Why Can't You Just Be The Amalgamation Of What Is Stable In Your Skandhas, Including The Judger

[Joseph Maynor]

(1) For example, yes your body changes as you age, but not by much.  If I cut one of your fingers off, it will stay cut-off for the rest of your life.  And yes your personality changes, but not by much.  And your ideas change, but many do not.  And your memories, even those seem to have a certain quasi-fixed pattern to them, do they not?  Doesn't there seem to be a core of you-ness there even if we get rid of the idea that you are an unchanging-thing?  

(2) And what about the judger?  Doesn't that seem to be the same for you over time?  And what assesses and determines what you are in a moment?  A judger, a you.  Aha!  The elephant in the room.  And what is considering non-duality and the reasonableness of that theory?  A judger.  Oops, again, a you!  You can't evade the judger.  It's always there, unless you are asleep or dead.  Of course, you can turn the judger off in a moment, you know that, but you can't keep it turned-off forever.  Eventually you have to arrive at conclusions, you have to determine the reasonableness of propositions.  That's part of your life too, is it not?

Just because you are not an unchanging-thing, do we need to throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater and assume there is no you-ness to you at all?  And what is coming to that conclusion?  You!  Damn!  See how I did that!  You see, I'm not engaging in mere logic-chopping here.  

You are determining/judging that there is no you!  Do you see the contradiction here?  Your judgment that there is no you is not determined by empirical observation or even awareness alone.  There is a judgment, a deliberative act, on a thought in a moment: the thought that you do not exist.  And that implies a something that is judging, some form of you-ness.  And judgment is an act in a moment.  You deliberate and then determine whether a proposition is reasonable to accept or not.  Am I wrong?  What is doing that?  Is this some kind of illusion?  Ok, well, what is arriving at the conclusion that that proposition -- that the judger and/or judgment is an illusion -- is reasonable to accept?  Aha!  Do you see the slippery slope here?  Something is arriving at that conclusion too.  Judgment is taking place even there, is it not?  Even when we consider the proposition that "everything is Maya", a judgment is taking place -- an act of deliberation and judgment is being arrived at by something.

This goes back to Descartes.  Judgment is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging in that moment.  In the moment of judgment, something is judging, no?  Think about it.  Descartes was a wise dude.

(3) Just because you are not an unchanging-thing, doesn't imply there is no you.  That would commit the false-choice fallacy.  You could be something other than a non-changing thing.  Consider that possibility.  And you would have to ultimately make a judgment upon which one of these theories you believe (or have faith in believing) you are!  Something is judging, and that doesn't come in via any empirical portal.  Judgment is an act.  A deliberative act.  If you advance a proposition, you are asking something to consider it and ultimately judge it!

(4) Now, let's say you retort -- Joseph, you're stuck in the rationalist paradigm dude!  Ok, so you're asking something to judge that proposition now.  Let's define the proposition P = Joseph is stuck in the rationalist paradigm.  So, you're asking something  to deliberate on P and come to a conclusion whether or not P is reasonable to accept.  See that?  You're petitioning that a conclusion be drawn, a judgment be made, an action be taken.  What takes that action in a moment?   This is something above and beyond mere awareness (including but not limited to empirical awareness).  Am I wrong?

(5) Finally, what is deliberating about and judging my question here?  Is such an act taking place in your awareness?  An act of deliberation or judging?  Is this phenomenon mere awareness of a happening, like you are merely some kind of a fly-on-the-wall merely observing judging taking place?  Ok, well, what is arriving at that conclusion then?  See!

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Leo Gura]

* Zen stick slap *

[electroBeam]

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

And what about the judger?

wtf is a judger? Empirically speaking? There is no judger is consciousness in my experience.

 

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 And what assesses and determines what you are in a moment?

It doesn't matter how enlightened you think you are, that's just ego. That's a trap. You're right, you are judging yourself

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

And what is coming to that conclusion?  You!

Is it? You got any evidence of that? You're confusing logic with reality. The mechanics of logic is different to the mechanics of the universe. Just because it makes sense within logic to say 'you' are coming to that conclusion, doesn't mean it makes sense in reality to say 'you' are coming to that conclusion.

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You are determining/judging that there is no you!  Do you see the contradiction here?

Its actually consciousness coming to that conclusion, but that doesn't make sense to you, because you think the mechanics of logic is reality. Also contradictions are possible in reality. Again confusing logic with reality.

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 Your judgment that there is no you is not determined by empirical observation or even awareness alone.

You need to let go of the assumption that there is a you judging. You don't have any evidence of that.

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What is doing that?

the universe.

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

could be something other than a non-changing thing.  Consider that possibility.

Yeah, everything.

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Something is judging, and that doesn't come in via any empirical portal.

And I guess Leonardo DiCaprio's face doesn't come through an empirical portal called pixels on a screen in titanic either  That's just silly!! His face is obviously made by your brain actually seeing him in real life. How could it be any other way?

[Truth]

Ah yes, the good old begging the question and justification game. 

[Joseph Maynor]

@Leo Gura Zen-stick slap?  What am I, an ornery child Leo?  One who writes really well for his age, perhaps haha.  I beg your pardon Leo!  That's not an argument nor is it persuasive.  That's ok.  You seem to have no problem advancing arguments when they serve your lofty claims and conclusions.  Sounds like something that a religious person would say when their cherished beliefs are challenged.  It's in the book!  Go read the book!  See, right there, it says in the book!  God created the Earth 4000 years ago, see, the book!  Well sir, we have evidence that the Earth is billions of years old.  Zen-stick slap!  Ok, I guess that's like the Chan master's punch in the face, I get it.  Oy vey, the irony! Ok Leo, maybe I should take your word for it then. The master has spoken, I stand corrected now!  Zen-stick slap?  Gimme a break!  How arrogant and dogmatic a response from you!  I thought you were supposed to be "Mr. Openminded"!  I would have expected such a response from a religious  fanatic, not the one Leo Gura.  Go read yer bible sonny!  Well, I've done that daddy, and . . . Well, then GO read it again!  Yes sir, because you says so, I'z will.  Guud!  I hope you welcome diverse views on this forum Leo besides your own.  We don't all swallow-down your epistemology like tablets from Moses.  I quite disagree with your views on epistemology in fact, if you care to ever have them challenged.  Maybe you don't!  If that's the case, I'll deal with other issues on here.  After all, this is YOUR forum, and I respect that.  

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

@Truth You gave no reasons for your conclusions Truth!  In other words, your conclusions lack any foundation.  I expected more from you.  Anybody can say -- is not, is too!  That's not an argument.  You gotta give reasons for your conclusions.  Am I wrong?  Otherwise you're dealing dogmatically here.  We don't want to be stuck in Medieval Times in our discourse, at least I don't.  Maybe others do, in fact, I'm beginning to scratch my head and wonder!

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

@electroBeam If there is no judger, then what are you doing in response to my question?  Is judgment that mysterious?  The mechanics of logic are different from the mechanics of the universe!  Says who?  You?  Wow, that's a judgment there, is it not.  See the irony?  For a man who doesn't undestand that he judges, that sure is a doozy, is it not!  Where's your evidence for that lofty conclusion?  I have more evidence that I judge than you have of that claim, I kid you not!  Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal.  What's so confusing about that?  Please enlighten me.  Calling my claim "silly" doesn't strengthen your argument at all.  It's name-calling.  But at least you provided *some* reasons for your conclusions, and I respect that.  And what are the mechanics of logic, may I ask?  I have a degree in Philosophy and I am entirely baffled by that claim.  You seem to judge that proposition to be reasonable to accept pretty confidently, do you not?  Do you even accept that you are making that judgment, or are you still confused about what the word judgment means?  Let's get real ok?  

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Truth]

21 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Truth You gave no reasons for your conclusions.  Lacks foundation.  I expected more.  Anybody can say -- is not, is too!  That's not an argument.  You gotta give reasons for your conclusions.

Ah yes, the good old argumentation and debating game.  Try not to demonize this video while watching it. 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

So now rational debate is demonizing!  Oy vey Truth!  Do you really believe that?  Have we gone back to Medieval Times here?  I've watched all of Leo's videos, some many, many times.  I'm still awaiting a rational response, a legit  response, from you!  I'm a good guy, I promise.  I took the time to lay-out my points very carefully, clearly, and succinctly above, as you and others can read for yourselves.  Everything is layed-out in the open on my end,  I'm not hiding any balls.  There's zero evidence of malevolent intent on my end.  There's zero evidence of dogmatic claims or hand-waiving on my end.  No demonizing, as you have insinuated, might I add without any foundation at all.  That's 3 allegations you've made against me without providing a single reason to support them!  Thanks Truth!  I am still awaiting a good faith response from somebody on here.  Hopefully I will get one!  Nobody wants to engage in real argumentation because that's where we start to risk having to change our cherished beliefs.  It's fear of having our golden assumptions unsettled, is it not?  I lost that fear as a Philosophy major many years ago.  Fear of arguing is the breeding-ground of dogma.  Instead of following evidence to our conclusions, we settle what we want to believe first, and then try to shore-that-up the best we can with cardboard and chicken-wire.  The problem is, you better hope nobody comes along and challenges your precious conclusions, or you may be left up a creek without a paddle.  That's scary, I understand!  But it's the breeding-ground of dogma too.  And -- ironically -- Leo has spent plenty of time castigating religion over the same kind of dogmatic attitude!  Am I wrong?  Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander here?  Why the double-standard?  I'm curious.  Please  enlighten me.  

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[electroBeam]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Says who?  You?

no, says the universe.

there is no 'me' in your experience. If anything its more accurate to say there are pixels on the screen that you are interpreting meaning from. Stop assuming there is a me. You are talking to god/yourself, definitely not me. Me is a figment of your imagination. There is no outside world out there, with me in it. There's just god and god. Look for yourself, can you see me anywhere? Where am I?

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Is judgment that mysterious?

I'm sorry to tell you, but it is. Everything is mysterious. Its unexplainable, that's why everyone tells you to stop conceptualizing. 

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal.

how thick are you? Of course it comes through an empirical portal. All you are aware of is a thought appearing out of no where in awareness. I.e. an empirical portal. Again, you're acting like logic's little side kick. Stop looking at logic for answers and start looking at what's around you. It sounds like a religious fundamentalist who keeps bringing up the quote of god making the earth in 7 days. I don't believe in that silly book, and I don't believe in logic rules.

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

what are the mechanics of logic, may I ask?

here are some to start off with. But with a philosophy degree, you should know them. I have a maths degree, including studies with the philosophy of maths and epistemology classes, and still I wish i put all that effort purely into inquiry. 

You should be open minded to the possibility that logical fallacies and logical rules don't confer with reality. If you want to understand the truth, otherwise you're no more closed in than a religious fundamentalist. 

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Nobody wants to engage in real argumentation because that's where we start to risk having to change our cherished beliefs.

You don't want to let go of argumentation. That is dogma itself. I'm willing to believe there is an I, but I will not assume that "I" am judging something, because if you look close enough, there is nothing judging anything. There are judgments being made, but its not by you. That's a lie that take literally 5 minutes of contemplation to figure out. How do you know you are judging something? Can you literally see your ego produce a judgment and then spit it out into consciousness? Or do you just become aware of a judgment that pops out of no where? The latter is obviously true. You're assuming that just because judgments exists, it was produced by some 'you' as in a you that is discriminant from god. Why? Why can't a judgment just pop out of no where? Like how a colour pops out of a screen? There doesn't need to be any entity present to make Leonardo's face appear in a movie? All you need are pixels. Why does there have to be an entity making judgments occur?

Edited June 22, 2017 by electroBeam

[Markus]

The theory of non-duality or whatever you wanna call it doesn't exist for the purpose of debating it. It exists as a pointer to help you become conscious of what's true. Existentially speaking, what you're writing is as good as bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, rinse and repeat. Language has nothing to do with truth or who you are. You can think you are this or that, so what? The point is who you are, not who you think you are.

[Telepresent]

Hi Joseph.  I'm not going to engage your whole post, because there's a lot in and truthfully I find where I am at the moment to be rather difficult to express in writing: I'm between positions, moving between perspectives, where nothing is certain and as it's all still developing and processing I find it very hard to find words.  I often find myself attempting to reply to someone here and giving up halfway through, because I realise what I am writing makes no sense whatsoever!

However, I'm going to have a shot here.  It seems to me that your whole argument pivots around this centre

8 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This goes back to Descartes.  Judgment is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging in that moment.  In the moment of judgment, something is judging, no?  Think about it.  Descartes was a wise dude.

I would suggest that this idea - judgement is happening, therefore there must be a judger - can be debated. 

To begin with, I have to wonder what 'judgement' is.  A quick search on an online dictionary gives me: "the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions", or "a misfortune or calamity viewed as a divine punishment".  What strikes me as important about these is that they do not sit objectively: they require context.  Subjectivity.  In order to make a considered decision or come to sensible conclusions, we need input of information to form a contextual map.  In order to judge calamity, we need a contextual map of what is bad or calamatous (which is a combination of inherent feeling - emotion and thought - which themselves can be considered input, and information we have been educated with: again, more input).

So we require a conceptual map, and that map is basically formed of information; the interaction of this information by whatever process (what we tend to call 'thinking') produces an output - or judgement.

Now, ignoring any preconceptions we have at the moment about what human beings are, does this process require a 'judger'?  Well, maybe, but then whatever thing we point at and say "that's the judger" is just an object that is capable of going through this mechanism, right?  Maybe we consider the mechanism itself to be a judger.  Great.  But then does that have to mean something significantly existential about human beings?  Does it have to mean there is that central 'self' or 'judger' exists as an objective, extant thing?

As a means of comparison, let's think about a computer.  Computers are able to process incredible amounts of information, and work on an input-calculation-output basis.  It does not take much imagination to conceive of a program which takes incoming data like that of this conversation, calculates it against whatever it has previously been programmed with (what we might say it 'believes is true'), and then creates a true/false output (what we might call a judgement). 

So, the computer has reached a judgement, much by the same mechanisms humans do: data is input, calculated against previous programming, judgement is output.  Of course, the mechanism is different - the computer's output is text on a screen, or maybe a printout; a human's output is thought, emotion, and the behaviour that follows.  But would we say that the computer in this scenario has an existential 'self' which is a 'judger'?  Or would we say it's just a machine doing what a machine does?  If that is the case, what essential difference is there between the no-judger computer, and the judger-human?  What bridges that gap?

I have a sense at this point that my output (my thoughts, my emotions), want to point to subjective experience: I know I'm here!  I know it!  I can feel it!  But, what if, just what if, that sense of 'I am' is actually part of my pre-programming, against which all my input is calculated?  What if this is pure process?  See, I get a little stuck there, because aside from my thoughts and emotions demanding that yes there is an existential self which is the experiencer, I can't actually offer any reason why I should presume there is a judger or self involved in this calculation process.

Of course, we then land on the 'but what is experiencing?' question: the only thing I can't deny is that I am experiencing, so I must be that experiencer, right?  I said it right there: I am experiencing.  But, but but but... that's output, isn't it?  That's just a word.  I.  I, I, I.  So obvious and useful and self-evident I don't need to question it.  I must be the experiencer, who experiences the output.  Great.  Job done.

Except...

(and now I go into the bit that I can't really talk about properly, because it will start to sound like gibberish, but here goes...)

at what point have I definitively proven that there needs to be an experiencer in the first place?  I'm probably going to stretch your credulity for a moment, but please bear with me.  I want to imagine an existence, for a moment, where there is only awareness.  Just infinite awareness.  Of course, infinite doesn't mean 'really really big', not really.  It means indeterminate.  It means every size, every shape, every colour and feeling and sensation and possibility.  So, what is this awareness aware of?  Well... everything.  It's infinite.  But what is everything?

See, this is where perspective really hits a wall.  If we stick with the observer-observed paradigm, we're not getting past it.  So please bear with me for the sake of argument. 

Let's say there's just infinite red.  Just red.  Forever and in all directions.  For all intents and purposes, what difference is there between 'red' and 'nothing'?  There's not a difference - we've just labelled the everything 'red'.  Only that label can't exist, see, because that would mean there is something other than the experience of red, which is impossible because red is all there is.

Ok, so for there to be something (from which we can derive everything), there needs to be contrast, change.  Great!  We know this is the case, because we know there is more than red.  We know there is awareness, and we know within awareness there is a changing mass of different sensations.  But where have I got my determination that this awareness must be infinite?  Well... that's for another day, perhaps, but it's tied in with quantum physics and multidimensionality, and I just don't have room to go into it here.  Just please take it on faith for now.

So, I am suggesting an infinite awareness, which must involve changing and moving sensations because we know this the way of things.  But if it's infinite, that means it has to run through every single possible combination of sensations.  All of them.  Including the ones with the appearance of input-calculation-output.  In fact, we can reduce it to input-output at this point: either your calculation is consciously experienced (at which point it is itself output), or it is not (in which case it is assumed to exist, that assumption itself being a different piece of thought-output).  At no point in this process has there been a 'judger', but the sensation is exactly as if there is.

Of course, at this point it's very easy to dismiss all of this as an intellectual argument or flight of fancy.  Perhaps.  On its own it's not enough to provide any kind of 'proof'.  But, it's very interesting when you start to consider this against our deepest understandings of how the universe works, as well as really, really applying Occam's razor.  The more I investigate, the more I am inexorably drawn towards the conclusion that the 'self/judger' is actually not necessary in this calculation.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Telepresent

[Leo Gura]

@Joseph Maynor Notice you are hopelessly lost in thought.

The solution to overthinking is not more thinking.

You're just gonna waste years with that. So it's in your best interest to realize that now.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Leo Gura What about all your thought Leo?  You have like 300 videos containing thought.  Why doesn't the charge of overthinking apply to you too?  I'm curious.  I wrote a couple of lines.  You have published volumes of thought!  Am I wrong?  Are you asking us not to believe you?  That sounds totally  weird and odd to me.  Thanks for responding though.  And I admire your voluminous thought too.  Were you hopelessly lost when you created your videos?  Let's not have a double-standard here please.  A single-standard is good enough for the two of us.  You see -- consistency is a beast!  Am I right?  It's the oldest and most profound tool for refutation.  You gotta be consistent with your own standard.  If I am overthinking, then so are you, massively.  Would you accept that Leo?  Have you been hopelessly lost in thought yourself?  Few people seem to want to address my points on their merits!  I'm a bit surprised by that, I must say.  I feel like the crazy uncle who feels sane.  

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Leo Gura]

@Joseph Maynor I'm not trying to use my videos to access Truth.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Leo Gura Yeah, we disagree on epistemological grounds.  One day I wanna discuss those with you.  Are you interested, or would you prefer not to?  Not in this post, but later. Are you open to having your epistemological views challenged in general?  

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[electroBeam]

@Joseph Maynor look at Leo's quote at the bottom of his posts 

[Joseph Maynor]

@electroBeam I'm looking at his massive content of thought, over 300 videos where he espouses thousands of propositions and such.  But let's not get distracted from the issues-at-hand.  I don't wanna turn this into a side-show debate or lose focus.  Let's return to the issues in my post.  I'll address your recent post tomorrow, I notice you took the time to do a good one.  And I appreciate that. I want to consider it carefully.  I respect everyone here.  I don't argue for argument's sake, I argue to improve my life.  There's a key difference.  A value I try to live by.  I'm not stirring-the-coop merely to goose the hens, I'm trying to gain insights to improve my life and thinking.  And it's happening!  Slowly.  I really do appreciate your responses to my question.  Let's grow together.  My mission is growth.  I'm big-time into it!  Please re-read my original post again.  I think I made some pretty damn good points!  Especially the last paragraph.  Read that one again.  The very last paragraph: Paragraph 5.  Ring any bells?

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

@Telepresent What do you think about my paragraph 5, the final paragraph in my original post.  The point about Descartes was kind of a side point.  More of a touch of history to build context.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[WelcometoReality]

10 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This goes back to Descartes.  Judgment is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging in that moment.  In the moment of judgment, something is judging, no?  Think about it.  Descartes was a wise dude.

Judgements are thought aren't they?

So you are assuming that there is a thinker when there is a thought.

A: There is a thought.

B: There is a thinker.

Your assumption is A -> B

So test if it is true. Search for that thinker. Don't give up until you find it!