Demolishing desire

So what is the initial desire, or what is the cause of the initial desire, in the mind of a newborn? Through investigation, this mind came up with the possibility that the mind desires understanding initially. This is why it cannot be content. It must understand what is going on. Why must it understand? Possibly because it sees itself as separate from everything else, separate from other people. With all of these people looking at, holding, and talking to it, of course it is going to be confused. These people know something the mind does not. Therefore the mind desires to rise to the level of understanding of the other people. This could create desire and suffering, for understanding cannot come immediately, but through time, which the mind does not accept. Is this the beginning to desire and suffering, or is there a factor beyond this? Opinions?

 

This is not desire.

This is interest.

Your definition of the word "desire" is malformed; you are referring to interest, which is what Hikaru has been proposing all along.

"DESIRE stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim" -- Mirriam-Webster Online (m-w.com)

The "desire" to end hunger is also not a desire in the philosophical sense. It is an instinct. One has an INSTINCT to end hunger, and humans use the word "desire" because it describes an effect very similar to instinct, but the use of the word in this sense is ambiguous and inaccurate.

No argument here. There is a heirarchy. And at the lowest level of this heirarchy is interest, which is NOT desire.

The desire to end boredom is not a desire. It is an instinct.

The desire to know (curiosity) can lead to desire. Perhaps Hikaru mistated this fact.

Curiosity does not ALWAYS to lead to desire; one can be curious of something without desiring to know it (only pursuing that knowledge in free time, as an INTEREST). One can ALSO be so curious of something that they DESIRE to have it, and sacrifice other things in order to gain it.

Thus, curiosity may lead to both.

Pursuit implies intent. It does NOT imply desire. You speak to Hikaru of dictionary definitions, yet the dictionary definition confirms Hikaru's use of the word desire, and rejects yours. Intent? Yes. Desire (strong intention, to the point of sacrificing other more important things)? No.

The sparkle of a diamond is not the diamond itself, but it IS a product of the diamond. This analogy is inaccurate. Imagination is NOT a product of the actual. By simple substitution, your argument is invalid (albeit cogent).

The imagination distorts reality before our brain has the chance to understand what was interpreted.

(1) Reality occurs.
(2) Our miscalibrated senses acquire a distorted version of reality.
(4) Imagination attempts to correct this distortion by "filling in the gaps."
(5) The brain understands this altered interpretation.

However, the imagination does not necessarily fill these gaps correctly.

Thus, the interpretation of reality is void.

Furthermore, even if the sparkle is a small facet of the diamond called actuality, humans do NOT have enough senses to interpret ALL of the facets of such a diamond. Therefore, the information we DO gather about actuality is incomplete.

Thees and thous and desirest, and such, are not bloating. Just because Hikaru used some Middle English words does not mean Modern English words would be there to replace them (you, and your, and desire). Hikaru merely used Middle English to make the POEM (that's right; it was a poem, only meant to be analogous, not actual) ear-candy. But the words were simple substitutions, it was not bloated in any sense.

Messages of despair are not foul, they are realistic. Or perhaps they are foul merely to you, but few other people would call a realistic notion "foul."

And you STILL have not proven that Hikaru's original statement was incorrect, so your justification to say it is wrong is null and void.

Beyond that, your analogy of maggot infested roadkill is also incorrect. If someone is starved for enlightenment, and they desire such, and you tell them that one cannot become enlightened because they desire it, they will (if they are not dogmatic) attempt to REDUCE their desire, and reduction of desire is known to lead to more enlightened thoughts.

Do not misinterpret Hikaru's statement, "If thou desirest ..., then thou may already be too far gone to save." If you desire something, you are too far gone to save. This statement is accepted almost universally (save you, of course) among rational people to be true, as desire leads only away from Oneness, because desire is a product of the ego. By telling someone that if they desire something, they cannot become enlightened, you are portraying an accurate picture that tells them EXACTLY what to do to start on their path of enlightenment.

Whereas, you suggest that it shuns them from enlightenment, which is not the case unless they are dogmatic, and if they are, then it is the truth; they CANNOT become enlightened so long as they retain that dogmatism.

And this is, again, merely your OPINION. You provide NO facts to back this up. True that Hikaru agrees that pessimism is spiritually foul (and he agrees because pessimism is a more radical distortion of reality), but you are not offering ANY evidence whatsoever to back up your simple opinions!

Your have INTERPRETED Hikaru's tone to be pessimistic. It was not so. Just as Hikaru might interpret the moving of your foot to be because you wish to trip someone, when you might merely be uncomfortable.

The reason for your distorted interpretation of Hikaru's tone is because you DESIRE for it to be pessimistic, so that you can win this argument. When Hikaru's tone was neither pessimistic nor was it optimistic. It was REALISTIC. Hikaru's statement, reardless of what "tone" you believe he used, was completely true (as proven above), and was QUITE realistic. Because it is realistic, it cannot be pessimistic, as both are two separate concepts, just as "Yes," and "I don't know," portray two different propositions.

Hikaru's tone was NOT pessimistic (see above). It was realistic, because the statement he made was true, and was not a further distorted version of reality. Optimism is never correct, as it is a further distorted version of reality.

By saying to someone "you can be saved," makes them hopeful, it does NOT make them able to be saved. If the thing that they are being saved from has already happened, optimism is incorrect. If the thing that they are being saved from has NOT already happened, then pessimism is incorrect.

But realism is correct either way you look at it, and that was the tone of Hikaru's original statement, should you look closely.

But if Hikaru says "We are not One," then we ARE not One. Oneness is a two-way street. In order to be One, both people must be open to the fact that we are One. Just like love is a two way street, in that to be in love, both people must love eachother. To be One, both people must be One with eachother. Hikaru, by rejecting the fact that you and he are One, has closed his end, making Oneness impossible.

Granted that Hikaru has only closed his end in this argument (to prove a point), but his end IS closed at this point, and you and he CANNOT be One because of this.

It is a real experience, yes, but IT DOES NOT TEACH REALITY, which is what you are suggesting it is doing! Hikaru apologizes for his misuse of his words. What Hikaru ought to have said is "This experience does NOT teach reality."

Hikaru is not arguing the fact that the experience is real, he is arguing the fact that the experience does not teach reality.

You are decieving here. Look at these statements:

"They do experience consciousness in its true form"

"Assuming that people do not experience conciousness in its true form"

Hikaru's statement is the first, yours is the second. You have falsely concluded that Hikaru said they do NOT experience consciousness in its true form. Please read Hikaru's statements completely before analyzing them to be pessimistic.

 

YOU please look at the whole statement, thank you.

Using m-w.com:

Reality: "the totality of real things and events"
Reality: "the quality or state of being real"

Reality is a state. It is NOT an action. States do not express themselves. States merely exist, and are subjective, and cannot express themselves. They do not express themselves, YOU interpret it to express something. But it does not express something upon you, YOU have to look at IT and percieve it with your senses in order to get an expression. If you turn around and ignore its existance, then it will express NOTHING to you.

Likewise, Hikaru ignores the comets and supernovae and other phenomena of our universe. And because of this, they make no individual impression on him, because he doesn't even recognize the existance of each individual phenomena.

This concept is similar to the concept of classes in programming. Classes *do not act*, they are *acted upon*.

Hikaru is conscious, and as he has already proven BY DEFINITION, he is not reality! Your definition of reality is flawed.

Actuality, by philosophical terminology, is what we call reality. It includes every atom and quantity of energy in this universe. It includes the universe's phenomena, laws, physics, and such. Actuality does not include concepts such as spirituality, consciousness, or driving forces, as none of these can be proven to exist whatsoever.

Is that what you believe? Hikaru argues that desire is what stops the world from turning (or nearly close to it). Think about it:

Desire has led humanity to where we are today.

Today, our air is polluted. Our resources are diminished or gone. Our ozone is depleted, our rainforests are all but gone, our world is in such a sickly state that it might as well stop turning altogether.

Desire has put the lazy rich man at the top and the honest and earnest poor man unfairly at the bottom.

Desire has caused murder, hate, slaughter, and genocide.

If desire is what makes the world go round, why is it only harming our world and all of the people in it (except the wealthy)?

Actually, Hikaru just bought one today. No herb, though. =(

There is a difference between diminishing desire and diminishing instinct. Instincts are necessary for survival, even if the whole world were as One. Desire is not. Instincts are part of the body; desire is part of the ego. Diminishing the ego leads to Oneness, diminishing the body only leads to illness.

Desire is a "drive." So is instinct. However, some drives are necessary; instinct is, as instinct keeps our bodies healthy. Instinct portrays only what we need. Desire portrays what we WANT, and to want anything is to separate Oneself from all else, as you are hording something you do not need for only yourself.

And yet, this entire paragraph (as with all of your paragraphs) have only stated (1) that Hikaru's ideas are false and misleading (repeatedly), (2) your ideas, (3) that your ideas are correct, and (4) presupposed support for your ideas.

NONE of your ideas have presented a valid argument! Reread your entire paragraph, you only state that someone with wisdom can see it, that I care about being correct, and that my drive to be correct leads to wisdom. NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with my statements being false and misleading!

You are simply throwing random sentences that sound good into your paragraphs, but your arguments themselves have no substance. Please, stay on topic and stop repeating yourself.

By definition (as I proved above), reality DOES NOT PLACE. It does not act, and it cannot place. Your imagination exists as part of your ego. Your imagination is what YOU want it to be.

And your statement is COMPLETELY absurd! You said there is no separation between imagination and reality, and then you tell me not to confuse the two when you have just stated that they are one!

Your posts are paradoxical! They are nonsensical!

Are you simply being paradoxical and contradictory for the fun of it?

Complimentary pairs have nothing to do with this. Evil and Good are complimentary pairs, yet you cannot be good and evil at the same time, it is logically impossible. True and false are complimentary pairs, yet you cannot be true and false at the same time.

Likewise, Hikaru and Hikky Z are, in fact, just as diametrically opposed (as Oneness and singularity -- that is, "you" of the ego -- are complimentary pairs), but it is still impossible to be both at the same time.

Hikaru cannot be Hikaru and Hikky Z at the same time. He may change between the two (speaking as Hikaru at some times, and speaking as Hikky Z -- using "I" and "we," and being egotistical -- at other times), but he cannot be BOTH at the same time.

Listen. If Hikaru stares at the mirror on the wall, he is staring at the mirror on the wall. He is NOT staring at the room that the mirror exists in. His focus is directed ONLY at the mirror.

When he unfocuses his eyes and stares at the room (as a whole), his attention is directed towards the totality of the room, NOT specifically at the mirror.

It is impossible to stare at BOTH at the same time.
Likewise, it is impossible to acknowledge a part and a whole at the exact same time.

Hikaru is doing this all throughout this post (ironically enough).

By definition, a VALID argument is an argument that ALWAYS has a true conclusion if the arguments premises are true.

Here is a valid argument:

If Jack is hungry, Jack will eat.
Jack is hungry,
Therefore, Jack will eat.

As long as the first two statements are true, the conclusion (third statement) is always true, NO MATTER WHAT. However, an INVALID argument can have a false conclusion even if its premises are true:

All cats are mammals,
Bob is gray,
Therefore, Bob is a mammal.

This argument, even though its premises MAY be true (that all cats are mammals, and that Bob is gray), is INVALID because Bob could be a gray bird, and birds are not mammals. Bob may very well be a gray cat, and this argument could be TRUE, but the fact that there is a possibility for the argument to be false makes the argument invalid and worthless as an argument.

There are further things that could be discussed, such as strength, soundness, cogency, etc. on arguments. However, if you wish to know them, look them up yourself.

 

No, Hikaru does not claim that you have made an inductive argument (aka cogent). Hikaru claims that you have not made any kind of an argument whatsoever.

All of your "arguments" are ill-formed.

Valid arugments have two parts: One or more premises (virtually ALWAYS at least two premises), and one conclusion.

None of your conclusions have any premises associated with them, they are merely statements with no evidential or logical backup.

For example,

"Your statement is wrong, there is a time when they are meant to be desired."

This argument is ONLY that. There are no premises whatsoever, only a conclusion. This means your "argument," if you may call it that, is ill-formed and completely worthless.

"Your message was foul and wrong, thats why I said it."

Again, no evidence or premises.

"About whether you know what you are talking about- you could be deliberately lying about things and actually know whats going on."

Merely stating an observation here, no premises, only the conclusion that I could be lying.

"These are not insults, they are corrections. Many of your statements are false or misleading."

Again, two more "arguments" that have no premises whatsoever. Only conclusions that have no premises, such as "they are corrections" without a proven premise that my statements are false, and then immediately afterward, "many of your statements are false or misleading," that you have also not proven with any kind of premises or valid arguments.

"I am one with everything."

Here's a big one, one that has, though it's been repeated time and time again, has ABSOLUTELY NO evidence OR premises to support it in ANY way, shape, or form!

These arguments were all taken from your posts in rapid succession. No material that you said in between these sentences was omitted. Your arguments, as you can plainly see, just have no premises, and are only conclusions that you have come to without stating any evidence or logical thought process that shows how you arrived at that conclusion.

Hikaru could go on for the rest of your post, but instead he offers you this challenge:

YOU find a part of your own posts that is a valid argument. Hikaru challenges you to find five VALID arguments in ANY of your posts on this thread, just as he has found (minimally) five INVALID arguments.

Granted. But this was not your original statement. Your original statement was "When you look at a tree and see leaves, are you not still looking at a tree?" See, you are not still LOOKING at a tree, but you are still PERCEIVING a tree. The perception is actual, but the tree and your sight of it are not.

It is humanly impossible to see two things or concepts at one time. It is impossible to see a runner to your left and a biker to your right at the same time, unless your vision is unfocused and you are looking at EVERYTHING at the same time, in which case, you are NOT looking at EITHER the biker OR the runner, you are looking at EVERYTHING, but not JUST the biker AND the runner at the same time.

Likewise, it is impossible to focus on one object AND everything at the same time.

You can focus on EVERYTHING at one time, but that means that equal attention is given to every individual piece of that everything. By saying that it is possible to focus on a part AND a whole at the same time means that you are saying that you are giving equal attention to "everything" and to the "object," and since "everything" encompasses this object, even MORE attention is given to that object.

i.e.

50% attention to object,
50% attention to everything.

Object is, say, 10% of your view.

Therefore, 10% of the 50% allocated to everything is AGAIN allocated to the object.

Thus,

55% attention to object,
45% attention to everything.

But, by these same standards, 10% of that 45% of that attention to everything is AGAIN allocated to the object.

This instantaneous and repetitive transfer occurs until only that object has any attention. Thus, it is impossible to focus on two things at once in this sense.

Aye, yet whether or not Hikaru's statements are based on incorrect assumptions, you have yet to PROVE that they are based on any kind of presuppositions.

Hikaru never said that it was impossible to learn something from an experience; it is quite likely that someone will learn at least SOMETHING (whether or not it is incorrect) from most experiences. However, the chance of learning something that is 100% true is slim for almost all experiences. For example, Hikaru just hit the 'e' button on the keyboard. There is nothing for him to learn from this experience about truth, or Oneness, or reality (save the fact that the 'e' button prints the 'e' character on the screen; and yet, as any computer programmer ought to know, this may NOT always happen).

It is said by many philosophers that the environment has a fairly large affect on one throughout the stages of growth. However, it cannot be proven whether or not the environment has a COMPLETE effect over one's development; it can be theorized that it does not (based on certain observations), but it is likely that humans cannot know what any other factors may be, based on our current knowledge level on this subject.

Hikaru personally believes that, though the environment has a large effect, every human has a latent personality from the time they are conceived until they die, and that this personality is less likely to change. Hikaru believes that desire stems from the environmental learning process, but because the environment does not control ALL of a person's personality, the environmental learning can, with time and effort, be diminished completely, along with desire, leaving one with their true, uncorrupted selves.

 

I never knew this. I have learned something about reality today: that most people use the word desire to indicate strong want. This actually brings new light on an ongoing argument I have with a good friend about desire. He was using the word "correctly" (we both agree that argumentum ad populum is not fallacious for word use) and I was not. Thank you.

Ok. I understand this now and agree that these words are correct in their use (we can add a lower lever: no interest, in either way).

I argue that everything is a product or part of the actual. How can something not be part of the actual and exist?

Like when I thought desire meant any level of want or interest.

If maybe A then definitely B is not a logical construct.

As I have said as well. Actuality continually adds to itself (history).

I used the word poetically (metaphorically) as well.

I call roadkill foul, and few other people would disagree with this.

The statement : I accept I will never get (a) = I am close to getting (a) does not make sense. Accept fact you will never get these= you are closer to getting these.

You can loose the desire for something when you realize it is detrimental to you. You are never to far gone to save as long as you exist.

Argumentum ad populum does not apply to concepts. I will accept it for definitions of words (to an extent) but not for concepts.

Strong desire for enlightenment can lead someone to ask someone about these things, in which case the teacher can introduce the concepts you are talking about.

Calling a glass half empty instead of half full is labeled as pessimistic (even if both statements are true). Your statement was pessimistic and ambiguous enough that nothing can be proven one way or another about it besides the fact that it is pessimistic and ambiguous.

Simply your misperception. Everything is one being of which we are parts. I cannot prove this through argument, however you can learn this through experience.

Assume you are correct-
Then you invalidate all of your arguments. Everything you state comes from your personal experience (of other peoples experiences as well- your experience of buddhas experience) therefore everything you state and say teaches nothing about reality and is therefore incorrect (because it does not teach reality). This means that you should not argue your viewpoint (which is obviously incorrect according to your own logic) to be correct. Note I do not argue the above statements to be true, I just pointed out the lack of understanding in them.

To sum up your beliefs: you cannot learn about reality from experience. Yet you attempt to state this to be reality. Do you not realize the foolishness in your argument? I have argued your side before (a long time ago) when I believed as (it appears) you do. I have learned much since then. (I actually used the matrix argument to defend these ideas at a later point as well... hahaha, this brings back memories)

You are right about this.

 

Wrong definition. We are talking about the totality. The totality is sentient, therefore it can express itself.

Wrong definition. As cells have individual purpose, so does Hikaru, and Hikaru might not sense the purpose of the whole entity as of yet. However, when you look at any part of reality, you are still looking at reality, which is what I am trying to convey with my statements.

Reality is everything. The concepts "spirituality, consciousness, driving forces, etc." exist within the group everything that exists, even if they exist only as concepts. In addition, these concepts influence the world around us, so how can you claim they cannot be proven to exist and talk about them (the debate about these concepts has influenced you into arguing against the existence of these concepts- silly isn't it?).

Would you accept the argument that the wealthy have a greater desire for the good life and therefore work harder to achieve it? You even state that desire does not harm the wealthy. Interesting, is it not? Your argument could indicate that desire is a good thing to have, and not enough desire can lead to poverty, etc.

Sorry... You can get free salvia extract from this one place online (give you the email address in private mail if you want, or maybe post it in psychedelics). They send you extract. The shit bugs me though- I smoked it and start thinking about politics... in a really wierd way.

lol

Actually I have presented many valid arguments but have tired of rewording them.

Don't mistake a small part of the whole for the whole. However, do not look at a part as separate from the whole either. The imagination is constantly influenced by and influencing reality.

I am not trying to be paradoxical, my statements appear that way to you because you do not understand what I am saying.

Yes you can: This statement is false. (or) I am telling a lie.

Ok. Now focus upon the fact that everything is part of reality. You are now looking at words that exist in reality as a whole. You are looking at reality. Come on, do you not see that you are constantly observing reality, even if it is just part of it? I do not argue that you are looking at the whole, I just argue that you experience reality (the specific part you experience). Just trying to tell you that everything is reality (reality is the set of everything) so you are always experiencing reality. You think about a fly- your thought is a part of reality. You look at a fly- your experience of the fly is a part of reality. I think about you thinking about a fly (even if you aren't thinking about a fly- my thought is part of reality).

It is impossible for you to know beyond all doubt that these things are not possible. If we are one, and one part focuses upon a part, and one part upon the whole, does the whole not focus upon both?

 

Show that all of my arguments are ill formed. Surely you know of the concept called "burden of proof".

Sometimes arguments contain premises that are assumed to be known. You are not going to teach me that much about logical argument, been there, done that.

Sorry, assumed you would look deep enough and see the obvious premises of this conclusion. I do believe that I stated them l8r on: that such a desire can lead to wisdom, so causing such a desire would be a good thing (in my opinion). I gotta go, l8 picking up gfriend...

Finish l8r..

 

Hikaru must explain. This is based on the presupposition (as bad as those are) that imagination is spiritually-based, rather than physically based. Thus, one could retain their imaginative ability within their consciousness. So, Hikaru supposes that it could be validly seen that imagination IS part of the actual, though he suggests that it is not, based on a presupposition.

It may very well be possible to add even lower levers (disinterest, etc.), but those could even be considered desires to stay away from things, and ... perhaps that type of discussion is suited to a separate argument.

Quite. =)

Hikaru disagrees about actuality adding to itself, but does agree that the information gathered from the senses is almost always incomplete, due to miscalibration or lack of sense to detect everything about actuality, or even perhaps something else.

Understandable. Though Hikaru does not see how the word bloated was appropriate, he understands that some people may detest reading statements such as that, due to the shift in language. Though, virtually all people who browse these forums ought to be able to.

Aye, roadkill may be considered foul by many, but, say, a statement that they do not like might not be considered foul. Just as Hikaru does not consider your statements to be foul (illogical perhaps, at points), though he does consider roadkill to be foul.

Perhaps this statement is malformed.

The proposition that should have been conveyed is evident in this statement:

"I accept that I *may* never get x = I am closer to getting x."

By accepting the fact that you might not achieve Oneness, you are diminishing your desire to become One (and reducing that to an interest), and by diminishing your ego, you are, in fact, becoming closer to achieving Oneness, even if you do not understand how you are getting closer. Desire is kept aflame by denial; by denying the fact that you may not achieve Oneness, you are growing further away, by rekindling your desire.

You missed the point. Yes, your statement here is a very good point, that so long as you exist, you can be changed so that you may be saved.

However, IF you have desire, you ARE too far gone to save. This makes no assumptions about the future, as it is in present tense. In the future, you MAY have no desire, and you MAY be able to be saved, but this is irrellevant for this particular statement.

Hikaru agrees though, you can be saved if you can change, and EVERYTHING in this universe changes with time. Sometimes, however, this change just isn't in the right direction, which is why some things don't change to a particular state, though they do actually change.

So be it. In this case, Hikaru argues:

This statement IS true, by definition of Oneness. Oneness implies the lack of an ego, or at least the lack of a PERSONAL ego (one that applies only to your existance and not to anyone else's). To desire is a product of the ego. So long as a person has an ego, they simply cannot be One with anything. Thus, so long as a person has desire, they are not One. The more desire they have, the further from Oneness they are.

True. However, simple interest (without desire) can ALSO lead someone to ask about these things; desire is not a prerequisite.

Hikaru called no glass half empty or half full.

Hikaru's statement, "you may already be too far gone to save," could also be said as "you may not already be too far gone to save," and the word "may" would have the same weight and same probability. "May" (and its grammatically incorrect but often used counterpart, "might") implies an approximate 50% probability, just as "some" implies an approximate 25%+, and "most" implies an approximate 75%+. Many words, including "few," "all," "none," etc. express a certain quantity or probability. "May" is no exception.

Because that same probability could be rewritten two ways does not change its tense. Perhaps, to demonstrate, Hikaru should try rewriting his words?

If thou desirest not truth,
If thou desirest not Oneness,
And if thou desirest not impartiality,
Thou may not already be too far gone to save.

These words are equally true, but they do not precisely convey the point.

THESE words are bloated, as every statement above has been negatived.

It is equivalent to writing "-0" as an answer to a math problem. Negative zero is the same value as positive zero, but does that make everyone who writes "0" on their paper optimistic? No. Instead, the use of "-0" is simply a more roundabout way of saying "0." Thus, to avoid confusion, it is simplified.

The concept of Ockham's Razor (thanks to Razorofoccam for the inspiration to identify this concept) states "do not multiply entities unnecessarily." Why throw in a negative and confuse people when it is not necessary?

Likewise, why word the poem the opposite way? It makes the poem more confusing.

Good argument. Perhaps this should be reworded. Hikaru BELIEVES that you and he are not One. This may not be true, as you have pointed out; this belief could be mispercieved.

However, philosophically, to "believe something," requires that a person must be justified in their beliefs. Justification comes from the amount of evidence FOR the belief being greater than the amount of evidence AGAINST the belief. Hikaru's evidence is separate from yours, which is why he can believe differently than you.

And because Hikaru's evidence is separate from yours, Hikaru's evidence is SEPARATE. Separation requires an ego. Therefore, you and he are NOT One, as Hikaru has an ego (which he is in the process of diminishing).

Hikaru did not invalidate his arguments.

You claim that Hikaru should not argue his viewpoint to be correct.
He is not arguing that his viewpoint is correct.
He is arguing that YOUR viewpoint is INcorrect.
So that you cease to argue with him,
As Hikaru KNOWS that he cannot PROVE that his viewpoints are correct,
But he CAN prove that YOURS are incorrect,
Thus, he does so.

"Hikaru is not arguing the fact that the experience is real, he is arguing the fact that the experience does not teach reality."

In this statement, Hikaru refutes your argument that experience always teaches reality, arriving at the conclusion that experience does not always teach reality. Despite the fact that Hikaru believes this, he is NOT PROVING that experience doesn't always teach reality, he is merely disproving that experience always teaches reality.

It could come to pass that experience NEVER teaches reality. It is impossible to prove this, as this can always be disproven.

Thus, Hikaru "proving" his arguments is not so much a "proof" of his arguments as it is a disproof of yours. If the disproof of yours serves to prove his, then so be it, but the disproof of yours may very well not prove his. In this case, they just so happen to prove his.

Were these Hikaru's beliefs, Hikaru would realize the foolishness of his arguments. But, they are not. Hikaru believes that it is possible to learn about reality from experience, but that experience doesn't ALWAYS teach reality, which is what YOU've been arguing.

Again, as Hikaru said, he is not proving his beliefs, he is simply disproving yours. It could very well be that experience NEVER proves reality, but Hikaru does not believe this to be true, as you claim he does.

 

To make an ambiguous pessimistic statement seems distasteful to me. You know about the fallacy of ambiguity (you may this, this might happen, etc.). The pessimistic use of the fallacy of ambiguity seems foul to me (sorry, but the statement still strikes me as pessimistic). It was necessary for you to state it that way however, because how else would we have had this conversation?

I wholeheartedly agree.

When you state that you have proven my viewpoint to be incorrect, you are arguing from experience, implying (through assuming the premise) that your viewpoint (that my viewpoint is incorrect) is correct.

Back today at 4:20 pm 9/24/04...
Just to add the note (if you did not realize upon reading the above), that to prove my 'viewpoint' is incorrect you need to prove that your 'viewpoint' (that my 'viewpoint' is incorrect) is correct. You have stated that you KNOW that you cannot PROVE that your viewpoints are correct. If this is true, you cannot prove that my viewpoint is incorrect.

Notice I have not ceased arguing with you because you are still wrong about some things, however I did acknowledge that desire implies a strong feeling of want when you pointed it out, and did not argue against this.

 

'You are too far gone to save' implies a permanent inability to be saved, which addresses the future as well as the present.

They can. If a person looks at the interplay between individuality and the whole, they can better understand how they are part of the whole. Do you think buddha or christ would look at you and feel oneness or would they believe that you are not part of the whole? They experience individuality (that they are different then others) otherwise they would not attempt to teach others. In addition they see that they are part of one being.

To disprove something is to prove something to be false. So if you have not proven your arguments you cannot have disproven mine.

Yet you have made the statement:

You have made other similar statements as well.

premise 1: all we know of reality is summed up in our experiences (this is obvious)
premise 2: all of our experiences are part of reality (the sum of all that is)

Do you need another premise to draw the obvious conclusion? What experience is not part of reality? Possibly one of the experiences you have had is that you have drawn the wrong conclusion about an experience due to lack of experience. This does not mean that these experiences were not influential or that you did not learn from them (even if you did not correctly understand the experience at the time). Maybe you do not (yet) have enough experience to accurately judge the experiences you have had. All you get is experience, and you do learn from it all, whether or not you acknowledge or realize what you are learning from it. You might not realize how much a big mac teaches you.

You meant teaches reality, correct (thats what you always said before)? Ok, before you stated that "experience does not teach reality". 'Does not' means the same thing as 'never does', and does_not_never_does_not_always_mean_always_does_not, does it not?
Perhaps I only said you believed this to be true because you said it, and I forgot you were being false and misleading.

 

You needn't be sorry if Hikaru's statement strikes you as pessimistic. It is not required. But rest assured, it is not so.

Were it pessimistic, the statement would have been "you are probably already too far gone to save." Were it optimistic, the statement would have been "you probably aren't already too far gone to save." It is neither; it is actually directly in-between. You may claim that it is pessimistic all you want, but that would make you a dogmatist, and dogmatism is only a tool that the ignorant use to win an argument.

and

Since when must Hikaru's viewpoint be correct in order for yours to be incorrect? Yours must be incorrect for Hikaru's to be correct, yes, but that does not mean that Hikaru's is automatically correct whenever yours is not.

Hikaru means no offense, but this is one of the most utterly ignorant suggestions he has ever heard.

Hikaru will now, for your amusement, prove that he can prove a viewpoint incorrect without arguing that his viewpoint is correct.

You say the sky is red.
Hikaru says the sky is green.

Hikaru proves that the sky is not red by examining the waves that the light from the sky gives off.

He makes a comparison with waves of red light, and the waves are slightly longer, insisting that the sky is not red.

Therefore, the sky is not red.
But Hikaru has not proven that it is green while he HAS proven that it is not red.

The sky is actually blue, but that does not change the fact that your ideas have been proven wrong, even though Hikaru believes it to be green.

This is an extremely simple concept to grasp, Hikaru is suprised that you have not even been introduced to this topic yet.

Most of the ideas you have introduced in this argument can be easily disproven by simple definitions or associations. But those definitions might not serve to prove any other specific viewpoint.

What is Hikaru still wrong about? He has disproven everything you've said up until this point, as you offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your ideas.

Incorrect. The statement "You are and always will be too far gone to save" implies a permanent inability to be saved, which addresses the future as well as the present.

Similarly, the statement "You are and have always been too far gone to save" implies an inability to be saved that has always existed, up until this point, addressing the present as well as the past.

But do not mix up tense in a statement.

"He is hungry." This does not mean he will be hungry forever.
"She is tired." This does not mean she will be tired forever.

"John is dead." John may very well be dead forever, but this statement does not imply death in the future. It only implies death that is now, that is current.

Similarly, "Jack is unsaveable." This means Jack is unsaveable now. But Jack may very well be saveable at a later date.

From a Christian standpoint, one may say "Jack is unsaveable," because Jack denies Christianity. But this does NOT mean that Jack could never be saved.

So please do not confuse present and future tense, even though it may be a common grammatical mistake.

This notion is foolish. With an ego, you can understand how you are PART of the whole, but you cannot understand how you are the COMPLETE whole, which would be Oneness.

Hikaru can understand how he is PART of the human race. But Hikaru could not now realize that he is the ENTIRE human race; this is illogical.

Buddha, Christ, Haile Sellasie, or whomever you worship, were likely One.

Because of such, they did not do their own bidding, only the bidding of whatever they were One with, as their egos diminished.

Christ did the bidding of his God. He never indulged in a personal satisfaction; every action he took was for his God.

Buddha, as another example, found himself to be One with the forces of nature (or is Hikaru mistaken on that?) Thus, his actions helped to rebalance nature. The best way he could rebalance nature is by spreading the enlightenment idea of rebalancing nature to many people, so that he could stop the unbalancing of nature.

And yet, these people weren't even necessarily One with anything at all, they could merely have believed themselves to be so.

Individuality (or, as you define it, difference from others) is on the same heirarchial level. You are misstating the usage of individuality.

A Mazda automobile is individual from a Jetta.

Yet, you are attempting to claim that Buddha and Christ and others are individual from other people (and from eachother), when spiritually, they are not.

Physically, they may be, but we already got past this in past argument; that we are not speaking of the physical, only of the spiritual.

In essence, you are attempting to say that automobiles are individual from Toyotas.

Grammatically, this could make sense, but the definition you are attempting to conjugate to it is not what you and Hikaru have been talking about. You fail to understand that Toyotas are not "individual" from cars, in that all Toyotas ARE cars; simply not the other way around.

Likewise, Buddha and Christ were not "individual" from other human beings, rather, they were One with what they believed to be the spiritual source of all existance. This "source," was linked spiritually with all other human beings, as the two of them claimed.

Thus, all humans were essentially this source, at least on some small level. Therefore, humans are not "individual" from this source, as the two cannot be compared; they are on two separate heirarchial levels.

If Buddha and Christ were really One with this source, then they were not individual from this source by any means; they were One with this source, and they were NOT individual from other human beings, because they were on such a high plateau that they could not be compared with those other human beings (spiritually, at least).

Hikaru easily disproved the argument that the sky is not red without proving that the sky is green, or any other colour for that matter. Look above.

Learn this concept well, it will greatly assist you in life.

And here is the difference you failed to note:

In the first statement, Hikaru argues that experience doesn't ALWAYS teach reality.

In the second statement, Hikaru argues that THE (as in, THIS PARTICULAR) experience doesn't teach reality.

That experience in particular doesn't teach reality, but experiences in general CAN or CANNOT teach reality.

Please note the plurality of Hikaru's statements thusforward.

... Our interpretations of reality are based on our experiences. Our experiences are real. Yes, Hikaru agrees.

HOWEVER ... Our experiences may be real. WHAT we experience may NOT be real. You failed to mention this aspect. The experience itself is real, and our interpretations are also real, but this does not mean that they are actual.

You are confusing "existance" with "actuality." Merely because an experience exists does not mean that what was experienced was actual.

More precisely,

Hikaru did not think it was possible for you to contradict yourself in a single sentence.

How can Hikaru have a lack of experience, if he has had an experience? This notion is simply flawed.

Here, you speak truth. However, you are using the same word for two different concepts. Here, reread your statement with Hikaru's adjustments:

This does not mean that these interpretations of reality were not influential or that you did not learn from them (even if you did not correctly understand the experience at the time). Maybe you do not (yet) know enough about reality to accurately judge the interpretations of reality you have had. All you get are interpretations of reality, and you do learn from it all, whether or nto you acknowledge or realize what you are learning from it. You might not realize how much a big mac teaches you.

And this statement, as you meant, is quite true, and does not conflict with anything Hikaru has said until this point.

Many people change what they believe because they rejudge an experience that they have had. Because of this new judging, the evidence they have about an issue sways a different way.

Bush might say "I will always help you." I may think that Bush is great and Kerry is not because of this.

Kerry might say "Bush will always help you, but only with the things that don't need help." Because I now re-evaluate what Bush originally said, I judge what he said to be much more worthless than I originally thought. Therefore, I would change my thinkings about Bush.

Similarly, changing one's beliefs due to hindsight about past experiences is quite common. And you suggest that we do not know enough about reality (yet) to accurately judge our experiences, even through hindsight.

This is because our experiences, which have been interpretations of reality, were incomplete, and lacking of certain information that would be critical to our accurate judging of them.

Aye, correct. I meant "teaches reality," though "proves reality" also works.

Perhaps if you stopped quadruple-negativing yourself, Hikaru could understand this statement.

This statement is exactly why Hikaru did not rewrite his poem to have what you consider to be a "positive" light. Hikaru did not wish to unnecessarily multiply the negative entity, which you have done here, to the point that the statement is incoherent.

You also forgot to prove that Hikaru was being false and misleading; don't forget that. (pun fully intended)

 

Is the mind unique individualy or is it the same as all others. It is the same for all, all are stuck inside their own sense of becoming and being. All are stuck in psychological time. This time implies is and was and will be. This time is illusory, you never changed, you never will change. Stop the clock, the time is now. Theres no reason to cross a river to get to the other side if the other side is inevitable, immovable, unchangeable. There is no river, I am already there, there is no going back because there is no going forward. Is this clear? Does this make any rational sense?

 

I am not one with anything, am I one with everything. These are thoughts based on theory that are not truth. I am truth. Truth is unchangeable, without time. It is. Do you know more? Prove it. I do not see truth in these statements. They may be discussed however. They may be put into rational terms. They may be true, false, whatever they may be, they are. There is no changing it. The pool of knowledge is best not restricted by the walls it itself creates. It is vast, however with restrictions put on it, it cannot flow so easily. Walls are used to communicate the clinging to our experiences that are created through theoretical, irrational thinking based on an idea that is not factual. The truth in all words is only in the mind of the communicator. If the mind communicates pure rational truth then no words are false. All words may be discussed, however true or false they are, they can be put in their own perspective. In the end, the truth of it never changes, only the perception. Unchanging true perception is free of all desire, free of its own time.

 

It has a pessimistic tone. 'To far gone to save' is a pessimistic statement. The fact that your statement was ambiguous does not make it have a less pessimistic tone.

Every time your viewpoint is that my viewpoint is incorrect. (Which happens to be what I showed you with my statement)

The above statement is a self referential and ignorant statement.

You must prove that your viewpoint (that my viewpoint is incorrect) is correct to prove my viewpoint is incorrect.

Exactly. Stay on topic, do not offer me a strawman. I understand the argument about the color of the sky, and it does not apply to my argument. Your viewpoint is that my viewpoint is incorrect and you have already stated that you cannot prove your viewpoint, so the conclusion is that you cannot prove that my viewpoint is incorrect.

'You are to far gone to save' implies permanence. To far gone to save means :unsaveable, not being able to be saved, etc.

Means "Jack cannot be saved". If you cannot save something, it means you can never save it.

Truly, you do not understand oneness. If you read (or reread) the teachings of buddha, christ, krishnamurti, and St. John of the Cross, you can hopefully grasp the concept. You also need to learn more about logic, so that you can eliminate the many inconsistencies in your thought. Possibly start with the thought that there is only one being and understand that this being cares for you as part of it.

This is what you actually said : "You do not learn about reality because of your experiences." This is what I was arguing against.

Our experiences are real. They exist. What they are may not coincide with objective reality, however we can learn about objective reality by accumulating and analyzing our experiences.

'You lack experience' means you do not have much experience. Experience means (in this case) accumulated experiences.

Actually the way I stated it is correct. You must read it that way to understand the statement. Your reworded statement does not mean the same thing as the original statement.

They reevaluate prior experiences based upon new experiences.

With enough experience, you will be able to accurately judge both current and past experiences.

Exactly.

It's a joke, although if you look at it hard enough (logical exercize) you can tell me what it means (although it can have more than one meaning, depending on punctuation where the _ are).

I'll address this in another message.
I recall a time when you were informative as well (the definition of desire).

 

False and misleading statements from hikaru (these statements include unsubstantiated claims you have made):


1) "How can you comprehend AND teach these things, when you clearly have not experienced them."
This is an unsubstantiated claim on your part to know my personal experiences.

2) "But you are not REALITY, as you do not encompass any more than yourself." *misleading
I never claimed encompass all of reality. I said "I am reality" which is a true statement because it is self referential to reality, of which I am a part.
This (specific #2) argument went on to long.

3) "You cannot teach reality, truth, or Oneness, Because you are none of these things." *misleading (mainly) and false
This does not mean one cannot teach these things. A teacher teaches math, but a teacher is not math.

4) "Hikaru is willing to learn. But you are not."
Unsubstantiated false claim (I learned that desire implies a strong want as opposed to any want)

5) "If thou desirest truth,
If thou desirest Oneness,
And if thou desirest impartiality,
Thou might already be too far gone to save."

This statement includes the falacy of ambiguity and the pessimistic statement "too far gone to save"

As statements (such as 'too far gone to save') usage is determined by common usage, stop arguing that "too far gone to save" means anything besides the common usage. 'Too far gone' means that something has passed the point of no return. You say something is too far gone to save when the situation for that something is hopeless, which is obviously a pessimistic outlook.

Look at # 9

6)"And just for good measure, Hikaru argues that if you actually were reality, you have just said here that reality can decieve. Therefore, you, by being reality (not that you actually are), are deceptive and false by your own nature." *misleading and invalid logic
Reality can decieve
does not mean
Reality is deceptive and false
I have given the example: when you lack experience you can misinterpret an experience as something other than it is, which is an example of reality decieving one who lacks experience.

7)"History teachers DO know history, therefore, they have nothing further to learn about what they teach.

You claim to be a teacher of reality. In order to be a teacher of reality, you must know reality. Therefore, you must have nothing further to learn ABOUT reality. Therefore, you are unwilling to learn because you have nothing left to learn about this topic." *false and illogical

History constantly grows (time marches on, etc.), so history teachers have an infinite amount to learn about what they teach. Able to teach subject does not = knows every single thing about subject... In addition your statement nothing left to learn= unwilling to learn makes no logical sense as well

8)"Once again, Hikaru has proven the contradiction that you have said."
False. Your claim about proof was based upon the false illogical statement above. Your claims of proof lack credibility since they are not backed with proof.

9) "Hikaru argues that these people may already be considered dead, as they will NOT change, NO MATTER WHAT.

These people who will not change ARE already too far gone to "save;" they are figuratively dead. They CANNOT be enlightened."
And then later on:"However, IF you have desire, you ARE too far gone to save. This makes no assumptions about the future, as it is in present tense. In the future, you MAY have no desire, and you MAY be able to be saved, but this is irrellevant for this particular statement."

Here, you contradicted your earlier statement, and claimed that it meant something entirely different. I already addressed this issue in #5, and have further comments about it if you need to see the rest of the false and misleading stuff you said about this subject (claiming that the condition'too far gone to save' can change in the future) lol

10)"All experience is part of AN INTERPRETATION of reality."
Misleading because, although this statement is true, I was stating that all experience is part of reality (which you later agree to be true).

11)"All of your "arguments" are ill-formed.
Valid arugments have two parts: One or more premises (virtually ALWAYS at least two premises), and one conclusion.
None of your conclusions have any premises associated with them, they are merely statements with no evidential or logical backup."
False and misleading. There are such things as assumed premises. I thought I could point out the obvious flaws in your statements and you would immediately see the flaws. I have learned otherwise, and will try to spell things out for you, as I assumed you understood many things that (in retrospect) you obviously did not.


Sorry I only got to a small portion of your false and misleading statements. I am sure you can make more by tomorrow. L8r,library is closing, gotta go.

 

Stop and ask yourself if all you know is all that is important. All you know is no more important than all you don't know. You know only what you perceive in outer experience and inner experience, which is no different outer experience. This means you know what you think, and you know what you see. You don't need to know your thoughts, for your thoughts are only distortions of your outer experience. Your thoughts bring in time. Time is your thoughts. Time is illusory and will always lead to a sense of being and becoming. Insight is beyond thought, however it can be communicated through thought. There is no way to think yourself into pure insight. Once all ideas are realized to be irrational, the mind can gain rationality and insight, which can then work through thought. Its not your mind that has evolved for millenia, it is the mind of all.