[Guille]

Some replies to your comments, Mike.

Originally Posted by Mike 5

Very Cartesian.

I know. And that was what it is supposed to be. I don't just simply post in a thread when I have something to comment....no, not at all. I like planning th evolution of it, my future posts, and what posts I should do. The post on what the mind knows is only the mind was cartesian completelly on purpose, in order that I can soon psot the real thoughts I wanted to bring along, which requeired the psot on cartesian mind.

Originally Posted by Mike 5

I do not agree though.

Neither do I. Not at all. I didn't agree when I first read it in the Discourse (or was it the meditations? I can't remember because I had a book with both works in), I didn't agree when I posted, I don't agree now. The thing is that it is actually right, althouh I disagreee with it. It is right because the mind can only be consciouss in truth of it's own consciousnness, try to think about it from the poitn fo view of your mind.

Originally Posted by Mike 5

All the mind can know is the appearance

Yes and No. The mind doesn't "Know" the appearance of things, it just interprets it, has it. All of what the mind has (can think about) is the appearance. But it doesn't know it, for neither the mind can determine if the appearance is correct (therefore true, therefore real) or can the appearance demonstrate it. But I agree that the mind can only have in it all of what appears the things itself to it, not the things itself. This is pure phenomenological thought, and I'm reading Husserl's work these days. His philosophy actually constitutes all of contemporary physics, from spacetime relativity, uncertainty principle, entropy... But as everybody believes more in science and is easier to understand, we go to think it was Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac and others.... But Husserl knew all that in late 19th century.

Originally Posted by Mike 5

and the appearance is not "mental existence" at all!

I agree and disagree. The appearance is what things are for the minds, therefore they exist in the minds, therefore they have a mental existence. If not, you could not think about your computer screen, your shoes, your bed...
Another thing is that these appearances or how I call them "personal worlds" exist out of you. Also, the fact that more than one person has the same appearance of something like you, doesn't impply it is real outside your mind, it's jsut real in two mind, we ca call "public experience".

Originally Posted by Mike 5

On the contrary all the mind can "know" is what appears to be sky and furniture and Tuesday and the taste of nmaple syrup and so on.

No. It doesn't know it, it just has the, as concepts: objects of thought and ideation.

Originally Posted by Mike 5

As to what that actually is, and what we are as we take this possibly illusiary reality into us, we cannot know that.

We can't. The problem is we still don't have enough good cognitive science or philosophy of mind. They also thought in the 19th century that we couldn't ever know there is an aether. But Einstein came in 1905, and although called it spacetime it is for me the same thing.

Originally Posted by Mike 5

The only thing that for me "is" and "is sure" is that duality is the process of all processes.

There are a few problems with this. First, to make you thik about the validity of such a generalization as "every process is duality", then shouldn't there be another type of process, in order for their to be a duality of process of processes???

Originally Posted by Mike 5

To simplify, to start somewhere, presumably we are contained bubbles of consciousness apparently in material forms, but we cannot really know, we just make that up as an unquestioned axiom "just supposed".

Actually, it was simply an assuption in the start. Since Descartes it ahs been a logical deduction which no human in +300 years hasn't been able to discard. I know it is something really ridicule to think it is ok, but we have to have that proposition in order to build up knowledge. No proposition can be a substitude of such proposition, unless it is a similar proposition of self-reference existence.

Originally Posted by Mike 5

Yet there is something in our existence and our thinking about that existence - and that is the constant reframing of figure and background. Thinking is the thing the mind does, and thinking goes - this here piece of "reality" is something DISTINCT from ... some background or other thing. "God" is distinct from "not God", sardines are distinct from herrings and whales and monkeys, and thought is ultimately COMPARISON (apparently the words "mind" "maia" and "measurement" are all from the same root). Comparision is the essence of thinking, it is basically dualistic or dialectic and it winds on and on and on and on recursively, umbilically, or in a word, fractally.

There are also three way comparisons, and four way, and five way.... The reason why the 2 way comparison is more common is because our brains are not good enough as to compare more than 2 things easilly.

Originally Posted by Mike 5

Which is why Fractal Dialectics is the nature of the mind thinking, but as to the nature or "reality" out there, we can never know for sure. That we all agree upon.

Yep, I agree on this one.

[michellemfry]

I wanted to comment on the most used phrase in the academic world. That is ...Let or Let us suppose...

First of all, it is the mind doing the letting, by setting the stage for the coming directions to follow, as someone is trying to make a point or prove something or whatever.

Second, we assume that whatever follows let to be true because we have asked it to be so for the sake of the discussion or argument.

Technically, we have asked for no protection against future contradictions and paradoxes, or even a Pandora's Box. We open ourselves to all kinds of unfair situations. How can one predict a paradox? I have great respect for those who discover the darn things.
Anyway, I was just wondering if there is such a thing as protection from a potential paradox?

[mkirkpatrick]

Having read many replies to this topic,I now consider,thatall I really own our
the memories I have,and to recognise that it is up to me to ensure that the
future ones will be positive and hopefully happy ones.thanks for your input.


regards michael

[Guille]

Mkirkpatrik,

are we sure we really own our memory? How do we know that they are not imagination? How do we know that they ahven't been implanted in our brain, to create a false live and identity? And also, if you have witness a murder, are you really in your right to keep the memories to yourself? No.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mike 5

There is a delightful and empowering way to rethink what ownership truly is. And that is that when you give something away, you realise you had it to give away. This is the spiritual realisation that by giving, you experience yourself as not only generous, but generative. Giving more and more love, you experience yourself as having abundant love to give. And so on.

This view of ownership rests on the moment ownership is surrendered as the discovery that you owned something. You don't know what you have till it's gone.

You are quite right Mike,when its gone,it can leave a hole behind!

regards michael.

[harmonygirl]

Not to quibble Mike 5, but isn't the moment ownership is surrendered the moment in which you realized that you never owned? Isn't that the freedom of which you speak?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Guille

Mkirkpatrik,

are we sure we really own our memory? How do we know that they are not imagination? How do we know that they ahven't been implanted in our brain, to create a false live and identity? And also, if you have witness a murder, are you really in your right to keep the memories to yourself? No.

Who would you suspect of implanting these memories amigo,not the illuminatti I
hope!Sounds a little paranoid to me,are we alone now?


regards michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

Who would you suspect of implanting these memories amigo,not the illuminatti I
hope!Sounds a little paranoid to me,are we alone now?


regards michael.

My only comment to this is that a real philosopher questions absolutelly everything, gives nothing for granted, holds to no method or belief, is as concrete and precise as general and abstract.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Guille

My only comment to this is that a real philosopher questions absolutelly everything, gives nothing for granted, holds to no method or belief, is as concrete and precise as general and abstract.

I am grateful then that you are a real philosopher my friend,and not a cardboard cutout.
You are absolutely correct in saying we should take nothing for granted,for that is the road to complacency.

regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

After much debate and many months passing,what do I really own?Well all that is what I
am I own,and what I am is nothing?


regard michael.