Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Is it obvious that when I say "I don't exist", or "you don't exist" that these statements are incorrect?

No, but who are "you" and "I"? That's a serious question that I think merits some digging.....after all, morality is founded on the idea that duality exists and that one entity can act upon another. This isn't obvious and frankly depending on how you choose to organize "reality" it is just as valid to argue that the universal unity is acting upon itself and if that is the case can a single entity acting upon itself ever be immoral?

Proving morality to me seems about as futile as trying to prove that chocolate pudding tastes better than vanilla pudding. But I'm enjoying the discussion and willing to be swayed

Doodle, I cannot say that I don't exist if I don't exist. I can't identify a "you" to say that "you" don't exist if I don't at least beleive "you" exist, whether or not you in fact to. These are self-contradicting statements and therefore they MUST be incorrect. You can't not exist, else there is no you to not exist

Is it possible that reality doesn't conform to the arbitrary logic of language?

If you guys could do me a favor and refrain from repeating over and over that morality doesn't exist it would help things I think. The purpose here is to discover that and you keep repeating the conclusion you beleive before we get there.

It's like we are having a discussion on the existance of God and I keep repeating that God doesn't exist. I promise you will get more out of this with a completely open-minded approach rather than continuously jumping to the end. I have not even had the chance to bring up morality yet in any statements but it keeps getting repeated that it doesn't exist or is impossible to prove.

Let's see first please.

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: No, but who are "you" and "I"? That's a serious question that I think merits some digging.....after all, morality is founded on the idea that duality exists and that one entity can act upon another. This isn't obvious and frankly depending on how you choose to organize "reality" it is just as valid to argue that the universal unity is acting upon itself and if that is the case can a single entity acting upon itself ever be immoral?

Proving morality to me seems about as futile as trying to prove that chocolate pudding tastes better than vanilla pudding. But I'm enjoying the discussion and willing to be swayed

Doodle, I cannot say that I don't exist if I don't exist. I can't identify a "you" to say that "you" don't exist if I don't at least beleive "you" exist, whether or not you in fact to. These are self-contradicting statements and therefore they MUST be incorrect. You can't not exist, else there is no you to not exist

Is it possible that reality doesn't conform to the arbitrary logic of language?

language is just the tool used to convey the concepts of reality. Reality doesn't conform to language.......language needs to conform to reality, to be effective. There's a thing in reality that is me, and us, and in English we use the word "I" to refer to ourselves. Ergo, I can't say "I don't exist" and be correct.

Doodle, if nothing exists and everything is an illusion, then having a debate about such is pointless. I would imagine that going along with the idea of reality existing and humans existing (including you--no, you are not a spotted owl ) will be more fun and interesting.

The most popular explanation of our universe today is that it exploded from a singularity (as inconceivable as that is for our minds to grasp) at what point did this universal singularity stop being a single entity? If I take a balloon and blow it up does it become two balloons? We we talk about proving morality we must think in a universal sense and when we try to do that it seems like we get rebuffed by the unbelievable in comprehensiveness of our universe. I'm willing to concede that we can define morality if we agree to some basic premises, but unfortunately those premises are unknowable and unprovable so the buck kind of stops there.

Pointedstick wrote: Doodle, if nothing exists and everything is an illusion, then having a debate about such is pointless. I would imagine that going along with the idea of reality existing and humans existing (including you--no, you are not a spotted owl ) will be more fun and interesting.

Not my ideas...I'm just throwing the vendantic notion of  maya and Brahman out on the table. I think you could say we exist, but not in manner that we think we do. Maybe using a movie is a good analogy. When you watch a good movie the characters and action pull you in. You might even cry and get scared or shocked.....but that doesn't mean that they really exist. Its a fun game, a diversion which is just flickering light projected against a backdrop.

The mystic teachings in Vedanta are centered on a fundamental truth of the universe that cannot be reduced to a concept or word for the ordinary mind to manipulate. Rather, the human experience and mind are themselves a tiny fragment of this truth. In this tradition, no mind-object can be identified as absolute truth, such that one may say, "That's it." So, to keep the mind from attaching to incomplete fragments of reality, a speaker could use this term to indicate that truth is "Not that."

In Vedanta, maya is to be seen through, like an epiphany (dar?ana), in order to achieve moksha (liberation of the soul from the cycle of samsara). Ahamk?ra (ego-consciousness) and karma are seen as part of the binding forces of maya. Maya may be understood as the phenomenal Universe of perceived duality, a lesser reality-lens superimposed on the unity of Brahman. It is said to be created by the divine by the application of the Lil? (creative energy/material cycle, manifested as a veil—the basis of dualism). The sanskaras of perceived duality perpetuate samsara.[citation needed]

Maya is often translated as "illusion", since our minds construct a subjective experience, which we are in peril of interpreting as reality. Maya is the principal deity that manifests, perpetuates, and governs the illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe. For some mystics, this manifestation is real.[12] Each person, each physical object, from the perspective of eternity, is like a brief, disturbed drop of water from an unbounded ocean. The goal of enlightenment is to understand this—more precisely, to experience this: to see that the distinction between the self and the Universe is a false dichotomy. The distinction between consciousness and physical matter, between mind and body (refer bodymind), is the result of an unenlightened perspective.

Pointedstick wrote: Doodle, if nothing exists and everything is an illusion, then having a debate about such is pointless. I would imagine that going along with the idea of reality existing and humans existing (including you--no, you are not a spotted owl ) will be more fun and interesting.

I think it was the first thing we all agreed to

We can't get anywhere because we keep having to go back.

Despite this I know we'll reach the end and I will hear "Well.........you really didn't prove anything because you're taking it on faith that we actually exist". I have an idea who will say it to (not moda or doodle).

doodle wrote: We we talk about proving morality we must think in a universal sense and when we try to do that it seems like we get rebuffed by the unbelievable in comprehensiveness of our universe.

Why do we have to do that?

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: We we talk about proving morality we must think in a universal sense and when we try to do that it seems like we get rebuffed by the unbelievable in comprehensiveness of our universe.

Why do we have to do that?

Because by saying you can prove morality, you are in effect making a claim that there is a thing called "morality" which exists in this universe.....and as far as I can tell the universe doesn't agree with human concepts of morality. We are essentially evolved bacteria...our morality is nothing more than a set of rules (whether they are hard wired at birth or taught in a cultural context based on an idea of what the meaning of life is) which promote our survival. They don't go any deeper than that

I'm actually much more interested in playing the game of morality than proving whether it exists or not. Hypothetical: two men are stranded on a desert island with plenty of water but no food. If both men decide to play nice they will both be dead in less than a month. If one decides he wants to live, he must kill the other and eat him. I should add that these two men happen to think that they are the last men alive and that if the human race is to have any chance of survival then one of them must try to live as long as possible with the hope of possibly meeting a woman to reproduce. What is the moral decision to take?

Doodle,

For the purposes of this argument, we are accepting certain premises that conform with observable reality.

I'm willing to accept some of those things.  I still think it will be near impossible for Kshartle to prove morality, even without all the grey area stuff (pollution, kids, risk, odd situations, etc).


K,

Sorry I don't mean to assume my conclusions and state them as fact.

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: We we talk about proving morality we must think in a universal sense and when we try to do that it seems like we get rebuffed by the unbelievable in comprehensiveness of our universe.

Why do we have to do that?

Because by saying you can prove morality, you are in effect making a claim that there is a thing called "morality" which exists in this universe.....and as far as I can tell the universe doesn't agree with human concepts of morality. We are essentially evolved bacteria...our morality is nothing more than a set of rules (whether they are hard wired at birth or taught in a cultural context based on an idea of what the meaning of life is) which promote our survival. They don't go any deeper than that

Is there a logical proof somewhere in that opinion?  (No need to answer, this is primarily K's show).

... Mountaineer

moda0306 wrote: Doodle,

For the purposes of this argument, we are accepting certain premises that conform with observable reality.

I'm willing to accept some of those things.  I still think it will be near impossible for Kshartle to prove morality, even without all the grey area stuff (pollution, kids, risk, odd situations, etc).


K,

Sorry I don't mean to assume my conclusions and state them as fact.

No problem at all....I just want us to move faster. That means I need to ask fewer questions and explain very clearly. I've actually been typing this while participating in a virtual meeting and I need to stop that.

doodle wrote: our morality is nothing more than a set of rules (whether they are hard wired at birth or taught in a cultural context based on an idea of what the meaning of life is) which promote our survival. They don't go any deeper than that

  I'm glad you are climbing on board the train of the existance of morality.

The result of it will be rules to follow, does it need to be any deeper?

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: our morality is nothing more than a set of rules (whether they are hard wired at birth or taught in a cultural context based on an idea of what the meaning of life is) which promote our survival. They don't go any deeper than that

  I'm glad you are climbing on board the train of the existance of morality.

The result of it will be rules to follow, does it need to be any deeper?

Then maybe we have a disagreement about what morality means. Your rules are really no different than "drink freshwater, not saltwater". That isn't "right" or "wrong" really...anymore than life is right and death is wrong....which it isn't.

If you are just going to argue that certain general rules promote human survival easier I would agree. But there are plenty of gray areas where these black and white rules don't really work. The rule of "thou shall not kill" becomes more complicated in my desert island hypothetical.

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: our morality is nothing more than a set of rules (whether they are hard wired at birth or taught in a cultural context based on an idea of what the meaning of life is) which promote our survival. They don't go any deeper than that

  I'm glad you are climbing on board the train of the existance of morality.

The result of it will be rules to follow, does it need to be any deeper?

Then maybe we have a disagreement about what morality means. Your rules are really no different than "drink freshwater, not saltwater". That isn't "right" or "wrong" really...anymore than life is right and death is wrong....which it isn't.

If you are just going to argue that certain general rules promote human survival easier I would agree. But there are plenty of gray areas where these black and white rules don't really work. The rule of "thou shall not kill" becomes more complicated in my desert island hypothetical.

No need to answer, but again, do you have any logical proof for the bolded statement?  I am continuing to have the sense that one can view their presuppositions as fact when they are merely another faith based statement. ??

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:   I'm glad you are climbing on board the train of the existance of morality.

The result of it will be rules to follow, does it need to be any deeper?

Then maybe we have a disagreement about what morality means. Your rules are really no different than "drink freshwater, not saltwater". That isn't "right" or "wrong" really...anymore than life is right and death is wrong....which it isn't.

If you are just going to argue that certain general rules promote human survival easier I would agree. But there are plenty of gray areas where these black and white rules don't really work. The rule of "thou shall not kill" becomes more complicated in my desert island hypothetical.

No need to answer, but again, do you have any logical proof for the bolded statement?  I am continuing to have the sense that one can view their presuppositions as fact when they are merely another faith based statement. ??

... Mountaineer

No proof past simple observation of nature which has been killing innocent people since time immemorial.

If an omnipotent and loving god can kill innocent children with natural disasters when it is in his power to stop them, then killing must not be morally wrong....lest god be immoral.

Here comes the "works in mysterious ways" rebuff 

If this goes back to Adam and Eve and the garden of good and evil then the lesson I take away is that it is okay to kill someone related to the perpetrator of a crime to enact justice.

doodle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

doodle wrote: Then maybe we have a disagreement about what morality means. Your rules are really no different than "drink freshwater, not saltwater". That isn't "right" or "wrong"i really...anymore than life is right and death is wrong....which it isn't.

If you are just going to argue that certain general rules promote human survival easier I would agree. But there are plenty of gray areas where these black and white rules don't really work. The rule of "thou shall not kill" becomes more complicated in my desert island hypothetical.

No need to answer, but again, do you have any logical proof for the bolded statement?  I am continuing to have the sense that one can view their presuppositions as fact when they are merely another faith based statement. ??

... Mountaineer

No proof past simple observation of nature which has been killing innocent people since time immemorial.

If an omnipotent and loving god can kill innocent children with natural disasters when it is in his power to stop them, then killing must not be morally wrong....lest god be immoral.

And you know that in all certainty how?

... Mountaineer

Guys......33 of the 38 pages are the jumping to conclusions already and guesses at what my argument is going to be then claiming I'm wrong.

If I'm wrong let's confine it to arguments I've actually made

Please.

And we've addressed God enough here. Either he exists or not. Either he created everything we call reality or he didn't. If he created reality, that doesn't mean there is no reality. If he created everything, that doesn't mean there isn't anything. Can we all agree on that? That is enough for us to agree to not bring him up again here, at least for now.

Please.

doodle wrote: I'm actually much more interested in playing the game of morality than proving whether it exists or not. Hypothetical: two men are stranded on a desert island with plenty of water but no food. If both men decide to play nice they will both be dead in less than a month. If one decides he wants to live, he must kill the other and eat him. I should add that these two men happen to think that they are the last men alive and that if the human race is to have any chance of survival then one of them must try to live as long as possible with the hope of possibly meeting a woman to reproduce. What is the moral decision to take?

I feel the need to point something out here that's important for the group.

Not every decision needs to be a moral one to determine if morality exists.

Clearly we all have preferences. Some of us prefer chocolate to vanilla. I hope that no one requires an explanation of why this is not a moral question. That is, why it is not universally preferable, (meaning everyone should act the same) to prefer chocolate over vanilla.

That sinlge example of a decision shows that at least one decision can be made without regards to morality and immorality. Therefore, if we can prove that morality exists for at least some of our decisions, it is not invalidated if the understanding does not include every decision. The non-inclusion of some decisions into the realm of moral or immoral does not dissprove the existance of morality.

Can we all agree on that last sentence?

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it and we are a part of that reality, in some form or another.

2. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have conscious thoughts.

3. We are each unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed or threatened or pressured but this is external activity).

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong.

6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

7. A statement of opinion about a fact is not an opinion, it's a weak-form statement of fact, like trying to have your cake and eat it to. Even though the person claims to be stating their opinion....they in fact can be wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an actual opinion it's a statement of belief in a fact.

8. Either God exists or he doesn't, independant of our opinions. Whether God exists or not does not change whether reality exists. He is either a part of it or not. If he exists he may have created all reality that we can perceive or can't.

The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct.
The definition of “wrong”? is: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
manner - a way of doing or being
truth - the property of being in accord with fact or reality

Fact, truth, correctness and the like are objective statements about reality. That doesn’t preclude opinion. Even opinions can be fact, truth, correct etc. as long as they aren’t lies. If I really prefer chocolate then it’s a fact I prefer chocolate and true that I prefer chocolate.

11. given the above definitions: if a DECISION is "in a way of doing or being not in conformity with the property of being in accord with fact or reality" ...... it is objectively incorrect/wrong

12. When humans make decisions it's always influenced by their perception of reality. Another way to say it: When humans make decisions, they believe/feel/think/perceive/expect some type of outcome or possible outcome(s).

13. There is no such thing as un-owned property. Something isn't property unless it is owned.

14. Ownership of property is a term used to describe the state whereby some person (let's leave out animals for the moment please) has first claim on the use of or possesion of something.* That is, if there are multiple individuals trying to use or posses the same thing at the same time, if one has a higher claim than the all others we describe that state as ownership.

* - I realize some of you might not believe this exists in reality. I'm putting forward initially that the idea or concept is described as ownership. We'll work on the rest.

15. A statement that is self contradicting must be false. (I don’t know how to use the English language).

16. The negation of a false statement is true.

17. The non-inclusion of some decisions into the realm of moral or immoral does not dissprove the existance of morality.

Do corporations exist? What about beauty? These are both the same as morality...they exist, but only within the minds of men. Do our thoughts actually "exist"?

See, the problem kshartle is that we have totally different ontological conceptions about what constitutes "reality" you believe that what you perceive to exist, actually exists in the way you think it does. You can't even answer the question about what constitutes "I", yet you want to divide the earth up into little pieces based on this unexplainable concept. For practical purposes, I play along but to mistake my perceptions for the "truth" or ultimate reality is going too far. Morality is a practical set of ideas that man creates in order to further certain philosophically derived ideas about the meaning and purpose of live. Because no objective meaning or purpose exists it is therefore impossible to "prove" anything.

Here is the Buddhist concept of emptiness as a contrasting view of your reality.

"Emptiness" is a central teaching of all Buddhism, but its true meaning is often misunderstood. If we are ever to embrace Buddhism properly into the West, we need to be clear about emptiness, since a wrong understanding of its meaning can be confusing, even harmful. The third century Indian Buddhist master Nagarjuna taught, "Emptiness wrongly grasped is like picking up a poisonous snake by the wrong end." In other words, we will be bitten!

Emptiness is not complete nothingness; it doesn't mean that nothing exists at all. This would be a nihilistic view contrary to common sense. What it does mean is that things do not exist the way our grasping self supposes they do. In his book on the Heart Sutra the Dalai Lama calls emptiness "the true nature of things and events," but in the same passage he warns us "to avoid the misapprehension that emptiness is an absolute reality or an independent truth." In other words, emptiness is not some kind of heaven or separate realm apart from this world and its woes.

The Heart Sutra says, "all phenomena in their own-being are empty." It doesn't say "all phenomena are empty." This distinction is vital. "Own-being" means separate independent existence. The passage means that nothing we see or hear (or are) stands alone; everything is a tentative expression of one seamless, ever-changing landscape. So though no individual person or thing has any permanent, fixed identity, everything taken together is what Thich Nhat Hanh calls "interbeing."