Like Dogberry, this learned constable is too cunning to be understood.

But for a mystic, that's probably the point. — Banno

No need for insults. t doesn't matter whether what I posted is a syllogism or not. The propositions I posted are true, and you can make of them what you will. There's nothing cunning about them and I doubt they could be stated any more simply.

I wonder why they seem difficult. I;d be happy to explain further.

Monism is nondualism. — Truth Seeker

If you believe this you will never understand mysticism. But that's okay, unless you actually want to do so. I have the impression you're too sure it's nonsense to investigate the issues.

Do you really think your objections are telling? I finds this hard to believe. You're suggesting that even before understanding it you can work out that the Perennial philosophy is false, and not just false but easily debunked. As this would make me a complete idiot,there seems little point in my saying more.

Do you not see the irony in your name?

[qquote]So far, I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
[/quote]

Do you not know that mysticism denies the metaphysical reality of the 'I' you speak of here? They would call your view ignorance, for it assumes a naive realism. The egoic individual 'I' would be a fantasy, and this would be what is discovered when we investigate consciousness. . . . .
.

I want to learn more about mysticism. That's why in a previous post, I asked you to recommend books but you did not recommend any. Also, you did not answer my questions.

Please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

My knowledge about mysticism, Perennial philosophy, monism and nondualism is limited to what I have read on Wikipedia.

Apparently, knowing "the truth" doesn't involve having very good reading comprehension. I didn't say anything about the Buddha or Lao Tzu
— wonderer1

Pardon me but yes you did. You claimed that the mystics are naive, grandiose and by implication untrustworthy. I can't imagine how you arrived at this idea. — FrancisRay

I did not claim to know the truth, What I would claim is that the nondual doctrine, for which it is possible to know the truth, is the only theory that makes sense in metaphysics. I can know this because it's just a matter of doing the sums — FrancisRay

It is quite easy to quote what I actually said. I'll repeat it below with emphasis.

Not a liar, just naive, and in too many cases grandiose. — wonderer1

Can you see that that I wasn't referring to "the mystics", but instead to a subset of mystics? I try to refrain from looking at things in black and white ways. So I would appreciate it if you would be so charitable as to try to avoid jumping to conclusions that I've said something is black and white when I haven't done so.

I did not claim to know the truth, What I would claim is that the nondual doctrine, for which it is possible to know the truth, is the only theory that makes sense in metaphysics. I can know this because it's just a matter of doing the sums. . . . — FrancisRay

Bzzzt! The way that can be summed is not the true way. That's Mystic 101.

Both metaphysics and mysticism study the nature of all extended objects, so it makes no difference whether it is this or that object. As the Upanishads state:

“The understanding of one single thing means the understanding of all;
the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all.”

Aryaveda
Catuhsataka
v. 191 — FrancisRay

That's some grade A bullshit, in addition to being grandiose. Seriously? "The understanding of one single thing means the understanding of all"? Look around. Have you have seen many of your fellow social primates who seem like they understand all? If so, I don't think you are paying very close attention.

And of course the Buddha and Lao Tzu were naive. They didn't have the benefit of the tremendous growth in human knowledge that has occurred since their day. Why would they be anymore likely to understand all, than the people you see around you?

Not to say that people don't pick up some beneficial perspectives and skills from the Buddha, Lao Tzu, et. al.

I agree with you.

I want to learn more about mysticism. That's why in a previous post, I asked you to recommend books but you did not recommend any. Also, you did not answer my questions.

Please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

My knowledge about mysticism, Perennial philosophy, monism and nondualism is limited to what I have read on Wikipedia. — Truth Seeker

I should apologies for my previous prickliness. I seem to have misinterpreted your comments and approach. What makes forum discussions so difficult is never knowing who one is talking to.

I haven't checked but doubt if Wiki is reliable on these topics. I'll just say a little about monism because in order to understand nondualism it would be vital to see that it's not monism.

Do you know Russell's paradox? This is the problem of monism. Russell tries to reduce all sets to one set and immediately problems of self-reference arise. The term 'advaita' (not two) as used to describe the nondual doctrine is negative precisely in order to avoid the implication of monism. It means both 'not two' and 'not one'. Where the ultimate is spoken of as the 'One', for instance by Plotinus, this is not a numerical one.but a unity that transcends form and number.

On another thread there is a discussion of George Spencer Brown's book Laws of Form. In it he explains that the Many do not reduce to the One but to formlessness and a conceptual emptiness. It is for this exact reason that nondualism works where monism does not.

The topic here is what we can know with 100% certainty. How those such as Lao Tzu acquire their knowledge and can be so certain of its reliability may one of the trickiest things to grasp about mysticism. In Western philosophy, for instance in the philosophy of Russell, certain knowledge is impossible and the best we can do is 'knowledge by acquaintance or 'justified true belief'. Neither of these is certain knowledge, so often philosophers believe there is no such thing. .

In fact, as I believe Aristotle states somewhere, true knowledge is identical with its object. Knowledge may be certain when what we are is what we know. Then the relativity of knower and known is overcome and doubt becomes impossible. An example would be 'I am', and this would be why Descartes was forced to start here when he needed a 100% secure axiom.

Thus mysticism becomes incomprehensible when we assume it is monism or that its knowledge claims are tentative.

As for books it's a tricky question since there are so many and every reader is different. One of the joys of studying mysticism is its wonderful literature, but there's no predicting what will appeal to or suit a reader. It's a matter of just diving in and looking out for texts that make sense and resonate.

For someone new to metaphysics, especially if they are scientifically-minded, I'd highly recommend The Mind of God by the physicist Paul Davies. It's the best introduction I've read and this may be partly because he's a scientist and does not waffle.

For mysticism it's really pot-luck. The Enneads of Plotinus and the German sermons of Meister Eckhart are well worth reading. The best introduction to the work of Nagarjuna I've found is The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso.

The first book on this topic I read was Cultivating the Empty Field: The Silent Illuminations of Zen Master Hongxhi. The poetry may mean little to a non-practitioner but the preface and introduction are brilliant.

In my opinion the best way to get to grips with the Perennial philosophy, other than to take up the practice, is to try to falsify it, so there's no need to abandon scepticism. Good luck!.

I'm trying to stop arguing but am always happy to chat on this topic.

. .

I see no point in relying to you. It's not as if you're interested. I cannot grasp why you would visit of philosophy forum. But no worries. We can just ignore each other. .

Thank you ever so much for your detailed reply and for the books you have recommended. I look forward to reading them. Compared to omniscience, I know extremely little. So, I am learning new things daily. I had never heard of Russell's paradox until you mentioned it. I looked up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox as I find Wikipedia to be a good starting point for learning about any topic.

I also find Wiki useful, but it's prone to errors and this is a very subtle and difficult topic.

I reckon Russell's paradox is a good place to start since it arises for philosophers whatever their leanings. Also, Russell was dismissive of mysticism and did not investigate it, so he makes an interesting philosophical case study.

All references are prone to errors, omissions, bias, etc. Unless one is omniscient, one has to handle known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Of course. But I've seen seen some dreadful stuff on Wiki. I once had to point out errors in an article on Nagarjuna and Buddhism to the Stanford Encyclopedia, and while they were quick to correct them it goes to show how careful one has to be. .

I agree. Well done for spotting the error. I have spotted errors and omissions in various references but in two cases they refused to correct the errors.

If you are still interested on the topics of Truth and Knowledge, I would recommend you to read :)
Rene Descartes (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/)
David Hume (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/)
Immanuel Kant (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/)

Thank you very much for the recommendation. I look forward to reading them.

You are welcome my friend. :)  If I quickly and roughly try to summarise their points,

Descarte - Truth and  knowledge comes from your mind, and knowledge is innate. He was a rationalist.

Hume - Truth and Knowledge comes from your experience of external object and world via impressions and ideas. He was an empiricist.

Kant - Knowledge comes from outside from your sensation, but it needs concepts in your mind to be able to know and judge what they are. Intuition and imagination combines the externally given sense data with the internal concepts, and allow knowledge and judgments possible.

Some knowledge is never known to the human mind e.g. God, Freedom and Afterlife etc etc. They are outside of human knowability.  For knowledge of God, the concept is postulated rather than perceived or sensed i.e. it is the world of faith and postulation. Kant didn't deny the existence of God, Freedom and Afterlife etc. He limited the power of human reason and knowability, saying they are in the world of faith and belief, and their existence is postulated rather than reasoned, sensed or perceived.

Kant tried to combine the rationalist and empiricist and come to a more complete system of epistemology.

If you want to know more about religious knowledge and God, then I would start with Kierkegaard.

Thank you ever so much for your most helpful summary. Who is right?

No problems mate. They are all great philosophers. Their importance in the history of philosophy comes from not the truths they concluded, but from the significant issues they raised, and how they explained the issues with their supporting arguments.

After reading them, whoever you decide to judge as right, is right.

Thank you very much. What if I can't judge any of them as right or wrong? Would that not leave me in my current agnostic stance? If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of another sentient organism e.g. Descartes, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, Harold Shipman, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, William Tyndale, Mohandas Gandhi, Celine Dion, Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, Myra Hindley, Siddhartha Gautama, a cow, a spider, an ant, a chimpanzee, a whale, a shark, a tiger, a dinosaur, a jellyfish, a starfish, a penguin, a squid, an octopus, a dolphin, a giraffe, a chicken, a dog, a cat, a pig, an alien in another galaxy, etc. would I not have thought their thoughts, felt their feelings and made their choices? Aren't all organisms prisoners of causality who live inevitable lives and die inevitable deaths?

Being an agnostic is perfectly fine, if that is the stance you have decided to take. Nothing wrong with that, especially from a philosophical point of view.

And of course, by all means you could keep on inferring what would be the case, had you had those people's, animals, aliens genes, DNAs, fates ... etc even in another galaxies or possible worlds or parallel universes. But you should also ask, if you could really take on their genes, DNAs and fates and their lives in your real life?

Remember, every life is unique, and only valid for once in a lifetime, so there is no definition of individual life. The only definition of life in general terms is, that it is an entity born, lives and destined to die sometime. The content of your life is irreplaceable and unique, and all the individual lives since the start of the universe have been the same - unique, irreplaceable and never to be repeated.

I agree that all lives are unique, irreplaceable and never to be repeated. I am still trying to figure out the answer to my question: "Aren't all organisms prisoners of causality who live inevitable lives and die inevitable deaths?" I am almost certain that determinism is true but I am not completely certain. I don't know if I will ever be completely certain. What about you?

Having been  born, living and dying inevitable deaths are universal fate and destiny no life can escape from.  Only in that sense, life is deterministic.

But the content of all the lives are unique, random, irreplaceable, non exchangeable, unrepeatable and free.  In that sense all life is both deterministic and free in nature.

Delete

How can all life be both deterministic and free? They are the opposite of each other.

Everyone will die sometime in their life, so it is determined. But they can go for a walk, or read, or listen to music or have a nap. They are free.

Yes, they can go for a walk or sleep etc. but these things are not free from the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. They are determined and constrained by the variables.

You simply decide to go for a walk or sleep etc. You don't need the other constraints and variables for making these simple decisions.

Please explain in detail with evidence and proof, why you need the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences to go for a walk or sleep etc.

Genes are the foundation for biological organisms. If I had the genes of a dolphin I would have been able to put half of my brain to sleep and keep the other half awake the way dolphins do but I can't do it because I don't have the genes of a dolphin. If I had the genes of a chameleon I would have been able to change the colour of my skin at will but I can't do it because I don't have the genes of a chameleon. If I had the genes of a tardigrade, I could survive in the vacuum of space without a space suit. I can't do it because I don't have the genes of a tardigrade. I could cite millions of cases like this.

If I was put in a very hot environment or very cold environment I would die. This is because my body can maintain homeostasis only within a narrow temperature range. If I had free will, I would have been fine at 1000 degrees Celsius and at minus 270 degrees Celsius. If I was put in a vat of acid, I would die because my body would be consumed by the acid.

I depend on nutrients for my existence. If I was deprived of oxygen, water and food I would die. If I had free will I would have been able to live without consuming any oxygen, water and food. I hate having to breathe, drink and eat. I long to live without consuming anything but I can't do it because I lack free will.

My experiences have a huge effect on all of my choices. I am having this conversation with you in English. If I had never learned English, it would not have been possible for me to have this conversation with you in English. I would love to be fluent in the 600+ languages that are still around without having to learn them.

Every single choice made by organisms is the result of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

If I have a stroke giving me locked-in syndrome, I would not be able to go for a walk. If someone kidnaps me and ties me up, I would not be able to go for a walk. If someone knocks me unconscious, I would not even have the thought of going for a walk, never mind going for a walk. The examples are endless.

As I suffer from depression, I am unable to sleep well.

I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
7. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I am almost certain of the following:
1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. It is impossible to be completely certain about this.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are conscious.
4. Being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms do not have free will. Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes, may not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion. It is impossible to know with complete certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body - I have no way to test this idea.

If you had dolphine's genes, then you wouldn't be sitting in your room in front of your PC or on the phone typing in English, asking these questions.  And because you would not have human reasoning and linguistic abilities, you wouldn't be asking about free will questions.  Maybe you could be reasoning in your head about these questions, but still you wouldn't be typing the questions in English.

And of course, you could make lots and lots of presumptions, inferences and imaginations on the metamorphic illusions, but but but you will know yourself, that it is a necessity in your reality that you cannot transform physically and biologically into any one of those beings no matter how much you would wish to.

You will be forever you, and you know it well for truth, that you cannot change that. This is a determinism and necessity.

But for you to make simple daily life decisions such as going for a walk, or sleeping, listening to music or reading, you only need your dispositional decision in your mind. And in that regard, you are FREE.  Death of all life cycles is determined. No one can change that.

So life has deterministic, and also free aspects.  Life is not an atomic object. 

None of the actions you mentioned are free from our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. As I explained in my previous post, you can't go for a walk if you have locked-in syndrome or are tied up or are unconscious. If you had the genes of a virus you would not be going for walks or reading or sleeping or listening to music or discussing what is real.

I am a vegan but I want to be non-consumer. It is impossible for me to live without consuming any oxygen, water and vegan food.

Is it not the case of your free choice to be unfree with all the reasons you stated, why you are not free, therefore that was your free choice not to be free? You are still free.