Non-existence is impossible?

[CoffeeDrinker]

Surely this all balances on the details implied by us all existing "in some form" for all eternity.
Form is a vitally important thing for the function of that thing, what good will it do if we exist in some form, but that form is so ridiculously useless that you'd rather just be blanked out.
Oblivion confounds, oblivion abounds.

 

[lysergication]

if there is no such thing as non-existence, that means it has always existed. If it has always existed, that means it doesn't really exist because if it cant stop existing and come from nowhere (because it's eternal), it's not really existing (existence come from ex-sistere in latin which means being outside of and in this case there is no inside or outside). that means that what we are and experience as "existence" is in definitive and ultimately paradoxical. Existence is actually non-existence in the same time. In this case we could said that it doesn't exist but it appears nonetheless. It just is.

Not surprisingly, buddhists say the same thing and it's implying the attributes of God.

Simple isn't it ?

 

[malakaix]

if there is no such thing as non-existence, that means it has always existed. If it has always existed, that means it doesn't really exist because if it cant stop existing and come from nowhere (because it's eternal), it's not really existing (existence come from ex-sistere in latin which means being outside of and in this case there is no inside or outside). that means that what we are and experience as "existence" is in definitive and ultimately paradoxical. Existence is actually non-existence in the same time. In this case we could said that it doesn't exist but it appears nonetheless. It just is.

This, nice response.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

Not surprisingly, buddhists say the same thing and it's implying the attributes of God.

isnt that what the cat in the box idea is saying too in quantum physics
at least thats how i understand it that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time and so are you

 

[Albion]

isnt that what the cat in the box idea is saying too in quantum physics
at least thats how i understand it that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time and so are you

You'd only be alive and dead at the same time if you weren't being observed by anything, including yourself, and including all the billions of bacteria on your skin, the particles floating through the air, and all the trillions of sub-atomic particles whizzing through you every second.

Only if you were dead and in a total, undisturbed vacuum with nothing observing it could you really be Schrodinger's cat.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

ill merge what nAON wrote in his Consciousness - controller or controlled? thread : "the brain makes decisions before we 'consciously' think about doing them."
so who is the observer then in that cat experiment ?

 

[Albion]

ill merge what nAON wrote in his Consciousness - controller or controlled? thread : "the brain makes decisions before we 'consciously' think about doing them."
so who is the observer then in that cat experiment ?

The observer could be anyone who looks at the cat. It's just that while no one is looking, the cat is simultaneously dead and alive. Once someone looks at it again it becomes one or the other.

 

[Albion]

I personally believe that we don't know whether we're in the universe where the cat is alive or the universe where the cat is dead, and the superposition of being alive and dead is a result of the fact that the universes are sufficiently coherent (in sync) to display interference phenomena. Copenhagen states it makes no sense to ask if the cat is alive or dead until you have observed the cat. Bohm states it will be one or the other....

Are you touching upon the notion of parallel universes? Are you implying that there's simply two potential universes: One where the cat is alive and another where the cat is dead? Could you not expand that to account for universes where the cat is alive, but male instead of female, black and dead instead of tabby and alive etc.

Although at the end of the day I guess the cat is just an example for quantum behaviour.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

asking who the observer is is to misunderstand the measurement problem, you don't need a conscious observer, as JSPete said, bacteria, or an air molecule, will do.

but all of those are in the box

 

[Albion]

but all of those are in the box

I think the box is supposed to be a metaphor for an unobservable vacuum. Obviously IRL the cat would need to be in a vacuum and so I have a sneaking suspicion that it'd always be pretty dead. And exploded.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

but the cat isnt a vacuum, the cat does have bacteria and air inside of him

 

[Albion]

most importantly, measurement is just interation and if you consider the largest possible system, i.e. the universe, it cannot be measured, well not by anything in this universe anyway, so the collapse of the wavefunction is a relic of our interpretation.

I guess you've first got to wonder whether the universe is even a tangible entity that can be measured. Universe is a name we have given to the container of everything we perceive, but that containment could only be illusory. We can't comprehend infinity, so we've named whatever we're in the 'universe' since having a name makes it somewhat finite.

Perhaps our definition of the universe is measurable, but the real deal isn't.

Non-existence isn't really measurable either since the concept is infinite by definition. As such it's bloody hard to hold a debate about whether not it is possible, since it's unobservable and infinite. Like I say, it's a bit like in Hitchhiker's where the true meaning of life cannot be discovered because the correct question cannot be asked.

 

[lysergication]

why? isn't 'non-existence doesn't exist, therefore it exists' a paraphrase of what you are saying? even if we allow a self contradictory statement, i don't understand how the second part follows from the first. it would seem more logical to me to say 'that means it has never existed.'

Because it means it has never ceased to be, it was always 'there'.

I think it's just a semantic problem here. it's the word existence that's problematic. Saying 'it has never existed' or 'always existed' is actually the same thing. Because it's eternal, it has not even begun to exist, nor it will end one day. It doesn't 'exist', actually. It just is.

I agree with -=SS=- who said on the first page that non-existence is an absurdity. And so is existence, in a way.

 

[-=SS=-]

What is this real philosophy you write about, and how is it transposed without language? Is it communicated through telepathic pictograms (which could still be read through semiotics)? Considering that language is necessary for human communication, is it not logical to interrogate the relationship between being and language?

Philosophy comes from experience. Language is just one method of communicating understanding, or provoking it. But playing word games for the sake of it, or doing so in the false belief that some understanding will arise, is just totally idiotic.. it is the kind of philosophy they teach academically these days in Universities.. it is not real philosophy. You could spend your entire life taking apart all the philosophers and examine all their words.. but at the end of it you would have only gained some intellectual illumination at best, if anything at all. You don't get "it" by doing that.. you have to become the process of philosophy.

The human mind being relative to what?

What if one's purpose is to use the trance state induced by some psychedelics as a point of departure from the psycho-sociolinguistic reality in which we find ourselves, with the direct aim of experiencing, or being aware, of psycho-spacial-realities that occur outside our usual data-set of referents without the desire for any "great revelation"?

No.. the human mind IS relative. It thinks in terms of opposites. It is very limited. It can never perceive the infinite, but it can become infinite (again, the difference between philosophy from experience vs language/intellectual masturbation). As for the second part I quoted.. using fancy words to rationalize your use of psychedelics doesn't impress me.. i'd be much more impressed if you just admit you use them because you enjoy doing so. Saying you like to visit other "psycho-spacial-realities".. prove it. Prove to me you are doing what you claim and you mind is not just projecting for you what you desire to see, or worse, something else is projecting something there for you to see in exchange for energy. Sorry for being blunt, but I tire of all the sophistry, rationalizations, delusions etc that come with the psychedelic crowd thanks to people like McKenna. They're useful tools.. but repeated use is not proper use of them.

 

[lysergication]

if there is no such thing as non-existence, that means it has always existed.

the 'it' stand for the universe/consciousness (which is the same thing), not for non-existence. I should have wrote it with a capital letter, that would have been more clear.

When I say that 'always existed' and 'never existed' mean the same thing I mean it in the sense that It (the universe) doesn't and couldn't exist (or non-exist) in both case. It would have to begin at some point to exist. Saying 'It exist' is not correct. It's the same reason why there is no non-existence. And I say 'It just is' in reference to universe/consciousness/everything (which I identify with myself in the sense Nisargadatta Maharaj by example put it in 'I Am That') to put the accent on the fact that it is in a different way than the concept of existence allow us to understand how it is. You can't say that something without beginning/end, outside/inside exist. It just is. I prefer to use the word 'It' because it is indefinable. I don't know if that makes it more clear, haha.

Because it is paradoxical by nature, it's a conception that should be experienced and felt to be understood. the experience and the understanding of this concept is the same thing actually, it happens in the same time. When you experience It , you instantaneously understand It because you merge with It. it's not an intellectual thing.

 

[-=SS=-]

Because it is paradoxical by nature, it's a conception that should be experienced and felt to be understood. the experience and the understanding of this concept is the same thing actually, it happens in the same time. When you experience It , you instantaneously understand It because you merge with It. it's not an intellectual thing.

Bingo!

chinup: I don't think I'm being overly negative.. I can't help it if the majority of something sucks!

 

[yagecero]

Philosophy comes from experience. Language is just one method of communicating understanding, or provoking it.

Are you perhaps talking about a form spirituality here? I still don't buy your idea of language being one method of communicating understanding. Philosophy comes from thought, and although thought can be represented in numerous ways, it will inevitably be interpreted and communicated through language.

But playing word games for the sake of it, or doing so in the false belief that some understanding will arise, is just totally idiotic.. it is the kind of philosophy they teach academically these days in Universities.. it is not real philosophy.

I think that you're missing the point here. There has been no belief that some understanding will arise since the "beginning" of the postmodernist "period" - it's a matter of developing a method to explain it, more so than derive a sense of "knowing". Your statements suggest that you have a strong belief in your viewpoint and find the notion of a deconstruction of language threatening.

You could spend your entire life taking apart all the philosophers and examine all their words.. but at the end of it you would have only gained some intellectual illumination at best, if anything at all. You don't get "it" by doing that.. you have to become the process of philosophy.

Once again, you're suggesting that there is something to understand. Once we take into consideration the fact that all cultures and sub-cultures have their own belief structure, in some cases, beliefs that are entirely contradictory, it becomes illogical to believe that there is "something" to get - tell us, SS, what is the meaning of life? Which is the way that we should all be doing it to ensure that we "get it"? It's much more useful to develop a means of explaining it, rather than suggesting that "we" or "you" (as opposed to "them") have the answers. In this way, a myriad of belief systems are on an equal playing field.

No.. the human mind IS relative. It thinks in terms of opposites. It is very limited. It can never perceive the infinite, but it can become infinite (again, the difference between philosophy from experience vs language/intellectual masturbation).

I'm not going to go into a another explanation of semiotics, structuralism and postructuralism because that's not the point of the OP. And although semiotics is definitely the foundation of what I'm suggesting, I wouldn't class myself as a structuralist or a postructuralist. If anything, I'm Cortázarian, and if you want me to get into what he suggests of la gran costumbre, el otro lado and más allá, this thread will become a thesis.

In short, the mind does not interpret the world through a system of binaries, it does so through a process of differentiation.

As for the second part I quoted.. using fancy words to rationalize your use of psychedelics doesn't impress me.. i'd be much more impressed if you just admit you use them because you enjoy doing so. Saying you like to visit other "psycho-spacial-realities".. prove it.

How would you explain the entering of a completely separate reality that contains no referents from the data-set of regular perception?

Prove to me you are doing what you claim and you mind is not just projecting for you what you desire to see, or worse, something else is projecting something there for you to see in exchange for energy.

Well considering it's a different psycho-spacial-reality we're talking about , psycholinguistics comes into play. There are no referents from the regular field of perception that can be used for the process of signification, therefore clear and concise explanation is not possible - a metaphorical approximation would be the best we could ask for.

Once again, I'm not looking for a way to suggest that I "get it" - if anything, I'm trying to see what's behind language and the thought apparatus.

Sorry for being blunt, but I tire of all the sophistry, rationalizations, delusions etc that come with the psychedelic crowd thanks to people like McKenna. They're useful tools.. but repeated use is not proper use of them.

On this we agree 100%. People like McKenna, while having some interesting ideas, were essentially egotist crack-pots. And I'm definitely not a crack-pot hippy that "trips" repeatedly.

And my viewpoint (I have to stress that I'm not suggesting that I "know" - there really are potentially billions of ways to "get it" as you say, so what makes you certain that your way of seeing things is the way to "get it"?) concerns the shamanic teachings of the Cofán (with whom I have spent a long time as close friends), Cortázarian philosophy and yes; to a lesser extent, semiotics, structuralism, postructuralism, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics.

Oh, and these ones might surprise you: Zen and Pranayama yoga.

The interpretation of reality really is the only thing that every single person on the planet shares, so it is entirely logical to interrogate language, the way that it functions in its relationship with reality, and the role that it has played (and continues to play) in the creation of thought and belief across varying cultures/subcultures throughout history.

 

[herbavore]

When my son was three years old he woke up from a nap one day and in that strange between-world of sleep and waking, pulled his thumb out of his mouth and said, "there is no such thing as nothing." He sucked his thumb for a few more minutes and then said, "nothing can't be nothing because we have a name for it, so it is something."

You don't even have to take acid. You just have to be as totally engaged, open and observant as the average three year old. I am convinced that much of what we do in later life is just an attempt to get back to the clarity and wisdom we all had around three.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

if nothing is something then something is nothing
the opposite of nothing is something, the opposite of "is" is "is not" and the opposite of possible is impossible
so saying nothing is impossible is the equivalent to saying that something is not possible

 

[-=SS=-]

Are you perhaps talking about a form spirituality here? I still don't buy your idea of language being one method of communicating understanding. Philosophy comes from thought, and although thought can be represented in numerous ways, it will inevitably be interpreted and communicated through language.

But language is just one method.. art is another for example. There are many ways to communicate understanding but most are indirect and can be misleading or misconstrued (like with language). The only direct ways are either doing it yourself by becoming or having someone reach into your mind directly through transmission.

Your statements suggest that you have a strong belief in your viewpoint and find the notion of a deconstruction of language threatening.

I do have a strong belief in my viewpoint, yes indeed, but deconstructing language threatening... no, just an inefficient use of ones time if one is searching for the truth that's all. Language is secondary.. you could spend your entire life playing with it and not get close to the truth. Like the Rabbi playing with Kabbalah or the astrologist, you get lost in symbols and end up chasing your own tail.

Once again, you're suggesting that there is something to understand. Once we take into consideration the fact that all cultures and sub-cultures have their own belief structure, in some cases, beliefs that are entirely contradictory, it becomes illogical to believe that there is "something" to get - tell us, SS, what is the meaning of life? Which is the way that we should all be doing it to ensure that we "get it"? It's much more useful to develop a means of explaining it, rather than suggesting that "we" or "you" (as opposed to "them") have the answers. In this way, a myriad of belief systems are on an equal playing field.

But there is something to get, something to become (the truth). The meaning of life? What ever you assign to it. In and of itself it is pointless/it doesn't matter.. it just is, a hall of mirrors, an unresolvable mathematical equation. There is no point trying to explain it with language because people will always get the wrong idea.. history shows this to be the case, with Jesus, Buddha, and many others. The only way is to go there yourself.

The interpretation of reality really is the only thing that every single person on the planet shares, so it is entirely logical to interrogate language, the way that it functions in its relationship with reality, and the role that it has played (and continues to play) in the creation of thought and belief across varying cultures/subcultures throughout history.

Much better to just examine the Mind instead of the language that arises out of the Mind.. why bother to investigate something that is secondary when you can be more direct? Language is inherently deceptive. Just look at the way people function and use it to their own end.. hell, look at the way our society is constructed! The Establishment uses it to manipulate billions of people, convincing them into willful slavery for dreams and hopes that lead no-where. The whole idea of "law" is just a clever way of manipulating people with language for the selfish desires of a small group right at the top.