Mind is "becoming," we agree.

As real as anything else, I'll respectfully disregard as your using a manner of speaking. — ENOAH

Manner of speaking. Hmm. Yes we cannot speak at all without the real. You said becoming is real. You said mind is becoming. So you posited “is” as if there was a real. So you are speaking, in a manner if speaking, are you not?

Why agree with my words? They are illusory secretions of “illusions”. Yet you said “agree”.

If you agree, you assert an object that is not an illusion. You’ve said you have something there to agree with. Namely, me.

This is why when talking about objectivity, you end up talking about the self, leading you to identity.

But by now we are way down the path of the real, as much as we might temper this motion of new distinctions with “illusion”.

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. — ENOAH

Don’t you see? If only for a flashing, fleeting spark of a moment there is a mind, if our whole lives were just one flashing instant, in the grand scheme of things, this may as well be an eternity, for there is a real SPARK. I don’t care how short it flashes - I saw it flash. I am it, or it is with me, or it makes me as I vanish, but by then it’s too late - the real has parts - me now with it.

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 . — ENOAH

You may as well be talking psychology. This is full of “this is real, and this is not, and that exists, and that does not” speak. You refute the ubiquity of the illusion by trying to explain “all for human minding, is illusion.” Mind and objectivity as illusion is impossible to speak. By speaking, real objects must be distinguished or else we cannot move to the end of the sentences.

Illusion, yes, keep it close to your mind, as at least a tool, as you experience becoming and sift through the darkness; but denying the objective entirely? The flashes that prompt distinctions. Why speak of what you know with so many words and distinctions, if you always and only know the same illusion?

I’d rather you keep speaking, but I don’t think you need to forget objectivity to retain illusion, and in fact, I don’t think you can retain an illusion, without objectivity.

Really the body is the objectivity - it is prior to the mind, the thing that makes illusion out of this objectivity. Either can only be discussed, retaining both.

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

I’d say self is a paradox - both part, and identity. Identity is also paradox (in any thing, any unified thing, identity remains becoming, though it remains distinct, though it becomes new, but a new unity, but still changing - a paradox.). So the self IS, a paradox that is built on a paradox.

That Self cannot exist in the present — ENOAH

The self ONLY exists in the present, immediately undone by each new instant. This is the life of becoming, and how short lived, but real, is the self. In the present only - never needing any memory nor any purpose to simply be, but then, become again anew, undone again, to be born as firmly as always in the present self.

We once again see the exact same thing, from such opposite directions, in such contrasting words, but overlapping precisely in other moments.

I don’t see it as a fork in the road, you going one way, me another. I think we are standing around a table looking at the same object from two different sides, each conjecturing or dabbling in the other viewpoint.

I don’t see it as a fork in the road, you going one way, me another. I think we are standing around a table looking at the same object from two different sides, each conjecturing or dabbling in the other viewpoint. — Fire Ologist

And maybe that is expressing the closest approach within "reason" i.e., before the inevitable firewalls: paradox, contradiction (inevitable; not the kind from poor reasoning) absurdity . That each of us is constructing/expressing the same Truth(s) in (varying degrees of(?)) approximations, (as if/because) from different viewpoints.

By the way, lest you thought otherwise, I wasn't disregarding the statement about as real as everything as a "manner of speaking," in any way demeaning the statement. I was assuming, as you might note from my return to an edited version, that you meant "as real as everything" as a phrase like "might as well" or "better than nothing."

y the way, lest you thought otherwise, I wasn't disregarding the statement about as real as everything as a "manner of speaking," in any way demeaning the statement. I was assuming, as you might note from my return to an edited version, that you meant "as real as everything" as a phrase like "might as well" or "better than nothing." — ENOAH

I know. You’ve had plenty of opportunity to pillory my viewpoint, but keep things cordial and conversational anyway. And I’ve probably asked for a good pillorying. Because you are a closet believer in the self and objectivity. :joke:

hah! :up:

:up: Far be it for me to tell someone they shouldn't spend time on something interesting to them. The time-wasting part would be thinking about something that is unknowable in the hope of getting to the truth about it.

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 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). — ENOAH

Contradiction doesn't mean it has to be rejected out right. Contradiction means it could be further investigated and analysed. Recall Hegel? Without contradictions, there is no progress or understanding in the universe.

Religions have their own truth system, which is different level from truth system based on rationality. There is possibility that human reason is not powerful enough to perceive and understand all the existence in the universe.

You said that you have been reading much and all the religious books. I am sure you would understand my points.

you have been reading much and all the religious books. I am sure you would understand my points. — Corvus

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say I've been reading much, and especially not all the religious books. But I had already agreed with you about a rich analysis being needed before making any final judgment on
religion.

The time-wasting part would be thinking about something that is unknowable in the hope of getting to the truth about it. — Janus

I agree. It is futile.

You said that you have been reading much and all the religious books. I am sure you would understand my points. — Corvus

Most religions rely on faith instead of evidence. Buddhism is an exception in that Buddha's original teachings are based on what is empirical.

Can it ever be disproven, and is it likely, that some may have discovered memories or signs of previous life? Perhaps there is a collection of dreams, that occurred since time in mother's womb, to the present day, that preserve abstractions of former dimensionality, and self-hood they once experienced. Perhaps there are direct memories in some minds of previous life. There's reason to suggest that could be possible, and nothing to say it's unlikely(maybe prone to deception), other than the subjectivity surrounding other people's minds. I wouldn't assert that religion is based on faith alone, but evidence cannot currently be provided. Science is based on faith in rationality - faith is not some loose term to be reduced to nonsense or improbable, faith can be rational, faith can be superficial.

You could be right. You could also be wrong. I think you are more likely to be wrong given what we know about brains and how they work.

Most religions rely on faith instead of evidence. — Truth Seeker

In that case, truth or falsity don't belong to religious domain. Rejecting religions solely on the basis of lack of truth is not reasonable.

Buddhism is an exception in that Buddha's original teachings are based on what is empirical. — Truth Seeker

Most religions including Buddhism have been for the believers' wishing good fortune, prosperity, good health, good luck and better afterlife and rebirth after their deaths, rather than academic or philosophical debates on the universe or self.

Some folks and authorities have been using and abusing the religions for justifying their wrong doings and forcing the other folks into irrational actions and practices. These facts are not faults of the religions, but the people and authorities.

In that case, truth or falsity don't belong to religious domain. Rejecting religions solely on the basis of lack of truth is not reasonable. — Corvus

On the contrary, religions claim to be true. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6, The Bible (New International Version).

Most religions including Buddhism have been for the believers' wishing good fortune, prosperity, good health, good luck and better afterlife and rebirth after their deaths, rather than academic or philosophical debates on the universe or self. — Corvus

No, Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and they are based on empirical observations. Please see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/beliefs/fournobletruths_1.shtml The original Buddhism did not have any Gods. Also, Buddha was agnostic about the existence of souls. He said, ""Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances. Find out for yourself what is true and virtuous." This is the total opposite of other religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam where skeptical enquiry is prohibited and adherents are required to have blind faith in the religious books.

Also, Buddhism teaches the concept of Anatta which is the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While Judaism, Christianity and Islam teach that we are immortal souls which are resurrected by God after we die and Hinduism teaches that we are immortal souls which reincarnate according to karma after we die. So, religions are unavoidable in a discussion of the true nature of the self.

On the contrary, religions claim to be true. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6, The Bible (New International Version). — Truth Seeker

You are talking about totally different kind of truth which is in the Bible, i.e. the religious truth. It is not the factual or rational or even empirical truth.

Of course they talk about truth. But what does it mean? It doesn't mean anything. Their truth is not the truth the non-believers know as truth.

No, Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and they are based on empirical observations. — Truth Seeker

There are so many different schools of Buddhism. They all claim totally different things.
Most Buddhists I have met talked about good luck, good health, good fortunes, and rebirthing to richer and more successful folks in their next life. Nothing else.

You are talking about totally different kind of truth which is in the Bible, i.e. the religious truth. It is not the factual or rational or even empirical truth. — Corvus

Truth is truth. There is no separate religious truth and factual truth or rational truth or empirical truth. Religions claim a lot of things are true e.g. the Biblical God created the world in six days.

There are so many different schools of Buddhism. — Corvus

I am talking about what Buddha taught. Not what different schools of Buddhism teach.

Truth is truth. There is no separate religious truth and factual truth or rational truth or empirical truth. Religions claim a lot of things e.g. the Biblical God created the world in six days. — Truth Seeker

I don't agree with you. Their truth is not philosophical or empirical truth.

I am talking about what Buddha taught. Not what different schools of Buddhism teach. — Truth Seeker

It doesn't matter what Buddha taught. We notice how the historical buddhism has been, and is now in reality.

I don't agree with you. Their truth is not philosophical or empirical truth. — Corvus

That's fine. I have not asked anyone to agree with me about anything.

It doesn't matter what Buddha taught. We notice how the historical buddhism has been, and is now in reality. — Corvus

It matters to me what Buddha taught. I agree with the concept of Anatta which is the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.

We once again see the exact same thing, from such opposite directions, in such contrasting words, but overlapping precisely in other moments. — Fire Ologist

I told ENOAH the same thing not long ago.

moments.
— Fire Ologist
I told ENOAH the same thing not long ago. — Patterner

It's because I'm atonal, mixing with an arid humor.

It's because I'm atonal, mixing with an arid humor. — ENOAH

I do love me some Bartók! And it doesn't get more arid than Arrakis and Raraku!

:up:

I told ENOAH the same thing not long ago. — Patterner

We’re all fumbling around in the same cave. With some good company.

that, we are.

:grin:

Can it ever be disproven, and is it likely, that some may have discovered memories or signs of previous life? Perhaps there is a collection of dreams, that occurred since time in mother's womb, to the present day, that preserve abstractions of former dimensionality, and self-hood they once experienced. Perhaps there are direct memories in some minds of previous life. There's reason to suggest that could be possible, and nothing to say it's unlikely — Barkon

Well, if one accepts that human memories are encoded in the synaptic weightings of neural networks, then it doesn't make much sense to think that we have memories from before our conception - when our neural networks hadn't begun to develop.

There are lots of reasons to "say it's unlikely", if one is informed about the nature of human minds.

I agree.