interested in taoism for most of my life. I loved Le Guin's Earthsea books and the old Kung Fu tv show as a kid. Years later, for whatever reason, I started reading the Tao Te Ching , and immediately recognized it. — Patterner

I can't doubt it has structured the Foundations of my constructions, though I have not picked up anything

Taoist for some time. You mention Lao Tze. You may be getting to this as I read on, but the Zhuangzi are (I can't think of a worthy adjective) insightful. Used to be called Chuang Tzu and I bet there are scholarly translations from that time still in use (Watson? I think).

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I gather it goes much farther than taoism does in the direction you're speaking of. But I believe both offer paths to a life that is more content and less frantic. Which probably also helps people be physically healthier. — Patterner

I have to say, in fairness to both Taoism and Buddhism I am far from an "adherent" nor "auhority". I was "challenged" in another thread(?) when I spoke freely about Jesus but outside of church orthodoxy, and you could say the same about taoism, and Buddhism for me. They are building blocks in what this locus in History is currently projecting.

The primary reason you're right that B goes farther in this (my) direction than T, is T is not a good fit with western philosophy at the level of discourse (and though my loose speech may not suggest it Kant, Hegel, Husserl, etc are also blocks; as are so many without my awareness. I believe I should read Merleau-Ponty, for instance but haven't gotten around to it. And Rorty! No doubt they have constructed my thinking.) Sorry my autobiographical points are to illustrate that I have sensed some--no doubt genius--"philosophers" like to insist upon what I see as "institutional" roots of an idea for it to deserve a hearing. I think almost the contrary. Of course we build off of all that is before us and should endeavor to know. And I admire the knowledge of those who like to root their ideas in authority. I just think "freedom" has its function. Ironic, when there is no real freedom. I know. Truth is, both expressing and following these hypotheses places you in paradox. People critique that (you are contradicting etc) and they're right. But it's because they haven't considered that being in the paradox is almost the closest you can get to an empirical observation (hence Zen Koan, but I'm so off topic).

Heck, even if it isn't truth, I see the value. (I suppose that's a matter of opinion.) — Patterner

And an aspect of these hypotheses is that truth is ultimately what is functional. By the way, accepting that Mind is Fictional (bluntly) seems scary, nihilistic, absurd. But it is very functional. I could fill up a page. But at least, remember, mind is Fictional, you are real. It's just that you're not mind. Sounds "religious" but, you're better. Though mind is neither good nor bad but self defines good and bad.

a rejection of our individuality. The universe allows for me, and for you, to exist. Why should we not embrace and explore this? — Patterner

Nice. I am not advocating for the rejection of our individuality. Cherish it. Great has come out of the constructions, love has grown far beyond its organic root. Shelters have become great art, and so too is the individual a great thing. And why should knowing you are the breath of Nature and the aware-ing of the universe make you sad about your Subject. It is a character for you to understand microscopically if you try. And I am not saying I have mastered that or even remotely approached it. But I do believe from a microscopic analysis of your character as if to master a role in a movie, you will be delighted to find that things like peace and compassion arise.

What would have been accomplished by having tried to deny the individual point of acute consciousness when it was possible?

And what would have been the point if there is not a universal consciousness, and this is it? — Patterner

No, I think you are bang on friend. There is a universal consciousness. Move mountains with our special tool, and play your role (reminding me of the Bhagavad Gita--also, turns up out of nowhere without having thought about it; and they say mind isn't autonomous--joke) but know that you are universal consciousness.

You are right. I am not a professional philosopher. I am not even studying philosophy.

Neither am I. But we are in the Philosophy forum, and can try learn to philosophise by reading books and discussing the topics.

You listed illusion as one of the possibilities for the idea of Self. I think it is somewhat meaningful concept. In my time of childhood, I had been living with the 100% of illusions on the world, life, other people and the Self.

I believed Santa Claus was real.
I believed people live forever.
I believed if people die, then they come back to life in a few days of rest, after seeing the same action movie actor being killed in a movie, then a few weeks later, he was back in another movie fighting the gangsters.
I believed that old folks are born old, young folks like me are born young, and it will be like that forever.
I believed that my parents might be God, because they could buy me nice things.
I believed that the world is the size of my town where I lived.
I believed that when I am asleep, the world disappears, and I am the centre of the universe.
... etc etc.

Those were some of my childhood illusions, which were all proven to be false, as I was growing up. I am not sure what other illusions I might still have.

I believed Santa Claus was real.
I believed people live forever.
I believed if people die, then they come back to life in a few days of rest, after seeing the same action movie actor being killed in a movie, then a few weeks later, he was back in another movie fighting the gangsters.
I believed that old folks are born old, young folks like me are born young, and it will be like that forever.
I believed that my parents might be God, because they could buy me nice things.
I believed that the world is the size of my town where I lived.
I believed that when I am asleep, the world disappears, and I am the centre of the universe.
... etc etc. — Corvus

Thank you very much for sharing your childhood illusions with us. I didn't have any of your illusions. I was kidnapped when I was four years and five months old. I have experienced all kinds of horrors that I am not going to give you the gory details of as I don't want to traumatise you.

According to Hinduism, the entire universe is an illusion. I am not convinced that Hinduism is true. I am an agnostic atheist materialist monist hard determinist.

I am not sure what other illusions I might still have. — Corvus

Might I suggest, respectfully, the illusion that you might not have any illusions?

According to Hinduism, the entire universe is an illusion — Truth Seeker

Perhaps you are correct and my read is deficient. But I think for (the) "Hinduism" (you are likely referencing), the Universe is real, but all which we conventionally experience is (clouded by) projections of that Reality and not the Reality Itself, hence the "illusion."

It's possible I have misunderstood the Hindu concept of Maya which means illusion. I am not an expert on Hinduism. I only know what I have read about it.

In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, māyā, "appearance", is "the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real".

- quoting from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

Good enough...and this is for what it is worth and in no way a "correction" but I believe I am fixating on the intricate details. That the statement, "for Hinduism the universe is an illusion" is accurate provided it is qualified that the "universe" referred to is the one (and the way in which) we "see". But that the universe is ultimately real, in the Being of Brahman...any way, your point was well taken.

Thank you.

You are welcome. It sounds traumatic especially for a young child.
I have never been kidnapped. So it is hard to imagine how it would be like to go through experience like that.

I have not read much in Religion, so the Hindu system is unfamiliar to me. Would it be similar to Buddhism? I recall some Buddhism scripture saying "Seeing colour is seeing emptiness" or something like that.

Might I suggest, respectfully, the illusion that you might not have any illusions? — ENOAH

Sure, I am not ruling out possibility of illusions in life and the world.

Hinduism is more than 5,000 years old which makes it the oldest surviving religion on Earth. It has many Gods. Hindus believe that living things have immortal souls which reincarnate according to karma. The original Buddhism is atheistic.

Under what ground and evidence Hindus believe the universe is illusion and things have immortal souls which reincarnate according to karma? Do you agree with them?

It's written in their holy book. I don't agree with them. I think all religions are fiction made up by people.

It's written in their holy book. I don't agree with them. I think all religions are fiction made up by people. — Truth Seeker

Two questions come up to mind.

1. If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction.

2. If it is a fiction, then what is a philosophical point of it?

1. If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction.

2. If it is a fiction, then what is a philosophical point of it? — Corvus

Hindus believe their holy books are true. Just as Christians, Muslims and Jews believe their holy books to be true. Only the nonbelievers disbelieve the holy books of all religions. The holy books of all religions are self-contradictory and mutually contradictory. I have studied most religions.

Isn't there a whole branch of philosophy called the Philosophy of Religion?

If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction. — Corvus

Most "Hindus" would say, [and I currently generally agree,] that vis a vis the only ultimate reality, everything projected into the world [as a representation of/by Mind] is ultimately a fiction and yet we have been deceived by it. And not just for a few millenia, but since the dawn of human history [as opposed to prehistoric human animals]

You might have fear when you assert something you don't have concrete knowledge, evidence or experience, so you don't know what you are talking about. — Corvus

Chet, if consistent, would have to be the first to admit that. Which should leave us wondering as to what purpose he thinks his taking at all serves.

Knowing the self is a curious thing.
— Fire Ologist

We only know the self inasmuch as we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea that there it is an entity with an identity. When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp.

There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, so of what possible significance could they be to our lives? Even if they were true what would that change? On what basis are they even interesting? Why should be waste any time or energy concerning ourselves with them?

When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

That is true when trying to grasp the identity of anything. Everything is moving.

So I’m not disagreeing with you, but I would not conclude from the difficulty of holding an identity fixed and unchanging that there is no self to seek to identify.

That is true when trying to grasp the identity of anything. Everything is moving.

So I’m not disagreeing with you, but I would not conclude from the difficulty of holding an identity fixed and unchanging that there is no self to seek to identify. — Fire Ologist

Right, I agree the identity of anything is as difficult to grasp as our own and I haven't suggested the self is not real either—as I said before we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea of it. That it is not determinable does not entail that it is not real, although we might say that it cannot be as fully real to us as our experience is. That said, experience itself (:wink:) is determinable only in terms of identity, and anyway what do we mean by 'real', so where does that leave us?

and I haven't suggested the self is not real either—as I said before we have a sense, and a consequent idea of it. That it is not determinable does not entail that it is not real. — Janus

My mistake. I agree with you here - my sense of what I call “self” is a sense of something that can be distinguished in experience.

…That said, experience itself (:wink:) is determinable only in terms of identity, and anyway what do we mean by 'real', so where does that leave us? — Janus

I agree here too. It is a pickle to be a real self that can’t be by itself, fixed and distinct as everything real is moving and dissolving any attempt at staying a unified identity.

We selves are living paradoxes.

And “real” - I use this to say whether when we agree, we are agreeing not just because of each other’s words, but because of the paradox itself that we both now look at and discuss.

The paradox of being a human: the self is, AND the self cannot be. Or with more texture: my sense of self is a sense of something that is already sensing and therefore, is real, AND, nothing I sense has a clear enough structure to be identifiable to be known as “real”, such as a “self”.

We only know the self inasmuch as we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea that there it is an entity with an identity. When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

a "sense" of self. What if it's stop right there? I don't like the word "illusion" but it's being used in this thread. So, if you replace "sense" with "illusion", we need not proceed to the equally illusory "idea that there is an entity with an (equally illusory) identity." There is an illusion of self.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, — Janus

Correct. Statements about entities with identities, and mine above, attempting to qualify that statement. But why stop there? With the exception of empirical science, which operates under the hypothesis that its method of testing yield truths in the phenomenal world*,

*and if empirical science or conventional activities were to claim, or if we should conclude on our own, that their processes yield ultimate truths about the real world existing independently of the world projected by mind, then 1. That is an untested hypothesis, 2. Our hypotheses even about the so called real world remains untested.

In a word, if it's anything but hypotheses we are after, in every academic discipline, art, and day to day activities, we have a problem

When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

That is true when trying to grasp the identity of anything. Everything is moving. — Fire Ologist

I agree. There is no being in Mind's projections. There is only the movements of becoming and the concomitant temporary settlements (beliefs), mechanisms creating all of our illusions.
.

That said, experience itself (:wink:) is determinable only in terms of identity, and anyway what do we mean by 'real', so where does that leave us? — Janus

I agree here too. It is a pickle to be a real self that can’t be by itself, fixed and distinct as everything real is moving and dissolving any attempt at staying a unified identity.

We selves are living paradoxes. — Fire Ologist

I agree with both of you on those points, partly to my surprise. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your views (I understand your views differ from one another on detail too). I wonder if having read my comments, you are surprised I agree with your statements?

It is a necessarily twisted topic. (Jokingly) It’s as if someone set up a firewall to prevent its penetration.

The paradox of being a human: the self is, AND the self cannot be. Or with more texture: my sense of self is a sense of something that is already sensing and therefore, is real, AND, nothing I sense has a clear enough structure to be identifiable to be known as “real”, such as a “self”. — Fire Ologist

Yes. That actually encapsulates my beliefs too.

Paradox of being human. The Fictional Mind thinks it is real, functions in knowing, but has no access to Reality. The Real Body is real aware-ing, and has no concern for knowing. The knower is ineluctably making up the knowledge. As soon as it gets close to reality, it is blocked by paradox.

The self is... the Body.
The self [which] cannot be...is the Subject, yet
Only the self which cannot be desires to be.
Because the self that is, is being, and only being.

There is only the movements of becoming and the concomitant temporary settlements (beliefs), mechanisms creating all of our illusions. — ENOAH

Distinguishing “beliefs” from the objects the beliefs are about (such as a self), and distinguishing these from “illusions” are all just illusory “distinctions” not to be “believed” and therefore you give me nothing to go on.

It is a necessarily twisted topic. — ENOAH

I think that is positive wisdom. The same things show up on threads about “truth” about “objectivity” about “self” about “reality and appearance” about “being and becoming”, because these are all twisted together. The only way to ponder about objectivity is to posit a mind or a self, but the only way to posit a self is to be able to distinguish identity at all, and the only way to talk about identity is with metaphysics about bodies, which becomes a battle between being and becoming, which leads to question language and logic, etc…

We need to settle something, but we can’t. That is our predicament.

I see enough content in all of these areas to make the struggle positive, meaning, productive of truth and wisdom.

Paradox of being human. The Fictional Mind thinks it is real, functions in knowing, but has no access to Reality. — ENOAH

It’s not a fiction. The mind is certainly real. I just don’t see why we have to deny what we throw in each other’s faces over and over again in this forum. The irony, the paradox, of philosophizing about mind as a fiction. The mind is a chameleon, a whisper of a fleeting thing, sure, but for flash instant moments, as real as anything else.

The knower is ineluctably making up the knowledge. As soon as it gets close to reality, it is blocked by paradox. — ENOAH

That is true when it comes to almost everything upon first impression, and maybe something’s forever, but now that you know exactly what you just said, now that you that, don’t you know something? Truth? The paradox IS!

The self is... the Body.
The self [which] cannot be...is the Subject, yet
Only the self which cannot be desires to be.
Because the self that is, is being, and only being. — ENOAH

The self may be a body. Maybe it is an immaterial function of the body; maybe a soul; maybe a type of body we haven’t discovered yet - but the self that says “self” to other bodies IS. Self is still something distinguishable from the liver, the lungs and other parts, if it is body at all.

But regardless of what the self is, the paradox is that it certainly exists, and certainly cannot exist. If we reduce the self to body, then we would have to reduce the body to not existing. And I’m not saying that body doesn’t exist (that has its own twists and paradoxes). But the self can’t seem to exist, yet it certainly does exist as it posits knowledge and wonders if this self knows at all.

It’s a mess, I agree. But I see no need to conclude what is illusion and what isn’t. You can’t call anything an illusion without a reality stick to measure it. That’s the self to me - the measure of reality. We have faulty measuring sticks, and the stick itself alters reality, but then, we are also aware enough about reality to see the measuring stick is faulty and interferes with the reality it pursues. No need to dispense with any part of this as mere illusion.

There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, so of what possible significance could they be to our lives? Even if they were true what would that change? On what basis are they even interesting? Why should we waste any time or energy concerning ourselves with them? — Janus

They have no significance. Even if they were true, we wouldn't know it. I found it interesting to think about these unlikely scenarios but that doesn't mean everyone will find it interesting. We shouldn't waste time and energy concerning ourselves with them.

Hindus believe their holy books are true. Just as Christians, Muslims and Jews believe their holy books to be true. Only the nonbelievers disbelieve the holy books of all religions. The holy books of all religions are self-contradictory and mutually contradictory. I have studied most religions. — Truth Seeker

Most "Hindus" would say, [and I currently generally agree,] that vis a vis the only ultimate reality, everything projected into the world [as a representation of/by Mind] is ultimately a fiction and yet we have been deceived by it. And not just for a few millenia, but since the dawn of human history [as opposed to prehistoric human animals] — ENOAH

If all the religions are fiction as you claim, then why do they keep believing in them for thousands of years?

Isn't there a whole branch of philosophy called the Philosophy of Religion? — Truth Seeker

Philosophy of Religion doesn't deal with the legitimacy of the claims made by the religion. Philosophy of Religion is mainly interested in the linguistic and conceptual analysis of the religious scriptures and expressions.

But if you just label all the religions are fictions, then people might wonder what was the point of you even mentioning them in your posts.

If all the religions are fiction as you claim, then why do they keep believing in them for thousands of years? — Corvus

The believers of a particular religion believe their religion is true. They also spread their beliefs to their children. There is often a steep penalty against leaving the religion one is born in. For example, leaving Islam is punishable by death. This is how religions survive for thousands of years.

But if you just label all the religions are fictions, then people might wonder what was the point of you even mentioning them in your posts. — Corvus

Whether or not I believe in them, religions exist and billions of people believe in them and live their lives according to them and happily kill others for them.

The believers of a particular religion believe their religion is true. This also spread their beliefs to their children. There is often a steep penalty against leaving the religion one is born it. For example, leaving Islam is punishable by death. This is how religions survive for thousands of years. — Truth Seeker

I don't know anything about Islam, Hindu, Buddhism or Christianity, but I used to think there might be something that is more than what non-believers see and believe.

Whether or not I believe in them, religions exist and billions of people believe in them and live their lives according to them and happily kill others for them. — Truth Seeker

It seems to be sure that one thing common in religions is that it is beyond the rational thinking system. You kept brining in religions into your threads, so I was expecting that you might be saying something more significant than religions are fiction. Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions.

It seems to be sure that one thing common in religions is that it is beyond the rational thinking system. You kept brining in religions into your threads, so I was expecting that you might be saying something more significant than religions are fiction. Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions. — Corvus

How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? Please see https://www.evilbible.com and https://skepticsannotatedbible.com

Distinguishing “beliefs” from the objects the beliefs are about (such as a self), and distinguishing these from “illusions” are all just illusory “distinctions” not to be “believed” and therefore you give me nothing to go on. — Fire Ologist

This is not intended to be remotely flippant, but, yah, they are all just illusory distinctions and therefore no one needs anything to go on. That is our condition. The truth isn't staring us in the face nor as plain as the nose on my face. The truth is--it's comical--(oops, note that I am speaking with the passion of one who thinks they have discovered something and not--no matter appearances--as one who thinks themselves an authority; which in the end, again highlights our (seemingly) inescapable "predicament," the irony, comical)...the truth isn't those things, it is my face and my nose.

We don't even have to "know" this, we are this. That's how (and you raise this appropriately when you ask (in another thread? (apologies, this thread)) how can we reference the world to one another and denied its objectivity?) we are aware of the real world; not by knowing it. By being it.

And yet we toil with concepts and with words, why? Because that's the structure and "nature" of the projections. They are dynamic and autonomous. So called we, you and I cannot help but share so called objects. It's a built in desire leading to the prosperity history enjoys today. I say celebrate that and carry on. Out of such sharing came tge Eiffel tower, Emancipation, Peace, Love, and the Mona Lisa. Yes, too, war, bigotry, and WMDs. But difference too is a mechanism of the movements of history. We cannot share one without sharing the other. Dialectic.

Anyway, the Body, the Real world which we are, I suspect is also One. Aware-ing Universe. But that, as you imply in your poetico-logical rhetoric above, is just Mind's illusion.

The only way to ponder about objectivity is to posit a mind or a self, but the only way to posit a self is to be able to distinguish identity at all, and the only way to talk about identity is with metaphysics about bodies, which becomes a battle between being and becoming, which leads to question language and logic, etc… — Fire Ologist

Yes. And though we diverge, because otherwise how the hell are we going to construct history together? (Don't cringe, I mean a locus of history as small as your or my Narratives). It is our seemingly iron strong consistency here which is most relevant to the OP. You have, in my mind, answered the question with that statement.

From of that River, a billion tributaries flow.

The mind is a chameleon, a whisper of a fleeting thing, sure, but for flash instant moments, as real as anything else. — Fire Ologist

Compellingly enough put that you opened my mind up to how, I think, I can agree.

Again, I could explain it a lifetime but I'll be deliberately vague (hope can be cowardly).

Mind is "becoming," we agree.

As real as anything else, I'll respectfully disregard as your using a manner of speaking. Why? Because I say everything else we can know is Fictional because it is projected to the aware-ing Body by mind.

But, for flashing moments real. Yes. It is Real, in the present, when it affects body into feeling or action. But only in that instant, and not in the preceding or proceeding projections. And sadly or happily, "we" move right along with the projections.
Why can "Mind's processes" be real in those present instances where it affects the body? Because Mind has its first cause and final effect in its natural source. Put very simply, the projections are images stored in memory (first cause). The "destination" is as code to trigger Body to a conditioned response, feeling or action,(final effect) followed .

The paradox IS! — Fire Ologist

and, therefore, you give me nothing to go on.
(As Obiter Dictum: I'd guess mind may have been silent enough for your body to have attuned to the present at the nanosecond which gave rise to that exclamation. But I won't go there)

Self is still something distinguishable from the liver, the lungs and other parts, if it is body at all. — Fire Ologist

Self (the one that speaks and is spoken of), to me, is neither body nor body part.

There is no "self" of the Body. There is aware-ing Organism, aware-ing it's present doings whatever they be, x-ings.

regardless of what the self is, the paradox is that it certainly exists, and certainly cannot exist — Fire Ologist

Again, where it matters most. Full agreement.

The Subject, the Self of Mind exists, but as a projection (you may reject second half)

That Self cannot exist in the present, it can never know nor be tge real being, the aware-ing Body, the presumed "real self" because it moves incessantly away from it leaving projections for the latter to "suffer" or
"enjoy"

No need to dispense with any part of this as mere illusion. — Fire Ologist

And here again our tributaries flow their separate ways, still drawing from the same river.

Enjoy!

Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions. — Corvus

How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? — Truth Seeker

The problem is, like philosophy, science, social sciences, and humanities, some of it inevitably reveals itself to be fiction, some has a much longer life span. Even math. 1+1=2 will likely last for eons. Sure, I'm a bit tongue in cheek, but I can at least imagine some genius will come along one day in "human history" and change the conventional thinking.

The current western narrative at least focuses on the contradictions in religion, signifying a turn in the Dialectical battle in which Science has only recently made headway, but continues to face threats (Fanaticism, Theocracolies, Fundamentalism and Traditionalism).

But I, a single lone random individual, am amazed at the parallel truths "expressed" by so called religion and "discovered" by philosophy grade metaphysics and morality. These parallels are found in so called religious concepts since the dawn of civilization, but certainly since the last half of the first millennium BCE, and some of them not reaching western philosophy to a similarly rich degree of analysis until post Descartes.