Why so many skeptics and non-believers on a Tao forum?

[Karl]

I don't claim to know anything but perhaps a Mystic chooses to appreciate the mystery of reality.

The skeptic/realist/atheist is perhaps those who choose to appreciate some faith-rooted bias in human constructed models.

Neither is a better option, both require trading Now.

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

A mystic believes that true knowledge is only available through some special knowing. An example would be God, or 'oneness'.They don't believe knowing can be achieved through human reason, but that knowledge must be found through trance/meditation/prayer etc.

 

A sceptic is different to a realist, or an atheist. A sceptic says 'well it's possible isn't it?', or 'maybe you are wrong?' They don't believe in certainty-that anything can be known.

 

 

[Marblehead]

The skeptic/realist/atheist is perhaps those who choose to appreciate some faith-rooted bias in human constructed models.

 

You did know I wouldn't let you get away with that, didn't you?

 

Faith?  No, not at all.  It is called confidence.  And absolutely not based in human constructed models but rather proof from observing nature, the universe and all aspects thereof.

 

But we need to be careful because man's constructs are also a part of the nature of Tao.  If it has happened once then it is within the realm of possibilities and could happen again.  If it happens every time it is attempted then we have what is called "proof".

[Bud Jetsun]

If you would be so kind Marblehead my friend, perhaps you could share with me examples of stuff you know are confident in your proof of knowing.

 

I lack even a mechanism to know if my entire life experience stream has all been a dream, and all my collected experience data points have not been more than perceptions filtered through human sensory limitations and bias.

 

As beings who perceive in 3 dimensions and an infinitely thin slice of a 4th, we tend to get pretty confident about having a handle on things, despite perhaps complete transparency of sensory equipment to detect the higher level dimensions required to give rise to the tiny fraction we directly see/touch/taste/smell in this infinitely thin slice of the 4th we call Now.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[leth]

If you would be so kind Marblehead my friend, perhaps you could share with me examples of stuff you know are confident in your proof of knowing. I lack even a mechanism to know if my entire life experience stream has all been a dream, and all my collected experience data points have not been more than perceptions filtered through human sensory limitations and bias. As beings who perceive in 3 dimensions and an infinitely thin slice of a 4th, we tend to get pretty confident about having a handle on things, despite perhaps complete transparency of sensory equipment to detect the higher level dimensions required to give rise to the tiny fraction we directly see/touch/taste/smell in this infinitely thin slice of the 4th we call Now. Unlimited Love, -Bud

 

Then what is knowledge too you? If there is no such thing as knowledge from a pure descriptive point of view, then there is no point in using the word either. Thus the statement that you have no knowledge makes no sense.

 

We define knowledge as something which we have enought faith or confidence in to be true. We are inherently unable to fully understand ontological truths using our current logic. If we are to define the word knowledge so that any knowledge be an ontological truthbearer we can never know whether we have knowledge or not. It therefore makes more sense to deinfe knowledge as something that is not an ontological truthbearer but rather something we are confident enough through our reason to consider real. For instance I consider my language knowledge, even hough I have no absolute proof of it's ontology.

 

So knowing is simply something that is reasonable to regard as real. I have reason to regard the fact that i am now writing on a forum on the internet and that other people are discussing with me via this form. This is knowledge for me. But if you define knowledge to deconstruct this you also deconstruct the value of using the word entierly, thus rendering any discussion on knowledge (including epistemological discussion and perhaps even metaepistemological discussion) inherently pointless.

[Marblehead]

Hi Bud,

 

Leth did a great job with the above post but I still want to talk about this with you.

If you would be so kind Marblehead my friend, perhaps you could share with me examples of stuff you know are confident in your proof of knowing. I lack even a mechanism to know if my entire life experience stream has all been a dream, and all my collected experience data points have not been more than perceptions filtered through human sensory limitations and bias. As beings who perceive in 3 dimensions and an infinitely thin slice of a 4th, we tend to get pretty confident about having a handle on things, despite perhaps complete transparency of sensory equipment to detect the higher level dimensions required to give rise to the tiny fraction we directly see/touch/taste/smell in this infinitely thin slice of the 4th we call Now. Unlimited Love, -Bud

I think it is important, in a discussion such as this, to consider the Taoist concept of the Ten Thousand Things, or some similar philosophy,

 

The Earth does exist.  We each are using our own little space of it.  Surely you would agree that the Sun and the Moon exist as well?  Sure, from a Buddhist perspective it could be said that they don't exist because they are not eternal and non-changing.

 

But I think that would be narrow-sightedness.  Taoism teachings that everything change.  I accept this.  I think most Buddhists would agree as well.

 

So we have the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon.  Have they always existed?  I must respond:  No.  Now true, I really don't know first hand because I haven't been around all that long compared to the life of our solar system.  But still, based on the knowledge we have of the universe and its processes I think it is possible to say the probably of our solar system being 4.5 billion years old is 99.9~ probable.

 

Now, will our solar system always be around, that is, will it always exist?  Nope.  Things change.  But it appears it will still be around for a while.

 

I like to use my chair as an example.  Every time I sit on it it supports me.  It doesn't suddenly disappear like some illusion or delusion.  It really doesn't matter what it is called or what materials it is made of.  It serves the purpose intended therefore it exists. 

 

You and I might look at a tree and we do, in fact, see the same tree.  It exists in the mind of both of us.  We might have different perspectives of what the tree is but it is still the same tree whether we look at it or not.  If we look directly at it, then walk directly toward it, insisting that it is an illusion, we will be feeling pain shortly from the encounter.

 

I consider "proof" the fact that my chair has always served the purpose for which it was intended.  Will it last forever?  Of course not.  When it breaks I will buy a replacement.

 

An interesting series on TV is "Life After People".  It presents educated guesses as to what will happen to the things we humans interact with.  Humans are no longer on the planet but all other life continues to follow their processes.  These are not "proofs" because it is just speculating upon the future.

 

I do understand the Buddhist concept that all life is temporal.  But I can never accept any suggestion that it does not exist.  Sure, there are many things in life we are not going to be sure about.  So we give it our best shot.  I don't jump off the rooftop of a ten story building because I know I cannot fly.  (Yes, I have tried.  Didn't work.  Some might say I didn't try hard enough.  That would be their opinion.)

 

So, yes, I feel there are a lot of things in life that we can be sure of.  We could bet our life on it.  Other things?  Be careful.

[Karl]

If you would be so kind Marblehead my friend, perhaps you could share with me examples of stuff you know are confident in your proof of knowing.

 

I lack even a mechanism to know if my entire life experience stream has all been a dream, and all my collected experience data points have not been more than perceptions filtered through human sensory limitations and bias.

 

As beings who perceive in 3 dimensions and an infinitely thin slice of a 4th, we tend to get pretty confident about having a handle on things, despite perhaps complete transparency of sensory equipment to detect the higher level dimensions required to give rise to the tiny fraction we directly see/touch/taste/smell in this infinitely thin slice of the 4th we call Now.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

To derive the concept of a dream you had first to know reality.

In a dream, when you fall down a flight of stairs you don't suffer even a single bruise. Try that when you are not dreaming and you will like as not break a limb.

[zerostao]

when i first came onto this site,,i quickly began shedding my beliefs/faiths. kate, marblehead, ralis were a few of the members that encouraged me to do so. 2010,2011. other members also gently nudged me in this direction, but the three i mention--were straight up in my face and delivering that message consistently. 

in 2012 when i began 2012 the long distance course TSM/XYP, some of the initial lessons dealt with mental illusions. a mental illusion is another word for some held beliefs/faiths. usually ones we were indoctrinated into believing due to cultural norms.

all along i did hold to what my own experiences showed me. i reasoned that if i could experience a thing, it was likely real.

i changed from a faith based perspective to a function based perspective.

it is true that i am highly tilted in the subjectivity/sensitivities view rather than a purely objective one. in fact i hold that a strictly objective view is automatically discredited. however, i form my own hypothesis and test those. it is useful to be honest and at least with one's self.

i dont have to have a faith or belief in benefits of qigong/bagua/TSM/XYP is real becoz i have experience that reinforces those concepts/practices. instead of my hypothesis leading to any solid objective anything, rather i am led to further subjectivity/sensitivities.

 

[Marblehead]

Yes, subjectivity is very useful.  We should not try to eliminate it.  But all our subjective views are personal perspectives.  Like looking at a tree; we each will view it from our personal perspective, from our subjectivity.  But it is still the exact same tree.

[ralis]

Perhaps some here wish to apply critical thinking so as to question the unfounded belief systems that are presented as fact.

Edited October 25, 2015 by ralis

[Marblehead]

Perhaps some here wish to apply critical thinking so as to question the unfounded belief systems that are presented as fact.

It is my subjective opinion that if that were attempted the thread would either die an early death or it would get thrown into the Pit.

 

You want truth?  Go talk with a politician.

[Bud Jetsun]

Perhaps someone can help with the jump from not-knowing a thing to knowing something. Ive read and appreciate the responses in this thread each a few times with an open mind.

 

It seems the process described as 'knowing' for some is to become comfortable with the idea of a given unknown faith based assumption, then grow confidence in the assumption, and eventually make a choice of confidence the faith based assumption is real, and then make the faith based jump into calling this is assumption of real 'knowing'?

 

Im eager to entertain that humans have some process to 'know' more than the faith based delusions of there own fabrication and choosing as real.

 

I also once believed when I looked around me, I was emersed in an ocean of things I knew. I found this to be exclusively illusion/delusion when examined.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Marblehead]

I've gone as far as I can go.  The tree isn't going to fall so there won't be any sound.