Nihilism

[Karl]

Questioning can only take place when there is one who can think in order to ask the question. If one does not exist then no question can be asked.

 

The poem lacks a definition for the word God.

 

Part of the argument-and it is an argument-is based on the rules of Aristotelian logic-that of the fallacy of composition.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Karl

[FmAm]

Withdrawing a hand from the fire implies there is a body to preserve, not a self. 

 

There's feeling of pain. Even though I wrote about "feeling of an identity", there really isn't one. I have never felt identity. It isn't a feeling, It's just a word. There's nothing beyond sensations, emotions and thoughts. If they cease, nothing is left. There's no "me", "being" or "consciousness" beyond sensations, emotions and thoughts.

 

Just verbs, no nouns.

Edited October 3, 2015 by FmAm

[Karl]

There's feeling of pain. Even though I wrote about "feeling of an identity", there really isn't one. I have never felt identity. It isn't a feeling, It's just a word. There's nothing beyond sensations, emotions and thoughts. If they cease, nothing is left. There's no "me", "being" or "consciousness" beyond sensations, emotions and thoughts.

 

Just verbs, no nouns.

"Even though 'I' wrote"

 

"I have never felt identity"

 

If there isn't I-dentity then what made you use the word ?

Edited October 3, 2015 by Karl

[steve]

Questioning can only take place when there is one who can think in order to ask the question. If one does not exist then no question can be asked.

That is a gratuitous assertion. The OP does not accept your assertion of existence and yet is asking questions.

 

 

The poem lacks a definition for the word God.

Exactly, that is the point...

The word definition comes from the Latin for "to limit" or to bring about the end of something. 

The poem and all spiritual paths point to the inability to limit or define God, Dao, reality... whatever label you prefer

 

Limitation does not expand knowledge, it restricts it.

In the Christian tradition, the highest level of knowledge of God is to know that one cannot know... (Aquinas)

[FmAm]

"Even though 'I' wrote"

 

"I have never felt identity"

 

If there isn't I-dentity then what made you use the word ?

 

Nothing made me use the word. No-thing. It just happened.

 

It's just a word.

[Karl]

That is a gratuitous assertion. The OP does not accept your assertion of existence and yet is asking questions.

 

 

 

Exactly, that is the point...

The word definition comes from the Latin for "to limit" or to bring about the end of something. 

The poem and all spiritual paths point to the inability to limit or define God, Dao, reality... whatever label you prefer

 

Limitation does not expand knowledge, it restricts it.

In the Christian tradition, the highest level of knowledge of God is to know that one cannot know... (Aquinas)

 

The OP doesn't exist according to him. I was trying to see if he was playing or really believes his assertion. I have no time for nihilists. As he doesn't exist he should stop posting or asking further questions. Someone who doesn't believe they exist has no need to ask anything.

 

There is little point in trying to communicate if you refuse to define the words that you are using. Reality is reality, existence exists.

Quoting Aquinus is just another appeal to authority. You have invited mysticism into your life and thrown reason out.

[Karl]

Nothing made me use the word. No-thing. It just happened.

 

It's just a word.

 

How do you know that nothing made you use the word ?

[steve]

There is little point in trying to communicate if you refuse to define the words that you are using.

I agree, defining our terms is important and I often advocate for that on this forum.

What is more important than defining the words, however, is that those words and definitions actually represent what they are intended to represent, otherwise they are worse than worthless, they are misleading.

In some cases, what we are pointing at simply cannot be defined or captured in words. 

This is why poetry exists, why spirituality exists - to point to experiences or concepts that defy convenient and concise definition.

 

 

Reality is reality, existence exists. Quoting Aquinus is just another appeal to authority. You have invited mysticism into your life and thrown reason out.

Reality is reality... 

Existence exists... 

Labels, not definitions - such labels do not deepen our understanding.

 

Aquinas is not my authority but you mentioned your appreciation for Christianity so I though it would be useful to point out what is widely accepted in Christianity as the impossibility of defining God. 

 

There is plenty of reason in my life and mind when and where it is of use. 

And there is an aspect to reality that defies definition and I have invited that in as well.

I can make room in my life for both and with some patience and openness they can be reconciled.

 

It is your privilege to ignore anything that you cannot pin down with definition and reason but that begs the question, why does this spiritually oriented forum and these discussions interest you?

 

Closing ourselves off to everything we cannot explain or understand is a recipe for stagnation and limitation.

The key to growth is to be open.

[Karl]

Your first argument is contradictory. Either something is or it isn't. Either you agree on the necessity of defining terms or you don't. Poetry is trying to describe in colourful words, the poets feelings. A feeling isn't part of a reasoned argument. That somebody 'feels' that a god exists has nothing to do with the reality of the existence of a deity. If you are going to use words to convey concepts, then they must be defined. They are the tools of comprehension. If you want to convey feelings then I can only attempt to empathise from similar types of experience, but I will never have your experience, or the poets experience.

 

There is some merit in Christian morality, God has nothing to do with it as long as God remains undefined.

 

You do not yet know why you are here, what good is it to ask why I am here ?

 

You don't know what an open mind is, you have not defined growth. Think of a builder. Does he pick up random elements and then pile them up in a higgeldy piggeldy manner ? A builder must learn to discriminate, to throw away the poor elements from the sound, then he must precisely place them carefully in order that his construction will be sturdy.

 

At present you are stuck in the random gathering stage and you have no clue to the construction process. Unless you know what you seek, you will be unable to discover it. If you are advocating definitions then you must adhere strictly to those principles, or your seeking will produce nothing useful. Eventually you may hit upon the path, but will have wasted an inordinate amount of time on trial and error in that approach. If you cannot define, then set aside the concept, perhaps one day it might be worth returning to, but for now an undefined concept is worse than useless as it jeopardises the entire construction by its indiscriminate integration.

 

Closing oneself off is not caused by trying to understand something properly. It is not stagnation to evaluate and understand. It is not openness to integrate things that you haven't fully understood, that behaviour is mindless collecting and conscious ignorance. Don't confuse open mindedness for empty mindedness. Our education systems have taught us the latter, to accept what we are told because we have given away our authority to question. We were taught not to question but to accept and that acceptance would bring reward. That questioning could bring ridicule and shame.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Karl

[Perceiver]

If there's no purpose to anything, then why does the Universe evolve in spirals of greater complexity?

[sillybearhappyhoneyeater]

Morality and Nihilsm are constructs we use to explain our relationship with the world around us.

This relationship is unclear and undecided, but the brain requires a way to sort this business out so it doesn't become parylized.

If you look at the functtion of the left and right brain, so can see that information is constantly passing between the two hemispheres in order to check the veracity of an experience.

Accord to Iaian McGilchrist, the left brain is more or less logically self consistent, meaning that if the left brain picks up a form of logic that doesn't deviate from itself, then it will accept the logic as truth.

The right brain on the other hand, tends to reject logical constructs even if they are true.

These two sides of the brain are how we judge the varacity of situations we meet and separate what is important from what is not.

In some ways, this could be described as understanding that the dragon in front of you is just a statue and it is not going to eat you, or on the other hand, that the dragon in front of you really is a dragon and you better get out of the place fast.

In studies where people have one side of their brain disabled, it becomes bluntly obvious that the logical faculty of the brain requires both sides to work proerly.

Logic must be intuitive and the creation of rules to define our relationship with the world must also be intuitive.

Even a cat knows what its relationship with you is and it never treats you like it does a mouse.

The addition of complex language and linguistic communication complicates things somewhat, but in effect, we are simply a speaking beast which can derive some sense of knowledge of self where others may not be able to.

 

Incidentally, a friend of mine is doing research into the differences between Chinese and western culture and he has hit upon how linguistically, Asian societies actually have a more difficult time separating a clear sense of "me," when compared to Western societies which have a very detached idea of what self is.

 

Hope this is somewhat germain to the topic. 

[Karl]

Morality and Nihilsm are constructs we use to explain our relationship with the world around us.

This relationship is unclear and undecided, but the brain requires a way to sort this business out so it doesn't become parylized.

If you look at the functtion of the left and right brain, so can see that information is constantly passing between the two hemispheres in order to check the veracity of an experience.

Accord to Iaian McGilchrist, the left brain is more or less logically self consistent, meaning that if the left brain picks up a form of logic that doesn't deviate from itself, then it will accept the logic as truth.

The right brain on the other hand, tends to reject logical constructs even if they are true.

These two sides of the brain are how we judge the varacity of situations we meet and separate what is important from what is not.

In some ways, this could be described as understanding that the dragon in front of you is just a statue and it is not going to eat you, or on the other hand, that the dragon in front of you really is a dragon and you better get out of the place fast.

In studies where people have one side of their brain disabled, it becomes bluntly obvious that the logical faculty of the brain requires both sides to work proerly.

Logic must be intuitive and the creation of rules to define our relationship with the world must also be intuitive.

Even a cat knows what its relationship with you is and it never treats you like it does a mouse.

The addition of complex language and linguistic communication complicates things somewhat, but in effect, we are simply a speaking beast which can derive some sense of knowledge of self where others may not be able to.

 

Incidentally, a friend of mine is doing research into the differences between Chinese and western culture and he has hit upon how linguistically, Asian societies actually have a more difficult time separating a clear sense of "me," when compared to Western societies which have a very detached idea of what self is.

 

Hope this is somewhat germain to the topic. 

 

That the Chinese would have a vocabulary and language which mirrored their greater bureaucracy and societal position would make sense.

 

I have seen some new age theories which look at the entire earth as right and left brain with the Is-ra-el representing the mid point. That seems fanciful, as, in reality, there isn't a left/right brain split of logic/emotion and the world itself is a free floating body which has no specific orientation. North/south/top/bottom are entirely human constructs-I have a world map which is upside down, but with all the countries labelled the right way up. Always gets a lot of comments from guests who take several glances without getting it. Some ask if it's an older map of how the world used to be and look extremely confused when I tell them it's a bang up to date modern map.

[FmAm]

How do you know that nothing made you use the word ?

 

I can say that something caused the word (what caused the signals in brains etc.). But it's pointless. If I start to chase all the causes, I end up having infinite regress of causes. Again, after infinite causes, there's no cause. Every cause has another infinity of causes. So, no cause. Nothing made me use the word.

 

 

The OP doesn't exist according to him. I was trying to see if he was playing or really believes his assertion. I have no time for nihilists. As he doesn't exist he should stop posting or asking further questions. Someone who doesn't believe they exist has no need to ask anything.

 

A meteor doesn't exist according to meteor. Should it stop leaving a streak in the sky?

 

There is no "me". There are these thoughts (which can't be separated from the electrochemical signals in the nervous system) and fingers typing the keyboard. But there's no one here. (This is just one way to say it.)

Edited October 4, 2015 by FmAm

[Karl]

I can say that something caused the word (what caused the signals in brains etc.). But it's pointless. If I start to chase all the causes, I end up having infinite regress of causes. Again, after infinite causes, there's no cause. Every cause has another infinity of causes. So, no cause. Nothing made me use the word.

 

 

 

 

A meteor doesn't exist according to meteor. Should it stop leaving a streak in the sky?

 

And there in lies the problem 'reductio et babbling'. You are reduced to babbling incoherently in order to confirm non-existence because you are an existent being trying to prove a logical absurdity. If you are truly a Nihlist then you are a danger to yourself and everybody else, if you are just playing the role for the sake of experience then, in time you will grow out of it. If you don't, then you will waste your life.

 

Things exist outside your conscious of them. A meteor exists and you exist regardless of your attempts to deny yourself an identity. If you do not exist then you can hardly offer up a meteor of proof of your argument. In effect you are agreeing that things exist outside your consciousness of them and then denying that you have any existence. That's clearly a conflict, which steers me to the view that you are playing with the role of a nihilistic person rather than actually being a Nihlist.

[Perceiver]

Hmm, so we cant know for certain that there is a purpose. But on the other hand we also cannot know for certain that there is no purpose.

 

It could be either one. We simply dont know. So what's the most rational thing to do? Perhaps it is to assume that there *may* be a purpose, and then organize our philosophies and lives in the pursuit of what that purpose may be.

 

Kaboom.

[FmAm]

And there in lies the problem 'reductio et babbling'. You are reduced to babbling incoherently in order to confirm non-existence because you are an existent being trying to prove a logical absurdity. If you are truly a Nihlist then you are a danger to yourself and everybody else, if you are just playing the role for the sake of experience then, in time you will grow out of it. If you don't, then you will waste your life. Things exist outside your conscious of them. A meteor exists and you exist regardless of your attempts to deny yourself an identity. If you do not exist then you can hardly offer up a meteor of proof of your argument. In effect you are agreeing that things exist outside your consciousness of them and then denying that you have any existence. That's clearly a conflict, which steers me to the view that you are playing with the role of a nihilistic person rather than actually being a Nihlist.

 

In time I have grown into nihilism.

 

But why do you think a nihilist would be a danger to someone? I'm quite kind, actually.

 

I was just comparing the traces of a meteor and what you read here. I'm not denying this body of "mine" and the meteor (although they aren't real for real either).

Edited October 4, 2015 by FmAm

[FmAm]

Hmm, so we cant know for certain that there is a purpose. But on the other hand we also cannot know for certain that there is no purpose.

 

It could be either one. We simply dont know. So what's the most rational thing to do? Perhaps it is to assume that there *may* be a purpose, and then organize our philosophies and lives in the pursuit of what that purpose may be.

 

Kaboom.

 

If there was a purpose, what would it be? Who would have set it? How could someone (a person) exist? If it's someone who has set it, would we have to obey and organize our philosophies according to it? Would it be an absolute purpose then? If the purpose is impersonal, it isn't a purpose. Purpose cannot exist.

[Perceiver]

My point is that you dont know everything about reality and neither do I. Therefore there may or may not be a purpose. We cant know for certain. In fact there is very little we can know with absolute certainty, as we're limited by the cobstraints of our own consciousness.

[FmAm]

My point is that you dont know everything about reality and neither do I. Therefore there may or may not be a purpose. We cant know for certain. In fact there is very little we can know with absolute certainty, as we're limited by the cobstraints of our own consciousness.

 

You seem to assume that there's consciousness (as a subject, the experiencer of experiences) and reality. What I'm saying is just that I'm sure of what is sure. I have never felt "me" or "I" or "consciousness" or "reality". There's just emotions, sensations and thoughts. They come and go. And even coming and going is too much said. What is, is. There's no moment, no time, no objects, no subjects, no "absolute reality". This is all that can be certain. Everything else is speculation. This may be nihilistic solipsism.

 

I'm not saying there can't be something else. But if there is, there's no way to know anything about it.

Edited October 4, 2015 by FmAm

[Perceiver]

Precisely. We may be close to agreement now: the one thing you can know is that you experience something. You seem to be conscious. It can all be a dream, yet it would still be a dream that you are conscious of. Descartes arrived at the same conclusion 400 years ago.

 

So what are all those things we experience, and can we ever be sure that they are absolutely real? No, we cannot. And equally we cannot be absolutely sure that they are unreal. So the only thing left to do, is to accept the mystery that reality is - and start living it.

[FmAm]

 

Precisely. We may be close to agreement now: the one thing you can know is that you experience something. You seem to be conscious. It can all be a dream, yet it would still be a dream that you are conscious of. Descartes arrived at the same conclusion 400 years ago.

No, there is just experience. It's all that is certain. No "I". Descartes didn't get it. If there is a thought, there is a thought. No proof of "I". Language tricked Descartes.

Edited October 4, 2015 by FmAm

[steve]

Your first argument is contradictory. Either something is or it isn't.

I disagree as do all folks who understand Buddhist metaphysics - the fourfold negation:

Not this / Not that / Not both / Not neither

It is related to the Vedic process of inquiry (Neti / Neti) and to the via negativa of Aquinus.

 

 

Either you agree on the necessity of defining terms or you don't. Poetry is trying to describe in colourful words, the poets feelings. A feeling isn't part of a reasoned argument.

I agree with the necessity of defining terms and maintain that there are things which defy definition. Poetry has to do with more than feelings. My approach to spirituality is not limited to reason and argument but includes experiential practice. Meditation transcends definition and reason. 

 

 

That somebody 'feels' that a god exists has nothing to do with the reality of the existence of a deity.

I am not implying that deities exist.

To conclude that is to miss the point. 

I am pointing out that there are aspects of our experience that are beyond definition.

 

 

If you are going to use words to convey concepts, then they must be defined. They are the tools of comprehension. If you want to convey

feelings then I can only attempt to empathise from similar types of experience, but I will never have your experience, or the poets experience.

To communicate about experience requires labels. We are here to communicate about the spiritual realm.

As you rightly point out, if we do not have some common frame of shared experience it is difficult to communicate. 

If you've never tasted a mango and I try to explain that taste, you will not understand what I am pointing to.

Please define the word "red" for me, assuming that I am blind. It has no inherent meaning.

Similarly, if one's life has never been touched by the divine, the river of unconditional love, the power of Great Mystery, then the words are empty and no matter how we define it in words, it will mean nothing.  

 

 

 

There is some merit in Christian morality, God has nothing to do with it as long as God remains undefined.

Wrong - God has everything to do with morality for Christians and the highest understanding of God in Christianity is to know that we cannot know.

 

 

You do not yet know why you are here, what good is it to ask why I am here ?

I do know why I am here. 

I am the eyes and ears of the universe, I am the living manifestation of Great Mystery, and I am here to do what I can to perfect myself through helping others.

 

 

 

You don't know what an open mind is,

You are correct, I don't know what an open mind is.

But I do know how to be open and I practice that daily.

 

 

you have not defined growth.

Spiritual growth for me is movement away from fixed and limited patterns into the openness of being.

 

 

Think of a builder. Does he pick up random elements and then pile them up in a higgeldy piggeldy manner ? A builder must learn to discriminate, to throw away the poor elements from the sound, then he must precisely place them carefully in order that his construction will be sturdy.

And everything that has ever been built has decayed and returned (or will return) to its unbuilt state.

The permanence of sound construction is an illusion, no matter how precise or sound.

 

Think of a child.

Growth is a spontaneous process that does not require thought or intention.

Does a tree need to precisely place its elements in order to progress from a seed to an oak?

The process is of itself so... 

 

And the child and tree eventually die.

 

 

 

At present you are stuck in the random gathering stage and you have no clue to the construction process. Unless you know what you seek, you will be unable to discover it.

If you only seek to discover that which you already know, you will never find anything new. 

You will go round and round in circles.

 

 

If you are advocating definitions then you must adhere strictly to those principles, or your seeking will produce nothing useful. Eventually you may hit upon the path, but will have wasted an inordinate amount of time on trial and error in that approach. If you cannot define, then set aside the concept, perhaps one day it might be worth returning to, but for now an undefined concept is worse than useless as it jeopardises the entire construction by its indiscriminate integration.

Wrong, an undefined concept underlies the foundation upon which all building occurs.

All that we see, know, and are arises from and abides in space - there is no defining space, it is that which cannot be defined.

Similarly, that space has the quality of awareness, there is no defining awareness, neuroscientists have yet to do so. It is that which knows. 

And from that space and awareness comes warmth - love. There is no defining love it can only be experienced. 

 

 

Closing oneself off is not caused by trying to understand something properly. It is not stagnation to evaluate and understand. It is not openness to integrate things that you haven't fully understood, that behaviour is mindless collecting and conscious ignorance. Don't confuse open mindedness for empty mindedness. Our education systems have taught us the latter, to accept what we are told because we have given away our authority to question. We were taught not to question but to accept and that acceptance would bring reward. That questioning could bring ridicule and shame.

I agree - everything needs to be questioned but what you do not seem to be willing to face is that not all questions can or should be answered. The very process of questioning is what is alive with potential and possibility. The addiction to answering is death and stagnation in the realm of spiritual cultivation. Once we convince ourselves that we know, we stop questioning, and we no longer make progress. 

 

There comes a time when we need to let go of a thirst for knowledge and rest in the brilliance and spaciousness of this very moment, undefined and unattached. Acceptance is not belief. Acceptance is allowing what is to simply be, as it is. Resting in that which is, beyond the conscious process of trying to define, trying to answer, or trying to understand. That is openness, that is meditation. That is where my current practice is (un)focused. 

 

And when we are able to rest in that space, awareness, and warmth, unattached to concept or thought form, there arises knowing and wisdom which is completely empty and unrestricted. It is the source of creativity, beyond the limitations of reason and argument. It is the source of everything. It cannot be defined or understood. All pith instructions of the meditation masters say the same thing - leave it as it is. 

[steve]

No, there is just experience. It's all that is certain. No "I". Descartes didn't get it. If there is a thought, there is a thought. No proof of "I". Language tricked Descartes.

While thought is not proof of an "I" - the inability to find the "I" is not proof that it does not exist.

The experience of thought is there even though the thinker cannot be found.

The thought and thinker collapse into non-duality.

They arise from emptiness, abide in awareness, and return to emptiness.

The fourfold negation dispels the error of nihilism.

[steve]

If there was a purpose, what would it be? Who would have set it? How could someone (a person) exist? If it's someone who has set it, would we have to obey and organize our philosophies according to it? Would it be an absolute purpose then? If the purpose is impersonal, it isn't a purpose. Purpose cannot exist.

 

Each of us has to discover purpose for ourselves.

And it may change depending on where we are along our path. 

 

It is for us to "set" or, better to say, uncover through our process of "self" discovery.

It is nothing set by anyone and it is not something we have to obey.

It arises naturally and spontaneously as we connect more deeply to our authentic self.

 

There is that we can refer to as absolute and we are all living in the relative, attempting to make contact with the absolute, which we are already a manifestation of. Like fish looking for water.

It is both personal and impersonal as all perspectives related to person collapse in non-duality.

[FmAm]

Each of us has to discover purpose for ourselves.

And it may change depending on where we are along our path. 

 

It is for us to "set" or, better to say, uncover through our process of "self" discovery.

It is nothing set by anyone and it is not something we have to obey.

It arises naturally and spontaneously as we connect more deeply to our authentic self.

 

There is that we can refer to as absolute and we are all living in the relative, attempting to make contact with the absolute, which we are already a manifestation of. Like fish looking for water.

It is both personal and impersonal as all perspectives related to person collapse in non-duality.

 

I do have purpose in my life. But from absolute point of view, it's all just stories.

 

What purpose could there be without conceptual thinking? If I sit on a beach and watch everything happening, what's really happening there (without conceptual, inner storytelling)?  "I" is a story (even without language it's there as a concept, just like in animals), beach is a story, events are stories.  Without these stories all that is left is somekind of unified happening, where waves, sounds, wind, body and experience are not separated, because they aren't conceptualized. They are not "they".

 

There's no room for the Absolute, Purpose or authentic Self on that beach. There's no room for anything. And no room for eternal.

Edited October 4, 2015 by FmAm