Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?

Do you agree with the test ?

Yes
3
19%
No
13
81%
 
Total votes: 16

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20041
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:20 pm

Greetings Circle5,

I see you're still presenting more ridiculous misrepresentations of ven. Nanananda's perspective. You have been told by multiple people he does not advocate self-view but you cling to your perverse misrepresentations...

:strawman:

How someone who cannot comprehend or bother to read the views of others thinks they are fit to declare what those others are or what they believe, is a mystery to me!

:alien:

As it is, I trust no one is foolish enough to take your misrepresentations as accurate... If anyone is interested in what ven. Nanananda actually says, then rather than listen to someone who hasn't even bothered to read his works, I trust they'll have the intelligence to take advantage of the fact his works are freely available online and find out for themselves.

:reading:

If anyone needs any help finding them, or recommendations on where to start, feel free to PM me.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by aflatun » Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:59 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:20 pm
Greetings Circle5,

I see you're still presenting more ridiculous misrepresentations of ven. Nanananda's perspective. You have been told by multiple people he does not advocate self-view but you cling to your perverse misrepresentations...
Even better he's doing so on the basis of quotations from Venerable Nanavira. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. :toilet:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by aflatun » Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:24 pm

As I said:
aflatun wrote:I want to be clear about something. We're talking about your attributions of solipsism and attavada to Ven. Nanananda and Nanavira, not whether your understanding of dhamma is better. Not about whether I am full bore espousing the view of either monk (I am not). I am trying to disavow you of those attributions so that we can finally move forward into constructive conversation, we can talk about the latter somewhere else. Agreed? Let's please stay on topic. We don't need to debate the particulars of the analysis, I just want you to see that the analysis does not posit a self. OK?
In your response you proceed to return to your usual espousing of your personal philosophy, and your usual attempts to pull me into a debate. I have no interest in either. I made my intentions for posting clear, and nowhere did I assert my opinion on "how it really is," so you're wasting your breath.
Circle5 wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:41 pm
It said this self-view depends on the reflection going on between what we might call "external world" or "objects" and the perception of it. I have claimed this is not how self-view originates.
No it does not say that. Not even close. We're still at square one. If you don't understand reflexion you don't understand anything Ven. Nanavira has to say. Its the easiest and most fundamental thing he writes about. Not surprising that everything else you wrote is a tango with a straw man. Its almost as if you've never read him, much like you've never read Nanananda...
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16426
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:43 am

aflatun wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:24 pm
No it does not say that. Not even close. We're still at square one. If you don't understand reflexion you don't understand anything Ven. Nanavira has to say. Its the easiest and most fundamental thing he writes about. Not surprising that everything else you wrote is a tango with a straw man. Its almost as if you've never read him, much like you've never read Nanananda...
To be fair, it doesn't help that Nanavira takes the word reflexion, which nowdays is usually thought of as simply an archaic spelling of reflection, and narrows the definition down to a particular technical meaning:
The faculty of self-observation or reflexion is inherent in the structure of our experience.
http://www.nanavira.org/libraries/ctp_book_v1.pdf page 34
In immediate experience the thing is present; in reflexive experience the thing is again present, but as implicit in a more general thing. Thus in reflexion the thing is twice present, once immediately and once reflexively. This is true of reflexion both in the loose sense (as reflection or discursive thinking) and a fortiori in the stricter sense (for the reason that reflection involves reflexion, though not vice versa).
See Mano and also Vinnana [d].
http://www.nanavira.org/libraries/ctp_book_v1.pdf page 52
:thinking:

Reading the above carefully, it is possible to make sense of statements like:
Atta

In the arahat’s reflexion what appears reflexively is only pancakkhandha, which he calls ‘myself’ simply for want of any other term.
But in the puthujjana’s reflexion what appears reflexively is panc’upàdànakkhandha, or sakkaya;
and sakkaya (q.v.), when it appears reflexively, appears (in one way or another) as being and belonging to an extra-temporal changeless ‘self’ (i.e. a soul).
http://www.nanavira.org/libraries/ctp_book_v1.pdf page 52
Cleary Nanavira is not saying that the arahant takes the khandhas as a self, but of course the arahant can examine "his/her" khandas, and may need to refer to them as "myself" when speaking to others.

And we can see from these passages why he wants to have a technical term, reflexion, rather than saying self-observation, which would add even more confusion...

:heart:
Mike

chownah
Posts: 7419
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by chownah » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:15 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:43 am

To be fair, it doesn't help that Nanavira takes the word reflexion, which nowdays is usually thought of as simply an archaic spelling of reflection, and narrows the definition down to a particular technical meaning:
I couldn't find a good definition of reflexion to illustrate what nanavira is talking about.

INstead I googled "reflexive" and I think its definition will help in understanding what he is saying.
chownah

Circle5
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am

aflatun wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:59 pm
retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:20 pm
Greetings Circle5,

I see you're still presenting more ridiculous misrepresentations of ven. Nanananda's perspective. You have been told by multiple people he does not advocate self-view but you cling to your perverse misrepresentations...
Even better he's doing so on the basis of quotations from Venerable Nanavira. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. :toilet:
I said "Nanananda" instead of "Nanavira" out of mistake.
To be fair, it doesn't help that Nanavira takes the word reflexion, which nowdays is usually thought of as simply an archaic spelling of reflection, and narrows the definition down to a particular technical meaning:
Indeed I have misunderstood him. I still don't know 100% sure what he is reffering to despite reading the whole page in your link. I believe he is refering to the quality of self-obserence not to simple self-observance. For example one might be "more conscious" or "more self-observent" or "more mindfull" when he is sober than compared to when he's drunk. This quality of being more or less self-observant is what I think he is refering to.

I've browsed the book a little more since you posted the link. Many parts are simply losing himself in words. As I said before, it's like one would take the 2+2=4 and start saying: All 3 numbers have equal significance in relationship to themselves and to the equation as a whole. Since all 3 numbers have equal significance, none can be said to have priority over another. Yet, the third number, (nr 4) can be said to superimpose itself on the other 2 numbers, being the sum of them. Through this superimposition, number 4 can be said to be the parent of the other 2 numbers, the thing that conditions their existence. Therefore, one might conclude that it is not that 2+2=4, but rather that "2" and "2" would not exist in the first place if it were not for the 4 superimposing itself on them and therefore the whole equation is meaningless as far as significance is concerned.

It is this kind of thinking that I is called "losing yourself in words". You might end up with a theory that simply has nothing to do with reality and, more importantly, it's just not useful for anything. The problem here, besides the losing yourself in words, is the wrong angle of looking at the problem to begin with. Have we ever seen Buddha speak in this way and look at things from this angle ? No, we see him look at things from a different angle and explain things in a different way.

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by pulga » Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:17 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:15 am

I couldn't find a good definition of reflexion to illustrate what nanavira is talking about.
Husserl's concept of apperception is helpful in understanding what Ven. Ñanavira means by reflexion:
Apperception (Apperzeption, Vergegenwärtigung)â•… See also appresentation, presentification

For Husserl, an apperception (Apperzeption) always presupposes and is founded on a perception (see CM § 55). To apperceive means to grasp something over and above what is actually perceived. Apperceptions accompany and form part of perceptions. The term ‘apperception’ is used by Descartes, Kant and Leibniz. In Brentano, an apperception is founded
on a perception. In perception, there is a direct experience of the selfgivenness of the object. In apperception, there is a sense that the object is mediated through something else that is presented immediately. For instance, in all perception of a physical object, direct perception is of the facing side of the object, the hidden sides of the object are apperceived or
appresented in an empty manner. Perception involves a horizon of sense that is co-intended and appresented. In his Passive Synthesis lectures, Husserl defines apperception as ‘a consciousness of having something that is not present in the original’ (APS, 367; Hua XI 234). Apperception involves a certain awareness of properties, profiles, horizons that are not
sensuously given in the perceiving itself, e.g. if I am in a room, I am aware not only of the objects that are inside the room, but also of the building in which I am. This connection between presence and absence is crucial for phenomenology. There are not only apperceptions of the things and the world but also of the self and others. Our interests, customs, convictions, judgements, etc. are grasped ‘apperceptively’ (Crisis, § 59). Husserl employs the term ‘presentiation’ or ‘presentification’ (Vergegenwärtigung) to cover a huge range of experiences including memories, fantasies, anticipations,
awareness of the hidden side of a physical object, and so on: ‘There are sense’ (CM § 50, 111; Hua I 141). Husserl says that an apperception does not involve inference (CM § 51). For Husserl, seeing another living body as a subject or cogito is a typical example of an apperception. -- Husserl Dictionary

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by SDC » Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:50 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:41 am
Therefore, one might conclude that it is not that 2+2=4, but rather that "2" and "2" would not exist in the first place if it were not for the 4 superimposing itself on them and therefore the whole equation is meaningless as far as significance is concerned.
So you're on the right track, but not exactly.

In terms of Ven. Nv's model of fundamental structure, if you have "2" and "2" there together, you would not, in a typical linear fashion, surmise "4". Structurally speaking, no matter how many "2" you have you can only conclude "2" when describing the nature of how "2" appears in this situation. See
Ven. Nanavira wrote:Let o represent a thing.

If we wish to represent another thing, not o, we must represent it by another symbol; for we cannot distinguish between o and o except by the fact of their being spatially separated, left and right, on this page; and since this is a representation, not of a structure in space (i.e. of a spatial object), but of the structure of space (amongst other things), which structure is not itself spatial, such spatial distinctions in the representation must not be taken into account. Thus, whether we write o once or a hundred times still only one thing is represented. -Notes on Dhamma, Fundamental Structure: Static Aspect
There is no mention of a thing "not existing in the first pace" (stop trying to insist this). This is not the denial of mathematics (nor of existence), but the point is not to accept the linear arrangement of things at face value, as the only way to see experience. Yes that linear arrangement is still relevant, but linear and temporal dependence are not the primary focus of PS, nor is it the only view available (you and I have discussed this with the simile of the reeds: SN 12.67, the relationship between the two reeds is a structural relationship and has nothing at all to do with time). So to say that "2" with "2" is "4", and say nothing else, only serves to diminish the significance of the meaning of "2". So whether "4" is responsible "2" and "2" or vise versa, it should not affect the significance of either. Both have significance. And that is the point of the reeds sutta is that neither reed takes temporal/linear precedence over the other.

I can tell you made an effort and it gives us an actual opportunity to discuss him rather than play games. But to take a quick look a Nanavira's writing and come here and say he is lost in his words sounds more like you got lost in his words. And you aren't the first to say this - it is an easy excuse not to read him.

Circle5
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:25 pm

In terms of Ven. Nv's model of fundamental structure, if you have "2" and "2" there together, you would not, in a typical linear fashion, surmise "4".
No wonder.
Structurally speaking, no matter how many "2" you have you can only conclude "2" when describing the nature of how "2" appears in this situation. See
There is no mention of a thing "not existing in the first pace" (stop trying to insist this). This is not the denial of mathematics (nor of existence), but the point is not to accept the linear arrangement of things at face value, as the only way to see experience. Yes that linear arrangement is still relevant, but linear and temporal dependence are not the primary focus of PS, nor is it the only view available (you and I have discussed this with the simile of the reeds: SN 12.67, the relationship between the two reeds is a structural relationship and has nothing at all to do with time). So to say that "2" with "2" is "4", and say nothing else, only serves to diminish the significance of the meaning of "2". So whether "4" is responsible "2" and "2" or vise versa, it should not affect the significance of either. Both have significance. And that is the point of the reeds sutta is that neither reed takes temporal/linear precedence over the other.
What is funny here is that my 2+2=4 example was not intended to have anything to do with Nanavira, it was intended as a satire. It was just an example about how one can simply look from a different angle at a thing, get himself lost in words and simply do an useless thinking exercise and nothing more.

It is no surprise Nanavira has an opinion similar to my satire about 2+2=4. Starting to look at the problem from a wrong angle and conclude that, at least when looking from this wrong angle, you can say "Structurally speaking, no matter how many "2" you have you can only conclude "2" when describing the nature of how "2" appears in this situation." (to quote you) - this is simply a thinking exercise like Sudoku or integrams. Not only is it the most useless exercise in the world, but you will also get lost in words and make wrong conclusions.

What sudoku exercises like that will do is to end you up with different sudoku theories, theories that can not be seen in reality. For example when I say that the tendency towards conceit is responsible for that "feeling of subjectivity" to use Nanavira vocabulary, such a statement you can actually "see with wisdom". You can lie 5 minutes on the couch, think about it and see if it is like that or not. When it comes to sudoku games, you can never see those things in reality. Like when Nanavira says that things that appear "impose themselves" on subjective experience. You can never see that with wisdom and very it. If one were to say the reverse thing, that subjective experience is imposing itself on things that appear, nobody could tell which one of the 2 opposing opinions is correct. And more importantly: it''s a totally useless angle of looking at things that will get you nowhere.

Let me give you a better simile. Imagine a car arrives at a mechanic with a problem at the turbine. A normal mechanic would start looking at different symptoms of the car, will look at how the pieces of the car work and relate to each other, etc. He would look at the turbine, at the intercooler pipe, at the electrovalve, etc.

An intellectual sudoku paying mechanic would do another thing. He would start thinking "this car is a French car, therefore it must be something related to electricity". or "this car is black, therefore it must be something related to the car enduring more hear than a normal car" etc. Or even worse: "Does this car exist in the first place? Does the turbine exist in the first place since we are not even sure about the car?" He would start looking at things from the wrong angle, totally divorced from reality and would never fix the turbine. He would get lost in theories that can be created about the car instead of looking from the right angle, looking at the intercooler, at the electrovalve, etc.

This is why looking from the right angle at things is so important. Postmodernist in particular are known for getting lost in words and sudoku theories. But even logical positivist and other more respectable philosophers many times are simply looking from the wrong angle, never finding out how this world works. Buddha 5 aggregates model is something that can be seen. The aggregates can be seen just like one can see the intercooler, electrovalve etc. The way they work can be seen just like the way the engine of the car can be seen. This is the difference between looking from the right angle and getting lost in sudoku theories that can not be seen in real life, that can never be verified through seeing them with wisdom. Weather a particular sudoku theory or it's opposite is true, it can never be verified since both are divorced from reality like the second mechanic theories are.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Dhammanando » Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:26 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:15 am
I couldn't find a good definition of reflexion to illustrate what nanavira is talking about.
In the Oxford Dictionary it’s Reflexion definition #8.c
Frederick Furnivall and his Merry Men wrote: Philos. The mode, operation, or faculty by which the mind has knowledge of itself and its operations, or by which it deals with the ideas received from sensation and perception.

1690 Locke Hum. Und. ii. i. §4 By Reflection then,‥I would be understood to mean, that notice which the Mind takes of its own Operations, and the manner of them.
1692 Norris Refl. Locke's Ess. Hum. Und. 61 Ideas of Reflection are but a Secondary sort of Ideas [etc.].
1797–1803 Foster in Life & Corr. (1846) I. 177 A knowledge of sensation more than of reflexion.
1847 Lewes Hist. Philos. (1867) I. 98 Was there nothing to guide man but the reports of his senses? Democritus said there was Reflection.
1853 Abp. Thomson Laws Th. §48 Reflection is ascertainment of points of resemblance and points of difference.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by SDC » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:20 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:25 pm
...
Looks like you completely missed the point of my post. Or just ignored it.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by aflatun » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:51 pm

pulga wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:17 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:15 am

I couldn't find a good definition of reflexion to illustrate what nanavira is talking about.
Husserl's concept of apperception is helpful in understanding what Ven. Ñanavira means by reflexion:
Apperception (Apperzeption, Vergegenwärtigung)â•… See also appresentation, presentification

For Husserl, an apperception (Apperzeption) always presupposes and is founded on a perception (see CM § 55). To apperceive means to grasp something over and above what is actually perceived. Apperceptions accompany and form part of perceptions. The term ‘apperception’ is used by Descartes, Kant and Leibniz. In Brentano, an apperception is founded
on a perception. In perception, there is a direct experience of the selfgivenness of the object. In apperception, there is a sense that the object is mediated through something else that is presented immediately. For instance, in all perception of a physical object, direct perception is of the facing side of the object, the hidden sides of the object are apperceived or
appresented in an empty manner. Perception involves a horizon of sense that is co-intended and appresented. In his Passive Synthesis lectures, Husserl defines apperception as ‘a consciousness of having something that is not present in the original’ (APS, 367; Hua XI 234). Apperception involves a certain awareness of properties, profiles, horizons that are not
sensuously given in the perceiving itself, e.g. if I am in a room, I am aware not only of the objects that are inside the room, but also of the building in which I am. This connection between presence and absence is crucial for phenomenology. There are not only apperceptions of the things and the world but also of the self and others. Our interests, customs, convictions, judgements, etc. are grasped ‘apperceptively’ (Crisis, § 59). Husserl employs the term ‘presentiation’ or ‘presentification’ (Vergegenwärtigung) to cover a huge range of experiences including memories, fantasies, anticipations,
awareness of the hidden side of a physical object, and so on: ‘There are sense’ (CM § 50, 111; Hua I 141). Husserl says that an apperception does not involve inference (CM § 51). For Husserl, seeing another living body as a subject or cogito is a typical example of an apperception. -- Husserl Dictionary
Thanks for that pulga. A while ago you recommended I review categorial intuition in the thought of Husserl, which also helped a lot.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

Circle5
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:26 pm

aflatun wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:51 pm
Thanks for that pulga. A while ago you recommended I review categorial intuition in the thought of Husserl, which also helped a lot.
I googled this Husserl "categorial intuition" and appearently it's a perfect example of what I spoke before. Let's take a look at it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Hu ... and_object
From Logical Investigations (1900/1901) to Experience and Judgment (published in 1939), Husserl expressed clearly the difference between meaning and object. He identified several different kinds of names. For example, there are names that have the role of properties that uniquely identify an object. Each of these names expresses a meaning and designates the same object.[69] Examples of this are "the victor in Jena" and "the loser in Waterloo", or "the equilateral triangle" and "the equiangular triangle"; in both cases, both names express different meanings, but designate the same object. There are names which have no meaning, but have the role of designating an object: "Aristotle", "Socrates", and so on. Finally, there are names which designate a variety of objects. These are called "universal names"; their meaning is a "concept" and refers to a series of objects (the extension of the concept). The way we know sensible objects is called "sensible intuition".
Nothing I didn't know as a child. A common complaint about postmodern philosophers, among many other, is the writing of long chapters about something very simple that everybody knows, saying things a child also knows but written in complicated language. Like most critics of postmodernism, I find such an activity a waste of time.
Through sensible intuition our consciousness constitutes what Husserl calls a "situation of affairs" (Sachlage). It is a passive constitution where objects themselves are presented to us. To this situation of affairs, through categorial intuition, we are able to constitute a "state of affairs" (Sachverhalt). One situation of affairs through objective acts of consciousness (acts of constituting categorially) can serve as the basis for constituting multiple states of affairs. For example, suppose a and b are two sensible objects in a certain situation of affairs. We can use it as basis to say, "a<b" and "b>a", two judgments which designate the same state of affairs. For Husserl a sentence has a proposition or judgment as its meaning, and refers to a state of affairs which has a situation of affairs as a reference base.
Here is another thing I have complained about before: claiming this thing is actually based on "categorical intuition" or is "experience itslef". But it is totally false. This is all built on ability to process information, not on intuition. This ability to process might happen automatically, with little awareness involved, such as when walking down the street and putting one foot after the other or when driving. But that is based on ability to process done automatically, not on intuition.

If a person is mentally retarded, he will not be able to make sense of things that appear in his experience. That meaning that Husserl is speaking about will not appear if the person is severely mentally retarded. There is no mystical intuition existing there, just ability to process. Same as a computer can process an information about a virus if there is an anti-virus software installed, but is unable to do so if there is no such software.


It is incredible how many philosophical sudoku games can be made out of a simple situation of being having the ability to process information. You can go on speaking about this for centuries and can built a trillion philosophies about it. And within such a sudoku theory, you can have internal logic. In the 2+2=4 example, even though it was just a satire, my argument did have some internal logic. And since these sudoku theories have internal logic of their own, the person might conclude "but from this angle of looking of the sudoku theory, the conclusions would be like this". And when we see reality is different from our conclusions from sudoku theories, we then go and say "there is ultimate reality and conventional reality" and then say "these conclusions are correct when it comes to ultimate reality, even though conventionally things are not like that".

What we have done here is just name a sudoku theory internal logic as "ultimate reality". The thing is, the sudoku theory is simply a wrong theory based on a wrong angle of looking at things, same as in the example with the 2+2=4 or the example with the mechanic I gave before. All the conclusions from the sudoku theory will be meaningless in any practical sense. If you want to call it "ultimate reality", then all conclusions of this ultimate reality will be meaningless too in a practical sense, it's just the naming of it that is different. This is why postmodernism is often called "the homeopathy of social sciences". These sudoku theories are divorced from reality, they don't offer anything useful when it comes to understanding the world.

And this is the big problem of postmodernist like Hussel, Satre, Heidegger etc. It is also a problem to some extent for rationalist philosophers. This is why western philosophy has failed in explaining the world. It's just a wrong angle of looking at things, divorced from reality. And this failure of normal western philosophy is what probably made postmodernism appear in the first place. With postmodernism we are totally divorced from reality. Just sudoku theories with internal logic but having nothing to do with reality. The theories of the second mechanic is my example surely have internal logic, but they have nothing to do with reality and are meaningless in any practical sense. As other have said: "Postmodernism failed because it failed to address human needs". It's simply an useless intellectual exercise.

We can never understand something if we are looking at things from the wrong angle, the angle of the second mechanic.
This is something many philosophers have failed to understand.

chownah
Posts: 7419
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by chownah » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:51 am

Dhammanando wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:26 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:15 am
I couldn't find a good definition of reflexion to illustrate what nanavira is talking about.
In the Oxford Dictionary it’s Reflexion definition #8.c
Frederick Furnivall and his Merry Men wrote: Philos. The mode, operation, or faculty by which the mind has knowledge of itself and its operations, or by which it deals with the ideas received from sensation and perception.

1690 Locke Hum. Und. ii. i. §4 By Reflection then,‥I would be understood to mean, that notice which the Mind takes of its own Operations, and the manner of them.
1692 Norris Refl. Locke's Ess. Hum. Und. 61 Ideas of Reflection are but a Secondary sort of Ideas [etc.].
1797–1803 Foster in Life & Corr. (1846) I. 177 A knowledge of sensation more than of reflexion.
1847 Lewes Hist. Philos. (1867) I. 98 Was there nothing to guide man but the reports of his senses? Democritus said there was Reflection.
1853 Abp. Thomson Laws Th. §48 Reflection is ascertainment of points of resemblance and points of difference.
Thanks for that. My initial reference was to my long ago french lessons where I learned about reflexive verbs...I am sure that you are familiar with this but for others who might be reading: a reflexive verb is a verb which takes the entity doing the action (the subject) as also being the entity receiving the action (the object)....for instance to bathe can be expressed by saying something like "I wash myself, you wash yourself, it washes itself, etc...

I have only casually been follow the discussions of nanavira etc. but it seems to me that this idea of the actor and the acted upon being closely related (like with a reflexive verb)might be what was meant when he used "reflexion". Is this madness?
chownah

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by L.N. » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:22 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:26 pm
If a person is mentally retarded, he will not be able to make sense of things that appear in his experience.
Can you please try to explain your point of view without using offensive language. http://www.r-word.org/r-word-effects-of-the-word.aspx

Your proposed test is meaningless. You have some very serious blind spots. Not sure how to make you aware of them.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests