Whether an act is silly, disruptive or off-topic is a matter of interpretation, Navigator.
Interpretation dglas. Works all ways for everyone yes?
Our concept of self is under constant negotiation and different people bring different things to the figurative negotiation table. We have the benefit of being, seemingly, wonderfully malleable in this regard. Silliness, disruptiveness and being off-topic are methods of influencing what's on the figurative negotiation table.
Yes – tactics – I understand and use these myself. A wonderful method to entice responses in which to gauge by…keeping in mind your wise observations regarding matters of interpretation.
The difficulty is not so much about what is true or not (in the Idealist universe you paint for us),
An interpretation either way
but rather the implications of accepting and/or adopting this or that concept of self. Be who you are. I am
Having seen no evidence for any kind of existence beyond the one we are familiar with (not having experienced the passenger you posit in any way whatsoever, and not able to prove in any meaningful way the existence of that passenger to others), I am not convinced that there is a passenger, nor (by extension) that there is another transcendent existence that supervenes on or is independent of the reality we experience - even if we could come up with a coherent understanding of what an "existence independent of reality" might be.
I agree. Except that existence and reality are the same for me, as I interpret reality. Reality is what I experience, and if you don’t experience what I experience, this does not signify that what I experience is not real.
Nor would I argue that, for example, you are soul if you don’t experience that for yourself. I would agree with you that you think you are soulless, and understand through your explanation why you think this is the case. It is my assumption that you are soul, but I realize that I am not talking to the you are that I think you are, I am talking with the you are that you think you are.
If I understand you correctly, you have now come to accept that a thing can "exist" without a consciousness to recognize it's existence.
Well – that’s tactic for you – I actually never believed it but I inferred it, much like a magician infers things. I anticipated a certain reaction.
Speaking this way entails a meaning of existence independent of experience of existing. One can stipulate a meaning of "exist" such that existence is contingent on some experience of that existence. Whether that stipulation maps directly onto reality is an open and extra-system question.
That which is able to verify existence gives existence meaning. Reality is experience and experience is reality. The thing that is vital and important is up to the one experiencing the experience and how that one reacts to the experience
The important question at that point is which of these stipulations provides efficacy.
That important question is answered subjectively.
What are the consequences of stipulating this stipulation instead that one.
The answer to that is experienced by the one doing the stipulating.
You put forward the analogies of the driver, the passenger and the vehicle. That's all wonderfully imaginative, but there is no reason to suppose that these analogies hold true.
They hold true for me.
The driver and the vehicle may very well be the same thing.
I agree. I mentioned this aspect. I also mention that the driver identifies with the vehicle and see itself as being the vehicle – one and the same.
That has been suggested by others. If you have the distrust of mere language that you have suggested you do (if I have read you correctly) then you understand that an analogy is not the thing itself. It is, at the very best, an imperfect descriptor.
I agree and in fact I know that I could not relate my experiences (those that have led me to this conclusion) in any way using language, even poetic language that could even touch on the experiences I have had. They are beyond words but remain distinctive to me – not like a dream that may fade and be forgotten, or be kind of vague to begin with – but pivotal points of importance and vitality to me as a human being in growth and understanding. Such are these, that they changed my understanding of ‘self’ as a human being, to …well I won’t say it because it means nothing to you as being anything real.
The difficulty with the descriptors/analogies you have posited is that they have little, if any kind of verifiable relationship to reality.
To your reality, I agree.
I can see you balking at the word "verifiable" as I type it (in my brain's eye). While it is true that our experience of reality is subjective, we seem to acquire a greater measure of human efficacy with reality when we measure things in terms of inter-subjectivity coupled with a determination to reference external referents (Realism).
I mentioned this too – groups. I understand this argument. I am okay not belonging to any group. I am interested in how important it is for people to be in groups and to group others into groups as has been done with me by some.
External referents are important. However since these are the only things groups can do together with their subjectivity, individuals are the only ones who can do this in relation to their particular experience.
The group agreement does not and can not and indeed, will not be more important than the individuals. This is a fact.
We suppose that there is a world as it is (Skeptics are, admittedly, Realists who recognize a reality as it is, but recognize also that our knowledge of that reality is inherently flawed). Scientific skepticism posits that we can conditionally "know" something of that reality, by means of evidential bases that seek to remove as much subjectivity as possible.
I agree – this is the method that is used.
While it may not be possible to remove all subjectivity, we can move in stages away from a purely subjective, intuitionist "method" to greater degrees of inter-subjectivity moving towards, but never achieving objectivity.
And never extinguishing subjectivity.
That exercise has done wonders for modifying our (humanity's) ability to be efficacious in a "Realist" existence (in terms of that existence, of course).
Some would argue that the real world is hell and getting worse, but that is their subjective perspective.
We can posit another existence beyond that of the vehicle, the road, the destination and so forth, but we really have nothing but wishful thinking to support this positing.
I can’t speak for others and assume you speak for yourself and your own lack of experience of such things.
It is known that much can be posited about the things we do experience, let alone what we don’t. The important thing not to loose sight of is the actual experience.
The passenger is an imaginative and eloquent invention, but that is all it is until we have some reason to suspect it actually exits.
Invention?
It is not so much about having suspicion that it exists, it is having conformation. As I stated, the passenger is the real me, and the driver is that which I was led to believe was me. To be sure, since I have interacted in this forum, I have seen more that the vehicle is driving itself, while the passenger is along for the ride, but the vehicle is intelligent and can be communicated with.
I am adaptable.
I have every reason to know that not only does ‘it’ exist, but I am ‘it’
Until we establish a referent, we don't even have a metaphor, let alone a reality.
I am real
The important thing, amidst the rampant speculation, is to ask one question: "What if we are mistaken about the existence of the passenger? What if there is no existence beyond our material lives?"
Or the other way around.
I can tell you I have no problem with dying, death and being dead forevermore – that is without life – no reference, no dark no light no body no thing, no ‘I am’.
I am fine with that.
However, I can’t go there having experienced what I have. It is like being shown something and then pretending it is not.
It can’t be helped.
I can ask you the ‘what if’s’ the other way around, but I think you would answer the same. You can’t go there either.
Neither of us is operating from faith. We are operating on what we know.
If that is the case, then casually dismissing our material lives is the highest tragedy imaginable, is it not?
Without a doubt – we have some mutual ground here. It saddens me to realize that having faith in a heavenly paradise or nirvana etc actually has the effect of dismissive ness and even contempt, and certainly discourages the need for appreciation of the finite beauty of a wonderfully magical reality as that of Earth.
On the other hand, the pains of such reality sometimes tempt us all to forget the beauty of the nest we share.
In this, if our subjective collective was able to focus on the importance of this material life in a collective way, we might yet, as specie, transfer whatever heavenly hopes and dreams we have onto the here and now.
I am, through my human instrument, in my daily life, contributing to this vision.
No, I shall correct myself immediately, with a deferential nod to humanity as a social species (a bias on my part). Dismissing the material lives of others would be the highest tragedy imaginable.
Ditto it’s all the same yes?
Given the risks involved - what's at stake, do you not think it is reasonable to require something more than speculation before surrendering the value of our, and others', lives, the only ones we can reasonably verify?
I think you now know my answer to that.
We have to kick the tires, because for all we know, the crash might very well be the end of the road, vehicle, driver and passenger. I cannot take that risk, at least not on behalf of others.
There is no risk.
Hopefully, that was not silly, disruptive or off-topic.
Nope. It is totally on topic.
I'll respectfully request that you do not class me with maatorc. That's downright insulting. At least I can define a skeptic, pseudo, real or otherwise.
That was off topic. It negates what you said about
‘Dismissing the material lives of others would be the highest tragedy imaginable.”
I know what you are saying, but we all must learn to try to say what we mean as best as possible, and to hold our words when we are tempted to say them, if they go against the better things we are each trying to import.
