It appears that in what I think is your attempt at positing anatman you have posited just the opposite, providing a view of an endless sea, an infinity of tiny little selves with the only thing in common being some sort of connective "tissue." I could be wrong, please do let me know.
Would you also happen to believe that what made you you, is what also makes everyone else everyone else-- sort of like a drop in an ocean, but still an ocean's drop?
Well, I think you are playing a bit of hide and seek. Nevertheless, what would the world be like if sentient beings(the capable human variety) would realize their deep down Self in all the other selves. Would we really treat each other so miserably?
Your question focuses on whether there is one thing or many things, perhaps you should focus on what you mean by "there is". Heraclitus said a man can't step in the same river twice; does the river exist if it is always changing?
I have questioned that, and I think "there is" is a false statement... everything is in a state of flux, identity and "what something is" are just categories and classifications asserted by us on things as abstractions. These abstractions are used to analyze the world, and we never actually get to an "essence" though we think we are approaching it.
"we think we are approaching it" is duality. What is it that is creating "pyrrho", wouldn't that be the real you? I'll say something again, Consider this possibility: Everything that exists, that you do not know, is producing what you do know. If this was true, you could never say what you were, you could only be what you were.
"the real you"... that phrase does not actually have a concrete meaning... there is nothing which is "the real me"... there is only the phenomenon called "me".
Did the network put "I exist therefore I am" on your profile? Maybe you should try network television instead of youtube. I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm curious if your experience matches your intellect. You and Matt have a lot of natural talent in this area, I hope you keep at it. Sorry about the bad joke!
Belong to a network of what? If you still say neurons, you drown in dualism. If you say network of networks, you are treading water. Have you assumed your sense of identity "belongs" to a subset of reality? What is it that knows the known?
it appears to be a network of single celled life, the neurons appear to play a noticable role with such identifications... so I'm guessing it's of neuron, though I don't actually have to know any of this... because my main experience of "me" is just as myself, it is a name for the experience I am having. However, it does appear to be a network of organisms.
I'm trying to find out who your "I" is that is having the experience of "me". You still seem to want to pin that "I" on something less than reality itself, which is why I said that is dualism. In my experience, there is no answer to this question. Some traditions have answers like "everything", "nothing", "don't know", and "that", etc.
Do you exist? You are also always changing. Does a wave exist... every moment it's "made" of different water, except wait, it was never identified because of the water of which it was made, but is a name for the continuous pattern of relationships which actually compose the wave.
We too are wave like, propagating through the chemical reactions that make us up.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. I don't like the word "oneness" much because it does seem to marginalize the different ways a particular can be part of the whole (relationships, connections, etc.). Non-duality, rather than oneness, is better seen as dependent origination: every individual thing depends on all the other things around it to be what it is (so it has no essence aside from the specific way it relates to everything else).
Reality itself is undeniable and undefinable. Can you think of something else that is undeniable and undefinable? What looks through your eyes and what does it see?
that's all good except that I don't see the need for it. Instead of pretending to fully accept out unity with everything, and also pretending to accept our isolation from everything, depending, why not embrace our connections which conveys both proximity/similarity/commonality and distance/difference/separation at the same time? I am not one with everything, I'm connected to everything, I'm not separate from everything, I'm connected to everything.
it's all semantics in this case. Why protend there is wholeness when that identity is just an idea we put on a system. The system can be seen as whole, or as made of parts, the distance can be emphasized, or the nearness, in each case choosing to ignore the other implications. But when we talk about connection we bring in both distance and nearness simultaneously.
It is semantics, and I'm saying the semantics of relationship are better than the semantics of group identification (oneness) or the semantics of unconnected isolation (individuality).
It is only semantics, and if the thought is all that counts, the thought of oneness is fine. But the reason we see people pushing "oneness" without reservation is due, I think, in part, to the problems with the semantics of "oneness". It makes us think that we have to choose "one" v "many", but we don't.
men should not be isolated. we continually evolve through interactions from day to day activities. Why can't we embrace our identity and be a part of something that is bigger than ourselves?
you can, and you can do it without pretending you are the same as it or "one". You can embrace your connections. Why is that not good enough I guess is the question I'm probing. I am not offering a hard answer, just wondering what the real value of this semantic approach is.
this "oneness" speaks of absolute unity of all matter and thought through time and space which i am not in aggreement. I believe we are interlinked with all matter and thought through time and space which is holism.
It appears that in what I think is your attempt at positing anatman you have posited just the opposite, providing a view of an endless sea, an infinity of tiny little selves with the only thing in common being some sort of connective "tissue." I could be wrong, please do let me know.
bigdaddydylan 4 years ago
It is rumored that matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed
bigdaddydylan 4 years ago
I believe that, "law of conservation".
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Would you also happen to believe that what made you you, is what also makes everyone else everyone else-- sort of like a drop in an ocean, but still an ocean's drop?
bigdaddydylan 4 years ago
I'd have to say that what makes me me is different stuff from what makes you you.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Well, I think you are playing a bit of hide and seek. Nevertheless, what would the world be like if sentient beings(the capable human variety) would realize their deep down Self in all the other selves. Would we really treat each other so miserably?
bigdaddydylan 4 years ago
everything is unique, two electrons, similar in every respect differ in just one, position-momentum. And they cannot stay still with respect to us.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I just saw this reply, cool thanks for your thoughts, nice setting! :)
GeraldP1983 4 years ago
if youtube let me I'd have responded with it to all three, glad you found it... :)
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Your question focuses on whether there is one thing or many things, perhaps you should focus on what you mean by "there is". Heraclitus said a man can't step in the same river twice; does the river exist if it is always changing?
jallopyclown 4 years ago
I have questioned that, and I think "there is" is a false statement... everything is in a state of flux, identity and "what something is" are just categories and classifications asserted by us on things as abstractions. These abstractions are used to analyze the world, and we never actually get to an "essence" though we think we are approaching it.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
"we think we are approaching it" is duality. What is it that is creating "pyrrho", wouldn't that be the real you? I'll say something again, Consider this possibility: Everything that exists, that you do not know, is producing what you do know. If this was true, you could never say what you were, you could only be what you were.
jallopyclown 4 years ago
"the real you"... that phrase does not actually have a concrete meaning... there is nothing which is "the real me"... there is only the phenomenon called "me".
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Then who calls it "me"?
jallopyclown 4 years ago
the network calls itself that... the point is there is no actual essence requires to call something "me".
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Did the network put "I exist therefore I am" on your profile? Maybe you should try network television instead of youtube. I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm curious if your experience matches your intellect. You and Matt have a lot of natural talent in this area, I hope you keep at it. Sorry about the bad joke!
jallopyclown 4 years ago
yes, the network of neurons and biology that I call "me" put that on my profile.
where is the problem? have you assumed the sense of identity cannot belong to a network?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Belong to a network of what? If you still say neurons, you drown in dualism. If you say network of networks, you are treading water. Have you assumed your sense of identity "belongs" to a subset of reality? What is it that knows the known?
jallopyclown 4 years ago
it appears to be a network of single celled life, the neurons appear to play a noticable role with such identifications... so I'm guessing it's of neuron, though I don't actually have to know any of this... because my main experience of "me" is just as myself, it is a name for the experience I am having. However, it does appear to be a network of organisms.
How on earth is that dualism?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I'm trying to find out who your "I" is that is having the experience of "me". You still seem to want to pin that "I" on something less than reality itself, which is why I said that is dualism. In my experience, there is no answer to this question. Some traditions have answers like "everything", "nothing", "don't know", and "that", etc.
jallopyclown 4 years ago
Do you exist? You are also always changing. Does a wave exist... every moment it's "made" of different water, except wait, it was never identified because of the water of which it was made, but is a name for the continuous pattern of relationships which actually compose the wave.
We too are wave like, propagating through the chemical reactions that make us up.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Agreed, agreed, agreed. I don't like the word "oneness" much because it does seem to marginalize the different ways a particular can be part of the whole (relationships, connections, etc.). Non-duality, rather than oneness, is better seen as dependent origination: every individual thing depends on all the other things around it to be what it is (so it has no essence aside from the specific way it relates to everything else).
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
Reality itself is undeniable and undefinable. Can you think of something else that is undeniable and undefinable? What looks through your eyes and what does it see?
jallopyclown 4 years ago
i would think of "oneness" as holistic. It's like being apart of a whole but still having your own identity and specific characteristics/ properties.
Shanella28 4 years ago
that's all good except that I don't see the need for it. Instead of pretending to fully accept out unity with everything, and also pretending to accept our isolation from everything, depending, why not embrace our connections which conveys both proximity/similarity/commonality and distance/difference/separation at the same time? I am not one with everything, I'm connected to everything, I'm not separate from everything, I'm connected to everything.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
IMO that connection makes us whole. i think I know where we are ideas are conflicting. there are some semantics involve.
Shanella28 4 years ago
it's all semantics in this case. Why protend there is wholeness when that identity is just an idea we put on a system. The system can be seen as whole, or as made of parts, the distance can be emphasized, or the nearness, in each case choosing to ignore the other implications. But when we talk about connection we bring in both distance and nearness simultaneously.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
It is semantics, and I'm saying the semantics of relationship are better than the semantics of group identification (oneness) or the semantics of unconnected isolation (individuality).
It is only semantics, and if the thought is all that counts, the thought of oneness is fine. But the reason we see people pushing "oneness" without reservation is due, I think, in part, to the problems with the semantics of "oneness". It makes us think that we have to choose "one" v "many", but we don't.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I suppose "oneness" sounds more cohesive than "many" which is just staing majority.
Shanella28 4 years ago
men should not be isolated. we continually evolve through interactions from day to day activities. Why can't we embrace our identity and be a part of something that is bigger than ourselves?
Shanella28 4 years ago
you can, and you can do it without pretending you are the same as it or "one". You can embrace your connections. Why is that not good enough I guess is the question I'm probing. I am not offering a hard answer, just wondering what the real value of this semantic approach is.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
this "oneness" speaks of absolute unity of all matter and thought through time and space which i am not in aggreement. I believe we are interlinked with all matter and thought through time and space which is holism.
Shanella28 4 years ago
we are all a part of a bigger whole. Someone ones told me, "we are dim lights entangled by circumstance."
Shanella28 4 years ago
Perhaps it is the darkness that holds the candle.
jallopyclown 4 years ago
I should have said I prefer holism over oneness.
Shanella28 4 years ago