|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 23:03:39 GMT -5
Do you see Rupa as causing himself to reply? No, I liked his response because he didn't get caught by the words. The point I was trying to make is that the ability to not-do is as volitional as the ability to do, so if one does nothing in response to the belief that he has no volition, he doesn't really understand what it means to have no volition.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 2, 2014 6:45:45 GMT -5
No, I liked his response because he didn't get caught by the words. The point I was trying to make is that the ability to not-do is as volitional as the ability to do, so if one does nothing in response to the belief that he has no volition, he doesn't really understand what it means to have no volition. I understood and agree, but whether someone ascribes to the non-volitional thingy seems relatively unimportant to me. Rupa seemed to be responding more from his gut than his intellect, and as an old Zen guy, that struck me as positive. We call that "having a strong center," so even if you're wrong, you're 150% wrong. It's like those childhood playground conversations: Child 1: Why did you do that? Child 2: Just because. Child 1: Because why? Child 2: Just because.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 7:15:16 GMT -5
I've been trying to wrap my head around some of Metzinger's ideas about this. His point, AIUI, is that basically what consciousness is, is virtual reality. Mind is the VR landscape, everything in it. The experience of this VR is consciousness. This VR is created to help navigate and survive in the world, which is fundamentally just energy waves. So 'the brain' is just energy waves too like this keyboard. They are represented in the VR as distinct objects which helps with surviving, etc. The big controversial point (not a big deal here) is that ego is also unreal, just another thingy created in VR to help with different things, but it's not really there, not even as energy waves. It's one neuroscience/philosophy of mind theory. But I've probably butchered it. I'm not sure why that's a controversial point. Ego is just an idea. Also, I'd say 'energy waves' are part of the virtual reality. We don't need them to explain the VR. Right, how could you really know what's happening out there anyhoo? All's you got to go in is this here VR.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2014 9:55:10 GMT -5
I'm not sure why that's a controversial point. Ego is just an idea. Also, I'd say 'energy waves' are part of the virtual reality. We don't need them to explain the VR. Right, how could you really know what's happening out there anyhoo? All's you got to go in is this here VR. And how could you even know there's an 'out there'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 9:56:49 GMT -5
Right, how could you really know what's happening out there anyhoo? All's you got to go in is this here VR. And how could you even know there's an 'out there'? Right, "out there" would just be conjecture within the VR.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 2, 2014 12:57:25 GMT -5
Right, how could you really know what's happening out there anyhoo? All's you got to go in is this here VR. And how could you even know there's an 'out there'? chegg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 13:07:41 GMT -5
FWIW, awareness as a pointer caught my attention during hyperminding away the old models a few times in the form of stopping the show, and the conceptual structure of mind/consciousness as movement seemed useful for informing mind. I don't have a problem with either awareness or consciousness as a pointer, but I have a new problem with the idea of empty awareness perpetually present and consciousness coming and going in that awareness. It doesn't actually seem to be WIBIGO. WIBIGO is really hard to talk about. Impossible, eh? Seems like we mostly talk about WIBINGO.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2014 17:57:04 GMT -5
And how could you even know there's an 'out there'? chegg
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2014 18:00:45 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with either awareness or consciousness as a pointer, but I have a new problem with the idea of empty awareness perpetually present and consciousness coming and going in that awareness. It doesn't actually seem to be WIBIGO. WIBIGO is really hard to talk about. Impossible, eh? Seems like we mostly talk about WIBINGO. True dat, though there are also smaller contexts in which it's useful to see what's really going on, and we talk about that too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 12:09:14 GMT -5
The same way I'm getting myself to post this reply. You're not. That's what no volition (which you say you believe in) means. Yes, just because an after thought says "I'm getting myself to post this reply" doesn't mean I have volition. In other words, I am clear about the subtle distinction between there being a choosing thought but there is no chooser.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 3, 2014 17:36:49 GMT -5
You're not. That's what no volition (which you say you believe in) means. Yes, just because an after thought says "I'm getting myself to post this reply" doesn't mean I have volition. In other words, I am clear about the subtle distinction between there being a choosing thought but there is no chooser. The point is that not believing in volition doesn't result in not doing things because you weren't doing them in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 18:33:32 GMT -5
Yes, just because an after thought says "I'm getting myself to post this reply" doesn't mean I have volition. In other words, I am clear about the subtle distinction between there being a choosing thought but there is no chooser. The point is that not believing in volition doesn't result in not doing things because you weren't doing them in the first place. I really don't care about cause or no cause and affect in a post because I didn't choose it. That's what no-volition is. My focus is that there is no chooser and not about what was chosen. The 'about' what was chosen is when the problems start.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 4, 2014 11:17:48 GMT -5
The point is that not believing in volition doesn't result in not doing things because you weren't doing them in the first place. I really don't care about cause or no cause and affect in a post because I didn't choose it. That's what no-volition is. My focus is that there is no chooser and not about what was chosen. The 'about' what was chosen is when the problems start. That's what I'm talking about. This is what started our conversation: Empty: "it seems like you have a mental excuse to not do anything." Rupa: "You might be on to something. I think it has a lot to do with not believing in volition or choice." Which implies that non-volition leads to a not-doing. All I've been trying to say is that it does not. There was no chooser before or after the realization of non-volition, so nothing has fundamentally changed except perhaps what sort of doings happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 13:44:41 GMT -5
I really don't care about cause or no cause and affect in a post because I didn't choose it. That's what no-volition is. My focus is that there is no chooser and not about what was chosen. The 'about' what was chosen is when the problems start. That's what I'm talking about. This is what started our conversation: Empty: "it seems like you have a mental excuse to not do anything." Rupa: "You might be on to something. I think it has a lot to do with not believing in volition or choice." Which implies that non-volition leads to a not-doing. All I've been trying to say is that it does not. There was no chooser before or after the realization of non-volition, so nothing has fundamentally changed except perhaps what sort of doings happen. The chooser was created by a choosing 'thought'. In other words, the 'thought' itself was the chooser. So, it is accurate to say there is no chooser. We have to be careful though because just as the choosing 'thought' created a chooser. A non-choosing 'thought' creates a non-chooser.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 4, 2014 16:23:07 GMT -5
The chooser was created by a choosing 'thought'. In other words, the 'thought' itself was the chooser. So, it is accurate to say there is no chooser. We have to be careful though because just as the choosing 'thought' created a chooser. A non-choosing 'thought' creates a non-chooser. Absent the unique perspective, dependent on a unique body-mind's understanding, there is no choice made that is consistent with that particular body-mind's understandings.. that is the 'chooser' and the choice, the unique happening that results from the actions of a person's understanding of their relationship with the whole.. the 'thought' is sourced from and through the understandings of the mindscape unique to the 'thinker'/body-mind.. such is the diversity of thought, dependent on the understandings of its vehicle.. It is a common expedient of the 'no person/no volition' belief.. by describing the choices that are made as non-volitional, those choices inconsistent with the chooser's preferences or those choices that result in consequences the chooser doesn't like, those choices are deflected as 'non-volitional', beyond the experiencer's capacity to manage into a choice that has consequences favorable to to the holistic whole.. using the term 'non-volitional' allows the choice, but deflects the responsibility, similar to the 'no person', claim.. allowing for the deed, but deflecting unfavorable consequences by claiming 'no doer thereof'.. a conceptual model inconsistent with what is actually happening..
|
|