the minds that create it and use it. I'm not arguing that that's not observable, since I'm speaking to you. I was arguing that reality makes sense without language, which you don't seem to grasp. Language does not contain meaning on its own. Or else you would know what derinsula (a word I made up) means without me having to tell you.

Language's effects in discourse depend on both parties involved primarily, since the words are just sounds (or in this case, arrangements of pixels) without minds that have the right set of memories to interpret them. You can get two people that don't speak Chinese and get them to speak Chinese to each other, but it won't mean shit. Why? Their minds did not develop a meaningful framework to interpret Chinese words.

If you do one tab of acid, your argument will come crashing down (for you. It's already apparent to me). But like I read before, you seem to have a set of assumptions about what it does and what it's like without actually doing it. I may as well say (gotta love this phrase. Well, I do, so you do as well since it carries its own gravity) caviar tastes like chocolate, which it may, but it has to touch my tongue to be verified or I'm just making shit up and pretending it's true.

This argument is separate from the one about nirvana.

Anyways, glad I could make you laugh.

I experience a fully-coherent, wordless reality all the time. Based on my interpretations of your arguments, you don't seem to think this is possible.

Maybe if you tried going an entire day, or maybe even an hour without a single thought or concept and let your body and senses do their thing, you'd see what destination (that isn't an idea, but all around us no matter what we think or don't think) I'm talking about. This argument for nirvana, base of consciousness, etc. isn't for an idea, it's ideas to lead to an idealess perception of reality.

 

[Einherjar86]

Logic is used in reference to the data at hand. Your logical deductions do not necessarily (and I flat-out say DON'T) lead you to what I'm attempting to convey because you don't seem to have experienced how much words are given meaning rather than giving meaning (which they do secondarily). How else was language created? It's not like it just came out of the air and some early hominids heard it, automatically got meaning from it, then continued using it.

Language is given gravity by the minds that create it and use it.

Language isn't created. That prescribes too much intention to the speakers.

Language, like any other evolutionary development, is accidental. It is not created by anyone. Language becomes. You wouldn't say that human beings created the opposable thumb.

You seem to believe that understanding and knowledge preceded language in order for it to come about. This is entirely incorrect, and is disputed by most scholars of linguistics and philosophers of language. Language is concomitant with knowledge, concomitant with understanding, with awareness. There is no purer form of knowing that precedes it.

 

[Vimana]

That is your view, and I laugh at it in between many moments where I make sense of things just fine without words. Words are hella useful and I think they're amazing, but words are symbols for meaning, and anyone who's meditated enough or done a psychedelic knows meaningful cognition happens with or without words.

For example, I don't need words to taste the omelette I'm eating or to remember its taste.

I highly doubt you don't enjoy fucking your wife until you say in your head, "I enjoy fucking my wife."

 

[Einherjar86]

That is your view, and I laugh at it in between many moments where I make sense of things just fine without words.

I laugh at your views! Ha ha! Ha ha! Oh my...

Well, both of your examples are sense perceptions: tasting, fucking, physical stimulation. This just proves how little you pay attention, since I already spoke of sensory perceptions in a previous post. And I never denied that you could have them without language. Otherwise how would nonlinguistic beings ever be compelled to eat, or reproduce?

This doesn't reach the level of knowing or awareness, however. I need language in order to know that I enjoy fucking my wife, and this is something I can think about even when I'm not doing it (and I do, quite often).

I'm done here. You're inconsistent and you provoke more confusion than anything else. Feel free to substantiate your claims or dispute what I just said; you may do so with the luxury of knowing that I won't respond to you.

 

[Vimana]

This doesn't reach the level of knowing or awareness, however. I need language in order to know that I enjoy fucking my wife, and this is something I can think about even when I'm not doing it (and I do, quite often).

It does reach the level of knowing. Happens to me all the time. Maybe you think you need language to know you enjoy fucking your wife, but that can change.

I'm done here. You're inconsistent and you provoke more confusion than anything else. Feel free to substantiate your claims or dispute what I just said; you may do so with the luxury of knowing that I won't respond to you.

That is how you perceive it from this view that knowing cannot happen without words. Try to meditate sometime, dude. Unless you're so turned off by it from associating it with the frustration of this debate (which I infer from what I can interpret as snippets of condescension). Regardless, I have plenty of awareness without words and no amount of your words or thoughts will change it. Hell, no amount of my words or thoughts can change it.

And it's a shame you won't respond. This has been a lot of fun for me.

Edit: If I needed words to be aware of what I'm aware of, my head would explode. "I'm breathing. My backpack's on my back. I'm standing. My feet are in shoes. I am walking. I am typing. I am holding a phone I am using the internet. I am acknowledging that I am aware and know these things are happening without using a single word." Jesus.