Re: Deconversion

On Jan 27, 1:25 pm, Richard Dudley <abraxal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 7:32 pm, Paul <pgr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



[ I'd said, to Peter on the subject of 'who created God?' ]

Its probably not a 'Christian answer' (how would I know, I'm not a
Christianduh) but a reasonable answer is that God, like any other
creature, its a self-created entity. Bet you're not interested in that
as an answer, since despite your claims to be a 'rock solid monist'
the question only makes any kind of sense within a dualistic
mindset...

So where did the original Skandas begin, if at all?

I had to look up these 'Skandhas' on Google (it corrected the original
spelling), I'm still none the wiser how they're relevant here. Care to
explain ?

What was the first cause, if there was one?

Causality is another dualistic notion, so no, there wasn't a 'first
cause' - there was constant evolution I'd say.

How can you escape dualism?

The answer is within. Or perhaps, the answer is 'within'.

There is you reading this post and there
is this post.

Well actually, if you do the accounting very carefully this is an
error.

I disagree.

What I'm looking at is my percept, my percepts are most
definitely me.

Yes, but the post exists before you look at it.

Put another way, what I see is all in my mind

No it isn't, there is 'something' outside your mind, otherwise how
does everyone see the same tree? If it was all in your mind there
wouold only be your tree and no way for everybody to agree that, say,
it has four branches.

my mind
projects the contents of perception 'outwards' and hoists 'reality'
for me.

The mind has to have some external reality to work with to create a
shared objective reality.

Your mind does the same for you - we are 'windowless monads'
to borrow a phrase.

Sounds like Leibniz? I'm trying to push Kant's view, which seems to
express reality better to me. How can windowless monads see the same
tree? There needs to be a window so each monad can look out and agree
the tree has four branches.

There's a dualism.

Yes, but that dualism is illusory when carefully examined.

It doesn't seems so to me. There's me, and there's the tree. I agree
my mind has a lot to do with creating how the tree appears to me. But
there is still a me/tree duality.

And the post can't be you because you
did not know it before you read it.

Don't follow this line of reasoning as to why something can't be me
that I don't know. The post I see on my screen is a construct of my
visual system, along with the computer its displayed on.

Not before you see it.

Not 'in itself'.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deconversion
    ... But you just said the post is outside your mind on Google's servers, ... If I say "Did you see that tree shaped like an armchair ... I'll agree with you if you agree that that 'shared objective reality' ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... so the post is not all in your mind. ... does everyone see the same tree? ... I'll agree with you if you agree that that 'shared objective reality' ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... But you just said the post is outside your mind on Google's servers, ... They don't all see the 'same tree'. ... shared objective reality which we can grasp in some way through our ... That's dualism for you! ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... No it isn't, there is 'something' outside your mind, otherwise how ... They don't all see the 'same tree'. ... projects the contents of perception 'outwards' and hoists 'reality' ... That's dualism for you! ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: When I was young...
    ... > There are to many possible explanations for this isolated incedent ... > vibration caused it to fall (In you your mind you thought you HAD ... > placed it securely as the momentary distraction was pushed from your ... > tree in our front yard and they decided to cut it down one day and ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)