Karl

No, not that. That's probably a good description for me, but you are a mystic of both schools. You are a spiritual/muscle mystic that doesn't fully accept either. It's a very strange kind of thing because you aren't doing what others sometimes do, which is to go full spiritual mystic then kind of veer into muscle mysticism in order to try and head of logical rebuttal. You are happy in both camps simultaneously, but you integrate neither. I think one day you will figure out that you are just a reluctant objectivist and your reluctance is just part of you liking to be different. :-) you seem to thrive on it anyway, so good on you.

Depends what you mean by 'hopes' but I concur with the sentiment.

Precisely. Existence holds primacy over consciousness. Descartes didn't quite mean it to mean the opposite, but his philosophy created the idea that a demon was present which led to our view and thence only God-of abiding purity could .... yada yada. I've said before that you are a switcher, or rather you have mentally cobbled together both philosophic statements like a person who wants his cake and eat it. :-) you want the Dao and your materialist stance, both, but not integrated. It's the equivalent of being an agnostic atheist. You are like one of those Yoghurts that have the flavouring in a seperate carton. Instead of mixing them in the pot, you keep them seperate as you eat. ;-)

It boils down to the primacy of existence or consciousness and that's all. I am therefore I think is not a stoic view, it's not infact an objectivist claim either, but how I look at it. I stand to be corrected by other objectivists. There is no claim to emotions being a weakness or anything else you claim except for independence of thought. Man has the nature which might be thought of as a kind of prime mover within the envelope of 'first obey nature, then adapt nature'. Man is a creative force in the universe unlike, for instance, a comet that obeys only the nature of physics and cannot change its course by will. We cannot create out of nothing, but we can change arrangements of things into new arrangements and that is creativity in action. There is nothing beyond these bounds. Neither is it true that one is permanently conditioned. I was very much in the primacy of consciousness camp before I grasped the logical problem with that view. Spirituality is within us and our actions are without. This leads to a tremendous expansion of consciousness-we can evolve by our own efforts to evolve and our only tool for doing so is our minds.

Right, as you are versed in philosophy that makes it much easier. 'I think therefore I am' is bull shit. Let's change it around 'I am therefore I think'. Descartes was looking to do the same thing as all modern philosophers. What sticks in their craw is that consciousness has identity. Descartes, Kant and Hegel are responsible for the greatest lie mankind has been saddled with. So, now we change it all around. We dump the mind body dichotomy because it never existed. We move existence into primacy in the same way we move the sun to the centre of the solar system and the earth into orbit around it. Existence has primacy over consciousness. Consciousness is permanent as long as the entity is alive and conscious. Consciousness does not exist in a vaccum, it does not create existence. Consciousness must be conscious of some-thing. Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. Now with objectivism we have integrated man. Body and soul if you like. Objectivism neither denies spirit nor matter. Instead it denies the separation within a living entity and mysticism which surrounds it. On one side there are the spiritual Mystics that believe knowledge is only possible by some form of divine revelation, or transference. Then the muscle Mystics that do not believe knowledge is possible at all. Mystics flip flop from one to the other in order to keep the game going on. They are in both camps at one time or another. The spirit exists in the total as semblance of the parts. You can't go looking for it in the atom or a toe nail. Existence is axiomatic as is consciousness and identity. Test it out. I know you won't take my word for it and you definitely should not. It's easy to see this is true by simple intro and extrospection. Cast 'feeling' out and look at what you can objectively prove. Once you start down the path of being unable to prove anything its pointless to continue any kind of conversation. You disqualify yourself from any argument because every argument requires proof. All proof must ultimately rest of something metaphysical and perceived. The senses are not deceivers, they are infallible perceivers. We do the perception automatically, but the conceptual we must do consciously. The wool is a given, but the garment we knit is not. We need rules, a pattern to knit the garment correctly or we end up with a big ball of knotted, nothingness. No one knew what Buddah actually stated because he never wrote anything down.

Yes, hedonism (the seeking of pleasure for the sake of pleasure) is very apparent today. You know that to be true, so that's why you feel the world is toxic. Something doesn't seem right does it ? The world that everyone else seems to be inhabiting appears to be one in which you are an alien. You have two choices: 1. You either ditch your mind and become a mindless drone, like a honey bee going from flower to flower in search of nectar. Or 2. You stop trying to 'fit in' to the hive. The endless search for valueless pleasure is a fools errand. You have been taught that you must seek pleasure, through state education, books, media, other people. The system is set up to take advantage of your emotional side and direct you to behave in a consistent manner. Get a job, get respect of peers, buy stuff, have sex. Do all these things to gain pleasure at any cost. So, I'm going to suggest you read two fiction books. The first explains what this current system is all about 'brave new world' by Aldous Huxley. The second is about a way to be and think that shrugs off the hedonistic and shows you how to be a hero of your own life. How to be an independent, reasoning, productive, honest, integral, just and proud man. It's called 'the fountain head' by Ayn Rand. The path of the independent hero is not an easy one. It flies in the face of the society that tells you to 'fit' in. You will become a rock in a river. Take heart, because there are many other like you, but they aren't the majority. You must set out your stall for a grander vision. There are women looking for men with the right values, as there are men looking for women-not just for pleasure. It is the mind that relates to another. Pleasure is something gained from earning a value, it is not a value to be gained because you already have that capacity within you.

Life is a binary state, it does not 'decompose'. You are alive and then you are dead. The second state is unchanging, it is permanent. Existence exists, but without consciousness of existence what is there ? So Buddah is quite correct to state it in those terms. It makes it clear that the only true permanence for an individual conscious being is death. A state which is unalterable. Self ceases to exist. Your second point is simple reductionism. Consciousness is something and it has identity. You are you mind. Note I did not say brain. I mean the whole of you that exists sufficiently for the mind to continue to function. Take away the means for the mind to function and conscious awareness ceases.

No, that is material change. Living things are living until they aren't, it's a binary transition like on/off. A body without life is just flesh and bone.

It should be obvious. Life is movement. Things that don't change are dead. Death is the end of life and you can be certain that it is irreversible and therefore no change is possible for the non existent self.

Proof presupposes existence. You just blew yourself up.

Then this is your logic based on your definitions. I suspected that you had a static view of an absolute. So this is how you have created your false reality. Step back a bit. Self is the mind which perceives reality. Reality is an absolute. Change presupposes that something changes from one thing to another. This presupposes the law of identity. Everything in reality has an identity and acts according to its nature. Causality is the law of identity applied to action. Causality is change. It is you premise which is wrong. You have assumed an absolute is static and unchanging, but this is not the case in a dynamic universe. The self is an absolute, but it is changing. This is reality. It does not deny identity because it changes, it presupposes it.

I will disprove it, but I require you to first define 'self', and 'absolute'. Unless we define it accurately there is every likelihood we won't be referring to the same thing.

Where's your proof ? Of course there is a self and the self will die and that will be all. Existence will continue regardless of there being a consciousness able to observe it. Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. No consciousness, no identification.

Truth is the recognition of reality. The metaphysically given is an absolute. Metaphysical facts are reality. You are confusing perceptual fact with conceptual error. Existence exists, A is A, a thing is a thing. We need logic in order to minimise error in conception, but not for perceptual fact. Our senses and our perception are truth. It is impossible to relate to something which has no metaphysical existence. You can build relativistic castles in the sky, but you cannot live in them. You can create things, but not out of nothing, you can only change a collection of things into some other kind of arrangement. The idea of yesterday and tommorrow, of time itself is conceptual only. The reality is the ongoing causality that is observed as metaphysical fact. Space is the relationship between two or more metaphysical objects, but space is a relative concept. Man categorises existent objects conceptually. Perception does not categorise anything at all. Man can make an error in the first, but not in the second. You can note these differences between the conceptual and the perceptual, the metaphysical and the epistemological. However you must relate the conceptual to perceptual fact. Concepts must be grounded in metaphysical reality, or they are just floating abstractions. You have your senses to engage with existent reality and that is all you have in terms of providing proof. I would ask you to define proof and truth and you will have to define it in relation to existents. You are stuck with it no matter how many conceptual castles you build. To say the truth is unknowable is a dereliction of the mind. It is to give up, to surrender the mind completely, to say because I have a mind I am unable to think.

Let's cut to you sophist/skeptic philosophy, because, unwittingly you are following that philosophy whether you know it or not. This is in your final conclusion. Which, makes it far easier to follow your deduction than the rest of your argument which is ephemeral. "I can know truth (reality) only by the characteristic that truth (reality) does not change" That is not a new argument and has been thoroughly debunked by Aristole who came after the sophists. What you failed to notice was that change itself IS reality. Our senses do not lie. Our perceptions of reality are perfect. However it is our conceptual integrations that can be in error. From this mess of Kantian/Hegelian philosophy comes the pseudo science of quantum theory. Another attempt to adopt scepticism and weld it to science. This is what Thomas Aquinas did with religion. He attempted to make religion 'scientific' and thence prevent reason from ousting spiritual mysticism once and for all. To an extent he succeeded. However, along came Kant and where there was room for spiritual mysticism, then surely there must be room for muscle mysticism. Reason lost the battle then. Once Hegel triumphed by removing God completely, the philosophy of collectivism was born. Now man had neither reason, nor God. Man had abandoned both to pragmatic subjectivism and in rushed the communists and fascists slaughtering men like daisies before a scythe.

Be the hero in your own life story :-)

Clearly I'm not getting through to you. I say again, if nothing is real in this dream, then by what method can you prove a statement within the dream such as "recognising everything you see and think is falsehood..." I know exactly who I am, but it appears you can't know exactly who you are because of this dream you say you have woken from, but in which there were no methods to prove anything. What does 'see with your own authority" ? That sounds like a revelation to me. Revelations belong to the spiritual Mystics. It's interesting that you now cite 'scientists' as having some proof that you now depend upon to prove your argument, yet, you have admitted no proof is possible in this dream world. Are you scientists in the dream world or in this new space in this new reality ? You are of course now relying on the Mystics of muscle to support your ideology. This is simply the sophist approach and it's a common cop out for intrincisists that see their towers begin to topple. You believe whatever you want. All I'm saying is you should check your premise because they are conflicted. One or other must be right, not both. Either you are in a dream world in which no proof is possible, no statement means anything and no one exists, or you are not. When we are awake we are fully aware of the concept of dreaming. There is no point at which we confuse the two states. If you were in a dream state then where would the information arise from beyond the dream state to let you know you were living in one ? If the information came to you from the dream state then it's dream information anyway and even if you thought you woke up, you just woke up inside the same big 'ole dream. As soon as you begin ' I can't know reality, I can't prove anything' then you fall on your sword. You are left with divine revelation and sophist mumbling so about scientific proof that we can't have proof. You are saying 'I can't know anything is true, but I can know that this is true'. That's the contradiction and the flaw. This is why intrincisists get into circular arguments about 'revelations and Gods word being true' they cannot explain how they know it's true, except to say God is truth. It's true because it's true.

And you are awake ? How do you know your belief isn't another illusion. You can't believe anything you hear, or see in this video game world, so what makes you think these things you believe are any more real if nothing is real ? You should wake up to reality before you get lost down a self created delusionary worm hole of insanity.

Done that projector thing already. I do fancy that spaghetti dish in you avatar mind you. You exist and are alive, do you doubt it ?

This is key, it is the problem of an underlying philosophy that makes 'feelings' more important than reason. What we end up with is hedonism. People claim emotional satisfaction as the prize. Do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences, do whatever 'feels' good. The passage that stood out for me: No Objective Standards for Mental Health? Psychology has increasingly rejected the concept of norms for mental health, focusing instead on emotional distress. The American Psychiatric Association (APA), for example, explains in the fth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) that GD is listed therein not due to the discrepancy between the individual’s thoughts and physical reality, but due to the presence of emotional distress that hampers his social functioning. The DSM-V also notes that a diagnosis is required for insurance companies to pay for cross- sex hormones and sex reassignment surgery (SRS) that alleviate the emotional distress of GD. Once the distress is relieved, GD is no longer considered a disorder.2 There is always someone at the school gate with drugs for sale. Take this and you will 'feel' better. Immature people act irrationally on emotional impulse. Our education system is deliberately keeping them in this state in order that they buy into the orthodoxy and violently object to those who would take away their 'right' to pleasure. It keeps people buying the Governments message and corporations sales pitches. It also makes them highly vulnerable to predators like those promoting gender fluidity. There will always be people making money out of naivety and misery. Until we get the state out of our children this is is going to get worse.

You are going a very long way around to say that not all concepts we hold are necessarily true. I don't hold that they are, neither do I hold that they aren't. We can know what is true by logical deduction based on axiomatic reality. We cannot provide proof of proof, we have to start with the axioms that permit proof to be discovered. I don't hold that science provides all the answers. Philosophy is the soil in which the trees of science grow. I'm not an empiricist or materialist (a muscle mystic) so I see both sides. You, on the other hand, are an intrincisist (a spiritual mystic) and only see one other side. Aristotle sided with Plato on the need for a prime mover-he was logically inconsistent in that belief. I pull together the muscle and spirit into one integrated whole. There is no mind/body dichotomy in my world. Objective reality does exist and we can know it.

Don't you people ever have that moment where you go doh ! If 'whatever you believe' is irrelevant, then you must apply that to your own belief that whatever you believe is also irrelevant. Therefore how will you first believe anything if everything is irrelevant ? You won't know truth because it would be a lie. You are blind because you can see and deaf because you can hear. Truth is proof. Proof requires logic based in reality. Proof is a personal, practical, selfish necessity of earthly cognition. It is the process of reducing a proposition to axioms-to sensory evidence. As such it is the only means that man has of discovering the relationship between non axiomatic proposition and the facts of reality.

What we do in life ripples through history. We can know right now that we are making a difference and we can feel good about doing it, because we are abiding in our principles :-) To act morally is to see that ones life is an end in itself. Right thought, right speech and right action. A fear of death is healthy and natural. It stops us suiciding and murdering, it makes us who we are, it defines us and the morality of our actions. Once it is realised that ones life IS the value and that that value IS an end in itself, then you can dispel all ignorance and evasion by consciously deciding to give them up.

I shall ask uncle brontosaurus. :-)

He's just as likely to have been involved at this juncture. I hate this conspiracy stuff it is horribly attractive and repulsive at the same time.