Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Vimana]

And, on top of this, I just don't need mediation to prove that it is undesirable to do harm to others. This need not be an individual pursuit within the mind, it can be assessed and supported scientifically/theoretically.

Where did I claim meditation was necessary for this? I said emptying concept can lead to that, but not that it was the only way.

 

[Vimana]

V, ya have to consider that you just might be a romanticist with poor value judgement.

Try considering that your interpretations of the words I say are not what is in my mind.

 

[Dak]

It doesn't really matter what you *think* is in your mind/is your mind - and whether or not you think words can adequately represent it - your insinuation that you have experienced/observed/etc the foundation, the basis of consciousness - necessitates a removal of the self from consciousness. This is why I suggested you are, whether knowingly or not, appealing to a multiplistic metaphysics - which does have existing, and very poor arguments.

In short, until you can somehow provide some good argument or empirical evidence for the ability to "step outside/away from yourself", we must hold that your interpretation of your experience that believes such relies on either merely an ignorant interpretation or at best an illusion, like the illusion of the visions when on shrooms or what have you. Until such an argument or proof is offered, all we are reading is "yeah but man, if you just meditate you will see the unicorns". Sure, if we meditate we might see unicorns - that doesn't mean we will believe they really exist, but rather that they are an illusion, and/or perceived due to the prior suggestion. In either case, things are not what they would seem - a possibility you are ignoring entirely.

 

[Vimana]

It doesn't really matter what you *think* is in your mind/is your mind - and whether or not you think words can adequately represent it - your insinuation that you have experienced/observed/etc the foundation, the basis of consciousness - necessitates a removal of the self from consciousness.

Self and consciousness are not separate at the core.

This is why I suggested you are, whether knowingly or not, appealing to a multiplistic metaphysics - which does have existing, and very poor arguments.

You think I'm appealing to this. I know very well what I'm pointing to. You don't, which is why you're conceptualizing.

In short, until you can somehow provide some good argument or empirical evidence for the ability to "step outside/away from yourself", we must hold that your interpretation of your experience that believes such relies on either merely an ignorant interpretation or at best an illusion, like the illusion of visions when on shrooms or what have you. Until such an argument or proof is offered, all we are reading is "yeah but man, if you just meditate you will see the unicorns". Sure, if we meditate we might see unicorns - that doesn't mean we will believe they really exist, but rather that they are an illusion, and/or perceived due to the prior suggestion. In either case, things are not what they would seem - a possibility you are ignoring entirely.

Empirical evidence for whom? I have verified it for myself. You can do the same, but you have not done the process of emptying yourself of concept, yet you claim I am speaking of something mystical like unicorns. I am not speaking of anything, because words or things or concepts are not it. I am pointing to what is always there and cannot be described or experienced.

It's like you're asking me to use words to make you physically taste a food you have never heard of or tried. Same as how describing a food does not make you taste it. There is nothing to find, look for, whatever. It is far from mystical. But I cannot describe it because it is " underneath" description.

If you want to falsify it or verify it, empty your mind of concept and sensation, yet be awake. It is more real than anything. It always there, inescapable. It makes you "you" through every physical, emotional, sensational change. You cannot prove it or find it because it's already there.

 

[Dak]

Self and consciousness are not separate at the core.

Ok, we have a claim. That is a start.

Empirical evidence for whom? I have verified it for myself. You can do the same, but you have not done the process of emptying yourself of concept, yet you claim I am speaking of something mystical like unicorns. I am not speaking of anything, because words or things or concepts are not it. I am pointing to what is always there and cannot be described or experienced.

It's like you're asking me to use words to make you physically taste a food you have never heard of or tried. Same as how describing a food does not make you taste it. There is nothing to find, look for, whatever. It is far from mystical. But I cannot describe it because it is " underneath" description.

If you want to falsify it or verify it, empty your mind of concept and sensation, yet be awake. It is more real than anything. It always there, inescapable. It makes you "you" through every physical, emotional, sensational change. You cannot prove it or find it because it's already there.

"I have experienced unicorns that cannot explained with words, you can't prove them or find them because they are hornfucking you constantly".

 

[Vimana]

Straw man. I am not claiming an experience of anything. I am pointing to something with words that is not describable, seeable, experiential, or anything you can ever possibly think of it. The flaw in your argument is you're trying to grasp it, create an idea of it, ask for evidence, call it something, etc. No matter what you call it, it's not that. Your argument is a bunch of hot air because you don't know what I'm pointing to.

But address the claim that consciousness and self are not separate.

 

[Dak]

Straw man. I am not claiming an experience of anything. I am pointing to something with words that is not describable, seeable, experiential, or anything you can ever possibly think of it. The flaw in your argument is you're trying to grasp it, create an idea of it, ask for evidence, call it something, etc. No matter what you call it, it's not that. Your argument is a bunch of hot air because you don't know what I'm pointing to.

People are always mistakenly calling me out on committing the strawman. Maybe it is because people are terrible at defining their positions or claim that their position cannot be described. Big problem for the claimer there.


If there can be no words for it there can be no idea of it. However, we have the capability of making of words for ideas that have no words yet (neologisms). We have the capability of stringing together lots of words to define the new words. I'm not suggesting that we are creating an accurate idea of what you are pointing to, but we are doing a better job than you are, so you cannot claim "strawman". We aren't misrepresenting your idea, because you haven't provided a new idea. If "No matter what you call it, it's not that" is categorically true, then "it" is nothing, and so we can be justified in stating "it" doesn't exist.

But address the claim that consciousness and self are not separate.

Well I might take issue with the qualification "at their core", but I would agree that there is no significant, or practical, definitional difference between the self and consciousness.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes. Consciousness experiences itself as "I." It is the source of the self (and not the other way around).

 

[Vimana]

People are always mistakenly calling me out on committing the strawman. Maybe it is because people are terrible at defining their positions or claim that their position cannot be described. Big problem for the claimer there.

And this is why koans exist instead of straightforward explanations.

If there can be no words for it there can be no idea of it.

Yes!!!

However, we have the capability of making of words for ideas that have no words yet (neologisms). We have the capability of stringing together lots of words to define the new words. I'm not suggesting that we are creating an accurate idea of what you are pointing to, but we are doing a better job than you are, so you cannot claim "strawman". We aren't misrepresenting your idea, because you haven't provided a new idea. If "No matter what you call it, it's not that" is categorically true, then "it" is nothing, and so we can be justified in stating "it" doesn't exist.

It is not concepts like existence and nonexistence. "Better" in this case is relative to each of us. For me, your explanations miss it because they are conceptual. For you, they are more on target because what I say likely does not make sense (which is a conceptual thing) and you appear to me to be trying to pin down conceptual sense.

Well I might take issue with the qualification "at their core", but I would agree that there is no significant, or practical, definitional difference between the self and consciousness.

I think you're closer to it from reading all this. I would recommend meditation, not to "prove me right" since I don't own what I'm pointing to and it itself is not concepts like right or wrong, but because when one familiarizes themselves with it/void/nirvana, reality collapses into a continuous, mysterious, infinite oneness of divine beauty, to put it mildly.

 

[Vimana]

Yes. Consciousness experiences itself as "I." It is the source of the self (and not the other way around).

Yes. This conceptualization could be called a final boundary before nirvana. It is like I without I, which doesn't make sense in words.

 

[Einherjar86]

Consciousness conceptually precedes the self though; this is the touchstone.

The network of consciousness is necessary for the self to emerge, but the self is necessary in order for consciousness to know itself in any substantial, if limited, way.

You cannot purge consciousness of the self. Without the self, there is no longer consciousness, since the self is the only point from which a conscious system can witness itself.

 

[Dak]

Yes!!!

If there can be no idea of it there can be no experience of it.

I don't know what about this back and forth makes you think I've moved closer to something. The practical singularity of consciousness and the self is a prior position.

 

[Vimana]

Consciousness conceptually precedes the self though; this is the touchstone.

The network of consciousness is necessary for the self to emerge, but the self is necessary in order for consciousness to know itself in any substantial, if limited, way.

Somewhat. The self is a concept that consciousness creates of itself, but in all of its functions, consciousness is a sort of underlying mechanism under all of knowing. Part of the meditation practice is about getting one to go to the base of the mechanisms that lead to knowing without making the extra step of conceptualizing oneself.

You cannot purge consciousness of the self. Without the self, there is no longer consciousness, since the self is the only point from which a conscious system can witness itself.

Consciousness need not witness itself to know itself since in all witnessing and non-witnessing it is there.

If there can be no idea of it there can be no experience of it.

I don't know what about this back and forth makes you think I've moved closer to something. The practical singularity of consciousness and the self is a prior position.

It is outside of experience and non-experience. I say you've moved closer because I didn't see any giving it a solid name or identity as some kind of unicorn or magical experience or answer to some question.

 

[Mort Divine]

Something can either be experienced or not, it can't be neither.

 

[Vimana]

What experiences things and also lacks experiencing when there is nothing to be experienced?

 

[Einherjar86]

Consciousness need not witness itself to know itself since in all witnessing and non-witnessing it is there.

Yes, it does need to, because witnessing is a constitutive component of consciousness. Without its witnessing, it wouldn't be consciousness. It doesn't lie "under" anything.

 

[Vimana]

Yes, it does need to, because witnessing is a constitutive component of consciousness. Without its witnessing, it wouldn't be consciousness. It doesn't lie "under" anything.

Meditate enough, or clear your mind of concept, and you'll find it does indeed.

 

[Einherjar86]

No. I don't need to. I know that consciousness entails selfhood, and that without selfhood consciousness dissipates into a nervous system that can receive sensory perceptions, but cannot know them.

This is the logic of conscious systems, and knowledge is a very specific human prospect that is tied to the structure of consciousness. Without self, knowledge vanishes, consciousness vanishes, subjectivity vanishes. These are the cognitive media through which we know. There's nothing besides them. Meditation provides an intense psychic illusion. It does not give us anything that can't be achieved simply by conceptualizing.

You can keep saying that your meditation provides answers to why we shouldn't kill each other; but if it gives us no discursive means to communicate this logic, or to discuss it with others, then it's totally useless to us.

 

[Vimana]

Meditation provides an intense psychic illusion. It does not give us anything that can't be achieved simply by conceptualizing.

This idea is totally imaginary since you have not done it, and from my perspective having done it, false.

You can keep saying that your meditation provides answers to why we shouldn't kill each other; but if it gives us no discursive means to communicate this logic, or to discuss it with others, then it's totally useless to us.

It gives one direct experience of their unity with the entire universe and all sentient beings. Such unity already exists, hence this conversation, but a deeper experience of unity = more compassion. Scientific studies have actually demonstrated meditation increasing spontaneous empathetic responses in people. It also wires the neocortex into the limbic system and reptilian complex, enabling greater control of fight/flight responses. It also is associated with elevated serotonin levels.

Of course, neuroscience is association, but I guess that'll be more credible than my super lengthy koanish things.

Here's a scientist saying some of what I said: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/com..._series_im_david_desteno_professor_of/ckj21lc

Outside of simple ethics, it increases pleasures like the taste of food, sound of music, can increase one's reading speed, enable them to let go of terrible negative emotions more easily, increase memory, coordination, and the improved mindfulness and presence allows one to experience all aspects of their day fully without being bored or irritated, making their days longer and more delightful.

 

[Dak]

No one said meditation doesn't do all those things. But you still haven't experienced objective existence or whatever other incorrect label I can throw at your description.