If when we die....

[Dave Ellis]

Just so, simply because there's no evidence that shows we will cease to exist (or didn't used to exist) doesn't mean we magically cease upon death.

Correct, but you have no justification to assume otherwise without evidence.

There's nothing magical about it either.

I AM through all the years of my life.... how basic can I get?

My body has been changed, has recycled, my mind's thoughts, personality, emotions and so on have drifted and changed over many years. What remained stable throughout is my own sacred "I"- awareness.

Asserting you are eternal, is not a demonstration you are eternal. I don't argue your thoughts and opinions have changed as the years go on, and your awareness has stayed the same... however that doesn't demonstrate anything outside of the fact you're self-aware.

It seems logically the default position, but then again I'm not too much into speculation but rather the truth.....

I'm into the truth as well.

However, to be blunt, you've done nothing but speculate and assert so far.

Experience is evidence. I dare say you are a hypocrite if you deny this. How can you after all claim evidence without experiencing it?

Experiencing the evidence is not the evidence in and of itself.

For example, if I claim to own something... The proof of ownership is the evidence. The act of looking at the proof of ownership in and of itself is not evidence, it's an examination.

Frankly, I believe you have a perverted/distorted view to the truth if you do not know the true Self..... But actually that's almost everyone, including me at times, so I'm not singling you out.....heh

I believe you have one of the strangest worldviews I have ever encountered. You are doing nothing more but rambling on about a pile of abstract claims you haven't even attempted to justify.

How were you first convinced your worldview was correct?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everything *in* existence changes. Existence itself, does not. And you are THAT!

Existence does not stop existing, but it does change. Existence in the sense you are talking about is an abstraction. It simply means: "everything that exists, taken together". Note that existence isn't a container, like a box, inside of which entities exist. It is simply the sum of those entities and their relationships, and those do change.

I'll agree that abstractions as such don't change. However, I am not an abstraction. It's true that I exist, but that doesn't mean that I am "existence", nor does it mean that I don't change. What you are saying here seems like a way of reifying abstractions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

Correct, but you have no justification to assume otherwise without evidence.

The evidence is literally the LIVING TRUTH THAT YOU YOURSELF ARE!

Asserting you are eternal, is not a demonstration you are eternal. I don't argue your thoughts and opinions have changed as the years go on, and your awareness has stayed the same... however that doesn't demonstrate anything outside of the fact you're self-aware.

That is simply your mind's interpretation of the truth that you are. It is not the truth as it is.....

I'm into the truth as well.

However, to be blunt, you've done nothing but speculate and assert so far.

But Truth is self-evident, so how could I speculate? You say I speculate, but I am only declaring what I see to be self-evident and undebatable. Your own skeptical position is the speculative one, as far as I can tell.

Experiencing the evidence is not the evidence in and of itself.

For example, if I claim to own something... The proof of ownership is the evidence. The act of looking at the proof of ownership in and of itself is not evidence, it's an examination.

Does the world exist or does it not? Are you or are you not? How can you claim experiencing the evidence of existence is not evidence? Then we should not claim anything has ever existed! Your mind is stuck in relationalities. When it comes to existence it is much more basic. That which is, is. And this can only be experienced......

I believe you have one of the strangest worldviews I have ever encountered. You are doing nothing more but rambling on about a pile of abstract claims you haven't even attempted to justify.

I am speaking only about ONE Being: Living Truth, that you and I are. This is undebatable because it is, frankly, self-evident. It is rather your own abstract skepticism which is utterly lacking in justification since it must deny the reality of existence and the Self. How can you go on upon a non-existent platform? How can you even speak?

How were you first convinced your worldview was correct?

Please, please PLEASE watch the videos by a man named Burt Harding!

 

[WonderBeat]

Existence does not stop existing, but it does change. Existence in the sense you are talking about is an abstraction. It simply means: "everything that exists, taken together". Note that existence isn't a container, like a box, inside of which entities exist. It is simply the sum of those entities and their relationships, and those do change.

I'll agree that abstractions as such don't change. However, I am not an abstraction. It's true that I exist, but that doesn't mean that I am "existence", nor does it mean that I don't change. What you are saying here seems like a way of reifying abstractions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Dear Eudaimonist,

You are not an abstraction. You are the LIVING TRUTH which is BEING (words fail, granted, which is why I am accused of "abstractions.")

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are the LIVING TRUTH which is BEING

That phrase is apparently meaningful to you, but it means nothing to me. A truth is simply a correct view about reality. It's not something that can be alive.

And "Being" is an abstraction. It abstracts out the details of what exists, which is some concrete entity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

That phrase is apparently meaningful to you, but it means nothing to me. A truth is simply a correct view about reality. It's not something that can be alive.

And "Being" is an abstraction. It abstracts out the details of what exists, which is some concrete entity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are parsing and splitting up one thing that I say, which de-coheres and hence falsifies it...

What you are doing isn't wrong, but it's an example of your own unconscious resistance to what-is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are parsing and splitting up one thing that I say, which de-coheres and hence falsifies it...

I'm trying to understand what you are saying, and all I have are your words. Absent telepathic powers, I can't get directly to your ideas.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

The evidence is literally the LIVING TRUTH THAT YOU YOURSELF ARE!

No, it's not. Just because I exist, does not serve as evidence that everything is interconnected with me.

That is simply your mind's interpretation of the truth that you are. It is not the truth as it is.....

Then what is the truth as it is?

But Truth is self-evident, so how could I speculate? You say I speculate, but I am only declaring what I see to be self-evident and undebatable. Your own skeptical position is the speculative one, as far as I can tell.

Truth is not always self-evident. The fact very few people have even heard of your worldview demonstrates it is certainly not self evident..

The fact the sky is blue, is self evident. You don't need people to explain to you in detail, or create videos to explain that the sky is blue.

An abstract philosophy is not self-evident. Someone explained it to you at one point, and at that point you accepted it as truth. If it was self-evident, you would have discovered it all quite easily totally by yourself.

Does the world exist or does it not? Are you or are you not? How can you claim experiencing the evidence of existence is not evidence? Then we should not claim anything has ever existed! Your mind is stuck in relationalities. When it comes to existence it is much more basic. That which is, is. And this can only be experienced......

The world exists, as do I.

Experiencing that, in and of itself is not the evidence. The evidence is the world itself (as in the physical ball of rock, metals, and whatnot orbiting the sun), and me (as in my physical body).

Experience is only a way of examining the evidence, it is not evidence in and of itself.

I am speaking only about ONE Being: Living Truth, that you and I are. This is undebatable because it is, frankly, self-evident. It is rather your own abstract skepticism which is utterly lacking in justification since it must deny the reality of existence and the Self. How can you go on upon a non-existent platform? How can you even speak?

I agree that you and I are in existence... I have never disputed that fact, that is a given as we obviously both exist, or we would not be having this discussion.

When did I dispute we exist? In all I have said, How do you even come close to making that argument?

Please, please PLEASE watch the videos by a man named Burt Harding!

I just watched two of his videos on YouTube. "How do you know who you are" and "I want you to convince me".

He seems like a nice guy, but unfortunately his arguments do not logically follow. He is using proof by assertion to make his case, which obviously does not work. To his credit, he openly admits he can't convince you of what he's speaking about... But that's because his whole argument depends on a logical fallacy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Everything *in* existence changes. Existence itself, does not. And you are THAT!

Existence is an abstract.... you can't be "in" existence, and existence certainly does change.

 

[Eudaimonist]

All right, let me try to explain myself more clearly.

Abstractions are ways of grouping together concrete particulars into categories.

For instance, you and I are particular entities. I recognize certain things we have in common (similar DNA, reason, speech, etc) that lead me to create an abstract category into which we both fall. We are both "human". We are not identical, but by removing non-essential details (such as sex, age, etc), the essential details allow us to fit in the same category.

That doesn't mean that we are the same individual human being. We, as individuals, aren't "Humanness". That would be reifying an abstraction, which is to say, treating an abstraction as if it were something concrete. It is possible to refer to humanity, but we aren't "humanity" as such, but individuals within humanity. Humanity refers to all particular individuals that share essentially human characteristics; it is not some super-entity that can replace any particular individual in thought.

Likewise, for existence. This too is a abstraction -- a category -- that refers to all existing particulars and their relations. It abstracts away all details about all entities, leaving nothing but the recognition that entities have any attributes at all, and therefore can be said to exist. (Anything under consideration that has no attributes whatsoever would have to be said not to exist at all. To be is to be something in particular.)

It is meaningful to talk about existence, but only if one understands that it is a kind of mental shorthand -- an extremely thin abstraction (referring only to entities having attributes, and therefore existing) that relates to great deal of detail of the attributes of entities. We can set those conceptual boundaries where we like, but we must remember to retain them when asking questions pertaining to individuals. When suggesting that an individual is "existence", important distinctions are being lost. Why is existence such an important feature that we must focus on this one, and ignore all the rest? It's the same problem as with humanity above.

I hope that you can see that I'm taking this subject very seriously, and no I'm not resistant to "what-is".


eudaimonia,

Mark